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

Forums - Sales - PS3 still losing money?

Plaupius said:
Rpruett said:
Smashchu2 said:

Yes they will make a cut when they deside they can't turn a profit in the industry and must try to clear as much dept as they can. Someone mentioned that Sony borrowed against the PS3 which means they probably sold bonds (meaning they will have to pay interest). That means Sony can incure cost over time.

The problem is your assuming the company can make a profit from cutting the cost. They can't. If Sony drops the price by $100, they lose an additional $100 on every sale. They are still incuring interest on those bonds (or a loan). The division will be under more pressure to turn a profit. They can't meet the difference in game sales as the system doesn't sell many games. The reason for not cutting the price is becuase they are trying to get the console trun a profit on each sold and then clear out their debt.

Now, if they cut, then they are not trying to make profit. In this case, they have given up on profitability and have desided to simply meet the dept the best they can. If Sony cuts price, they are in survival mode.

 

Sure they can. You are trying to simplify this WAY too much in your head.  Have you forgotten everything else that is for sale for a console? Controllers? Memory Card Adapters? Controller Covers? Bluetooth Microphones?  On top of the first party software that they have created (Many of which are some of the best games on the system).

The average attach rate for the PS3 is somewhere around 9 games.  Trust me.  9 games sold (With about 3 to 4 being first party) would easily without a shadow of a doubt cover Sony losing 100 dollars.

 

Sony will not get into a cutting price war for one primary reason.  They have a product that costs tons of money in actual cost.  They are competing against two products that have cost a substanial amount less from day one with cheaper overall hardware.   It makes zero business sense for them to get into a price cutting war and lose the ONLY advantage that the system has. 

In the eyes of the consumer,  the PS3 is a valuable item.  By keeping the price high, you keep the demand high.  Sony is nursing a price cut because it makes sense for them on a business standpoint as well as a marketing one.

 

   If they cut the price on the PS3 they aren't in survival mode.  That's utter rubbish.

 

The question here is, because of the dire financial situation of Sony: can they sell enough additional software within the same fiscal year to cover the losses caused by the price cut? They do not really have the luxury of offsetting the payback to future fiscal years. Remember that the current attach rate is a product of the total lifetime of the PS3 in market, and it does not mean that an average new owner would buy 9 games in a year. So, with that in mind, here are two different scenarios:

Scenario A, with the current price, Sony sells 10 million PS3s during the current fiscal year, with 4 million sold up to the beginning of October and 6 million after that.

Scenario B we assume that they drop the price by $100 at the beginning of October and end up selling 14 million during the current fiscal year.

The cost of scenario B compared to Scenario A is an extra loss of $100 dollars for 10 million consoles = $1000 million extra loss.

Now, about the accessories and extra software: The price drop caused an additional 4 million PS3 to be sold, so the burden of turning a profit out of the price drop lies on those 4 million, which means that each additional PS3 sold would have to bring in more than $250 profit from accessories and software. And that is not likely to happen no matter how you twist it.

Now, if Sony were in a position where they could afford to take losses with the hope of recovering during a longer time interval, things would be different. Let's get together two additional scenarios that span two fiscal years:

Scenario C, maintain the current price. Sales remain flat so 20 million PS3s sold during two fiscal years. Same as before, 4 million sold up to the beginning of October and rest after that.

Scenario D, price cut of $100 at the beginning of October. It boosts sales so total sales for the two following fiscal years is 28 million PS3s. In addition, the manufacturing price of the PS3 is gradually decreasing during the second fiscal year so that at the end of the year, they are back to the level of profitability they were before the price drop.

The cost of scenario D compared to Scenario C is an extra loss of $100*10 million + $50*14 million = $1700 million extra loss.

The price drop caused an additioinal 8 million PS3s sold, so each new owner would have to bring in more than $212.5 for the price drop to be profitable within 2 fiscal years. Still unlikely, IMO.

First of all,  While I appreciate your scenarios, they mean very little without concrete financial figures from Sony .  Speculating what Sony is making profit on, what they are losing money on is a pointless exercise.  We have no idea how cheap Sony can produce a PS3 for or how architecture changes and a variety of other things can reduce it's cost to them.  

Sony CAN sell a PS3 for a loss because they have a constant flux of cash coming in (Which is the very nature of consoles and is why these companies are willing to take big losses). 

 

An area where people neglect to mention, is existing owners. I bought a PS3 a few months after it released.  In this fiscal year for Sony,  I will have bought several first party games (Kill Zone 2 60$, Uncharted 2 60$, InFamous 60$), A Sony Mic (60$) and another controller (60$), as well as additional content for other games. Do I not count into Sony's bottom line?   Or do only new console owners count?  Sony alone will have sold me $300 worth of product in their current fiscal year.   There will be plenty more just like me.   These people (Plus the sales of all accessories) offset the losses that Sony might have accrued over the new sales.  

