Print 65 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 9:28 AM

Kmart ad

FYE ad  (Source: Kotaku)
New ads from FYE, Kmart, point to lower PS3 price

The rumors appear to have been true and the official price cut for the PlayStation 3 will be happening soon. There have been plenty of reports that a “slim” PS3 will be announced some time this month along with price cuts for existing “fat” PS3 units (currently available in 80GB and 160GB variants).

Now the first confirmed reports of signage pointing to the $100 price cuts are finally starting to make an appearance. Over the weekend, FYE leaked signs showing the 80GB and 160GB PS3s priced at $299.99 and $399.99 respectively – this marks a $100 price cut for each model. The ad notes that the pricing is “while supplies last”.

Engadget notes that further confirmation came from none other than Kmart. The retailer has an ad running on its website that notes “The Rumors Are Reality -- New Low Price & a New Exciting PlayStation 3”.

Neither ad lists a date for the pending price cuts.

Updated 8/18/2009
Kmart has a pre-order page on its website for a "Sony PS3, SLIM" priced at $299.99. The release date is listed as 8/24

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: To Sony
By Aloonatic on 8/18/2009 7:21:57 AM , Rating: 4
Does that include warranties by the way?

Remember that in the EU you get a minimum 1 year (definitely) and even 2 years (sometimes, not really sure, it's a grey area, most shops don't want you to know but apparently unmolested electrical items are still covered after 2 years under EU law) warranty on electrical items.

Local sales taxes and import duties are higher in the EU too. Then you'll probably find that the cost of the land that the shop/office/warehouse is built on, the diesel in the truck taking the PS3 to said buildings, the income taxes (and NI in the UK) on shop workers wages (as well as other things like vacation/holidays that have to be paid for by someone, and that is you the consumer at the end of the day) and lots of other things are higher in the EU too, which is not Sony's fault.

You may even find that their margin is lower in the EU even with a higher sales price. I'm not saying tath it is but it is possible.

RE: To Sony
By smackababy on 8/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: To Sony
By mdogs444 on 8/18/2009 8:27:02 AM , Rating: 5
Clearly, it is the healthcare system that is causing the price to be higher.


Clearly, you are the moron. The UK health system employs over 1.5 million people - the 3rd largest employer in the entire world. Its funded by taxes - so where do you think the money is coming from? Gasoline, value added tax, high sales taxes, property taxes, etc. That's the price of "free" health care. Whether you feel its worth the price is up to you, but you can't run from the facts of why things are so expensive.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee...err, tea.

RE: To Sony
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2009 8:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
Damn. 1.5 million people? Even at an average salary of $50,000(USD) a year thats $75,0000,0000,000 just in salaries. And the average salary is probably higher than that.

And salaries are only one small part in the costs of providing health care.

RE: To Sony
By probedb on 8/18/2009 11:23:11 AM , Rating: 5
Wow you just invented a new numeric system.....four zeroes between commas ;)

RE: To Sony
By Icehearted on 8/18/2009 11:46:17 AM , Rating: 5
Nuh-uh! Four zeros between commas clearly states that it's a Kajillion.

RE: To Sony
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2009 11:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
lol. Sorry about that.

RE: To Sony
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2009 8:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and mdog check out the pic I put up on FB yesterday.

RE: To Sony
By mdogs444 on 8/18/2009 8:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah i saw, Jim DeMint.....I wish he was from my state.

RE: To Sony
By Aloonatic on 8/18/2009 9:04:14 AM , Rating: 4
It does employ a lot of people, but you have to remember that that figure includes a lot of roles, not just hospital workers like Drs and nurses. It covers all the back office staff, administration for drugs and the like. It will also cover people working in retirement homes, ambulance drivers, probably some people in dentistry and optometry too.

Nationwide, the NHS employs more than 1.5m people. Of those, just short of half are clinically qualified, including some 90,000 hospital doctors, 35,000 general practitioners (GPs), 400,000 nurses and 16,000 ambulance staff.

People over here are always moaning about the number of administrators and hospital managers that we are wasting our money on but I would wager that there are few companies that have such a small management to "customer facing" staff ratios, especially in such a large "business".

As for the NHS being the reason why we pay so much in taxes here, well there are many other (genuinely) "socialist" programs that steal money from my pocket.

e.g. We pay out more in unemployment benefits and the like to the wasters and single mothers who curse this nation than is collected by the inland revenue in income tax. Even with rates at 20% (on income of £5k to £40k a year) and 40% (on all income over £40k a year) which I'm guessing are pretty high compared to the US.

I really don't mind paying for the NHS. It could be a lot better, other European nations have better models that you should be looking at in the USA, but it's still pretty good IMHO. We pay less for healthcare than in the USA and we live longer. If you want your own room and satellite TV etc then you can always do that. Sometimes the NHS will even pay part of it too.

