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

[Titanio]

I am not sure how many chips can fit on a 300mm wafer, but lets assume:

100 Xenon per wafer
71 Cell per wafer

Since Cell is bigger, lets assume a slightly higher defect rate

20% defect rate for Xenon
25% defect rate for Cell

That means you would get 80 working Xenon processors per wafer compared to 53 working Cell processors. ~8:5 is a pretty significant gap to close, even if you have your own fabs.

What happens when you've a lot of redundancy in one versus the other? (I assume Cell has a lot more built-in redundancy than Xenon with the redundant SPE).

What happens if eventually one is throwing out all chips with any defect while the other can find a paying home for some of those that don't make the mark (when and if Cells with 4 or 2 working SPEs can be redirected to another customer?)?

What happens if Sony redirects those with 8 working SPEs to a much higher paying customer e.g. IBM or Mercury? This probably won't be done starting out if volume is a concern, but it could well happen once production is comfortable. The cost per chip needn't be constant - those premium chips could reduce the cost of the the rest on the wafer.

I guess with the second two points I'm saying there may be cost-reducing options available to Sony that are not available to MS with Xenon (not that this will make it cheaper, of course..just that they may have more options to reduce the cost).

(Also, I think there was a shot of a Cell wafer if you're interested, from earlier..someone counted the number of full chips, but I can't remember what the exact figure was..).

 

[Acert93]

The Intel CPU is much closer to 100-200mm^2 in size while the GPU iprobably closer to 300mm^2 in size. A CPU of equivalent size would not cost $40. Plus it's not clear how much of a margin the foundry is getting. Also the CPU is going to be using the latest process technology such as SOI or strained silicon it's maker can afford, whereas the GPU will use whatever process is available at TSMC or UMC. So while there is a relationship between the size of the chip and cost, it is not necessary the case that a bigger chip is more expensive than a smaller one.

You're the one who suggested GPUs are cheaper to make, which is kind of getting us off on a tangent. As Dave noted there are some variances (e.g. R580) but I am not sure that GPUs are always much larger. e.g. G71 is 196mm^2. Most mid range GPUs are ~80-120mm^2. A Pentium D is 206 mm^2. An Athlon64 FX60 is 199mm^2. Of course there are always some larger chips on both sides (NV40 was 287mm^2, Montecito is said to be around 460mm^2). And there are different design tradeoffs (e.g. CPUs tend to have much higher frequencies whereas GPUs are more parallel and at times larger chips). But in the end its not like AMD or Intel are building much smaller chips.

But back to CPUs.

You are correct that there are differences in production, but at the end of the day the fact still remains:

Cell is 40% larger than Xenon, meaning fewer cores per wafer and more defects per core.

I don't doubt Sony has excellent fabs and will have some cost cutting ability -- but it has been shown in the past owning your own fab does not guarantee lower costs. Without any firm proof, it is a given Cell is more expensive.

Don't get me wrong, Cell will likely be more expensive

Like should be "certainly" IMO. If not we need to question why Sony has projected such significant 1st year losses, or why the high PS3 price, or why Sony has cut seemingly cheap components from the PS3-20GB, components that have been part of their PR message from E3 2005.

Other factors, such as redundency in the chip and the bin spits can effect costs even on identical processes. Since the Cell has much higher redundency and probably better bin spits (at least down the road, since it can realistically hit 4-5Ghz) as well as their own fabs, it's definitely possible that the Cell could be less expensive.

And it is definately possibly that it could be significantly more expensive. But the most concrete data we have is their die size and the knowledge that MS and Sony are both enacting very aggressive price reduction plans.

Even without the disabled SPE Cell is still significantly larger. As for better bin splits (and the use of lower quality CPUs for other devices, etc) that is all to be seen. And as stated before MS is not gonna sit on a 90nm Xenon all generation.

Xenon will be on the 65nm manufacturing node in Q1 2007. One could argue that since Xenon has been in full production 12 months longer than Cell that it would actually be ahead of the curve on yields.

But we don't have that information. What we do know, again, is Xenon is much smaller and MS is aggressively enacting price reduction and price control mechanisms.