Then there is contributory things that you have to consider.  Such as Blu-Ray penetration.  The more households and name branding of Blu-Ray,  the higher sales of Blu-Ray movies overall (Many studios which are owned by Sony), the higher sales of newer Television sets to display those nice Blu-Ray movies(In which Sony is a big name in the business).

 

 

Sony will drop the price when it works for them.  If they drop the price that isn't some warning sign.

 



Around the Network
Rpruett said:
Plaupius said:
Rpruett said:

Sure they can. You are trying to simplify this WAY too much in your head.  Have you forgotten everything else that is for sale for a console? Controllers? Memory Card Adapters? Controller Covers? Bluetooth Microphones?  On top of the first party software that they have created (Many of which are some of the best games on the system).

The average attach rate for the PS3 is somewhere around 9 games.  Trust me.  9 games sold (With about 3 to 4 being first party) would easily without a shadow of a doubt cover Sony losing 100 dollars.

 

Sony will not get into a cutting price war for one primary reason.  They have a product that costs tons of money in actual cost.  They are competing against two products that have cost a substanial amount less from day one with cheaper overall hardware.   It makes zero business sense for them to get into a price cutting war and lose the ONLY advantage that the system has.

In the eyes of the consumer,  the PS3 is a valuable item.  By keeping the price high, you keep the demand high.  Sony is nursing a price cut because it makes sense for them on a business standpoint as well as a marketing one.

 

   If they cut the price on the PS3 they aren't in survival mode.  That's utter rubbish.

 

The question here is, because of the dire financial situation of Sony: can they sell enough additional software within the same fiscal year to cover the losses caused by the price cut? They do not really have the luxury of offsetting the payback to future fiscal years. Remember that the current attach rate is a product of the total lifetime of the PS3 in market, and it does not mean that an average new owner would buy 9 games in a year. So, with that in mind, here are two different scenarios:

Scenario A, with the current price, Sony sells 10 million PS3s during the current fiscal year, with 4 million sold up to the beginning of October and 6 million after that.

Scenario B we assume that they drop the price by $100 at the beginning of October and end up selling 14 million during the current fiscal year.

The cost of scenario B compared to Scenario A is an extra loss of $100 dollars for 10 million consoles = $1000 million extra loss.

Now, about the accessories and extra software: The price drop caused an additional 4 million PS3 to be sold, so the burden of turning a profit out of the price drop lies on those 4 million, which means that each additional PS3 sold would have to bring in more than $250 profit from accessories and software. And that is not likely to happen no matter how you twist it.

Now, if Sony were in a position where they could afford to take losses with the hope of recovering during a longer time interval, things would be different. Let's get together two additional scenarios that span two fiscal years:

Scenario C, maintain the current price. Sales remain flat so 20 million PS3s sold during two fiscal years. Same as before, 4 million sold up to the beginning of October and rest after that.

Scenario D, price cut of $100 at the beginning of October. It boosts sales so total sales for the two following fiscal years is 28 million PS3s. In addition, the manufacturing price of the PS3 is gradually decreasing during the second fiscal year so that at the end of the year, they are back to the level of profitability they were before the price drop.

The cost of scenario D compared to Scenario C is an extra loss of $100*10 million + $50*14 million = $1700 million extra loss.

The price drop caused an additioinal 8 million PS3s sold, so each new owner would have to bring in more than $212.5 for the price drop to be profitable within 2 fiscal years. Still unlikely, IMO.

First of all,  While I appreciate your scenarios, they mean very little without concrete financial figures from Sony .  Speculating what Sony is making profit on, what they are losing money on is a pointless exercise.  We have no idea how cheap Sony can produce a PS3 for or how architecture changes and a variety of other things can reduce it's cost to them.

Sony CAN sell a PS3 for a loss because they have a constant flux of cash coming in (Which is the very nature of consoles and is why these companies are willing to take big losses).

 

An area where people neglect to mention, is existing owners. I bought a PS3 a few months after it released.  In this fiscal year for Sony,  I will have bought several first party games (Kill Zone 2 60$, Uncharted 2 60$, InFamous 60$), A Sony Mic (60$) and another controller (60$), as well as additional content for other games. Do I not count into Sony's bottom line?   Or do only new console owners count?  Sony alone will have sold me $300 worth of product in their current fiscal year.   There will be plenty more just like me.   These people (Plus the sales of all accessories) offset the losses that Sony might have accrued over the new sales.

