Top
480°

The PS3 Super Slim Puts Sony Back On Track

After 6 years of being out-of-touch, a refocused Sony starts to finally get it right.

Maybe the 360 pushed the development of the original PS3 into an early release, either way, the PS3 Phat was just too expensive.

Read Full Story >>
gamingcapacity.com
The story is too old to be commented.
GribbleGrunger1783d ago

One thing I can never understand about the attitude towards the PS3 is this whole idea that they priced themselves out of the market. If we're going to look at it that way, then what does that say about a console that was cheaper and released 12 - 16 months earlier and now sits 1.8 million ahead?

Surely if you are going to say that the PS3 priced itself out of the market then the only conclusion you can draw from that is that the 360 has been an even bigger failure. I'm not 'personally' saying it is, but with this logic, there is no other conclusion

PS-Analog1783d ago (Edited 1783d ago )

£425 $600 for a console was extremely high. It's fair to say it stumbled out the blocks and the 360 was quickly eating up the market share. Sony would of liked to have had less price cuts but had to have price cuts and lose a lot of money so the PS3 wasn't a complete failure and get left in the Xbox 360s dust.

The average gamer wouldnt pay more than about £300/$400 for a console so it was priced way to high and relied on brand name to sell.

The slim and especially the super slim has put sony back on track.

MaxXAttaxX1783d ago (Edited 1783d ago )

When the PS3 launched, the 360 had about 8 million units sold already from the year head-start.

If both consoles sold equally, then that 8 million gap would remain the same.
If the 360 sold more/faster than PS3, then that 8 million gap would be much bigger.

But the fact that the PS3 managed to cut that 8 millioin down to less than 2 mil, means it has sold more and faster than 360 within the same time.

And if they both had been released at the same time, the PS3 would be ahead by about 7 million.
___

A price drop wasn't exactly needed right now since the PS3 is still selling well.
What Sony needed to do is make more profit from the PS3. And that's what they're doing with the Super Slim.

PS-Analog1783d ago

How did both companies do financially? Sales is a factor but its a little more complex than just sales

1783d ago
BitbyDeath1783d ago

@DK286K, you forget that a lot of people bought a 360 cause there was nothing else on the market.

I don't think we can draw an accurate conclusion of sales due to this.

BattleAxe1783d ago

"After 6 years of being out-of-touch, a refocused Sony starts to finally get it right"

Is this dude f**k'n serious? LMFAO

Tallpaul771783d ago (Edited 1783d ago )

1000 bucks at launch in Australia :O

skrug1783d ago

@DK286K

I believe the PS3 would have been the same price. It was suppose to launch spring of 2006, but shortages of the laser diode for the blu-ray pushed the release date back until winter

PS-Analog1783d ago

To clarify, the article isn't about hardware sales or software because Sony have produced great games. It's more about the cost of hatdware and how the exchange rate hit sonys profits. The super slim in some ways gives them a fresh start with a console that gives them profit and room in the future to price cut when they need.its taken them til now to get themselves into such a great position.

We in no way are talking about the quality of software hence we dont talk about software in the article and no we also don't call the ps3 a failure

mewhy321782d ago

I just don't understand why someone would buy a new slim if they already have a perfectly working old slim????? A fool and their money are soon parted.

ajax171782d ago

@DK286K "If PS3 had launched a year earlier, it would have certainly cost more than $499-$599."

Counter point: The 360's numbers wouldn't be as high either if it wasn't for the RRoD and people having to repurchase.

1782d ago
shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1782d ago

But I am sure everyone wants ps3 to had launch $100 - 200 cheaper but the same power right?

BISHOP-BRASIL1782d ago

@mewhy32

The people trading in their perfectly working Slim to get a super Slim are the same people who get a new Iphone every other year or the people who get a new car every year... Of course they don't need, chances are they know they don't need it, but as you said, a fool and their money.

But most people aren't going to do that. Sure, some current PS3 owner may get one for luxury of having the newer model, but I believe most current owners getting a new Super Slim are either getting an extra PS3 or to replace a Slim/Fat that's been giving signs of dieing anytime.

The rest of the people are just those who didn't had a PS3 earlier.

And for people discussing price, it will fall soon... The new super slim is bundled with some games and a month of PS+, priced at 270USD, above the current slim stand alone priced at 250USD. That wouldn't exactly be classified as keeping the price and lowering the costs to be profitable, but more likely to raising the price... So if that's to happen, the stand-alone price would be 250, hard to believe when the bundle costs only 20 more coming with 2 games and one month od PS+, so I'd say expect a little less than 250USD for the super slim stand alone package.

Also every other PS3 bundle before was either priced the same as the stand alone or around 50USD above, so expect the stand alone super slim to go down as much as 50 bucks when released, or 220USD (I believe they're saving it for next month, so to compete with WiiU and take advantage of holidays shopping).

Sony just doesn't have a track record of holding much profit in consoles sales, they always priced their consoles as low as possible (although I don't know if actually loosing money per unit sold before this gen) so they could sell more games (and had always profitted way more like this).

