Analysts See 80GB PS3 Dropping To $499 For Holidays

Gamsasutra reports on analyst predictions of another PS3 price drop in time for the holidays. This time, the 80GB sku would take the place of the now fully-cleared-out 60GB unit. "Jesse Divnich from fantasy video game prediction market simExchange has said much the same, adding that 'after examining more closely the hardware sales of the PS3 over the last 6 months we have come to the conclusion that the PS3 cannot remain competitive in the current North American environment at its current retail offering at $499 and $599 ... To remain competitive against the other consoles, the Sony PS3 would have to reduce its 80GB SKU by $100 down to $499. Other options, besides a price drop, could be the bundling of more free software titles, which has always been a popular option during the Holiday season.'"

Comments

Like I care?

[nweaver]

As a gamer who plays, I'm currently enjoying Metroid on a Wii..

When I finally get an HDTV, My $$$ are going to the evil Borg empire (rather than the Evil sony empire) and getting an XBox 360 for Halo and GTA IV.

So why should anyone care about the PS3? The zealots who got them got them already, and all the rest are just not gonna care, get a Wii (gameplay) or get an XBox (more games and similar "oohh, shiny" graphics)

Re:Like I care?

[dsyu]

So why should anyone care about the PS3? The zealots who got them got them already, and all the rest are just not gonna care, get a Wii (gameplay) or get an XBox (more games and similar "oohh, shiny" graphics)

For some, it's a case where we're assuming (maybe foolishly) that the PS3 will eventually have some interesting and unique games that are otherwise unavailable on any of the other platforms. Examples of this for the PS2 for me would be Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Ratchet and Clank, etc.

It's akin to asking why anyone bothered buying an original XBox, when there were so many more titles for the PS2? If you were a Halo fan, the answer was obvious.

Re:Like I care?

[SwordsmanLuke]

As a long time gamer, I'm not entirely sold on the Xbox 360. It seems to me that Microsoft is tying their console so closely to their Games for Windows / DX10 effort that I am willing to bet that many games for the 360 will turn up on PC as well. Also, I think the PS3's hardware provides more potential for future development. (Whether or not game studios will be able to take advantage of that potential is another issue altogether.)

I'm not a Sony fanboi, I waited in line for my Wii and ignored the PS3 launch completely. I want my games to be fun, not just pretty. (Which probably explains the old Atari 2600 in my living room) But I see interesting things in the PS3's future that I don't think the 360 will be able to match.

Just my $.02

Re: Like I care?

[trdrstv]

For some, it's a case where we're assuming (maybe foolishly) that the PS3 will eventually have some interesting and unique games that are otherwise unavailable on any of the other platforms. Examples of this for the PS2 for me would be Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Ratchet and Clank, etc.

It's akin to asking why anyone bothered buying an original XBox, when there were so many more titles for the PS2? If you were a Halo fan, the answer was obvious.

The difference is Th X-Box launched with Halo. What "System Seller" is on the shelf right now for the PS3? Why buy a system for "maybe" ? Buy it with the game you have to have...

Re:Like I care?

[buffer-overflowed]

Yes, that's very foolish. Most of the PS2's appeal came from 3rd parties. Sony also doesn't have any of their 1st/2nd/3rd committed(Insomniac and Sucker punch would qualify for this particular little sub-categorization) major franchises out yet, and with their marketshare atm you'd be extremely foolish to count on the type of 3rd party committment that made the PS2 worth it.

Or in other words, I'll buy a Nintendo console secure in the knowledge that they'll release enough stuff themselves over it's lifetime for it to be worth the launch price of admission($200-$250). Sony hasn't earned that in my estimation yet, and even if they had, $300 is about my limit for a console with few to no exclusive games actually out that I'm interested in.

I'll eventually wind up with a PS3, I have no doubt of that, but not anytime soon the way things are looking. Upside of that is I'll pay a hell of a lot less for everything.

Re:Like I care?

