On the heels of news that Sony may post the biggest quarterly loss in years, Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot believes in order for Sony to become more competitive a price drop is badly needed.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ubisoft CEO Says PS3 Needs a Price Reduction
- Thread starter Rich Tate
- Start date
The price cut would have to be significant $50 would be nice but I think it needs to drop $100 or more for the PS3 to sell. In the latest sales numbers only 82,000 PS3's sold this past month which must have been disappointing for Sony. On the other hand Nintendo dominates with the still hard to find Wii and the DS.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
hmmm, if sony drop the price they lose even more money!! WOOO!
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
They'd have to drop the price to near the Xbox 360 range to make an impact.The Blu-ray was a mistake,all it did was raise the price.I don't buy a game console to watch movies,I buy it to play games,and DVD is a good enough medium for that.In the end,it's the games that sell the system.Nintendo decided to aim it's price and games at the family market and that's been succesfull.The 360 isn't outrageous in price,appeals to more mature gamers and has Halo 3 waiting in the wings.What does the PS 3 have besides a bloated price tag?
Sanitarium
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,080
I won't buy one till they're $50.
Yeah trying to sell the system for such a high price just because of Blu-Ray was the dumbest idea ever. I've been saying that ever since I heard of the price and the hardware. Morons I say Sony are because of this. Probably the biggest blunder in a game system ever. I'm including the Atari Lynx and Neo Geo in that list, too. Because they both had
l33t games even though they didn't produce much of a following. The Atari Lynx was way ahead of it's time. Sony thought the PS3 was way ahead of it's time. No...what they did was jump the gun in a rush to get a system out to compete with Microsoft. Guess what...nobody has made any games for your junk yet, Sony.
As I've said before, I'll never buy a PS3, but I would accept one as a free gift.
l33t games even though they didn't produce much of a following. The Atari Lynx was way ahead of it's time. Sony thought the PS3 was way ahead of it's time. No...what they did was jump the gun in a rush to get a system out to compete with Microsoft. Guess what...nobody has made any games for your junk yet, Sony.
As I've said before, I'll never buy a PS3, but I would accept one as a free gift.
The Lynx was indeed a big failure and, as you say, it was because it was ahead of its time (as was the Sega Gamegear). The Neo Geo, though, wasn't a true failure. It wasn't intended to dominate the market, and it filled its niche perfectly - bringing a faithful arcade experience into the home. Had the Neo Geo been a true failure, SNK would have died much sooner - what killed SNK was the change in gamer mindsets to "3D uber alles."
If you want a console blunder to compare to the PS3, I think the 3DO would be just about perfect. Nice capabilities for its time, multimedia enhancement, combined with a price that was WAY out of line with what gamers wanted to pay ($700 in 1993!!).
$600 per console - Blu-ray or not - is never going to achieve the kind of mass-market penetration for developers to get excited. Even $500 is probably way too high compared wtih the competition (I think it's almost a given that if Sony drops the price of the PS3, Microsoft will immediately follow with a discount on the 360 - they can easily afford it).
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
I agree on the Neo Geo not being a failure,it was aimed at those willing to pay for a true arcade machine,and no one did 2D fighters like SNK.It really wasn't aimed at mass market gamers.But Sony is trying to get mass market numbers while charging "niche" prices.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,037
I was reading up on the Neo Geo the other night and I found it to be quite an interesting console. It was officially supported by SNK for 14 years, while only one other console had longer-official support, the Atari 2600 at 14 years 2 months. I would grab one if the games still weren't so expensive.
I don't know if I'll even buy a Playstation 3 no matter how large of price drops they offer over the years.
Just bring back the 20gig model, simple as that. People complain too much these days, if you can't buy one then don't and get a 360/wii instead. Actually the ps3 is cheaper then the 360 if you think of it this way. to make the 360 wi fi and play hd dvd(not even blu-ray) you need to spend $300 extra so that will be $700 while the ps3 is cheaper, plus you wouldn't really have to worry about the ps3 getting overheated(my 60gig v. hasen't), also A big plus, the ps3 can fold while the xbox 360 CANNOT(sorry for shouting, just really annoyed at the people whining at how much the ps3 costs)
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,037
It really was a mistake for Sony to discontinue the 20GB model. This isn't about being able or not being able to buy a PS3. It's about it being overpriced for features that some people aren't going to use.
