PS3 Price Slash

[Nikki]

TOKYO - Sony Corp. said Friday it will slash the price of its much-anticipated PlayStation 3 video game console in Japan by 20 percent, heating up the competition in the next-generation gaming war against rivals Microsoft and Nintendo.

The announcement comes just days after Microsoft Corp. announced that it would roll out an external high definition DVD player for its Xbox 360 in an effort to match the PlayStation 3, due to be released in November with its own Blu-ray DVD technology.  (MSNBC is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)

Sony Computer Entertainment President Ken Kutaragi, speaking at the Tokyo Game Show in Makuhari, just east of Tokyo, said the move was in response to consumer complaints the upcoming console was too pricey.

Sony will cut the domestic price of its basic PlayStation 3 model to 47,600 yen, or about $410, from an originally planned 59,800 yen, or $515.  That puts the PlayStation 3 in the same range as the combined basic Xbox 360 and HD DVD player in Japan, where the duo will sell for 49,600 yen, or $427.

There are no plans to lower prices in the U.S. or other markets, Sony spokeswoman Nanako Kato said.  In Japan, the game will hit stores on Nov. 11.

In the U.S., it will go on sale Nov. 17 at $499 for a 20 gigabyte hard drive version and at $599 for the 60 gigabyte version.

The decision could give Sony a badly needed boost at a time of embarrassing delays for the highly anticipated upgrade.  Rival Nintendo Co. is also scheduled to release its next-generation Wii gaming system by year's end, while Xbox 360 has been selling in Japan since December 2005.

PlayStation 3, initially planned for earlier this year, has been postponed twice.  Sony now expects to ship only 2 million units by year's end instead of an original projection of 4 million.

The price cut affects the basic PlayStation 3 model, which comes with a 20 gigabyte hard drive.  Another upscale version of the PlayStation 3 will have a 60 gigabyte hard drive, but Sony is leaving its pricing to retailers.

Xbox 360 was rushed to market last year to get a headstart on its rivals, but it has seen sluggish sales in Japan, which is one of the world's biggest video game markets but one in which players have a deep loyalty to homegrown Sony.

Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft's decision to launch an HD DVD peripheral in Japan on Nov. 22, based on a rival format to Sony's Blu-ray, is seen as one attempt to eat into that base. The basic Xbox 360 doesn't come with any high-definition DVD capability.

Nintendo said last week its new Wii game console will arrive on schedule in the final quarter of the year, priced below both rivals, the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.

[Saist]

problem is Xze-Xze, that ain't a price slash.

The price change is only in Japan, and only affects the "base" model. The price change does not affect Europe, Australia (waves at RJ), New Zeland, the US, or any other terrorities.

This does not affect the premium model. What's important to remember on this is that Sony is deliberatly making a lower production run on "Base" models versus the "premium" models.

So, right now Sony's entire launch estimate is supposed to be around 400,000-500,000 units total for two continents, US and Japan. Sony has already stated that there is an 80/20% split between continents. So lets accept 500,000 units between launch and January. That's about 100,000 units for Japan, and about 400,000 units for the US.

Now, the commen number givin now is that production between unit types is also split 80/20. 80% Premium, 20% Base. This seems a little out of range, even for Sony's recent behavoir. I would find it more believable to have a 60/40 split. But lets run both numbers.

If 20% of the PS3 stock for Japan is the base model, only 20,000 units total will be sold at the ~$410 price tag. 

If 40% of the PS3 stock for Japan is the base model, only 40,000 units total will be sold at the ~$410 price tag.

That's... not a lot of units. Rather, assuming these numbers are correct, between 4-8% of total PS3 allocation is at this lower price point.

That, is not in any way shape or form, a price slash.

[TheDXM]

Bahahah. I live in the U.S. so it doesn't exactly apply to me but man, this just slams the nail in the coffin for me. This is pretty sad.

