In spite of Xbox 360's
upcoming price drop, expected to be officially announced during Monday's E3 keynote, Sony is insisting that they will not reduce the price of the PS3. Over recent weeks, executives from the company have continued reiterating the same mantra: Sony's new focus is on profitability, and reducing the price of the loss-leading PS3 is not on their agenda.
"Our strategy is not to sell more quantity for PS3 but to concentrate on profitability," Sony CFO Nobuyuki Oneda told investors at a Nomura Asia Equity forum in Singapore. "Our plan is not to reduce the price."
When Microsoft's price cut goes into effect, the cheapest PS3 model will be $100 more expensive than the Xbox 360. Will this lower ever-increasing PS3 sales? Or will the value proposition of the included Blu-ray drive, free access to PSN, and growing number of exclusives, maintain PS3's current momentum?
[Via GI.biz] 
{ Jul 11th 2008 at 2:30PM } 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
davivman @ Jul 11th 2008 2:40PM
Being 100 bucks more than the 360 may slow sales, but I don't think it should. $400 is a very fair price for what you get with the PS3. If $400 is low price for a stand alone blu-ray player, it should be plenty cheap for a PS3.
Averna @ Jul 11th 2008 9:03PM
Alot of the ps3 fans rattle off all of the peripherals 360 needs if you get the core/arcade models.
You only really need to rattle one of and thats the HDD, which closes the gap to a more than accepable number.
Dwag @ Jul 11th 2008 2:40PM
Yeah Sony don't give in like how MS is doing with motion control just focus on the money and everything will be alright.
grimlock @ Jul 11th 2008 3:25PM
yeah how lame would it be to have to wave some controller around.........wait a second.
xcrunk @ Jul 11th 2008 2:44PM
Microsoft's $50 price drop is weak. It's hardly a shot over the bow. That machine is 3 years old, DVD based and known to be unreliable. $299 is still too much.
Apples to apples, the PS3 trumps the 360. Double the capacity, wireless built in and bluray. I won't even go into free multiplayer.
RPGJock @ Jul 11th 2008 2:57PM
Honestly, the way things are sounding, they are a pulling a play out of Sony playbook from last year. The price drop is a clearance sale on the 20 gig model for the incoming 60 gig model that will be priced at $350. So it will be great for Xbox in the short run like it was for Sony's 60 gig but the momentum will only last on what they show at E3 this year.
Dwag @ Jul 11th 2008 3:11PM
@Xcrunk
Let me say that people always bring up HW issues but yet forgot that PS2 had plenty its pretty funny how people think HW issues equal to a bad console. Why even bring it up?
PS2 won last gen just remember that and they didn't have the best graphics or online or the best HW but still won.
DVD still is a good format and plus the Wii uses DVD so your point on that is..........
Blu-Ray ain't doing shit for the PS3. The games aren't better than the DVD based ones, the Standalones are gonna get cheap and when that happens its over for PS3s Blu ray selling point.
Wireless built in is nothing its just an extra useless feature right now most people I know don't even use the wireless on there PS3 they just stick to wired cause its more secure and just plain faster. I won't even touch online cause frankly I agree with you on that one.
I'm just saying.
Mo @ Jul 11th 2008 3:20PM
does the wii use DVD?
xcrunk @ Jul 11th 2008 3:23PM
@Dwag: The point I was trying to make about DVD is that it's a cheap medium. DVD drives are DIRT cheap. And the 360, a machine that was spec'd out in 2005, it still pricey. I wasn't insinuating that DVD is not viable. DVD is a fine, inexpensive medium.
And for the record, I still have my launch PS2, which works fine. I use it for GH all the time.
Wireless on the 360 is $99. It was $99 bucks in Nov. 2005 and still is $99. You and your friends might not use it. But when comparing PS3 to 360, apples to apples, it bumps up the 360 by $99 which still makes the PS3 a better buy.
Dan @ Jul 11th 2008 3:28PM
@dawg
Blu-ray is moving the PS3 very fast as it being the next gen format it will definitely be one of its main advantages over the Wii and 360. Plus the fact that games using the blu-ray are benefitting greatly because of it. The space alone is allowing companies to not have to hold back due to space constraints.
