deathkiller
Newcomer
ROG27 said:
They are counting 150$ fixed cost in R&D per unit, Sony wouldn't be selling at lost. They just would need to compensate later their initial R&D/Fab cost (that is being paid by PS2/PSP now).
PS3+HD price speculation: Cast your vote / Analysis
- Thread starter Phil
- Start date
They are counting 150$ fixed cost in R&D per unit, Sony wouldn't be selling at lost. They just would need to compensate later their initial R&D/Fab cost (that is being paid by PS2/PSP now).
deathkiller said:
What the hell kind of business-expendature-BOM-prediction-chart-thingy is that? Who adds in R&D costs (as a fixed number, no less) to the final production cost of a product? Generally that's being (or has been) paid for by previous products anyways and is just considered a seperate R&D thing (especially in the console world), from what I've seen at least. When you create a product you have a budget for R&D that is part of the cost of bringing out the product, not the cost of selling the product -- you don't justify R&D by selling the product, you justify it because if you don't create a new product you're likely screwed in the given market.
One thing of note, I believe that article is from October of '05 anyways. And, since its just another analyst group I can't help but question their numbers a bit, for better or worse.
Given: Projected 3M units in calendar 2006; 6M in fiscal 2006.
Given: World Wide Launch.
Assumed: RSX & CELL have been completed already and wont undergo changes.
Assumed: Chip completion should help prevent PS2-like production issues.
Assumed: Sony will have decent availability with long lead time and get close to targets.
Assumed: The extra development time will result in increased product quality, more titles.
Assumed: Sony will possibly have more control on chip costs since they are internally produced.
While technically this is a silly method, I think the best way I personally could make an educated guess would be by looking at the Xbox 360.
Primary Assumption: Sony is willing to lose about the same per unit as MS.
These assumptions may be totally inaccurate, but as a consumer, not an insider, I can only build my fan-based prediction by such. Likewise, my cost guestimate totally ignores the difference in business model. Sony has recently aquired a number of companies (like SN) to shore up the software end. On the other hand they did all their own R&D and fully intend to leverage such for future products. MS is the exact opposite because they are a software company. As such any comparison needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
With that said, I will proceed with my base price on a mix of *360 CORE* and Premium costs because I believe the 360 Premium unit actually is less of a loss per unit than the core unit. Basically the 360 Premium may cost MS $525, while the Core costs them $450. So the extra $100 price is actually a $25 gain for MS.
My pricing assumptions include the PR statements as well. There is spin both ways, but KK's comments that this is not a poor man's Blu Ray and that there may need to be a need to save and possibly pay a premium.
Finally, I expect high demand. It is there. 6M units probably would not satisfy Japan, let alone the entire world. Since there will be a high demand, and low availability, and due to the "Cutting edge" status of Blu Ray players in general and the PS3 in particular, I believe Sony will charge a premium.
* Blu Ray. Early reports that the drives themselves were costing over $100. The PS3 can use CELL for video processing, but as Blu Ray is still for all practical points and purposes not available to the general public (it is not a consumer electronic product at this point, at least not in the US and EU) it is still in the category of "bleeding edge". With Sony blaming the PS3 delays on BR, the emphasis should be on BLEED. It would not surprise me initially the BR drive cost $100 more per unit than the 12x DVD drive in the 360.
Guess: + $100
* HDD. The Premium unit has a 20GB 2.5" Laptop drive. The cheap ones can be found at retail for $40 (although this could be overstock of old items and not represent true retail pricing). The low end 60GB 2.5" Laptop drives go for $70.00 retail. 5400RPM, 2MB cache, 12ms seek time. Obviously these drives are not going to cost 3x as much because they are 3x as big, maybe not even 2x as much, but the #30 price difference at retail, the ~70% price increase for 3x the space seems realistic. Whatever the mass production costs of a 20GB/60GB HDD is, I do not know ($25 for the 20GB?), but adding $30 on for the low end retail sounds about right.
