Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sony PlayStation (Games) The Almighty Buck

Sony Open to Considering PS3 Price Cuts 339

Posted by Zonk
from the get-em-out-of-the-house dept.
njkid1 writes with word that Sony is considering dropping the PS3's price. The Mercury news reports that Sony Senior Vice President Takao Yuhara has admitted they are investigating whether to drop the PlayStation 3 in price around the world, despite statements previously made that the 'lower' PS3 price in Japan is hurting Sony's bottom line. Profits for the company slipped some five percent in the October-December period, and the shortfall expected through March could be even worse than previously predicted. The article points out the possibly risky nature of a price cut for such an expensive item so early in its lifespan, and notes the stiff competition from the Xbox 360 and the Wii.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Open to Considering PS3 Price Cuts

Comments Filter:
  • Burn a huge pile of real money and put the video up on Revver. Bound to make more money than cutting the PS3 price.
  • That's nice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by creimer (824291) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:39PM (#17846046) Homepage
    But why would I buy a PS3 when the demo units at the stores are usually frozen and the demo game is unimpressive? There are better places to blow your money.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by McFadden (809368)

      But why would I buy a PS3 when the demo units at the stores are usually frozen and the demo game is unimpressive?
      Furthermore, who the hell is going to buy one now, when it's now public knowledge that a price cut could be around the corner. In the short term, Sony have just ensured that no one (except the occasional fool) is going to want to part with their money.
  • by jakek812 (958016) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:40PM (#17846074)
    As much as I hate to say it, Sony has no chance, and the fact that they have to do a price drop on their console this early in its lifespan especially when they're taking a huge loss on it already, proves it.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)
      Exactly. Sony's best in this generation will be an also-ran unless they drop the price of the console by like two hundred bucks. Otherwise, both of the other players have more momentum and there's little to nothing Sony can do to catch up. Sony must especially drop the price in the UK to something reasonable. It's not a market you can ignore any more.
      • by trdrstv (986999)
        Sony's best in this generation will be an also-ran

        Too late.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by numbski (515011) *
      Not neccessarily.

      I think it all depends on how deep their pockets are, and how badly they want to win. If they were to do a serious price cut (as in 50%, bring it down to the $300 range), they would be hurting, and hurting BAD, however the units *would* start to sell. Market penetration is nearly as important as profit per unit sold. The main thing killing them right now is that Nintendo actually turns a profit on every Wii sold, Microsoft, I don't recall whether it's a loss-leader or not, but Microsoft'
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by asc99c (938635)
        Sony does have deep pockets. Remember that PS3 is currently hurting their profit margins, but they are still making profits - PS2 is continuing to bring in the money while XBox is now mostly dead for Microsoft. Their TV line is also hugely popular right now. For the first time, they've got a genuinely good range of LCD TVs that may restore some of the dominance they lost in the switch from CRTs.

        I'd like to know the sort of royalties they will make on both games and Blu-Ray technology. If it's high enoug
  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dave Parrish (1050926) <wizardmon5dude@hotmail.com> on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:47PM (#17846224) Homepage
    The Wii is selling like hotcakes and the PS3 is already requiring a price drop.

    Anyone else betting that Sony learns nothing from this?

    They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CronoCloud (590650) <cronocloudauron@gmail . c om> on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:59PM (#17846508)

      They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
      Ahh but mostly likely when Sony's people asked people if they would use those extra features if they put them in there, those people said yes. So Sony did that, both the with the PSP and now the PS3.

      And then consumers whined. "They cost too much"

      and then Sony said, "But you told us you wanted those features when we asked you about them so we put them in there. You had to know that would raise the price."

      Consumers: "Waaaah it costs too much we just want to play puzzle games and casual games"

      Sony: "But you said you wanted games that were more like those you played at home on your portables. You wanted 3D games rather than stripped down 2D travesties of 3D games like what happened on the Gameboy Color ports of 3D games.

      You said you wanted higher resolutions on your home machines like you have on PC's. You wanted built in wireless so you wouldn't have to buy a wireless bridge, you wanted us to use standard memory cards. and now you complain about having to buy an HDTV, having to pay for the built in wireless, and having to pay for an adapter for the old cards? You people are hypocrites and don't know what you want."

      Here's what Sony needs to learn:

      Consumers don't know what they want, will whine anyway when they get what they said they wanted, and sometimes lie

      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dynamo (6127) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:06PM (#17846638) Journal

        They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
        Ahh but mostly likely when Sony's people asked people if they would use those extra features if they put them in there, those people said yes. So Sony did that, both the with the PSP and now the PS3.

        And then consumers whined. "They cost too much"

        and then Sony said, "But you told us you wanted those features when we asked you about them so we put them in there. You had to know that would raise the price."
        BIG difference between wanting a feature and being willing to use it if it's there anyway. Sony had to know they had no business asking about the extra features if they couldn't do them cheap or free. Now they are stuck having to wait a little longer for everyone to buy PS3s. Waaaaaah.
        • by quanticle (843097)

          The big worry with Sony isn't that people wait longer to buy PS3s, its that people look at the PS3 and buy an XBox 360 because the PS3 costs too much and has a lot of features that people aren't going to use.

      • by elcid73 (599126)
        Sounds like (according to you) Sony needs to do some usability studies instead of market research.
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

        by CokeBear (16811) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:12PM (#17847980) Journal
        Didn't they see the episode of the Simpsons where Homer built the car?
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MemoryDragon (544441) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:47PM (#17848614)
        Nobody asked for yet another proprietary Sony movie format in the PSP, nobody asked for yet another disk format which could not be copied with movie prices three times as much as on the copyable DVD. But those things drove up the price of the PSP significantly and in the end were doomed to fail from day zero. The only ones asking for those things was the paranoid Sony movie division. See a scheme here, the same happens now to the PS3, it would have been out a year earlier and probably 200-250 dollars less with equal gaming capabilties if it would not have been misused as vehicle for the Blue Ray drive, and it certainly was not the Sony gaming division trying to shove yet another format onto the customers to raise movie prices. Nintendo is right with their assumption, HDTV on a console is interesting but only in 2-3 years, for the mass market a lower price is more important. Microsoft also was wiser in this aspect. Sorry to say that, not market research on the customers was the dooming force, it was simply Sonys internal politics and the ignorance about past mistakes and past successes.
      • by quanticle (843097)

        Sony also needs to quit trying to use its consoles to push their other technologies. The main reason for the PS3's expense is that its pushing the Blu-Ray drive technology. In essence, the PS3 is subsidizing Sony's Blu-Ray technology.

    • Does it let you watch blueray movies with any HDTV you want?
      • Does [a Sony Blu-ray Disc player] let you watch blueray movies with any HDTV you want?

        Yes. In titles without the image constraint token, the resolution far exceeds that of DVD-Video in both luma and chroma. Even with the image constraint token, the chroma resolution is double that of DVD-Video in each dimension. The major American movie studios that have adopted Blu-ray Disc have agreed not to use the image constraint token for the first few years of releases. But whether Warner Bros., Paramount, Disney, and Fox use the image constraint token in future Blu-ray Disc titles is not Sony's to control.

    • when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

      We also want to play games on it. This means that games from smaller developers need to run, not error out with "Cannot load game because it is not signed." That's part of why PLAYSTATION 3 has Linux, so that innovative 2D games from smaller developers can run.

    • Anyone else betting that Sony learns nothing from this?

      They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.


      And why would they? This is a lesson the cell phone industry still hasn't learned. And they have more at stake. Sony will claim that they deliver what the consumer wants to their grave, all the while loading up simple tech
      • This is a lesson the cell phone industry still hasn't learned. ... and absolutely nobody is excited about the iPhone, probably one of the most feature-filled phones out there? I think your perceptions may be a bit warped.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      They seriously need to figure out that, when someone buys a game system, we want to PLAY GAMES ON IT. We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

      Says you. I mean, aside from the dishes and the driving to work, I want all that in one box. This is in fact why I bought an Xbox. If I couldn't have put a media player on there, I wouldn't have bought it. I held off on buying one, in fact, until they were easily moddable and

    • by WarlockD (623872)
      That can't be it. Because the Wii can watch movies, listen to MP3's, view images, surf the web.

      But then, the Wii costs less than half as much as the ps3. Hummm.
      • ...Because the Wii can watch movies..
        actually, no..it can't. this feature was taken out shortly before release. the Wii is also incapable of any high def output at all which is kind of bizarre considering the Xbox1 has no problem doing so.
        • actually, no..it can't. this feature was taken out shortly before release

          Yes it can play movies. It cannot play DVD's , but it can play motion Jpeg (a Quicktime format) which I have used (My Nikon CoolPix records in that format) in the Photo Channel.

    • by rlp (11898)
      We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

      Can't really fault Sony on that. The Xbox 360 does four of those and the Wii does three of them.
      • by holt (86624)

        We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.

        Can't really fault Sony on that. The Xbox 360 does four of those and the Wii does three of them.

        I haven't figured out how to surf the web on my 360, so I can only assume that I'm woefully underestimating either its ability to do my dishes or drive me to work. It doesn't look very comfortable to sit on, so I guess I'm leaning towards it being able to do my dishes. On the othe

        • by rlp (11898)
          My bad - I thought the 360 had a Web browser. VERY surprised it doesn't - as it's got internet connectivity, support for game, video downloads, etc.
  • by Threni (635302)
    You'd be mad not to want to pay £700 or whatever it's going to cost in the uk, for a games console! Why not round it up to £1000, and charge £100 a game!
    • by Andy_R (114137)
      The British launch price is actually 425 UKP (about 835 US dollars), not quite as shocking as your suggestion, but still in "that has to be some sort of a joke, right?" territory.

      I'm not even going to think about buying a PS3 until there's a proper Gran Turismo game out, and the console is below 300 UKP.
  • by frakir (760204) <ockhamrazor@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:50PM (#17846292)
    Sony Corp. will reach only 75% of its global target for PlayStation 3 sales this fiscal year through March, according to a Nomura report released 15th Jan.
    They originally planned 6 mil, adjusted to 4.5 mil now. more... [vgcharts.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Baldrake (776287)

      While these numbers indicate that the PS3's sales are below expectation, there is another interesting interpretation. Microsoft had sold 10 million Xbox 360's by the end of 2006. If Sony genuinely sells 4.5 million by end of March, they will have almost half the user base of the 360. Given all the doomcasting we've been hearing, that is not actually that bad a place to be after only three months in the market.

      (And yes, yes, Microsoft is also selling 360's during the same period, but while sales may have b

      • Good question if they even reach teh 4.5 million, they definitely will have delivert this number of units, but I think they will be more alike 2-2.5 mio units.
    • by ivan256 (17499)
      Let's word your statistic a little differently without making it any less true:

      Sony changes PS3 sales target to 3 times the number of Xbox 360s sold over the same period.
  • Enough! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ecuador (740021) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:53PM (#17846370) Homepage
    Enough with this PS3 talk. The numbers show the consumers don't care, and there are more interesting things to talk about on /.
    That is at least until the (unlikely) event that the non-fanboi consumer starts getting interested in Sony's nexgen child.
  • by Shivetya (243324) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:53PM (#17846372) Homepage Journal
    instead of having no sale. The real money is in the games and add-ons after they sell the console. Sure it might hurt them more near term, but not getting into the living room will cost them more down the road.

    of course since you can still buy PS2s many might opt that route if they don't like WII or XBOX360

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mr. Hankey (95668)
      That's true, but it would probably be better for them to keep the console's price down in the design phase. I realize they're pushing for Blu-Ray, but I couldn't even conceive of spending much more than $200 on a console primarily intended for games. I've typically spent less than $150 per console in the past, and that includes the PS2. I really don't care how powerful a game system is, I already have a few PCs and don't need another device claiming to be one. I don't even want a Blu-Ray player. I just want
      • by joggle (594025)

        I know where you're coming from but I don't think there will be a significant drop in the 360 price anytime soon (anything over $50). The problem is that the graphics card is much more complicated than entire consoles of previous generations. So you are effectively paying for the complexity of two previous generations for a 360 or PS3.

        I bought a 360 over the holidays and my roommate finally managed to get a Wii a couple of weeks ago. While the Wii is certainly fun and I would buy it myself even though I h

  • 20GB Model (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the dark hero (971268) <adriatic_hero@@@hotmail...com> on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:55PM (#17846418) Homepage
    Im not thrilled about getting a PS3 anytime soon, but at $600 you really are getting a great deal. I think they should lower the price of their largely inferior 20GB model to $300-$400 in order to sell them. A person willing to spend that much on the 20GB model will surely want it for gaming and that can bring up sells in the software dept.
    • Re:20GB Model (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:02PM (#17846572) Homepage
      "getting a great deal" is subjective.

      Millionares think 900,000 dollars for a home is a great deal, whereas mr. and mrs. joe shmo can think 500 bucks a month for a one room apartment is a great deal.

      Unless you have a burning desire to have blu-ray in your home, there really is no good reason beyond a personal opinion to spend 600 dollars on a PS3. the 360 has the same graphics (in some cases, better) and still uses "old" dual-layer dvd technology.

      Had sony stayed out of the media market (which they have failed in time after time after time) and just stuck with what works, they would be in a much better position.
      • the 360 has the same graphics (in some cases, better) and still uses "old" dual-layer dvd technology.

        I'll argue with the capacity of the DVD versus the capacity of the blu-ray. I think it's better to have that extra room (it's like a factor of 10 or 20 larger). Hideo Kojima said in an interview [gamepro.com] linked on Slashdot that he thought games would eventually get to 50GB. The interviewer even says that Resistance was 16GB, much larger than any DVD can hold [wikipedia.org]. Personally, I prefer the one disc to multi-disc games.
        • by Pojut (1027544)
          Oh come on. There is nothing in resistance so revolutionary that it requires that much space. I'm not saying that I doubt that it takes up that much space on disc, but I can ASSURE you that game could have been made to not be so overweight.

          The developers had the space, so they filled it up. This could mean they filled it up with super huge textures in the menus, sound files that are way far beyond in quality what the human ear has the ability to distinguish (not to mention most people not having the setu
          • I'm not saying that I doubt that it takes up that much space on disc, but I can ASSURE you that game could have been made to not be so overweight.

            You're right...I guess we should just go back to 16 bit textures...even better, let's eliminate 3D worlds while we're at it because the models take up way too much room...and any stretch of animation at that point....and forget music soundtracks because they really aren't necessary, I'll just get out my MIDI keyboard...finally, I'm pretty sure we can just eliminat
            • by Pojut (1027544)
              You are missing my point.

              I'm not saying games should not progress. What I am saying is their size should not be artificially increased.

              If the same quality graphics, sound, and LENGTH of game are coming out on dvd9 as on blu-ray...well, you can finish the sentence.
  • Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rlp (11898) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:59PM (#17846506)
    By announcing that they're considering a price drop - they'll kill sales for a while. Anyone considering buying a PS/3 will hold off till after the price drop. Except for people who MUST have one now. Given the dearth of launch titles and the slackening of demand - those folks already have a PS/3.

    Now they have to drop prices and quickly.
    • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CerebusUS (21051) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:12PM (#17846802)
      Bingo.

      Yet another stupid move on Sony's part. They were better off continuing to deny that a price drop was even being discussed, and then picking a random day and just lowering the price.

      I certainly wouldn't buy a $600 console knowing that the price could be $500 in a month or two.

      That's a free second controller and a game....

      Which is the other way they could go, I guess... Bundle a second sixaxis and resistance:fall of man with every 60GB unit for the same price.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by J-Doggqx (809697)

        "Bundle a second sixaxis and resistance:fall of man with every 60GB unit for the same price."

        But I thought they could sell 5 million without any games?

  • by AnswerIs42 (622520) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:02PM (#17846576) Homepage
    X-Play was right.. the way to save the PS3 is to not let Sony exces speak at all..

    the 'lower' PS3 price in Japan is hurting Sony's bottom line

    NOT selling a PS3 hurts the bottom line even more.

    • by Grave (8234) <awalbert88NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:29PM (#17847134)
      To be quite honest, selling the PS3 hurts the bottom line more than not selling right now. The last estimate I heard was that 30 software titles or accessories must be sold per system to break even (on the 60GB). This would require purchasing every single title currently available, three extra controllers, and a dozen Blu-Ray movies.

      While the long-term view says that they need to sell as many PS3s as possible before the 360 runs away with the game, there is a need to see production costs come down to prevent very substantial financial loss.

      Personally, I think that Sony is in serious trouble this year. There are so many very highly anticipated titles coming for the 360 that will almost certainly be system sellers (Halo 3 being the ultimate), and so few coming this year for the PS3. If it takes another year for a system-selling title to come out on PS3, Sony might not even be able to get close to the market share of the 360.

      (I don't consider the Wii to be a direct competitor, as it will almost certainly be the #1 selling system by the end of the year. However, for many people it will be a second system. For blockbuster games, the 360 and PS3 are the competitors.)
      • by miyako (632510)
        Actually, selling the PS3s hurts the bottom line less than not selling them, since they are already producing them. Basically, it costs then $x to make a PS3, and they sell it for $y (where $x > $y). They still lose money in the end, but they lose less money by selling the systems than by having them sitting on the shelves.
        I've also heard the 30 titles thing floating about. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but there is something else to consider as well: mindshare. Even if sony never makes back the
        • by trdrstv (986999)
          Actually, selling the PS3s hurts the bottom line less than not selling them, since they are already producing them.

          WTF? How does that make any sence? Not selling them hurts more as it is a TOTAL loss rather than a PARTIAL loss. Keep in mind the reason they sell it at a loss to begin with is to encourage adoption, as it is a gateway to their other products and services. The PS3 is not the product. The product is everything else that goes with it (games, movies, controllers, cables, etc...) and they hav

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695)
        Lets just say it costs them $700 to make the system, and it costs $600 for the person to buy it. This means if someone buys it, they lose $100. If nobody buys it they lose $700. If somebody buys it after a price drop at $500, then they have lost $100. Unless they find some way to sell the PS3 at $700 or more at some later date, then selling it now for a loss of $100 is still the best they can do for the already manufactured units. As far as building new consoles, I'm not sure if it's more worth their m
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        As much as people would like to believe that a PS3 price reduction would be about pleasing consumers the reality is that if Sony cared about what the customers thought they would have dropped the price after E3 when everyone said "WTF?"

        Right now, somewhere in Sony of America an executive is talking to a third party publisher and is trying to respond to the threat "If the PS3 doesn't start to sell more software we won't release any exclusive games for it!"

        As dumb as Sony is they still know that EA, Activisio
  • Bitterness (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:12PM (#17846800)
    I probably sound quite bitter, but I hope they don't do it. I _want_ them to get thoroughly boned for their rampant anti-consumer bahavior. Yes, I'm still pissed about rookits, yes, I'm still pissed about fake advertisements. Peoples memories are too damn short, and companies have been getting exploiting that fact for too long. Nothing beats a good financial thrashing for keeping corporations honest.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by the_B0fh (208483)
      So, when are you going to do whatever you're going to do, to Microsoft? You know, the company that LIED UNDER OATH IN COURT?
  • by blackmonday (607916) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:23PM (#17847010) Homepage
    If I were interested in buying a PS3 (I'm not), I wouldn't be able to get one. I live in Southern California, and have never seen one on a shelf. I've heard anecdotes of people seing a ton at a best buy somewhere, but I just haven't seen this. I shop regularly at Fry's, Target, Best Buy, Costco, etc. I've never seen one in stock. Maybe they'd sell more units if they could get them out the door.
    • by Aladrin (926209)
      Come to central Florida. We've got plenty here. I recently took a picture of a shelf at Target with the PS3 cabinet jammed full and the Wii cabinet absolutely empty, side by side. I think it's on my home PC. I should have posted it. Ah well.
    • by trdrstv (986999)
      Maybe it's a distribution problem then. Maybe some regions have a glut, and other are just over stocked.

      NorthEast PA has plenty. I can go into several EB / Gamestops, Targets, Wal-marts... you name it they have it, at least a few of each model. They've been in stock and readily available since the week before Christmas.

    • by Detritus (11846)
      I'm in Maryland. According to iTrackr, the PS3 is in-stock at 16 of the 24 local stores that they monitor. The Nintendo Wii is in-stock at 0 of 24.
    • by LanMan04 (790429)
      I've seen several (5+, not sure which model (20gb or 60gb)) PS3s on the shelves of several "big box" stores in the Chicago area. Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, etc.

      Ever since about 2-3 weeks after launch they've been available everywhere around here. Want me to mail you one? ;)
    • by Rycross (836649)
      I asked the other day at a GameStop in Lincoln Park in Chicago, and they had PS3s in. Didn't ask what type or how many though. Best Buy seemed to be out last time I was there.
  • they aren't Coke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OutOnARock (935713) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:24PM (#17847036)
    In America at least, we by nature forgive and forget. IANAL, but only when we feel we've been "made whole" does this occur. That the transgression before us has been repaired to our satisfaction.

    Take Coke. We were told by the company that their newest was the greatest shit on earth and all other colas might as well pack it in. They even took away Coke. The Coke we all knew and loved. A Coke that all they had to do was not fuck it up.

    And they fucked it up.

    And there was outrage. More importantly, there were no sales of this New Coke. Yet people as I recall were selling two liters of old, or Classic Coke for hundreds of dollars.

    And they saw this outrage and maybe cared, maybe not. But they saw the sales in those markets. And their New Coke had a short, painful life, and a quiet death. I don't even know if they promoted when the sliver stripe on the cans disappeared and Classic Coke was just Coke again.

    Because they could. Because THEIR product does not have to evolve and is unique within their domain. They were smart enough, God help me, to realize that they had a great product in their domain, and their customers were willing to fight for it; all they had to do is not fuck it up.

    THEY could say they fucked up, go back to the Classic taste we all loved, and sure, even drop the price if they wanted to to sweeten the deal a little, slight pun intended. And we would forgive them because they made us whole, we had our Coke again and the world was right.

    Their product allowed for a fuck up of such massive proportions. A gig in management there must be sweet.

    Sony assumes that the BRANDNAME "Playstation" carries all the attributes of a Classic Coke. No. Their product does have to evolve and becomes less and less unique by the day. They cannot just apologize, with their tails between their legs go back to what they had, drop the price a little, and make us all whole and happy with their product again.

    Sony must make their "New Coke" fly.....and now they must try to repair the injury to their fans and make them whole again. A price drop alone cannot accomplish this, I wonder if anything they do really can. I wish them luck but I'm betting this will be another how not to succeed example in business classes across the globe in a few years.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, no, no. This had NOTHING to do with consumer demand. They wanted to swap the formulation from the old "expensive" formula to a newer less expensive (read more profitable) formula. The problem, the taste wasn't EXACTLY the same as the old. So, you release "New Coke", let people get "un-used" to the taste of your original product, then, release the newer low cost, ALMOST tastes the same "Coke Classic", the customers think that they somehow influenced your decision, you get to make more money per unit
      • This is absolutely correct, and the parent's parent is as exactly woefully mistaken as Coke wanted them to be.

        Coke did not go from Coke to New Coke and then go "oh noes, we are losing all the profits" and change back to Coke Classic for the consumer - that's exactly what they wanted to happen, to have people think - to think they had "won" and got old Coke back. Coke won, and they didn't get old Coke back.

        The change in formula the parent refers to is a simple one - replacing sugar with corn syrup. A sligh
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by CokeBear (16811)
        Urban Legend.

        The change you are talking about is the switch from real sugar to high fructose corn syrup, and it happened almost a year before the introduction of New Coke. It was pretty uneventful, since there were no blogs back then. A few people complained, but they were ignored.

      • Re:they aren't Coke (Score:4, Informative)

        by Golias (176380) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:45PM (#17848592)
        I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

        No, but seriously, there were far less crafty and conspiratorial reasons behind New Coke.

        It started with the invention of NutraSweet. Diet Coke pushed Tab and all other sugar-free colas into total obscurity. It not only became the #1 diet soda, it became the #3 soda overall.

        The crucial difference between the flavors of Coke and Pepsi is the choice of citrus used. Coke has always used lemon, while Pepsi uses lime. That's why Coke has that "snap" that hard-core Coke fans crave, while Pepsi tastes slightly sweeter (which led to them winning all those "Pepsi Challenge" taste tests... If you just have a sip of each back-to-back, the sweeter one will taste "better.")

        Diet Coke has a formula which is extremely sweet, like Pepsi.

        Younger people tend to prefer the sweeter taste of Pepsi, while older folks like Coke... generally speaking.

        This created a demographic scare for Coke execs in the 1980s. They saw that a whole generation was growing up on Pepsi, and feared for their market-share dominance. Not considering that some of these Pepsi-drinking kids might gradually change their preference, they panicked.

        New Coke was an effort to capture the younger market, by making a sugar-based cola which tasted pretty much the same as the startlingly popular Diet Coke, and compete with Pepsi on the basis of sweetness.

        The problem was, people who drink Coke exclusively don't like the ultra-sweet taste of Pepsi.

        If it was an on-purpose maneuver, it was a terribly risky one. The ONLY reason their old customers came back for "Classic" Coke was because there was, and is, nobody making anything that tastes quite like Coca-Cola. (Actually, there may have been, since the patent on Coke's old formula has long since run out, but nobody is calling their attention to it.)

        As for why Classic doesn't *quite* taste the same to picky cola drinkers: Coke keeps most of the formula the same, but uses whatever sweetner is cheapest at the time for the region which is making it, which in almost all cases is either high fructose corn syrup or beet sugar. They figure most people won't care, and they are mostly right.

        If you are one of those hard-core Coke fans and miss "the real thing", go shopping in April.

        For the Passover, Coke makes a limited batch of Kosher Coke, so kids from traditional Jewish families can have a little Coke with their feast. The thing is, there is only one Coke formula which has been approved as Kosher, and that's the original formula using cane sugar for sweetener.

        You can identify the Kosher cans of Coke by looking for the triangle-shaped seal of the Rabbinical Council near the base of the can. I don't drink Coke anymore (all that sugar is bad for you), but back in the day I used to buy it by the crate-load out of local supermarkets and hoard enough to get me through as much of the year as I could.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Erwos (553607)
          You're somewhat inaccurate at the end. Both Coke and Pepsi, at least in the US, are kosher year-round. You can't use corn syrup on Passover because it's a corn-derivative. So, nicely enough, the companies allow a run with real sugar.

          So, it's not really "kosher" coke that's the issue - it's that "chametz-free" coke is what's needed at Passover.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Control Group (105494) *
          (Actually, there may have been, since the patent on Coke's old formula has long since run out, but nobody is calling their attention to it.)

          I was under the impression they never patented it, so the formula isn't public; they've always protected it as a trade secret.
    • by hal2814 (725639)
      "I don't even know if they promoted when the sliver stripe on the cans disappeared and Classic Coke was just Coke again."

      Then I wonder if you were alive back then. They promoted it to death. That 90% of people who recall this story refer to the old Coke as either Coke Classic or Classic Coke is proof of how large-scale that advertising was. They didn't just take away the silver stripe. They continued to sell reformulated Coke under the moniker "New Coke" (still with silver stripe) and then sold the old
      • by tkrotchko (124118) *
        Close.

        When Coke was released, they stopped the old formula for a short period of time (I want to say 3-6 months). There was "old coke" speculation going on.

        After it was clear that it wasn't catching on like they'd hoped, they released the previous formula under "Coke Classic" and the newer formula under "New Coke". Gradually, they make "New Coke" go away (I want to say 18-24 months).

        No doubt, after all the current execs are dead, the new CEO of coke will announce "New Coke" and the cycle will repeat itsel
  • ...version and I'm in. It should have been this way from the beginning.
  • ...to fund the development of the Playstation 4 and prepare for their next bout of battery explosions.
  • by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:28PM (#17848266)
    "Stiff competition from the Wii..."

    Someone mentioned a huge throbbing joke in there somewhere, but I'm boned if I can find it.

  • Sony is moving to a 65nm process for the Cell [cdrinfo.com] much sooner than most expected. Perhaps they plan on keeping their loss the same per-unit, and passing the new savings down to spur sales?
  • by ravyne (858869) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:44PM (#17848566)
    Sony has done absolutely *nothing* right this generation. They're too late, with technology to match their intended launch date of last year. They threw in a GPU too late to the game because they thought their wonderfull cell processor would make a powerfull enough GPU. The cell is nice in theory, but there's too many restrictions and memory-wrangling in practice. They're up against the 360, with a 10+ million installed base, second-gen games, and a lower price point - Oh and Halo 3 is due out this holiday season or there about. They're up against the Wii at less than half the price, and cheaper games they can't match on innovation. The launch catalog was anemic with no real stand-outs, and there's nothing big on the radar except MGS4. They're losing exclusive third-party titles left and right to the 360.

    Devs are comfortable on their competitors' machines - The Wii is just a faster gamecube (literally) with a neat controller, and while the 360 is relatively complex they've got wonderful top-notch tools to support development and an architecture thats doesn't have a split memory model or hobbled assymetric CPU.

    Despite the high price, they're loosing about $175 - $225 per unit (depending on the model) while their competotors' machines are already profitable hardware. Nintendo has never sold an unprofitable machine, and right now, Microsoft could give consumers a $50 price drop and take each new owner out to lunch before they would go back into the red.

    Mark my words -- If the earth doesn't shake for Sony real soon they'll be a distant third this time around, and may be foreced to drop from the race early or even for good, and if Sony's game division fails its going to make a huge hit on the entire company's bottom line.

    They're arrogant over an overpriced architecture that hurts more than it helps, all in the name of pushing their BluRay format.
  • by popo (107611) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @03:00PM (#17848848) Homepage
    Sony will be Japan's General Motors.

    Like GM is to the US, Sony is the poster child of Japan's industrial growth -- and in ten years
    they will be in a desperate struggle for survival.

    Think that's too grim?

    Watch.

  • I already have a DVD player to watch movies with, and I will get an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player if I want someday (though I would prefer a direct download service instead). I already have a computer to handle my internet-related interests. I already have a toaster, a fridge and a vaccuum cleaner.

    Just give me a game machine that plays games and doesn't rival my car in sticker price.
  • About a week and a half ago Sony actually raised the Price of the PS3 in Canada which forced retailers to raise their prices or sell out the rest of their inventory at the old price. The PS3 is currently sitting at a Price of $700 at Future Shop and Best Buy.
  • by goodenoughnickname (874664) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @03:18PM (#17849130)
    The original Xbox dropped $100 [wikipedia.org] 5 months after its launch, 1 day after Sony dropped $100 [wikipedia.org] from the price of the PS2 (both down to $199). Let's hope one of them budges and history repeats itself, because I am really interested in Gears of War and Crackdown, and the triumphant return of co-op play.
  • ... Because my memory is good and I remember the crap Sony inflicted upon us.

    Sheep we are apparently.
  • by wardk (3037) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @04:49PM (#17850678) Journal
    I had an xbox, but it caught my house on fire. so I got another one, but it cracked open and spilled battery acid on mom's new rug.

    then I got another one, and it broke the TV, make the cat crazy and insulted my parakeet.

    and it doesn't even have blue-ray

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday February 01, 2007 @04:50PM (#17850684)
    Well, I *AM* looking for a cheap Blu-Ray player to compliment my HD-DVD 360 add-on. So, I tell you what, Sony. You lower the price down to $300 for the base model and I'll buy one. Think of it like this: It's 2 a.m. and you're the ugly girl alone in the bar. Well, I'm willing to take you home and give you a sympathy fuck. No need to even thank me in the morning.

    -Eric

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...