PS3's performance and Sony's long-term goal = Uber-PS3?
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
ummm
Yes it will have a number edge , It will also cost alot to make , cost alot ot develop titles for and if the break even point at the 300$ price range is three years that is alot of money going down the tubes from sony . Not to mention if the xenon sells well or the ns5 sells well sony wont be able to drop the price with out putting that break even point further out .
Well it be most likely 75% more powerfull than single cell ps3. But then again you'd need a faster and more powerfull gpu driving costs up .
In 4-5 years ms can put out something much much more powerfull . IN gpu power alone in 5 years we went from dx 7 geforce 2 /radeon 64 power to sm 3.0 dx 9 chips . We went from 800x600 being the norm to 1600x1200 with high lvls of aniso and fsaa .
Anything 5 years from now can beat anything from now even if the tech from today had double the budget .
I expect you will be disapointed .
Its a double edge sword . If you wait 2 years after the rest you will have the more powerfull system but the others will have suer bases and can under cut your price . Then in another 2 years your competition can launch new systems and you will no longer be the most powerfull .
except ms can use the money they are saving to buy support of big named tittles.
Nintendo already taught us you odn't need to sell a 100million systems to make a killing in this field .
Or cause sony to go out of busniess . Look at ms with the xbox . Now imagine ms loosing money on 2 xbox cpus and 2 xbox gpus , twice the xbox ram and whatever else all these years.
You left out selling about 4x the number of units.jvd said:
They just have to convice people they're the next diet craze.jvd said:
randycat99
Veteran
Well, let's think about this a second. Maybe there is some impact of "hurting your competitor directly", rather than just "outdoing them". Let's examine (with as least bias as is possible), what fraction of the XB userbase bought an XB just to get their hands on Halo? Now what fraction bought of the userbase bought an XB because they were convinced it was THE most powerful console of its generation, and that consequentially all games on it would invariably be better than any game on any other console? Presumably, all of the happy XB users from this generation would highly consider buying an XB2, as a matter of course... Now what if that fraction defected to whatever forthcoming console will indisputedly be the most powerful console of the next generation (possibly by even a large margin)? An exodus such as that potentially could hurt XB2 sales. Consequentially, developers not amongst those involved in the first release of games for XB2 may scale back their XB2 projects and refocus on an anticipated PS3 landslide trend. XB2 just might tank early under a market force like that. Think about it like a water tank on a pivot. It's not just a matter of a bit more water on one side of the tank pulling down a bit more. A bit more water on one side additionally means that water is not on the other side, hence the bias in the tank motion is doubled. That bias results in even more water displacement, which results in even more bias, and soon you have one side of the tank thrown utterly up in the air, bone dry.
Yeah, I was just having fun with the analogy, and I'm sure some found it discomforting given the participants of the example. I just wanted to illustrate that after a certain point, an advantage can be so overwhelming (and is hence worth doing, despite the obvious and profound personal costs) that it not only allows the benefactor to outdo the competitor in sales, but actually commandeer sales away from the competitor. So if you knew you could do that by configuring "up" your scaleable hardware, insane yet surmountable logistics aside, there may just be a viable premise there. The effect comes as a double-impact, if the gamble pays out. Anyways...back to the real world, right?
Yeah, I was just having fun with the analogy, and I'm sure some found it discomforting given the participants of the example. I just wanted to illustrate that after a certain point, an advantage can be so overwhelming (and is hence worth doing, despite the obvious and profound personal costs) that it not only allows the benefactor to outdo the competitor in sales, but actually commandeer sales away from the competitor. So if you knew you could do that by configuring "up" your scaleable hardware, insane yet surmountable logistics aside, there may just be a viable premise there. The effect comes as a double-impact, if the gamble pays out. Anyways...back to the real world, right?
Um, you missed the point. You were talking about how much money MS would have lost if yada yada. Well, you didn't factor in that MS only sold 1/4 of the units the PS2 did. That quadruples loss.jvd said:
Talking losses, which will be huge, we can't factor in other revenue stream that would develop. Let's say Sony lose $250 on UberPS3 (ow!). 10 million of those babies in one year is $2.5 billion. That's why Sony can't afford it. Unless, and this is where an 'all eggs in one basket' approach might be consider, a gun-ho, reckless charge...unless they figure that of those 10 million, a substantial quantity will be using online services like Connect to download music and video. Let's be generous and give them $ 1 billion a year.
