The PS4 thread

[RCBH928]

@isiolia

How come past gen. consoles dropped heavily in price? A ps2 ended up being like $100 even though it still packs in everything the fat ps2 packs in. Also, Bluray used to cost something like $200 or maybe $300 at launch in late 2006. Its been almost a decade already, same time period DVD player dropped from around same price to about $60-80 ('96->'06 , I got a DVD player for around $60 in '08 for sure)

Doesn't Sony sell PS4 systems at a loss and make their money selling the software? I don't see much point of Sony lowering their prices on PS3 to have the lose more money especially when they are trying to get people to move to the PS4

Nope, the only company selling hardware at a loss so far this generation was Nintendo (though it isn't anymore).

U thought all console manufacturers sold at loss except for Nintendo who always sell at profit. Isn't that the reason the were making a ton of money out of Wii?

out of topic, but what is the cut of the manufacturer of each game sold?
That is one smart business model. Until some years ago, I thought console manufacturers made money off the hardware and the games they publish on it.

[isiolia]

@isiolia

How come past gen. consoles dropped heavily in price? A ps2 ended up being like $100 even though it still packs in everything the fat ps2 packs in. Also, Bluray used to cost something like $200 or maybe $300 at launch in late 2006. Its been almost a decade already, same time period DVD player dropped from around same price to about $60-80 ('96->'06 , I got a DVD player for around $60 in '08 for sure)

I think the lowest the PS2 hit via MSRP was $129, down from a launch price of $299. The PS3 at launch had a $599 high end model, and $499 low end one. So, the current pricing is a relatively similar drop.
The actual costs for the machine have dropped a lot. At launch they cost something like $800 to build, and sold at a loss. Now, they can profit from it, at less than half the original MSRP (though they also removed stuff like building a PS2 into it ).

More generally though, like I'd mentioned, the more modern consoles simply include more stuff in them. IE, a current PS3 has 12GB of flash memory, or a 500GB HDD. A PS2 had...a slot for an 8MB memory card that cost $15 or so towards the later end of its retail life.
Between that, and inflation, holding up a particular dollar value standard for them to hit may be unrealistic.

U thought all console manufacturers sold at loss except for Nintendo who always sell at profit. Isn't that the reason the were making a ton of money out of Wii?

out of topic, but what is the cut of the manufacturer of each game sold?
That is one smart business model. Until some years ago, I thought console manufacturers made money off the hardware and the games they publish on it.

7th gen, definitely. The PS3 in particular lost buckets of cash per unit.
Nintendo traditionally didn't go for the model, but AFAIK the 3DS price drop caused it to be a loss for a little while. The Wii U was acknowledged to be a minor loss per unit, up until this past May when they said it's now profitable.

The platform holder's cut can vary. The LA times had an example distribution a few years back, but it can vary from platform to platform, or even for each publisher. The Console Wars book that came out recently talks about how Sega cut EA a deal on that for Genesis games, as an example.

[Cronozilla]

The PS2 did hit an MSRP of $99.99 a few years ago. http://us.playstation.com/ps2/systems/ps2black.html

Trying to reason that a console should cost this or that based on hardware prices alone is naive.

Everything isiolia is mentioning is spot on. There's a lot of reasons the PS3 costs what it does. But, even outside of the fact that Sony lost mountains of money on the PS3 ... there's other, more general issues.

Consoles may be computers in a factual sense, but they are not "Personal Computers". It's not as valuable as the silicon sitting inside of it. A console is a brand. As long as some brand demands some value ... it's going to be used to get that value out of consumers in the form of currency.

They're going to charge whatever they feel they can get away with. If the PS4 was $600, and selling, the PS3 would likely be around a $400 price point, even if each individual unit came out to $100 out of Sony's pocket, or something ridiculous like that.

You charge what you can get, not what you paid. They're not a supplier. They're an entertainment company.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I didn't buy a PS2 until they were $99. First PS2 game I bought was Final Fantasy XII. Yeah I'm always a little behind the times...

[ZeroAX]

I didn't buy a PS2 until they were $99. First PS2 game I bought was Final Fantasy XII. Yeah I'm always a little behind the times...

