Slashdot Mirror
PS3 to Sell at Over $800 in UK
joe 155 writes "The Register is reporting that '
the PS3 will cost £425 in the UK - over $800'. SCE UK Managing Director Rat Maguire said: 'I don't think it's an expensive machine - I think actually, it's probably a cheap machine. If you think a Blu-Ray player by itself might be £600-700, and we're coming in at just £425, it's a bargain.' Can a console really be viable at this price?"
While it is certainly a humorous gaffe, I think it's part of a larger marketing ploy by Sony. Over the next 6 months, we are going to be bombarded with quotes saying that 600 bucks is "really quite cheap." The thing is, knowing how much the average consumer thinks about things, this Jedi mind trick will probably work. Come November, you'll see lots of people stating with perfectly straight faces that "600 dollars for a console isn't expensive."
This guy's the limit!
Stuff is mad expensive in the UK, that's just how it is. You go to the UK all the prices are pretty much the same number as here, just in more expensive money. Currency exchanges aren't based on actual relative cost of living. They're an arbitrary figure derived by negotiations between investment banks. The dollar is doing particularly shitty these days because investors are freaked out about the wacko politics going on down there. I live in Montreal though I'm American, and I was shocked to see that stuff is actually less money here than at home (Seattle) even though I'm paying in (once significantly devalued) Canadian money. Housing in particular is dirt cheap by comparison. Since I've been here, the Canadian dollar has increased dramatically in value, but prices for things that you buy in Canadian stores haven't changed to make up for the difference in exchange rate, though I'm told American prices are inflating somewhat these days. The fact that £450GB costs $850USD emphasizes how worthless American money is these days, not how expensive the PS3 is in the UK.
Actually, it's not over $800 at today's rate, but still...
F and off, Sony. It won't sell to me and (i) I have plenty of cash and (ii) I love my PS2 and would have paid £350 without a moment's thought. No-one I've talked to on this is prepared to pay, and we're all late 20s and early 30s gamers with good jobs and no kids. They're not going to sell these at that price...
There is one thing you're neglecting, however. The cheaper console does not necessarily win. It's content that's the ultimate arbiter of the winner. Unlike the previous shift, from Nintendo to Sony during the N64 versus PS1 contest, you're not seeing a mass defection of content providers away from the PS3 to the XBox 360. Moreover, I'd argue that much of the 360's potential head start has been squandered by an underpowered library. It's not unusual to see a crappy set of launch titles on a console, but with the 360, it won't be until this summer (6 months after the console's launch), that games start coming out for the 360 that are actuallly worth having. If Sony has a decent launch lineup, this advantage of the 360 could be mitigated.
Now, Sony does certainly have the ability to muck up the PS3, but its certainly not decided. Remember that this game is still Sony's to lose. The installed base of PS2s is more than double that of the Gamecube, XBox, and 360 combined. Over the next two years, the console with the largest installed base, and the one generating a substantial portion of the revenue in the industry, will still be the PS2. This is a decisive advantage for Sony, one that isn't going to be overturned lightly.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...