Next year, Sony lose $200 per system. Another 10 million is a loss of $2 billion, but twice as many Connect customers, so revenue from that is $2 billion.
Third year, at $150 loss per system, $1.5 billion is lost on the next 10 million units, but they're now taking $3 billion a year from Connect services.
By the seventh year, MS release a new system with more power, though at the same resolutions (cause you can't get higher on TV) and no smoother models (because however many gigapolys you get a second, it's still more than you can fit on ascreen at once!). MS lose $150 per system, while Sony makes $100 on each PS3, plus their connect takings of several billion per annum...in a highly optimistic (for Sony) theory at least.
Question is, how much money is there in such a media distribution service? Don't know that anyone knows, but certainly MS have thought it worth enough that they were willing to lose something like $4/5 billion this generation so not to be left out in the cold.
I don't think it's about the games anymore. It's not about a large user base and profitable licensing, but control of media sales. That's why squashinh the competition is high on the agenda, and with PSP supplimenting Sony's approach, providing a portable media extension to the PlayStation structure adding more impetus to their Connect sales, I would say this is the model Sony would gun for.
Course, it could be that the media service bombs. How many music download companies turn a decent profit? Sony might just go losing billions. If they fear this, sure their going to keep the system not too over the top. Maybe they'd just spend the savings on marketting instead, which would probably be more effective anyway!
I think the key thing to bear in mind though is that, unlike MS or Nintendo, Sony, the whole company, has it's own media it produces. Whatever profits MS might make selling music online, Sony will make far more selling their own labels online. The board room shakeup suggests as a whole company this is their aim - for each division to add to and support the other divisions, instead of operating as seperate entities with seperate agendas.
As a way to extend Sony's IP sales, PlayStation seems to have become a major player. How much will they back this with technology?
Next year, Sony lose $200 per system. Another 10 million is a loss of $2 billion, but twice as many Connect customers, so revenue from that is $2 billion.
Third year, at $150 loss per system, $1.5 billion is lost on the next 10 million units, but they're now taking $3 billion a year from Connect services.
By the seventh year, MS release a new system with more power, though at the same resolutions (cause you can't get higher on TV) and no smoother models (because however many gigapolys you get a second, it's still more than you can fit on ascreen at once!). MS lose $150 per system, while Sony makes $100 on each PS3, plus their connect takings of several billion per annum...in a highly optimistic (for Sony) theory at least.
Question is, how much money is there in such a media distribution service? Don't know that anyone knows, but certainly MS have thought it worth enough that they were willing to lose something like $4/5 billion this generation so not to be left out in the cold.
I don't think it's about the games anymore. It's not about a large user base and profitable licensing, but control of media sales. That's why squashinh the competition is high on the agenda, and with PSP supplimenting Sony's approach, providing a portable media extension to the PlayStation structure adding more impetus to their Connect sales, I would say this is the model Sony would gun for.
Course, it could be that the media service bombs. How many music download companies turn a decent profit? Sony might just go losing billions. If they fear this, sure their going to keep the system not too over the top. Maybe they'd just spend the savings on marketting instead, which would probably be more effective anyway!
I think the key thing to bear in mind though is that, unlike MS or Nintendo, Sony, the whole company, has it's own media it produces. Whatever profits MS might make selling music online, Sony will make far more selling their own labels online. The board room shakeup suggests as a whole company this is their aim - for each division to add to and support the other divisions, instead of operating as seperate entities with seperate agendas.
As a way to extend Sony's IP sales, PlayStation seems to have become a major player. How much will they back this with technology?
An uber-PS3 is not going to happen.
Suppose Sony would put more than one CELLs on the PS3, what would that for the new PS3 games?
I think in the first year after launch, games won't even fully utilize all 8 SPEs of one CELL chip, so adding another CELL might not do very much game quality. Adding that much power may very well result in sloppier coding and inefficient programs.
Sony will want to make the PS3 games to look better than XB2 games as soon as PS3 hits the shelves. Not after a few yrs.
