580°

Sony explains reason for Playstation 3D Display price drop

VGW: Earlier in the week, we noticed that BestBuy.com had cut the display from $499 to $399. Then, we noticed Amazon.com match it, followed by the Sony Style store. Was this a case of price-matching, or had Sony officially dropped the price? To be sure, we reached out to a representative at Playstation and got this official reply.

Read Full Story >>
videogamewriters.com
PCRockStar4940d ago

It's not selling and 3d is flopping. Look at the numbers folks.

RememberThe3574939d ago (Edited 4939d ago )

I think it's more that the glasses are a flop. I don't mind the idea of 3d gaming, I like the movies, I just don't want to sit there for hours with classes on just to play a game. A 3d movie every once in a while is one this but in my house on my tv I don't want to be wearing glasses all the time.

But thats just me.

nveenio4939d ago

Well, you don't HAVE to wear glasses all the time. That's the thing. If you don't want to watch in 3D, then don't. It's not like a 3DTV is 3D all the time. You can choose when to go for 3D...just like at the movie theater.

I think the biggest turn off is the expensive glasses. I think the newer passive 3DTVs will be a better sell than the active shutter glasses. Some people will want the better picture, but people with kids like mine are more interested in having glasses that can be tossed into the wall or accidentally sat on without shattering.

Also, 3D is far from flopping. Saying it's flopping is like saying HDTV is flopping back in 2007. It takes time. Development of the 3DTVs isn't slowing. If it was slowing, we could consider cutting production to be an indication of "flopping", but it's not. 3DTV will soon be pretty standard, and when you by a new TV, it'll have 3D. Whether or not you use it will be up to you.

irepbtown4939d ago (Edited 4939d ago )

With movies, there are only a FEW that actually look absolutely amazing in 3D.
Avatar, Transformers, Tin Tin, Inception, and a few others (Btw I've watch these in Imax, normal 3D, and normal screens).
Not alot. The rest just ruin the film, Clash of the Titans is a good film, but the 3D just ruined it completely.

With gaming, if they can invent some sort of hologram then that would be brilliant. But 3D is just not that great today.

Army_of_Darkness4939d ago

It was to f@ckin small!! 24"?!?! Like really Sony?! Wtf?! If it was at least a 32" TV then hell yes I would have bought it!

gamingdroid4939d ago

Glasses are definitely part of the problem, but there is more to it than that. The 3D effect itself isn't pleasant to many, and the price is sky high. It's also very uncomfortable to view long periods of time as it strains the eyes.

For $400's I can easily get a 40" LED these days. Do you want 3D or twice the screen size?

Prices will come down, people will buy it, but by then it is hardly a selling point. Consumers don't seem to care anymore....

ShoryukenII4939d ago

What about people that already wear glasses? :(

gamingdroid4939d ago (Edited 4939d ago )

You mean like me?

I wear glasses, so when using 3D I have to use contact lenses or put the 3D glasses in front of my regular glasses in a very uncomfortable manner.

The good news is that the wow factor of 3D wears off pretty quickly....

badz1494939d ago

40" LED for $400? I think you meant LCD with LED backlight.

3D was, is and will always be an extra feature and personally I think it's really nice bar some games!

I wear glasses and I wear 3D glasses over my glasses too. a bit awkward at 1st but it's a well thought design for people with or without glasses. I have a Samsung Plasma 3D btw and I play all 3D games in 3D for hours without much problem and totally loving it! Uncharted 3 3D is straight out gorgeous!

gamingdroid4939d ago

Frankly, they just say LED so I'm assuming it is LED TVs. They seem to pop up on those deal sites from time to time.

I have seen the LED-LCD, which you are referring to with the cheaper brands. The other day, Best Buy had a 32" LED Panasonic for $300!

etebitan4939d ago

at shoryukenll my passive 3d tv comes with 3 pairs of glasses and one pair that's special to fit on normal glasses... that sould be the norm right??

