StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Cnet is reporting that a research report issued by Merrill Lynch suggests that the Sony PlayStation 3's American release may be postponed until 2007. From the article: 'The analyst firm proposed the idea that high costs and Sony's decision to use an 'ambitious new processor architecture--the Cell' is making it look like the company might not be able to meet its goal of getting the PS3 out in the U.S. this year.' Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment." The official report (pdf) would also seem to indicate that the console will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $900 when it launches.

Fuck consoles, I would much rather buy 16 of these.

I actually hope that Sony tries to sell the goddamn thing for almost a grand. Nothing is more satisfying than watching braindead ideas floated by corporate mental deficients fail in an absolutely spectacular fashion.

But I doubt they will.

900 dollars? What have the Sony Execs been smoking? For 900 dollars I can perform a nice upgrade on my current gaming PC which already has better graphics then the PS3.

Actually, there was a very interesting comment on Slashdot...

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.

Yeah, I'd be really, really surprised if they went with $900. Honestly, if I spent that much, Lara Croft had better lean out of the screen and give me a hummer when I complete a level.

So what source is offered for such a blatantly absurd figure? They’d cancel the whole project before they try to sell it for that much money.

Praxis wrote:Actually, there was a very interesting comment on Slashdot...

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.

Oh, jesus, if you're going to start quoting Slashdorks here to support your Sony masturbation, then I'll follow up with some other perspectives as well:

Before we all go nuts pointing out that this is clever marketing from Sony, or this is just some whacky stuff from Wall Street, remember that the analysts who wrote this report make their livings and substantial salaries from analysing their target companies. They know these companies inside out, because if they didn't they would be out of a job before they knew. When you consider their balls are really in a vice grip because if they get their predictions their wrong, their companies stand to lose a lot of money, then you give a bit more credence to reports of this nature.

Having read the pdf file, the analysis seems quite reasonable, and well considered, and utltimately quite persuasive. Whether it persuades you is a different matter, but before you dismiss the report out of hand, remember that the authors spend a lot of time trying to understand and predict what Sony is going to do, and therefore are better qualified than most third parties to reach conlcusions about slippages and prices.

But wait, there's more!

a research report issued by Merrill Lynch suggests that the Sony PlayStation 3's American release may be postponed until 2007 [...] The official report (pdf) would also seem to indicate that the console will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $900

Is this the same Merrill Lynch that was accused of lying about the health of corporations such as Worldcom and Enron? The same Merrill Lynch that agreed to pay $100 million in fines? The same Merrill Lynch that may owe several billions of dollars to institutional shareholders and others for gross deception?

Remind me why I, you, or any news outlet for that matter, should have any faith in their statements?

I would hope this to be true, but alas I think the price point is unlikely. The release date is a bit more iffy as to accuracy for me though.

Y'know, even though I am a blatant Nintendo fanboy, believe it or not, I was actually impressed with the Sony Tech Demos at E3 2k5, simply because they were the only ones who did the new console thing right.

I mean, you had the guys at Microsoft wanking off to user friendliness, with some playable demos, (and while they were the only next-gen playable demos, they looked like shit. Can you guess why?), and some guy giving an endless musing session, then you have Nintendo, who gave us nothing at all, except with a bunch of promises and the Game Boy Micro, plus some demos of games for current-gen systems (which was kinda nice, I guess).

Then you have Sony. Yes, their fancy tech demos may have been pre-rendered, but I enjoyed watching them, dammit! I really anticipated MGS4, and, as a UT fan, I was blown away by UT2K7.

If any of this is remotely true,
*scratches off PS3 from list of things I'm anticipating*

Well, looks like I'll be getting a Revolution.

Tech demos that happened to be rendered on lightwave it'd seem. Yeah, congrats. They made some FMVs that could have been played on the PS2.

The MGS4 video is somewhat more believable, but still a bit out there. It's obvious they at best, partially cheated. This price point doesn't surprise me, considering Sony's claims on system performance and a whole lot of extra doodads they want to include. Sony isn't known for shrewd marketting, just forceful stuff. This seems accurate at the moment to me.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Praxis wrote:Actually, there was a very interesting comment on Slashdot...

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.

Oh, jesus, if you're going to start quoting Slashdorks here to support your Sony masturbation, then I'll follow up with some other perspectives as well:

Before we all go nuts pointing out that this is clever marketing from Sony, or this is just some whacky stuff from Wall Street, remember that the analysts who wrote this report make their livings and substantial salaries from analysing their target companies. They know these companies inside out, because if they didn't they would be out of a job before they knew. When you consider their balls are really in a vice grip because if they get their predictions their wrong, their companies stand to lose a lot of money, then you give a bit more credence to reports of this nature.

Having read the pdf file, the analysis seems quite reasonable, and well considered, and utltimately quite persuasive. Whether it persuades you is a different matter, but before you dismiss the report out of hand, remember that the authors spend a lot of time trying to understand and predict what Sony is going to do, and therefore are better qualified than most third parties to reach conlcusions about slippages and prices.

But wait, there's more!

a research report issued by Merrill Lynch suggests that the Sony PlayStation 3's American release may be postponed until 2007 [...] The official report (pdf) would also seem to indicate that the console will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $900

Is this the same Merrill Lynch that was accused of lying about the health of corporations such as Worldcom and Enron? The same Merrill Lynch that agreed to pay $100 million in fines? The same Merrill Lynch that may owe several billions of dollars to institutional shareholders and others for gross deception?

Remind me why I, you, or any news outlet for that matter, should have any faith in their statements?

Uh, dude, calm down. Is anyone who makes any kind of BARELY pro-Sony statement such as "I doubt it'll cost that much" a Sony fanboy? I'm a blatant Nintendo fanboy And I wasn't quoting it to SUPPORT AN ARGUEMENT; there was no arguement being made, you dimwit! It was a possibility being proposed. Frankly, $900 for a console seems insane.