The most skilled PS3 developers will initially be those who produced top quality games for the PS2 and they can do much with little.
I think the art departments and game designers will have to gradually adjust to the new possibilites offered by new hardware. More advanced AIs will still have to be developed and fancy physics effects will have to be integrated into gameplay.
It seems to me game developers are already struggling to fully utilize current hardware with their limited budgets and time schedules.
Especially when I look at the 3D artwork of games nowadays, I find the quality is becoming less consistent. The main protagonist and most characters are usually very detailed, while areas and miscellaneous objects are much simpler. Too often I see rooms that consist of 6 large flat surfaces for walls, ceiling and floor, with textures that are just too small. Like they used different concept art and they were in a hurry.
So what Sony should try instead is put even more effort into creating better game dev tools.
Suppose Sony would put more than one CELLs on the PS3, what would that for the new PS3 games?
I think in the first year after launch, games won't even fully utilize all 8 SPEs of one CELL chip, so adding another CELL might not do very much game quality. Adding that much power may very well result in sloppier coding and inefficient programs.
Sony will want to make the PS3 games to look better than XB2 games as soon as PS3 hits the shelves. Not after a few yrs.
The most skilled PS3 developers will initially be those who produced top quality games for the PS2 and they can do much with little.
I think the art departments and game designers will have to gradually adjust to the new possibilites offered by new hardware. More advanced AIs will still have to be developed and fancy physics effects will have to be integrated into gameplay.
It seems to me game developers are already struggling to fully utilize current hardware with their limited budgets and time schedules.
Especially when I look at the 3D artwork of games nowadays, I find the quality is becoming less consistent. The main protagonist and most characters are usually very detailed, while areas and miscellaneous objects are much simpler. Too often I see rooms that consist of 6 large flat surfaces for walls, ceiling and floor, with textures that are just too small. Like they used different concept art and they were in a hurry.
So what Sony should try instead is put even more effort into creating better game dev tools.
zidane1strife
Banned
I think in terms of losses we've to take into account that sony ain't in as bad a situation as they were when ps2 was launched, manufacturing wise. They've the expertise from ibm/toshiba and they've progressed a lot. We must not forget that they can sell at 100$ higher in japan without problems(ps2 was launched at equivalent to 380$, back then IIRC)
The original ps2, IIRC, was to be manufactured at .18m but sadly the initial batch(s?) came out at .25m(either gs or ee, or maybe both, don't recall too well.). From what I remember back in the day it's said that they even airshipped some units to the US for launch due to the manufacturing woes that had ensued. All in all I recall many said a 200$ loss occured, and ps2's ram amount had to be crippled. Yet even with that after about a year, I do recall hearing they were already breaking even.
Now a days we've toshiba eng.s hinting at 65nm volume production having started this very month, transition to 45nm in the not too distant future(at most 1-2yrs) is all but given. This basically means that even if packing 2cell setup and equally hefty gpu their losses will be gone in 1-2years at most, and they won't be as heavy(this is not a massive processor using current process, being manufactured in an older process with significant yield problems.). Not to mention the workstation market which seems to share many of the components, if that market can grow fast enough, which shouldn't be a problem if the performance gap is good enough(which it seems), manufacturing will scale easily enough.
The offer of this additional market, can aid them in getting better deals in other components they don't make directly(xdr ram, if such is used.). So I'd say they can do it if they dare, and as history often favors the BOLD they should do so, IMO.
The original ps2, IIRC, was to be manufactured at .18m but sadly the initial batch(s?) came out at .25m(either gs or ee, or maybe both, don't recall too well.). From what I remember back in the day it's said that they even airshipped some units to the US for launch due to the manufacturing woes that had ensued. All in all I recall many said a 200$ loss occured, and ps2's ram amount had to be crippled. Yet even with that after about a year, I do recall hearing they were already breaking even.
Now a days we've toshiba eng.s hinting at 65nm volume production having started this very month, transition to 45nm in the not too distant future(at most 1-2yrs) is all but given. This basically means that even if packing 2cell setup and equally hefty gpu their losses will be gone in 1-2years at most, and they won't be as heavy(this is not a massive processor using current process, being manufactured in an older process with significant yield problems.). Not to mention the workstation market which seems to share many of the components, if that market can grow fast enough, which shouldn't be a problem if the performance gap is good enough(which it seems), manufacturing will scale easily enough.
