mckmas8808
Legend
xbdestroya said:
This I agree with. Smart non-biased interested fans anyway.
Merrill Lynch's Next-Gen console prediction
- Thread starter mckmas8808
- Start date
This I agree with. Smart non-biased interested fans anyway.
So you're suggesting that Sony will be making money out of the gate?mckmas8808 said:I did Sis. I said that the PS3 has more avenues to bring in money for software and other money savings than what the PS2 did. See Sony will have the benefit to use the sales of Blu-ray movies to help them set their price for the PS3. Include that with the fact that the number of Pro Duo sticks sales will rise. Remember memory cards for the PS2 were what $39.99 at the most?
A.) The Pro Duo sticks are priced starting from around $29.99 to $199. That's extra money that Sony can account for to offset the losses for the PS3.
B.) The Blu-ray movie sales is something else that Sony didn't have with the PS2. The PS2 obviously didn't have a Sony pushed and created physical media player. Sony makes more money from Blu-ray discs (games are included it's not just movies) than they do DVD discs.
C.) Sony is also looking to sell music and movies over the internet through Sony:Connect. Sony has already started to do this NOW in Japan. Their website has I think around 200 movies to download for the PSP. This again is something that the PS2 didn't have.
D.) Right before Sony release the PS2 I think they were on 180nm tech. Obviously as you know now the PS2 is using 90nm tech, yet they had to work hard to get there. You also should know that their 90nm tech is quite mature and the PS3 will be made using just that. Being that Sony will probably use 65nm quite soon after the PS3 is released this should save Sony money in relation to the PS2.
And those are what I learned from smart web posters. Imagine if I actually worked at ML with real insider information.
.Sis
It may actually cost them $25 based on a component license in which they gaurantee to keep that production line open. There's a difference in buying off-the-shelf componets and being able to line up 5-10 million disc drives. You would expect the cost to go down and for the manufacturer to make on margin, but more on volume, but the reality is that they now have a production line (or whatever) dedicated to making a drive that isn't high-margin and will be out of date in a year or two.xbdestroya said:
At least, this is how I understand it to be. But I learned it on the internets, so...
.Sis
@Sis: I don't know, for a DVD drive I would definitely expect better prices than what a consumer can get. They can keep switching suppliers, and basically all they need to do is get it sans casing and put their little plastic bezel on it - and they're good to go! It should really really be quite cheap for them.
Now, they did kind of get tripped up on the whole 6 GB hard drive thing, but the storage space truly does move very quickly. I think five years out someone will still be making nexpensive DVD drives, just like they still sell standalone CD-ROM drives still as well. 6 GB hard drives did indeed require for a line o stay open for them exclusively though.
Now, they did kind of get tripped up on the whole 6 GB hard drive thing, but the storage space truly does move very quickly. I think five years out someone will still be making nexpensive DVD drives, just like they still sell standalone CD-ROM drives still as well. 6 GB hard drives did indeed require for a line o stay open for them exclusively though.
Sis said:
No, I believe he's suggesting that the losses incurred by Sony will not be as large as some people would like to think.
Sony made a pretty penny selling memory cards and controllers seperately (well, they included 1 with the system) for the PS2.
Costs will also be recouped by Blu-Ray being supported by every tom dick and harry electronics and computer hardware company. Dell, HP and Apple being a big influence. I know for sure, Apple isn't afraid of including a Blu-Ray drive with their top of the line Powerbooks/macs. They love new tech, USB and firewire being two early tech that the made STANDARD on their computers.
Mercury systems has also planned to release a dual Cell server as mentioned previously.
Regardless, there are many avenues that Sony can take to soften the blow of tech costs with respect to the PS3, making the issue...well... a non-issue. Which is why I think Sony can afford to release their console at $400 USD and explains why I think some posters here have a problem with the analysis.
mckmas8808 said:Anybody that thinks that MS would sell a loaded Premium Xbox 360 for $179 vs. a $400 PS3 needs medical help. You sure don't think this could happen do you?
I've already said i expect 200/300 for next holiday or shortly after . A 200$ core unit will sell well as that is the price of what the casuals wnat and many of them wont be downloading mods or streaming video and if they do so at that point in time there can likely be used hardrives for cheap or even a price drop in the 20 gig hardrive .
