PS3 price confirmed
- Thread starter 62t
- Start date
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Good news.
[quote name='Scorch']Selling at a loss.. interesting[/QUOTE]
That's unheard of in this day and age.
[quote name='Scorch']Selling at a loss.. interesting[/QUOTE]
That's unheard of in this day and age.
SpottedNigel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
...and amazingly, i still dont care. Dvd's are still fine...let blu-ray be the next laser disc (better quality for those who can use it)
wildnuts02
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Good news.
That's unheard of in this day and age.[/QUOTE]
Uhm...yah...right.
Oh and how is "between 300 and 400" a confirmed price??
That's unheard of in this day and age.[/QUOTE]
Uhm...yah...right.
Oh and how is "between 300 and 400" a confirmed price??
Noodle Pirate!
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 74 (99%)
I will only buy one if they don't have any reported dre or other problems. I don't need another 400 paperweight. Or as soon as killzone 2 comes out. 
[quote name='Ledhed']Not terribly. Most every company has taken a loss on the MSRP of consoles. They know the real money is in the software.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but compared to what I heard (many were estimating $600 - $700).. that's a pretty steep loss, they must be really confident. And they have every right to be.
Yeah, but compared to what I heard (many were estimating $600 - $700).. that's a pretty steep loss, they must be really confident. And they have every right to be.
CapAmerica
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='SpottedNigel']...and amazingly, i still dont care. Dvd's are still fine...let blu-ray be the next laser disc (better quality for those who can use it)[/QUOTE]
Totaly agree with you, let Blu-Ray turn into the Next laserdisc, I'm perfectly happy with DVDs still. Plus if I'm going to re-buy movies I rather use a format that will be around for more then 3 years (at most)
Price is fine, thou I think by the time the PS3 hits the market you'll have the 360 (core) at around $250 and the Revolution at $200-$150. Even at a $300-400 price tag the other systems will be cheaper.
Totaly agree with you, let Blu-Ray turn into the Next laserdisc, I'm perfectly happy with DVDs still. Plus if I'm going to re-buy movies I rather use a format that will be around for more then 3 years (at most)
Price is fine, thou I think by the time the PS3 hits the market you'll have the 360 (core) at around $250 and the Revolution at $200-$150. Even at a $300-400 price tag the other systems will be cheaper.
[quote name='CapAmerica']
Price is fine, thou I think by the time the PS3 hits the market you'll have the 360 (core) at around $250 and the Revolution at $200-$150. Even at a $300-400 price tag the other systems will be cheaper.[/QUOTE]
Who cares if they are cheaper though... the Xbox 360 launch has taught me that people will gladly shell out $400 for a console (and $60 for games) if you hype it up enough.
PS3 will sell like hot fire at $400, regardless of how cheap the other systems are.
Price is fine, thou I think by the time the PS3 hits the market you'll have the 360 (core) at around $250 and the Revolution at $200-$150. Even at a $300-400 price tag the other systems will be cheaper.[/QUOTE]
Who cares if they are cheaper though... the Xbox 360 launch has taught me that people will gladly shell out $400 for a console (and $60 for games) if you hype it up enough.
PS3 will sell like hot fire at $400, regardless of how cheap the other systems are.
Mr.Answer
CAGiversary!
This is pretty silly propaganda... so it would appear that in the article that sony is going to eat 600-700 dollars per machine? Lets see if they would match the 90 million ps2s that will be a loss of a lot of coin! This is obvious just to try to get people to second guess getting a 360.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='CheapyD']http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/seriously-theres-no-official-ps3-price-yet-138616.php[/QUOTE]
Yea, I didn't think that sounded very official (plus, it would be all over the 'net by now if it were true).
Still, anyone who thinks Sony will launch the PS3 for more than the premium 360 is launching for ($400) is insane. My only real question is the HDD - I hope it's bundled, because otherwise support will be pretty iffy.
Yea, I didn't think that sounded very official (plus, it would be all over the 'net by now if it were true).
Still, anyone who thinks Sony will launch the PS3 for more than the premium 360 is launching for ($400) is insane. My only real question is the HDD - I hope it's bundled, because otherwise support will be pretty iffy.
orphicblue
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
My prediction:
PS3 System: $350
PS3 HD: $100
---
Total: $450 ish
PS3 System: $350
PS3 HD: $100
---
Total: $450 ish
[quote name='earlje']i wonder how much the games would cost since its blu-ray??[/QUOTE]
the actual blu-ray discs aren't THAT much more expensive than DVD discs. As time goes on, development costs for blu-ray will be about the same as DVD.
