backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Dec 31 at 11:13 PM

iSuppli teardown report shows PS3 is much cheaper to build today than in 2006

Sony's PS3 game console is popular among many gamers, but faces significant competition from the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii. Much of the pressure placed on the PS3 by the other two major game consoles is one of price.

One of the reasons that the PS3 is still priced well above some versions of the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii is because the components and technology used in the PS3 make it more expensive to build. It's hard for Sony to cut the price of its console when the system is already being sold at a major loss.

When the PS3 first launched in 2006, iSuppli tore the system down and found that it cost Sony about $840 to build the version of the PS3 selling for $599 at the time, accounting for a loss of around $240 per PS3 sold. Sony expected to make the money up on the backend with game and accessory sales.

The basic PS3 console, which sold for $499 in 2006, cost Sony only slightly less to build at $805 according to iSuppli. After two years of availability, iSuppli has again performed a teardown of the PS3 and found that Sony is still losing money on the console.

The bright light for the electronics giant is that despite still selling at a loss, the PS3 is losing much less money today than it did in 2006. The research firm reports that the PS3 costs Sony about $448 to build and the system sells for $399. The loss Sony is now taking on the PS3 amounts to about $50.

iSuppli analyst Andrew Rassweiler told Business Week, "Every time we do a teardown, it's sort of backward-looking. Sony is one step ahead of us and probably has plans to re-spin the hardware to reduce the costs yet again."

The key to reducing the cost to build the PS3 so significantly for Sony is the combination of what used to take two or more chips on early PS3 models to a single chip for the same tasks on today's PS3. The console has also moved to smaller nanometer scale build processes for the GPU and the Cell processor. The NVIDIA GPU and the Cell processor in early PS3 were built on a 90nm scale; today the parts are built on a 65nm scale making them cheaper to produce. The Cell processor is now estimated to cost $46 compared to the $89 price tag in 2006.

The NVIDIA graphics chip now costs $58 compared to the $129 in 2006. The total number of parts used in the PS3 was 4,048 in 2006 and today the PS3 uses 2,820. Rassweiler says, "At the end of the day the PS3 is doing the same thing it did before, but with two-thirds as many parts."

DailyTech reported in January of 2008 that Sony expected the PS3 to be profitable in 2009. If the components inside the console continue to drop in price as they have since introduction, Sony may well meet that goal in 2009.



Comments     Threshold


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

Profitable
By Mitch101 on 12/24/2008 10:03:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Sony expected the PS3 to be profitable in 2009

I would imagine this would only happen if the PS3 were able to maintain its current price however stand alone BLU-RAY players have come down in price that the PS3 is no longer the best deal when looking for a BLU-RAY player. You can almost buy a 360 and stand alone BLU-RAY player now for the price of the PS3.

If the PS3 wants to be competitive with the current consoles it needs find a way to come down in price.




RE: Profitable
By Chaser on 12/24/2008 10:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
So what does the 360 have to do to be competitive with the Wii?


RE: Profitable
By amanojaku on 12/24/2008 10:51:00 AM , Rating: 5
Nothing, now that there are versions at $200 and $300. The games will be the deciding factor, and I would go out on a limb and say the Xbox has more quality single-player games while the Wii has more party games. I see the two consoles co-existing like cars and trucks, not competing like Ford and Toyota. The next consoles will probably spark true competition.


RE: Profitable
By pattycake0147 on 12/24/2008 10:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't heard the car and trucks analogy, but it is very good. +1


RE: Profitable
By tuteja1986 on 12/24/2008 9:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
Inflation :! Part price will go up because of stupid dollar ain't going to saved in time so i don't see the any console really making big profit from each console sold.


RE: Profitable
By BansheeX on 12/25/2008 11:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Technology prices are one of the few things that go down in spite of modest inflation, though it's possible for them to go up if the currency in which they're denominated is hyperinflated. Which we seem to be on the road to doing...


RE: Profitable
By pattycake0147 on 12/24/2008 10:54:58 AM , Rating: 1
The Wii is a different beast. The controller is unique enough that price is less of a concern ($50 isn't too much anyway). IMHO, I think the Wii and 360 are competitive with each other right now at $200 and $250, but the Wii is the "in" console right now and neither of the other two are going to take that away. Don't get me wrong I like all of three consoles, but the Wii is out of the other two's league.


RE: Profitable
By Mitch101 on 12/24/2008 11:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
I really feel the Wii is a different market/demographic than the 360/PS3 crowd.

To me the Wii is the fun/cute/interactive console. I love the Wii its simple and fun.

The 360/PS3 are your hardcore high graphic systems. They are great too but cater to a different crowd. More real to life scene.

I dont feel people are swayed to get a 360 instead of a Wii because Microsoft throws in a cute factor. They would need a more interactive controller to take anything away from the Wii.

On the PS3 side there is the EYETOY which is great fun however its so poorly marketed that its even a factor.

Early on I would say that the BLU-RAY player in the PS3 was a factor to consider but since the price drops on stand alone players and no price drop on the PS3 it has less impact.

Each console is a lot of fun there is pluses to each of them it all depends on your budget and type of gamer you are. I would have a good time with any of them.

For the record I bought a PS2 for X-Mas and have been collecting the EYETOY games.


RE: Profitable
By BWAnaheim on 12/24/2008 12:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Nintendo also has icons and franchises that people associate more with family friendly gaming: Mario, Link & Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc. The biggest franchise on the XBOX is Halo, which does not have the family appeal. Microsoft is trying to turn its market perception around with the latest holiday ads (200 family titles...), but Nintendo does have a long history of kid-type games. As a 360 owner and parent, I can see the appeal of the Wii to parents-- it represents a lower risk to them (marketing perception), and it has more characters and titles that the parents played as kids.


RE: Profitable
By Mitch101 on 12/24/2008 1:34:12 PM , Rating: 2
So true when you think Nintendo they are like the Disney of the console market. Very family orientated.

Nintendo didn't evolve the console as much as they changed how you interact with it. Even with more family titles I don't see the 360 being able to compete without more user interaction. Kids are bundles of silliness energy which is the Wii's strong point. Adults are closet Jedi's. Where the Wii really excels is would you rather control a Jedi or swing the light saber. I would rather swing the light saber and hope no one is video taping me.

The Nintendo DS is another example of their brilliance on game interaction.

The only competing product I have seen to the Wii controls is the EyeToy.

