PlayStation 3 Initial Costs

Status
Not open for further replies.
PC-Engine 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.



No is not.


A $99 DC could not stop a $300 PS2,that is a fact not speculation it already happen,Sony could have problems making enough consoles but MS faces the same problems,and more with the Xbox 360 which is literaly been rush to the market.


Is august and the price of the xbox 360 is not 100% official.


If true they will have and avantage by releasing first,but MS brand name seling power in the console market is not even close to the PS brand name one,Sony can catch on as soon as they get a constant flow of consoles,that could take one year.


Also the consoles life cycle will not last 4 years,that is MS that kill the xbox short by that time frame you could be buying the next xbox on 2009,which is not good at all,i do see the PS3 going as far as 2013.


I realy don't think that MS has a chance at been #1,i will change my opinion if they would perform well on Japan and Europe,but they din't is very hard for any one to win that way.


Also you say that it may never catch on,cuz of the 4 year life cycle.

Do you know how many PS2 Sony sold in 4 year,if i'm not mistaken more than 70 million consoles,compare that to MS 22 million in 4 years,and you can see how fast sony can catch and past MS in world wide sales.
 
Thegameman said:
A $99 DC could not stop a $300 PS2,that is a fact not speculation it already happen,

Given that the DC didn't hit $99 untill it had been scrapped and was being price-cut to aid clearance, that's not an entirely great example you're using ...

In general, I do wish people would stop using DC vs PS2 as an indicator of what will happen this generation. Almost everything is different!

Sony could have problems making enough consoles but MS faces the same problems,and more with the Xbox 360 which is literaly been rush to the market.

Why has Xbox 360 been "literally" rushed to market any more than the PS3 will be?

If true they will have and avantage by releasing first,but MS brand name seling power in the console market is not even close to the PS brand name one,Sony can catch on as soon as they get a constant flow of consoles,that could take one year.

And before the PS1 launched, Sony's "brand name selling power in the console market" wasn't as great as Sega or Nintendo's.

Also the consoles life cycle will not last 4 years,that is MS that kill the xbox short by that time frame you could be buying the next xbox on 2009,which is not good at all,i do see the PS3 going as far as 2013.

You have no idea how long the next gen consoles' life cycles will be, that's dependant on how things pan out this generation. MS have clearly put themselves in the position of being able to lower production costs enough to to extend Xbox 360s lifecyle over that of the first machine's.
 
Redudant Redudant Redudant Redudant Redudant Redudant Redudant

A recent report estimates that the launch costs for the three main components of the system are the RSX graphics chip, Blu-Ray disc drive, and the Cell processor. The cost is $101 USD each.
This recent report from Merrill Lynch is old as Methuselah.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21296

I won't lock this thread since the other one is already locked, but I expect everyone who want to participate to this thread to read the other thread and see what has already been discussed.
If the thread start to sound like a broken record and no new arguments are brought to the debate, the thread will be locked.
 
Sega was doing just fine with the dreamcast . The system was around 10-13m units worldwide before they pulled the plug i believe .If they had kept at it they would havem ost likely hit 20m systems which is what nintendo and ms managed to sell . The reason why the scraped it was because of piracy . They just weren't making any money .


Now for the ps3 . I don't know if it is 494$. But i'm sure its more expensive than the xbox 360 .

Now whats interesting is launch dates . Ms is launching this year in all markets . So they can launch at say 360$ and then next fall drop the price to 300$ . Perhaps take out the remote and remove the media on the hardrive . Sony on the other hand will just be launching . So thier pricing will be diffrent .

On page 29 they say sony would loose 1.8 billion if these costs are true and they meet thier goal of 14m units in the first year . The ps2 lost 500m in its first year .

That is a huge diffrence. MOre than 3 times as much
 
PC-Engine said:
Not as many who would buy it at $300. At $400 PS3 sales would be quite slow which would be even worse when it's coming out later than Xbox 360. It would be behind for quite awhile.

That will depend on Microsoft's (in)capability to produce and sell Xbox 360 consoles. They are already launching worldwide at the end of 2005, so one could expect massive shortages. This could cause Microsoft to 'start slow'.