Anyway, even though this isn't official, I wouldn't be surprised if it was right. First off, we don't know how much PS3 actually costs to develop, we can only speculate. So we don't know how much of a loss they are taking. Secondly, I don't see why Sony would want to price themselves hundreds of dollars above the competition. Pricing the PS3 above $450 will be suicide for them, seeing as how 360 has an opportunity to drop prices around PS3 launch. Also, PS2 and PSP were both 'speculated' to be well over $500.
the actual blu-ray discs aren't THAT much more expensive than DVD discs. As time goes on, development costs for blu-ray will be about the same as DVD.
Anyway, even though this isn't official, I wouldn't be surprised if it was right. First off, we don't know how much PS3 actually costs to develop, we can only speculate. So we don't know how much of a loss they are taking. Secondly, I don't see why Sony would want to price themselves hundreds of dollars above the competition. Pricing the PS3 above $450 will be suicide for them, seeing as how 360 has an opportunity to drop prices around PS3 launch. Also, PS2 and PSP were both 'speculated' to be well over $500.
CapAmerica
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='earlje']i wonder how much the games would cost since its blu-ray??[/QUOTE]
I've been hearing $75-80 at lot.
Blu-Ray isn't cheap and will be priced no where near the same as DVD games. Unless Sony finds some way to make Blu-Ray as dirt cheap as DVDs you can expect them to cost more then Xbox360 and Revolution games.
I've been hearing $75-80 at lot.
Blu-Ray isn't cheap and will be priced no where near the same as DVD games. Unless Sony finds some way to make Blu-Ray as dirt cheap as DVDs you can expect them to cost more then Xbox360 and Revolution games.
CapAmerica
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dpatel']the actual blu-ray discs aren't THAT much more expensive than DVD discs. As time goes on, development costs for blu-ray will be about the same as DVD.[/QUOTE]
I think you have Blu-Ray mixed up with HD-DVD. HD-DVD was promoted as being almost as cheap as DVDs and Blu-Ray was taking heat from costing alot more.
I think you have Blu-Ray mixed up with HD-DVD. HD-DVD was promoted as being almost as cheap as DVDs and Blu-Ray was taking heat from costing alot more.
guardian_owl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='CapAmerica']I think you have Blu-Ray mixed up with HD-DVD. HD-DVD was promoted as being almost as cheap as DVDs and Blu-Ray was taking heat from costing alot more.[/QUOTE]
HD-dvd can be pressed on existing dvd production equipment with few modifications, blu-ray requires entirely new production equipment.
HD-dvd can be pressed on existing dvd production equipment with few modifications, blu-ray requires entirely new production equipment.
Grave_Addiction
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 35 (100%)
[quote name='CheapyD']http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/seriously-theres-no-official-ps3-price-yet-138616.php[/QUOTE]
I dunno, just because that dude couldn't find a quoted statement by Stringer on the internet, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I dunno, just because that dude couldn't find a quoted statement by Stringer on the internet, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
[quote name='CapAmerica']I think you have Blu-Ray mixed up with HD-DVD. HD-DVD was promoted as being almost as cheap as DVDs and Blu-Ray was taking heat from costing alot more.[/QUOTE]
I know HD-DVD is cheaper than Blu-ray, but I also know that Blu-ray isn't much more to develop than DVD. The consumer might not even have to take the extra costs. But I guess we won't know for a while.
I know HD-DVD is cheaper than Blu-ray, but I also know that Blu-ray isn't much more to develop than DVD. The consumer might not even have to take the extra costs. But I guess we won't know for a while.
[quote name='CapAmerica']I think you have Blu-Ray mixed up with HD-DVD. HD-DVD was promoted as being almost as cheap as DVDs and Blu-Ray was taking heat from costing alot more.[/QUOTE]
Well, Blu-ray is definitely more to develop than HD-DVD, but with Blu-ray garnering more and more support and as technology progresses, I don't see price differences being an issue with blu-ray vs dvd games. Also, some early games might be released on DVD instead just like PS2 had a few CD based games. We really don't know how these extra costs will affect the consumer though, so I don't really have a point here.
Well, Blu-ray is definitely more to develop than HD-DVD, but with Blu-ray garnering more and more support and as technology progresses, I don't see price differences being an issue with blu-ray vs dvd games. Also, some early games might be released on DVD instead just like PS2 had a few CD based games. We really don't know how these extra costs will affect the consumer though, so I don't really have a point here.
I honestly think that I will be more excited for the PS3 just cause of MGS4, smackdown vs raw 2007, and killzone if it looks like the video at E3. However just like me with the 360. I think I will be the same with PS3, it's something I want however with lack of release games the intrigue me. I will wait.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
I could care less about Blu-Ray as a movie format. If it allows gaming improvements I'm all for it.
What I'm most concerned about is the persistent rumors that PS3 games will only be usable on one machine due to copyright protection. There go rentals. There go swapping games with friends or bringing them over to play.
