PS3 to $299 rumor? (OP Updated: SD links)
- Thread starter velvet396
- Start date
[quote name='Wolfpup']Regarding backwards compatibility, I really wish Sony had used the PS2-on-a-chip as part of the PS3's design, the way they did for the PS2. It's not THAT expensive of a chip. Use it for I/O again, or let developers use it as a sound processor or something.[/quote]
They did. That's what's in the 20GB and 60GB units. That chip (the GS+EE) costs roughly $50 in bulk, and adds significantly to the unit's cost. That's why it got stripped out for the 40GB. They had to cut SOMETHING to get the cost down. GS+EE (and its associated RAM), USB ports and card readers was the easiest way to get the job done without crippling core functionality--PS3 games and Blu-Ray playback.
They did. That's what's in the 20GB and 60GB units. That chip (the GS+EE) costs roughly $50 in bulk, and adds significantly to the unit's cost. That's why it got stripped out for the 40GB. They had to cut SOMETHING to get the cost down. GS+EE (and its associated RAM), USB ports and card readers was the easiest way to get the job done without crippling core functionality--PS3 games and Blu-Ray playback.
mukeliller
CAG Veteran
Does anyone think that the 80G PS3s will go down in average cost on ebay when the new models some out?
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='geko29']They did. That's what's in the 20GB and 60GB units. That chip (the GS+EE) costs roughly $50 in bulk, and adds significantly to the unit's cost. That's why it got stripped out for the 40GB. They had to cut SOMETHING to get the cost down. GS+EE (and its associated RAM), USB ports and card readers was the easiest way to get the job done without crippling core functionality--PS3 games and Blu-Ray playback.[/QUOTE]
There is no possible way that chip costs Sony $50. $10, maybe, though I'd be surprised (I'd guess a few bucks, maybe $5). But there's no conceivable way that chip costs $50. Not when much larger, more complex, more expensive chips can be sold to end consumers at a PROFIT for LESS.
And there shouldn't be any RAM associated with it. It should be using the Playstation 3's RAM exclusively, as the PS1 on a chip (that's now embedded in the PS2 on a chip) does.
From a consumer perspective that chip should be adding a negligible cost to the unit. Companies are always trying to shave off even 5¢ costs from products to get costs down as it adds up for them in mass quantities, but *WE* should be demanding it. There's no upside for US to having it removed.
There is no possible way that chip costs Sony $50. $10, maybe, though I'd be surprised (I'd guess a few bucks, maybe $5). But there's no conceivable way that chip costs $50. Not when much larger, more complex, more expensive chips can be sold to end consumers at a PROFIT for LESS.
And there shouldn't be any RAM associated with it. It should be using the Playstation 3's RAM exclusively, as the PS1 on a chip (that's now embedded in the PS2 on a chip) does.
From a consumer perspective that chip should be adding a negligible cost to the unit. Companies are always trying to shave off even 5¢ costs from products to get costs down as it adds up for them in mass quantities, but *WE* should be demanding it. There's no upside for US to having it removed.
[quote name='Wolfpup']There is no possible way that chip costs Sony $50. $10, maybe, though I'd be surprised (I'd guess a few bucks, maybe $5). But there's no conceivable way that chip costs $50. Not when much larger, more complex, more expensive chips can be sold to end consumers at a PROFIT for LESS.[/quote] You're WAY off. It's actually $27. They were $50 when they were seperate chips (and associated logic). Just plugged in the wrong number there, sorry. But as you'll see below, $27 isn't the whole cost.
[quote name='Wolfpup'] And there shouldn't be any RAM associated with it. It should be using the Playstation 3's RAM exclusively, as the PS1 on a chip (that's now embedded in the PS2 on a chip) does.[/quote] COMPLETELY WRONG on both counts.
First, the GS+EE setup REQUIRES 32MB of RDRAM. It CANNOT interface with any other type of memory technology (including the XDR and GDDR3 found in the PS3), much like the EE can't talk to any graphics chip other than the GS. The 40GB PS3 has 0MB of RDRAM. It is not possible to work around this low-level hardware limitation. Granted, this only adds $5-7 to the cost, but now we're in the $32-34 range (wholesale cost) for PS2 BC. Several orders of magnitude more than the $5 that you claim.
