backtop


Print 146 comment(s) - last by Pacemaker.. on Jun 27 at 12:23 PM

Sony banks on "future-proof" tech to win next-generation console war

Back in May, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI) president Ken Kutaragi was quoted as saying that the $499 and $599 price points for its PlayStation 3 were "probably too cheap." Today, Sony CEO Howard stringer again defended the steep price of entry and justified its pricing structure to the best of his ability.

"The price of the PS3 is high... But you're paying for potential. Obviously, it's a higher-risk strategy as all new inventions are. But if the PS3 lives up to its total potential, then I don't think anyone will be worried about Nintendo or Xbox's cheaper price," said Stringer. Considering that consumers feel that a console purchase to be a long-term investment, Stringer feels that the PlayStation 3 is more future-proof which will allow potential customers to justify the price tag.

Stringer also notes that Hollywood studios may be the ones who determine whether HD DVD or Blu-ray wins this battle. Gamesindustry.biz reports:

Stringer went on to concede that Hollywood movie studios, currently divided over whether to support Blu-Ray or Toshiba's rival HD-DVD format, could ultimately determine who wins the next-gen war. However, the Sony CEO believes that film execs are "beginning to sense, in Blu-Ray, that the pendulum is swinging, and swinging for a clear reason" - namely that Blu-Ray discs can store more data.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

HMmmmm
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:01:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well Sony has put all their eggs in one basket this time. Normally thats a bad strategy in business, since diversifying leaves yourself stable regardless of what happens. But this is either going to win big, or lose big for Sony. If they can win it, they will win it big. But if they can't, the cost of failure is extremely steep this time around, it might be enough to make them re-evaluate some of their current strategies.




RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:10:11 AM , Rating: 1
> "Well Sony has put all their eggs in one basket this time"

The PS3 is their only basket? Did you forget?

Digital Cameras and Camcorders
Monitors
Desktop Computers and Laptops
Projectors
Car Audio
Recordable Media
Online PC Games
Pro Broadcasting Gear
High end Tape Drives
MP3 players
Mobile Phones
GPS Navigation
Semiconductors
Motion Picture Studios
Record labels (Columbia, Epic, etc)


RE: HMmmmm
By sxr7171 on 6/26/2006 5:25:06 PM , Rating: 1
None of which makes money. Next.


RE: HMmmmm
By Xavian on 6/26/2006 5:30:07 PM , Rating: 3
You *have* to remember very few parts of the Sony Corperation are actually making profits, Sony has reported net losses on every fiscal quarter since 2002. Sony is relying on the sheer licencing profits of being the winning format. They are not going to be making profits off the PS3 for quite some time (with the reported $200-$300 loss on every PS3 sold even at $599, plus development costs of Cell, Blu-ray and the PS3 itself)

Details on Sony's 5th consecutive quarterly year loss:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060621/japan_sony.html?.v=...


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:12:16 AM , Rating: 1
Considering it'll have more processsing power than your average $2000 desktop (not to mention a free Blu Ray drive, which will run you $1000 as a separate unit), it very well might be worth a measly 500 bucks. Why not wait and see?


RE: HMmmmm
By Tebor0 on 6/26/2006 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 1
Pretty sure I can do a lot more with my $2000 desktop than I can with a DVD player and video console. Processing power is only part of the equation and that raw power means nothing if developers can't take advantage.

Wait and see... sure.. but horrible comparison.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:25:00 AM , Rating: 1
> "Pretty sure I can do a lot more with my $2000 desktop than I can with a DVD player and video console"

Sony is trying to make just the opposite case...that'll you be able to do a lot more with your PS3 than your average desktop.

Do I believe them? Its marketing after all...but I'm willing to wait for more details before I make a snap judgement that the PS3 "isn't worth" its asking price.


RE: HMmmmm
By Tebor0 on 6/26/2006 11:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
The "is it worth it" question is going to be personal to each and every buyer so there's not going to be a right answer.

When really considering the product though it is too expensive. It's too expensive for a game console. $600 to play video games is rediculous. I can pretty much guarantee that you won't be able to install your copy of Office or Photoshop on the PS3 so that kind of kills the computer idea. Unless you're just wanting something to chat and browse the internet with and still you're better off with a cheap computer.

Besides.. this idea of this being an "investment" for the future and future tech... we're all talking about the same thing right? The tech that changes almost daily and still hasn't settled on a final initial format yet? Yeah.. future proof... right.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 12:21:36 PM , Rating: 1
> "too expensive for a game console. $600 to play video games is rediculous"

Rather more accurate to say "$500 to play video games, watch Blu Ray or DVD movies, and surf the Internet". For many people, that's a downright steal.


RE: HMmmmm
By Tebor0 on 6/26/2006 2:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
If I'm buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray player then I've got high end equipment already and would likely rather spend the extra coin on a high end Blu-Ray player. The video game part would be just an added bonus and I'd probably be buying it anyway on top of another stand alone player.

If I'm an average user this purchase only becomes a "steal" after I've upgraded all my other equipment to all the new standards (HDMI for example) so that I can use see HD in all it's glory. By the time all my stuff is upgraded though I bet I'll be able to afford a better Blu-Ray player because it's now several years later and the tech has settled and oh crap.. my "steal" of a deal PS3 might now be out of date compared to those cheaper players.

This "steal" also depends on the format war. My "steal" could end up being a big rip-off if Blu-Ray doesn't become a major standard.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 6:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "If I'm buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray player then I've got high end equipment already and would likely rather spend the extra coin on a high end Blu-Ray player"

What sort of backwards logic is this? People are trying to claim people can't afford it...but they'll more likely to buy a standalone player at twice the price?

Fact is, the PS3 is being positioned for several different market segments:

- The hardcore Playstation fan, who will stay with the franchise regardless
- The hardcore gamer, who will buy the PS3 AND the 360
- The more casual gamer, who is willing to spend a little extra for Blu Ray capabilities.
- The budget videophile, who wants Blu Ray but doesn't want to shell out a full $1000+ for it.



RE: HMmmmm
By Zelvek on 6/27/2006 1:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a fairly small demograph and not all in it are going to buy PS3's.


RE: HMmmmm
By Scrogneugneu on 6/26/2006 10:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
How about this :

- I already have a DVD player with a DVD collection of movies, and I see no need at all to get some higher-priced stuff of the same kind just for the sake of it.

- I already have a computer, which already has access to the internet, therefore I don't think the Internet ability of the PS3 will be so useful to me.

- I already have a computer AND some gaming consoles, along with some games, enabling me to play video games.


So, all in all, everything the PS3 offers me, I already have. The difference?

- It's gonna be HD

The downsides?

- I'll have to pay for the console
- I'll have to pay for the games (again)
- I'll have to pay for the movies (again)
- I'll have to pay for the TV


So, your conclusion is perfectly right. It is a steal. Sony is (trying to) stealing me.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 10:47:31 PM , Rating: 1
> "How about this - I already have a DVD player with a DVD collection of movies, and I see no need at all to get some higher-priced stuff "

Never fear. No one is going to knock on your door and force you to upgrade to either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. You can die and be buried with your old DVD movies if you wish...I'll even toss a few VHS tapes in with you for nostalgia's sake.

There are those of us, though, who appreciate higher video quality, and who don't want to wait a few more years for it. I already own an HD-DVD player...and I intend to buy a PS3 as well. I'm sure I'll get my money's worth out of both.


RE: HMmmmm
By peternelson on 6/26/2006 4:08:48 PM , Rating: 3

Sony have said PS3 will run linux.

If that is true who cares if it won't run MS office, because openoffice can be run.

Who cares if it can't run photoshop since the GIMP can be run.

The big problem with linux is it doesn't support Windows GAMES.

BUT the PS3 overcomes this disadvantage as it will have hundreds of optimised games specifically for it.

Getting all this for $600 is a real steal.

I will either pay that much, or wait until after the holidays when prices are expected to drop a little (as has happened with x360) when it will be even better value.

Hey for a HDMI1.3 deepcolor pattern generator, it will be worth the cost alone.


RE: HMmmmm
By epsilonparadox on 6/26/2006 4:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
PS3 might run linux but if it provides the dismal support like it did for PS2, it won't count for much more than a marketing gimmick.


RE: HMmmmm
By Zelvek on 6/27/2006 1:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
Ah sure it will run linux... maybe. Lets not forget that Tivo is runing Linux and it won't do any thing as dramatic as what your claiming. So that means that odds are one will need to mod their PS3 for that sort of price who wants to risk that other than us geeks and who will even know about it other than us geeks.


RE: HMmmmm
By CKDragon on 6/26/2006 12:18:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sony is trying to make just the opposite case...that'll you be able to do a lot more with your PS3 than your average desktop.


If anyone entertains the idea for more than 5 seconds that you'll be able to do more with a PS3 than an average desktop then that person is a fvcking idiot.

That is all.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 12:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "If anyone entertains the idea for more than 5 seconds that you'll be able to do more with a PS3 than an average desktop then that person is a fvcking idiot. "

Considering the average person uses his computer to do nothing more than:

Surf the Internet
Play Games
Watch DVDs

And the PS3 can do all that, *plus* display hi-def Blu Ray discs, then, in at least that sense, it already does allow one to "do more".


RE: HMmmmm
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 1:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree - I think average folks are doing a little more than that with their PCs. Digital cameras and camcorders now bring more focus to those multimedia aspects of the PC. I know lots of people that upload pictures on their PC to print them, e-mail them, or upload them to photo-sharing web sites. Also, I know of a lot of people making "light" use of Word and Excel on their PCs. I think that PS3 will probably lack many of these capabilities.

The competition, IMO, is not between PS3 and a person's "desktop computer"; it is between PS3 and a media center PC that a person would potentially have in their entertainment center. But even there, the PS3 probably is a little handicapped, since it is pretty easy to get a media center PC that has dual tuner cards and has a huge HDD for storing recorded shows.

Finally, why are we comparing a PS3 to a $2000 PC? Who spends that much on a PC any more? Most people are spending only $500-1000 on a PC these days. So the price ranges for PS3 and a PC are about the same.


RE: HMmmmm
By samuraiBX on 6/26/2006 1:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
argh, beat me by four seconds!!! Though I agree with everything you're saying.


RE: HMmmmm
By peternelson on 6/26/2006 4:14:43 PM , Rating: 3

Some people spend £2500 on a pc (about $5000) so we cannot compare with those kind of systems.

