Print

[PS3Scene]

PS3 production costs cut by half Posted by XanTium | 12-1-2008 23:20 EST

From ps3fanboy.com: Due to the removal of various components from the PS3's innards, coupled with smaller chip size, Sony has been able to cut the production cost of the PS3 by half since last year. Each console can now be produced at $400 a unit, rather than the $800 it was costing for each PS3 around November 2006. It's not clear whether this is the case for both the 40GB and the 80GB models, but it seems fair to assume that the 40GB is now selling at cost. Full Story: ps3fanboy.com

[fiya]

still higher than the 360, its in the $300 range. Now if MS was smart they do an unexpected price drop, since they can afford to. Put more pressure on sony.

[FCTE]

QUOTE(fiya @ Jan 13 2008, 12:34 AM)

still higher than the 360, its in the $300 range. Now if MS was smart they do an unexpected price drop, since they can afford to. Put more pressure on sony.

Depends on the model.

The low end 40GB PS3 is only $50 more than the 360 Pro, but you get a lot more in hardware with the PS3 for your money like Blu-ray, Bluetooth, WiFi, twice as much storage, open hardware so your not stuck with expensive proprietary crap, and hardware that doesn't fail and sound like a 767 taking off.

Even the Elite is only give or take $50, not some huge gap, and quite honestly there's not much that is elite about the Elite.

Microsoft is barely hanging in the black and making money on the 360 as it is and don't forget the hefty repairs that are bleeding them. I don't see a price drop for at least another quarter, if not until next holiday.

[Chancer]

360 has no need to be cheaper. It already sells well with a huge catalogue of games etc.  No matter how cheap the consoles become there will always be people who want paying to take them away from the shops.
At this moment Sony are making quite a few moves to turn up the heat and not before time.
MGS4 should see the release of a special package.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(FCTE @ Jan 13 2008, 03:29 AM)

...The low end 40GB PS3 is only $50 more than the 360 Pro, but you get a lot more in hardware with the PS3 for your money like Blu-ray, Bluetooth, WiFi, twice as much storage, open hardware so your not stuck with expensive proprietary crap, and hardware that doesn't fail and sound like a 767 taking off. ...

This is always a completely Bs argument no matter which console you're siding with.

the hardware plays different games and that's the only thing that matters to gamers in the end.

you cant play halo and gears on the PS3 no matter how many features the hardware has and you can't play uncharted and resistance on the 360 no matter what.

The value of the hardware and overall feature list only really matter at one point and that's selling to both early adopters and developers at launch... that ship has sailed. Today's consumers in this generation are looking at the game catalog and the online service, and overall cost of ownership after hardware, accessories, and games, etc. AFTER THAT, if they still haven't made up their mind, they might start considering things like blu-ray or additional storage.

bluray wont bring you halo, and wifi wont bring you gears, twice as much hard drive space wont bring you mass effect and free online wont bring you Forza. Hardware is worthless if it wont run the software you want to play.

[Mr Invader]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Jan 13 2008, 11:02 AM)

This is always a completely Bs argument no matter which console you're siding with.
...

The 360 has much more flexibility in hardware choices.

$350 paid in September for Premium
+
$180 paid in December for HD-DVD player
+
$100 paid in February for Wi-fi
=
Still much easier and convenient for me to pay for than a $500 PS3 all at once IMO.

[fiya]

i was saying that since the start of the second half of last year MS production cost has been in the $300 range ( the premium costs them $330). They should be making a little profit on each console throughout last year ( the repairs didnt cut in to their profit as much as ppl think it did). With the huge sales surge that happened over the holidays for MS and the massive earnings they received as a result, i think MS can do a price drop anytime this year. They just need the right time.

QUOTE

360 has no need to be cheaper. It already sells well with a huge catalogue of games etc. No matter how cheap the consoles become there will always be people who want paying to take them away from the shops.

Thats a little small minded, both sony and MS are trying to get to a mass market price point (which is $200 or less) cause thats when the battle for the casual gamer really begins. Nintendo is practically there and that explains why they have the casual market locked, that also explains why the ps2 still does well. The ideal situation for both sony and MS is to reach that price point while still making a little profit.

[FCTE]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Jan 13 2008, 11:02 AM)

This is always a completely Bs argument no matter which console you're siding with.

the hardware plays different games and that's the only thing that matters to gamers in the end.

you cant play halo and gears on the PS3 no matter how many features the hardware has and you can't play uncharted and resistance on the 360 no matter what.

The value of the hardware and overall feature list only really matter at one point and that's selling to both early adopters and developers at launch... that ship has sailed. Today's consumers in this generation are looking at the game catalog and the online service, and overall cost of ownership after hardware, accessories, and games, etc. AFTER THAT, if they still haven't made up their mind, they might start considering things like blu-ray or additional storage.

bluray wont bring you halo, and wifi wont bring you gears, twice as much hard drive space wont bring you mass effect and free online wont bring you Forza. Hardware is worthless if it wont run the software you want to play.