Second, There is NO PS1 processor in the PS3. Not in any version of it. PS1 backward compatibility always has been, and always will be, software emulation. If you were right, then PS1 compatibility would have gone out the window when the 40GB was introduced (or even more likely, with the 80 dropping the EE), because the hardware would be gone. But my mom plays her PS1 games just fine on her 40GB. PS1 BC in the PS2 was/is handled by including the PS1 processor on the logic board, and using it to handle the controller interface. But it is NOT integrated into the GS+EE, it's a completely seperate chip.
[quote name='Wolfpup']From a consumer perspective that chip should be adding a negligible cost to the unit. Companies are always trying to shave off even 5¢ costs from products to get costs down as it adds up for them in mass quantities, but *WE* should be demanding it. There's no upside for US to having it removed.[/quote] 10% of the total manufacturing cost is "negligible"?!?! A company would be lucky to have you as a design engineer....
We're not talking 5¢ here. Try almost 700 times that amount. If shaving 5¢ is a major accomplishment, how big a deal do you think shaving $32 is?
And there is an upside for us. We get a cheaper console. If they hadn't taken out the GS+EE, the USB ports, and the memory card slots, the 40GB would be $500. Go ahead and demand it. But don't expect to get it for free if it is actually offered. Sony isn't in business to lose money making you happy. If you (speaking of the general "you") want the features, you gotta pay for 'em. The market has told Sony that people either don't want the features, or they want them, but aren't willing to pay for them. Therefore, they're gone. Corporation != charity.
[quote name='Wolfpup'] And there shouldn't be any RAM associated with it. It should be using the Playstation 3's RAM exclusively, as the PS1 on a chip (that's now embedded in the PS2 on a chip) does.[/quote] COMPLETELY WRONG on both counts.
First, the GS+EE setup REQUIRES 32MB of RDRAM. It CANNOT interface with any other type of memory technology (including the XDR and GDDR3 found in the PS3), much like the EE can't talk to any graphics chip other than the GS. The 40GB PS3 has 0MB of RDRAM. It is not possible to work around this low-level hardware limitation. Granted, this only adds $5-7 to the cost, but now we're in the $32-34 range (wholesale cost) for PS2 BC. Several orders of magnitude more than the $5 that you claim.
Second, There is NO PS1 processor in the PS3. Not in any version of it. PS1 backward compatibility always has been, and always will be, software emulation. If you were right, then PS1 compatibility would have gone out the window when the 40GB was introduced (or even more likely, with the 80 dropping the EE), because the hardware would be gone. But my mom plays her PS1 games just fine on her 40GB. PS1 BC in the PS2 was/is handled by including the PS1 processor on the logic board, and using it to handle the controller interface. But it is NOT integrated into the GS+EE, it's a completely seperate chip.
[quote name='Wolfpup']From a consumer perspective that chip should be adding a negligible cost to the unit. Companies are always trying to shave off even 5¢ costs from products to get costs down as it adds up for them in mass quantities, but *WE* should be demanding it. There's no upside for US to having it removed.[/quote] 10% of the total manufacturing cost is "negligible"?!?! A company would be lucky to have you as a design engineer....
We're not talking 5¢ here. Try almost 700 times that amount. If shaving 5¢ is a major accomplishment, how big a deal do you think shaving $32 is?And there is an upside for us. We get a cheaper console. If they hadn't taken out the GS+EE, the USB ports, and the memory card slots, the 40GB would be $500. Go ahead and demand it. But don't expect to get it for free if it is actually offered. Sony isn't in business to lose money making you happy. If you (speaking of the general "you") want the features, you gotta pay for 'em. The market has told Sony that people either don't want the features, or they want them, but aren't willing to pay for them. Therefore, they're gone. Corporation != charity.
[quote name='Wolfpup']There is no possible way that chip costs Sony $50. $10, maybe, though I'd be surprised (I'd guess a few bucks, maybe $5). But there's no conceivable way that chip costs $50. Not when much larger, more complex, more expensive chips can be sold to end consumers at a PROFIT for LESS.[/QUOTE]
I love when people talk about stuff they have NO clue about , lol
you might as well have said "come on, that chip is so small , it can't cost more than 5 cents to make"
If your trying to compare this chip to a CPU made by Intel or AMD, there is no comparison.
