Press release from Sony regarding PS3.....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Lots of information regarding the upcoming release.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11458047/

FWIW.....the price point reported by independent analysts appears to be way off. Top price point is reportedly in the $499 range for the system.

[Easy Mac]

That really just appears to be more idle speculation.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Lots of information regarding the upcoming release.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11458047/

FWIW.....the price point reported by independent analysts appears to be way off. Top price point is reportedly in the $499 range for the system.

I would still buy mostly because of Metal Gear.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW.....the price point reported by independent analysts appears to be way off. Top price point is reportedly in the $499 range for the system.

The analyst speculation was so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

$499 is a price I won't pay at launch, barring a sudden financial windfall, but launching at $800 or $900 as speculated would have been suicidal for Sony's leadership of the market.

[Easy Mac]

Most of the 800-900 i've heard is the cost, not the price of sale.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, I didn't there was any way they could sell it for over $500. I still think the price will get down into the $300s. They always sell their consoles at a loss, but make up for it through add-ons and other crap.

[Easy Mac]

No way they can sell it for $300. Assuming the $900 is even remotely close to the true cost, then that's a $600 loss on each console. Assuming they sell 1 million before the costs really go down and mass production is easier, that's a $600 million loss. Even assuming $20 a game going to Sony, that 30 million games they have to sell by then to even break even (probably at best at a year, but I think that's generous seeing as the games will be between $60-70). Can Sony stand to lose that much as a company? Yes, but that would be the worst financial model in possibly the history of the video game industry (which is saying a lot), and it would put them even further behind the eight ball when it comes to the next gen (they couldn't afford to lose even half that much the next round or shareholders/analsysts would revolt).

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Yeah, I didn't there was any way they could sell it for over $500. I still think the price will get down into the $300s. They always sell their consoles at a loss, but make up for it through add-ons and other crap.

I don't think they will sell it any lower than 400. The X360 Premium packages showed that the market can bare that price point well.

[Raiders Army]

After looking at the way this generation of gaming machines has been handled, I have to say that this could be the worst launches of any generation. The Xbox 360 has been mishandled, there have been two new games since the launch three months ago, and there is no "must have" game. I hope the PS3 and Revolution do much better, but I'm not holding my breath based on the shortages of PS2s and Nintendo's decreasing market share.

[illinifan999]

"Sakurai estimated that Sony could charge at most 50,000 yen ($420) for the console."

I could live with that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

After looking at the way this generation of gaming machines has been handled, I have to say that this could be the worst launches of any generation. The Xbox 360 has been mishandled, there have been two new games since the launch three months ago, and there is no "must have" game. I hope the PS3 and Revolution do much better, but I'm not holding my breath based on the shortages of PS2s and Nintendo's decreasing market share.

Is this really much of a surprise with the intensified pressure of competition?

This is why I've always hated the idea of 3 competing systems. There aren't enough games to go around and everyone is concerned about rushing the product out to beat the other guy. Rather than letting the designers decide what is good, the marketing department does the "thinking".

I always hear the refrain, with regards to video games that "more competition is always good". Anyone blanketly saying this is just a fool- you only need one competitor to keep prices down as much as this market will bear. I don't see everyone releasing games at $30 instead of $50 now that there is an extra competitor. Nintendo is hoping to buck that trend a little with Revolution games supposedly cheaper for some, but I sense quite a few lower quality games where they are just "feeling out" their new system and the new way of playing. Budget titles have always been around and I like this more to that phenomenon rather than a "lower price point for all games". It's still an oligopoly- there's not a ton of competition that will move prices ever downward.

SI

[rkmsuf]

499 bucks? how much are the games...75 bucks?

Stop the insanity.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

499 bucks? how much are the games...75 bucks?

Stop the insanity.

Sony is not saying if there is any truth to the Stop The Insanity Game rumors....

[Kodos]

Still, computers are much more expensive and require more frequent upgrades. Consoles are a bargain compared to gaming PCs.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Still, computers are much more expensive and require more frequent upgrades. Consoles are a bargain compared to gaming PCs.

For just games yes.

If you are the type that doesn't have a computer and wants to play games I'm sure the Xbox or PS2 is just fine though.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Still, computers are much more expensive and require more frequent upgrades. Consoles are a bargain compared to gaming PCs.

can't get porn with a console.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

can't get porn with a console.

They're called DVDs.

[Schmidty]

I can't imagine paying one cent more than $150 - $200 for a console. I'd rather take that $500 and pimp my computer out.

Honest opinion: If you pay $500, $600, $900, etc. for a console, you are a rube. No offense to all of you rubes.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I can't imagine paying one cent more than $150 - $200 for a console. I'd rather take that $500 and pimp my computer out.

Honest opinion: If you pay $500, $600, $900, etc. for a console, you are a rube. No offense to all of you rubes.

