Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PS3 Assembly Starts End of September, Most High-End

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the took-them-long-enough dept.

122

GameDailyBiz is reporting that Sony has announced further details on the PS3 assembly process. Final assembly will apparently begin at the end of this month, with some 400K units planned for the November 17th launch. They're promising another 800,000 units by the end of the year. From that article: "Although Sony will have shipped only 2.4 million units worldwide in 2006 (as opposed to their initial forecast of 4 million), the company still believes it will hit its goal of 6 million shipped through next March. Sony said that monthly PS3 production will be ramped up to 1.2 million units in January when the Blu-ray laser supplies are expected to improve." Gamespot has further analysis, stating that the split will be about 80/20, favoring the higher-end model over the lower-end model. That is, most of the units at launch should be the $600 model with the HDMI port.

cancel ×

122 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Doubt $600 (4, Insightful)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083480)

I'm guessing more in the range of $700-$800 because retailers will probably force bundled packages on us like they did with the XBOX 360 when it came out. And more likely so since this will be coming out right at the start of the holiday shopping season. It's going to be on many peoples shopping lists and people will pay those prices because someone on their list will be wanting one.

Re:Doubt $600 (2, Informative)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083733)

Just be glad you don't live in Japan, typically the console pricing is SET by the manufacturer which is why it costs the same wherever you go (with the exception of bundles) but apparently the premium version will have "open market" pricing in Japan. Meaning retailers can charge whatever they please... I'll leave it up to your imagination which way how they'll push the prices.

Re:Doubt $600 (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083943)

I imagine they'll go for about the same as they're going to be fetching on ebay ($1,000+). Here in the U.S., there just won't be any AVAILABLE. The ebay scalpers and store employees will grab them all up right after the stores unload them from the trucks and no one else will ever even get to see them (except for some display kiosks, maybe). You can bet a lot of greedy individuals learned a valuable lesson from the Xbox 360 fiasco, and the money to be made off short supplies.

-Eric

Re:Doubt $600 (1)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085983)

You can bet a lot of greedy individuals learned a valuable lesson from the Xbox 360 fiasco, and the money to be made off short supplies.

Yeah, it's called a free market economy.

Re:Doubt $600 (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085988)

You can bet a lot of greedy individuals learned a valuable lesson from the Xbox 360 fiasco, and the money to be made off short supplies.

Yes, because buying a product at an artificially low price and selling at market price is so evil.

Re:Doubt $600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084783)

You're looking at the wrong problem--Manufacturer Suggested Price often does serve to limit price cuts, but there is enough competition in game retailing that stores will cut prices to the bone anyway (except in rare circumstances like the DS, which is still in shortage in Japan, and the upcoming PS3). In case of game consoles, though, the razor-thin margins (only a few hundred yen on the PS2) between wholesale and MSP doesn't give retailers much room to discount, unless they want to take a loss on the consoles to attract software sales.

Re:Doubt $600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083748)

On people's shopping lists? How many parents/friends/etc spend $700-800 on a single gift for one person?

.
.
.

And how do I become friends/family with them?

Re:Doubt $600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084635)

A parent with multiple children can give a console to all of them.

Re:Doubt $600 (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085928)

Or you could by a Wii and a game or two for each kid.

Re:Doubt $600 (1)

Vaticus (1000378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086343)

Here in Australia the two PS3 levels are currently being advertised for $830AUD and $999AUD! I honestly cannot see how people can fork out so much for a console! Time will tell i guess... mind you, i have noticed the advertisements have dropped off substantially since the delay to release here was announced... http://digg.com/gaming_news/PS3_to_be_$830_$999_in _Australia_at_launch [digg.com] is a discussion on the Aussie pricing if anyone is interested.

Re:Doubt $600 (2, Insightful)

donaldm (919619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086987)

I am amazed that they are going to do an 80/20 (Premium to Standard) mix for a first release. A better course of action would be to do an 90/10 or even a 95/5 since the machines are going to be in short supply the people who are early adopters will buy the premium model. This usually means the early adopters are most likely to buy more games than those who just buy the standard version and like it or not Sony wants the people who buy this machine to get games or at least Bluray movies.

It is no good selling millions of game machines if the majority of people who buy them hardly buy games. That is why the Xbox was in many ways a failure losing Microsoft over US$1B compared to the Nintendo Gamecube which actually made quite a healthy profit (not as much as hoped) for Nintendo.

I can see the Wii doing well over Christmas as well, but lets be practical, if you are a parent the Wii is an excellent buy for your kid(s) with the purchase on one to three games but after that the only games the kid will see is on his birthday unless the parent(s) get interested (with young kids this can be difficult), not what I would call a rousing success.

The PS3 will really miss the holiday season but in reality the people who will buy this machine can and will do so at any time during the year without batting an eyelid, these are people who can afford games and/or Bluray movies. They are also the people who can afford HD-TV's and that is what Sony and other HD-TV manufacturers want.

In addition the premium games for the Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3 will all be around the same price, if the Gamecube, PS2 and Xbox are anything to go by, so what you need are people to buy games if you are going to make a profit on your console loss. I know Microsoft made a loss on it's console but I cannot find anything on Sony or Nintendo making a loss (large or small) on their consoles. Basically this appears to be one of those Urban Myths.

I know many people on /. seem to be Sony bashing lately and Sony does deserve some criticism for what IMHO is management pigheadedness and stupidity and unless there is a total stuff up I think the PS3 will do well although not as well as as the PS2 which is still going to be a money spinner for Sony for a few more years.

The Next Thing ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083490)

Sure, and the next thing you'll tell me is that Duke Nukem Forever will be ready for Christmas.

Re:The Next Thing ... (1, Troll)

jizziknight (976750) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083543)

Hey, as long as I don't specify which year, I'm technically correct, right? So yes, Duke Nukem Forever will be ready for Christmas. Just remember, you heard it here first. Now spread the word.