Personally I don't give a crap about BC, so I'm glad sony took it out to make the console cheaper. I bet the percentage of PS3 owners who actually use the BC feature is in the 20-30% (at best). why make the majority pay more for something they arn't going to use?
I love when people talk about stuff they have NO clue about , lol
you might as well have said "come on, that chip is so small , it can't cost more than 5 cents to make"
If your trying to compare this chip to a CPU made by Intel or AMD, there is no comparison.
Personally I don't give a crap about BC, so I'm glad sony took it out to make the console cheaper. I bet the percentage of PS3 owners who actually use the BC feature is in the 20-30% (at best). why make the majority pay more for something they arn't going to use?
[quote name='geko29']You're WAY off. It's actually $27....Several orders of magnitude more than the $5 that you claim....[/quote]
Actually, I'd say that you are WAY off. If you are going to speak in terms of "orders of magnitude" he wasn't very far off at all. 1 order of maginute more than $5 is $50. Several (let's say 3) would be $5000. Hell he is roughly only off by .5 orders of magnitude
Actually, I'd say that you are WAY off. If you are going to speak in terms of "orders of magnitude" he wasn't very far off at all. 1 order of maginute more than $5 is $50. Several (let's say 3) would be $5000. Hell he is roughly only off by .5 orders of magnitude
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='geko29']You're WAY off. It's actually $27. They were $50 when they were seperate chips (and associated logic). Just plugged in the wrong number there, sorry. But as you'll see below, $27 isn't the whole cost.[/quote]
They don't site their sources, but $27 is very hard to believe. It just doesn't add up when more expensive chips can be sold at a profit for amount like that.
That's why you tweak it so it does work with the PS3's RAM, just as was done for the PS1, etc.
AFAIK the PS2-on-a-chip used in the Playstation 2 contains the PS1-on-a-chip that was originally a separate chip. It's possible the PS3 is using a different version that doesn't contain those, but if not that hardware is still there even if it isn't being used. Regardless, that doesn't really have anything to do with anything in terms of this discussion. I think my original point was that they could have used the PS2-on-a-chip as an I/O controller or something as they did on the Playstation 2.
Obviously I never said 10% of the cost. Even if it really does cost them $27 I think they should do it, but they really should if it's more in line with what I think it is. Plus it might have been able to replace other hardware in the PS3 had they designed it the way they did the PS2 in regards to the PS1.
They don't site their sources, but $27 is very hard to believe. It just doesn't add up when more expensive chips can be sold at a profit for amount like that.
That's why you tweak it so it does work with the PS3's RAM, just as was done for the PS1, etc.
AFAIK the PS2-on-a-chip used in the Playstation 2 contains the PS1-on-a-chip that was originally a separate chip. It's possible the PS3 is using a different version that doesn't contain those, but if not that hardware is still there even if it isn't being used. Regardless, that doesn't really have anything to do with anything in terms of this discussion. I think my original point was that they could have used the PS2-on-a-chip as an I/O controller or something as they did on the Playstation 2.
10% of the total manufacturing cost is "negligible"?!?! A company would be lucky to have you as a design engineer....
Obviously I never said 10% of the cost. Even if it really does cost them $27 I think they should do it, but they really should if it's more in line with what I think it is. Plus it might have been able to replace other hardware in the PS3 had they designed it the way they did the PS2 in regards to the PS1.
[quote name='Wolfpup']Upconverting has nothing to do with the aspect ratio of a game.
Regarding backwards compatibility, I really wish Sony had used the PS2-on-a-chip as part of the PS3's design, the way they did for the PS2. It's not THAT expensive of a chip. Use it for I/O again, or let developers use it as a sound processor or something.[/quote]
Well the PS1 chip in the PS2 did double duty as a sound chip and to play ps1 games BC. I think even if the PS2 chip did double duty, it would keep the price of the PS3 high anyway. PS2 Slims are still selling for $129. I think they had no choice but to go with software emulation for the EE chip.
