By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - How Sony can make a $200 PS3

 

How Sony can make a $200 PS3

That makes Perfect Sense! 38 31.67%
 
Hmm...I don't know.... 82 68.33%
 
Total:120
Baalzamon on 02 February 2011
Onibaka said:
Baalzamon said:
Onibaka said:

Ok. You convinced me.

But in the next Gen, it's not a strategy to just throw away. M$ didn't lost anything for doing this., actually it just shown that consumers are willing to buy a useless console and paying for playing online.

I'm glad that Sony didn't followed that strategy. But this don't change the fact that Microsoft doesn't even needs to make money in consoles sales.

If there was a offer like this: Buy Kinect 1 year Live 1 game and earn a free Xbox Arcade. Microsoft would even be able to profit from it, most because of users that will buy 1 HDD, more years of Live and more games. I'm not saying that MS should do this, of course not, but this shows that MS is in a 10 times better position than Sony in the market.

So how/where did you get the profit margins on the video game sector for Microsoft?  How do you know they will still make money on that.  You have absolutely no clue what kind of profit is being made on Live, Kinect or Xbox when taken by themselves.  Yes, we are given numbers in regards to revenue for Live, and obviously we have clues as to revenue for Kinect and Xbox as we have sales numbers, but we are never given the profit.  Revenue does not equal profit.  For all we know, they could only be making $.25 per year per Live membership, or they could be making $10 per year, or they could be losing $.25 per year per customer.

Unless you can find exact amounts of profit per item Microsoft sells, you shouldn't act as if you know that doing a certain thing will still result in profit, because it might not.  Plus, whether or not a company can still profit if they offer a deal is irrelevant.  A company wants to make so much money per item.  If they have a sale and sell 1.5 million instead of 1 million, but make 40% less profit per item, they will actually make less money.

In the long term, MS would at least not lose much money from this. But I think that you don't understood what i'm trying to say.

" I'm not saying that MS should do this, of course not, but this shows that MS is in a 10 times better position than Sony in the market."

It's a stupid idea, but MS would barely loose money doing this. The same can't be said for Sony, giving free PS3 would kill SCE.

 

Kinect: AT LEAST $80 of pure profit. Probably as high as $110.

Halo Reach: $30~$45 of profit.

HDD: If it's $100 at retail, then $50~$70 for a old 5400rpm 120gb HDD.

Live: we don't know much from it, but if PSN is almost tied up in loss or gain, then MS should at least make $15 for a year subscription.

 

But as I said, this doesn't matter, it just shows that MS is in a good position for the next years.

I know what you're trying to get at, but I'm pretty sure your numbers are way off.  I read in an article on vgchartz not more than a week ago that games sell to retailers for like $35 or $40 if I remember correctly.  So if Halo Reach is selling to retailers for $35 to $40 and has millions upon millions of productions costs, your profits will not be even close to that.  When you are talking profit per item, you have to figure in original costs too, you can't just ignore them.

I also highly doubt Kinect is making that much profit.  Just because something sells in a store for $150 doesn't mean that's what Microsoft is selling it to the stores for, lmfao, you do realize stores have to make money too.  Plus, for something to make a profit per unit really means nothing, you have to be able to recoup your research and development costs too, or you will have a loss per item sold.

The hard drives probably are making that much, and for Live, I have absolutely no clue.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf on 02 February 2011
superchunk said:

They should continue to focus on decreasing the costs involved in producing the standard PS3 so they can offer it at a lower price with similar or better margins as appropriate.

2012 will see a $200 PS3.

Agree. A faster BD drive would be smart and cheap, though, as even the cheapest ones currently produced are faster than the old units used by Sony. About when the cut down to $200 will happen, Sony could even do it next Autumn breaking even, without losing money on HW, but most probably it's not needed yet, upgrading the HDDs and BDD, cuttin just $50 and pricing $250 the entry level model and under $300 the cheapest Move bundle and hopefully offering new colours also outside Japan should be enough on the HW front next Xmas, a rich SW offer would do the rest.

A cut that puts the entry level within $200, IMVHO, deserves a redesign too to fully exploit its benefits on sales, and Autumn 2011 is too early for the "true Slim", not only because it's too close to the current design debut, but also to be able to get at a price low enough components with power consumption low enough to avoid any cooling problem in a smaller case: Autumn 2012 would be perfect, instead, so I guess you are making the right prediction.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!