Guess: + $30
* CELL. I don't know the die size differences between Xenon and CELL, but CELL is a bit bigger. Since these chips are not really being binned at this time and we don't know the production costs or the chip costs it is hard to guestimate. But I have seen Xenon estimated from $70 to over $130. I have seen analysts right around $100 and that sounds as good as any. My guess is CELL is probably in the $130-$150 range (based on analysts and comparisons to Xenon), but I am gonna give Sony a benefit of the doubt here on production (they have had a long time to work on it, stock pile, etc) so I will go with the lower number. Sony also plans to use the chip elsewhere and did their own R&D, while MS paid IBM, so this one is not really comparable.
Guess: + $30
* Memory. The PS3 uses GDDR3 & XDR. I thought that was a bad move looking forward for consolidation reasons, but from what I have read there may only be a $10 difference between the two 256MB pools. Not bad.
Guess: + $10
* BlueTooth, Extra Ports (USB, HDMI, Ethernet), Cables. Sony basically has more of everything. Since it is a Blu Ray drive here is a problem: What do they include? Component -or- HDMI? Blu Ray wont play HD media to the fullest over Component (or at all?? I Dunno. Do we know?). So that inclines me to think that it will come with HDMI which is much more expensive. On the other hand many older HDTVs don't have HDMI. Sticky situation. I will assume they go the cheapest route, with HDMI cables available, and offer component cables. As for the ports, they may seem insequentual to us, but they all add up. Airflow, manufacturing, design issues.
Guess: + $20
* RSX. Again, no know yields or die space. If we assume, as I have long held, that RSX is a modified G70 adapted specifically for the PS3 on the 90nm process at 550MHz (basically G71/7900GTX at lower frequencies) yields should be EXCELLENT. G71 also lost a lot of transistors. I am also assuming NV has given Sony a sweatheart deal on licensing, royalties and such. Xenos has 2 dies, which is more manufacturing costs. It also is not a revision of an already existing design. On the other hand the eDRAM is more dense (but also more prone to flaws) and being separate chips may increase packaging costs but may increase yields a lot. And MS may have yield-contracts. But I think Sony is probably saving some money here (although ATI may be getting some of their money on games sold, which moves costs around so it is not all clear).
Guess: - $15
* Online Network. These things cost most. MS put well over $1B into theirs. Sony is offering it free, at least basic features and infrastructure, so every unit is going to bear this cost somewhere, somehow.
Guess: Unknown.
* Wireless controller, case, PSU, PCB, heat sinks, fans, etc... I guess will be pretty much a wash. Some things may cost a little more due to the PS3's complexity, but Sony also is a CE company and can control costs on such better.
* Games. Yes, the games! I am not adding this in, but since every game is on a BR disk that may add a couple dollars to every game, at least at first.
* Extras. The camera, head phone, BD sample disk, etc... This may add some additional costs, but who knows how much or what they will even include!
So my numbers come up to $175. Add in at least $25 for the "base" cost of the HDD (as I only did the difference) we are at $200.
When we consider the online network, the wireless controller, and all the little extras and such that the 360 Core does not have, but the Premium does (well, in some cases), I think I see a middle ground. $600 seems to high because I think MS is actually making more (errr losing less!) on each Premium unit. On the other hand $499 seems to be too much along the lines of "best case scenario". e.g. I think I may have guessed low on CELL and BDR and was generous on RSX. And thus:
My prediction: $549 in the US. Japan/EU get fleeced.
Sony could come in higher--people WILL buy it. I have no problem seeing a $600 PS3 + Blu Ray player selling 6M units easily in fiscal 2006. 2007 is another issue, but I see reasons why that may not apply. Likewise if Sony spends the next 8 months getting production in tip top order and works on yields and costs and stick piles, they could get under $400. It all depends on how aggressive Sony is, but $549 is my guess.
If Sony was nuts... or so on top of production that they shocked the world... they could come in at $399. But why? They can easily charge a first year premium--it does play HD movies & Next Gen games, so 2 birds with 1 stone--and customers wont blink an eye. The ones who want it this year, crappy launch games and all (general launch rule!), will be hyped just to have it. Status symbol. As Blu Ray becomes more mainstream and more of a high tech comodity (read: when production ramps up and production costs come under realistic controls) Sony can follow the market trend of discounting because BDRs will be dropping in price as well.