Okay so the Wi-Fi is a bit overpriced for the 360, but you can use cheaper 3rd-party methods or find one used. Some people don't want to get caught up in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray mess right now. I have hundreds of DVDs and I'm just fine with watching them. Yes the PS3 can fold but how many people acutally bought the PS3 just for this feature? I bet a couple of hardcore folders did but the majority of people either don't know what folding is or don't care. Most people won't want to leave it on 24/7 because of the power consumption.
yea you have some good points, and it was really really truly a mistake to discontinue their 20gb model, well I guess ps3 is just more of an entertainment system then a gaming console, well what sony should do is include a hdmi cable in the ps3 60gig version like what ms did with their 360 elite and lower the price by like $20-$50 then I think more people will buy it, maybe.
I think you may be misunderstanding the idea on which the complaints about the PS3's price are based (and, FWIW, I considered the 20-gig model overpriced as well). People are indeed going to buy a Wii and/or 360 instead, but they're going to continue to complain as long as Sony can continue to lure developers into making exclusives. It's bad enough that franchises like Gran Turismo and God of War are automatically limited to the PS3 because they're made by Sony, but gamers could also have to miss out on franchises like Final Fantasy (I don't think Square Enix has made official announcement of 360 development for FF13), Metal Gear Solid (Kojima has seemed in love with Sony, even to the point that his studio released a port for the Xbox that was graphically inferior [!!] to the PS2 version), etc.
I'll also take issue with your use of the word, "can't." I know people who could afford a PS3 but they won't buy one because they find the price ridiculous. Depending on the month, I certainly fit in that category (in 2002 I bought Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 all in a 2-month period - total spent was nearly $1,000 with games and accessories).
I'll grant that the complaints are somewhat pointless since Sony knows the problem and we're not going to effect a change except by voting with money at retail, but, then again, aren't most complaints/gripes/whines about game consoles pointless anyway? Except that they might make us feel a little better for a while after getting stuff off our chests, I'd say "yes."
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,037
It really needs to be more than $50 if they want to get more North American sales. There are very few exclusive titles for PS3 that are going to sell $550 or $600 consoles.
Also, take into account the gas prices have sky rocketed across the U.S. This is forcing people to cut back on their normal lives to compensate. I don't do a whole lot of driving as I work right down the street. My pockets are still burning as it costs me about $10 extra a tank to fill up and I've been filling up between 3-5 times a month. So let's say $40 and that's almost the price of a new release.
My wife fills up about twice a week so that's $80. So between the two of us, we are losing out on 2 new games a month.
Summer is fast approaching and so are vacations. The majority of people aren't in a situation to spend $600 on a console. The Xbox 360 looks much more reasonable at $299/$399, even if it doesn't do everything that the PS3 can do. You can walk away with 3-5 new games for the same price.
Also, take into account the gas prices have sky rocketed across the U.S. This is forcing people to cut back on their normal lives to compensate. I don't do a whole lot of driving as I work right down the street. My pockets are still burning as it costs me about $10 extra a tank to fill up and I've been filling up between 3-5 times a month. So let's say $40 and that's almost the price of a new release.
My wife fills up about twice a week so that's $80. So between the two of us, we are losing out on 2 new games a month.
Summer is fast approaching and so are vacations. The majority of people aren't in a situation to spend $600 on a console. The Xbox 360 looks much more reasonable at $299/$399, even if it doesn't do everything that the PS3 can do. You can walk away with 3-5 new games for the same price.
Fine then if $50 isn't enough then is $50.50 drop price enough?
, well I heard somewhere that it takes sony $850 to make the console, but since ps3 is mass producing(kind of) then that mean the blu ray is so then it is going to be cheaper to make the laser in the blu ray there fore blu ray will be cheaper and according to a site that means the ps3 will eventually be cheaper. But I still my ps3 (60gig) was worth the price The PS3 needs games. I would buy the system over the Xbox 360 and Wii if it had 2 or 3 games I really wanted to play. Instead there isn't a single game I haven't already played on another system or that I would consider actually paying money to play. In addition there is one too many consoles in the market. System makers would stand to make more money off their games if the market was divided between two systems instead of three and publishers would be more willing to put up the money to develop great games for a single system.
