Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

PS3 Prices in Europe Revealed 215

fistfullast33l writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the VP of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe revealed pricing for the Playstation 3 on a French radio show today. From the article: 'Strict currency translation suggests that American pricing may be in the range of US $605 to $726, but currency exchange alone can't tell the story. Case in point: the Xbox 360. In the United States, the Xbox 360 retails for $399, which is only 320 [euros] in exchange. Yet the Xbox 360 is priced at 399 [euros] throughout most of Europe.' The article goes on to speculate that 'the days of multi-console ownership may be coming to an end for many gamers' based on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 prices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PS3 Prices in Europe Revealed

Comments Filter:
  • by fishybell (516991) <> on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:30PM (#15069675) Homepage Journal

    If I get just one of the next generation consoles, I'll still be a multi-console owner; I just need to buy the Revolution.

    • Plus, the original list price doesn't say what the list price after a couple of years is going to be.

      I think next-gen owners are going to be Revolution + one of 360/PS3. How many titles are going to be unique to a platofrm, and of those, how of those are worth a console purchase?
      • It seems to me like the higher price point of the 360 and (as it looks right now) the PS3 starts to make it compete with the lower end gaming PC market. So, in the casual gamer category, you have the Revolution and that's pretty much it. Then, in the more serious market, you have lower-end gaming PCs, the 360, and the PS3. Granted, $500 does not get you a very high-performance PC, but it could still get you a decent setup. I have a pretty decent rig and I have no intention of dropping another $500 on a
      • I think next-gen owners are going to be Revolution + one of 360/PS3. How many titles are going to be unique to a platofrm, and of those, how of those are worth a console purchase?

        Sorta like the current gen, where a lot of people I know had a Gamecube + Xbox or PS2. At least those that, unlike myself, don't waste gobs of money on games.

        I think it is actually part of Nintendo's strategy, especially in the US...keep prices low enough that you can afford to get their console as an "extra." This is proba
  • P$3 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ThankfulJosh (867278) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:32PM (#15069700)
    That is way higher than I expected. Even with the console Euro-flation seen by the Xbox 360 ($399 vs. $460), that means a $500+ PS3 here in the states.

    Goodbye, PS3 marketshare.

    What do y'all think? Is this price point as huge a blunder by Sony as it appears to be on the surface?
    • Re:P$3 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ivan256 (17499) * on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:37PM (#15069751)
      What do y'all think? Is this price point as huge a blunder by Sony as it appears to be on the surface?

      It depends.

      It depends on what comes in the box. It depends on if it's $499, or if it's $599.

      Really, you're not going to the store for an Xbox 360 and spending less that $550. I know two guys who went out and bought one yesterday, and they each spent $800. You need extra controllers, the right cable, memory, games, etc...

      If the $499 price is the real price, and it's in 'Value Pack' form like they did with the PSP (doesn't seem too unlikely), then no, it's the same price as the Xbox 360 essentially. If the price is $599, and it comes with nothing, then yes. They're stupid. If it comes out at $399, and this little "slip" turns out to be a marketing stunt, well... I wouldn't be surprised. That would be just like Sony.

      We're still at a point where nobody can make an informed decision about this stuff.
      • Huh? I thought the $399 version came with 2 wireless controllers, a harddrive, and HDTV connectors? Throw in a $60 game and that is much less than $550.
      • And you don't need a memory card if you have the harddrive, unless youre swapping saves between different consoles, which is going to be the minority.
      • Re:P$3 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DingerX (847589)
        Marketing stunt? Okay, as homework, go and find all the cases of unrealistically high prices being leaked as marketing stunts.

        On the one hand, Sony could be pulling a marketing stunt; on the other, they could be trying to get the marketing willing to pay that much. I'd say they're more worried about sticker shock than turning around and surprising everybody "hey, guess what, we lied -- it's lower!".

        In yer dreams. They set the price range, now they tweak what they put in the box (accessory-wise) to match t
      • Really, you're not going to the store for an Xbox 360 and spending less that $550.

        I went to the store, bought a 360 and a play and charge kit. That's roughly $450 after tax. I went home and bought Geometry Wars and Marble Blast. $465. A couple weeks later, I bought Oblivion. Now we're up to $530 after tax, including two visits to the store, tax, and some XBL purchases.
      • Re:P$3 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PeelBoy (34769)
        No way in hell. When was the last time a console came with everything you need including a game? Not since the SNES.

