Slashdot Mirror
Sony's Harrison In No Rush to Lower PS3 Price
njkid1 passed on a link to a GameDaily interview they conducted at DICE with Phil Harrison, SCE WorldWide Studios President. Harrison stays mostly positive throughout the article, pointing out that the availability of consoles is a sign of a healthy supply chain. He denigrates rumble in controllers as a 'last generation' feature, and specifically discusses the company's decision-making process for lowering prices: "The PS3 technology, as with any of our platforms, starts off life at a high price and then we engineer cost out of it. And that process is an investment that you make to combine chips into a single chip or to reduce components or combine components and redesign things, and that investment is part of our planned R&D effort to reduce cost. At the appropriate time and when we can afford to, the business model of the industry is to pass those savings onto the consumer, but we're a long way away from doing that yet."
Why would they start trumpeting a price drop now? When one comes (whenever that may be), there won't be much if any of a warning. Even if they were going to do it next week, they won't tell anyone until it happens. The last thing Sony needs is ill will from the people who were still loyal enough to have already bought a PS3.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
I'm in no hurry to buy one.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Really, there's no point in dropping the price right now. Until Sony gets a couple of killer games out, dropping the price isn't going to really excite anyone.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
As a Nintendo shareholder, you have my deepest gratitude.
[Insert pithy quote here]
"I'm just not getting it. "
Nobody is. That's the problem. Both the Wii and Xbox360 seem to be the ones that people are getting.
I have no doubt that a price cut is coming, and soon. I'll take a look when the 60G model hits $399.
You mean Sony isn't completely obsessed with the price of their console, like potential customers are? They don't feel bad about the lack of rumble, like the potential customers do? They have their own strategy that doesn't involve pleasing potential customers?
You seem to think that "the press" has it's own agenda here, but in this case they are bringing up legitimate concerns that the public is putting forward and that Sony is ignoring. I won't go as far as saying "self-destructing", but ever since their E3 price announcement they have steadily been eroding the goodwill of gamers and turning off potential customers. Like myself...I was going to buy a PS3 before the sky-high price and lack of exclusives turned me off to it. Their attitude isn't helping me re-evaluate that decision.
Don't bother with the interview, btw. It's nothing more than PR-flak "we can do no wrong" spiel from a clueless non-gamer executive.
I'm as big of a Sony fan as there is, but there's one hell of a Jobs patented Reality Distortion Field in effect. They really discount the huge effect of the DS on the portable market and the lack of a first party PS3 killer app.
Of course he is in no rush to drop the price. If I were in his position I would be tempted to wait until I was forced. I know of no corporation that is in a rush to drop prices.
Even Walmart drops prices to beat up the competition, not because they really care if you have an extra dollar at the end of the year. (and soon many won't have the dollar as they shut down more and more of the US economy, but that is another topic for another day)
You seem to think that "the press" has it's own agenda here...
Come on. We all know the press never has an agenda.
I was going to buy a PS3 before the sky-high price and lack of exclusives turned me off to it.
If the price is such an issue for you, how did you think you were going to afford any games? The PS3 costs as much as another console with an accessory and a couple of games.
Can this guy possibly spew any MORE bullshit?
I feel insulted that he thinks we're this stupid.
Technoli
As a fan of the PS2 who WANTS the PS3 to succeed (I'll buy one when the price comes down...), I find this interview rather insulting. It's just so transparent that EVERYTHING he's saying is just a repeat of the company line, trying to turn negatives into positives.
Lots of PS3s languishing on shelves? "We do a good job managing our supply chain." Target in Newnan, GA, 4 PM on 2/25: 11 PS3s, 0 Wiis. Congrats on your expert supply chain management, Sony, but maybe you'd better focus on SELLING THE PRODUCT.
No rumble in the controllers? "That's a previous-gen feature." Yeah, and why would you carry over a minor feature that most users are neutral or positive about into the next generation...
Motion sensitivity? "Far more opportunity for future innovation..." Ah, so that's why Sony didn't even HAVE motion sensitivity in place until the last minute, then?