I could be arrogent on this point, but the pricing war I outlined last year and my pricing guestimates have been very, very close. Nothing in Sony's pricing scheme indicates they are able to produce much more expensive/larger components at a cheaper price than MS. MS's console design is clearly aimed at price reduction from the very get go, and the price differential indicates this to a larger degree.

But these are all just projections from an arm chair anal-cyst When Sony offers a $299 PS3 in fall 2007 I will eat my hat and admitt I was wrong

 

[Acert93]

What happens when you've a lot of redundancy in one versus the other? (I assume Cell has a lot more built-in redundancy than Xenon with the redundant SPE).

Even discounting the redundant SPE Cell is much larger (like 30%). And this is assuming Xenon has no redundancy itself. We know it does not have an extra core, but there is surely redundancy in there. We know MS had Xenos designs with redundnant execution units and redundant cache banks, so it would be surprising if Xenon did not incorperate similar redundancy schemes. But we don't know this (and Cell surely has similar redundancies), so I would say it is fair to to consider this. But in the end there are still fewer dies per wafer and the active components on Cell are still larger.

[qoute]What happens if eventually one is throwing out all chips with any defect while the other can find a paying home for some of those that don't make the mark (when and if Cells with 4 or 2 working SPEs can be redirected to another customer?)?[/quote]

Big if. When we learn of larger scale (1M+ a year) demand for gimpy 1:2/1:4 Cells at possibly lower frequencies this could become a factor.

What happens if Sony redirects those with 8 working SPEs to a much higher paying customer e.g. IBM or Mercury? This probably won't be done starting out if volume is a concern, but it could well happen once production is comfortable. The cost per chip needn't be constant - those premium chips could reduce the cost of the the rest on the wafer.

They already are! Its called a PS3 devkit

These may be possible future oppurtunities. But remember that Toshiba and IBM are going to be making Cells and competing for these clients as well. Of course the issue is one of scale. If Sony is making 1M Cell processors a month that means they are using somethink like 5k-10k wafers. While every bit helps, finding 10k extremely marked up machines every month can be difficult, especially when the machines they go into are typically low volume and already have significant development markup.

There may be a nice market here, but it doesn't appear Intel and AMD are standing Still. AMD has contracted with clear speed for a FP coprocessor, and Intel's Conroe with the improved SSE design is looking at nearly 50GFLOPs of performance.

If I can get a server form of Conroes (which I think the 2.4GHz version is going to be in the $300 range, $316 I believe) and I can keep my current software, well, that will cut into the Cell market--at least the price.

I guess with the second two points I'm saying there may be cost-reducing options available to Sony that are not available to MS with Xenon.

I think available is a little strong. "Possible avenues to explore" seems more apt at this point.

(Also, I think there was a shot of a Cell wafer if you're interested, from earlier..someone counted the number of full chips, but I can't remember what the exact figure was..).

That would be nice to get the figure :smile: I was looking to do the math with a formula but ended up using some stock 300m wafter numbers.

Since these companies rarely give out defect rate, number of dies on a wafer, design redundancy, and internal production costs or contract costs this is all on they "hypothetical" which of course means our discussions can go in circles because we all have a paradigm we look at it through which wont align with everyone else.

Just put me on the skeptical side that Cell is cheaper than Xenon as some are suggesting. And Sony's price tag & projected losses seem to validate that at least some of the PS3 components are more expensive.

Of course this is all academic and related to our interest in the industry. Ultimately it all really comes down to 1) how much they charge us and 2) market positioning. Are they making the price acceptible for main stream adoption and to ensure developer support with high sale numbers and high software attatch rates.

If MS or Sony could sell these things for $1000 and get the same results they would. Of course in 3 years this will all be a long lost memory when we can see the fallout of the various decisions and make better educated guesses.

Right now we are more in the realm of... errr... uneducated guessing

 

[overclocked]

But they don't have the same relative startline in terms of manufacturing or in terms of die size. Are you talking about something different?

Yes and no.
I dont think your in my apartment but in the same building to paint a picture
of the communication.

