Yeah there's a bunch of stuff. MPEG2, AVC, VC-1 on video, DTS-HDMA, Dolby True HD, Dolby Digital on audio. Do they have to pay a license for Java as well? How about for ongoing copy protection changes, is there a support license for that? There are a bunch of people in the Blu-ray alliance as well, so only some of that money gets kicked back to Sony, the rest is lost. It seems like the hit per unit could be substantial once you add it all up.
PS3 cost discussion *spin-off
- Thread starter TheD
- Start date
Yeah there's a bunch of stuff. MPEG2, AVC, VC-1 on video, DTS-HDMA, Dolby True HD, Dolby Digital on audio. Do they have to pay a license for Java as well? How about for ongoing copy protection changes, is there a support license for that? There are a bunch of people in the Blu-ray alliance as well, so only some of that money gets kicked back to Sony, the rest is lost. It seems like the hit per unit could be substantial once you add it all up.
Ah there we go, that's the number I wanted. So it is pretty substantial, sounds like Sony have dropped $400+ million just on blu-ray licensing fees so far, assuming they were not "in excess of $20 per player", but I presume they got favorable pricing. That explains why Nintendo won't even license basic dvd playback, these costs really add up fast.
Large manufacturers will have volume discount (just like DVD licenses). The terms are usually not disclosed.
Also, according to http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10172042-1.html (Feb 2009)
DVD license fees apply to PS2 and 360 as well. Don't think Blu-ray is out of line. I think in 2002, I have heard $6 license fee for DVD recorder. Don't quote me on that though ^_^
EDIT: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9886546-7.html?tag=mncol;txt
Your link regarding the PS3 manufacturing costs is said that since they introduced the PS3 they have roughly reduced the manufacturing costs by 70%. Now, I assume you are taking that figure, applying it to the suspected $800 cost given in the article and concluding that Sony should not be selling the console at a loss. The problem with that is, no one know in what context they are speaking.
From your writing you are working under the assumption that the current selling console has had a 70% reduction in manufacturing costs therefore, Sony should not be losing anymore money. The problem is that the 70% reduction could be applied to the slim model in which they will not see the benefits of those reductions until the unit goes on sale. Sony will continue to lose money on each old model they sell or have out in retail. They just can't magically make it disappear.
Codec licensing is handled through http://www.mpegla.com/index1.cfm The diff codecs do have an overall threshold (used to atleast. that could be lifted over time, not sure....) to avoid massive royalties costs and encourage adoption.
And audio?
Thinking about these costs, they could begin to add up despite the relatively low cost of each, on these muiltifunction devices. Looking at the PS3 you have DVD licenses, BR licenses, the various MPEG-LA video codecs and containers, Divx, and Dolby, DTS, AAC, MP3 and WMA audio codecs. Did I miss any? Anyone more informed than me want to throw out an estimate for a total of all of that?
And audio?
Thinking about these costs, they could begin to add up despite the relatively low cost of each, on these muiltifunction devices. Looking at the PS3 you have DVD licenses, BR licenses, the various MPEG-LA video codecs and containers, Divx, and Dolby, DTS, AAC, MP3 and WMA audio codecs. Did I miss any? Anyone more informed than me want to throw out an estimate for a total of all of that?
$1?
Most $40 DVD players do these things at a profit.
And audio?
Thinking about these costs, they could begin to add up despite the relatively low cost of each, on these muiltifunction devices. Looking at the PS3 you have DVD licenses, BR licenses, the various MPEG-LA video codecs and containers, Divx, and Dolby, DTS, AAC, MP3 and WMA audio codecs. Did I miss any? Anyone more informed than me want to throw out an estimate for a total of all of that?
The unified license cost covers all major Blu-ray, DVD and CD licenses.
Only one body as opposed to 3 bodies.
Plus volume discount and caps. The WMA use is opt-in too. Don't think anyone other than Sony knows the sum.
EDIT: AAC should be part of MPEG-LA audio licensing.
At one point, I think MPEG-LA's proposed video licensing is capped at US$1 million a year ($0.25 for video decoding). AAC is $0.50 per channel for decoder. There should be a cap here too. Microsoft would be subjected to these fees too if 360 can play these media. I don't see why only PS3 is tied down by them.