Wireless is also a plus, just because you dont know anyone with wireless doesnt mean its useless. I use wireless because Its one less device I gotta plug in the router and for store usage only its perfect.
Hell for the 360 the wireless adaptor alone is a $100. Add in the blu-ray, free online, and wireless and you end up with a way better deal then the 360.
NipGrip @ Jul 11th 2008 3:33PM
Dawg you ain't saying much is what you're saying but a bunch of excuses that seem to only benefit appealing to you. Bluray IS doing shit for it. Anti-Sony fanboys like to say the PS3 is only being used for BR and not games, now which is it? MGS4 in it's original state is not possible on plain DVD.
The PS2 issues? Oh, the 10 year old PS2, is that what we're comparing the Next Gen stuff to? Quality from 10 years ago? Nevermind the fact the PS2 had it's issues sorted out in the first year, not going into the third.
Wireless built in means EVERYONE can use the online out of the box no matter where it's at. It should be a standard feature, not a $100 add on for a stupid USB Wireless Dongle, proprietary from MS. See, that's MS agenda, make everything an addon and proprietary. The HD, the wireless, even the stupid HD cable that you have to purchase to use HDMI and Optical out.
And yes, for many, many people, build quality does matter when considering a console "good". Not everyone buys crap in a box just because it comes with a 3 year warranty.
R_Shackelford @ Jul 11th 2008 3:36PM
@Dwag:
So when Blu-Ray players get cheaper, you think people will opt for a 360 *and* a standalone player, instead of a PS3? Hm... methinks not.
No one uses the wireless? Both I and my roommate run our PS3s over wifi. Guess what, that 1Gb wired connection is only good to your router... I doubt your net connection is 1Gb. I also doubt it's anywhere near the 54Mb wifi limit.
Mattchewie @ Jul 11th 2008 3:43PM
@dwag
ps2 had issues yes, but I think the RROD numbers trump that. Everyone I know who hasn't RROD'ed yet...is just waiting. That should tell you something.
DVD is still a decent format but I can see the advantage in blu ray. Due to Blu-Ray, I didn't have to worry about MGS being 5+ DVD game and the BR expanded discs don't hurt nothing either.
Wireless is a big deal also. Especially you have it built in and your DIRECT competition sales an add-on device for 100 bucks.
So lets say you want to get a xbox, play online and don't want to run wires
299 - Unit
100 - Wireless
50 - xbox live account (reoccuring)
Oh you want to not use batteries in your wireless Controller
20$ - play and charge kit
Your grand total is 469$
40G ps3 total mark up is.........hrmm......a cost of a game to play when you get home and if you want HD rez...a HDMI cable.
As a thrifty buyer, I see the advantage there. Not to mention the fact that 99.9 percent of themes and such are free.
So in the long run, I'm saving with the PS3 no matter how you cut it.
slomo788 @ Jul 11th 2008 2:52PM
Anyone using price as an excuse to get a 360 over a PS3 is just lying to themselves. Having more friends on Live is a good reason. 360 exclusives, maybe. But if you can add 1+1 you can clearly see how the PS3 becomes cheaper in the long run.
TheSh0wstopper @ Jul 11th 2008 2:55PM
Yea. I can think of 100 reasons why a person should get a 360 instead of a PS3 and a $100 price difference isnt one of them!
-TheSh0wstopper
The_Punisher @ Jul 11th 2008 3:13PM
Go ahead then. I'll be waiting.
(PS: RRoD is NOT an advantage)
Falcon Punch @ Jul 11th 2008 8:59PM
I was aware that there are more of my friends playing Live on their 360s when I bought my PS3, but I figure they'll tire of it and get PS3s in the next year or two.
