Do you think I use too much gel? GameGossip Baby! Are you looking at my ass? :: News :: :: Articles :: :: Games :: :: Interviews ::
Set Homepage Set Homepage  Set Bookmark Add Bookmark  Submit News Submit News
Username: Password:
Join GameGossip! :: Forgot Login :: 30,000+ Members!
 
 
 
:: Advertise With Us ::
:: Latest News Headlines :: :: Latest Hot Stories :: :: Current Poll ::
   Morning Bried - Back Edition
 Morning Brief - Going to the Chapel
 PS3 to Receive $100 Price Break Coming July 15?
 Xbox 360 Warranty Increased 3 Full Years
 Blue Dragon Demo Dropping July 20
 Morning Brief - I Hate Mid-week Holidays
 Morning Brief - Happy British-Defeat Day
 Thompson: 91-Day Suspension and Psych Evaluation
 Morning Brief - Overlord Continued Edition
 Dress-up: No Longer Just For Girls, Women, and ...
 Zelda: Phantom Hourglass Running Out of ...
 Morning Brief - Overlord Edition
 Morning Brief - Sunday Morning Edition
 Morning Brief - Throwing a LAN
 Lair Leaves Hibernation August 14; Demo ...
 
Black Xbox 360 is Teh Reals: 120GB HDD a...(12)
Forums & Comments Online(9)
Official "Forums are Down and I hate Lif...(272)
Get Your Pubescent Gay On in Bully(11)
The Little Halo That Couldn't: Fi...(28)
PS3 IS In Production(15)
ESA Issues E3 2007 Statement(11)
AMD Acquires ATI(17)
Video Game ... Detox Centers?(10)
Halo 3 Announcement Trailer(21)
Microsoft Supports Nintendo?(31)
Microsoft Acquires Lionhead(18)
PS3 Delayed?(23)
Game Previews Killing Game Industry?(14)
PS3 Estimated to Release at $800(29)
 
Polls! We don't need no stinking polls!
 
Network:
Current
Search
Customize
Newsletter
Archive
Press Releases
Submit

Articles
Demos
Game Servers
Interviews
Poll Archive
Screenshots
Stock Market
Gaming Charts

Syndication
About Us
Advertise
Link Us

 
PS3 Estimated to Release at $800 (HOT ITEM)
Jonathan 'Ringo2000' Sharpe :: 12:35 AM @ February 20th, 2006 :: Industry Charts
:: Print This Article :::: Send This Article To A Friend ::
Well normally we don�t act on rumors, but I found this to be somewhat interesting. The investment firm Merrill Lynch put together a summary of the various component costs of the up and coming PlayStation 3, and apparently the cost to produce the system will equal out to around $800. This means that if Sony wants to rival the low cost ($299 and $399) of the Xbox360 (and can we even call that a real low price) they are going to have to take a loss of around $300-400. Personally I�m not to willing to spend much more than what I did for my Xbox360, and if the cost of the PS3 does end up being around the $500 mark, I�m probably just going to say screw it and wait. Personally I�m not in to much of a craze over the PS3, and wouldn�t at all mind waiting till later in 2007 to pick one up. The entire report is viewable here in PDF link form. Thanks engadget.

Latest Similar Story: Japanese Hardware Chart (7/2) (07/07/06)

#1 - Blindside - 02/20/06 @ 02:10 AM EST
Another PS3 rumour and speculation news item, awesome! ;)

No one's still expecting the PS3 this year are they? The saving that Sony can potentially make on hardware costs between 2006 and 2007 are huge, and will greatly ease the otherwise large financial burden of having to lose at least $300 per unit to be competitive at all. See the difference in cost for production of a unit after 3 years? My money's on Sony waiting 'till 2007. They'd be crazy to ship now (in mass volume anyway) when the technologies they're using are gonna hit their hip-pocket so hard.
#2 - LostToys - 02/20/06 @ 02:23 AM EST
They'd be more crazy to give MS a year head start. *wink wink hint hint*

