Did Sony make a huge mistake by throwing a $600 tag on the PS3?

For the initial sales yes, $600 ain't good.

But if it will pay off in the long run is still an unanswered question. 

I think blu-ray was smart, $600 console was not. Also the ps3 could of had blu-ray and not been $600.jrhawk42

Would it be unfair for one to conclude that the reason the PS3 is being trounced by the Wii is because it carries a $600 price tag? Did Sony also make a mistake by using blu-ray?IronMaidenLives

I think it was indeed a mistake to have put blu-ray in the PS3.  Had they launched it at $300 or $400 it would be doing MUCH better.  They should have waited and put blu-ray into the PS4 where it would definately be needed.  There would also be more HDTV owners by then. 

Well, if it was $300-400 it would be eating its competition alive, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. However, Blu-Ray sales would have suffered tremendously. And, if another of their formats failed, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

PS3 is doing fairly well all things considered. It's still such a viable high-def movie alternative that it should maintain fairly healthy sales and compete directly with the other two.

Put it this way: It's 100% worth it's price. There is no doubt. The other two consoles aren't. They're just cheaper. This is just catering to a different part of the consumer population. 

To be fair, they didnt just throw that price onto it...Even at that high retail mark, Sony is losing hundreds on each PS3 sold since it costs so much to make. Be glad the price isn't higher...

To be fair, they didnt just throw that price onto it...Even at that high retail mark, Sony is losing hundreds on each PS3 sold since it costs so much to make. Be glad the price isn't higher...

ZeldaNut113

Well, if it was $300-400 it would be eating its competition alive, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. However, Blu-Ray sales would have suffered tremendously. And, if another of their formats failed, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

PS3 is doing fairly well all things considered. It's still such a viable high-def movie alternative that it should maintain fairly healthy sales and compete directly with the other two.

Put it this way: It's 100% worth it's price. There is no doubt. The other two consoles aren't. They're just cheaper. This is just catering to a different part of the consumer population.

Redfingers

lol i love reading your posts. you are such a slave to sony it's hilarious.  sony could never do wrong in your eyes.  ah the biasm is very fun to read. 

What, should Sony take a huge loss for every PS3 they sell?

I think it would have been cool if Sony had waited until they had a really good library of games to launch with the PS3 and sell the console for $399 at launch.  And then, the software sales can make up for the hardware loss.  But, of course Sony is going to get theirs anyways. 

Well blu-ray was the right choice
http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-34490.aspxGsSanAndreas

why do you insist on using sales figures from 5 weeks ago and not the current weekly figures. the margin is back down to 2:1. link

@TC

everything sony did with the ps3 was wrong. instead of selling a video game console or a blu-ray player with gaming capabilities, they decided to sell the worlds most expensive rubiks cube (to program for).

What, should Sony take a huge loss for every PS3 they sell?

 

I think it would have been cool if Sony had waited until they had a really good library of games to launch with the PS3 and sell the console for $399 at launch. And then, the software sales can make up for the hardware loss. But, of course Sony is going to get theirs anyways.

MantiCore2K8

Kinda hard to do that when the competition released their system before you. 

[QUOTE="MantiCore2K8"]

What, should Sony take a huge loss for every PS3 they sell?

 

I think it would have been cool if Sony had waited until they had a really good library of games to launch with the PS3 and sell the console for $399 at launch. And then, the software sales can make up for the hardware loss. But, of course Sony is going to get theirs anyways.

l_The_DetoX_l

Kinda hard to do that when the competition released their system before you. 

and by that time 360 wouldve sold 20 m., wii 15 m., and ds 200000000m,. :D

[QUOTE="l_The_DetoX_l"][QUOTE="MantiCore2K8"]

What, should Sony take a huge loss for every PS3 they sell?

 

I think it would have been cool if Sony had waited until they had a really good library of games to launch with the PS3 and sell the console for $399 at launch. And then, the software sales can make up for the hardware loss. But, of course Sony is going to get theirs anyways.

fudg__er

Kinda hard to do that when the competition released their system before you.

and by that time 360 wouldve sold 20 m., wii 15 m., and ds 200000000m,. :D

No you got the Wii and 360 numbers mixed up, and you forgot another digit for the DS. 

Would it be unfair for one to conclude that the reason the PS3 is being trounced by the Wii is because it carries a $600 price tag? Did Sony also make a mistake by using blu-ray?IronMaidenLives

I dont think thats unfair; when gamers are looking to get a new system price is a huge factor and if they are paying more for a format trojan horse than a gaming system then they are going to look for a product that delivers what they really want and that product is the wii.

People who want a new gaming system want exactly that; a gaming system. PS3 doesnt really fit that bill. It is last gen in almost every way. The controller is ancient, the graphics are nice but do nothing to offer new gameplay experiences (they just offer the same old last gen gameplay but with better textures and lots of extra graphical features), the lineup of games is mostly comprised of sequels which look to offer nothing new and HD graphical capabilities only benefit a minority of individuals and even then they dont make the last gen games that they are playing any more enjoyable because the gameplay remains the same.....but in higher resolutions.

the inclusion of blu ray was a HUGE mistake; gamers dont want to pay for something that has NOTHING to do with gaming. The blu ray player is just another means of getting individuals to spend money on more and more products that have nothing to do with gaming and this tells the gamer that sony isnt in it to make a good gaming product but rather a product which can sucker people into spending more money on OTHER products.  