Ps- Anyone want to hire me in the industry? Game tester even? :smile:
Given: World Wide Launch.
Assumed: RSX & CELL have been completed already and wont undergo changes.
Assumed: Chip completion should help prevent PS2-like production issues.
Assumed: Sony will have decent availability with long lead time and get close to targets.
Assumed: The extra development time will result in increased product quality, more titles.
Assumed: Sony will possibly have more control on chip costs since they are internally produced.
While technically this is a silly method, I think the best way I personally could make an educated guess would be by looking at the Xbox 360.
Primary Assumption: Sony is willing to lose about the same per unit as MS.
These assumptions may be totally inaccurate, but as a consumer, not an insider, I can only build my fan-based prediction by such. Likewise, my cost guestimate totally ignores the difference in business model. Sony has recently aquired a number of companies (like SN) to shore up the software end. On the other hand they did all their own R&D and fully intend to leverage such for future products. MS is the exact opposite because they are a software company. As such any comparison needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
With that said, I will proceed with my base price on a mix of *360 CORE* and Premium costs because I believe the 360 Premium unit actually is less of a loss per unit than the core unit. Basically the 360 Premium may cost MS $525, while the Core costs them $450. So the extra $100 price is actually a $25 gain for MS.
My pricing assumptions include the PR statements as well. There is spin both ways, but KK's comments that this is not a poor man's Blu Ray and that there may need to be a need to save and possibly pay a premium.
Finally, I expect high demand. It is there. 6M units probably would not satisfy Japan, let alone the entire world. Since there will be a high demand, and low availability, and due to the "Cutting edge" status of Blu Ray players in general and the PS3 in particular, I believe Sony will charge a premium.
* Blu Ray. Early reports that the drives themselves were costing over $100. The PS3 can use CELL for video processing, but as Blu Ray is still for all practical points and purposes not available to the general public (it is not a consumer electronic product at this point, at least not in the US and EU) it is still in the category of "bleeding edge". With Sony blaming the PS3 delays on BR, the emphasis should be on BLEED. It would not surprise me initially the BR drive cost $100 more per unit than the 12x DVD drive in the 360.
Guess: + $100
* HDD. The Premium unit has a 20GB 2.5" Laptop drive. The cheap ones can be found at retail for $40 (although this could be overstock of old items and not represent true retail pricing). The low end 60GB 2.5" Laptop drives go for $70.00 retail. 5400RPM, 2MB cache, 12ms seek time. Obviously these drives are not going to cost 3x as much because they are 3x as big, maybe not even 2x as much, but the #30 price difference at retail, the ~70% price increase for 3x the space seems realistic. Whatever the mass production costs of a 20GB/60GB HDD is, I do not know ($25 for the 20GB?), but adding $30 on for the low end retail sounds about right.
Guess: + $30
* CELL. I don't know the die size differences between Xenon and CELL, but CELL is a bit bigger. Since these chips are not really being binned at this time and we don't know the production costs or the chip costs it is hard to guestimate. But I have seen Xenon estimated from $70 to over $130. I have seen analysts right around $100 and that sounds as good as any. My guess is CELL is probably in the $130-$150 range (based on analysts and comparisons to Xenon), but I am gonna give Sony a benefit of the doubt here on production (they have had a long time to work on it, stock pile, etc) so I will go with the lower number. Sony also plans to use the chip elsewhere and did their own R&D, while MS paid IBM, so this one is not really comparable.
Guess: + $30
* Memory. The PS3 uses GDDR3 & XDR. I thought that was a bad move looking forward for consolidation reasons, but from what I have read there may only be a $10 difference between the two 256MB pools. Not bad.
Guess: + $10
* BlueTooth, Extra Ports (USB, HDMI, Ethernet), Cables. Sony basically has more of everything. Since it is a Blu Ray drive here is a problem: What do they include? Component -or- HDMI? Blu Ray wont play HD media to the fullest over Component (or at all?? I Dunno. Do we know?). So that inclines me to think that it will come with HDMI which is much more expensive. On the other hand many older HDTVs don't have HDMI. Sticky situation. I will assume they go the cheapest route, with HDMI cables available, and offer component cables. As for the ports, they may seem insequentual to us, but they all add up. Airflow, manufacturing, design issues.