And I highly doubt the 350 bones for the optical. All the PS3 needs is the optical assembly and the PS3's CPU/GPU takes care of the rest. Yes, Blu-ray is new technology, but optical drives based off of Blu-ray have been available from Sony since since late 2003.
#3 - Blindside - 02/20/06 @ 03:03 AM EST
Oh yeah i agree that a years head start by MS is an obvious downside to the delay, but i just feel that they're probably better off waiting until at least Q6 2006, but more likely mid-2007. At the current rate, a lot more people would have HDTV's by then too.. ;)
#4 - LostToys - 02/20/06 @ 03:10 AM EST
Hell, why not wait till 2009 as to ensure the most HDTV penetration rate (2009 is when analog broadcasts are shut down, though this does not mean that everyone will have a HDTV, as it just means that people will have to buy a digital to analog converter if they still want to use their televisions for ... well ... television).
#5 - Alex Murphy - 02/20/06 @ 03:48 AM EST
I really don't care either way. My XBOX 360 is collecting dust because of the lack of interesting titles (I've already beaten what few there are) and the fact that I initially bought it for the new Morrowind only to watch the game get pushed back again and again. So I don't look forward to buying another system with the possibility of this happening yet another time. I can wait.

Last Edited on 02/20/06 @ 03:49 AM EST
#6 - noodle boy - 02/20/06 @ 04:14 AM EST
800 sounds about right actually.
#7 - kirkyl - 02/20/06 @ 05:26 AM EST
Yawn* PS3 yawn*
#8 - Blindside - 02/20/06 @ 06:58 AM EST
Thanks for the input kirkyl, riveting stuff.
#9 - Newbeing - 02/20/06 @ 10:55 AM EST
This is why I'm starting to lean back towards PC gaming.
#10 - chiuyan - 02/20/06 @ 11:33 AM EST
LT "optical drives based off blu-ray have been available from sony since late 2003"

Huh? No consumer blu-ray drives are available anywhere yet, and the first ones coming out this year are estimated to be pretty pricey (I've heard anywhere between 600-1500 bucks depending on features). Considering that the ps3 is a blu-ray player+alot more, it would be difficult to come out at a price lower than just a player.
#11 - EyeLikeP00 - 02/20/06 @ 11:41 AM EST
hehe.. LT said 'penetration'..
#12 - kirkyl - 02/20/06 @ 12:15 PM EST
You too Blindside >:)
#13 - Reflex - 02/20/06 @ 01:22 PM EST
I think these costs are overblown, especially the BD-ROM and the Cell. Certainly when you consider in bulk. If the costs are remotely this high you'll see major scalebacks in the unit, the Playstation brand name is worth quite a bit itself, PS2 did not suffer by being inferior to the competition in terms of hardware...
#14 - LostToys - 02/20/06 @ 04:01 PM EST
chiuyan -

There have been industrial Blu-ray drives since late 2003. Yes, nothing you can get off the shelf, but stuff you can order from Sony for industrial use (backup, etc). Additionally, you have almost all the major manufacturers working on Blu-ray devices, you can't tell me that one of them has not found a way to economically produce a drive yet.

One thing you have to remember is that the PS3 just needs the drive. All other hardware does not need to be present because the CPU/GPU will do all the decoding (ala PS2/Xbox/360). This will significantly lower the price of the Blu-ray device, as it requires less expensive hardware.

My contention is that the drive itself costs no where near 350 bones for Sony to put into their system.
#15 - Houdini - 02/20/06 @ 05:07 PM EST
here they are in perfect place to show-up the total failure that is the 360.. and they can't get the price right..
if it is this price, or more than the 360.. that sucks.

not that i really care..
#16 - chiuyan - 02/20/06 @ 06:58 PM EST
LT, the biggest hurdles and manufacturing challenges with blu-ray (and why it has been so late getting to the consumer market) is not the decoder, it's the lazer and disc tech. any CPU these days (1+ GHz) can prolly decode mpeg4 or whatever blu-ray uses with ease, so i don't imagine the decoding tech is any significant part of any blu-ray device.

I'm just saying that if stand alone blu-ray devices are going to cost around $1K, there is no way ps3 can sell for $400 without taking a huge loss.

Pioneer's first player to come out this year is $1800

i think toshiba or samsung or someone is releasing a less featured player for the $800 range, but cannot find the link now.
#17 - recce - 02/20/06 @ 09:23 PM EST
What does an investment company know about manufacturing efficiency, production yield, component cost in terms of producing millions (i.e. mass production)?

Unlike a normal Blu-Ray player, the PS3's cell processor is capable of all the decoding stuff needed, so in terms of component cost it's already way cheaper than a standalone Blu-Ray player.

