Ever since the launch of the PlayStation 3, those who took exception to the console’s relatively high price criticized Sony’s decision to include an expensive Blu-ray Disc drive. While developers such David Jaffe (God of War, Twisted Metal) wanted to do without the drive, Sony itself has said that the decision to include Blu-ray Disc hardware is the smartest decision it has ever made. Now with the Blu-ray Disc format looking stronger than ever with the support of Warner Bros., the PlayStation 3 appears very well positioned as multimedia machine that appeals to more than just the gaming market.
Along with consumers, Sony felt the pain of its high console price at the time of the PlayStation 3 launch in November 2006. iSuppli estimated that the initial cost of manufacture for the console was $840.35 for the 60GB model. Since then, however, Sony has managed to close the gap considerably on its loss on every unit sold. Nikko Citigroup’s Kota Ezawa, quoted by BusinessWeek, says that each PS3 costs Sony around $400 to manufacture. Ezawa estimates that SCEI will lose $1.4 billion this fiscal year, following last year's $2.1 billion loss. The falling price of PlayStation 3 components is thanks to the increase in yield and supply of blue-violet laser diodes used in the high-definition optical drive in the console. Another large help in reducing costs was the Cell Broadband Engine chip’s shrink to 65nm. SCEI chief Kazuo Hirai at CES told the media that the PlayStation division of the company aims to be profitable starting next fiscal year.
News source: DailyTech
PS3 is like a Sega Saturn...great console...but stupidly marketed and priced to begin with.
I seriously doubt the market share for PS3 will grow considerably after the nes of most people now adopting Blue Ray...in fact I think it might well shrink as Blu Ray players become more prominent.
hope the purchase doesn't end up a regret like my latest "gaming" pc that doesn't get any gaming use anymore.
... and without backwards compatibility, the PS3 is worthless. I was going to buy, but because of this there is no point, the huge PS2 (and to some degree PS1) back catalogue features some really stunning games, and we're talking actual gameplay here, not a piece of boring sh*t that's all nice and shiny (*PS3 games, cough*) and without the ability to play them on this console, there is no reason to buy new.
PS2 gameplay knocks PS3 out of the ball park at the moment, and that won't change for a while until devs get to grips with the PS3 coding.. this is amply illustrated by a quite frankly mediocre catalogue so far.
And I wounldn't be suprised if them losing money is just marketing hype, if something makes you lose THAT much money, no company or CEO in there right mind would continue to manufacture and sell the product as such a high loss, it would be the most stupid thing to do (OK lets go buy 40,000 orange sim cards with £10 credit on for a total of £400,000 and sell them for £5 each making a total loss of £200,000...)
... and without backwards compatibility, the PS3 is worthless. I was going to buy, but because of this there is no point, the huge PS2 (and to some degree PS1) back catalogue features some really stunning games, and we're talking actual gameplay here, not a piece of boring sh*t that's all nice and shiny (*PS3 games, cough*) and without the ability to play them on this console, there is no reason to buy new.
PS2 gameplay knocks PS3 out of the ball park at the moment, and that won't change for a while until devs get to grips with the PS3 coding.. this is amply illustrated by a quite frankly mediocre catalogue so far.
Couple of things wrong with your post, mate
1) The cost of the emotion engine and the smaller hard drive probably only account for half of the price difference at the very most (Here's a hint: How much does a FULL PS2 cost and what's the difference between a 40Gb and 60Gb external hard drive? both of those combined barely hit $100).
The price difference is due mainly to the smaller CELL and cheaper blu-ray components
2) PS1 games play fine on the PS3, they're completely software emulated so they still work (since they don't need additional hardware to run)
Oh and this is coming from someone who owns and loves his 360 =)
The PS3 never actually had the emotion engine inside it, that was all done in software, it was the graphics processor that was included with the original 60Gb units.
The PS3 never actually had the emotion engine inside it, that was all done in software, it was the graphics processor that was included with the original 60Gb units.
You are wrong.
The 60GB version had the Emotion chip, the 80GB version had a software emulator (which is only partially compatible with existing PS2 games) and the 40GB and new version have nothing at all.
... and without backwards compatibility, the PS3 is worthless. I was going to buy, but because of this there is no point, the huge PS2 (and to some degree PS1) back catalogue features some really stunning games, and we're talking actual gameplay here, not a piece of boring sh*t that's all nice and shiny (*PS3 games, cough*) and without the ability to play them on this console, there is no reason to buy new.