What I'm most concerned about is the persistent rumors that PS3 games will only be usable on one machine due to copyright protection. There go rentals. There go swapping games with friends or bringing them over to play.
ALL consoles are sold at a loss. The only console not to sell at a loss is the Nintendo Gamecube, as it used off the shelf processors and parts.
The PS1 and PS2 both initially sold at a loss. I know someone will have the exact number on this, but the PS2 probably started to sell at a profit in year 2. The XBox 1 always sold at a loss -- MS never made a profit on it, and they pretty much knew that going in.
Money is made on the licensing of games.
As far as games being bundled with it, I can guarantee you Sir Howard is talking out his ass. Though it sure would be nice if it shipped with the new Metal Gear and Killzone 2...
The PS1 and PS2 both initially sold at a loss. I know someone will have the exact number on this, but the PS2 probably started to sell at a profit in year 2. The XBox 1 always sold at a loss -- MS never made a profit on it, and they pretty much knew that going in.
Money is made on the licensing of games.
As far as games being bundled with it, I can guarantee you Sir Howard is talking out his ass. Though it sure would be nice if it shipped with the new Metal Gear and Killzone 2...
Because the first standalone Blu-ray DVD players are expected to cost $1,000 or so, Sony is essentially giving a free next-generation DVD player to every PS3 customer
so they are saying they are going to make a 1,000 buck DVD player but sell it for 400 bucks??? and who in their right mind would pay 1,000 bucks for a new dvd player what has no to little movies out for it.
screw blu ray after buying Beta then Vhs then DVD copies of the same movie there is no way in hell im buying blu ray versions
so they are saying they are going to make a 1,000 buck DVD player but sell it for 400 bucks??? and who in their right mind would pay 1,000 bucks for a new dvd player what has no to little movies out for it.
screw blu ray after buying Beta then Vhs then DVD copies of the same movie there is no way in hell im buying blu ray versions
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='donssword']ALL consoles are sold at a loss. The only console not to sell at a loss is the Nintendo Gamecube, as it used off the shelf processors and parts.
[/QUOTE]
Please explain to us simpletons how Game Cube made money using off the shelf processors and chipsets just as the Xbox did but the Xbox lost money using the same strategy you claim Nintendo used to make money.
Yes, I'm baiting him. Yes, he won't be able to answer the question. I just need a good fanboy statement I can laugh at if he answers.
[/QUOTE]
Please explain to us simpletons how Game Cube made money using off the shelf processors and chipsets just as the Xbox did but the Xbox lost money using the same strategy you claim Nintendo used to make money.
Yes, I'm baiting him. Yes, he won't be able to answer the question. I just need a good fanboy statement I can laugh at if he answers.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Mr.Answer']This is pretty silly propaganda... so it would appear that in the article that sony is going to eat 600-700 dollars per machine? Lets see if they would match the 90 million ps2s that will be a loss of a lot of coin![/QUOTE]
QFT
QFT
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Please explain to us simpletons how Game Cube made money using off the shelf processors and chipsets just as the Xbox did but the Xbox lost money using the same strategy you claim Nintendo used to make money.
Yes, I'm baiting him. Yes, he won't be able to answer the question. I just need a good fanboy statement I can laugh at if he answers.[/QUOTE]
First, I never called anyone a simpleton. Ur implication that I believe I am smarter than u is your own conceit. I am no smarter than anyone else here, and I have been wrong about many things before (just ask Dafoomie), and I am entirely willing to admit it (are you able to do the same?).
Second, I can answer your baited question, and with a full slate of evidence. In this particular case, I just happen to be well read, and good with Google.
The off-the shelf parts are not the same on each console. XBox had used an advanced custom developed Video Card, where the GameCube used an ATI card that was already on the way to market -- MS spent their own research dollars, while Nintendo licensed a card that was ready for launch. The XBox's hard drive and DVD compatibility added additional cost, being added in the days before DVD players could be bought for $30.
Check out:
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/09/22/story7.html?page=3
According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft's Home and Entertainment group, where the Xbox resides, lost $924 million last fiscal year, up from an $874 million loss the previous year.
http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php
Though Microsoft doesn’t announce how much it costs to make an Xbox, analysts have put the system at over $300 – some say $375, while more conservative analysts put it at about $325. While it is true that the price of manufacturing lowers over time, and it may have dipped below $300 by now, Microsoft is now selling the Xbox cheaper than it did at launch -- $150, compared to $300. Microsoft is losing at least $100 per system sold, and possibly more, and coupled with other expenses, as you’ll see below, they haven’t exactly been able to make up for it.