 

[nonamer]

You're the one who suggested GPUs are cheaper to make, which is kind of getting us off on a tangent. As Dave noted there are some variances (e.g. R580) but I am not sure that GPUs are always much larger. e.g. G71 is 196mm^2. Most mid range GPUs are ~80-120mm^2. A Pentium D is 206 mm^2. An Athlon64 FX60 is 199mm^2. Of course there are always some larger chips on both sides (NV40 was 287mm^2, Montecito is said to be around 460mm^2). And there are different design tradeoffs (e.g. CPUs tend to have much higher frequencies whereas GPUs are more parallel and at times larger chips). But in the end its not like AMD or Intel are building much smaller chips.

Those are dual-core CPUs. Single cores CPUs are around 100mm^2, and compared to GPUs of the same size, they are more expensive. The R580 is close to 350mm^2, and that's the largest GPU, which can still be purchased at a reasonable price. CPUs at that size are multi-thousand dollar things. Also, the Montecito is close to 600mm^2 FYI, but that is a freakish chip.

But back to CPUs.

You are correct that there are differences in production, but at the end of the day the fact still remains:

Cell is 40% larger than Xenon, meaning fewer cores per wafer and more defects per core.

I don't doubt Sony has excellent fabs and will have some cost cutting ability -- but it has been shown in the past owning your own fab does not guarantee lower costs. Without any firm proof, it is a given Cell is more expensive.

And facts still remain: Cell has more redundency and likely better bin splits. Without firm proof, you cannot state either way that the Cell is going to be the more expensive of the two.

Like should be "certainly" IMO. If not we need to question why Sony has projected such significant 1st year losses, or why the high PS3 price, or why Sony has cut seemingly cheap components from the PS3-20GB, components that have been part of their PR message from E3 2005.

That's not direct evidence of anything, other than there a lot of expensive components in the PS3, which are not necessary related to Cell. In fact, Ken himself commented that the Cell processor would not be a problem to manufacture.

And it is definately possibly that it could be significantly more expensive. But the most concrete data we have is their die size and the knowledge that MS and Sony are both enacting very aggressive price reduction plans.

Even without the disabled SPE Cell is still significantly larger. As for better bin splits (and the use of lower quality CPUs for other devices, etc) that is all to be seen. And as stated before MS is not gonna sit on a 90nm Xenon all generation.

Xenon will be on the 65nm manufacturing node in Q1 2007. One could argue that since Xenon has been in full production 12 months longer than Cell that it would actually be ahead of the curve on yields.

But we don't have that information. What we do know, again, is Xenon is much smaller and MS is aggressively enacting price reduction and price control mechanisms.

I could be arrogent on this point, but the pricing war I outlined last year and my pricing guestimates have been very, very close. Nothing in Sony's pricing scheme indicates they are able to produce much more expensive/larger components at a cheaper price than MS. MS's console design is clearly aimed at price reduction from the very get go, and the price differential indicates this to a larger degree.

But these are all just projections from an arm chair anal-cyst When Sony offers a $299 PS3 in fall 2007 I will eat my hat and admitt I was wrong

At least you admit the possibility.

 

[Acert93]

Those are dual-core CPUs.

And Cell is an 9 core and Xenon a 3 core. The reality is CPU core size kind of stalled, one reason being they were not parallel in nature. But die sizes have increases with Quad Cores coming very soon.

Single cores CPUs are around 100mm^2, and compared to GPUs of the same size, they are more expensive.

All the educated pieces of information I can find indicates CPUs, on the manufacturing side, are actually quite cheap. This is a couple years old, but it indicates it costs AMD and Intel $21 and $22 respectively, to make a CPU. As of last year it was estimated at $40 and that this has been pretty steady since 2003. And an indepth analysis of CPU (and GPU) manufacturing costs arrives at the same general range.

I see no reason to believe that CPUs cost more on the manufacturing side. Intel and AMD's model is different. A large percentage of Intel's sales are through OEMs (not retail), but their retail pricing reflects binning and a "premium" at the high end. It is their business model that causes the high price stratification. As I mentioned earlier a lowly P4 2.4c was as good as a P4 3.2GHz. The later was over $500 more simply because they could sell it for more.

The R580 is close to 350mm^2, and that's the largest GPU, which can still be purchased at a reasonable price. CPUs at that size are multi-thousand dollar things

It is hard to say that because there really are no consumer-level CPUs at that size, or any purpose to create one. Dual core CPUs are being completely underutilized in almost all of the desktops being sold, so why add 2 more cores and inflate production costs for absolutely no tangible consumer benefit? That said it looks like Presler ways in at 280mm^2, which is large even by GPU standards.