As for 80gb's. They are disappearing quick in Northern Virginia. I saw the last five 80gb in stock at my local CC last week and now they are gone. Funny, they still have a 20gb for $500. If they dropped the price of that 20gb to something reasonable (under $400) it will sell in an instant. I guess the recent BB announcement pushed people of the fence to get BC PS3's while they can.
Regarding backwards compatibility, I really wish Sony had used the PS2-on-a-chip as part of the PS3's design, the way they did for the PS2. It's not THAT expensive of a chip. Use it for I/O again, or let developers use it as a sound processor or something.[/quote]
Well the PS1 chip in the PS2 did double duty as a sound chip and to play ps1 games BC. I think even if the PS2 chip did double duty, it would keep the price of the PS3 high anyway. PS2 Slims are still selling for $129. I think they had no choice but to go with software emulation for the EE chip.
As for 80gb's. They are disappearing quick in Northern Virginia. I saw the last five 80gb in stock at my local CC last week and now they are gone. Funny, they still have a 20gb for $500. If they dropped the price of that 20gb to something reasonable (under $400) it will sell in an instant. I guess the recent BB announcement pushed people of the fence to get BC PS3's while they can.
[quote name='MadFlava']Funny, they still have a 20gb for $500. If they dropped the price of that 20gb to something reasonable (under $400) it will sell in an instant. I guess the recent BB announcement pushed people of the fence to get BC PS3's while they can.[/QUOTE]
Wow, and I thought the $465 my local Sam's Club is charging for the 20GB with an extra controller I saw yesterday was a ripoff (they also have a Gamecube with Harvest Moon and an extra controller for $165). Who is going to pay $500 for a 20GB even with the EE.
Wow, and I thought the $465 my local Sam's Club is charging for the 20GB with an extra controller I saw yesterday was a ripoff (they also have a Gamecube with Harvest Moon and an extra controller for $165). Who is going to pay $500 for a 20GB even with the EE.
Ice2Dragon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 24 (100%)
Now that I have a white dual shock controller.
I want a white ps3 -_-V
Damnit.
I want a white ps3 -_-V
Damnit.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
[quote name='MadFlava']Well the PS1 chip in the PS2 did double duty as a sound chip and to play ps1 games BC. I think even if the PS2 chip did double duty, it would keep the price of the PS3 high anyway. PS2 Slims are still selling for $129. I think they had no choice but to go with software emulation for the EE chip.[/quote]
The PS1 chip is used for I/O. The Playstation 2 was the cheapest of the three systems to manufacture for most of it's run-they charge what they charge because they can. It's still really successful, and they can make a big profit on it. No need for them to go lower. Nintendo's doing the same thing to an even larger degree with the Wii.
The PS2 chip might cost more than what they're using as kind of a southbridge in the PS3 now, but doing something like that would have been the way to go IMO.
The PS1 chip is used for I/O. The Playstation 2 was the cheapest of the three systems to manufacture for most of it's run-they charge what they charge because they can. It's still really successful, and they can make a big profit on it. No need for them to go lower. Nintendo's doing the same thing to an even larger degree with the Wii.
The PS2 chip might cost more than what they're using as kind of a southbridge in the PS3 now, but doing something like that would have been the way to go IMO.
Pure Apathy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 129 (100%)
[quote name='daminion']Possibly not the right place to ask it... but do all flavors of the PS3 now come with the ability to connect to a wireless network? I know the 20GB version lacked this. Is it standard on the 40 and 80 models?[/quote]
Yes they do.
Yes they do.
Sony could easily drop the price of the 40gig to 379 (dont include spiderman) and drop the price of the 80gig to 449 (dont include motorstorm) for quick boost in sales without it effecting their redlines.
But WILL they do it????
A bigger drop for the 40gig to 349 and the 80gig to 399 would be the 1,2 punch to drive sales into the ps2 levels but we may have to wait until Nov 2008 until that happens.
But WILL they do it????
A bigger drop for the 40gig to 349 and the 80gig to 399 would be the 1,2 punch to drive sales into the ps2 levels but we may have to wait until Nov 2008 until that happens.