Mo @ Jul 11th 2008 3:17PM
yeah im waiting too... what you got?
lets start with #1
Ziad @ Jul 11th 2008 3:56PM
1) Halo
Cesarcsrf @ Jul 11th 2008 2:51PM
PS3 worth the money nothing more to say
Mo @ Jul 11th 2008 3:17PM
i applaud you sir!!
best $599 i ever spent, and to this day I think sony got the short end of the stick
Jangaboo @ Jul 11th 2008 3:08PM
non console minded people....the people who don't own a ps3 but we want them to so ps3 can last forever...from what i've read these people tend to think $400 for a console is too much but they are ignorant on what they are getting for the $400 and i'm not sure how Sony would make them take a second to listen and look at it
Maybe better games? MGS4 woke some people up ...I bought a ps3 because of metal gear solid 4...more games please
Baldar @ Jul 11th 2008 3:22PM
I think one thing that may wake them up is the Blu-Ray and video stores. When I was in Blockbuster last week, they had banners in the windows and a collection of Blu-Ray discs (although not a huge one). However, you couldn't get into the store without seeing "Rent Blu-Ray Discs here! For your Blu-Ray player or Playstation 3".
I also asked the guy at the counter if they've seen a pickup in interest in Playstation 3 rentals since they started advertising that. He never gave me an answer on if it picked up, but I got a rant about how HD-DVD was the better format and the 360 was the biggest platform and how he hates having to see the ads when he comes to work.
TheSh0wstopper @ Jul 11th 2008 2:52PM
Well actually the cheapest 360 is the arcade bundle and it has been $279.99 for a while now. So technically the cheapest PS3 has been OVER $100 more than the cheapest 360 for the entire year!
-TheSh0wstopper
NipGrip @ Jul 11th 2008 2:55PM
The PS3 is easily worth the money given everything included. It honestly makes the 360 seems like a shoddily built hunk of plastic junk using outdated tech (DVD mainly) worth *almost* $300. I'll never own one as I refuse to support any company with such failure rates and I don't care about a 3,5, or even 100 year warranty. Just make a quality product.
xcrunk @ Jul 11th 2008 3:11PM
I don't think it's the manufacturing process that sunk the 360, the chinese can build stuff. It was the fact that J Allard decided to design the GPU in house to save money and rushed it out to manufacturing without properly testing it. LOL. Saving $10 million cost them $1Billion. Ouch.
NipGrip @ Jul 11th 2008 3:28PM
Oh I agree. They also chose to remove the liquid cooling that was in the 360. And yes, it was there as there was a preview by an XBOX fansite that spoke in detail of the feature and even quote MS talking about how cool it's going to keep the 360, "Even cooler than the original XBOX!" lol..
phillip @ Jul 11th 2008 2:58PM
with the ps2 still selling gangbusters at 129.00 , for 270.00 more gets you the ps3, they dont need to reduce the price now :) keep it at 400, that way we wont get the stupid kids on their talkin all the time anyway :)
Vannoy @ Jul 11th 2008 5:56PM
Nah, if what I have read so far is any indication I'm thinking they will all talk here.. I have never seen more people talk about stuff they know nothing about then on here.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 11th 2008 3:04PM
If Sony didn't come out saying, "We're trying to make lots of money," (paraphrase) then a 100 buck price difference wouldn't bother me. I understand that money keeps Sony in operation, but Sony needs to show me that PS3 is more than just a product. Before, I felt the Playstation Brand and Sony were trying to create the ultimate entertainment system as a conceptual gift to the world. We repay Sony for their ingenuity by paying big bucks. But it was always nicer when we didn't mention money so bluntly within the strategy. It's always been MS's obvious strategy to conquer the gaming market without pushing the art-form. Thanks to LittleBigPlanet and the PixelJunk franchise, I feel Sony is still trying to "lead-the-way" but if I keep seeing dollar signs reflecting in their eyes when they look at the gaming community...I'm going to reconsider my pro-sony position.
The_Punisher @ Jul 11th 2008 3:32PM
Sorry, but i disagree. I beleive that money wasn't as big an issue last-gen as it is this one, but they don't need to cut theprice any further. I still beleive Sony is much better becuase htye beleive in quality. No matter how good games like Mass Effect and Halo 3 are, there are ALWAYS things in those games that makes them feel rushed, and it's not the same with PS3 games. Lair and Haze may suck, but they were finished. They didn't need more time and weren't rushed. They just suck ;)
slomo788 @ Jul 11th 2008 3:29PM
Sony's been losing money like crazy since the launch of PS3. They took a hit of $200/console and they lost around 3.3 billion so far. I think it's fair that they focus on getting out of red now. All he means is that they will focus more on software and less on hardware- so no price cut. And with their 08 (and 09) lineup, it's easy to see it happen. They are not saying "now we'll turn our backs on gamers and start making money." Less PS3s sold= less money lost. More AAA titles= more money gained. It's perfectly fine by me. For now at least. Of course if PS3s stop moving then current owners will have a problem as third-parties will turn their backs on PS3. But we're still far from that.