Well blu-ray was the right choice
http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-34490.aspxGsSanAndreas

Blu-ray outselling HDDVD right?

You do realize that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD are being destroyed by DVD...? People are buying 10x or more DVD's of the same movie then they are buying Blu-ray and HD-DVD... 

The adoption rate of both is terrible.  

[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]I think blu-ray was smart, $600 console was not. Also the ps3 could of had blu-ray and not been $600.Ragashahs

here's the isuppli source, it's fairly reliable.

It's pretty obvious the mobo (which includes the RSX, cell, and ram) is the major contributer.  Overall I think it was sony's 1up the compeition attitude that caused the overall price to be so high.  I think they could of created a slightly less powerful machine included blu-ray and still been competitive w/ the 360 price and powerwise.

thats because Sony never wanted to release the PS3 this early. So they released it anyway, if u dont like the $600 price tag then dont get it, plain and simple. When PS3's bluray drive production drops by next year everyone will be able to afford one.

Short answer NO. KSD22

How very informative.... 

[QUOTE="KSD22"]Short answer NO. MaTT2011

How very informative....

after i realized how much money i wasted, i started to penny pinch. i bought one. not too expensive.

Well, if it was $300-400 it would be eating its competition alive, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. However, Blu-Ray sales would have suffered tremendously. And, if another of their formats failed, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

PS3 is doing fairly well all things considered. It's still such a viable high-def movie alternative that it should maintain fairly healthy sales and compete directly with the other two.

Put it this way: It's 100% worth it's price. There is no doubt. The other two consoles aren't. They're just cheaper. This is just catering to a different part of the consumer population.

Redfingers

The other two consoles aren't? Wow man...i gotta stop reading your posts 

Eventually the price will drop......

BUT, even with the $599 price tag, Sony's stock recently shot up based on analyst consensus that PS3 will drive Sony's earnings this year.

Only a fool thinks PS3 is not going to do very well.

Personally, I feel like you getting a great deal for $600. I think I lost touch with the poor. Seriously, I grew up in the ghetto, but somehow I feel like no price should alienate you. I use to be like "THAT EXPENSIVE!!!!" then I realize I was just broke...shungokustasu

Here he goes again. Honestly people like you just tilt casuals over to the Wii or 360 or PC etc...

How does not buying a $600 console make you poor. Because from what you said it does. People have jobs and kids and families and issues to deal with. It's more then just working or saving up. Sometimes you have to ask should I spend more time saving up for this or put more money into this or get a Wii maybe?

And ya know honestly if I had the money to spare I probably still wouldn't buy just because. I don't think consoles should be going up like this. It's insane and it will only lead to consoles being $1000 in the not too distant future.

I guess that's ur best excuse for the PS3 not being in HUGE demand like many thought in many places...people are just broke or poor lol Yeah ok nice one 

[QUOTE="MaTT2011"]

[QUOTE="KSD22"]Short answer NO. KSD22

How very informative....

OOOOOOOH how cool you are ! you have a job?! No way! That totally r0x0rz my s0xorz.

Now on to something relevant; 

If your looking to get a BluRay player than yah... you might as well get a ps3. But if your looking to get a gaming system the included blu-ray player means nothing but more money you have to pay for something you probably wont use. And even if you do end up using it sometime in the future there is no garuntee that it will be around (DVD is still going very strong and the next generation of formats is still undecided, it could still go any way) and you still have to go out and buy more products to use the product you just bought (a gateway product some might say). It has no inherent value other than the possiblity that you might use it in the future; but if you initially bought it for purposes of gaming you still have to pay that extra cash for a feature that in no way benefits you as a gamer.

And the possiblity that games are going to use the extra space in the future is inevitable; if developers have more space to work with they will end up using it inevitably. But that doesnt mean they HAVE to use that extra space to create great games with great HD capabilities. Xbox360 illustrates this. A game is not going to be inherently better because it has extra space to work with; it just means that more CONTENT (Sounds, FMV's, Extras, music, etc...) is whats going to be using it. But great gameplay dynamics dont take up space. The design of the game and the gameplay itself is not going to take advantage of simply having more space.   Gameplay is NOT dependent on the amount of space contained on the format the game is printed on.

Add to all this the fact that most people dont even have HDTV's and the inclusion of a blu-ray player becomes a burden that weighs PS3 sales down. Plus im willing to bet that most people with HDTV's are, for the most part, satisfied with DVD quality movies and arent looking for a new format to buy a $600 next gen DVD player to utilize (while at the same time paying more for the actual movies). 

Its just a HUGE mistake and if sony had not included it they would have most definetly sold more PS3's thanks to a much more reasonable price tag. 

