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

Forums - Sony - A Playstation 3 Pricecut Could Cripple Sony So Stop Begging For It!

Conflict_Beast on 19 April 2009

People don't know what they are talking about
a price cut would help it
Just think about it ps2 beat xbox
Well if ps3's price was lower, don't u think all them people who bought the ps2 would buy the ps3? Honestly people think
i know of at least 30 people right now that would buy a ps3 if they had the money
and since in a couple of years everything will switch to blu ray it also gives u a blu ray player people are just buying Wii's and 360's because they can't afford the ps3
U evn read about it in forums on here
Somebody asked whether he should get a ps3 or 360
and 360 fans were saying to buy the 360 and wait for the ps3 to lower its price
That is the only reason why its not sellin now
For ps3 to only be 8 Million behind even though its the most expensive system is pretty damn good honestly



"She said I'm F**kin Awesome!"

"Gurl don't be afraid, I just wanna cut, U can call me a squirrel, I'm just tryna get my nuts"

"Here's some daily science... The World revolves around the sun, not you!"
Around the Network
JamesCizuz on 19 April 2009
Noobie said:
JamesCizuz said:
This guy is an idiot. People like to shout how Sony is "losing money" Sony knew they were going to lose at least 3 billion, upwards to 5 or 7 billion from PS3.

PS3, 60 GB cost NINE HUNDRED, 63 DOLLARS to produce. They sold it for 600$. The 20 gig cost 780$ to produce, and sold for 500$. Within first 4 months moanufacturing price came down to 800 and 700 respectively. In the first 16 weeks, PS3 sold 2 million consoles. Respectively at a 250$ to 350$ loss, so a 300$ average lose. Which is a net loss of 600 million. Again manufacturing prices never went down again till 6 months later to 750 and 650. PS3 sold another 2.5 million in that time frame. At a lose of 250$, another net loss of 750 million. A total loss of 1.35 billion dollars, and it's only on sale for 8 months.(This is a pure guess, manufacturing prices don't go down at once they go down over time, real estimates are between the mean of 1 billion to 1.4 billion loss at this time).

At the end of the first year, PS3 sold 9 million units, ALL SELLING at a loss. Even when 80 gig launched it still cost 650$ to produce. Sold for 500$. Even 60 gig was dropped everywhere to 500$.

Even microsoft sold 360 at a loss when it first came out.

It's sad people don't actually understand console companies, even now Sony is not making a profit on the 40(80 gig now) model, it is however making money on the 80(160 gig) model now. About 10$ per console.

They lost nearly, in 2 years around 3.5 billion to 4 billion dollars. This was not a mistake or due to economy, they new this was going to happen, first 2 years PS2 lost nearly 3 billion for sony, because they sold at a loss.

Right now Sony doesn't want to lose more then 4 billion though, that would be a new record for them, thus they don't want to drop price, but don't dare say it'll cripple them, it won't.

Do you have any source of the real estimates.?

 

 

Google, type in "PS3 selling at a loss" thousands of sources come up, including from Sony. It was selling at a 350$ loss when it came out.



City17 on 19 April 2009
JamesCizuz said:
Noobie said:
JamesCizuz said:
This guy is an idiot. People like to shout how Sony is "losing money" Sony knew they were going to lose at least 3 billion, upwards to 5 or 7 billion from PS3.

PS3, 60 GB cost NINE HUNDRED, 63 DOLLARS to produce. They sold it for 600$. The 20 gig cost 780$ to produce, and sold for 500$. Within first 4 months moanufacturing price came down to 800 and 700 respectively. In the first 16 weeks, PS3 sold 2 million consoles. Respectively at a 250$ to 350$ loss, so a 300$ average lose. Which is a net loss of 600 million. Again manufacturing prices never went down again till 6 months later to 750 and 650. PS3 sold another 2.5 million in that time frame. At a lose of 250$, another net loss of 750 million. A total loss of 1.35 billion dollars, and it's only on sale for 8 months.(This is a pure guess, manufacturing prices don't go down at once they go down over time, real estimates are between the mean of 1 billion to 1.4 billion loss at this time).

At the end of the first year, PS3 sold 9 million units, ALL SELLING at a loss. Even when 80 gig launched it still cost 650$ to produce. Sold for 500$. Even 60 gig was dropped everywhere to 500$.

Even microsoft sold 360 at a loss when it first came out.

It's sad people don't actually understand console companies, even now Sony is not making a profit on the 40(80 gig now) model, it is however making money on the 80(160 gig) model now. About 10$ per console.

They lost nearly, in 2 years around 3.5 billion to 4 billion dollars. This was not a mistake or due to economy, they new this was going to happen, first 2 years PS2 lost nearly 3 billion for sony, because they sold at a loss.

Right now Sony doesn't want to lose more then 4 billion though, that would be a new record for them, thus they don't want to drop price, but don't dare say it'll cripple them, it won't.

