Home / News / Games News / Sony CEO Howard Stringer Rebuffs PS3 Price Drop Demands

Sony CEO Howard Stringer Rebuffs PS3 Price Drop Demands

by

Sony CEO Howard Stringer Rebuffs PS3 Price Drop Demands

Here's a surprise: Sony CEO Sir Howard Stringer is fed up of hearing the PS3 should see a price cut. Anyone surprised? Anyone?

Speaking to Reuters regarding Activision CEO Robert Kotick's suggestion that the publisher might re-evaluate its position supporting Sony if the PlayStation stays as expensive as it currently is, Stringer was fairly dismissive of Koticks comments, saying: "He likes to make a lot of noise." In Stringer's view: "He's putting pressure on me and I'm putting pressure on him. That's the nature of business." All fair enough - what's a bit of friendly banter between CEOs after all?

That said, as much as everyone wants a price drop for the PlayStation 3 it's pretty clear by now that Sony won't be implementing one until its good and ready, so it's perhaps time we stopped moaning about it. Yes, it's an expensive console, yes it would be an even better purchase than it already is at a lower price, but it still delivers a lot for the money and if you don't like that, don't buy it.

Besides, a price drop isn't logical because, as Stringer says if he brought one in he would "lose money on every PlayStation I make -- how's that for logic."

Link:

Reuters.

Ahlan

July 9, 2009, 1:54 am

1. The PS3 has done extremely well at its current price point, nearly catching (and in some months, passing) the 360 and wii in sales. While overall they are still behind, the amount of sales at the current price point is impressive and justifies not feeling pressure to lower the cost.





2. They are a business. What business would ever admit, months before it happened, that they are going to lower the price? That's financial suicide. People would stop buying up until the date you said the price would drop. They would take such a hit in sales before the drop that it would severely hurt the game division of Sony. It would affect it so much that any added sales from the drop would be negated by the loss taken leading up to it.





So the PS3 is doing fine. Would a price drop increase sales? Yes. Does that mean Sony should come out and say they're dropping the price now even if they're not doing it until Fall/Winter? no.








If you want the highest quality, you get a PS3. The highest quality always costs more, this is nothing new.

Keldon

July 9, 2009, 3:40 am

The ONLY thing stopping me from buying a PS3 (and lots of blue ray films :D) is the price.





Simple as that, I see no massive benfits over the 360 aside from blue ray ability and a few exclusive games I want to play so I just cant justify it.

rav

July 9, 2009, 3:46 am

Well I am happy to wait and keep my money for the time being. If I had a PS3 under my telly then some of the (not insubstantial) money I spend on multiplatform games may have gone into Sony's coffers. Far for than they'd have lost on the actual console sale. Still, I'm sure MS are happy to take my money off my hands. Maybe they don't understand the razor blade model.





@Ahlan


If you want the highest quality what exactly? ;-)

darkcamel

July 9, 2009, 3:59 am

1. the ps3 is still way behind xbox 360 and wii in global overall sales. it isnt catching up.





2. a £199 price point is much more attractive in these hard frugal times.





3. ps3 isnt doing fine. sony is losing money hand over fist. many companies are being hurt by the high price.





ive got both and xbox 360 is a more attractive proposition at its price point. the sony exclusives arent really strong enough to persuade the majority xbox or wii owners to buy the console.

Ahlan

July 9, 2009, 4:49 am

1. Wrong, the 360 has a year ahead of the PS3, if you compare them at the same time frame the ps3 outsells the 360 by 3.6 mill units.





2. at 399euro the PS3 still manage to sell as much as the 360 at 199euro.





3. If they were losing money the wouldn't drop the price to 399, if they will drop it to 299euros then they will lose money,





and Wrong again, at that high price many companies are NOT being hurt, on the contrary they are making big profits, look here





EA: "PS3 is EA's biggest source of income"





http://playstation.joystiq.com...








Take-Two: "the PlayStation 3 as its biggest revenue generator on the publishing side, with 35% of the quarterly take. That beats out the Xbox 360, which brought in 28%"





http://kotaku.com/5112763/take...











