Ever think the price drop for ps3 is because it's cheaper to produce?

Yes PS3 needs to move systems out a little quicker but they are FINE. 360 sold just about the same in their first year as the PS3 did. I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

Whats with the whole desperation arguments today anyways? i came to SW today and everything is about lemmings saying sony is in desperation by cutting prices..

Of course before Sony was dumb for releasing such an expensive piece of equipment, now that it is more affordable and provides more options, cheaper than the 360, Sony is classified as desperate.

It seems that soon enough the only thing people can trash Sony on is a lack of games. I certainly hope that soon enough this criticism will be lost as well and we can enjoy our games together rather at one another's throats.

two weeks ago...blah blah blah PS3 is too expensive I am not buying it..after the price drop...blah blah blah now Sony is desperate...Guess what Sony made the right move and give them credit..PS3 is going to sell a lot in November and NDP numbers will prove my point.

Yes PS3 needs to move systems out a little quicker but they are FINE. 360 sold just about the same in their first year as the PS3 did. I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

Whats with the whole desperation arguments today anyways? i came to SW today and everything is about lemmings saying sony is in desperation by cutting prices..

Jockss2

Of course, lets see, Sony has outsourced the production of the Cell, Sony has switched to emulation or lack of it all together, Blu ray parts have gotten so cheap blu ray players that cost 1000 dollars 9 months ago now cost 499. Of course its cheaper for Sony to make and they are trying to use this to its advantage to win over its PS2 fanbase.

The desperate excuse is just fanboy logic.

I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

Jockss2

How is the weather in Lala Land?

[QUOTE="Jockss2"]

I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

Pimpshigity21

How is the weather in Lala Land?

actully heis correct. If you ever take an econamics class you will learn this
the goal of production is to lower costs and then you can make more profit or lower the retail price. Also the more advanced the peice of technology is(ps3) the production costs lowers at a steaper rate then the 360/wii

A console doesn't get cheap enough to produce to drop $200 in less than one year.

The obvious reason for the price drop is sub-par sales.

Yes PS3 needs to move systems out a little quicker but they are FINE. 360 sold just about the same in their first year as the PS3 did. I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

Whats with the whole desperation arguments today anyways? i came to SW today and everything is about lemmings saying sony is in desperation by cutting prices..

Jockss2

Cost and price are not related. We live in a free market system where the value of something is established by the demand and supply of that thing. A potential reduction in manufacturing cost is irrelevant to price.

Price is established by demand/supply in a competitive environment (which this is).

Nintendo has not and will not reduce their price until such time as competitive pressure reduces their sales. Do you think they have not achieved some manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction? Of course they have...and they aren't reducing price because they don't have too.

Sony's PS3 is selling like crap. Everyone knows it. The analysts call it: dismal sales. They have no choice but to reduce the price. That's competition.

No one reduces price in a free market because of cost efficiencies/reduced manufacturing costs unless:

a. they are trying to get a jump and increase market share....putting pressure on the competition, or

b. the competitors have a jump on them and they are forced to respond to try to move more units.

Notice the commonality is what the competition has to offer. In a competitive free market this is what establishes value and leads to the demand/supply curve that establishes price. Not their cost. Which is irrelevant to whether you buy it or not.

Clearly Sony is being creamed, losing huge market share and moving from having 70% of the market to having 25%...think about that staggering change in market share so far.

And so, not quite a year in....this move ain't because they are pig poop happy to pass along savings to potential customers :)

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"][QUOTE="Jockss2"]

I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

mattyomo99

How is the weather in Lala Land?

actully heis correct. If you ever take an economics class you will learn this
the goal of production is to lower costs and then you can make more profit or lower the retail price. Also the more advanced the peice of technology is(ps3) the production costs lowers at a steaper rate then the 360/wii

LMFAO.

I love fanboy posts that mention economic "training". Do you think that makes your post sound more authoritative? LOL. Give me a break.

I have taken economic lectures in colege, thanks. But hey, you don't need attend a colege lecture to know that some of what you posted is true. The thing is...it usually takes more than a year to reach a reduction in production price. Even if Sony arrived at this poing, you would not know it, would you?

Also the more advanced the peice of technology is(ps3) the production costs lowers at a steaper rate then the 360/wii

mattyomo99

Now this is absolute nonsense. It sounds like something that would be offered in Lala Land University.

A console doesn't get cheap enough to produce to drop $200 in less than one year.

The obvious reason for the price drop is sub-par sales.

joeblak

exactly, console manufacturing parts don't just magically start getting $200 cheaper in 8 months.

[QUOTE="joeblak"]

A console doesn't get cheap enough to produce to drop $200 in less than one year.

The obvious reason for the price drop is sub-par sales.

Tactis

exactly, console manufacturing parts don't just magically start getting $200 cheaper in 8 months.

Actually they do. Blu ray parts drove up the price of the PS3 and they have gone down by alot. Blu ray players were 1000 less then a year ago and now they are 499.

[QUOTE="Tactis"][QUOTE="joeblak"]

A console doesn't get cheap enough to produce to drop $200 in less than one year.

The obvious reason for the price drop is sub-par sales.

Javy03

exactly, console manufacturing parts don't just magically start getting $200 cheaper in 8 months.