[Jason Earl]

You are assuming that the PS3 will be given enough time to become that popular. Third party vendors are already re-assessing their support for the PS3. Unless the PS3 starts to put consoles in people's homes then there is little chance that developers are going to spend the time and effort that optimizing for the PS3 will take. It would make far more sense for these developers to spend their time making the Wii version look good, since that's what their customers are most likely to actually own.

The PS3 is just too expensive. Sony can only save the PS3 at this point by doing what Microsoft did with the original XBox. If Sony is willing to lose billions of dollars subsidizing hardware then it can weather this round of the console wars. Sony can basically forget about profiting from this iteration. If Sony is not willing to lose money hand over fist, then the PlayStation is dead.

80GB SKU is a meaningless term

[Pap22]

It's either:

"Sony's 80GB PS3"

or

"Sony's N82E16868110016 SKU"

Except SKU is assigned at the merchant level, so there are approximately eleventy billion different SKUs for the 80GB PS3. The above is Newegg's SKU.

STOP FUCKING SAYING IT

Re:80GB SKU is a meaningless term

[mazarin5]

Either way, I hope they don't have to type in an 80GB SKU every time.

It would wear the finger down pretty quick.

Prediction

[w.p.richardson]

Still too damn expensive for me. And most everyone else.

Re:Prediction

[andphi]

Indeed. "Slightly less prohibitively expensive" still simplifies down to "prohibitively expensive"

Not suprising

[Pojut]

Considering how well Nintendo and Microsoft have been doing with their 7th generation consoles, and with the PS3 losing exclusives left and right, Sony has to do SOMETHING to get them in more homes. I personally love my PS3, I'm just annoyed that there really isn't any must-have games for it (yes, I know it will take a couple years).

That being said, I know that the numbers speak differently, but in all honesty in looking at the three 7th-gen consoles (which, btw, I own all three), I see every console as having a potential market of it's own...The Wii for it's "in-person multiplayer" appeal, the 360 for it's exclusives lineup and overall "feel", and the PS3 for the folks that want their gaming system to do something other than just play games.

Really, this is a very VERY exciting time to be a gamer. It's a shame everyone is still so ass-backwords and fighting with each other. This is the first generation that I could honestly see the big three living in harmony with each other if they would simply stay in their respective niche's...which, we all know, they won't.

Oh, and one more thing. Stop using 'SKU' in article summaries...not because it's used wrong, I'm just tired of hearing people argue about it's usage. That is all.

Remember folks. Play as many games on as many different platforms as you possibly can.

Re:Not suprising

[JFMulder]

Play as many games on as many different SKUs as you possibly can.
Here, corrected that for you. ;)

Re:Shocking News

[Pojut]

even a tired old Halo game that looks just like last gen's Halo 2 is selling.

Like so many others, you were judging a game's graphics based on its BETA. Liek so many other console gamers, this doesn't make you stupid, it just means you aren't used to the idea of a beta. See, in a beta, it is 100% assured that what you see is not the final product. Not in sound, balance, or even *gasp* graphics.

Try doing a side-by-side comparison of Halo 2 with the single-player screenshots of Halo 3 in the latest issue of Game Informer. Is it the same art style? Well yea, it wouldn't be halo without it...are the textures FAR FAR superior and is the detail vastly above anything in Halo 2? Yes indeedy.

Now stop being a little whiney bitch.

Re:Multiplatform Titles

[fotbr]

Just pointing out the obvious.

Use the Wii to make gaming a family activity, and get the kid and your wife to game with you. All the fun of "in-person" multiplayer, without needing to invite people over.

Still over $850 in Britain

[Andy_R]

Over here in Britain, Sony are desperately trying to cling to a ridiculous £425 price point (that's $855 US at today's exchange rate). You could get BOTH a Wii + game AND an Xbox 360 + game for less!

