Some thoughts on the PS3

[Brimstone]

Sony has always had the flexability to take a different GPU besides G70 from nVidia and put it in the PS3. That interview with Kutaragi confirmed that Sony could upgarde the specs like a computer if they wanted. The system is designed that way to allow for flexability in configurations. When they first signed the contract they needed some sort of GPU for the developer kits. Blu-Ray caused the delay probably more than anything else for Spring 2006. Sony has yet to start manufacturing units as far as we know.


The sitiuation now is the G80 from Nvidia is almost complete. Sony has the option to request that from nVidia. The fabs are closer .65nm than ever before, so any .90nm RSX would be short lived.


Trying to make a console lower cost is not a winning strategy by itself. Sony shouldn't be focused on trying to drive down cost to the $300 dollar level. What they need to offer is a product with the perception that it's worth a premium price. Blu-Ray alone won't do this, and the addition of Blu-Ray and the price increase it causes, results in the need for the PS3 to produce graphics in games that are head and shoulders above XB360. Joe Sixpack needs to look at John Madden Football side by side and see a major difference.

The "sku" situation could be changed to help Sony out. Scrub the $499 sku. Also get rid of the the non-chrome version. The idea of shelling out less money but ending up with a less nice looking model is moronic. Have every model contain HDMI 1.3. Increase the video ram to 512 Megabytes in total.

Have a $599 base sku with a 20GB drive.
Then a premium $699 sku with a 60GB drive, two HDMI 1.3 ports (one for audio) and wireless.

People would fall in love with the value of that premium offering. For Home Theater nuts, it would be a must have. Blu-Ray is going to offer next-gen audio, and you are going to need a HDMI port for audio out to take advantage of it. This dual sku configuration makes so much more sense.

Get "rumble" in the Dual Shock 3. Not having it is one of the dumbest things possible for a console bearing the "Playstation" brand. Heck, even the hertiage of the name "shock" stems from "rumble technology". License the technology from Immersion and let the animosity go.

 

[gokickrocks]

i agree that j6p actually needs to see that the ps3 graphics are head over shoulders above the 360 to justify the price, but i honestly dont see that happening
if sony were to wait for nvidias g80, then they would have to delay their console and miss the biggest holiday season of the year (also the time that most people can justify spending that much cash), which would probably equate to angry shareholders...and then theres the gambling on the .65nm process...

i think j6p would rather have the skus that are already announced, or rather lower priced than that

 

[EricVonZipper]

I would much rather have 2 SLI'ed 7800gt's and 1 gig of memory than blu-ray. Leave the power supply outside and let that baby cook. Maybe 2 cell chips while their at it.

They should have done a dual laser setup: 15 gig dual layer/double sided DVD's. 15 gig's should be plenty this gen. Maybe a dual disc loader.

Oh well.......I'll still get the PS3. But what could have been..........................

 

[Bigus Dickus]

For a hundred bucks you want to double V-RAM, add another HDMI port, and swap the G70 for the G80?

Umm... ok.

 

[Brimstone]

i agree that j6p actually needs to see that the ps3 graphics are head over shoulders above the 360 to justify the price, but i honestly dont see that happening
if sony were to wait for nvidias g80, then they would have to delay their console and miss the biggest holiday season of the year (also the time that most people can justify spending that much cash), which would probably equate to angry shareholders...and then theres the gambling on the .65nm process...

i think j6p would rather have the skus that are already announced, or rather lower priced than that

Sony can drop in a G80 into the PS3 even if the developer kits don't have them. Of course you'd get launch software not taking advantage of the G80's additional hardware firepower.

Sony signed a second contract with nVidia which could be for a G80 based RSX. Many have speculated it was for a PSP2, which doesn't make much sense to me. A PSP2 has to be far down the road imho.

I also question Sony using GDDR-3 for video ram, when they're already consumming XDR for CELL. If they use XDR for the RSX, they end up doubling the amount of XDR volume. This is a good thing from a long term price perspective. Also the big bonus is a lot more bandwith for the RSX GPU.


If the PS3 doesn't output higher quality graphics by a wide margin over the XB360, Blu-Ray will percieved as a Sony tax by consumers that aren't all that intrested in HD movie playback.

 

[Brimstone]

For a hundred bucks you want to double V-RAM, add another HDMI port, and swap the G70 for the G80?

Umm... ok.

No. The current $499 doesn't have a HDMI port.

The $599 SKU would only have a single HDMI 1.3 port and a 20 Gig Harddrive. So for a $100 would be adding a HDMI port, adding more cost to their GPU fabrication, and doubling the v-ram pool.