It's a fact that the selling price of the PS3 will not be the same as the cost of producing it. How big a difference between the 2 price points depends on:

1. How much loss is Sony willing to take
The loss amount is directly proportional to the possible projected installed base for PS3. The more loss Sony is willing to take the more likely for them to sell more PS3.

2. Efficiency of the manufacturing process
Initial production/assembly of high-tech electronics components tend to have very low yields, this is a very well known fact. For Sony's case, it all depends on how fast they can improve on the production yields, which will directly affect the production cost of the PS3. Even for the first 6 months period, yield percentage can be improved drastically depending on the skills of the workforce.

3. Ownership & amortization
Sony owns Blu-Ray, Sony owns the Cell processor, Sony owns the plants producing them. The only major component that is not owned by Sony is the graphics chip licensed from Nvidia. Common business sense will tell you that it is much more expensive to license from other companies compared to owning your own technologies for a product that will sell in millions and span 5 to 8 years of shelf-life. Vertical integration of business had proven to be a very good cost-saving measure, thus resulting in maximizing profit (or in this case, reduction of loss). In addition Sony is a electronics company, the direct and indirect cost of producing the PS3 will result in the same technology being used in other areas in Sony's other divisions, unlike MS. Thus if you amortize the overall cost to other divisions you would find that the loss is much much less than expected.

#16, the pricing of standalone Blu-Ray players will NOT affect the pricing of the PS3. In other words the PS3 pricing is not dependent on the pricing of the standalone players. So even if the world's very first Blu-Ray player is selling at $1800, it doesn't mean the PS3 cannot be sold at $499.

And do note that I emphasised on "the world's first Blu-Ray player". Few months after the $1800 player is on the market, you can bet that there will be other brand/model Blu-Ray players that will be selling at half the price or lower. This also means that the selling price for Blu-Ray players for the first 6 months is going to drop from $1800 to $800 to $600 etc. When the PS3 comes into the market, you're looking at the $600 price range for a standalone Blu-Ray player.

And in case none of you is aware, the PS2 is selling at much higher quantity than 360 in ALL of the regions right now, and so are the PS2 games. Sony is in no hurry to release the PS3 until at least Q4 this year.
#18 - Reflex - 02/20/06 @ 10:29 PM EST
Of course the PS2 is outselling it, there are more of them and in more markets. That does not mean Sony isn't in a rush to get the PS3 out the door. If they weren't they would have already delayed the thing so they could actually have some games ready for launch.

As for the rest, I agree and disagree. I do feel the numbers are being overstated, however I also believe it will cost Sony between $600-700 a unit. It is also going to be more difficult for Sony to cut prices since they do not own the RSX, wheras Microsoft owns all the tech in their console(even the Xenos).

Sony's in a tough position. Not only do they have to launch relatively soon, but the longer they wait they not only compromise this generation, they also put themselves in a poor position for the following generation. If they stick to a 5-6 year lifespan, and Microsoft goes with a 5 year one, that will put Sony 2+ years behind Microsoft in the next go-round...
#19 - recce - 02/21/06 @ 12:17 AM EST
#18, LOL!

Why am I not surprised you'll somehow be posting here :-)

The only one rushing out a next Gen console is MS. They had to fear because their XBox is not dominating the world and they couldn't figure out why given their mightly dominating power in the PC industry and with lots of M$$ being poured into the XBox project.

Sony is selling the PS2 units many times more than the 360 both in hardware and in software (where the money is).

Your cost of $600-$700 for the PS3 is pretty much there. And we were talking about cost of manufacturing and cost of components, MS had to license and buy them from 3rd parties, they don't have ANY manufacturing plants of their own and they don't own ANY chipsets either. You must be taking crack in assuming they own whatever you said they own.

Of course no matter what there will be certain risk if Sony continue to drag on the release date for PS3. However, all along I've been expecting them to debut at Q3/Q4 2006, Japan. So if they're releasing it then I don't see any delay at all, Sony had never committed to any actual launch date.

All that you read on the net regarding summer/winter or whatever launch period are just pure estimations. Only when Sony comes out with the exact launch date and they couldn't deliver will we be able to say they have broken their promise on the delivery date.

