Last-Gen Console Pricing

Avatar image for ch3burashka
ch3burashka

6086

Forum Posts

100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

360 with 500GB and two pack-in CoD's: $250 MSRP (Technically, that's not out yet, so the 250GB version sans a pack-in is 300 bucks MSRP).

PS3 with 500GB and Last of Us: $270 bucks MSRP.

I don't want to bitch about the price: we all know it's ridiculous in light of the fact that the current-generation consoles are ~100 bucks more. I don't remember the price of the PS2 when the PS3 came out, but I can't remember it being an issue.

Rather than circle-jerk about how stupid it is, I want to know what people think about price cuts. First off, no mention of price cuts for either console at E3. With the holidays coming up, there'll be (temporary) cuts at the retail level at the very least.

However, what's the long-term plan? PS2 hit 100 bucks 10 or 11 years in. I don't know if they'll cut 150 bucks within the next three, but neither can I see this price disparity(?) continue to exist. At a certain point, it makes no sense to invest in the last-gen when games stop being ported down, and the current-gen has cultivated a healthy, growing library of games that are better in every way.

Now that I said all that out loud, would it be possible that they keep the price, and simply cut off production, a la Xbox-style? They'll let it last-gen dry up completely without hitting "spontaneous purchase price"?

Avatar image for corevi
Corevi

6796

Forum Posts

391

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#2  Edited By Corevi

I got a new PS3 for 200 dollars 2 and a half years ago so those prices are ridiculous.

Avatar image for zeik
Zeik

5434

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Zeik

I think the issue is that last gen hardware was pretty expensive to manufacture. It got better over time, but I'm certain it's still more costly than the PS2 was.

They're also past the point where they just want to get the console into people's households, so they're not going take a loss in profits.

Avatar image for ch3burashka
ch3burashka

6086

Forum Posts

100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@zeik said:

I think the issue is that last gen hardware was pretty expensive to manufacture. It got better over time, but I'm certain it's still more costly than the PS2 was.

I'm positive that's what is it is, I guess the question is how do you solve this problem? Last gen is costly to make, new gen is costly to make. I assume they're eating a lot of the cost of the new gen to entice new consumers, and they don't have to or want to do that for the old gen anymore. Not sure where it goes from here.

Avatar image for corevi
Corevi

6796

Forum Posts

391

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#5  Edited By Corevi

@ch3burashka: The PS3 was being sold at a loss even when it was $599, it's gonna be a while before it becomes cheap.

The 360 will depreciate faster due to it using entirely stock parts.

Avatar image for oscar__explosion
Oscar__Explosion

3003

Forum Posts

5651

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#6  Edited By Oscar__Explosion

I suspect we won't be seeing last gen consoles drop to the lowest of the gen before that and insead keep up the $250 price point but throw in some freebies in the package to keep the value.

If you really wanted to buy a ps3 you can get the 12 GB for $199 or you can get the Bundled version with a game and a 500 GB hard drive for $70 more. Which looks more enticing?