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

Forums - Sales - Sony- what price cut??

goodridd on 12 July 2007
NJ5 said:

It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't.

Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.

The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly!

PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400.


Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected?

Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable.



Around the Network
NJ5 on 12 July 2007
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:

It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't.

Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.

The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly!

PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400.


Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected?

Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable.


You didn't read my PS, did you?



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

goodridd on 12 July 2007
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:

It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't.

Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.

The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly!

PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400.


Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected?

Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable.


You didn't read my PS, did you?


Sure I did, It's easy to make a statement when you add that you don't want anyone using valid points to argue against it. The whole problem with what you said is that the market already rejected the 20gb. version in comparison to the 60gb. Would they sell some 20gb.'s at $400? Sure they would. Do they want to increase production, warehousing, and shipping costs to do so, even though their data already suggests the majority of people were willing to spend $600 over $500 and that this will probably translate well to $500 versus $400? No, they don't.

P.S. don't tell me about anything that might suggest I'm wrong.



NJ5 on 12 July 2007
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:

It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't.

Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.

The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly!

PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400.


Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected?

Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable.


You didn't read my PS, did you?


Sure I did, It's easy to make a statement when you add that you don't want anyone using valid points to argue against it. The whole problem with what you said is that the market already rejected the 20gb. version in comparison to the 60gb. Would they sell some 20gb.'s at $400? Sure they would. Do they want to increase production, warehousing, and shipping costs to do so, even though their data already suggests the majority of people were willing to spend $600 over $500 and that this will probably translate well to $500 versus $400? No, they don't.

P.S. don't tell me about anything that might suggest I'm wrong.


The reason why I said "You didn't read my PS" is because you didn't even address it. If you have good reasons for the 20 GB not selling well at $400, bring them on.

Anyway, don't you think Sony should have kept the 20 GB model to lower its price later? If they had the financial ability to do that, they surely would... Or do you think they're happy to be the only company with no console under $500? The 20 GB was their opportunity to have one, and they "blew it".



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

PS3owner on 12 July 2007

Plus the fact that Sony has made over 5mil+ 60gb versions and only 3mil+ have sold, it looks like the 60 gb will be around for a long time. This is if they don't make the 60gb version anymore and are just making the 80gb version and in 6 months we will see 100gb+ version at the $600 price.



Around the Network
goodridd on 12 July 2007
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:

It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't.

Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.

The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly!

PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400.


Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected?

Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable.


You didn't read my PS, did you?


Sure I did, It's easy to make a statement when you add that you don't want anyone using valid points to argue against it. The whole problem with what you said is that the market already rejected the 20gb. version in comparison to the 60gb. Would they sell some 20gb.'s at $400? Sure they would. Do they want to increase production, warehousing, and shipping costs to do so, even though their data already suggests the majority of people were willing to spend $600 over $500 and that this will probably translate well to $500 versus $400? No, they don't.

P.S. don't tell me about anything that might suggest I'm wrong.


The reason why I said "You didn't read my PS" is because you didn't even address it. If you have good reasons for the 20 GB not selling well at $400, bring them on.

Anyway, don't you think Sony should have kept the 20 GB model to lower its price later? If they had the financial ability to do that, they surely would... Or do you think they're happy to be the only company with no console under $500? The 20 GB was their opportunity to have one, and they "blew it".

Do I have solid proof that the 20gb. will or will not sell "well" at $400? No. But I have to believe that Sony knows something that we don't. I have to believe that if they thought selling the 20gb. was the best move for their company that they would do it. All you can really go by is trends, and the trend was that the 20gb. was an even poorer seller than the 60gb at a $100 price differential.

I don't think anyone at Sony looses any sleep at night having their cheapest console at $500. I don't really think they have blown anything. They are 8 months into this cycle. If the goal was to be market share leader within a year then, yeah. But I suspect that wasn't anticipated. I seriously doubt any of the 3 are in this for the short haul. And I'm positive that Sony knew that their console was going to take some time to get off the ground. I think the only company that shows signs of being in "danger" is Microsoft. I don't get good vibes of their strategy. But then again, anything can happen.

 



NJ5 on 12 July 2007
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:

It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't.

Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.

The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly!

PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400.


Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected?

Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable.


You didn't read my PS, did you?


Sure I did, It's easy to make a statement when you add that you don't want anyone using valid points to argue against it. The whole problem with what you said is that the market already rejected the 20gb. version in comparison to the 60gb. Would they sell some 20gb.'s at $400? Sure they would. Do they want to increase production, warehousing, and shipping costs to do so, even though their data already suggests the majority of people were willing to spend $600 over $500 and that this will probably translate well to $500 versus $400? No, they don't.

P.S. don't tell me about anything that might suggest I'm wrong.


The reason why I said "You didn't read my PS" is because you didn't even address it. If you have good reasons for the 20 GB not selling well at $400, bring them on.