Then there is contributory things that you have to consider.  Such as Blu-Ray penetration.  The more households and name branding of Blu-Ray,  the higher sales of Blu-Ray movies overall (Many studios which are owned by Sony), the higher sales of newer Television sets to display those nice Blu-Ray movies(In which Sony is a big name in the business).

 

 

Sony will drop the price when it works for them.  If they drop the price that isn't some warning sign.

 

The beauty of it is that we don't have to know the real figures from Sony to do this kind of calculations. You said yourself that Sony will drop the price when it works for them, and using these calculations I've shown that it is very unlikely that a price cut would work for them in the current economical situation.

Since we know for sure that Sony is not profiting greatly from the PS3, the actual margin they have on it is irrelevant. Any price drop will directly translate into less profits. Only if they were actually profiting from the HW by a great deal, then a price cut could actually increase the total profits from the HW if the increase in demand were enough the offset the loss of revenue from the lower price. As it is now, that is not the case.

The reason existing owners are not included in my calculations is that Sony has your money regardless of the price cut. When you are estimating if the price cut would be a good move for Sony, you have to calculate the immediate economical effects it would have. And in case you haven't noticed, Sony is not in a situation where they can keep on incurring losses because "they have a constant flux of cash coming in". That constant flux has seriously dried up. Sony really, REALLY needs profits NOW, not three years from now.

I agree with you that Sony will drop the price when it works for them. It just is not going to work for them for a long time IMO. So, if they would drop the price now, that would seriously sound my alarms.



Rpruett said:
Smashchu2 said:
Squilliam said:
Smashchu2 said:
Squilliam said:
Dodece said:
The problem for most on these forums no matter where they sit in the debate is a case of clear near sightedness. You simply must view Sony as a whole. Sony was able to aggressively price the PS3 due to the company as a whole making this possible. The gaming division was not self sufficient. You cannot view any division at Sony on a local level. Stringer talked about doing this, but there is no indication that it became a reality.

This is the reality at Sony. They are losing money. They owe a lot of money. They are in a economic recession. Which means it is taking longer to make money, and finally they are up against a poor currency exchange rate. The bottom line is this Sony is in no position to abandon profit, or look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth.

When a division any division begins to bring in a profit Sony is going to be using that profit to offset losses in other divisions. Pay down that debt load, and bring dividends to their investors. The gaming division alone has brought down has a billion dollars of debt on the shoulder of Sony in loans alone. Which is what a lot of members forget. Sony couldn't afford the manufacturing and launch of the console alone. They went borrowing against the console.

Frankly any consideration of price cutting on this console was idiotic once the economy hit the skids. The question is not what can Sony do to win. I am sorry the contest is over Sony has lost this battle. What matters now is not losing the war, and the number one way to do that is to survive to fight another day. The true fan must understand this, and actually be happy.

In a bizarre way if you find Sony cutting the price on their console that is when you should get upset. That has a greater then fifty percent chance of meaning they are abandoning the console. That would mean they have given up on the console being a profitable venture period, and have decided to do what it takes to liquidate stock.


I don't really understand why you wrote that. It makes sense that at this point they won't abandon the console and if they do make any moves on the price of the console, it will be because such a move is justified and is productive towards their corportate goals which include improving profitability.

 

But your wrong in the fact that a price cut will not help profitability, at least not dirrectly. What he is trying to say is that if Sony is not cutting price, they are trying to turn a profit. If they do cut price, then their goal is not to make a profit (as they will be selling the console at a loss). In the latter case, they are just trying to meet the depts.

 

You're really just speculating here. They will make a cut if it makes sense otherwise they won't, and yes they can have a profit motive for cutting the price because the more consoles they sell the more 1st/3rd party games can be sold as well.

 

Yes they will make a cut when they deside they can't turn a profit in the industry and must try to clear as much dept as they can. Someone mentioned that Sony borrowed against the PS3 which means they probably sold bonds (meaning they will have to pay interest). That means Sony can incure cost over time.

The problem is your assuming the company can make a profit from cutting the cost. They can't. If Sony drops the price by $100, they lose an additional $100 on every sale. They are still incuring interest on those bonds (or a loan). The division will be under more pressure to turn a profit. They can't meet the difference in game sales as the system doesn't sell many games. The reason for not cutting the price is becuase they are trying to get the console trun a profit on each sold and then clear out their debt.

Now, if they cut, then they are not trying to make profit. In this case, they have given up on profitability and have desided to simply meet the dept the best they can. If Sony cuts price, they are in survival mode.

