I really don't expecta pricedrop any time soon.

1) PS2 HW sales are dying. (Less profit)
2) PS2 SW sales are dying along the HW. (Less profit)
3) More PS3's are being sold. (More loss)
4) More PS3 games are being sold. (Could bring in some profit, but seeing that the best sellers are bundled, I really doubt this has a significant impact).
5) PSP HW sales remain stable YoY, but its SW sales are not improving. Very worrying sign.

The overall conclusion from the above is that unless they achieve to reduce the production costs of the PS3, the loss this year will be greater.
I wouldn't expect to see a price drop until 2010. It could happen before, if Sony is willing to lose more money, or if MS drops the price.

starcraft said: papflesje said: starcraft said: Username2324 said: Billions? I don't think so buddy, no one in their right mind would invest that much into a disc, and unless you start using credible sources, I will be calling bullshit on every post you make. Well as you feel sources are so important, please link me to an article stating Blu Ray cost less than a billion dollars to develop? If you want to know why it would be worth investing that much money in a disc, go to Wikipedia and type in "DVD."   It doesn't work like that, starcraft. YOu made the statement that it cost billions, someone challenges your statement, YOU are the one who has to back it up, otherwise you shouldn't have made the statement. That's how debates work. The one with the statement has the burden of proof. Saying one thing, having it challenged and then going "prove me wrong" is ... well... wrong. On public forums, I find it is sensible to adopt a common sense approach to sourcing. On the first page of this thread, Username speculated that the Xbox 360 alone cost Microsoft $7 billion. He did so without a source and was, of course, blatantly incorrect. But because I applied common sense, it was clear he was wrong and therefore I did not ask him for a source. In my case we are talking about the creation of a media standard. If it cost less than billions to develop, market and help to victory a media standard, we would see them come about FAR more often. OF course I cannot find specifics on the cost of developing Blu-Ray, as these are closely guarded Blu-Ray consortium secrets. But common sense tells us there is a reason manufacturors are not constantly putting out new media standards, and the reason is thta developing an advanced, managable, marketable, supported media format takes an AWFUL lot of money.

Well, then you were both wrong, as apparently no one knows exactly how much it has cost or has any data on possible price tags.  Common sense or not, you then should've mentioned it as a personal opinion and not as if it were fact.

 

BengaBenga said:   Last year there was a different strategy: Lose on hardware, gain on software. So last year the comany agreed on pricecuts because it fitted the business plan. In the latest earnings release and these comments from Stringer meke it clear that the strategy for SCE has changed. The shareholders expect from the company to stick to that.

That sounds convincing, I hadn't looked closely at those declarations. I guess they can start being profitable from the next holiday quarter and on (unless PS2 software sales drop too much), so maybe we'll see a small price cut at the beginning of 2009 if sales aren't good.

 

NJ5 said: BengaBenga said:   Last year there was a different strategy: Lose on hardware, gain on software. So last year the comany agreed on pricecuts because it fitted the business plan. In the latest earnings release and these comments from Stringer meke it clear that the strategy for SCE has changed. The shareholders expect from the company to stick to that. That sounds convincing, I hadn't looked closely at those declarations. I guess they can start being profitable from the next holiday quarter and on, so maybe we'll see a small price cut at the beginning of 2009 if sales aren't good.

@ Benga.

But I haven't seen anything from the CEO (or anyone else) that convinces me they are serious about not cutting the price this year.  Obviously they would never tell us they WILL cut the price or noone would buy the PS3 now.  But as subjective as this is, they just haven't been convincing enough to demonstrate to me that they will sacrificelong term brand viability to ensure short-term profitability.

 

Bodhesatva said:   Goodness, you can't stay stuff like this on a forum dedicated to sales. Too many people have the info, you are going to get called on it.

Did you actually read what I wrote or are you really the clueless twit your answer seems to imply? Try to understand my post before you bring up meaningless sentences like "Sony has shaved another 100 dollars off the PS3's price". My post sums up the losses last fiscal year, including the losses from last fiscal quarter (Jan-Mar).

 

NJ5 said: @drkohler: Actually, the PS3 sells for little more than 500 usd in Europe. It depends on the country, but assuming a tax level of 20% it's $518 at today's exchange rates.

The shop prices here are as follows (Switzerland, but surrounding countries are not much better, if at all):

Bare bones PS3 40G: $615

40G + GTAV or MGS4: $635

40G + R&C,Uncharted or R&C,Fifa2008: $655

40G + R&C,JB blu-ray: $700

40G + R/C,Uncharted,Grid: $780

@drkohler: You still haven't explained why your numbers look like BS considering Sony's declarations and financial results.

You came up with a $350 manufacturing cost, which would make the PS3 profitable even at a $400 price, going against Sony's CFO's declarations. You have also failed to account for such simple things as taxes in Europe's case, and repeatedly ignored all the hard evidence which was presented.

To put it bluntly, something tells me that if there's a clueless twit here, it's you.

 

@ BengaBenga

I don't think this has anything to do with it. If Sony sold more PS3s their investment losses would have been greater.

But I think Sony's upper management must have been shocked by Ken Kutaragi's vision for the PS3. He and his team made decisions which are great from a technology perspective but imposes great financial challenges for the short to mid run. Kudos to him though, else the PS3 would have been a far less interesting long term product with regard to potentials. Sony upper management would have focussed too much on short term advantages to please shareholders.

But everything is meanwhile under control, Sony's profits overall tripled and Sony's gaming devision is set to make a profit this year. It will take many years though to recoup all the investments poured into the product.

starcraft said: papflesje said: starcraft said: Username2324 said: Billions? I don't think so buddy, no one in their right mind would invest that much into a disc, and unless you start using credible sources, I will be calling bullshit on every post you make. Well as you feel sources are so important, please link me to an article stating Blu Ray cost less than a billion dollars to develop? If you want to know why it would be worth investing that much money in a disc, go to Wikipedia and type in "DVD."   It doesn't work like that, starcraft. YOu made the statement that it cost billions, someone challenges your statement, YOU are the one who has to back it up, otherwise you shouldn't have made the statement.  That's how debates work.  The one with the statement has the burden of proof. Saying one thing, having it challenged and then going "prove me wrong" is ... well... wrong. On public forums, I find it is sensible to adopt a common sense approach to sourcing.  On the first page of this thread, Username speculated that the Xbox 360 alone cost Microsoft $7 billion.  He did so without a source and was, of course, blatantly incorrect.  But because I applied common sense, it was clear he was wrong and therefore I did not ask him for a source. In my case we are talking about the creation of a media standard.  If it cost less than billions to develop, market and help to victory a media standard, we would see them come about FAR more often.  OF course I cannot find specifics on the cost of developing Blu-Ray, as these are closely guarded Blu-Ray consortium secrets.  But common sense tells us there is a reason manufacturors are not constantly putting out new media standards, and the reason is thta developing an advanced, managable, marketable, supported media format takes an AWFUL lot of money.

You've made several statements in this thread that I would like to see sources for:
I would like to see your source stating the losses of the PS3
I would like to see your source stating the R&D cost of Blu-ray (If you can't you probably shouldn't be throwing numbers around)
I would like to see your source stating the losses of the 360 (I believe you said it was 2.5 billion)

The reason new standards are not constantly released is not solely cost, its the market you'd be putting your product in, would anyone want to buy the latest and greatest if they knew something else would be coming out next week? Would studios want to support the latest and greatest? Would the public want 12 different players in their living room?

 

if blu ray turns out to be a success they will earn the money back in no time. Sony developed blu ray and they'll get a small license fee on every blu ray related product sold.