PS3 - Delayed a year and cost over $900 to make??

[Hetz]

The New York Times is reporting that....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-electronics-sony.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 :shock:

[corruptrelic]

Personally I wouldn't pay more than $450 for the ps3, since going any higher you mine as well start looking at a new PC instead.

As much as I've wanted the ps3, all these rumours are really making me like my xbox 360 that much more. It would have been nice if Microsoft delayed it a couple months to get the hd-dvd drives in (since that's the apparent reason they didn't include them - time frame) but in the end Microsoft is getting the upper hand on Sony here because the next generation is now.

Lets take the 'wait and see' approach though since they are still just rumours. The only thing sony officially announced was "Spring 2006" during last years E3.
Maybe we'll all be suprised and see the ps3 launch on easter day?

[WinoMcCougarstein]

I'd pay $500 for the PS3.  If it goes above that forget it.  There are only a few first party Sony games I really like.  I can deal with playing everything else on the 360.  Chances are multiplatform games will look just about the same anyway.

[Fellow]

Oyh...

[TheMissingLink]

I'm actually totally fine with the PS3 being delayed.  

A) Plenty of "this-gen" stuff coming out.

B) DS / PSP are really hitting their stride.

C) I'll have a job to actually pay for one by late 2006 / early 2007  :lol:

[CeeKay]

I'm betting Sony ends up losing 500-600 per unit when they finally release it.  It also wouldn't surprise me if there is a 'shortage' when it gets released, not due to production issues but Sony waiting for the price of components to go down.  The only bad thing is that if Gamestop starts taking pre-orders for it around E3 I may not still be in Baltimore when it comes out. The only reason I got my 360 on launch day was I placed my pre-order the day they started accepting them.

[warning]

Merrill Lynch analysts in San Francisco have estimated that the initial bill of materials for PS3 could approach $900, falling to $320 by three years after launch, the FT said.

That's a serious drop-off in manufacturing costs.  I wonder what they're basing that on?

[whiteboyskim]

Merrill Lynch analysts in San Francisco have estimated that the initial bill of materials for PS3 could approach $900, falling to $320 by three years after launch, the FT said.

That's a serious drop-off in manufacturing costs.  I wonder what they're basing that on?

Most likely they're shooting in the dark like normal and hoping they get it right. Hence their title of "analysts." Nothing with the PS3 is final until Sony says it is, and then its even less final until you open the box to see what actually made it in.

[Darren8r]

I'm happy with my PS2, I dont care about the PS2, I wont get one until 3 years after launch anyways.

[EddieA]

I'm guessing that by E3, the rumors mill will have the PS3 coming out in 2014, costing $5,000 and requiring both a retinal scan and urine sample in order to turn it on  

[CeeKay]

I'm guessing that by E3, the rumors mill will have the PS3 coming out in 2014, costing $5,000 and requiring both a retinal scan and urine sample in order to turn it on  

You forgot the pap smear and bone marrow transfer.  Oh, and you'll need to sacrifice a small kitten in order to use the memory stick.

[Scott]

I'd pay $500 for the PS3. If it goes above that forget it. There are only a few first party Sony games I really like. I can deal with playing everything else on the 360. Chances are multiplatform games will look just about the same anyway.

For $500 it'd better do more then play games.

I love the 360.  Its my favorite console ever to this point.  The 360 is the best looking, most polished, smoothest setup ever.  The arcade stuff rocks.  Everything about the 360 is incredible, and the games coming out, and some out are great.

Would I pay $500 for the 360?  No way.  I'm not sure it was worth $400.  I just don't see any console being worth that much, especially at launch with a paltry few games.  The PS3 may be incredible, but its going to have to ship with some awesome software to justify that cost.  I've spent a lot more on my computer.  Of course, my computer runs Photoshop for me, and does a ton of other stuff.  Devices for just games, even at $400, seems to much.

The PS3 with the equivalent of the PS2's launch lineup?  I'll wait.  Sony better come with the big games to start.

[unbreakable]

I wonder how much of the cost calculations include the Cell processor?  The Cell is supposed to be much more than a feature of the PS3- it is supposed to power a lot of Sony's future products.

I should RTFA.

[adamsappel]

There's a thread at GAF debunking this. The original Merrill Lynch numbers aren't even added up correctly, they sum to $800, not $900. Also, the costs of the individual components are overstated, according to other reports.

[WinoMcCougarstein]

There's a thread at GAF debunking this. The original Merrill Lynch numbers aren't even added up correctly, they sum to $800, not $900. Also, the costs of the individual components are overstated, according to other reports.

Wow, that is some awesome journalism if that is true.  It makes me want to go "Shatter" some "Glass."

[TheMissingLink]

Taken from GAF:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14821

A Sony Computer Entertainment spokesperson denied the Merril Lynch PS3 launch date - re-confirms that it will launch in at least one territory in the spring of 2006.