But to return to one of your statements:

Single cores CPUs are around 100mm^2, and compared to GPUs of the same size, they are more expensive.

If a GPU, with redundancy (as most do), is cheaper than a CPU of comparable size, what does that say of Cell which is one of the biggest CPUs on the market at 235mm^2?

And facts still remain: Cell has more redundency and likely better bin splits. Without firm proof, you cannot state either way that the Cell is going to be the more expensive of the two.

I already answered the redundancy question (i.e. it is still bigger and has fewer cores per wafer), but as for bin splits: Both chips use a similar PPE core. Assuming the PPE is the part holding back Cell (which it may be as it seemed to get pretty hot), I am not sure Xenon (which has similar PPEs) is going to be significantly worse.

As for the firm proof, I disagree.

Firm Facts: Cell is 40% larger die size, disabled SPE

What ifs: Bin splits, other uses for the chip, etc

Basically we are at an impass because the "what ifs" are being set at the same level as the "firm facts". To this end we will just need to agree to disagree.

Either way the PS3 still costs substantially more & Sony is going to lose a lot of money in the first year.

That's not direct evidence of anything, other than there a lot of expensive components in the PS3, which are not necessary related to Cell.

And one of those more expensive components is Cell (and RSX).

Unless, of course, Sony is so magically superior to everyone else at chip fabrication, in which case we have a problem. Sony is going to lose $900M with the PS3 -- and if that is not from Cell and RSX, since Sony is so great at fabbing -- that means Blu Ray is costing nearly $200 per box. (i.e. comparing the chief difference between the 360 Premium and PS3-20GB).

And that is being generous because it appears that at first the majority of PS3's are going to be the 60GB SKU, which based on consumer retail prices a 60GB 2.5" laptop drive is no more than $40 more expensive than a 20GB model. Add the extra HDMI port, Gigabyte lan, etc and Sony actually loses less money per 60GB SKU compared to the 20GB SKU.

--

Anyhow, any way you cut it and regardless of where the expense is coming from, Sony is estimating large losses from the PS3 indicating that Sony is losing money on every unit sold. This point is not debatable as they themselves 1) have projected the 900M loss and 2) have stated projected sales numbers in conjunction with those estimated losses.

Whatever it is, Sony has parts in the PS3 that cost more to make.

 

[nonamer]

And Cell is an 9 core and Xenon a 3 core. The reality is CPU core size kind of stalled, one reason being they were not parallel in nature. But die sizes have increases with Quad Cores coming very soon.

No you were comparing high-end CPUs to low-end GPUs, not a fair comparison.

All the educated pieces of information I can find indicates CPUs, on the manufacturing side, are actually quite cheap. This is a couple years old, but it indicates it costs AMD and Intel $21 and $22 respectively, to make a CPU. As of last year it was estimated at $40 and that this has been pretty steady since 2003. And an indepth analysis of CPU (and GPU) manufacturing costs arrives at the same general range.

Your last article is arguably bunk. It assumes wafer costs are exactly the same irregardless of whether they are using SOI or SS or whatever, and that yields are exactly the same too. We can immediately tell that this is false, given that statements from IBM clearly show a difference in cost per wafer if you use SOI. That doesn't even get into the issue of yields.

The first article is from 2002 and is irrelevant for current chips. The second states that chips is about $40, not $20-30 claimed by the last article.

I see no reason to believe that CPUs cost more on the manufacturing side. Intel and AMD's model is different. A large percentage of Intel's sales are through OEMs (not retail), but their retail pricing reflects binning and a "premium" at the high end. It is their business model that causes the high price stratification. As I mentioned earlier a lowly P4 2.4c was as good as a P4 3.2GHz. The later was over $500 more simply because they could sell it for more.

But you are clearly ignoring my reasoning about the difference in process implementation.

It is hard to say that because there really are no consumer-level CPUs at that size, or any purpose to create one. Dual core CPUs are being completely underutilized in almost all of the desktops being sold, so why add 2 more cores and inflate production costs for absolutely no tangible consumer benefit? That said it looks like Presler ways in at 280mm^2, which is large even by GPU standards.