Sony is facing a similar situation with PlayStation Portable (and the PS2 before that, but the PS2 was able to overcome this obstacle very quickly because of strong sales). A recent Bloomberg report says it costs 30,000 yen to make a PSP, or roughly $275. Sony is selling the PSP for $250 in America, so a $25 loss is not bad at all. But the system goes for a low 19,800 yen, or roughly $185, in Japan, meaning a $90 loss per system. Sony does say the price of manufacturing should go down soon, though, once the outsourced companies making much of the system’s parts see the system is successful.
In the final corner, Nintendo has it much better. When the system wars began, Nintendo GameCube was actually making money for each system sold, as Nintendo didn’t bother with all the extra non-gaming functions of its competitors, like DVD movie playback. The system was still making Nintendo money at $150, and it wasn’t until its $99 price tag that it was estimated Nintendo was losing money – but only in the single digits.
http://www.gamepro.com/nintendo/gamecube/games/news/22820.shtml
http://www.red-mercury.com/mmceo/mmceo05_20_2002.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/30/nintendo_q2_results/
Quote:
A surge in sales of its GameCube console pushed Nintendo's second-quarter income almost 100 per cent over the same period last year.
For the three months to 30 June 2004, Nintendo achieved a net income of ¥22.6bn ($202m), 96.5 per cent up on Q2 2003's ¥11.5bn ($103m).
Driving the gain was a 712.5 per cent increase in unit shipments, from 80,000 in Q2 2003 to 650,000 this past quarter.
And finally, let's not forget the XBox had no pre-existing user base at launch, and Nintendo's user base is legendary.
Yes, I'm baiting him. Yes, he won't be able to answer the question. I just need a good fanboy statement I can laugh at if he answers.[/QUOTE]
First, I never called anyone a simpleton. Ur implication that I believe I am smarter than u is your own conceit. I am no smarter than anyone else here, and I have been wrong about many things before (just ask Dafoomie), and I am entirely willing to admit it (are you able to do the same?).
Second, I can answer your baited question, and with a full slate of evidence. In this particular case, I just happen to be well read, and good with Google.
The off-the shelf parts are not the same on each console. XBox had used an advanced custom developed Video Card, where the GameCube used an ATI card that was already on the way to market -- MS spent their own research dollars, while Nintendo licensed a card that was ready for launch. The XBox's hard drive and DVD compatibility added additional cost, being added in the days before DVD players could be bought for $30.
Check out:
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/09/22/story7.html?page=3
According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft's Home and Entertainment group, where the Xbox resides, lost $924 million last fiscal year, up from an $874 million loss the previous year.
http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php
Though Microsoft doesn’t announce how much it costs to make an Xbox, analysts have put the system at over $300 – some say $375, while more conservative analysts put it at about $325. While it is true that the price of manufacturing lowers over time, and it may have dipped below $300 by now, Microsoft is now selling the Xbox cheaper than it did at launch -- $150, compared to $300. Microsoft is losing at least $100 per system sold, and possibly more, and coupled with other expenses, as you’ll see below, they haven’t exactly been able to make up for it.
Sony is facing a similar situation with PlayStation Portable (and the PS2 before that, but the PS2 was able to overcome this obstacle very quickly because of strong sales). A recent Bloomberg report says it costs 30,000 yen to make a PSP, or roughly $275. Sony is selling the PSP for $250 in America, so a $25 loss is not bad at all. But the system goes for a low 19,800 yen, or roughly $185, in Japan, meaning a $90 loss per system. Sony does say the price of manufacturing should go down soon, though, once the outsourced companies making much of the system’s parts see the system is successful.
In the final corner, Nintendo has it much better. When the system wars began, Nintendo GameCube was actually making money for each system sold, as Nintendo didn’t bother with all the extra non-gaming functions of its competitors, like DVD movie playback. The system was still making Nintendo money at $150, and it wasn’t until its $99 price tag that it was estimated Nintendo was losing money – but only in the single digits.
http://www.gamepro.com/nintendo/gamecube/games/news/22820.shtml
http://www.red-mercury.com/mmceo/mmceo05_20_2002.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/30/nintendo_q2_results/
Quote:
A surge in sales of its GameCube console pushed Nintendo's second-quarter income almost 100 per cent over the same period last year.
For the three months to 30 June 2004, Nintendo achieved a net income of ¥22.6bn ($202m), 96.5 per cent up on Q2 2003's ¥11.5bn ($103m).
Driving the gain was a 712.5 per cent increase in unit shipments, from 80,000 in Q2 2003 to 650,000 this past quarter.
And finally, let's not forget the XBox had no pre-existing user base at launch, and Nintendo's user base is legendary.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What I'm most concerned about is the persistent rumors that PS3 games will only be usable on one machine due to copyright protection. There go rentals. There go swapping games with friends or bringing them over to play.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's BS!
I'm going super Ninty for sure if that happens.