Do you have any source of the real estimates.?

 

 

Google, type in "PS3 selling at a loss" thousands of sources come up, including from Sony. It was selling at a 350$ loss when it came out.

 

Thank you sony for subsidizing my Playstation brand addiction!

 



NJ5 on 19 April 2009

I have posted this a bunch of times but apparently not enough:

This is the latest official information on PS3 profitability:

Q: My second question is related to Playstation number 3, the profitability is increasing, and when are you going to be seeing profit in the field of hardware?

A: If we base our projections on the present exchange rate to continue and if introduction of the 45 nm chips is fulfilled (it is being used in manufacturing already), but in view of that by latter half of next year, sometime there, I believe that we can see the improved margin and start to see profit.

Q: Point of confirmation, when you say later next year, is it later the second half of the calendar year 2009, or the fiscal year 2009?

A: Fiscal year 2009, that's March 2010.


http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2895

Exchange rates have improved a bit since then, so perhaps they could be profitable around the holiday period (if they don't get worse again). Assuming there's no price cut of course.

We should get updated information by mid-May, when Sony does their financial report.

I don't see more than a $50 price cut this year, and even that is unlikely unless exchange rates really improve IMO.



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

Carl on 19 April 2009
Gilgamesh said:

The RSX and The Cell will be shrunk to 45 nm hopefully by the summer, that should make everything much more cheaper in the PS3 and possibly a Slim PS3.

This.

People seem to forget about it for some reason.



                            

Around the Network
NJ5 on 19 April 2009
Carl2291 said:
Gilgamesh said:

The RSX and The Cell will be shrunk to 45 nm hopefully by the summer, that should make everything much more cheaper in the PS3 and possibly a Slim PS3.

This.

People seem to forget about it for some reason.

Tell that to Sony, they aren't expecting to be profitable anytime soon.

 



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

Squilliam on 19 April 2009
NJ5 said:
Carl2291 said:
Gilgamesh said:

The RSX and The Cell will be shrunk to 45 nm hopefully by the summer, that should make everything much more cheaper in the PS3 and possibly a Slim PS3.

This.

People seem to forget about it for some reason.

Tell that to Sony, they aren't expecting to be profitable anytime soon.

 

I think people are forgetting that whilst improving the lithography process over time has postive consequences over time for reducing the cost of a product there are other factors that people forget.

  • The increased cost per wafer for new technology -> I.E $7000 vs $5000 for an older process (TSMC 40nm vs 55nm)
  • The process will have lower yields, so more defects per chip initially means higher per chip costs.
  • There are other significant costs such as the # of PCB layers, redisigning the chip and royalty charges which must be paid as well. Remember they don't own the I.P to the Cell, RSX or XD ram interface and must therefore pay royalties to use these technologies.

 

 



Tease.

crumas2 on 19 April 2009
Squilliam said:

I think people are forgetting that whilst improving the lithography process over time has postive consequences over time for reducing the cost of a product there are other factors that people forget.

  • The increased cost per wafer for new technology -> I.E $7000 vs $5000 for an older process (TSMC 40nm vs 55nm)
  • The process will have lower yields, so more defects per chip initially means higher per chip costs.
  • There are other significant costs such as the # of PCB layers, redisigning the chip and royalty charges which must be paid as well. Remember they don't own the I.P to the Cell, RSX or XD ram interface and must therefore pay royalties to use these technologies.

 

 

Hmmm... this is usually true for a very short period of time, but I'm not familiar with going to a reduced process (more chips per die) as producing anything but higher yields very quickly.  Please illuminate me.  

 



Squilliam on 19 April 2009
crumas2 said:
Squilliam said:

I think people are forgetting that whilst improving the lithography process over time has postive consequences over time for reducing the cost of a product there are other factors that people forget.

  • The increased cost per wafer for new technology -> I.E $7000 vs $5000 for an older process (TSMC 40nm vs 55nm)
  • The process will have lower yields, so more defects per chip initially means higher per chip costs.
  • There are other significant costs such as the # of PCB layers, redisigning the chip and royalty charges which must be paid as well. Remember they don't own the I.P to the Cell, RSX or XD ram interface and must therefore pay royalties to use these technologies.

 

 

Hmmm... this is usually true for a very short period of time, but I'm not familiar with going to a reduced process (more chips per die) as producing anything but higher yields very quickly.  Please illuminate me.  

 

Italised the important word, 'initially'.

 



Tease.

crumas2 on 19 April 2009
Squilliam said:
crumas2 said:

Hmmm... this is usually true for a very short period of time, but I'm not familiar with going to a reduced process (more chips per die) as producing anything but higher yields very quickly.  Please illuminate me.  

 

Italised the important word, 'initially'.

 

Understood.  In your estimation, what would the cross-over time period from lower-to-higher be?  I'm assuming 30-60 days max once full production is underway, but I've been wrong before...