But to return to one of your statements:

If a GPU, with redundancy (as most do), is cheaper than a CPU of comparable size, what does that say of Cell which is one of the biggest CPUs on the market at 235mm^2?

It won't be very expensive, because it has massive redundency like a GPU? It will likely still cost more than a equivalent GPU since it uses a more expensive process, but compared to another CPU it can still be cheaper.

I already answered the redundancy question (i.e. it is still bigger and has fewer cores per wafer), but as for bin splits: Both chips use a similar PPE core. Assuming the PPE is the part holding back Cell (which it may be as it seemed to get pretty hot), I am not sure Xenon (which has similar PPEs) is going to be significantly worse.

It has 3 of them, which will hurt binsplitting, assuming not every chip onboard will have the same performance. And they are not the same, the DD3 (?) version of the PPE is very different from the version used in the original Cell, and all versions use fairly custom logic from the Xenon as described in this article.

As for the firm proof, I disagree.

Firm Facts: Cell is 40% larger die size, disabled SPE

What ifs: Bin splits, other uses for the chip, etc

Basically we are at an impass because the "what ifs" are being set at the same level as the "firm facts". To this end we will just need to agree to disagree.

That's nothing but a fallacy of how you define terms. Redundency and bin split do have a measurable effect on costs. For instance, if there is a chance of a chip have 1 or more defects is 20%, but 2 or more defects is 4%, and a chip can absorb one defect per chip, then yields are 96%. However a chip with no tolerance for defects will only have 80% yields. A similar effect is true for bin splits as the lowest bin splitted chips are usually rejected. Merely saying a chip is 40% larger doesn't mean anything about total overall costs.

Either way the PS3 still costs substantially more & Sony is going to lose a lot of money in the first year.

And one of those more expensive components is Cell (and RSX).

Unless, of course, Sony is so magically superior to everyone else at chip fabrication, in which case we have a problem. Sony is going to lose $900M with the PS3 -- and if that is not from Cell and RSX, since Sony is so great at fabbing -- that means Blu Ray is costing nearly $200 per box. (i.e. comparing the chief difference between the 360 Premium and PS3-20GB).

And that is being generous because it appears that at first the majority of PS3's are going to be the 60GB SKU, which based on consumer retail prices a 60GB 2.5" laptop drive is no more than $40 more expensive than a 20GB model. Add the extra HDMI port, Gigabyte lan, etc and Sony actually loses less money per 60GB SKU compared to the 20GB SKU.

--

Anyhow, any way you cut it and regardless of where the expense is coming from, Sony is estimating large losses from the PS3 indicating that Sony is losing money on every unit sold. This point is not debatable as they themselves 1) have projected the 900M loss and 2) have stated projected sales numbers in conjunction with those estimated losses.

Whatever it is, Sony has parts in the PS3 that cost more to make.

Which is something I never denied. Frankly this whole last part is a strawman; the overall costs of the PS3 has little bearing on the cost of the Cell processor. My personal guess for the PS3 is that the Bluray drive is the biggest cost, and it has more to do with R&D and initial startup costs than anything else.

 

[NANOTEC]

The BR drive is expensive simply becasue the blue laser diode is expensive vs a red one.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Look, I'm seriously peeved by these joke responses to serious claims that are based on reality.

Sorry if I offended but I was joking at your claims at all. I was making a joke at the mispelling 'binspitting' instead of 'binsplitting' by referencing a famous game with a famous spitting contest. I appreciate it's probably lost on most, but anyone who does make the link should see the humour. Maybe.

 

[Arwin]

Which is something I never denied. Frankly this whole last part is a strawman; the overall costs of the PS3 has little bearing on the cost of the Cell processor. My personal guess for the PS3 is that the Bluray drive is the biggest cost, and it has more to do with R&D and initial startup costs than anything else.

The Cell too has been invested in heavily though (upwards of 400.000.000), let's not forget that.

And if this still holds:

http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/184

... we may see 65nm production a lot sooner than we might think, not to mention even more power-effecient Cell processors.

 

[TheChefO]

Probably already been said, but Sony's got a big problem on its hands: It's broken the law of positioning.

With PlayStation, they have a brand that owns the #1 position (mindshare, market share) in video game consoles. They've spent 10 years and billions of dollars building up to this level of success, and now they're just walking away from it.

