PS3 to cost 900?

I'm thinking I won't be able to get one for a very long time. I knew this thing was going to cost alot from the Blu-ray price (among other factors), but $900?! Who the heck has $900 that they can just splurge on a system? I know I don't. And I know most of America doesn't either.

It is important to note though, that this is just an estimate.
 
This is true, it is merely an estimate. But Merrill Lynch is pretty reliable in the fiscal department, and they aren't one to make up numbers. I'd definitely have to say that a console with a $900 price tag is set up for a colossal flop.
 
The real concern about a $900 price tag on a console is if the system actually DOES sell. If they market the system as a be-all super-machine and people go for it, then Sony will set the standard for new console prices. People can then look forward to paying a grand for a console and dropping a bill ($100) for a game in the future. Maybe it's just me, but games better have some sort of mind-machine-interface like the one featured in Ghost in the Shell for someone to pay those outrageous prices.
 
Personally, I'd rather build one of GT's crazy $700 computers than pay a G for the PS3. Though I wouldn't because I'd just buy a 360 and Rev with a dozen games instead.
 
I just went to Blockbuster and tried to rent Tiger Woods 06 for the 360 and they want $10 for all 360 games now. If the PS3 really is going to cost somewhere between $800-900, wouldn't it be reasonable to think their games would cost more than 360 games? And if they do cost $70-75 how much would it cost to rent a PS3 game? $15-20? This whole thing is getting out of hand.
 
Yeah, I could definitely see PS3 games blasting by the $60 price tag. I speculated this in my Second Console War article, but I didn't think it was an off-the-bat possibility.
 
Am I reading that article wrong?

It says it will cost sony about 900 dollars to build a PS3 but that wont be the retail price. Sony is willing to lose money with each PS3 sold in order to compete with the 360. Just as Microsoft loses money with each 360 sold since it cost about 715 to build a 360 as the article says. And again like the article says, Both Microsoft and Sony have MORE THAN enough money to be able to lose some with each console sold.

So I highly doubt that sony would put a 900$ price tag on a PS3.
 
Maybe you're right. The article does say: " . . . the PS3 will cost Sony $900 per unit at launch." But what threw me off was the sentence: "Fortunately for Sony, the firm has also estimated that the console's cost after 3 years could drop to $320." I took that to mean consumers would have to pay $320 after 3 years because it doesn't say the price to Sony would be $320. And if you go by that, then the $900 estimate could be a consumer price since there wasn't a full breakdown list of how much everything else in the PS3 would cost. But since I actually can not find a quote that clearly says it's a consumer price I would think you're right.
 
Microsoft is not actually losing money on every every Xbox. The only way they could actually LOSE money by selling a console is if they started paying people to take them. The $525 estimated ATCOP is only because Microsoft hasn't made enough 360 units yet to make enough revenue to cover the initial costs for the equipment they bought to build the 360s.
 
i would have to agree with cohesion. unless we are both reading the article wrong, then those are just estimated cost that sony will have to endure while making it. i see the 320$ after 3 years being for the cost to sony for production after that 3 years. im guessing that the blu tooth cost will be alot lower and that the 500 some price tag right now will only be, say, 100$(estimated) 3 years after the actual release of the ps3. but we need to remeber that these are just estimates, not actual figures. the actuals might be less, then again they might be alot more. chances are its more. im hoping that the inital esitmated selling price of 500 will stick, not jump to a grand, other wise all of us will be working 80 -100 hr weeks just to pay for one of these things.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to cost, you guys are right, it is getting out of hand....But you could also look at how much it costs for people who could only get the "available 360 systems.....those were the core systems, by the way...If you add on a couple of wireless controllers(i'm lazy), a hard drive, HD Cables, a new 360 headset for Live, and so on....It can add up to ALOT......So, i really don't think that either console can "beat" the other one's price.....The only thing that the PS3 HAS to be able to "one-up" on the 360 would be the Xbox Live Arcade, Downloadable Demos, and the Media Center Extension on the 360.....Those 3 alone put pressure on the PS3.....BluRay alone should not be the selling point......In the end, i'd say the PS3 will be around $600 max.....
 
