PS3 news

[drqshadow]

I know you are sitting there shaking your head going offering $20 for a brand new game only to turn around and resell it for $45 is not a slight profit. But you have to factor in that they accept pretty much all the games, even the absolute garbage So while they might take in 15 of one game they might only sell six of them.

That's not entirely accurate, though. While they'll buy just about anything, if it sucks and they know they aren't going to move it, they'll buy it for a dollar or less. You won't see a game for cheaper than five bucks in that store, so using your example, they buy fifteen copies of a game for a dollar each, and sell six for five bucks a pop. Their expenses are $15 and their profits are $30, plus they've got seven extra copies of the game in inventory, which they can either sell through the online shop or keep in stock for the next time someone wants a copy.

[kariyanine]

I know you are sitting there shaking your head going offering $20 for a brand new game only to turn around and resell it for $45 is not a slight profit. But you have to factor in that they accept pretty much all the games, even the absolute garbage So while they might take in 15 of one game they might only sell six of them.

That's not entirely accurate, though. While they'll buy just about anything, if it sucks and they know they aren't going to move it, they'll buy it for a dollar or less. You won't see a game for cheaper than five bucks in that store, so using your example, they buy fifteen copies of a game for a dollar each, and sell six for five bucks a pop. Their expenses are $15 and their profits are $30, plus they've got seven extra copies of the game in inventory, which they can either sell through the online shop or keep in stock for the next time someone wants a copy.

Yeah but you also got to figure the more a game sucks the more copies that are going to come in to the store and the less they are going to sell of said game. I think the used game market is more driven by word of mouth than anything else so if the game has bad word of mouth the store isn't going to sell as many copies.

[Chops]

I know you are sitting there shaking your head going offering $20 for a brand new game only to turn around and resell it for $45 is not a slight profit. But you have to factor in that they accept pretty much all the games, even the absolute garbage So while they might take in 15 of one game they might only sell six of them.

That's not entirely accurate, though. While they'll buy just about anything, if it sucks and they know they aren't going to move it, they'll buy it for a dollar or less. You won't see a game for cheaper than five bucks in that store, so using your example, they buy fifteen copies of a game for a dollar each, and sell six for five bucks a pop. Their expenses are $15 and their profits are $30, plus they've got seven extra copies of the game in inventory, which they can either sell through the online shop or keep in stock for the next time someone wants a copy.

Yeah but you also got to figure the more a game sucks the more copies that are going to come in to the store and the less they are going to sell of said game. I think the used game market is more driven by word of mouth than anything else so if the game has bad word of mouth the store isn't going to sell as many copies.

They buy the shittier games for less than a dollar. So, even if the buy 100 copies of a game, it doesn't matter how many they sell or not. If it comes down to it, they can donate the games to goodwill or a local community center and write it off on their taxes. When they write it off, they write off the value at which they would have sold it for. Wether they sell it or not, they are still getting a huge return that neither the gamer or the company that put out the game will ever see.

[kariyanine]

I know you are sitting there shaking your head going offering $20 for a brand new game only to turn around and resell it for $45 is not a slight profit. But you have to factor in that they accept pretty much all the games, even the absolute garbage So while they might take in 15 of one game they might only sell six of them.

That's not entirely accurate, though. While they'll buy just about anything, if it sucks and they know they aren't going to move it, they'll buy it for a dollar or less. You won't see a game for cheaper than five bucks in that store, so using your example, they buy fifteen copies of a game for a dollar each, and sell six for five bucks a pop. Their expenses are $15 and their profits are $30, plus they've got seven extra copies of the game in inventory, which they can either sell through the online shop or keep in stock for the next time someone wants a copy.

Yeah but you also got to figure the more a game sucks the more copies that are going to come in to the store and the less they are going to sell of said game. I think the used game market is more driven by word of mouth than anything else so if the game has bad word of mouth the store isn't going to sell as many copies.

They buy the shittier games for less than a dollar. So, even if the buy 100 copies of a game, it doesn't matter how many they sell or not. If it comes down to it, they can donate the games to goodwill or a local community center and write it off on their taxes. When they write it off, they write off the value at which they would have sold it for. Wether they sell it or not, they are still getting a huge return that neither the gamer or the company that put out the game will ever see.