Guess: + $20
* RSX. Again, no know yields or die space. If we assume, as I have long held, that RSX is a modified G70 adapted specifically for the PS3 on the 90nm process at 550MHz (basically G71/7900GTX at lower frequencies) yields should be EXCELLENT. G71 also lost a lot of transistors. I am also assuming NV has given Sony a sweatheart deal on licensing, royalties and such. Xenos has 2 dies, which is more manufacturing costs. It also is not a revision of an already existing design. On the other hand the eDRAM is more dense (but also more prone to flaws) and being separate chips may increase packaging costs but may increase yields a lot. And MS may have yield-contracts. But I think Sony is probably saving some money here (although ATI may be getting some of their money on games sold, which moves costs around so it is not all clear).
Guess: - $15
* Online Network. These things cost most. MS put well over $1B into theirs. Sony is offering it free, at least basic features and infrastructure, so every unit is going to bear this cost somewhere, somehow.
Guess: Unknown.
* Wireless controller, case, PSU, PCB, heat sinks, fans, etc... I guess will be pretty much a wash. Some things may cost a little more due to the PS3's complexity, but Sony also is a CE company and can control costs on such better.
* Games. Yes, the games! I am not adding this in, but since every game is on a BR disk that may add a couple dollars to every game, at least at first.
* Extras. The camera, head phone, BD sample disk, etc... This may add some additional costs, but who knows how much or what they will even include!
So my numbers come up to $175. Add in at least $25 for the "base" cost of the HDD (as I only did the difference) we are at $200.
When we consider the online network, the wireless controller, and all the little extras and such that the 360 Core does not have, but the Premium does (well, in some cases), I think I see a middle ground. $600 seems to high because I think MS is actually making more (errr losing less!) on each Premium unit. On the other hand $499 seems to be too much along the lines of "best case scenario". e.g. I think I may have guessed low on CELL and BDR and was generous on RSX. And thus:
My prediction: $549 in the US. Japan/EU get fleeced.
Sony could come in higher--people WILL buy it. I have no problem seeing a $600 PS3 + Blu Ray player selling 6M units easily in fiscal 2006. 2007 is another issue, but I see reasons why that may not apply. Likewise if Sony spends the next 8 months getting production in tip top order and works on yields and costs and stick piles, they could get under $400. It all depends on how aggressive Sony is, but $549 is my guess.
If Sony was nuts... or so on top of production that they shocked the world... they could come in at $399. But why? They can easily charge a first year premium--it does play HD movies & Next Gen games, so 2 birds with 1 stone--and customers wont blink an eye. The ones who want it this year, crappy launch games and all (general launch rule!), will be hyped just to have it. Status symbol. As Blu Ray becomes more mainstream and more of a high tech comodity (read: when production ramps up and production costs come under realistic controls) Sony can follow the market trend of discounting because BDRs will be dropping in price as well.
Ps- Anyone want to hire me in the industry? Game tester even? :smile:
scooby_dooby
Legend
I dunno man, $550 might fly in the US, but outside of there that's alot of freakin coin! $650 bux up here in canada (damn your dollar has dropped) + 15% tax in most provinces = $750. Ouch.
It's probably a good strategy though, I can't see it NOT selling out, almost regardless of price so you may be on to something.
I think it would make for an awfully easy decision though for any of the undecided crowd...
It's probably a good strategy though, I can't see it NOT selling out, almost regardless of price so you may be on to something.
I think it would make for an awfully easy decision though for any of the undecided crowd...
I have to say though Acert that your conclusions stem from adjusted analyst numbers, numbers that in my opinion are flawed from the start. I think if we were going to do the PS3 price/component thing, it'd be better to start with the only arbitrary constant we know to be true, and that is what Sony was willing to sell the PS2 for. Since we're talking US prices, we'll use the US launch.
Here goes some 'speed' math.
Ok so PS2 launched at $299. What are the differences between PS2 and PS3?
