This morning we reported on SCEE's latest PlayStation 3 bundle with its first-party games, which included a 40Gb. We reported our confusion and said that Sony was going to report back on our questions regarding the death of the 60Gb PS3, as well as whether - as reported elsewhere - this was a new official bundles or merely advisory.
SCEE, as promised, has responded. Here's what we have been told, this afternoon:
So, there we go - an advisory whereas 2007's press release was part of a new pricing policy.
It's also an advisory that advises retail to sell roughly the same pack at £349 in 2008 with a PS3 40Gb as the £349 pack from 2007 with the PS3 60Gb.
So, being charitable, the first announcement from 2007 was drop in price of the 60Gb from £425 standalone to £349 with two games - in order to shift the unit from inventory and clear the way for the more cost-effective £299 40Gb PS3. The new announcement is one that clarifies the pricing position for unit.
Being uncharitable we'd say that the confusion of a 40Gb (not PS2-compatible) bundle now at the same price as a 60Gb (PS2-compatible) bundle was in 2007 is incredibly poor planning - it looks like a drop in value. You would have expected Sony's central planning bods to have predicted this when they introduced the £349 pricing in October.
Let's hope this new advisory finally clarifies PS3 pricing across the UK retail world and for consumers.
SCEE, as promised, has responded. Here's what we have been told, this afternoon:
"Yes the 60Gb machines have pretty much sold through now. We have made it clear from the outset that this was our intention to focus all our efforts on our 40Gb machine going forward.
"There was no press release on this as it is merely an offering between SCEE Sales department and retail. They are not obligatory, they are suggestions.
"Retailers can take this offer or - as frequently happens - can make their own. We press released the packs you refer to in your mail, back in October of last year, as it was part and parcel of the new price positioning."
"There was no press release on this as it is merely an offering between SCEE Sales department and retail. They are not obligatory, they are suggestions.
"Retailers can take this offer or - as frequently happens - can make their own. We press released the packs you refer to in your mail, back in October of last year, as it was part and parcel of the new price positioning."
So, there we go - an advisory whereas 2007's press release was part of a new pricing policy.
It's also an advisory that advises retail to sell roughly the same pack at £349 in 2008 with a PS3 40Gb as the £349 pack from 2007 with the PS3 60Gb.
So, being charitable, the first announcement from 2007 was drop in price of the 60Gb from £425 standalone to £349 with two games - in order to shift the unit from inventory and clear the way for the more cost-effective £299 40Gb PS3. The new announcement is one that clarifies the pricing position for unit.
Being uncharitable we'd say that the confusion of a 40Gb (not PS2-compatible) bundle now at the same price as a 60Gb (PS2-compatible) bundle was in 2007 is incredibly poor planning - it looks like a drop in value. You would have expected Sony's central planning bods to have predicted this when they introduced the £349 pricing in October.
Let's hope this new advisory finally clarifies PS3 pricing across the UK retail world and for consumers.
Companies:
Sony
Read More Like This
Comments
Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 24.
PreciousRoi 14 Jan 2008 21:22
5/24
original article wrote:
Being uncharitable we'd say that the confusion of a 40Gb (not PS2-compatible) bundle now at the same price as a 60Gb (PS2-compatible) bundle was in 2007 is incredibly poor planning - it looks like a drop in value.
looks like???
deleted 14 Jan 2008 23:23
6/24
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Be greatful Sony are actually giving you games with the blu-ray player...Games that are very very old and boring and weren't even that good to hit number 1 in the chart.
This bad planning deffo and loss of value as already pointed out, but your point about blu-ray!, errr arent the guys with PS3`s having the last laugh on that as HD DVD doesnt appear to be the best choice anymore,
oh and you are an egregiously incompetent rapscallion and a masturbatory, dull-witted tasteless amalgam of dross, drivel and malarkey.
more comments below our sponsor's message
tyrion 15 Jan 2008 08:44
7/24
haritori wrote:
oh and you are an egregiously incompetent rapscallion and a masturbatory, dull-witted tasteless amalgam of dross, drivel and malarkey.
Love it! The SPOnG sesquipedalian prize for today goes to...
OptimusP 15 Jan 2008 08:47
8/24
tyrion wrote:
haritori wrote:
oh and you are an egregiously incompetent rapscallion and a masturbatory, dull-witted tasteless amalgam of dross, drivel and malarkey.