After a a good while on the market though, at the start they are taking them in for roughly 40-50% of the original price. Let alone the fact that a business is attempting to make money as that is their purpose, just like SOny and the game company. In anycase I would rather have a quick-convienent option then to not have one and because of that I will be looking into buying an XBOX 360 as opposed to Sony's system.

[JackFetch]

Sony Execs Try to Justify PS3 Price

By: César A. Berardini - "Cesar"

Jun. 8th, 2006 6:10 pm

Speaking to Japanese news site Impress PC Watch, Ken Kutaragi addressed the high price of the PlayStation 3 and explained the new business model Sony is establishing with its next-generation console.

“Our message with the PS3 is clear: Hardware is our business” explained Kutaragi, claiming that selling a game console at a loss to make a profit with game royalties is a product of “the Nintendo Era.”

“The business model changes with the PS3. The PlayStation has become a computer and since you cannot raise the price of the software, you have to make a profit with the hardware.”

The head of Sony Computer Entertainment said that Sony will make the PS3 “a common platform, on which top programmers can realize their full potential."

We can’t imagine how a $599 console will become common but Ken is not the only Sony executive who’s is trying to convince everyone that with the PlayStation 3, you are not acquiring a videogame console but a supercomputer.

The CEP of Sony Corp., Sir Howard Stringer appeared last week at The Wall Street Journal's "D: All Things Digital" conference to answer questions from Walt Mossberg.

Referring to the PlayStation 3, Stringer said that “it has more bells and whistles than a 747”. And then emphasized the capabilities of the Cell processor and explained the advantage Blu-ray Disc had over DVD and even HD-DVD when it comes to store high-definition movies.

"The reason it is expensive is that instead of us concentrating on making it playing games, something we have done in the past, the PS3 is designed to go somewhere else; the center of the living room."

Finally, Phil Harrison, the VP of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, has also emphasized that the PlayStation 3 is more than a game console. Speaking to German newspaper Spiegel, Harrison said:

"We believe that the PS3 will be the place where our users play, watch films and browse the Web... The PlayStation 3 is a computer. We do not need the PC."

I wouldn’t go that far Phil, even if the PlayStation 3 comes loaded with Linux, we don’t think it will replace a personal computer anytime soon.

The message is clear. Sony knows the price for both models of the PlayStation 3 is high and what they are trying to do is justify the high price by convincing the consumers that you are getting a supercomputer.

The question is; do people need a supercomputer to play games and watch high-definition movies?

It sounds to me like they can't afford to sell it at a loss. Are they that bad off finacially? And what's with this "Nintendo Era" crap? They are still very much around. Do they really think people will throw out their pc (or mac) for the PS3? They finally admitted that they weren't focusing on making a gaming machine, and that could be their biggest mistake.

[A.Logan]

Where the fuck is everyone going where the quality of a game dictates the price of the trade in?

At the Game Crazy here in town (same company I work for), it's all based on time after release, and a corporate value assigned to the game by starting price.

I bought a game, opened said game (negates returning the game, devalues to used price), the game is now worth around 65-90 percent of what I paid for it, I keep it a few weeks, beat the game and decide to trade it in, but in those passing weeks, the corporate value has gone down quite a bit, to about 45-60 percent of initial value. It's the way it should be.

[drqshadow]

Where the fuck is everyone going where the quality of a game dictates the price of the trade in?

A game's price is usually dictated by popularity, really, not quality. But it stands to reason that a game that sucks ass will also not be all that in-demand, and so the game stores are more likely to have a bunch of them laying around. Hence, they offer lower prices on that game's trade-in, since they can't move them. It's not a direct correlation, but the relationship is there.

[kariyanine]

The message is clear. Sony knows the price for both models of the PlayStation 3 is high and what they are trying to do is justify the high price by convincing the consumers that you are getting a supercomputer.

The question is; do people need a supercomputer to play games and watch high-definition movies?

The answer is: No.

I was really trying to hold out hope for the PS3 but I think this may have just solidified my move to another system, I will hate to leave behind the Final Fantasy series but it may be a loss I will have to take.