Last Edited on 02/21/06 @ 12:19 AM EST
#20 - Reflex - 02/21/06 @ 09:25 AM EST
Why am I not surprised you'll somehow be posting here :-)

Probably because I am a regular here.

The only one rushing out a next Gen console is MS. They had to fear because their XBox is not dominating the world and they couldn't figure out why given their mightly dominating power in the PC industry and with lots of M$$ being poured into the XBox project.

Your opinion of course. Some would say a first effort that manages to take #2 in a very competitive market is a excellent first attempt. As for rushing the 360 out, not really. Despite the limited supply, MS will at this point have at least 5 million out there before we see the first PS3. Considering the original Xbox sold a grand total of around 21-22 million units and is a profitable platform for games, getting a quarter of that total out the door before the competition even launches is a hell of a first shot.

Sony is selling the PS2 units many times more than the 360 both in hardware and in software (where the money is).

Yes, Sony is doing very well cleaning up on the last generation. Good for them. The challenge of course is to maintain that into the next generation. The SNES was still cleaning up when the PS1 was launched, however the design misteps and delays on the N64 cost Nintendo the entire next gen war back then. Sounds kinda familiar.

Your cost of $600-$700 for the PS3 is pretty much there. And we were talking about cost of manufacturing and cost of components, MS had to license and buy them from 3rd parties, they don't have ANY manufacturing plants of their own and they don't own ANY chipsets either. You must be taking crack in assuming they own whatever you said they own.

Microsoft owns the intellectual property for all components of the 360. That means they can shop the manufacturing around to whoever is the cheapest at any given time. Sony is decidedly less flexible in this regard since they don't own everything and they produce in thier own plants. Should next generation process technologies become significantly cheaper(as they will) Sony has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade thier plants before they can take advantage of it, Microsoft on the other hand merely has to go to TSMC, IBM or others who have already made that migration and negotiate a price. Being fabless is not necessarily a drawback, and due to the lack of fixed costs it is often an advantage. Just ask Ati and nVidia.

Of course no matter what there will be certain risk if Sony continue to drag on the release date for PS3. However, all along I've been expecting them to debut at Q3/Q4 2006, Japan. So if they're releasing it then I don't see any delay at all, Sony had never committed to any actual launch date.

All that you read on the net regarding summer/winter or whatever launch period are just pure estimations. Only when Sony comes out with the exact launch date and they couldn't deliver will we be able to say they have broken their promise on the delivery date.


Thats fine as your personal opinion. However Sony has repeatedly said 'Spring of 06' as the launch window. In fact, just yesterday Anandtech reported that Sony had reiterated that launch date. I don't see it happening and neither does anyone else. The earliest that seems possible is mid summer in Japan only, and fall in Japan seems far more likely. Its fine for you that you can decide that Sony hasn't broken their promise on a launch, however for the rest of us who don't make our own decisions about what Sony means when they say repeatedly 'Spring 06' I think its pretty obvious that a broken launch date means post-June 21st. You know, summer.

Last Edited on 02/21/06 @ 09:26 AM EST
#21 - recce - 02/21/06 @ 07:11 PM EST
#21, here we go again!

It's not an opinion, it's a fact that MS had all along been rushing out the 360 just so they can be the first to be on the market. In addition to that they also wanted to launch worldwide to cover ALL grounds on day 1. Too bad amidst the rush they actually forgot that they do not have enough units for the launch day so what did they do? They broke up the regions and ship to them on different dates. 3 months on, buyers are still struggling to find the 360 on store shelves in US.

Sounds kinda familiar?? You can't lump Nintendo and Sony together and say that just because Nintendo has a "mishap" on the N64 that automatically Sony will also have a "mishap". With such childish comparisons you won't even pass the grade in high school debates :)

Again we're talking about production cost here (which I've said more than once), not intellectual property. Obviously if you have studied management and business in university you would know what I meant by vertical integration and the advantages it will give you so no point for me to argue about something which you obviously had no idea of. It's not a matter of flexibility, it's a matter of total control of the supply and demand from one stage to another which ultimately helps to cut the overall cost on the manufacturing process.

If Sony need to spend millions to upgrade a plant for new technology, this argument is also applicable to ALL other companies MS went to so I'm not sure what point you're trying to bring across. Do you even know what you're talking about??

And BTW, MS don't own the graphics chip and technology, MS don't own the CPU chip and technology, MS don't own the DVD technology, MS don't own ANY chipsets, MS don't own ANY physical plant that produces electronics products etc (the main factor in manufacturing cost reduction).