We can only compare with a comparable price PC ie $600.

And by the time you upgrade the pc with a nextgen optical drive HDDVD or Bluray, the price goes up significantly.

Therefore I believe the PS3 has a niche.

Yes people including me will still want PCs for certain things, but many others will be content with a PS3.

Don't forget many households have more than one PC. We're not saying a PS3 on every desk, we are saying that ONE of those PCs can be replaced by a PS3. Therefore I believe they will sell.


RE: HMmmmm
By samuraiBX on 6/26/2006 1:10:33 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry Masher, that's not quite true. The average person also prints things and will use a word processor program. Also, fact is that most households that would entertain buying the PS3 are in the demographic that already has a DVD player. Given that the next-gen DVD wars are also still ongoing, I'm not sure I see too many people sinking in $500 for:
"Surf the Internet
Play Games
Watch DVDs"
and the computer can do all that, *plus* print and do word processing, I doubt that it actually does more.
As for those the computer/PS3 discussion, which would you rather get for your kid anyway, a dell $500 special of the day where you could arguably get them to do homework or a 'game system', regardless if you buy into the Sony marketing hype?


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 1:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "Sorry Masher, that's not quite true. The average person also prints things and will use a word processor program"

I know quite a few people that never print anything from their PC. In any case, given the PS3 has Bluetooth, wired, and wifi connectivity (not to mention memory stick support), I find it likely to believe that a photo retouch-and-print application, and possibly a rudimentary word processor, will be sold at some point.

> "and the computer can do all that..."

The average $500 computer doesn't play Blu Ray discs, nor HD content of any type. And while it 'plays games', it does so at a level far below what the PS3 is going to strike.

> "As for those the computer/PS3 discussion, which would you rather get for your kid anyway"

Why, both of course.


RE: HMmmmm
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 1:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know quite a few people that never print anything from their PC. In any case, given the PS3 has Bluetooth, wired, and wifi connectivity (not to mention memory stick support), I find it likely to believe that a photo retouch-and-print application, and possibly a rudimentary word processor, will be sold at some point.

I don't think so, mainly because of device drivers. I can go to the store and buy any make/model digital camera and any make/model of printer, bring them home, and they will work on my PC. They key to that usability is due to the device drivers, and I find it highly unlikely that Canon, Nikon, HP, etc. will start writing device drivers for all their devices for PS3 to make all that work together.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 2:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "I find it highly unlikely that Canon, Nikon, HP, etc. will start writing device drivers for all their devices for PS3 "

You don't need device drivers for the cameras-- the PS3 can use the memory stick directly. All you need is a device driver for the printers. And I can easily believe Sony would write that themselves, at least for the HP line.


RE: HMmmmm
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 2:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't need device drivers for the cameras-- the PS3 can use the memory stick directly. All you need is a device driver for the printers. And I can easily believe Sony would write that themselves, at least for the HP line.

What about my Nikon that doesn't use memory sticks, or Canon, et al.? Will Sony support all 6-7 media types, plus USB for cameras that don't have removeable cards?

As for device drivers, there is a lot of code in, e.g., HP device drivers. I doubt the low-level protocols used via USB, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. are either public or published, and HP probably can change them often, since they don't expect anyone to program to them.

I also doubt Sony would be in a position to develop drivers for, and support, drivers for all the popular printer manufacturers times the number of models that each manufacturer has. HP alone has released hundreds of just inkjet printers in the past few years. HP can barely do the driver job right; I doubt Sony could even come close.

Seems like "mission impossible" to me - same reason Apple can't support all the devices as Windows can.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 4:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "What about my Nikon that doesn't use memory sticks, or Canon, et al.? Will Sony support all 6-7 media types, plus USB for cameras that don't have removeable cards? "

No, of course not. They'll support memory stick only...which means it'll work with Sony cameras. Not the largest market segment, but still a segment.

> "I doubt the low-level protocols used via USB, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. are either public or published"

N, it doesn't work like that. Those are public standards. They have nothing to do with HP specifically. Once you move above the transport level, you get to HP-specific code. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the lower-level protocol....and HP publishes that, as well. They have a vested interest in giving people the information needed to write device drivers for them.

> "I also doubt Sony would be in a position to develop drivers for, and support, drivers for all the popular printer manufacturers times the number of models "

Once again-- it doesn't work like this. HP uses a standard printer language across most its line. The individual 'drivers' for each model differ in a few tweak values, not in code essentials. Many of them don't even differ at all...they're the same driver, given a different tag name.




RE: HMmmmm
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 6:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, of course not. They'll support memory stick only...which means it'll work with Sony cameras. Not the largest market segment, but still a segment.

I would call that a small segment, and I don't think consumers will be excited by a system that only supports Sony cameras, but maybe I'm wrong.
quote:
N, it doesn't work like that. Those are public standards...and HP publishes that, as well.

Yes, I realize that USB et al. are open standards, but what I'm taking about is the packet protocol used to communicate with the printers. For laser printers they have PCL, but I am not aware of the same for inkjet printers. My impression was that for inkjet printers, there is more processing in the driver level and basically just low-level data being sent to the printer.

Do you have a reference for documentation for HP inkjet printer protocols?
quote:
Once again-- it doesn't work like this. HP uses a standard printer language across most its line.

Again, I realize that, but my point is that Sony would have to dedicate a team of engineers to developing and tracking all this, and I don't really see how such an investment would pay for itself.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 10:55:15 PM , Rating: 3
> " but my point is that Sony would have to dedicate a team of engineers to developing and tracking all this, and I don't really see how such an investment would pay for itself. "

By selling the end product, of course...an application allowing you to print directly from the PS3 to most common printers. I'd bet close to half of PS3 buyers won't own a computer already...so such a program could be very useful to them.


RE: HMmmmm
By Zelvek on 6/27/2006 2:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
There is no way in hell that sony will put all this work in lets face it if they make all theses extras like printing and camera suport and word processing etc etc they will need engies to do it all wich cost mony and sony will not make any money on these extras as they are from other companies. Therefore sony will lose a shitload of money on the PS3 and game revenue is not enough to make up for this so basicaly none of this extra crap is ever going to happen.


RE: HMmmmm
By bobsmith1492 on 6/26/2006 6:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, USB standards are public knowledge, for sure; we just finished writing a USB driver for a microcontroller... it is a pain, I assure you. :)


RE: HMmmmm
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 9:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, USB standards are public knowledge, for sure; we just finished writing a USB driver for a microcontroller... it is a pain, I assure you. :)

I agree, but the USB specification doesn't describe the packet protocol, i.e., the contents you put into bulk or iso packets, right? You had to decide that for your project/product. That's what I'm getting at with the HP inkjets.

BTW, been there, done that. USB is hell for software developers. Nice cheap simple hardware, but the software is a pain in the neck.


RE: HMmmmm
By cochy on 6/26/2006 3:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Should have proof read some typos outta there. Sorry :P


RE: HMmmmm
By peternelson on 6/26/2006 4:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
PS3 will support linux.

Cameras and usb sticks have no problem with drivers.

Many printers have support in linux for printing.

Therefore as long as consumers restrict their printer use to manufacturers who are supported under linux (many) then they will not be limited to printing out their word processing etc.

There will in any case be similar driver problems with Vista ie which manufacturers have written certified Vista drivers for their old printer models?


RE: HMmmmm
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 6:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PS3 will support linux.

Yea, we'll see about the Linux thing. PS2 Linux didn't exactly set the world on fire. I think it's mostly marketing BS.

Vista can use XP drivers for most everything except for high-end graphics, so the same situation doesn't exist there. Also, even if it did, Windows has 95% desktop market share, so there is a strong incentive for printer manufacturers to release updated drivers for new versions of Windows.


RE: HMmmmm
By Zelvek on 6/27/2006 2:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
Not to menten that most companies already have beta and nearly finalized drivers for vista already. As for the Linux thing as I already said TiVo runs linux and is not capable of any of this without moding. The average consumer wont be aware of this ability and/or won't be willing to risk damaging their pricy PS3. Also because the PS3 hardware is so differnt from that of a PC all the linux stuff will need to be rewriten wich will take a fair bit of time.


RE: HMmmmm
By cochy on 6/26/2006 2:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The average $500 computer doesn't play Blu Ray discs, nor HD content of any type. And while it 'plays games', it does so at a level far below what the PS3 is going to strike.


lol oh man. PC's have been HD gaming for 20 years already. Anything displayed at SVGA (800x600) or greater is "HD". When did the first SVGA monitors come out? I've been gaming on my Samsung 900nf at 1200x1600 resolutions for years. That's a higher resolution than 1080p out of the water. If you really want HD gaming then just hook up a SLI rig into one of those 30'' Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP for wonderful 2560x1600 gaming. Here's the news flash: HD is only new to the living room. PCs have been doing it and doing it better than anything before and now for decades. The PS3 will never replace a PC but in my mind it's still a wonder piece of living room technology at a fair price considering what it's packing.


RE: HMmmmm
By peternelson on 6/26/2006 4:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, 800x600 can be termed "ENHANCED definition".

You need to be talking 720 lines or eg 1024x768 to be correctly termed "high definition".


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 4:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "lol oh man. PC's have been HD gaming for 20 years already...displayed at SVGA (800x600) or greater is "HD"."

Hehe, I can see you haven't been using PCs nearly that long.
20 years ago, CGA ruled the roost. That was 320x200 pixels...with a grand total of SIXTEEN colors. VGA didn't hit the stands till around '88...and even then it was limited to 256 colors, meaning displaying video on it was impossible.

"HD gaming" didn't start until XGA allowed something approaching true color. ("hi" color). And that was, unless you were rich, in the 1991-92 timeframe.



RE: HMmmmm
By cochy on 6/27/2006 9:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hehe, I can see you haven't been using PCs nearly that long.


Well I definitely exagerate some numbers to get my point across. Point is HD gaming has been around for quite a while.


RE: HMmmmm
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 11:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know if it will have more processing power, because frankly, the numbers they have used are based on theoretical numbers. I could get a dual core CPU and dual/quad GPUs (yes, if I spent half the allotment on four GPUs) that, if you use Sony's logic, can produce a wholelottagiglaflopdoodles. But in reality, it doesn't. Anyway, in regards to all that stuff Sony makes above, only their projectors are worth anything anymore, because I can find much better products for less money in almost ALL of those categories, save projectors (yes, they make awesome 10k to 200k and beyond projectors that can't/or are very hard to beat). Anyway, Sony has fallen and with their arrogance, I hope PS3 fails. Besides, we don't know if Blu-Ray will have more storage as they can't seem to reliably make double sided storage, but HD-DVD can, thus giving them the edge. Not to mention that HD-DVD uses the newer HD compression formats and BR does not, meaning BR is going to be wasting space until it switches over.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
> You don't know if it will have more processing power...