EE ---> Cell ; My own theory is that Cell is less expensive than the original EE
GS ---> RSX ; Again, RSX shold be cheaper. In fact, a good deal cheaper if it's more or less a G71
Backwards compatability though seems like it is going to make use of a full EE+GS (unless anyone has any theories on this), so for chip costs I'm just going to round and call it even between the launch PS2 vs launch PS3.
Now, Blu-ray vs DVD. I'll add an arbitrary $100 to the price at retail like everyone else is doing.
HDD. Ok, an arbitrary $50 at retail assuming it's actually included in the system.
And all that HDMI, I/O, royalties and junk like that - I'm throwing in for free - it's probably like a $10-15 difference from launch PS2s anyway.
So that's how I reach a super accurate $450.
I mean the reasoning is cheesy as hell, but still I think using as a base a system Sony has already launched, we establish for ourselves a floor of where Sony is willing to price. Blu-ray could be a larger variable than above though - honestly in either direction depending on Sony HQ's willingness to subsidize - and it assumes also global subsidization of the US product similar to PS2.
PS - Using the same 'logic' as above I'll put $499 as a backup price, as I could see the EE+GS and I/O crap possibly tacking on another 'unit' of price, which for the purposes of this poll seems to be $50 increments
Here goes some 'speed' math.
Ok so PS2 launched at $299. What are the differences between PS2 and PS3?
EE ---> Cell ; My own theory is that Cell is less expensive than the original EE
GS ---> RSX ; Again, RSX shold be cheaper. In fact, a good deal cheaper if it's more or less a G71
Backwards compatability though seems like it is going to make use of a full EE+GS (unless anyone has any theories on this), so for chip costs I'm just going to round and call it even between the launch PS2 vs launch PS3.
Now, Blu-ray vs DVD. I'll add an arbitrary $100 to the price at retail like everyone else is doing.
HDD. Ok, an arbitrary $50 at retail assuming it's actually included in the system.
And all that HDMI, I/O, royalties and junk like that - I'm throwing in for free - it's probably like a $10-15 difference from launch PS2s anyway.
So that's how I reach a super accurate $450.
I mean the reasoning is cheesy as hell, but still I think using as a base a system Sony has already launched, we establish for ourselves a floor of where Sony is willing to price. Blu-ray could be a larger variable than above though - honestly in either direction depending on Sony HQ's willingness to subsidize - and it assumes also global subsidization of the US product similar to PS2.
PS - Using the same 'logic' as above I'll put $499 as a backup price, as I could see the EE+GS and I/O crap possibly tacking on another 'unit' of price, which for the purposes of this poll seems to be $50 increments
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree Sony could sell at a higher rate, but the problem I have with this is post-launch, how do you manage a price drop that's not too severe? To get from $550 to $300 in 2.5 years in a $50 drop every 6 months. Do Sony do that, or drop $100 each year for Christmas? That's a hefty price drop that might not go down so well with new customers who miss the drop and markets, who are fickle. It happens. It happened wth XB in EU IIRC. But I think it's a last resort. I don't know how such decisions are made though. If in five six years PS3 is $150, same as PS2, that's $400 to shed, some $75 a year drops. PS2 launched at $300 and only lost $150 in five/six years. The decrements in price were small enough not to offend or stall too many customer awaiting this drop. A higher PS3 price would have more drops or steeper drops which i can't see working out well.Acert93 said:
Great post Acert. I hate to say it though, but I agree somewhat with XBD's post above: using Microsoft and Xbox360 as a basis to guestimate the internal costs of PS3 parts - in my opinion - isn't going to paint a very acccuare picture.
There are various reasons for this:
1.) Sony I would think would have very different projected sales than Microsoft would. Sony is the dominant player after all, the market leader who has just sold another 100 million of consoles and that even in a shorter time than the previous generation. With the market expanding and them feeling confortable, their projected sales with PS3 must be at the very least an equal amount of success as they have enjoyed with PS3.
If we put a number to it; I will say that Sony is realistically expecting on selling 100 million within 5 to 6 years with PS3. With 100 million units outthere and the thought of being the dominant player yet again, you can also draw a line of how much revenues you'll be able to make through software royalties. The PS2 at the moment has an ratio of around 10 games per sold console. Calculate the sold software and that's a lot of money.