So... (0, Redundant)

EggyToast (858951) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083495)

That means that there's currently 0 Playstation 3s created? Various devkits that may feature final hardware are out there, but not in huge numbers, and they expect not only for the system to hit in, what, 2 months, and have enough to satiate demand? And have lots of fun games so people are excited to own one?

Oh wait, they're planning on selling out, touting how it's a huge success even with the high price, and will happily ignore the lack of good launch titles.

Doesn't sound like they're really trying to match demand; just hype it to death. Which is good for people planning on selling on eBay, I suppose. At least seeing the system sell for $700 won't seem like such a huge profit this time around.

$700? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084194)

If you think I'm not going to try and rape some moron-with-too-much-money early adopter for $10k+ on eBay for the bundle I pay $800 for at retail, you're kidding yourself. I'm putting a nice downpayment on a new car with my PS3. It's certainly not something I'd buy for the games.

I already have a Nintendo DS for that.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

beckerist (985855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084230)

Actually, the dev kits currently out don't even have full hardware support [1up.com] . There's minimal networking support, the controllers are nowhere near final (no tilt, no final design...) It's been rumored that the GPU on the most recent dev kits are at only 80% the speed the final PS3 (which has been dropped again)... [theinquirer.net]
I want to see EVERY console do well, for the greater good (in innovation, consumer costs, FUN!) that competition brings, so the fact that SONY is bunging this up as badly as they are is only depressing.......I mean come on, who wouldn't want to play Madden with 6 of your buds [designtechnica.com] by your side?!?!?

Junk (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083501)

wow... $600 lamo

20/80? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083505)

If Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is right and by the end of 2006 only ten percent of American's TVs are expected to be HDTVs, wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around and have 20% high end, 80% "low" end? Is Japan's HDTV adaption rate really that much more than the US'? Am I missing something about what the $600 version offers that makes it much more interesting than the $500 besides the HDMI port?

Re:20/80? (4, Funny)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083525)

it makes Sony an extra $100. I'd imagine that's what's most important about it.

Re:20/80? (1)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086170)

Actually, you might be wrong. I mean, the 600$ package probably has more than 100$ of added value to it. Think about it : digital video output connection (HDMI), builtin flash card reader, builtin wifi, bigger HD and extra PS1/2 memory card slots IIRC. See for yourself [wikipedia.org] .

Re:20/80? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086197)

well, after I hit submit I thought about it a little more, and its more like sony loses $100 less than they would have if you bought the $500, since the damn things are being sold at a loss.

Re:20/80? (1)

musikit (716987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083544)

well they probably consider that 80% of the people that will initially buy a ps3 will have a hdmi tv.

however your right on another factor. if they made 20% hdmi and 80% non-hdmi then those that couldnt get a hdmi version will buy another ps3 later so they could have made the money twice off those people. although thinking about it are they taking a loss on the console?

Re:20/80? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083718)

Oh, I understand now. I had though HDMI only worked for HDTVs, I didn't realized it also pertained to SD DTVs! The only word I've heard on whether they are taking a loss was from a slashdot article I can no longer find.

Re:20/80? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083990)

Well, I didn't find the slashdot article, but an older Gamespot report from Merrill Lynch Japan [gamespot.com] Believed that it would cost $494 to produce a unit at the time it was set to debut, but they also thought it would sell for $399.

A later Gamepro [gamepro.com] reported that they would lose $300-$400 per unit if it shipped at $399 (so a loss of $0-$100 or $100-$200 with respect to which version.)

In the end, neither is a very recent article, but even if they are breaking even or making a gross gain per unit, we still have to consider the massive start up costs Sony has to cover before each PS3 unit makes a net gain.

Re:20/80? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083547)

Am I missing something about what the $600 version offers that makes it much more interesting than the $500 besides the HDMI port?


1. Expandability. If you get the low end version, you're screwed if any future games *require* one of the expansions that Sony is promising.

2. Future proofing. Anyone crazy enough to spend $500 on a game console will probably suck it up and get the HDMI port anyway. Even if they don't have an HDTV now, that doesn't mean that they won't in the future. After all, they just shelled out over half a kilobuck for a game console!

Re:20/80? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083820)

According to this article [slashdot.org] A core package will be able to upgrade to everything the Premium has except the HDMI port. I could see future proofing, though. I've fallen into that trap before...

But assuming someone is buying the PS3 for the games and is not as interested in HDMI, wouldn't it be a strong arguement to wait for more core shipments if everything else is upgradeable? Or is Sony so sure the HD quality of the PS3 is whats really going to sell it? Wait a minute. Don't answer that last question.

Re:20/80? (4, Insightful)

KeiichiMorisato (945464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083844)

Expandability?
That's what we should avoid with consoles. You cannot have two standards for the same console, as the developers will then develop for the lowest common denominator to ensure maximum compatibility. By branching out, something will end up like an add-on and fade away. That's why most add-ons fail, because you can't guarantee everyone will have one, and therefore publishers are afraid they can't get the sales volume they are looking for. People don't buy consoles so they have to add on items to play, and of the games that do require an add-on, most of them, fail to live up to their potential in sales and acceptance.

As for futureproofing, that's a fallacy in buying technology. Standards and new technology are introduced so fast, that buying for the future and spending a premium on it is silly. Just think back, two years ago, stores were pushing HDTVs as "buying for the future", and people had to pay over $6000-$7000 CDN for a 42" Plasma with DVI. Yet that TV would just sit there, displaying Standard Definition, sometimes EDTV, and rarely HDTV for most of the time and not using it's full potential. Now a 42" Plasma HDTV with HDMI can be had for $2500-$3000CDN and at least now, a person can enjoy some of their channels in HDTV. So what did the person paying an additional $3000 2 years ago get? No use of the HD, DVI standard being replaced by HDMI, etc...