(My question is, what in the world are they going to launch with!?  Are they going to be cool with like, 1-2 games at launch because unless game development for this thing is SUPERSECRET hush-hush, there's nothing even close to ready for this sucker)

[depward]

You know . . . it all comes down to the launch line-up of games for me.  I'll pay a higher price if the games are present that I want to play.  That's the only reason I've been able to keep those, "Buy a 360!" thoughts out of my head - the games I play and appreciate just aren't out on that system yet!

So if the PS3 has a strong launch-line up with games that are appealing to me AND with a "Live" sort of online set-up, then yeah, I'll pay somewhere around $500.

[Kevin Grey]

(My question is, what in the world are they going to launch with!?  Are they going to be cool with like, 1-2 games at launch because unless game development for this thing is SUPERSECRET hush-hush, there's nothing even close to ready for this sucker)

Assuming that the one territory is Japan (and it most likely is)- Japanse console launches are traditionally much softer than US launches.  If you think the US PS2 launch was bad, the Japanese PS2 launch was considerably worse.

[Hetz]

Merrill Lynch analysts in San Francisco have estimated that the initial bill of materials for PS3 could approach $900, falling to $320 by three years after launch, the FT said.

That's a serious drop-off in manufacturing costs.  I wonder what they're basing that on?

I would say it it probabily the fact that blu-ray and the cell processor are very new technologies and will be VERY expensive to make right now. In fact the original article in the Financial Times says that the blu ray drive alone will cost Sony $250 in itself.

[Hetz]

Taken from GAF:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14821

A Sony Computer Entertainment spokesperson denied the Merril Lynch PS3 launch date - re-confirms that it will launch in at least one territory in the spring of 2006.

(My question is, what in the world are they going to launch with!?  Are they going to be cool with like, 1-2 games at launch because unless game development for this thing is SUPERSECRET hush-hush, there's nothing even close to ready for this sucker)

You know, I find it very hard to believe that it wll be anywhere this Spring since Blu-Ray itself has been delayed until after Spring....

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060214-6182.html

[Kevin Grey]

You know, I find it very hard to believe that it wll be anywhere this Spring since Blu-Ray itself has been delayed until after Spring....

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060214-6182.html

Not quite:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6308373.html

[Devil]

With everything they are saying it'll do, $900 will be a bargain!

 :wink:

[Purge]

It better be able to wash my dog, take it for walks *AND* complete my taxes for 900US .

[Destructor]

Grabbed from the BBC News this morning:

Sony's next-generation PlayStation 3 console could miss its spring launch if industry specifications for some of its technology are not finalised soon.

The PS3 will offer games as well as the ability to play music and watch films, as it seeks to take on rivals Microsoft Xbox 360 and Nintendo Revolution.

The new console is expected to feature cutting-edge processors and graphics.

Sony said if industry specifications on some of the PS3 were not decided soon "the launch could be pushed back".

'pushed back'? Come on - we all know that this console has no chance in hell of making a Spring launch anywhere. There's no games being shown, and the final specs of the console haven't even been decided.

[Fellow]

Yeah, Fall launch seems much more likely. As for the PS3 costing the consumer $900... I really doubt it.

[Calvin]

My guess-October or November launch, extremely limited quantities, system costs 500.

[Sarkus]

The news today (as quoted by Destructor above) is clearly Sony's preparation for announcing a delay from "Spring."  The question now is, assuming the system will actually be ready this fall, whether they will try and launch it in more than just Japan in 2006.  

After all the criticisms of MS worldwide release plan, it would be ironic if Sony ended up doing the same thing.

[Andrew Mallon]

The news today (as quoted by Destructor above) is clearly Sony's preparation for announcing a delay from "Spring."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14821

[disarm]

You forgot the pap smear and bone marrow transfer.  Oh, and you'll need to sacrifice a small kitten in order to use the memory stick.

unfortunately, you will also have to buy the special small kitten from Sony in order to ensure compatibility...

[Purge]

You mean my Playstation 2 Kitten Corpse(tm) can't be re-used?

[whiteboyskim]

You mean my Playstation 2 Kitten Corpse(tm) can't be re-used?

They might have to scrap backwards-compatibility just to get the thing out. Of course, since they scrapped the AIM-compatibility from the PS2 the console never recovered. So it could be the kind of loss that sinks Sony.

/sarcasm

[Farscry]

They might have to scrap backwards-compatibility just to get the thing out. Of course, since they scrapped the AIM-compatibility from the PS2 the console never recovered. So it could be the kind of loss that sinks Sony.

/sarcasm

Well, while I doubt that not having backwards compatibility will kill the console, it will be a severe disappointment to lose that feature.

Of course, it's a moot point since I don't plan on getting a PS3, but still.