Delay to PS3? • Gaming • PS3 • Eurogamer.net

Ginger 18 Feb 2006 21:17:36 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago

Merrill Lynch are reporting rumours of delays and massive price hike for the PS3. Obviously it's just a prediction rather than based on any source from inside Sony, but looks interesting...

the report

Oh, and it's just popped up on slashdot so the report might be a bit hard to get hold of for a while while everyone on slashdot hammers the server.

Edited by Ginger at 21:18:28 18-02-2006

oceanmotion 18 Feb 2006 21:24:01 17,358 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

It never had a chance of coming out in Spring anywhere. August for Japan, October/November for the US, March 07 for Europe.

The price won't be crazy. These folk have no clue about that. Everyone thought the PSP would be ridiculously priced but it was'nt. Still, I think the PS3 will be more expensive than the 360.

Now, show me the damn games being played on a working PS3 in its actual case with a final controller!

funk 18 Feb 2006 21:30:37 982 posts
Registered 19 years ago

i saw a supposed ps3 that looked like a tall/fat toaster
guessing its not the actual design, mercifully

Deleted user 18 February 2006 21:32:04

How can there be a delay to a system when we don't know the release dates?

oceanmotion 18 Feb 2006 21:36:34 17,358 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years ago

The internet knows all. One person's fact is truth while anothers is retarded gibberish.

Deleted user 18 February 2006 21:37:48

frod wrote:

deathgibbon wrote:
How can there be a delay to a system when we don't know the release dates?
We have one, sort of.

Damn. ;_;

Deleted user 18 February 2006 21:44:52

frod wrote:
Is this the report with the addition error in it? $900 should be $800.

Must be one of those analysts who can make predictions on company performance for investors who are willing to risk millions on his say-so... but who can't add up a column of numbers.

BartonFink 18 Feb 2006 22:45:27 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

Does it really matter if the guys can add

None of it is good news for Sony and by the looks of the report the industry in general. Now if MS and ATI could get off their arses and capitalise on what's going on things could get very interesting for a few years.

BartonFink 18 Feb 2006 23:01:52 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

LOL

Yup they are coming in fast and furious.
Good grief $800 just to manufacture one is incredible.
They had better have some seriously brilliant games or they are really in trouble.

darkmistx 18 Feb 2006 23:05:11 177 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

Post deleted

Xerx3s 18 Feb 2006 23:26:28 23,970 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 17 years ago

Well, you can assume that whatever sony ll tell you is a half truth or a total lie. Analysts dont even have the slightest clue about what they are talking. So that leaves is with just waiting for the actual machine. :\

Ginger 19 Feb 2006 01:43:46 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago

tengu wrote:
Also, the Blu-Ray drive... I'm no expert, but I've seen a few people on other forums say the BR drives cost is more like 100-200 dollars rather than 350. Any idea if this is right?

So let me get this straight, you trust the word of a few guys on forums over someone who has to find these things out for his job and likely has access to various sources over and above the ususal "guy down the pub"?

I'm not saying he's right, I was just submitting it as an interesting report, and yes, I did see the vested interest clause that was there.

I get the vague feelign there's a bit of PS3 fanboy blinkers going on here, but that could just be me misreading the posts.

Given that MS couldn't even get enough memory sourced, I think we can assume there will be some issues with the components for PS3 as well.

/devils advocate off

Deleted user 19 February 2006 01:47:15

BartonFink wrote:
Does it really matter if the guys can add

If someone was advising me where to stick millions of pounds of investment money i'd like to think that the figures they were giving about costs and profitablity were added up properly, yes

"Yes Mr Bear. Invest all of your worldly goods in Gizmondo. It's the real next gen"

"Fuck. I forgot to carry the one over. Deirdre, could you get Mr Bear on the phone please?"

Edited by Fozzie_bear at 01:48:10 19-02-2006

Ginger 19 Feb 2006 01:49:38 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago

tengu wrote:
I asked a question about whether this was right, that's all. Why the fuck would I trust the word of a guy who can't even count?

How do you know the guys on the forums can count

seriously, I have no idea about how much any of the components will cost, so yeah, he could have pulled them right out of his arse for all I know.

I'm pretty sure that DVD drives cost a few (3 - 4) hundred dollars when they were first out so his guess doesn't seem unreasonable.

Ginger 19 Feb 2006 01:51:07 7,256 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 19 years ago

tengu wrote:
Why is that? Because everyone isn't jumping for joy saying "HARHARHAR PS3 R TEH SHIT!1!"? Care to point out which posts have the 'fanboy blinkers' on?

No, I don't feel I need to point out the posts, as I said it was a general impression I got.