Arrgh. Just infuriating.
JRjr
Except when your competition is selling many more systmes and is 100% sold out all the time. I still can not find a Wii for sale. I have no problem finding PS3s. Then add in that that your competition is making a lot more per system sold than you are and it actually does look pretty ugly.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'm not on a team. The press should think about reporting the news instead of beating up on Nintendo or Sony or anyone else. Sony saying the price isn't going to change isn't news.
The whole "Can you believe the Sony execs don't agree with us about our latest obsession?" storyline that the press has going is silly.
In other news, The Sun says it has no plans to change it's habit of coming up in the morning. We'll be back with updates on that story every 20 minutes or as they occur.
If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
>>The PS3 costs as much as another console with an accessory and a couple of games.
Yeah, but then you buy an accessory and a couple of games for the PS3, and suddenly it's way more expensive than that other console again.
Games and accessories are essentially a push across all the consoles - you'll need an extra controller, a fancier video cable, and a couple of games no matter which console you get, and the costs for those items are similar across all the consoles. Comparing the base prices of the consoles is perfectly valid, and there's no getting around the fact that the PS3 is significantly more expensive than the competition.
JRjr
Just me wondering, How long was it until PS2 could be found routinely in stores?
I ask this because I suspect it was more than three months, but I could be wrong. And before you label me a "sony-hater" remember that I am comparing two Sony products (even though I am conviently ignoring games, but I wasn't really interested in any PS2 launch games either).
As for price lowering, I'd bet Apple would have more of a market if the Mac was $2000 rather than $2495 in 1984. (I recall a story that DOS sold more than OS rivals because of a lower price, but I could be mistaken) Remember that network effects apply to video games as well.
Talk to the people who run GameStop, talk to the people who run BestBuy, and they'll tell you that the demand is unprecedented and that they give us kudos for managing to keep a very sophisticated supply chain moving.
Phil, the people at slashdot have had several conversations with these people and we'll tell you a different story. No regrets? I hope not, but i do hope this generation knocks off SCE from its high chair so that you guys don't screw up the following generation with your pompous attitude.
No need to read TFA. The interview offers very little insight beyond Phil Harrison and SCEA believing that their little baby can do no wrong.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
"So long as you suckers keep paying full price, we have no reason to offer a discouunt! Muhuhaha!"
stuff |
I know it's just another anecdote from a guy on the internet. But, if you add it all up, the PS3 is getting easy to find. I don't necessarily think that means it's time for a price drop, but the theory that they're still selling out virtually instantly is no longer valid.
If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
If Sony wants to salvage the situation, they need to be doing something right now. Because here's what Sony's got: The worst development tools (vs. Xbox 360, great dev tools, and the Wii, with good tools, and lots of experienced developers in the field), the most expensive platform to develop for (partially due to poor tools, but also due to the use of expensive technologies like blu-ray), the smallest market share, and the slowest growing market share. If I were a developer, I'd be thinking long and hard about my commitment to the PS3 right now. The alternatives are looking very tempting. At this point I wouldn't even count on Final Fantasy remaining Sony exclusive. My guess is that Microsoft is probably flashing crap tons of "partnership" cash in their direction(It's what I would do if I were a Microsoft Gaming Division executive), while Nintendo is content to let their profitability and growth speak for themselves.
saying "We are completely content with our plan and its outcome," is news. Not "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" news, but for gossipy video game entertainment news, this is gold.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
saying "We are completely content with our plan and its outcome," is news.
It's essentially what every corporate PR person always says.
Breaking news: Politician says "vote for me".
What, like gameplay?
Seriously, what kind of rationale is that for leaving out a feature? If that's a _justified_ reason, then it means that the feature was all along just a gimmick to lure people in, like virtual reality (i.e. red lines) or force feedback or onboard memory expansion. Why would you want to say something like that to people? "Well, we can't dupe you dolts any longer with that candy, so we'll drop that for some new one like motion sensing." If it's _unjustified_ to dismiss it as last-gen, then you're dropping support for something that gamers might possibly want or like; if gamers don't like it or don't care about it, why not just say that? It's not like Sony would be admitting that they made a mistake since they didn't exactly pioneer the idea of controllers with rumble.
