Playstation 3 might come in 2007

[Sonic]

Those people may say that now, but if given a reason to hold on to the Xbox 360 they will do just that. People always say they will do something and turn around to do the exact opposite. If MS presents the X360 as a console worth having with a multitude of games that are too good to pass up then those that already have one are likely to keep it and pick up a PS3 at a later date. That is the way the industry works.

Sony delaying the launch until 2007 is a grave mistake. Doesn't really matter by that time about graphics and what not, or hype. Sony has amazing mindshare right now, but they might lose a little each and every month until PS3 is launched. MS is gaining mindshare, they have a lot of fans and word of mouth about how great their console is a very powerful force.

 

[mckmas8808]

I thought people here were smart enough to see through this stupid PS3 releases in 2007 crap. A few people have seen how crazy it is. So what is Sony going to tell EA, Konami, Ubisoft, and all the other 3rd party devs? Sony talking --->"Oh wait sorry for making you spend that 20 million dollars to make two games for launch but ummm we decided to push the release back one year because the xbox 360 sales suck."

That in itself would hurt Sony more than it would help MS. If MS's sales are looking that bad, then to me that would mean that releasing the system on time in 2006 would make it the all the better. Nintendo is launching later with a smaller fan base so, shouldn't Sony be the easy winner?

 

[Edge]

> "MS is gaining mindshare"

Sony still outsells MS in North America 3:1 to 2:1 each month. How are they "gaining" mindshare? Are MS sales increasing inrespect to Sony? I don't see any momentium in the sales figures that MS is ever going to outsell Sony.

Do you have any proof that MS is gaining over Sony? As far as I know, MS only outsold Sony during the Halo 2 release, and that's it.

In Japan, MS sales are way down over last year, thus losing mindshare, especially at a time, when the Xbox should be gaining mindshare, with cheaper sell price, and greater number of software.

In Europe, I believe MS is also NOT gaining over Sony, but I'm not sure. My understanding Europe is turning into Sony's strongest market, and will soon sell more consoles than North America. Sony's mindshare seems to be strong, and growing in that market.

A recent survey at IGN showed most people believe that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360, and this could be an indication that Sony is well on it's way to getting the same or more mindshare it has this generation. One could argue that being more powerful, and the dominate supplier of hardware and software, would be an incentive for greater mindshare for Sony.

 

[rusty]

That's like saying they're paying the price they're paying now for the screens, accepting the dead pixel issue.

If i were Sony, and Sharp came up to me saying "Our screens have dead pixels cause you're not paying us enough" then i would snap my fingers and get someone else to do the screens, that's totally out of order. Sharp are getting paid a price (which i think is not that low anyway)they agreed together, to supply LCD screens. Fully working LCD screens.

bit simplistic though - there are varying degrees of "quality" that one could specify for a screen which allows for a certain ratio of dead pixels... i forget what the terms are but i came across it when researching lcd screens. Obviously if you select a lower quality it will be cheaper as more screens will pass the criteria, thus meaning less need to be discarded (and as such the cost of manufacturing overall is cheaper).

much like yields on processors - you can either accept that the chips run at 500mhz or accept lower amounts passing the criteria of 600mhz and subsequently higher costs due to higher discard rates.

edit - found an old post i made on it at another forum:

Class I, LCD displays are considered "perfect" allowing zero pixel or sub pixel faults. However, this standard has been viewed as virtually IMPOSSIBLE or much too expensive.

Class II, which allows for five pixel or sub-pixel faults, has been an extremely difficult standard for panel manufacturers to achieve in mass production. This groundbreaking
achievement is a major breakthrough in the visual display industry and has set for others to follow. Consumers should be aware, that Class II displays have been certified according to manufacturing standards.

Table 1. Definition of ISO 13406-2 Fault Classes

Maximum number of faults per type per million pixels
Class Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Class I 0 0 0
Class II 2 2 5
Class III 5 15 50
Class IV 50 150 500

Failure Type 1 Fully luminous (color white)
Failure Type 2 Not fully luminous (color black)
Failure Type 3 e.g. defective sub-pixel ( color red, green, blue )




* One Pixel of a LCD consists of three sub pixels in the color red, green, and blue.