Bowhuntr11
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,289
Best Answer ever...
You tell the PS3 to drop its price...but yet you sell your games for 60 and 80 bucks...If I don't buy 10 of your games...I can buy a PS3!!! FTW!!
Bowhuntr11
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,289
Here's an idea. Stop and I mean STOP making the PS3 with Blu-Ray drive. There are plenty of unsold PS3 w / BR out there in the supply chain for those that want one. Put in a standard DVD drive and cut the price $200, this making it instantly price comparable to the Xbox360. Cut if $300 and it will be comparable to the Wii.
Manaknight
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,446
no sense in dropping it to compete with the wii, simply because it is not designed to.
put it at level with 360 to give people a viable option between the two. Those are really the only two that are interested in a contested spot, the wii has carved a niche for itself and is doing quite well at it.
personally i would probably still get a 360. since it has live marketplace. that and most of the games i enjoy are quirky japanese games or 2d gaming, most of which i find on my DS anyway
i do agree whole heartedly with what is said earlier, a drop in console prices is fine, but a drop in game priced should also come about, hell this round games went up, not down. i understand dev costs, but 60 dollars for a 12 hour game is rediculous. it's been a trend to make "prettier" games with less substance nowadays...and thats not worth my money regardless of the system
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
The prices of the games themselves is a sore point with both the 360 and PS3,the PC versions are usually much cheaper.If these companies think they can charge whatever they want,they have a poor memory of past events in the video game industry.
PC games don't require payment of royalties to console manufacturers. I don't know what the number is on license fees per unit these days, but any number adds to the price they have to charge in order to make what they consider a reasonable profit. It doesn't help, either, when developers make amazing games that fail in the marketplace because the consumers just aren't paying attention (such as Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil and Shadow of the Colossus) or they can't afford the marketing that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony provide for their own products (like Halo, God of War and Zelda).
Let's also not forget the fact that game prices have actually dropped relative to inflation - even taking that out of the equation, anyone remember $70 Super Nintendo games? Mostly, the ability to keep prices relatively low is due to the transition from cartridges to optical discs. Considering the increased cost of development, console gaming is probably more affordable (again, taking inflation into consideration) than it's ever been.
I think ps3 is hurting because of two reasons. First is no good games are out yet. Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resident Evil 5, Devil May Cry all aren't out till late 2007 if not 2008. Second, I agree alot of people complained the price about $600 is a bit steep with Wii at $250 and 360 at $399. Now if there was a $100 or more price drop just in time for Christmas 2007 and some of the good games came out at that time, I can see PS3 doing a bit better and I would consider buying one but right now I'd rather get a Wii first.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,945
I will post my response from other boards that had this news last week.
When Ubi can make a good PS3 title they can start demanding things. So far it looks like the much delayed R6V and GRAW might actually be playable if I am to believe those that were in attendance at Sony's Gamers Day.
We'll see how Assassins Creed does as well.
When Ubi can make a good PS3 title they can start demanding things. So far it looks like the much delayed R6V and GRAW might actually be playable if I am to believe those that were in attendance at Sony's Gamers Day.
We'll see how Assassins Creed does as well.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,945
Look at the various Sony Gamer's Day coverage from last week. Good titles are coming in the next few months with demo's and online public beta's coming shortly, i.e. Warhawk beta starts on the 24th. E3 will have more details on some of the larger titles; MGS, FF, Killzone, etc.
Sony never claimed they were targetting the mass market with the PS3. In fact, before the system launched at various press conferences and interviews, they stated flat out that they knew the system was going to be priced beyond some arbitrary "ideal" price for the mass market. At least for a while anyway. The Playstation brand is evolving to be about more than just games this time around, folks. If you just want a games machine, there's already various other systems on the market to do that. Sony recognized that and wanted to do something different this time out. They wanted a bigger bite out of your entertainment/leisure budget in terms of both time and money. People do more than just play games for entertainment. They also watch movies, listen to music, look at/share pictures, surf the internet, etc. Sony wanted a single device for your living room that can handle those functions. The PS3 and PSP (for when you're on the go) were designed with that goal in mind.