Anyway, don't you think Sony should have kept the 20 GB model to lower its price later? If they had the financial ability to do that, they surely would... Or do you think they're happy to be the only company with no console under $500? The 20 GB was their opportunity to have one, and they "blew it".

Do I have solid proof that the 20gb. will or will not sell "well" at $400? No. But I have to believe that Sony knows something that we don't. I have to believe that if they thought selling the 20gb. was the best move for their company that they would do it. All you can really go by is trends, and the trend was that the 20gb. was an even poorer seller than the 60gb at a $100 price differential.

I don't think anyone at Sony looses any sleep at night having their cheapest console at $500. I don't really think they have blown anything. They are 8 months into this cycle. If the goal was to be market share leader within a year then, yeah. But I suspect that wasn't anticipated. I seriously doubt any of the 3 are in this for the short haul. And I'm positive that Sony knew that their console was going to take some time to get off the ground. I think the only company that shows signs of being in "danger" is Microsoft. I don't get good vibes of their strategy. But then again, anything can happen.

 


You sound like Jack Tretton now, replying to sales problems with the 10 year lifecycle. Sorry to inform him and you, but that's not going to convince anyone but Sony themselves and their fanboys. It doesn't seem to convince Konami and Square Enix, for example.

Sony needs to start selling and soon. Let's see if this "price cut" does the trick!

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

El Duderino on 12 July 2007

Yea the price cut is real, I still think a $399 20 gig modle would help Sony more than what they have now. A free game is nice but movies really don´t matter to me, but thats just me then, I think they should have done everything to have a model going closer to the 200-300$ sweet spot, even if it sould poorly at start, this may have been because the core of fans want the best version, this christmas a cheaper unit would have been great to battle MS price whise, does anybody know if Sony was losing more money on the 20 gig than the others ???



 

 

 

chuckd on 12 July 2007

Don't forget that the new sku has the emotion engine removed and is basically the pal version of the ps3. The 80gb version should actually be cheaper to produce than the 60gb version. (what I'm trying to say is buy one now and replace the hdd yourself if you need more space)

/insert your own conspiracy theory here

chuck



goodridd on 12 July 2007
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:
goodridd said:
NJ5 said:

It's true that the 60 GB PS3 model had its price cut. But the PS3 itself didn't.

Where is the 20 GB model? A real PS3 price cut strategy would reintroduce that model @ $400. Then Sony would finally be able to say that they have a PS3 under $500.

The reason they didn't do that is obvious - they would lose too much money. Sony no longer has the financial ability to fight this console war properly!

PS: Don't tell me about how noone wanted the 20 GB model. That could well change if its price was $400.


Reintroduce the 20gb.? Why would they increase costs to sell a console the market had already rejected?

Sony no longer having the financial ability to fight this "console war" is laughable.


You didn't read my PS, did you?


Sure I did, It's easy to make a statement when you add that you don't want anyone using valid points to argue against it. The whole problem with what you said is that the market already rejected the 20gb. version in comparison to the 60gb. Would they sell some 20gb.'s at $400? Sure they would. Do they want to increase production, warehousing, and shipping costs to do so, even though their data already suggests the majority of people were willing to spend $600 over $500 and that this will probably translate well to $500 versus $400? No, they don't.

P.S. don't tell me about anything that might suggest I'm wrong.


The reason why I said "You didn't read my PS" is because you didn't even address it. If you have good reasons for the 20 GB not selling well at $400, bring them on.

Anyway, don't you think Sony should have kept the 20 GB model to lower its price later? If they had the financial ability to do that, they surely would... Or do you think they're happy to be the only company with no console under $500? The 20 GB was their opportunity to have one, and they "blew it".

Do I have solid proof that the 20gb. will or will not sell "well" at $400? No. But I have to believe that Sony knows something that we don't. I have to believe that if they thought selling the 20gb. was the best move for their company that they would do it. All you can really go by is trends, and the trend was that the 20gb. was an even poorer seller than the 60gb at a $100 price differential.

I don't think anyone at Sony looses any sleep at night having their cheapest console at $500. I don't really think they have blown anything. They are 8 months into this cycle. If the goal was to be market share leader within a year then, yeah. But I suspect that wasn't anticipated. I seriously doubt any of the 3 are in this for the short haul. And I'm positive that Sony knew that their console was going to take some time to get off the ground. I think the only company that shows signs of being in "danger" is Microsoft. I don't get good vibes of their strategy. But then again, anything can happen.

 


You sound like Jack Tretton now, replying to sales problems with the 10 year lifecycle. Sorry to inform him and you, but that's not going to convince anyone but Sony themselves and their fanboys. It doesn't seem to convince Konami and Square Enix, for example.

Sony needs to start selling and soon. Let's see if this "price cut" does the trick!

 


I hope not, I'm not trying to sound like a corporate shill. On another note, it also hasn't dissuaded them from keeping MGS4 or FF XIII exclusive to Sony. Also, I didn't say anything about 10 years, I was simply pointing out  the small amount of time that has passed.

The price cut will help but it isn't going to be a console saver by itself.