Sonic said:
*starting*?? :|
DS pre-orders hit 2 million in Japan - Shares rise 4.5%
- Thread starter Teasy
- Start date
- Status
*starting*?? :|
L-B, you're not exactly helping the situation here.
PC-Engine, you do realize that part of the PS2 hardware redesign is to cut down costs of manufacturing PS2 technology right? I coudl care less how many revisions there have been of PS2's. Sony felt that the best thing for them to do was release a PSTwo that is cheaper to manufacture that allows them to still sell the thing at $150 because it is "new." They needed a surge in PS2 sales and this is what has happened. If you could sell a system at $150 and make a profit on a redesigned version of it and it was selling like hotcakes wouldn't you do it? You really shouldn't go assuming Sony is unable to make a redesigned system cheaper to manufacture. If one were to think that they would seem foolish to many people on this board.
PC-Engine, you do realize that part of the PS2 hardware redesign is to cut down costs of manufacturing PS2 technology right? I coudl care less how many revisions there have been of PS2's. Sony felt that the best thing for them to do was release a PSTwo that is cheaper to manufacture that allows them to still sell the thing at $150 because it is "new." They needed a surge in PS2 sales and this is what has happened. If you could sell a system at $150 and make a profit on a redesigned version of it and it was selling like hotcakes wouldn't you do it? You really shouldn't go assuming Sony is unable to make a redesigned system cheaper to manufacture. If one were to think that they would seem foolish to many people on this board.
Soh-wwy.
Yes, PC-Engine, that would be much better than tossing out a ton of smilies and saying other people are living in a "dream world." Before acting incredulous and asking other people "based on what info?" it usually behooves you to give your info.
Soh-wwy again.
LB, in that case I'd take Sonic's advice more to heart. We're trying to kick things DOWN a notch. Or five.
<gives london-boy a cookie>
marconelly! said:
I bet in the most system intensive PSP games with brightness turned up and sound turned up the PSP will get under 2 hours.(wasn't the 4-6 hours for psp with headphones, brightness turned down, and on a simpler game than the best the system could do?) I think 2 hours is still better than what old sega handhelds used to average.(my nomad generally made about an hour and a half on the nimh battery, and under an hour on batteries)
Nintendo tends to be rather conservative when giving out specs. While GBA SP is rated at only 10 hours per charge, I regularly get 12-14 hours of play... I'm inclined to believe Nintendo when they say 6 hours is probably the absolute lowest figure for DS. They have a track record in this area, the trend seems to be them exceeding specs.
Also, they initially listed N64 as only capable of displaying 100,000 textured, lit polygons per second initially (they later revised that figure to 150,000 when libraries/tools improved). This was real world capable in game figures and were in stark contrast to Sony's PlayStation figures (360,000 pps) and Sega's Saturn figures (200,000 quads per sec), neither of which had software which approached those peaks afaik. Same thing a generation later with GameCube (6-12 million pps in game) versus the peak theoreticals SCEI and Microsoft pushed... I'm more than a little skeptical 4 hours is the absolute lowball figure concerning PSP game battery life, and I'm unsure if it's really valid to compare it directly to the DS 6 hour figure.
Also, they initially listed N64 as only capable of displaying 100,000 textured, lit polygons per second initially (they later revised that figure to 150,000 when libraries/tools improved). This was real world capable in game figures and were in stark contrast to Sony's PlayStation figures (360,000 pps) and Sega's Saturn figures (200,000 quads per sec), neither of which had software which approached those peaks afaik. Same thing a generation later with GameCube (6-12 million pps in game) versus the peak theoreticals SCEI and Microsoft pushed... I'm more than a little skeptical 4 hours is the absolute lowball figure concerning PSP game battery life, and I'm unsure if it's really valid to compare it directly to the DS 6 hour figure.
It's been a long time since I played my Nomad, but I seem to remember getting way more than an hour, hour and half with the attachable rechargeable battery pack.
I'm pretty sure I would get in the three to four hour range after a full charge.
I never played it that much since most action games bled/blurred too much on the screen, so perhaps the rechargeable batteries would have degraded more if I had gone through more use/recharge cycles.
I'm pretty sure I would get in the three to four hour range after a full charge.
I never played it that much since most action games bled/blurred too much on the screen, so perhaps the rechargeable batteries would have degraded more if I had gone through more use/recharge cycles.
We'll "compare them directly" when we actually have the machines in our hot little hands to compare directly. Those are really the only tests that matter anyway. Just get a big pile of 'em.
The more revisions you make the closer you get to the point of diminishing returns with regards to cost reduction.
How do you know PSTwo is cheaper to manufacture than PS2? Neither of us have actual numbers but at least provide some kind of evidence to support your claims. Yes they released PSTwo to revive sales, but beyond that assumptions about costs reductions based on what you think they accomlished with the PSTwo is just speculation with weak evidence.
Yes they needed to revive sales that's obvious.
Sure I would, but who says they're making a profit on it? Surely not me. I only said PSTwo costs slightly more to manufacture than PS2. Whether it's still profitable like PS2 wasn't the issue.
First of all I'm not assuming anything. It seems you are the one assuming things with little evidence to back it up.
Here is a list of factors for you to consider:
1. It costs money to redesign a new motherboard to use the new EE+GS@90nm.
2. It costs major money to design the EE+GS@90nm chip.
3. It costs money to redesign the new case to accommodate the various changes to the new configuration ie different fan, different heatsink, different DVD drive.
4. It costs money to redesign the cooling systems layout.
5. It costs money and time to reconfigure existing or new assembly lines to manufacture and assemble the new PSTwo. Assembly workers don't magically know how to assemble the new PSTwos with zero training.
6. It cost money to design/create new packaging materials for the PSTwo ie new instruction manuals, new box art, new kiosks, etc.
7. The PSTwo uses a more expensive slim DVD drive that's about twice the cost of old one.
8. It costs money to add the ethernet.
Now there are a few other things that decrease the cost like the single EE+GS@90nm, removal of the IDE interface, and iLink but I don't think they're enough to offset the increased costs from the factors I listed above. Now the reason why SONY went ahead and redesigned the PSTwo even though it cost more to manufacture is due to the simple fact they know the new design would spur sales which in the longrun is the whole point of PSTwo. And when you have a new design you have a better chance that people who already have an Xbox or GCN will buy the new model. It continues to build brand awareness which is very important in today's hype-based market. I doubt they did it for cost reduction reasons since it actually costs more. Ultimately if they didn't redesign the PS2 it would've been cheaper to continue with the old infrastructure but continuing along that path would still lead to declining sales unless they did another price drop which would defeat the whole point of saving money by not redesigning it since they won't make as much money on each unit sold.
PC-Engine said:
The PSX released a year ago already uses this chip. Not to mention that the PSP uses the same 90nm lines. Then the older PS2 models used 130nm lines, now with 90nm process you can crop more chips from the same amount of silicon wafers. Moreover you don't need separate lines for EE and GS. Compared to this, the redesign cost is trivial.
I'm not sure why you can criticize others while speculating without a fact - as long as the cost is lower than $149 it doesn't matter
And? What does that have to do with the chip costing a lot of money to design? BTW the PSX didn't do too well so it didn't have much affect on economies of scale with regards to the EE/GS chip. Heck they tried to sell the PSX at a higher cost to try and recoup the design costs but the consumer didn't fall for it since the product couldn't do either of its intended jobs well. Heh I wouldn't be suprised if you bought ten for your family as gifts just so you could believe in your mind that you personally contributed to the economies of scale. I heard SONY gives out bonuses to employees who bring back receipts that show they buy SONY products.
What does PSP have to do with PSTwo? I don't seem to recall anyone mentioning the cost to build fabs.
No duh..didn't I already state that above? If you hadn't noticed we're talking about the cost of a complete console manufacturing pipeline not just the one chip.
And when did I say people needed to have facts? I think the word that was used is evidence since nobody here has factual numbers.
The point wasn't about PSTwo costing less than $150 to manufacture. It was about it costing slightly more than PS2 to manufacture. You should brush up on your reading comprehension. Nice attempt at a rebuttal btw. Let me know when you can address all the points listed above and then conclude that PSTwo cost less to manufacture than PS2.
One, could you answer my questions from the previous page regarding tech. cost depreciation? Nintendo never intended for the DS to be as successful as it has become apparently. Remember their comments that even if the DS garnered a mere 10% of the market, they would view this as a success? This was experimental territory for them, & they admitted as much. GBA2 was simply not ready, although I would hardly classify this as a "stopgap measure" in response to Sony's PSP. They clearly had these ideas & plans in place before the PSP was ever shown.
Marco, I said surpass, not equal the PSP's visuals. A slightly beefed up miniaturized Flipper & Gekko type scenario would do that rather nicely. There is also some graphically impressive software upcoming for the DS, without the subsequent drain upon the handheld's resources. Though as I stated before, visuals do not run the handheld industry. Photorealistic handheld games? Forget it, this is completely unnecessary & Nintendo & Sony should both know this by now. (I believe Nintendo does) This is where home consoles intercede, in addition these types of visuals could never be fully realized on screens of handheld proportions & resolutions regardless.
Marco, I said surpass, not equal the PSP's visuals. A slightly beefed up miniaturized Flipper & Gekko type scenario would do that rather nicely. There is also some graphically impressive software upcoming for the DS, without the subsequent drain upon the handheld's resources. Though as I stated before, visuals do not run the handheld industry. Photorealistic handheld games? Forget it, this is completely unnecessary & Nintendo & Sony should both know this by now. (I believe Nintendo does) This is where home consoles intercede, in addition these types of visuals could never be fully realized on screens of handheld proportions & resolutions regardless.
PC-Engine said:
And? What does that have to do with the chip costing a lot of money to design?
Yeah it's design. PSX and PSTwo share the chip design cost too.
You told handling cost, R&D cost, etc. offset every cost reduction in manufacturing. So I corrected your wrong assumptionPC-Engine said:No duh..didn't I already state that above? If you hadn't noticed we're talking about the cost of a complete console manufacturing pipeline not just the one chip.
One interesting fact you seem not to know is, PSTwo's mobo is designed to be able to use either 90nm EE+GS or 130nm chips.
Sure but if the PSX can't recoup the cost of the the PSX design alone then how is sharing chip design costs relevent?
No, you're just not very good at reading comprehension. The point my friend was total additional system costs incured over PS2 manufacturing.
That makes a lot of sense because there will be a lot of excess inventory for the older chips. Regardless the new PSTwo board still had to be redesigned from the PS2 only version of the older board.
- Status