I most certainly do know. The computational power exists; the only question is how efficiently PS3 applications can make use of it.

> "I could get a dual core CPU and dual/quad GPUs [that] can produce a wholelottagiglaflopdoodles...

There's a lot more to the equation than the core count of Cell. It's a vector processor and is therefore, for certain types of operations, far faster than a general-purpose processor. In the best case scenario (which is admittedly a special case) Core can outperform even a quad-processor desktop by a full order of magnitude.

A chap from IBM came around our lab several months ago, and dropped off several copies of the Cell SDK. Its really a very interesting chip.

> "Sony has fallen and with their arrogance, I hope PS3 fails."

An emotional and ultimately unreasonable response. I hope the PS3 succeeds. Competition is good for the market.

> "Besides, we don't know if Blu-Ray will have more storage as they can't seem to reliably make double sided storage, but HD-DVD can, thus giving them the edge"

I have the Toshiba HD player now. I still hope the PS3 succeeds. Concerns about "format wars" are rather overblown, in my opinion.


RE: HMmmmm
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 11:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree that Cell itself is interesting. Though last I checked, and I could be wrong, a LOT of the processing power Sony claims actually comes from the RSX side of the equation. It was something around 2 teraflops? And the RSX was said to amount to around half that or more. I was making the, albeit probably wrong, assesment that 4 (essentially) RSX chips in a PC would, using their logic, produce more power alone then all of the PS3 chips, inc. Cell, combined.


RE: HMmmmm
By peternelson on 6/26/2006 4:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Cell IS interesting, and PS3 is the cheapest way for me to play with Cell.

Sony is definitely not owned in the broadcast equipment market eg digital VTRs, highdef broadcast monitors and cameras etc. Rather Sony is the "gold standard" by which competitor products are assessed.


RE: HMmmmm
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 11:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
Let me rephrase the I hope they fail part. That's not a fanboy comment. It's like being at a party and someone is being super anoyingly cocky and thinks he/she is the cat's meow and/or shiznit. But, they then trip on the rug and hit their face and spill their drink all over their fancy shirt. You laugh, you know you just got satisfaction. That is what I mean, that they are being super cocky and I hope they fall and hit their face, just like if MS said You should pay even more then our already low asking price of 600 dollars for this awesome game <cough> BR player <cough> machine, I would hope they hit their face too.


RE: HMmmmm
By peternelson on 6/26/2006 4:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, so if Sony sell millions at $600 then reduce the price to $400 or $500 as bluray volumes bring economies of scale, which causes millions more people to buy it, THEN

Will it be YOU who is spilling your drink down your shirt?

And may we all laugh at YOUR misreading of the market?

I'd say Sony are being quite courageous to launch a product of this kind and push things forwards (Microsoft just stayed with dvd and analogue connections and a games-only machine that can't run linux). Some products fail (ie ipod is beating them on market share of music players), others succeed (like PS2 and maybe PS3).

How many products have YOU launched recently?


RE: HMmmmm
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 8:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
How many products have YOU launched recently?

What does this have to do with anything? Does it matter if I do or do not launch products? How many products has a PERSON, by themself, launched recently? I don't see the basis, but if I must acknowledge it, how many Sony products has launched recently that aren't doing so well or haven't done so in the past? Let's see, their MP3 players, LCDs aren't doing as well as they need to be since they are losing money in that department, UMD, the PSP is getting owned by the DS, and we won't mention older things like Betamax etc. Sony does not have a stellar track record outside of their computer entertainment division, in recent memory. Yes, broadcasting gear is good, but most of it is CRTs and high end cameras, things very few others do well at. Sony had good TVs back in the day of CRTs. But this is beside the topic at hand. So essentially you pointed out their only success in the last 10 years, Playstation.

If by millions, do you mean more then 10 to 15? Because everyone says MS isn't doing well this gen (Xbox), but they still have 25 mil sold. Yes, they will sell millions because Japan will gobble it up, but the bigger picture is to watch Europe and the US, far bigger markets then Japan. This won't be easy and people in the US DON'T have the expensive TVs to get the full benefit of this fancy BR stuff. Noone cares, and I promise you that. As people have stated, they are BANKING on BR, PERIOD. Ask anyone on the street, few know what BR is or even care. They just spent money getting their library on DVDs, why start again with BR? Not to mention there are ALREADY new formats not far off that are better then both HD-DVD and BR. How is this all a good idea again?

Lastly, I think people need to realize most of us here are techies. Of course we find new tech interesting and neat, but the average consumer only cares about decent quality at value. Why do you think so many buy home theaters in a box? It's cheap and does the trick, just like DVD does. The Xbox 360 fits just fine with their relatively new HDTVs, with their analog connections. And of COURSE it can't run Linux.. what the hell is the point of that statement? Anyway, consumers won't want to spend hundreds more and get a new TV just to use BR. If I am wrong, I am wrong, go ahead and laugh and defend Sony without looking at the big picture. But what they are doing may be business suicide, as they are LOSING over HALF A BILLION a year right now. They better hope it works out.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 10:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "Does it matter if I do or do not launch products?"

When you're trying to outguess a company that has launched many succesful products, and who has spent a large amount of time and money considering these issues-- it matters.

> "everyone says MS isn't doing well this gen (Xbox), but they still have 25 mil sold"

MS did fair with the XBox...and far better than many analysts believed they would. As for their sales, had they sold 25 million all in the first year, it would have been a smashing success. 25 million spread out over the entire product lifetime is, while certainly not a failure, not a smashing success either.


RE: HMmmmm
By Zelvek on 6/27/2006 2:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you're trying to outguess a company that has launched many succesful products, and who has spent a large amount of time and money considering these issues-- it matters.


No not realy I mean how many products have market anylist launched? Yet they are experts on this.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 2:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
> "how many products have market anylist launched? Yet they are experts on this. "

Some have launched quite a few. Others merely have training and experience in the relevant market...which makes them far more of an expert than someone whose experience with consoles is limited to spilling beer on them during a good gaming session.

In any case, just to clarify my position, I don't *believe* the PS3 will do extremely well. My opinion is strictly neutral....I'm simply debunking some of the ludicrous "proofs" people are advancing as to why it cannot possibly succeed.


RE: HMmmmm
By BladeVenom on 6/26/2006 2:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be willing to bet a cheap Pentium D 805 could beat it at most tasks. By the time the PS3 actaully comes out a $600 PC will probably be able to beat it in almost everyway, except as a Blue-ray disc player.


RE: HMmmmm
By wiiz3rd on 6/26/2006 1:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, I'll wait alright...Wait until price drops to $150.


RE: HMmmmm
By SaintSinner1 on 6/26/2006 1:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blu Ray drive, which will run you $1000 as a separate unit), it very well might be worth a measly 500 bucks


How about if SONY will tel you blue-ray drive cost $5000 as a separate unit then PS3 might be even better deal ehehehe Silly little fairy ...


RE: HMmmmm
By Xavian on 6/26/2006 5:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
indeed, finally someone who can see the glaring flaws in Cells design. Sites like arstechnica clearly point out some pretty significant flaws, a CPU is supposed to be a general purpose processor, it performs the general calculations that the highly specialised GPU's cannot. Cell is clearly designed for media capabilities but absolutely abysmal on general purpose processing (see Normal programs and games, not HD movies).

Not to mention the sheer pain it will be for developers to code for the amount of cores, Cell has.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 6:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Not to mention the sheer pain it will be for developers to code for the amount of cores, Cell has. "

SIMD programming isn't really that difficult. And sites like Arstechnica did their "review" long before the Cell SDK was available...a tool that offloads much of the work of parallelization for you. As the Cell compiler improves, it'll only get better.

> "Cell is clearly designed for media capabilities but absolutely abysmal on general purpose processing "

Here's the catch. The types of processing which Cell does poorly (branchy scalar code) are those for which current CPUs already tend to run as fast or faster than needed.

The code Cell excels in are the tasks for which heavy horsepower is needed. Media processing, physics, vector math, manipulation of large array structures, etc.


RE: HMmmmm
By saratoga on 6/26/2006 3:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering it'll have more processsing power than your average $2000 desktop


Retarded statement. It'll have better vector fp performance sure, but then so does my old radeon 9600. The reason you buy a CPU instead of running everything on a GPU or DSP is that you need scalar too, and scalar is the hard part to do fast.


RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 5:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "It'll have better vector fp performance sure, but then so does my old radeon 9600."

It'll have better performance for any code structurable in SIMD format, not just vector math. And it'll have roughly equal performance for everything else, as long as its not extremely branch-heavy code.

Single-threaded scalar code may be "the hard part" to do fast. But hard problems (i.e. slow-running code) doesn't typically fall into this category, especially for games. The jobs that need the highest processing power are those best suited for multiprocessing and/or SIMD calculation.





RE: HMmmmm
By HardwareD00d on 6/26/2006 6:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to burst your bubble, but PS3 has all kinds of problems right now. They are not getting even close to X360 performance because of several design flaws. Cell is not tapping out very well and is running way below it's expected speed. Video has roughly 1/2 the rendering power of X360. Sony has already lost. Sony will try and PR/Hype this POS because they know all the suckers that believe everything they hear will buy it.


RE: HMmmmm
RE: HMmmmm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
There are no serious design flaws with Cell. The local bandwidth issue was addressed long ago. Cell SPE's don't *need* high local bandwidth, which the Cell SDK makes painfully clear to developers.

Anyone quoting TheInquirer should be forced to take a long, hot bath afterwards. Taking a few pictures of slides is easy...actually understanding the content of those slides is much more difficult.

Let's not forget that Cell is *already* being used in other products besides the PS3. Mercury has some high-end image processing equipment using it...and they're quite happy with the performance.


Yes it will affect sales sony
By tk109 on 6/26/2006 11:01:35 AM , Rating: 3
I already know I'm not buying one because of the high price.

They can try to tickle our ears all they want. It doesn't mean it's truth. There are a lot of people who are going to pass on the PS3 because of price. I know I'm not the only person out here that feels this way. Not by a long shot. This is one thing your marketing BS can't fool us on Sony.




RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By akugami on 6/26/2006 1:27:58 PM , Rating: 3
Sony lies all the time. That's the truth. Too many lies to list. This press release seems to be Sony trying to stay in the lime light and to try to convince those on the fence about buying the PS3 that it's a good buy. Fanboys will have no problem forking over $600 for the PS3 and that alone should get Sony to 10 million in sales. The problem is what happens after that. It's the mainstream that makes or breaks your system nowadays and I'm not convinced that a $500-600 game system is going to sell well.

If the PS2 is any indication the PS3 will be a POS as far as movie playing goes. I know how people and Sony like to tout it as a cheap affordable Blu-Ray player but it better have MUCH MUCH better media playing ability than the PS2 which quite frankly was pathetic.

I do hope Blu-Ray succeeds as it seems the better format than HD-DVD but I hope the PS3 fails so we don't get another company trying to saddle us with overpriced gaming consoles any time soon.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 1:47:36 PM , Rating: 1
> " Fanboys will have no problem forking over $600 for the PS3 and that alone should get Sony to 10 million in sales....It's the mainstream that makes or breaks your system nowadays...

I have news for you. Ten million units most certainly is the mainstream.

> "If the PS2 is any indication the PS3 will be a POS as far as movie playing goes."

Given Sony's desire to position the PS3 as more than just a gaming console-- and their plans for the success of Blu Ray-- it's a fairly safe bet that the video quality of the unit will be acceptable.



RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By robber98 on 6/26/2006 2:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given Sony's desire to position the PS3 as more than just a gaming console-- and their plans for the success of Blu Ray-- it's a fairly safe bet that the video quality of the unit will be acceptable.


Consider how Sony messed up DVD playback quality when PS2 released, I don't expect too much from PS3. The picture quality maybe acceptable BUT for $600 and all I get is "acceptable" picture quality? Give me a break...


By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 4:39:03 PM , Rating: 3
> "Consider how Sony messed up DVD playback quality when PS2 released"

One, the PS3 is not the PS2. Its a higher-priced unit, sold at a different time, and aimed at a different market. Two, DVD was not a Sony format; Blu Ray is. Three, the PS2 didn't exactly "mess up" DVD playback badly. I know more than one person who used it exclusively without any complaints.

Compared to newer DVD players that are far cheaper, quieter, and with better image quality-- the PS2 was pretty dismal. But, for the time it was released, it was actually quite decent a unit.

> "BUT for $600 and all I get is "acceptable" picture quality? Give me a break... "

Aren't you being a little unrealistic? Even if the picture quality was simply "acceptable", you're getting far more than that. The PS3 isn't a $500 Blu Ray player. Its a $500 combination Blu Ray player, videogame console, Internet station, and probably a few other things too eventually.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By Kilim on 6/26/2006 2:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
I remember a little system that sold 10 million units and failed. It was called the Dreamcast.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 4:47:27 PM , Rating: 1
> "I remember a little system that sold 10 million units and failed. It was called the Dreamcast..."

Had Sega sold those 10 million units in the first year, they'd have been a stellar success. As it was, it certainly wasn't a "failure". It lasted three years, spawned over 250 games, and held the title of "fastest selling console ever, until supplanted by the PS2.



RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By akugami on 6/26/2006 4:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have news for you. Ten million units most certainly is the mainstream.

And I have news for you. Considering today's market, 10 million units is unreachable only by the most laughable of systems. That's the minimum any contender should be selling. I'm going to stick by my opinion that 10 million units is roughly in the area of the hardcore and fanboy sales area while going past that is when your system hits mainstream. If you had said 10 million units was mainstream 10 years ago, I'd agree but not today considering the size of the games industry.

Given Sony's desire to position the PS3 as more than just a gaming console-- and their plans for the success of Blu Ray-- it's a fairly safe bet that the video quality of the unit will be acceptable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sony want the PS2 to be your all in one media hub as well? Same mission statement, different number after "PS" is all it seems to me. And Sony has a habit of overselling and under delivering. I don't want acceptable video quality. I want good to superb video quality. Especially when I'm spending $600 clams (which I can easily afford). I don't want a mediocre (the PS2 dvd navigation was utter crap) media navigation system. I own a PS2 and I only used it a handful of times to play dvd's because it just sucked too much for viewing movies.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By Xavian on 6/26/2006 5:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
good post, indeed the PS2 was touted to "replace your PC, make your PC obselete etc etc".

Its the same marketing crap just a different generation, everyone remembers the "Emotion Engine" right? Ken Kutaragi's "4D" for PS3 is exactly the same marketing crap as the "Emotion Engine" for the PS2.

Personally i think Sony is in for a very rude awakening at the end of this generation, the competition is far far more capable this time round. Plus with Sony virtually placing all its eggs in the Blu-ray basket, if Blu-ray fails sony could be in for a rough decade.

With sony reporting a net loss on every finanical quarter since 2002 (not small amounts either mind you), with only the Playstation and TV parts of the business actually making profits.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 5:34:26 PM , Rating: 1
> "Considering today's market, 10 million units is unreachable only by the most laughable of systems"

Lol, if you think its easy to manufacture and sell 10 million of ANYTHING-- even paperclips-- try it yourself. If Sony sells 10 million units inside the first year, the console will be a success.

> "Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sony want the PS2 to be your all in one media hub as well? "

For a large percentage of the 100 million owners-- it is. Its their sole entertainment system.

In any case, you miss the point. The point is not whether the PS3 (or even the PS2) WILL become the "entertainment hub", but how many people will buy it with that expectation. We're talking market success here...and expectations drive that, not realizations.




RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By akugami on 6/27/2006 6:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, if you think its easy to manufacture and sell 10 million of ANYTHING-- even paperclips-- try it yourself. If Sony sells 10 million units inside the first year, the console will be a success.

I don't know if you are purposely missing my point or not. What I am saying is that each and every market has to be considered seperately in order to consider if X number of sales is niche or not. For instance, selling 10 million units of anything is more than respectable but that doesn't make it a mainstream product. Forget games systems for a second. Lets say I create a new type of pen called the Akugami. Now, there are billions of users of pens but I only sell 10 million pens. Does this make it a mainstream product? Heck no. I can still be successful selling my 10 million pens but it is in no way anything more than a niche product.

By the same token, all I am saying is that considering the size of today's market, selling 10 million game consoles is a good achievement but it is only the bare minimum one needs to sell if they wish to succeed. It is also a number which I consider to be niche when there are potentially 100+ million buyers of game consoles. It is after this 10 million unit mark, which I consider easily reachable by the big 3 in game consoles today, that will determine which console has gone truly mainstream (such as the PS2) and which is more niche/fanboy/hardcore (such as the Gamecube).

For a large percentage of the 100 million owners-- it is. Its their sole entertainment system.

In any case, you miss the point. The point is not whether the PS3 (or even the PS2) WILL become the "entertainment hub", but how many people will buy it with that expectation. We're talking market success here...and expectations drive that, not realizations.

The majority of PS2's may have been bought with the intention of using it as a primary all in one entertainment hub. Which is different from "sole entertainment system." But the sad fact is Sony promised the world and vastly under delivered. My point was that the PS2 is not the entertainment hub that Sony wanted it to be. It is a great entertainment system due to it's vast library but it sucks as an entertainment hub. I agree some of the initial folks got suckered into thinking it was going to be an entertainment hub. I didn't, even though I bought one early. But from past experiences with Sony's marketing hype, a lot of the hardcore folks and even a lot of the mainstream are catching on to Sony over promising things. Most of the early adopters are NOT going to be buying the PS3 as anything other than a games system.

The problem is that the majority of people buying the PS2 only did so after it dropped below $200. Most of those folks did not buy it for being anything other than an entertainment system. And by that I mean games only. While an entertainment hub would have media playback (music and movies) along with the games. The price of the PS3 is simply out of the reach of most folks. Don't think geek here, think mainstream. The folks that will really propell a games system are the great unwashed masses so to speak. Those folks can't afford a $400 console much less a $500-600 console even if it doubles as a Blu-Ray player because to them, a DVD is just as good as a Blu-Ray on their 32" non HD TV.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 8:35:40 AM , Rating: 1
> "My point was that the PS2 is not the entertainment hub that Sony wanted it to be..."

But since you made this statement in response to my point about video playback quality for the PS3, you obviously feel the two situations are connected. They are not. The PS3 may have outstanding, average, or dismal video quality. We just don't know at this point. And trying to draw conclusions on the subject from an earlier console are specious and unwarranted.

> "The problem is that the majority of people buying the PS2 only did so after it dropped below $200..."

You need to step back and listen to what you're saying. By your own words, the PS2 (aka by far the most succesful console in history) was overpriced at launch. Most people couldn't afford one. Yet it dominated the industry for half a decade.

So while you indeed make a valid point...I'm not sure it's the point you believe it is.



RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By akugami on 6/27/2006 9:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between the PS2 and PS3 is that the PS2 was expensive at launch and was bought by the hardcore players for it's large library. Especially considering backwards compatibility with PS1 games. I never said the PS2 was overpriced. Just expensive and not affordable to the mainstream public who can't afford to spend $300 + tax on a games system and then have to spend another $50 to buy a game with it. Did it dominate the industry? Yes, especially considering for most of it's life the Gamecube wasn't that much less in price than the PS2 and the Xbox was very late to the game.

The PS3 is indeed overpriced. We are talking, depending on configuration, 2/3 to twice as expensive as the PS2. If Joe Consumer has a hard time spending one week's paycheck on a games system for his kid, what makes you think he's going to spend half a month's pay for a PS3?

So the PS2 started at $300 and dropped in price. Again, it dominated the games industry but it didn't really attract the more casual gamers until it hit below $200 and especially when it hit $150. This being the case, the PS3 would have to drop from $500-600 to $250 and below before it really starts to attract the Joe Consumers of the world. The Xbox 360 is already at $300-400 and will drop to $150-200 by the time the PS3 hits the $250-300 mark. Both are offering similar levels of graphics and most games being cross platform, this is unlikely to change by much. What incentive, besides Blu-Ray is there to really buy a PS3 from Joe Consumer's viewpoint? Blu-Ray's promise is hi-def movies but the majority of consumers do not have an HDTV. To them, DVD's look the same as a Blu-Ray on their TV's.