Frankfurt4939d ago

Using 3D glasses over regular glasses isn't uncomfortable at all. 3D glasses are made to cover even big regular glasses. I would know, i have 3 different glasses, two of them fairly big.

frelyler4939d ago

You know nothing. You can get a 46 inch plasma which technically speaking still has better black levels and color production with a refresh rate that blows any non plasma out of the water that is 3D for around $600 usd. Panasonic makes one of the best so don't tell me its a crappy brand im referring to. Why do people still bring up price? 3d tv s are the same price as standard hdtvs were a year and a half ago. Do everyone a favor and stop babbling nonsense like a faux news anchor. Does someone pay you to talk nonsense about 3D? That is one of the only reasons I an think of that would explain your comment. Either that or your a moron.

STONEY44939d ago (Edited 4939d ago )

Basically all "LED" TVs are LCDs with an LED backlight. There's no such thing as just an LED TV. It's the backlight, the advantage being that it saves energy.

If you're going to mention OLED, it's something else entirely.

Sevir4939d ago

I Got a Passive 3d TV from Vizio for 600 bucks back in september and its a 42 inch, full HD 1080p 120hz wifi. and Its actually very enjoyable! You toggle the 3d experience on and off, its nothing to really be put off by! Ive enjoyed plenty of of great 3d content in games, Uncharted 3, Pictures via the Evo 3d and ofcourse movies!!! people are talking about high prices need to research! 3d TV's are getting much more attractive and more affordable its why manufactures continue to make more!

The Most successful have been LG and Vizio who use the passive glasses, because they are very inexspensive and compatible with each other, and dont look dorky like the active shutter glasses!

gamingdroid4938d ago (Edited 4938d ago )

Ironically with all this chatter, the monitor has dropped another $100 and is now $299! WOW!

Still about a $100 too much though.

Source for those that want it:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site...

... but it will be $200-250 in January.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 4938d ago
ForROME4939d ago

Agreed; 3D is flopping...again

evilunklebud4939d ago (Edited 4939d ago )

Agree... it seems to be struggling....

The day we get rid of the glasses is the day I look at the tech.

clrlite4939d ago (Edited 4939d ago )

PCRockStar:

Yes, judging by the "number" of disagrees you have, 3D is not flopping.

Just looking at the numbers.

I happen to have a TV capable of 3D and just bought a 3DS on ebay. The masses will buy these devices in droves when they are hyped, cheap, and made to seem practical. If you don't think the easily sold public will buy 3D, give it a bit more thought.

tigertron4939d ago

Its probably because those disagreeing already bought 3DTVs and don't want to accept that 3DTVs with glasses will be on their way out in a few years. Electronics companies like Sony are already working on glasses free TVs, but they still need to work on them.

That said, I think 3DTVs do look awesome. I watched some Jpop video on a 60 inch Samsung, and it looked fantastic. Although I am with the anti-glasses crowd.

wsoutlaw874938d ago

how does sony working on improving 3d by getting rid of the glasses mean that 3d is flopping?

showtimefolks4939d ago

I think more people are buying 3d tv than ever before but it needs more content.

The biggest issue for me is the extra glasses I already wear glasses so I don't want to wear one on top of that. If Sony or who ever makes a good 3d tv that does not require glasses I will happily spend 2500-3500 on it. Until than I am holding out. But I do need a tv and maybe down the road I can lick it up but I also wish it was a little bigger

JsonHenry4939d ago

The ONLY reason any company would lower their price is to either stay competitive or try to boost lagging sales. Typically both go hand in hand..

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4938d ago
Ddouble4940d ago

Sony should drop it in the UK as well.

TitanUp4939d ago

tried 3d gaming on pc and 3ds and i didn't like either 3d gaming just isn't for me i don't like motion gaming either.

kramun4939d ago

It wasn't selling. Simple as that.

kaozgamer4939d ago

they have some pretty bad advertisements for it over here in australia, if they are even selling it here coz i havnt seen the display anywhere

NBT914939d ago

Answer - the total sales figures stood at about 4.

Hicken4939d ago

Then we must have sold all four at my store.

gamingdroid4939d ago

... and Hicken probably bought all four himself.

Show all comments (90)
140°

Sony Faces Class Action in the Netherlands Over Allegedly Inflated PlayStation Store Prices

Mass Damage & Consumer Foundation in the Netherlands has filed a class action against Sony for inflating PlayStation Store prices.

dveio1d ago (Edited 1d ago )

My personal opinion:

Manufacturers and publishers have indeed inflated the industry.

