Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Price Cut To Follow End of Blu-ray Laser Shortage?
Via Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog, a DigiTimes article reports that the shortage of Blue-ray lasers is ending. Back in April Sony Shiroishi Semiconductor, a maker of the blu-violet laser diodes needed to make the PlayStation 3, ramped up production to fully meet the needs of production for Sony's new console. As a result of more readily available components, the article theorizes that a price cut may be possible sometime later this year. "Until now, the question has been: how could Sony afford it? If the Blu-ray supply chain is indeed poised to pump out Blu-ray PUHs, perhaps this is the first major step to seeing $50 to $100 shaved off the cost of the console. Would $100 off the cost of the PS3 bring in more buyers? I don't think this can even be considered a serious question. With few exceptions, and leaving aside a handful of loyal fanboys, the PS3's biggest problem is its price. We look for a Sony price cut later this year if sales stay ho-hum."
I think the prices will come down, but the U.S. version will probably omit the PS2 hardware emulation chip and go with the same emulation as the European chip.
The point is, the price will drop, but it won't be just due to a blue diode prices.
The big thing right now is the games. However, to be fair, Spring/Summer has always been a slow time for new game releases.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
People need to think like a business to understand Sony's pricing. Sony built a machine that is a game console, a Blu-ray player, DVD player, computer (with a far more powerful processor than most people's home computers), music player, communications/chat server, web browser and much more. It does all this but is nearly silent. It does a lot for the price and it has plenty of room to be extended in the future. People complain about the fact that there are no games because developers haven't figured out the best way to code for the cell processor--shouldn't that be a good sign that the console has a future and won't become obsolete by year end?
Sony also backs the player as a quality company--the chances of a system failure are low because Sony makes quality equipment. They are selling a brand, not just a device. That is worth a certain amount of money.
Price is not everything, believe it or not, when you are selling something. People pay for brand, quality, and the knowledge that if they buy from you they are getting a valuable product. I might save a couple of hundred bucks on a different console, but does that console match the specs I desire and does the brand support the product?
Sony is selling below production costs--what more could people want? If I sold my products under what I paid for them my company would fold within a few months. Sony is counting on long-term profit from game licensing, peripherals, and Playstation Store purchases, all of which are the consumers choice to buy or not to buy.
Quit complaining about price--the reason you complain is that you want one badly but don't have the cash to pony up and buy the device. The price is what the price is. Either you buy it or you don't. Do what I did--accept that you want the device, check your budget, save up (it took me eight months of small odd job income), buy it and enjoy the device. I've found that straight out of the box and with an internet connection the thing is a blast for my wife and I and my two children (3 and 5 years old). I also bought Oblivion and am totally sucked in. I'm looking forward to the games and functionality to come.
Sony still hasn't demonstrated a good reason for me to buy a PS3 when the only console games I want to play are Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero 2, both of which I can play on a significantly cheaper PS2.
YES
(The first two are blue, the wavelength is 405 nm. The rest are red)
It might help if they HAD some games.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I don't think it's so much "can't afford" as "don't value the PS3 at the current price." I can afford a PS3 (well, could have afforded a PS3 until I had to spend $1000 to repair my car, but you get the point), I'm just not willing to spend $600 on one. It's not worth $600 to me, and I get the impression that it's not worth $600 to a lot of other people.
What I can afford and what I'm willing to spend are two completely different things. If I were willing to set aside the money, I could already have bought a PS3. Instead I spent the money on other things that I find more worthwhile (such as car repairs, but also a new digital camera and a Wii).
Now I'm not saying that I'll never buy a PS3 - I expect I will, eventually. I just don't plan on spending $600 for it. If it comes down in price to $300 I'd be much more willing to try and buy one.
Really, though, it all comes down to games. The Wii is backwards compatible with the Gamecube, and since I skipped the Gamecube, I'm planning on using the Wii to play some of the Gamecube games I missed. Since I already own a PS2, the PS3's backwards compatibility isn't much of a draw for me. All this adds up to different personal valuations for the consoles. The Wii is more valuable to me than the PS3 is. Therefore, the $300 I spent on the Wii (plus game) is a better value, to me, than $600 for a PS3.
It's not that people can't afford the PS3, it's that people simply don't think it's worth $600.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.