All I said originally is that I think the PS3 will have a hard time dominating the industry as the PS2 did due to it's high price point and that until it drops drastically in price it won't attract the mainstream consumers. Due to the expensive lenses used for Blu-Ray playback, it's price is unlikely to drop unless Sony is going to take an even bigger loss on each console than they already are. The PS3 also has a much further price drop to go than the Xbox 360 or Wii. The lower prices of those two system are likely to sap a lot of buyers away from Sony's PS3.

I think for some odd reason you're desperate to make the PS3 sound like a great deal. It's not. While I can afford a PS3 it's unlikely I will buy one due to it's high price point. I was underwhelmed by the E3 conference when Sony showed games that looked like it can be done on the Xbox 360. I just don't see it as a good value when a competing game system nearly half it's price performs about on par with it. While I like the Blu-Ray format better than HD-DVD, at this point I just don't see buying either format is a smart move. Not to mention the majority of the people do not have HDTV's so they will not see any difference between Blu-Ray and regular DVD video playback.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By obeseotron on 6/26/2006 2:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Blu-Ray is nowhere near as mature as DVD was when the PS2 launched. Back then the average person knew what a DVD was, ask a normal person what a Blu-Ray Disc is today and you'll get a blank stare.

I'd venture to say EVERY HDDVD and Blu-Ray player released in the next year is going to be awful, PS3 included.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 4:48:47 PM , Rating: 1
> "Back then the average person knew what a DVD was, ask a normal person what a Blu-Ray Disc is today and you'll get a blank stare..."

But...the PS3 is not being launched "today". Ask the average person what a BR disc is around Christmas time, and I suspect most are going to have heard of it.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By Xavian on 6/26/2006 5:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
i very much doubt that masher, DVD had been around a good while when the PS2 came out. Another important part of the PS2 puzzle was that DVD was the ONLY format, the whole industry (in the form of the DVD Forum) was behind it. With Blu-ray and HD-DVD competing quite feircely for the majority of consumers i doubt the Blu-ray player in the PS3 will have nearly the impact as the DVD player for the PS2.

The beginnings of DVD was in development around 1990, some 10 years before the PS2 launch, Blu-ray in comparison has been in development for only 3 years, with the PS3 to be launched this year. Blu-ray (or even equivalent HD-DVD) isn't going to be suddenly mainstream by christmas, it took a considerable amount of time before DVD finally become mainstream.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 5:45:17 PM , Rating: 1
> "Blu-ray in comparison has been in development for only 3 years, with the PS3 to be launched this year"

Um, no. Sony demo'd a concept Blu Ray recorder at CES over three years. Work on the standard itself started over five years ago.

In any case, you're not making an apples-to-apples comparison. The differences between DVD and analog videotape are far greater than BR and DVD. The standard therefore doesn't need nearly the same level of time...much of it is simply drawing on the experiences of DVD.

> "Another important part of the PS2 puzzle was that DVD was the ONLY format"

What nonsense is this? If you look back the launch of the PS2, VHS sales and rentals were still FAR above those of DVDs. There were also a couple of other mini-videodisc formats out at the time, though they didn't stand the test of time.

When the PS2 was initially designed and demoed to the industry, the inclusion of the DVD drive was seen to be a bit of a risky move, despite what a shoe-in it appears in the our hindsight from 2006.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By PreOmegaZero on 6/26/2006 8:06:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In any case, you're not making an apples-to-apples comparison. The differences between DVD and analog videotape are far greater than BR and DVD. The standard therefore doesn't need nearly the same level of time...much of it is simply drawing on the experiences of DVD.


Exactly why it will take longer for either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD to be accepted. Some people are just getting around to DVD and now 2 competing formats are trying to get everyone onboard to a product that doesn't offer them a huge jump over DVD WITHOUT buying a brand new Television? Not for the prices they are charging.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 10:44:20 PM , Rating: 1
> "Exactly why it will take longer for either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD to be accepted"

But much *less* time to get either format stable...which was the point to which I responded.

> "now 2 competing formats are trying to get everyone onboard to a product..."

But you see, that's just it. Neither format is trying to get "everyone onboard" right away. They are both positioned for early adopters and videophiles only at this point. Hell, 80% of the nation doesn't even own an HDTV yet. Do you think Toshiba and Sony fail to realize this? Not hardly.

Once we move to another litho node, and some integrated playback ASICs are available, players will be be made available for the mass market. For now, the product(s) are positioned just where the manufacturers wish them to be.


RE: Yes it will affect sales sony
By Zelvek on 6/27/2006 1:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
Lets do some math on this one. If 80% of the USA has not got a HD TV then using the the US census site ( http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.ht...) only 59814657 people in the US have HDTV's the large majority of people in that demograph I'm sure you will agree are in their late 30's to 40's. This is not exactly a group of people who are trying to by a game console and since these people tent to be a group who want the best of everything odds are they will not be buying the PS3 as a blu-ray player. so I therefore highly doubt that the PS3 will do as well as you seem to think. Basicaly blu-ray is a waste in the PS3 as those who want blu ray are not going to buy a ps3 to get it perhaps a year from now blu ray will make sense but for the time being I think it will have a bad effect on sales not a good one.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 2:44:19 AM , Rating: 1
> "only 59814657 people in the US have HDTV's..."

But of course you don't *have* to have an HDTV to buy a PS3 or an Xbox 360. If you think the demographic is limited to only those with HDTVs, you're wrong.

Since you missed the point, I'll clarify further. Only those people who have HDTVs will be interested in a PS3 primarily as a Blu Ray playback device.

> " the large majority of people in that demograph I'm sure you will agree are in their late 30's to 40's..."

Those people tend to have children. Children tend to play videogames, I think you'll agree.

> "these people tent to be a group who want the best of everything odds are they will not be buying the PS3 as a blu-ray player..."

Totally fallacious logic. I've already explained why several times; why not read one of my prior posts?







Rather amusing
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:42:21 AM , Rating: 3
What I find amusing is that, if the PS3 didn't play games-- and was simply a $500 Blu Ray player-- people would look at it and say, "wow, what a steal".

But instead it does play games, and promises to be at least the equal of a $400 Xbox 360, along with the cheapest Blu Ray player by far...and the extra capabilities make it "overpriced".





RE: Rather amusing
By smacky on 6/26/2006 11:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
I hate how people always say "the price is waaay too much! I'm not going to buy it! blah blah blah!"

no one really cares if youre going to buy it or not. do you think that because youre not buying, other people wont?! i personally WILL be buying one, and all the other people saying that theyre not will want one sooner or later.

AND who gives a crap if the games are blu-ray or not. who cares if blu ray loses and HD-dvd wins. where else can you play a xbox360 game? or a wii game? so what difference does it make if the PS3 is blu-ray?! if the PS3 wasnt blu-ray, what do people think they could do?! play xbox games on it?! people are just mad because making copies of blu-ray games will be harder and more expensive than making copies of games on dvd.


RE: Rather amusing
By michal1980 on 6/26/06, Rating: -1
RE: Rather amusing
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 12:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
People are complaining because of the fact most WILL be playing games on it and buy it for a game console. Not everyone puts the console in the living room to take up the main TV, so it's primary function is gaming . Yes, it has the added value of being a cheap BR player, but the argument is that what if BR does not pan out? You are left with a gaming machine almost twice as much as a machine just as good at gaming. I believe that's the argument, or at least mine. Plus, unless PS3 bucks the trend, consoles haven't made for good DVD (the 360 isn't a good DVD player, it does it's job for most people, but compared to a PC with an Avivo PC I hooked up to test in my HT, the ATi card produced quite a bit better IQ and playback) players. A dedicated player is almost always better, and lets face it, those who CAN afford these 1080p TVs, the only TV you will see any sort of benefit on, will want a true, dedicated BR player as their main movie machine. I don't see any added value by it having a BR player unless you spend a lot of money on a nice HT with an expensive TV and decide to just attatch a mediocre BR player instead of a good one to match the other components. Yes, I know we won't know how good it is until it is released, and add to this fact that it's a new format, but as history shows, a good, dedicated DVD player is much better then any console out right now.


RE: Rather amusing
By CKDragon on 6/26/2006 12:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are both off the mark.

People who simply want to buy a GAME CONSOLE don't want to pay the extra $100-200 to have Blu-Ray functionality. Sony is not giving us this option. The PS2 was extremely popular and the fanbase would instantly accept a successor that concentrated on playing games. But Sony is trying to use that PlayStation popularity to force another format upon the consumer base at a higher cost to US.

It reminds me of how in the government, when a bill is extremely popular and certain to pass, some less popular, completely unrelated ammendments get tacked on in an effort to piggyback them into law.

PS3 for $400-500 = Would be extremely popular on name brand alone
PS3 + Blu-Ray for $100-200 more? = reluctant adoption

CK


RE: Rather amusing
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 12:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "People...don't want to pay the extra $100-200 to have Blu-Ray functionality"

You don't. But a huge number of people will. And they'll pay more still for Internet functionality and other features the PS3 will offer.

> "The PS2 was extremely popular"

Funny...a lot of chaps said no one would pay extra for the DVD player on the PS2...and yet people did. In droves.


RE: Rather amusing
By epsilonparadox on 6/26/2006 1:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
WB supports both.


RE: Rather amusing
By CKDragon on 6/27/2006 8:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny...a lot of chaps said no one would pay extra for the DVD player on the PS2...and yet people did. In droves.


Oh yes, I must have missed that $600 price tag when the PS2 debuted. </sarcasm> You're neglecting obvious points purposefully. You are preaching revisionist history. Unless of course, you're really not smart enough to know you're wrong... so what are you?

Wrong or Stupid?

If you believe that games actually need 50 gigs (assuming Sony can ever get the 50gig disks/drives to work reliably), then sure, the blu-ray player will make for a better console.

But the ONLY reason a game would need that much space within the next 5 years would be to include an insane amount of FMV. You can keep that crap.

To people who actually enjoy gameplay and feel that $600 is too much to pay for a game console (apparently the majority judging by every message board on the net) the best option would have been to release a PS3 version for $400 which used regular DVDs and then market Blu-Ray add on for another $200-300.

That would undoubtedly be the best option for the consumer. You retain the possibility of having every bit of functionality. The problem is that this isn't the best for the Sony corporation.

Therefore we get screwed. And you're advocating it. Way to go, corporate whore.


RE: Rather amusing
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2006 8:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
> "Oh yes, I must have missed that $600 price tag when the PS2 debuted. </sarcasm>"

The PS2 launched at a $300 price point. Assuming 7% inflation, that works out to $450 in today's dollars. Or, $50 cheaper than the Blu Ray equipped PS3.