davivman @ Jul 11th 2008 3:32PM
dude, what fantasy world do you live in? You thought that Sony made the playstation to "create the ultimate entertainment system as a conceptual gift to the world"? You've got to be kidding. The purpose of a for-profit business is to make a profit and as big of one as possible. Morality asside, thats just the way things are. Having an artsy style is not in conflict with being a profit hungry business. Just ask Steve Jobs. If you are going to reconsider your pro-sony position, you might as well reconsider your pro-(any other for profit business) position as well.
RPGJock @ Jul 11th 2008 3:10PM
Yes the PS3 is fine for the time being at the price it is at. Eventually that will change as new Blu-Ray players come out that will be cheaper and have enough of the feature of the PS3 that will make people look else where for the high def disk fix.
If anything,(hardcore gamers cover you ears) Sony needs to find a way to get to the people who just purchased the PS3 strictly as a media/Blu-Ray player to least buy a game or two. With the addition of a video market service, you get them online with it. Then you have a chance of selling them PSN games that would appeal to them, non hardcore games. With Apple opening up more games on the IPhone and IPod Touch, Wii style of gaming in full effect, and Google's Lively rip off of social gaming, more and more non gamers will be exposed to games and go "Hey I can play video game on my Blu-ray player"
benny boy @ Jul 11th 2008 3:14PM
Sony should really advertise how much more you get for your money with the PS3. Seriously.
If someone who isn't technically minded (the average Joe) is trying to decide between the 360 or PS3, they will just look at the price of the console and games.
The games are the same price (despite PS3 ones being on blu-ray discs which are more expensive), and the 360 will soon be $100 cheaper than the PS3.
Which one do you think he will choose?
Shaun6811 @ Jul 11th 2008 3:18PM
I Have had an Xbox 360 - I sold it and now have a PS3
Best Thing I ever Did!!!!!
PS3 Beats xbox 360 Big Time - I wouldn't ever want to go back!!!!
TheSh0wstopper @ Jul 11th 2008 3:44PM
"Best Thing I ever Did!!!!!"
You must not do many things, or make many good decisions then.
-TheSh0wstopper
Orielsy @ Jul 11th 2008 4:28PM
You must not be gaming. jaja
Sike sike. I know you got games, but stop making it seem like ps3 shames 360. We all know where the RPGs are we all know where the best shooters are.
Yes ps3 is a great overall console (bang for your buck) but we also know that 360 has the better library by a LARGE margin. All I'm saying is no console shames the other. OK?
The rest of you can stop acting like you own 360's and it RRoD'd on you. In case you haven't noticed the 360s that had the major flaw haven't been in production going on a year now.
Thats like people that still say "PS3 has no games". We all know it has it's games obviously not as much as 360 but nonetheless it has a couple.
Shaun6811 @ Jul 12th 2008 12:05AM
I Appreciate your comments - But PS3 has so much more to offer than Xbox360 - I wanted to love my Xbox360 and DID (for a while) - It's a GREAT CONSOLE - Until you buy a PS3! - Only then will you realise the difference! - Games out now are excellent with LOTS More Games and the rest to come shortly - Xbox 360 to go online! - do you need expensive adapter??? - do you need to pay Subscription?? - All Free on PS3 - Games are Short on PS3 at Moment but they are putting them out real fast Now - and they are quality!!!!!
This is just in my Experience - Xbox360 was good in it's day - may have Most Games at the moment - But give it 6mths to a year and PS3 will Kill Xbox360
Sony have admittedly been slow - But they will catch up and OVERTAKE 360 - as a whole console and gaming System there really isn't any Comparison - Ditch Xbox360 and get PS3 - this is where the future of Gaming and Interactivity starts!!