 

Sure they can. You are trying to simplify this WAY too much in your head.  Have you forgotten everything else that is for sale for a console? Controllers? Memory Card Adapters? Controller Covers? Bluetooth Microphones?  On top of the first party software that they have created (Many of which are some of the best games on the system).

The average attach rate for the PS3 is somewhere around 9 games.  Trust me.  9 games sold (With about 3 to 4 being first party) would easily without a shadow of a doubt cover Sony losing 100 dollars.

 

Sony will not get into a cutting price war for one primary reason.  They have a product that costs tons of money in actual cost.  They are competing against two products that have cost a substanial amount less from day one with cheaper overall hardware.   It makes zero business sense for them to get into a price cutting war and lose the ONLY advantage that the system has.   

In the eyes of the consumer,  the PS3 is a valuable item.  By keeping the price high, you keep the demand high.  Sony is nursing a price cut because it makes sense for them on a business standpoint as well as a marketing one.

 

   If they cut the price on the PS3 they aren't in survival mode.  That's utter rubbish.

 

Let's use a little sence. First, the current amount of money from accessories and games is not meeting the cost of selling the system. Price cuts have also never made a long term impact. The longest this generation was Sony's first one, but this on eventually fizzeled out, and the cut was from $600. Another one will have less of an impact. The whole goal to cutting the price is to bring in people who wanted the console, but could not afford or want to spend the current (or old) price tag. So, with more and more cuts, the effect is less. I doubt another one will have a large impact.

Now the bold. THIS IS NOT HOW THE MARKET WORKS.

  1. Quality is determined by the consumer. The reason being is becuase if consumers are willing to spend money on it, then there must be some reason behind it. The Wii is a more valuable item to consumers. Between the PS3 and Wii, ask yourself which system was sold out for ~2 years, and which system was sold for a lot on Ebay for a long time.
  2. High Prices mean lower demand. Demand increases when price decreases. The demand curve is downward sloping. The relation is negative, not positive.

 



Plaupius said:
Rpruett said:
Plaupius said:
Rpruett said:

Sure they can. You are trying to simplify this WAY too much in your head.  Have you forgotten everything else that is for sale for a console? Controllers? Memory Card Adapters? Controller Covers? Bluetooth Microphones?  On top of the first party software that they have created (Many of which are some of the best games on the system).

The average attach rate for the PS3 is somewhere around 9 games.  Trust me.  9 games sold (With about 3 to 4 being first party) would easily without a shadow of a doubt cover Sony losing 100 dollars.

 

Sony will not get into a cutting price war for one primary reason.  They have a product that costs tons of money in actual cost.  They are competing against two products that have cost a substanial amount less from day one with cheaper overall hardware.   It makes zero business sense for them to get into a price cutting war and lose the ONLY advantage that the system has.

In the eyes of the consumer,  the PS3 is a valuable item.  By keeping the price high, you keep the demand high.  Sony is nursing a price cut because it makes sense for them on a business standpoint as well as a marketing one.

 

   If they cut the price on the PS3 they aren't in survival mode.  That's utter rubbish.

 

The question here is, because of the dire financial situation of Sony: can they sell enough additional software within the same fiscal year to cover the losses caused by the price cut? They do not really have the luxury of offsetting the payback to future fiscal years. Remember that the current attach rate is a product of the total lifetime of the PS3 in market, and it does not mean that an average new owner would buy 9 games in a year. So, with that in mind, here are two different scenarios:

Scenario A, with the current price, Sony sells 10 million PS3s during the current fiscal year, with 4 million sold up to the beginning of October and 6 million after that.

Scenario B we assume that they drop the price by $100 at the beginning of October and end up selling 14 million during the current fiscal year.

The cost of scenario B compared to Scenario A is an extra loss of $100 dollars for 10 million consoles = $1000 million extra loss.

Now, about the accessories and extra software: The price drop caused an additional 4 million PS3 to be sold, so the burden of turning a profit out of the price drop lies on those 4 million, which means that each additional PS3 sold would have to bring in more than $250 profit from accessories and software. And that is not likely to happen no matter how you twist it.

Now, if Sony were in a position where they could afford to take losses with the hope of recovering during a longer time interval, things would be different. Let's get together two additional scenarios that span two fiscal years:

Scenario C, maintain the current price. Sales remain flat so 20 million PS3s sold during two fiscal years. Same as before, 4 million sold up to the beginning of October and rest after that.

Scenario D, price cut of $100 at the beginning of October. It boosts sales so total sales for the two following fiscal years is 28 million PS3s. In addition, the manufacturing price of the PS3 is gradually decreasing during the second fiscal year so that at the end of the year, they are back to the level of profitability they were before the price drop.