It's not really even right semantically. It's not like we have something better to replace it--you could argue that motion sensing and rumble aren't compatible and one would have to replace the other, but since they don't do the same thing it's not really a supersession of "last-gen" rumble with "next-gen" motion sensing. If we found some whiz-bang thing that would make for instance anisotropic filtering obsolete, THEN you could call anisotropic filtering a "last-generation" feature.
In this context, it just sounds like marketingspeak use of "generation."
Only if you believe Sony's corporate double-speak. Every electronics retailer I've visited recently has surpluses of them in-store and as of right now they're in-stock and available online at Amazon, Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart (albeit only as part of a bundle) and GameStop - every e-tailer I can be bothered to check.
Actually, wouldn't the problem be that I can afford to buy $100-200 worth of additional items AND a cheaper system as opposed to a more expensive system with nothing? I remember back in the day saving up my pennies so that I could buy my own SNES. Now, I know this whole "teaching your kid (financial) responsibility" thing is on the way out, but for those few parents encouraging their kids to save up for a smart purchase a $100-200 cut is huge. 1xPS3 @ $499 = 1xWii @ $250 + 5xGames @ $50 ea More potential customers care about price point than those that care about ZOMG GRAPHICS!!!! (especially true when the potential customer's parent is the one that ends up footing the bill)
"Don't feel bad for me child; I'm the monster that hides under your bed."
More potential customers care about price point than those that care about ZOMG GRAPHICS!!!!
Yeah, those people bought a Wii or a PS2. Some people are in the market for hi-def and some aren't. There are lots of nice choices for everyone.
I think it's people not buying $600 PS3s more than their awesome supply capabilities. My local Walmarts and Targets have multiple premium PS3s on the shelves now, no $500 ones, and never any Wiis. I've seen a Wii in stock one time. I'm not buying either one of them I'm happy with the 360 so far.
Seriously, is there any real reason to buy one of these things at ANY price right now?
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
>>No, it's still just an accessory and a couple of games more expensive.
I'm just going from my personal experience here. I've got enough money in the bank to go buy whatever I want to buy. Being able to afford the console isn't an issue. (I have no interest in the 360, so that's not in the equation for me.) Wii is $250, so I bought one. If I were to buy a PS3, I'd want the 60 GB version, which is $600. $350 is more than "an accessory and a couple of games more expensive." More like 5 games (hypothetically - all I've got's Zelda so far), a Wiimote, a nunchuck, a classic controller, and a couple of Virtual Store downloads more expensive.
But it's not "not being able to afford it" that keeps me from buying a PS3, it's "not willing to spend $600 for a toy." In other words, price is a factor in ways beyond "I don't have that much money."
JRjr
> If you want to run Linux don't buy the Dell Dimension E521.
If you mean the USB mouse problem w. Ubuntu, Dell's Jan '07 BIOS upgrade fixes that.
[Insert pithy quote here]
in Santa Maria, CA yesterday. All I could think was "Damn, I wish they had that many WII's"
I pondered a purchase...but the price was prohibitive. Plus, they are kind of cheap looking and I saw no interesting looking games.
Maybe next generation...
I as talking with a friend online last night and the PS3 came up. It eventually came around to the price and two things came up.
1:$600 in PC upgrades results in an astounding increase in gaming potential for most people. Far more than any PS3. Why should we spend $600 for a box that's merely comparable to the old gaming rig we want to upgrade anyways?
2:If Sony ditched the Blu-Ray player or made it an optiona add-on, the PS3 would barely cost $250, if that. $300 is a hard price-point, like $30,000 is for car buyers. It's hard to justify more than that much for somethng unless there's a real need for it.(let alone $600 or a $60,000 car). The Wii sells well because it's inexpensive and fun. The PS3 is expensive and games are slow to arrive.
3: One more - Me? I bought a PS2 this holliday season for my son. Cheap, effective, and it has Guitar Hero and GT4 and so on. Its a great toy for him and didn't break the bank.