EYE TOY PARTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOXohr4XE-4

Eye Toys and Lightsabers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWUk7huRwIU

BEST EYETOY BOXING MOVIE EVER !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj3UrfjbGIs


RE: Profitable
By omnicronx on 12/24/2008 3:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
Lower their price below that of the wii?(800k in 360 sales seems to show that it is working) Not to mention they don't directly compete either. MS has been playing it really smart, they can now curtail to the casual and hardcore gamers.

I have also just received a bunch of boxing day flyers that show the 360 pro bundled with two games for $275, those are going to go like hotcakes.


RE: Profitable
By Alexstarfire on 12/24/2008 4:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you are talking about in November, where the 360 sold like 836k units. Well, that's less than half of the 2+ million units that the Wii sold.


RE: Profitable
By Generic Guy on 12/24/2008 5:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assume you are talking about in November, where the 360 sold like 836k units. Well, that's less than half of the 2+ million units that the Wii sold.


Yes, but it is far more than the 378k units which PS3 sold -- which Sony is apparently *still* losing money per unit on.


RE: Profitable
By Alexstarfire on 12/24/2008 11:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
True, but he was talking about the 360 compared to the Wii, not the PS3. The PS3 has been last for some time... it's not news. Just like it's not news that the Wii is in first.


RE: Profitable
By itzmec on 12/25/2008 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
just like its not news that 836,000 is less than half of 2 million. i forgot what grade it was i learned that in, but its been awhile.


RE: Profitable
By Alexstarfire on 12/25/2008 5:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of being an asshat maybe you should read the comment I replied to. He was saying that the 836k 360s sold were approaching the Wii in sales. He obviously didn't know that the Wii sold over 2 million units during the same period or else he wouldn't have posted that.


RE: Profitable
By vulcanproject on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Profitable
By Parhel on 12/24/2008 1:16:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
ps3 is a quality machine. there is no doubt of that.


Sure, the PS3 is a powerful piece of hardware. But who measures the value of a console in MIPS? The games that have come out for both systems are either identical, or look and play slightly better on the 360 - i.e. Fallout3.

The PS3 doesn't make sense in today's market. It costs as much as a BluRay player and a 360 combined, and offers slightly less. And with such a small market share, developers will never invest the resources to fully take advantage of its hardware.


RE: Profitable
By vulcanproject on 12/24/2008 3:23:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sure, the PS3 is a powerful piece of hardware. But who measures the value of a console in MIPS?


can you not read? i wasnt referring to ps3 as a powerful piece of hardware, i was clearly discussing its overall validity as an entertainment machine. this site is clearly american, and as such the readers have a major leaning towards 360 hence any positive ps3 comments will be beaten down in the ratings, not that i care.

ps3's architecture is ill suited as a games machine didnt i point that out? its true that ps3 needs to sell more to become a more attractive platform to developers. lets just wait and see shall we? im pretty confident even with the catalogue of mistakes sony have made, as soon as its price becomes reasonable it will sell like hot cakes. time and again its proven the main obstruction to ps3 selling well is its price.

microsoft have done quite well with 360, but in all honestly it hasnt been earth shattering has it? 25M units in 3 years is not breaking any records anytime soon. for example N64 sold a similar rate. not bad. not impressive. ps3 is clearly not out of this generation, even if many would just love to write it off.

ps3 makes perfect sense, not if, but WHEN it gets a price drop. im sure it will, and early next year despite the losses sony will incur. this is why fanboy arguments will always quickly go out of date, and the next round will begin. ad infinitum.


RE: Profitable
By omnicronx on 12/24/2008 3:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ts just wait and see shall we? im pretty confident even with the catalogue of mistakes sony have made, as soon as its price becomes reasonable it will sell like hot cakes. time and again its proven the main obstruction to ps3 selling well is its price.
Its two years into the lifecycle of the console, I really don't follow your logic here. Sony is not making a profit on consoles, you are not going to see a pricedrop until the price to manufacter goes down another $50-100 at least. By then it could be 3 years into a possibly 5-6 year lifecycle, do you really think the PS3 will have enough time to catch up? I don't...

And BTW.. I own a PS3.


RE: Profitable
By vulcanproject on 12/24/2008 3:59:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sony is not making a profit on consoles, you are not going to see a pricedrop until the price to manufacter goes down another $50-100 at least.


ps3 has NEVER been profitable on the hardware side. which includes the two price cuts its already had. what more is there to say? sony have taken losses on ps1 and ps2 hardware for years after their initial production. ps3 is no different. if you look at the figures, sony's gaming division is close to becoming profitable again.

http://www.techspot.com/news/31021-Sony-game-divis...

its already posted one quarter of profit. one quarter only, but consistant profit isnt that far away. the hardware cost isnt everything, it never has been the whole story in any generation! sony will continue to reduce the cost of ps3, and no doubt once again reduce the price of the machine despite losing money.

if you also look at the lifetime figures, then go back a year and see how many units 360 had sold on its 2nd birthday. you will find it isnt more than ps3, being 2 years old. thats just a quiet fact. the reports of ps3 dying are greatly exaggerated. sure it needs a price drop, it will get one, and when it does sales will inevitably pick up. just as the price drop stimulated 360 sales. mark my words


RE: Profitable
By 9nails on 12/24/2008 4:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its two years into the lifecycle of the console, I really don't follow your logic here. Sony is not making a profit on consoles, you are not going to see a pricedrop until the price to manufacter goes down another $50-100 at least. By then it could be 3 years into a possibly 5-6 year lifecycle, do you really think the PS3 will have enough time to catch up? I don't... And BTW.. I own a PS3.


First of all, congrats on owning a PS3!

Sony's cleverly continues to market the profitable PS2 making it work as leverage augmenting the slumping PS3 sales. It's apparent to me that this was a major decision by Sony since they took out the backwards compatibility from the PS3. Game Cube and Xbox 360 had short lives after their next best thing took hold, but kept backwards compatibility and that forward focus.

In a sense, Sony had "PS2" training wheels on when they entered this next gen race. But they lost focus trying to win two races at the same time. Blu-Ray was a gamble, and succeeded as a Pyrrhic victory. Microsoft didn't go all-in with the HD-DVD race, and smartly kept focus of the games. I wonder, if Sony didn't have the PS2 to fall back on would they still be positioned for 3rd in game consoles in this generation? Did they slip? If they kept their focus on games could they have found first place?