How about the people who camped out in line in the freezing snow for 18 hours to pay $400?

SI

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How about the people who camped out in line in the freezing snow for 18 hours to pay $400?

SI

I'm among those (except it was rain and I was under cover). I would say that the people who camped out in line in the freezing snow for 18 hours to buy a Xbox 360 and sell it were assholes.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I can't imagine paying one cent more than $150 - $200 for a console. I'd rather take that $500 and pimp my computer out.

word up.

if you buy a new console every 3-4 years, isn't that the same as having to update your PC every 3 or 4 years? all console junkies always say "at least i don't have to update my rig every year or so to stay current with the latest technology". but if you bought an XBox and bought a 360 that's the same exact thing. same thing if you're a current PS2 owner and you're already planning on getting a PS3. the arguement only works if you buy a console and don't plan on getting the next gen system until 5 or more years have passed.

if i have to choose between upgrading my PC or getting a new console - i'm upgrading my PC...i use it for more things.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

if i have to choose between upgrading my PC or getting a new console - i'm upgrading my PC...i use it for more things.

But what if the PS3 came with a sandwich?

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

The arguement only works if you buy a console and don't plan on getting the next gen system until 5 or more years have passed.

if i have to choose between upgrading my PC or getting a new console - i'm upgrading my PC...i use it for more things.

That would be me. I wouldnt spend more than 250 for the base console. A game and memory card and thats already pushing 350

[Buccaneer]

I can upgrade my motherboard to a dual-CPU AMD with 2gb RAM and a better video card for less than $400, I think.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I can upgrade my motherboard to a dual-CPU AMD with 2gb RAM and a better video card for less than $400, I think.

Terrific. Worth it, even, if you get that much use out of your computer.

Do you enjoy playing joystick jockey games in front of a 21" monitor, hunched over a mouse and keyboard, or would you rather kick back on a recliner or a couch in front of a much larger screen?

Those of us who prefer consoles, yeah there's a financial element to it, but that's not the whole picture. When I buy a new Xbox 360 game, I know it's going to work on my Xbox without the possibility of processor incompatibility, RAM upgrade necessity, or video card instability.

With PC games...I have to weigh what's in my machine against what's on the back of the box and decide if my machine can run it as-is, or if I need to spend additional money.

Console games, it's not like that. I'll need to spend that same $400 in five or six years on a new machine that you're spending on an upgrade to your existing box, but for that duration, I know that I can play whatever comes out for my platform with a minimum of additional financial expense.

On my budget, that's important (even as Gamenikki EiC).

[General Mike]

Well When PS2 came out, I spent about $550 at launch. If I did buy PS3 at launch, I would probably spend the same ammount, so they are just gonna sell less games at launch.

[sterlingice]

Or could be like a bunch of us, wait a year and a little change until that Christmas and pay $100 less and get something bundled with it. But you do miss out on being able to show off as how you have extra money to burn and the first gen games which mostly suck.

SI

[Craptacular]

That $100 Gamecube / Zelda Wind Waker bundle is looking more and more attractive.

[MikeVic]

These stupid prices is what makes me want to get a DS. I'm not one for graphics, just gameplay. I also feel like I get more out of a game on computer. The original Half-Life gave me ridiculous value with Counterstrike and Sven added on. You just can't do that with consoles. Plus there's something about split-screen multiplayer that I hate.

I can see getting a Revolution if it's around $250usd.... unless Guitar Hero 3 is on PS3. Then we have a problem.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

When I buy a new Xbox 360 game, I know it's going to work on my Xbox without the possibility of processor incompatibility, RAM upgrade necessity, or video card instability.

Not exactly true.

My XBOX doesn't play games for shit. I have always taken extremely good care of it and been very careful with the game discs but I always get the damn "Disk is dirty or scratched" error. I have never ever ever had any kind of problem like that on pc games.

[Eaglesfan27]

Interesting Gamespot article today. Of note, is the speculation that it will retail for 699 at launch!

Edit: I just re-read it. Some analysts think it could be 699. Prices ranged from 399 to 699. I think it is going to be at least 500 though if those prices for the components are correct.


PS3 launch, price doubts batter Sony stock

Share price sinks 3.6 percent on predictions of $900 per-console manufacturing cost, spring 2007 US launch; contradictory corporate statements follow.

Across the United States, most Americans were relaxing this Monday, courtesy of the long Presidents' Day holiday weekend. Not so across the Pacific in the corporate offices of Sony. The electronics and entertainment giant saw its stock price sink 3.6 percent, dropping to 5,300 yen ($45) per share. The fall affected the entire Tokyo stock market, with the Nikkei index dropping 1.75 percent to 15,437.93 yen ($130.57).