"If the price is such an issue for you, how did you think you were going to afford any games? The PS3 costs as much as another console with an accessory and a couple of games." This statement makes a pretty bad assumption. The absolute price isn't necessarily the issue. It's the price for value that is really questionable. In my evaluation, the PS3 holds no value over an Xbox360 or a Wii, so I would consider price to be an issue even if it was $1 more. Now, for others it might hold more, even $100-200 more.
We're talking even the smallest retailers have a a stack of half a dozen machines, with the big stores having stacks of the things.
You're right, I was just in Best Buy and Circuit City last night, and thanks to Sony's console I now have two pending lawsuits due to negligence from stumbling over the damn boxes! They're piled up outside and the retailers can't even give them away!
Let's cut the hyperbole for a second. If the crisis was as bad as you say it is, two things would be happening.
1) Retailers would be screaming for a price cut or motivational factor to move the consoles. They don't want them sitting on the floor, they want them moving, especially due to the high price of the investment that it represents in inventory. If it was really bad, they'd be willing to take the loss that a price drop to consumers represents and would demand that Sony reimburse them. There have been no public reports of this.
2) Sony wouldn't be shipping as many consoles as they are currently. How many consoles have they shipped to date? 2 million?. If they are not selling like you say they are, then the next quarterly report will note a decrease in console shipments (so less than 2 million more shipped). Until then, you can make no conclusions about how the actual console is selling because retailers won't report this information fast enough!
First person comments do not count! Give me a statistic - a published report of 24 consoles per big box retailer or something. But piles and piles doesn't mean anything to me. Besides, you don't know how many of those are empty boxes. To have a $600 console just sitting on the floor without protection (especially in the smaller Gamestops and EBGames) is kind of stupid since someone will just run out the door with them.
I don't think for most people here its "too expensive" as in they cannot afford it. Its "too expensive" as in there is something just as good or better which costs less. IE if Bill Gates was in the market for a car and found two that were identical but one cost $50,000 while the other cost $70,000, the $70,000 one would be too expensive (far more expense for the same value).
That said, it also CAN be a matter of "too expensive" (as in cannot afford it). Say a poor college student is considering a PS3 and a couple games but he'll have to live next month on nothing but Mac 'n Cheese and Ramon noodles or he can get a X360 and a couple games plus he can have burgers and a few beers for the next month. Now your opinion seems to be such a person shouldn't buy any system, but we all know they will and in that case the PS3 is too expensive (cannot afford it).
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
The problem with your logic is that you've just reasoned a Benjamin out of existence, even comparing the premium 360 to the low-end PS3. If "affording to be a gamer" requires a mindset that ignores such large sums, then I ought to hang out at a gaming store with a cloth and shoe polish.
In my evaluation, the PS3 holds no value over an Xbox360 or a Wii, so I would consider price to be an issue even if it was $1 more. Now, for others it might hold more, even $100-200 more.
Yes. So the PS3 is too expensive to some and the 360 is too expensive to others. People value different things differently.
I'm not sure I understand how that makes "PS3 to Continue at the Same Price" news though.
"Until then, you can make no conclusions about how the actual console is selling because retailers won't report this information fast enough!"
Erm, NPD (USA) and Media Create (Japan) keep close track of the sales of all major consoles, and as the PS3 has only been released in those territories, the statistics are comprehensive. Current stats:
November 2006:
Xbox 360 -- 511K
Wii -- 476K
PS3 -- 197K
December 2006:
Xbox 360 1.1 mm
Wii 604.2 K
PS3 490.7 K
January 2007:
Xbox 360 294k
Playstation 3 244k
Wii 436k
NPD also does Canada stats, but the PS3 has been the slowest selling console there as well (by far).
In short, I do believe there is reason for Sony to worry, but not to panic. Yet. This is a marathon, not a sprint, after all...
The above are NPD statistics only. For Japan sales, see:
http://www.m-create.com/eng/index.html
www.neogaf.com
Marty DiBergi: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on the current tour they're being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh...the popularity of the group is waning?
