PS3 Launch May Be Delayed, Cost May Skyrocket

[clayj]

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11458047/):

Sony’s shares fell as much as 4.4 percent on Monday after Merrill Lynch said in a research note last week that the PS3’s launch might be delayed by six to 12 months and the cost of production could initially approach $900 per unit.

“No one is seriously thinking a spring release is realistic any more,” said Hiroshi Kamide, an analyst at KBC Securities. “If I were Sony, I wouldn’t be that worried about releasing as soon as I possibly could.”

Clayj notes: $900 per unit to produce? Not good news for Sony if it's true... either they'll take a HUGE hit on each console they sell, or the PS3 will be priced so high that it'll scare off a BUNCH of potential buyers. Either way, this is good news for Microsoft.

[yellow]

I believe that most of these things are sold at a loss initially until the demand becomes high enough so component prices come down and the profits rise. I'm guessing that no small part of this price tag is the Blu-ray drive. It's too bad that it may be delayed. I'll still wait and buy a PS3 over an xPox360.

[XNine]

Meh. I'm sure the PS 3 will be fine. Hell, most of the Xbox 360 games won't be out for almost 11 months. We'll ahve what? maybe 12 more titles by then?

Also, let's not forget the price of the technology going into the units will drastically reduce over the next 6 months, let alone year.

[jessica.]

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11458047/):

Sony’s shares fell as much as 4.4 percent on Monday after Merrill Lynch said in a research note last week that the PS3’s launch might be delayed by six to 12 months and the cost of production could initially approach $900 per unit.

“No one is seriously thinking a spring release is realistic any more,” said Hiroshi Kamide, an analyst at KBC Securities. “If I were Sony, I wouldn’t be that worried about releasing as soon as I possibly could.”

Clayj notes: $900 per unit to produce? Not good news for Sony if it's true... either they'll take a HUGE hit on each console they sell, or the PS3 will be priced so high that it'll scare off a BUNCH of potential buyers. Either way, this is good news for Microsoft.
I completely agree. This spring a friend was due to go to Japan and buy one for me. Of course I'd have to unlock it somehow, but they are backwards compatable and such. Anyway to the point, $900 per unit is sad. If this thing retails over $400 I'll wait a year or two before I buy. I paid $300 pre order for my PS2 and I even thought that was too much. Considering how well I take care of it and the fact that it's perfect right now makes that $300 worth it though. I wish the MSRP would be $350 or less...and not for the "core" model either.

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't believe it. Investment research groups are often wrong about products like this...at any rate the "delay" might be the result of the Xbox 360 launch - Sony saw what the final product looked like from MS and decided to either add or remove features as necessary.

[GFLPraxis]

I don't believe it. There was a comment on Slashdot that is relevent...
I'm not an insider by any means, nor a PS "fan boy," but isn't it likely that this is just very intelligent marketing by Sony? It's generally accepted that a game console launching at $900 (hell, $600), isn't going to happen in this day and age of mass market acceptance being an essential requirement of the development of any piece of electronics. This falls right in line with the Blueray machine costs . . . make it seem like astronomically expensive hardware fit for a king, and then release them at a fraction of the price, and sooner. I don't care when they release it, but I'm betting it will be this year, and at a $500 price point or lower.

Apple just did it with the Intel switch. First they've started releasing the stuff 6 months earlier than they said they would, and now their upgrading the processor clock speeds for free. Who wants to bet that wasn't in the writing already for the entire gestation of their Intel plans. If there were two companies I would compare hype-capabilities apple-to-apple (sorry), it would be Apple and Sony.

I found it an interesting possibility. Maybe Sony is just exaggurating the price to make it sound more valuable?

I find it strange that the SAME analyists said a few months back that the PS3 would cost $500 to manufacture.

[Sdashiki]

A machine that costs as much as a crappy PC and yet can only do 1 thing, play games.

now thats sad.

people need to realize you are paying pretty much for a Brand Name and for the rights to play proprietary games not available for the PC.

the high costs of the video game market, and that people pay them without question, astounds me,

[clayj]

I believe that most of these things are sold at a loss initially until the demand becomes high enough so component prices come down and the profits rise. I'm guessing that no small part of this price tag is the Blu-ray drive. It's too bad that it may be delayed. I'll still wait and buy a PS3 over an xPox360.True, except for Nintendo, which has apparently NEVER sold a console for a loss, even at launch.

Here's the problem for Sony, though: For the Xbox 360, the difference between console cost and console retail is currently about 4 games' worth of profit. In other words, Microsoft has to sell 4 games to make enough profit to cover the loss on the console itself. Right now, they are selling OVER 4 games per console... so Microsoft is NOT losing any money on the 360 overall. This 4+ game sell is practically unheard of.

For Sony, if the console costs $900 to produce and they sell it for $400, you're talking a $500 loss per console and Sony has to sell TEN GAMES to make up the loss. That's practically impossible. And depending on how expensive the PS3 is compared to standalone Blu-Ray players, you may see a lot of people buying PS3s with NO games just so they can use them for Blu-Ray playback.

Sony really is in trouble here. They could have launched the PS3 by now if they didn't insist on putting a next-gen disc-format in the console... like Microsoft did with HD DVD, they could have added Blu-Ray support as an external option.

[greatdevourer]

True, except for Nintendo, which has apparently NEVER sold a console for a loss, even at launch.

For Sony, if the console costs $900 to produce and they sell it for $400, you're talking a $500 loss per console and Sony has to sell TEN GAMES to make up the loss. That's practically impossible. And depending on how expensive the PS3 is compared to standalone Blu-Ray players, you may see a lot of people buying PS3s with NO games just so they can use them for Blu-Ray playback. 1) It's a good strategy that means that Ninty don't have the same thing Sony are doing with PSP updates - they don't care if someone buys their console just for homebrews (eg, myself - Moonshell and Minesweeper are my 2 main things :D)
2) Wrong - Sony have to sell far more than a mere 10 games. They have to sell 10 games if the games don't cost anything to make. However, there's manufacturing cost, developer cost and (if it's a 3rd party, which most/all of their big franchises are) publisher costs. So they actually have to sell a lot lot more

[Lord Blackadder]

Here's the problem for Sony, though: For the Xbox 360, the difference between console cost and console retail is currently about 4 games' worth of profit. In other words, Microsoft has to sell 4 games to make enough profit to cover the loss on the console itself. Right now, they are selling OVER 4 games per console... so Microsoft is NOT losing any money on the 360 overall. This 4+ game sell is practically unheard of.

This is true, but also deceiving since the 360's competitors have yet to be released. MS may be putting up good numbers now but we know that will change when the Revolution and PS3 are released, which (I think) will be on time and at a competitive price.

I just don't believe the $900 price point - it's ludicrous.

[clayj]

2) Wrong - Sony have to sell far more than a mere 10 games. They have to sell 10 games if the games don't cost anything to make. However, there's manufacturing cost, developer cost and (if it's a 3rd party, which most/all of their big franchises are) publisher costs. So they actually have to sell a lot lot moreYeah, I thought of that after I submitted the post... you're right, it's MORE than ten... but even ten is nigh impossible.

[grapes911]

I read an article (I wish I could find it) about a month before the Xbox launch that the Xbox was going to be delayed. It wasn't. The people that do these studies have no real inside data. They are just basing it on projections and such. The only way to know is to wait and see.

[clayj]

I just don't believe the $900 price point - it's ludicrous.They didn't say the price point was $900; they said the COST to manufacture the console would be $900, no doubt because of the inclusion of Blu-Ray.

Any price point higher than $500 for the console alone would be disastrous for Sony... they'd lose less per console, but they'd get hammered on the sales.

[greatdevourer]

I read an article (I wish I could find it) about a month before the Xbox launch that the Xbox was going to be delayed. It wasn't. The people that do these studies have no real inside data. They are just basing it on projections and such. The only way to know is to wait and see. The thing is that after the boasting of E3, they haven't said a single word about it since. They've brought out the concept design a few times and put it on show, but nothing more. I would be far from suprised if this was true

[XnavxeMiyyep]

The PDF that was linked to on Slashdot ( http://rsch1.ml.com/9093/24013/ds/276873_0.PDF ) that indicated the $900 cost had some errors in it. The prices listed (page 3) of the components added up to a total of exactly $800, but the sum was written as $900, which suggests that a lot of this is just made up. Also, it seems unlikely that Sony would have to pay $350 for a blu-ray drive, considering that it's technology that Sony produces.

[Lord Blackadder]

They didn't say the price point was $900; they said the COST to manufacture the console would be $900, no doubt because of the inclusion of Blu-Ray.

I understand that, but I don't believe it either. :)

I just think it's FUD that Sony's console will approach that cost to build. But I agree with you that anything over $500 retail is going to be dangerously expensive (I would never pay more than $300 for a console personally).

[AoWolf]

The sony name is so huge that it will sell them no matter how much they cost or how late they come to market. It will be very interesting to see how all of this plays out. If this thing is that much better then a 360 I don't see micro soft doing that well. Nintendo is also gonna take some sales with there cheap revolution but I don't see them as much of a threat to sony or Microsoft.

[russed]

i dont want the ps3 to be delayed too long! my ps2 is feeling a touch old in comparison to the xbox 360 and if it does take 12 months i may even have to go for one of them instead :eek:

[~Shard~]

Wow, very interesting development. I would take it with a grain of salt, myself, and I doubt the end situation will be as bad as this article is making things out to be. They had a PS3 running a Blu Ray demo at CES in Vegas last month, and I just don't see how this drastic type of a change wouldn't have been forseen a while ago.

I'll definitely keep up to date on this story though, and it will be interesting to see how things ultimately play out. :cool:

[GFLPraxis]

Yeah, I thought of that after I submitted the post... you're right, it's MORE than ten... but even ten is nigh impossible.


Yeah, when it comes to third party games, the third party makes most of the money. After the third party takes their cut (they made the game right?), then the cost of manufacturing (case, booklet, disk, labels) and putting it in every store and all other costs Sony only makes $5-$10 off other people's games.

They'd have to sell more than ten BRAND NEW $60 first party games per system.

They could also charge subscription fees for online, but that didn't help Microsoft much.

They may also hope to make up money on downloadable content like an iTunes competitor and stuff, but not $400 per system.

[jdechko]

And depending on how expensive the PS3 is compared to standalone Blu-Ray players, you may see a lot of people buying PS3s with NO games just so they can use them for Blu-Ray playback.

Sony really is in trouble here. They could have launched the PS3 by now if they didn't insist on putting a next-gen disc-format in the console... like Microsoft did with HD DVD, they could have added Blu-Ray support as an external option.

Except for Sony stands to make HUGE gains if Blu-Ray wins as the HD format. Granted, that may not be great for the Playstation division, who is losing money. But think about it. Unlike Microsoft, Sony has a much bigger interest in the outcome of the format wars, which is probably why they've chosen to include it in the PS3, even if it means ceding some market share to MS with the 360. If Blu-ray wins, everyone (not just gamers) is going is going to be shelling out cash (indirectly) to Sony for technology licensing fees, etc.

