PS3 price-cut doesn't fit 'long-term' plans

PS3 News | Sony is looking to steadily grow the user base over ten years, see.

Sony head honcho Jack Tretton has said that those constantly looking for a PS3 price-cut just aren't thinking long-term.

"People are always wanting you to lower your price on hardware," said Tretton in an interview with Fast Company (via Eurogamer). "We could've come out with a PlayStation 2.5 for USD $299 or less, and in the first two or three years it would sell extremely well.

"But there would be a point where people would be going, 'I am not really seeing the incremental leap.' We feel that we're sacrificing the short term to pay dividends in the long term."

Instead, Tretton suggested that people should think like Sony are - that is, that the company will get the user base it wants slowly but surely over the PS3's ten-year lifecycle.

"People are having short-term thinking--the platform is not even three years old. It was USD $599; it's now USD $399. The focus on pricing is something we appreciate, but you have to have the conviction and the confidence that you are on the right path for the long term and ultimately you'll get all the consumers you want. You won't get them all day one, but we're looking to get them over a ten-year period."

Related Content

Tretton not concerned by slow PS3 sales
15 May, 2007 It's a marathon not a sprint, insists Sony boss.

PS3 not selling out in PAL regions?
22 Mar, 2007 That's a good thing, reckons Sony.

Shelves full of PS3 units not a bad thing
01 Mar, 2007 It's all down to good organisation, argues Sony bigwig.

PagePrevious 1 234 Next

91 Comments

ZeroX03

2 years ago

Whee another flame war. This is funny stuff. Guys if you can afford the PS3, then good for you, if you cannot, then bad luck. Everyone complains about the price and all, but once you look at what your getting with it, it's quite reasonable. Now let's all hug and make up.

Windburn

2 years ago

LeonJ wrote

I don't understand how the failure rate has anything to do with the price. If we are trying to justify the $400 on the fact it's a *safer* bet then that's incorrect. You get 3 years warrenty with your 360 as opposed to 1. So if we are playing the numbers game, it's probably about even.

It was a factor in my purchase of the PS3 versus the Xbox, and I really can't see why other people wouldn't make the same considerations. I don't want to have to go through all the rigmarole of sending my console off, waiting weeks, maybe getting it back in one piece, etc. I want it to work the first time, and work right.

It's like anything, I'm not going to buy a product that by all accounts will probably break. It's a huge factor in my books.

And the Joe Consumer will probably have a Wii already, so we can discount him. People buying the PS3 or the 360 generally aren't the casual gaming masses, so they'll do their homework before dropping anything more than $500.

And you're right, even if Sony wanted to drop the price, they couldn't. Their system is still too expensive for them to produce to get into the black. But it's slowly getting better by all accounts.

Oh also, I too hate the 10 year comments. Sometimes these execs spew the biggest load of crap ever. They must recruit CEOs and upper management from Mars or something. I mean, they actually believe their crap too.

Windburn

2 years ago

nikack wrote

1 - $170 actually, if you own a PC.

2 - PS3 doesn't connect at 5 GHz which renders the wireless useless for me

3 - Most people have rechargeable batteries, the official ones are like $20 and you can keep a stack load of them and replace them on the fly without having to plug the controller back in to recharge. Nor do you need to send the controller in for a week or more when the battery dies.

4 - The Wii and Xbox 360 does this as well (my house also has an TV that does it far better than all three)

5 - Xbox Live is $70 for a year officially, I've been able to get it for $20 at sales at KMart, Target, etc.

6 - I have a PC, Notebook, mobile phone and iPod that can do that too. Big deal.

Hehe nikack, even you have to recognise you're applying that responsevery, very liberally. Almost all your responses are tailored for one very particular and unique purchaser...hehe...YOU!

Vervain

2 years ago

Windburn wrote

nikack wrote

1 - $170 actually, if you own a PC.

2 - PS3 doesn't connect at 5 GHz which renders the wireless useless for me

Hehe nikack, even you have to recognise you're applying that responsevery, very liberally. Almost all your responses are tailored for one very particular and unique purchaser...hehe...YOU!

Owning a PC and TV and an iPod and phone capable of internet hardly makes him a hugely unique user. If anything it makes him a normal user in todays society.

Also on the Bluray Drive thing, yes an external Bluray drive can cost $400, although they can be had for as little as $300, but they also have higher read speeds then the PS3's 2x drive. It's taking the pricing of the newer players and placing it on an older redundant drive.

Jellyfish

2 years ago

Which is what I said in my post

Phreakuency's post was based on his needs too. I don't know anyone who needs a Blu-Ray player, wireless connectivity, media streaming or web browsing... That's a huge amount of non value that's being used to justify the huge price.