Re:20/80? (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083854)

1. Expandability. If you get the low end version, you're screwed if any future games *require* one of the expansions that Sony is promising...
the only differences between the two versions is a larger hard drive (by 40 gigs or so); built in Wifi; a memory card reader, and HDMI. with the exception of HDMI, all of these can be upgraded on Ps3 "core", and none of those can ever be "required" for games.

Re:20/80? (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083903)

AFAIK, the only benefit of HDMI over component cables is a) less things to plug in, and b) HDMI will work with DRMed BluRay content while standard component cables won't. Is there any qualitative difference to the HDMI signal over component?

Re:20/80? (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084037)

HDMI and DVI are digital signals- component is still analog and subject to signal degradation. a side by side comparison of HDMI vs. a good set of component cables will result in HDMI having the nicer picture.

Re:20/80? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084828)

Yeah, if you compare it to a mile long component cable.

Re:20/80? (2, Insightful)

steve_bryan (2671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085001)

a side by side comparison of HDMI vs. a good set of component cables will result in HDMI having the nicer picture.

This is worded as though there were a double blind test run by a disinterested party with this published result somewhere. Care to share that reference? Or is this just another slashdot claim pulled from nether regions (or are you running that sychrotron in the basement again)? The main distinction between HDMI and DVI/component is that the former plays more directly into the hands of the DRM proponents even though DRM makes no sense for game console output. The PS3 does include BluRay player capability so full resolution playback becomes a legacy issue. Initially we are promised full resolution for component output. If enough people only have component output it becomes less attractive for vendors to cripple future discs by turning off full resolution.

Re:20/80? (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085406)

no, not a double blind test, but from personal experience when I used to sell electronics in college. (1999-2002, FYI.) I got the opportunity to play around with quite a bit of equipment I otherwise could not have afforded(especially when something new came in) and got a chance to do side by side comparisons on a daily basis. Sometimes for customers, but mostly because I was just curious.

And from personal experience no matter what kind of equipment I used, (CRT, Plasma, DLP) I got a better picture using a digital (HDMI/DVI) cable over analog component cable. It's the same reason why buying expensive HDMI cables makes no sense, because the signal isn't subject to the same degradation that S-video, component, and composite are.

Stop foaming at the mouth...not everything's about DRM.

Re:20/80? (1)

steve_bryan (2671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085507)

Don't be so naive. If it isn't about DRM than why was HDMI added when there was already a digital solution with DVI?

Re:20/80? (1)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086194)

Because HDMI also does audio and I think it has even higher bitrates. DVI does HDCP just fine [wikipedia.org] .

Re:20/80? (1)

steve_bryan (2671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086273)

Did you bother to follow some of those links? The DVI solution given in the links just unscrambles the signal and delivers it to the DVI device. Also it is worth noting that the basic HDCP protocol has been broken since 2001 so anyone who wants the unscrambled, uncompressed signal will have that option. The principle effect will be to make game consoles cost about $100 more than they otherwise would and, of course, any number of unintended annoyances that will emerge.

Re:20/80? (2, Informative)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086435)

What I meant is that HDMI's only advantage is the audio on the same wire. As far is video goes, HDMI has nothing over DVI. Anyway, the protocol has nothing to do with the wire it flows in. While every device that does HDMI also does HDCP, not every DVI based solutions does HDCP. But if you do own one, there's no reason for spending money on a newer TV with HDMI. You might as well use DVI/HDCP for now and use optical out for sound.

As far as being cracked for years, that's not the cable's fault, only the algorithm used in the device. DVI and HDMI are just wires.

Also, I fail to see where DVI devices unscramble/decrypt the signal before sending it to the display device.

Re:20/80? (1)

steve_bryan (2671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086972)

Also, I fail to see where DVI devices unscramble/decrypt the signal before sending it to the display device.

Just follow the link at the bottom of the wiki page labelled:
# DVI HDCP and DVI MAGIC Compatibility-enhancement devices for non-HDCP monitors [5]

As far as being cracked for years, that's not the cable's fault, only the algorithm used in the device. DVI and HDMI are just wires.
The whole thing would just be comedy if it did not involve throwing away other people's money for technology that doesn't even work right and was a questionable use of this technology in any case. The bandwidth of the signal being scrambled, which is uncompressed high definition video, is about a gigabit per second. How many years will it be before that is a factor in the home market for realtime capture and recompression? Of course for actual commercial piracy (for whom the high cost of commercial video capture equipment is just a cost of business) the standard was broken years before being deployed so counterfeit hires DVD's will be available in Asia as soon as the market grows to any significant size. So, just to review, it costs producers and consumers extra, will undoubtedly cause currently unanticipated headaches for consumers and does nothing effective against commercial piracy. Sounds like a trifecta.

My point is that people being excited about HDMI and an overpriced built in drive might be misplaced. Component output might be better for your game (which seems unlikely to have the ICT token enabled)and you will probably be able to get a better price for added HD capacity.

Re:20/80? (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086014)

The main distinction between HDMI and DVI/component is that the former plays more directly into the hands of the DRM proponents even though DRM makes no sense for game console output.

No, the main differences between DVI and HDMI are that HDMI has a different (better) connector and can carry audio and additional control data.

You may be thinking about HDCP, which is the copy protection (DRM) standard. HDCP can be used with either HDMI or DVI.

Of course, the major difference between component and HDMI/DVI is that HDMI/DVI is digital. It doesn't make sense to output a nice digital signal into analog and then convert it back to digital to display it. Most of the time, you can't notice the difference, but it does exist.

Re:20/80? (1)

steve_bryan (2671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086160)

No, the main differences between DVI and HDMI are that HDMI has a different (better) connector and can carry audio and additional control data.