It doesn't make sense as a game industry strategy, but I think taking a look at all of Sony's different markets, its a really good bet (A great payoff if Blu-ray sticks works, and a huge flop if it fails).

It seems to me like a giant risk/reward scenario. The potential payoff must be huge. Also, I think that there are enough loyal Sony/PS fans that the PS3 will sell well.

[MacRumorUser]

I think the big thing to remember is that the $900 is only an estimate and it's based on prices of comparable hardware available NOW.

It will be at least 6 months before Sony release the console, there isn't even that much press about playable game code at this stage, with development tools themselves still in infant stages it's hard to imagine the hardware is going to be going to manufacture until winter (christmas) release...

By which time the cost of production will more than likely have fallen by a couple of hundred bucks.... 10 months is a long time production wise...

The only way Europe will see the PS3 this year is by a shear miracle. Expect a three month global launch window rather than 3 week for Xbox 360..

[Lord Blackadder]

The only way Europe will see the PS3 this year is by a shear miracle. Expect a three month global launch window rather than 3 week for Xbox 360..

Let's hope that Nintendo and Sony learn from Microsofts farcical xbox 360 launches.

[DrNeroCF]

The PDF that was linked to on Slashdot ( http://rsch1.ml.com/9093/24013/ds/276873_0.PDF ) that indicated the $900 cost had some errors in it. The prices listed (page 3) of the components added up to a total of exactly $800, but the sum was written as $900, which suggests that a lot of this is just made up. Also, it seems unlikely that Sony would have to pay $350 for a blu-ray drive, considering that it's technology that Sony produces.

That's only partially true. Sure, Sony doesn't have to pay extra to license the technology, but they also have already sunk a ton of money to even create the technology, same with the cell processor. They're not going to be making money on the ps3 for years, and they can't spread the price out on blu-ray players, for one they're not going to sell worth a crap because the mainstream could care less, and they'll start out at 1200 bucks. That's insane.

Oh, and about it being a cheap computer that only plays games, it will play games far better than any sub-grand computer out there because it only plays games. The only problem is, raw graphics are kinda plateauing right now...

I feel really sorry for Sony's shareholders, they're getting screwed over royally by this company's hubris.

Nintendo on the other hand... :cool:

[greatdevourer]

If this thing is that much better then a 360 I don't see micro soft doing that well. According to wassis name who does MGS, they're practically identical, and he could release MGS4 for 360 at the same level as the PS3 with minimal trouble

[clayj]

According to wassis name who does MGS, they're practically identical, and he could release MGS4 for 360 at the same level as the PS3 with minimal troubleYeah, assuming that nothing in the PS3 changes from what I've heard, the only real (i.e., not trivial) advantages it will have over the Xbox 360 are:

1. Built-in hi-def DVD playback (i.e., Blu-Ray)
2. 1080p support
3. Dual-display support

Being able to have 7 wireless controllers instead of 4 is not a material difference, if you ask me... the graphics processing power is so high for both consoles that it will be a LONG time before anyone comes close to exploiting it fully.

And the Blu-Ray support, while a plus, is also a minus because it's far from a foregone conclusion that Blu-Ray will emerge victorious over HD DVD... after all, both formats look equally good and the only real difference between them is data capacity, which won't matter for people who just want to watch movies in hi-def. Xbox 360 owners will be able to add an external HD DVD drive later this year, and there's no reason why a Blu-Ray add-on for the 360 is not possible.

[XNine]

Yeah, assuming that nothing in the PS3 changes from what I've heard, the only real (i.e., not trivial) advantages it will have over the Xbox 360 are:

1. Built-in hi-def DVD playback (i.e., Blu-Ray)
2. 1080p support
3. Dual-display support

Being able to have 7 wireless controllers instead of 4 is not a material difference, if you ask me... the graphics processing power is so high for both consoles that it will be a LONG time before anyone comes close to exploiting it fully.

And the Blu-Ray support, while a plus, is also a minus because it's far from a foregone conclusion that Blu-Ray will emerge victorious over HD DVD... after all, both formats look equally good and the only real difference between them is data capacity, which won't matter for people who just want to watch movies in hi-def. Xbox 360 owners will be able to add an external HD DVD drive later this year, and there's no reason why a Blu-Ray add-on for the 360 is not possible.

Unless MS says "EFF BLURAY." I'm pretty sure Bluray will win the war. I'd even wager money on it.

As far as the development of games for both platforms, I don't doubt it. As you said the sheer amount of graphics capability won't meet it's full potential for another 3 years or so, which is nice for us consumers.

I wonder what will make it out first: Halo 3 or PS 2? I'm betting PS 2.

[MacRumorUser]

Yeah, assuming that nothing in the PS3 changes from what I've heard, the only real (i.e., not trivial) advantages it will have over the Xbox 360 are:

1. Built-in hi-def DVD playback (i.e., Blu-Ray)
2. 1080p support
3. Dual-display support

Being able to have 7 wireless controllers instead of 4 is not a material difference, if you ask me... the graphics processing power is so high for both consoles that it will be a LONG time before anyone comes close to exploiting it fully.

And the Blu-Ray support, while a plus, is also a minus because it's far from a foregone conclusion that Blu-Ray will emerge victorious over HD DVD... after all, both formats look equally good and the only real difference between them is data capacity, which won't matter for people who just want to watch movies in hi-def. Xbox 360 owners will be able to add an external HD DVD drive later this year, and there's no reason why a Blu-Ray add-on for the 360 is not possible.


Agree with you mostly Clayj, but

1080p isn't that much of an advantage, most HDTV's are 720p/1080i and I cant imagine many people are going to go out and buy another for 1080p.
Maybe in a couple of years...

Dual Display sounds like a great idea, but one that I doubt many developers will utilise. How many people have 2 HDTV's setup next to each other? Very few and as the majority of consoles end up in Kids bedrooms, I doubt it's a feature that ever get's used in more than a couple of titles at the most...

Agree with you about BluRay too, but people seem not to realise that there is a third licenced format the DVD Forum has passed that will be emerging soon. So that's 3 formats battling it out, and I don't want to end up with a redundant, expensive format simply because Sony insists on it....

An analogy..

How many people have sandwich toasters in there kitchen cupboard, used once or twice and then put away gathering dust. It's bad enough that the PS3 resembles a Bread Bin without worrying about a built in redundant Sandwich Toaster (BluRay)...

Don't get me wrong, I will buy a Ps3, but I want to see how the format battle rages first..

Remember it may turn out that no-one wins. Look at Philips DCC and Sony MiniDisc, both launched at the same time to replace cassette and while minidisc won the battle it didn't win the war. Cassette is still here and minidisc remains just another stupid proprierty system for Sony...

[greatdevourer]

I wonder what will make it out first: Halo 3 or PS 2? I'm betting PS 2. So would I. Halo 3 vs PS3, however... they say it's gonna release the same day as the PS3, however, if all the theories of the PS3 being pushed back are true, they may give up waiting :p

[yellow]

Aand I don't want to end up with a redundant, expensive format simply because Sony insists on it....

Sounds like you've already decided that HD-DVD will win?

[MacRumorUser]

Sounds like you've already decided that HD-DVD will win?

Nope! Read my post - I don't know who will win. In fact I'd gamble more that in a year or so the two formats will be forced to merge...

[yellow]

I did read it, the fact that you called the technology redundant & expensive and then accused Sony of foisting it upon you, to me means that you are discounting Blu-Ray right away. Anti-Sony, therefore, anti-blu-ray. Perhaps it was your wording..

[MacRumorUser]

I did read it, the fact that you called the technology redundant & expensive and then accused Sony of foisting it upon you, to me means that you are discounting Blu-Ray right away. Anti-Sony, therefore, anti-blu-ray. Perhaps it was your wording..

I'm not anti Sony :) I bought Playstation, Ps2, Slim Ps2, PSP at launch and have a damn fine collection of games. But the reason I chose to buy PS2 was not because it had a dvd player, but because it was a games console.

Life is not clear cut like that, BLACK & WHITE... Just because I see problems with Sony's hardware and possible negatives for there format decisions, does not indicate that I'm anti anything, It means I'm living in the real world where I can envision the multitude of shades of grey..

360 games here in Ireland sell for 70-75 Euro (just under $95) and the thought of having to pay more for what will undoubtbly be a more costly format fills me with dread...

I never said it was redundant now, I said it could be redundant and that's true. If HD-DVD wins or the other format from China, then we will be left with a format that is more costly to produce for, and if it doesn't win the living room war - price will not fall as much as competitive hardware, & Sony will never be able to release a version without BluRay even if the format doesn't win out..

[greatdevourer]

2. 1080p support And apparently (http://megagames.com/news/html/console/playstation3secretsrevealed.shtml) even that is being dropped to stop framerates from dropping

[GFLPraxis]

From what I've seen, the PS3 has more powerful hardware, but that's its main advantage. It's not all about hardware.

The XBox could physically do things the PS2 and GameCube couldn't. Certain effects the graphics card could do.

The PS3 and XBox 360 have the exact same capabilities in that respect. The PS3's hardware advantage only works so far as polygon count, thus, it should be near impossible to tell a PS3 and XBox 360 game apart from looking at a screenshot.

Except for the fact that the PS3 can fit far more on a disk so it's possible later in the game they may have to tone down cutscenes or super-high-resolution textures for the 360 on some games.

[GFLPraxis]

Unless MS says "EFF BLURAY." I'm pretty sure Bluray will win the war. I'd even wager money on it.

I just want to point out that there has been a lot of pro-Blu-ray hype going around, but HD-DVD still has heavy industry support and a lower price point. A lot of sites seem to be counting it out just because of Blu-ray hype and exaggurated claims about studios dropping left and right from the HD-DVD camp.

[Dagless]

The only mate I know who was after a PS3 went out and bought a 360 "on a whim" today.

He's probably not the only one.

Despite all this 'early bird' negative media the 360 has been getting that may be its saving feature. I keep hearing the PS3 will be delayed, even word from chip manufacturers that it isn't coming out for a long time... I don't know. I do know that at $900 development cost the system will NOT sell for cheap. I just want a games machine, I don't want to pay extra for the media stuff. If they released a PS3 that just did games then I might go for that, but I'm not paying an extra wad of cash just for unnecessary features.

[clayj]

As I posted above, the three "real" advantages that the PS3 will have over the Xbox 360 are:

1. Built-in hi-def DVD playback (i.e., Blu-Ray)
2. 1080p support
3. Dual-display support

The reality is, as others have mentioned, that two of these features (1080p and dual-display) aren't likely to be usable by THAT many people, and may even be lost due to impracticality. This just reinforces what I've said before: The PS3 has NO REAL ADVANTAGES over the Xbox 360, with the possible exception of having a next-gen disc player (Blu-Ray) built-in.

Look, I'm a HUGE Sony fan... no one here has more Sony gear than I do. BUT I'm also a realist: The Xbox 360 is outstanding in every way, and while the PS3 may look better on paper, the reality is that it will likely match the Xbox 360 in many ways, exceed it in one or two, and lag it in some (especially the online XBLA experience). People who are waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the PS3 are either being brand-loyal (which I can respect) or they are being fanboys (which I do NOT respect).