"UBISOFT and EA both earned more money on PS3 than X360"





Electronic Art 2009 First Quarter Fiscal Report





Platform


PS3 17%


X360 10%


PS2 10%


Wii 7%


PC 11%


PSP 7%


NDS 3%








http://www.reuters.com/article...











"Ubisoft's Top Revenue Generator In 2008: The PlayStation 3"





http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-...








i also owned a 360, i sold it and brought ATI video card, cause all the good 360 games are now also on the PC, i sold my 360 because of 3 RROD's that i had, when i say Quality i mean less failure rate and more exclusive games.

xenos

July 9, 2009, 5:25 am

Stringer sounds like a t*$$er, Sony market position has slipped massively in the last couple of years, just look at the total number of PS2 v PS3 consoles sold... They are too out of touch to realise what they need to do to put it right.

Tim Sutton

July 9, 2009, 5:47 am

Ahlan, please don't try and turn Trusted into yet another 360/PS3 fanboy whinge site. If you want to throw meaningless stats around in a pointless attempt to convince people that your console is "the best" there are plenty of places to do that. I'd imagine that most people here think that's incredibly childish.





If sales figures mean anything, then the NES kicks all your fanboy asses.





Personally I don't have either console, but I would consider buying a PS3 if the price was lowered, say to a level comparable to what the US pays. And if Sony re-introduced the PS2 emulation they removed for the European market. And if Sony apologised to Lik-Sang and let them sell games to me again.

Cub

July 9, 2009, 1:23 pm

@Tim Sutton - How is 'My PS3 is better than your 360' more childish than the 'My OS X is better than your Windows' debate that blows up every time a Mac/PC article is posted? The same arguments are being made just with different hardware...





@xenos - What? The PS2 still has months where it's outselling all other consoles. It's the most prolific games machine out there, and with PS3 sales climbing how are Sony losing market share here?





Any talk of games and exclusives is pointless, different people like different things and it's a rare occasion on the internet that people make positive comments about things they can't have, so I won't go into that... I'm a happy gamer, £300 lighter in the wallet but a happy gamer regardless...

Fod

July 9, 2009, 2:19 pm

Pfft. The only people who moan and get into fanboy rants are the ones who can't afford to own both consoles and are bitter about it. Get real people, both consoles are about as good as each other.

Singularity 1

July 9, 2009, 2:44 pm

Isn't an Xbox 360 with the additional / optional wireless adapter and annual subscription to Xbox Live more expensive than a PS3 in the long term?





PS3 is currently superb value for money.

Cub

July 9, 2009, 2:53 pm

@Fod - Not in the slightest, unless by 'can't afford' you mean time and not money... I spend too much time gaming as it is and still don't have half the games I'd like to be playing on my PS3.

PGrGr

July 9, 2009, 2:55 pm

All very interesting, but can anyone explain to me, why, if there are more XBOX 360 units out there (according to the sales figures) are these software companies reporting that they are making more money from the PS3?

pxcd

July 9, 2009, 3:11 pm

Where do Sony make their largest profit margin per console? The UK? When I feel we get a fairer deal I will buy.

Hugo

July 9, 2009, 3:23 pm

Fod: pretty much nailed it there.





Bluepork: PS3 presumably has a higher attach rate as I doubt the publishers get any more money for PS3 than Xbox sales. I know I have more PS3 games than Xbox 360 as if a game is on both, I'll take the PS3 version, 'cause the Xbox fan annoys me. I guess you could spin it as "there are more, better, first party games on the 360 so owners need to buy less third party ones" if you prefer.

Smit

July 9, 2009, 3:37 pm

@Bluepork - I would imagine the Xbox360 has more games available and hence less copies per game are sold as a result of this. Also with there being more games available the price per game on the xbox360 was lower (I think they have evened up now though with both platforms games around the same price but the xbox360 versions of games used to be cheaper)

WyWyWyWy

July 9, 2009, 3:58 pm

I am not asking for a price cut. I just want the EU prices to match the US/JP prices!!


As it stands, it is a rip-off in Europe.