        If the PS3 costs $499 you won't walk out of the store with out buying all of the same shit you have to buy for the Xbox 360 and you know it.

        You won't walk out that door with out spending atleast $600+(console + game + tax) or $700+ for some basic shit and a game.

        I don't think it's Sonys fault though.

        Gamers think they NEED the most bad ass specs on the planet to have a good console. HD + 60+gig
        • by ivan256 (17499) *
          If the PS3 costs $499 you won't walk out of the store with out buying all of the same shit you have to buy for the Xbox 360 and you know it.

          Actually, I don't know it. And you don't know it. Nobody knows it. That's the whole point.
    • >What do y'all think? Is this price point as huge a blunder by Sony as it appears to be on the surface?

      yes. Sony has a lot of mindshare after the popularity of PS2, but kid's and parents won't pay these prices. only the 20s-30s gamers will buy it.

      looks like a Nintendo victory already (as far as profit is concerned).
    • by VJ42 (860241)
      Well working that out to GBP it'll be between £349.88 and £419.98, so I'll not be getting one; I think it'll be a revolution for me. But It'll still sell, XBox 360s are still selling like mad here, and the PSP "Giga pack" (IIRC that meant with 3 games) was retaling at about £320, it sold well, of course I bought a DS with 3 games for £120. If the difference remains the same with the PS3 and revolution I can't see parents willing to buy their kids about £400 worth of equipment,
    • Goodbye, PS3 marketshare.

      Nope. I'm sure Sony know's what they are doing. The high price is an ingenious part of their marketing, and they have a new motto to go with it:

      Playstation 3: With a price like this, it's gotta be good.
    • At the same time you have to ask yourself whether Sony will use a digit for digit conversion rate or a proper conversion approximate. I have seen many companies sell a $100 item for 100 or even a $100 item for £100 :o, despite what the exchange rate might be.
  • by iamjoltman (883526) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:33PM (#15069712)
    They act like the only way to own multiple consoles is to buy them both right when they come out. They will both eventually drop in price, so even if someone doesn't pick up both at launch, down the line they could quite possibly pick up the other.
  • by tod_miller (792541) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:33PM (#15069715) Journal
    PlayStation 3 will sell for between EUR 499 and EUR 599...

    There. I think that says it. The rest of the article that is about ps3 prices in europe talks about xbox prices in the US. wtf.
    • Yes, for those who don't know I do mean approximately between Sorbitan monopalmitate and Ferrous lactate.

      Not really, my keyboard is not cut out for all these fancy new characters, I have a symbol for 'ovelos' on my keyboard. but not euro. or a shift key it appears.
    • Thank you. The submitter somehow forgot to include the European price of the PS3 in his article summary about the unveiling of the European price of the PS3. Incompetence, or a devious plot to get Slashdotters to actually RTFA before posting?

  • by ZiakII (829432) * on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:35PM (#15069732)
    The article goes on to speculate that 'the days of multi-console ownership may be coming to an end for many gamers' based on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 prices.

    This is why I think the Nintendo Revolution will really take off. I've come to the conclusion that I am done with consoles and moved 100% to the PC. If I'm going to spend a lot of money on something that will entertain me I want it to have something that I can use for other then entertainment. Which is why I'm much happier buying a PC. Yet Nintendo's game consoles are cheap enough for me to pick-up and not feel like I wasted a ton of money on it if I only play it once a week at most.
  • A Long Leap too far? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sane? (179855) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:37PM (#15069752)
    From what I can gather Sony are between a rock and a hard place. A price like $599 is too low to have any great certainty of making their money back on game prices, and too high for most people to accept.

    The same is true of Blu-Ray as a whole. Numbers like $1000 and $1500 for simple players have been thrown around.

    Either Sony bite a very big bullet and swallow hundreds of dollars in cost (which they probably are already at $599), or accept that it would be a minority console for several years until prices could fall - giving XBox 360, Revolution and HD-DVD a massive headstart.

    Maybe this will be a nail in the coffin of Sony. I can't see any easy route out for them that will be acceptable to the stockmarket. Maybe they will be worth more in bits and someone will force that on them?