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1782d ago
ChunkyLover531783d ago

You are looking at it all wrong. From a standpoint of what each console maker sold last generation to this generation, Microsoft and Nintendo increased their sales, Sony was the only company to go in the other direction.

Sony did a great job of catering to every type of gamer with the PS1/PS2. The price of the PS3 was too steep for the casual gamer or the family oriented gamer. Since those types of gamer's have no idea of brand loyalty, they didn't follow blindly to the expensive PS3. This is something Sony didn't really plan for, they thought they had a hold on 100+ million consumers, sort of like what Apple does now.

The family and casual gamer went to Nintendo instead, because they didn't really care about fancy tech, they wanted to have fun. The Wii offered something new and that is why they won this generation. Was the PS3 worth the initial launch price? in terms of tech it was, but realistically it didn't have much in the way of games for the first year or two to justify its purchase.

At the end of the cycle they did a good job with it, but I'm afraid there late attempt to garner a market that Nintendo has had all generation probably wont pay off.

nukeitall1783d ago

Exactly!

Sony went from dominating to last place!

Imagine MS with essentially a monopoly in Operating System went to last place in one generation. There aren't many business cases of that happening in general.

Late in this console cycle, Sony went for market share while MS went for profitability. That is clear when you look at the pricing.

miyamoto1783d ago

" The family and casual gamer went to Nintendo instead, because they didn't really care about fancy tech, they wanted to have fun. The Wii offered something new and that is why they won this generation."

I disagree with that statement, bro.

People bought the Nintendo Wii
1) because it is cheap in a time where the world in in economic recession &
2) they cared about that "fancy tech" the Wii Remote technology & motion gaming (in video games you can not separate technology & gameplay they are integral to each other)
3) and the promise of the Wii as a "fitness machine" to consumers.

Unit sales alone is not the only important criteria for judging who won & who lost over all.

We'll talk about sales or "best selling" consoles when they stop selling Wiis, PS3 & 360, shall we. Not just because the 360 sold 8 million units ahead the Wii & PS3 automatically made it the winner. There is a time element that must be considered.
Don't jump into conclusions.

" At the end of the cycle they did a good job with it, but I'm afraid there late attempt to garner a market that Nintendo has had all generation probably wont pay off."

What market? the Kidtendos? Dream on.
Where did you learn that?
No matter what happens no one can arse Sony to care for Nintendo's market. They would rather go bankrupt than stoop down that level.

Why don't you try? I hope you succeed.

They have aimed for the big brother entertainment since the original PlayStation in 1994 & there is no changing that.

It took so many years of hard work for Sony to remove & break down that notion (that Nintendo established) that videogames are children's play thing then transformed it into a full blown form of not only young but also adult entertainment. and now your are saying Sony wants to go kiddie, that is a lot of nonsense.

If Nintendo really won this generation of gaming convincingly, they should have won the hearts of the millions of gamers who play the HD consoles who is greatly out numbers Wii's installed base.

Infact Nintendo lost many core gamers to Sony & Microsoft when they went for the casual market and now Nintendo is the one who is trying to convince their lost market back with the Wii U.
We'll see if that pays off...

Kurt Russell1782d ago

^ I'm laughing at this guy ^

As someone who has games since Pong I can safely say you are chatting shit son.

greenpowerz1782d ago (Edited 1782d ago )

MSFT's only goal this gen was to help 3rd party developers flourish adopting what MSFT thought helped PS2 become the go to platform due to dominating market and mindshare.

MSFT beat Sony's brand recognition and established it's own, beyond novelty and nostalgia with MSFT creating a *setting the standard reputation*

The only thing the PS3 super slim will do is help stop the bleeding from Sony.

You are right It's like some written off competitor reversing Apple's market and mindshare in less than two generations of hardware.

And why no real Wii factor in this discussion?

Jockamo1782d ago

Sony was coming off of the most successful console in history, the PS2. They wanted to maintain that dominance by increasing the risks. They completely overshot with the price point so instead of riding the momentum of their brand name recognition, they alienated a huge portion of their demographic. It was just too much for the normal consumer to handle. Instead they went to the 360 or PC, and some even went to the Wii. Loyalists stayed, but don't deny that a high percentage of ex-PS2 players went to the 360 than Xbox owners to the PS3. Although the slim is a nice addition, again the price point is ridiculous when you can just get the latest thing, the WiiU. Again, loyalists to Sony will stay. If you wanna see a blind trust in name recognition, just take a look at the iPhone. relatively same price point year over year with a much more loyal following.

elpresador1782d ago

@axlestone Really dude? Sony would rather go bankrupt then "stoop"to Nntendo? I amguessing you were under a rock 2 christmases ago when they released the MOVE.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1782d ago
cee7731783d ago

