Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Price is not trending. The green line should be horizontal with a sharp step on the date of the price change.
Now, is cost trending? Maybe. Given the many pieces involved, it's possible the cost came down slightly at many steps as different aspects were reduced. It may be fair to simplify those steps as a straight line. Thus, they probably didn't briefly hit a break even as the 2nd sentence says, they probably had a while where they were making money (and I'd bet forwarding that money into the Slim redesign)
@Spaceknight: what do you mean the price isn't trending... do you not understand that PS3 had an initial retail price of $600 and it now sells for $300?
@Sir Gibler: I'm fairly certain Spaceknight means that while the cost dropped slowly over time the price did not.
Specifically, it did not cost less than $600 during the months of 11/06 through 01/08 the way the graph implies. Same with $400 from 01/08 to 12/09.
@Sir Gibler: Do you not understand that the price doesn't drop continually for 3 years? It continues on a one constant price for a while, drops, continues, and drops. Don't be retarded and tell other people they don't understand when clearly you don't.
His point is that the PS3 did not retail for $600, then a couple days later for $599, then a couple days later for $598, etc etc etc until reaching $400, which is what the graph implies.
The problem here is that the graph implies that the PS3 has lost money at every single point in it's history, which is not necessarily true, it depends on factors that this graph hides thanks to it's immensely idiotic design.
I would have though the price could be easily charted in steps: each price existed for a certain period of time, not some constant linear drop every month. This graph really doesn't make use of its x-axis, and thus ends up not being very informative or accurate to the real-world.
Not to mention that the dates are spaced evenly even though one is a 14 month gap while the other is a 23 month gap, making the lines even more misleading.
E.g. if the 600 price was dropped straight to 400 in a single price change, that means the PS3 would have actually been profitable for a period of time pass that intersection; same with the drop from 400 to 300. They should not be treated as simple lines.
We're forgetting the benefit that comes from being a console manufacturer: console dev kits and licensing fees. It's the sole reason why they are willing to take a loss on the console. A person will buy a console only once, but get many games.
Plus, it's also important to point out that if a person has replace a console because a previous one broke (or RRoD before the 3-year warranty), they've lost money. Sales on consoles may look better, but more consoles don't immediately mean more games.
Lastly, since the PS3 is the most popular and cost-efficient Blu-ray player out there, it gets quite a few sales. And with Sony being the primary pioneer of the format, it gets licensing fees from that too. And more likely than not, Microsoft is going to stick Blu-ray in it's next gen system, as I don't see any way around it (in 2012, Blu-ray will just be another "format", instead of Sony co-owned property, but Microsoft will still have to pay).
So build price of unit - sales price != simple profit or loss. Business isn't checkers, it's chess!
@nutbastard: At the same time, though, he is more likely to be the type of user to buy many games. If you are someone willing to spend $500-$600 on a gaming system, you are probably more likely to spend $300/year on video games than someone who is only willing to spend $300 on the gaming system. A lot of the people that are just now purchasing the system will probably not spend half as much on video games as those who were early adopters.
Perhaps someone who follows consoles closely can tell me but I was wonder when/if another price cut will come? Will it stay at 299 until the PS4 comes out? Or can we expect a 199 price on it? What have other PS's done in the past?
It's a beautiful machine. I much prefer it to my Xbox 360. But I've noticed the colours on the PS3 are a bit dull/washed out compared to the 360 version of the same game. Off topic I know but anyone have any idea why? My 360 is running at 780p but my PS3 is connected to my Bravia LCD with a HDMI running at 1080p.
@Aetius: Not necessarily so. It has to do with settings on the system itself, some of which are not user adjustable. It does not mean that the game was rendered more poorly on one system than another or that one system is less capable than another to handle the graphics. Like a lot of things, it comes down to personal preference, anyways. The settings that a videophile will set a TV to are a lot different from the settings that the average consumer will set a TV to, hence the reason displays in the store are almost always set on a dynamic mode despite the fact that a videophile will almost never use the dynamic mode.