  • The European Prices (Score:3, Informative)

    by mikeisme77 (938209) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:38PM (#15069756) Homepage Journal
    For those too lazy to read TFA...

    499 Euro - 599 Euro

    Out of my price range...

    Viva la Revolution!
  • Well, I guess you won't see the lower price as an argument in favor of the console during the PC vs Consoles jousts on internet forums much longer.
  • Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fishybell (516991) <> on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:46PM (#15069829) Homepage Journal
    The real question, is why bother with getting both the Xbox 360 and the PS3? Almost every major game made right now is being released for multiple consoles anyway.

    This, of course, is really bad for sony with it's apparently much higher price, lateness to the game, and DRM shenanigans. The only way for the PS3 to come out a winner is because of anti-microsoft mentalities, sony fanboyism, or a really killer exclusive title. One of the big reasons Sony came to the forefront of consoles is because it effectively stole the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest franchises away from Nintendo. Unless they can invent a breakthrough franchise a-la GTA or Halo that will be exclusive to them, they're essentially dead in the water.

    Nintendo, on the other hand, has essentially re-invented the console for the Revolution. Not only is the controller revolutionary, but also the game distribution and game compatability platforms. The idea that I can buy one console, play both new games and old games, and not even have to go to the store to buy many of the games is going to put both the Xbox 360 and PS3 to shame. Because of this Nintendo doesn't compete directly with Sony or Microsoft.

    Nintendo has more exclusive franchises, more backwards compatability, and will cost less. Even when you compare the 360 and PS3 directly Nintendo comes out ahead. Screw polygon count and cpu speed; give me my Revolution.

    • well, im not sure the idea of backwards compatibility is actualy exclusive to the revolution considering the fact that my PS2 already plays all the PS1 games and the PS3 is supposed to play both PS1 and PS2 titles. the revolution wont play all of the back catalog nintendo games... the PS3 (supposedly) will play all the back catlog PS games... in my opinion, the playstation is better at backwards compatibility than nintendo will be. its not like i will be able to take my n64 cartridge and stick it into my re
      • its not like i will be able to take my n64 cartridge and stick it into my revolution

          No but you can take your gamecube game and stick it in the revolution. Also PS3 will not run all PS games, the PS2 didn't run ALL PS games.

        i do think the revolution looks pretty killer though. its just not quite as revolutionary as you make it sound.

        Well apparently they is something important that they will announce at this E3.
      • The big library of (mostly less-than-mediocre) PS1 and PS2 games might be playable on the PS3, but will you be able to get them? Even if you own a good amount, the games scratch and die after a few years. Me and my old room mate were going through his PS1 collection trying to find a decently unscratched disk. Turns out about 80% of the legal portion of his collection is scratched to hell. Only games that survive are burns, which you'd probly need a mod chip to play on your PS3. And, when your legal games di
    • This, of course, is really bad for sony with it's apparently much higher price, lateness to the game, and DRM shenanigans.

      Because, of course, Microsoft are such anti-DRM pro-consumer crusaders and all.

      I'm also not sure why you think Sony's "lateness to the game" is a problem, in the same post you state your preference for the Nintendo Revolution? The Revolution will probably be coming out at about the same time as the PS3, probably novemberish of this year. That's not a bad thing-- I think november of this
      • It's true that I'm a bit of a Nintendo fanboy, but I own, and play pretty continuously, a PS2 and PS1 (don't use the console that much anymore, just the games).

        The reason I singled out Sony is because Microsoft already fulfilled their obligation to pushing the boundaries of "next generation" with the combination of Xbox Live and Xbox Arcade. Until Sony shows some real results they are falling further and further behind.

        Nintendo isn't necessarily in the same boat because they aren't just copying Microsof

    • Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jchenx (267053)
      The real question, is why bother with getting both the Xbox 360 and the PS3? Almost every major game made right now is being released for multiple consoles anyway.
      This, of course, is really bad for sony with it's apparently much higher price, lateness to the game, and DRM shenanigans. The only way for the PS3 to come out a winner is because of anti-microsoft mentalities, sony fanboyism, or a really killer exclusive title. One of the big reasons Sony came to the forefront of consoles is because it effectivel
      • Again, I must call BS. Game compatibility? I believe the PS2 was the first console to have backwards compatibility. (Or maybe the GB->GBA did it first, I don't know).
        I think the GB series had it before the PS2, but Atari had it long before either of them.
    • The real question, is why bother with getting both the Xbox 360 and the PS3? Almost every major game made right now is being released for multiple consoles anyway.

