Sony Says PS3 Price Cut Not Forthcoming

[Junaid Alam]

Sony Says PS3 Price Cut Not Forthcoming

With an Xbox 360 price cut now all but certain, Sony explicitly denied that it was planning a price cut for the PlayStation 3.

"Our strategy is not to sell more quantity for PS3 but to concentrate on profitability," Sony CFO Nobuyuki Oneda told investors at the Nomura Asia Equity forum in Singapore. "Our plan is not to reduce the price," he said plainly.

Analysts who have predicted a 360 price cut have also said that Sony is focused on profitability. The PS3 has seen momentum against the Xbox 360 with new videogame titles, the success of the Blu-Ray format, an online interface overhaul, and strong European sales.

At the same time, few companies willingly admit to impending price cuts, as such an admission would torpedo current sales. The Xbox 360's new pricepoint will place it as a significant $100 cheaper than the PS3.

Source: Ars Technica [http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/07/11/profitability-over-quantity-sony-denies-ps3-price-cut-rumors]

Permalink

 

[Jumplion]

I'd have to say that this is pretty stupid for sony. I mean, even a $50 price cut would have been sufficient (if not as sufficient as a $100). And wouldn't lowering the price increase profitability? (depends really)

I love my PS3, but keeping it at $400 is going to be a set back for them AGAIN.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

I'd have to say that this is pretty stupid for sony. I mean, even a $50 price cut would have been sufficient (if not as sufficient as a $100). And wouldn't lowering the price increase profitability? (depends really)

I love my PS3, but keeping it at $400 is going to be a set back for them AGAIN.

I agree that it's gonna set them back against the 360 but I doubt they really need a price cut, it costs more to make a PS3 than a 360 or Wii and there's been a lot of SKU and Controller changes so heck even a 50 dollar price cut could be a bad choice since in all likelihood they could lose more than they earn (and if the 360 goes any lower, especially with how successful it's been, then chances are they will lose $ too) - and you own a PS3 so I'm sure you know why it costs 400 dollars, but even for those who don't want the "full package" they can either get a 20 gig model...or something else.

 

[Jumplion]

I'd have to say that this is pretty stupid for sony. I mean, even a $50 price cut would have been sufficient (if not as sufficient as a $100). And wouldn't lowering the price increase profitability? (depends really)

I love my PS3, but keeping it at $400 is going to be a set back for them AGAIN.

I agree that it's gonna set them back against the 360 but I doubt they really need a price cut, it costs more to make a PS3 than a 360 or Wii and there's been a lot of SKU and Controller changes so heck even a 50 dollar price cut could be a bad choice since in all likelihood they could lose more than they earn (and if the 360 goes any lower, especially with how successful it's been, then chances are they will lose $ too) - and you own a PS3 so I'm sure you know why it costs 400 dollars, but even for those who don't want the "full package" they can either get a 20 gig model...or something else.

I know that, but the problem is is that if Sony doesn't cut down the price of atleast ONE of their models then everyone is still going to assume that the PS3 is expensive as hell when the cheapest one was basically the same price as one of the models of the 360. Of course, if you still have a PS2 then BC shouldn't be a problem with you.

It's not about making more money..well, actualy it is but the problem with the price staying the same is that alot of people don't realize that what they are getting is cheap.

 

[SinisterDeath]

I'm not at all suprised about this, They already had 2 price cuts within the consoles 1st year! You know, something Sony tries to limit once within its first year, then again 4 years later?

But prior to the price cuts, sony & 360 were (if any sources are to be, believed) were losing money on each system sold. I don't believe it wasn't till around 3-6 months ago that sony started turning a profit. (Right around the time the 40GB & 80GB came about, and the 45nm chips got put into production.)

I think sony is probably going to let the market 'saturate' at this price range some more, see how long they can wait before putting out another price cut, right along the same time they are able to make ps3's even cheaper.

With the whole blu-ray and media aspect of the ps3, they are tyring to get 2 markets, the 'sony' gamer market, & the 'media/HD movie lovers' people. (As well as introduce the 2nd group to video games). Everyone probably already knows that the ps3 is the cheapest & best 'blu-ray' player out there.

So really, I think sony is just trying tap the early adopter/rich guys for the ps3, a little bit more (another 6 months to a year perhaps?) before lowering the price to something more affordable..
But hey, if you can't afford a ps3, you probably can't afford an HD TV, and quite simply, your losing out man!

Though, sony could be trying to tap that "I'm richer then you because I got a ps3, but in reality, I'm poor because I just spent all the money I've been saving over summer on my ps3, and now I only have 1 game, and it sucks." Market.

 

[Echolocating]

But hey, if you can't afford a ps3, you probably can't afford an HD TV, and quite simply, your losing out man!

That's a really good point to make. It was only recently that I bought an HD TV, and even then I bought a demo model for $400 less than retail. After that, I couldn't justify buying a PS3 or even an Xbox360. To get the complete package for playing consoles, it's right up there with high-end computers. Crazy!