PS3 Launch May Be Delayed, Cost May Skyrocket - Thread #2

[Haoshiro]

I'm starting another thread only because 5 page threads are huge! I wanted to point some things out that didn't seem really mentioned:

If any of you remember the PS2 launch with the horrible lack of hardware volume you will also remember the craze. People were paying between $600-$1000 for a PS2!

I too think it would be ridiculous for Sony to release a console above $400 - BUT if Sony saw the PS2 craze (or even worse, purposefully created the shortage to begin with) then they KNOW people will shell out that kind of money for it.

Also, Sony has gone on record saying they want the PS3 to be for much more then games. They are targetting the home tv computer market and using the Playstation brand to do it. Perhaps you've seen the "PSX"? It was a special home computer system based on the PS2. Only released in Japan.

Several people mention a possible 10-year life cycle for the PS3 and that is accurate. Sony has said this several times. Industry standard life cycle for a console is 5 years. Sony is aiming for a life cycle double that. I believe this is another reason they are willing to not only invest more money in it, but also pay for huge production costs - even sell it at ridiculous prices.

Why? The early adopters obviously DO pay such amounts - especially in Japan where Sony is King. Also, If they plan a 10-year life cycle they could be thinking that at the start of the second cycle (in 5 years) there system would then be in the $200-$300 price point.

[GFLPraxis]

I want to point something out as well. Here's a good quote.

There's an analysis of the analysis up on gameindustry.biz that puts a lot of this speculation in better focus.

In short, the simple fact of the matter is that this report is likely to be way off.

For example, the estimated cost for the Blu-Ray drive is seemingly based on large part on the estimated costs of Blu-Ray movie players, and not stand-alone Blu-Ray drives. The movie players need many additional expensive parts to facilitate movie playback at HD, parts which the PS3 already has or can be emulated via the Cell procceser of RSX.

It's also mentioned that the Cell Procceser is likely to cost a lot due to low yields. However IBM came out not so long ago and stated that yields for the Cell Procceser were improving extrodinarilly quickly. If true the cost of the CPU isn't likely to be nearly as much as what the folks at Merril Lynch expect.

...
The two things that this report claims are REALLY driving up costs, are the Cell Procceser and the Blu-Ray Drive. You see, the report claims that these two components alone cost $580 to manufacture.

Now, to be frank, I doubt these two components cost nearly as much as this report indicates.

It should also be noted that Merril Lynch Japan estimated $500 production costs, not $900.

It should ALSO be noted that if you ADD UP THE NUMBERS in the report that claimed $900, it is in fact $800, not $900, and the $900 is a typo.

Merril Lynch Japan estimated $100 for Cell once it is being mass produced (realistic) and $100 for a standalone Blu-ray drive.

[d_saum]

There's no way the PS3 is going to launch higher than $399. Its just not going to happen. If the PS3 is going to last 10 years, Sony will be willing to take HUGE losses the first year or 2 and make it back later.

[0s and 1s]

I believe Sony put themselves in the hole when they first announced PS3. Of course, niche markets such as Japan will appreciate the latest technology, but what about US and Europe? It offers too many bells and whistles that the average consumer could care less about. Before the 360 release, many consumers feared compatibility issues with their TVs and 360s. The average consumer has very little knowledge of HD, 1080p, SEDs, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.
I really don't see how Sony can release a gaming system, or multipurpose system for that matter, with a projected 10yr. life cycle. If Stringer and company is ready for such a huge risk, then I, along with the rest of us early adopters, will gladly welcome PS3 into our homes.

[GFLPraxis]

Actually, Sony has been saying for years that all their playstation systems have a 10 year life cycle. They'll sell a system as flagship for five years, create a redesign, and sell it as a cheap classic for the next five. The PSOne had a nearly ten year life cycle (five years as Sony's main console, and five years as that cheap little one sold if you can't afford a PS2).

Look, I'll prove it.
http://news.techwhack.com/4/sony-sees-10-year-life-for-playstation-2-console/


Sony Corp. believes that its market-leading PlayStation 2 video game console can continue to sell until 2010, twice as long as most in the industry had assumed was possible, an executive of Sony’s U.S. video game unit said on Thursday.

In a keynote address at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Andrew House, executive vice president of Sony Computer Entertainment of America, said the success of the original PlayStation, nearing its 10th anniversary, had convinced the company that two-thirds of its potential PS2 sales were yet to come. The PlayStation 2 was released in 2000 in the United States and game industry observers have expected Sony and rival Microsoft Corp to shift their marketing efforts to next-generation game machines in 2005 or 2006.


Sony thinks the PS2 will have a ten year life span too. It'll release the PS3 six years into the PS2's life span, but keep selling it for another four.

[DISCOMUNICATION]

Ghost Of Christmas Future Taunts Children With Visions Of PlayStation 3... er... 5 (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27607)

[mac.head.high]

The early adopters, in my opinion, will play a large roll in establishing the first public opinions of the PS3 once it's released. And intern help to fuel or smother the flames of demand.

I know I've already started to put away around 200 hundred bucks for my PS3. I will definitely be an early adaptor, as long as I can find a place to hand the money.

[mrchappers5334]

so with all this taken into account... around what sort of time should we expect the PS3 to be released?

I know each year they say a date and it's often months after, but with this console being much more than something to play games on, and with a design idea to make it last a lot longer, I wonder if we should add on even more time than normal to the actual release date?

[Abulia]

Actually, Sony has been saying for years that all their playstation systems have a 10 year life cycle. They'll sell a system as flagship for five years, create a redesign, and sell it as a cheap classic for the next five. The PSOne had a nearly ten year life cycle (five years as Sony's main console, and five years as that cheap little one sold if you can't afford a PS2).

Look, I'll prove it.Oh, I believe you. I said the same thing in the other thread and got laughed at, but I've read the same information as you. Thanks for the link.