That is what I would call a trivial difference which could hardly justify all the sturm and drang of yet another digital connection standard. On the other hand the incessant march to closed DRM standards is unmistakeable: CD -> DVD-Audio, SaCD, DVD -> BluRay, DVD-HD, HDTV (current OTA)_> HDTV over HDCP, DVI ->HDMI. In all cases attempte to eviscerate the essential nature of copyright: publisher is granted enormous advantage for a limited time in exchange for content passing into the public domain. With successful DRM content is locked forever regardless of the law. Of course it is almost a moot point since legislators have been bought for a paltry sum to extend copyright from 14 years to effectively forever. Oh well.

Regardless of the difference in viewpoint I'd just like to add that the availability of the PS3 model without the extra helping of DRM is very appreciated, and for less money. With many years of experience I suspect that I'll be able to swap in a much higher capacity HD for less than the price differential (400 GB drives for less than $100 already and better prices in the future).

Re:20/80? (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 7 years ago | (#16087077)

HDCP has been cracked already. It can be used with DVI. HDMI is no different in this regard. My TV doesn't have HDMI, but it does have DVI-HDCP. It can be used with HDMI simply by changing the connector.

It's like mini-USB vs. regular USB. It doesn't have anything to do with DRM because DVI already supported HDCP.

Lots of reasons why to build more premiums (4, Insightful)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083587)

If Wikipedia is right and by the end of 2006 only ten percent of American's TVs are expected to be HDTVs, wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around and have 20% high end, 80% "low" end? Is Japan's HDTV adaption rate really that much more than the US'? Am I missing something about what the $600 version offers that makes it much more interesting than the $500 besides the HDMI port?

The premium version also boasts a larger hard-drive.

The 80/20 convention is still probably the right idea, since it's the early adopters that are most willing to buy a console at launch. They're probably much more likely to own an HDTV, over the general public. Furthermore, even if they don't have an HDTV, the mindset of an early adopter is to "future-proof" themselves and get the console with the most features, even if they may not use them all yet. It may be costly to upgrade later. And finally, there's the general fanboy opinion that the core version of any console is the "sucky one" and anyone who got suckered into buying is a "n00b". So there's that to consider as well.

In fact, one of the complaints with the 360 launch is that there were too many Core systems created, instead of Premium ones. People were very much willing to fork over the extra $100 for the Premium one (especially since it had an HD and the Core did not), but were forced to get the Core. It's never a good thing when you force your customers to spend less than they want to.

Re:Lots of reasons why to build more premiums (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16085107)

Think so? Let's have this conversation after Sony manages to not sell that many overpriced drm piece of crap "high end" systems k. Ken's calling, he needs you to shill for Sony elsewhere.

Re:20/80? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083592)

To a certain extent it makes sense that most of the console's produced are going to be of the "High-End" version because people who are willing to spend $500 on a Gaming Console/Blu-Ray Player probably see the "added value" in the $600 version; this is mainly because at that price range only the most gadget crazy early adopter is going to be in a rush to own one and they probably have a 1080p HDMI based TV already.

In the long run I don't know if it makes any sense; few people I know have an HDTV, those that do don't have a gaming console connected to it (their wife gets angry), and none are willing to spend more than $300 on a gaming console. Does the PS3 have a reasonably large market to actually sell to? Does it actually make a difference how many of each console they make?

Re:20/80? (1)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083619)

> "...wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around..."

Ah, I think you answered your own question there. Has Sony been really making wise moves lately?

Re:20/80? (1)

piper-noiter (772438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083745)

I have a HD TV, problem is it doesn't have HDMI or 1080p [teamxbox.com] and my case is far from unique. Without those two features you might as well stick with SD DVD's with MPEG2, you won't see much difference. Just buy your 360. It's pretty enough.

Personally, I'm just sticking to a Wii. I'm on a budget and Link is the man.

Re:20/80? (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084577)

My 5+ year old TV (Toshiba 50HX70) that has neither HDMI or 1080p but I can say there is a significant difference between 1080i & 480p.

Re:20/80? (1)

piper-noiter (772438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084807)

The 1080 is displaying as 720, the low end of HD. A standard MPEG2 DVD is capable of producing 720. One must also keep in mind that though a game is made for the PS3, that does not assure that it will be full HD or even 720p. It's all up to the publishers and how they value the time, effort, and cost.

I admit I'm jaded and think the format war is full of hooey. There is very little about either HD DVD format that really makes it worth your while, not at the cost of all new equipment and libraries. IMHO.

Re:20/80? (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086633)

Ummm.... you are incorrect. 1080i is the highest resolution allowed for broadcast, 1080p is currently only allowed for non-broadcast private. 1080p until earlier this very year (when the first HD-DVD came out), there wasn't a single consumer device that would give 1080p output (a computer yes, nothing else). I'm completely baffled where you think 1080i is the lowend of the HD, officially 480p, 540p 720p & 1080i are the broadcast resolutions. 1080i is the highest broadcast allowed and is the 2nd highest current resolution (behind 1080p, which again had it's first consumer products come out just a few months ago).

I'd be much less concerned about game creators not being able to actually give the proper lines of resolution, and more about the display itself (for the next few years). The amount of TV's who say than can take a 1080i/720p signal but actually scale that signal down because they can't natively display it at the inbound resolution (which is one of the dirty little secrets of the AV industry).

Re:20/80? (2, Insightful)

uzor (787499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083777)

And this is exactly why Nintendo is not playing the "HD" game this time around...not enough people will be able to take advantage of it to make the expenditure worthwhile.

Re:20/80? (1)

nevergleam (900375) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084094)

I have a question about Wikipedia's numbers. What is the definition (as in word meaning) of HDTV the article assumes? Do they mean full, true HD, 1080p? Or do they mean a resolution below 1080p that under FCC rules can still be called HD even though it isn't by definition? My family just bought a 1366x768 LCD from Polaroid for 900 US. It has an HDMI port, but does it count as HD? It's only 768p.

