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

Discussion in 'Games' started by Haoshiro, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. Haoshiro macrumors 68000

    Haoshiro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Location:
    USA, KS
    #1
    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.
     
  2. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #2
    I want to point something out as well. Here's a good quote.

    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.
     
  3. d_saum macrumors 6502

    d_saum

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    NC
    #3
    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.
     
  4. 0s and 1s macrumors 6502a

    0s and 1s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    OK, USA
    #4
    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.
     
  5. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #5
    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 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.
     
  6. mac.head.high macrumors regular

    mac.head.high

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    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.
     
  7. mrchappers5334 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    #8
    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?
     
  8. Abulia macrumors 68000

    Abulia

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Kushiel's Scion
    #9
    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.
     
  9. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #10
    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.
     
  10. mac.head.high macrumors regular

    mac.head.high

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #11

    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.
     
  11. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #12
    $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.
     
  12. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #13
    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.
     
  13. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #14
    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).
     
  14. mac.head.high macrumors regular

    mac.head.high

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #15

    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 ****** 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.
     
  15. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #16
    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.
     
  16. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #17
    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.
     
  17. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #18
    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.
     
  18. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #19
    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.
     
  19. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #20
    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?
     
  20. ccool2ax macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    #21
    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".
     
  21. AppleinJapan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    #22
    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...
     
  22. rosalindavenue macrumors 6502a

    rosalindavenue

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    #23
    Another source of PS 3 trouble

    Here's an Ars Technica piece 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.
     
  23. thequicksilver macrumors 6502a

    thequicksilver

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham
    #24
    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.
     
  24. HiRez macrumors 603

    HiRez

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Western US
    #25
    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:
     

Share This Page