It's not perfect, but pretty good. It has been very amusing watching the debate in the US over the "socialist" (run for your lives, the Reds are coming, no no, it's too late for me, shot me now) and "evil" NHS. Where apparently Stephen Hawkins would be left to die if he lived and worked in the UK as it's not worth it to the state to keep him alive.

RE: To Sony
By messyunkempt on 8/18/2009 3:00:40 PM , Rating: 2

As for the NHS being the reason why we pay so much in taxes here, well there are many other (genuinely) "socialist" programs that steal money from my pocket.

e.g. We pay out more in unemployment benefits and the like to the wasters and single mothers who curse this nation than is collected by the inland revenue in income tax.

Having been on the recieving end of unemployment benefits for almost a year after finishing university I'm all for the benefits system, especially in the current economic climate.

I currently know several people in reciept of benefits after recently becoming unemployed and over the years they have all payed thier fair share of NI contributions and therefore fully deserve the help of the government in times of hardship and I personally paid more in tax in the first two months of my current employment than I claimed in handouts over the preceding year.

Every system of course is prone to abuse but I dont think that labelling everyone who is in reciept of said benefit to be either 'wasters' or 'single mothers' as more often now than ever it is not the case.

Would you prefer that as well as losing thier pride and dignity as well as thier jobs they also lost thier homes and ability to feed or clothe themselves or thier families until a solution prevents itself?

And besides, I'd much rather give the work-shy layabouts a few quid a month to pay for thier super strength lager and rolling tobacco than have the buggers rob my house to get it ;)

RE: To Sony
By mdogs444 on 8/18/2009 3:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
And besides, I'd much rather give the work-shy layabouts a few quid a month to pay for thier super strength lager and rolling tobacco than have the buggers rob my house to get it ;)

Not me. I'd rather take my tax dollars back, buy myself a gun and shoot the buggers when they to rob my house. Take out two birds with one stone: keep more of my own money, get rid of bums who break the law.

RE: To Sony
By Aloonatic on 8/19/2009 1:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well, first off, I'm a little insulted. Do you really think that I am so stupid as to think that every person who is receiving benefits is either a "waster" or a single mother? I credited you with the intelligence to realise that I was making a point and it was just an aside to the main point that I was making, but hey, may be I was wrong.

To be clear, what I was alluding to is that clearly the benefits system in the UK is out of control, when the tax payer pays out more in benefits than is collected from them in income tax.

I have no problem with there being a safety net, to arrest the descent into poverty of people like those that you mentioned who have probably lost their jobs through no fault of their own during a time of recession, or to allow educated people like yourself to not get sucked into a minimum wage, time wasting, meaningless work, world where your education and knowledge would be wasted.

That we pay out so much clearly shows that the system is being abused however. The safety net has been perverted and twisted into a hammock by far too many people. Many of whom will never be net contributors and have no aspiration to. Worse than that though, nor are they encouraged to by our government.

I hope that you get some work soon. If you are 22, as I guess you are if you are the typical graduate, I have one piece of advice. Emigrate. If you don't, you will simply be spending the rest of your life paying off New Labour's debt. They've somehow managed to borrow more in 2 years than the total amount of money borrowed by this country since the creation of the bank of England. All to get us out of recession sooner, although France and Germany are already there (may be) and Australia & Canada never actually went into recession. Oh, and to save a generation "from the scrap heap" although there are more people aged 18-24 who are unemployed or out of training/education now than ever before. Many with a shed load of student debt too. Don't point all this out to Gordon though, he genuinely believes that he has saved the world. Shame he just forgot about us, the people who voted him in as PM. Oh wait....

Oh, and as for benefits just buying cheeky chappies some strong cider and nothing more is just so shallow. Their is a generation of kids who have been raised on the pay role of New Labour's benefits system. IS it any wonder that they do not want to go to school and have no respect for their surroundings when they know and have been told by their parents not to bother as they can simply live on benefits. Sure, it's not a life that you and I might choose, but it is (to borrow from the parlance of the divorce courts) "the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed to" and that is all they are bothered about.

Anyway, I can't be bothered any more, it's just depressing. Bonn chance.

RE: To Sony
By Dribble on 8/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: To Sony
By mdogs444 on 8/18/2009 10:12:46 AM , Rating: 5
and doesn't even give a large percentage of the population good cover

85% of the people in the USA are happy with their health care coverage. In fact, the same study showed that 70% of those without health insurance do get coverage and are satisfied with it. Of the 40M estimated people without insurance, half of them are illegally in the country and therefore would not qualify for tax payer paid insurance anyway.
The uk system while not great in some ways only costs about 2/5ths of the price

While being the biggest boondoggle of a bureaucracy in the world employing 1.5M people thus making any meaningful changes to their system in the future null and void.
uk is one of the worlds premier places for health care research

I don't know if this is true or not, but I sure know that research and actual care are two different things. People come from all over the world to get their health care in America - including world leaders from other countries.
If the PS3 was priced in the same way as health care then American's should be paying $1000+.