      Sony has the implied lead with possibly getting the next Grand Theft Auto although nothing's been announced. Sony still gets all the Square-Enix games and the Metal Gear games; Microsoft gets a sliver of them, and late. Sony gets Grand Turismo . This is what comes to mind off-hand, and I'm not counting critically acclaimed stuff like Katamari Da

      • Nintendo does have the most exclusive franchises since they're the only platform developer that still develops a lot of their own games, but they haven't had a gigantic blockbuster in years. (Consider that of the top 10 games of all time, sales-wise, Mario is in at least 4 or 5 of them, and the last big Mario game was Mario 64).

        Super Smash Brothers Melee has sold more than 6 million copies on the cube. And Iwata has stated that they are trying to get the sequel as a Rev launch title. True, sales of Zelda

      • Square and Nintendo are becomming chummy again. I would expect a major Square release to grace the Revolution early on.
    • Two reasons why Sony took away the market from Nintendo. The console had everything which was needed to combine Multimedia with 3d (3d was the latest craze then) The console was the easiest to pirate for of all 3d enabled gaming consoles. The N64 back then was really hard to pirate due to the modules, while everyone had a CD burner in their PC.

      So basically excessive Warezing helped Sony into the seat. One fact that Sony does not dare to admit up until now (not even internally given the whole we screw out
  • I don't doubt that the Blue Ray might be a thing of the future but that sure is a heavy price when you are technically an early adopter of the technology. What will happen is that the tech will catch on, become cheaper and improve. Then you are left with an aged PS3 that you paid way too much for. That or Blue Ray will not catch on at all . . . cough . . . cough . . .UMD media . . . cough. I think Sony is taking a major risk here. Not only are they fighting a console war, they are taking on a format war. I
  • The PS3 price is probably what I thought it would be. It was never going to be cheap. In some respects, if I can get 3 good years out of the console, then the price is OKish. But the real problem with the next-gen for me is the price of games. I love gaming. I earn a decent amount. But at this rate, I'm not going to be buying many next-gen games. They will be at least 25% more expensive than titles from this generation. That much is clear from the 360 games that are out already. I'm only going to be able to buy a handful of games a year at that price. Or I'm going to have to wait until they come out on budget. Pfft. Great.

    I'm more worried about this generation transition than any other before. The cost of games is going to mean fewer games sell. And of course, games will cost loads more to develop. That means that publishers/developers focus on "guaranteed" sales, which means more sequels, more licenses and more cynically marketed crap. And less innovation and risk. Yeh, yeh, I know we've heard it all before, but I'm feeling pretty down about it. Maybe I'll just stick to mariokart on the SNES.

      Are you even REMOTELY a "real" console gamer?
      That's absoloutely Microsoft style pitiful (release the Xbox "last" in the last race and the replacement first in the next gen race) value for money, not good (compared to PS2)

      Consoles are generally a 5 year item give or take a year, implying 3 is good, no just no.

      Not once you factor in high quality video cables / addon memory cards / addon peripherals / games / etc etc not even close.

  • by Schezar (249629) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:54PM (#15069921) Homepage Journal
    If this is true, I honestly can't see the PS3 being a player in the current gen console wars. Sitting next to the sub-$200 Revolution or the re-release of the Xbox360, the pricetag will scare many people away regardless of the games they offer.

    Indeed, their only justification seems to be that "it's not an expensive console, it's a cheap Blu-Ray player that ALSO plays games." While that may have worked for DVD and the PS2, when America was just beginning to move en masse to DVD and the jump from VHS was dramatic and simple, it's a recipe for disaster with the PS3 and Blu-Ray.

    I remember a story not too long ago that showed fewer than half of Americans with HD capabilities had it hooked up correctly. Market penetration for HD in general is stagnant, and a multidude of ever-changing standards exist. Couple this with the fact that, while Blu-Ray is better than DVD in many ways, it's not better enough. This is nothing like the jump from VHS to DVD, and there's no way Blu-Ray alone will drive sales.