Another question that popped into my mind as I was typing this; how many households have multiple HDTVs? In other words, how many households have multiple TVs, but only one HDTV as their main TV. That's how my house is under the assumption that the 768p LCD is considered an HDTV. What if the Wikipedia stat meant 10% of every televisions ever purchased in the US was an HDTV?

In any case, what my argument would be is that there is no good way to correlate the possible market the PS3 has based on how many households in the US have HDTVs. There are way too many variables.

Sometimes double-checking isn't enough (1)

nevergleam (900375) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084180)

10% of every televisions... was an HDTV = 10% of all televisions... were HDTVs.

Re:20/80? (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084210)

Nah, I would buy the $600 version even though I haven't got an HDTV (I won't be buying either). Most HDTVs use analog signals anyway, so even most HDTV owners wouldn't need HDMI.

The thing about it though is WiFi, more Hard Drive space and the ability to read SD cards. Considering that a WiFi upgrade would probably set you back at least forty dollars, it makes alot of sense.

Re:20/80? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084415)

If Wikipedia is right and by the end of 2006 only ten percent of American's TVs are expected to be HDTVs, wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around

The HD market is big and getting bigger:

The transition from analog to digital broadcasting has triggered a surge in demand for TVs capable of providing the highest-quality picture. Sales of HDTV sets are expected to reach $37 billion in 2010, up from an estimated $24 billion this year, according to DisplaySearch, an industry research firm based in Texas. Maker of HDTVs Aims for Big Time [latimes.com]

In June, an NPD survey of major retailers found that 41 percent of all TVs sold in the United States were HDTVs, compared with 25 percent a year ago. (NPD, a research firm that tracks sales of technology products, owns DisplaySearch, a research company specializing in all aspects of the display industry.) The HDTV Juggernaut Gathers Steam [pcworld.com]

Re:20/80? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084901)

That seems a bit misleading, though. I'll set aside the argument that HDTVs sold in 2007-2010 will not have any significance on the % of high end PS3 units at launch, and focus on other points. First, if estimated sales are $24 billion this year and that is still only 10% of America TVs, then that's only about a 65% increase over whatever % of the 10% of TVs expected to be HDTV by 2006 was actually bought in 2006. Furthermore, the 41% of all TVs sold are HDTVs remark is also misleading. One does not buy a new TV as often as one, say, upgrades a computer. Those 75% last year and 49% this year are going to keep their SDTVs for quite a bit of time. It is reasonable to accept that TV sales are increasingly HDTVs, however it is faulty to assume that Television sales themselves will climb higher or likely even stay the same. As the transition occures, TV sales will most likely fall as the need to upgrade from analog to digital (not necessarily HD) is satisfied. In the end I do not think HDTVs will rapidly spread in a way meaningful enough for Sony's PS3 to really capitalize on it and certainly not at lauch a few months from now. Again, that's not to say HDTV penetration in America will never reach high levels, just that they won't be high enough in time to save the PS3.

Well... (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083512)

I am sure that the slashbots will turn this into a negative somehow..

This is not a suprise, Sony did this with the PS2 and guess what... it worked for them.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083709)

Doesn't it strike you as a bad thing that the final hardware hasnt been assembled and tested and even shipped to DEVELOPERS yet and they expect a launch in 2 months? I cant imagine how this is going to come out knowing that final devkits are not available yet for this platform! The 360 developers had a full six months of final devkit testing, and the PS3 is heck of a lot harder to develop for.

This looks like a disaster, especially considering that the PS3 will only be available in special holiday "bundles" which probably will be around $700-$800. I don't know any parent who is going to drop that amount on a game system! Parents can justify that much for a PC because they can kid themselves that the child may use it for homework. Go ask your parents if they would buy a game system for $700-$800. Let me know what they say.

Re:Well... (1)

DeadMilkman (855027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083710)

Actually...no it didn't.

PS2 didn't win mass appeal until 2.5 years later when it hit the 200$ price point.

Oh and btw, Sony provided 900,000 PS2 units to Japan opening weekend....this time its providing 100,000 PS3 units. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_2)

Re:Well... (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083986)

Not true.... I can't find the exact date that production started, but this [toshiba.co.jp] says production of the CPU ("Emotion Engine") started in Fall of 99. PS2 launched in Japan in March 00, that's at least 4 months of production to get 700,000 units [scei.co.jp] . Now, with a more complicated system, Sony is claiming to be able to build 150% of the units in 75% of the time?

Re:Well... (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084179)

Well, back then they

1) had millions of units ready, instead of 500 000
2) had a launch price of half that what the premium PS3 costs
3) didn't face any fair competition

Sony vs Nintendo - The Epic Battle Begins (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083522)

TGS is right around the corner and the battle for next gen crown starts a month or so later between Nintendo and Sony.

One has to wonder if Microsoft is even relevant to the console market anymore.

Merry Christmas and a Happy Root Kit (0, Redundant)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083527)

<More Dead Horse Beating>

I can't help but wonder if their sales are going to suffer after their Root Kit shenanigans [sysinternals.com]

</More Dead Horse Beating>

Re:Merry Christmas and a Happy Root Kit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083609)

Have you ever actually beaten a dead horse? I hear it's quite fun.

Re:Merry Christmas and a Happy Root Kit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083787)

He better say no, or I'm calling PETA!

Re:Merry Christmas and a Happy Root Kit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083931)

He didn't say:

Have you ever actually beaten a horse dead?

.. silly!

Re:Merry Christmas and a Happy Root Kit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083960)

Hopefully so much that the fucktards go out of business. That way those that have purchased Sony's shit will be forced to use sub-par shit with no fucking support, or go out and purchase some real hardware and music from other businesses.