@Aetius: IIRC, the 360 comes with some voodoo settings that force more color out of the games, so at first glance it can look better. The Ps3 seems like it's configured taking into account that it will play Blu-Ray movies to, so it needs to be less saturated.
You can play with the settings on either console, or compensate with your TV.
@TheOriginalEd: Excellent point - how long is the average Christmas list in Japan, anyway? To just toss-in "video game console" in slot number ten makes me wonder.
@Monty: Well, you know the japanese, they probably make a complete "ooooh aaaaah, woahaaaa"-show around it while they reveal the 264-whishes-list (cue oooh aaaah, wohaaaa).
Number 4 gives a little insight into why Asian people, at least Japanese, always seem to be so intelligent (book smart wise). Growing up I certainly never wanted books and I didn't know anybody that did.
Dr. Evil Genius is eagerly anticipating the Year of the Black Rainbow was starred
Dr. Evil Genius is eagerly anticipating the Year of the Black Rainbow was unstarred
Dr. Evil Genius is eagerly anticipating the Year of the Black Rainbow was starred
Dr. Evil Genius is eagerly anticipating the Year of the Black Rainbow was unstarred
Dr. Evil Genius is eagerly anticipating the Year of the Black Rainbow was starred
Dr. Evil Genius is eagerly anticipating the Year of the Black Rainbow was unstarred
@Thee Sea: I need to watch some of these. I've always been a huge Ultraman fan (mostly because it came out the year I was born & I love Japanese rubber monsters).
12/11/09
Price is not trending. The green line should be horizontal with a sharp step on the date of the price change.
Now, is cost trending? Maybe. Given the many pieces involved, it's possible the cost came down slightly at many steps as different aspects were reduced. It may be fair to simplify those steps as a straight line. Thus, they probably didn't briefly hit a break even as the 2nd sentence says, they probably had a while where they were making money (and I'd bet forwarding that money into the Slim redesign)
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
Specifically, it did not cost less than $600 during the months of 11/06 through 01/08 the way the graph implies. Same with $400 from 01/08 to 12/09.
12/11/09
12/11/09
His point is that the PS3 did not retail for $600, then a couple days later for $599, then a couple days later for $598, etc etc etc until reaching $400, which is what the graph implies.
The problem here is that the graph implies that the PS3 has lost money at every single point in it's history, which is not necessarily true, it depends on factors that this graph hides thanks to it's immensely idiotic design.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/11/09
Not to mention that the dates are spaced evenly even though one is a 14 month gap while the other is a 23 month gap, making the lines even more misleading.
E.g. if the 600 price was dropped straight to 400 in a single price change, that means the PS3 would have actually been profitable for a period of time pass that intersection; same with the drop from 400 to 300. They should not be treated as simple lines.
12/11/09
12/11/09
Plus, it's also important to point out that if a person has replace a console because a previous one broke (or RRoD before the 3-year warranty), they've lost money. Sales on consoles may look better, but more consoles don't immediately mean more games.
Lastly, since the PS3 is the most popular and cost-efficient Blu-ray player out there, it gets quite a few sales. And with Sony being the primary pioneer of the format, it gets licensing fees from that too. And more likely than not, Microsoft is going to stick Blu-ray in it's next gen system, as I don't see any way around it (in 2012, Blu-ray will just be another "format", instead of Sony co-owned property, but Microsoft will still have to pay).
So build price of unit - sales price != simple profit or loss. Business isn't checkers, it's chess!
12/11/09
12/11/09
on the other hand, they lose significantly more money by not selling a console at all.
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
12/11/09
You can play with the settings on either console, or compensate with your TV.
12/10/09
I like the alleged "Sphere" codename better.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Sorry, I had to get this out of my system.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
Having those books allowed me to pretend to be intelligent with marginal success.
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/08/09
12/09/09
12/08/09
What is this 'books' of which you speak?