Just seems a shame that all Critics of my Post seem to be Xbox360 Owners - Bite the Bullet Guys - Accept the Inevitable - PS3 will Conquer - Remember - I had an Xbox360 before my PS3!!
TDLF @ Jul 11th 2008 7:22PM
"The rest of you can stop acting like you own 360's and it RRoD'd on you. In case you haven't noticed the 360s that had the major flaw haven't been in production going on a year now."
Um... I had two 360's RRoD on me. One was an original unit. The second was an Elite with the new heat pipe. I sold both after getting them fixed and I'm not buying a third.
For proof that I did in fact play a good number of games on my 360's: Gamertag = Ilidd
As to "TheSh0wStopper": go back to playing Halo 3 with the rest of the foul-mouthed 12-year-olds. Your need to troll on PS3Fanboy comment threads was pathetic before you did it the first time.
ogvor @ Jul 11th 2008 3:22PM
Remember the power of the "Madden Player". This gamer buys a console only for Madden (or perhaps some other sports game). They may buy GTAIV and Guitar Hero, on Xbox maybe Halo 3, but they don't buy much else. These guys will buy the cheaper console nearly every time regardless of the Blu ray or free internet service. This is why the PS2 sold so many consoles last generation, becuase it was simply cheaper than the Xbox.
Natan82 @ Jul 11th 2008 3:32PM
In Europe, xbox360 price cut had no effect on sales and I think that it will not even in America.
By now, intelligent people have understood the value of PS3 (Consul more powerful, Blu-ray, Wi-Fi, Free online HOME, possibility of changing the HDD, with any HDD for PC, not as on xbox360, where must pay fees to MS to change HDD.
In addition, at the PS3 there are the real games exclusive those who can play only on PS3.
Instead 95% of the games for xbox360, you can also play on PS3 and the remaining 5% even on a PC.
In the future XBOX360 will no longer have exclusive games.
In addition, the best games for xbox360, now also will be released on PS3 (BioShock, Eternal Sonata, Mass Effect e others)
TheSh0wstopper @ Jul 11th 2008 3:30PM
@ 10 & 11
1. How about online that is worth talking about.. And dont give me that $50 a year mumbo jumbo. $50 a year is a drop in a bucket, especially for something that is used sooo much (to put into context my cell phone is $120 a month). Its nice to have a service that lets me send game invites that my friends can accept and jump right into my room. And cross game chat is nice. THERE IS NOBODY THAT HAS XBOX LIVE THAT WILL TELL ME THEY WOULD NOT HAPPILY SPEND 50 BUCKS FOR PS3 ONLINE TO BE EQUIVALENT!
2. How about MORE games. Afterall that is what we bought the systems for in the first place. Since launch 360 HAS NEVER had a dry spell with games.
3. BETTER games. Everything multi-plat is better on 360.
4. Exclusives. While this SHOULD be the PS3's strength in the next year or 2 at the moment M$ has the advantage.
For the record I am a HUGE PS3 fan, but I am not a fanboy. I am a gamer and I have both systems and I call it like I see it. While I do believe in the end PS3 will be the better console, at the moment 360 is stomping fire out of it.
I have never seen such a huge disparity in the quality of gaming experience that 2 rival systems offer as I have this generation between ps3 and 360.
-TheSh0wstopper
RPGJock @ Jul 11th 2008 4:41PM
Remove "Everything" and replace it with "most". You know that they are games that are about the same or a tad bit better on PS3 than 360. Its just matter of who develop them. Examples COD4, DMC4, GTA4, and Burnout Paradise are some examples of this.
And no I would not like to drop money for online subscription otherwise i would be paying for AOL and WoW still to this day. No pay is still better than little pay.
And last, never seen a disparity of quality games for 2 rival consoles? Um PS2 vs Original Xbox is waiving hello on that comment.
Come on now. I know the fanboys have gotten you heated up but lets keep some things in perspective. Don't let them get you going where you start fudging things to fit, it looks bad overall.
I am just saying...