Stores are not being allowed to officially offer discounts, but judging by the 'unofficial' hand written cardboard signs outside every games shop, stores can't shift the boxes without offering a huge bundle of freebies. You'd be hard pushed to buy a PS3 without art least 2 free A-list games, 2 free blu-ray films and a free sixaxis controller in my local mall.

Add in the way Sony UK are stubbornly pretending that 80Gb machines don't exist (all we get is 60Gb ones without the Emotion engine) and it seems they are hell-bent on crashing and burning over here.

Re: Sheer power

[trdrstv]

The Cell processor definitely has a raw horsepower advantage over the rather standard PowerPC in the 360. 8 cores beats 2 any day.

Well, 7 active (useable) and 1 redundant core in the Cell vs. the 3 (Active) cores in the 360. Point understood about More cores being better. One of the issues I see is that the PS3 has half the system RAM (256 megs) of the 360 (512 megs) so a game like Gears of War that uses all that RAM wouldn't be playable in its current form on the PS3.

Don't discount the whole multiple-DVDs vs. 1 BlueRay, either. Or the fact that the PS3 comes standard with a hard drive, allowing game manufacturers to cache textures to disk before they are needed ("streaming textures"), making gameplay smoother, with richer visuals.

If they actually use that extra space appropriately I can see that. However much of the added space is IMHO wasted. For example in Heavenly Sword there was a reported "10 gigs of Audio alone" and the game is supposed to take 6-10 hours to beat. Contrast that with Oblivion that still fits on a DVD9 despite a HUGE quest with tons of voice acting. The notion just reaks of Lazyness, or improper use of Codecs.

Saddly we'll get lots of those before we see someone really use that space. Hell a DVD9 could hold 83 minutes of VC1 Codec 1080p video (Same used in HD DVD or BluRay) so at what point will we see something that really pushes the boundries and doesn't "just fill the disk to say they did" ?

Then there's the sixaxis controller, which gives some interesting gameplay possibilities. For instance, in the upcoming Ratchet & Clank game, one of the weapons produces a tornado, which you control with the sixaxis, while using the more traditional controls as per usual. You can't do that on a 360.

True. Possibilities are there...

So, I think a more interesting question is, what technically can't be done on a PS3 that you can do on a 360? ("Halo III" is not an appropriate answer here, since that's a marketing thing, not a technical thing. A good point, but not technical.)

The Halo thing is kinda the rub. The Xbox and the Gamecube were both more capable hardware than the PS2 (more ram, better GPU, more CPU, built in HDD and Ethernet in the X-Box)...

They could do everything as good or better than the PS2... Except sell... the way the PS2 did... curious...

Re:Multiplatform Titles

[trdrstv]

Just pointing out the obvious.

Use the Wii to make gaming a family activity, and get the kid and your wife to game with you. All the fun of "in-person" multiplayer, without needing to invite people over.

And even if the Wii gaming isn't your cup of tea... if your family likes it, the Wii may be the trojan horse that opens them up to the possibility of a 360 or PS3 for you... maybe even one for Christmas :)

Oh really?

[MeanderingMind]

Personally, I don't care what analysts think. How many of them correctly foresaw the Wii's success? How many of them foresaw the PS3's failure?

I'm not asking any and all analysts to be clairvoyant, but I don't recall any of them being at all accurate. The most dire prognostication was that Sony wouldn't absolutely dominate, but only lead.

As far as I can tell, 90% of analysts are going to make predictions anyone who has a passing interest in the subject could make with about as much accuracy. Basically, they pick whatever follows the old trends irregardless of the fact that trends change.

Sony might drop the price, that's always been a possibility. However, this is Sony we're talking about. I personally find it just as likely that they'll stick to their guns and keep the price as is; it wouldn't even be stupid. If they lower the price, they piss off a lot of hardcore people and potentially reduce their revenue. If they don't, they piss off a lot of hardcore people and potentially reduce their revenue.

I won't be surprised either way, but I would believe random anonymous coward Sony fanboy trolls before I'd listen to analysts.