The cost of scenario D compared to Scenario C is an extra loss of $100*10 million + $50*14 million = $1700 million extra loss.

The price drop caused an additioinal 8 million PS3s sold, so each new owner would have to bring in more than $212.5 for the price drop to be profitable within 2 fiscal years. Still unlikely, IMO.

First of all,  While I appreciate your scenarios, they mean very little without concrete financial figures from Sony .  Speculating what Sony is making profit on, what they are losing money on is a pointless exercise.  We have no idea how cheap Sony can produce a PS3 for or how architecture changes and a variety of other things can reduce it's cost to them.

Sony CAN sell a PS3 for a loss because they have a constant flux of cash coming in (Which is the very nature of consoles and is why these companies are willing to take big losses).

 

An area where people neglect to mention, is existing owners. I bought a PS3 a few months after it released.  In this fiscal year for Sony,  I will have bought several first party games (Kill Zone 2 60$, Uncharted 2 60$, InFamous 60$), A Sony Mic (60$) and another controller (60$), as well as additional content for other games. Do I not count into Sony's bottom line?   Or do only new console owners count?  Sony alone will have sold me $300 worth of product in their current fiscal year.   There will be plenty more just like me.   These people (Plus the sales of all accessories) offset the losses that Sony might have accrued over the new sales.

Then there is contributory things that you have to consider.  Such as Blu-Ray penetration.  The more households and name branding of Blu-Ray,  the higher sales of Blu-Ray movies overall (Many studios which are owned by Sony), the higher sales of newer Television sets to display those nice Blu-Ray movies(In which Sony is a big name in the business).

 

 

Sony will drop the price when it works for them.  If they drop the price that isn't some warning sign.

 

The beauty of it is that we don't have to know the real figures from Sony to do this kind of calculations. You said yourself that Sony will drop the price when it works for them, and using these calculations I've shown that it is very unlikely that a price cut would work for them in the current economical situation.

Since we know for sure that Sony is not profiting greatly from the PS3, the actual margin they have on it is irrelevant.

Ofcourse the margin's matter.  If Sony is only losing 3 $ on the PS3 right now...they will easily make up the difference in accessories and future purchases.

 

Any price drop will directly translate into less profits. Only if they were actually profiting from the HW by a great deal, then a price cut could actually increase the total profits from the HW if the increase in demand were enough the offset the loss of revenue from the lower price. As it is now, that is not the case.

Sure it will translate into less profits,  what's your point?   Less profit now, gives more profit eventually. As long as Sony can meet their bottom line for this fiscal year,  they are fine operating under the assumption of greater profits into the future.

 

The reason existing owners are not included in my calculations is that Sony has your money regardless of the price cut. When you are estimating if the price cut would be a good move for Sony, you have to calculate the immediate economical effects it would have. And in case you haven't noticed, Sony is not in a situation where they can keep on incurring losses because "they have a constant flux of cash coming in". That constant flux has seriously dried up. Sony really, REALLY needs profits NOW, not three years from now.

They will be getting/are getting those profits now,  just not to some Nintendo Wii level.  Having a price cut will happen when they can still make profit on the year or break even and/when sales dip below acceptable levels, period.  No company is in a position to keep incurring losses right now,  the point is the overall Sony video game operation will be able to balance out losses from the PS3 through a variety of measures and will simply drop the price when it makes sense for them to do so. 

These companies aren't calculating immediate economic effects as much as pre-planning for future years.  Which is why they will decide when it makes the most sense for them to drop the price.

 

I agree with you that Sony will drop the price when it works for them. It just is not going to work for them for a long time IMO. So, if they would drop the price now, that would seriously sound my alarms.

 

I don't expect them to drop the price now because I don't see the demand for the PS3 drying up to below acceptable levels until at least around Christmas time.  I think they will pump out quality software over the summer and rely on their bigger titles to increase console sales and give them bumps (Similar to KZ2 / Final Fantasy bumps that we've seen). 

 

 



Smashchu2 said:
Rpruett said:
Smashchu2 said:
Squilliam said:
Smashchu2 said:
Squilliam said:
Dodece said:
The problem for most on these forums no matter where they sit in the debate is a case of clear near sightedness. You simply must view Sony as a whole. Sony was able to aggressively price the PS3 due to the company as a whole making this possible. The gaming division was not self sufficient. You cannot view any division at Sony on a local level. Stringer talked about doing this, but there is no indication that it became a reality.

This is the reality at Sony. They are losing money. They owe a lot of money. They are in a economic recession. Which means it is taking longer to make money, and finally they are up against a poor currency exchange rate. The bottom line is this Sony is in no position to abandon profit, or look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth.