Because PlayStation 3 is not a video game console. More importantly, it's not priced like one.

Sony have vacated their position as market leader in game consoles to try and crack a video game/HD movie player/computer hybrid market that no one's sure exists yet. Leaving a competitor - most likely Microsoft - to simply walk in and sit down in Sony's chair.

Because Sony's removed an affordable next-generation PlayStation game console from the table. The millions of PS owners who've been looking forward to PS3 will certainly take pause when faced with a $500 or $600 price tag. "We just want to play Madden and GTA," they'll say. And that's where Microsoft steps in.

It'll be years - 2008, at least - before PS3 cracks the sub-$300 price point, and by then, I'm sure a lot of gamers will have "jumped in" with Xbox 360. And the more gamers Microsoft attracts, the more developers that will follow.

If Sony moves forward with its plans, I predict a massive swing this generation, complete with a couple of major surprise third-party defections to Microsoft's camp. Once Sony gets up off its chair, and Microsoft swoops in, Sony's going to have a hard time unseating them again.

I think it's pretty basic. If Sony moves ahead with this, its dominance in the video game category is over - and there's no guarantee they'll successfully create a viable new category with PS3.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The only way to avoid this POTENTIAL PROBLEM, is to make THE GAMES of ps3 dvd only UNTIL they have secured the ps3 $600 price point.

If it is not secured and the system is selling poorly then they can continue with the dvd games and surprise surprise, release a dvd based ps3. If it sells like hotcakes then they contue selling br ps3 at $600 and switch to br GAMES.

I don't understand why people have argued this point with me as if they'll lose something by this method. In fact as I've said before, I don't know why I'm arguing it because I'd like to see a more balanced games market.

my opinion: ps3 = timebomb

 

[Arwin]

I couldn't have said it better myself. The only way to avoid this POTENTIAL PROBLEM, is to make THE GAMES of ps3 dvd only UNTIL they have secured the ps3 $600 price point.

I think it is rather lame of you to keep quoting a 600$ price point when you know full well there is a 499$ version out there that is perfectly viable.

What if that version becomes 399$ after the first 6 months? The first 6 million will sell at $600 easily, and you know it. As soon as they stop selling, the price will go down.

This price-complaint happened in the previous generation also. Did it matter? No.

In the meantime, Microsoft is breaking another of those 'LAWS' ... look at the Dreamcast, which launched with CD and then came with a DVD upgrade. Some think that really did matter, for the same reasons - the next-gen consoles required the additional space, as they always do. Not waiting for the HD-DVD is braking that same law.

That doesn't at all mean that the 360 will fail. It just means that your comment on the PS3 doesn't either.

If it is really a problem, Sony will lower the price.

 

[_phil_]

ah.... cheap prophets..

 

[TheChefO]

I think it is rather lame of you to keep quoting a 600$ price point when you know full well there is a 499$ version out there that is perfectly viable.

What if that version becomes 399$ after the first 6 months? The first 6 million will sell at $600 easily, and you know it. As soon as they stop selling, the price will go down.

This price-complaint happened in the previous generation also. Did it matter? No.

In the meantime, Microsoft is breaking another of those 'LAWS' ... look at the Dreamcast, which launched with CD and then came with a DVD upgrade. Some think that really did matter, for the same reasons - the next-gen consoles required the additional space, as they always do. Not waiting for the HD-DVD is braking that same law.

That doesn't at all mean that the 360 will fail. It just means that your comment on the PS3 doesn't either.

If it is really a problem, Sony will lower the price.

1) Yes $500 is an option - but that's still $200 more than the CHEAPEST (not comperable) 360.

2) Do I know they'll sell out the first 6mil easy? no and I don't think anyone else here can say with 100% confidence that 6 million people will without a doubt buy one at that price,
and they are already losing money at the prices anounced. I don't know how much they are willing to lose per console.

3) The price for ps2 was the same as ps1 and in fact the only time either one was "expensive" was in Japan where they launched >6months before any other region for ~$400.

4) Every other game system has launched with an ESTABLISHED medium that had been on the market for AT LEAST 2 years. A videgame system has never pioneered a new optical medium.

Please reread my post(s) as I don't think you're getting the whole concept on what I'm proposing Sony should do to protect themselves.