For those who have taken an anti-Microsoft and pro-PS3 approach to this, my response is simple: It's your loss. While you're waiting for PS3, we're already playing at a higher level. If you think the PS3 is going to somehow kill the Xbox 360, think again. Microsoft has claimed the beachhead and it's looking more and more as if Sony has lost the initiative.

[GFLPraxis]

As I posted above, the three "real" advantages that the PS3 will have over the Xbox 360 are:

1. Built-in hi-def DVD playback (i.e., Blu-Ray)
2. 1080p support
3. Dual-display support

The reality is, as others have mentioned, that two of these features (1080p and dual-display) aren't likely to be usable by THAT many people, and may even be lost due to impracticality. This just reinforces what I've said before: The PS3 has NO REAL ADVANTAGES over the Xbox 360, with the possible exception of having a next-gen disc player (Blu-Ray) built-in.

Look, I'm a HUGE Sony fan... no one here has more Sony gear than I do. BUT I'm also a realist: The Xbox 360 is outstanding in every way, and while the PS3 may look better on paper, the reality is that it will likely match the Xbox 360 in many ways, exceed it in one or two, and lag it in some (especially the online XBLA experience). People who are waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the PS3 are either being brand-loyal (which I can respect) or they are being fanboys (which I do NOT respect).

For those who have taken an anti-Microsoft and pro-PS3 approach to this, my response is simple: It's your loss. While you're waiting for PS3, we're already playing at a higher level. If you think the PS3 is going to somehow kill the Xbox 360, think again. Microsoft has claimed the beachhead and it's looking more and more as if Sony has lost the initiative.

Actually, I consider the ability to use over 7 controllers a big benefit. It goes with the dual display. If someone wants a LAN party, they only need one PS3 to have an eight player match (remember, you can plug in the eighth controller) instead of two.

Also, the ability to boot an OS is HUGE. I don't think people get the scope of this. I don't care about having an extra PC. The benefit here is HOMEBREW. Look at the DS. We've got homebrew organizer software, homebrew games, homebrew emulators. Right now, less than 1% of DS users can use this great array of homebrew because of all the hackwork it requires. A lot of PSP users don't use homebrew because you have to change firmware versions every time (the new firmware blocks homebrew, the old firmware doesn't work with new games).

The PS3 is the first system to SUPPORT homebrew via Linux. This means that developers can write their own PS3-tailored games that run on PS3's Linux and are designed for the hardware. This will heavily boost Linux adoption and will mean that every PS3 owner has access to a wide array of FREE applications and games that people make for it.

This is a huge plus in my eyes.

[MacRumorUser]

Actually, I consider the ability to use over 7 controllers a big benefit. It goes with the dual display. If someone wants a LAN party, they only need one PS3 to have an eight player match (remember, you can plug in the eighth controller) instead of two.

Also, the ability to boot an OS is HUGE. I don't think people get the scope of this. I don't care about having an extra PC. The benefit here is HOMEBREW. Look at the DS. We've got homebrew organizer software, homebrew games, homebrew emulators. Right now, less than 1% of DS users can use this great array of homebrew because of all the hackwork it requires. A lot of PSP users don't use homebrew because you have to change firmware versions every time (the new firmware blocks homebrew, the old firmware doesn't work with new games).

The PS3 is the first system to SUPPORT homebrew via Linux. This means that developers can write their own PS3-tailored games that run on PS3's Linux and are designed for the hardware. This will heavily boost Linux adoption and will mean that every PS3 owner has access to a wide array of FREE applications and games that people make for it.

This is a huge plus in my eyes.


Idea of 7 controllers would mean your lan party wouldn't be balanced :) Plus it seems that Sony are backing down and going for 720p as standard on display's rather than 1080p to help framerates, especially on first gen titles. How 2 displays with complex graphics would work will be interesting, as long as it's not frame rate hell...

Homebrew though is very interesting.

[Dagless]

This bit has me confused. why would Sony, a huge company who really, reeeally don't like piracy offer homebrew support through its OS? Especially when the system is going to sell for a loss (Sony always have done, and with a machine as huge step forward technically they will be losing some money), if people are playing homebrew and loving it what are the chances of these folk buying the systems real games? I know folk who have no PSP games, just use the device for portable emulation and that. So people who use homebrew as an alternative to commercial games do exist alright.

I think this is going to be a part will be vapourware. Unless theres a subscription or some way to make money. Those games are going to cost a bomb. Look at 360 games now; £45-50. And they're only on standard DVDs! Stick in a next gen disc system and bam. £60 games anyone? Especially when Sony HAVE to make money back from the PS3 console sales.

hmm.

I think this is going to knock Sony from the high spot. Folk are getting tired of the waiting. The Revolution will be here this year. They'll be the 3rd console to enter the market which probably didn't do the Cube or N64 any favours. Especially if its overpriced. Who in their right mind are going to wait for what could possibly be another year and pay over the odds for a machine from a company we know hypes products so much and so disgustingly that it's barely legal?
They better have some big guns with that system.

[flyfish29]

A machine that costs as much as a crappy PC and yet can only do 1 thing, play games.

now thats sad.

people need to realize you are paying pretty much for a Brand Name and for the rights to play proprietary games not available for the PC.

the high costs of the video game market, and that people pay them without question, astounds me,
It may cost that much (doubtful) but will not sales price that must. Cost is actually a business term for how much it is to produce- not sales price. So I would take a $900 cost and a $500 price (or lower) on any electronic anyday! Sony IS doing this on purpose- it helps make the point about being a high-power machine.

Game market is not all that high cost- I have not purchased a separate DVD player- ever! I use my PS2 for all my dvd's except when I am on the road then I use my Mac. I have had my PS2 since launch and use it on average 3 nights a week and never had a problem booting it up- no viruses, etc. You can't do that with a crappy PC.

[GFLPraxis]

Idea of 7 controllers would mean your lan party wouldn't be balanced :) Plus it seems that Sony are backing down and going for 720p as standard on display's rather than 1080p to help framerates, especially on first gen titles. How 2 displays with complex graphics would work will be interesting, as long as it's not frame rate hell...

Homebrew though is very interesting.

It's limited to 7 controllers because Bluetooth supports 8 devices (PS3 + 7 controllers). You can also plug an eighth controller into the PS3 via USB. 8 players.

[GFLPraxis]

This bit has me confused. why would Sony, a huge company who really, reeeally don't like piracy offer homebrew support through its OS?

It's quite simply really. PS3 games will require access to ALL the hardware. Linux takes up some of the RAM and processor speed. You won't be able to run PS3 games within Linux (at least, I HIGHLY doubt it), just homebrew games (which could come still pretty close but not quite in performance if coded well) and stuff.

However, they will still block you from running your own code DIRECTLY on the system (outside of Linux). So if you write homebrew, you have to run it within Linux.

Piracy of PS3 games will thus be impossible (unless you get a modchip of course) with the unmodified unit, just like the XBox 360.

The only piracy possible is if someone writes a PS2 or PS1 emulator.


Especially when the system is going to sell for a loss (Sony always have done, and with a machine as huge step forward technically they will be losing some money), if people are playing homebrew and loving it what are the chances of these folk buying the systems real games?

Well, people have to buy the hard drive to use homebrew which I'm sure Sony will mark up, and homebrew is usually 2D or weak 3D (or ports of old games like Doom). It'll be like XBox Live Arcade games, only free. I doubt it would detract from serious game sales.

I know folk who have no PSP games, just use the device for portable emulation and that. So people who use homebrew as an alternative to commercial games do exist alright.

Right, but the fact that PSP is portable plays a big factor, otherwise they'd just use their PC which is better for it. Either way, Sony is already counting on people buying the PS3 *just* for Blu-ray. They can also count on people buying it just for homebrew and emulation.

I think this is going to be a part will be vapourware. Unless theres a subscription or some way to make money. Those games are going to cost a bomb. Look at 360 games now; £45-50. And they're only on standard DVDs! Stick in a next gen disc system and bam. £60 games anyone? Especially when Sony HAVE to make money back from the PS3 console sales.

Perhaps, or maybe Sony's music downloading service and other similar services will be built in to Linux?

[bitfactory]

Right now, they are selling OVER 4 games per console... so Microsoft is NOT losing any money on the 360 overall. This 4+ game sell is practically unheard of.

Hate to break it to you, but the only reason the X360 may have a 4+ game sell rate is because of the ridiculous bundles people are being forced to buy just to get a console.

http://xbox.clambert.org/

I *wanted* a 360 - but couldn't find one. Now I've cooled on it, and if I see one in the store I'll buy it, but I'm not going to go out of my way now. I still think MS should have sold them online exclusively for the first few months - it would have helped prevent the ********** from buying more than one and selling them on ebay.

</rant> anyway, back to my main point - the only reason the accessory/game rate is high is that the retailers are forcing bundles as the price of admission just to get the console. That is BS, imo.

[clayj]

Hate to break it to you, but the only reason the X360 may have a 4+ game sell rate is because of the ridiculous bundles people are being forced to buy just to get a console.

http://xbox.clambert.org/

I *wanted* a 360 - but couldn't find one. Now I've cooled on it, and if I see one in the store I'll buy it, but I'm not going to go out of my way now. I still think MS should have sold them online exclusively for the first few months - it would have helped prevent the ********** from buying more than one and selling them on ebay.

</rant> anyway, back to my main point - the only reason the accessory/game rate is high is that the retailers are forcing bundles as the price of admission just to get the console. That is BS, imo.Of course, the reason for all of the games selling is the bundles. But that didn't stop people from buying them. And Sony will do exactly the same thing whenever the PS3 first comes out... only after supply catches up to demand and consoles are just sitting on store shelves will they eliminate the need for bundling.

[GFLPraxis]

The fact is though, there are only two first party games in the 360's lineup- Perfect Dark Zero and Project Gotham Racing 3.

Microsoft is still taking a loss, even if they are selling 4 games with the console, methinks. Unless people are buying the Core package with four games (which Microsoft makes a much smaller loss off of). Third party games hardly make any money for Microsoft.

[bitfactory]

Part of possible delay may also be due to the fact that MS has bungled the launch in Japan so severely that they feel they've got some room to readjust some things. The sales in NA have been fine - but when you sell even less than the first Xbox in Japan? That's just plain unbelievable.

[MacRumorUser]

The fact is though, there are only two first party games in the 360's lineup- Perfect Dark Zero and Project Gotham Racing 3.

Microsoft is still taking a loss, even if they are selling 4 games with the console, methinks. Unless people are buying the Core package with four games (which Microsoft makes a much smaller loss off of). Third party games hardly make any money for Microsoft.

What about Kameo?

[Abulia]

What about Kameo?Away with facts, you! :D

I think much ado is being made of nothing. Even if the PS3 costs $800 to make (I think $350 for the drive is far too high), this is a long term strategy. Sony will be milking the PS3 for what, a ten-year lifecycle? Sure, they'll lose quite a bit up front, but on the backside they'll leverage that economy of sale on years 4-10.