The offer of this additional market, can aid them in getting better deals in other components they don't make directly(xdr ram, if such is used.). So I'd say they can do it if they dare, and as history often favors the BOLD they should do so, IMO.
The workstation market won't generate a lot of revenue for Sony so i don't think that should be taken into account. Especially not against losses that could run into the billions of dollars...
"Talking losses, which will be huge, we can't factor in other revenue stream that would develop. Let's say Sony lose $250 on UberPS3 (ow!). 10 million of those babies in one year is $2.5 billion. That's why Sony can't afford it. Unless, and this is where an 'all eggs in one basket' approach might be consider, a gun-ho, reckless charge...unless they figure that of those 10 million, a substantial quantity will be using online services like Connect to download music and video. Let's be generous and give them $ 1 billion a year.
Next year, Sony lose $200 per system. Another 10 million is a loss of $2 billion, but twice as many Connect customers, so revenue from that is $2 billion.
Third year, at $150 loss per system, $1.5 billion is lost on the next 10 million units, but they're now taking $3 billion a year from Connect services.
By the seventh year, MS release a new system with more power, though at the same resolutions (cause you can't get higher on TV) and no smoother models (because however many gigapolys you get a second, it's still more than you can fit on ascreen at once!). MS lose $150 per system, while Sony makes $100 on each PS3, plus their connect takings of several billion per annum...in a highly optimistic (for Sony) theory at least.
Question is, how much money is there in such a media distribution service? Don't know that anyone knows, but certainly MS have thought it worth enough that they were willing to lose something like $4/5 billion this generation so not to be left out in the cold.
I don't think it's about the games anymore. It's not about a large user base and profitable licensing, but control of media sales. That's why squashinh the competition is high on the agenda, and with PSP supplimenting Sony's approach, providing a portable media extension to the PlayStation structure adding more impetus to their Connect sales, I would say this is the model Sony would gun for.
Course, it could be that the media service bombs. How many music download companies turn a decent profit? Sony might just go losing billions. If they fear this, sure their going to keep the system not too over the top. Maybe they'd just spend the savings on marketting instead, which would probably be more effective anyway!
I think the key thing to bear in mind though is that, unlike MS or Nintendo, Sony, the whole company, has it's own media it produces. Whatever profits MS might make selling music online, Sony will make far more selling their own labels online. The board room shakeup suggests as a whole company this is their aim - for each division to add to and support the other divisions, instead of operating as seperate entities with seperate agendas.
As a way to extend Sony's IP sales, PlayStation seems to have become a major player. How much will they back this with technology?
_________________
Shifty Geezer
I think your not taking into what MS is capable on their terms. With Xbox Live already established with 1.5m and some of their service offerings. Not to mention (although still rumor) If Xbox next uses Memory or flash modules and the Hard drive is an upgrade and possiblities of external cameras, they can reduce the price the of their console or in the very least make up some cost by offering gamers an option of having say a hard drive or use flash / memory storing devices.
For example: MS is already trying to dabble into music download department. (again my opinion not a fact) Xbox Live could be incorporated to download music or songs for a fee? Invest in the Hard Drive or use Flash / Memory Storage.
Another Example: I see a big plus with the xbox live feature. Imagine a video phone system over your broadband. Using a camera (cha ching MS $$$) along with Xbox Live not just for games but you are able to talk with video to your gamer friends in real time and maybe family. If anyone knows how to expand or take a chance and has the $$ to back what may be a risk but with the possiblity of huge rewards its M$.
I have only listed probably a small list of what MS could be doing but next gen on all sides MS, PS3, Revolution has alot of potential.
*Again this is all speculation so take it as you will***
Next year, Sony lose $200 per system. Another 10 million is a loss of $2 billion, but twice as many Connect customers, so revenue from that is $2 billion.
Third year, at $150 loss per system, $1.5 billion is lost on the next 10 million units, but they're now taking $3 billion a year from Connect services.
By the seventh year, MS release a new system with more power, though at the same resolutions (cause you can't get higher on TV) and no smoother models (because however many gigapolys you get a second, it's still more than you can fit on ascreen at once!). MS lose $150 per system, while Sony makes $100 on each PS3, plus their connect takings of several billion per annum...in a highly optimistic (for Sony) theory at least.