If Sony doesn't want to lose it's edge, they'd better have enough units at launch and hype the world like it's 1999. =)
 
Analysts often grab figures completely out of the air. How can three completely unrelated components from three different sources cost the exact same amount of money? In fact, why would RSX cost sony $101 when G70 certainly doesn't cost nvidia anywhere near that much even on a larger silicon process? If you've looked at the die, it's freakin HUUUGE!

I call this ANALyst report a steaming pile of bullshit.
 
Guden Oden said:
Analysts often grab figures completely out of the air. How can three completely unrelated components from three different sources cost the exact same amount of money? In fact, why would RSX cost sony $101 when G70 certainly doesn't cost nvidia anywhere near that much even on a larger silicon process? If you've looked at the die, it's freakin HUUUGE!

I call this ANALyst report a steaming pile of bullshit.


actually there is a thread in one of the 3d forums that says the g70 costs more than this . I believe the figure was 130$ > I will look for it but its a month old or older
 
jvd said:
actually there is a thread in one of the 3d forums that says the g70 costs more than this . I believe the figure was 130$ > I will look for it but its a month old or older
A silicon cost of >$100 per chip is not the result of bad yields, it's the result of disastrously and incredibly bad yield. Not less.

And, for thoses of you who are not versed in financial advisories reports, the ML reports are not the best when it comes to semiconductors.
They often get right the overall picture but they always drop the ball on the details (Most of the time they sound like uneducated guesses).
 
g70 is 300m tranistors on a 110nm process. Thats gong to be a very expensive chip . I"m looking for the thread as we speak
 
It's true, they're never going to sell it for $410. If anything they'll sell it at $399, which wouldn't surprise me.

But that would be REALLY testing their fans' loyalty and the brand name itself. Many will buy it anyway, and price will come down soon enough, but they're really testing their position, which is good for now, and they might feel safe, but it's all to be seen.

Still, it will sell if there are lots of good games for it. PSP is not selling like crazy compared to PS1 or PS2 but it's not because it's expensive, there just isn't a lot of software for it. Or at least, the main reason is that, then the fact that it's not exactly cheap doesn't help.

I can only imagine what it will cost here in the UK but we've been through this many times.
 
mckmas8808 said:
No. What ever happened to the quote where Ken stated that Sony execs wanted to sell the PS3 for the same price as they did the PS2?

I think that got replaced by Ken's comment that consumers will work harder to get one.
 
This topic is filled with much (read: all) speculation and totally groundless speculation that's akin to randomly picking a number out of a hat. I can't understand why people don't atleast try to get some data points to form an approximation that's atleast in the same ballpark as reality -- as this took me 10minutes using Google and MatLab -- but I distress.


As of April, 2002, this report from UC-Berkley on the costs associated with 300mm PD-SOI substates (both processing and material) pegs the cost of an SOITEC Unibond wafer at $1800/wafer and their competitor, Ibis, offering their SIMOX at $1300/wafer in low-volumes and $700/wafer in high volumes.

It also contains a processing cost curve which, for our purposes, we can assume is approximated by a logarithmic decline, and that as wafer production increases it'll follow this rate. But, since people can disagree with this, I'll stick to their explicit data points of $250 processing costs per a volume of 100K wafers and $450/10K wafers. It's been stated that when looking at production volume in the long-term, Sony's Fab2 (SOI lines) at Nagasaki will have a net production of 15,000 wafers/month, OTSS at Oita has a stated volume of 12,500 wafers/month, and an unknown volume from IBM's E.Fishkill lines. Needless to say, it's obvious that when summed over the longterm, the production costs collapse to a level bounded by the $200 value (or below).

