The new PS3 sales pitch: Better gaming, better technology, better value

[Titanio]

Yes, they may be right. In which case, kudos may be in order.

But if Blu-Ray's impact on games proves minimal and PS3's higher cost slows adoption rates to the point where Sony loses some of its third-party support and exclusives (timed or otherwise, see GTA4) - then the company's gambit to fight in two markets at once will have only diluted the strength of the PlayStation platform as we know it.

It's a dangerous game they're playing. They're either brilliant or foolish, but either way, they've got gigantic balls of steel.

That's all I ask, that we don't jump to conclusions.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure GTA4 had nothing to do with PS3's retail cost. Rockstar wanted badly for it to be properly multiplatform ASAP, they put the others out on Xbox as soon as their agreement with Sony allowed.

 

[Sis]

They are? How so? (I'm not an economist)

You don't need to be an economist, just perform a simple thought exercise: In 1986 I paid X for a computer. In 2006 I paid Y for a computer. Similarly, in 1986 I paid X for a gallon of milk. In 2006 I paid Y for a gallon of milk.

I believe improvements in manufacturing allow for this, and calling it "inflation-proof" was probably a bit glib on my part.

 

[Arwin]

We haven't seen any proof yet that DVDs are insufficient for next-gen games. When it happens, then it may "suck." Until it happens and multiplatform releases on 360 become gimped because of it, there's no problem with the format.

Nice, short-sighted view. I might as well say that given the historical trend in console gaminngn, there is every reason to believe DVDs are insufficient for next-gen, especially with several developers already claiming so.

In fact, it's what's allowing MS to make 360 the ONLY affordably priced next-gen game console of this generation.

That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure there will be lots of people saying the same about the 360 when looking at the Wii's price. It will definitely need more than a 20-25% price difference to really be a factor.

When the PS2 was released in Europe, it took only about 6 months before we got the first significant price cut. Everybody was saying that the thing was unaffordable when it was released, but it took the market by storm regardless. The Japanese paid about the same. Only the US was relatively lucky because the dollar was strong at the time.

If the price difference remains as advertised, then all the PS3 will need is a few distinguishing marks, like better and faster graphics, 1080p browser, blu ray, and the motion sensitive controller, and exclusive games, to distinguish itself sufficiently.

I'm not saying it will work. And I do believe that if anywhere, it'll be the U.S. where the 360 and PS3 will have the closest battle. But I consider the possibility that the Playstation will do great again considerable. The low end of the market may well be dominated by Wii (and who knows what the PS2 may still do off of it with that eDimension controller), the high market will attract people who want high-level entertainment and may be more interested in getting the best of the best than saving 100$. The 360 may do well as a second machine next to the Wii.

In the end, we just don't know what will happen. We can predict, but noone here knows for sure. Time will tell.

 

[Arwin]

You don't need to be an economist, just perform a simple thought exercise: In 1986 I paid X for a computer. In 2006 I paid Y for a computer. Similarly, in 1986 I paid X for a gallon of milk. In 2006 I paid Y for a gallon of milk.

You are referring to that the price of a computer stays the same over time, though you get a better computer each time. The problem however is that the computer itself devaluates even more and faster than most things do, taking investment into account. Consoles are only slightly worse (depending on where in its lifecycle you buy it of course.)

I believe improvements in manufacturing allow for this, and calling it "inflation-proof" was probably a bit glib on my part.

I agree on the glib thing. With computers it's much more complicated. There is usually an optimal window, in terms of production cost and demand.

 

[Tap In]

...

Take with salt as appropriate, but word from a game developer on GAF is that one of the reasons Mercenaries 2 has only been announced so far for PS3 is..disc capacity.....

woops!

Well interesting.

I'm still not convinced that it will make a significant impact on gaming in the next 4 years


....much less contradict Kolger's and Acert93's financial assessment of Sony's current marketability...



but I am aroused nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how much of an impact disc size plays and if that can/will be big enough to transfer over to a main stream need with regard to buying decisions.

 

[mckmas8808]

woops!

Well interesting.

I'm still not convinced that it will make a significant impact on gaming in the next 4 years


....much less contradict Kolger's and Acert93's financial assessment of Sony's current marketability...



but I am aroused nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how much of an impact disc size plays and if that can/will be big enough to transfer over to a main stream need with regard to buying decisions.

Well TapIn disc capacity will play a role next-gen, but at the sametime the X360 will still get most of the 3rd party games. They may just be gimped a little compared to the PS3.

Obviously you know there will me huge fights here talking about how important the difference is. We will see people saying, "I will get the superior version." But yeah Blu-ray will play a role in games more than most people will like to think.

 

[Tap In]

Well TapIn disc capacity will play a role next-gen,....

My "not convinced yet" comment alluded to the fact that no one knows yet to what degree this is true or if it will impact sales in any way.

... They may just be gimped a little compared to the PS3.

...

one comment by a dev does not yet make this a trend.

Time will tell and it's way too early to be trumpeting, "I told you so".
You may have your chance for that but let's give it a year or two to see how it shakes out.

 

[mckmas8808]

My "not convinced yet" comment alluded to the fact that no one knows yet to what degree this is true or if it will impact sales in any way.




one comment by a dev does not yet make this a trend.

Time will tell and it's way too early to be trumpeting, "I told you so".
You may have your chance for that but let's give it a year or two to see how it shakes out.

I completly agree. I just like to keep the convo balanced.

 

[Arwin]

one comment by a dev does not yet make this a trend.

Time will tell and it's way too early to be trumpeting, "I told you so".
You may have your chance for that but let's give it a year or two to see how it shakes out.

Agreed, but in the mean time, I'm counting four comments by four devs.

 

[Tap In]

Agreed, but in the mean time, I'm counting four comments by four devs.

Yes, I'm sure you have a little spiral notebook just filling it feverishly.

 

[Sis]

You are referring to that the price of a computer stays the same over time, though you get a better computer each time. The problem however is that the computer itself devaluates even more and faster than most things do, taking investment into account. Consoles are only slightly worse (depending on where in its lifecycle you buy it of course.)

I agree on the glib thing. With computers it's much more complicated. There is usually an optimal window, in terms of production cost and demand.

It sounds like you agree with me, then (other than the phrase "inflation proof"). A console's price has maintained a certain price for a long time, in spite of inflation. Adjusting for inflation now to justify a console's price is rationalizing the high price.

 

[Arwin]

It sounds like you agree with me, then (other than the phrase "inflation proof"). A console's price has maintained a certain price for a long time, in spite of inflation. Adjusting for inflation now to justify a console's price is rationalizing the high price.

Not in this case. You have to get your no doubt American mind around the fact that in Europe and Japan the price is about the same as the PS2 launch price. And the price isn't really a constant. But I've explained lots of this already. Suffice to say that when it comes to the launch price, inflation definitely matters, and so do international exchange rates.

Not that it will matter that much - very few people do in fact think about these little economics thing and just worry about which consoles they want now or later, if they want it now or later, and if they can afford it now or later. And you have to give it to them, that's already a lot to think about, never mind stuff like inflation that you can't do much about anyway (other than not vote for a republican big spender)

 

[Sis]

Not in this case. You have to get your no doubt American mind around the fact that in Europe and Japan the price is about the same as the PS2 launch price. And the price isn't really a constant. But I've explained lots of this already. Suffice to say that when it comes to the launch price, inflation definitely matters, and so do international exchange rates.

Not that it will matter that much - very few people do in fact think about these little economics thing and just worry about which consoles they want now or later, if they want it now or later, and if they can afford it now or later. And you have to give it to them, that's already a lot to think about, never mind stuff like inflation that you can't do much about anyway (other than not vote for a republican big spender)

Well, kudos for getting an American insult in there, but go back to the original post where I highlighted and responded to "adjusted for inflation". Then, go to your post where you acknowledge that prices for computers and consoles have remained the same, but you throw in a red herring about "depreciation".

Finally, wikipedia says the launch price for the PS2 was GB£299.99 and JP¥39,800. How is that "about the same" as GB£425 and JP¥59,800?

 

[Dave Baumann]

I would question even that. At the very least, the Cell processor has plenty of potential to become cheaper than Xbox's CPU, as the Cell processor will be used in many more devices, if only because it's more suitable for that kind of thing being relatively easy on power consumption.

Even if these "many" devices come to fruition soon, how are they going to help? the silicon still has to be bought for both these devices and the PS3, and economies of scale are going to reduce as PS3 is already a high volume device. If MS and Sony roughly keep track of silicon processes then the fundamental fact is that Cell is significantly larger than XCPU and that goes right to the heart of silicon costs.

 

[pc999]

Even if these "many" devices come to fruition soon, how are they going to help? the silicon still has to be bought for both these devices and the PS3, and economies of scale are going to reduce as PS3 is already a high volume device. If MS and Sony roughly keep track of silicon processes then the fundamental fact is that Cell is significantly larger than XCPU and that goes right to the heart of silicon costs.

I think he mean that even if those CPUs can not be used in PS3 they can be used in other products, and those will be like almost cost free for Sony (not PS division) as a whole it may be a lot less money spend on silicon for Cell products and they may find a way to use it to lower the costs of PS3, we just dont knou if it will cost less than XeCPU.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I'd be surpised if there was any volume there with the redundancy already in place, certainly when they move to 65nm (which isn't that far off for both). There's still a significant die difference though, so there would have to be a fair amount of difference (or really sucky XCPU yields) to make up the difference.

 

[overclocked]

If MS and Sony roughly keep track of silicon processes then the fundamental fact is that Cell is significantly larger than XCPU and that goes right to the heart of silicon costs.

Cell is cheaper *now* compared to XeCpu *then* in cost of each unit AFAIK.
Its a fact that they always will have more raw siliconcost no doubt of course.

I'd be surpised if there was any volume there with the redundancy already in place, certainly when they move to 65nm (which isn't that far off for both). There's still a significant die difference though, so there would have to be a fair amount of difference (or really sucky XCPU yields) to make up the difference.

In later iterations of PS3s Cell they can likely rearange the layout and cut the 8th SPE in the future for more costsavings.
However if that will happen its not on 65nm so thats in a longer perspective IMO.

 

[Acert93]

Cell is cheaper *now* compared to XeCpu *then* in cost of each unit AFAIK.

Where did you hear this?

They are both currently on the 90nm process and CELL has yet to begin large scale commercial production. Xenon is 168mm^2 whereas Cell is 40% larger at 235mm^2.

I am not siure when "then" is but for sales points the important question is where are they both at at the same time. e.g. How much will Cell and Xenon cost to produce in Fall of 2006?

 

[nonamer]

Just because a chip is bigger doesn't mean it will cost more. GPUs are much bigger than CPUs, but they cost less because they can get away will cheaper manufacturing methods and are not pushed as aggressively and can have larger amounts of redundancy.

Also, since Sony has its own fabs, then it's not out of the question for them to dieshrink at a much faster pace than MS.

 

[NANOTEC]

Just because a chip is bigger doesn't mean it will cost more. GPUs are much bigger than CPUs, but they cost less because they can get away will cheaper manufacturing methods and are not pushed as aggressively and can have larger amounts of redundancy.

Says who? Where are the facts to support this assertion?