In fact, MS need to pay Sony for the license to use the DVD technology.

Again Sony never promised ANY launch date, although they give an estimation of the period which the PS3 MAY launch (subject to changes of course). And BTW, they also didn't promised a simultaneous worldwide launch, which means the very first launch will be in Japan. So why are you insisting on believing rumors and gossips on the net? I'm sure you're much smarter than that?

#22 - Blessedman - 02/21/06 @ 08:20 PM EST
I said this like three days ago, the PS3 will never ship with a Blu_ray. If said cost of stand alone player is on the low side of 1000$ how do any partners in Blu_ray compete against even $600-800 ps3? It doesnt make any sense from trying to make it a dominate player in the market. We already know that sony can't do it alone, unless they just want another niche market (which they own alot of, lol). So by that reasoning and trying to stay in the console business they will skip Blu_ray in the ps3. They made so much hype around it though, it may force their hand in the battle for HD-DVD.

I am also willing to bet that MS took all that information and is probably the reason they choose to skip the HD-DVD player all together and get to market first.
#23 - recce - 02/21/06 @ 10:17 PM EST
#22, absolutely correct.

As MS wanted to rush to the market for the Q4 period of 2005, and at that point in time there is still a possibility that the HD-DVD format may be combined with Blu-Ray, MS chose to go with DVD format to (1) reduce their loss per unit sold, (2) wait until a decision is made between the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

Now that it's obvious both formats went their different ways, MS will of course side with HD-DVD, hence the announcement that they'll release a separate HD-DVD add-on for movie playback. But then the war between the formats is only beginning and MS wouldn't want to 100% commit on a format (HD-DVD) as it is possible they may lose. So they also state that whichever format wins they WILL support that format.

But you had a interesting point in saying that PS3 may not ship with Blu-Ray, do bear in mind that Sony had mentioned that the PS3 will be their biggest focus point in the years to come, meaning they've committed to heavily backing the PS3 as being a games machine, a movie playback machine, a web-enabled online and living home-centric entertainment center.

This means they'll want the PS3 to be future proof in terms of gaming, in terms of movie playback (with the new Blu-Ray format), in terms of content download (music/movie, online gaming), and most important of all in terms of linking ALL of Sony's other electonics to the PS3 and use the latter as the control center/hub.
#24 - Reflex - 02/22/06 @ 11:58 AM EST
recce - Keep drinking the cool aid buddy. This isn't on the front page anymore so I won't bother a detailed rebuttal since regardless of what I say you'll believe what you wish to.

I will however point out that while you are a fanboy who believes what is convenient to believe, I actually work for or have worked for many of the companies in question, or had a business relationship with them. This includes Sony, Microsoft, IBM, Toshiba, NEC, Intel, AMD and several others. I know how their businesses work, I know how their management works, I have a good idea of how thier finances are. Implying that I am coming from a point of ignorance is a method of avoiding what I am saying in lieu of attacking the messenger, and it scores you no points with anyone who understands the industry in the slightest.

You can believe what you wish, no one will stop you. But not everyone here is just a gamer, some of us are actually in the industry we are speaking about.
#25 - Blessedman - 02/22/06 @ 06:34 PM EST
lol this is like the cartoon of muhhamed. It doesnt affect ANYONE but people are still pissed off about it...
#26 - Nova Cat - 03/05/06 @ 09:08 PM EST
800 sounds ridiculous.
#27 - Shataan - 03/12/06 @ 10:51 AM EST
It IS rediculous. Anyone remember the 3DO? lolol
#28 - recce - 05/09/06 @ 01:51 AM EST
To #24, the one who claimed is in the industry and assumed others are less knowledgeable as him.

Believe what you will, the facts are out, and god bless you!
#29 - Skibadee - 11/12/06 @ 08:24 PM EST
It's 659.99 here in Canada. That's for the 60GB drive.

:tard:
Username: Please Login or Join GameGossip!

We would love to hear your opinion on this news story but you must be a GameGossip member to post! - You Must Register! (It is easy and free!)

 
 
:: STAFF :: COPYRIGHT :: CREDITS :: ADVERTISE :: LINK US :: ::
:: advertise ::
 
Page Load Time: 0.2020 seconds