Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation 3 to Sell For $399, Going Underground
Merrill Lynch Japan has conducted research that indicates that the PlayStation 3 will retail for $399. According to Gamespot's coverage of the paper, the unit will cost $494 to manufacture. Sony will thus be taking an almost $1 Billion loss in the first year of the PS3's lifespan. From the article: "It is normal for game companies to take a loss on hardware whenever a new console launches, since they typically focus on acquiring market share rather than generating a profit during the first year. During the second year and afterward, they can recover the losses with the savings that come from mass production and with licensing fees from publishers." Meanwhile, Press the Buttons is reporting on a Pro-G article in which SCEE Chief David Reeves states that "I feel proud that E3 went well from the presentations that they did...I feel very happy about that, but I told the troops: OK now we go underground. The PS3 goes underground until it comes out next year."
Unless of course you wait like 3 months until it is $299.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the loss or profit made on each unit depend initially on the development costs, and then on the actual amount of units produced?
i.e. if the development costs were a theoretical $1000 and each unit has a cost of $1, making 1000 units will be $2 each, whereas making 2000 will cost $1.50?
Coca-Cola, sometimes War.
Well first off, they're not just "dumping" it here, they're "dumping" it in Japan too (and anywhere they can sell it). I think dumping has to do with attempting to invade a particular market by offering goods (ones that are extremely similar to others offered on that market, i.e. the PlayStation brand alone is enough to differentiate it) at well below what they are worth. However, just because it costs Sony $494 or whatever to make them, doesn't necessarily mean they are worth that much. They're only worth what people will pay for them, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Sony's going to be asking exactly what they think people will be willing to pay.
The hubris of these guys... how many times in history has a $399 game console sold well?
Oh wait, it's not just a game console "this time"?
It's an entire entertainment center? A supercomputer too? Gee, in THAT case....
People seem to be taking this for gospel, when both numbers are analyst estimates.
Of course, retailing for $399 on lauch is probable: in Japan, the PS2 retailed for about this. When it came here, it went for... $299. The PS1 retailed for $599. When it came here, it went for... $299.
So let's wait for a real number from someone with a clue, as opposed to an analyst.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
The other situation that is prohibited is for a monopoly to sell a product at a price below cost in order to destroy the competition. In such situations, the monopoly aims to destroy the competition so that the monopoly can, at a later point in time, dramatically raise the price of the product to reap monopoly profits. Such actions also hurt the American economy.
Except for these two problems, there is no issue with companies using selling-at-a-loss to gain market share. IBM sells its server hardware at zero profit or at a small loss in order to reap the profits from a service contract. Sony sells its Playstation at a loss in order to reap the profits from software sales. Neither IBM nor Sony is a monopoly. Further, neither IBM nor Sony (unlike Korean companies) are being subsidized by either the American or Japanese governments.
Not only is that $100 less, but by the time the PS3 launches, the Xbox 360 will be out long enough to cut its price. It could conceivably go down to $250-275.
For the casual gamer that isn't necessarily married to the Sony brand label, the 360 price point will certainly look much more attractive. To the slightly more technical buyer, one would note that the PS3 price doesn't even include the damn hard drive (sold separately!), while the 360 does.
I don't see a really good "win" scenario for Sony here. If they do price competitively with the Xbox 360, then they'll be taking losses per unit that blow away the losses MS was taking with the original Xbox (and those were crazy enough that MS built their new console with keeping losses in control - and apparently have succeeded).
There's still plenty of Sony faithful that want their Final Fantasys and Metal Gears, but Sony could stand to lose a huge share of the massive casual fan base that made them the #1 console seller this past gen.
(This post was written by a decidedly non MS cheerleader - he likes Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Apple)
I suspect Nintendo knows their market, and it's not the top-feeders. I don't have 1080i, not even 720p, and neither do most of the people I know. Given the penetration rate of HDTV, I'd say that at the lower end it's feasible to ignore 1080i for this generation, if a little risky. For the current generation, Nintendo has occupied a lower space than XBox and PS2, and it looks like they're playing there, again. The XBox2 and PS3 are sounding so expensive that they may actually expand Nintendo's niche, assuming it's well-tuned to its market.
I agree that the XBox2 and PS3 will need 1080i, and everyone in the following generation will.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I saw this link a few days back, and I haven't been able to red the report, but I really think Merill Lynch is kind of looking at some things as unit costs that really ought to be considered to be sunk costs.
Example: They're assuming $100 the Bluray Disc player. A DVD player would be... what, I dunno, definitely less? Let's make up a random number and guess that they're spending $80 more per unit because they went with Bluray instead of DVD. Except wait a minute. Does it really make sense to lump this in $80 or whatever in with the per unit cost of the PS3? For one thing, this money is subsidizing the portion of Sony's business that's interested in selling Bluray drives and discs, and that's something Sony has a lot of money riding on. For another thing, I'd assume one of the main reasons the BD drives are so expensive is that they are new and unproven technology. But the PS3 manufacturing itself will help to break the technology in. To some extent by spending this money on the BD drives for the PS3 to break in the production lines and all, Sony probably is relieving money that it will have to spend later on manufacturing BD drives for other consumer products. To some extent that $80 per bluray represents a sunk cost that Sony would have had to have paid anyway for other purposes.
So I question how important these numbers are. If you look at previous Sony Playstations, Sony's been pretty good at the whole thing of bringing down production costs relatively quickly. If they can keep this up they can probably afford to just eat a high production cost since they know their costs are eventually going to come down.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
How about a single unit that provides you with a DVD player, CD player, and Blu-ray disc player, in addition to being a game center?
When the PS2 came out, a lot of people justified the expense by saying "well, it's also a DVD player - that's like $150 right there" (which is what DVD players cost at the time... I know they're cheaper now). No one currently makes a Blu-Ray disc player, but the recorders are around $1500 each. At a tenth the cost for a player (not unreasonable), it makes the PS3 look more attractive.
Digital television will likely become much more affordable. Although HDTV is digital, not all digital televisions are HDTV. HDTV's will likely still be only for enthusisits.
The only problem with that argument is that there was a market for DVDs when the PS2 came out. Right now, there is zero market for blu-ray. As you say, there aren't even stand-alone players. Whether this will change by the time the PS3 arrives, I don't know.