RE: Profitable
By superunknown98 on 12/24/2008 4:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
While not litterally writen, your post has been answered many times. The PS3 may be a perfectly fine console, excellent at many things, but HOW LONG before it drops to $299/$250? This matters greatly. If it doesn't happen until Q3 or Q4 of 2009, Blu-ray players will be even cheaper and theroticaly so could the 360.

If someone seriously wants a PS3 they will buy a PS3 no matter the price. If someone is just looking for the best value in a console they will buy a 360. At least in the USA.


RE: Profitable
By vulcanproject on 12/24/2008 4:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HOW LONG before it drops


and thats the the obvious question that has been asked many times. the rumours that it will drop before easter next year have been thrown around, and then quickly denied by sony. naturally. you dont announce a price cut long in advance, and you ESPECIALLY dont announce one before the holiday season. sony have killzone 2 and infamous to appear. it wouldnt be silly to assume sony have something special planned for the time of these games.


RE: Profitable
By akugami on 12/25/2008 1:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Not only did the PS2 bolster the video games division of Sony but the PSP as well. The PSP is really Sony's lone bright spot. While the PS2 will continue to do well (look at how long the NES and SNES were in production and supported), it will continue to die off and eventually be a minor part of the revenue stream. Granted it may still be a major money earner for another couple of years.

The problem with the blind PS3 supporters is the "wait till XYZ comes out." We waited for games like MGS4, Little Big Planet, etc. We're still waiting for games like RE5, Final Fantasy, etc. How long do we have to keep waiting? It's been two years since the console's release.

Look, I own a PS3. Some of those games look great. The problem is I don't want to buy a PS3 and play graphically updated (but mostly rehashed) games that bring nothing new to the table but the graphics. With all of the power under the hood of the PS3, show me something that will make me run out to buy that game or buy a PS3 with that game if I didn't already have one. Some of the PS3 games that have come out may be good but none have brought a sense of wonder and excitement that this console promised. I'm talking about something along the lines of a Street Fighter 2, Mario 64, MGS Solid, etc.

With the state of the economy, big expensive consoles will not succeed. The PS3's price as a Blu-Ray player will not help it any longer as there are sub-200 players out in the market now. The PS3's only chance of long term success is games. It needs great games, not good games. And don't give me the Sony spiel about the 10 year life cycle of the PS2 and how the PS3 is going to do the same. It won't happen.

The only reason the NES, PS1, PS2 were able to have such long life cycles is because of their market dominance. The PS3 is fighting for second place at best. Unless there is a major major shift, the Wii looks to be in first place with the Xbox 360 and PS3 fighting for second. As the current gen of consoles goes deeper and deeper into its life cycle, it becomes harder and harder for the 360 and PS3 to outpace it.

By the time the Wii becomes extremely dated, Nintendo will have an update to it ready. Sure, the PS3 may still be a viable system power wise, but nothing beats the shiny new toy out on the market. In another 3 to 4 years, Nintendo could likely market a $250 console with improved waggle and roughly equal or maybe better graphics than the PS3 and Xbox 360. Even if the PS3 and 360 are not truly inferior to it, the fact that it's a brand new console always brings a lot of buzz. And you're kidding yourself if MS doesn't have its own update to the Xbox console out in another 3 to 4 years.

PS3 != PS2
PS3 = Neo Geo


RE: Profitable
By adiposity on 12/30/2008 2:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It costs as much as a BluRay player and a 360 combined, and offers slightly less.


The 360 arcade is hardly a 360. No wireless, no hard drive. To say that the PS3 offers "less" ignores that the PS3 comes with a wireless controller, a hard drive, and (something that no 360 offers) wireless networking. Also, if you consider this an advantage, the PS3 is only one device, the 360/blu-ray player are two, requiring two inputs, two shelves, etc. Other "advantages" could be the free PSN. Disadvantages include fewer games, and a worse network to play on (partially mitigated by the cost of the 360 network).

For the record, I have a PS3, Wii, and 360 (bought in that order). I like the PS3 the most, but the 360 is comparable, especially with the lastest XBE. The PS3 interface seems sleeker, quicker, more aesthetically pleasing, and simpler. The 360 has some games that perform better, and a few good exclusives. The only PS3 exclusive I care about is Uncharted. Resistance/MGS are fine, but not worth buying the system. But uncharted is seriously the best shooter I've played. Gears for 360 is pretty good.

-Dan


RE: Profitable
By Belard on 12/25/2008 8:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
ps3 is currently overpriced. this is mind numbingly obvious, but only because 360 has had a price cut.


Overall job market is crap... so not many people are spending a lot of money.

The PS3 is not over-priced. Its like saying the Xbox360 is overpriced compared to the PS2 (TWO) which is $130~150 and also doesn't include a hard drive. So if youre going by just the price:

PS3 base = $400 (80GB HD / Blu-Ray / Wireless networking / free online gaming)

Playable 360 = $300. 60GB HD / NO HD-media playback / Wireless is $90~100 add-on / Online gaming is $40 a year... and of course do you get the NEW ones with the chips that don't overheat... some sort of RROD thing is going around.

So, lets upgrade the $300 360. $100 for wireless ($400 total), typical BR player is $250, you'll need an extra HDMI cable... add $25, and add $40 for the ability to play with others. Total = $715. + $40 or so a year.... in 4 years that's $835 .

PS3... remains at $400.... in 4 years.

Wanna add a 300GB HD... guess which one is easier to do?

The PS3 is selling well. It may never surpass the 360 - and it doesn't have to... and the PS3 isn't sinking, its growth rate is about the same as the 360. The PS3 came out 1 year later and has always been 5~7million units behind. Had MS spent more timing engineering the 360 better, then the PS3 would be ahead. Good call for Microsoft - to a degree. And for a bigger prize, the PS3 helped kill HD-DVD format and there are a lot more titles to buy now.

360 is not going anywhere... and neither is the PS3. I feel the Wii's day's are numbered. ;)


RE: Profitable
By itzmec on 12/25/2008 3:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
you dont need wireless to play online, so subtract the 100 dollars, and you dont need blu ray to play games so subtract that overpriced number you threw in there, 250 bucks. oh yah, no blu-ray, no need for extra hdmi, sub 25 more.


RE: Profitable
By Belard on 12/27/2008 6:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
While I didn't say it was a requirement... I did state that for many people, they DON'T have a WIRED network connection in their living room. I setup wired & wireless networks, and even in the homes of millionaires... no wired networking (geez, I'd have it done in my home if it was being built new).

