31 replies to this topic

[GreatestGamer]

Those systems are 6-7 years old, going on 8. And somehow they are still priced more than any other generation of consoles during there timespan of 6-7 years.

There old but still very capable technology, I think Sony and MS are jusy trying to milk the last few bucks they can make off those consoles before releasing 720 and Ps4.

[Tom]

I honestly think that the PS3 still has plenty of life in it left, considering that it hasn't been really tapped to its full capabilities. I estimate that we might begin to see actual PS4 news by around 2015.

Not sure about Microsoft, though. They're on life support, right now, trying to elongate the lifespan of the thing with the Kinect and Smartglass.

Not to mention that it costs a lot to manufacture a PS3 and 360.

Edited by Tom, 29 September 2012 - 07:20 AM.

[GreatestGamer]

I honestly think that the PS3 still has plenty of life in it left, considering that it hasn't been really tapped to its full capabilities. I estimate that we might begin to see actual PS4 news by around 2015.

Not sure about Microsoft, though. They're on life support, right now, trying to elongate the lifespan of the thing with the Kinect and Smartglass.

Right, Ps3 is understandable, but there's just no way to defend the 360, 360 is just old tech at this point.

Edited by GreatestGamer, 29 September 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[Nollog]

The reason is that MS lost a couple billion dollars by not designing the first model properly, so need to make that money up.
Sony, have lost money on the PS3 up until a year or two ago, so need to make that money up.

[GreatestGamer]

The reason is that MS lost a couple billion dollars by not designing the first model properly, so need to make that money up.
Sony, have lost money on the PS3 up until a year or two ago, so need to make that money up.

Can't say that I can blame MS and Sony, but I can blame 360 buyers. I brought a 360 in 2009 and I felt ripped off.

[Nollog]

$200 isn't that bad.
they're luxury items to begin with, so they're never going to be sub-100.

[Nintendustin]

I agree with and echo Tom. It seems that PS3 still has a great deal of life left in it.

Also, $200 is not bad for the game quality that is coming out on the PS3.

Edited by Nintendustin, 29 September 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[Slim Shady]

ps3 for 2oo sounds right to me.

[The Lonely Koopa]

I believe they are still up in price due to selling them at a lost during the first years of their life.

[Socalmuscle]

It's simple.

They are grossly overpriced.

And both lost a lot of money for a while. ESP Sony.

Now they're making it back.

Ms. Is selling high so sony can and vice versa.

The wii is basically out of the picture as well. So no comp there.

The wii u will force them to drop prices. But the launch lineup does really reveal compelling reasons to not buy halo4, crysis3, erf.

Ms could sell the 360 at $99 and profit well.

Sony could sell the ps3 at $99 and profit too.

But they need to recoup their early costs. Sony especially. Their losses were extremely bad.

[Tom]

It's simple.

They are grossly overpriced.

And both lost a lot of money for a while. ESP Sony.

Now they're making it back.

Ms. Is selling high so sony can and vice versa.

The wii is basically out of the picture as well. So no comp there.

The wii u will force them to drop prices. But the launch lineup does really reveal compelling reasons to not buy halo4, crysis3, erf.

Ms could sell the 360 at $99 and profit well.

Sony could sell the ps3 at $99 and profit too.

But they need to recoup their early costs. Sony especially. Their losses were extremely bad.

>Costs ~$200 to manufacture a 360 in 2012.
>Expect them to profit by selling them for $99 each.

...Wut?

Edited by Tom, 29 September 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[Soul]

Right, Ps3 is understandable, but there's just no way to defend the 360, 360 is just old tech at this point.

The PS3 is barely stronger than the Xbox so they are both old tech.

[Nintendustin]

The PS3 is barely stronger than the Xbox so they are both old tech.

Come on, dude. They still have some top notch stuff. Anything not PC is old tech.

[Desert Punk]

360 has good performance for its age but it only uses a dirt cheap dvd drive. PS3 is also a good bluray movie and media centre device as well as playing games. I was going to say all PS3's have a hard drive but the new 12GB model has flash memory. In the UK you can get a 360 slim with flash memory close to £100-110 and with hard drive about £150-180. Basic wii u is £250 and £300 for the premium. Wii u doesn't have a hard drive but has a much more advanced controller and an updated specification which I guesstimate at about 2x 360/PS3 performance overall. Current pricing seems fair in the UK. Went into Blockbusters today and a pre-owned wii for £39.99 which seems very cheap, they had a few small posters about advertising pre-ordering a wii u.

I think the ps3 has the multipurpose console crown for those who just want a single console under the tv to do everything. Its more than just a games console. I think the wii u is like the 360 and only really a game console. The 360 does play dvds but not very well and certainly doesn't compare to ps3. The ps3 supports superior sound formats, does better upscaling of dvds and is an all round better media centre. It also has bluray playback. I personally think the ps3 merits a fair premium over 360 considering its functionality.

[Soul]

Come on, dude. They still have some top notch stuff. Anything not PC is old tech.

I agree with you. The user I quoted is acting like the PS3 is 3x more powerful then the 360. When in reality it is the 360 with slightly better textures and resolution.

[Alph]

I think the 360 and PS3 still have another 4-5 years left in them. The PS3 still hasn't shown all it's capabilites and more and more stuff is being added to the 360.

[Mignaga]

People are still willing to pay that price. If Microsoft and Sony can still make that much money per console, why wouldn't they sell them at that price.

[storabajskorven]

The simple answer is that they sell at the price that makes the most profit for them. If they manufacture a console for $75 and sell for $200, they have a $125 margin. If they would sell for $137.50 instead, they would have half the margin and thus need to sell twice as many consoles to make the same profit. I don't think a price drop of $62.50 would double the amount of buyers, so... As long as enough people are willing to pay $200, that's where the price will be.

[Desert Punk]

I don't think the word profit should be applied to 360 and PS3. Microsoft wrote off a huge chunk of money due to the RROD issue and the PS3 has never been cheap to manufacture due to its complex design. Only Nintendo makes money on hardware it seems. The price of hardware manufacturing has gone up in China. The wii u cleverly creates a very appealing console out of relative cheap parts like the low cost display in the game pad. Sony would have been richer for not producing the playstation 3 and Microsoft would be richer if they never entered the console market at all. Nintendo have made good money out of videogames although I believe the Gamecube only just scraped into the profitable zone overall.

Many have questioned Microsoft's entry into the videogame market as they took focus away from their operating system business which is now in decline. It's still not in as bad a shape as Sony though. Neither company has a particularly great future it seems. That said Microsoft will probably downsize where as Sony are likely to be taken over at some point in the future if current trends continue.

[parallaxscroll]

The PS3 is barely stronger than the Xbox so they are both old tech.

I agree.

Xbox 360 came out in 2005, it's using 2004 tech (the Xenos GPU was completed in late 2004 I think)
PS3 came out in 2006, but it's also using 2004-2005 tech (the Cell CPU and RSX GPU are from the 2004-2005 timeframe).

Both consoles are using technology that is approaching a decade old according to Nvidia.

Edited by parallaxscroll, 29 September 2012 - 01:53 PM.