That's hardly anything at all to be excited about. I don't really care to look but is 40 gigs ALL they're offering for a 100$ price hike? That's lunacy. I can probably get TWICE that for free, and install it myself. Sony is as evil as Microsoft, and this proves it. Both of these companies and their marketing schemes are clearly full of empty promises, just like they were in the previous generation, but they won't fool me THIS time.

I'll take the Wii, thanks. I'll wait to get anything else when it bombs down to the bargain bin range.

[Netami]

http://www.n-sider.com/newsview.php?type=story&storyid=2440

Wii Price Calculator. After all said and done with 3 more remotes and two games, I am paying like 557 bucks if I want the whole package.

Console wars are expensive!

[Jack McSlay]

if they're having a lot of trouble trying to have 500k PS3 by late november (launch) I question how they're going to have 1500k more by the end of the year

oh yeah, a price drop that affects no more than 50000 units won't strike as a big difference.

sony's bad with the current price because it's really expensive, and is bad with a lower one because the production cost per unit is really high (i've seen reports of U$900), so, unless they have a heckload of money and a very good strategy to recover it AND to convince that buying a PS3 is a better deal than buying both a Wii and a X360 (specially considering a lot of gamers own a X360 already)... they're doomed

[Nikki]

*cough* i meant the price slash part to be sarcastic >>;

[Darkmoon]

You want it bad, read this on GT:HD: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060921-7802.html

[Nikki]

0.0

What...

The...

FUDGE!!??

That's wrong. so very very wrong.

[Jack McSlay]

a game with no cars and no trackes ... so awesome... if the game doesn't go for free or very cheap, I don't think many players will actually find the idea hot.

paying for a game with little or no content, then having to pay a bunch of money to get content while you're not even nnecessarily online? bleh

[Nikki]

Exactly ;;

[Aridas]

Where'd you get that idea? It comes with some. I think I read 30 cars and 2 tracks in the article, but I forget now.

[RJ]

The price change is only in Japan, and only affects the "base" model. The price change does not affect Europe, Australia (waves at RJ), New Zeland, the US, or any other terrorities.

And yet another reason to hate Sony. *checks her books* Apparently, according to my points system, I should have sent a muffin basket of doom to them last July.

[Saist]

Where'd you get that idea? It comes with some. I think I read 30 cars and 2 tracks in the article, but I forget now.

two different versions of the game. Gamesindustry has a story here:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=19852

I'll quote the relevant parts

Speaking to Famitsu Weekly, creator Kazunori Yamauchi said that both elements would offer premium downloadable content - and in the "Classic" version's case, that would be the main way to play.

In other words, GT HD Classic will ship with virtually no content, and Japanese consumers will be expected to pay between 50 and 100 yen for each car they want, and between 200 and 500 yen per track.

GT HD Premium, meanwhile, will ship with two tracks and around 30 cars to begin with, although some 30 cars will also be available to buy.

All I can think is, this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially if you factor in online play. Online play is going to become a situation of the haves, and have nots. If you want to play with say a friend, you'll either be limited to a couple of tracks and cars, or you'll both have to purchase tracks and cars if you haven't already purchased them both.

Sony already tried, or was thinking about, doing this with Everquest, allowing on "some" servers for players to purchase items outright that normally would require hours upon hours of hardwork. Now, I normally do not pay attention to EQ. In fact, you could say that my hatred of the game is somewhere around the level of the hatred I held for say, the Xbox back in 2002. (and no, I'm not reprinting those rants).

I only heard about it due to a large number of people who left EQ to play CoH/CoV or other MMO's.

Thing is, I don't think Sony realized how badly this went for them the first time around, or if they are even still doing it with EQ.

But I will make this point. When you hear of MMO's today, you hear of Guild Wars, because it's free to play. You hear of CoH/CoV. You hear of World of Warcraft. I've seen threads about Shadobane, and then there are those that play Planetside. But... you don't hear about EQ anymore. Now, while I would love to blame the whole "Buy Items Seperatly" as the driving force behind people bailing out of EQ, I think it indicates an overall larger problem with Sony.

