DS pre-orders hit 2 million in Japan - Shares rise 4.5%
- Thread starter Teasy
- Start date
- Status
One, I was speaking about the technology sector as a whole, of which the PC is a definite part. In hindsight I see that I should've been more explicit, but I thought I described the time/technology relationship fairly straightforwardly. You chose 1 component of the PC, (which has dropped in base price over time btw) neglecting ram, processors, PC screens, rewritable drives, DVD functionality, etc. I was citing the PC as an example only, not seeing the need to reduce it to its base components.
PC-Engine said:Sure but if the PSX can't recoup the cost of the the PSX design alone then how is sharing chip design costs relevent?
At that extortionate price?? What is it? 700 quid or something? For a PS2 with HDD and a DVD-R??
I'm sure Sony made a fat profit out of those PSX. Even selling 2 would have made a lot of money for them!
He was speaking from a then cost development perspective/analysis. Which in turn will be drastically reduced in 3 years, including even more advanced tech. making itself more cost effective as well. Especially if they're going the route of miniaturizing as well as enhancing the GC chipset. Simply adding more 1T-SRAM or e-DRAM at that point shouldn't prove problematic in the least cost-wise. Nor should sustainable battery power to compensate.
london-boy said:PC-Engine said:Sure but if the PSX can't recoup the cost of the the PSX design alone then how is sharing chip design costs relevent?
At that extortionate price?? What is it? 700 quid or something? For a PS2 with HDD and a DVD-R??
I'm sure Sony made a fat profit out of those PSX. Even selling 2 would have made a lot of money for them!
Actually the PSX wasn't that expensive considering you got a PS2 also, it was expensive in the sense that you didn't get a very good DVR vs competing units that were available at the time. I'd say PSX only made a small profit for SONY that's why they stopped production when sales tanked after the initial early adopters.
Wow, how utterly pointless and tiresome most of that was. I guess all the players had best leave the market, because if you take #1-4 at face value THEY CAN'T MAKE MONEY! (oh noes!) It costs money to design a console! Sony spent money shrinking EE and GS every step of the way, but why did they do it? To save production cost! (shocker, that) And they kept right on doing it, the fools! What everyone has been talking about is manufacturing cost comparison, so how do those points apply? Investments need to be recouped, certainly, but they have to be for a console regardless--and yet even when they spend whoreloads on design, they've made it back. It's not like a redesign is severely taxing--or do you think the PSOne flummoxed them to no end and was being subsidized by Sony to please consumers with its rounded corners?
#5 and 6 are at least closer to the point, but those are initial costs--quickly overcome if the manufacturing savings is good enough.
#7 and 8 finally have to do with what people are talking about, but actual figures/backup for #7 would be nice, and #8 may not make all that much difference chip-wise but will certainly lead to an increase in sales of network-capable games down the line, so it has its own extra return that I'm sure Sony is estimating alongside.
What are the comparitive manufacturing costs of the motherboards? Of the chips it holds? Of the internal components? Of the casing? Of the cost of boxing and shipping the product?
If your point is that the relative cost of the PSTwo looks bad in comparison to the PS2 right now because of the build-up, well then "duh." But Sony is likely expecting to sell 50+ million of these through the rest of its lifespan, and aiming it to survive all the further price drops to $129 and $99 and below. Just what do you think[ they had in mind from a manufacturing standpoint? That is where the telling point lies.
Sony spent money shrinking EE and GS every step of the way, but why did they do it? To save production cost! (shocker, that) And they kept right on doing it, the fools! What everyone has been talking about is manufacturing cost comparison, so how do those points apply? Investments need to be recouped, certainly, but they have to be for a console regardless--and yet even when they spend whoreloads on design, they've made it back. It's not like a redesign is severely taxing--or do you think the PSOne flummoxed them to no end and was being subsidized by Sony to please consumers with its rounded corners?#5 and 6 are at least closer to the point, but those are initial costs--quickly overcome if the manufacturing savings is good enough.
#7 and 8 finally have to do with what people are talking about, but actual figures/backup for #7 would be nice, and #8 may not make all that much difference chip-wise but will certainly lead to an increase in sales of network-capable games down the line, so it has its own extra return that I'm sure Sony is estimating alongside.
What are the comparitive manufacturing costs of the motherboards? Of the chips it holds? Of the internal components? Of the casing? Of the cost of boxing and shipping the product?
If your point is that the relative cost of the PSTwo looks bad in comparison to the PS2 right now because of the build-up, well then "duh." But Sony is likely expecting to sell 50+ million of these through the rest of its lifespan, and aiming it to survive all the further price drops to $129 and $99 and below. Just what do you think[ they had in mind from a manufacturing standpoint? That is where the telling point lies.
- Status