I think Sony's largest opportunity is to avoid the shortage problems that the 360 had. Sony has a lot more to lose this time around: 70% marketshare and adoption of BluRay are big stakes.

Features? Yea, it's mostly a wash, but I suppose I'll change my mind when I have two 1080p tvs at home, side-by-side. :rolleyes:

;)

[Abulia]

For those who have taken an anti-Microsoft and pro-PS3 approach to this, my response is simple: It's your loss. While you're waiting for PS3, we're already playing at a higher level. If you think the PS3 is going to somehow kill the Xbox 360, think again.Word.

Speaking of which, I'm off to by Fight Night Round 3, my sixth 360 game. :)

[Abulia]

Key item I read in this article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/02/20/sony.playstation.reut/index.html):
Analysts generally agree that Sony will do whatever it can to avoid missing the key year-end holiday season this year, but many believe it will be unable to make the PS3 in great volumes.

Game development for the PS3 is also seen being delayed because the technology specifications have not been finalized.

"Game makers are developing games according to their guesses on what the final specifications might be," said Takeshi Tajima, a BNP Paribas analyst.
So, small launch volume (ala 360) and few games = trouble?

[greatdevourer]

Sony will be milking the PS3 for what, a ten-year lifecycle? Are you out of your mind? Systems barely last 6 years, let alone 10!

I'm suprised Sony are allowing Homebrew through Linux, as it's utterly disasterous for them - if I buy a PS3 to run my own stuff on it (like I did my DS), then Sony lose $500 and don't make it up with game licenses. It's what helped the XBox1 with it's vast losses - a lot of people bought XBoxes to run XBMC and use it for displaying HD content (I was thinking of doing the same)

[clayj]

Are you out of your mind? Systems barely last 6 years, let alone 10!

I'm suprised Sony are allowing Homebrew through Linux, as it's utterly disasterous for them - if I buy a PS3 to run my own stuff on it (like I did my DS), then Sony lose $500 and don't make it up with game licenses. It's what helped the XBox1 with it's vast losses - a lot of people bought XBoxes to run XBMC and use it for displaying HD content (I was thinking of doing the same)Yeah, the console lifecycle is really more like 4 years... it was four years between the launch of the Xbox and the Xbox 360. For Sony, it'll be about 5 years between PS2 and PS3.

And I will be VERY surprised if Sony allow hacking of PS3s to run homebrew software... it'll kill 'em if that happens.

[MacRumorUser]

Yeah, the console lifecycle is really more like 4 years... it was four years between the launch of the Xbox and the Xbox 360. For Sony, it'll be about 5 years between PS2 and PS3.

And I will be VERY surprised if Sony allow hacking of PS3s to run homebrew software... it'll kill 'em if that happens.

Depends on your definition of Life Cycle. The PS1 is still being sold albeit in small quantaties - but that's 10 years....

[takao]

is the 360 supply still so bad in the US ? just yesterday when i walked in the local store to buy a movie (6.99 € "dead or alive" i simply had to buy it) they had piled up new core packages as well to the premium ones which are sitting sitting there since last week (overall perhaps 30-40 machines with 1/3 core packages )
all the games, accessories, and even hard disks are available on the shelves ... looks to me that the 360 has to deliver more interesting games to take profit from any ps3 delays

(at least it isn't as bad when the Xbox 1 launched at 479 € :) )

[Abulia]

Depends on your definition of Life Cycle. The PS1 is still being sold albeit in small quantaties - but that's 10 years....Thank you. Nice to see not everyone missed my point.

[clayj]

Thank you. Nice to see not everyone missed my point.Yeah, but once the console is not the latest, greatest thing, the revenues from that are negligible. Sure, the thing will LAST ten years, but any meaningful revenue stream has long since vanished. My Atari Lynx still works, but there's no money to be made in selling Lynxes or even Lynx software... no one's making new PSOne games, are they?

[2nyRiggz]

I really don't believe this. I still think PS3 will come out soon with a beefed price..$400 but i don't see this. Sony will come with PS3 and Nintendo with the REV. and that will eat up Microsoft goody that they are having right now...i see no problem for Sony

A bunch of hot air.


Bless

[XNine]

I bought the 360 primarily for a few games: COD2, DOA 4, DOAXVB 2, and Halo 3, and whatever might come along that's good enough.

The PS 3 will have my money ahnds down. METAL GEAR FOUR. I could care less if there were 100 games that I wanted on the 360, I would go after MGS 4 first. Metal Gear owns.

Given the fact that I love Sony (their PSX and 2 consoles were just awesome), and the fact that Sony has I'm sure learned their lesson about not including top of the line featuresx like an ethernet adapter, a good online experience, and other small items, I'm sure they're making this thing perfect.

I checked out a PSP and the user interface was awesome. The 360 had a better UI than the original, but the PSP was jsut isnane. Hopefully they go with something like that

Sorry Sony haters, PS 3 will be THE console to have. While I like the 360 (and don't give a damn abotu Nintendo), Sony will rule all.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

:D

[greatdevourer]

The PS 3 will have my money ahnds down. METAL GEAR FOUR. I could care less if there were 100 games that I wanted on the 360, I would go after MGS 4 first. Metal Gear owns. That is, of course, unless MGS4 was in that list of 100 games, as Hideo Kojima (I think that's his name) has said is more than possible ;)

[zelmo]

I don't buy into the $800 in component costs. I think that the BR drive is costing Sony far less. They are rolling the development costs of BR into more products than just the PS3 [BR players, licensing fees for movies/games]. I'm [blindly] guessing that the actual costs are closer to $600 today, and will ramp down to maybe $450 within the first year, before they have a price drop on the console. I'm hoping the PS3 launches at $400 to $450. I expect Sony will lose some money on every PS3 they sell for at least the first three years.
Clearly, Sony is gambling that the Playstation name will help propel BluRay to the forefront of the HD standard wars, and they are willing to take a goodly bath on the consoles to achieve that end.
I'll buy one just for MGS4, and hopefully a new Wipeout game. And I'll happily pay $40 for TV series seasons that ship on a single BR disk instead of 3-6 DVD's. Save me some shelf space.:p

[~Shard~]

And I'll happily pay $40 for TV series seasons that ship on a single BR disk instead of 3-6 DVD's. Save me some shelf space.:p

Yeah, we're in the same boat when it comes to that. It's one of the reasons I've held off buying many of those larger DVD sets - I know that in a year or so they'll be much more space-friendly on my shelves and in a cooler format. ;) :cool:

[clayj]

Just got back from Best Buy... the Xbox 360 dude there hit me with this nugget of speculation: Some third-party game producers are threatening Sony, saying that if the PS3 price tag doesn't come in under $500, they will not produce/release games for the PS3. Essentially, the logic is:

console price too high -> not many consoles sell -> not many games sell -> we can't make our money back

They can look to the Neo-Geo and the 3DO for examples of overpriced consoles that failed due to lack of third-party support.

[greatdevourer]

Just got back from Best Buy... the Xbox 360 dude there hit me with this nugget of speculation: Some third-party game producers are threatening Sony, saying that if the PS3 price tag doesn't come in under $500, they will not produce/release games for the PS3. Essentially, the logic is:

console price too high -> not many consoles sell -> not many games sell -> we can't make our money back

They can look to the Neo-Geo and the 3DO for examples of overpriced consoles that failed due to lack of third-party support. This is very true of why there are few games for Mac - not because it's a poor platform, but because there's less profit to be made due to a smaller marketshare.

[XNine]

That is, of course, unless MGS4 was in that list of 100 games, as Hideo Kojima (I think that's his name) has said is more than possible ;)

Yeah, did you ever play the Xbox version of MGS2? It sucked balls. The controls were awful, the game slowed to a crawl jsut RUNNING in the rain on the deck of the ship. On the PS 2, I had the red bandana on and threw grenades over and over and only when all of the guards came running after me and firing at me did the game slow down.

The controller on the Xbox, and the 360 would not cut it for metal gear.

[greatdevourer]

Yeah, did you ever play the Xbox version of MGS2? It sucked balls. The controls were awful, the game slowed to a crawl jsut RUNNING in the rain on the deck of the ship. On the PS 2, I had the red bandana on and threw grenades over and over and only when all of the guards came running after me and firing at me did the game slow down.

The controller on the Xbox, and the 360 would not cut it for metal gear. That was a sucky port on a sucky console with bonkers controllers. New generation. New arena.

Also, how is the current 360 controller any different to the PS2 and (likely) PS3 controller? They're nearing identical :confused:

[Dagless]

Deep down I'm uninterested in the PS3/Xbox stuff. The xbox core package costs too much for me. I have way more than what it costs but hell if I'm paying more than £200 for a game machine, no matter what's inside it.

I'll be with that 60% (or 80% here) of folk who plan buying a Revolution. An insane %age of folk want a Rev and we don't even know its biggest features yet. I dont know. This whole market is changing. Anyone care to look at the DS and PSP?
DS; cheap. innovative. games everyone seems to love.
PSP; overpriced. same old same old. games?

People do seem to be looking through graphics and want something new to play. everythings changing. seemingly.

[Abulia]

I'll be with that 15% (or 80% here) of folk who plan buying a Revolution.I fixed your text with the part that correctly reflects Nintendo's (and Microsoft's) marketshare. :)

[GFLPraxis]

Are you out of your mind? Systems barely last 6 years, let alone 10!

I'm suprised Sony are allowing Homebrew through Linux, as it's utterly disasterous for them - if I buy a PS3 to run my own stuff on it (like I did my DS), then Sony lose $500 and don't make it up with game licenses.

You're honestly telling me you bought your DS and all the equipment to run homebrew and don't play any DS games on it? No Mario Kart?

Also, Sony is already trying to do that. They're expecting people to buy the PS3 just for Blu-ray.

And they can sell the hard drive with Linux preinstalled at a profit.

Also, Sony lose $500? Don't be insane. An $80 loss per system on the XBox gave Microsoft $4 billion overall in losses. $500 per system would seriously hurt even Microsoft and would be IMPOSSIBLE to make up.

[takao]

Also, Sony lose $500? Don't be insane. An $80 loss per system on the XBox gave Microsoft $4 billion overall in losses. $500 per system would seriously hurt even Microsoft and would be IMPOSSIBLE to make up.

4 billions / 25 millions (i think it was around that world wide) = - 160 $ for each console out there including the money they made from games, additional hardware and services ...

i think the extreme money-burning of microsoft at the moment pushes the ps3 further back since sony will try to milk out every dollar out of the ps2 as long as they can since a too early introduction of the ps3 might cost them some serious money not only from hardware but also from running commercials, promotions etc.
sure the 360 had a good start but it's far from being a huge danger yet.. the fans got theirs (mostly) but now it's time to attract more people

edit:
for blu-ray: it's a gamble ... it isn't a obvious standard as with the DVD and the customer reaction to both formats is still unpredictable.. after all a lot of people will be standing there asking if the improvement is worth their money ... it's not a big jump like from VHS to DVD

"more trailers" and "higher resolution" will be tougher to sell than "no rewinding" "different languages" "optional subtitles" "skipping chapters" "smaller medium" "bonus material"

[2nyRiggz]

I'm looking foward to the PS3(haters hold your comments) and REV. The 360 doesn't move me and i have one...i got bored of it and now i'm back to my PSP(mega man/Exit) This will not be a Neo Geo system and there will be a lot of people waiting in line for the PS3(MGS4/KillZone)

Rumors romors....thats all they are. My money is on the PS3 and the REV....sony will do it again.