    Not to sound like a fanboy, but Nintendo stands to hit the ground running and comein second or even first this round. (A lot depends on how well the Revolution controller works, what games come out for the 360 in the coming months, and if/when Microsoft releases a cheaper or updated 360).
    • that's, like, a lot of dudes. A veritable multidude...

      Ok, sorry. I'll be good now.
  • and I own all three current (previoius?) gen consoles. it's almost as though the console itself is becoming more significant than the games, and for me that's a bad thing.

    I still have a few (!) games left to finish from the last few years, so I'll be ok for a while.
    • To confirm the $599 price:

      Let's take the E599 price. That presumably includes tax. let's assume that is in a country with really high tax rates - sweden's is 25% (!), whereas the UK has a 17.5% rate of VAT - I'm assuming that's why the guy gave a price range.

      Taking off VAT we have E480.

      Converting to US dollars via XE we get $589. Round that up to $599.

      Sorry. The PS3 is dead. I'm not an early adopter of new media playing technology, I couldn't be interested in the capability to play BluRay movies this year,
  • Cripes. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @02:57PM (#15069945) Homepage Journal
    In other news, a deck of playing cards is still a dollar and change.
    • And a cheap tea-light, perfect for shadow puppets, remains about $0.20 - a lot cheaper than a TV or movie tickets.

      I'm imagining your kids don't like you much though.

      That is, of course, assuming you don't whip out the free bible you got at a hotel for wild and crazy nights of bible reading.

      All entertainment is not created equal. The cool thing about capitalism is that things generally cost what the market will bear. A games console costs around $500 (dropping to $200 a couple of years later) with games aroun
  • I expected it to be hight...but jeez. Looks like I won't be playing MGS4 until I am as old as snake in those fancy-dancy trailers.... Guess its going to be some tactical espionage with my old friend mario.
    • Tiptoe around the corner, sneakily climb the nearest wall, and then BAM, drop on the Goomba's head out of nowhere, taking it out and at the same time creating a human (mushroom?) shield for yourself against the spiked hammer of the nearby Spiky-Hammery-Bastards from Mario Bros (3?).
  • Sweet zombie Jesus. I do believe I'll be waiting on the much more sane $199 price-point. I have no desire to invest in a Neo*Geo.
    • I wish they would sell Neo Geo's, think how cheap they'd be now...

      I haven't heard anything on Neo Geo games coming to the Revolution's Virtual Console either... think how much fun Beast Busters [] would be on that! Of course, my brother is hoping for Midway's Carnevil [] instead... philistine!

  • by mocm (141920) * on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @03:00PM (#15069979) Homepage
    because they usually include VAT (in Germany you can't advertise prices without including VAT) and you may also have a mandatory warranty period (2years in Germany) which some companies use as an argument to increase the price. That's why you often have differences to the simple currency conversion. Of course some companies just arbitrarily set a different price in Europe depending on what they think the market may yield.
    Especially for CDs, DVDs and games the prices a arbitrary and they try to artificially seperate the markets via region codes and other such things.
    • I read something which suggested that the reason Sony ports the linux kernel to their hardware is so they can sell the console as a computer, avoiding VAT.

      I don't know if it has any merit, though. Anyone know?
      • I've heard that European PlayStation 2's ship with a copy of BASIC (when I get round to getting one I'll find out...) to try and get round taxes, although I'm not sure how sucessful they were. If it's VAT they're trying to avoid, it would'nt work in the UK, as VAT on computers is 17.5% anyway...
        • I've heard that European PlayStation 2's ship with a copy of BASIC (when I get round to getting one I'll find out...) to try and get round taxes

          They did indeed try that, but didn't succeed. European PS2s haven't been coming with BASIC for many years now. And it was because of import tariffs, not VAT. VAT is set by the individual countries' governments and generally not lower for computers. In some places VAT might be even higher for a computer, or you might also end up paying a 'copying levy' for a machi

      • That won't avoid VAT.

        It might avoid some duties.