How much can Microsoft realistically expect? No matter how much better their target is from Xbox, I'd argue it can't be as high as Sony is expecting. Being the number 1 player just has a certain advantage that if you play your cards right, you're gambling with a few different sets of numbers.
Having said that, I would say Microsoft's hardware is a tad more conservative in this regard. They're also seem to be playing it rather safe. On the other hand, I think Sony is also taking a bit of a gamble with the delay because they effectively think they can. Also, projecting sales of 100 million in 5 to 6 years also gives you the advantage that you may be able to take losses for 2 years if you know you'll make up for it big time in the last 4 years. Based on the fact that these two player have very different scenario, I think the costs for Xbox360 hardware and PS3 hardware can not be directly compared.
I think XBD is quite on the money with using PS2 as a benchmark. In fact, XBD, I think you're right on with your guestimates. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but from a processor point of view, I would argue that CELL and RSX should be cheaper and better off than the EE / GS at the time. Blu-Ray would be more expensive and so is including the HD, but that's IMO where the extra $100 to $150 will come from - thus the price I think will be somewhere between $399 to $449.
Well, in the end - perhaps it will be one of those marketing decisions anyway. I can only assume from the above that Sony did their homework and that they can indeed launch at a very competitive price and not bankrupt themselves.
There are various reasons for this:
1.) Sony I would think would have very different projected sales than Microsoft would. Sony is the dominant player after all, the market leader who has just sold another 100 million of consoles and that even in a shorter time than the previous generation. With the market expanding and them feeling confortable, their projected sales with PS3 must be at the very least an equal amount of success as they have enjoyed with PS3.
If we put a number to it; I will say that Sony is realistically expecting on selling 100 million within 5 to 6 years with PS3. With 100 million units outthere and the thought of being the dominant player yet again, you can also draw a line of how much revenues you'll be able to make through software royalties. The PS2 at the moment has an ratio of around 10 games per sold console. Calculate the sold software and that's a lot of money.
How much can Microsoft realistically expect? No matter how much better their target is from Xbox, I'd argue it can't be as high as Sony is expecting. Being the number 1 player just has a certain advantage that if you play your cards right, you're gambling with a few different sets of numbers.
Having said that, I would say Microsoft's hardware is a tad more conservative in this regard. They're also seem to be playing it rather safe. On the other hand, I think Sony is also taking a bit of a gamble with the delay because they effectively think they can. Also, projecting sales of 100 million in 5 to 6 years also gives you the advantage that you may be able to take losses for 2 years if you know you'll make up for it big time in the last 4 years. Based on the fact that these two player have very different scenario, I think the costs for Xbox360 hardware and PS3 hardware can not be directly compared.
I think XBD is quite on the money with using PS2 as a benchmark. In fact, XBD, I think you're right on with your guestimates. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but from a processor point of view, I would argue that CELL and RSX should be cheaper and better off than the EE / GS at the time. Blu-Ray would be more expensive and so is including the HD, but that's IMO where the extra $100 to $150 will come from - thus the price I think will be somewhere between $399 to $449.
Well, in the end - perhaps it will be one of those marketing decisions anyway. I can only assume from the above that Sony did their homework and that they can indeed launch at a very competitive price and not bankrupt themselves.
I think one of the problems is that everyone wants to look at the prior consoles and say "Well, this is what they did before..." I think this generation of gaming is going to introduce a lot of different things that kind of skew that thinking and reasoning. I mean, until recently who would have thought a $400 console would ever sell, let alone have people waiting months down the road to still acquire it. Who would have ever thought there would be two skus on LAUNCH day. I think overall we as gamers have more money now, and we show it by buying $60 games and $400 consoles. I think Sony could charge $599 and would sell out across the board, I mean you could drop $50 a month on a prepay today, and have it almost paid off by launch. It would also be closer to the retail pricing of stand-alone BD-ROMs, in-between the pricing of the HD-DVD players also only a $100 more than the low-end HD-DVD, but of course, it plays games.xbdestroya said:I have to say though Acert that your conclusions stem from adjusted analyst numbers, numbers that in my opinion are flawed from the start. I think if we were going to do the PS3 price/component thing, it'd be better to start with the only arbitrary constant we know to be true, and that is what Sony was willing to sell the PS2 for. Since we're talking US prices, we'll use the US launch.
