First of all I'd like to start off this is in no way discrediting anything about the PS3 or MGS4 or whatever yall will try to pull on me.  This is simply insight into the sales, strategy, and future of the PS3 and discussing it's use and effectiveness.

This generation has been comprised of pack ins and different versions/models of the same product.  All three in the 7th generation have had at least one of those things.  Wii has Wii Sports, PS3 has had 4 different SKU's with 2 different pack ins, and MS has had 3 different SKU's with 2 pack ins.  Now this is not to say this is a bad idea.  Hell Wii Sports pack in has been one of the most effective pack ins since Super Mario Bros on the NES itself.  The game has generated massive media attention and literally been one of the top selling points of the Wii.

But for all the competitors this has seem to work.  Yet for PS3 it has almost become a necessity.  The start of the PS3 was a very grim one.  Japan and North American sales were not strong, most considered to be due to price, and never picked up for awhile.  The 20 and 60 GB PS3 which launched, had uneven sales, which later lead to the discontinuation of the 20 GB PS3 3 months after its release.  And for the longest time it seemething in those 2 regions would bring it out of darkness and was assured a 3rd place round.  But then the PS3 released in Europe, and things brightened up a little but you still saw a similar situation.  ON the week ending May 11, 2007, according to these numbers, PS3 sold less than 70,000 units.  Things were bad. 

But of course things were attributed to the $600 pricetag, which for most of the mainstream audience was quite high.  Yet in early July that first pricecut came and American sales jump and stayed at a new level.  Still not on the level of its competition but up indeed.  And once that round came, Sony iniated a lot of similar things throughout the next 3-4 month interval.  Soon a 40gb was announce, and 80gb w/ Motorstorm, and a host of new colors while we saw the discontinuation of the 60gb in some areas.  And overall this increased sales alot for the PS3 in respective areas.  Many people had predicted that PS3 would be lucky to be around 6-7 million by the end of 2007.  And even after the $100 pricecut this was how it was looking.  But no one predicted this sleuth of bundles and pack ins that put PS3 end of 2007 sales around 9 million. 

In 2008 this kinda slowed off.  We saw no more new SKU's or new sets of pack ins or really anything like that.  And I mean of course sales were going to slowdown and still be double to that of what it was a year ago.  But it felt like PS3 sales were slowing.  Sony had definetly increased their chances in this generation as they increased their WW weekly average 2x, but it wasn't going to go higher.  We saw a lot of these dropoffs in the Japanese market.  The PS3 before the 40gb in 2007 was on average about 10k.  Then afterwards stayed about 30k and went into the holidays.  Now, before MGS4, it was about 10k again.  E/O definetly has sustained most of its sales but still not climbing anymore.  And America is more similar to America.  The first signs of concern came when the big name game, GTA IV released on PS3, and we saw no increases whatsoever in the American region or any long lasting effects in E/O.  GTA IV easily being the biggest game of this generation to release since Brawl, had no affects on userbase.  Many tried to think well they probably already had the console or something like that, but that seems less believable when games like Halo 3 increased 360 hardware by a lot(the only month NPD recorded in 2007 to have 360 over Wii btw to show the effects). 

This showed signs of concern.  So what needed to be done again?  Well a pricedrop is not something that could happen as sales are decent.  A new SKU is almost improbably due to lower than 40gb is 20gb again and higher than 80gb is higher price.  Thus pack in was the most logical idea.  Pack in MGS4.  What happens?  PS3 week over week sales increase by 112%.  Yet it shows a relation.  The one region that didn't get the bundle, E/O, saw little to zero increases. 

All this build up brings me to the heart of my worry.  Why can't PS3 sales increase naturally without a new SKU or bundle.  I won't include pricedrops because that's a necessity in business.  Both Wii and 360 sales have had natural increases either due to increase in shipments or a release of a big name game.  Yet the PS3 has yet to be able to do this on a large scale and of course then retain them.  This is worrying considering PS3 has a lot of big name games arising withing the later half of 2008 and into 2009.  We can count on them selling software but can we count on them pushing hardware.  Or for every big name game, does Sony have to pack it in with another PS3 bundle or new SKU just to push hardware sales up.

This is worrying for the main reason of can PS3 pull up in this generation.  Is this a sign of concern for the PS3's future?  I think it is.  In a market with 3 competitors you need to be able to compete on a week to week basis.  And unfortunately you can't bundle something new every week.  Not to mention a tactic can only be used so much before it becomes inaffective.  But I think the main concern I see is, is it possible that PS3 can't reach beyond this brand appeal.  Usually big name games push hardware by reaching to the mainstream.  It's what Halo 3 did, what Brawl did, and what Wii Fit did. 