Yeah, that's BS!
I'm going super Ninty for sure if that happens.
[quote name='SpottedNigel']...and amazingly, i still dont care. Dvd's are still fine...let blu-ray be the next laser disc (better quality for those who can use it)[/QUOTE]
It depends on your TV. DVDs are fine for me cos I still have a 32" crt. But my friend has a 63" big screen and plenty of his dvds look horrible on it. The compression they use to squeeze the film on there shows up on his tv in the form of artifacting and pixelation. Why do you think so many dvds now come with the bonus features on a second disc? Cos theres not enough room on DVDs anymore. You may not be ready for blueray or HDdvd yet, Im not either, but the day I get my next television, I will be. As long as the new format is backwards compatible and still plays my old dvds Im all for it.
It depends on your TV. DVDs are fine for me cos I still have a 32" crt. But my friend has a 63" big screen and plenty of his dvds look horrible on it. The compression they use to squeeze the film on there shows up on his tv in the form of artifacting and pixelation. Why do you think so many dvds now come with the bonus features on a second disc? Cos theres not enough room on DVDs anymore. You may not be ready for blueray or HDdvd yet, Im not either, but the day I get my next television, I will be. As long as the new format is backwards compatible and still plays my old dvds Im all for it.
if nothing else cheapass gamer (and experience) has taught me
"wait for the first price drop"
for 2 reasons
1) systems are always rushed, there will always be kinks to iron out
2) $$$ you are paying for the "im the first to own it" and IMO its not worth it
"wait for the first price drop"
for 2 reasons
1) systems are always rushed, there will always be kinks to iron out
2) $$$ you are paying for the "im the first to own it" and IMO its not worth it
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I could care less about Blu-Ray as a movie format. If it allows gaming improvements I'm all for it.
What I'm most concerned about is the persistent rumors that PS3 games will only be usable on one machine due to copyright protection. There go rentals. There go swapping games with friends or bringing them over to play.[/QUOTE]
If by "persistent" you mean "bullshit".
What I'm most concerned about is the persistent rumors that PS3 games will only be usable on one machine due to copyright protection. There go rentals. There go swapping games with friends or bringing them over to play.[/QUOTE]
If by "persistent" you mean "bullshit".
News on the loss MS takes on the cost of selling an XBox 360:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051122_410710.htm
BREAKING IT DOWN. An up-close look at the components and other materials used in the high-end version of the Xbox 360, which contains a hard drive, found that the materials inside the unit cost Microsoft $470 before assembly. The console sells at retail for $399, meaning a loss of $71 per unit -- and that is just the start.
Other items packaged with the console -- including the power supply, cables, and controllers -- add another $55 to Microsoft's cost, pushing the loss per unit to $126. These estimates include assumptions that Microsoft is getting a discount on many components.
That was the case with the first Xbox console, which contained about $323 worth of parts and materials when released, but sold at retail for $299. It's certainly not going to help Microsoft reverse the trend of losses in its home-entertainment segment. In the fiscal year ended June 30, that unit lost $391 million on sales just shy of $3.25 billion. That's a little more than 8% of Microsoft's total sales of $39.8 billion.
A Microsoft spokeswoman said that the company's plan calls for a "gross margin neutral" strategy through 2006, meaning that between the sales of consoles, game software, and accessories, it expects to essentially break even. Profits should follow in 2007.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051122_410710.htm
BREAKING IT DOWN. An up-close look at the components and other materials used in the high-end version of the Xbox 360, which contains a hard drive, found that the materials inside the unit cost Microsoft $470 before assembly. The console sells at retail for $399, meaning a loss of $71 per unit -- and that is just the start.
Other items packaged with the console -- including the power supply, cables, and controllers -- add another $55 to Microsoft's cost, pushing the loss per unit to $126. These estimates include assumptions that Microsoft is getting a discount on many components.
That was the case with the first Xbox console, which contained about $323 worth of parts and materials when released, but sold at retail for $299. It's certainly not going to help Microsoft reverse the trend of losses in its home-entertainment segment. In the fiscal year ended June 30, that unit lost $391 million on sales just shy of $3.25 billion. That's a little more than 8% of Microsoft's total sales of $39.8 billion.
A Microsoft spokeswoman said that the company's plan calls for a "gross margin neutral" strategy through 2006, meaning that between the sales of consoles, game software, and accessories, it expects to essentially break even. Profits should follow in 2007.
Stryffe2004
CAGiversary!
The price is confirmed about as much as HALO 3 coming out when the PS3 does. Sony is trying to do what it did to the Dreamcast. Let's dangle a carrot in front of everyone so that they will ignore the here and now. Sony is running a little scared now and is trying to take some of the steam away from the 360 launch. I can see the PS3 launching at $400 for a base unit with maybe a controller. Sony is notorious for nickeling and dimeing you (multi-tap, memory cards, etc.). Expect that trend to continue in the future.