And didn't the same people say the PS3 would cost $500 a few months ago?

Sony, if you're going to delay the system or sell it at an outrageous, animal-fucking price, at least double the GDDR3 RAM. What you have now isn't cutting it.

The distinction is between what it costs to make and what they sell it at. All consoles nowadays are sold at a loss, the manufacturer makes up for it with game sales (hopefully, or they go out of business). So even if the system did cost $900 to manufacture, there is no way Sony would sell it for that much. They would sell it cheaper and hope their licensing fees make up for it.

I am no Sony fan, I have no intention of buying a PS3 (or a 360, for that matter), but you don't become #1 in the console race by being completely stupid. I do not think they would be stupid enough to sell the system for any more than the Xbox 360. Considering the visible difference in graphics probably won't be that major to average consumers even if the PS3 is significantly more powerful, I find it unlikely that Sony will be able to exert enough force through marketing alone to justify a system $50 more than the 360, not to mention $400-$500 more. Whatever the actual production cost, I would bet that Sony matches the 360 price exactly.

Nephtys wrote:The MGS4 video is somewhat more believable, but still a bit out there. It's obvious they at best, partially cheated.

The shitt-res textures and blocky background models are just there to make it more believable, then?

Having seen Fight Night Round 3 running on the 360, the MGS4 video looks believable.

The distinction is between what it costs to make and what they sell it at. All consoles nowadays are sold at a loss, the manufacturer makes up for it with game sales (hopefully, or they go out of business). So even if the system did cost $900 to manufacture, there is no way Sony would sell it for that much. They would sell it cheaper and hope their licensing fees make up for it.

Firstly, "all consoles" is not correct. The GameCube sold for a loss only for a single quarter (when the price first dropped to $99) and has never sold for a loss before or since that quarter. Nintendo sells it at a profit and is the most profitable of the three console companies (counting only the gaming divisions of course, not Microsoft's Windows monopoly).

Secondly, all limits fallacy. You honestly think they can make back more than a hundred dollars per system in licensing fees? Microsoft sold the XBox at a $80 loss per system and took an overall $4 billion dollar loss in the XBox's lifespan.

No WAY they can make that up off the system's gaming functions.

They may be betting on Blu-ray. That's a possibility. They may be willing to take a HUGE loss to get Blu-ray on the market and into consumer's hands so they can own the movie industry.


I'm going to stick with my original prediction- the PS3 will sell for $400 or $450 without a hard drive. But I think the manufacturing costs won't be as high as claimed here but rather closer to the original estimates ($500-$600), and Sony will bet on:
(A) licensing fees
(B) game sales
(C) Blu-ray
(D) subscription-based online (though I'm hoping for free)
(E) Downloadable content, including the mentioned iTunes competitor integrated into the PS3

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
The shitt-res textures and blocky background models are just there to make it more believable, then?

Well, since the game won't even be out till late 2007, I think that's understandable.

Praxis wrote:Firstly, "all consoles" is not correct. The GameCube sold for a loss only for a single quarter (when the price first dropped to $99) and has never sold for a loss before or since that quarter. Nintendo sells it at a profit and is the most profitable of the three console companies (counting only the gaming divisions of course, not Microsoft's Windows monopoly).

Okay. Last I heard the gamecube was the first Nintendo console to be sold at a loss. I never heard that. Thanks

Praxis wrote:Secondly, all limits fallacy. You honestly think they can make back more than a hundred dollars per system in licensing fees? Microsoft sold the XBox at a $80 loss per system and took an overall $4 billion dollar loss in the XBox's lifespan.

My point isn't that they can eat $400 losses, my point is that I don't think they can afford to sell the system for any more than the 360. So whatever the production cost, I do not think selling the system for more than the 360 is a valid option for them. I simply do not think they have the marketing pull, and they are getting in the game too late, to be able to justify a significantly higher price to enough consumers. Naturally there is a limit to how much of a loss they can sustain. But I do not pretend to know how much that loss is. But I do find it hard to believe that most people looking at an 360 at one price sitting next to a PS3 that is $50 more will be likely to pick the PS3. Of course, I find it unlikely that if the situation was reversed that microsoft could do any better than Sony.

Dang. No Gradius VI for me anytime remotely soon, it would appear.

*Shrug*

Like all these "reports", I'll simply ignore it. I've seen several doom reports saying the PS3 will be $800 and horribly delayed. Sony never comment on them. When Sony say something I'll be convinced, not when a research group says so.

I suppose it's possible the first runs of the PS3 will cost 800... to Sony. But they've always sold consoles at a loss, and it's not like the rest of their company is going to belly-up if they take a big loss on console sales.

But still, this doesn't sound credible to me.

The report is siting the use of the Cell chip as a reason for why its going to cost so much. Isn't that the same chip the XBox uses? And if so, why the hell do they think its going to cost Sony three times as much as Microsoft?

The statement from Sony is that they can't rule out a delay due to issues with HD. I'm guessing these are the protection issues that are pissing off everyone.

Lost Soal wrote:The report is siting the use of the Cell chip as a reason for why its going to cost so much. Isn't that the same chip the XBox uses? And if so, why the hell do they think its going to cost Sony three times as much as Microsoft?

The statement from Sony is that they can't rule out a delay due to issues with HD. I'm guessing these are the protection issues that are pissing off everyone.

The XBox 360 doesn't use the Cell.

The XBox 360 has 3 PPE cores.

The Cell processor has 1 PPE core surrounded by 7 dedicated cheap sub-processors that can't do integer calculations.

Doesn't seem like it would cost that much more than the 360's processor once it is being mass produced though.