So yeah... the kid had a stupid look on his face when he hooked up the Xbox to his TV... didn't think far enough about the networking part.

Er... didn't say blu-ray was a requirement.. oh, yeah it helps in some games... the same way that DVDs hold more storage than CDs. But hey, if you have a 1080 TV and would like to watch a moving in HD... well, a blu-ray player would help... and they go for about $250.

Lets think backwards, if you must. Sony PS3... is also a $250 blue-ray player, with a $150 game console that is $100 cheaper than the Xbox360 with HD.


RE: Profitable
By Alexstarfire on 12/26/2008 1:03:16 AM , Rating: 2
Sony really needs to stop making proprietary crap, or supporting proprietary crap. They continually side against the market favorite and do nothing but make things for expensive for people. HD-DVD was far more consumer friendly since it was like a third to half the price of blu-ray. Still had the same picture quality. Ohh, it had more features too. Only thing Blu-Ray has over HD-DVD is space. This means you can put uncompressed sound on it which will technically sound better, but thanks to the human body 99% of the people, if not more, will never notice.

And since when does someone compare the cost of the components of a system to what the system costs? If you're in the market for a blu-ray player and a gaming console then yea, the PS3 is a fantastic deal. If you're only looking for one or the other then it's pretty crappy. 360 has most of the games that the PS3 has and is half the price. Course, if the games you want to play are only on the PS3 then you only have one option.

BTW, you're wrong about the 360 not having HD media playback. It can play HD media just fine, just can't read HD-DVDs or Blu-Rays discs. There is a difference, just so you know.


RE: Profitable
By Belard on 12/27/2008 7:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sony really needs to stop making proprietary crap


Blu-Ray is a standard. Sony is very much like any other consumer electronics company. They want you to buy their stuff. The Xbox360 is "proprietary", does its hardware or software work on PC or the PS3 or anything else? Wait... Sony can use a USB stick to store data, the Xbox, a game card.... wait, Sony uses ANY standard 2.5" SATA drive for its PS3. The 360... expensive proprietary external HD pack.

See both sides.

quote:
HD-DVD was far more consumer friendly since it was like a third to half the price of blu-ray.


HD-DVD dropped its price to compete against the PS3/Blu-Ray, first HD-DVD players were $800. Toshiba wasn't giving you any favors either. And when HD-DVD died at $100~150 for a player, Blu-Ray was $275~350... chump change next to a $2000 1080 LCD TV, eh? (yeah, nowadays - $800 gets you 1080 42~50" screens)

The extra space on Blu-Ray means more space for play-time, extras, etc. But face it, HD-DVD is dead. Blu will be around for a few years until its replaced by solid-state flash keys.

quote:
360 has most of the games that the PS3 has and is half the price.


$300 = Xbox360 (I don't count the $200 HD-less version that nobody really wants, and when they do - they usually end up buying the $100 rip-off HD ADD-ON unit)
$400 = PS3/80GB (not what I'd call half price - and already gone over other hardware aspects)

quote:
BTW, you're wrong about the 360 not having HD media playback. It can play HD media just fine, just can't read HD-DVDs or Blu-Rays discs. There is a difference, just so you know.


er? I said HD-Media, which means some form of playback device. How many HD movies come on a DVD disc? Oh yeah, none(legally/standard). I am aware of the ability to Download HD-videos... but thats not the same as a disc media... Also quality is effected by compression. Here's a review with Netflix/xb360 "At times, the video quality looked positively terrible: banding, artifacts, softness, blurriness—like expanding a Youtube video into full-screen mode on a laptop. Seconds later, the image would turn crisp and stunning." Even cable/SAT dedicated boxes DO NOT LOOK as good as blu-Ray. Quality/compression varies between channels. Consider that STD-digital Cable doesn't look as good as DVD most of the time... how is downloaded & streamed HD supposed to look like... oh yeah, crap. And as long as its 720, it can be called "HD".

Also, that means your 360 is mostly a video rental player... A typical 1080 HD movie (2hrs) needs about 20GB of storage. For most Xbox users, thats beyond the ability of their 20GB drives. Oh, the 120/160GB Add-ON drives or Elites? 5 tru 1080 movies would eat 100GB of space. You'll need the other 20GB for OS/games/data etc. What about extras? Commentaries, deleted or extra scenes, behind the scenes, etc. Nope, not usually included with your downloads. You get just the video.

So... if a person has a spanking new 60" 1080 LCD TV - the xbox is not a viable media player for HD content. Watch WALL-E on Blu-Ray... it looks amazing. So much detail... that DVD, 720 or highly compressed downloads cannot match. Compressing down a 720 video down to 8~10GB is a hit on image quality.... but allows YOU to double your title-storge. So with the new HD-TV... the new owner can drop $250 for a Blu-Ray player or $400 for a PS3 or $300+250 ($550) for an Xbox 360 + blu-ray player.

So in the end... which is cheaper? Microsoft is promoting the Xbox360 as a home digital HiDef media hub. It doesn't play standard blu-Ray disc. (MS can sell a $100~150 add on - wow)

quote:
And since when does someone compare the cost of the components of a system to what the system costs?


A smart one. Why do you think there are 3 versions of the 360? $200/$300/$400... The components are different, right? $300 gets you... a Hard Drive! $400 gets you a bigger hard drive in a black box + an extra game!

Do you have a gaming computer? Did your PC cost $400 or $1000? If you paid $1000 and don't know what you bought (since the components don't matter to you), then why not JUST buy the $400 computer?

And please don't just think I'm some sort of PS3 fan boy. I don't OWN any Playstation or Xbox console. But the PS3 & 360 have many of the same titles... only a few are not shared... so its a lose/lose situation. Spending $450 on my 24" LCD was more important than a console for my recent purchase. When I buy a console (with PC gaming dying out, other than WOW) I'm going to chose the console that gives me the best for my money. $100 more for blu-Ray is a simple choice.... Remember, Microsoft sold their $200 HD-DVD Addon... so yeah, people do buy components . And the PS3 was designed to look GOOD next to a $2000 TV set.

I'm going to bet that Sony will eventually have a $200~300 PS3 that looks like a game unit - but will keep the higher end standard models.


RE: Profitable
By Ammohunt on 12/29/2008 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
No one are they losing $50 a console they are also losing $399 from me purchasing a $299 XBOX 360.