From $700 million development costs for games like Call of Duty, to digital (store) prices for games and DLCs, online multiplayer fees on consoles (why can you play Helldivers 2 online for free on PC but not consoles?) or still preventing sell/lend digitally purchased games.

Sometime in the future, this bubble will collapse.

They should know better, but they just can't help themselves and suck even the last penny out of our wallets.

BeHunted22h ago

Because Sony knows people will be forced to pay those prices for single player and multiplayer games, not everyone prefers PC gaming. Sony also has a monopoly on PlayStation digital games. In 2019, they stopped allowing retailers and game key sellers to sell PlayStation digital games, making them available only through the official PlayStation Store

anast1d ago

The Dutch gov. wants a piece of the pie.

Eonjay23h ago

They should be suing the individual publishers increasing the prices to $80 instead of suing the store. There are plenty of publishers still selling game for like $50 with much success (like E33). But this proves that the publishers are the ones setting the prices.... so again nothing changes because they aren't even going after the main offender. How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD? Sony being the number one store in the market doesn't mean that publisher have to charge us an arm and a leg. Again the industry is laughing at us because consumers never get real representation. Just these fake platitudes that are meaningless.

BeHunted22h ago

"How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD"

Because Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, I can purchase Call of Duty at a huge discount from CDKeys or other gaming retailers. The only way to purchase digital PlayStation games is through the PlayStation Store.

djl348520h ago

Weird, I swore GoW, Stellar Blade, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLoU, etc. were on the steam store....uh.....

BeHunted17h ago(Edited 17h ago)

@djI3485

I'm talking about PlayStation games that you can only purchase on PlayStation. I can purchase Steam and Epic games from 3rd party retailers and key stores.

"Sony to stop selling full-game download codes at retailers"

https://www.videogamer.com/...

Killer2020UK22h ago

About time. There is zero fair reason why digitally distributed products that you cannot recoup any value when you want to dispose of them, should be priced higher than that of physical copies that entail all of the costs and the benefits of owning.

Show all comments (12)
170°

Sony Aims To Sell 15 Million PS5 Units This Year, but Is Shifting Focus to Monthly Active Users

Sony CEO Hiroki Totoki and CFO Lin Tao talked about the state of the PlayStation business and the strategy and targets going forward, including how they're responding to the tariffs.

Read Full Story >>
simulationdaily.com
1Victor42d ago

I wonder how the USA tariffs war will affect that projection. 🤔

S2Killinit42d ago (Edited 42d ago )

I think they take that into consideration when they announce their projections. Currently, after the xbox price increase, the PRO is cheaper than the series x! That is ridiculous, and it can’t last.

darthv7241d ago

you keep saying that but the price of a PS5 Pro is S699.99 (US) and the price of a Series X is $599.99 (US)

S2Killinit41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

The series x with 2 TB storage space is more expensive than PS5 PRO which also has 2 TB storage space.

darthv7241d ago (Edited 41d ago )

Oh so you are pitting a regular Pro with a special edition X... got it. If you are going so far as trying to compare apples to apples... please add in the optical drive and stand to the Pro. Seeing as the X has both of those by default.

I will help you if you are unable to do so.
PS5 Pro 2tb: $699.99, Optical Drive: $79.99, Stand: $29.99 = $809.97
Xbox Series X Galaxy Black Special Edition 2TB: $729.99

41d ago
S2Killinit41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

The PS5 PRO has 2TB storage. The series X with 2TB storage and much weaker, is… more expensive! So yeah, Im pointing out that fact.

Also, the PRO does not require a stand.

Ps: regular series 2TB is $749 (where did u get 729?)

darthv7241d ago

Its right here on the official XB site: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/...

Okay, so no stand for the Pro, but you might still want the optical drive. So $779.98 vs $729.99. A properly outfitted Pro is still more $$ than a 2tb X.

S2Killinit40d ago (Edited 40d ago )

Do I need to mention that the series x is not nearly as powerful as the PS5 PRO?