Bless

[GFLPraxis]

4 billions / 25 millions (i think it was around that world wide) = - 160 $ for each console out there including the money they made from games, additional hardware and services ...

I'm not sure I understand your math here. Where is this 25 million coming from?

We know that they lost $80 per console and that the overall loss was $4 billion counting all money made and lost.

[bitfactory]

Just got back from Best Buy... the Xbox 360 dude there hit me with this nugget of speculation

People I never listen to (1) Best Buy employees, (2) and people who refer to themselves (or others refer to them as) 'the Xbox 360 dude.'

I agree this scenario may be true - but I doubt some 'Xbox dude' at Best Buy got it < 10th hand.

It will be interesting to see what the price point will be. I'm sure they'll guard the opening price till' the very end. Hopefully they'll be one main system - why does MS even bother with the 'Core' system? Every time they make a Core system a kitten dies.

[mac.head.high]

A fact from the mouth of Ken Kuteragi, summarized:

The PS3 will be able to run OS X 10.4 and Windows, but the choice to port it would be up to the OS developers. Sony will not block out the possibility.


So ask yourself; Would you pay $900 for a Sony PS3 if it could be your Apple, or M$ desktop also? ANd what is it could play PC games. I pretty sure I would (especially if it is cheaper than $900).

That's what I find so trivial about this whole discussion. None of you are thinking outside the box (pardon the pun) about what the next form of gaming machine is. You're just discussing price points and currently held gaming ideas.

Use a little imagination when thinking about what is coming around the corner from Sony's PS3. This isn't M$ were talking about here.

Also this could even feed into the rumor of the Mac gaming system.


Edit @ 6:45- Don't forget that the Sony PS2 can and does run it's own version of Linux as a desktop already, if the user chooses to. So don't get the functionality of a gaming console (Xbox) confused with that of a Computer Entertainment System (PS1 & PS2); because there is a difference.

[mac.head.high]

Just got back from Best Buy... the Xbox 360 dude there hit me with this nugget of speculation: Some third-party game producers are threatening Sony, saying that if the PS3 price tag doesn't come in under $500, they will not produce/release games for the PS3. Essentially, the logic is:

console price too high -> not many consoles sell -> not many games sell -> we can't make our money back

They can look to the Neo-Geo and the 3DO for examples of overpriced consoles that failed due to lack of third-party support.

I wouldn't take speculation from the guy with a GED at the Best-Buy serious.

Not to mention that Best-Buy is currently in the pocket of M$, so the majority of what the Sales folk are saying is the talking points and propaganda of M$ and their new box, not fact.

I know hope can be enlightening clayj, but there is no force aside from a cataclysmic industry collapse that will stop the PS3 from manhandling the Xbox 360. No matter how good or bad the Sony's PS3 will be, its' already poised to take the lead with no sweat in the High-end Gaming Market.

[GFLPraxis]

A fact from the mouth of Ken Kuteragi, summarized:

-The PS3 will be able to run OS X 10.4 and Windows, but the choice to port it would be up to the OS developers. Sony will not block out the possibility.-


So ask yourself; Would you pay $900 for a Sony PS3 if it could be your Apple, and/or M$ desktop also? And what is it could play PC games. I pretty sure I would (especially if it is cheaper than $900).

That's what I find so trivial about this whole discussion. None of you are thinking outside the box (pardon the pun) about what the next form of gaming machine is. You're just discussing price points and currently held gaming ideas.

Use a little imagination when thinking about what is coming around the corner from Sony's PS3. This isn't M$ were talking about here.


Also this could even feed into the rumor of the Mac gaming system.


You're taking things WAY too literally. Kutaragi said it would be capable of running those OSes if the developers wished to port them. However, if Microsoft ported Windows to the Cell, which is based around PowerPC, it would be incompatible with all current Windows apps due to the architecture difference, so they would never do it. If Apple ported OS X to the Cell, they'd be moving back to PowerPC while switching the rest of their product line to Intel (and every Mac program would not take advantage of the Cell and just run on the primary core of the Cell, the 3.2 GHz PowerPC that lacks out of order execution and basicly sucks for all things integer, which is horrible performance for a desktop).

It's not going to happen. A PowerMac G5 is physically capable of running Windows too, if Microsoft were to port it.

And don't expect individuals to make Windows or OS X run on the Cell either. Maybe OS X but only using the Cell's central processor which would be crap performance. But Windows, impossible, because Windows is compiled for x86 processors and there is no way we could recompile it for PowerPC without illegally stealing the source code, and there's no way Microsoft would ever port it.

We will never see Windows running on the PS3 outside of emulation. We will never see OS X running on the PS3 fully utilizing the hardware and Cell.

Sony said they wouldn't block the possibility of the developers porting the operating systems, not the possibility of people installing their own.

[mac.head.high]

You're taking things WAY too literally. Kutaragi said it would be capable of running those OSes if the developers wished to port them. However, if Microsoft ported Windows to the Cell, which is based around PowerPC, it would be incompatible with all current Windows apps due to the architecture difference, so they would never do it. If Apple ported OS X to the Cell, they'd be moving back to PowerPC while switching the rest of their product line to Intel (and every Mac program would not take advantage of the Cell and just run on the primary core of the Cell, the 3.2 GHz PowerPC that lacks out of order execution and basicly sucks for all things integer, which is horrible performance for a desktop).

It's not going to happen. A PowerMac G5 is physically capable of running Windows too, if Microsoft were to port it.

And don't expect individuals to make Windows or OS X run on the Cell either. Maybe OS X but only using the Cell's central processor which would be crap performance. But Windows, impossible, because Windows is compiled for x86 processors and there is no way we could recompile it for PowerPC without illegally stealing the source code, and there's no way Microsoft would ever port it.

We will never see Windows running on the PS3 outside of emulation. We will never see OS X running on the PS3 fully utilizing the hardware and Cell.

Sony said they wouldn't block the possibility of the developers porting the operating systems, not the possibility of people installing their own.

Ah poop! This is were I would place a sad face if I were that kind of person.

But what do you mean by "not the possibility of people installing their own".

[clayj]

I wouldn't take speculation from the guy with a GED at the Best-Buy serious.

Not to mention that Best-Buy is currently in the pocket of M$, so the majority of what the Sales folk are saying is the talking points and propaganda of M$ and their new box, not fact.

I know hope can be enlightening clayj, but there is no force aside from a cataclysmic industry collapse that will stop the PS3 from manhandling the Xbox 360. No matter how good or bad the Sony's PS3 will be, its' already poised to take the lead with no sweat in the High-end Gaming Market.1. How do you know he doesn't have a college degree? Nice of you to make an assumption about the people who work at Best Buy. I'll bet you think that everyone who works in retail is an idiot.
2. Anyone who refers to Microsoft with cutesy names like "M$" is automatically labeled a fanboy.
3. Your final paragraph just CONFIRMS that you're a Sony fanboy.

:mad:

[mac.head.high]

1. How do you know he doesn't have a college degree? Nice of you to make an assumption about the people who work at Best Buy. I'll bet you think that everyone who works in retail is an idiot.
2. Anyone who refers to Microsoft with cutesy names like "M$" is automatically labeled a fanboy.
3. Your final paragraph just CONFIRMS that you're a Sony fanboy.

:mad:


Speaking of assumptions..

But no, I don't think that everyone in retail is lacking a degree, just the employes of Best-Buy, Fry's, and the majority of uber-technology chain stores where my cumulative life experience with dealing with their infinitely under educated and useless/unhelpful floors people have forced me from considering their advice, advice.

As for point 2 of your retort. There's no shame in being a fan of Sony. But to equate my arguments to simple taking of sides for only that purpose, is completely false on it's face. I'm an Apple fanboy I suppose, but as for Sony and M$, the only thing that makes my opinions so, is a solid gaming console (Computer Entertainment System by Sony's definition) made buy Sony. And for clarity sake, yes I own 2 Xbox's. One I modded, and one factory. I play both, but find that Sony's overall product and customer awareness to be better.

That fact that you point out my labeling of MicroShaft as M$ only serves to confirm that you are indeed a Microsoft fanboy. But I can't really knock you for that, since I think I read somewhere that you have in-fact worked for them previously, if not otherwise currently. So I can understand the pressure not to say anything against them when you're worried (in mild honesty) that Bill Gates could be on his cell phone right now positioning snipers around your Condo.

So I understand that fear.

But as for your third bullet-point, allow me to clear something up. I'm a Sound Designer in the Gaming Industry and Music Industry as well as a member of G.A.N.G, the game industries network for Audio Designers. I have a much better understand than most folks when it comes to the gaming industry because of my ability to see it from the inside out. So Actually when I say "I know hope can be enlightening clayj, but there is no force aside from a cataclysmic industry collapse that will stop the PS3 from manhandling the Xbox 360. No matter how good or bad the Sony's PS3 will be, its' already poised to take the lead with no sweat in the High-end Gaming Market", it's not some unjustified claim from an outsider. It's a statement based on facts of the current gaming market and current gaming politics from a person working within the industry. Not some kid at Best-Buy spouting off M$ rhetoric he as been instructed to repeat by his managers and regional directors.

So please, next time before you make an assumption, consider if the person your attempting to lambast actually knows what he's talking about. It will help your argument.

As an aside: I play my PS2 more then my Xbox, and probably will continue to do so as long as great and newly innovative games keep coming out on it. But that's not to say I shun my Xbox. CS on the Xbox is in my top 5 of console gaming greats, based on how much fun I have with it. And maybe Halo 2 as well. There no accounting for taste; but if I could convince you of one thing clayj, it is this. You need to play games like Katamari Demacy, SOCOM 3, GTA (any in the series), God Of War, and Shadow Of The Colossus on the PS2.
These games are shining examples of great game design and great game play. A staple of what the gaming community has come to know as Sony's PS2. A reliable gaming system with a much larger base of great games with stories.

And if in my argument you don't see how I can come to these conclusions, then you are blinded by your stereotypical M$ fanboy-ness.

[GFLPraxis]

Ah poop! This is were I would place a sad face if I were that kind of person.

But what do you mean by "not the possibility of people installing their own".

Well, because of the physical architecture difference, Sony knows well that it would be impossible to install a stock copy of Windows on the PS3, no matter how much hackwork you do, without recompiling it and porting it. So Sony was talking about that they won't block developers from porting the OS to the PS3 if they wanted to. They weren't saying that they would allow users to install Windows and Mac OS X, they were saying they would allow Apple or Microsoft to port them if they wanted to.

We'll probably see companies port their OSes or distros though. We'll probably see FreeBSD PS3 Edition for example pretty soon.