Response to Windburn's post, damn ninja posting.

Vervain

2 years ago

nikack wrote

Which is what I said in my post

Phreakuency's post was based on his needs to. I don't know anyone who needs a Blu-Ray player, wireless connectivity, media streaming or web browsing... That's a huge amount of non value that's being used to justify the huge price.

That you did in this line right here:

nikack wrote

Well here's a list of why your "best value console" points don't apply to everyone (based on my needs anyway)

LeonJ

2 years ago

Windburn wrote

Yeah well, I think they are both piles of crap. They both broke on me. First consoles I've owned ever to FAIL.

Futhermore, Sony have lost my console it would seem. Hopeless. Better get out the old angry stick.

Windburn

2 years ago

Haha, well to Verv and nikack, that was pretty much my point- your specific needs were REALLY specific

Incidentally Verv, your comments actually qualify Phreakuency's post, because yes (whilst I wouldn't say the "average" user has all these things), people do actually want all these features on every medium they have access to it seems. It's why they have all these other gadgets now too, and why fridges with wireless+browsers are starting to creep into our homes! FRIDGES.

So things like in-built browsing, wireless connectivity, etc are almost staple now. And I don't know anyone who'd rather watch their movies on the PC than on their TVs!

Nikack's just more progressive than the rest of us

/me Puts away his club to find another twig so he can get this fire started...

Jellyfish

2 years ago

I know more people with Home Theatre PCs than I do with PS3s.

Just continuing on Windburn's post. Did you know that you've been able to get internet enabled fridges since 2004

Windburn

2 years ago

nikack wrote

I know more people with Home Theatre PCs than I do with PS3s.

What would they need a PS3 for?!

If I could, I'd play all my games on the PC, haha.
Unfortunately, I haven't got that sort of setup at home- I splashed on my TV room. Thinking long term, I probably should have taken your approach.

Damnit, now I'm envious!

battlegrub

2 years ago

Phreakuency wrote

The PS3 is the best value console out there if you intend to ever use it as:
- a bluray player ($400 seperately),
- wirelessly connect online (+$150 for 360 add-on),
- you never need to worry about batteries for the controllers (bluetooth FTW),
- media functions like music, photo's, downloaded videos etc,
- free online service ($100 a year for 360),
- out of the box web browser and keyboard, mouse support,
- plus a huge feature for most Aussie gamers (due to lack of on time releases...) is the region free games you can buy from anywhere in the world.

Boldened for emphasis. He's not claiming it is the best value for everyone at all.

Consider the legions of those adopting HDTVs. Some of them could well decide being able to play games, watch movies in full hd, and do all the above hassle-free without connecting to a pc is worth the extra cost.

At the end of the day we simply don't have all the data to suddenly decide we can make better business decisions for them.

Eyce

2 years ago

Phreakuency wrote

- plus a huge feature for most Aussie gamers (due to lack of on time releases...) is the region free games you can buy from anywhere in the world.

Even better is when you get the region free game and there's absolute must-have DLC to get for it, you'll quickly find out the DLC is region locked! Incredible.

LeonJ

2 years ago

Eyce wrote

Phreakuency wrote

- plus a huge feature for most Aussie gamers (due to lack of on time releases...) is the region free games you can buy from anywhere in the world.

Even better is when you get the region free game and there's absolute must-have DLC to get for it, you'll quickly find out the DLC is region locked! Incredible.

Maybe somebody should tell Trent that.

Aftershock

2 years ago

Everyone should just give up and buy PC's.

Skiller

2 years ago

Aftershock wrote

Everyone should just give up and buy PC's.

Wise advice indeed.

Phreakuency

2 years ago

Vervulus Maximus wrote

Also on the Bluray Drive thing, yes an external Bluray drive can cost $400, although they can be had for as little as $300, but they also have higher read speeds then the PS3's 2x drive. It's taking the pricing of the newer players and placing it on an older redundant drive.

Considering movies only run at 1x AND the PS3's loading is much faster than most standalone players (even the $800 Pioneer is slower than the PS3), I'd say your argument is thrown out the window.

Eyce wrote

Even better is when you get the region free game and there's absolute must-have DLC to get for it, you'll quickly find out the DLC is region locked! Incredible.

Actually, not all DLC is locked and if it is, it's easy to get thanks to websites now selling prepaid codes through almost instant email.

Oh and your local EB assistant keeps telling you the wrong info when he sells a 360 and says it has 3 years warranty. It's only on the red ring fault and it's now known that 360's are failing for a number of new reasons. Laughable really.