Well it should be cheaper...
By Marlin1975 on 12/24/2008 10:06:24 AM , Rating: 5
You are getting less. They got rid of both chips that made it backwards compatible. It does not have the memory reader anymore. And so on…

Funny how they talk about how they lowered the price but the newest console does less than the original one did. So yea it cost you less but you get what you pay for.

But for the Xbox360 you can get one for $199 now and it has more than the orignal one.




RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Chaser on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Marlin1975 on 12/24/2008 10:11:26 AM , Rating: 4
Well for DOUBLE the price I would hope so.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Chaser on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Marlin1975 on 12/24/2008 10:58:41 AM , Rating: 5
??? The only thing the PS3 offers over the $199 Xbox360 is Bluray and a harddrive. I can get a harddrive cheap and if i don't want to play Bluray then why pay for it?

The PS3 was the best blu player but now that prices have come down a little it does not hold the cheapest blu player title anymore. As someone else pointed out you can get a Xbox and a sep. Blu player for the cost of a 1 PS3. Then on top of that you can still play a lot of Xbox1 titles on the Xbox360.

Sorry but bang for the buck goes to Xbox. The PS3 offers less as it gets older while the Xbox has come down in price but offers more.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By michal1980 on 12/24/2008 11:03:51 AM , Rating: 5
and wifi,

and free online gaming


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By DjiSaSie on 12/26/2008 2:10:43 AM , Rating: 1
Ahh... Playstation Three, no wonder it always had minus income just like all your previous posts has minus value.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By quiksilvr on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By rohith10 on 12/24/2008 3:03:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
100 million people have PS2s, a huge majority of them moved on to PS3 and never looked back except for God of War 2


Don't know what you're trying to say here, but the PS3 has sold less than 20 million until now and that's less than 1/5th of the total PS2 population.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By omnicronx on 12/24/2008 4:02:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't forget, 100 million people have PS2s, a huge majority of them moved on to PS3 and never looked back except for God of War 2.
140 million to be exact, and the PS3 18.78 million, thats 8.5 to 1. The PS3 is never going to come close, neither is the 360.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Lightnix on 12/24/2008 2:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
"and wifi,"

Don't need wifi to get online. Actually I prefer using cables as they're more reliable, lower latency and faster. That's also why I use Windows XP instead of Linux, network bridging for crossover cables using it is a complete pain in the backside...


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Sahkuhnder on 12/24/2008 3:49:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The only thing the PS3 offers over the $199 Xbox360 is Bluray and a harddrive.

quote:
and wifi,

and free online gaming


All right, but apart from the Bluray, harddrive, wifi, and free online gaming, what have the Romans ever done for us?


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Belard on 12/25/2008 8:22:12 AM , Rating: 1
Uh? While in general both PS3 and 360 perform about the same.... you're comparing two very different units.

$400 = Base mode PS3 (current) = 80GB HD, WiFi, BluRay & Bluetooth.

$200 = base model Xbox360. NO Hard Drive! And a typical quality Blue-Ray player is $200~300. So, uh... nope on that one. A HD-ADD-0n for xbox360 is now better... $100 for 60GB (compared to the 20GB version) or $140 for the 120GB vs (was $200 not so long ago). Wait, lets add wireless networking since most people don't have network cables next to their Home Theater setup.

Okay, that $200 console is $400. Smaller HD. and you lost a USB port since your wireless is external... along with its power brick. Oh - NO (NONE / NADA) Blu-Ray option! HD-DVD - is dead (in case you didn't know), ge, some much for Hi-Def standard, Microsoft. So lets add a good Blu-Ray player... $200. You're up to $600!

Unlike 360 owners... you don't see PS3 owners lining up up to buy the LATEST revised version to have such features as HDMI outout and RROD / heat problems or loud drives.

While the PS3 is the most expensive console... it has the most hardware value.... and upgrading to a bigger HD is far easier and cheaper on the PS3.

I don't own either console. But if I was getting one soon, the PS3 gives the better overall value. A buddy's kid got a Xbox360 recently with birthday money. He didn't know any real differences between the two consoles. He paid $300 for the unit, hooked it up to his TV... I asked him about multi-players... pointed out he'd need to buy the wireless adaptor. ;)

Oh well.

The Wii is for old-folks, little kids and party time fun.
The xbox 360 is for Halo-drones and kids.
PS3 is for adults and gamers.
The PC is for old gamers.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By itadaku on 12/25/2008 4:01:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
$200 = base model Xbox360. NO Hard Drive! And a typical quality Blue-Ray player is $200~300. So, uh... nope on that one. A HD-ADD-0n for xbox360 is now better... $100 for 60GB (compared to the 20GB version) or $140 for the 120GB vs (was $200 not so long ago). Wait, lets add wireless networking since most people don't have network cables next to their Home Theater setup. Okay, that $200 console is $400. Smaller HD. and you lost a USB port since your wireless is external... along with its power brick. Oh - NO (NONE / NADA) Blu-Ray option! HD-DVD - is dead (in case you didn't know), ge, some much for Hi-Def standard, Microsoft. So lets add a good Blu-Ray player... $200. You're up to $600!


It seems that more and more PS3 owners who are secretly loathing at their ultimate mistake will drag this tired old rhetoric out as a flimsy defense.

"No HDD in the Arcade! Heresy" -- You can pick up any 20GB HDD second hand for around $50, new is not much more. Plus there is 12meg of internal memory to save games if you don't have a memory card or hdd. Unless you whore NXE like the PS3 and love the 7gig installs you'll never really need more than 20gig. 1 or 2 NXE is all you need.

"Wireless Networking is NOT STANDARD, the SHAME!" -- Ignorant or just retarded the fanboy has never heard of exotic things such as Wireless Access Points which are cheap ($15-$25), plentyful and most can be configured to run as an AP Client, which means you just need to plug in the ethernet cord to the AP and the 360 and presto, fanboy cries to mommy

"No Tooth of Blue or Ray of Blue for YOU" -- Blu ray 2x runs about half the speed of a 6xDVD drive. In order to disguise this Sony decided the PS3 was going to now be a PC, featuring manditory 7gig installs before any game can be played, and thus hiding the sordid secret of slowness. If I take a typical game and break it down into TEXTURE DATA, GAME CODE, and VIDEO you usually get a 20/5/75 mix. Some games realtime render the cinematic sequences but most don't. So who cares about 50gig discs where most of the space is taken up with FMV. Pretty as it may be there aren't EVER going to be games that need 50gig for the actual game its going to be nothing more than padding. Blu-ray is a disappointment in most respects. The majority of movies are only 720p and unfortunately a re-release of Garfield 2 in HD does not improve the movie. Hollywoods garbage buffet of the past 5 years doesn't make the switch from DVDs any easier.

