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.

You haven't sent any evidence that PS3 Super Slim was selling for big profit to show how it could have been heavily discounted. Still we had several places in USA and Canada that you could buy an used X360 for under 99.

Sony haven't ever done price war as far as I know. They cutted price on PS1 and PS2 while dominating with a lot of headroom, they have cut the price of PS3 when losing massive money and have kept price on PS4 even when X1 undercut them.

Sony cuts the price when the projection of sales needs a new price point, have done it for 4 gens. Won't say if MS have tried to price war against Sony, I remember seeing they reacting to Sony prices but I won't pretend to have enough data to affirm it was done because of Sony instead of their own internal projections.

The main reason why you were not getting major discounts on the last revision of PS3 was because they already gave you all the saving before hand. Also at the end of the gen there is almost no reason to lose money on HW because there is less revenue expected from SW. But with PS4 costing much less for the whole life, it having PS+ revenue and BC on PS5 all making much more advantage to lock customers to platform makes more sense for a PS4 SS MSRP 199.

Last edited by DonFerrari - on 08 May 2019

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."