[quote name='Ivanhoe']Sony could easily drop the price of the 40gig to 379 (dont include spiderman) and drop the price of the 80gig to 449 (dont include motorstorm) for quick boost in sales without it effecting their redlines.
[/QUOTE]
not really.
Do you really think it cost Sony $50 to manufacture Motorstorm, and $20 to manufacture Spiderman?
[/QUOTE]
not really.
Do you really think it cost Sony $50 to manufacture Motorstorm, and $20 to manufacture Spiderman?
defiance_17
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 55 (100%)
Since HD DVD is effectively dead, I would say now is the perfect time for Sony to regain some ground.
At $299, I'd pounce on a Blu-Ray player.
At $299, I'd pounce on a Blu-Ray player.
doubledown
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='slidecage']since netflix and BB have both said they wont carry HD DVDS anymore Got to wonder how this will effect xbox 360 and the ps3. since it looks like te HD DVD side might be a goner[/QUOTE]
Best Buy still carries HD-DVD
BlockBuster still rents them online
Best Buy still carries HD-DVD
BlockBuster still rents them online
[quote name='Foladar']and Netflix is suppose to carry them through the year, so I wouldn't count that in yet.[/QUOTE]
was on the radio yesterday that both netflix and blockbuster said they will no longer carry HD DVDS also said something about 4 out of the 6 major companies will no longer put movies out on HD DVD
not sure where they got the info from
was on the radio yesterday that both netflix and blockbuster said they will no longer carry HD DVDS also said something about 4 out of the 6 major companies will no longer put movies out on HD DVD
not sure where they got the info from
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Foladar']and Netflix is suppose to carry them through the year, so I wouldn't count that in yet.[/QUOTE]
The important thing to note is that, from this point forward, they won't stock any new releases (though current titles will be used until they are exhausted (through theft or abuse). So no Sweeney Todd HD DVD from Netflix, or There Will Be Blood. Boo for HD DVD owners.
The important thing to note is that, from this point forward, they won't stock any new releases (though current titles will be used until they are exhausted (through theft or abuse). So no Sweeney Todd HD DVD from Netflix, or There Will Be Blood. Boo for HD DVD owners.
Wolfpup
CAGiversary!
HD DVD was dead before it launched. I'm kind of baffled by some reaction I've seen as though it actually had a chance. Only movement forward it ever got was getting Viacom to agree to that $150 million temporary exclusivity deal.
[quote name='chasemurata']I'd buy it at $299 (USD). Of course, I presume that it will include a controller, hard disk drive, and all necessary cables. I wouldn't be interested in purchasing a barebones deal.[/QUOTE]
It's never included HD cables, though it just uses the same connections the Playstation 1 and 2 do, or a regular HDMI cable.
[quote name='chasemurata']I'd buy it at $299 (USD). Of course, I presume that it will include a controller, hard disk drive, and all necessary cables. I wouldn't be interested in purchasing a barebones deal.[/QUOTE]
It's never included HD cables, though it just uses the same connections the Playstation 1 and 2 do, or a regular HDMI cable.
Larrabee213
CAGiversary!
Has anyone seen any rumors about a new PS3 sku coming out of GDC or a price drop? I need to pick one up in the next week, but don't want to get screwed when I buy a 40GB SKU.
I would go to circuit city as they could return it/pricematch, but I have $200 in credit towards Gamestop, and their return policy sucks.
Thanks,
Kevin
I would go to circuit city as they could return it/pricematch, but I have $200 in credit towards Gamestop, and their return policy sucks.
Thanks,
Kevin
orangeninja2
CAGiversary!
Since the announcement last month that Sony will no longer be replacing PS3 80gb inventories, I haven't heard a peep about a replacement SKU. I'm in the same boat, as I know as soon as I pick one up, a big announcement will be made...
The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
This should be asked in the PS3 forum (what's with one console stuff doing in GG anyway, like this thread and the ToV thread?).
As for new SKU, we dunno. The one being rumored has more features, but is basically a 40GB with a larger HDD, maybe more USB ports and other stuff.