BOFH UK

July 9, 2009, 4:03 pm

@Ahlan: Gah, please try and understand financial information before using it to support your case. The EA figures you're using include a lot of revenue streams that aren't made in that quarter, you need to look at the non-GAAP figures which show the 360 ahead in every quarter bar Q4 08. The Ubisoft figure is for 08 which, if I remember rightly, saw them launch multi-platform games and one exclusive - Haze on the PS3 which might have sucked but had a major ad campaign behind it. The Take Two figures would have included Bioshock for the PS3 (I think) which had come out a year earlier for the 360.





Long story short - you can't really compare figures between consoles as a meassure of which has the biggest wingwang unless each console has EXACTLY the same releases at the same time. As for the PS3 it needs a price cut badly (and I say that as an owner). It's a great bit of kit but cross-platform games are still suffering a little compared to the 360 and Blu-Ray players are now under £100. So far the brand name has kept them in the game but as the 360 keeps dropping in price it gets ever more difficult to stify a PS3. If Sony go into the Christmas season with exactly the same product and price the 360 and Wii will eat 'em alive.

stripy

July 9, 2009, 5:43 pm

@BOFH_UK: Sorry but you've lost me. GAAP holds that revenues and expenses are recognised in the financial period in which the transaction is made and that specific expenses should be matched to specific revenues. So i'm a little fuzzy as to why you would ignore these. That said I agree with you that it's pointless trying to compare the figures between the two consoles. Also, seriously guys, who cares? I have a PS3 and am very happy with it. My brother had a 360 and was happy with that too before the dvd drive stopped reading game discs. The main reason i chose the PS3 over the 360 was to do with how loud the 360 is. Having bought one i also came to prefer having an all-in-one entertainment system that's a lot easier to use than my other brothers Media Centre PC. Oh and Little Big Planet too. It's my favourite game on any platform, narrowly edging out Mario Kart.

Andy0d2

July 9, 2009, 9:51 pm

May I add at the sake of being hung drawn and quartered that you can now buy an xbox ( note as from Jan 09 with the new jasper technology the RRoD has been solved so no worries on that front) and a stand alone blu-ray player for around £250 (hunt around on ebay) both of them new.





Personally I love xbox live as I have made many great friends and now have a core group of about 15 with which we all trade games with each other. With being at the risk of great arrogance I would like to see something like that happen on the PS3 network since on 360 everyone has a mic whereas on PS3 of five people I know non use one (very small sample). Interestingly the main reason 3 of them bought a PS3 was for the Blu Ray yet they have so far purchased a grand total of two each!





Therefore I would argue that the PS3 is a great multimedia hub and the network is geared to that effect - A clean sophisticated experience from what I've seen first hand, whilst the xbox is more of a social hub where communication in the order of the day with live evidently being geared towards that with upcoming facebook/twitter updates.





On a side note whilst the xbox is very loud I find it is easily drowned out by 15+ volume of my samsung television which aren't exactly renowned for their loudness/quality (especially round here :-)

James McMorine

July 9, 2009, 10:02 pm

@WyWyWyWy: I totally agree, in Europe we get ripped off on most things, especially electrical goods.

rav

July 10, 2009, 12:10 am

@Andrew


I totally agree. All my friends have a 360 and this keeps me putting money in Microsoft's pocket. If a game was multiplatform I'd buy it on 360 so I could play online with my mates, and also just for the gamer points. It's all about Live! It does cost but to quote Ahlan: "The highest quality always costs more, this is nothing new"! ;-)





This isn't a dig at Sony. The PS3 is great and I'd still love one once the price comes down but maybe it'll teach them ways to build loyalty in their consumers and create barriers to switching.

Ahlan

July 10, 2009, 3:13 am

- The price doesn't need to be dropped because it's not bad value...infact Sony pay more money to make the console than it costs for you to buy it...it's called VALUE. Just because something's not cheap doesn't mean it's not good value for what you pay.





- I don't want to act like a fanboy of any kind, what I'm saying is that people who b*tch about the cost they pay for the PS3 itself is either equal to or less than what they might pay for in the long run with other systems on the market.





- Ferraris and Bugatti Veyrons aren't accesible to everyone but you don't see Ferrari or Bugatti going out of business....and you don't see them dropping the price on all of their cars just because not everybody in the world can buy one, simple as.





- What's the point of quality? I like my money to be spent on something that was worth spending it on, and I believe in paying for quality, I'm not rich by any means, I'm a student but if i think something's of good value and quality then i'll wait, save up and invest in one.(and yes it has better and more exclusive games then the 360).