So my concern comes to the PS3 in the way that is its brandname appeal simply limited.  Whether its due to the competition or simply a brand that is falling.  But aside from E/O where its had a steady brand appeal, the other regions have been ups and downs.  Sony has to find a way to increase weekly sales of the PS3 without a bundle or an SKU.  They have to increase that weekly average and build up on brand appeal.  Right now that ability to do so is concerning.  And with the sales aftewards of this most recent bundle, they could become even more concerning if they dropoff fast and back to normal. 

What are your thoughts?  This is an open discussion about the strategy and sales of the PS3 not an attack, remember.  Simply what are your thoughts on the situation.

the answer to your question is quite simple: The PS3 is still too expensive.

Somehow I doubt its that simple. Many people relate things too much by price, when really the majority of mainstream sales is brand appeal. Why do you think Rock Band, Guitar Hero, Wii Fit, ect can all sell so well despite having pricetags double and triple than that of other titles. Brandname.

It's not as simple as just what the pricepoint is. It's a factor in sales, but not the only one, and surely not the most important one.

Trust me the Playstation Brand is still strong because, this is as real i can be, last year the xbox 360 was a much better product to get, they were cheaper, better games, xbox live, and yet it barely outsold the ps3.
I was surprised one person bought the ps3 when it was $600 dollars, imagine 7 millions.
Buying the ps3 these days with a couple games is like using my rent money.

@ Zucas.

I think the main issue your having is you overestimate the strength of the Sony brandname. The reality is most PS2 upgraders will upgrade to a new console based on game loyalty, not brand loyalty. It is certainly true that all things being equal, they'd choose a console from a company they are familiar with when following their games, but with Microsoft stealing exclusives and the high PS3 price, all things are not equal.

That said (and you may never, EVER hear me say this again), you are being too hard on the PS3. At its current price, there is nothing particularly wrong with the console needing the value add-in of a solid game title to help push hardware. People wanted to follow MGS, and its far easier to justify doing that if Sony is throwing in the game for (close too) free.

The only problem with this, is that it costs Sony a substantial amount of money. For example, the reason Microsoft made it to profitability in 2007/2008 Q1 rather than Q2 (when we expected it) was Halo 3 software sales. By bundling MGS4 (a third party game), Sony not only lost software royalties, but they probably actually had to PAY Konami for each bundled unit sold, which would increase their loss on each PS3 sold bundled with the game.

Furthermore, if they have to bundle the PS3 with a game like Resistance 2 this Christmas (a title that is close enough to first party) or Killzone 2 early next year (a title that IS first party), they could lose millions of dollars in software revenue/profit.

There is nothing wrong with a console needing games to sell in principle, the issue is that it compounds the financial woes of an already struggling Sony games division.

If it was all about game loyality starcraft, the 360 would have destroyed the PS3 by now. It's not completely about games in Europe or Japan.

Bundles sell. Why do you think that there are 4 different PSPs on the market, with a 5th coming soon?

At one stage, the Xbox 360 was getting mainstream media attention for having a 33% failure rate.  Regardless of whether that was true, its what the public heard.

Trust me, the only reason the Xbox 360 survived that was game loyalty.  The most devout Sony fans have to admit that with the 360's line-up and library, the PS3 would have been in massive trouble if Rrod had never happened.

Well for Microsoft to avoid RRoD it would of had to delay the launch of the 360 by a year. This means the 360 wouldn't of had a years head start to get a bigger games library. 

In Europe Microsoft has a really bad name anyway, even if you ignore the failure rate of the 360. I don't think it would have made much difference in Europe to be honest. Actually I don't think it would have made much difference full stop.

We recently found out why the Rrod occurred.  The console wouldn't have had to be delayed to avoid it, they just needed to consult a GPU specialist during the consoles development (failing to do so was an enormous oversight).

In Europe, there was a massive furour over Xbox 360 failure rates.  And all over these forums, there were people declaring they couldn't buy a console that had such high failure rates (PS3 fans were at the head of that line).  Of course, if the console HAD have been delayed by a year then having no Rrod wouldn't have made a difference.  But if Microsoft had successfully launched at the same time with no Rrod, they would be a couple of million console ahead of where they are now, and the PS3 would be in serious trouble (dont you remember how the Xbox 360 positively crawled along in the first 7 months of last year?).