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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony must drop PS3 pricing for Christmas

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10064591-17.html

Sony must drop PS3 pricing for Christmas

"The answer is yes, if you're asking, 'Are these the prices we're going with this Christmas?'" Hirai told the Financial Times. "When you really compare apples to apples, then I think we have a very good value proposition."

Hirai is obviously referring to the Playstation 3's Blu-ray player in his case for "value proposition," but I think he unfairly ties the price of the PS3 to that single component.

Sure, the Blu-ray player is arguably one of the most expensive parts in the Playstation 3 and you can't argue that it adds value, but the real consideration isn't "value proposition." Instead, Hirai needs to realize that most consumers are deciding on their next console purchase based off a cost-benefit analysis.

Do I get enough out of my Playstation 3 to justify spending that much cash on it? And more importantly, is it worth the additional $100-$150 it'll cost to have a PS3 instead of an Xbox 360.

Sorry, Sony, but I just don't think it is.

Now that the Xbox 360 can be purchased for as little as $199 and the Wii is still selling out at the affordable price of $249, Sony needs to do something to take the lead in at least one category. It thinks that it's leading in its third-party library, but it's tied (at best) with Microsoft in that category and it's losing miserably in innovative gameplay and online gaming. The only thing Sony has going for it is the Playstation 3's Blu-ray player. And even that may not be the kind of an advantage Sony thinks it is.

Recently, Nielsen VideoScan released figures that must have made Sony worry (to say the least). According to its figures from a couple weeks ago, DVD commanded 92 percent of the market and Blu-ray trailed far behind with a measly 8 percent market share. That isn't the kind of performance that will sell too many units.

Worse, Blu-ray suffers from a slew of issues, including expensive media, no mobility, and a population of people that either don't know or don't care about it.

Realizing that, how can Sony expect to compete on Blu-ray alone? Sure, it's trying to get into the online market and its third-party library is getting better, but with a general lack of exclusives, even that's pushing it.

As I've pointed out on these pages before, companies need to differentiate on product or on price if they want to be successful. Sony is differentiating on product, but it's abundantly clear that it's just not working. And considering it's unwilling to differentiate on price, how can it honestly say that it will be the victor this holiday season?

And although he may never admit, I think Kaz Hirai knows that his claim that Sony provides the best bang for your buck is ludicrous. His comments strike me as nothing more than marketing-speak that try to justify a strategy because no other alternatives are possible. In this case, Sony simply won't drop the price of the Playstation 3 for fear of lost revenue or something we don't know about.

Meanwhile, as economic tumult rocks the world, consumers will flock to stores in just a few weeks and look for game consoles for themselves or loved ones. And as they feel the strain on their wallets, they'll need to consider that before they make a decision. Once they compare the prices of each console, doesn't it stand to reason that the Playstation 3 will sink to the bottom of their lists once they see how much more expensive it is than its competitors?

There's no excuse for Sony deciding to not drop the price of the Playstation 3. Although Sony zealots will claim it doesn't, price matters to the average person who wants to play a couple games every now and then. And if Sony's product is a whopping $100 more than its competitors, why would anyone choose that over competing products?

Yeah, I know, I know: Blu-ray.

Uh huh. Keep dreaming, Sony.

==> so what ?

- I can also pick up 1 BR sales week and show that BR sales are not so bad, indeed, they were quite good for Iron Man
- I can say PS3 is the most expensive console meaning it will get the higher boost this xmas (as all expensive product) compared to the rest of the year
- I can say PS3 has a good pricing considering u also get a quality BR player with.
- I can "WW crysis" is strong but inegual meaning that if some people have lost everything, a lot of us are still perfectly OK. We will, perhaps, delay the purchase of a new car, but we will still be able to afford a PS3 particularly in NA where people love to spend their money (even when they dont have (I know it just makes no sesne but ... this world makes no sense) and get multiple sku (it is a guess, but I feel I m guessing well)
- I can say "Brand name"
- I can say "very good line-up compared to last year"
- I can say US is the market where EVERY CONSOLE SELL meaning that, like the others console , the PS3 will sell.
- It is perceived as a new console compared to the xbox360 and this fit with the fact it is more expensive - I can say that even if the Xbox360 outsold the PS3 in NA (or even WW ...), even by setting the PS3-360 gap back at 7.4M (let's say ), PS3 will still be able to skyrocket later and eat the gap again.

==> PS3 can't be killed anymore, MS should have wake up earlier ...



Time to Work !