And no, the PS5 PRO runs just fine without a drive, and people don’t have to buy the drive right away, assuming they want it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 40d ago
drivxr42d ago

I wonder why they are shifting focus to MAU.

RaiderNation42d ago

Because that's where the real money is made, in microtransactions.

Profchaos42d ago (Edited 42d ago )

People are spending less time playing is a typical trigger for this.

The less time spent playing the less likely you are to spend more money on games and services including subs or even the next console.

Increased engagement equals more money.

42d ago
DarXyde41d ago

Same reason Microsoft does it: it looks better to investors and it's a solution when unit sales slow down.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this metric; and by using it, you're kind of signaling that you're moving into the "This is a PlayStation" era.

Z50141d ago

Because the PS4 also has users and not necessarily sales

Obscure_Observer39d ago

"I wonder why they are shifting focus to MAU."

Because they´d finally realized that MS wasn´t wrong after all.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 39d ago
42d ago
41d ago
310°

Sony Announces Large Profits Growth for PlayStation; Expects Further Wins in Current Fiscal Year

Sony announced its financial results for the fiscal year 2024, and things are certainly looking up, despite a decline in PS5 sales.

Read Full Story >>
simulationdaily.com
CrimsonWing6942d ago

Expect sh*t to slow down if prices aren’t kept in check.

Redgrave42d ago

Who downvotes the truth?

Even PSN itself is too damn high.jpg

S2Killinit42d ago

Gamepass is already at 20$ per month if im not mistaken.

toxic-inferno41d ago

@neutralgamer1992

Not all of us. I'm a big PlayStation fan, and have been since the PSOne. But I can't begin to defend what's happening currently.

At least Nintendo release a large number of games from their major franchises. Sony is just not banking on their established franchises, and yet are raising prices. Not great.

S2Killinit42d ago

Im pretty sure we are going to see a price increase for PRO. I mean think about it, its currently cheaper than xbox series x! That cannot last.

Eonjay42d ago

I'm absolutely sure we will not see a price increase. I don't think we should 'expect' to see price increase because it just adds validity to what Nintendo and Microsoft have done.

darthv7241d ago (Edited 41d ago )

Sorry to pop that bubble but the Pro is not cheaper than a series x... generally speaking (like you are). It is cheaper than one specific version, and doing so by not including the optical drive and stand like the X has by default.

So keep on trying to convince people you are right when everyone knows it's quite the opposite. A stock Pro is $699.99 and a stock X is $599.99. A special edition galactic black 2tb X is $729.99. And if you really want to compare apples to apples... adding the aforementioned optical drive and stand brings that Pro to $809.97 and then they would be on equal footing.

Twisting truths to fit a narrative... I expect better from you S2.

S2Killinit41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

The PS5 PRO has 2TB storage. And the series X with 2TB is more expensive. Which in my opinion is insane conseidering how much more powerful the PRO is. The PS5PRO does not need a stand, it can be used without a stand.

TheKingKratos42d ago

So the Pro is not offering any push in sales at all ?

CrashMania42d ago

It's still an expensive, niche product ultimately. And they exceeded their sales projections for units sold by half a million.

lawox42d ago

"18.5 million units have been shipped during the full fiscal year. This is actually ahead of the 18 million units target set by the company."

They beat their yearly estimate. It's not broken down by device, but it's clearly performing well enough. Since it's been released it's consistently been the second best selling SKU on Amazon only after the the Slim with disc.

41d ago
Bathyj41d ago

18 million a year is in the toilet?
I remember when 10 was considered good
Hell Microsoft would take that right now.
Probably pay $100b for it.

41d ago
BeHunted42d ago

If their profits fall next quarter, we'll probably see more price hikes. I can't imagine having to pay £20 a month for PlayStation Plus.

S2Killinit42d ago

I think gamepass is already paying that much.

42d ago
drivxr42d ago (Edited 42d ago )

Decline in hardware sales.
Behind on lifetime sales and decline in first party sales.
Third party content and PSN came through to save the day.
Things will improve starting with the next Ghost game.

