Copy and Paste much?

The point still stands, I'm not going to retype the whole thing again.

>>That coupled with the 360's healthy attach rate means that they are probably ready to drop the price.
If that happens, as I think it will, Sony and Nintendo will be forced to match.

Gballzack said: The point still stands, I'm not going to retype the whole thing again.

Indeed, all points have been made, and there is no point in the circular arguments. The proof is in the pudding, which will be here soon.

Edit:

montrealsoon said: 2. MS entertainment division needs profitability more than SONY does. It's been the rest of MS that has propped up the gaming division, and the company can at any point decide it's no longer worth it (i.e., the billions in losses are real, and shareholders would have had better dividends for the past half decade without the XBOX experiment).

Err ... Despite MS's substantial losses in their entertainment division, they do not need profitability as bad as Sony does. Right now, the other divisions of both companies are making all the profit. And, last I checked, Microsoft makes a megaton more cash than Sony. Believe me, if any shareholders are sweating bullets, it'd be Sony's after that 2 billion dollar loss.

 

Gballzack said: Ironically Blu-Ray is what is killing the PS3.

 I'm glad someone else gets that. Putting Blue-Ray in the PS3 was a huge gamble hoping to give Blue-Ray the push it needed to win the next format war.  If the PS3 had done as well as Sony hoped, I'm sure that would have been a very worthwhile gamble.  As it stands now, I think it's helping Blue-Ray and hurting the PS3.

 

As for a price drop, it's not going to happen soon and it's not going to be $200 like people are hoping, it's going to be in the range of $50-100.  In order for a price drop to happen the PS3 needs to have a very solid libriray and sales need to be slow due to saturation not lack of interest.

 If they did a price drop now or any time before 2008 before any sort of established library that would be a terrible for Sony.  True, it would sell more PS3's but people still wouldn't be buying the games which is what they really need.  So a 2007 price cut is out of the question.

 A 2008 price cut could happen but I don't think it's likely.  All of the big hitters are releasing in 2008 at various times and they aren't going to cut the price so soon after these big hitters.  A price cut would attach more software to the system, but that's software they're hoping to attach anyways from the name of these games.  A price cut could also happen towards the end of 2008 after letting those big hitters die down a little during the holiday season, but once again, systems are going to sell then anyways (hopefully).  So 2008 isn't out of the picture but it isn't likely.

 Personally, I think it will happen in 2009 and it will probably be early 2009.  The amount is probably going to be somewhere in the area of $50-100 and I'm guessing it will be closer to $100.

 

Also, don't expect any big announcements of a price cut until it's a week or two away.  If they announce it any sooner than that it would kill system sales. 

I really, really don't think this will be an issue. Anyone familiar with the PS3 has known it's desperately needed a price drop from the start - the only thing they'll be thinking is that it's overdue. As for the casual consumers, they're not going to remember how long it's been out, or what it used to cost, or wonder why it's dropped - they're just going to look at the price on the shelf, as they always have.

Since when does a price drop have to be the action of a company trying to liquidate stock before abandoning a product? Maybe that's the case if you sell novelty urinal cakes or something, but price drops over time are the reality of the electronics industry. Not only do people expect them, they demand them.

As for no console ever having dropped this fast, I mentioned the Xbox, didn't I?

Launch: November 15, 2001, US$299
Price drop: May 15, 2002, US$199

6 months, 1/3 drop. For the PS3 to even match that it would have to have dropped $200 last month. And nobody was crying doom and gloom or saying that the Xbox was junk when it dropped (or if they were, they were a small minority of douchebags).

Incidentally, I only own a Wii at the moment.

Dolla Dolla Said:

>>Err ... Despite MS's substantial losses in their entertainment division, they do not need profitability as bad as Sony does. Right now, the other divisions of both companies are making all the profit. And, last I checked, Microsoft makes a megaton more cash than Sony. Believe me, if any shareholders are sweating bullets, it'd be Sony's after that 2 billion dollar loss.

Borkachev said: Also, think of the psychological fallout, a price cut sounds good to you who already owns a Ps3 and wants more people to own one, but at this point it wouldn't sound too good to a perspective buyer. Crazy you say? Hear me out. Imagine a console dropping in price, $100 or $200 dollars in its first year, not even the Dreamcast went down the shitter that fast. You drop the price on the PS3 now and yeah, you'll have a considerable sales spike, but no where near what it could have been because you've just scared off the majority of potential buyers by taking the action of a company trying to liquidate stock before abandoning a product. Who wants to buy a console that's about to die? And even though the PS3 isn't dying, try telling that to the casual consumers whom don't keep up on Sony news and whom you've just made shit themselves. I really, really don't think this will be an issue. Anyone familiar with the PS3 has known it's desperately needed a price drop from the start - the only thing they'll be thinking is that it's overdue. As for the casual consumers, they're not going to remember how long it's been out, or what it used to cost, or wonder why it's dropped - they're just going to look at the price on the shelf, as they always have. Since when does a price drop have to be the action of a company trying to liquidate stock before abandoning a product? Maybe that's the case if you sell novelty urinal cakes or something, but price drops over time are the reality of the electronics industry. Not only do people expect them, they demand them. As for no console ever having dropped this fast, I mentioned the Xbox, didn't I? Launch: November 15, 2001, US$299 Price drop: May 15, 2002, US$199 6 months, 1/3 drop. For the PS3 to even match that it would have to have dropped $200 last month. And nobody was crying doom and gloom or saying that the Xbox was junk when it dropped (or if they were, they were a small minority of douchebags). Incidentally, I only own a Wii at the moment.

Just because everyone can agree the PS3 needs to be cheaper doesn't mean that it won't send alarm bells off when a price drop comes in the first year of release. Again, my argument applies to those not familiar with the PS3 (your statement: "anyone familiar with the Ps3..."). If you can show me a Sony to Sony comparison that would be fine but comparing the PS3 to the Xbox is just kind of silly.

 

montrealsoon said: Dolla Dolla Said: >>Err ... Despite MS's substantial losses in their entertainment division, they do not need profitability as bad as Sony does. Right now, the other divisions of both companies are making all the profit. And, last I checked, Microsoft makes a megaton more cash than Sony. Believe me, if any shareholders are sweating bullets, it'd be Sony's after that 2 billion dollar loss.<< Sorry, I did not make my point well. My perspective is that XBOX only exists because of a decision to keep it alive. Sega Dreamcast losses were minor compared to XBOX losses, and look how quickly it was killed. Given it is a MS executive decision to keep the XBOX alive (and hopefully have it thrive), they could just as easily can it. Be aware that corporate financing is not like household financing. Even if the bottom line is positive, it doesn't mean that all losses can be held indefinitely. One could easily argue all those billions lost would have been better spent trying to counter all the strides GOOGLE has made in the past decade, or even be paid out as dividends. I am not saying I am necessarily correct here, but mine is definitely a valid point of view.

Ah, I see. I agree, Microsoft could just as easily say, "Ya know, X-box isn't as successful a venture as we would've liked. Let's cut it. All in favor?"

But, they are in this business for more than just a gaming console. They are trying to take over the living room, integrating gaming, computing, tv, etc, which is why I think they won't just call it quits. Just like PS3 sneaking Blu-ray into the PS3, Microsoft is doing similar strides with Games for Windows/Digital distribution of TV shows and movies. There's more to both of these companies than winning the console race.

>>There's more to both of these companies than winning the console race.<<

 

And I think that's exactly why Nintendo is winning!

{smiley}