[illegalprelude]

Merril Lynch are a bunch of idiots. if u go and read the latest topic now on gamespot, they said ( Merril Lynch ) that they made a mistake and they mean to say $800.

So ok, thats already a $100 diff. on just a wild estimate. 10% Cheaper right there! come on. Plus, lets be realistic, people who think the PS3 is gonna cost $600 are idiots. Sony isnt dumb. Their not gonna shoot themselves in the foot like that. If anything, the max the unit will cost is $399. They have no problem taking a huge hit on this because this will push their blue-ray. you gotta take a loss at some place to gain in others. As stated in the article, with their estimates right now, they expect the units costs to drop by $350 and thats just an estimate, expect it to be more. so within a few years, were down to $500 if their estimates are right and if their way high, then even cheaper.

Dont forget, the more users with a unit, the more money to be made from games, movies and accessories so they will gladly take losses for the time being.

[mac.head.high]

Merril Lynch are a bunch of idiots. if u go and read the latest topic now on gamespot, they said ( Merril Lynch ) that they made a mistake and they mean to say $800.

So ok, thats already a $100 diff. on just a wild estimate. 10% Cheaper right there! come on. Plus, lets be realistic, people who think the PS3 is gonna cost $600 are idiots. Sony isnt dumb. Their not gonna shoot themselves in the foot like that. If anything, the max the unit will cost is $399. They have no problem taking a huge hit on this because this will push their blue-ray. you gotta take a loss at some place to gain in others. As stated in the article, with their estimates right now, they expect the units costs to drop by $350 and thats just an estimate, expect it to be more. so within a few years, were down to $500 if their estimates are right and if their way high, then even cheaper.

Dont forget, the more users with a unit, the more money to be made from games, movies and accessories so they will gladly take losses for the time being.


Good insight. Hopefully Sony plays their cards right and hands the consumer what they described at 2005's E3. I hope Sony really can push the ideas of what gaming is and can be for all the right reasons, if not just despite the nay-sayers that can't judge a console buy it's catalog. Not it's parent company. In either case, the PS2 stills manhandles the Xbox from a point of view of genre, sheer game size catalog, and intense story telling elements. But if Sony really wants to keep their momentum, they'll pay close attention to Nintendo and their strategies on obtaining gamers. It's always been one of Nintendo's strong points.

[Dagless]

$399=£228, after VAT/TAX and that lets say £250.

I think the sooner the PS3 is launched the less likely it's going to cost £250. I'm guessing £299 or maybe even more. Especially when a PSP costs you £220 for a PSP and a game or 2. no. It will be a lot more, unless they drop the price of the PSP (aren't they already losing money there?).

What I'd like to happen; The PS3 isn't released until E3 2007. It's price has dropped down to £199 and can financially compete with the 360. At that price everyone and his dog would probably go for a PS3. The PSP has a revamp using a cheaper manufacturing process, its price drops significantly but still more than the £120 mark.

at £199 I'd buy a PS3. If BluRay wins (so I won't be paying out £60 for a game) and if MGS4 is as good as it could be.

[illegalprelude]

I would agree with the thought though that PS3 probably wont be launced till 07. Because right now, there is no good time to launch it. Atleast during Xmas, all the parents will be willing to just get their kids 1 gift and it can be the PS3. plus the longer they wait, the more the prices of the hardware wil drop, also giving the developers more time on each game.

Think about it like this, 360 got announced with details, next day we hear wild details of the PS3. Everytime 360 had news, PS3 did also. Then 360 Got launched with hopes of the PS3 just around the corner (that right there keeps some potential 360 buyers glued to wait for PS3) and they slowly keep trickling information to keep alot of people at bay and say, hell ill just wait for the PS3. Then they work ok getting the unit cheaper to produce and work on expanding their Blue-Ray lineup. Before you know it, its next Xmas, and the PS3 finally launches, the Revolution launches, its not the $600 unit everybody thought, it has Blue-Ray, people buy HD movies for their tv's, the PS3 plays and the Revo competes and woa, did we forget about the 360? Yup, we sure did. just a system of the past already.

Believe, me, I got a 360 and its cool but in no way is the unit next gen. its next gen 1.5.

[Dagless]

Yea the comparisons between the Xbox 360 and the Dreamcast are popular. The early launch, Sony hyping its next machine, the high price tag...

the way I see it, now the PS3 is supposed to have this big online service, if you want power you will get a PS3. If you want creative games you will go for the Revolution. Though the price will be a heavy influence (Come Xmas, parents, students, and other folk all over the world are presented with either a console that costs more than the 360, or a console that costs a lot less than a 360).

[mac.head.high]

Yea the comparisons between the Xbox 360 and the Dreamcast are popular. The early launch, Sony hyping its next machine, the high price tag...

the way I see it, now the PS3 is supposed to have this big online service, if you want power you will get a PS3. If you want creative games you will go for the Revolution. Though the price will be a heavy influence (Come Xmas, parents, students, and other folk all over the world are presented with either a console that costs more than the 360, or a console that costs a lot less than a 360).


False. I think with the latest scare tactics that M$ used to put the consumer in such a panic over the 360 will is something to take note of, as well as I think it will backfire since the units just aren't getting to consumers.

But don't forget how Xbox 360's were being sold on ebay and in a (redundant) bundle form from Best-Buy at $1000 a pop. And plenty of idiots payed it. I don't know who I hate more, the jackholes gouging everybody and getting away with it, or the A-hole who buys it from them.

People are spending $500 with no second thought on a system that as illegalprelude correctly put it, is Xbox 1.5. It's just has better graphics and all the functionality of an original modded Xbox.

Here's a quick rant on stealing- Microsoft stole all the innovations created by the Xbox mod community, and turned it into the functionality of the 360. Anyone who's been paying close attention to the industry knows that Microsoft only did half the working developing this new system. Whatever innovation people think M$ created is actually the hard work of a growing mod community that Microsoft just steals from with no regard. And then if asked about it, they'll invoke the DMCA and say, "well their work is based of our code". Again a false premise.