[quote name='Puffa469']It depends on your TV. DVDs are fine for me cos I still have a 32" crt. But my friend has a 63" big screen and plenty of his dvds look horrible on it. The compression they use to squeeze the film on there shows up on his tv in the form of artifacting and pixelation. Why do you think so many dvds now come with the bonus features on a second disc? Cos theres not enough room on DVDs anymore. You may not be ready for blueray or HDdvd yet, Im not either, but the day I get my next television, I will be. As long as the new format is backwards compatible and still plays my old dvds Im all for it.[/QUOTE]
Poorly encoded DVDs are going to look terrible. Videos from Poor sources are going to look terrible (regardless of encoding process).
However, if you have DVDs that are encoded well on a DVD9 from a clean and new film master, or a digital camera master, then it should look good on a large TV. Don't blame the media. Blame the source or encoder.
Poorly encoded DVDs are going to look terrible. Videos from Poor sources are going to look terrible (regardless of encoding process).
However, if you have DVDs that are encoded well on a DVD9 from a clean and new film master, or a digital camera master, then it should look good on a large TV. Don't blame the media. Blame the source or encoder.
[quote name='Stryffe2004']The price is confirmed about as much as HALO 3 coming out when the PS3 does. Sony is trying to do what it did to the Dreamcast. Let's dangle a carrot in front of everyone so that they will ignore the here and now. Sony is running a little scared now and is trying to take some of the steam away from the 360 launch. I can see the PS3 launching at $400 for a base unit with maybe a controller. Sony is notorious for nickeling and dimeing you (multi-tap, memory cards, etc.). Expect that trend to continue in the future.[/QUOTE]
i hardly see how sony is running scared, they have tons of support and plenty of people are waiting for the ps3.... thats true about the nicke and diming in the past, but well see what they can do now that the multitap will be built in (7 wireless controllers) and using memory sticks as memory cards will greatly increase their capacity...
why do people get so huffed up about this stuff, put your money where your mouth is, go buy a 360, there youve done your part, no need to argue in a forum about it
i hardly see how sony is running scared, they have tons of support and plenty of people are waiting for the ps3.... thats true about the nicke and diming in the past, but well see what they can do now that the multitap will be built in (7 wireless controllers) and using memory sticks as memory cards will greatly increase their capacity...
why do people get so huffed up about this stuff, put your money where your mouth is, go buy a 360, there youve done your part, no need to argue in a forum about it
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
If we assume that Sony will really take a $600 hit on technology that the OP's cited article claims will sell initially for $1000, let's take that a step further. It will only take sales of 1.65 million consoles worldwide for Sony to generate a $1 BILLION loss overall (give or take a few thousand consoles, I'm workin' off my head).
Think about that: $1,000,000,000. Let's also assume that Sony wants to market Blu-Ray only set-top boxes for $1000. Well, you're going to have to count that as a loss as well, since nobody (well, few anyway) will be dumb enough to pay a 166% markup over the PS3 for something with a partial capability of the cheaper console. They won't sell enough to make up the production of Blu-Ray players, I can confidently claim.
Again, 1 billion
ing dollars. That's complete and total horseshit. We can draw two conclusions from this article:
1) The PS3 will be remarkably higher than $400
2) The cost of the first-gen Blu-Ray players is *severely* overestimated
I don't know which is true, but one of them certainly must be. Sony covered up its losses in other areas via its highly profitable gaming division this year. If we continue to make the assumption that they'll eat $600 per console, that's **12**ing games (or *8* ing games if we assume they're over $60 per title) each consumer must buy, at full retail price, in order for Sony to approach breaking even.
In short (too late, I know), it's absurd to think that any of this can be taken without a healthy (like Hungryman Dinner-sized) dose of skepticism.
Where's that jackass epobirs to tell us all how it is?
Think about that: $1,000,000,000. Let's also assume that Sony wants to market Blu-Ray only set-top boxes for $1000. Well, you're going to have to count that as a loss as well, since nobody (well, few anyway) will be dumb enough to pay a 166% markup over the PS3 for something with a partial capability of the cheaper console. They won't sell enough to make up the production of Blu-Ray players, I can confidently claim.
Again, 1 billion
ing dollars. That's complete and total horseshit. We can draw two conclusions from this article:1) The PS3 will be remarkably higher than $400
2) The cost of the first-gen Blu-Ray players is *severely* overestimated
I don't know which is true, but one of them certainly must be. Sony covered up its losses in other areas via its highly profitable gaming division this year. If we continue to make the assumption that they'll eat $600 per console, that's **12**
ing games (or *8* ing games if we assume they're over $60 per title) each consumer must buy, at full retail price, in order for Sony to approach breaking even.In short (too late, I know), it's absurd to think that any of this can be taken without a healthy (like Hungryman Dinner-sized) dose of skepticism.