"You're up to $600, $700, $900! if you kit your xbox up to PS3s god like image" -- I can make up numbers too, and use them in my unreaslistic comparison between an 'off the shelf' PS3 and an xbox360 which if someone were stupid enough to throw their money on all the microsoft merchandise, even to the extent they would track down a now unspported HD-DVD drive sold in tiny numbers to first adopters. MS was not in any way at fault for the format's failure and it was not a seriously considered option for many. I'm sure I can find an equal amount of plastic crap to plug into varous orifices of the PS3 and baloon the sh*t out of the budget but I prefer a debate argued with facts, not whinging rants of pre-pubescent spoilt brats.

Since Sep 2007 all 360's with the 65nm process will NEVER get RROD. I have never seen a single case of a post sep07 360 that has RROD. Only those who firmware hacked their xbox would lose out as MS replaced all those units and extended the warranty to 3 years. Only a handful of people would have gotten a raw deal.

I have fixed over 10 consoles with RROD via the xclamp fix, mine has been working over 2 years since. Suck on that.

XboX360 = Plays games, with awesome HD graphics

Wii = Plays games for everybody, casual gamers and your folks. Its an everyman gamebox with piss poor graphics and it won't take long before you realise it's a gamecube wrapped up in shiny nunchuka foil.

PS3 = Doesn't know what it is. Says its the ultimate media superbox does-it-all mega game thing but really does nothing of particular note very well, and all things poorly.

The PS3 plays blu-ray discs, and has totally free, slow and unstable online cobbled together system of inadequate volunteer servers. It can't play games as well as the 360 despite a 2 year leg up, and it will never play games as well as the 360 because game programmers can't stand it. Sony is not used to their subjects complaining about the huge turd they're forced to work with.

The sad thing is, none of this brutal logic and truth will ever be enough to make a sony fanboy admit fault. Facts are nothing more than a moments distraction from days of hate fuelled xbox bashing forum trolling.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Belard on 12/27/2008 7:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
A typical customer who never bought a PS3 or xbox 360 before will mostly know know about the wireless access point option. They'll simply pay the $100... And besides, name-brand APs are start at $40, with good ones around $100+, best ones around $150. Ah, more hardware to to buy that also takes up space and a power outlet. That much, is a fact.

If the RODD issue has been resolved since last Sept... then why are Xbox fanboys ready to ditch their current units and looking to buy a WHOLE new Xbox? They look exactly the same on the outside.... so why the BIG deal about Jasper?

The sad thing is, none of this brutal logic and truth will ever be enough to make an Xbox360 fanboy admit fault.

PS: I don't own a PS3 or PS2 or PS1.


By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/29/2008 4:00:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The sad thing is, none of this brutal logic and truth will ever be enough to make a sony fanboy admit fault. Facts are nothing more than a moments distraction from days of hate fuelled xbox bashing forum trolling.


You say this, but I have a hard time believing that YOU believe it. If you honestly aim to inform, try a more neutral approach, hm? Fewer demeaning comments might help with that.

Furthermore, I fail to see that your argument holds any more weight than the Sony fans that you speak of. In fact, it sounds like you just support their claims.

1. Picking up a second-hand HDD.

Why not pick up a second-hand PS3 if you're going to bring that up? Weak argument. I bought one. A 60GB and paid close to the current 360 prices.

2. Settup up WAPs.

Do you really expect 13-year-old kids to have the resources or patience to setup and configure their own access points and AP clients? I hardly do.

3.
quote:
Blu ray 2x runs about half the speed of a 6xDVD drive.


Might that be about 3xDVD drive speed? I'll do the math for you on that one. Anyway, maybe you prefer your games without any FMV scenes, but I think they add to to titles like MGS4, FF7 or DMC4.

4. Unrealistic comparisons?

What are you talking about? SO people didn't cite their price sources. Who cares? Those comparisons are often consistent, does that mean anything to you? The add-ons they include are not just for argument's sake either. Back in the day of the first disc formats, would you discredit the move to DVD format as you do with BRD? Wireless access makes for simple lan setups and cord-free living rooms. I mean hell, even the Wii has that. I'm not talking about SD card readers, extra USB ports or other unnecessary crap. It's plain as day.

As far as citing sources, with statements like these perhaps you should make an account with tinyurl.

quote:
Sony is not used to their subjects complaining about the huge turd they're forced to work with.


Overall however, this part is my favorite. Bias much? Don't give up your day job, mate.

quote:
XboX360 = Plays games, with awesome HD graphics

PS3 = Doesn't know what it is. Says its the ultimate media superbox does-it-all mega game thing but really does nothing of particular note very well, and all things poorly.


That is all.


By StevoLincolnite on 12/24/2008 11:12:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
nd that Arcade version needs so much stuff to make it even worth it you're nickled and dimed to get it even worth playing with accessories once Microshaft has you in the door.


You do realize you can plug the arcade into a TV, whack in ANY game disc, and start playing a game with full Xbox Live and Game saving support? For an extra 20 bucks you can even order a 20gb HDD from the Microsoft Xbox website if you *really* want to.

I have an Arcade, connected via HDMI to a 32" LCD 1080P Television with a games collection of 22 games and play on Xbox live! without any problems, sure I can't download map packs etc' but I didn't want to spend the extra money for just that feature alone.

Does fine, I don't see the point in spending twice as much when I only bought the machine for exactly what I wanted it for and that was to "Play games" and not "Take over the world". - Plus the Xbox 360 games target the game genre's I want and spew out quality titles I want and I can play them just as good as any PS3 or Xbox Elite owner without hindrance.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By Noya on 12/24/2008 11:07:10 AM , Rating: 5
Let me guess, you're one of the idiots who payed $1,000+ for a PS3 off eBay? No wonder your panties are in a bunch.


