Profits on consoles

So you take most of the great stuff about the PS3 (Cell; high performant PC GPU and solid tools from NV and OpenGL to facillitate PC interest and porting; Sixaxis; freem online gaming)
I think it's questionable that Sixaxis would have appeared in a 2005 console. The lack of any indication of that, and the short notice developers had to include motion support prior to E3, suggests it was still a WIP at that point. I'd also question removal of the HDD as that's a big part of the whole PS3 platform and a differentiating factor. I think Sony could have got away with maybe $50 on top of XB360's price to include a standard HDD, when you consider the profitability that could be obtained from downloaded content, but I'm not sure they could have launched at the same time. Also if they launched in 2005, there'd be none of the current online and Linux methods, as they're all in development. It'd just be a box to play games, and online games wouldn't have a very good online service. And the games back then would be pretty rough-looking too I imagine. Consider MotorStorm from 2005 versus now!

I think the delay has had the flip-side benefit of a strong 'first impression'. Launch titles look good. Services sound strong. There's a truck-load of features in the box, and things that really differentiate the console. A PS3 in 2005 would just have been another console without any fancy features versus XB360, and only the name to differentiate it if most titles are cross-platform.
 
  • Profits on other technologies - They'll make profit from Cell system



  • Um, from what i understand Sony is not going to earn money on the Cell system.

    From what i remember the deal was that Sony and Toshiba helped to pay for the R&D costs for IBM, and in return they got to make the CPU's in house, at their own facilities and not paying any royalities.

    Besides, its not like there is a big marked for Cell CPU sales. You got a marked for univiersities that needs cheap high FLOP CPU's for research, and thats about it. Its not like its going to be fit into normal PC's.
 
From what i remember the deal was that Sony and Toshiba helped to pay for the R&D costs for IBM, and in return they got to make the CPU's in house, at their own facilities and not paying any royalities.
I've not seen that explained anywhere, but even if so, Sony can make their own Cell's to include into other devices.
Besides, its not like there is a big marked for Cell CPU sales. You got a marked for univiersities that needs cheap high FLOP CPU's for research, and thats about it. Its not like its going to be fit into normal PC's.
The current market for Cell is large powerhouses. The intended market is pretty much any complex electronic device, including CE goods and mobile phones. Imagine Sony making and selling Cell chips used in lots of all mobile phones and TVs from all manufacturers...loadsa money!
 
Personally, I think Sony could have crushed MS with a much simpler plan this time around. Release in 2005; remove the BluRay drive and go for "par" knowing DEVELOPERS will carry your flag; remove the HDD as standard (huge money pit and standard in some ways due to BluRay) but make it a requirement for Online Play; offer Memory Cards and other accessories.

This is exactly what I've been saying for a while now. A PS3 released last year with a DVD drive and priced similar to the 360 would wipe the floor with the 360 on Sony's name again. If anything, Sony gave MS life.

Sony is banking on BluRay, this much is clear. There are issues there though. Firstly, the execution of BR to date has been poor. There seems to be no common ground amongst the CE's. They all do their own thing in terms of player specs. Then the specs themselves are complicated with a lot of stuff "optional" and the some of it becoming mandatory in June 2007 but only for players that come after that date. On the other side, they're competing directly with HD DVD which is continuing to gain momentum and really, there won't be a quick end to this "war."

Putting all that aside, the general public simply does not care about next gen DVD's. They really don't. You hear all sorts of crap about HDTV sales and how well HDTV's are selling. Fact is, if you go buy a TV today, you don't have much of a choice! You're coming home with a "HDTV." Then people bring these things home and never sign up for HD. To them, widescreen IS HD and the fact that their Best Boy sales rep sold them a "upconverting HD player" they're convinced they're already watching their movie in HD. And really, why not? Their TV displays 720p/1080i/1080p doesn't it? So it must be HD!

They don't know or care about the technicalities on how and why it's not. Their TV and sales rep told them it's HD so it must be and really why should they spend so much more for not a lot of benefit? Hi Def is simply resolution + audio. The audio you'll really only benefit from if you have a nice high end home theater system. How many people you know have a 2k-3k+ 5.1 system? So really, you're left with the resolution benefit with is at best 10-15% better than a good upscaling player and on a calibrated display, so unless you're an enthusiast (like me and others) you're not gonna be jumping for joy.

The only way for BR to be successful is to not give the consumers a choice. The CE's need to cycle out their SD player with similarly priced BR players (like what we see with HDTV's now) and the studio's start doing day and date on all their releases and eventually phase out DVD. Are the CE's and studios will to make such a strong commitment? not anytime soon.
 
The current market for Cell is large powerhouses. The intended market is pretty much any complex electronic device, including CE goods and mobile phones. Imagine Sony making and selling Cell chips used in lots of all mobile phones and TVs from all manufacturers...loadsa money!

Sortof offtopic, but not really, whatever happened to the Toshiba promise of using CELL in all their HDTV's for 2006??
 
As for Toshiba's TV with Cell, wait for SED! (though it's pushed back incessantly not because of Cell)
 
Back
Top