KK again claims PS3 will be costly.

[Titanio]

That is all very true, but I think Sony would have a very hard time convincing the average Joe consumer that the PS3 offers something that is worth the higher price. It's not exactly providing something new and exciting that will motivate the average consumer to pay a higher price.

You go on to dismiss blu-ray, but that's not something you can so easily write off IMO.

But it's more than just individual pieces of functionality. It's about the product as a whole, to which those pieces contribute. And perhaps more importantly, the intangibles attached to that product. The perception of the brand, the "image" etc. That's what people buy into, a combination of all that, that's how you measure the value, not by ticking off pieces of functionality on a list alone.

has fewer, less developed games (360 will be 2nd gen games by PS3 launch)

Sony's first gen games (assuming a Fall 2006 launch in the US) will have had as much time with the what effectively is "beta hardware", if not more, than MS's second gen. PS3's first generation should be "more developed" than X360's is going to be - if a developer is aiming for Nov 06, they'd have 6 months with "beta" hardware + 10-12 months with final hardware, versus 1 or 2 months with beta and 1 or 2 months with final hardware on X360. I would not be too concerned about how PS3 launch titles stand up to X360's "2nd gen".

Again, though, and perhaps unfortunately you might think - it's not just about the games. There's a melting pot of issues there. If launch games were a deciding factor in a system's success, PS2 should have tanked (Of course, I expect PS3 to have a much stronger lineup than PS2 had).

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Semi-related to this topic:

My wife and I were talking the other day about how crazy it seems people can be when there is a fad. An example is the ipod. Look at walkmans and discmans from 10-20 years ago. They used to cost like $50-100. You can get mp3 players these days for that price (with a limited amount of storage), but everyone goes and buys ipods for $300-400 instead. Even a friend of ours who is $20k in debt from college went out and bought one.

It just seems amazing to me because I keep seeing it happen over and over. All of my technical friends in Highschool went out and paid $200 for zip drives. Most of them (and this time me included) spent hundreds of dollars to buy palm pilots or ipaqs.

It really seems like people have no problems spending money once something hits "trend" status. It really doesn't matter if the xbox360 is as good as the PS3, or if the PS3 is really any better than the xbox360. It's about which one becomes the new trend to have.

Nite_Hawk

 

[BenQ]

Semi-related to this topic:

My wife and I were talking the other day about how crazy it seems people can be when there is a fad. An example is the ipod. Look at walkmans and discmans from 10-20 years ago. They used to cost like $50-100. You can get mp3 players these days for that price (with a limited amount of storage), but everyone goes and buys ipods for $300-400 instead. Even a friend of ours who is $20k in debt from college went out and bought one.

It just seems amazing to me because I keep seeing it happen over and over. All of my technical friends in Highschool went out and paid $200 for zip drives. Most of them (and this time me included) spent hundreds of dollars to buy palm pilots or ipaqs.

It really seems like people have no problems spending money once something hits "trend" status. It really doesn't matter if the xbox360 is as good as the PS3, or if the PS3 is really any better than the xbox360. It's about which one becomes the new trend to have.

Nite_Hawk

I feel the iPOD was so successful because it was MORE than simply a trend. iPOD represented something that nobody ever had before - The ability to carry around ALL the music you like and have ever liked. CD players and MP3 players where you have to be constantly swapping out songs from your HD are pathetic compared to what the iPOD offers.

Sorry. Totally off topic, I'll drop it now

But I think you are right about everything you said.

 

[Powderkeg]

You go on to dismiss blu-ray, but that's not something you can so easily write off IMO.

I'll dismiss HD-DVD just as quickly. Both are formats that lack a market.

neither one offers any advantage whatsoever over standard DVD's unless you own an HDTV. That means it worthless to 80-90% of the population.

neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD stands a chance at widespread adoption until yur average consumer can afford an acceptably-sized HDTV. That means 27+" for under $300.

Until that happens, only small number of techno-geeks will care about either format.

But it's more than just individual pieces of functionality. It's about the product as a whole, to which those pieces contribute. And perhaps more importantly, the intangibles attached to that product. The perception of the brand, the "image" etc. That's what people buy into, a combination of all that, that's how you measure the value, not by ticking off pieces of functionality on a list alone.

True, but Sony's Playstation name alone isn't enough to make the system #1 next-gen. MS's really has surprised everyone, and is ending this generation with very good public perception of their products. It's pretty well know, even to casuals that the Xbox is technically more advanced, and they've got the games to move the system.

So it's head-to-head next-gen. 2 companies with positive public opinion. You're going to ahve to have something tangible to sway them next-gen if you are selling at a higher price. A name alone won't do it.

Sony's first gen games (assuming a Fall 2006 launch in the US) will have had as much time with the what effectively is "beta hardware", if not more, than MS's second gen.

Beta hardware, yes. But 360 games had almost a year and a half worth of development before the first Beta dev kit shipped. Alpha dev kits for the 360 ffirst shipped in 2003.

What did PS3 developers have for their games in 2003? 2004? Early 2005?

PS3's first generation should be "more developed" than X360's is going to be - if a developer is aiming for Nov 06, they'd have 6 months with "beta" hardware + 10-12 months with final hardware, versus 1 or 2 months with beta and 1 or 2 months with final hardware on X360.

Xbox 360 launch titles will have had 2 years with Xbox 360 dev kits before they ship. They've been using them since November 2003.

PS3 devlopers didn't get their first dev kits until March of this year.


But I suppose if you really wanted to look through the world with special Sony-provided rose colored glasses, then you would ignore that first year and a half where 360 developers have been using Alpha dev kits.

 

[Carl B]

When you talk about launch sales, you are only talking about sales in the first 3-6 months. After that, you live or die based on what the average Joe does.

I disagree, and I bet if we had a chart of console sales we would see the peak of purchase volume being well after 6 months on the market. Your own wording is especially bizarre in knowing that Xbox had a very weak launch, comparatively, and it's only really in the last year or so that's it's gained it's momentum among the psyche of the public. Average Joe is a pack animal, and what Average Joe thinks is always subject to change at any moment.

Another thing that should be remembered is price drops would play into MS's favor, not Sony's. If Sony comes to the market significantly later, and at a higher price, then MS can afford to drop their prices when Sony does since MS's 360 manufacturing wpuld have been going on longer than the PS3's. Also, since it would have been manufacturered for months to a year longer than the PS3 (A full year longer in North America), MS could start making profits on the hardware before Sony could afford their first price drop.

You're confused, and equate ability to drop price by time on the market. Both Sony and Microsoft will be able to lower manufacturng costs at roughly the same points in time; in fact Sony possibly sooner since they are in control of their own fabrication. When 65nm comes, both are going to jump. It won't matter that 360's been out a year and PS3 only six months.

Anyway besides these points, just work on your post formatting - what's with the huge expanses of space?

@Nite-Hawk: Great points. Trends indeed defy all logical reasoning when they catch on.

 

[Titanio]

I'll dismiss HD-DVD just as quickly. Both are formats that lack a market.

neither one offers any advantage whatsoever over standard DVD's unless you own an HDTV. That means it worthless to 80-90% of the population.

neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD stands a chance at widespread adoption until yur average consumer can afford an acceptably-sized HDTV. That means 27+" for under $300.

Until that happens, only small number of techno-geeks will care about either format.

Running Bluray (or HD-DVD) on their SDTVs wont' do them any harm. And most people like to be optimistic - they like to think they'll have a HDTV sooner rather than later. If PS3 is so well-featured that it can "grow" with them, that's not going to hurt it's "bleeding edge" image.

True, but Sony's Playstation name alone isn't enough to make the system #1 next-gen.

I wasn't just talking about the name, but don't underestimate it. Sure, it's not enough on its own, but it's a big contributing factor. For it to lose its potency would require some big screwups on Sony's part.

MS's really has surprised everyone, and is ending this generation with very good public perception of their products.

Not better than Sony is, or more accurately, as widespread as Sony is.

Beta hardware, yes. But 360 games had almost a year and a half worth of development before the first Beta dev kit shipped. Alpha dev kits for the 360 ffirst shipped in 2003.

What did PS3 developers have for their games in 2003? 2004? Early 2005?

I guess high-end PCs/Macs. Which would have been about as useful as MS's first 360 kits

In terms of "the real deal", hardware with actual components (underclocked or otherwise), Sony actually matched or beat MS to that (the second PS3 evaluation systems were out in early June..I believe MS's beta's arrived later in June/early July?). Their final hardware will come a bit later (Nov/Dec vs July/Aug for MS).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem is that average Joe public is now expecting the PS3 to be pumping out 2-3X's the viuals that the Xbox 360 can. This is something that simply isn't going to happen.

I disagree. I think Average Joe hasn't any idea of the technical merits of any upcoming platform. E3 is watched by gamers and enthusiasts, and PS3 appeals to them, and the 'tech media' (or men's magazines) also may have presented an idea to the public. But I can go outside now and talk to people on the street on PS2 and XB and they wouldn't have a clue. They'll know at best they're consoles and play games. Certainly they should know that about Playstation; Playstation was even named in Harry Potter - it's synonymous with gaming.

But the Average Joe is I believe a separate group to the technophiles and geeks and gamers; a demographic that knows nothing about consoles. The school yard may be full of XB360 vs. PS3 debate, and to kids they'll have their (misinformed) opinions as to what's what. But I bet out of the maybe 100+ million who buy a next-gen console, all of 20% will know what's in them to any degree. What's been said (hype) to date is irrelevant. Future opinions on the hardware will be decided by contemporary advertising. Saying now PS3 has 2x the power of XB360 means nothing to, and will have no influence on, longer term future buyers when they can see both platforms in the shops, or hear their friends talking about them, or see ads for games on TV. Goodness, you've seen the ads for consoles! PS2's 'third space' or whatever it was. It's meaningless. There's no need ot be more powerful or appear more powerful to sell. PS2 is the least powerful and the most expensive, yet it is still the most popular by far, as the Average Joe doesn't make buying decisions by carefully weighing pro's and cons.

A related anecdote - A friend was telling me about a work colleague who was looking at a new company car. He was looking at three models, and carefully calculated running costs, tax, fuel consumption. He was being very carefully trying to make the smartst decision. And then all of a sudden bought a massive engined US monster (the sort that's big and fuel guzzling and slow all the same!). Whatever technical merits the other models had, his choice wasn't based at all on sense and reason!

The trick to any market is convincing your prospective customers that they want what you're selling, and convince them its worth the price. As has been mentioned, iPod is not the technical champ anymore, but Apple have convinced the uneducated Average Joe that when they want portable music, they want iPod. And as the price is in the realm of what Average Joe is willing to spend, they do so.

Where the PS3 is headed potentially is a situation where it's worth is considered no more than an XB360, and at the higher price people will og with the competitor. But I can't see anything done now will ahve any bearing on that to any substantial degree. Perhaps a few educated sorts will compare systems, decide for themselves (if it appears so) XB360 and PS3 are technically comparable, and make a purtchase on the cheaper system. But the majority will make their decisions under the influence of a squillion diverse marketting and cultural factors, in which tech-specs have no influence, and less so the ramblings of pre-launch hype, in the same way most who bought PS2 this gen were utterly oblivious to the claims of Sony prior to it's launch.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Way to much overthinking ging on here.

It is all about the games, there's no super complicated factors to consider, the reason PS2 beat dreamcast was because of a few games like MGS, FF, and GTA.

Average Joe wants to play the games his friends are playing, talk about wanting to be trendy? With gamers that involves playing certain games, these exclusive games will dictate their console of choice.

As far as being overly expensive as a good thing, that may apply in some other markets but there is ZERO proof that that is effective in console markets...Neo-Geo, that sold great didn't it?

Pricing at $350 or $400 will only hurt PS3, especially when the game line-up is going to be much smaller than the competitor at launch.

Saving grace? If they can produce 1 or 2 games that blow away 360....flip-side? Gears of War, Oblivion, Kameo, Perfect Dark 0 and Lost Odyssey all become huge hits, that will make it very hard for Sony to sell a $400 US console with a small offering of games.

 

[scooby_dooby]

the reason this discussion is useless is because Sony will not overprice their machine more than $50, they're not dumb.

Despite the many different logical arguments presented here as to why a $400 price tag would be ok, it won't fly.

Sony knows this, and they won't put themselves in such a bad position, they'll take the loss and stay competetive.

At least, that's my guess...

 

[seismologist]

Way to much overthinking ging on here.

It is all about the games, there's no super complicated factors to consider, the reason PS2 beat dreamcast was because of a few games like MGS, FF, and GTA.

That's right.

If PS3 is $100 more at launch that kind of sucks, but Xbox 360 doesn't work as a subsitute simply because it wont have the same games.

 

[scooby_dooby]

lol, it remains to be seen which will have the most compelling library.

As of PS3's North American launch day it will be the 360 by a mile, but that could change within the first 6-12 months.

Your comment is ridiculously biased though, just wait and see which system has the best exclusives, you have to admit MS is lining up the 3rd part dev's and 3rd party exlusives like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Powderkeg]

I disagree, and I bet if we had a chart of console sales we would see the peak of purchase volume being well after 6 months on the market.

True, but the casuals don't all buy a console at the same time. The lower the price, the more buy it. It's a progressive thing.

Your own wording is especially bizarre in knowing that Xbox had a very weak launch, comparatively, and it's only really in the last year or so that's it's gained it's momentum among the psyche of the public.

They sold 1.5 million systems in 6 weeks when they launched. Care to show me the system that sold so many more it makes that look "weak" in comparison?

Average Joe is a pack animal, and what Average Joe thinks is always subject to change at any moment.

Absolutely, which is why Sony needs to show them more than just the name if they plan on selling it at a higher price than their competition. They will have to justify the added cost to Average Joe, who isn't a tech-junkie like us.

You're confused, and equate ability to drop price by time on the market. Both Sony and Microsoft will be able to lower manufacturng costs at roughly the same points in time; in fact Sony possibly sooner since they are in control of their own fabrication.

I think you are the one that is confused.

The longer a device is being manufactured, the lower the price. Yeilds improve over time, costs drop over time, and it isn't the same for everyone. Manufacturing costs drop relative to when manufacturing starts, regardless of who is doing the manufacturing.

When 65nm comes, both are going to jump. It won't matter that 360's been out a year and PS3 only six months.

Yes, but that in itself won't be the only price drop these parts go through. There will be others, and they will be based on when the parts went into production. 360's parts start production sooner, so they will hit their production milestones sooner.

Anyway besides these points, just work on your post formatting - what's with the huge expanses of space?

Bad typist.

 

[jvd]

ns5 200$ , x360 300$ , ps3 400$


Sony will have alot of trouble .

As for bluray it can easily affect sales both negatively and positively .

Person a walks into a store and sees hd-dvd at 400$ with 12 titles he likes and a list of more titles he wants coming in the future. He then sees a bluray / ps3 for 400$ and sees 1 title he wants to watch and only a couple more on a list . He will invest that money in the hd-dvd drive .


Bluray is not a bonus to many and it may be a hindrence to many more as a format war will accur and that market unlike the console market shows it will only support 1 format at a time (unless its a transition period i.e cds to mp3s ) Its way to early in the lifetime of bluray and hd-dvd for it to be a must have feature like dvd was when the ps2 launched. Maby in 3-4 years it might be a factor but right now it is not

 

[Carl B]

I think you are the one that is confused.

The longer a device is being manufactured, the lower the price. Yeilds improve over time, costs drop over time, and it isn't the same for everyone. Manufacturing costs drop relative to when manufacturing starts, regardless of who is doing the manufacturing...

...Yes, but that in itself won't be the only price drop these parts go through. There will be others, and they will be based on when the parts went into production. 360's parts start production sooner, so they will hit their production milestones sooner...

You can't be serious - they do improve over time, it's true - but how much more do you think Microsoft is going to be saving on DVD drives one year into it? On system cases? On ethernet ports? On 20 gig hard drives? Not much. What *is* going to come down in price in a big way will be the R500 and the XeCPU, and they will do so primarily because of process shrinks. If the yields improve during the course of a certain process due to maturity, do you think that those savings will be passed on to Microsoft? No, they will be passed on to TSMC's bottom line until it comes time for contract renegotiation.

Sony on the other hand will be manufacturing themselves, and I expect significant reductions in componentry prices for both the chips and the blu-ray drive as the system matures.

Component costs don't go down when x-number of months/years have been reached, they go down when new efficiencies, processes, or technologies are able to be brought to bare on the situation.

 

[Powderkeg]

Running Bluray (or HD-DVD) on their SDTVs wont' do them any harm. And most people like to be optimistic - they like to think they'll have a HDTV sooner rather than later. If PS3 is so well-featured that it can "grow" with them, that's not going to hurt it's "bleeding edge" image.

It won't do them harm, but it won't give them any tangable benefits. They won't pay more for the promise that if they buy an HDTV in the next couple of years they will already have a player for HD movies.

I wasn't just talking about the name, but don't underestimate it. Sure, it's not enough on its own, but it's a big contributing factor. For it to lose its potency would require some big screwups on Sony's part.

And here is a question. If the casual is willing to pay more for a name they recognize, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that they would rather get an HD-DVD setup than Blu-Ray? After all, they've heard of DVD, and they've heard of HDTV, so they can easily guess what HD-DVD is. Not so with the vaguely named Blu-Ray.

If you are going to use that arguement in favor of the PS3, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that HD-DVD will outsell Blu-Ray as well?

I guess high-end PCs/Macs. Which would have been about as useful as MS's first 360 kits

Don't underestimate how useful those early kits were. There is something they had in them that developers working on PS3 titles lacked until they got the Beta's.

The software API's and development tools.

In terms of "the real deal", hardware with actual components (underclocked or otherwise), Sony actually matched or beat MS to that (the second PS3 evaluation systems were out in early June..I believe MS's beta's arrived later in June/early July?). Their final hardware will come a bit later (Nov/Dec vs July/Aug for MS).

RSX isn't included in any of them (Underclocked or otherwise) and they use an entirely different memory controller than the RSX equipped ones will have. Their "Beta" kits are like MS's "Alpha". The only thing they do have that is directly comperable to the final hardware is they do have a Cell processor, but the rest is still very different.

360 developers are working with final spec hardware (Except for clock speed and Audio output chip) right now. PS3 developers are still months from that.

 

[Powderkeg]

You can't be serious - they do improve over time, it's true - but how much more do you think Microsoft is going to be saving on DVD drives one year into it? On system cases? On ethernet ports? On 20 gig hard drives? Not much.

Every little bit makes a difference. Especially when you are starting with a significantly cheaper product to manufacture in the first place.

What *is* going to come down in price in a big way will be the R500 and the XeCPU, and they will do so primarily because of process shrinks. If the yields improve during the course of a certain process due to maturity, do you think that those savings will be passed on to Microsoft? No, they will be passed on to TSMC's bottom line until it comes time for contract renegotiation.

True to a point, but it should be noted that MS's contract with TSMC allows that price renegotiation to take place every 6 months.

Sony on the other hand will be manufacturing themselves, and I expect significant reductions in componentry prices for both the chips and the blu-ray drive as the system matures.

You should, since early production costs of these items will be extrodinary in comparison to what will be in the 360. Even after significant reductions it could easily still be more expensive than the 360 to make.

Component costs don't go down when x-number of months/years have been reached, they go down when new efficiencies, processes, or technologies are able to be brought to bare on the situation.

Cost reductions come from just about everything, even something as simple as the employees familiarity with manufacturing a specific part leading to reduced production times. Not everything is technical, you are forgetting the human factor. Practice makes perfect after all.

 

[Titanio]

It won't do them harm, but it won't give them any tangable benefits. They won't pay more for the promise that if they buy an HDTV in the next couple of years they will already have a player for HD movies.

I'm not saying they'll spend more solely for Bluray. I'm saying it's one contributing factor that will help perception of PS3 as a "premium"/"prestige" product.

And here is a question. If the casual is willing to pay more for a name they recognize, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that they would rather get an HD-DVD setup than Blu-Ray? After all, they've heard of DVD, and they've heard of HDTV, so they can easily guess what HD-DVD is. Not so with the vaguely named Blu-Ray.

If you are going to use that arguement in favor of the PS3, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that HD-DVD will outsell Blu-Ray as well?

My argument is not about Bluray vs HD-DVD. I won't even go there, I'm talking about PS3.

Bluray in PS3 can't be anything but positive as far as the customer is concerned. They're not losing anything, and potentially it could be very useful for them (immediately so if they have a HDTV, and if they don't..well they can still watch their Bluray movies on their SDTVs if they wish. It's not a loss).

Don't underestimate how useful those early kits were. There is something they had in them that developers working on PS3 titles lacked until they got the Beta's.

The software API's and development tools.

Did they? Much of PS3's software development environment existed before PS3. You could work on high end PCs with a wise choice of tools and have a fairly easy transition to PS3. Look at how quickly the likes of UE3 got up and running on PS3.

RSX isn't included in any of them (Underclocked or otherwise) and they use an entirely different memory controller than the RSX equipped ones will have. Their "Beta" kits are like MS's "Alpha". The only thing they do have that is directly comperable to the final hardware is they do have a Cell processor, but the rest is still very different.

I think most accept that the G70 is an underclocked RSX.

These kits are much more advanced than X360's alphas. Same type of CPU, same type of GPU. X360's alphas had different CPUs and different GPUs. Granted, the chip interconnect - the "glue" - is not there, but the individual components are.

Anyway, we're veering OT here.

 

[zidane1strife]

I think if they don't go past $329, it would be at a reasonable price.

As for gphx, I'm mostly an rpg gamer.

Endless Saga and the FFVII demo(a remake MUST COME!!!) are tops in the gphx. And the difference is quite noticeable.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

The good news is The graphics will need to be impressive enough to justify the price.

I'd pay $100 more for a considerable leap in quality over what we've been seeing from Xbox 360.

Even GoW? Keep in mind that most Xbox 360 launch games won't look better than an X800 pro for obvious reasons.

 

[Carl B]

Component costs don't go down when x-number of months/years have been reached, they go down when new efficiencies, processes, or technologies are able to be brought to bare on the situation.

Cost reductions come from just about everything, even something as simple as the employees familiarity with manufacturing a specific part leading to reduced production times. Not everything is technical, you are forgetting the human factor. Practice makes perfect after all.

Well the human factor is kind of what I meant by 'new efficiencies.' I know what you mean, and no doubt it's correct, but remember in that regard that manufacturing a blu-ray drive can't be so different relative to making a DVD drive from the human side of things; just like fabbing one chip is similar to fabbing another for the person on the floor, be it a new architecture or not. I do know what you mean though; familiarity with the work at hand can make a very big difference.