If this doesn't convince you of the "no PS3 price cut" theory, you're helpless:

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=4212

PS: Please don't quote me before you read that whole thread.

(thanks Darc Requiem for the heads-up) 

What has not been mentioned is that in 6 months, the 60GB hard disk price has probably dropped by $20 or so without any influence or 'economies of scale' by Sony. Hard disk prices fall, that's what they do. So the $100 price drop has only really cost Sony $80.

Another thing, upgrading the hard drive and adding wireless added VERY LITTLE to the production cost of the PS3.

The internet consumer price difference between a 40GB hard drive and an 80GB hard drive is 10 cents (I can't find 20GB drives for the comparison, but the difference would not be much bigger), and I'm sure the added Wifi wasn't a huge cost to Sony, I'd guess they maybe added $5-$15 at the most.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductList.jsp?ThirdCategoryCode=110902&SortBy=B&Brand=WESTERN%20DIGITAL

 

A $400 Playstation 3 (20gb) would look really tempting to mass market right now. Because outside of techie early adopters, the average gamer only wants to PLAY GAMES.

Timmah! said: jjseth said: To all of those denying it's a price cut, it is a price cut. The same exact system a week ago cost you $599.99, this week it's $499.99. Sony had discontinued the 20gb stripped down version months ago and has not been a player in PS3 sales for a while now. So while at launch there were model's available for $499 and $599, but for the past several months there had been only one option, $599 for the 60 gb. If you look at only the 60GB model, then yes, it does look like a price cut. I'm looking at the overall affordability of the console... it hasn't changed AT ALL. The lowest price for a new PS3 is the same as it was before the so-called price cut. I'm not disputing that they have increased the overall value, just that they have not really given an overall price cut for the product. Many consumers might have actually concidered a PS3 for $400, but it still costs $500. My point is that I'm tired of Sony's deceptive tactics. As a consumer, I've had enough of their constant BS. I think the PS3 is an incredible piece of hardware, but I'm not very happy with Sony's management of the situation AT ALL. They've been notorious for making deceptive statements in the past. This is just another example.

To me and many others the 20gb was not an option.  We didn't want the stripped down version of the PS3, we wanted the fully loaded version of the PS3.  Obviously the 20gb didn't do well or they wouldn't have discontinued it shortly after release.   Even if Sony still had the 20gb in production and it could be bought, it still would not have been an option for me.  Why would I get a ham sandwich that only had bread and ham on it, when I could get a ham with cheese lettuce mayo, etc on it?  (Just bringing that in the conversation because nobody on this site has made a comparison of ham sammiches to the PS3)

 What is deceptive of the 60 gb model having a price cut?  Did the price on the 60GB version not get a price cut?

 

This is the kind of logic I can't wrap my head around.

So Honda sells a Civic for $20,000. They drop the price to $15,000. But that year they also announce a new, better car to fill the $20,000 price slot.

This means... there was never a price drop?

And if they hadn't released the new car, it would be a price drop?

The guys at Sony must be banging their heads against the wall when they read this stuff. "WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US?!"

jjseth said: shams said: Missing something else... AFAIK, the 60Gig PS3 is effectively in clearance. Sony will no longer produce the units - once they are sold out, its over (replaced by the 80Gig PS3). So the $499US price point is temporary (once sold out, only 80Gig models will be available - for $599). Hopefully once they sell out, they will release the 80Gig model for $499 permanently. I don't think the public will be impressed to find that the price effectively goes up $100 in a couple of months.   And you have proof of this how?  Are you Jack Tretton? Do you work for SCEA?  Oh wait, you aren't him, and you don't work for him, so this is just more fanboyism negativity thrown at the PS3.  I don't see sony going off and stopping production on the 60gb version and have heard nothing that would suggest what you write as fact.  Apparently you have a huge hatred for Sony and are just doing your best to toss more negativity.  Are you one of those people who truly want to see Sony drop out of making consoles? If you are, you are thinking the wrong way, the more platforms available the better it is for ALL gamers.

So explain why Sony would continue to make the more expensive to produce 60 GB ps3's when they can just make the 80 GB version without the EE, saving themselves money.  Can you give me one good reason why they would do that?  From all accounts, the 80 GB version trades expensive to produce hardware bits for extremely cheap 20 GB of hard drive space (throwing in a game as well, that has little to no production cost overall).