When a division any division begins to bring in a profit Sony is going to be using that profit to offset losses in other divisions. Pay down that debt load, and bring dividends to their investors. The gaming division alone has brought down has a billion dollars of debt on the shoulder of Sony in loans alone. Which is what a lot of members forget. Sony couldn't afford the manufacturing and launch of the console alone. They went borrowing against the console.

Frankly any consideration of price cutting on this console was idiotic once the economy hit the skids. The question is not what can Sony do to win. I am sorry the contest is over Sony has lost this battle. What matters now is not losing the war, and the number one way to do that is to survive to fight another day. The true fan must understand this, and actually be happy.

In a bizarre way if you find Sony cutting the price on their console that is when you should get upset. That has a greater then fifty percent chance of meaning they are abandoning the console. That would mean they have given up on the console being a profitable venture period, and have decided to do what it takes to liquidate stock.


I don't really understand why you wrote that. It makes sense that at this point they won't abandon the console and if they do make any moves on the price of the console, it will be because such a move is justified and is productive towards their corportate goals which include improving profitability.

 

But your wrong in the fact that a price cut will not help profitability, at least not dirrectly. What he is trying to say is that if Sony is not cutting price, they are trying to turn a profit. If they do cut price, then their goal is not to make a profit (as they will be selling the console at a loss). In the latter case, they are just trying to meet the depts.

 

You're really just speculating here. They will make a cut if it makes sense otherwise they won't, and yes they can have a profit motive for cutting the price because the more consoles they sell the more 1st/3rd party games can be sold as well.

 

Yes they will make a cut when they deside they can't turn a profit in the industry and must try to clear as much dept as they can. Someone mentioned that Sony borrowed against the PS3 which means they probably sold bonds (meaning they will have to pay interest). That means Sony can incure cost over time.

The problem is your assuming the company can make a profit from cutting the cost. They can't. If Sony drops the price by $100, they lose an additional $100 on every sale. They are still incuring interest on those bonds (or a loan). The division will be under more pressure to turn a profit. They can't meet the difference in game sales as the system doesn't sell many games. The reason for not cutting the price is becuase they are trying to get the console trun a profit on each sold and then clear out their debt.

Now, if they cut, then they are not trying to make profit. In this case, they have given up on profitability and have desided to simply meet the dept the best they can. If Sony cuts price, they are in survival mode.

 

Sure they can. You are trying to simplify this WAY too much in your head.  Have you forgotten everything else that is for sale for a console? Controllers? Memory Card Adapters? Controller Covers? Bluetooth Microphones?  On top of the first party software that they have created (Many of which are some of the best games on the system).

The average attach rate for the PS3 is somewhere around 9 games.  Trust me.  9 games sold (With about 3 to 4 being first party) would easily without a shadow of a doubt cover Sony losing 100 dollars.

 

Sony will not get into a cutting price war for one primary reason.  They have a product that costs tons of money in actual cost.  They are competing against two products that have cost a substanial amount less from day one with cheaper overall hardware.   It makes zero business sense for them to get into a price cutting war and lose the ONLY advantage that the system has.   

In the eyes of the consumer,  the PS3 is a valuable item.  By keeping the price high, you keep the demand high.  Sony is nursing a price cut because it makes sense for them on a business standpoint as well as a marketing one.

 

   If they cut the price on the PS3 they aren't in survival mode.  That's utter rubbish.

 

Let's use a little sence. First, the current amount of money from accessories and games is not meeting the cost of selling the system. Price cuts have also never made a long term impact. The longest this generation was Sony's first one, but this on eventually fizzeled out, and the cut was from $600. Another one will have less of an impact. The whole goal to cutting the price is to bring in people who wanted the console, but could not afford or want to spend the current (or old) price tag. So, with more and more cuts, the effect is less. I doubt another one will have a large impact.

 

Huh?  Generally speaking the best selling price point for almost every console has been hitting the $200 sweet spot.  That would spit in the face of your assumption of the price cut not having a long term impact. I understand the concept of a price cut.   The point is $600 was too expensive for people who had money to spend.  400$ is too expensive for most people as well. 

This is why $200 is always a hot selling point because people can afford it.  Sony has several levels of price cutting it can go through to make it's system more appealing to the consumer.

 

Quality is determined by the consumer. The reason being is becuase if consumers are willing to spend money on it, then there must be some reason behind it. The Wii is a more valuable item to consumers. Between the PS3 and Wii, ask yourself which system was sold out for ~2 years, and which system was sold for a lot on Ebay for a long time.

