By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

Not sure if they were as cheap as you think and if they were making a lot of profits on the HW. I don't remember any reports on this account.

And if you consider PS3 released for 499-599 and were finished at 199 this was and even bigger drop than PS2 299 to 99.

The parts didn't drop quickly. Sony done several price cuts while still losing a lot of money until the Super Slim. Do you have source for good profit on PS3 sold (HW alone)?

MS kept the price "high" because the direct competitor were losing money at that point and MS had to recover from the previous gen plus RROD. They probably didn't though they would sell much more at a lower price so better keep the price that makes money.

Again, final revisions of PS3 and 360 hardware became cheaper to produce but prices stayed about the same FOR CONSUMERS. PS3 was really $499-$599 at launch but they were pushing the $599 model. Prices went down drastically because the cutting edge hardware was expensive to produce at launch, PS2 specs were eventually removed and the 16GB model didn't have a HDD which is junk.

You're missing the point or changing the argument. I'm saying the PS3 Super Slim DID NOT BENEFIT CONSUMERS. Hence, cheaper to produce models doesn't mean we, consumers, will get cheap hardware. MS could have done a price war with 360 to boost sales, but I'm sure they were content to boost revenue instead.

Either way, at this point I believe Sony and MS rather keep prices relatively high for profits. The price war days on hardware are seemingly over.

The OG PS3 models were expensive partially due to housing prior gen hardware. The first big price drop came when PS decided to remove BC, which meant they could remove that hardware. I don't see why you would think the PS3 got so cheap if you believe the cost to manufacture was $750-$1000 initially. If PS were selling PS3's at cost by the end of the life cycle that would be quite surprising.

PS3 SS wasn't a large benefit because it's price wasn't reduced by enough to really matter. It also only had a year on the market before the PS4, which was only $399. PS3 SS was $299 and remained so throughout the PS4 launch period. PS even made it clear themselves in advance that the PS3 price wasn't going to drop anytime soon after the PS4 launch. Since it wasn't that large of a price gap, it's not crazy to think that PS wanted to move on from PS3 asap, so they probably kept the price high to push consumers to buy a PS4, not even taking into account they may still have been losing money on every PS3 sold. You would have to also think with all the dev complaints about PS3, they probably wanted to focus on PS4 instead, and that doesn't happen if PS3 keeps trucking along like the PS2 did.

To have a $199 PS4 SS by late 2020, and a $399-$499 PS5, makes a tonne of sense in terms of profits and goodwill. PS4 is so much cheaper to produce than the PS3 was and the market can't get enough of the PS4, much like the PS2. Unless they decide to try the same thing again, and keep the PS4 at $299 and drop PS5 at $399, but then PS is basically saying they only care to try and hold onto the 120 million PS4 customers they have by then. You can't really expand your market much if you remain a closed ecosystem and you don't create more affordable physical access to your devices, unless you want to offer a compatible handheld or hybrid or Pro level console along with the PS5.

I can see why you might think PS may go with this same type of approach and try to push consumers to PS5, but I don't really see the need or evidence for it at this point in time. With x86 BC, and a slower cross gen exclusive transition, the need to get PS5 off the ground like PS4 did isn't there this time around, with XB being so far behind and Switch being a different type of device.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 07 May 2019