[QUOTE="KSD22"][QUOTE="MaTT2011"]

[QUOTE="KSD22"]Short answer NO. MaTT2011

How very informative....

OOOOOOOH how cool you are ! you have a job?! No way! That totally r0x0rz my s0xorz.

Now on to something relevant; 

If your looking to get a BluRay player than yah... you might as well get a ps3. But if your looking to get a gaming system the included blu-ray player means nothing but more money you have to pay for something you probably wont use. And even if you do end up using it sometime in the future there is no garuntee that it will be around (DVD is still going very strong and the next generation of formats is still undecided, it could still go any way) and you still have to go out and buy more products to use the product you just bought (a gateway product some might say). It has no inherent value other than the possiblity that you might use it in the future; but if you initially bought it for purposes of gaming you still have to pay that extra cash for a feature that in no way benefits you as a gamer.

And the possiblity that games are going to use the extra space in the future is inevitable; if developers have more space to work with they will end up using it inevitably. But that doesnt mean they HAVE to use that extra space to create great games with great HD capabilities. Xbox360 illustrates this. A game is not going to be inherently better because it has extra space to work with; it just means that more CONTENT (Sounds, FMV's, Extras, music, etc...) is whats going to be using it. But great gameplay dynamics dont take up space. The design of the game and the gameplay itself is not going to take advantage of simply having more space.   Gameplay is NOT dependent on the amount of space contained on the format the game is printed on.

Add to all this the fact that most people dont even have HDTV's and the inclusion of a blu-ray player becomes a burden that weighs PS3 sales down. Plus im willing to bet that most people with HDTV's are, for the most part, satisfied with DVD quality movies and arent looking for a new format to buy a $600 next gen DVD player to utilize (while at the same time paying more for the actual movies). 

Its just a HUGE mistake and if sony had not included it they would have most definetly sold more PS3's thanks to a much more reasonable price tag. 

For the initial sales yes, $600 ain't good.

But if it will pay off in the long run is still an unanswered question. 

the-very-best

Yet to be seen. Its sold 3 million but is questionable whether it can maintain that through the year. Blu-ray inclusion is something that is costing us early adopters somewhat (although Sony was losing more than the Blu-ray unit costs per PS3 unit)... but eventually they'll be as cheap to make as DVD drives so the long term benifits for games and Sony is worth it. PS3 will need a price drop this holiday or next year to keep selling though.

The Wii really is also not competing with PS3. People keep saying "Wii crushes PS3 in sales blah blah blah" but realy this is better for PS3 in the end. The Wii is distracting casuals effectively so they won't buy 360's over PS3s. When the Wii fad is over and the mass market wants a console with good visuals and features, PS3 will be looking much much better vs 360 by then.

[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]I think blu-ray was smart, $600 console was not. Also the ps3 could of had blu-ray and not been $600.Ragashahs

The cell was most likely expensive to research.

It only went in to push the BD format. Otheriwse it was at a disadvantage coming out last. 

[QUOTE="MaTT2011"][QUOTE="KSD22"][QUOTE="MaTT2011"]

[QUOTE="KSD22"]Short answer NO. KSD22

How very informative....

OOOOOOOH how cool you are ! you have a job?! No way! That totally r0x0rz my s0xorz.

Now on to something relevant;

If your looking to get a BluRay player than yah... you might as well get a ps3. But if your looking to get a gaming system the included blu-ray player means nothing but more money you have to pay for something you probably wont use. And even if you do end up using it sometime in the future there is no garuntee that it will be around (DVD is still going very strong and the next generation of formats is still undecided, it could still go any way) and you still have to go out and buy more products to use the product you just bought (a gateway product some might say). It has no inherent value other than the possiblity that you might use it in the future; but if you initially bought it for purposes of gaming you still have to pay that extra cash for a feature that in no way benefits you as a gamer.

And the possiblity that games are going to use the extra space in the future is inevitable; if developers have more space to work with they will end up using it inevitably. But that doesnt mean they HAVE to use that extra space to create great games with great HD capabilities. Xbox360 illustrates this. A game is not going to be inherently better because it has extra space to work with; it just means that more CONTENT (Sounds, FMV's, Extras, music, etc...) is whats going to be using it. But great gameplay dynamics dont take up space. The design of the game and the gameplay itself is not going to take advantage of simply having more space. Gameplay is NOT dependent on the amount of space contained on the format the game is printed on.

Add to all this the fact that most people dont even have HDTV's and the inclusion of a blu-ray player becomes a burden that weighs PS3 sales down. Plus im willing to bet that most people with HDTV's are, for the most part, satisfied with DVD quality movies and arent looking for a new format to buy a $600 next gen DVD player to utilize (while at the same time paying more for the actual movies).

Its just a HUGE mistake and if sony had not included it they would have most definetly sold more PS3's thanks to a much more reasonable price tag.

Blu ray? Needed?

He he, PC gamers dont need Noobray and are games look at least 2 to four times better. Run faster, and are cheaper to buy.