This is just one more reason for the gaming community to get behind Sony or Nintendo. Because as much as you may dislike these company's they don't need to steal from people to make their "Next Gen" Console.

[illegalprelude]

False. I think with the latest scare tactics that M$ used to put the consumer in such a panic over the 360 will is something to take note of, as well as I think it will backfire since the units just aren't getting to consumers.

But don't forget how Xbox 360's were being sold on ebay and in a (redundant) bundle form from Best-Buy at $1000 a pop. And plenty of idiots payed it. I don't know who I hate more, the jackholes gouging everybody and getting away with it, or the A-hole who buys it from them.

People are spending $500 with no second thought on a system that as illegalprelude correctly put it, is Xbox 1.5. It's just has better graphics and all the functionality of an original modded Xbox.

Here's a quick rant on stealing- Microsoft stole all the innovations created by the Xbox mod community, and turned it into the functionality of the 360. Anyone who's been paying close attention to the industry knows that Microsoft only did half the working developing this new system. Whatever innovation people think M$ created is actually the hard work of a growing mod community that Microsoft just steals from with no regard. And then if asked about it, they'll invoke the DMCA and say, "well their work is based of our code". Again a false premise.

This is just one more reason for the gaming community to get behind Sony or Nintendo. Because as much as you may dislike these company's they don't need to steal from people to make their "Next Gen" Console.

I would totally agree. Is the 360 nice looking? Sure. but it ends there honestly. Im not a sony fanboy as I own both original xbox and 360 and I subsribe to live for the last 3 years.

but the 360 can hardly play most of the original Xbox games (wtf is up with that?) and looks nicer (but dosent support 1080p, only 1080i)

then, PS3 has blue-tooth, come on thats hot. I can use my phones blue-tooth headset with that! No more wired headsets!
7 Blue-tooth controllers? Bring em on. Battery on blue-tooth devices lasts so much longer.
Blue-Ray movies. If you own an HD-TV, your all set but if your ever planning on getting one, the PS3 will give u HD movies.
Plus the fact that more storage space is offered. will games take use of them right off the bat? Nah but nobody buys a console for that year. its what it can offer you in the next 3 years or 5 years.
the PS3 just has a hell of alot more room to grow IMHO.

Also, im a huge gadget freak. I have everything networked in my house, the PS3 can connect to that, connec to my PSP, blue-tooth, HD capability, Duel HDMI out and etc, this is a dream come true.

I see the 360 as just holding me over till the PS3. Will I gladly pay $600 for a PS3? yes but i know im part of a nich community who works and stands on my own two feet and arent looking to my parents for the cash and I know Sony isnt coming just after me (but of course with the higher specs, im sold). They will keep the price to where they can sell more units. Remember, they dont set the price, the market does.

Price and Demand go hand and in hand to create an equalirbrium point.

Sony knows it can sell 10 units at $500 but it might get 25 units out of $399. Does it take a bigger loss on each of the $399? sure BUT with each of those goes more accessories and more software etc so it will gladly take a bigger blow if it means it can push more units out.

[GFLPraxis]

Sony knows it can sell 10 units at $500 but it might get 25 units out of $399. Does it take a bigger loss on each of the $399? sure BUT with each of those goes more accessories and more software etc so it will gladly take a bigger blow if it means it can push more units out.

That's true, but Sony is NOT going to take a loss greater than $100 on the system. That is downright suicidal. Microsoft lost $4 billion selling the XBox at an $80 loss at a $300 price point.

Selling a higher price point than that (less buyers) at an even greater loss, not even Sony is that stupid.

However I believe the PS3 will be $400 for the core system.

The PS3 won't need all the decoding hardware of the Blu-ray players, it just needs the actual drive, not a full player. Plus Sony will manufacture it themselves. Some have estimated that the drive alone will only cost $100 to manufacture (and Sony doesn't have to deal with having to pay marked up prices if they manufacture it). Again, with the Cell, Sony and IBM are manufacturing it together as Sony owns half of it, so there's no markup. And IBM has said they will be able to meet demand (one of the reasons Merril Lynch thought it would cost so much) so it will probably cost under $100 again. Merril Lynch thought Cell and Blu-ray together would be $580 and the system overall would be $800...turn the $580 into under $200 and you get a system that costs $420 to manufacture.

[illegalprelude]

yea. I don very much agree with what you have to say. but like i said, it might not be as suicidal as you would think if they can help lets say
permote their Blue-Ray
Help their HD TV sells
More conectivity with Sony computers
More accessories pushed out and etc.

Im sure its not a number they would like to take a hit on but its right now Sony VS Microsoft. Nintendo is going after a different market and neither side is conserned about them and I think Sony would be willing to take a loss like that if it helps with their road map of the whats in the living room in terms of entertainment.

[GFLPraxis]

They might be willing to sell for a higher loss than Microsoft because they're trying to make money off of Blu-ray too, but I don't think the loss could realisticly be more than $100 per system. If an $80 loss per system at 15% marketshare gave Microsoft $4 billion in losses, imagine a $100 loss on the system with 70% marketshare...Sony would have to make BILLIONS to make up.

And they can't do like Nintendo and make a killing off their handhelds even when the console goes through rough times because the PSP is selling at a loss too.

[illegalprelude]

They might be willing to sell for a higher loss than Microsoft because they're trying to make money off of Blu-ray too, but I don't think the loss could realisticly be more than $100 per system. If an $80 loss per system at 15% marketshare gave Microsoft $4 billion in losses, imagine a $100 loss on the system with 70% marketshare...Sony would have to make BILLIONS to make up.