@DK286K

the 40gb ps3 launched a year after ps3 launch not 8 months later maybe in europe and even then it was still 100 and 200 more than the 360

sony just dropped the ball on ps3's manufacturing the moral of this story is he who launches last should add more ram to the system they cut the ps3 specs it was first rumored to have a gig of ram but sony cut it which even upset kojima because he has to dumb down mgs4 a little bit it ps3 had atleast lil more ram like 256mb more or hell 128mb there would be no debate whatsoever live only wins because of party chat features when it comes ps3 should have never had 4 usb ports or memory card reader it just needed to usb ports hell even one ill do lol and add extra ram with the savings from usb ports and memory card reader

jerethdagryphon1782d ago

right dont know if youve ever been inside a phat ps3 but those touch buttons are very simple and i doubt there expensive to buy in bulk

usb ports pennies littlery to add 2-4 costs next to nothing as a single chip can handle 4 memory card reader mayby 10£ retail.

those luxuries are laughable in cost

princejb1341783d ago

ps3 was way to expensive
i should know i bought it a year later when it was priced at $500

even though i dont regret getting my ps3 i love the phat but thats something i would never do again since it really hurt my pockets

next gen i would not pay more than $350 for a console

dark-hollow1783d ago

its pretty amazing how much they sold in it first years even with the high price tag, you have to admit, if the ps3 costed as much as a 360 or less back then, microsoft wouldnt have a chance this gen.

i think its safe to assume that most 360 owners were ps2 owners who bought the 360 instead because the ps3 at launch was expensive and didnt offer that library to justify the price (talking about prior 2008, after that they have done a tremendous job with their library) that, and the most valuable ps third party exclusives went to the 360 like FFXIII, RE5, DMC 4 and etc.

sony lost market share, and ms got more. so no, outselling the most famous, best selling brand at that time even by one million or so is by no means a "failure"

do you realize how big the ps1/2 were? they totally ANNIHILATED the competition, so outselling their successor is quite the feat.

JamieL1782d ago

I agree with you. I never even considered the 360 until I heard $599.00 usd. I got a 360 that weekend. It was only $100 less, but it was enough to get me to wait. I'm glad it happen though, because I've really enjoyed my 360, and if it wasn't for the arrogant attitude Sony had at the start of this gen(that they learned from and came back stronger than ever) I would have missed out on the 360 all together, probably. I like games though, and as soon as I could own all platforms I did.

GribbleGrunger1783d ago (Edited 1783d ago )

2006: 1.5 million
2007: 8 million
2008: 10 million
2009: 13 million
2010: 14 million
2011: 14 million

Yep, this new slim is sure gonna turn it round for Sony. Now how about we stop this myth right here, right now.

Boody-Bandit1783d ago (Edited 1783d ago )

^Debate is over. Article is just more nonsense. Thanks for clarifying GribbleGrunger

If 2006 were 2011 this article would hold water. If I had wings I could fly. But both are more realistic an option than this article making sense. It doesn't. Just another LOOK @ me nonsensical rambling of someone that knows not which they speak. Yes I'm looking at you gamingcapacity

tokugawa1783d ago Show
miyamoto1783d ago

Its really a very hard thing to be a defending champion.
You have so many challengers.
Many want to beat you down.
No console manufacturer has ever managed to make a three feat grand slam for home consoles.
Nintendo was a contender with NES & SNES until Sony stopped them.
Now the PlayStation team is this close to achieving this with PS3 but Ninty & M$ are hell bent to stop them.
Now that software piracy, which greatly influenced hardware sales in the past is out of the equation for Sony,will PlayStation still achieve that grand slam?

Anon19741782d ago

People like to look at the PS3 sales and say "Oooh. What a disappointment. The PS2 sold so much better. The PS3 must suck."

What they forget is that, like the Wii, price was a major factor with the PS2. You can't tell me that the PS2 dropping below $200 early wasn't a major reason for it's success. And the PS2 wasn't competing during the worst economic situation in a generation. The PS3 has received it's share of price cuts as we know but has yet to see a price cut below the magic $200 marker. The PS2 saw that within 3 years.

PS2 Sales as of March 31 each year
00: 1.4 million
01: 9.2 million
02: 18 million <-- Price drops $100 to $199
03: 22.5 million <-- Price drops to $179
04: 20 million <-- Price drops to $149
05: 16 million
06: 16 million <-- Price drops to $129
07: 14 million <-- PS3 now on market
08: 13.7 million
09: 7.9 million

When the PS2 was six years old, it was already selling under $149 and was selling 16 million a year. The PS3 is moving 14 million a year and hasn't even broke the $200 mark in price, all while being the most expensive console on the market and even in 2012 when the competition is seeing sales drop by almost half for the first 6 months of the year, PS3 sales have been down but only slightly.

Kinda offers a bit of perspective, doesn't it?

GribbleGrunger1782d ago

nice comparison there, darkride66. I think we're going to see those prices pretty soon for the PS3. Not this Christmas because many will buy it anyway, but certainly next year with the AAA titles to help drive those sales. People think it's out of the question for the PS3 to emulate the PS2, but they overlook the fact that the PS3 will be on the market 'longer' than the PS2 (as the PS2 has been on the market longer than the PS1)

1782d ago
XabiDaChosenOne1782d ago

LOL Damn! GribbleGrunger and Darkride drove the kiddies to school personally today lol. Don't forget your lunch children!

Oner1782d ago

Excellent posts/factual info Gribble & Darkride.

jerethdagryphon1782d ago

is that ps3 sales per year