Love it! The SPOnG sesquipedalian prize for today goes to...
Needed more eloquincy
TimSpong 15 Jan 2008 10:30
9/24
PreciousRoi wrote:
original article wrote:
Being uncharitable we'd say that the confusion of a 40Gb (not PS2-compatible) bundle now at the same price as a 60Gb (PS2-compatible) bundle was in 2007 is incredibly poor planning - it looks like a drop in value.
looks like???
Aye, "looks like". Sony needed to clear the market of confusion (caused by Sony) with its 80Gb, 20Gb, 60Gb and then 40Gb models. It made the call that the 40Gb hit the right spot.
Therefore it had to shift the other 'versions' off the shelves. Therefore it cut the price of the 60Gb - which it did, no matter how you look at it: £425 for a standalone to £349 for a console and two games is a cut in price.
The cut-price 60Gb units shifted, so success there.
Now Sony has recommended to retail a £349 bundle for the 40Gb - with two first-party games.
Frankly, I wouldn't have bothered to release a recommendation for a bundle to retail (and Sony did not press release it) unless I had wanted to convince retail to shift more of my first-party games... see what I said there?
So, being charitable:
Good plan to clear the market of an expensive model at a cut price.
Bad idea to match the price of the only remaining model to the previous bundle.
Hey, I'm just a nice guy.
Now, get off my lawn!
Tim
HyperTails 15 Jan 2008 11:25
10/24
Why do you keep calling it a Blu-ray player? If Microsoft had of stuck Blu-ray in the 360 you'd of been creaming over it...
And the PS3 has great games like Resistance, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Ridge Racer 7... and the upcoming ones like MGS4, FF13, GT5.
The 360's games are simply PS2 games with good graphics tacked on. Which is why Halo 3's single player mode was so crap. But then again, I would expect no less from an Xbox 1.5 ;)
And the PS3 has great games like Resistance, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Ridge Racer 7... and the upcoming ones like MGS4, FF13, GT5.
The 360's games are simply PS2 games with good graphics tacked on. Which is why Halo 3's single player mode was so crap. But then again, I would expect no less from an Xbox 1.5 ;)
OptimusP 15 Jan 2008 11:50
11/24
HyperTails wrote:
The 360's games are simply PS2 games with good graphics tacked on. Which is why Halo 3's single player mode was so crap. But then again, I would expect no less from an Xbox 1.5 ;)
Can also be said about GT5, FF13 and MGS4, hell the Metal Gear series is renown of implementing standard gameplay practices only a generation later and with the Final Fantasies you have to wonder...what gameplay? Story doesn't count as gameplay do mind. Hell GT5 could have been done on a SNES with a FX-chip in terms of concept.
Look what I just did over here? Now shut up and be a good boy, you'll get a cookie if you are.
config 15 Jan 2008 12:33
12/24
OptimusP wrote:
Hell GT5 could have been done on a SNES with a FX-chip in terms of concept.
LOL. Yeah, because all them there physics count for nought in GT.
SuperSaiyan4 15 Jan 2008 13:11
13/24
HyperTails wrote:
Why do you keep calling it a Blu-ray player? If Microsoft had of stuck Blu-ray in the 360 you'd of been creaming over it...
And the PS3 has great games like Resistance, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Ridge Racer 7... and the upcoming ones like MGS4, FF13, GT5.
The 360's games are simply PS2 games with good graphics tacked on. Which is why Halo 3's single player mode was so crap. But then again, I would expect no less from an Xbox 1.5 ;)
And the PS3 has great games like Resistance, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Ridge Racer 7... and the upcoming ones like MGS4, FF13, GT5.
The 360's games are simply PS2 games with good graphics tacked on. Which is why Halo 3's single player mode was so crap. But then again, I would expect no less from an Xbox 1.5 ;)
Hey Hypercunt so I bet Gears of War is just a PS2 game huh? Oh and so is Mass Effect and Oblivion *rolls eyes* You are the thickest and stupidist fanbaby ever hypercunt you really are.
tyrion 15 Jan 2008 13:34
14/24
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
You are the thickest and stupidist fanbaby ever hypercunt you really are.
"Why, Mr Kettle, I do declare you are looking mighty black today."
"Thank you kindly, Miss Pot. If I may be so bold, you yourself are radiant in your obsidian hue."
config 15 Jan 2008 13:39
15/24
tyrion wrote:
"If I may be so bold, you yourself are radiant in your obsidian hue."