The $699 would be the one people would be going nuts over because it would have dual HDMI ports along with wireless and a 60 Gig Harddrive.


The increase in GPU fabrication at 90nm do to a larger die size will be offset by shrinkage at .65nm. The goal of the PS3 shouldn't be to drop the price below $599, but to make it worthwhile to purchase at $599 for a long time. The whole idea is to maintain a high price point for as long as possible.

Lowering your price to compete for marketshare is absolutley the dumbest strategy a company can pursue.

 

[darkblu]

Lowering your price to compete for marketshare is absolutley the dumbest strategy a company can pursue.

does this mean that we can expect sony to, erm, increase the price of their console over its lifespan? ; )

 

[Arty]

Sony signed a second contract with nVidia which could be for a G80 based RSX.

 

[SugarCoat]

Sony can drop in a G80 into the PS3 even if the developer kits don't have them. Of course you'd get launch software not taking advantage of the G80's additional hardware firepower.

Sony signed a second contract with nVidia which could be for a G80 based RSX. Many have speculated it was for a PSP2, which doesn't make much sense to me. A PSP2 has to be far down the road imho.

I also question Sony using GDDR-3 for video ram, when they're already consumming XDR for CELL. If they use XDR for the RSX, they end up doubling the amount of XDR volume. This is a good thing from a long term price perspective. Also the big bonus is a lot more bandwith for the RSX GPU.


If the PS3 doesn't output higher quality graphics by a wide margin over the XB360, Blu-Ray will percieved as a Sony tax by consumers that aren't all that intrested in HD movie playback.

1. All systems must be the same or it screws up devs and games and pisses off the ownership community. IE if they made a PSP v2.0 that was twice as powerful and all devs started making games for it, origonal PSP owners would be quite pissed because they get to play the handicapped version. This is the number one reason why consoles are so successful. Start making people purchase console upgrades and people will jump ship very fast because it would become just as bad if not worse then computers. "Buy a new console every year so you can play our games like they were ment to be". No thanks.

2. The core must be console friendly, this is why the NV47 varient was chosen to begin with, to give Nvidia enough time to make a console friendly core to comply with all of Sony's rules, such as power draw requirements and cooling. Both nextgen graphic parts for the PC are looking to require more juice then ever, requiring a complete remodelling of an already delayed console with new components.

3. The NV50/G80 is infact a high end PC core, it was not designed for a Playstation 3. It cannot be "dropped in".

4. Sony's costs would increase further, which they absolutly do not want to do. They want to be able to cut losses off the box as time goes on, not revise it and lose more, this is exactly what they did with the PS2 when they combined the key chips and reduced the size. A NV50 "dropped in" scenario would contradict that completely.

5. So far this has been discussed once a month, please do a search as no offense, i'm finding them a tad annoying for a forum connected to an advanced 3D tech site. Every thread ends the same, there is no way its going to happen, period.

 

[Rangers]

The thing is, all of these pie-in-the-sky- wishlists (G80, 512MB VRAM, 7800 SLI) would have easily (and I do mean easily) fit in the cost envelope of the $600 PS3 systems-provided Blu-Ray was out, and a standard DVD was in. In fact such a machine probably could have been priced at $499 or even $399 ($499 fairly easily, I would think). As well as likely fallen in price much faster after launch.

It's always a case of tradeoffs. I dont think the PS3 is much more than a 399 machine, sans Blu-Ray. In fact, the G70 is likely costing in the area of $50, it's an extremely compact, affordable die.
________
WIKI VAPORIZER

 

[one]

The thing is, all of these pie-in-the-sky- wishlists (G80, 512MB VRAM, 7800 SLI) would have easily (and I do mean easily) fit in the cost envelope of the $600 PS3 systems-provided Blu-Ray was out, and a standard DVD was in.

I doubt you can get 7800 SLI < $600 with or without Blu-ray.

 

[V3]

Lowering your price to compete for marketshare is absolutley the dumbest strategy a company can pursue.

It normally worked though. However probably not for PS3. Looking at 360 and Wii and compare it to PS3, it'll be a tough job for Sony to lower the cost of PS3. The one in good position to lower price and gained market share is 360 at the moment. There is just no way PS3 can compete by the same strategy. And its clear by the $499 and $599 price tag, that Sony doesn't want to get into price war with MS.

As far as my thought on PS3, I really do like the promises they made a couple years ago at E3. 1080p and multi display gaming especially were the highlights. Now we are back to 720p and single display. Frankly as far as gaming experience is concern it has no differentiator to 360. Yes there is that tilt, but I would gladly gave that up for 1080p and multi display gaming.

What I really want to see is PS3 SKUs with different graphics performances, just in term of resolution. $299 for 480p, $399 for 720p, $699 for 1080p, etc. PC gaming can get this just by different GPUs on the same family. I know this is like the opposite of what a console is, but its nice to have that choice to fit individual need better instead of middle ground like what we have now.

 

[Serenity Painted Death]

Except the "option" for 1080p hasn't been removed from the system at all, in either version. Whether or not it is actively pursued is another question entirely.

 

[Brimstone]

4. Sony's costs would increase further, which they absolutly do not want to do. They want to be able to cut losses off the box as time goes on, not revise it and lose more, this is exactly what they did with the PS2 when they combined the key chips and reduced the size. A NV50 "dropped in" scenario would contradict that completely.

The sweet spot is holiday 2007. Both the CPU and GPU will be fabbed at .65 nm by then. Also Ram price declines as time goes on just like all semiconductors do.

The goal is to provide a platform that people want to purchase software on, while at the same time not losing more than needed on the hardware. The problem is the PS3 doesn't exist in a vacumm. It has competion from the XB360 and Nintendo to contend with.

If Sony is concerned with hardware price points, they shouldn't even stick Blu-Ray in the machine. As it stands Sony has welded Blu-Ray to the platform, thus increasing its pricepoint to a much higher level. The SEGA Dreamcast was almost 1/3 less in cost than the PS2 and Sony crushed it. Under my SKU scenario the premium XB360 at $399 would be 1/3 less than the cost of the $599 PS3. It would set up the conditions to repeat a Dreamcast hardware situation. PS2 had more RAM than the Dreamcast, and the PS3 would have more RAM with the proposed SKU setup. PS2 had a next-gen optical format, the Dreamcast didn't. Obviously this time around the PS3 will have a next-gen format, and the XB-360 won't as a standard feature.

So in essence, my suggestion would be trying to recreate the conditions that allowed the PS2 hardware to be percieved as totally superior compared to the competion. While the price differences wouldn't exactly mimic what happened between the PS2 and Dreamcast, it would be close.


There are tons of examples of how price of a product isn't a primary concern as long at the public agrees that the product is better than the competion. Sony already proved it once with the PS2. Recently the Motorola Razr was a smash hit. Everyday Starbucks proves it with every cup of coffee it sells.

If the public percieves the PS3 as the equivelent of XB360 hardware, but with a Blu-Ray drive bolted on, Sony is in deep trouble. The power level needs to have a certain mystique to it.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Have a $599 base sku with a 20GB drive.
Then a premium $699 sku with a 60GB drive, two HDMI 1.3 ports (one for audio) and wireless.

Doesn't the HDMI 1.3 fully support next gen audio too? There's no need for two HDMI ports, one for video, one for audio.
Is it possible Sony ditched the second HDMI port just becaouse of that?
The two ports was introduced when it was thought the PS3 would release spring 2006, as it's put further towards November, the HDMI 1.3 is ready to be included in PS3, thus eliminating the need for two HDMI ports and still offering full "High Definition" audio and video.

 

[V3]

Except the "option" for 1080p hasn't been removed from the system at all, in either version. Whether or not it is actively pursued is another question entirely.

Think of PC games. I don't think the high res setting are pursued by PC game developers, but most games allowed for it for those who has the rig capable of it.

 

[V3]

Doesn't the HDMI 1.3 fully support next gen audio too? There's no need for two HDMI ports, one for video, one for audio.
Is it possible Sony ditched the second HDMI port just becaouse of that?
The two ports was introduced when it was thought the PS3 would release spring 2006, as it's put further towards November, the HDMI 1.3 is ready to be included in PS3, thus eliminating the need for two HDMI ports and still offering full "High Definition" audio and video.

Yeah, with the new HDMI 1.3 they don't need 2 HDMI port anymore, they have enough bandwidth with just a single HDMI 1.3 port.

 

[Diamond.G]

Yeah, with the new HDMI 1.3 they don't need 2 HDMI port anymore, they have enough bandwidth with just a single HDMI 1.3 port.

I was under the impression that the two HDMI ports were for dual display.

 

[rabidrabbit]

It would have been for HD audio or dual display, depending on your preferred configuration and HT system.

 

[V3]

I was under the impression that the two HDMI ports were for dual display.

Nah, they were never serious about multi displays. The reception at E3 when they announced it was rather poor. Shame really, 3 screens surround gaming is really good for certain genre, like racing or flight sims sort of games. Even if its inconvinient setup, it really does add to the experience for those sort of games.