Also, there might not be a price drop so soon since they see an easing of the PS3 price pressure:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2152593520080222?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
As for new SKU, we dunno. The one being rumored has more features, but is basically a 40GB with a larger HDD, maybe more USB ports and other stuff.
Also, there might not be a price drop so soon since they see an easing of the PS3 price pressure:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2152593520080222?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
getcarter
CAG Veteran
For those like me who are on the precipice of getting a PS3, this makes me a little hesitant to jump in quite yet as I hope that I can save $50 to--dare I say--$100.
But I don't see any real reason for Sony to slash the price at this point. They have finally make some headway in the console war in terms of sales, their heavy hitters are coming this year, blu-ray won the format war, and devs are finally starting to develop for the PS3 before the 360.
As much as I would love to say that I saved $300 by waiting to get a PS3 for 18 months or so after launch, I don't see them dropping the price this soon--that is unless they release another SKU that has a 120 Gig drive and BC or something like that for an attractive enough price point to where they could afford to drop the 40 gig to $299.
But I don't see any real reason for Sony to slash the price at this point. They have finally make some headway in the console war in terms of sales, their heavy hitters are coming this year, blu-ray won the format war, and devs are finally starting to develop for the PS3 before the 360.
As much as I would love to say that I saved $300 by waiting to get a PS3 for 18 months or so after launch, I don't see them dropping the price this soon--that is unless they release another SKU that has a 120 Gig drive and BC or something like that for an attractive enough price point to where they could afford to drop the 40 gig to $299.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I still believe there is going to be a drop in 2008, earlier rather than later, whether they want to or not.
Their competitors arent about to sit idly by and let them consolidate momentum. Their hand will be forced.
Their competitors arent about to sit idly by and let them consolidate momentum. Their hand will be forced.
elwood731
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Jest']I think Sony said that they will keep it at the current price to recuperate some of the loss they took from when the PS3 console itself was not profitable. PS2 still hasn't dropped I wouldn't expect PS3 to.[/QUOTE]
The PS2 isn't really a valid barometer to watch. The PS2 has basically hit its ceiling of sales. Yes, it will continue to sell for a few years, but lowering the price isn't going to boost sales much. Therefore, there's little incentive to cut the profits by lowering its cost.
With the PS3 on the other hand, it still hasn't hit that magical $199-249 price point for consumer electronics. In fact, only one system has and remarkably it's the best selling one.
The PS2 isn't really a valid barometer to watch. The PS2 has basically hit its ceiling of sales. Yes, it will continue to sell for a few years, but lowering the price isn't going to boost sales much. Therefore, there's little incentive to cut the profits by lowering its cost.
With the PS3 on the other hand, it still hasn't hit that magical $199-249 price point for consumer electronics. In fact, only one system has and remarkably it's the best selling one.
snowsquirrel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
There is no way they will lower the price before the MGS4 bubble. I think about 1-2 months after MGS4 launches you will see a price drop to get ready for the fall ramp up.
I think a good barometer would be the price of BD players. I would think that Sony will want to keep the PS3 one of the more affordable BD players on the market.
~S
I think a good barometer would be the price of BD players. I would think that Sony will want to keep the PS3 one of the more affordable BD players on the market.
~S
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Why are they lowering the price? Why would they?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Thomas96']BC was the main feature of the system imo. I hope they can get the emulator to work purely through software. that's what they really need... do that and then all PS3s will have some BC.[/quote]
That is the only hope for BC. The emotion chip has sailed.
That is the only hope for BC. The emotion chip has sailed.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
They're working on software emulation of the PS2 stuff. There have been job filings about it I believe. The fact that the PS3 is PS1 BC and not PS2 BC is still the most baffling thing to me.
I don't know anything about the 40gb PS3, but I assume they still have that PS1/PS2 stuff in there (And are able to put PS2 saves on your PS3). Might be wrong on that one. But they're going to have PS2 software-based BC in there at some point in the future.
I don't know anything about the 40gb PS3, but I assume they still have that PS1/PS2 stuff in there (And are able to put PS2 saves on your PS3). Might be wrong on that one. But they're going to have PS2 software-based BC in there at some point in the future.
bread's done