/goes for dinner

BartonFink 19 Feb 2006 01:51:07 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

Very funny but it's a little on the silly side to dismiss what was written in the report because of one little tyop.

Deleted user 19 February 2006 01:52:46

Quite right Barton. Finally, after 36 posts we finally get the voice of reason

Or maybe there was another typo and he was actually talking about ps4!

Edited by Fozzie_bear at 01:53:15 19-02-2006

phAge 19 Feb 2006 01:54:50 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

Easy now, tengu... Try and read *all* the comments before you commence face-stabbing. A lot of people are actually DOUBTING these reports, and NOT slagging off the PS3...

/steps back slowly

BartonFink 19 Feb 2006 02:00:54 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

Why not?

The BluRay drive looks like it's what's really pushing the price up. This was expected.

The CPU was always going to cost them a bit to make also pushing the price up.

Why is it so hard to believe?

Edited by BartonFink at 02:03:53 19-02-2006

phAge 19 Feb 2006 02:02:14 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

tengu wrote:
It can't be that high!

Why? I mean, the tech is a lot different from what the 360 is using (CPU, GPU, Blu-ray), and it has a lot of additional functions (TiVo for instance). What are you basing you assumptions on - other than hope? And does it really matter?

BartonFink 19 Feb 2006 02:06:48 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

Err wouldn't TiVo push the cost up even higher? (HDD)

phAge 19 Feb 2006 02:13:03 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

BartonFink wrote:
Err wouldn't TiVo push the cost up even higher? (HDD)

Yes - that was kinda what I was getting at...

BartonFink 19 Feb 2006 02:13:35 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

Yup and that's one of the things I have been blathering on about for ages now. At that sort of cost for just making them what are Sony going to do? If they go too high they are screwed. On the other hand how much of a loss are they prepared to take on the console? Too much of a loss and they are also screwed. Rock and hard place comes to mind.

phAge 19 Feb 2006 02:17:42 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years ago

Thing is, Sony can probably sell the PS3 for 40-60% more than MS can flog the 360 for, and still achieve similar or higher sales. The PlayStation brand is pure.fucking.gold.

I believe Sony and the PS3 will do just fine.

BartonFink 19 Feb 2006 02:26:31 35,268 posts
Seen 1 month ago
Registered 20 years ago

Yup no doubt they can possibly sell it at a hight price but 40% is probably the maximum they can go.

Yup the PlayStation brand is pure gold but it will only stay that way if they can keep the consumer happy.

Deleted user 19 February 2006 09:57:20

@darkmistx

Been in Egypt recently? ;-)

ssuellid 19 Feb 2006 10:57:46 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

frod wrote:
No way does Cell cost that much. It's not a huge core, and yields are good..

So good that they had to drop one SPE? Or 'reserve it for redundancy'.

Its is a comlex chip. Core size has little to do with its costs.

ssuellid 19 Feb 2006 11:23:52 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Cell was announced with 8 SPEs for use, then 7 to be used by the PS3 to increase yields. That is effectively dropping one.

BTW how can you justify the its not going to be expensive remark when nobody truely knows? Estimates have been not cheap to very expensive - $300 a unit.

Edited by ssuellid at 11:24:17 19-02-2006

Deleted user 19 February 2006 11:32:54

darkmistx wrote:
Seriously, some of you guys need to think for a moment before you post. Do you really think that the people who do the decision-making at Sony, are completely incompetent? Do you really think they'd design a console that would cost $800 to manufacture, and then try and compete with a rival console of similar capability, priced $400 lower, and which will probably get a price-cut by the time the ps3 is released?

It's not a question of competence, it's a question of the approach Sony chose to take.

Microsoft's desire to keep manufacturing costs of the 360 down after the losses they made with the original XBox are well documented. By using the PS3 as a trojan horse for the Blu Ray and cell technologies, Sony are playing a far more ambitious game. It could also be suggested that they are looking more long term than MS and are happy to shoulder those losses in return for a machine that has a greater amount of untapped power that developers will get more out of with time (pretty much as they did with the PS2).

As a result I can fully believe that the machine could cost twice as much to manufacture as the 360, but that doesn't make it wrong, or Sony incompetent; it's simply the result of the approach they have chosen to take with the machine.

ssuellid 19 Feb 2006 11:59:47 19,142 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Its not cheap to make them darkmistx. Even factoring out the plant costs.

Wafers are not cheap to make as they need exremely pure silicon - not just fron any old sand. Processing the wafer is not cheap either etc. And as you say the most expensive part is the packaging.

Edited by ssuellid at 12:13:25 19-02-2006