        PS2, at launch, had a silly BASIC disc included with it, to get it classified as a 'computer', since you could, in theory, plug in an USB keyboard, and program it. I think I still have the disc somewhere...
  • Nobody wants another 3DO, but it is quite possible... (The 3D0 was about $500-700)
    • In a time when the typical console was retailing brand new at $200... If a $500-$600 PS3 is real, it would be more comparable to a $1000 3D0 from "back in the day".
    • I think the Neo Geo AES would be a more apropriate comparrison. You could say the following about both:

      • Exceptional graphics for their eras
      • Excellent sound for their eras (though less of a factor now)
      • Shockingly large ammounts of storage compared to other home consoles
      • Too expensive for most consumers to buy

      The Neo Geo AES was a commercial failure, not because of any shortcomings in the hardware or the games, but because it was simply too expensive for most people to own. Will the PS3 have the same t

  • $500 US or bust (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nightspirit (846159) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @03:08PM (#15070070)
    Xbox360 non-gimped version is $399. Seeing as how the PS3 is throwing in blu-ray and better specs, I could see $499 as being somewhat reasonable, but still on the high end. But there is no way I'm paying over $500 for a console. I could get a revolution and a 360 for that price. And who cares if the PS3 has blu-ray? In a couple years (when more than a dozen HD movies are out) dual HD-DVD and blu-ray players will be out, and most TVs only have one HDMI slot.
    • most TVs only have one HDMI slot.

      The PS3 has two HDMI slots. Unless Sony have thier collective heads up thier asses, the PS3 will have HDMI passthru. The HDMI specs were designed with daisy chaining in mind.

  • by Nightspirit (846159) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @03:28PM (#15070279)
    If this is true, it means you can purchase a 360 and a revolution for the same price as a PS3, which seems a much better deal than a PS3 alone. Honestly, the revolution seems gimicky to me, but it will be aweseome if Nintendo can pull it off. I think I'll feel more optimistic once some videos come out of people playing actual games on it. I also wish they were doing HD, maybe at least they will support widescreen 480p. If they pull it off and add widescreen support, I'll pick one up. The 360 looks interesting to me because of the downloadable arcade games and achievements. The only thing that interests me about the PS3 is the better hardware and greater game base, but I don't think that is going to be worth shelling out over 1/2 a grand.
  • Unfortunately this means that Microsoft definitely isn't going to feel compelled to drop 360 prices anyways. I have a couple of friends who were hoping for a bump down to $299 for the premium versions in a move by MS to get more of an early lead on the PS3.

    Or maybe this is all an elaborate play from Sony to keep 360 prices up until they can release the PS3? Get your conspiracy hats on...
  • the days of multi-console ownership may be coming to an end for many gamers' based on the Xbox 360 and the PS3 prices

    That may be true if you are only considering the PS3 and Xbox 360, but with a predicted price as low as 99 USD (although 149 USD is more likely) the Revolution is going to be the second, and indeed "must have" machine for those not wanting to miss out on the novel and exclusive games which it will bring to the party. And this is exactly why Nintedo has repeatedly stated that they are not comp
  • Blu-ray (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HalAtWork (926717) on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @03:43PM (#15070459)
    Suddenly the inclusion of Blu-Ray doesn't seem like such a great idea. I know I'll be thinking twice when I look at the price tag and realize that a lot of that will go to recoup the loss on the drive and not towards gaming goodness which is primarily what I will buy the console for.
  • by iridium_ionizer (790600) * on Wednesday April 05, 2006 @04:20PM (#15070860)
    Maybe the reason that Sony is pricing so high is they learned a lesson from a basic economics class(or Rollercoaster Tycoon). They saw that the Xbox 360 sold at a relatively low price point, but that meant that more people were willing to buy it at launch, resulting in a shortage of XBox 360's.

    Keep in mind that Microsoft is losing money with each console sold (which they expect to recoup in software sales), so they really could have raised the price at launch and still sold out of 360's because of the high demand. Now this may have helped their short-term bottom line, but not without the risk of the strategy backfiring through a loss in brand perception. For example, the public thinks that the 360 is too expensive or trying to screw customers, so only the hardcore buy it, resulting in a season of fair profitability at launch, but at the expense of mass adoption. By avoiding this strategy Microsoft also built the perception that the 360 is a must buy because people are on a waiting list to buy it.

    By initially pricing the PS3 at $499 and $599(USD) Sony can control their lossses during the frentic launch season (when their supply will be exceeded by the demand at any sub-$1000 price), and then have room to cut the price later (when manufacturing gets up to speed) and let the mainstream feel like they are getting a deal. Of course, they risk alienating those same mainstream customers that they need to pick up later (so that the whole economies of scale thing works).