Where's that jackass epobirs to tell us all how it is?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
If we assume that Sony will really take a $600 hit on technology that the OP's cited article claims will sell initially for $1000, let's take that a step further. It will only take sales of 1.65 million consoles worldwide for Sony to generate a $1 BILLION loss overall (give or take a few thousand consoles, I'm workin' off my head).
Think about that: $1,000,000,000. Let's also assume that Sony wants to market Blu-Ray only set-top boxes for $1000. Well, you're going to have to count that as a loss as well, since nobody (well, few anyway) will be dumb enough to pay a 166% markup over the PS3 for something with a partial capability of the cheaper console. They won't sell enough to make up the production of Blu-Ray players, I can confidently claim.
Also, here's the more important point: 1.65 million PS3s? You and I know DAMN well that Sony would be distraught if they sold under 10 million worldwide in its first year of availability. That's around $6.5 BILLION in losses for one year of sales (assuming that the losses are accurate, and that it takes at least a year to devise hardware revisions that would help reduce the production cost).
Again, 1 billioning dollars. That's complete and total horseshit. We can draw two conclusions from this article:
1) The PS3 will be remarkably higher than $400
2) The cost of the first-gen Blu-Ray players is *severely* overestimated
I don't know which is true, but one of them certainly must be. Sony covered up its losses in other areas via its highly profitable gaming division this year. If we continue to make the assumption that they'll eat $600 per console, that's **12**ing games (or *8* ing games if we assume they're over $60 per title) each consumer must buy, at full retail price, in order for Sony to approach breaking even.
In short (too late, I know), it's absurd to think that any of this can be taken without a healthy (like Hungryman Dinner-sized) dose of skepticism.
Where's that jackass epobirs to tell us all how it is?
Think about that: $1,000,000,000. Let's also assume that Sony wants to market Blu-Ray only set-top boxes for $1000. Well, you're going to have to count that as a loss as well, since nobody (well, few anyway) will be dumb enough to pay a 166% markup over the PS3 for something with a partial capability of the cheaper console. They won't sell enough to make up the production of Blu-Ray players, I can confidently claim.
Also, here's the more important point: 1.65 million PS3s? You and I know DAMN well that Sony would be distraught if they sold under 10 million worldwide in its first year of availability. That's around $6.5 BILLION in losses for one year of sales (assuming that the losses are accurate, and that it takes at least a year to devise hardware revisions that would help reduce the production cost).
Again, 1 billion
ing dollars. That's complete and total horseshit. We can draw two conclusions from this article:1) The PS3 will be remarkably higher than $400
2) The cost of the first-gen Blu-Ray players is *severely* overestimated
I don't know which is true, but one of them certainly must be. Sony covered up its losses in other areas via its highly profitable gaming division this year. If we continue to make the assumption that they'll eat $600 per console, that's **12**
ing games (or *8* ing games if we assume they're over $60 per title) each consumer must buy, at full retail price, in order for Sony to approach breaking even.In short (too late, I know), it's absurd to think that any of this can be taken without a healthy (like Hungryman Dinner-sized) dose of skepticism.
Where's that jackass epobirs to tell us all how it is?
The comments were misattributed. It looks like this story is being corrected:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=13145
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=13145
thagoat
CAGiversary!
the only official word about the ps3 is it will be "expensive". so throw your pipe dreams of 400 dollars out the window and prepare to take out a small loan. this is going to be a cutting edge mainstream machine so a price close to 1000 is more realistic. at that price forget about long lines and a high demand. sony better have a damn good trick up its sleeve if it wants to compete. no doubt itll be a sweet machine, but it may be a little too high end for the masses.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']If we assume that Sony will really take a $600 hit on technology that the OP's cited article claims will sell initially for $1000, let's take that a step further. It will only take sales of 1.65 million consoles worldwide for Sony to generate a $1 BILLION loss overall (give or take a few thousand consoles, I'm workin' off my head).
Think about that: $1,000,000,000. Let's also assume that Sony wants to market Blu-Ray only set-top boxes for $1000. Well, you're going to have to count that as a loss as well, since nobody (well, few anyway) will be dumb enough to pay a 166% markup over the PS3 for something with a partial capability of the cheaper console. They won't sell enough to make up the production of Blu-Ray players, I can confidently claim.
Also, here's the more important point: 1.65 million PS3s? You and I know DAMN well that Sony would be distraught if they sold under 10 million worldwide in its first year of availability. That's around $6.5 BILLION in losses for one year of sales (assuming that the losses are accurate, and that it takes at least a year to devise hardware revisions that would help reduce the production cost).