- Like i said i just sold my 360 arcade, because of the RROD, but one of my friend still has one and he is a big Forza 3 fan, well guess what Forza 3 will ship with 2 DVD's and the second you need to install the additional tracks and cars, so he brought the arcade with 229 euros now he needs to get a HDD that cost around 110 euros, that 340 euros plus the 50euros for Live thats 390 euros with no bluray, you buy a PS3 with 390 these days.





- I'm not trying to convince ANYBODY and certainly not myself. I bought my PS3 and I'm happy with the price I payed and I'm happy with what I payed for.





- However, you ecpect Sony to drop the price and lose MONEY just because some people think the price is abit much or don't see the value in their purchase or don't research what the console can do?





If the price was way too high then maybe 24 million people wouldn't have bought one.





and i will say it again





PS3 sold 24 mill consoles in 2 years





Xbox 360 (with a lower price) sold 22 mill consoles in 2 years.

stripy

July 10, 2009, 6:18 am

@Ahlan: You make some very good points. But basic economics dictates that it is sensible for Sony to drop the price to a point where more people will buy it. This really a matter of when not if. I imagine they will keep the price steady as long as they have strong sales but will drop it the minute they start to tail off as they will make more money from games sold over a few years than they will lose from dropping the price. Microsoft have been very clever with their pricing since they know that, for many of their audience, the initial outlay is a larger consideration than the additional cost of live and all the other peripherals you mention. And the arcade version allows them to compete with Nintendo. Don't get me wrong i wouldn't swap my ps3 for either of the other consoles but they've both played a different game to Sony who used the ps3 to win the hd format war calculating that they will earn more from bluray royalties than they will lose from falling behind in the console market.

Andrew8aa

July 10, 2009, 2:39 pm

What is this? Fan boi corner?


I own both, they're both alright - I prefer the interface of the 360, and find the games generally seem a bit more fluid (less stuttering) - however the thing sounds like a space shuttle taking off.


I buy games i can dip in and out of (First person shooters and the like) on the PS3 because that's in the lounge, and the big immersive games, oblivion, fallout 3 etc.. on my 360 in my 'gaming' room where I don't get hassled for the noise or hogging the tv for hours at a time..


In all honesty though anyone who says one is clearly better than the other is living in cloud cuckoo, there isn't much to choose between them.


The PS3 is a bit expensive, the 360 a bit feature poor - but at the end of the day most people either want a basic console to play games on (360 arcade pack) or a fully featured console that sits in teh lounge and looks great (ps3).

John 32

July 10, 2009, 2:45 pm

@ Ahlan - '.(and yes it has better and more exclusive games then the 360).'





This is a subjective fanboy comment.





Also, with regards to your supercar vs console analogy, I don't feel it is fair. Ferrari and Bugatti both market their cars to a high end market. Microsoft and Sony marke their consoles to as many people as possible, specifically the core 19-25 demographic (correct age??), regardless of attempts to break into the family market. Renault might sell 100, 000 Clio's compared to less than a thousand Veyrons in circulatiom, and at a faster rate. Does this make the Clio a superior car to the veyron, probably not, but for an elderly man/woman who does a bit of town driving, which would she prefer?





The issue of cost is, as other people have written, relative to the individualy buying and comes down to who can only afford the one, via people who have the money to purchase all or a few.





As it stands, I own all the major consoles, along with a DS, and whilst I have my own opinion on which I prefer, this again is subjective and not objective.





It just appears, that whenever a PS3 article appears you staunchly launch into the defense of the PS3 and stir up the age old debate.





Whilst you have put forward some valid points in your inital post regarding a presee relase of price cut before it happens, further points slip in.





'I'm not trying to convince ANYBODY and certainly not myself' - I would counter argue that you seem to be trying to convince yourself?





The fact of the matter is, this debate is the stuff of 12 year old who seek to convince themselves that the item they possess is best by way of slating the opposition. On a site like this, there is no need, all the consoles (including the Wii) are brilliant consoles. We should be discussing the pros of each console and debating games themselves, not bickering over who has the best console. It gets old real fast.

comments powered by Disqus