Here goes some 'speed' math.
Ok so PS2 launched at $299. What are the differences between PS2 and PS3?
EE ---> Cell ; My own theory is that Cell is less expensive than the original EE
GS ---> RSX ; Again, RSX shold be cheaper. In fact, a good deal cheaper if it's more or less a G71
Backwards compatability though seems like it is going to make use of a full EE+GS (unless anyone has any theories on this), so for chip costs I'm just going to round and call it even between the launch PS2 vs launch PS3.
Now, Blu-ray vs DVD. I'll add an arbitrary $100 to the price at retail like everyone else is doing.
HDD. Ok, an arbitrary $50 at retail assuming it's actually included in the system.
And all that HDMI, I/O, royalties and junk like that - I'm throwing in for free - it's probably like a $10-15 difference from launch PS2s anyway.
So that's how I reach a super accurate $450.
I mean the reasoning is cheesy as hell, but still I think using as a base a system Sony has already launched, we establish for ourselves a floor of where Sony is willing to price. Blu-ray could be a larger variable than above though - honestly in either direction depending on Sony HQ's willingness to subsidize - and it assumes also global subsidization of the US product similar to PS2.
PS - Using the same 'logic' as above I'll put $499 as a backup price, as I could see the EE+GS and I/O crap possibly tacking on another 'unit' of price, which for the purposes of this poll seems to be $50 increments
As an aside, I don't think one of the holdups is AACS, I think it is BD-J for the BD-ROM+, there is a thread where I discussed this, but i'm lazy, it was said to be unfinished, not sure why.
EDIT: Since xbd "cheated" I will do the same
I would drop $50 and say $549 , you know, as a backup, 'cause we win prizes if we're right, right???
Last edited by a moderator:
I really beleive Sony is willing to give up ground to MS in the short term, to ensure they put out exactly the product they feel wil lbetter for them and sustain them in the long term. I think alot of people are asking for too much by expecting Sony to come in near or at the same price as the 360Premium, and will be disapointed.
I think a sub $450 price point for the US. $399 for the US with a HDD is my guess.
~Y39,800 - Y50,000 in Japan dependent on value pack. Japan will definitely get a standard HDD to appease Square in my view.
£300-350 here in the UK and 399-500 Euros for the continent.
Toshiba's cheapest HD-DVD players are going for $399-$500 at retail from that you can approximate the costs of a HD-DVD drive. A BD drive wont' be much different from that since the components are virtually identical.
I’m willing to bet Sony is more than ready to lose $100-$200 at the margin per unit. For PS3 to deliver their Blu-Ray goals they need to achieve the same penetration rate that PS2 did and that definitely won't happen at >= $450 price points in the US.
The >$500 price point is complete suicide IMO and will readily hand the NA market to Microsoft who I have no doubt will be dropping their Premium to $299. Sacrificing future value and dominance for short term cost saving would be incredibly ignorant IMO, this depends on how highly Sony rates present value, Kutaragi has tended to think long term.
The only issue I see is cash flow but I think they’ll use some sort of leverage to finance the project, even debt – which maybe their only avenue – indeed I think contingencies for this must already be in place otherwise the appraisal stage would have rejected the project.
~Y39,800 - Y50,000 in Japan dependent on value pack. Japan will definitely get a standard HDD to appease Square in my view.
£300-350 here in the UK and 399-500 Euros for the continent.
Toshiba's cheapest HD-DVD players are going for $399-$500 at retail from that you can approximate the costs of a HD-DVD drive. A BD drive wont' be much different from that since the components are virtually identical.
I’m willing to bet Sony is more than ready to lose $100-$200 at the margin per unit. For PS3 to deliver their Blu-Ray goals they need to achieve the same penetration rate that PS2 did and that definitely won't happen at >= $450 price points in the US.