Monday's drop follows a 2.8 percent decline in Sony stock on Friday, after Wall Street stock-brokerage firm Merrill Lynch published a report skeptical of the company's next-generation console plans. It predicted the launch of the PlayStation 3 console could be delayed by 6 to 12 months from its current spring 2006 window, resulting in an autumn launch in Japan and a late 2006 or early 2007 launch in the US.

"We wrote last November that Sony’s design choices for the PS3 had resulted in an expensive and difficult-to-manufacture product," read the report, "and we think that we’re seeing the consequences of those choices play out now. In particular, we think the problem points are the Sony Cell processor and the Blu-ray drive." Merrill Lynch also cited heat-generation issues with PS3 hardware and the far-from-finished state of most games for the platform as factors.

While other analysts have predicted that the PS3 might not hit North America until Q4 2006 or Q1 2007--which would miss the all-important holiday shopping season--Merrill Lynch's stature made many-a-trader skittish. The fires of unease were fueled further by another component of the report, which predicted the manufacturing cost of the console could be much higher than previous estimates of around $500 per unit.

"Our updated analysis indicates that the initial bill of [production] materials for PS3 could approach $900," read the report. The report said that the production cost of a single Cell processor will be $230 at launch, with the Blu-ray drive setting Sony back $350 per unit. However, the $900 price tag presumably includes a $100 optional hard drive, as a breakdown of component costs in the report totals just $795.

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

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

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

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

By Tor Thorsen, Hirohiko Niizumi -- GameSpot Posted Feb 20, 2006 1:39 pm PT

[sterlingice]

We did already have a thread about this about halfway down the page and all.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=47322
Again, my response:
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...0&postcount=19

SI

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Not exactly true.

My XBOX doesn't play games for shit. I have always taken extremely good care of it and been very careful with the game discs but I always get the damn "Disk is dirty or scratched" error. I have never ever ever had any kind of problem like that on pc games.

My XBox got fixed for free when that happened. You could always call Microsoft and ask. I know Sony usually gets sued and has to fix each console for free, I'm assuming the same thing happened to Microsoft and that is why my console got fixed.

[Airhog]

I am going to go with a Q2 release, sometime around july. I would estimate it takes about 3 months to get up and running with a new product. That would be from the time the engineering group releases the final specs, till the product lines end their IP runs, and being full scale production. And I would imagine you would need about 2 months to build enough product to meet the demand at launch.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

After looking at the way this generation of gaming machines has been handled, I have to say that this could be the worst launches of any generation. The Xbox 360 has been mishandled, there have been two new games since the launch three months ago, and there is no "must have" game. I hope the PS3 and Revolution do much better, but I'm not holding my breath based on the shortages of PS2s and Nintendo's decreasing market share.

I think do in large part to this, Sony can charge a higher price and bring it out later...they are not losing their market share in my mind, so they are taking their time and are going to maximize their profits...they dont feel a true threat yet, or else they would compete with price or with release date...by not doing either, they dont feel truly threatened yet. And i cant say, from what ive seen of 360, that i blame them.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

These stupid prices is what makes me want to get a DS. I'm not one for graphics, just gameplay. I also feel like I get more out of a game on computer. The original Half-Life gave me ridiculous value with Counterstrike and Sven added on. You just can't do that with consoles. Plus there's something about split-screen multiplayer that I hate.

I can see getting a Revolution if it's around $250usd.... unless Guitar Hero 3 is on PS3. Then we have a problem.

FYI, the games that are most played around our office on our Xbox360 dev kits are the multitude of arcade classics and new games modeled after arcade classics that you can get for cheap over Xbox Live (I'm talking Joust, Jewel Quest, a new game called Geometry Wars, etc). You're not limited to the Revolution if you want classic, old-school gameplay as an option on your new console.

The launch lineup for the 360 has been extremely underwhelming, but there's some good stuff coming on the horizon - a lot of developers timed their production cycles so that their end product would be a lot closer to the PS3 launch so as to have multiple platforms across which they can spread development costs.

[Desnudo]

From a cost perspective, Sony could also be thinking of the Blu-ray component in the PS3 as R&D. Meaning they'd be willing to take more of a loss on it if it pushes the technology forward and speeds adoption both by the public and in other Sony products.

From a revenue perspective, it seems to me like a pretty simple supply and demand calculation.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I have never ever ever had any kind of problem like that on pc games.

True. On the other hand, you get to deal with CD-Keys, registration/certification à la Steam, and hardware conflicts such as a game not running on a particular chipset or video card. Or, thanks to copy protection schemes such as Starforce, won't even run on particular CD or DVD *drives.*

That's my thing. If a game won't work on my console, either the CD/DVD drive is busted, or the game is defective. Two issues I could easily run into on my PC, 'cept without all the other wonderful stuff that tags along.

I ain't slamming the PC environment here. Only saying that for all the benefits the PC is supposed to offer, it also offers more detrimental effects than the consoles do.