Seems you have a little egg on your face to go with that sarcasm...

> "If you believe that games actually need 50 gigs ..."

This is the most asinine comment yet. There's one thing even the most ignorant floor-sweeper should know about this industry. More performance and more capacity are ALWAYS put to use.

Years ago, I remember similar idiots posting to message boards that videogames would "never" use anywhere near the storage of a single CD-ROM. Within a few years, a single game might ship on 4 or 5 disks. Years before that, I remember people claiming that 32-bit computers were far too powerful to "ever" be used for mundane tasks like gaming.

Hrm..was one of these short-sighted individuals your father perhaps? I wonder if its genetic.


RE: Rather amusing
By CKDragon on 6/27/2006 10:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The PS2 launched at a $300 price point. Assuming 7% inflation, that works out to $450 in today's dollars. Or, $50 cheaper than the Blu Ray equipped PS3.


Because we all know that generations of technology always follow a 7% yearly increase due to inflation. Oh wait, no it doesn't. Dell finds ways to make faster computers for cheaper pricetags. Apple makes smaller, larger capacity iPods cheaper. Nintendo can come out with 500 new revisions of its gameboys and DS systems with improved technology for cheaper or the same price tag.

Don't try throwing your fuzzy math crap around now. It's ridiculous. You're honestly trying to say that the money I have today would have been worth 50% more 5 years ago?

quote:
Seems you have a little egg on your face to go with that sarcasm...


Actually, I've shown that I don't. But anything would be better than the Sony-brand brown on your nose.

quote:
This is the most asinine comment yet. There's one thing even the most ignorant floor-sweeper should know about this industry. More performance and more capacity are ALWAYS put to use.


More performance, ABSOLUTELY will be put to use. But tell me, do you think 50gb of capacity is actually needed for a game? The truth is, that yea, I bet it will be used because bad developers are lazy. But is it NEEDED? If you think that 50gigs are necessary for a game, considering all the incredible compression techniques* out there, then I hope you aren't actually a developer because there's enough bloatware on the market.

*For examples, compare the graphics of the games released on both 1GB Gamecube discs & 9 GB PS2 discs.

CK


RE: Rather amusing
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I find amusing is that, if the PS3 didn't play games-- and was simply a $500 Blu Ray player

This tells me that there will be a lot of pressure for manufacturers of Blu-ray drives to lower the price a lot by the time that PS3 comes out, since they will understand that competition.

...or this could be a nail in the coffin for Blu-ray if the manufacturers can't drop the prices that fast. I don't think that movie studios will back a video format that mainly exists on a game console.


RE: Rather amusing
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 2
> "This tells me that there will be a lot of pressure for manufacturers of Blu-ray drives to lower the price "

I think you're absolutely right here.

> "I don't think that movie studios will back a video format that mainly exists on a game console. "

Sony's studios will back it regardless. And most of the rest are going to support both it and HD-DVD both. I think most studio execs are going to see a base of three million players as a positive, regardless of its form factor.


RE: Rather amusing
By Deception on 6/26/2006 12:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Blu-Ray has much more third-party support than HD-DVD, especially from movies studios:

Walt Disney
Twentieth Century Fox
Lionsgate
MGM Grand
Universal
Sony Pictures (obviously)
Paramount
Warner Brothers


RE: Rather amusing
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 1:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
I can't argue about that. But everyone realizes it is a chicken-and-egg situation, and if for some reason HD-DVD takes off instead of Blu-ray, then you will see these studios reverse their decision in a heartbeat. Unlike Sony who is willing to make an "investment," the other studios will not want to have any market share loss due to being on the "wrong" standard. If anything, I expect to see studios release movies in both formats until dual-format players are popular, at which point the standards war becomes moot.


RE: Rather amusing
By lwright84 on 6/26/2006 12:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
yes misinformed consumers in a there idiocy can be rather amusing, i agree. whether the sony exec is arrogant or not, he speaks the truth. the "high" price of the PS3 will not effect its domination of the console/entertainment industry.

it offers more features and functionality than any other console available, includes the superior next-gen content format, allows its owners to play their games online for FREE, and has more industry support than any other console in history.

its also important to note that games will be developed for the Blu-Ray format, whereas games will NOT be developed for the HD-DVD format. this makes an included Blu-Ray player on the PS3 an even larger value and puts the $100-$150 HD-DVD player accessory for the x360 in perspective.


RE: Rather amusing
By lwright84 on 6/26/2006 12:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
consumers in a there idiocy


*all there


RE: Rather amusing
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 12:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it offers more features and functionality than any other console available, includes the superior next-gen content format, allows its owners to play their games online for FREE, and has more industry support than any other console in history.


We don't know that it offers more features and functionality because Wii is not out, though we don't suspect that it will, and the internet aspect of the PS3 is not tested. The 360 had a good internet system in place from the Xbox. Yes, you can play the games for 'free', but at what cost? Will it perform as well? Offer the same functionality and community features? We are told yes, but we don't know how they will do building it from scratch. Sony hasn't delivered on a promise in years, so I am not holding my breath. As for your content assumption, they only have the Japanese devs, and even some of them are turning to the 360, or at least giving it more attention. The biggest kicker? Square Enix put a FF game on a MS system, who makes probably the most popular PS franchise by far. Why can't they put regular FF games on it as well? Second, they lost Rockstar as an exclusive. That is HUGE in the US. GTA has sold upwards of 30 to 35 million copies and most are on the PS2. Now, GTA4 is coming to 360 first with exclusive content you can download. That is a major coup. Lastly, who cares if they develop for BR? You think games will make use of 40GB of data anytime soon? There is nowhere near enough memory on the PS3 to keep that much at hand, so it will be wasted or used for FMV scenes. You cannot expect it to come out as actual game content, unless you like a lot of loading screens.


RE: Rather amusing
By lwright84 on 6/26/2006 1:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We don't know that it offers more features and functionality because Wii is not out


sure we do because we already know what the Wii lacks in comparison to the PS3.

quote:
The 360 had a good internet system in place from the Xbox. Yes, you can play the games for 'free', but at what cost? Will it perform as well? Offer the same functionality and community features?


does that matter? the simple fact is you have to pay a monthly fee to play your games online with the xbox360, and with the PS3 you don't. even if sony decides to charge for certain features and community services, i'm sure most people would rather be able to pick and choose what services they want to take advantage of while being able to play the game they already purchased online at no cost.. not the other way around.

quote:
Lastly, who cares if they develop for BR? You think games will make use of 40GB of data anytime soon? There is nowhere near enough memory on the PS3 to keep that much at hand, so it will be wasted or used for FMV scenes.


FMV scenes, mini-games, extra content, HD content, more expansive levels, etc etc.. there is plenty of potential is using Blu-Ray when it comes to game development. as one developer put it, it allows them to throw more ideas and content in a game without worrying what will fall on the cutting room floor. and yes, seeing as how there are already games that require multiple or dual-layer DVD's to hold their content, i can definitely see games taking advantage of Blu-Ray's storage capacity, among other things.

also, despite the fact that sony has lost a handful of exclusive deals.. that doesn't change the fact that they have more total developer support than any other console manufacturer. do you really think gamers are going to buy GTA and FF on a different console when all they've known is those games on the PS? some will, sure.. but most won't.


RE: Rather amusing
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 1:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yes misinformed consumers in a there idiocy can be rather amusing, i agree. whether the sony exec is arrogant or not, he speaks the truth. the "high" price of the PS3 will not effect its domination of the console/entertainment industry.

At the end of the day, "misinformed consumers" as you say, will decide if Sony's product succeeds or fails. If Sony has to "inform" consumers about the superiority of their product, then they will likely fail. The product will only succeed if the value proposition is pretty obvious to the average consumer.


ps3, everyone is missing the big picture
By ilovegames1234 on 6/26/2006 2:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
I am so tired of you cheap aXXholes complaining about the price of the new PS3. Not only are you geting a next gen console, but you are getting a Blu-RAY player as well. Blu-ray players by themselves are $1000. So I don't understand the complaints about the little $600 price tag. What do people expect, nex gen technology for nothing? Try to go out and buy a blu-ray player and a next gen console like x-box 360. You will pay >$1400 for those items. Sony is giving you a nex gen system more powerful than xbox 360 and the high def player for only $600, I am missing something here? I really thouhgt it would be higher. I will buy a ps3 when it comes out and not only play the most awsome games but watch it all in high def.




RE: ps3, everyone is missing the big picture
By saratoga on 6/26/2006 4:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
Bluray costs $1000 today. The PS3 isn't even shipping yet, so that kind of math is silly.

Fact is by the time there are more then a handful of titles out, and they're priced around the $20 mark, Bluray players will be cheap and plentiful. Which is why the whole bluray arguement never really made much sense. Yes, it'd be a good deal if Bluray standalone players were always going to be $1000, but clearly they're not.

So in effect what you're doing is paying a fortune for a feature that won't be useful until the price comes down enough for massmarket adoption.


RE: ps3, everyone is missing the big picture
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 5:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "Fact is by the time there are more then a handful of titles out, and they're priced around the $20 mark, Bluray players will be cheap and plentiful"

This is, unfortunately, extremely unrealistic. Within a year, BR titles will be common-- assuming the standard gains hold, of course. And yet BR players won't have dropped by more than 50% at most.

A truly cheap BR player won't come until at least a year after fully-integrated BR ASICs are on the market. And there aren't any yet.


RE: ps3, everyone is missing the big picture
By Xavian on 6/26/2006 5:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
indeed, the "assuming the standard gains hold" part is what is worrying the general consumer, do you want to spend out on a $600 machine of a possibly dead standard? thats what most consumers will be asking themselves, HD-DVD will be getting just as much coverage as Blu-ray in the coming months/years.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 5:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "do you want to spend out on a $600 machine of a possibly dead standard? "

If the standard fails totally...then I still have a console worth at least what an XBox 360 is. You're not risking anything but the *difference* in price.

And why is you anti-PS3 people refuse to acknowledge the $499 price point? The minimum price of a PS3 is *not* $600. Do you really have to inflate the figures to try to prove a point?