 

[Arwin]

1) Yes $500 is an option - but that's still $200 more than the CHEAPEST (not comperable) 360.

Which isn't exactly high in demand. Despite being so 'cheap' (not).

2) Do I know they'll sell out the first 6mil easy? no and I don't think anyone else here can say with 100% confidence that 6 million people will without a doubt buy one at that price,

I'm willing to bet a fair bit of money on that. They'd sell the 6 million in Europe alone for that price. It's not for nothing that they are even considering only getting the $600 version to Europe. They'll sell. Everyone remembers from last time, when the PS2 cost the exact same.

3) The price for ps2 was the same as ps1 and in fact the only time either one was "expensive" was in Japan where they launched >6months before any other region for ~$400.p

No, it's the other way around. The US was lucky, having a strong dollar. This time, the Yen is strong and getting stronger against the dollar. In fact Nintendo forecasted lower profits just a few days ago because of this.

4) Every other game system has launched with an ESTABLISHED medium that had been on the market for AT LEAST 2 years. A videgame system has never pioneered a new optical medium.

It's not pioneering (yet, anyway, but if introduction is further delayed it could still happen of course), but I grant you at any rate it comes quite quickly after. That said, the BluRay drive still reads DVDs rather well. The PS2 couldn't read VHS.

Please reread my post(s) as I don't think you're getting the whole concept on what I'm proposing Sony should do to protect themselves.

I do. I just disagree. Rather strongly. You think including the DVD drive is brilliant. I think it is daft.

 

[blakjedi]

...look at the Dreamcast, which launched with CD and then came with a DVD upgrade. Some think that really did matter, for the same reasons - the next-gen consoles required the additional space, as they always do. Not waiting for the HD-DVD is braking that same law.

#1 - The Dreamcast never launched on CD. I dont know if they ever promised DVD but the NEVER launched on CD

#2- What LAW are you referring to? The law of accessories? The law of accessories has already been broken because people are buying HDD to add to their x360 cores so ... wrong again.

#3- Next gen consoles dont "require" additional space so you are wrong here again. BR was not developed for developer benefit but rather to play movies and give Sony BR market share to establish a medium for their benefit as a corporation. Dont mix up the potential for BR to benefit developers by giving them additional space (which is purely tangential) with the reason for the next gen optical media which is to add tothe sales of their movie division.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Why is the $599 PS3 "Premium" compared to $399 xbox360 Premium?

Shouldn't the correct comparison be
$499 PS3 "Core" vs. $399 xbox360 Premium

That's a more even comparison, as the PS3 "Core" has all the xbox360 Premium features and then some.

It's really only a $100 difference if you compare them feature-for-feature.

The $599 PS3 60GB HDMI Memorystick slot version is a "deluxe" that Microsoft has no comparable to offer, and as such should not be compared to the xbox360 pricewise at all.

If the average buyer is buying a new console, he'll look at the features, then the prices, and the competition is between the $399 xbox360 and $499 PS3.

The enthusiasts and "hardcore" of couse want just the best, so they compare the best vs. best, ie. $399 vs. $599

 

[TheChefO]

Which isn't exactly high in demand. Despite being so 'cheap' (not).



I'm willing to bet a fair bit of money on that. They'd sell the 6 million in Europe alone for that price. It's not for nothing that they are even considering only getting the $600 version to Europe. They'll sell. Everyone remembers from last time, when the PS2 cost the exact same.



No, it's the other way around. The US was lucky, having a strong dollar. This time, the Yen is strong and getting stronger against the dollar. In fact Nintendo forecasted lower profits just a few days ago because of this.



It's not pioneering (yet, anyway, but if introduction is further delayed it could still happen of course), but I grant you at any rate it comes quite quickly after. That said, the BluRay drive still reads DVDs rather well. The PS2 couldn't read VHS.



I do. I just disagree. Rather strongly. You think including the DVD drive is brilliant. I think it is daft.

1) The demand for the core system has not been tested by another round of holiday sales against ps3 and wii YET. There are/were many that are/were waiting to see exactly what the competition would bring to the table (mainly ps3) and would not budge until that time. The vast majority on 360 are early adopters to this point and the $400 pack makes more sense to them (wireless controllers, hd, hdd etc). When you factor in the kids/bedroom market that don't have/need hdtv & wireless controllers, I think you'll see much more demand for the core pack (especially when cheaper memory cards hit the market).