RE: Well it should be cheaper...
By walk2k on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
Sony sucks
By mfed3 on 12/24/2008 10:10:05 AM , Rating: 5
They took out backwards compatibility by removing the ps2 chips, removed usb ports, and 2 years later, it still loses $50 per console. Pathetic. Using the cell cpu and bluray in a gaming console, the sequel to the ps2, was about the dumbest thing Sony could have possibly done. They released a year too late after the xbox 360 with an inferior graphics card, no online support, and rumble missing from their controllers. Furthermore, in that 1 year time span, they lost all of their customer loyalty of 120+ million ps2 consoles sold last gen. Crash and burn, Sony, you deserve it.




RE: Sony sucks
By Chaser on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sony sucks
By alifbaa on 12/24/2008 10:42:15 AM , Rating: 3
You had me agreeing with you right up until you started talking about graphics. Come on, we all know that both are so close to each other that any significant differences come down to the programing of individual titles, not the hardware of the system. True, the PS3 is capable of much better, but we're 2 years in to its life and how many hit titles are blowing away the 360's graphics?

I don't own a 360, so I'm not a fanboy. I'm just tired of reading this same conversation twice a week. They're both good systems, each with their own pluses and minuses.

In the end, individuals interested in certain aspects of each console are better off choosing one or the other. It's clear to me that no one of the three consoles is superior in this generation.


RE: Sony sucks
By oTAL on 12/24/2008 11:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the end, individuals interested in certain aspects of each console are better off choosing one or the other.

My God! He is right!!


RE: Sony sucks
By Alexstarfire on 12/26/2008 1:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
Not used Blu-Ray and stuck with DVDs. That's a good $100+ of it's starting price right there. Not sure how much it cost Sony to put the Blu-Ray in when the PS3 came out, but it was easily the most expensive thing in the system. If they really needed the space they could have gone with HD-DVD which is far cheaper and still has more space than any game should ever need, especially with the triple layer HD-DVDs.

Sony does little more than try to screw over the consumer by shoving better products out of the way.


RE: Sony sucks
By coldpower27 on 12/27/2008 7:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
Initially but you want the increase the data density to be more forward thinking for the future. HD-DVD's only patch the problem somewhat by increasing the data density to 15GB per layer.

Blu Ray is better because it can pack 25GB per layer, so what it takes HD-DVD 3 layers to do, Blu Ray can do in 2. This means less power used overall as you only need to read 2 layers vs 3. Add to that Blu-Ray has plans for up to 8 layers if required..

The only reason HD-DVD is cheaper is because it uses existing infrastructure more. Sometimes for progress to occur new methods need to be developed and those do cost alot more money and initial burden but the pay off in the end is better.


RE: Sony sucks
By hduser on 12/24/2008 12:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't Microsoft fail miserably with backwards compatibility too? Luckily there wasn't enough original Xbox sold to make enough of an uproar.


RE: Sony sucks
By itzmec on 12/25/2008 3:57:55 PM , Rating: 3
so i guess thats not failing miserably....


RE: Sony sucks
By DPigs on 12/24/2008 2:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
I have the PS3 with backwards compatability. I thought it was such a good idea at first, but can honestly count on 1 hand the number of times I have played a PS2 game on it. Why would I play an old PS2 game when I have nice new PS3 games to play?? BC is kinda overrated, and if you wanted it you had your chance to get it.

As for the USB ports, I have NEVER used more than one of them. I dun know why you would need 4. And as far as the memory card reader....meh.

What I do like is the built in wi-fi, free on-line, rechargeable controllers, blue ray player, and not having to return my console (multiple times) because it cooked itself.


RE: Sony sucks
By coldpower27 on 12/27/2008 7:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I haven't used any of the backwards compatibility of any of the current generation consoles period. It's a nice feature to have, but in practice just when are you gonna find the time to play the old games when you have all these shiny new ones to play. :P

I am however disappointed with the 2 USB limitations on the current crop of PS3's, there is a very crucial game that requires 4 USB ports and that is the rythem series, Rock Band 1 and 2 and Guitar Hero World Tour. The PS3 has bluetooth support which Sony doesn't allow developers to use so they have to create wireless dongles for wireless support on the RB/GH instruments.

4 USB ports would definitely be welcome. Though there is a way to get by this weakness and that is to buy a USB hub, but having it built in wouldn't have been too much to ask for would it? :D

I mean the PC gets as much as 12 USB ports nowadays, it is too much to ask for 4? :P


RE: Sony sucks
By ShaolinSoccer on 12/24/2008 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. They should've just ditched the blueray and made it PS2/PS1 compatible and play DVD's. I would've been perfectly happy with that. And that would've dropped the price down considerably.


xbox 360
By teko on 12/24/2008 10:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
So, how much does Microsoft lose for every Xbox 360 Made? And how much does MS lose for repairing Xbox RMAs...?




RE: xbox 360
By mfed3 on 12/24/2008 10:53:08 AM , Rating: 4
You might think its a good point, but the bottom line is profit. they profit on each 360 sold now and have been since a little over a year into its life. the xbox division is also profitable since a month after halo 3 came out, so even though we dont know exactly how much they lost on it, they said that they set aside $1 billion for these costs and are still in the black.

nintendo has been profiting since day 1.

"...contributing to Sony's games division posting an operating loss of ¥232.3 billion (US$1.97 billion) in the fiscal year ending March 2007.[71] In April 2007, soon after these results were published, Ken Kutaragi, President of Sony Computer Entertainment, announced plans to retire"


RE: xbox 360
By StevoLincolnite on 12/24/2008 11:15:15 AM , Rating: 3
Game attachment rates have probably helped bolster Microsoft's profit margins on the Xbox games division, I lost count on how many Arcade games I downloaded and paid for! And I have a pretty large collection of games.


RE: xbox 360
By walk2k on 12/24/2008 2:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
RE: xbox 360
By ajfink on 12/24/2008 4:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, Microsoft is making money on each 360 sold, and have been for a while. Fixing and replacing all the RRoD'd consoles, however, has been a significant drain on their potential profits. Even with that, though, their entertainment division consistently does rather well financially.

Once the number of repairs they have to do diminishes (as it is bound to do once the three year warranty for the original revision of 360s expires), I can even see Microsoft lowering the cost of Xbox Live potentially - or something of the like to entice more online spending and game-buying.


Sales price of $399
By swampjelly on 12/24/2008 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
If the sales price is $399, what does the retailer get?

The whole article assumes that the retailer makes ZERO profit on selling a $399 piece of equipment.

You telling me Best Price is selling the PS3 at cost?