 

[Sonic]

I said mindshare, not marketshare. Going to a few local game stores around here and just walking on the streets overhearing people's conversations is enough evidence for me. Lots of people are looking eager towards next generation. Many of those are talking about Xbox 360.

A conserative estimate will put Xbox 360 sales at around 30 million units over the lifespan of its entirety.

 

[Tap In]

snip....

A recent survey at IGN showed most people believe that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360, and this could be an indication that Sony is well on it's way to getting the same or more mindshare it has this generation. One could argue that being more powerful, and the dominate supplier of hardware and software, would be an incentive for greater mindshare for Sony.

that very well could be true.

OTOH, when the games hit the street and if we can not distinguish obvious differences in quality between the two final products on in store kiosks, reality will set in and it will be a horse race.

 

[Edge]

> "I said mindshare, not marketshare. Going to a few local game stores around here and just walking on the streets overhearing people's conversations is enough evidence for me. Lots of people are looking eager towards next generation. Many of those are talking about Xbox 360."

I know what you said, but mindshare would have to be reflected in marketshare, or what does it matter what mindshare each console has. People are talking about PS3 also.

If you make a statement "MS is gaining mindshare", don't you think you should back it up with proof? Anyone can claim anything and your personal experiences may not reflect the market at all.

> "A conserative estimate will put Xbox 360 sales at around 30 million units over the lifespan of its entirety."

That could reflect a larger market, and not gaining marketshare over Sony. Yes, this time I used the term "marketshare", as that would be the term more accurate to discuss.

 

[JasonLD]

Well, it is really ridiculus to believe that Sony will delay PS3 to 2007...lol. Giving MS 2 holiday seasons without any competition is really not a smart strategy. Unless Sony can give us really big reason to wait for PS3 til 2007, with super powerful hardware that destroys competition and killer title that everybody must play..but we all know that is not going to happen. There is not really much Sony can gain by delaying launch date besides possibly cheaper production cost..and that is not even worth risking marketshare.
Given the strength of Sony and Playstation brand in this market, Sony is still in the driving seat..I think they still have luxury to delay PS3 til late 2006 and will probably be fine. But that luxury doesn't extend til 2007.

 

[rusty]

Well, it is really ridiculus to believe that Sony will delay PS3 to 2007...lol. Giving MS 2 holiday seasons without any competition is really not a smart strategy. Unless Sony can give us really big reason to wait for PS3 til 2007, with super powerful hardware that destroys competition and killer title that everybody must play..but we all know that is not going to happen. There is not really much Sony can gain by delaying launch date besides possibly cheaper production cost..and that is not even worth risking marketshare.
Given the strength of Sony and Playstation brand in this market, Sony is still in the driving seat..I think they still have luxury to delay PS3 til late 2006 and will probably be fine. But that luxury doesn't extend til 2007.

i agree that 2 holiday seasons, one of which would be at a lower price (i'm guessing $250 absolute tops even if x360 were unopposed by ps3), would be suicide for sony...

the x360 would already have huge momentum (plus with live set for a more prominent role i think there's more to be said for that - someone will buy what their friends have so they can play with them online) and microsoft would be halfway to designing their next console. That's ignoring the fact that a lot of people wouldn't want to wait for 2007 to get their next generation fix when they could get an x360 in 2005 - the ps2 has been out a long time already and i think asking people to wait another 2 years would be corporate suicide.

no, imo there is not even the option of launching in 2007 for sony

 

[blakjedi]

That's ignoring the fact that a lot of people wouldn't want to wait for 2007 to get their next generation fix when they could get an x360 in 2005 - the ps2 has been out a long time already and i think asking people to wait another 2 years would be corporate suicide.

no, imo there is not even the option of launching in 2007 for sony

Im not even sure what people are arguing about... if PS3 launches March 2006 in Japan they more than likely will launch no earlier than June 2006 in the US and Fall in EU. However I put my money on a Fall launch for PS3 in the US (ahem North America) with the possiblity of a 2007 launch in EU...

 

[ZoinKs!]

...mindshare would have to be reflected in marketshare, or what does it matter what mindshare each console has. People are talking about PS3 also.