Hopefully a steady flow of first party content by end of '25

rlow142d ago (Edited 42d ago )

I guess you get downvoted for stating facts from Sony’s own lips. What I’m curious about is what their top games of the year were and how much Xbox games contributed to the increase?

CrashMania42d ago

Well, generally 3rd party publisher games contribute the most anyway, so no different to capcom, EA and so on contributing to this figure.

lawox42d ago

That's because the report is actually really good.

They beat the console sales estimate that they set last year March, they have increased users both due to the record numbers of PS4 users and strong PS5 sales which is leading to great profits in sales and user spend.

This report is about the financial health of the PlayStation brand and as a platform PlayStation is stronger than ever. Heck they even have Microsoft putting their biggest franchises on the platform.

41d ago
S2Killinit41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

Well, the facts in the article are positive. Nothing wrong with his comment, but in my opinion it doesn't correctly indicate all the facts and nuances that give context to the reality of things. I downvoted for that only.

Make sense?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 41d ago
Lightning7742d ago

This is exactly what happened to Xbox year's ago. They had no first party and started seeing decline in 1st party sales, which effected their third party games which eventually effected their console sales. A slow decline across the board.

Calm down PS fans I'm not saying PS is becoming like old Xbox. I'm showing examples of the importance of first party output. Look how Xbox finally has compelling first party and things are on a up swing(despite years going on a downswing). I know thanks to PS releases which helps a ton, (which is why Xbox hardware only dropped 6% instead of 30+% like it usually does) The point still stands despite what Genz Trends may go, first party and compelling games sell hardware and software still. Sony's financial quarter is an example of this, of what lower First party output looks like.

No matter they'll be right back on track in due time any time especially with DS2 (not my type of game but I know many like it) and Yotei. They're not Xbox and let things get bad for so many years on end.

crazyCoconuts41d ago

"I'm showing examples of the importance of first party output. "
First party is mostly relevant for the sole purpose of creating EXCLUSIVES that are needed to stay competitive. With Xbox consoles collapsing and no more Xbox exclusives, first party is way less important. PlayStation as a platform now has free reign to profit without the high expense of needing exclusive first party titles.

red2tango41d ago

Sony has been very lazy with 1st party games compared to the PS4 era. And even the PS4 era was nothing compared to the PS3 era in terms of games.

S2Killinit41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

We have Ghost and Intergalactic coming. And then Marathon which is not exclusive to PlayStation. I think Covid and that chip shortage put a speedbump in game development because game manufacturers dont want even more risk that their game will arrive to too little hardware, but the games are starting to show up.

Lightning7741d ago

"With Xbox consoles collapsing and no more Xbox exclusives, first party is way less important."

Absolutely not. If that was the case then Nintendo would put Mario on Sega Genesis and Sonic on Super Nintendo. I know things are way different 30+ years later but not much has really changed in terms of exclusives and their impact on hardware. Especially early in the console life cycle.

Sony made all the money this quarter handover fist. Profits isn't a issue for them right now. I was just saying lower hardware sales and lower first party sales will hurt them or any console manufacturer of they don't have the compelling games in the long run. Just like it hurt Xbox. IF Sony keeps up not having lower first part output. Which we know they're not.

crazyCoconuts41d ago

Well no big exclusives in the last two years yet PS is doing great. What are people gonna do? Buy an Xbox?

S2Killinit41d ago

I agree with you. But they have had plenty of exclusives so far. Has it been ideal? Nope. I have a feeling we are seeing a resurgence with the effects of covid and that chip shortage now behind us.

Lightning7741d ago

No it's just like 360 where they had no games yet ppl still bought it because they sold ppl on the games early on that gen the fans were locked in and invested. They were riding the good will and was dubbed the shooter, racer box. The games dried up and they never recovered from it which hurt them in the long run. Same here with PS they still make the big bucks because they had games early on and the fans locked in and will continue to lock in for a little while longer despite lacking in first party.

S2Killinit41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

I agree. But the problem with xbox was that for some crazy reason MS thought game development wasnt all that important to a platform holder. They literally did not fund games with their own studios. When they lost marketshare they couldnt justify paying for exclusives with large install bases making it too expensive. That is not the scenario with PlayStation.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 41d ago
Show all comments (46)