Re:Merry Christmas and a Happy Root Kit (0, Troll)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085290)

no... no... don't hold back....

Tell us what you really think

I only wish.... (1)

Rendo (918276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083568)

I had a small fortune on me right now. I'd pre-order so many of them and make a GIANT killing on E-bay. Every pay attention on launch date how many PS3's instantly get put up even before they're bought. I expect these people that do this to easily pull in double they paid for each console.

1 month to produce (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083602)

I'm not too fond about Manufacturing processes for Electronic Equipment other than lighting products. Does anyone have any experience of their company being able to successfully ship out so many units with in a one month deadline?

If so, what was the projected returned products and the actual returned products?

All Zonk's anti-Sony FUD Comes To Naught (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083608)

So much for the year long anti-Sony/PS3 crusade by Zonk. Soon we will have to sit through the inevitable bitter stories submitted by the sad little man complaining that gamers are once again getting fooled 'by teh Sony Hype' as PS3s fly off the shelves.

Even if one didn't have an interest in any of the vast library of PS3 games, just the fact that every PS3 purchase is a knife to the heart of that bitter little fuck Zonk is reason enough for people to try to get their hands on one come November...

Re:All Zonk's anti-Sony FUD Comes To Naught (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084324)

So, will each one be for MASSIVE DAMAGE? Or will Sony have to flip him over with the $600 first?

Oh, the memories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083656)

Timeline of Doom [kikizo.com]

So much for the $500 pricetag... (2, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083660)

I remember that in previous PS3 threads whenever someone would say the PS3 cost $600, someone would always post and say "nuh-uh, most gamers will only need the $500 version!"

Well, it looks like most gamers will be stuck with the $600 version, need it or not!

Although it's probably actually a good move for launch. They can't possibly meet demand with only 500,000 PS3s at launch, so charging as much as possible makes sense.

Re:So much for the $500 pricetag... (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084705)

Well, it looks like most gamers will be stuck with the $600 version, need it or not!

No, because "most gamers" won't buy their PS3 at launch (Because even if they wanted to there wouldn't be enough PS3s). I certainly won't buy one until the first (or most likely the second) round of slashing the price down to more sane values.

Although it's probably actually a good move for launch. They can't possibly meet demand with only 500,000 PS3s at launch, so charging as much as possible makes sense.

It just makes sense. I've yet to meet even one person who's happy that he got a 360 Core at launch but I've seen lots of people with Core systems complain that they couldn't get the Premium version.

Launch Stock (1)

Epyn (589398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083673)

What's with those numbers, 400K at launch and 800K more by the end of 06? How does that add up to 2.4 million out of the promised 4 million? Oh splitting the markets makes it sound better.

Assuming that the disparity of 1 million units accounts for the Japanese market(since the European launch has been delayed), they've managed to allude nicely so that it almost looks like they haven't completely failed their build plan. Perhaps they're hoping the price difference will keep store shelves stocked this season instead of doing it the way that benefits consumers.

Re:Launch Stock (1)

Skevin (16048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083793)

There's an error in the article text. When they said, "400K at launch", they really meant, "$400,000 at launch", which is not surprising, given the rate the price keeps astronomically rising with every Sony PR release. However, if you decide you really need more bells and whistles, they will release the uber-luxury model for $800,000 more by the end of '06. Remember, the PS3 is not meant to be a "console" - it's a snob^W "Status Symbol".

Buying a house can wait. I'm getting a loan to put a downpayment on a PS3 right now.

Solomon

Re:Launch Stock (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084055)

It's 400k at launch in the US and 400k at launch in Japan, with 800k in the US and 800k in Japan by the end of December. Add those numbers up and you get 2.4 million. It's just a matter of writers mixing and matching regional numbers and total numbers.

Do the PS3's.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16083688)

Explode?...

Wait a minute (4, Insightful)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083754)

Final assembly will apparently begin at the end of this month, with some 400K units planned for the November 17th launch.
That... that doesn't seem right...

In an extraordinary public statement of regret and despair over having to postpone his company's PlayStation 3 debut in Europe and Australia until March, and to limit availability elsewhere to only 500,000 units come November[...] (Source) [slashdot.org]
Uh oh.

Either someone has their numbers wrong, or Sony is planning to have an extra 100K units available by the end of November. Either way, this means there will be even less units than recently stated, which was also less units than previously promised.

Sony should just hurry up and use a shotgun on their foot instead of a pistol. At least, if they are shipping more units in November but after launch, this is better than the 360, where they didn't send out additional shipments for a few weeks after initial release.

Re:Wait a minute (3, Informative)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083899)

The article's wording is a bit off. the 400K units are for the North American launch. There's an additional 100K going to Japan. another 800K units will be shipped to North America between launch and december, and another million or so going to Japan in that same period.

Re:Wait a minute (2, Informative)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083910)

Either someone has their numbers wrong, or Sony is planning to have an extra 100K units available by the end of November. Either way, this means there will be even less units than recently stated, which was also less units than previously promised.

The 100K discrepancy isn't that hard to figure out. They're planning on shipping 400K in the US and 100K in Japan. The real question is how 400K + 800K by end of year in the US + 100K + ???K by end of year in Japan = 2.4Million. I have a hard time believing that they're somehow going to manufacture and ship 1.1Million consoles for Japan if they can't launch with any more than 100K.

Sony should just hurry up and use a shotgun on their foot instead of a pistol.

The best advice for Sony right now is to make sure they get their whole head in front of the shotgun.

At least, if they are shipping more units in November but after launch, this is better than the 360, where they didn't send out additional shipments for a few weeks after initial release.