It's only logical for Sony to stop producing the 60 GB model, hell I'd be surprised if they hadn't stopped making them months ago when the 80 GB version was first released in Korea or whichever country that was.  I fully expect that Sony will sell the 60 GB model until it sells out of the current stock and then discontinue it.  At that point, they may reduce the price of the 80 GB version (maybe releasing a 120 GB version or something), but thats a different question.

jjseth said: Timmah! said: jjseth said: To all of those denying it's a price cut, it is a price cut. The same exact system a week ago cost you $599.99, this week it's $499.99. Sony had discontinued the 20gb stripped down version months ago and has not been a player in PS3 sales for a while now. So while at launch there were model's available for $499 and $599, but for the past several months there had been only one option, $599 for the 60 gb. If you look at only the 60GB model, then yes, it does look like a price cut. I'm looking at the overall affordability of the console... it hasn't changed AT ALL. The lowest price for a new PS3 is the same as it was before the so-called price cut. I'm not disputing that they have increased the overall value, just that they have not really given an overall price cut for the product. Many consumers might have actually concidered a PS3 for $400, but it still costs $500. My point is that I'm tired of Sony's deceptive tactics. As a consumer, I've had enough of their constant BS. I think the PS3 is an incredible piece of hardware, but I'm not very happy with Sony's management of the situation AT ALL. They've been notorious for making deceptive statements in the past. This is just another example. To me and many others the 20gb was not an option.  We didn't want the stripped down version of the PS3, we wanted the fully loaded version of the PS3.  Obviously the 20gb didn't do well or they wouldn't have discontinued it shortly after release.   Even if Sony still had the 20gb in production and it could be bought, it still would not have been an option for me.  Why would I get a ham sandwich that only had bread and ham on it, when I could get a ham with cheese lettuce mayo, etc on it?  (Just bringing that in the conversation because nobody on this site has made a comparison of ham sammiches to the PS3)  What is deceptive of the 60 gb model having a price cut?  Did the price on the 60GB version not get a price cut?

By this logic, wouldn't everyone skip the 60 GB model and go right for the 80 GB?  Public perception will be that if you want a REAL ps3, you buy the 80 GB model, since obviously its better.  I mean, it has an 80 instead of a 60.  When you have John Smith looking to buy a ps3, and all they see is 60 GB for $500 or 80 GB plus a game for $600, which are they going to choose?  I'd lay money that they'll say the same thing they did before, which is spend the extra money and get the obviously better version.

So Sony gets to sell a model that costs less to make for the same price they've been selling at all along, while recovering as much as they can from the more expensive 60 GB model until they get rid of all the stock hanging around.  Sounds like a smart move for Sony, but a little deceptive to the general public.

edit:  I think Sony should have at least sold the 80 GB model for $550 or something.  I think its a bit underhanded to sell a model thats cheaper to make for the same price the previous model was.  On the other hand, I won't buy it even at 500$ so I guess it doesn't matter that much.

jjseth said: ... To me and many others the 20gb was not an option. We didn't want the stripped down version of the PS3, we wanted the fully loaded version of the PS3. Obviously the 20gb didn't do well or they wouldn't have discontinued it shortly after release. Even if Sony still had the 20gb in production and it could be bought, it still would not have been an option for me. Why would I get a ham sandwich that only had bread and ham on it, when I could get a ham with cheese lettuce mayo, etc on it? (Just bringing that in the conversation because nobody on this site has made a comparison of ham sammiches to the PS3) What is deceptive of the 60 gb model having a price cut? Did the price on the 60GB version not get a price cut?

Why do you want a PS3?

If I got it - it would be to play games. And the 20Gig model plays all the games, just as well as the other models. Hard disks are upgradable. What else is missing again?

The only reason Sony is not selling the 20Gig model - is lack of profit. Its exactly the same strategy they are showing with the price cut. Not selling anything for a lower price - but giving you "more" (perceived value) for the same price.

Good luck to 'em. 

 

Timmah! said: Ok, this has been bugging me for a little while now. Sony said they were going to deliver a price cut and didn't really, but everyone has bought it hook line and sinker. I will explain... Before 'price cut': PS3 20GB- $499, PS3 60GB- $599 After 'price cut': PS3 60GB- $499, PS3 80GB- $599 (plus motorstorm) Cheapest PS3- no price change, most expensive PS3- no price change... What gives?!? I am actually kind of ticked. I thought, "hey, I might actually buy one for $399" (they did say $100 price drop). I actually concidered buying a PS3 for a second. Instead of a real price drop, however, they just upped the hard disk space for the both models (adding about five or ten bucks to their cost IF THAT) and temporarily packaged a game with the top line model. This is typical slight of hand and corporate BS to build hype around a product. Calling it a price drop is crap, they should have said 'We're going to give you more storage for the same price, plus a free game if you have $600 to spend'. They did this because they can't actually afford to sell the hardware at $399 and felt that they had to artificially build hype around a poorly selling product. I just had to point that crap out! /Rant

Why would you even suspect the 20 GB model to come back it has been at least 2 months since the 20GB model got the AX? And if you post here you probably already knew that. (so you really did not think about buying one for a second) .  Really the 60 GB PS3 at 499.99 might be the best deal in video game console History, the 100 dollars brings it in line with the High end 360 and you get way more from the system for your money.

Just to recap are you really going to base your gaming decision on 100 dollars? over 6-7 year (the very least a life of a Sony system will be) that translates to about a 15-20 dollar a year cost. Sony said they were going to a direction that was going to make more storage a must (I for one hate Microsoft's 3 headed red ring breathing monster for offering a range of 0-120 gb)

Please let us know if you can think of any tech device that can do as much as a PS3 with a cost of$500 or less.