Actually they do. Blu ray parts drove up the price of the PS3 and they have gone down by alot. Blu ray players were 1000 less then a year ago and now they are 499.

Wow. All the economists are buying a PS3. Cool.

[QUOTE="Jockss2"]

Yes PS3 needs to move systems out a little quicker but they are FINE. 360 sold just about the same in their first year as the PS3 did. I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

Whats with the whole desperation arguments today anyways? i came to SW today and everything is about lemmings saying sony is in desperation by cutting prices..

SUD123456

Cost and price are not related. We live in a free market system where the value of something is established by the demand and supply of that thing. A potential reduction in manufacturing cost is irrelevant to price.

Price is established by demand/supply in a competitive environment (which this is).

Nintendo has not and will not reduce their price until such time as competitive pressure reduces their sales. Do you think they have not achieved some manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction? Of course they have...and they aren't reducing price because they don't have too.

Sony's PS3 is selling like crap. Everyone knows it. The analysts call it: dismal sales. They have no choice but to reduce the price. That's competition.

No one reduces price in a free market because of cost efficiencies/reduced manufacturing costs unless:

a. they are trying to get a jump and increase market share....putting pressure on the competition, or

b. the competitors have a jump on them and they are forced to respond to try to move more units.

Notice the commonality is what the competition has to offer. In a competitive free market this is what establishes value and leads to the demand/supply curve that establishes price. Not their cost. Which is irrelevant to whether you buy it or not.

Clearly Sony is being creamed, losing huge market share and moving from having 70% of the market to having 25%...think about that staggering change in market share so far.

And so, not quite a year in....this move ain't because they are pig poop happy to pass along savings to potential customers :)

damn you, this is exactly what I've been trying to say in another post, but you know how to put your thoughts on paper or shall we say virtual paper, hehe. I try, but when I read it, it wasn't what I was thinking, lol.

either way, good post and it makes perfect sense.

[QUOTE="Tactis"][QUOTE="joeblak"]

A console doesn't get cheap enough to produce to drop $200 in less than one year.

The obvious reason for the price drop is sub-par sales.

Javy03

exactly, console manufacturing parts don't just magically start getting $200 cheaper in 8 months.

Actually they do. Blu ray parts drove up the price of the PS3 and they have gone down by alot. Blu ray players were 1000 less then a year ago and now they are 499.

That does not matter. I'll say it again: COST DOES NOT EQUAL PRICE.

We live in a free market...the price is established by supply/demand in a competitive environment. What it costs you to build the damn thing is irrelevant. Escalating or reducing costs doesn't mean a damn thing and has nothing to do with the price of a PS3 or a Wii or a 360.

It is cheaper...

In order to make it cheaper they've taken out BC and outsourced their sacred chip. A chip that isn't being used anywhere else...

The chip outsourcing is only a small cut in cost. The biggest advantage they got from that was cash flow. The switch in the hardware is where the price reduction really comes into play. But when you offer a different product it isn't fair to call it a price drop.

They made the right move, don't get me wrong. They still don't have a product that offers the features I'd pay that much for though.

A console doesn't get cheap enough to produce to drop $200 in less than one year.

The obvious reason for the price drop is sub-par sales.

joeblak

Plenty of areas Sony cost cut..... CPU diode shrink to 65nm happened. Blu-ray barely more than a DVD drive now (PS3 doesn't need the decoding hardware that makes standalones so expensive since the Cell does it all). They're probably down to losing almost nothing per unit. If it was selling like crazy obviously they would've never cut costs or made a stripped down cheap version, but if they want to compete they have to have a reasonable price. Sony got the reasonable price you all complained for, so quit complaining.

[QUOTE="mattyomo99"][QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"][QUOTE="Jockss2"]

I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

Pimpshigity21

How is the weather in Lala Land?

actully heis correct. If you ever take an economics class you will learn this
the goal of production is to lower costs and then you can make more profit or lower the retail price. Also the more advanced the peice of technology is(ps3) the production costs lowers at a steaper rate then the 360/wii

LMFAO.

I love fanboy posts that mention economic "training". Do you think that makes your post sound more authoritative? LOL. Give me a break.

I have taken economic lectures in colege, thanks. But hey, you don't need attend a colege lecture to know that some of what you posted is true. The thing is...it usually takes more than a year to reach a reduction in production price. Even if Sony arrived at this poing, you would not know it, would you?

Also the more advanced the peice of technology is(ps3) the production costs lowers at a steaper rate then the 360/wii

mattyomo99

Now this is absolute nonsense. It sounds like something that would be offered in Lala Land University.

you call me a fanboy you rant on about nothing. The PS3 cost more to produce then the wii and the 360 therefore its production costs will decrease at a faster rate, that is a fact of economics.

[QUOTE="Pimpshigity21"][QUOTE="Jockss2"]

I think they dropped the price because it's cheaper to produce the ps3's now not because "sony is so desperate" like all the lemmings are saying.

mattyomo99

How is the weather in Lala Land?

actully heis correct. If you ever take an econamics class you will learn this
the goal of production is to lower costs and then you can make more profit or lower the retail price. Also the more advanced the peice of technology is(ps3) the production costs lowers at a steaper rate then the 360/wii

Lemmings arent smart enough to think about this. If its not a FPS, they cant comprehend.