[Chops]

Like I said earlier, I find it hilarious that people have a mentality that companies are required to bring products out in their price range. The original NES cost 200 dollars when it was released in 1986. Is it such a strange notion that a console is more expensive 20 years later?

[kariyanine]

Like I said earlier, I find it hilarious that people have a mentality that companies are required to bring products out in their price range. The original NES cost 200 dollars when it was released in 1986. Is it such a strange notion that a console is more expensive 20 years later?

No it's not such a strange notion, its just strange that they want to release a system that is roughly $200 more (and maybe even $300 more by the time the PS3 releases) than it's biggest competitor and try and justify it by telling you the system isn't really a gaming console anymore.

[Chops]

Like I said earlier, I find it hilarious that people have a mentality that companies are required to bring products out in their price range. The original NES cost 200 dollars when it was released in 1986. Is it such a strange notion that a console is more expensive 20 years later?

No it's not such a strange notion, its just strange that they want to release a system that is roughly $200 more (and maybe even $300 more by the time the PS3 releases) than it's biggest competitor and try and justify it by telling you the system isn't really a gaming console anymore.

All around the news you read articles saying Sony needs to "justify" their price. Sony doesn't need to justify shit. They can release their product at whatever price they want. I'm no fanboy, but I'm just getting sick of this "me first" attitude people have, and then you have the idiots that say Sony is doomed because of their price. This is going to sell out the first day, regardless of price, and to believe otherwise is ignorance.

[A.Logan]

Where the fuck is everyone going where the quality of a game dictates the price of the trade in?

A game's price is usually dictated by popularity, really, not quality. But it stands to reason that a game that sucks ass will also not be all that in-demand, and so the game stores are more likely to have a bunch of them laying around. Hence, they offer lower prices on that game's trade-in, since they can't move them. It's not a direct correlation, but the relationship is there.

That's what I'm getting at, I guess I'm just used to the way our corporate handles it. The game will fetch the same price, unless we've got too many copies...then we won't take it at all. Then when we've moved a few copies or sent some to another store, we can accept them again, at whatever price corporate dictates.

[JackFetch]

All around the news you read articles saying Sony needs to "justify" their price. Sony doesn't need to justify shit. They can release their product at whatever price they want. I'm no fanboy, but I'm just getting sick of this "me first" attitude people have, and then you have the idiots that say Sony is doomed because of their price. This is going to sell out the first day, regardless of price, and to believe otherwise is ignorance.

Of course it will sell out first day. They will run out of systems on the first day. The problem is that Microsoft will have a year head start, more next gen games out, and a cheaper system the day the PS3 launches. They say they don't see Nintendo as a competitor anymore, so take that as you want.

They do have to justify the price to their investers. If I had stock in Sony, I would demand to know why they are taking such a big risk, and if I didn't like the answers, I'd sell.

The bottom line is that if you are seeing stories all over the news about it, then there must be a reason for it.

[kariyanine]

Like I said earlier, I find it hilarious that people have a mentality that companies are required to bring products out in their price range. The original NES cost 200 dollars when it was released in 1986. Is it such a strange notion that a console is more expensive 20 years later?

No it's not such a strange notion, its just strange that they want to release a system that is roughly $200 more (and maybe even $300 more by the time the PS3 releases) than it's biggest competitor and try and justify it by telling you the system isn't really a gaming console anymore.

All around the news you read articles saying Sony needs to "justify" their price. Sony doesn't need to justify shit. They can release their product at whatever price they want. I'm no fanboy, but I'm just getting sick of this "me first" attitude people have, and then you have the idiots that say Sony is doomed because of their price. This is going to sell out the first day, regardless of price, and to believe otherwise is ignorance.