RE: ps3, everyone is missing the big picture
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 9:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and no. The 500 dollar PS3 though, does not have HDMI, which is required for 1080p output. It is also missing some other things as well. The same reason people don't use 299 for the price of the 360, it is just missing, albeit in the 360 case it is missing the most important part, too many things. You have to use the 600 dollar version if you, as you have made in other arguments masher, want to use the PS3 as an entertainment hub/living room computer.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 11:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "The 500 dollar PS3 though, does not have HDMI, which is required for 1080p output."

Given that the number of TVs in the nation actually capable of accepting a 1080p signal is probably 0.01% or less, I wouldn't exactly call that a huge lack.

> "You have to use the 600 dollar version if you...want to use the PS3 as an entertainment hub/living room computer.


And if you ARE using it as that, then $600 is cheap, as even you would I think agree. If you're NOT using it for that, then the price is $500.



By PreOmegaZero on 6/26/2006 9:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And why is you anti-PS3 people refuse to acknowledge the $499 price point? The minimum price of a PS3 is *not* $600. Do you really have to inflate the figures to try to prove a point?


Just like the minimum price point for the Xbox 360 is *not* $399.99. Does it mean there's going to be huge interest in the $499.99 PS3? Not if the 360 Core system is an indicator.


Just a little comment.
By Le Québécois on 6/26/2006 6:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Take away the fact that it cost 600$ for a seconde. The Gaming succes of a console is always about the game you can get for it. From what I've been told (from programers working on it right now) Programing for the PS3 is a pain in th *ss. So much that some are thinking about just making their games for the Xbox360 and forget about the PS3.

Now take a lack of game and the 600$ and THAT could very well be the fall of the PS3.




RE: Just a little comment.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 6:03:45 PM , Rating: 3
> " From what I've been told (from programers working on it right now) Programing for the PS3 is a pain in th *ss"

People have been repeating this little factoid for a couple years now, since long before the Cell SDK was even available. It's one of those self-perpetuating myths.

Truth is, its really not that hard to program Cell. It's different than scalar programming certainly...but then again, so is the Xbox 360.


RE: Just a little comment.
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 6:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People have been repeating this little factoid for a couple years now, since long before the Cell SDK was even available. It's one of those self-perpetuating myths.

The point is, it is harder because you're not just writing sequential code in C/C++ as you might for traditional processors, since your code needs to be programmed more to the chip architecture. It is no different than parallel programming is generally more difficult than sequential.

But I think it is a reasonable expectation that a system like that be harder to program, so I don't get the jist of the complaints, really.


RE: Just a little comment.
By PreOmegaZero on 6/26/2006 10:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I think it is a reasonable expectation that a system like that be harder to program, so I don't get the jist of the complaints, really.


Granted they should get accustomed to a system, the fact that Sony is making it harder and harder to program for their systems as each generation goes along, mounted with the fact that for some devs to come out with a profit considering the costs of developing a game these days, they HAVE to cross-platform their titles, which will probably mean 1 system gets all the dev time and then it's ported over regardless of the other system's capabilities. In this case, the PS3 would get the short end of the the stick when it comes to these games. (Yes, that was a rather large run-on sentence)


RE: Just a little comment.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 10:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "The point is, it is harder because you're not just writing sequential code in C/C++"

Two important points. First of all, you're not writing sequential code for the Xbox 360 either...if you are, you're wasting 2/3 of its processing power.

Secondly, in many cases, parallelization can be done automatically, by the compiler. Loop unrolling is a prime example of this, as are any array operations upon which the SIMD model can operate directly. You write single-threaded code...and the compiler spits out the multithreaded version.

This may sound advanced...but I was programming physics simulations on supercomputers while in grad school, using just these sorts of tools. And that was (*cough*) longer ago than I like to remember.


RE: Just a little comment.
By Le Québécois on 6/27/2006 1:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
I honnestly don't know jack about programming with the exception of Assembly language( Assembler ). So I mostly don't underdestand a word of what you all just said.

My point was about what I was told by to different programmers working on the same title for the next gens consoles(XBOX360 and PS3) and they both told me that it was a cake walk to programs on the 360 and a real headach on the PS3 to the point where their boss were thinking about letting go the PS3 version of that game. And I'm not talking about a little company ( just guess its name by where I live...here's a hint...look at my nickname ).

So maybe you're all right and it's not a big deal to program on a PS3, but let me ask you this, how many off you are working on a PS3 game right now?

But when I think about the 3 new system for this next gen war where you have a 600$ system with a chance of getting not that much game because of the devlopping cost, a 400$ system with already many great games running on it and easy to program and to finish a 200$ system where the devlopment cost are close to nothing if you have made a GameCube game in the past, for me it's pretty clear which system has a greater chance of failure.


RE: Just a little comment.
By Le Québécois on 6/27/2006 1:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
Oops..a little comment so you don't think I am too biased. All prices, graphics or systems style asside I'm at the core a Nintendo fan, then a Sony fan and in third place a computer game fan...you read me right. I don't care at all about the X360 since MS tends to get all the good Xbox game on PC after a while.


Another day another arrogant Sony comment.
By 05SilverGT on 6/26/2006 10:56:46 AM , Rating: 3
The subject pretty much says all I have to say. Yet another reason why PS3 I don't think will ever be for me. Way to continue killing the excitement of a loyal PS and PS2 owner.




By clementlim on 6/26/2006 2:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
Amen my bro :) But I'll get PS3...once it drops below $300.


RE: Another day another arrogant Sony comment.
By Demonhitman on 6/26/2006 9:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone is says the system is too high, but people will pays for it. We are talk about a blu-ray player, high def, Linux based, compact computer all for under a $1000, some would say that’s a steal. The PS3 is a game system first and games is what people are and should buy it for. The thing no one seems to care about is the price of these games. The new Blu-ray movies are going anywhere from 24.99 (sale price on old movies) to 39.99 (the so call true price on new movies) and the blank discs are going for 19.99-29.99 each. Sony makes all of their money off the game. If Sony does what Microsoft did and ups the opening price of games so that they can make some money we are looking at 69.99+ for game. They do have to make up their lost on the system so where after all. The older movies are at less $10 more than the DVD they replace and the newer movies are at less $20 more than the DVD they replace (after the new movie sell is over). So a new PS3 Blu-ray game would be at best be 59.99 equal to a 360 game (which I don’t think at that price any money would be made) or 69.99 equal to what the increase retail price of a new Blu-ray movie in comparison to the price of a new DVD movie. The price of your new PS3 is $499-599, plus $59.99-69.99, plus new 1080p TV if you don’t already have one at less $1500, plus the extra stuff like cables, game controllers ect… $100. All added up at best you going to pay 550+ some dollars for the PS3 and at worst $2200+. I see me making a lot of money on E-bay LOL


By kelmon on 6/27/2006 2:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for everyone so I may be an anomally (well, the graffitti says that at least), but I can say that *I won't* be paying for a PS3 at this price despite having bought (and been very satisfied with) a PS1 and PS2. I don't care what technology they are packing into the PS3. If the price is too high (frankly anything more than £200) then there will be no sale, particularly since I don't want/need most of the "expensive" features.


By tuteja1986 on 6/27/2006 9:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
OKAY , if people buy a PS3 to watch blu-ray they will buy the 60GB model one because its the only model to have an HDMI port. Now Sony exes say $599USD :? but what about the rest of the world :?

UK $802USD
AUSTRALIA , EUROPE $754USD
USA/CANADA $599USD
JAPAN OPEN PRICE $1000 ++ AT LAUNCH

Now sony is making sure that PS3 has HDMI 1.3 port but at what expense :?

No more 3.2GHz Cell processor .. its now 2.8Ghz
GPU clock speed has been reduced
GPU ram clock speed has been reduced
GPU pipeline has been reduced
External 400PSU (even bigger than xbox 360 power brick)
core logic bridge is out but now intergated into RSX
No more Rumble because of court case

What about the online plan :? Sony screw up squad has very good plans to milk as much money as possible by :
-Selling Ships and add on for games like Warhack for $3.00ish each on PS3 online hub
-Selling MUSIC from PS3 Supper star crap


Virus possible :) damn yes because Sony thought it would be supper awesome to make sure Blu-ray GUI would be codded in java but not xml ;( .

Is Bluray even worth it... wait they are using Mepg2 not VLC or MPEG 4 because current dual layer BD media is limited to 25GB because of cost of production. While HD-DVD is already using Dual Layer disk 30GB and its using a much better codec VLC. Does Blu-ray Movies beat HD-DVD in Image quality ... not according to most review i read.

Ahh i could go on how Sony is planning to screwing the consumer over with PS3!!!


Not Overpriced, But Expensive
By DuckhunterDeux on 6/26/2006 1:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
For the features it has, the PS3 is not overpriced, but it is EXPENSIVE. So for everyone saying the system is overpriced, I really have to disagree. Maybe if Sony were to make it more known that it costs ~$700-900 to produce 1 PS3 people would stop complaining about about it being overpriced. Just because something isn't overpriced doesn't mean it isn't expensive though. $660 for the system and 1 game is a lot of money for the average Joe or the kid trying to get the system. Period.

I still think that Sony needs to focus more on gaining back the fanbase that's started drifting since E3, but that doesn't change the fact that if the system performs the way Sony says it will, it's actually a steal.




RE: Not Overpriced, But Expensive
By maverick502 on 6/26/2006 1:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
"if the system performs the way Sony says it will, it's actually a steal. "

The PS2 never performed to what sony said it would - internet, Toy Story graphics...

Let's just hope the RSX can make up for the slow cell processor.

By the way...the mass market is not ready for HD movies....they will sputter and fail like SACD and DVDA.


RE: Not Overpriced, But Expensive
By michal1980 on 6/26/06, Rating: -1
RE: Not Overpriced, But Expensive
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2006 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "By the way...the mass market is not ready for HD movies"

By the time the PS3 ships in Christmas, HD television penetration will be at 20+% in the US. That's a mass market, like it or not.


RE: Not Overpriced, But Expensive
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 6:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
This 20% (assuming a correct prediction) is also early adopters, which are inherently more apt to buy gadgets like PS3s.