[nordesmic]

Yeah, we're in the same boat when it comes to that. It's one of the reasons I've held off buying many of those larger DVD sets - I know that in a year or so they'll be much more space-friendly on my shelves and in a cooler format. ;) :cool:

I think that it is unlikely that they will ship tv series on single a blu-ray disc or perhaps two. By making it a physically large set of discs people are inclined to pay more for it. Just look at movies, you often find yourself paying an extra $5-10 for a double disc dvd set despite the fact that the extra production cost of the second disc amounts to nothing.

It is a bit like Christmas when you see the presents under the tree. You see the big present with your name on it and you assume it must be good because of its size.

Also the titles that are being going to be released are mainly big-name movies. I doubt TV shows will be released on blu-ray discs in a hurry.

[nimbus]

The actual price of the PS3 is $800 in parts.
The actual price of the Xbox 360 is $715 in parts.

$85 difference...and you get a BLU RAY DVD PLAYER.


Sony will make money for licenses of BluRay. What is holding back the release of the PS3 is the AACS. They need to confirm specs for BluRay. Sony will more than likely release the PS3 either in their Spring idea, which is May-July for Japan. Or September-November. PS3's price will most likely be $399-499. For the people that think a PS3 won't sell at $499 are fools. Xbox 360 sold for $600 in bundles, and they had sucky games for launch. PS3 will be a BluRay DVD Player out of the box, a VERY high bonus. I think Xbox fans....are in fact....a little scared...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[greatdevourer]

You're honestly telling me you bought your DS and all the equipment to run homebrew and don't play any DS games on it? No Mario Kart? Yup :D It's cheaper than buying a 770, and, if I ever did buy some, I could run DS games on it

I fixed your text with the part that correctly reflects Nintendo's (and Microsoft's) marketshare. :) Don't follow the previous gen's figures. While this gen a lot of people bought just 1 console, a lot of people have said that they're gonna get a X360/PS3 and a Revo, because it's going to attract such a different set of games

The PS3 will be able to run OS X 10.4 and Windows, but the choice to port it would be up to the OS developers. Sony will not block out the possibility.

So ask yourself; Would you pay $900 for a Sony PS3 if it could be your Apple, or M$ desktop also? ANd what is it could play PC games. I pretty sure I would (especially if it is cheaper than $900). I doubt M$ will do it, and I'd be suprised if Apple will, too. All OSs on the next-gen consoles will suck hard, and none harder than the PS3. The problem is that they use gaming-specific processor, and, as a result, have no OoO, and the PS3 doesn't even have multiple cores to make up for this (and before you say, those 6 SIMDs are not cores). And I very much doubt you'd be able to play Windows games

It's not going to happen. A PowerMac G5 is physically capable of running Windows too, if Microsoft were to port it. They did once, but it was NT4 (just like 95, except it takes out everything within a 40mile radius as well :D), so no-one bought it

[Dagless]

I fixed your text with the part that correctly reflects Nintendo's (and Microsoft's) marketshare. :)


Umm... I wasn't running off the current marketshare, I'm running off the masses of polls that show Nintendo's "second console" strategy is so far paying off for them. Low price, accessible gaming, free online play, small size are all big factors in this. Thats why those analyst guys are saying that the Rev will have a stonking 60% market share. or 80% on Macrumors (Who is buying the Rev thread).

[GFLPraxis]

They did once, but it was NT4 (just like 95, except it takes out everything within a 40mile radius as well :D), so no-one bought it

It was never sold, it was for in house testing only.

[GFLPraxis]

The actual price of the PS3 is $800 in parts.
The actual price of the Xbox 360 is $715 in parts.

$85 difference...and you get a BLU RAY DVD PLAYER.

ROFL, heck no, that was just one of the insane early estimates. Shows you how inaccurate some can be though.

[Abulia]

Umm... I wasn't running off the current marketshare, I'm running off the masses of polls that show Nintendo's "second console" strategy is so far paying off for them. Low price, accessible gaming, free online play, small size are all big factors in this. Thats why those analyst guys are saying that the Rev will have a stonking 60% market share. or 80% on Macrumors (Who is buying the Rev thread).Pardon my skepticism in the belief that Nintendo will increase their marketshare by a factor of FOUR based on your anecdotal evidence and a Macrumors poll months before any units are available for purchase. Feel free to cite these industry sources that show that 60% of the gaming population are going to buy a Revolution.

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to toss out the current and historical data on a whim just because someone doesn't like the data. Keep in mind that MS also has 15% -- I'm just trying to point out that *anyone* has their work ahead of them when going up against Sony.

[Dagless]

Whilst I'm searching for the poll and analyst data on my uber slow connection...

Off memory there was one poll that asked what consoles you will get, all combinations of options were available. PS3+Xbox+Rev. PS3+Xbox. Rev+Xbox. Rev+PS3. Rev. PS3. Xbox.

The result data showed that, in all, the Revolution would be in most homes. It was the 2nd most bought console on its own, most people opted for Rev and PS3. A lot voted Xbox and Rev. I believe the Xbox had the lowest estimated market share.

Found one

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/23/poll-results-next-gen-combo-platters/

I can't seem to find the IGN one again. There was less favour to Nintendos machine there but the estimated market share was again in the majority.

See what people don't seem to understand is that things are changing. I don't know if you've noticed or not but again I bring up the DS scenario. People want new games. That's why the DS is destroying all the competition (literally, with the Gizmodo). The Xbox hasn't sold amazingly well, least not in the UK or Japan. If the PS3 was out now, especially if it cost more than 360 it would not be the huge storm the PS2 was.

If you're denying that people out there don't want new games on a cheap system then you're probably going to be surprised. A next gen system just 50% (of course that's estimated) more expensive than a current gen system. They are going to fly off the shelves.
I reckon the whole free internet thing is going to pull a lot of people in too. Folk like me who already pay for a broadband subscription with even more money going out just to play online? no thanks.

Of course its all estimations as only the 360 is out now. But the DS and PSP have been out for a lot longer.


... I mean has nobody been hearing the negative press the PS3 has been getting recently? coupled with Sony's lies, damned lies and previous Playstation lies? no. just... no.

[nimbus]

I mean has nobody been hearing the negative press the PS3 has been getting recently? coupled with Sony's lies, damned lies and previous Playstation lies? no. just... no.
And the fact that PS2 sold +100 MILLION units?
Oh, I do declare...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[jdechko]

raggedjimmi, that's a crazy poll. I mean. I figured that Nintendo would focus on being first in the second system (as this poll shows) but the numbers are astounding.

Anyway, I really hope that it doesn't affect my ability to buy a Revolution (making me have to wait), but I'm sure that with a staggered launch and ample supply, they're not going to have (many) problems.

[rosalindavenue]

I've been a huge Sony fan; the CLIE I had was the best piece of gear I have ever owned aside from my ibook. My DVD players and CD players are sonys. I am still holding a grudge over the CD rootkits, but generally I still have nothing against them as electronics manufacturers. With all this in mind I am concerned at the way they try to use their strong areas (walkman, PS, recording artists), to influence other areas of their business (music and movies and rootkits). Think about how Sony blew the digital music player business by not allowing their players to play MP3s until 2005. Now transfer that line of idiotic thinking to "Lets establish a DVD standard by shoehorning it into the PS3, even though it will cost 7 or 8 or $900 to produce." This is the kind of thinking that destroyed the digital walkman, which should have easily ruled the marketplace. This kind of thinking could also drag down, or even destroy, the PS3.

[2nyRiggz]

But the DS and PSP have been out for a lot longer.


Still trying to figure out what this have to do with it....you can not base the way the PSP and DS is going on the big consoles(if thats what you are saying) The Big Boys (PS3,XB360,REV) is a little different. People are looking for that power house of a machine when it comes to home consoles and although most people don't think so but i think Nintendo will bring a Up to par(in strength) machine to the table.


Bless

[GFLPraxis]

Whilst I'm searching for the poll and analyst data on my uber slow connection...

Off memory there was one poll that asked what consoles you will get, all combinations of options were available. PS3+Xbox+Rev. PS3+Xbox. Rev+Xbox. Rev+PS3. Rev. PS3. Xbox.

The result data showed that, in all, the Revolution would be in most homes. It was the 2nd most bought console on its own, most people opted for Rev and PS3. A lot voted Xbox and Rev. I believe the Xbox had the lowest estimated market share.

Found one

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/23/poll-results-next-gen-combo-platters/


Very interesting poll.

Looks like Nintendo's strategy of getting people to buy both will work well.

But remember that this is a poll of mostly informed gamers. Not moms and dads and kids and teens and casual gamers.

[XNine]

I've been a huge Sony fan; the CLIE I had was the best piece of gear I have ever owned aside from my ibook. My DVD players and CD players are sonys. I am still holding a grudge over the CD rootkits, but generally I still have nothing against them as electronics manufacturers. With all this in mind I am concerned at the way they try to use their strong areas (walkman, PS, recording artists), to influence other areas of their business (music and movies and rootkits). Think about how Sony blew the digital music player business by not allowing their players to play MP3s until 2005. Now transfer that line of idiotic thinking to "Lets establish a DVD standard by shoehorning it into the PS3, even though it will cost 7 or 8 or $900 to produce." This is the kind of thinking that destroyed the digital walkman, which should have easily ruled the marketplace. This kind of thinking could also drag down, or even destroy, the PS3.

I swear to God, I'm going to build a website and link to it anytime someone brings up Sony+Electronics+Rootkits.

IT WAS SONY BMG! GET OVER IT! SONY CE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GODAMN ROOT KITS!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Okay, now then... Sony has the biggest market share. Did the PS 2 not have a lot of bad press? And how many units were sold? Yeah, exactly. Xbox was said to be a much better machine, but who sold more units? Yeah exactly.

[rosalindavenue]

I swear to God, I'm going to build a website and link to it anytime someone brings up Sony+Electronics+Rootkits.

IT WAS SONY BMG! GET OVER IT! SONY CE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GODAMN ROOT KITS!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Okay, now then... Sony has the biggest market share. Did the PS 2 not have a lot of bad press? And how many units were sold? Yeah, exactly. Xbox was said to be a much better machine, but who sold more units? Yeah exactly.

OK-- I understand where you are coming from and you can mentally delete anything about the rootkits from my post. PS2 did the best because (a) it had the most good games and (b) its rise coincided with the rise of DVD-- it was a DVD player too. Now, PS3 is being used by Sony to try and make Blu-Ray the majority standard. In my humble opinion, using the PS3 to work on market share for blu-ray is a bad idea, because (a) it adds considerably to the price of the PS3, (b) it is apparently making the PS3 late, and (c) it detracts from the primary mission of the PS3, which is gaming. That's what I think. Is it a good idea to use the PS3 as a trojan horse for blu-ray?

[XNine]

OK-- I understand where you are coming from and you can mentally delete anything about the rootkits from my post. PS2 did the best because (a) it had the most good games and (b) its rise coincided with the rise of DVD-- it was a DVD player too. Now, PS3 is being used by Sony to try and make Blu-Ray the majority standard. In my humble opinion, using the PS3 to work on market share for blu-ray is a bad idea, because (a) it adds considerably to the price of the PS3, (b) it is apparently making the PS3 late, and (c) it detracts from the primary mission of the PS3, which is gaming. That's what I think. Is it a good idea to use the PS3 as a trojan horse for blu-ray?

Yes, yes it is. And I will tell you why:
People are fed up with buying Seasons of TV shows on DVD for 40-80 bucks a pop. Why not just get all of that information on one or two discs instead of four-seven? Why the hell spend so much money on a HD TV when there are no movies to take advantage of it? Now these TV owners will TRULY get their money's worth.

Next up: Data storage. Bluray will not only read the old DVD's and CD's, but the sheer volume of information that can be pushed onto bluray discs is more than impressive. Just think: Instead of using 35 CDs, or 5 DVD's, you'll be using ONE Bluray disc to backup 20+ Gigs of data.

[clayj]

OK-- I understand where you are coming from and you can mentally delete anything about the rootkits from my post. PS2 did the best because (a) it had the most good games and (b) its rise coincided with the rise of DVD-- it was a DVD player too. Now, PS3 is being used by Sony to try and make Blu-Ray the majority standard. In my humble opinion, using the PS3 to work on market share for blu-ray is a bad idea, because (a) it adds considerably to the price of the PS3, (b) it is apparently making the PS3 late, and (c) it detracts from the primary mission of the PS3, which is gaming. That's what I think. Is it a good idea to use the PS3 as a trojan horse for blu-ray?Very well said.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't hate Sony... in fact, I probably have more Sony gear than anyone else here. I even owned an original PlayStation (bought on Day One back in 1995). I love WipeOut. I own a PSP. I love their gear. (Their software, OTOH, needs a LOT of work. PictureGear, SonicStage, MoodLogic? Bleah.)

Sony is making all sorts of mistakes with the PS3. I have no doubt that the hardware itself will be excellent, but your points are dead on the mark.

1. The PS3 is being delayed because Blu-Ray isn't ready... so Microsoft gets to extend their lead over Sony on a daily basis.

2. Blu-Ray is going to add a lot of cost to the base PS3 package (whereas Microsoft has kept their options open and their costs down by letting hi-def DVD be an external OPTION), which is going to scare off consumers AND game developers, who rightly fear developing for a console that won't sell as well due to high cost.

3. And of course there is NO guarantee that Blu-Ray will win the format war. The real difference between Blu-Ray and HD DVD is pretty simple... Blu-Ray has more data capacity. But who cares? Most consumers won't. As long as you can fit a whole movie in HD on one disc, the Blu-Ray / HD DVD difference really boils down to the cost of the player. HD DVD is starting at $499... Blu-Ray is starting at what, $1800?

4. The beauty of plain old DVD was that it is a UNIVERSAL standard. I have 4 computers with DVD drives, 2 Xbox 360s, 3 actual DVD players, etc. Anything can play a DVD, so the Xbox 360 is set as far as that goes. Adding Blu-Ray to the PS3 is *nice*, but it's really unnecessary... and if HD DVD wins, it will be a problem for Sony.

Anyway, it is curious to see the tide starting to shift away from the "Sony roolz" viewpoint that's been so prevalent the last few years... just because you were smart then doesn't mean you'll be smart now. And Sony is not being smart now.

[mac.head.high]

Yes, yes it is. And I will tell you why:
People are fed up with buying Seasons of TV shows on DVD for 40-80 bucks a pop. Why not just get all of that information on one or two discs instead of four-seven? Why the hell spend so much money on a HD TV when there are no movies to take advantage of it? Now these TV owners will TRULY get their money's worth.

Next up: Data storage. Bluray will not only read the old DVD's and CD's, but the sheer volume of information that can be pushed onto bluray discs is more than impressive. Just think: Instead of using 35 CDs, or 5 DVD's, you'll be using ONE Bluray disc to backup 20+ Gigs of data.

So I haven't done my research on the blu-ray yet, but will it be in the single or dual-layer variety.

[clayj]

Yes, yes it is. And I will tell you why:
People are fed up with buying Seasons of TV shows on DVD for 40-80 bucks a pop. Why not just get all of that information on one or two discs instead of four-seven? Why the hell spend so much money on a HD TV when there are no movies to take advantage of it? Now these TV owners will TRULY get their money's worth.

Next up: Data storage. Bluray will not only read the old DVD's and CD's, but the sheer volume of information that can be pushed onto bluray discs is more than impressive. Just think: Instead of using 35 CDs, or 5 DVD's, you'll be using ONE Bluray disc to backup 20+ Gigs of data.What makes you think those TV series are going to drop in cost? Sure, the disc presser might save some money because of only having to press one disc instead of four, but they will have to absorb the cost of switching to Blu-Ray... AND the owners of the content are still going to want as much money as they can get, so they're not going to care HOW many discs a season fits on. AND with a limited number of Blu-Ray owners for a long time, the profits will be reduced because of a smaller market. Blu-Ray isn't going to earn disc pressers any extra money for a LONG time, if ever.

DVD of Firefly, the Complete Series (4 discs?) = $40
Blu-Ray DVD of Firefly, the Complete Series (1 disc) = $40

I guess the biggest advantage of Blu-Ray and HD DVD will be less discs for one season of TV shows, which means more space in your DVD changer if you have one.

As far as Blu-Ray's better data capacity, there I agree with you. But that example only applies to COMPUTERS with Blu-Ray BURNERS, not to average consumers who just want to watch movies and play games.

[mac.head.high]

What makes you think those TV series are going to drop in cost? Sure, the disc presser might save some money because of only having to press one disc instead of four, but they will have to absorb the cost of switching to Blu-Ray... AND the owners of the content are still going to want as much money as they can get, so they're not going to care HOW many discs a season fits on. AND with a limited number of Blu-Ray owners for a long time, the profits will be reduced because of a smaller market. Blu-Ray isn't going to earn disc pressers any extra money for a LONG time, if ever.

DVD of Firefly, the Complete Series (4 discs?) = $40
Blu-Ray DVD of Firefly, the Complete Series (1 disc) = $40

I guess the biggest advantage of Blu-Ray and HD DVD will be less discs for one season of TV shows, which means more space in your DVD changer if you have one.

As far as Blu-Ray's better data capacity, there I agree with you. But that example only applies to COMPUTERS with Blu-Ray BURNERS, not to average consumers who just want to watch movies and play games.

But aren't there any differences in security between the two formats that may entice a manufacturer or media company to lean more towards one than the other?

[clayj]

More on this from GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144600.html):

If the $900 estimate is correct, that means the PS3 would have to sell for around $775-$800 to maintain a $100-$125 per-unit loss similar to that of Microsoft's Xbox 360. If the $795 estimate is correct, the console could sell for around $699--within the range recently forecast (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6142242.html) by a group of analysts and developers polled by CNN/Money.

Merrill Lynch expects that PS3 production costs will start falling after 2007, when Sony can shift the Cell chip's manufacture from the complex 90nm process to the more cost-effective 65mn process. Scaling Blu-ray to other devices will also bring down the drive's price. Merrill Lynch predicts that the PS3's production cost will fall to $320 in the three years after its launch, by which time the Cell will cost only $60 per unit and the Blu-ray drive only $100 per unit.

In the wake of the report, Sony issued a series of contradictory statements. In Japan, Sony Computer Entertainment spokesperson Kei Sakaguchi flatly denied that there would be any delay to Bloomberg News and other press outlets, saying, "There isn't any change in our plan to release the console in spring 2006."

However, a Sony Computer Entertainment America spokesperson was more cautious when she spoke with USA Today. "We're aiming for spring, but we haven't announced specific regions," she told the daily broadsheet. "We're waiting for [final PS3 specifications] until the last possible minute, but the launch could be pushed back if they're not decided soon."

[AlmightyG5]

A machine that costs as much as a crappy PC and yet can only do 1 thing, play games.

now thats sad.

people need to realize you are paying pretty much for a Brand Name and for the rights to play proprietary games not available for the PC.

the high costs of the video game market, and that people pay them without question, astounds me,
It can play games, has the internet, view photos, videos, possibly DVR, LocationFree player for TV streaming to PSP, the list goes on bud!

And to reply to the original Post...$900 is what the PS3 parts might cost all added up. Sony gets sooooo many parts they get deals so everything is way cheaper. Sony isn't dumb and their PS3 won't come out for more than $500 at the MOST! Plus Sony insisted after this article was published that they are on track for a Spring launch still....You shouldn't believe any prices from retarded analysts until Sony says so.

[clayj]

When EBGames started taking preorders for the Xbox 360: August 23, 2005. When Xbox 360s actually became available: November 22, 2005. Elapsed time: 3 months.

No one has even started taking preorders (and I don't mean having a list of potential buyers... I mean actual bundles with prices) for the PS3 yet, so even if they started taking them TODAY, it would be late May before the PS3 is available. They'd have to start taking preorders within the next 3 weeks to ensure a "Spring 2006" launch.

Given how little we've heard from Sony in terms of actual announcements (as opposed to responses to stories about the lateness and cost of the PS3), I think we can safely rule out a Spring 2006 launch. And they won't want to launch in the summer because too many people will be on vacation, etc., and it's not a good retail season.

So realistically, we're looking at a September - November launch... if it's even as soon as that. If Sony doesn't get the PS3 out in time for the 2006 Christmas season, they will be in a world of hurt: Microsoft will have a headstart on them of 5 to 10 million units, at the very least, and a stable of games that Sony won't be able to compete against overall.

[AlmightyG5]

When EBGames started taking preorders for the Xbox 360: August 23, 2005. When Xbox 360s actually became available: November 22, 2005. Elapsed time: 3 months.

No one has even started taking preorders (and I don't mean having a list of potential buyers... I mean actual bundles with prices) for the PS3 yet, so even if they started taking them TODAY, it would be late May before the PS3 is available. They'd have to start taking preorders within the next 3 weeks to ensure a "Spring 2006" launch.

Given how little we've heard from Sony in terms of actual announcements (as opposed to responses to stories about the lateness and cost of the PS3), I think we can safely rule out a Spring 2006 launch. And they won't want to launch in the summer because too many people will be on vacation, etc., and it's not a good retail season.

So realistically, we're looking at a September - November launch... if it's even as soon as that. If Sony doesn't get the PS3 out in time for the 2006 Christmas season, they will be in a world of hurt: Microsoft will have a headstart on them of 5 to 10 million units, at the very least, and a stable of games that Sony won't be able to compete against overall.
Well duh, I bet we see pre-orders in June...3 months later will be september- thats the launch. And i bet it releases in Japan in May.

[Abulia]

But remember that this is a poll of mostly informed gamers. Not moms and dads and kids and teens and casual gamers.Yes, and this is what I'm pointing to. These kinds of "push poll" -- polls targetted at a demographic we already know are interested in the product -- are by-and-large meaningless. That's like walking into McDonalds and taking a poll on who likes Big Macs. Wow, 60% of the people in the store do!

The same thing w/ the MacRumors poll; MR != the buying population. It's not even a subset or representative of any meaningful statistical sample.

To believe that Nintendo or MS to move from 15% to 60% (!) versues Sony's existing stranglehold of 70% of the market is just, well, ignoring the facts. Let's say that MS drops to 10% (yes, you're all cheering inside) and Nintendo rises to 50%, Sony loses 30% of the market and drops into 2nd place w/ 40%?

No, I don't think so.

[takao]

To believe that Nintendo or MS to move from 15% to 60% (!) versues Sony's existing stranglehold of 70% of the market is just, well, ignoring the facts. Let's say that MS drops to 10% (yes, you're all cheering inside) and Nintendo rises to 50%, Sony loses 30% of the market and drops into 2nd place w/ 40%?

No, I don't think so.

well sure Sony has a lot of market now but just as usual after each generation the field is leveled again ... perhaps not to zero but significally

sure the playstation is very likely to win but is it already written down ? hardly ...

[jdechko]

There are a lot of counter points that I want to make to what you said. I'm not trying to attack you, clayj. Nor am I sticking up for Sony. But I'm just offering my opinion on why Blu-ray is important to Sony and the PS3.

3. And of course there is NO guarantee that Blu-Ray will win the format war. The real difference between Blu-Ray and HD DVD is pretty simple... Blu-Ray has more data capacity. But who cares? Most consumers won't. As long as you can fit a whole movie in HD on one disc, the Blu-Ray / HD DVD difference really boils down to the cost of the player. HD DVD is starting at $499... Blu-Ray is starting at what, $1800?

You're absolutely correct. There's no guarantee that Blu-Ray will win. But Sony (corporate, not necessarily CE) has a lot riding on the success of Blu-Ray. They own (or partially own) a lot of the technology rights. Blu-Ray success = licensing fees.

I think you're right in that most consumers don't care that Blu-Ray has a lot more data capacity. But more care now than did. Home DV is taking off and home HDV will take off in the near future. More (still not most) consumers have a grasp on media capacity and what larger storage means to them. More (still not most) consumers realize a correlation between compter media (CD/DVD/High Definition DVD) and their home entertainment systems now than before. The (majority of the) first commercial DVD writers hooked up to TV's to allow people to transfer VHS to DVD and record TV. I imagine that there will be several Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) recorders that will connect to TV/Cable/SAT/etc; many consumers who will want to record an entire season (of, say 24) in HD. I think that the higher capacity of Blu-Ray will pay off in that respect.

AND with a limited number of Blu-Ray owners for a long time, the profits will be reduced because of a smaller market.

Assuming that the sales numbers for the PS2 hold similarly for the PS3, you are talking 100+ million (not my numbers, but a figure quoted by a previous poster) PS3 owners in ~5 years which also happens to translate into 100+ million Blu-ray owners. I assume that sales will decline logarithmically, and I estimate maybe 35-40+ million PS3 owners initially within 12-18 months, (with sales shrinking over the course of 5 years). That's a short period of time and a huge install base for Blu-Ray.

I think that Sony is using co-leverage to push 2 of its products to the market, which is, in my opinion, good marketing and good business strategy(as long as one or both of the products don't tank).

Also, what if the PS3 includes a Blu-Ray burner as well (for 800-900 bucks)? How will that change the outcome of the console wars as well as the HD format war?

[ChrisK018]

The Xbox survived because of Halo. There are no other unique killer apps on the XBox that have attained that level of success. With a next generation platform, the initial batch of games is never that great (besides one or two great games). None of the current 360 games are able to even make that claim. I don't like FPS or Sports games, so I never got an Xbox. I have yet to see any previews for a 360 game that will cause me to buy one.

For my money (and tastes) Nintendo makes the best in-house games, though they come out way too infrequently. (I have a Gamecube and PS2) On the whole, Sony has better developers and licensing rights. The PS3 will have a better cache of games sooner.

Thought I must say, part of my distaste for Microsoft does come from being all about the Macs. As for playing games on Macs, or PC's it's like the separation of church and state. Platforms for games, Mac for all the other stuff.

If the PS3 has a great game-- and I'm pretty sure they will, I'll get it. It will cost $400 max for retail. The Nitendo Revolution is supposedly going to allow people to pay for downloads of their old stuff. Me likey. Me buy.

[achie25]

I have been patiently waiting for news on the PS3 launch date just like everyone else. I am a huge playstation fan and I really want a PS3 but I am worried that it will come out in the fall and it will be impossible to get one until this time next year. With all of the frensy for Christmas shopping and probably a short supply it will be very frustrating. Especially since my friend has an XBox 360 and it is totally tempting me to get one.

[Piarco]

You're not alone. Two of my friends have decided that the PS3 is not going to be here anytime soon, to the point were they expect exactly what you said - another Console Chaotic Christmas(TM) - and have just bought 360's.
They were never planning on getting one, but its a "tide me over" purchase which they'll just keep when the PS3 gets launched - they will definitely still be getting the PS3 whenever it gets released.

[XNine]

Which is why you should get to a game store ASAP after the announcement of a release date and say "here's my down payment, If I don't get one I will eat your children."

I agree that it's stupid for anyone to think Sony won't sell the PS3 at 400 bucks on release. Why sell it for more? You'll lose a significant margin of potential customers by going over that price. While the PSX and PS 2 had some groundbreaking, amazing games, they never had anything good online. This is the only area they need to drastically improve upon, and according to news and rumors, that's exactly one of their primary focuses.

Nevermind that the Cell processor in and of itself is an impressive chip with millions of capabilities, but the sheer fact that Bluray will be on there as well. Come on, how awesome would it be to have them release a full bluray disc of all of the Metal Gear Solid games as a collection (minus anything that comes out for the PS 3, of course). That would be GREAT. Even Twisted Metal series (I know, 3 and 4 sucked balls).

Sony will not fail. It's a given. Especially with all of the great games the Japanese get that no one else does (bastards!). Their console will once again own the market. Trust me.

[GFLPraxis]

Well, take into consideration that there are a few dangers.

If HD-DVD wins the format war, Sony will be unable to lower the price on manufacturing Blu-ray drives and that will do serious damage to the PS3.

Contrary to all the bad press it keeps getting, HD-DVD has plenty of industry support.

Secondly, the Cell is VERY difficult to program for, to the point that IBM is having difficulty writing a compiler and are still in early stages. It's going to be a long time before developers can fully take advantage of the Cell, so early on, the PS3 will NOT look much more impressive than the XBox 360- it'll look pretty similar, and will have the advantages of cheaper memory cards that work in your PC (not something most buyers look at), Linux on the hard drive (if you buy the hard drive at a higher price, again, not someone everyone looks for when buying a console), Blu-ray, 1080p (not on all games), two screens and over 8 controllers (7 wireless, more wired). PS3 dev kits cost tens of thousands at this point, and that's without Blu-ray. Non-hardcore gamers don't care about 1080p and 8-player games, and many, many people do not have HDTV's at this point. Further, considering that Blu-ray's DRM constricts the resolution on HDTV's that don't have a DRM (basicly, 99% of HDTV's on the market), early HD adopters, well, sucks to be you, you're going to be watching Blu-ray movies at a barely higher resolution than regular TV.


I'm not saying Sony's going to fail, I'm saying that it's not a given.
Sony will not fail. It's a given.

It is a given that it will do well in Japan though.

EDIT: for you current HDTV owners that don't know what I'm talking about when I mention Blu-ray's DRM constricting resolution...

Older article:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars
If a monitor or television supports HDCP, HD content will be playable on that device (provided that it hasn't been cracked). If a monitor doesn't support HDCP, one of two things will happen at the discretion of the content providers. It's a possibility that a given studio may simply refuse to allow the content to be displayed at all. More likely, the studios will allow for playback on unauthenticated devices with purposely degraded quality. The thinking is that Joe Consumer will be more likely to pay for HD content than seek out pirated content that's not in HD. Talk around the industry suggests that many studios will degrade content to a 480p level by passing it through a constrictor, although we won't really know until products start shipping.

Newer:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060122-6027.html
[quote="Ars (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060122-6027.html)"]

Confirming our earlier reports, some owners of HD television sets will not be able to see HD DVD and Blu-ray programming in its full glory, as the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) used by both next-gen formats has been modified to require picture degredation over analog connections.
As a result, the signal sent through analog connections will be constrained to 960x540, rather than the 1920x1080 that both Blu-ray and HD DVD are capable of.

According to the consortium backing AACS, the change is necessary because of—you guessed it—piracy.
The fear is that hordes of otherwise law-abiding citizens will take advange of analog video connections to record full-resolution copies of movies from HD DVD and Blu-ray discs and subsequently distribute them via peer-to-peer networks and other nefarious means.
To keep that from happening, any video signal that doesn't travel over a protected input (such as HDMI) will be degraded.

The AACS specification will now contain a new digital flag called the Image Constraint Token. At the discretion of the content producer, the ICT can be set to require next-gen optical players to degrade the video over analog connections. If ICT is turned off, then no downsampling will occur.

At 960x540, degraded video will still look better than standard DVDs, which generally are encoded at 720x480.
However, owners of analog 720p HD sets (and they are out there) will be getting short shrift, as their TVs are capable of 1280x720 display.
AACS is attempting to throw them a bone, as the degraded signal will then be "up converted" to 1280x720. The ultimate result will be a picture that fills the screen, but doesn't give the consumer what he or she paid for in terms of the quality.

Unlike Managed Copy, which is a mandatory part of AACS for both platforms, ICT usage will be left up to the choice of the individual studios.

So far, none of them have said they will be requiring its use for their discs. However, Disney, Warner Home Video, Paramount, and NBC Universal are considered likely candidates to require ICT.
Consumer electronics manufacturers have been unenthusiastic about supporting ITC, but will have to incorporate it into their players if they want them certified to play next-generation optical disc content.

As Ken wrote last summer, "the revolution will be televised, only it won't be in HD unless your pockets have paid for recent display technology designed with the future in mind." That future, in case you've forgotten, involves the motion picture and music industries being able to exercise maximum control over what you watch, how you watch, and when you watch it.
In the past couple of months we've seen legislation introduced to close the so-called "analog hole," resurrect the broadcast flag for television and HD radio, and ultimately limit the functionality of consumer electronics to "customary historic uses."
All this is in the guise of fighting piracy and keeping artists from starving. But the truth of the matter is that our "friends" at the RIAA and MPAA want to keep themselves at the helm of the USS Content at all costs, even if it means trampling their customers.

So far, none of them have said they will be requiring its use for their discs. However, Disney, Warner Home Video, Paramount, and NBC Universal are considered likely candidates to require ICT.

At 960x540, degraded video will still look better than standard DVDs, which generally are encoded at 720x480.

If you have an Analog HDTV set, oops. If you have a digital HDTV set that doesn't support HDCP, oops.

http://features.engadget.com/2005/07/14/the-clicker-microsofts-opm-for-the-masses/
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/21/the-clicker-hdcps-shiny-red-button/


And the most annoying one:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/
No graphics card on the market supports HDCP, so no existing PC will be able to play Blu-ray or HD-DVD movies in HD, and there are only ten monitors on th emarket that support HDCP.

The advantages of Blu-ray might seem less to people who currently have HDTV. They might not even notice the difference if they don't have HDCP if the content providers turn on the resolution restricter.