You're right Sony doesn't need to justify anything and it will sell out on it's first day. But then again GD-DVD players sold out right away as well but you don't hear anyone calling that fact an indication that HD-DVD will outdo Sony's Blu-Ray format. The reason is because the manufacturer's don't release a surplus of hardware for two reasons. 1) You don't manufacture enough hardware for everyone for the fear that it doesn't sell. 2) By releasing a limited quanity it creates a frenzy which normally brings the press (free publicity). Unfortunately while Sony wants to portray the PS3 as this super system that will do everything for you, most people already have a DVD player and a computer so the added features aren't essential and most people will be buying the PS3 (at least at first) as a game console. At the price point Sony wants to introduce the PS3 at you can currently get an XBOX 360, three games and a second controller. To get that set up for the PS3 it's going to cost me over $800. This is the exact same problem that Microsoft hit on in the last generation of consoles. They had the more superior system but by the time it came out Sony had already established the PS2 as the goto system.

You can be as sick as you want of the "me first" attitude but remember people are buying this for their own personal use. So it kind of dictates a "me first" attitude. I've been a firm supporter of Sony for both the Playstation and the PS2 but I can't justify to myself the need to spend $600 on a game system when I can get something of similar quality for less. And while I can't speak for anyone else I would think that alot of other people won't be able to justify the purchase to themselves either.

[Chops]

They do have to justify the price to their investers. If I had stock in Sony, I would demand to know why they are taking such a big risk, and if I didn't like the answers, I'd sell.

It all depends on how much stock you own, though. The majority investors were all privy to the information beforehand, and can vote on it. As for the person who owns a few shares, Sony owes you dick.

You can be as sick as you want of the "me first" attitude but remember people are buying this for their own personal use. So it kind of dictates a "me first" attitude.

What I meant by the "me first" attitude are the people that think that just because something rises out of thier price range, that there is a problem with the company, and there needs to be some kind of solution. For example, people who complain about gas prices. I said this over at the Oratory, and I'm not trying to be a dick, but if someone can't aford it, tough shit. There are plenty of people that are going to buy this, there are plenty of publishers lining up to put out games, and there are plenty of game franchises continuing onto the PS3 that are going to see the it succeed and thrive.

[MaxPower]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the official release date for the PS3 is November 17th this year. I don't have a link, as I saw a TV add for pre-orders. No prices though, just put down $50 to ensure you don't miss out.

[Chops]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but the official release date for the PS3 is November 17th this year. I don't have a link, as I saw a TV add for pre-orders. No prices though, just put down $50 to ensure you don't miss out.

I already put my down on one, and can hardly wait.

[James D.]

I think Sony is determined to make sure that the PS3 fails before it's even released. Now, only 400,000 units will be released on the initial release date? HAHAHAHAHAHA. So very, very sad.

[JackFetch]

I think Sony is determined to make sure that the PS3 fails before it's even released. Now, only 400,000 units will be released on the initial release date? HAHAHAHAHAHA. So very, very sad.

I think I might have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a PS3. That is if I even wanted one.

[Aaron Robinson]

Such negativity. It's going to be even more expensive down here when it's first released, but it's not going to stop me from purchasing one. I'm not in a huge rush to pre-order any of the new consoles that will be available, but when the hype dies down a bit, I'll buy it along with a couple of games and I'm sure I'll be happy with it.

[ragernok2002]

Buy a PS3 for 800 euro or buy a 360 and a Wii and still have money left over? such a hard choice

[S-T]

The original NES cost 200 dollars when it was released in 1986. Is it such a strange notion that a console is more expensive 20 years later?

Don't forget inflation.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

$200 in 1987 = $358.98 in 2006

[J Marv]

Factor in the cost of the game (really 2, but one cart) and light gun and you're actually looking at more like $300 for the console after inflation. Also, Nintendo didn't sell at a loss, so the comparison is even more invalid as construction cost for the NES was still far lower. So really, even after inflation, you're looking at more than doubling the cost of the console. Right. Perfectly reasonable. Except, the relative cost of nearly everything else on the planet has gone down over time (except stuff with limited quantity, like land). So yeah, it is a relatively strange notion.

I agree that people are probably too hung up on the price, but don't act like it doesn't make a difference as to what little Johnny's going to get from Santa Claus this year.

[JackFetch]

It seems the PS3 is having problems with overheating.

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstatio...ssage.id=600154

[James D.]

It seems the PS3 is having problems with overheating.

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstatio...ssage.id=600154

Next, I'll bet we'll hear about them having minor problems with exploding.

This console is doomed.