The thread is about hardware and not having good software still has no bearing on the fact that you still get more machine dollar for dollar with the PS3.

Also, Blu-ray turned out to be pretty decent size factor for PS3 sales while being soft on the gaming side. It absolutely had an effect on the outcome of the HDM format war.

My theory is that Sony wanted to win the format war first, then focus on gaming. Now that Blu-ray has stuck a fork in HD DVD now they can get the PSN, Trophies, and Home rolling, while getting good exclusives lined up. 2008 should be a good year for the PS3.

Halo, Gears, and Forza 2 can be good examples, but Mass Effect was an absolutely horrible game from the cheesy predictable story line, to extremely boring side missions, abysmal planet "exploration" if you can call it that, lame AI, lag, God awful Mako controls, and texture pop ups.

[HotKnife420]

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Jan 14 2008, 02:26 AM)

The 360 has much more flexibility in hardware choices.

$350 paid in September for Premium
+
$180 paid in December for HD-DVD player
+
$100 paid in February for Wi-fi
=
Still much easier and convenient for me to pay for than a $500 PS3 all at once IMO.

 Yes, but if you're one of the many doing a HD-overhaul to your SDTV like so many people are right now, when you go to Best Buy, or some other stores, there's several different TV's that come with the PS3. You may have paid cash for everything, but the majority who shop large retailers use credit cards, and pay bit by bit anyway.

 My boy just bought a PS3, and instantly was able to hook it up to his HDTV, use his Bluetooth headset from his phone, enjoy wireless freedoms (some just can't run a cable like that), and instantly enjoys BluRays, and still has 5 coming for free via the special. He feels like he hit paydirt, and I don't blame him

 I've had a similar feeling. I bought a used 60GB PS3 (so it was a discount) because I wanted hardware BC, but it had a composite cable with it, and a Logitech controller(which uses batteries), and he couldn't find his box/reciept so I could cash in on the 5-free that he didn't know about. When I got it home, I quickly discovered I could use the component cable from my PS2 (which is dead and parted out), so I can hook it up to my TV (although I'd kill for way to get a VGA connection without shelling out $80+). I also enjoy that it uses Bluetooth devices. This allows for competition, wheras I paid $40 for a *used* 360 wireless headset (new is $20 more), I was able to grab a rechargeable Plantronics that was only $25 at Wal-Mart. I could've deal shopped if I wanted, and would have an equal chance of the headset working. Anyway, I've gotten online with it, downloaded some demos, saved my music & movies (much nicer video interface), etc. Got Madden 08 with the system, and bought NBA Street Homecourt for $9 @ CC, then 2 BOGOs on some BluRay movies! I feel like I still came out ahead.

[Chancer]

QUOTE(fiya @ Jan 14 2008, 02:14 AM)

Thats a little small minded, both sony and MS are trying to get to a mass market price point (which is $200 or less) cause thats when the battle for the casual gamer really begins. Nintendo is practically there and that explains why they have the casual market locked, that also explains why the ps2 still does well. The ideal situation for both sony and MS is to reach that price point while still making a little profit.

 Since when did they state this was the target retail price. Where are the statements from the companies? I missed them. That price is too low. I don't want cut down crap with cheap components to the point where we turn them into the piles of junk labelled as DVD players on the supermarket shelves.
 How do you propose they manage to sell at that level and turn a profit on the consoles.
You can sell them at $150 dollars but you will not attract the Grandma who bowls happily on the Wii. Somehow she won't want to play Halo 3.
Most PS2 gamers are not causal gamers. They will have had their PS2 for years and most likely game everyday on it. It does well because it is heavily supported with titles still and has an immense catalogue of games built up over years.
 Like I said. Whatever the price there will always be people who want something giving to them.
 I personally feel the 360 and PS3 are very good value for money.

[fiya]

QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 01:45 PM)

Since when did they state this was the target retail price. Where are the statements from the companies? I missed them. That price is too low. I don't want cut down crap with cheap components to the point where we turn them into the piles of junk labelled as DVD players on the supermarket shelves.
 How do you propose they manage to sell at that level and turn a profit on the consoles.
You can sell them at $150 dollars but you will not attract the Grandma who bowls happily on the Wii. Somehow she won't want to play Halo 3.
Most PS2 gamers are not causal gamers. They will have had their PS2 for years and most likely game everyday on it. It does well because it is heavily supported with titles still and has an immense catalogue of games built up over years.
 Like I said. Whatever the price there will always be people who want something giving to them.
 I personally feel the 360 and PS3 are very good value for money.

PSone started at $400 and ended at $99. Ps2 Started at $300 and is now $150, same for xbox.....EVERY console strives for that price point. MS did say that they want to get to that mass market price point.