Ian Faith: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no...no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.
+0 Meh
Sony has finally, it seemed, ironed out demand problems - Feb 21st is the first day that Amazon had them in stock for more than a day as you can see in the primary systems sales graph for the three consoles (scroll down near the bottom)...
The thing to note there is that since the console finally had availability, it's been consistently at a pretty good sales rank (around eight to ten according to the same chart) and in fact higher in sales rank than the 360. Given that it's selling in healthy numbers, why reduce the price? Even all last month when the PS3 was not as available, it still sold almost as many systems as the 360.
I would like one cheaper myself (I do not yet own any of the three next-gen consoles). But if people are buying them, then I guess the price isn't so bad as people here think. A lot of people are thinking of the PS3 as a $250 game system along with a $250 Blu-Ray player, and from that standpoint the system is a pretty good value. If the PS3 sales do pick up beyond the level of the 360 wil there then be calls for Microsoft to reduce the 360 price?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
- High cost is prohibitive to purchasing the system
- "My 360 is better"
- No exclusive Titles
I'm not going to lie to you. I have both the 60gig and the 20gig versions of the console. What made me buy, not one but two of these systems you might ask? I'll tell you. Its the Combinations of nice technology wrapped in one case.I'm jumping off topic but I have a grievance to shout. The comments of My 360 is better look at my ZOMG Graphics and game play on Gears of War
Try comparing apples to apples. Gears of war is rendered off the latest Unreal engine which has been the industry standard in graphics for every version. The problem with comparing ports of the same game is the different architectures. Did the Devs take full use of the Cell Proc or did they simply recompile it for the Cell and not optimize it? Not to mention the Unreal Engine is not complete for the PS3. But I regress, moving on.
Exclusive titles come to platforms with a player base
It is true the PS3 dosn't have a large following. however the real reason this is such a shame is because the injustice done to gamers world wide. The world tries to move on, move to better technology, get out of the architecture slump and Corporations continue to hold us back. I'm not saying the 360 is a bad system, or the cost of the ps3 is justified, I'm just saying that Sony took a step tward the future. Stepping forward is costly, and Microsoft and its greed (you can not deny that comment and call yourself a slashdot reader) has successfully held the world of gaming back from moving in a new direction. I'm not saying that the ps3 is the correct direction, what I am saying is; as gamers continue to buy the 360, they continue to fuel the Giant that would have you stuck on the same architecture for the XBox 780 because it suits them not to move forward.
Demand more than a Microsoft branded, oversized laptop without an LCD
Sony:"Lets try something new. We will design and manufacture and new architecture and pass the cost to the user for the R&D and production"
Nintendo:"Lets have a little fun"
Microsoft:"Screw Sony. Screw the users. Keep the industry on an architecture we can support"
My backup chemistry thesis stored on Data Storing Bacteria mutated; granting me a degree in forensic anthropology. v4sw7
$500 is particulay expensive, when you look at what you are getting. Heck my car costs $300 for a service, for a can of oil, some plugs and a few filters..
PS2 cost $300 when it launched in 2000, factor in inflation it's $350 in todays money. Even factoring in the technology leap between 2000 and 2006, PS3 is considerably more advanced that PS2, for example DVD had at least a foothold in 2000, HD formats are still very new, and even the $500 basic model is still got a huge amount of tech in it. That technology leap is costing you $150.
People need to get grip on reality...
Unfortunately, the stats (posted by Dobeln) back me up. I may be exaggerating the situation, but all my basic premises are correct. Sony is not doing well, if they are going to "win" or even stay afloat this generation, they're going to have to start outselling the Xbox 360 at the very least at some point, and the longer they stay behind (both in numbers and sales), the more attractive the alternatives look to developers, which in turn drives more sales to those alternatives. They cannot retain their 3rd party exclusives with the market share they have. The 3rd parties can and will leave, and due to the extreme expense and long development times titles have these days, I'd think that the 3rd parties would be VERY reluctant to continue to back the PS3.