Again, 1 billioning dollars. That's complete and total horseshit. We can draw two conclusions from this article:
1) The PS3 will be remarkably higher than $400
2) The cost of the first-gen Blu-Ray players is *severely* overestimated
I don't know which is true, but one of them certainly must be. Sony covered up its losses in other areas via its highly profitable gaming division this year. If we continue to make the assumption that they'll eat $600 per console, that's **12**ing games (or *8* ing games if we assume they're over $60 per title) each consumer must buy, at full retail price, in order for Sony to approach breaking even.
In short (too late, I know), it's absurd to think that any of this can be taken without a healthy (like Hungryman Dinner-sized) dose of skepticism.
Where's that jackass epobirs to tell us all how it is?[/QUOTE]
You've made the most common sense in this thread so far. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. PS3's might come out $500 and Blu-Ray players might be $800 dollars out of the gate, but the overriding truth is that gaming is getting more and more segmented. The PS3 might become the Lexus of gaming. Everyone wants one but who the hell can afford it? Microsoft will be the Dodge/Ford of gaming. People will buy it because it's from the good ole US of A, and it's affordable. The Revolution will be like buying a hybrid car. It's great for your wallet, good for the environment(it's smaller so it uses less parts and will probably need less electricity than the other 2 monsters), and good for you as a gamer(the complete Nintendo library at your fingertips). But then nobody wants to be the dork driving a hybrid car(sorry if you guys have a hybrid). It just isn't cool to drive a hybrid and it won't be cool when you invite people over to play games and you pull out the Revolution. The PS3 will draw ooohs and ahhhs whenever someone sees it. Get a PS3 and more people will all of a sudden become your "friends". Sorry for rambling guys.
It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer.
Think about that: $1,000,000,000. Let's also assume that Sony wants to market Blu-Ray only set-top boxes for $1000. Well, you're going to have to count that as a loss as well, since nobody (well, few anyway) will be dumb enough to pay a 166% markup over the PS3 for something with a partial capability of the cheaper console. They won't sell enough to make up the production of Blu-Ray players, I can confidently claim.
Also, here's the more important point: 1.65 million PS3s? You and I know DAMN well that Sony would be distraught if they sold under 10 million worldwide in its first year of availability. That's around $6.5 BILLION in losses for one year of sales (assuming that the losses are accurate, and that it takes at least a year to devise hardware revisions that would help reduce the production cost).
Again, 1 billion
ing dollars. That's complete and total horseshit. We can draw two conclusions from this article:1) The PS3 will be remarkably higher than $400
2) The cost of the first-gen Blu-Ray players is *severely* overestimated
I don't know which is true, but one of them certainly must be. Sony covered up its losses in other areas via its highly profitable gaming division this year. If we continue to make the assumption that they'll eat $600 per console, that's **12**
ing games (or *8* ing games if we assume they're over $60 per title) each consumer must buy, at full retail price, in order for Sony to approach breaking even.In short (too late, I know), it's absurd to think that any of this can be taken without a healthy (like Hungryman Dinner-sized) dose of skepticism.
Where's that jackass epobirs to tell us all how it is?[/QUOTE]
You've made the most common sense in this thread so far. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. PS3's might come out $500 and Blu-Ray players might be $800 dollars out of the gate, but the overriding truth is that gaming is getting more and more segmented. The PS3 might become the Lexus of gaming. Everyone wants one but who the hell can afford it? Microsoft will be the Dodge/Ford of gaming. People will buy it because it's from the good ole US of A, and it's affordable. The Revolution will be like buying a hybrid car. It's great for your wallet, good for the environment(it's smaller so it uses less parts and will probably need less electricity than the other 2 monsters), and good for you as a gamer(the complete Nintendo library at your fingertips). But then nobody wants to be the dork driving a hybrid car(sorry if you guys have a hybrid). It just isn't cool to drive a hybrid and it won't be cool when you invite people over to play games and you pull out the Revolution. The PS3 will draw ooohs and ahhhs whenever someone sees it. Get a PS3 and more people will all of a sudden become your "friends". Sorry for rambling guys.
It's a great time to be a cheap ass gamer.
[quote name='chimpian']if nothing else cheapass gamer (and experience) has taught me
"wait for the first price drop"
for 2 reasons
1) systems are always rushed, there will always be kinks to iron out
2) $$$ you are paying for the "im the first to own it" and IMO its not worth it[/QUOTE]
^^^ The truth, plain and simple
"wait for the first price drop"
for 2 reasons
1) systems are always rushed, there will always be kinks to iron out
2) $$$ you are paying for the "im the first to own it" and IMO its not worth it[/QUOTE]
^^^ The truth, plain and simple
bread's done