Um, black has no hue (nor saturation and value). Perhaps "quality" would be more fitting?
deleted 15 Jan 2008 13:39
16/24
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
HyperTails wrote:
Why do you keep calling it a Blu-ray player? If Microsoft had of stuck Blu-ray in the 360 you'd of been creaming over it...
And the PS3 has great games like Resistance, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Ridge Racer 7... and the upcoming ones like MGS4, FF13, GT5.
The 360's games are simply PS2 games with good graphics tacked on. Which is why Halo 3's single player mode was so crap. But then again, I would expect no less from an Xbox 1.5 ;)
And the PS3 has great games like Resistance, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Ridge Racer 7... and the upcoming ones like MGS4, FF13, GT5.
The 360's games are simply PS2 games with good graphics tacked on. Which is why Halo 3's single player mode was so crap. But then again, I would expect no less from an Xbox 1.5 ;)
Hey Hypercunt so I bet Gears of War is just a PS2 game huh? Oh and so is Mass Effect and Oblivion *rolls eyes* You are the thickest and stupidist fanbaby ever hypercunt you really are.
Aww, It must be love!
TimSpong 15 Jan 2008 13:45
17/24
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Hey...
... and SNIPPITY SNIP because it is just plain dreary.
Okay there, make your point but less of the utterly inane name-calling.
I get the idea that you're looking for the attention; we all went through that stage; a lot of us grew out of it.
So, now, wouldn't you also like just a tiny bit of respect? A tiny bit?
Tim
TimSpong 15 Jan 2008 13:48
18/24
config wrote:
tyrion wrote:
"If I may be so bold, you yourself are radiant in your obsidian hue."
Um, black has no hue (nor saturation and value). Perhaps "quality" would be more fitting?
Then again, Obsidian isn't always black though... although it is dark. It's always volcanic though...
What ever happend to Hue & Cry though?
I'll get me coat.
Tim
HyperTails 15 Jan 2008 14:15
19/24
Gears of War is just a short, patronisingly easy game, Mass Effect is all hype (like Halo always was), and Oblivion... okay, i'll give you that one because its an incredible game. Although one look at the PS3 version is proof enough why Blu-ray was needed.
And as for the insults... please. Why are you on here constantly bashing the PS3 all the time? Oh, wait, its because there's nothing actually worth playing on the 360 ;)
And as for the insults... please. Why are you on here constantly bashing the PS3 all the time? Oh, wait, its because there's nothing actually worth playing on the 360 ;)
OptimusP 15 Jan 2008 16:05
20/24
config wrote:
OptimusP wrote:
Hell GT5 could have been done on a SNES with a FX-chip in terms of concept.
LOL. Yeah, because all them there physics count for nought in GT.
Don't laugh! It would run...at 5 fps...which coïncidently would be bearable for a Snes game.
I wonder of Zelda:OoT would have been a better game on Blu-Ray...
deleted 15 Jan 2008 16:11
21/24
OptimusP wrote:
config wrote:
OptimusP wrote:
Hell GT5 could have been done on a SNES with a FX-chip in terms of concept.
LOL. Yeah, because all them there physics count for nought in GT.
Don't laugh! It would run...at 5 fps...which coïncidently would be bearable for a Snes game.
I wonder of Zelda:OoT would have been a better game on Blu-Ray...
Well, it wouldn’t play any better solely because of blu ray, but it if by that you meant PS3 hardware as well, and then I'm sure it would look a lot prettier and have vastly better sound etc etc, but the game play fundamentally wouldn’t of been any better in fact it quite possibly would have been worse, the controller layout would have been different for one and how many other things would have been different and because of that would it effect the game play? Who knows but to answer your question I would say no.
OptimusP 15 Jan 2008 16:32
22/24
You forgot one important thing: loading times
OoT with any kind of loading time would be unbearable!
Blu-Ray has failed me once again! Burn in hell!
*hugs cartridges*
OoT with any kind of loading time would be unbearable!
Blu-Ray has failed me once again! Burn in hell!
*hugs cartridges*
config 15 Jan 2008 16:46
23/24
Two words;
HDD (ok, that's three abbreviated)
Streaming
HDD (ok, that's three abbreviated)
Streaming
OptimusP 15 Jan 2008 18:47
24/24
The point is if Blu-Ray could make Zelda OoT better, not a HDD.