Yeah everyone pays, but it looks like it is still somewhat less for dvd compared to blu-ray. Even if it's just $10/unit difference then that is still fairly significant. If $10 was no big deal then all consoles would have included an hdmi cable!
Like I said, there are volume discounts and caps
Both Sony and MS should have exceeded the caps.
Without PS3 to anchor Blu-ray initially, BDA would have failed. Sony had/has very strong chips on the Blu-ray bargaining table. They were essentially bleeding money on the hardware front to help build the base for themselves and Blu-ray patent holders.
EDIT: Regarding HDMI v1.3, I think it was not done yet when MS released 360. Also MS went for cheap at launch, remember ?
Both Sony and MS should have exceeded the caps.
Without PS3 to anchor Blu-ray initially, BDA would have failed. Sony had/has very strong chips on the Blu-ray bargaining table. They were essentially bleeding money on the hardware front to help build the base for themselves and Blu-ray patent holders.
EDIT: Regarding HDMI v1.3, I think it was not done yet when MS released 360. Also MS went for cheap at launch, remember ?
Johnny_Physics
Newcomer
It's a decent use of all the extra space on the BD disc, but in Scandinavia dubs hasn't gone over well with the gamer crowds. EA actually released(from fan pressure) patches to remove/change the dub back to English back in the days because people didn't like it. A subbed game pretty much meant "shit game" in a way.
Everything is subtitled here and lots of people got their start in English either by TV/movies or by playing games in the 80's, the foreign language was just a secondary set of problems to complete Kings Quest
But as you said, it's a hit with the 5-9 year kids, Ratchet & Clank all translated, LBP with local voice overs so they understand how to make levels and things like that. And it's pretty well done, better than cheap kids shows!
A strange thing I encountered, Infamous defaulted to french for some reason...
Some 360 games worked the same way, going local, Viva Pinata is one example that comes to mind and to change that to english you had to change your location, no real option otherwise.
No, the HDMI port wasn't on the first 360s. I think it was even added after the PS3 launched.
Sure, but the thread subject is PS3 cost discussion. The typical "versus" discussion really doesn't apply. Though, to be fair, discussions of almost any topic concerning either the PS3 or 360 invariably end up in some sort of comparision, so it's probably a reflex.
Yep, it showed up in the Elite SKU (Zephyr revision) circa 2007. And even so, I believe it is HDMI 1.2 or 1.2a (though later versions are somewhat moot considering the content the console is handling and the majority of the TVs being hooked up).
AFAIK the first 360 with HDMI was the Elite. And if I remember correctly, it was announced in early 2007, after the PS3's release.
Edit: What Alstrong said.
That's right. So it's not just a cost issue. Otherwise, they would have stuck with non-HDMI output throughout.
Ha, I brought up PS2 comparison above too. ^_^
My point was only that if Xbox 360 can lower its manufacturing and licensing cost, so can PS3. Blu-ray adds some weight but it's not unlike the early days of PS2's DVD licenses. The unified Blu-ray license covers Blu-ray, DVD and CD major iicenses. This time, Sony gets some of the Blu-ray fees to offset the increase.
Blu-ray is a new market to rejuvenate the retiring DVD sales. If you only look at isolated costs, you will miss the forest. Blu-ray is a new market, not just a cost center. Heck, it helps in gaming too.
Sure, but the thread subject is PS3 cost discussion. The typical "versus" discussion really doesn't apply. Though, to be fair, discussions of almost any topic concerning either the PS3 or 360 invariably end up in some sort of comparision, so it's probably a reflex.
Ha, I brought up PS2 comparison above too. ^_^
My point was only that if Xbox 360 can lower its manufacturing and licensing cost, so can PS3. Blu-ray adds some weight but it's not unlike the early days of PS2's DVD licenses. The unified Blu-ray license covers Blu-ray, DVD and CD major iicenses. This time, Sony gets some of the Blu-ray fees to offset the increase.
Blu-ray is a new market to rejuvenate the retiring DVD sales. If you only look at isolated costs, you will miss the forest. Blu-ray is a new market, not just a cost center. Heck, it helps in gaming too.
Announced March 27, 2007 to be exact. About 4.5 months after PS3 was launched.
Tommy McClain