I'm not sure I understand how that makes "PS3 to Continue at the Same Price" news though.
Because 99.9% of Sony's potential customer base believes $600 is too much to pay for a toy. Hell, even in *Japan*, Sony's stronghold, they can't clear 40k systems in a week. Meanwhile the DS practically hasn't dipped under 150k sales for about two years. Traditionally there is no market Sony does better in than Japan, and their two flagship systems' sales (PS3 and PSP) added together aren't even coming close to the numbers of just one of the systems of a company they've already publicly declared they didn't believe to be "real" competition. Then there's the fact that the PS2 has outsold the PS3 several weeks in the past few months (despite an already saturated market) and that the 360's (the least liked console in Japan since the original XBox) numbers have actually come within striking distance a few times in the same time period and the fact that we're not seeing a price drop announced and seeing Sony do crazy things like remove features from their products before European launch makes most people wonder what exactly Sony is trying to do with themselves. Their system is DoA and they don't seem to know what to do to fix it.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Market Share is a very easy thing to lose and an amazingly difficult thing to gain. As long as they are selling approximately as many systems as the XBox 360, and selling less systems than the Wii, they will be the system with the lowest market share and are (essentially) digging themselves into a hole.
... most of the damage that could be done from a high price has been done (hurting reputation, producing slow sales, etc.). Right now Sony needs to know whether their 'big' game releases will improve sales or whether the PS3 actually needs a price drop to even compete.
Yes but they were only selling "about as many systems" when people could hardly find them.
Now that they are on Amazon for example, they (as I said) have a sales rank of 10 or so, while the 360 is around 17.
Amazon sales rank is not really a linear step - the next step up from 17 does not sell X number more units than 17, just more units. But at the higer levels it takes usually quite a large jump to go from one sales rank to the next - so a difference in sales rank between 17 and 10 is actually quite large. Simply put, with console production actually starting to meet real demand the PS3 is catching up, and has anumber of releases upcoming (Motorstorm, Lair, etc.) that should be real system movers.
Momentum matter almost as much as market share and the PS3 has good momentum right now, better even (as had been said) than the PS2.
The reason why this is important is that (as I have said before) the only type of performance that third party developers care about is sales performance. The PS3 is currently selling at a rate similar to what the Gamecube and Dreamcast sold at (in both Japan and North America) meaning third party developers will (possibly) start treating the PS3 like they treated the Dreamcast and Gamecube; if you don't remember, both systems only had a handful of third party exclusive games from (very) close companies.
Now, I would say that Sony is correct in not rushing and dropping the price of the PS3
There has been damage done from the press to be sure but sales have not been slow, supply has sucked. As I pointed out demand is actually rather high still despite the negative press. And the PS3 is a far cry away from being a Dreamcast, which only ever sold about 10 million units worldwide - A big advantage Sony has is that major studios are already online, in a way the Dreamcast never had. And as I said sales rates are still better than for the PS2.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The PS3 won't sell very well. Nintendo and Microsoft have got their consoles selling there, and people already own either a 360 or a Wii. Also, the ridiculous price of the PS3 with deter people from buying it.
A man chooses, a slave obeys - Andrew Ryan.
This is true. I remember hearing anecdotal evidence from EBGames employees back home about why none of their computer game boxes contain cds any more. People regularly come in and run out with an empty box, to which the employees call after them "There's nothing in there!"
I don't know if they have the same policy regarding console games, but it's enough a problem to insulate themselves by having it in the back or under lock and key. I have a friend who ripped off a few $60 Canadian (plus tax) Xbox 360 games the other day by simply walking out of the store with them... My sense of ethics doesn't agree with that, but seriously -- if I was a retailer, I'd assume the worst too; hence, display boxes.
Piracy is somewhat less nefarious in my books, since the publisher is deprived of their money... Then again, I guess the copy on the shelf has already been paid for, so his theft may actually just hurt the retailer and not the publisher? Either way, I still don't condone it and I buy all my games. My time *is* worth money -- isn't yours? I like to show publishers and retailers that quality products *do* sell.
Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.