And they can't do like Nintendo and make a killing off their handhelds even when the console goes through rough times because the PSP is selling at a loss too.

yea, i do see your point in that. did MS really only loose $80 on each xbox? I know they took a beating in terms of losses but I guess they were also looking at the long term financials and scheme of it. take a loss now, dominate in the future ya know?

but that would lead me to, how much did Sony take a loss originally on the PS2 because despite their losses, their gaming devision has always had superb earnings and the reason I bring that up is, maybe due to high earnings from all the accessories, game licenses and sales and such, it counter balances the amount lost on each unit and makes sense for them to take bigger losses while Microsoft sold 80 million less units, this not being able to take that hit as well?

[ccool2ax]

Believe, me, I got a 360 and its cool but in no way is the unit next gen. its next gen 1.5.

Assuming you say that the 360 is not yet next-gen, you should have said next gen 0.5. 1.5 would mean "next gen and then some".

[AppleinJapan]

Look,

Sony may be at a low point now but they are not idiots !! They WILL NOT sell a console for $900 or 90 000 yen !! One of the reasons that the X-box 360 is not selling well here in Japan is because of the price - 39 000 yen....and the nintendo DS is out selling the PSP (15 000 yen vs 24 000 yen)...

People care about Price not only in America but in Japan too....the PSX isnt selling well here because its too expensive (and i believe that it was discontinued at one point) Japanese people dont want to pay 80 000/50 000 yen for a game console even if it has DVR capabilities...

[rosalindavenue]

Here's an Ars Technica piece (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060225-6265.html) that says that the Cell compiler is very very complex and will present a lot of difficulty to developers-- yet another potential obstacle to getting the PS3 out this year.

[thequicksilver]

$399=£228, after VAT/TAX and that lets say £250.

VAT is 17.5%. £228 x 1.175 = £268. Add on the import duties etc and it's on course for either a £279 or - more likely - a £299 launch.

[HiRez]

Am I the only one questioning this whole "10 year lifespan" assumption? That seems very, very optimistic to me for a device that depends on what I guess you would call bleeding-edge technology. Will Blu-ray discs even be used in 10 years? I remember when everyone thought laserdiscs were here to stay as well because they were "the ultimate in quality" and would "last forever". :rolleyes:

[GFLPraxis]

Am I the only one questioning this whole "10 year lifespan" assumption? That seems very, very optimistic to me for a device that depends on what I guess you would call bleeding-edge technology. Will Blu-ray discs even be used in 10 years? I remember when everyone thought laserdiscs were here to stay as well because they were "the ultimate in quality" and would "last forever". :rolleyes:

We already discussed this...

I'll post it again...


Actually, Sony has been saying for years that all their playstation systems have a 10 year life cycle. They'll sell a system as flagship for five years, create a redesign, and sell it as a cheap classic for the next five. The PSOne had a nearly ten year life cycle (five years as Sony's main console, and five years as that cheap little one sold if you can't afford a PS2).

Look, I'll prove it.
http://news.techwhack.com/4/sony-sees-10-year-life-for-playstation-2-console/


Sony Corp. believes that its market-leading PlayStation 2 video game console can continue to sell until 2010, twice as long as most in the industry had assumed was possible, an executive of Sony’s U.S. video game unit said on Thursday.

In a keynote address at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Andrew House, executive vice president of Sony Computer Entertainment of America, said the success of the original PlayStation, nearing its 10th anniversary, had convinced the company that two-thirds of its potential PS2 sales were yet to come. The PlayStation 2 was released in 2000 in the United States and game industry observers have expected Sony and rival Microsoft Corp to shift their marketing efforts to next-generation game machines in 2005 or 2006.


Sony thinks the PS2 will have a ten year life span too. It'll release the PS3 six years into the PS2's life span, but keep selling it for another four.

Oh, I believe you. I said the same thing in the other thread and got laughed at, but I've read the same information as you. Thanks for the link.

[gryffonx]

It’s interesting when I read these posts that I detect a strong undercurrent of anti-Microsoft, rather than any particular merit of Sony.

Don’t get me wrong; I realize that this is a Mac forum. I am not a Microsoft fan, any more so than I’m a Sony fan. I happen to see both companies in a similar fashion. Both want to invade my home with their products and keep me firmly entrenched in their version of what the entertainment world should be.

Something to keep in mind: Sony’s new console, whenever its release and whatever it has under the hood is likely to be an incredible piece of hardware. It’s supposed to; since it’s the probably the most likely product that John Doe consumer is going to buy.

When I say John Doe, I am referring to the population of consumers that even in today’s world, is not “wired in” to the technology world. People like this do not make home movies, don’t purchases music online to listen in their mobile MP3 players, and don’t even really know what “DVR” really means. However, of that population, many of them have children who will want to play games. As such, they likely own a Playstation to keep the kids occupied and quiet. Couple that them with the rest of the tech-savvy and gadget happy population, you have the widest potential coverage of consumers you are going to get to have a Sony branded product in their homes.

Now, here’s the rub: Sony has a long history of pushing its proprietary hardware in an attempt to make it the industry standard. (E.g., Mini-DISC, memory stick, etc) Now, they’re pushing the cell processor and blu-ray. Both products sound great on paper, but once you’re in the Sony world, just like Microsoft, they are going to work hard to keep you there. Neither Sony nor Microsoft cares a fig about saving the consumer time or adding convenience with all their integrated products. What they are really saying is “We want you to keep buying from us, even when you don’t want to.” Is it good business practice? Probably so.

However, my problems with Sony stem from the same problems I have with Microsoft: Larger than life promises only to be half-delivered with shoddy work. I can’t even begin to list the number of Sony products I have owned that were not worth the piece of paper the “warranty” was printed on. I can give examples on several items, from the “highly regarded” Handicam, to something as simple as a CD player.

As such, there is not a piece of hardware in my house that is Sony made. I ditched my relatively new and glitchy PS2 about a year ago in favor of an Xbox. I switched to Apple from Microsoft for the same reason. I simply got tired of fighting with poor engineering/workmanship and opted for a solution that was more stable, built better, and would last longer. Do I think the Xbox (or the 360, for that matter) is the holy grail of the console world? Nah, its good enough for it was built for; playing games. Does it bother me that Microsoft made it? Not really, since it does what it was advertised to, and what I paid money for it to do.