The article sounds about right. Although I though Microsoft was losing only about $140 per console. I also know that since Microsoft's pockets are deeper, if they are losing around $350 per console, and the cost is $400, then the loss (obviously) is $750 per console. Let's say Sony can only afford to lose $300-$250 per console. Theirs cost $900. That means we could be looking at $600-$650?

The other way to look at it is this: If they stay comparable at $350-$450, and are taking a loss of $550-$450 and sales aren't strong enough, then Sony could be setting themselves up for some serious trouble. I doubt they go bankrupt, but it could put a hurtin' on 'em.
 
Like I says...

spudlyff8fan said:
Microsoft is not actually losing money on every every Xbox. The only way they could actually LOSE money by selling a console is if they started paying people to take them. The $525 estimated ATCOP is only because Microsoft hasn't made enough 360 units yet to make enough revenue to cover the initial costs for the equipment they bought to build the 360s.
Click to expand...

But we do have to remember that this is Merrill Lynch. They aren't just scrubs who're trying to throw a number out there. They know what they're talking about. But we also have to remember what happened with the PSP. Almost EVERYONE agreed that the price tag was going to be $500, but then Sony hit them over the head with a $250 tag. So they may do a repeat of that.
 
I read the article some time ago. No, the PS3 will not cost $900. As stated before, that is the initial cost per unit that SCEA has to pay. This price includes things such as salary for their (extremely talented) engineers, operating overhead, etc. The company does plan to stay competitive with the 360 as far as price goes. Profits will be coming after a certain amount of units are sold, and through subscriptions to their online service. I can keep people updated on happenings at SCEA, seeing as I live 30 miles from them and all the PS3 news is in the newspaper.

Edit: missed an "e" in keep. Ok, I'm anal about those things.
 
Last edited:
Not saying it will cost us $900. Just Sony. And Merryll Lynch knows their stuff and are not known to gloss over things. If they say sell, there's a reason for it.

The questions I have are this: how long will it cost them that much to make them? How many do they have to sell to recomp that deficit?

Given that cost projections for technology is usually not accurate more than a short distance into the future, I know that is a tall order to prophesy. What happened with the PS2 and xbox?
 
I heard somewhere Sony didn't start profiting off hardware sales until I believe last year (don't quote me on this, though, I'm not 100% sure and I doubt it's true), but of course they HAD to have made barrels of money with games, and they made a nice bundle off some of their more popular first person franchises like Gran Turismo and SOCOM.

Microsoft, I believe lost about a billion dollars total on the Xbox, mainly because of the total lack of overseas interest from Japan, and a surplus of Xboxes produced at launch. They did make loads of money off their games, but they still ended up with that 1,000,000,000 in their books.
 
I had heard that Microsoft did start turning profits on the xbox a while back and that the games and xbl really made it more profitable.

BTW, when did Sony's stock go from "buy" to "neutral"? It just went from "neutral" to "Sell" when they announced the push back of the PS3 launch (which isn't confirmed or denied by Sony).
 
Nah, I don't think Microsoft managed to pull themselves out of the muck and make money off it, though you might be correct.

And Sony stock went from buy to neutral in 2003. The Cube and Xbox increased in popularity dramatically, which made PS2 sales spiral downward quickly, mainly because of shortages brought about in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2002 when they were only able to put out about 6 million PS2 units, and people went with one of the alternative systems. Other Japanese companies also began to overtake them in the electronics department, which caused their profits to fall over 30% in each of those quarters. That's what made it go from buy to neutral. The M-L price estimate pretty much single handedly caused that 3.5% drop that occured the day after their price estimate for the PS3 and it will probably continue to slouch as long as there is questions about the potential profitability of the PS3. Not to mention their electronics are overpriced and mediocre. Toshiba TVs forever!
 
yeah, I hadn't mentioned the other stuff Sony's got going on. They are really banking on this blueray tech to take off. If it doesn't, that'll be another blow. Whereas, Microsoft has a few projects that may be profitable (in fact, should be) like Vistas. They also are going strong with xbl. A few other projects are out there that I don't remember.

And yes, Toshiba rocks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom