PlayStation 3 Initial Costs
- Thread starter sklaar
- Start date
- Status
I see how many part of the media is forgotten a lot of things about Sony and the manufacturarion process of the PS3.
1. The RSX is designed by Nvidia but manufacturated by Sony, not by TSMC or another external fab, is made in only one piece (it doesn´t have a Mother die by TSMC and a Daughter die by NEC) and it has less transistors than the Xenon.
2. Is true that IBM has designed a part of the CPU with Toshiba and Sony, but the Cell model for PS3 is manufacturated by Sony, not by Toshiba, not by IBM.
3. The console doesn´t have HDD.
For my observations the console could have the same price or a little higher of 360 complete hardware and the BD-ROM is the only cause of a more expensive hardware.
1. The RSX is designed by Nvidia but manufacturated by Sony, not by TSMC or another external fab, is made in only one piece (it doesn´t have a Mother die by TSMC and a Daughter die by NEC) and it has less transistors than the Xenon.
2. Is true that IBM has designed a part of the CPU with Toshiba and Sony, but the Cell model for PS3 is manufacturated by Sony, not by Toshiba, not by IBM.
3. The console doesn´t have HDD.
For my observations the console could have the same price or a little higher of 360 complete hardware and the BD-ROM is the only cause of a more expensive hardware.
seismologist
Regular
wouldn't they already be beating it if the 360 is $299?
Microsoft isn't stupid. They aren't going to lose more money than necessary.
At $400 people are going to buy a PS3 regardless. Slashing the 360 price would be like what Sega tried with the Dreamcast. It had no effect on PS2 launch frenzy.
At $100 more than the X360, Sony would really be testing brand loyalty.
A lot of technophiles and early adopters will think $100 more is worth it for the Blu-Ray movie playback.
But for gamers, especially kids on a budget, that $100 may be too high a hurdle, especially if they're going to only be hooking up their console to a small analog TV in the bedroom.
Sony needs a few exclusive games, at least a couple at launch, which demonstrate the presumed advantages over their competitors. They are after all claiming a higher-performance console, aren't they?
If they can't demonstrate that, the $100 could be a deal-breaker for many.
A lot of technophiles and early adopters will think $100 more is worth it for the Blu-Ray movie playback.
But for gamers, especially kids on a budget, that $100 may be too high a hurdle, especially if they're going to only be hooking up their console to a small analog TV in the bedroom.
Sony needs a few exclusive games, at least a couple at launch, which demonstrate the presumed advantages over their competitors. They are after all claiming a higher-performance console, aren't they?
If they can't demonstrate that, the $100 could be a deal-breaker for many.
wco81 said:
I agree to a certain extent, for me as a multi-HDTV household, I am all for an HD optical format, however, even with the apparent pullback in movies this Christmas for HD-DVD, there are still too many movies in the HD DVD camp that I want to see in HD. So just having the BD-ROM still doesn't do it for me in terms of pricing, not until the BDA wins the battle. Even then for those of us who are early adopters of technology, especially in the HD camp, we will get screwed for buying tvs without DVI+HDCP(not just DVI) and/or HDMI, you might be surprised how many of those types of HDTVs are still on the market. So all in all any of the HD opticals loose their luster for some of us, merely because the MPAA is short-sighted (imagine that).
seismologist said:
In all fairness the dreamcast was a good machine but it only had half the memory of the ps2 and never had any "killer app" type games like Halo or GTA3. Not to mention that the Sega brand was sour in the minds of the average consumer after the 32x and Saturn. Also back in 1999 everybody and their brother wanted a DVD player which was a huge leap over VHS that everyones TV could show. As of now only about 20% of people can take advantage of BR/HDdvd.
Well I don't worry too much about whether Blu-Ray will beat out HD-DVD or vice versa.
Even if HD-DVD wins, you're getting at least some HD movies and a blue-laser drive for $100 more. That's assuming the PS3 isn't drastically inferior to the X360 in games performance.
Worst case, PS3 is no better than X360 in performance and HD-DVD wins the format war.
For $100 more, I still get access to some Disney and Fox movies (assuming they release some of their catalogs before they stop because HD-DVD wins the format war) and you figure Columbia and MGM will stick it out for some time. Look at all the UMD movies being released now. You figure PS3/Blu-Ray will get at least that much.
If I have to buy a separate HD-DVD player, so be it, I will have "wasted" only $100 on a Blu-Ray player.
BTW, the recent pullback of HD-DVD titles has all kinds of interesting ramifications. Cinram is expressing doubts about a launch this year and they have no order from Warners, their biggest customer. Time Warner for its part has made noise about a possible delay due to possible unification.
Now the decision would be tougher if the X360 had HD-DVD at launch. But it doesn't so...
Even if HD-DVD wins, you're getting at least some HD movies and a blue-laser drive for $100 more. That's assuming the PS3 isn't drastically inferior to the X360 in games performance.
Worst case, PS3 is no better than X360 in performance and HD-DVD wins the format war.
For $100 more, I still get access to some Disney and Fox movies (assuming they release some of their catalogs before they stop because HD-DVD wins the format war) and you figure Columbia and MGM will stick it out for some time. Look at all the UMD movies being released now. You figure PS3/Blu-Ray will get at least that much.
If I have to buy a separate HD-DVD player, so be it, I will have "wasted" only $100 on a Blu-Ray player.
BTW, the recent pullback of HD-DVD titles has all kinds of interesting ramifications. Cinram is expressing doubts about a launch this year and they have no order from Warners, their biggest customer. Time Warner for its part has made noise about a possible delay due to possible unification.
Now the decision would be tougher if the X360 had HD-DVD at launch. But it doesn't so...
inefficient
Veteran
What is the current street price for a Blu-Ray player?
Isn't it still in the +$2000 USD range?
Isn't it still in the +$2000 USD range?
Pozer said:
this should be the cut and past answer for anyone who tries to compare the X360 v PS3 to Dreamcast v PS2.
Here is a thorough history of the DC BTW (good read)
Sega Dreamcast history
it's LOONG in 3 parts
I'm sure supply will be the limiting factor for both systems. Recent reports suggest XB360 will launch with <2 million units. MS could sell those at $400 I reckon to early adopters. Until both systems have efficient production runs, cost isn't much of an issue. The early adopters are the sort who pay stupid money for the latest tech - the sort who buy a $300+ graphics card now rather than get it for $150-200 in 6 months time, the sort who'd pay $500-700 for a PSP whether from Sony or some Ebay seller.PC-Engine said:
Last edited by a moderator:
There are no Blu-Ray players.
There are Blu-Ray recorders in Japan which are several thousand dollars but they can't play BD-Video. For one thing, there's no spec nor are there discs yet.
Initial Blu-Ray set tops are expected to be player-recorders and may carry a $2000 price tag. If they're that much higher than the first HD-DVD players, which are suppose to be around $1000, then the BDA is really depending heavily on the PS3 to establish a big installed base of players to encourage studios to release content on BD-Video.
There are Blu-Ray recorders in Japan which are several thousand dollars but they can't play BD-Video. For one thing, there's no spec nor are there discs yet.
Initial Blu-Ray set tops are expected to be player-recorders and may carry a $2000 price tag. If they're that much higher than the first HD-DVD players, which are suppose to be around $1000, then the BDA is really depending heavily on the PS3 to establish a big installed base of players to encourage studios to release content on BD-Video.
seismologist
Regular
Urian said:
biggest difference being the support for HD resolutions
Shifty Geezer said:
Of course cost is an issue what are you talking about? How many early adopters do you think there will be and for how long? Supply will be an issue to whoever cannot supply enough to satisfy demand, unfortunately it's just a lame excuse to try and rationalize why box B will be behind Box A. Box A at $300 will sell more than Box B simply because it will come out first and be priced cheaper regardless of supply. Or do you think SONY can magically supply more PS3 units than MS can supply Xbox 360 to somehow narrow the gap? It may take Box B 2 years to catch up to Box A or it may never even catch up. Since the life cycle of consoles are going to be 4 years until a new generation arrives it doesn't leave much time for catching up especially when the playing field has been pretty much flattened.
Last edited by a moderator:
seismologist
Regular
PS3 still has the brand recognition. It's like the iPOD. People pay a premium to have the one thats the most popular even though there are cheaper versions which do the same thing.
The high price tag will make some fans think twice but it'll be hard to resist when all of your friends are playing MGS4 or the next GTA.
The high price tag will make some fans think twice but it'll be hard to resist when all of your friends are playing MGS4 or the next GTA.
So when did gameshout become the internet haven for correct speculation?
The article is based on speculation from some other article from a couple months ago -- which was based on speculation (Merrill Lynch I think it was?). I wish they'd just give up and accept the fact that they don't really know what the pricing will be.
Until Sony releases the price, I can't help but question the authority any website or company like Merrill Lynch has... I don't think any of those companies have been right in pricing -- they all said PS2 would be 400-500 dollars, they all said PSP was going to be 300-400, etc, etc.
The article is based on speculation from some other article from a couple months ago -- which was based on speculation (Merrill Lynch I think it was?). I wish they'd just give up and accept the fact that they don't really know what the pricing will be.
Until Sony releases the price, I can't help but question the authority any website or company like Merrill Lynch has... I don't think any of those companies have been right in pricing -- they all said PS2 would be 400-500 dollars, they all said PSP was going to be 300-400, etc, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
