First someone say Sony has most impressive inhouse games development (Ckmlb) now someone recants that by saying it not fair to compare Sony in that regard to Nintendo when it pointed out Nintendo has even more (Davyge). This post not to bash Sony or Nintendo but could people try keep their arguments strait plz?

iclim4 said:  good move by sony!!! atleast a better alternative than a 100 dollar cut(that means better alternative for them) this sounds like a nice bundle.. http://www.gamebrink.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15687 it basically states buy a ps3 get 5 free blueray movies.. it looks attractive( how much is one blueray movie anyway) and at the same time shows off how good blueray's quality is.. and since E3 is just around the corner people wholl get interested will have to act right away to get the free movies..  what do you guys think?.

I don't like it.  At $20 a movie, I only buy movies that I really like.  I don't like any of those movies enough to pay $20 for them.  Plus it still needs somewhat of a price cut.  I'd be more interested in it if it was $550 and ANY 3 blu ray discs of your choice. 

Giving freebies won't do it for me to be honest.

People aren't buying the PS3 primarily because of the price.  Sony NEED to reduce the price and very possibly give a free game and a few free movies as well.

I honestly think Sony will reduce the cost by $100, but this won't be enough.  Even though Sony will lose money in the short term I reckon ideally they need to reduce the cost of the PS3 to around $400 and likewise in the Uk at no more than £299.

This will make people sit up and think at least and should get some units starting to move in serious numbers. 

Bodhesatva said: davygee said: Anyway, we should go back to the topic....PS3 pricecut? I'm sticking with: a pricecut is good for the PS3, bad for Sony. Kind of a tough situation to be in :/

 Not if the software sales go up to make up for losses which would be the point of a price cut.

but how many games have to be sold per console? if they lose 300 dollars a pop, they would need something like 20:1 attach ratio...

ckmlb said: Bodhesatva said: davygee said: Anyway, we should go back to the topic....PS3 pricecut? I'm sticking with: a pricecut is good for the PS3, bad for Sony. Kind of a tough situation to be in :/  Not if the software sales go up to make up for losses which would be the point of a price cut.

Indeed if. After pricecut (of 100-200), people would be buying the PS3 and games with the same attach rate as at the moment. Pricecut means the console being available to more people, not that they would use the saved money directly to games. But the indirect benefits of pricecut would help the PS3, when looking the future. Only problem is that, can Sony really afford it at the moment? And i don't mean that do they have the money, but are the shareholders willing to make that investment, which wouldn't make them fast earnings.

cebrian said: but how many games have to be sold per console? if they lose 300 dollars a pop, they would need something like 20:1 attach ratio...

I can't give a link, but I recall seeing 6 or 8 games reported last winter.

Console licensing fees should be around $7-10 per title. You can do the math from there.

@Fishyjoe: They have estimated as high as 15$. It does depend even from the game, if it's important, you don't necessarily have to pay the fee at all.
It was +5$ at 5th generation consoles, and seems to be rising.

licensing fees were 15 dollars a game onthe n64 (and upwards with cartridge sizes), that was 1 of the reasons developers jumped ship and went to the psx and its 7 dlls licensing fees, last gen I remember it was along the lines of 7, 8, and 9 dollar fees. this gen I think Ms and sony got the price up for the games and the fees, even if it went to n64 levels (15 dollars), it would need a 20:1 ratio for a 300 dollars lose. You could say that the cost is going down, but with the inability of Ps3 to sell its current stock I question their ability to reduce the cost of the machine in the near future.