If you make a statement "MS is gaining mindshare", don't you think you should back it up with proof? Anyone can claim anything and your personal experiences may not reflect the market at all.

All the marketshare numbers out there right now are for the last gen. But the market we're talking about is the next-gen market which really doesn't even exist yet; therefore, it's impossible for current marketshare to reflect mindshare for the next gen.

In order for that to happen, people would have to make a decision like this: "That Xbox360 looks sweet! So I'm going to buy an Xbox 1 today and then buy the 360 four months from now!"

The only indication we can get right now is to see how many preorders have been made. I hear Xbox360 preorders are strong and PS3 preorders aren't available yet, afaik.


On topic: PS3 delay until 2007 would be akin to corporate Seppuku for Sony.

 

[Carl B]

I think it's safe to say, regardless of what ends up happening, Sony is presently planning on bringing their console to market in Spring of 2006. I would also go one further and say that Sony will definitely bring it out in that timeframe, but hey whatever - one has to account for chance.

But this analyst guy is just talking about things I'm not sure he fully understands; either that or he's just a little over-zealous to see grandiose plans executed.

The relevent excerpt:

In a research memo sent to investors, Wedbush senior analyst Michael Pachter set up the following scene for a delayed PS3 launch. It starts with the current-generation Xbox being priced down to $99 post-Xbox 360 launch, but no lower. Concurrent with that situation--an Xbox 360 at an unspecified price and the Xbox at $99--Sony would drop the price of the PlayStation 2 to $99.

There are two components to that pricing strategy: the first is that a $99 PS2 would offer a significant distraction as the 360 launches. As Pachter states: "We believe that the company will attempt to disrupt the Xbox 360 launch with a price cut, and as a result may succeed in diverting attention away from the higher-priced next-generation console."

In addition to the "diversion rationale" is the supporting fact that "the redesigned PS2 carries a manufacturing cost of less than $99," according to Pachter. New consoles are noteworthy for the fact that at the beginning of their manufacturing cycle, the units are sold at a loss. Given that the PS2, according to Pachter, would cost less to make than to sell, it behooves Sony to extend demand for that product for as long as possible. And if Microsoft takes the Xbox price no lower than $99 (still a loss for Microsoft, according to Pachter), Sony will find itself in a win-win situation.

The first part I bolded is to indicate how bogus his train of thought it - PS2's looming price reduction has nothing to do with a possible price cut in the XBox (which I don't expect anyway) - it's something that Sony is planning to do regardless.

I bolded the second part because I think Sony would also hope for it to become a distraction, but I don't think they're putting too much faith in that; certainly for my part I don't think it can really serve as one.

And lastly, of course Sony would like as much attention to remain on PS2 as possible, as the whole package is of course profitable for them. But that being said, I just don't believe this 2007 talk whatsoever. No reason to jeapordize the next-gen fight - PS2 will sell fine on it's own. As has been mentioned before, dev projects are by and large already shifting to next-gen development. That means no more 'must-have' titles on PS2 after 2006.

They'll miss the Western holiday season, but Spring of 2006 is the holiday season for Japan, and that is when they will launch the PS3.

 

[rusty]

Im not even sure what people are arguing about... if PS3 launches March 2006 in Japan they more than likely will launch no earlier than June 2006 in the US and Fall in EU. However I put my money on a Fall launch for PS3 in the US (ahem North America) with the possiblity of a 2007 launch in EU...

mmm... if sony screws us europeans yet again then they've lost me as a customer (unless they have a really exceptional piece of kit compared to the others). Microsoft's approach this time is much more "global consumer friendly" imo (especially if they, as robbie bach indicated, don't screw us on the price like last time... same as applies to sony, if the x360 launches for $300 in the US and 300 pounds over here, they've lost one launch customer right here)

 

[Ty]

Like who? Like when?

The usual suspects. Great movie btw.

If it was back during the PSTwo launch then it was probably true that SONY lost money.

Well that's like saying the xbox360 costs MS money at launch, even if it were priced at $1000 simply because it hasn't recouped previous development costs. In other words, that's not the argument when discussing the price point of a console and whether or not the company is losing money on it. When discussing this, people usually mean "what it costs to manufacture said console", i.e. not to include what it had cost to do the development work on it.