I don't know where you come up with this stuff. You guys pay $6-8 for a gallon of gasoline, 15-20% VAT taxes, high sales taxes, high property taxes. In fact, you pay so much in taxes that you cannot afford anything besides a tiny apartment and a car the size of a twin bed. Call me crazy - but to sacrifice that much while getting rationed care and letting politicians decide who lives and dies according to their age and how much it will cost to cure them...well, I'll gladly keep my own expensive American health care system.

RE: To Sony
By Chaser on 8/18/2009 10:31:22 AM , Rating: 2

RE: To Sony
By probedb on 8/18/2009 11:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
In fact, you pay so much in taxes that you cannot afford anything besides a tiny apartment and a car the size of a twin bed.

Most people in this country own their homes unlike a lot of Europe where they rent. The reason for smaller properties is we live on an already overcrowded island, there's limited space.

Also, as a resulted of the limited space our roads are generally a lot shorter, smaller etc than in the US so smaller cars work far better and they're far more economical to run. Why spend money when there's no need?

It's also funny that a discussion about PS3 pricing results in a discussion about healthcare ;)

Finally, we can afford stuff you know, we don't live on tea and biscuits. There's also no fog in London. And I don't know the Queen.

RE: To Sony
By mdogs444 on 8/18/2009 11:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
There's also no fog in London.

Ok, then who came up with the brand name smarty pants! :)

RE: To Sony
By messyunkempt on 8/18/2009 4:52:22 PM , Rating: 2

Finally, we can afford stuff you know, we don't live on tea and biscuits.

I do :)

RE: To Sony
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2009 11:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
uk is one of the worlds premier places for health care research.

The US IS the world's premier place for health care research. Why? Because there's financial incentive to develop new treatments, drugs, and medical equipment. In America, if a hospital wants a machine that just came out, they just need to come up with the cash. If a hospital in the UK wants it, they have to go through the government to get it.

RE: To Sony
By Aloonatic on 8/19/2009 2:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
We have to go through the government. You have to go through an insurance company. It's all the same at the end of the day. It's just given differnt names and there is a differnent levvel of minimum coverage.

In the UK we all have medical coverage, it's run on a not for profit basis by the government to ensure the maximum amount of money goes through the system to the "customer".

In the US some of you have medical insurance, run by private companies who make a great deal of profit, hardly the most efficient method.

In the UK NICE makes many decisions about what drugs can be prescribed, treatments given. All but a very small percentage of new and largely unproven drugs (probably the cancer drugs that you've seen on Fox News) are not provided on the NHS.

In the US your insurance company decides what drugs you can have and what treatment you can receive. You can have whatever you want, you just have to be lucky enough to be able to afford a good enough plan. Those expensive new drugs are probably not covered by many plans either. And if they are you will probably get treated once, then find it hard to get insurance again, as will your family.

In the UK all people have a pretty good (but not perfect) level of health care coverage that doesn't cost a massive amount of money. If you want more, your own room, an operation a little sooner, satellite TV, those new drugs, access to an MRI scanner sooner etc, you can pay a premium for private health care too.

In the US most, but by no means all have a "adequate" level of health care coverage. Everyone has access to emergency treatment. If you can afford it or have a job with health care included, you do get a more expensive system with better access to drugs and equipment, which is great.

There is plenty of money in the UK for medical research and for buying drugs. The NHS (and other European systems) are probably the largest customers that many drug companies have. Drug companies in the UK and EU can also sell their products to the USA if they so wish.

No one system is perfect. It's also a little strange how this row seems to have blown up surrounding the NHS as the "socialist" model Vs the "capitalist" US model. In the western world neither are the best. France and Germany have far better systems than both the UK and USA. That's where you guys should be looking. They have a better mix of tax payer coverage and private healthcare integration.

RE: To Sony
By Aloonatic on 8/19/2009 3:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
Just a couple of quick notes. I used the words lucky and efficient a few times above I think and I just wanted to clarify that a little.

I am sure that most people who have health insurance in the USA have worked hard to get their jobs and to earn enough to get the insurance that they receive, no luck involved. Sadly however, we are all just a smile to Margery in human resources or a compliment on your bosses choice of tie away from redundancy, as we have seen recently and maybe even lucky enough to be generally healthy and not have a chronic illness that makes it hard to work.

I also mentioned that the NHS is more efficient, which I'm guess you have heard a lot in the USA. Large organisations, especially government run organisations, are rarely any where near as efficient as they could be, especially when a socialist government (like New Labour) have been allowed to raid the pantry. In theory it should be more efficient of course, that was the point I was making. Hopefully the UK will see a change in government soon. As an example of the inefficiency and generally lax business practices in the an organisation like the NHS there was a story today about 45,000 NHS works calling in sick every day. All on full pay, many probably using up allocated sick days that they have to use by the end of the year. Hardly super efficient.

RE: To Sony
By smackababy on 8/18/2009 9:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, guess that joke hit a little too hard for most of you.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot
Related Articles

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki