Did Sony change the Specs of PS3?

[j^aws]

jaws, no offence, but that was the most bogus post you've ever had on these boards. if you really think so i suggest you re-calibrate your notion of the console industry.

None taken! So what exactly is so bogus?

The parity in RAM of 512MB between two products that are available for me to buy with 15-18 Months difference in availability?

If you read between the lines, it also means that X360s launch in *Europe* in 2005 was extremely smart if PS3 misses Christmas 2006 and MS takes advantage of it...

 

[j^aws]

I know and never suggested otherwise. But the OP made those points as reason why PS3 should, in his opinion, be getting a spec upgrade. The very title of the thread shows he's talking about a potential spec upgrade and why he thinks there should be one, based on comparing PS3 to XB360 in EU, and wondering if there is one. To which my answer is no, there won't be a spec upgrade based on a comparison between XB360 and PS3 in EU because the specs are set for console launch, not later release.

If you read my first post, then I've already mentioned that I don't expect any changes, only minor clockrate differences at *most*. But the point the OP was making was that 15-18 Months difference by the time it hits *Europe* wasn't satisfactory. Of course there's nothing stopping you from importing to lessen this time...

I haven't disagreed with anything you've said. Do you disagree with me? Do you think someone in Sony is sat in board meetings saying 'hey, we need to up the specs of PS3 because though it's competitive with XB360 when it launches in Japan, it won't be by the time it launches in Germany'?

I'm not disagreeing. It seems you are missing the actual point...

 

[cloudscapes]

But will never be as utilised as console's

no, I was just making a statement that the two machines are for two markets. The original poster was comparing the PS3 GPU to 2007 PC GPUs that "will have 512-bit bus width"

 

[zidane1strife]

No. Sony won't change specs and piss off developers just to give a few fanbois bigger e-penises.

ram, and clockspeed could see a boost. I doubt any dev. would complain about having more ram Anyway we don't even know if the final kit delays were due to a spec upgrade behind close doors, in which case dev.s would already be dev. with it in mind(maybe they knew blu-ray movie features/standard/finalizing timing were likely to hold the product off the shelves for a few months).

 

[dukmahsik]

A console does not equal a PC. High-end PCs will always have higher specs than consoles.

Also, assuming Sony have mostly finished the design of the PS3, and the thing that's holding it back is blu-ray or legal issues, it would be kind of risky to change more specs on it so close to the release date, considering that devs at this point are developping with 512MB in mind.

Thirdly, the PS3 looks like it's going to be quite expensive to manufacture and sell. Why raise the price even more?

and we have a winner

 

[Mr. Hanky]

Hey, I was thinking if Sony thought of using twin 512 MB chips (derated to 256, a piece) from a defect tolerant yield structure (similar to the 7 vs. 8 spe Cell strategy), that could be a nice cost saver in the supposed BOM for PS3.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If anyone thinks PS3 will go through some significant spec increase (anything more than modest clock speed increases), I have tickets to a February Playstation Event to sell you...

 

[darkblu]

None taken! So what exactly is so bogus?

overall, that original statement of yours belongs to a desktop-oriented topic, not a console thread. had you said 'desktop vendor A launched a 512 RAM machine in 2005, vendor B will launch similar in 2007 - B's customers're screwd.' i'd have outright agreed. but as it stands:

1) consoles lifespans are nowhere near a year, so when the ps3 launches in 2007 in euro territories it still will be at the top of the console food chain, i.e. will belong to its generation, and nothing will have been released inbetween summer 2006 and spring 2007 to eclipse the ps3. consoles mature in generations. the fact that another console of the same generation has been released first in christmas 2005 does not necessitate that each next console of the same generation launched half or a whole year later should have more of anything.

2) console customers don't care about memory ('darn, my new photoshop does not run smooth on this rig!'). console developers do, but they build their hw expectations based on technology generations, not extrapolating from what was released last christmas.

3) are euro customers generally screwed by this launch delay - yes. is it because of the RAM amount, though - no. it's because of the mere producy availability (i.e. lack thereof). whether you're an european and you want an xbox360 but cannot get it due to scarcities or you want a ps3 and you cannot get it due to later territory launch is for all practical reasons the same. and you cannot expect that you'll get it at some bonus later on.

and finally, MS' early launch would be smart if and only if they can take advantage of it through supply. so far they have not been able to.

 

[expletive]

If anyone thinks PS3 will go through some significant spec increase (anything more than modest clock speed increases), I have tickets to a February Playstation Event to sell you...

Nice try! It's March already, that even happened last month!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

and finally, MS' early launch would be smart if and only if they can take advantage of it through supply. so far they don't seem to be able to.

I was under the impression that MS in on track to meet their supply targets...5 million or so by June. Assuming PS3 is late and doesn't hit Japan and the U.S. until "fall", MS could have 8 million+ units rolled out before the first PS3 ships.

 

[ROG27]

There will be no significant upgrade in spec, if any at all. The specs have already "wowed" people. Ramping up production and cost cutting are the chief things on SCE's mind right now.

 

[zidane1strife]

If anyone thinks PS3 will go through some significant spec increase (anything more than modest clock speed increases), I have tickets to a February Playstation Event to sell you...

there might be a reason that did not happen and kits were delayed

 

[3roxor]

I was under the impression that MS in on track to meet their supply targets...5 million or so by June. Assuming PS3 is late and doesn't hit Japan and the U.S. until "fall", MS could have 8 million+ units rolled out before the first PS3 ships.

I don't know the early sales numbers for previous consoles.. but I don't think 8 million+ units is something for Sony to be scared of.

 

[expletive]

I don't know the early sales numbers for previous consoles.. but I don't think 8 million+ units is something for Sony to be scared of.

So what is the number of 360's sold that should cause Sony to be scared?

 

[Mr. Hanky]

They need to fill their current Xbox userbase numbers first, before anybody is worried they are starting to eat into the PS userbase.

 

[3roxor]

So what is the number of 360's sold that should cause Sony to be scared?

I honestly don't know. Microsoft themselves said something silly like "whoever gets to 10million first wins" ..if I remember correctly?

I think as long as Playstation keeps it popular franchises + some new fresh stuff there are no worries.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't know the early sales numbers for previous consoles.. but I don't think 8 million+ units is something for Sony to be scared of.

I think it is something for them to start to get worried about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not predicting anything remotely like it would be a death knell for Sony. At the very, very worst for Sony this generation, I would say xbox 360 might be able to catch up in terms of world-wide market share. (This is assuming, of course, there is not some catastrpohic manufacturing / launching snafu for PS3.)

In the end, content will sell the consoles. Once you get past the initial launches and early adopters, the content will sell. The thing is, the more units Xbox already has in gamers hands before PS3 ships, the harder it is to convince developers that they should create PS3 exclusive titles. I mean, if you are looking at 10 million XBox 360s sold (which I would say is the "Sony should start to get scared" number) before PS3 hits the streets...that's a lot of customers you're asking developers to ignore....

 

[Mr. Hanky]

They'll simply make an X360 port to cover that, and plan for the 15-20 mil PS3 customers that will exist by time the game actually gets to release stage.

 

[expletive]

I think it is something for them to start to get worried about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not predicting anything remotely like it would be a death knell for Sony. At the very, very worst for Sony this generation, I would say xbox 360 might be able to catch up in terms of world-wide market share. (This is assuming, of course, there is not some catastrpohic manufacturing / launching snafu for PS3.)

In the end, content will sell the consoles. Once you get past the initial launches and early adopters, the content will sell. The thing is, the more units Xbox already has in gamers hands before PS3 ships, the harder it is to convince developers that they should create PS3 exclusive titles. I mean, if you are looking at 10 million XBox 360s sold (which I would say is the "Sony should start to get scared" number) before PS3 hits the streets...that's a lot of customers you're asking developers to ignore....

Agreed on that 'get scared' does not equal a 15% market share for PS3.

Also, its not just the gap at that point (PS3 launch), but devs also need to feel that the 360 installed base will continue to increase. I think the fact that Halo 3 will be on the horizon, as well a price advantage of $50 -$100 dollars for the 360 should put publishers more at ease on that front.

Lastly, if we are to believe that the development environment of the 360 is superior to the point that it actually saves time/money, the 360 becomes a pretty compelling financial proposition for publishers in Q4 of 2006.

But to say, "I think as long as Playstation keeps it popular franchises + some new fresh stuff there are no worries." is a little off-base. Wouldnt we have said the same of Nintendo before the PSX?

 

[j^aws]

overall, that original statement of yours belongs to a desktop-oriented topic, not a console thread. had you said 'desktop vendor A launched a 512 RAM machine in 2005, vendor B will launch similar in 2007 - B's customers're screwd.' i'd have outright agreed. but as it stands:

Your analogy is flawed. I might be a corporate IT manager that's looking to replace my desktop PC's *every* 4 years. I have a particular budget in 2006 and an immediate demand for the PCs. Why should I wait for the 2007 model if it brings nothing more for the wait?

1) consoles lifespans are nowhere near a year,

Nor are desktop PCs...

so when the ps3 launches in 2007 in euro territories it still will be at the top of the console food chain, i.e. will belong to its generation, and nothing will have been released inbetween summer 2006 and spring 2007 to eclipse the ps3. consoles mature in generations. the fact that another console of the same generation has been released first in christmas 2005 does not necessitate that each next console of the same generation launched half or a whole year later should have more of anything.

This logic is flawed also. PS2, Xbox and GC are considered the same generation and by your logic, the Xbox and GC shouldn't have "more" of anything. The Xbox definitely did for a 'similar' price...

2) console customers don't care about memory ('darn, my new photoshop does not run smooth on this rig!'). console developers do, but they build their hw expectations based on technology generations, not extrapolating from what was released last christmas.

That's true but I was talking about ME and why 512MB in Spring 2007 is meh! And I'm not your typical console customer... I can see 512MB being inside a console released ~ 15 months earlier and I expect more. If X360 was released later, I'd expect the same. I'm a technophile and a gamer who demands value for money. I recall many claiming X360 will have 256MB of RAM and not to expect more... (even DeanoC)...

3) are euro customers generally screwed by this launch delay - yes. is it because of the RAM amount, though - no. it's because of the mere producy availability (i.e. lack thereof). whether you're an european and you want an xbox360 but cannot get it due to scarcities or you want a ps3 and you cannot get it due to later territory launch is for all practical reasons the same. and you cannot expect that you'll get it at some bonus later on.

Like I said already in my original post, I'm not expecting an upgrade. That doesn't mean I still won't go "meh" in 2007 with 512MB of RAM when 15 moths earlier, the X360 had 512MB. That's *if* it's released in 2007, as I mentioned earlier. Consider it a protest vote for Europeans getting shafted and subsidizing the rest of the world with inflated prices!

That being said I'll prolly pickup all three consoles in 2007 anyway 'coz of my backlog...

and finally, MS' early launch would be smart if and only if they can take advantage of it through supply. so far they have not been able to.

I mentioned this already.