Dropping the priced to $100 in the future doesn't really say much does it?

Eh? No, but the analyst's statement clearly does say much in that he claims right now, the PSTWO costs less than $99 for Sony to manufacture, so yes, Sony is likely making money on the PSTWO when sold at $150. I never made a claim about $99 in the future. I only illustrated the incorrect belief that Sony was losing money selling the PSTWO at $150.

 

[Diesel2]

mmm... if sony screws us europeans yet again then they've lost me as a customer (unless they have a really exceptional piece of kit compared to the others). Microsoft's approach this time is much more "global consumer friendly" imo (especially if they, as robbie bach indicated, don't screw us on the price like last time... same as applies to sony, if the x360 launches for $300 in the US and 300 pounds over here, they've lost one launch customer right here)

Being an Australian, I'm with you on that.

Back when PS2 was released, $300 US, and our dollar was up **** creek, at about 55c to the dollar. PS2 cost me approx. $740 at launch, which I could sort of understand given import costs and taxes.

Now though, with the Aussie dollar hovering around 78c to the dollar, if Xbox or PS3 cost anything more than $500 I'm waiting until some price drops.

 

[rusty]

yeah - with the xbox it launched at 300 pounds here which was about $530.... this was of course a few months after it had launched in the US for $300.

so a later console, and $230 more expensive... cheers guys!

same story with ps2 of course, except i believe the gap was even longer.

i've said it before, but if x360 costs $300 in the US, it had better cost no more than 220 pounds here (that's $300 + 17.5% VAT and a very generous on my part 13 or 14 quid excess merely because i'm kind).

I'll buy it at anything up to 250 (i'm bored of this generation) but any more than that and they can kiss my hairy arse. And if they cut out features for the european version this time (like no higher def support in the current euro xbox) they can once again kiss my hairy buttocks.

i hope both sony and microsoft are reading! otherwise there might be quite a lot of hairy buttock kissing.

 

[jvd]

There is no way the x360 will flop. It may miss targets but if the ps3 doesn't launch in 2006 I can only see it exceed targets . Sony does not want ms to surpase thier goal of 10 million systems in the first 18 months That will be 10 + million systems before sony sells thier first system. IT will be basicly the reverse of this generation .

Stupid idea


as for the 99$ price of the pstwo it wont affect the xbox 360 at launch. People will buy the new system because of its graphics at launch. Early adopters wont care , they will have had thier ps2s for 5 years and will want something new . Ms wont be able to produce enough units to sell this year .

 

[mckmas8808]

as for the 99$ price of the pstwo it wont affect the xbox 360 at launch. People will buy the new system because of its graphics at launch. Early adopters wont care , they will have had thier ps2s for 5 years and will want something new . Ms wont be able to produce enough units to sell this year .

I just like to point out the perfect quotes. And I too believe that the x360 will not flop.

 

[PC-Engine]

Well that's like saying the xbox360 costs MS money at launch, even if it were priced at $1000 simply because it hasn't recouped previous development costs. In other words, that's not the argument when discussing the price point of a console and whether or not the company is losing money on it. When discussing this, people usually mean "what it costs to manufacture said console", i.e. not to include what it had cost to do the development work on it.

Who included development costs to come to the conclusion that it cost more to manufacture than the regular PS2? The fact the DVD drive alone was a more expensive model could easily make the PSTwo more expensive than the PS2.

No, but the analyst's statement clearly does say much in that he claims right now, the PSTWO costs less than $99 for Sony to manufacture, so yes, Sony is likely making money on the PSTWO when sold at $150. I never made a claim about $99 in the future. I only illustrated the incorrect belief that Sony was losing money selling the PSTWO at $150.

And when did analysts become Gods? The PSTwo could be anywhere from $100 to $140 to make who's to say?

 

[Carl B]

PC-Engine c'mon you can't be serious. Of course the PSTwo costs less to make than the PS2. Fewer chips, less logic, less PSU, less cooling, less case - how can it not be cheaper? Everyone knows at $149 the system is highly profitable for Sony - if it can be cut to $99 and still be profitable, well I believe it. Progressive-scan DVD playback is in everything now. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony had difficulty sourcing a non-progressive part.