Question is, how much money is there in such a media distribution service? Don't know that anyone knows, but certainly MS have thought it worth enough that they were willing to lose something like $4/5 billion this generation so not to be left out in the cold.
I don't think it's about the games anymore. It's not about a large user base and profitable licensing, but control of media sales. That's why squashinh the competition is high on the agenda, and with PSP supplimenting Sony's approach, providing a portable media extension to the PlayStation structure adding more impetus to their Connect sales, I would say this is the model Sony would gun for.
Course, it could be that the media service bombs. How many music download companies turn a decent profit? Sony might just go losing billions. If they fear this, sure their going to keep the system not too over the top. Maybe they'd just spend the savings on marketting instead, which would probably be more effective anyway!
I think the key thing to bear in mind though is that, unlike MS or Nintendo, Sony, the whole company, has it's own media it produces. Whatever profits MS might make selling music online, Sony will make far more selling their own labels online. The board room shakeup suggests as a whole company this is their aim - for each division to add to and support the other divisions, instead of operating as seperate entities with seperate agendas.
As a way to extend Sony's IP sales, PlayStation seems to have become a major player. How much will they back this with technology?
_________________
Shifty Geezer
I think your not taking into what MS is capable on their terms. With Xbox Live already established with 1.5m and some of their service offerings. Not to mention (although still rumor) If Xbox next uses Memory or flash modules and the Hard drive is an upgrade and possiblities of external cameras, they can reduce the price the of their console or in the very least make up some cost by offering gamers an option of having say a hard drive or use flash / memory storing devices.
For example: MS is already trying to dabble into music download department. (again my opinion not a fact) Xbox Live could be incorporated to download music or songs for a fee? Invest in the Hard Drive or use Flash / Memory Storage.
Another Example: I see a big plus with the xbox live feature. Imagine a video phone system over your broadband. Using a camera (cha ching MS $$$) along with Xbox Live not just for games but you are able to talk with video to your gamer friends in real time and maybe family. If anyone knows how to expand or take a chance and has the $$ to back what may be a risk but with the possiblity of huge rewards its M$.
I have only listed probably a small list of what MS could be doing but next gen on all sides MS, PS3, Revolution has alot of potential.
*Again this is all speculation so take it as you will***
On the contrary, this is kinda the point of my argument!jpr27 said:
Yes, both MS and Sony will have media functions. PS3 will have Sony Connect, whereas MS will have maybe NapsterLive! Both systems will have flash storage and connection to portable media players - PSP for Sony and either a MS device or support for third parties from MS. They'll both have things like videophone (EyeToy chat already exists for PS2) and goodness knows what other extra features they can dream up.
The point is, as comparable systems, how will they compete? What will Sony do to make sure THEY get the cut of all these extra features and not MS?
They *could* release a comparable system, at a similar price and similar costs to themselves as Xenon. Both Xenon and PS3 will perform similar, have similar functionality, and so forth. Then Sony will have to win over the punters through marketting.
Or, Sony *could* produce an UberPS3. It's comparable in functionality to Xenon, but vastly superior in performance, perhaps opening up other options like more complicated image recognition controlled games. It would cost a lot more for Sony to do this, so that might be a turn off. But if it works, it'll seize the greater part of the lucrative media circus that both MS and Sony are competing for, plus extending the lifespan of the system into longer profitability in it's lifecycle.
Bear in mind I'm not arguing whether Sony will trounce MS or not. I'm arguing that it might be in Sony's best interest to go all out next-gen. If MS weren't going to include multi-functionality, Sony wouldn't need to consider a costly UberPS3 but could get away with a more modest system and just provide the media functions on that - the points you raise give support to the idea that it might be in Sony's best interests
zidane1strife
Banned
london-boy said:
No I did not mean for sony, but as being an alluring incentive to others involved to give sony a better deal(not only does each workstation use far far more of each component, but it can probably be sold at a premium.), thus easing things up.
Workstations definately will have a huge profit margin but they will less so few of them, relatively speaking, that it won't matter. Unless they sell each at a 5Million price point...