Sony just does not seem to be able to connect the dots and figure out what failed in the past, probably will fail again.

On the other paw, Sony does have a good handle on the concept that Past Performance does not indicate Future Performance.

[Vidar]

You want it bad, read this on GT:HD: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060921-7802.html

Now with "squeeze money from a rock"-technology, and "how can we screw over our customers even more"-content. 

Do they really think they can get away with that? When I buy a game, I expect to be able to play all of it, and not have to buy about $600 worth of "extra content". Imagine how pissed off kids are going to be when they pop this game in their console, and there is actually nothing to play with.

[ITOS]

I should have sent a muffin basket of doom to them last July.

Does this mean you're a terrorist?

[RJ]

I should have sent a muffin basket of doom to them last July.

Does this mean you're a terrorist?

Is it wrong to spread the love (of getting a good deal on a console)?

[ITOS]

I should have sent a muffin basket of doom to them last July.

Does this mean you're a terrorist?

Is it wrong to spread the love (of getting a good deal on a console)?

Oh, sorry. I didn't know "doom" was a synonym to "love".

[Aridas]

You want it bad, read this on GT:HD: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060921-7802.html

Now with "squeeze money from a rock"-technology, and "how can we screw over our customers even more"-content.

Do they really think they can get away with that? When I buy a game, I expect to be able to play all of it, and not have to buy about $600 worth of "extra content". Imagine how pissed off kids are going to be when they pop this game in their console, and there is actually nothing to play with.

I don't know, but i'm pretty sure that the game is going to be dirt cheap, while the extra content brings it closer to the "full price". It wouldn't work otherwise.

[Rowne]

Je(First): You forgot to mention me.  Now I'm all sad.  Okay, not really.

Good points all round, though.  It's actually nice to have a forum economist, I enjoy reading what you have to say.  You're pretty much always right on the money.

Netami: Now then, let's add the price of a driving wheel, a couple of pads and a couple of games to the PS3 and see where that lands us.



Xze(First): Poor Xze, if it's any consolation, I actually got that.

Darkmoon: I'm unsurprised, to be honest.  Just look at companies now charging for mods for their games (yes Bethesda, I'm looking at you, dammit) and MMOs.  Pay as one goes with single-player can't be that far away.

... and some people (not nessescarily anyone here) wonder why I love indie and Free.  When one looks at something like GT:HD, one cannot in all honesty say that it's pure and good.  Rather, it's despicable and bad.

Dethpicable, I tell you!

Hm, we need a Duck Dodgers emote.

Jack: As I said before, you simply shouldn't underestimate the stupidity of the consumer.  Now it's very obvious that we have a good intelligence curve here (and you people frequently make me smile) but the thing is, there are a lot of idiots out there who'd stand by the ideals of capitalism and throw away their money just to be loyal to their brand.

Oh, oh oh oh, they'll come through for us, they'll give us all that they've promised.

As an example, look at the aforementioned Bethesda mods.  I was there when they first released the Horse armour for three bucks (long before the quest mods) and there were actually people saying how benign and good Bethesda were to give us two pieces of [censored] Horse armour for 'such a lowlow price!'.  I'm not kidding.

This is why I frequently have much love for the people of this forum and people outside of this forum depress the hell out of me.

If only they were all like you.

RJ(First): If you do.  I want pictures!  <.<

Je(Second): Once again, good points all around.

Though to be honest, I find this is also becoming true of Blizzard.  I'm half expecting them to include a monthly price hike with their Burning Crusade pack.

It's not just Sony that's short-sighted when it comes to online entertainment.

To be honest, I think the future of online entertainment is either working out different pricing systems or selling the server to the players and letting them do the hosting.  Or giving the server to the players as part of the way the game itself works.  Some companies are already doing this.  Neverwinter Nights being of the former and games like Guild Wars (aforementioned) and Hellgate: London before of the latter.

That's just my opinion, though.

But the problem is, I don't doubt that whilst this will pull in a niche of intelligent people, I'm still worried that people will throw their money away because by and large, consumers are idiots.  The fact that World of Warcraft has over five million people throwing away $15 a month proves this.

I'm glad that I realized that one would have to be 'insane in the membrane' (to quote a favourite author of mine) to do that.

That's why I began to gravitate towards the kinds of games I talked about and free MMOs.

I have been tempted to go back to games like World of Warcraft primarily because there are so many people there and I do love multiplayer gaming but rather than ever acting upon this impulse, I knock myself upside the head and remind myself that games like NWN, Hellgate and new Guild Wars packs are just around the corner and that the multiplayer good times will roll without the aid of Blizzard's hegemony.

(Censored myself, this place is likely PG.  So ... yeah.)

[Aridas]

No actually, it's R. And don't forget you can use the quote buttons multiple times to make things less confusing >.>

[Rowne]

True ... but quoting always makes me feel anal.  I don't know why but it does.  <.<

[Vidar]

You want it bad, read this on GT:HD: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060921-7802.html

Now with "squeeze money from a rock"-technology, and "how can we screw over our customers even more"-content.

Do they really think they can get away with that? When I buy a game, I expect to be able to play all of it, and not have to buy about $600 worth of "extra content". Imagine how pissed off kids are going to be when they pop this game in their console, and there is actually nothing to play with.

I don't know, but i'm pretty sure that the game is going to be dirt cheap, while the extra content brings it closer to the "full price". It wouldn't work otherwise.

Except no-one is going to get all the tracks, and all the cars. That would cost them over $600. That's $600 for 1 game. The mind boggles and reels.

[Cvstos]

You want it bad, read this on GT:HD: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060921-7802.html

Now with "squeeze money from a rock"-technology, and "how can we screw over our customers even more"-content.

Do they really think they can get away with that? When I buy a game, I expect to be able to play all of it, and not have to buy about $600 worth of "extra content". Imagine how pissed off kids are going to be when they pop this game in their console, and there is actually nothing to play with.

I don't know, but i'm pretty sure that the game is going to be dirt cheap, while the extra content brings it closer to the "full price". It wouldn't work otherwise.

Except no-one is going to get all the tracks, and all the cars. That would cost them over $600. That's $600 for 1 game. The mind boggles and reels.

It makes EA seem like a warm and happy company to do business with.  They don't charge $600 for one game.  They just charge $40-$60 for the same game, once a year.  But at least you get the whole damn game for that much, and you can choose not to buy next years' if you want.

[Darkmoon]

Aridas: Seriously, if you bought a game, you'd expect to be able to get all the content for it by playing the game and unlocking. The process of unlocking content by playing is tried and true.

The other process of adding new content is through expansion packs. BUT, an expansion pack implies themed and conected content, and a 1 Time Fee, and only an output of 30 to 50 bucks for the game (depending on just how much content they give you). Even the worst offenders in the expansion pack department, namely the Sims, doesn't cost as much as GT: HD, and the amount of content you got for the Sims FAR FAR FAR outweighs the amount of content you recieve for GT: HD.

There is absolutely no way you can claim that this is fair and right in the world of gaming. This is imply Sony being fucking greedy. Plain and simple.

BTW, if Rowne said any of this is his 5 mile long response to the entire thread, I'm sorry, but that was too much effort to read.

[Aridas]

Replace "greedy" with "stupid" and you've got a winner.

[Darkmoon]

Both.

I did the math on it. Most Sims packs sold for between 30m and 40 bucks when they came out. Figuring the price of the Sims originally was 50 bucks, 50 + (40 * 7) = 330.  That's HALF the cost of the GT: HD game. And, most would argue that each expansion pack (especially later in the "series") made the Sims feel like a fresh, new game. Can a few extra cars and some tracks do that? No. It's just addon crap that should have been unlocked naturally in the game.

[Jack McSlay]

personally I don't like the the Sims expansions. paying a whole expansion for a couple new features and a some itens? bleh...