The population of discerning consumers has grown over the years, and we are a bit more careful about what we buy and the reasons why. At the same time, the population of “John Doe” consumers is dwindling. Consumers are getting smarter, more tech-savvy, and can read between the lines of marketing jargon and BS. With each passing year, fewer and fewer people are willing to accept what large companies like Sony or Microsoft try to cram down our throats, and see decide to seek other options (i.e., apple, linux, open source in general).

Just like Microsoft, Sony has a huge marketing machine standing behind its “next gen” console. It was pointed out that whenever news about the 360 was release, news about the PS3 came shortly thereafter. It makes sense that it would be so, and it makes sense that Sony would announce features that were greater than the 360. Face it, it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to say “Here’s our new Playstation, but it doesn’t do as much as the 360”.

So of course the PS3 is going to be advertised as being the 360-killer. The term “Xbox 1.5” was either coined by Sony themselves, or by a rabid PS fan. Is it true? Time will tell, since the 360's are still relatively new to market and its capabilities haven’t been exploited to the fullest yet. Is it ever going to be “Next Gen”? Who knows? It’s pretty premature to tout either system as such when no one really knows for certain what “next gen” will really mean.

Will the PS3 be everything that the marketing people say it will? Again, only time will tell, since I get the strong impression that for a while, Sony was making it up as they went along. They waited for Microsoft to makes all its announcements on the 360 before putting any hard plans into action for their console. However, PS2 suffered from lack of fulfillment of its touted features when it launched, so it’s not unreasonable to suspect the PS3 to have the same failings.

The whole point of this post is this: Don’t take sides purely on the basis that it’s not Microsoft. Sony has very similar traits to the folks at Redmond, and is just as prone to feeding the consumer BS for its own sake. Press releases and media speculation are seldom 100% spot on in terms of accuracy, and the only true deciding factor will be after both consoles are in the open market, and have been there long enough to fully tested / exploited.

[Haoshiro]

Wow, long post! But I do agree.

I think I have a failing pair of Sony Earbuds laying around and that's it. Honestly I have been more frusterated with Sony then I have with Microsoft.

Perhaps you also remember Sony's PS2 announcements before/after the Dreamcast launch? They were SO full of hot air and promised WAY more then they ended up delivering - just trying to get attention off Dreamcast. The PS2 was rushed out as a DC killer, and they did succeed.

I think it's funny when people complain about the 360 being "Xbox 1.5", saying it's just a "more powerful Xbox" ... DUH, that is what console upgrades are. That is what the PS3 will be, a more powerful PS2. **confused**

The 360 is much more powerful then Xbox, in power comparisons to all other generations it does qualify as Next-Gen. So did the Dreamcast, it really was Next-Gen back in 1999.

In the end, even software doesn't seem to matter... The PS2 launch was full of crap compared to Dreamcast, but consumers gobbled them up at ridiculous speeds.

It's all marketing in the end. Personally I see 360 as the Online Machine, that is where it focuses and it does so WELL; PS3, as usual with Sony, is the Hype Machine; Revolution is the New/Innovative Machine, being targetted more as a secondary system, the system even people with 360s/PS3s will own. Supplementary, really, like the GBA/DS - a different market.

[GFLPraxis]

Now, here’s the rub: Sony has a long history of pushing its proprietary hardware in an attempt to make it the industry standard. (E.g., Mini-DISC, memory stick, etc) Now, they’re pushing the cell processor and blu-ray. Both products sound great on paper, but once you’re in the Sony world, just like Microsoft, they are going to work hard to keep you there. Neither Sony nor Microsoft cares a fig about saving the consumer time or adding convenience with all their integrated products. What they are really saying is “We want you to keep buying from us, even when you don’t want to.” Is it good business practice? Probably so.

I'm actually very split about this.

Unlike past and current consoles, the PS3 doesn't give you proprietary memory cards but gives you CF and SD and Memory Stick slots. Meaning you can transfer save games into a PC or put stuff on the cards. I think this is awesome and applaud Sony for not forcing proprietary memory cards.

The PS3 also supports Linux, not some proprietary OS, and Sony will allow and encourage homebrew developers. I also applaud Sony for this.

The Cell, whatever. It's just a processor. Consoles always have customized processors, sometimes proprietary processors like the Emotion Engine. Cell is half and half, as it has an IBM PowerPC processor but then the rest of the Cell is proprietary. Either way, the Cell will be in IBM servers all over the place soon, so it's not really a proprietary lock in.

They're using Bluetooth, which is awesome.

The disadvantage here, is Blu-ray. I really hate to support Sony's attempt to conquer the movie industry. Once Sony has the movie industry on Blu-ray, it'll stay there and lock us in with stronger DRM schemes.

[Dagless]

Perhaps you also remember Sony's PS2 announcements before/after the Dreamcast launch? They were SO full of hot air and promised WAY more then they ended up delivering - just trying to get attention off Dreamcast. The PS2 was rushed out as a DC killer, and they did succeed...

Yup, how soon we forget. But really most people don't care if their lying or not. Which is a shame. These moments are perfect to give companies the bloody nose.

Shame too. My PS2 broke, I got my money back and didn't bother with it again. I'm still playing my Dreamcast. A much more solid, more enjoyable machine.

[nimbus]

Perhaps you also remember Sony's PS2 announcements before/after the Dreamcast launch? They were SO full of hot air and promised WAY more then they ended up delivering - just trying to get attention off Dreamcast. The PS2 was rushed out as a DC killer, and they did succeed...
Flat out uneducated lie.