If sony can cut the manufactoring costs of the ps3 by half in one year, then why cant they get to that price with profitability, eventually? Keep in mind that the 360 is still cheaper to manufacture than the ps3 so they are more likely to reach price point first.


The Ps2 cannot sell over a 100 million consoles and not have a large amount of casual gamers. I mean it still sells well. Immense catalog or not if your just now owning a ps2 then u cannot be considered a hardcore gamer. I mean 500,000 gamers bought the ps2 during black friday! You honestly believe those numbers represent hardcore gamers?

[Chancer]

QUOTE

EVERY console strives for that price point. MS did say that they want to get to that mass market price point.  

 Links to official statements?

QUOTE

Immense catalog or not if your just now owning a ps2 then u cannot be considered a hardcore gamer

 who defines hardcore gamer. what is this some elite breed. You forget one thing. Tomorrows gamers (hardcore, softcore whatever core) are the biggest group of people you have overlooked. Young kids who are just getting to the age where they want to play a lot of games. As you don't know how many console sales represent new gamers or those only just able to afford their own console to fulfil a passion, your statement is based on you supposition.
Face it many "hardcore gamers" don't own either a 360 or PS3. Because someone owns a PS2 or has only just purchase one doesn't mean they will not really buy any games or play it much.

[fiya]

QUOTE

Links to official statements?

MS needs to get to mass market appeal to combat wii

It doesnt specifically mention "$200 or less" but its no secret that that is considered the mass market price point. Anybody who knows anyting about the industry knows that each console usually peak financially at that price point. Getting there is the problem.

This is why Nintendo makes it top priority to launch as close as possible at that price point, with every console since the n64. Even if it means crippling the power of the console.

There ya go

Here is a better link for ya...

QUOTE

1UP: What is the mass-market price, and when will Xbox 360 achieve that?

Shane Kim: If you look back in history -- again, it's not just going to follow what's in history -- in some cases, 75 to 80 percent of the business gets done $199 and below. So, we're not quite there yet. I think that number can change over time because of inflation, greater capabilities; what we can do what Xbox 360, even the core system, is far beyond what you could do before in previous generations. Who knows? Maybe $249 will be a mass-market price point -- but historically, $199 has been when you're talking a PlayStation 2-like install base. 80 percent of the business gets done at $199 and below. We're like the other guys, right?

We're trying to drive costs out of the system as much as possible so we can hit those price points. We're a little closer than Sony is with PlayStation 3, thankfully, but we're all trying to get that magic price point.

[FCTE]

QUOTE

Of course, this point assumes patience and having good PC hardware (relative to today's standard). Some people might try to argue that inserting PC gaming into a console discussion is misplaced, but there's no denying that PC is still, and maybe always will be, the largest gaming platform; the PS3 is not the Xbox 360's only competition.

It's waning in a lot of ways, while I would never have the nerve to say or believe PC gaming is dying, it definitely is shrinking. Especially if you look at the release of UT3 and Crysis, two of the most anticipated PC games in 2007, whose figures were abysmal and both bombed at the register.

The major problem with PC gaming is the cost vs. utility of doing it.

Yes PC is superior in ever way and last gen I gamed on PC almost entirely and only rarely used an Xbox for Forza or Halo 2. However it comes at a heavy cost and with current consoles the gap between PC and console is even smaller then ever. With HDTV the graphics are heavily improved and the online services have greatly improved. Now of course a good PC can blow away a 360 in graphics, but at what cost?

I made the move to consoles for the cost effective aspect. Even owning a 360 and PS3 and a nice HDTV is nothing compared to what I dumped into gaming PCs over the years. I do miss the keyboard/mouse controls sometimes, but I don't miss the money pit of hardware costs.

PC gaming in the US is shrinking while consoles are gaining. The PC retains it's popularity in Europe a little more than the US at this point, but I think Europe has always been a little more PC centric. Plus, Europe gets  shafted a lot with consoles like missing or late: console launches, services, features, and console revisions. They have a right to be a little pissed.

QUOTE('fiya')

Immense catalog or not if your just now owning a ps2 then u cannot be considered a hardcore gamer.

 
I've never owned a PS2 and I've been supporting the gaming industry since the Atari 2600 and Commodore 64. I preferred the PC and Xbox last gen and didn't care for the PS2.  

I hate hate hate the term "hardcore gamer." Especially when it is bastardized for labeling FPS lovers.

Not everyone likes every console or owns every console every generation. A hardcore gamer is simply a gamer who's going to support the gaming industry in one way or another through it's good and bad times and has an immense love of games.

While casual gamers are usually only in it for a short time and are fickle..................... which is why a certain console manufacturer has earned my hatred the last few generations for bringing more of these ilk into the community, but I digress, and that conversation could fill an entire thread on it's own.

Ironic that the very company who brought the gaming industry back from the dead in the mid 80's may now be responsible for crashing it again in the future.