TheSh0wstopper @ Jul 11th 2008 3:30PM
@ 10 & 11
1. How about online that is worth talking about.. And dont give me that $50 a year mumbo jumbo. $50 a year is a drop in a bucket, especially for something that is used sooo much (to put into context my cell phone is $120 a month). Its nice to have a service that lets me send game invites that my friends can accept and jump right into my room. And cross game chat is nice. THERE IS NOBODY THAT HAS XBOX LIVE THAT WILL TELL ME THEY WOULD NOT HAPPILY SPEND 50 BUCKS FOR PS3 ONLINE TO BE EQUIVALENT!
2. How about MORE games. Afterall that is what we bought the systems for in the first place. Since launch 360 HAS NEVER had a dry spell with games.
3. BETTER games. Everything multi-plat is better on 360.
4. Exclusives. While this SHOULD be the PS3's strength in the next year or 2 at the moment M$ has the advantage.
For the record I am a HUGE PS3 fan, but I am not a fanboy. I am a gamer and I have both systems and I call it like I see it. While I do believe in the end PS3 will be the better console, at the moment 360 is stomping fire out of it.
I have never seen such a huge disparity in the quality of gaming experience that 2 rival systems offer as I have this generation between ps3 and 360.
-TheSh0wstopper
Dan @ Jul 11th 2008 3:40PM
Congrats, you have Gears of War and Halo, a long with their sequels. Which is the only reason I play my 360 now honestly.
And every other game that is awesome on the 360 is already on the PS3.... sooo yeah.
Just because the 360 has been out a year longer then ps3 and has more games doesnt necessarily make it the better system.
Aaron @ Jul 11th 2008 3:48PM
PSN is almost there. With trophy support, and cross game invites coming soon, what's left?
I can tackle points 1, 2, and 3 at the same time. I'd rather wait for the the "better" and "exclusive" games to come out for PC so I can get the extra content for free, and also have a better looking gaming experience. Oh yeah, plus the prices drops by about 10 bucks too.
More and more games are becoming multi-platform these days, so the only things that will set the systems apart are the online experience (to which Sony is almost on par with MS) and the quality/functionality of the hardware (which PS3 has X360 beat).
Nate @ Jul 11th 2008 4:42PM
1.) With 2.4 the only thing Live has over PSN now is cross game invites and cross game voice chat. Those are good features, for sure, but not nearly as compelling as the differences used to be.
2.) More games? Technically. However, the number of quality games is quite high on both systems and no one would be starving for games. And the PS3's top games have more variety than the 360's long run of FPS's.
3.) Everything multiplat WAS better a year ago. Welcome to 2008, where multiplats are 99% identical on both systems. COD4, DMC4, GTA4, GH3, Burnout Paradise, Rock Band... all almost entirely identical on both systems. Even the differences in the Orange Box were VASTLY overstated. You really have to go back to the EA sports titles of last Summer to see significant differences.
4.) Really? What does the 360 have? Halo? With COD4 out there, shooters aren't really that big of a deal. Other than that... it doesn't have much. Gears, I guess. But third person shooters aren't exactly big news anymore. PS3 has Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, and of course MGS4. Certainly the 360 isn't running away with the ball anymore on that front.
In conclusion, if you really do like both.... I can't see how you can think the 360 is so far ahead. It has a couple better online features, and that's about it. The PS3 has blu-ray, motion control, MGS, a web browser, DLNA, remote play with the PSP, far better DRM, far better upgradability, built in wifi and rechargeable controllers.... not to mention ridiculously rock solid reliable hardware.
Seriously, the PS3 is a beast. The 360, in my opinion, is running on momentum alone right now, and the PS3 is steadily accelerating.
rip Xbox @ Jul 11th 2008 11:33PM
R.I.P XBOX,
zentnerjr26 @ Jul 11th 2008 3:46PM
I will give in to the fact the Xbox 360 has more games on it's platform at the moment, but better? What games are better on the Xbox360 that PS3 has as well, and don't use the Half-Life2 excuse. We all know they didn't want to make that port and put a half assed effort into doing it. Assassin's Creed? AI did not show any significant change between platform to warrant a change in opinion. Timed GTA4 exclusive content, oh darn I have to wait. The only selling point for an Xbox 360 for me is the exclusives that are not going to port to the PS3.