I like blizzard's expansions better. They don't make the game look like a new one but you get more units/weapons etc. and extra missions that nearly double the length of the game.

having to buy cars in this case would be fine if they didn't take out all of them and left a good amount to play with, seriously, who cares about having over 500 cars on a game? but tracks? damn I could buy any MSR/PGR game and have 100+ tracks just waiting for me to unlock

[Darkmoon]

And that's a thing too. You couple that with the fact that the game is ALREADY out on PS2 as GT:4 and you have to wonder just what the creators are smoking. They want you to pay 600 bucks for the right to play a game you've already bought, simply because it's in HD instead of Standard resolution.

[Saist]

And that's a thing too. You couple that with the fact that the game is ALREADY out on PS2 as GT:4 and you have to wonder just what the creators are smoking. They want you to pay 600 bucks for the right to play a game you've already bought, simply because it's in HD instead of Standard resolution.

and even then, in HD, that really doesn't mean jack, and Sony unfortunantly proved it during the final E3.

Thing was, up on their raised section in their space, Sony had a Hi-Def trailer of GT4 running in 1080p.  Once you were up on the Platform, yes, you could tell a difference between the trailer and the "real" game. But, as you got about... 10 feet away, the resolution advantage faded. Once you got 20 feet away, it was gone completely. Several con attendees were talking about how pointless the high-def trailer was since you had to be right up next to the screen to see the difference.

Now, most people, when they play their games on large screen consoles, sit about 10-15 feet away from the screen. Once you start figuring in the natural motion blur of the human eye, people who don't have 20/20 vision, and the distance you sit away from the TV, the benifit that you would get from a higher resolution is pretty much lost.

As Microsoft did with the 360, they focused on a lower resolution (720 progressive) but have a mandatory Anti-Alaising for their games, which helps picture quality quite a lot. This isn't to say that the 360 can't do 1080p (it can), but in testing it was found the higher resolution netted no tangible benifit versus a lower resolution with Anti-Alaising and Anistropic filtering.

Cue the guys from the PC side who will state that yes, resolution does make a difference. Keep in mind that the average computer user sits 1-3 feet away from their monitor, while a console player's distance is generally 5 times or more  away.

Now, to tie into the Wii for a second. Okay, so what if Nintendo isn't shooting for anything above 480p resolution. What if the ATi chip can apply 4x Anti-Alaising and 8 Anistropic without a performance hit? What if the ATi chip can apply 8x Anti-Alaising without a performance hit? Will you really be able to tell the difference from 10 feet away?

Basically, my problem right now is that many developers are chasing high resolution as the holy grail of their games. High Resolution, however, does not mean high game playability. High Resolution does not mean a game is fun. High Resolution does not mean the game is better.

I'd rather have a developer that is looking on how to make a game better. What can be added to make it more fun. What can be done to change the way a person approaches the game? I'd rather have developers that just would churn out more content for what already exists. For example, Ratchet and Clank, or Jak and Daxter. I'd love to have more levels. More maps to explore, and more story. They don't have to add in any new powers or new weapons. Just take what they have and build more game.

Yet, many developers seemed hooked on resolution, or seem hooked on anything but making a better game, or more game.

And like GT4-HD, if that's all the developers focus on, then the negative backlash like this thread is all they will get.

[Darkmoon]

Indeed.

I do think there's a tangible difference between the Wii and the 360, but that's more in how many polys they can get on screen. Certainly the wii is under-powered, so it's going to come down to whether the games aer fun enough to outmatch the fact that they can't quite get the graphics up to par with the XBox.

At a certain point there is still a difference in graphics, the the Wii is right at that cusp. That's not to say I'm against it, just making a point.

However, higher polys and more dteailed pixels should not be added INSTEAD of new or even expected features. a Stripped down, barebones game shouldn't even be sold in the bargain bin for 10 bucks. if you can't play at least a couple of tracks right out of the box. And I, for one, doubt Sony will sell the game for anything less than 30 bucks. I mean, it is one of their "high profile" launch titles.

Bleh.