2) You say you'd bet money but when it comes time to put serious money where your mouth is I think your tone would change and a slew of variables would come attached to your "bet". You don't know for sure. no one does.

3) dollar value etc - ok I'm not knowledgable in other regions. From what I know in the region I live (US) the unit is very very expensive compared to the previous console standard and the competition is not. Fair enough?

4) ps1: cdrom (5+years) - ps2: dvd (2+years) ps3: bluray (0 years)

I consider that pioneering a media. Whatever their cause they're are forcing gamers to buy into their movie format. Spin it however you want to.

btw ps2 could read cdroms



blackjedi - good points.

 

[TheChefO]

Why is the $599 PS3 "Premium" compared to $399 xbox360 Premium?

Shouldn't the correct comparison be
$499 PS3 "Core" vs. $399 xbox360 Premium

That's a more even comparison, as the PS3 "Core" has all the xbox360 Premium features and then some.

It's really only a $100 difference if you compare them feature-for-feature.

The $599 PS3 60GB HDMI Memorystick slot version is a "deluxe" that Microsoft has no comparable to offer, and as such should not be compared to the xbox360 pricewise at all.

If the average buyer is buying a new console, he'll look at the features, then the prices, and the competition is between the $399 xbox360 and $499 PS3.

The enthusiasts and "hardcore" of couse want just the best, so they compare the best vs. best, ie. $399 vs. $599

aarrghhh!!!!!!

Customer: The CHEAPEST ps3 is How much?

Customer: The CHEAPEST 360 is How Much?

Customer: hmm...
Customer: I'll take the 360 with Madden and put me down for a reserve on gta4.
Retailer: You may want to get a memory card to save too.
Customer: Oh so it's like ps2 then where you have to buy memory cards etc?
Retailer: Yes.
Customer: Ok give me a mem card and another controller. Thank you and a Merry Christmas to you as well sir.

As I've said before, the gaming consumer is not used to a playstation (or any game system) costing anything more than $300 as that is the premium price point for a new console that was established by Sony. The 360 has done well with the $400 premium unit but this is still very close to the $300 expected price and one is not required to buy the premium unit to enjoy 360 games. Many early adopters have seen the GAMING value of the premium unit and have opted for it.

I doubt Sony will be able to rely on their established users for ps3 purchases at the $5-600 price range anything beyond the first 6million. Particularly in the face of a strong price/games competitive market with 360 and Wii being available prices that are at least $200 savings off of their competitor.

 

[Arwin]

#1 - The Dreamcast never launched on CD. I dont know if they ever promised DVD but the NEVER launched on CD

Oh yeah, it was a GD-ROM, a slowed down CD-ROM with higher density. But it could read CD-ROMs anyway (Video CDs software was released by third parties).

"Plans to bundle the Dreamcast games console with a multi-region DVD player have been announced by Sega Europe as it readies for the Christmas campaign against Sony. In theory, throwing in a multi-region DVD player balances the differences between PS2 and Dreamcast, but will it work?"

http://www.megagames.com/news/html/console/segaaddsdvdtodreamcast.shtml

Sounds familiar?

#2- What LAW are you referring to? The law of accessories? The law of accessories has already been broken because people are buying HDD to add to their x360 cores so ... wrong again.

Kolgar argued 'The Law of Positioning'. I argued that laws don't necessarily apply. You've just illustrated my point. (Not to mention that most of these sales come from people who wanted a Premium but could only get a Core with HDD upgrade from most stores as the Premiums had sold out already)

#3- Next gen consoles dont "require" additional space so you are wrong here again. BR was not developed for developer benefit but rather to play movies and give Sony BR market share to establish a medium for their benefit as a corporation. Dont mix up the potential for BR to benefit developers by giving them additional space (which is purely tangential) with the reason for the next gen optical media which is to add to the sales of their movie division.

I don't mix it up. I'm finding new quotes from Developers supporting my claim every other day. I'm now at 5. Sure, they're all biased, Playstation loving idiots. But they are at least developers and they are at least some form of support other than the idiot excuse "BUT OBLIVION ROXXORS!"