Great choice....it's also the only PS2 game I've beaten

[RCBH928]

I realise that you should sell something for what you can get out of it, but this is what I was thinking:

PS2 was launched in 2001 for $300 (at loss I am guessing) , price probably dropped to $100 around guess-estimating 2011 (10 years) to $100 . So it ended up selling at 33% of its original price.

PS3 launched in 2006, sold at $600 (top spec model) and after 8 years it is still selling at 45% of its original price. We have to put in mind that a whole PS2 was removed from it right? Yet still standing up at that price point.In fact, its almost the exact same price of a Wii U (next gen. system) that comes with its own tablet device and motion sensor, and the Wii U is selling at a profit not loss!

As for the 500GB HDD, I guess Sony pays something like $20 for it. Lets not forget they are buying in bulk and at manufacturing price.

All I am saying is that, any one who was waiting for ps3 to drop in price to save $$$ waited for nothing. If he is not looking at any exclusive games to play on the console, its very worthwhile to pay the $130 price difference and be set for the next generation of 5 years (or $26 per year extra for next. gen console)

[Jmustang1968]

You can get PS3s cheaper than 270

[Cronozilla]

PS2 was launched in 20012000 for $300 [if the] price ... dropped to $100 around ... 10 years [later and] ... it ended up selling at 33% of its original price.

PS3 launched in 2006, sold at $500 and $600 ... after 8 years it is still selling at 45% of its original price.

No. That's wrong.

The PS3's lowest MSRP price, right now, is $200. The Super Slim PS3 12GB system is $199.99. Stores may or may not have ordered more of them, and may or may not have insisted on stocking bundled units instead. That's beside the point. For a stock, vanilla, system, it's $200. And for several years it's been $250 with a HDD.

If you want to use percentages, the cheapest PS3 is 33% of the price of 60GB launch model, and 40% of the price of the 20GB launch model. (FYI, with inflation, the current model is only 28% and 34% of the launch model prices)

And just to prove a point, let's look at the other systems of last generation too ... I'll add some inflation numbers as well, which if you do not include, produces entirely meaningless numbers, since they aren't the same dollar:

Wii:
Launch Price: $250
Current Price: $100, this is 40% of the launch model price. (INF: 34%)

Xbox 360
Launch Price: $300 and $400
Current Price: $200, this is 67% and 50%, respectively. (INF: 55% and 41%)

Looks to me like the 360 is the one that isn't dropping it's price. It was $99.99 for a couple years ... but that disappeared with the redesign. (Nevermind, it dropped to $199.99.)

Just for shits and giggles, launch to demise price percentages of other systems:
NES: 37%
SNES: 40%
N64: 43%
GCN: 44%
GEN: 40%
PS1: 14% (An outlier)

Not including Dreamcast and Saturn, since they didn't survive entire generations. Ignoring PS1 (which is an obvious outlier), the average prior to the generation the PS3 was a part of is 41%, including the PS1, it's 37% on average.

So, what were you complaining about again? That the PS3 isn't dropping in price fast enough, even though it's actually cheaper than all other console prices at beginning and end of generation; even though the Xbox 360, the PS3's direct competitor, is the exact same price, which gives it a much higher percentage than the PS3?

All I am saying is that, any one who was waiting for ps3 to drop in price to save $$$ waited for nothing. If he is not looking at any exclusive games to play on the console, its very worthwhile to pay the $130 price difference and be set for the next generation of 5 years (or $26 per year extra for next. gen console)

This makes absolutely no sense. Why would you buy a PS3 at all if you don't care what's on it? That makes no sense. If someone was willing to pay $400 for a PS3, you've been able to do that since 2007! If the person only cared about playing multi-plat games during that generation and they were adamantly opposed to a PC, they would have bought a 360 when it was available for $100 back in 2009. $200 back in 2007.

So, I have to ask ... what!?

[dsheinem]

the hammer comes down!!!!!!

nice work, Crono

[ZeroAX]

Now I'm curious how much the PS1 dropped in price compared to its initial 400$ (or was it 300$?) price point..