I predict 80GHz CELL with 1TB of RAM and 512 SPEs (-1 for redundancy). It will also play Holographics Discs, and be powerful enough to synthesize a photo realistic Princess Leia that I can have sex with. And also it will have a toaster. And a sandwich maker. And maybe even a toothbrush. Just because.groper said:
PlayStation 3 to Launch in March 2007 in Europe According to Spong
- Thread starter Sethamin
- Start date
Supply should be high, unless there's a serious issue with one of the major components (RSX, Cell or BRD drive). These bits of kit should have been going into production at the beginning of this year if Sony were ever serious about a Spring launch, so by September there should be maybe 7-8 months of production. I guess one reason for the delay, if true, could be a need to supply BluRay partners with Blue Laser diodes, basically limiting the amount of drives available for PS3. I can't think of any other reasons.Sethamin said:
I'm not implying there's much, if any, of an impact. I'm asking whether it changes anyone's minds about whether launching earlier in Europe with less supply was a good idea for MS. Lots of people derided that decision, but now that it appears they might have a full year lead there before PS3 launches, I'm curious if anyone thinks it makes that decision look better in retrospect.Titanio said:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Well, given that MS will now enjoy ~16months uncontested in the EU marketplace it's safe to say that it's probably a very smart move. It Sony had announced a summer EU launch, that would've marginalized the impact of MS's early launch in that territory.Titanio said:
They got knocked hard for supply issues, but they dealt with it, and now it will pay off in spades over the next 12-16 months.
Titanio said:
MS' plan was to launch before the PS3, as much before as possible. Sony launching later than expected only increases the amount of time that MS is alone in the market. Even if MS knew Sony would be launching this late, i dont think they would have changed their plan at all, since this only gives them even more 'bang for the buck' in terms of launching early.
To sum up, if MS thought launching 6 months before Sony was a good thing, how would launching 12 months before sony now become a bad thing?
Sethamin said:
As above, a critic might suggest that the simultaneous/early launch was unnecessary from the point of view of a first mover advantage. Launching in March this year, for example, would have still given then 12 months before PS3 arrived, if this rumour is true. A later launch by Sony arguably weakens the necessity for an earlier launch by MS in the territory.
The extra time is still a plus, of course, but it arguably makes the need for an early launch less urgent.
scooby_dooby said:
Au contrare, they're still up against PS2, PSP etc. Europe is very strong for Sony, it'll be interesting to see how 360 fares there beyond the short term.
expletive said:
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but if they rushed the launch betting that Sony would be coming 6 months later, finding out Sony was actually coming 12 months later might make someone, somewhere go "fiddlesticks, that wasn't so necessary". Again, the extra time is hardly a bad thing, but it might make a rushed launch in hindsight seem less pressing.
Anyway, a March 07 launch would probably give them more time than they expected in Europe, but Sept 06 in the US might give them less time than they expected there, and that's arguably the most contested market.
Last edited by a moderator:
drpepper said:
Refine in what sense? I'm not getting the impression that its taking this long becuase Sony went back to the drawing board on the hardware. Its more likely for software development and BR finalization and availability. The PS3 will likely be the same thing (and definitely the same 'gen') as it owuld have been if it launched 4 months earlier.
scooby_dooby
Legend
That's a very strange outlook to say the least. PSP and PS2 sales are irrelevant to MS, all they care about is how many next-gen consoles they can move before PS3 hits, thanks to the early launch they now have 16 months.Titanio said:
I guess you're trying to say that PS2 and PSP sales will slow 360 sales? Probably true...but so what? PS3 is the real competition and it's not out yet.
It will be intersting to see how it sells later this year, but regardless it will continue to sell, and continue to move units every month, day by day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Titanio said:
If MS lost something by launching early in EU, then I would be inclined to agree. As it stands, the situation went from a 'win' to a 'big win' in the the eyes of MS, and maximized what they (MS) perceieve as an advantage.
Whether or not it proves to be an real advantage is another debate altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
drpepper said:
So now PS3 is not launching in spring? Dec > Spring = 7months tops
scooby_dooby said:
Money spent on PS2s, PSPs, is less money available for 360s. Certainly it's relevant to Sony.
The question isn't if 360 will sell, the question is how much, once early adopter demand is satisfied. That'll be interesting to watch.
expletive said:
It's costly launching a system particularly when you've limited stock available. If it turns out they actually had 16 months of a lead, I'm sure someone, somewhere in MS will be wondering if they'd have been better off feeding the NA market first, getting supply under control and then launching in Europe a couple of months later.
Again, I'm not saying there's really a loss here as such. But there was a certain urgency about the launch last year, an urgency which may not have been so warranted in all territories. With prior knowledge of such a headstart, I'm not sure if MS would have made the same choices, but we'll never know.
The question originally was if critics of the worldwide launch would feel differently about it in light of such a development, but I think it's more than fair to say that some would in fact see the launch as even less necessary, from a time-to-market POV, if this were the case. That's all I'm saying.
Anyway, this remains unconfirmed
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Titanio said:
Well I think MS needs every single advantage it can get. It's not like they decided they only need an 8month headstart and anything over that is overkill, 8months is good, 12months is better, 16 is even better etc etc. So I don't see the logic that because they have a longer headstart, that they would somehow consider the early launch less necessary.
Also, since they manage to pulled off the launch in a successful fashion, there really was no downside to it, other than alot of hardwork and late nights. It would be different if they had made big mistakes in rushing to launch, but they didn't.
scooby_dooby
Legend
It might be relevant to Sony but it's not relevant to a discussion about whether or not the worldwide launch was a smart move. You're grasping at straws and trying to marginalize what has now become a very big advantage.Titanio said:
Well how ever many they sell, it will be a greater number than if they had've delayed the launch, and it will give them that much more headstart in the market, that's kinda the point.Titanio said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Titanio said:
I think they also wanted to ride the wave of holiday buzz as well, if only for brand recognition. But agreed we'll never know.
Titanio said:
I'm not sure i agree that the consumer shopping for a 360 is the same one shopping for a PS2, and that those 2 ocnsoles are fighting for the same dollars. Maybe a PSP, though the fact that it serves an almost entirely different purpose for the consomer gives me pause.
I do agree that it willl be interesting to see if the 360 sales keep up over time.
Similar threads
- Locked