PS2 came out a year later than DC, how is that rushed? I was a huge DC fan, but you KNOW Sega's history of giving up on a platform. Sega killed themselves. They had lack of support for a lot of 3rd patry companies, like EA. Sega also didn't have enough money to keep going. Which is why they are with Sammy now. Best thing DC did though was to include the modem with the system, that was great.

Uber 1st party games, lacking 3rd party games. Look at the awesome support PS2 had with 3rd party...not to mention having a DVD player standard. PS2 was my first DVD player. Hell, I remember getting DC and FFVIII at the same time. It'd have been cool if Sega would have merged with Nintendo...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Haoshiro]

Flat out uneducated lie.

PS2 came out a year later than DC, how is that rushed? I was a huge DC fan, but you KNOW Sega's history of giving up on a platform. Sega killed themselves. They had lack of support for a lot of 3rd patry companies, like EA. Sega also didn't have enough money to keep going. Which is why they are with Sammy now. Best thing DC did though was to include the modem with the system, that was great.

Uber 1st party games, lacking 3rd party games. Look at the awesome support PS2 had with 3rd party...not to mention having a DVD player standard. PS2 was my first DVD player. Hell, I remember getting DC and FFVIII at the same time. It'd have been cool if Sega would have merged with Nintendo...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It's not an uneducated lie, evidentally you didn't pay much attention to Sony's hype machine back then... not that I blame you.

One year to design, develop, and deploy a "Next-Gen" system is not much time at all. But that isn't even the point, the point was Sony's history of hyperbole designed solely to desuade consumer interest in the competition.

Sure, every company wants to steal the competitions thunder, but Sony is the company that seems to do it best WITHOUT having anything to back it up.

This may or may not be accurate, but I have heard that Sony didn't even begin to R&D the PS2 until the Dreamcast was officially announced... and based on the exaggerated claims of their original press releases this seems fairly close to the truth. For example: Dreamcast has 8MB of video memory, PS2 has 4MB.

I also don't see the real lack of notable 3rd party developers... there was Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive 2, Unreal Tournament, Quake 3: Arena, Resident Evil, Power Stone, Ready 2 Rumble, Tony Hawk, Metropolis Street Racer (Project Gotham Racing), Bomberman, Worms, Last Blade, Street Fighter, Grandia II, Soldiers of Fortune, Shadow Man, Spider-man, Gauntlet, Grand Theft Auto 2, Mortal Kombat, Disney Games... etc

Sure, the 1st party games were definitely great and while the quality of some of the third party games is questionable (as always), there really was quite a lot of top developers/publishers supporting the system.

I was honestly expecting Microsoft to buy Sega.... heh.

[gryffonx]

PS2 came out a year later than DC, how is that rushed? I was a huge DC fan, but you KNOW Sega's history of giving up on a platform. Sega killed themselves. They had lack of support for a lot of 3rd patry companies, like EA. Sega also didn't have enough money to keep going. Which is why they are with Sammy now. Best thing DC did though was to include the modem with the system, that was great.

Partially true.. Sega didnt so much "kill themselves" as they had help. The Sega encryption model for their games was too easily crackable, and the hacker community gobbled it up. Sega took too much of a loss for two reasons: Sales of games dropped in the wake of people burning games and redistributing ISO's on the web, and what 3rd party support they had pulled out not wanting to subject themselves to losses as well. In the end, they could not recover and they decided that they had to kill the console and get out of the hardware industry entirely.

Overall, they did lack 3rd party support, that is true, especially compared to Sony. However, Dreamcast support lingered on a bit longer in Japan than it did the states. I think the list of games for the Japanese market was almost twice as long as any list here.

[gryffonx]

The Cell, whatever. It's just a processor. Consoles always have customized processors, sometimes proprietary processors like the Emotion Engine. Cell is half and half, as it has an IBM PowerPC processor but then the rest of the Cell is proprietary. Either way, the Cell will be in IBM servers all over the place soon, so it's not really a proprietary lock in.

I agree, its just a processor. However, when the news broke early on about PS3 using cell, it was followed very closely by a statement that other future Sony made products using the processor, or some form of it. If you understand what the cell architecture is, then you know that you gets one of its greatest benefits when paired with other cell-driven devices. That's my sticking point, in that Sony wants to fill your home with their products by offering a "feature" that only reaps its greater rewards when used with other Sony products.

[Haoshiro]

Yeah, piracy definitely seemed like a defining factor in the death of the Dreamcast. I did not mention it just because my original post mentioning the DC had more to do with Sony then with Sega.

I do remember a lot of the people I knew (that didn't have DCs) instantly deciding against getting a DC when Sony issued their PS2 press release. 'Man, it's so power it has an Emotion Engine!" heh.

[GFLPraxis]

The Cell, whatever. It's just a processor. Consoles always have customized processors, sometimes proprietary processors like the Emotion Engine. Cell is half and half, as it has an IBM PowerPC processor but then the rest of the Cell is proprietary. Either way, the Cell will be in IBM servers all over the place soon, so it's not really a proprietary lock in.

I agree, its just a processor. However, when the news broke early on about PS3 using cell, it was followed very closely by a statement that other future Sony made products using the processor, or some form of it. If you understand what the cell architecture is, then you know that you gets one of its greatest benefits when paired with other cell-driven devices. That's my sticking point, in that Sony wants to fill your home with their products by offering a "feature" that only reaps its greater rewards when used with other Sony products.

However, it still must be noted that the Cell is made by IBM, Sony, AND Toshiba. There is nothing preventing IBM and Toshiba from making Cell products, nor others from buying it from them.

[nimbus]

Well, all we can do is wait to see what PS3 is about.

I think that the PS3 will be better than Xbox 360, but only marginally. Later on, it might be more noticeable, but at first not really...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Dagless]

Funny how the pirate scene destroyed the DC, yet enhanced the original Xbox? I mean seemingly, I only got my Xbox when I could use it as a media centre, just a dead simple way to stream DivX to my old tube TV.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Well, all we can do is wait to see what PS3 is about.