The >$500 price point is complete suicide IMO and will readily hand the NA market to Microsoft who I have no doubt will be dropping their Premium to $299. Sacrificing future value and dominance for short term cost saving would be incredibly ignorant IMO, this depends on how highly Sony rates present value, Kutaragi has tended to think long term.
The only issue I see is cash flow but I think they’ll use some sort of leverage to finance the project, even debt – which maybe their only avenue – indeed I think contingencies for this must already be in place otherwise the appraisal stage would have rejected the project.
Shifty Geezer said:
I have been thinking the same thing. If they want to reach the 100 million goal again, I guess at some point they will have to have a price that is lower than $200. If it still holds true that what they once said that this generation they would have smaller and less frequent price drops, and rather maintain the launch price for longer I really can't see them launching at $550 and 5 years later have a price of $150. So maybe they hope that they will be able to reach 100 million this time around with a price of $250-300, so they will suck up the initial bigger losses and match MS and launch at $400 and down the road maybe reach around $250...
Ok, here I go.
This is the table that I promised to you:
http://rapidshare.de/files/15814331/HandPbookcosttable.pdf.html
Is in PDF format because is the direct scan, enjoy it.
Translation:
Dado= Die
Oblea= Waffer
Encapsulamiento= Processor Packaging.
I can tell the formulas in the book I need a program for make ecuations and formulas outside Microsoft Word (because I don´t heve MS Word on my Mac) that runs on OS X. Any of you can help?
Thanks.
This is the table that I promised to you:
http://rapidshare.de/files/15814331/HandPbookcosttable.pdf.html
Is in PDF format because is the direct scan, enjoy it.
Translation:
Dado= Die
Oblea= Waffer
Encapsulamiento= Processor Packaging.
I can tell the formulas in the book I need a program for make ecuations and formulas outside Microsoft Word (because I don´t heve MS Word on my Mac) that runs on OS X. Any of you can help?
Thanks.
How much more would it cost to put in a 60 GB HDD compared to that 20 GB HDD in the xbox 360 Premium? How much more does a BD-rom cost compared to a 12x DVD-rom? Not more than $100 together I'd say.
The rest should pretty comparable with the xbox 360 regarding the manufacturing costs. If we assume Sony is willing to sell at a loss at the same rate as MS the price of the PS3 is going to be somewhere $449-$499. I'm leaning closer to $450.
The rest should pretty comparable with the xbox 360 regarding the manufacturing costs. If we assume Sony is willing to sell at a loss at the same rate as MS the price of the PS3 is going to be somewhere $449-$499. I'm leaning closer to $450.
It's okay to calculate the price of the PS3, but I think that getting a machine onto a shop shelf costs a bit more then the hardware components. Does the retailer make any money on it? How much is the packaging? How much does it cost to ship the console from the assembly plant to the shop? These all add up to some money as well...
MasaC said:
Even if this were true - and I have my doubts - how much more does Cell add on? Wifi? Bluetooth? etc. etc. Some of these will be very cheap, but some less so. The value to the customer might also be somewhat disproportionate with manufacturing cost. For example, wifi might be very cheap to put in the box, but if your competitor charges $100 for it, you might look to it to help justify a greater premium. I think the point of comparison should be 360 Premium + wifi + HD-DVD add-on, if comparing 360's pricing to the price of PS3+HDD (and even then, the HDD is bigger, you've got more options with things like bluetooth, dual hdmi, the usb ports, more processing power and less tangible value-adds like 'full' PS2/PSone BC, Linux, the convenience of an integrated solution vs lots of strap-ons, even just the 'Playstation' brand etc.).
Titanio said:
Yes, if we knew the manufacturing costs for the 360 wifi adapter and the HD-DVD drive add-on and not only the prices of the ridiculously overpriced 360 peripherals at retail.
MS sold the xbox 360 premium with 20 GB HDD, component cable, head set, network cable and a DVD remote (I'm not going to count the cordless controller as that will be in the PS3 box too) at $400.
Replace the component cable with standard AV cable. Remove the head set, the network cable and the remote. Replace the DVD unit with a HD-DVD unit and replace the 20 GB HDD with a 60 GB HDD unit. How much more would that cost to produce?
Similar threads