RE: Not Overpriced, But Expensive
By Lakku on 6/26/2006 9:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
That 20% is still only a small percentage of the market. It's hit mainstream probably, but not mass market. Just about everyone owns a TV, so that number is actually quite small compared to total household TV ownership. You also didn't take into account the fact, of that 20&, maybe 1% or less, more likely a lot less, will be 1080p TVs. That remains a selling point of Sony, that they can do 1080p games and movies. Who cares? You can get an HD-DVD player (albeit a crappy one) and a 360, or, get a 360 plus the HD add on for the price of the PS3. My biggest argument through all of my posts is that Sony may be actually doing TOO much, or betting the farm on BR, when they have no real insight into how the market will accept BR. It's a huge risk, and my point is that it's a bad risk, considering their past track record and the fact that few people will want to leave DVD behind already. As others have said, SACD (another great Sony invention) and DVD-Audio (which works fine on a lot of normal DVD players now a days) have failed, but they are superior to normal CDs in almost every way. This is what's going to happen to BR and HD-DVD, and if people DO chose, it will be the cheaper of the two, and right now, a 360 plus HD-DVD add on will be at or below the price of the PS3. The only way these formats work is if companies stop producing DVDs at all.


Funny
By CKDragon on 6/26/2006 11:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
This isn't limited to just Sony, but I just love hearing these multi-millionaires trying to tell the consumer base what they can and can't afford.

"Oh yea, it's totally worth a third of your monthly mortgage payment!"

CK




RE: Funny
By epsilonparadox on 6/26/2006 1:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on the area of the country, it could be more than your total mortgage or rent. I know its more than my one month rent.


Price vs. longevity
By othercents on 6/26/2006 11:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
If PS3 is a cutting edge device that runs 1080p with Blu-Ray then when do you think you will upgrade again? If you purchased Nintendo Wii or Xbox 360 you would definitly upgrade sooner than the PS3. I expect the PS3 to last at least two years longer than the other consoles. This basically makes the PS3 equal or better than the other consoles in terms of price.

Now my only question is if Microsoft is going to drop their price in 4Q. This would definitly give the PS3 problems. Live is already making problems for the up coming PS3.

Other




RE: Price vs. longevity
By samuraiBX on 6/26/2006 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
"If PS3 is a cutting edge device that runs 1080p with Blu-Ray then when do you think you will upgrade again?"

Well, if the competing HD-DVD format happens to win out, then I'd imagine it could be fairly soon. The point is, why would you want to fork out the money for a $500-600 system when you can wait for a while, find out about the real longevity of Blu-Ray, and in all likelihood see a price drop within that time period? Plus, read the articles on developer's comments on game dev. on the system. If the games are being developed on the other consoles and only ported with minor graphic changes, I don't see it as such a great value.


Blu-Ray looks awesome - check it out at Bestbuy
By hstewarth on 6/26/2006 11:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well I went by Bestbuy and I got to say Blu-Ray looks totally awesome at 1080p. This was on a Samsung Blu-Ray player and Samsung 1080p TV. Before making judgement on the PS3, one should look at this technology first.

I don't think Sony is going have any problems with the PS3 because of Blu-Ray.

This is based on my personal observation of the Blu-Ray device - no bias at all - I have a XBox 360.




By Lakku on 6/26/2006 11:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
To address two posts here, yes, TRUE 1080p looks pretty nice (will probably be even better with HDMI 1.3), but who owns a TRUE 1080p TV? Not just one that says it does 1080p, because not all of them do it correctly (they downsample, even with a 1080p source). That doesn't change the fact a decent 1080p TV plus Blu Ray is upwards of 3 to 4k. A big problem? Most 1080p TVs are rather large, thus making them expensive. A good 26 to 32in. 720p TV will work just fine, and negates the 1080p aspect, meaning the 360 is the economical choice. The point being, who cares about BR and 1080p? It's nice to think about, but hardly anyone can afford it, meaning their big selling point affects all of about 1% of the population. Not a good market. Second thing to address, I can buy close to two Xbox 360s for the price of one PS3. Sure the PS3 may 'last', but with the huge lead MS has now, you don't think they may not upgrade before Sony in the next-gen after this one? Their are now off cycles, and should Sony decide to catch up, you wasted an extra 300 dollars. I am not here to sell 360s, only to point out that the PS3, any way you slice it, is a bad business decision. You cannot bank on next gen DVD to matter this much, and considering their games devision is one of the only things making money, if not the only, they are shooting themselves in the head. I'd sell Sony stock if you have it now.


Last attempts to push Blu-Ray, not games
By kitchme on 6/26/2006 11:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
Lately, it seems that every statement coming from Sony comes out a bit arrogant. They might be missing the point that people want to buy PS3 mainly for games , and not to watch Blu-Ray media. They stand to lose much more if they lose this new format war though. If they sold, as they say, 100 mil units, that would almost assure that BR wins, or at least stays. But with such risky proposition and Sony's pushful stance on PS3 price and BR format, there just might be a good possibility that they could lose both, PS fans and BR media format. Personally, I've been feeling pushed away from getting a PS3 since E3.




By DuckhunterDeux on 6/26/2006 11:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I've been feeling pushed away from getting a PS3 since E3.


Agreed. And right now I must say I'm content with my 360. Sony needs to understand that the majority of the people interested in the PS3 are looking at it to play games. And it seems like lately Sony has been pushing every feature but the most basic one: games. While it's nice that the PS3 can play Blu-Ray and has more processing power than all but the most powerful desktops, that's not what the fanbase is interested in. With that being said, I still want Sony to do well, but their arrogance lately has been making it hard for me.


i feel ill
By grimdeath on 6/26/2006 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
i dunno, it just makes me a bit ill to know people will have to pay that much money for a gaming console, sure they are trying to break out of being just that but still...

a $500 media drive is not a steal in my book. im happy for you if you can afford it but as a 22 year old married male with a steady job, car payment, rent, and a slew of other bills its just not possible.

the last time I rounded up that much "play" money was for my computer which I use for digital imaging(for my job), web design, plus all the regular internet uses/entertainment, as well as high end gaming. and all for a $500 upgrade.....ill see which of the two is still top dog when upgrading time rolls around.




RE: i feel ill
By TomZ on 6/26/2006 1:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, for me too - I'd rather spend the $500 on something else besides a game console - anything else really. But there will still be a lot of people buying these consoles in any case.


PS3 to surf the net?
By Xudus on 6/26/2006 2:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
The idea of PS3 being able to surf the internet is retarded. How will they manage parental control? plug-ins? Pop-ups? Phishing? Trojans? Will it support SSL? Cookies? If Sony thinks they can manage the ability to surf the net with the PS3 they are delirious. Imagine the support problems they will have to deal with. Any one here ever used the Sony Location Free TV for the internet? It’s cool for about 3 minutes than it is back to the desktop for the internet. Never mind the screen real-estate! if only 20% of the population uses HD than the resolution for most users will be 640x480. Try setting your monitor to 640x480 and than browse the internet. Scrolling hell. What about navigation? Will you have to <tab> through every hyperlink? The list goes on. If anyone could have added the ability to implement surfing on the console it would have been Microsoft, yet they didn’t, guess why.




RE: PS3 to surf the net?
By killerroach on 6/26/2006 2:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
PS3's Internet browsing capabilities will be brought to you through Linux, which, last I checked, is better in terms of security than just about anything Microsoft could come up with. Secondly, they could use gesture browsing for Internet surfing, or you could always use a keyboard and mouse... Sony's not stopping you from doing that, heck, they may even encourage it.


By killerroach on 6/26/2006 11:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
...is that the eBay speculators should be kept down a little ways, as the cost outlay of picking up a dozen PS3s or so would make them think twice about it. :)




PS3 - X360 and the WII !!
By UsernameX on 6/26/2006 12:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wii - Cheap system with a different game play... it will have it's own market so Nintendo already has it's place, and props to those guys they are being creative instead of following the trend. Not to say the current trend isnt bad, but it gives variety to the market that is striving.

As for the other two they will duke it out. MS has a 1 year head start over Sony. Even some Sony only titles have moved to MS but honestly I don't think that's going to make that much of a difference. But for anyone to WANTS Sony to fail because of "x" reason are being arrogant themselves. SERIOUSLY PEOPLE! As another person has said here competition is GOOD. I see people here rant and rave about Windows and then come here and say Sony sucks. Would you honestly want X360 ruling the gaming market AND PC? I hope all 3 systems have their place.

Sony's system may be pricey and I read a comment by someone here that said it was mostly because of BR? HARDLY!!!!! The video card in the system alone would account for 80-90% of the cost, nonetheless a CELL processor. The system may be more expensive then the other consoles but it certainly isnt overpriced by any means.

And even if BR takes a turn for the worse... MGS4 is reason enough alone to show PS3 will have a home of it's own. It's one of the best selling games in history and if the previews are anything to come... I myself will be buying my first Sony console.







Why so much noise on the hardware?
By pata2001 on 6/26/2006 1:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Do you guys buy a game console to just stare on it, or actually play games? It all comes to the games. If Sony and game developers can release plenty of exclusive titles on the PS3, just like the PS2, then sooner or later people will buy it, regardless of price. So far, I don't see any compeling titles on the 360 despite it being released sooner, and the fact that many of the titles are available on PC. for the PS3, there's already FF13 on the lineup.

I won't be buying the PS3 if I can find the games I want on other console. I also will wait until price drops, which I think will happen quite quickly due to the Wii. I don't care about the hardware. If a console have the games I want, I'll buy it. It's useless buying a console just to play 1 or 2 games on it.

Actually, PS3 will sell quite a lot. People who buy it won't use it though, they'll flock ebay to sell the PS3 for profit. I've already had 2 friends planning to buy 2 PS3s each at launch to sell them at ebay.




???!!!
By Chadder007 on 6/26/2006 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
BullCrap. I know its going to certainly "phase" my purchasing of it.




Not future prof
By Trisped on 6/26/2006 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not future proof

Just more Sony crap to appease the fans and try to win support for its over priced console.

The only “future proof” element in the PS3 is the Blue Ray drive; and that is only future proof if the format does well in the format war. Otherwise it will just be another high capacity optical drive. The problem is that Sony banked everything on Blue Ray/PS3 combo. As a result gamers are getting an over priced system 6 months late. Or may the Sony CEO was making a joke, saying that it was future proof because it would always be in the future, yet never released. If so, I am still not laughing.




Spelling
By Merlin13 on 6/26/2006 3:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
"High Price of Entry Won't Phase PS3 Sales Says Sony Exec"
Shouldn't that be "faze?"




Smells like the sega saturn to me
By Pacemaker on 6/27/2006 12:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Expensive and hard program. (possibly just harder and not really all that difficult I haven't personally looked at the SDK but from what I have heard getting the most out of the Cell is a pain)

I think they are letting history repeat itself. The last console that cost this much was the 3DO and we all know how much of a success it was.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki