Is it just me, or does this happen to everything I'm waiting for?
Though Sony claims that they're still aiming for a spring release of their new console, their interpretation of 'spring' is quickly stretching to include months like June, July, August, and even next December, according to some speculations.
The release date is said to be reliant upon decisions about hardware specifications for the Blu-Ray DVD technology. These decisions are made by industry consortiums, and are not within Sony's direct control.
This news does not bode well for game developers, either. Without firm specifications, they can only guess at exactly how to build their games. The final result is not likely to take full advantage of the PS3's abilities.
With soaring predicted costs and no firm release date in sight, how will Sony continue to compete in the console market? No one wants to see a repeat of the Dreamcast fiasco--but, more importantly, no one wants to own it. If Sony fans are too scared of a bust to invest in the PS3, the console is in real trouble.
Source:
cnn.com
| Hamedo | Comment 1: 2006-02-21 16:21 |
![Hamedo]() |
The X-Box is primed to take the lead in the console wars, possibly. I don't believe that Nintendo will ever be a major player again in the console market, but the handheld will keep them afloat for a while. Sony and Microsoft will be duking it out for several more years to come, but I wonder if this error on Sony's part is not the boost that Microsoft needs to overtake them in sales. |
| laszlow | Comment 2: 2006-02-21 16:33 |
![laszlow]() |
Here's another reason to worry. If that Merrill Lynch estimate is true, then the production ccost othe PS3 would be a massive $900, and if Sony were to put any reasonable pricetag on it they'd be selling at a huge loss. It seems that every single bit of news I read on the PS3 is getting more and more negative. We really can't know until the damn thing launches, but all of these delays and price rumors can't bode well. |
| Hamedo | Comment 3: 2006-02-21 17:17 |
![Hamedo]() |
Good piece of info on the Merrill Lynch, Laszlow. I hadn't heard anything like that. |
| BASSsic | Comment 4: 2006-02-21 19:15 |
![BASSsic]() |
Yeah. Sony are going to charge $700 a console to keep losses per unit around the same as Microsoft.
Sorry, but no. They have their own business plan, I'm sure. They are going to release at relatively reasonable price. They are going to take the losses on the hardware. Why? Because what they are going to gain from millions buying masses of units of software for it, as well as online subs, and any premium downloads. Same as Microsoft. They are getting established, already, and things are looking brighter and brighter for them, despite hardware losses.
You can't source together guestimates from a bunch of unofficial sources and conclude that there will be a underpowered and overpriced console. Besides, with all these 'guerilla advertising' stories, would it really be such a stretch of the imagination to pin all these negative stories to one related source? Not an established competitor? No?
Lets all stick to trashing consoles that actually excist, we actually have targets to hit that way. 
Nintendo Revolution, that have a luanch day yet? Any offical word from Nintendo? No?
They screwed? |
| yelanates | Comment 5: 2006-02-21 20:41 |
![yelanates]() |
Quote (BASSsic @ 21st February 2006 14:15) Sorry, but no. They have their own business plan, I'm sure. They are going to release at relatively reasonable price. They are going to take the losses on the hardware. Why? Because what they are going to gain from millions buying masses of units of software for it, as well as online subs, and any premium downloads. Same as Microsoft. They are getting established, already, and things are looking brighter and brighter for them, despite hardware losses.
As I recall, Sony has stated that they are going to take a loss in the price of the console so keep it 'reasonably priced'. I would expect 400 dollars, which is competetive tio the XBox 360.
Still, I can't help but wonder where this will go. Sony's had problems with deadlines before. And if it comes to waiting another year, plus a year after taht for it to drop in price, I'd just as soon go with the XBox 360, which I'e refrained from for the PS3. Unless the PS3 soars above the Xbox in features, there's gonna be some problems for Sony. |
| laszlow | Comment 6: 2006-02-21 21:03 |
![laszlow]() |
Each 360 sold is around a $150 loss for Microsoft, while at $400 every PS3 sold would be a $500 loss for Sony. That is simply ridiculous. You have to wonder, if that cost estimate is true (and Merrill Lynch is pretty damn reputable as investment firms go), how on earth is Sony going to make money? |
| BASSsic | Comment 7: 2006-02-22 11:09 |
![BASSsic]() |
Thankfully that is not my conundrum to solve, I'll be grabbing a Rev first.  |
| Rangers51 | Comment 8: 2006-02-22 12:57 |
![Rangers51]() |
Quote (karasuman @ 21st February 2006 10:46) The release date is said to be reliant upon decisions about hardware specifications for the Blu-Ray DVD technology. These decisions are made by industry consortiums, and are not within Sony's direct control.
Blu-Ray has been Sony's pet project, though. They're one of the biggest names behind developing it in ther first place. I realise that the consortiums (in this case the ISO, no?) have to exert their responsibilities, but it's just something Sony should have prepared for.
My thought is that Sony might be doing this simply to try to force Blu-Ray as the next media. Would they be willing to take massive losses on their console in order to try to trump HD-DVD? I think they might, especially because those losses would be short-lived. Like any new technology, the prices of producing Blu-Ray media and readers will drop, which will cut the losses as sales of the console peak. I think you have to envision the demand for PS3 consoles as a classic bell curve, perhaps weighted a bit toward the "early adopter" side, and the costs for producing each console as more or less linear, trending downward. There's still room to make money over time, and the losses incurred can also be made up by making Blu-Ray cheaper across the board, in PS3s, video players, even PCs.
It's a ballsy move, but it's Sony. They've earned the right to be ballsy.
Now, this naturally leads into the idiocy of two competing media formats for post-DVD storage. But that's not really pertinent to this particular conversation, lucky for us. |
| strikerbolt | Comment 9: 2006-02-23 01:28 |
![strikerbolt]() |
Great, first the Halo 2, now this...
What the hell is Sony thinking?! Looks like later I'm getting an X-box 360 because at this rate the PS3 won't be coming out for a few years.
At $900 a pop too! that extremely limits the sales market. Im lucky to make that amount in a few months time, and thats if im working in the summer full hours, no days off or anything! |
| Hamedo | Comment 10: 2006-02-23 15:56 |
![Hamedo]() |
I'm with you, Strikerbolt. There are many of us here who work decent full time jobs for decent pay, who would still have a hard time pulling up 900 spare bucks for a console. I don't think Sony will actually charge that, mind you.... but if I'm not going to swing 400 bucks for a system that I really want like the 360, I'll be damned if I'm going to pay 400 bucks, or a penny more, for a PS3. |
| laszlow | Comment 11: 2006-02-23 19:05 |
![laszlow]() |
Here's another tidbit. Evidentally PS3 dev kit costs around $20,000, which is around double that of a PS2's and quadruple that of a PS1's back in the day. The Revolution's dev kit is only two thousand. If this shows some kind of pattern, it is extremely likely the the Rev could end up costing less than two hundred dollars at launch. Interesting, no? |
| Hamedo | Comment 12: 2006-02-23 19:44 |
![Hamedo]() |
I still wouldn't have a Revolution. Nintendo jumped the shark with the Super NES. Their best console ever, IMHO. |
| Rangers51 | Comment 13: 2006-02-23 20:07 |
![Rangers51]() |
Quote (Hamedo @ 23rd February 2006 14:44) I still wouldn't have a Revolution. Nintendo jumped the shark with the Super NES. Their best console ever, IMHO.
That makes me want to re-quote BASSic above. I don't intend to buy any of the new consoles, but I don't see any reason to think that the Revo will just be useless as yet. |
| BASSsic | Comment 14: 2006-02-24 01:24 |
![BASSsic]() |
Quote (laszlow @ 23rd February 2006 14:05) Here's another tidbit. Evidentally PS3 dev kit costs around $20,000, which is around double that of a PS2's and quadruple that of a PS1's back in the day. The Revolution's dev kit is only two thousand. If this shows some kind of pattern, it is extremely likely the the Rev could end up costing less than two hundred dollars at launch. Interesting, no?
The Xbox dev kits cost £30,000 when it first came out and are still worth £10,000 today. Just so you know.
And yes I mean Xbox 1.0 |
| strikerbolt | Comment 15: 2006-02-24 02:59 |
![strikerbolt]() |
At the moment, I'm doing a Semester-long project in Economics where I keep record of stocks and investments.
So, I can legally blame Sony for the poor grade I'm going to get on this project. |
| Please Log In to Add Comments |