Nic_231

2 years ago

With the average age of gamers in Australia now at 28, you might think we could have a discussion about consoles that doesn't devolve into the pointless repetition of 'mine is bigger than yours'.
This isn't directed specifically at any user, or even at PALGN, as it seems to be an internet wide phenomenon. But one has to wonder why it is gamers can't just rationally weigh up the pros and cons of their console (or consoles) of choice and give reasonable consideration to the arguments of others without feeling the need to sabotage and belittle their opinions.
It seems to me that no one gaming system (including PCs) is 'the best'. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, different exclusives etc. The right consoles for a given person is the one that best suits their needs and provides the greatest number of the type of games they like to play. Once you buy said console however, there is no reason for you to get out there and defend it by irrationally hating everything else on the market.

Fly

2 years ago

LeonJ wrote

Main point we are discussing here is - entry level. Man wants to play game he saw on TV. Looks at PS3 price, can get the same game on 360 paying $400 less for the system. Man buys 360.

It's all a nice little circle of hate. Activision comments a few weeks ago comes around to this very topic. Maybe we can join this thread and that one.

Or man doesn't act petulant and has patience to pick up what he wants when they're all cheaper (2x consoles + games).

Let's not auto assume that everyone who wants to play x multiplatform title is also going to 1005 of the time pick one and stick with it. The non purchase is also just as much a viable outcome and actually what both MS and Sony should be worried about in the scenario.

If Sony are on track to reach their goals more power to them, big whoop otherwise.

G3ck0

2 years ago

Skiller wrote

Aftershock wrote

Everyone should just give up and buy PC's.

Wise advice indeed.

No thanks, no split screen means I won't ever be mainly a PC gamer.

canetoad

2 years ago

Phreakuency wrote

Oh and your local EB assistant keeps telling you the wrong info when he sells a 360 and says it has 3 years warranty. It's only on the red ring fault and it's now known that 360's are failing for a number of new reasons. Laughable really.

It's actually 3 years for the E74 error so uh, probably a good idea to know what you're talking about before you relay what you read on Sony Defense Force. Those two are pretty much the only faults any 360 will have other than a **** DVD drive from earlier models, and if that's dodgy it would have gone pretty quickly and would have been replaced with a later model so you're pretty safe there.

LeonJ

2 years ago

Aftershock wrote

Everyone should just give up and buy PC's.

But then I'd miss out on 75% of games I want to play.

Sin Ogaris

2 years ago

I think we're all missing the big picture here... I want a pie, where's my god damn pie!

Vervain

2 years ago

Phreakuency wrote

Vervulus Maximus wrote

Considering movies only run at 1x AND the PS3's loading is much faster than most standalone players (even the $800 Pioneer is slower than the PS3), I'd say your argument is thrown out the window.

No my argument is not thrown out of the window. It is fine for movies but not fine for games. Do you understand why certain PS3 games come with mandetory installs? It's because the PS3 reads the data faster then the disc can spin. Meaning that mandatory installs are needed for the disc to be able to keep up with the PS3.

The disc drive is not good enough.

Edit: I see I have been negged. I'm sorry but do you PS3 fanboys really hate having to face the fact that Sony put a Bluray drive in your console that was too slow to match the amount of data needed to be read to play a lot of games being released?

Nic_231

2 years ago

Sin Ogaris wrote

I think we're all missing the big picture here... I want a pie, where's my god damn pie!

Right here bro

http://www.colesexpress.com.au/freepies.aspx

Thanks go to Shadow Wave for wising me up to this.

Eyce

2 years ago

Phreakuency wrote

Actually, not all DLC is locked and if it is, it's easy to get thanks to websites now selling prepaid codes through almost instant email.

A quick google search happily proclaims that items bought off PSN is locked to the region you bought it in. Most people wouldn't be bothered to buy prepaid codes through the internet because it'll still require them to set up an American Account which would then make it fun when you want to transfer all your paid content between consoles.

Phreakuency wrote

It's $648 to buy a PS3 and $250 to buy a 360.

It costs $110 to get the console repaired if it's not a RRoD and out of it's 1 Year Warranty and gives you a turnaround of two weeks. You'd need to go through a whole year of use THEN THREE non-RRoD errors before you even pay $50 less than the same price as a PS3.

And what are these 'new' reasons that you speak of about 360's failing?

Edit: Harden the f**k up Andy, does negging a post because it isn't your opinion/insults Sony the easy way out from typing up a post that would likely get negged because each point would be shot down/make you look stupid?

PagePrevious 1 234 Next

View as forum topic

Add Comment