Around the Network

I do not agree with that. First sony's goal is not to be first right now, it's to make money on the ps3. Second, the playstation 3 has a good lineup for this xmas (maybe the best). Third it's gonna be xmas soon and that means sales increase. Finally they should keep the price cut effect for later, around march-april to surf on xmas sales.



Tremble,

I have the feeling they will keep the price drop for september09 more than April09



Time to Work !

Michou,

First let blue glasses home =p, second I have no idea for the price cut, but september 09 is a little late IMO. I think a 349€ in europe would be perfect IMO and I think it would bundle well with kz2 ^^



At this moment, bundle 1 or 2 games/movies will cost Sony much less and leave Sony more room for future price cut.

$50 price cut for PS3 won't stimulate sales for too long, why not wait until next year for a REAL price cut when the manufacturing cost comes down a bit more? A $100 (or €100, £50, ¥10,000) price cut will be a huge news all over the media (free promotion). Meanwhile, Sony should have enough capacity to keep up with the potential demand by then.



It (PS3's market share) might hit 30%, but definently not more. ~ Neo

Flaming (Calling another user (any user) a fanboy is flaming.) ~ Machina-AX

Around the Network

Tremble,


Well, I dont know at which time point Sony will be able to drop the price.^
I also dont know if they need 1x100$ price cut or 2x50$ ...



Time to Work !

Libellule,

A 50€ price cut could be enough for the first half of 09 IF they launch a good bundle like PS3 + 2 DS3 + 2 well known games.

And then another 50€ price cut around september to get to the 299€ rage.



Personally, I really don't think Sony sees being number 1 on the market right now as their priority. Would they like to be? Of course they would, but one thing Howard Stringer has done for the company is given them the right priorities, having the highest market share is great and can give the highest profit and market influence, but there is no point sacrificing profitability to get the highest marketshare. A company with shareholders *has* to have profit as a priority. Do fanboys like ourselves like it? Of course not, most of us see the console 'war' like a footy match, we want our 'side' to win, and in return our 'side' gets the most games.

Howard Stringer said last year that the losses incurred last year from the PS3 were necessary because to have a viable platform you need a customer base of at least 10 milllion. Don't know why 10 million, but I'm sure lots of Sony accountants had a big meeting with lots of biscuits and cake slice and worked out 10 million was the minimum required, probably for sony's 1st party developers to have a large enough base to be profitable with. Now Sony has that, its trying to get a decent return off a poorly planned investment many years ago (talking PS3 only here, PS1 and 2 were very good investments). Do Sony realise they might end up third this generation as a result? Probably, but as Nintendo has shown with Gamecube, being third is no insurmountable obstacle to being profitable, and Stringer has said in the past that Nintendo's business model has turned out better than Sony's previous ones.

And remember that you only have a finite number of price cuts, the cost time/cost sales curve gets very flat at the end, so provided Sony can sell enough games and consoles to keep seller shelf space, and keep 1st, 2nd and 3rd party developers profitable, then there is no rush for them to ride down that cost curve. Yes, having the most console sales usually means the most software sales and hence the most profit, but they are in the situation that they can very easily negate software profitability due to losses earned from console sales. I think Sony has realised that they just need to stay close enough to Xbox 360 sales to ensure third party HD developers keep producing games for PS3, regardless of which is the lead platform (potential customer backlash will ensure any ports are sufficiently similar in quality and experience, even with a 2:1 sales difference, that 33% is a lot of potential sales to negate by producing a piss poor quality port).

I think in the long run, I think Sony's current strategy (the one they have hinted at since the PS3's release) will give them the most return. Most likely not the highest sales, or the most profit of all the console manufacturers, but the most return. When you have rotten apples you change your plan and make cider, you don't just try and sell them at a discount. Wait until your next crop with fresh apples before you have another crack at the fruit market.



...it's losing miserably in innovative gameplay and online gaming.

LittleBigPlanet must not exist in their world.



And as the best value proposition, well I agree, but I've happily got a PS3, so of course I'd say that, otherwise I wouldn't have got one. I do believe though at the shopping centre that when mummy goes to buy Billy a console, mummy not knowing anything about consoles will not be able to see the value proposition. Sure, a lot of the time Billy would be able to understand the value proposition and tell his mummy what he wants, but I'm sure a fair amount of the time he won't, or mummy who's wallet ultimately decides will determine that paying off more of the mortgage is a better value proposition than buying the most expensive console on the market, and that Billy can suck it up.