The Xbox 360 had a slow trickle of consoles going out nearly every single day. The biggest problems were at the retailers' ends -- refusing shipments because Microsoft sent the consoles by UPS but the store only accepts shipments from their distribution center, holding the consoles for a "re-release" a month after the actual release (Best Buy, I'm looking at you. You bastards), employees hoarding the consoles for ebay sales, etc. Microsoft definitely had supply issues, but they made as much as they could as quickly as they could and shipped them out ASAP. And they eventually did own up to their problems. Do you really expect Sony to do as much? Kutaragi's personal distortion field will be used to spin this in a positive light for Sony and damn the facts.

Re:Wait a minute (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084026)

Final assembly will apparently begin at the end of this month, with some 400K units planned for the November 17th launch.
That... that doesn't seem right...
That's the beauty of a plan. If the PS3 sells out (which considering the number of units that will be available, is almost certain) then Sony can turn their nose at all the nay-sayers, and say how when everyone counted the company out, it came back with a solid product that people want to buy.

If it doesn't sell out at launch, Sony PR can spin it as tech blogs spreading FUD, blind criticism from the media, anything but a high price tag.

Whether the plan works out for them or not, the PR Department will spin it twenty-ways-to-Sunday to get support for the product.

Re:Wait a minute (2, Interesting)

Aerokii (1001189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084350)

well, lets pause a moment and consider things. They plan on starting assembly near the end of september. For all intensive purposes, we'll say September 25th. Now, from then to the release date, assuming they will need one day to ship, they hope to have 400,000 units produced and shipped. That takes a total of 53 days to produce all those units. Now, after that, they hope to make another 800,00 units. This is, once more, assuming they continue, without stop, while the other launch continues. Starting once more on the 16th of November, and ending by the end of the year. Starting from November, they've got... 15 days left including the sixteenth, plus December, which gives them 31 days. 31+15 = 46 days, as basic math would tell us. What I want to know is, how do they plan to double the units in less time, and if they would speed it up, why DON'T they just speed up now, so launch demands can be met. Once more assuming that people are actually able to buy them.

Re:Wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16085274)

For all intensive purposes...

The phrase is "For all intents and purposes."

Re:Wait a minute (1)

Frenchy_2001 (659163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085954)

your maths are good, ut your assumptions are wrong.
What is holding up the production is the supply of bluray diodes.
Those are "ramping up", meaning they are producing more (better yields) every months.
They will have enough lasers to ship 500k consoles in mid november (actually shipped well before release date I would expect). Every month after that, they will produce more lasers, reaching up to the 1.2M units in january.

So, their 2.4M total in 2006 are the 500k of the launch plus the 1.9M shipped in november and december. Then, they plan 1.2M each month starting in january.
Total at the end of their fiscal year: 2.4+1.2x3=6M.
They may not reach that target, but it is their plan.

And If they can produce them, I have little doubt they'll be able to sell them...

Re:Wait a minute (1)

Aerokii (1001189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086187)

I keep hearing more and more about this blu-ray, and honestly, it sounds like a scapegoat to me. The PS3 price, the slow production, all of that. As for how many blu-rays they'll have made by the time the launch comes around, well, that's still up for grabs. They could either gain experience and learn how to better produce, and hopefully, better market their system, or they could continue as they are now, and pray that they don't bomb this generation, which I'm doubting they will, unless the 360 suddenly gets a wave of decent exclusive titles. I'm not even going to mention the Wii, since many people will probably end up buying a Wii with another console.

There's always the chance that they eventually hit a limit they can make per month. While I realise that there may be no limit, I also realise that if they're having problems now, both with price and production time, I don't see them suddenly growing out of a slump that would double their production rate in a month and a half's time.

Re:Wait a minute (1)

jason ward (581483) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084583)

Past info has said 400k for north america and 100k for japan. At the moment, I'm just too lazy to look it up ;)

Re:Wait a minute (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084799)

I know that the US is getting 400K units, and if that's what the article was referring to (this is /., of course I DRTFA before I posted), then it isn't nearly as periless as I thought. However, the quote talks about final production for 400K units, so unless the U.S. and Japanese units are being made in different places, that still leaves 100K unaccounted for.

Ebay vendors are drooling... (2, Informative)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16083886)

There's nothing like a tight supply to get the ebay vultures circling. I suspect the actual cost for the first few thousand units will be in the $1200-1500 range. Sadly, there are enough people out there who will feed the ebay scum.

Can you imagine what a Tickle Me Elmo [wikipedia.org] would go for today (ex if it had happend in 2006 vs 1996), give then hype that surrounded it back then combined with the insane market that is ebay?

Wait 'till next week... (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084237)

Can you imagine what a Tickle Me Elmo would go for today (ex if it had happend in 2006 vs 1996), give then hype that surrounded it back then combined with the insane market that is ebay?
T.M.X [fisher-price.com] (Tickle Me Elmo 10th Anniversary) comes out on the 19th.

Re:Ebay vendors are drooling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084275)

How are they scum? If adults of their own free will want to spend ridiculous amounts of money for something, then they should be allowed to. The people who sell are only providing an opportunity - the buyers are happily paying for what they perceive the item to be worth.

They are all consenting adults doing this of their own free will. Nobody is being tricked or forced into doing anything.

So why the hate?

Re:Ebay vendors are drooling... (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16084453)

Sorry, it's really a haves vs have-nots kind of hate. Instead of the company setting their intended price, and letting random chance settle in for those to try and get the "hot" holiday item, most of the supply will likely be intercepted via greased palmes and back room deals. Or people buying 10 or 20 of them for the sole purpose of scalping them on ebay.

PS3 doesn't affect me, 'cause I'm not a gamer, nor is anyone in my family. It's the lack of respect and consideration for your fellow man that drives me insane. I'm not religious, but I do believe that you should treat everyone fairly, as you would like to be treated. This practice strikes at the heart of what is utterly wrong with modern society - that the need for the quick buck will trump human decency in almost every case.

I believe that it is this type of market that causes an overall increase in the unhealty stress that pervades the population and leads to a general decline in attitude, interpersonal communication, and mental and physical health.