RE: Sales price of $399
By killerroach on 12/24/2008 11:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
Not quite, but retailers get a very small margin on consoles. Last I knew, it was less than $10 in the case of the 360, and pretty much around $10 for the others.

No retailer is going to get rich selling consoles.


RE: Sales price of $399
By theapparition on 12/24/2008 12:05:28 PM , Rating: 3
That is correct. Retailers get most of their income from game and accessory sales.

Much like other TV and A/V hardware, they sell at prices very close to cost. Then try to up sell accessories and service plans.

I call this "The Monster Cable Syndrome".


RE: Sales price of $399
By jeff834 on 12/24/2008 11:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
While computer and gaming consoles are sold very close to cost, TVs and A/V equipment actually have a pretty decent margin. This is of course nowhere even CLOSE to the margin on accessories and service plans. When I worked at Best Buy I remember a USB cable we used to sell which retailed for $30 and for an employee cost $1.29...that's like 2300% markup and I know the employee cost was still a bit above store cost. Service plans have a profit margin of about 60%. So the moral is while its not a terrible idea to get your TV or laptop at a retail store, buy your accessories online and think twice about the service plans.


RE: Sales price of $399
By omnicronx on 12/24/2008 3:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
When the 360 came out, retailers paid full price for the consoles. This is why they were bundled with games and extra controllers in many retail stores.

How many people buy a console, and then don't buy any games or accessories? (I did.. but I bought my PS3 for the BD player). Stores assume they will make money off accessories and games.

One thing is for sure here though, now we know why we are not seeing a PS3 pricedrop.


Really Cheaper than XBox 360
By Dwezil on 12/24/2008 12:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
I bought the PS3 on the Sony site and signed up for the Sony Credit card at the time - that brought the price of the PS3 down to $250.
The XBox360 makes you spend $100 extra just to be able to use a wireless network in your house - that and the RROD caused me to choose the PS3.




RE: Really Cheaper than XBox 360
By DPigs on 12/24/2008 1:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
It sems like once you buy all the nickle and dime add on BS for the 360 it comes to about the same price as a PS3. $100 for wi-fi, however much for the recharge kits for the controller(s), $50 for live. Honestly I don't think that its really any cheaper.


RE: Really Cheaper than XBox 360
By shiznit on 12/25/2008 4:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
The 360 doesn't make me do anything, I got everything I needed in my $300 pro box, HD, controller, HDMI port. I don't use wireless and I never will, latencies in online console gaming are bad enough I don't need to add more with crap wireless. Not everyone wants it, you need to realize this, in fact I would bet that most 360 owners (serious gamer, many ex-pc) prefer wired. And don't even get me started on the crap quality of ps3 ports (GG Sony using a DSP with very serious limitations as a console cpu in a multi-platform gaming industry where the lowest common denominator rules and including a weaker GPU a year later).


RE: Really Cheaper than XBox 360
By itzmec on 12/25/2008 4:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
yah, what he said


iSuppli?
By Znamya3 on 12/24/2008 10:20:34 AM , Rating: 3
Isn't that the company that estimated that manufacturing Windows Vista costs all of $2.50 for the box and media?

For all we know this company is basing the data on what it costs for PS3 replacement parts... and it is in Sony’s best interest for us to think they are selling at a loss, and they are the only ones who can provide accurate data on their buying strategies (such as what discounts they get for buying in bulk).




RE: iSuppli?
By theapparition on 12/24/2008 12:11:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
such as what discounts they get for buying in bulk

No offense, but get a clue. iSupply is widely recognized as a leader in this field. If you don't think they are already factoring in projected quantities, then you are mis-informed.

While they may not be spot on to Sony's actual current costs, I'd be willing to wager they are very close.

As for Vista, the total manufacturing cost should be very close to $2.50, out of which, the box is the most expensive component.


RE: iSuppli?
By Alexstarfire on 12/26/2008 1:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
Of course, you pay for the R&D for software, not the components.


Or They're Just Incompetent
By mindless1 on 12/29/2008 3:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
One wonders if iSuppli has ever grasped the idea that it's possible Sony isn't paying as much for parts as iSuppli estimates.




RE: Or They're Just Incompetent
By adiposity on 12/30/2008 3:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's just an estimate. But it's probably about right. We know Sony has been losing money on the PS3 for some time. Their willingness to drop to $400 but not any further suggests that the price is around...$400.

Sure, it's possible Sony gets a better price than iSuppli thinks. But component cost can be fairly accurately estimated. Maybe Sony gets a 15% better price than the rest of the industry...who knows? Even so, this gives a ballpark figure that I'm guessing is about right.

-Dan


RE: Or They're Just Incompetent
By mindless1 on 12/31/2008 11:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt it's right, that's the benefit of having leverage to negotiate a high volume contract.

Think about it, who designs a product only to have it be a loss leader over it's entire lifespan? Is it to sell the games? Maybe, but it's doubtful that would be the case with this large of a difference in build vs sale price.


even smaller components
By poundsmack on 12/24/2008 1:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
With the 45nm Cell chip and 55nm Nvidia chips out for a while now the next PS3 should be based around that. Having the die shrink further (from its current 65nm) will reduce cost dramaticly on a mass production scale, not to mention it will use FAR! less power. Thats what I am waiting for before I make my PS3 purchase.




RE: even smaller components
By mfed3 on 12/24/2008 9:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
you realize that no matter what sony does to decrease costs or change parts, microsoft is always going to be 1 step ahead of them, thus they have no chance at ever being profitable with the ps3. by the time the next ps3 version starts fabrication, microsoft will already be selling their valhalla chipset (single chip solution CPU/GPU) and price drop again. seriously, stop supporting sony.


You're joking...right?
By pwnsweet on 12/26/2008 2:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sony's PS3 game console is popular among many gamers...


...lol?




RE: You're joking...right?
By adiposity on 12/30/2008 3:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it is. Millions is many. All of my friends have PS3s. But then, my friends have money.

-Dan


I wonder
By afkrotch on 12/24/2008 9:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
Wonder how long til they spin out a more compact version of the PS3. I'm always amazed how much smaller their 2nd version ends up being.

The PS1 was 1/2 the size of the original. The PS2 was like 1/4 if not smaller than the original. The 3rd version of it even gets rid of the power brick and has it all internal.




So for all you "Price cut now!" whiners
By Chaser on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Related Articles













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