As for sony's system costing more its what i've been telling u for awhile .
xbdestroya said:
Yet sometimes they opposite can be true becuase financial analysts can sometimes have a way of seeing things in black and white and focus on the things that have historically mattered.
We have spent hundreds of thousands of words arguing over the merits of RSX vs Xenos, UMA vs, non-UMA, yet in the real world none of these will probably matter in deciding the console war.
The facts are, and have been stated here numerous times by posters, consoles sell the most when they start hitting that 149-199 pricepoint. I think the ML report is saying that MS will be able to hit that range quicker and with less losses per unit than Sony. So ML is giving an significant price advantage to MS here becuase MS strategically can do it and can AFFORD to do it.
I dont know how truthful Sony has been but they have been giving clues about cost "we want someone to work more for one", etc.
While i never thought the price would be different enough to matter, if theres a $199 core system vs a $400 PS3, and there is no discernible difference in the quality of games ot the average consumer (becuase it seems quantity and franchises will be there for both), i think Sony will actually feel it in sales.
Does anyone really disagree with that?
I think you're right on this; the hard drive might have been the better example, not so much an optical drive.xbdestroya said:
There has got to be a "real" price breakdown of a console floating somewhere on the internet, right? Some executive email? Something more substantial than what we have today?
.Sis
expletive said:
Yes, the opposite certainly can be true - but I think as a forum collectively, we even each other out. Now that may not result in a decisive claim being made on our part, but it does usually end in an honest consensus - even if that consensus is 'who knows?'
Well, GameCube has been the lowest for a while, and I'm not sure they're blowing the roof off of sales, but I know you would probably qualify that statement with your following text about franchises and such, and say for the most part it is absent from Nintendo's line-up, which I agree with.
You know, I don't disagree with any of that, to be honest. I entered this thread upset with Merrill simply because I feel their numbers are frequently slipshod. But on the premise of MS having the manuevering room, I fully agree. Still - it's just that Sony's situation isn't so bleak as $160 Cell's, y'know?
I will tell you what though - and I'm being completely honest - if some prominent B3D members got together and put out their own industry analysis, and say charged $1999 for it (which is reasonable for a report of that sort), that thing would sell. It could be billed as:
'A Report Compiled by a Forum of Independent Engineers, Businessfolk, Console Enthusiasts, and Industry Insiders on the Likley Outcomes of both Sony and Microsoft's Console Strategies, and what the Repercussions Might be for the Industry.'
Last edited by a moderator:
mckmas8808
Legend
Sis said:
Of course not. I think that's why Howard Stringer is saying that the PS3 can turn a profit in 2007 though. You ask me to explain in better so I kind of did. Do you see what I was getting at now?
mckmas8808
Legend
expletive said:
I still don't see why and how MS will be able to have such a HUGE difference in price yet have the same technology to play games while coming out earlier do you? If the PS3 is released for $300, MS will actually feel it in sales.
Does anyone really disagree with that?
mckmas8808
Legend
jvd said:
These numbers were used after the PSP launched in Europe. It's a fact that they are already making tens of millions of dollars on the PSP TODAY!!
You didn't listen to what i wrote .mckmas8808 said:
They are making money on the system because in many countrys its been out for a year or so now . Thus the owners of the original systems launched are buying umd movies and games and memory sticks and less people in those areas are buying new units meaning sony is making money back.
However it took them over a year to launch (or just about a year) to launch in the 3 major teritorys
So once again do you believe sony will go the same route. Which if they launch in japan sprin 2006 they wont be launching in europe till 2007 ?
Which will also follow any slight delays like a slip from spring to summer and an american launch will slip also .
mckmas8808 said:
Well if youre going to start making prices up...
The ML report was based on them seeing the BOM for each console and my prices were a logical conclusion from the 'half the price of the PS3" comment (feel free to insert $450 vs $225, $500 vs $250 instead). Now if we all had access to the BOM for each console and were privy to what the expectations are for that BOM over the next 12 months then i'd say we would be in a position to start supposing prices. As it stands now, we dont, and IMO we arent.