I think that the PS3 will be better than Xbox 360, but only marginally. Later on, it might be more noticeable, but at first not really...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Exactly! I believe it'll only be marginally better IN REAL USE, too!

Sure, blue-ray is supreme technology to DVD. But will game manufacturers use it, especially right of the bat? I applaud Microsoft making an external attachment for HD-DVD; if HD-DVD actually picks up, they could always add it to Xbox 360 (call it Xbox 360 HD) at a later time. No one can argue that we NEED blue-ray right now, especially considering its costs.

Thus, only 2 things are really going to determine which console people buy; games and price. Xbox looks like they have Sony beat in price, but games? What do you guys think?

[nimbus]

PS3 = Trojan horse for Blu-Ray and Cell.

Sony needs them both to do well, including the Blu-Ray DVD player with the PS3 pretty much ups the chances of Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD by 60%. If I have a Blu-Ray DVD player, why would I get a HD-DVD player? Sony isn't stupid. Microsoft isn't either. They kept sales down by not including an HD-DVD player at launch...especially seeing that neither Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will really be doing anything until Q3 2006 or 2007. Either way, we as consumers win, but watching the war is always kinda fun since we aren't the ones losing millions...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[illegalprelude]

Exactly! I believe it'll only be marginally better IN REAL USE, too!

Sure, blue-ray is supreme technology to DVD. But will game manufacturers use it, especially right of the bat? I applaud Microsoft making an external attachment for HD-DVD; if HD-DVD actually picks up, they could always add it to Xbox 360 (call it Xbox 360 HD) at a later time. No one can argue that we NEED blue-ray right now, especially considering its costs.

Thus, only 2 things are really going to determine which console people buy; games and price. Xbox looks like they have Sony beat in price, but games? What do you guys think?

you do realise though that it will only be able to play HD movies. no games will be abale to take advantage of it and thats the main reason for the 360 right? Also, GREAT. let me add on 15 devices to it to make it functional. more cords ands drives and space to take up :rolleyes:

[saunders45]

you do realise though that it will only be able to play HD movies. no games will be abale to take advantage of it and thats the main reason for the 360 right? Also, GREAT. let me add on 15 devices to it to make it functional. more cords ands drives and space to take up :rolleyes:

You mean like the PS2? Wait until after the friggin PS3 is launched, you know with all it's "gadgets" actually inside it. Then the fanboy's can go at it. What you are trying to compare is a system that already exists, and a tech sheet.

[GFLPraxis]

Exactly! I believe it'll only be marginally better IN REAL USE, too!

Sure, blue-ray is supreme technology to DVD. But will game manufacturers use it, especially right of the bat? I applaud Microsoft making an external attachment for HD-DVD; if HD-DVD actually picks up, they could always add it to Xbox 360 (call it Xbox 360 HD) at a later time. No one can argue that we NEED blue-ray right now, especially considering its costs.

Thus, only 2 things are really going to determine which console people buy; games and price. Xbox looks like they have Sony beat in price, but games? What do you guys think?


The thing here is that current games are already filling up DVD's. We'll be seeing a lot of multi-disk games in the XBox 360's lifespan, while Blu-ray disks will always have room to spare for 1080p cutscenes and bonus features and uncompressed textures.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

The thing here is that current games are already filling up DVD's. We'll be seeing a lot of multi-disk games in the XBox 360's lifespan, while Blu-ray disks will always have room to spare for 1080p cutscenes and bonus features and uncompressed textures.

Quite a few people have stated this already, however. Most game manufacturers will not utilize the 1080p standard. In fact, most games designed for the PS3, at least initially, should be able to fit on a standard DVD.

Although you're right; more space = better, duh! I can't argue that one :p

I'm just saying it might not be worth the cost-benefit ratio. <shrug>

Although I doubt we'll see that many multi-disk games. I remember the days of Riven and Schism; 8-discs = bad.

[tdhurst]

I think it's funny when people complain about the 360 being "Xbox 1.5", saying it's just a "more powerful Xbox" ... DUH, that is what console upgrades are. That is what the PS3 will be, a more powerful PS2. **confused**


You're kidding, right?

Let me explain...when a person refers to the 360 being XBox 1.5, what they REALLY mean is that the 360 is not a huge improvement over its predecessor.

Think of the graphics on a good PSone game....now compare them to GTA 3 on the PS2. No comparison, right? That would be "next-gen."

The 360, while cool as hell, just doesn't feel like an entirely new system to me.

[GFLPraxis]

You're kidding, right?

Let me explain...when a person refers to the 360 being XBox 1.5, what they REALLY mean is that the 360 is not a huge improvement over its predecessor.

Think of the graphics on a good PSone game....now compare them to GTA 3 on the PS2. No comparison, right? That would be "next-gen."

The 360, while cool as hell, just doesn't feel like an entirely new system to me.

If you mean graphics, even though I'm not an XBox 360 fan by any means, I should point out that the early 360 games are almost entirely games that started development on current gen consoles and were up-ported.

Look at Fight Night Round 3, that's a more accurate representation. It's on par with the PS3 tech demo of the same game.

From what we know, both the XBox 360 and PS3 have the same hardware capabilities graphics wise, except the PS3 can push more polygons.

[illegalprelude]

You mean like the PS2? Wait until after the friggin PS3 is launched, you know with all it's "gadgets" actually inside it. Then the fanboy's can go at it. What you are trying to compare is a system that already exists, and a tech sheet.

Im not sure what you are talking about my friend so if you could be a tad more clear.

I was talking about the idea that PS3 will have blue-ray and game developers can use blue-ray as more storage for games.

The 360 does not have any HD movie funtionality. It will in the near future have a HD-DVD attach on you can purchase but that will be only for movies. Microsoft already confirmed this.

So again, im talking about just facts because im such a fanboy of sony that I dont own a 360 :rolleyes: *looks at my own sig* oh...wait...

Source:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6142137.html?q=Xbox%20360%20HDDVD

[saunders45]

Im not sure what you are talking about my friend so if you could be a tad more clear.

I was talking about the idea that PS3 will have blue-ray and game developers can use blue-ray as more storage for games.

The 360 does not have any HD movie funtionality. It will in the near future have a HD-DVD attach on you can purchase but that will be only for movies. Microsoft already confirmed this.

So again, im talking about just facts because im such a fanboy of sony that I dont own a 360 :rolleyes: *looks at my own sig* oh...wait...

Source:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6142137.html?q=Xbox%20360%20HDDVD

What I was saying was that the PS2 had all the add on stuff. Network adapter and HDD. Also, I'm yet to convinced that the PS3 will actually have 3/4 of the stuff that Sony promised it would. Just remember, Sony likes to overpromise and steal the other guys thunder. Then underdeliver.

[Abulia]

That's true, but Sony is NOT going to take a loss greater than $100 on the system. That is downright suicidal. Microsoft lost $4 billion selling the XBox at an $80 loss at a $300 price point.Reversing the numbers, that's an installed base of 50,000,000 units. I don't think the Xbox has an installed base of that many and, even if they did, over the life of the console, MS' production has lowered the cost to where at $180 they no longer take a loss. In short, I question your numbers.

[illegalprelude]

What I was saying was that the PS2 had all the add on stuff. Network adapter and HDD. Also, I'm yet to convinced that the PS3 will actually have 3/4 of the stuff that Sony promised it would. Just remember, Sony likes to overpromise and steal the other guys thunder. Then underdeliver.

again, changing the point. all im saying is it will have blue-ray support for the games too. even fi 360 goes HD-DVD, it wont be for the games witch is the number one reason for the unit. then movies

[GFLPraxis]

Reversing the numbers, that's an installed base of 50,000,000 units. I don't think the Xbox has an installed base of that many and, even if they did, over the life of the console, MS' production has lowered the cost to where at $180 they no longer take a loss. In short, I question your numbers.


I can provide you with Microsoft's quarterly profits with an average $250,000,000 loss per quarter if you wish.

Microsoft only has a 16% marketshare, nowhere near 50,000,000 units.

I've read a couple places that the initial loss at launch was $70-$80. And remember that's not the only money sucker, there's also development costs and heavy marketting costs.

Note that from what I've read $80 was the initial loss. I'm trying to find something to corraborate that. Wikipedia also notes...
Internal documents show that the Xbox division had lost $4 billion from 2001 to 2005. [13] In particular, the Xbox hardware itself is a loss leader, since the console was sold at a loss even at its debut price. The losses deepened when sales of the Xbox increased and when the price was reduced successive times to compete with PlayStation 2 [14]. Microsoft predicted that it would not make a profit on the Xbox for at least three years. This prediction turned out to be correct; Microsoft Game Studios, Microsoft's game division in charge of Xbox development, had its first profitable quarter reported in January 2005, thanks largely to the success of Halo 2 [15]. In the end of 2005, Microsoft lost more 1 billion dollars [16]. The Xbox project never gave an annual profit to Microsoft.

Unfortunately, every google search now gives me XBox 360 loss estimates :(


AH! Found it!

http://news.com.com/Will+Xbox+drain+Microsoft/2100-1040_3-253654.html

Microsoft already has committed itself to spending $500 million on Xbox marketing. And production costs are expected to be an unusually high $375 per machine because of the console's advanced features, Blodget said in the report.

At launch, it cost $375 to produce, so that's an over-$75 loss per system (I don't know if that production cost counts labor and shipping). Plus half a billion in marketting just in the beginning. This article is from 2001.

They also mention Blodget estimates Microsoft will "lose $125 on every Xbox console--and that's before taking into account" sales, marketing and other administrative costs.

That's something new. So they sold it at $75 less than production and take a $125 loss on it? Wonder where those extra losses come from...interesting.

[Haoshiro]

appleretailguy:

Perhaps I'm just strange, but first-gen PS1 games *never* impressed me - and I was coming from SNES!

I agree with the other poster, games like Fight Night Round 3 are a much more accurate representation of the system - and I personally think its stunning.

The only system I was ever really "wowed" by was the Dreamcast graphically. Going from PS1/N64 to DC was astounding like no other generation. From DC to PS2 was ho-hum, PS2 to GameCube/Xbox? Nice, but not amazing at all. Halo looked nice, but I had seen screenshots for the mac version a year before...

So yeah, I don't get the "Xbox 1.5" statement, I don't see it different then other gens.

GFLPraxis:

What I think people miss, and thus what adds extra loss, is that retailers aren't buying the systems for what they are selling them for.

So if Xbox cost $375 and they sell for $299 you can bet retailers are getting them from Microsoft less then that.

[Brother Michael]

BIG LIST OF THINGS!

Because no one buys an iPod because of media hype...Everyone buys them because they are the best.

While you make some good points about the companies, I disagree 100% with your view about consumers. They are getting "smarter" because the younger generations of consumers are starting to buy. We have grown up with these things since the day we were born.

We are only getting smarter in the fact that we are adapting to new technology quicker than our parents, because it is always changing.

But don't give humanity that much credit, how many people bought an iPod because it was better than a Dell Jukebox (which I think is debatable, because I know people with the Dell music player and they like it)? Probably the same percentage that buy a Mac over a PC plus or minus some. Face it people buy iPod's because TV tells them too.

As for companies trying to lock you into their products, no crap. Apple does this all the time! PPC, iPod + iTunes, AAC Music Formats, etc. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are no different.

[GFLPraxis]

GFLPraxis:

What I think people miss, and thus what adds extra loss, is that retailers aren't buying the systems for what they are selling them for.

So if Xbox cost $375 and they sell for $299 you can bet retailers are getting them from Microsoft less then that.

That's probably it.