So, yes, the PS3 costs more due to the higher level of integration. If you don't want such a highly integrated device, buy something else that doesn't include all the frills. You're not in the target audience for the PS3. Simple as that. At least, not right now. Is it silly that Sony would target the smallish crowd that is in their intended target demographic? Perhaps. I'm not claiming that it was the right way to go if they wanted to make 100's of billions of dollars like Nintendo is seeming to do. All I'm saying is that if you're one of the people bitching that Sony included BluRay, but you don't want BluRay are blubbering about nothing. Do you bitch that JEEP makes 4WD vehicles even if you and some other people don't want a 4WD vehicle? I mean, it makes the vehicle cost more than a comparable 2WD vehicle and it cuts into fuel economy. That doesn't mean JEEP is stupid for making vehicles with 4WD. Some people do want a 4WD vehicle and for them, a JEEP may be the perfect vehicle for their needs. See what I'm sayin' here? Just because there's a feature you don't want or need, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way you do.
I happen to want a PS3 for all of it's various functions and in order to get all of those features elsewhere, I'd have to spend more money. Am I in the minority with that opinion? Maybe, but here's some food for thought. You don't have to sell products just to the majority. The minority have money to spend, too. Where there's people willing to spend money, there's profit to be made.
Some people seem to act like Sony took a dump in their Cheerios this time around because they made something that isn't in line with their expectations. Boo Effin Hoo. Just because it isn't in line with your expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill perfectly for someone else. Buy something else that better fits your needs and quitcherbitchin'.
Yes, Sony needs more games in their library. They're coming... Patience, young Padawans...
So, yes, the PS3 costs more due to the higher level of integration. If you don't want such a highly integrated device, buy something else that doesn't include all the frills. You're not in the target audience for the PS3. Simple as that. At least, not right now. Is it silly that Sony would target the smallish crowd that is in their intended target demographic? Perhaps. I'm not claiming that it was the right way to go if they wanted to make 100's of billions of dollars like Nintendo is seeming to do. All I'm saying is that if you're one of the people bitching that Sony included BluRay, but you don't want BluRay are blubbering about nothing. Do you bitch that JEEP makes 4WD vehicles even if you and some other people don't want a 4WD vehicle? I mean, it makes the vehicle cost more than a comparable 2WD vehicle and it cuts into fuel economy. That doesn't mean JEEP is stupid for making vehicles with 4WD. Some people do want a 4WD vehicle and for them, a JEEP may be the perfect vehicle for their needs. See what I'm sayin' here? Just because there's a feature you don't want or need, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way you do.
I happen to want a PS3 for all of it's various functions and in order to get all of those features elsewhere, I'd have to spend more money. Am I in the minority with that opinion? Maybe, but here's some food for thought. You don't have to sell products just to the majority. The minority have money to spend, too. Where there's people willing to spend money, there's profit to be made.
Some people seem to act like Sony took a dump in their Cheerios this time around because they made something that isn't in line with their expectations. Boo Effin Hoo. Just because it isn't in line with your expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't fit the bill perfectly for someone else. Buy something else that better fits your needs and quitcherbitchin'.
Yes, Sony needs more games in their library. They're coming... Patience, young Padawans...
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
Well,the problem is I already have a device that can handle all those functions better than the PS3 - it's called a computer.Sure,it cost more,but it does more,it's upgradeable,and the games are cheaper.
The idea that Sony can be successful without appealing to the mass market doesn't fly with me.The consoles themselves are sold at a lost with the idea that game sales will provide the profit.And they'll have to sell a lot of games to make a profit with the PS3.If the console itself is priced out of range of the average gamer,they won't be buying any of those games at all.
The idea that Sony can be successful without appealing to the mass market doesn't fly with me.The consoles themselves are sold at a lost with the idea that game sales will provide the profit.And they'll have to sell a lot of games to make a profit with the PS3.If the console itself is priced out of range of the average gamer,they won't be buying any of those games at all.
I think we, as consumers, have every right to complain about a game system (that's what a Playstation is for, regardless of what Sony was trying to do) that has more options than a gamer needs. I have a PC already. I don't need a PS3. I just want something that plays games. Some of Sony's exclusive titles are cool, but not $600 cool. Consumers will continue to complain until they bring the price down. A Playstation is a gaming system. If they wanted to make something that did more, why call it a Playstation?