Now, that's a lot of shit to heap on Ebay, but it's not just ebay (though, in all honesty, they probably deserve it). The attitude pervades human society, and (as game theory will show) having this cancer - even in small quantities - will cause it to spread.

I swear, it's not hate. It's frustration. Maybe if I didn't have kids it would be different. If I wan't leaving someone behind it would be much easier to just let the whole world go to hell in a handbasket. Screw the global warming nuts. To hell with keeping corporations in check. Who really gives a fuck anyway? When I'm gone, eveyone elses useless, undisciplined, lazy, ungreatful spawn can fight it out after I'm dead. 'Cept now I've got a dog in that fight, and I'm much more inclined for it to not be a bar room brawl.

*shrug* It's not about ebay, it's about the culture. I think it's bad for society; you might think this is a positive. It's just my opinion.

Re:Ebay vendors are drooling... (1)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086200)

They are all consenting adults doing this of their own free will. Nobody is being tricked or forced into doing anything.
So why the hate?

Maybe he got burned by the same way of thinking in another kind of activity.

Re:Ebay vendors are drooling... (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085542)

Why are they scum? Because they see an opportunity to make a legal profit on a non-essential item and are taking it?

It's a video-game console. If someone's so desperate to be the first on their block to own one, why shouldn't someone make a buck (or $1000) off of that? Nobody gets hurt.

Re:Ebay vendors are drooling... (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085918)

Why are they scum?
Because they are artifically raising prices for their own benefit. Do you approve of gasoline price gouging [wikipedia.org] too? Even though it's not an official emergency (and thus probably legal), the fact is that these people are intentionally harming their fellows by purchasing a fixed-price item, then releasing it to the free market during a time of extreme demand. They aren't doing anything to deserve that money, and they're screwing the people who actually want to buy this product.

Nobody gets hurt.
Except for all the consumers who could each have saved hundreds of dollars each plus shipping time/charges, had they been able to buy it retail. Instead, they must pay the ebay scalpers that rushed in and bought the units 20 at a time.

Re:Ebay vendors are drooling... (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16086379)

Do you approve of gasoline price gouging too?

Why did you ignore the part of my comment where I said "non-essential"? Is it because nuance is too difficult for you to grasp.

Except for all the consumers who could each have saved hundreds of dollars each plus shipping time/charges, had they been able to buy it retail. Instead, they must pay the ebay scalpers that rushed in and bought the units 20 at a time.

Pardon me, but where is the *harm* that is done? People voluntarily paying a lot more for a video game console because they simply *will not* wait does NOT seem like harm to me. It seems like people who're on the ball taking advantage of other people's sloth and willingness to spend.

Re:Ebay vendors are drooling... (2, Insightful)

iamblades (238964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16087099)

They are not artificially raising prices though, it is Sony that is artificially keeping prices low.

Demand at the MSRP is much much higher than the supply, which presents a profit opportunity for people to buy at the low MSRP and sell at the retail price.

Without these 'gougers' many people would simply not be able to get a PS3, as they would all be bought up by store employees and the rest of the first-come crowd.

The resellers ensure that there will be a PS3 available at some price for anyone who can afford it. Would you rather not be able to get one at all because you were number 6 on the list and the store only got 5 units?

Excuse me if I have little sympathy with the 'consumers' who do have the choice of waiting a couple months and getting one at MSRP. When dealing with high demand product launches, some people are going to be left out and not be able to get the product. The question is how you decide who gets it though, market price or first-come/first-serve luck of the draw waiting list type rationing. Maybe the current situation is the best option, a mix between the two, if you are quick and dedicated enough you can get it for MSRP at launch, or if you are rich enough you can pay the market price. Or you can do what the sane 95% do, wait until they are readily available at MSRP.

TGS (Tokyo Games Show) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084241)

I have a feeling that Sony is planning something big for the upcoming TGS06 which is 11 days, that will hopefully garner them some support.

A price cut (even down to 550USD and 450USD respectively would give them a better shot at hitting the 360) or anouncing that games will only cost 50USD would be nice, hell might even make me buy one at launch.

The main thing they need to do is announce some STRONG launch titles from a major franchise like Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or Metal Gear. To most GAMErs the GAMEs sell the Consoles.

Re:TGS (Tokyo Games Show) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16084405)

I have a feeling that Sony is planning something big for the upcoming TGS06 which is 11 days, that will hopefully garner them some support.

A price cut (even down to 550USD and 450USD respectively would give them a better shot at hitting the 360) or anouncing that games will only cost 50USD would be nice, hell might even make me buy one at launch.

The main thing they need to do is announce some STRONG launch titles from a major franchise like Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, or Metal Gear. To most GAMErs the GAMEs sell the Consoles.


I wouldn't count on it because Sony is having so many problems because they believe their hype (that is that The PS3 would sell even if there were no games and that it is Probably too inexpensive), and most third party developers are holding off releasing (good) games for the PS3 because the number of people who are willing to spend $600 on a system for a single game is pretty small. On top of all of that the PS3 can only read a DVD in 4X mode (IIRC) and most developers are going to publish using a Blu-Ray disc; being that there will be a priemium on Blu-Ray discs for the first couple of years (as a guestimate $10) and developers require more money per copy to cover development costs ($10) each game will be about $70.

And the truth of this is that it is not suprising. Sony has never tried to compete on price for any of their products, and this is why they have had so many problems getting formats adopted; had Mini-Disc or Memory stick been close to the cost of the competition they would have had a chance of being successful.

It'll sell. (2, Interesting)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#16085294)

I distinctly remember a system that launched with about three games available, at a suggested retail price of $300 (or was it $400? something like that...). Supply was so scarce they sold on ebay for anywhere from $500-$2000. It's amazing what a launch right before christmas will do for you.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>