I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, but quantifying the difference between the two camps is a little bit like politics and religion. One size definitely doesn't fit all.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Terrific. Worth it, even, if you get that much use out of your computer.

Do you enjoy playing joystick jockey games in front of a 21" monitor, hunched over a mouse and keyboard, or would you rather kick back on a recliner or a couch in front of a much larger screen?

Those of us who prefer consoles, yeah there's a financial element to it, but that's not the whole picture. When I buy a new Xbox 360 game, I know it's going to work on my Xbox without the possibility of processor incompatibility, RAM upgrade necessity, or video card instability.

With PC games...I have to weigh what's in my machine against what's on the back of the box and decide if my machine can run it as-is, or if I need to spend additional money.

Console games, it's not like that. I'll need to spend that same $400 in five or six years on a new machine that you're spending on an upgrade to your existing box, but for that duration, I know that I can play whatever comes out for my platform with a minimum of additional financial expense.

On my budget, that's important (even as Gamenikki EiC).

My thoughts exactly. Dealing with patches, incompatibilities, etc. on the computer is a pain in the ass and a frustration that most don't want to deal with.

[bob]

You are screwed either way.

PC - Game is released super buggy, and then has to be patched and patched and patched over a long period of time.

Console - Game is released (usually) in better shape, but bugs are rarely if ever patched.

[Icy]

Originally Posted by bob

You are screwed either way.

PC - Game is released super buggy, and then has to be patched and patched and patched over a long period of time.

Console - Game is released (usually) in better shape, but bugs are rarely if ever patched.

I prefer the first, at leats they end getting patched while you are screwed forever with a buggy console game. I have considered a lot of time to buy a console, but only to be able to play some games that are not for sale for PC, like EA college games or a good boxing game. As i play mainly sims, i won't find a lot of use for a console. Aslo i don't like to play games in a TV. The big one is always used by my wife, so or i buy another big TV or i need to play on the smaler ones we own. Btw, is there any way to plug an XBox to a TFT computer monitor?

[Bee]

If I had to chose between one or the other, I'd definitely go with the computer because my favorite games are usually the independent, small developer games which aren't available on the console. That being said, I can understand the attraction of consoles for those who don't have the same tastes that I do.

[Blade6119]

One big plus for me with consoles is easy multiplayer..i love playing 4vs4 NCAA 2006...everyone talks trash, tries to block other people, and its hella fun...you just can do that with PCs...i like PCs for depth(FM, EHM), but consoles for quick fun(even solo..just easier to get into)

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Icy

I prefer the first, at leats they end getting patched while you are screwed forever with a buggy console game. I have considered a lot of time to buy a console, but only to be able to play some games that are not for sale for PC, like EA college games or a good boxing game. As i play mainly sims, i won't find a lot of use for a console. Aslo i don't like to play games in a TV. The big one is always used by my wife, so or i buy another big TV or i need to play on the smaler ones we own. Btw, is there any way to plug an XBox to a TFT computer monitor?

Now with most consoles coming with HD's, you're starting to see more and more games gets patched to help work out the bugs.

[bob]

Originally Posted by dervack

Now with most consoles coming with HD's, you're starting to see more and more games gets patched to help work out the bugs.

I don't recall any xbox games that were patched. I know that I am wrong and some were, but there were some pretty bad bugs in the 2K Sports games that I have that weren't patched.

[dervack]

Originally Posted by bob

I don't recall any xbox games that were patched. I know that I am wrong and some were, but there were some pretty bad bugs in the 2K Sports games that I have that weren't patched.

I know they have started patching the 360 games.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bob

You are screwed either way.

PC - Game is released super buggy, and then has to be patched and patched and patched over a long period of time.

Console - Game is released (usually) in better shape, but bugs are rarely if ever patched.

I have about 40 games for the Gamecube and I can count on one hand the number of bugs in the entire lot. They just don't get released with very many bugs whereas PC game makers figure they can release games as Beta+ and correct things on the fly.

SI

[Bee]

Originally Posted by dervack

I know they have started patching the 360 games.

All 3 of them?

[bob]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I have about 40 games for the Gamecube and I can count on one hand the number of bugs in the entire lot. They just don't get released with very many bugs whereas PC game makers figure they can release games as Beta+ and correct things on the fly.

SI

My guess is you haven't played any sports games - certainly not the 2K ones. I could probably find 5 or 6 bugs during the playing of one game in NFL 2K5.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by bob

My guess is you haven't played any sports games - certainly not the 2K ones. I could probably find 5 or 6 bugs during the playing of one game in NFL 2K5.

Nah, I tend to stay away from games I have to pay $50 for (tho I applaud the $20 price last year) year after year for incremental upgrades, new rosters, and a fresh coat of video game paint that's rushed to market.

SI