So, knowing this we can make some reasonable assumptions based on the actual costs and physical aspects which influence costs (Jvd, transistor counts are irrelevent when modeling this abstractly, you might want to stop repeating that). We can state the following:

  • 300mm wafer has a theoretical area of 70,685mm2.
  • Wafer area usage, intrinsically, isn't 100% effecient
  • Cell-DD2 has an area of 235mm2

If we assume a usable area per wafer effeciency of 80%, that yeilds 56,548mm2 of usable space. Enough space to fit 240 Cell-DD2's @ 100% effeciency. At the the following yeilds:

  • 90% - 216
  • 80% - 192
  • 70% - 168
  • 60% - 144
  • 50% - 120
  • 40% - 96
  • 30% - 72
  • 15% - 36
  • 10% - 24

Using the above listed costs per SOI wafer(SOITEC & high-volume SIMOX) and a static processing cost of $300/wafer, the cost for a singular Cell-DD2 is:

  • SOITEC; 2003 prices per yeild:

    90% - $9
    80% - $10
    70% - $12
    60% - $14
    50% - $17
    40% - $21
    30% - $29
    15% - $58
    10% - $87

  • SIMOX high-volume, 2003 prices by yeild:

    90% - $7
    80% - $8
    70% - $9
    60% - $11
    50% - $13
    40% - $16
    30% - $22
    15% - $44
    10% - $66

EDIT|PS. Please PM or repond for any numerical errors or suggestions. My suggestion is that whomever stated a >$130 cost/IC needs to stop freebasing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think of this $400 number as BS, It's just like with PS2, some ppl saying it was gonna cost a $1000! but I still got mine for $299 the day it come out here in the US. I think PS3 will cost $299 in the US at launch.
 
AlphaWolf said:
I think that got replaced by Ken's comment that consumers will work harder to get one.

Is it at all possible that this is a marketing ploy? Could Ken be making these comments just to throw MS and media off? I mean what would happen if the PS3 was annoucnced for $299? Wouldn't it seem like one hell of a deal. Even though the tech is close to the x360, people would assume due to Ken's ramblings that they are getting a deal.

Did you guys know that the Playstation team always wins the best of advertising and marketing year after year? WOW could they be doing it know?:oops:
 
Is it at all possible that this is a marketing ploy? Could Ken be making these comments just to throw MS and media off? I mean what would happen if the PS3 was annoucnced for $299? Wouldn't it seem like one hell of a deal. Even though the tech is close to the x360, people would assume due to Ken's ramblings that they are getting a deal

Throwing off the media is one thing . However the xbox 360 is launching 6 months before the ps3 hits any where in the world . So alot of people can deflect and purchase the xbox 360 which they are sure of the price .

You also have to remember that these are first and foremost video game systems and if there is a price preimum or a fake price preimum by sony and they are unable to show a quality increase in the games worth that money it cna backfire .

Did you guys know that the Playstation team always wins the best of advertising and marketing year after year? WOW could they be doing it know?

I dunno. If i was selling socks and I told u hey you might have to work extra hours to buy my socks and its going to be expensive and you have to wait at least 6 months after other people are selling thier socks . What would u do ? Are you going to wait for these socks ? How about if from what you've seen there is no diffrence between the socks visualy ?


I dunno i just don't see how telling people its going to be expensive and they have to work more hours to buy it is going to help them even if they magicly drop the price before launch.

Whats more so is if the rurmors are true and it costs 494$ to make and they do sell it for under 400$ that will greatly reduce the long term viability of the company . You are talking of loses close to 3 billion in the first year (if they ell thier goal of 14 million)

That is huge
 
jvd said:
Throwing off the media is one thing . However the xbox 360 is launching 6 months before the ps3 hits any where in the world . So alot of people can deflect and purchase the xbox 360 which they are sure of the price .

You also have to remember that these are first and foremost video game systems and if there is a price preimum or a fake price preimum by sony and they are unable to show a quality increase in the games worth that money it cna backfire .



I dunno. If i was selling socks and I told u hey you might have to work extra hours to buy my socks and its going to be expensive and you have to wait at least 6 months after other people are selling thier socks . What would u do ? Are you going to wait for these socks ? How about if from what you've seen there is no diffrence between the socks visualy ?


I dunno i just don't see how telling people its going to be expensive and they have to work more hours to buy it is going to help them even if they magicly drop the price before launch.

Whats more so is if the rurmors are true and it costs 494$ to make and they do sell it for under 400$ that will greatly reduce the long term viability of the company . You are talking of loses close to 3 billion in the first year (if they ell thier goal of 14 million)

That is huge

This is all true -- except I imagine the plan for Sony is to announce the price right before the Xbox360 launch to complete their marketing move. If they don't announce it until after, then their little marketing ploy will be wasted and probably hurt them more than anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top