Sure it is.  Price isn't though.  Consumers would have loved to spend $600 on a PS3 if they had the cash.  Unfortunately that's a car payment, mortgage payment, etc for most people.  It's viewed as a luxury more then a necessity.  The PS3 is viewed as more valuable, I would guarantee it.    The Wii is viewed as more desireable though (Much of this is due to price).

 

  1. High Prices mean lower demand. Demand increases when price decreases. The demand curve is downward sloping. The relation is negative, not positive.

Demand on a literal purchasing sense? Ofcourse higher prices mean lower demand.  Higher prices don't mean lower demand on what I'd like to call 'Window shopping'.   For example,  I wanted a nice 57" Samsung HDTV for the longest amount of time.  It was just too expensive for me to afford. 

My demand was there, I just physically couldn't afford it.   If they started selling 57" Samsung's for the same price as a 32" Sony?  They would fly off the shelves.  Why?  

Consumers view the PS3 as that awesome item that's just too expensive for them that they would love to have.   This is the advantage that the PS3 has over the Wii/360.   It's an advantage that loses it's potency though the longer it prolongs.

Thanks for the economics lesson though. 

 

 

 



Around the Network

great read, this here is the most interesting part

"It is most noticeable, he says, with the PlayStation 3 console — a device which he had hoped would spearhead Sony's efforts to blend the hardware and content businesses in a networked environment.

“The big problem is that we have been handicapped by the hardware costs and they have made the PS3 look rather sad against the Wii. The PS3 is an extraordinary machine and we have not been able to realise those qualities.

“We have been in this phase where the more we sell, the more money we lose but we are beginning to pass that. The energy of this machine and its relationship with the content business will get better.”"



dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80

Hey Listen!

https://archive.org/details/kohina_radio_music_collection

Rpruett said:
Plaupius said:

The beauty of it is that we don't have to know the real figures from Sony to do this kind of calculations. You said yourself that Sony will drop the price when it works for them, and using these calculations I've shown that it is very unlikely that a price cut would work for them in the current economical situation.

Since we know for sure that Sony is not profiting greatly from the PS3, the actual margin they have on it is irrelevant.

Ofcourse the margin's matter.  If Sony is only losing 3 $ on the PS3 right now...they will easily make up the difference in accessories and future purchases.

But that is precicely my point: the margin does not matter in this situation for this kind of calculations. The price drop will translate directly into less profits. And your claim that those lost profits can be regained through accessories and game sales is what my scenarios were all about. If we change the amount of PS3s sold before and after the price cut, and how big of an effect the price cut will have on the sales, we arrive at different figures, but we'd have to change the numbers quite a bit to end up with a result that would really favor a price cut anytime soon.

Any price drop will directly translate into less profits. Only if they were actually profiting from the HW by a great deal, then a price cut could actually increase the total profits from the HW if the increase in demand were enough the offset the loss of revenue from the lower price. As it is now, that is not the case.

Sure it will translate into less profits,  what's your point?   Less profit now, gives more profit eventually. As long as Sony can meet their bottom line for this fiscal year,  they are fine operating under the assumption of greater profits into the future.

I am questioning this very assumption. In fact, looking at the past two generations, it would seem that this assumption is wrong. Sony has sold a massive amount of consoles, but profited quite pathetically IMO. Sure, they have been dominant in the console and game sales, but that has been at the expense of profits.

The reason existing owners are not included in my calculations is that Sony has your money regardless of the price cut. When you are estimating if the price cut would be a good move for Sony, you have to calculate the immediate economical effects it would have. And in case you haven't noticed, Sony is not in a situation where they can keep on incurring losses because "they have a constant flux of cash coming in". That constant flux has seriously dried up. Sony really, REALLY needs profits NOW, not three years from now.

They will be getting/are getting those profits now,  just not to some Nintendo Wii level.  Having a price cut will happen when they can still make profit on the year or break even and/when sales dip below acceptable levels, period.  No company is in a position to keep incurring losses right now,  the point is the overall Sony video game operation will be able to balance out losses from the PS3 through a variety of measures and will simply drop the price when it makes sense for them to do so. 

These companies aren't calculating immediate economic effects as much as pre-planning for future years.  Which is why they will decide when it makes the most sense for them to drop the price.

True, companies do long term planning a lot. But you are mistaken to believe that they are not calculating the immediate economical effects and placing much weight on them, especially now. The reality of the situation Sony is in now is very different than in the past generations, and the whole global economy is very different. I dare claim that all companies are now placing most weight on the immadiate economical effects, as that is what will keep them alive to actually carry out the long term plans.

I agree with you that Sony will drop the price when it works for them. It just is not going to work for them for a long time IMO. So, if they would drop the price now, that would seriously sound my alarms.

 

I don't expect them to drop the price now because I don't see the demand for the PS3 drying up to below acceptable levels until at least around Christmas time.  I think they will pump out quality software over the summer and rely on their bigger titles to increase console sales and give them bumps (Similar to KZ2 / Final Fantasy bumps that we've seen). 

Here we agree: Sony will try other means to further the PS3 sales than price cuts. With how the generations has panned out, they are not in grave danger of losing 3rd party support as most titles are multiplatform anyhow. In fact, I'd say they don't have any pressing reason to lower the price now.

My responses in green.

 



So on 14 th of may we will see how much money Sony lost during 2008?

Beacuse last Q report they showed us a surprisingly low loss then what we expected.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

Let's use a little sence. First, the current amount of money from accessories and games is not meeting the cost of selling the system. Price cuts have also never made a long term impact. The longest this generation was Sony's first one, but this on eventually fizzeled out, and the cut was from $600. Another one will have less of an impact. The whole goal to cutting the price is to bring in people who wanted the console, but could not afford or want to spend the current (or old) price tag. So, with more and more cuts, the effect is less. I doubt another one will have a large impact.

Huh?  Generally speaking the best selling price point for almost every console has been hitting the $200 sweet spot.  That would spit in the face of your assumption of the price cut not having a long term impact. I understand the concept of a price cut.   The point is $600 was too expensive for people who had money to spend.  400$ is too expensive for most people as well. 

This is why $200 is always a hot selling point because people can afford it.  Sony has several levels of price cutting it can go through to make it's system more appealing to the consumer.

This may be true, but let's look at a comparison.

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?weekly=1

As you can see, there has not be a change in the overall slope. The 360 should have a change that is more drastic as it is now at the $200 price tag. How come it's not moving as fast as the Wii, and why is it staying the same compaired to when it was a higher price. Now, 2 years back

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&start=39089&end=39929&weekly=1

 Now notice the other two guys to the Wii. The Wii is growing faster despite it never had a price cut.

Here's the things: you put too much on price. Price is not as importaint as you make it out to be. The costumer's wants is what really push this. The PS3 and 360 are not what the consumers want. They want Wiis. This graph shows that. That is why the Wii remains at it's launch price while the other guys have to cut price to stay afloat.

Sure it is.  Price isn't though.  Consumers would have loved to spend $600 on a PS3 if they had the cash.  Unfortunately that's a car payment, mortgage payment, etc for most people.  It's viewed as a luxury more then a necessity.  The PS3 is viewed as more valuable, I would guarantee it.    The Wii is viewed as more desireable though (Much of this is due to price).

Everyone wants a mansion. Does that mean demand is high for mansions even though no one can afford one? No. Now, demand does increase as income increases, but not all goods are effected. Cars are something more people want, but not everyone would buy more cars if they are wealthy (although they may buy better cars). They may buy pool tables, but they might not.

Now what about the PS3. It is clear to me that people will not buy a PS3 if they had the income (unlike a mansion). It not a good people want. However, people bought Wiis for higher prices then PS3s for a longer time. The Wii was out of stock. The Wii is a product people want. "Oh, but that's becuase of it's low price." Not true, people payed a lot for Wiis on Ebay, even up until the next Christmas. The Wii is more along the line of people's values, unlike the PS3. Notice how it's Nintendo making 90% of the growth of the industry. That is not just low price becuase the 360 is cheaper and other consoles have been. I will tell you that a PS3 at $200 would be outsold by a Wii at $300.

 

Demand on a literal purchasing sense? Ofcourse higher prices mean lower demand.  Higher prices don't mean lower demand on what I'd like to call 'Window shopping'.   For example,  I wanted a nice 57" Samsung HDTV for the longest amount of time.  It was just too expensive for me to afford. 

My demand was there, I just physically couldn't afford it.   If they started selling 57" Samsung's for the same price as a 32" Sony?  They would fly off the shelves.  Why?  

Consumers view the PS3 as that awesome item that's just too expensive for them that they would love to have.   This is the advantage that the PS3 has over the Wii/360.   It's an advantage that loses it's potency though the longer it prolongs.

You missed the idea behind the demand curve. If the price of TVs went down, then the demand would go up. But there is little demand for the HD consoles. This is why the systems get only small burst from the price drops. The 360 is stilling doing worse then the Wii despite it is $50 higher. Here is a picture explaining it.

BTW, this is very simplistic. Some people will probaly notice flaws in the graph. It's just to make a point.



Sorry, but I put a lot of work into the graph, and no one care.........

I'm going to cry in the corner now...