    My brother and I share a PS2 that he bought used two years ago(probably for about $200 w/ games). And although I like some of the Sony games and the whole variety out there for the PS2, I really can't see myself buying a PS3 until a full version gets down to $299.
    • 360 low price point? MADNESS!

      With games and controllers you could buy a CAR A FRIKKIN CAR!
    • Keep in mind that Microsoft is losing money with each console sold
      I bet Microsoft is not losing a single penny on the Core version of the console. Probably just break even. Then, the person either
      a) buys the HD and Microsofts makes a ton of profit off of it (100$ for a 20gig HD???)
      b) buys a memory card and Microsoft still makes a ton of profit (40$ for 64 megs of flash???)

      On the other hand the premium edition is probably costing them quite a lot. But not as much as people would think. Maybe a an extra 100$?
  • I think I just heard a big freaking pin drop somewhere.

    And the Sony fanboys go crazy...

    Seriously, if this is true, I won't be surprised. Kuturagi has been saying for a while now that this was going to be "expensive".

    This is going to prove how much people are willing to pay for their systems.

    A very stark contrast to what Nintendo is saying and planning.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I think the better question is this... Do people want the added features enough to justify the console price? More specifically do people really want Blu-Ray? If not, then at that price, they will have only the hard-core gamers buying. If people actually do want Blu-Ray, then the price is fairly reasonable. So ask yourself that question. The gaming point is a given. Do the extra features matter enough to you? If I were Sony, I would start demand by offering Blu-Ray discs for the SAME price as DVDs.
  • by Myria (562655) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @02:09AM (#15074008)
    15 years ago, when I was 10, everyone hated Nintendo and how their stuff was overpriced, and how Sega was better. (Remember $75 for Mario 3?) Now it has turned around and everyone on Slashdot (then, BBS's) is praising Nintendo and badmouthing Sony.

  • Meh. (Score:2, Insightful)

    Screw them. There really is nothing on offer with the 360 or PS3 that would convince me to part with that kind of money. I'm much happier building up a collection of quality titles for my xbox and PS2 by purchasing them on ebay for £2-£3 each. Maybe in a couple of years when the price drop and my current consoles give up their magic smoke I might think about buying one of them but for now I'm happier to have my bank balance looking a bit more healthy than it would.
  • Not surprised.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AzraelKans (697974) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @10:52AM (#15076784) Homepage
    Actually for those following the "PS3 saga!" this one is no surprise, even with Sony eating part of the costs, due to the "Cool!" (tm.) expensive components the PS3 uses, like BLU-RAY, 1080p capable 3d card, more USB ports you could shake a stick at and Blue tooth wireless net support, The PS3 is easily going to be the most advanced and most expensive next generation console . (sort of like the PSP of consoles)

    The big problem though, is that even with those expensive changes, the PS3 titles havent managed to look all that different from those of their competitors (specially without a HDTV) and I can almost bet most (if not all) first generation titles will be released in regular Dvd's not blu-ray's.

    This is the real reason why Sony decided to delay the launch until the costs could be reduced and more interesting launch titles were available, unfortunately the console launch can only be delayed for a time and although the price has dropped quite a bit (From $700 to ($600-$500)) it still manages to top the rest, additionally first generation titles still dont seem to use the PS3 hardware properly. (check out the gameplay videos at and I specially dont expect EA titles to do any different.

    To make things worst Sony PR has been bombing fans with "target renders" and "realtime demos" of suposedly "possible" images for the PS3 (they even carried the tradition in the GDC with Motorstorm and a clearly prerrendered Ratchet and clank "preview") far, far beyond the capabilities of the earlier generations titles (KZ2, Motorstorm and maybe even MGS4 itself, etc.) IMO Big mistake, eventually all fans will realize the PS3 is not capable of delivering at THAT level at the time, they probably wont be very amussed.

    High price, fraudulent imagery and advetising, no Killer apps (unless MGS4 is ready for deploy of course) and dissapointing First generation titles? the PS3 has a lot of work cut out in front of it. Lets see how the final launch goes in November (my birth month!).

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.