PS2 gameplay knocks PS3 out of the ball park at the moment, and that won't change for a while until devs get to grips with the PS3 coding.. this is amply illustrated by a quite frankly mediocre catalogue so far.
lol that gave me a good chuckle. "PS3 is worthless"? C'mon man go buy a freaking PS2 at ebay for a steal if you have to. For all the money you'd be saving not buying a PS3 with BC you can buy plenty of PS2's and PS1's.
I swear todays generations have been spoiled. We never had BC back when I was a kid... I couldn't play nes games on my snes (without additional hardware) so why should you? PS3 plays PS3 games... oh noes!
Last edited by rpger81 on 15 Jan 2008 - 21:18
The PS3 never actually had the emotion engine inside it, that was all done in software, it was the graphics processor that was included with the original 60Gb units.
You are wrong.
The 60GB version had the Emotion chip, the 80GB version had a software emulator (which is only partially compatible with existing PS2 games) and the 40GB and new version have nothing at all.
Wrong. The 60Gb version and the 80Gb version both contained the graphics processor. The 40Gb model did not, hence why it's completely incompatible.
However, it should be noted that when I said the original 60Gb models didn't contain the emotion engine, I was referring to the UK's (where I live) 60gb models.
Well maybe because the tech is available to do so? Just because YOU couldn't doesn't me we can't.
Well maybe because the tech is available to do so? Just because YOU couldn't doesn't me we can't.
Thanks for proving my point. So the technology is there... but people like you take it for granted. Understand the BC in the PS3 is a privilege not a requirement. A gain, not a loss. Someone chooses to not buy a PS3 because it has no BC? Give me a break.
Well maybe because the tech is available to do so? Just because YOU couldn't doesn't me we can't.
Thanks for proving my point. So the technology is there... but people like you take it for granted. Understand the BC in the PS3 is a privilege not a requirement. A gain, not a loss. Someone chooses to not buy a PS3 because it has no BC? Give me a break.
Privilege?.. ah.. is that what it is?
It's a priviledge to be told to get rid of an entire back catalogue of games in favour of inferior one just because they are new and shiney (and don't actually have half of the gameplay values as their predecessors), not to mention that fact of reneging on industry press releases saying that backwards compatibility was a company axiom.. yeah, right.
You talk as if they are doing us a favour, as opposed to providing a service which not only would we be paying a premium on, but gets us as a customer in the first place... seriously you should start thinking about what you post, instead of turning off and letting your fingers move.... btw your "todays generations" crack (which should have been "today's generation" btw)... I'm older that you are....
... Your baseless assumption, and rather anti-consumer/choice point of view makes your comments just seem silly.
Last edited by The Walker on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:26
Well maybe because the tech is available to do so? Just because YOU couldn't doesn't me we can't.
Thanks for proving my point. So the technology is there... but people like you take it for granted. Understand the BC in the PS3 is a privilege not a requirement. A gain, not a loss. Someone chooses to not buy a PS3 because it has no BC? Give me a break.
Privilege?.. ah.. is that what it is?
It's a priviledge to be told to get rid of an entire back catalogue of games in favour of inferior one just because they are new and shiney (and don't actually have half of the gameplay values as their predecessors), not to mention that fact of reneging on industry press releases saying that backwards compatibility was a company axiom.. yeah, right.
You talk as if they are doing us a favour, as opposed to providing a service which not only would we be paying a premium on, but gets us as a customer in the first place... seriously you should start thinking about what you post, instead of turning off and letting your fingers move.... btw your "todays generations" crack (which should have been "today's generation" btw)... I'm older that you are....
... Your baseless assumption, and rather anti-consumer/choice point of view makes your comments just seem silly.
Wow grammar Nazi. Maybe you should heed your own advice and check your own post ("shiney"? "priviledge"? "I'm older that you are"?). LOL the irony.
Those games are meant to be played on the system they were made for. Any other compatibility is a benefit. Don't want to buy a PS3? Good for you. Have legitimate reasons not to rather than blaming the dumbest of things.
PS: You have no idea how old I am, don't make assumptions based on the fact I mentioned my favorite console system. Grow up.
Last edited by rpger81 on 16 Jan 2008 - 00:40
Last edited by Shadrack on 16 Jan 2008 - 05:27
I'm getting an Apple TV 2 and an Xbox 360 myself.
The PS3 was my favourite contender before the consoles were released, but I said I would wait until the consoles were cheaper and more established before I made a decision. The PS3 is still my favourite on the 3, but here's how it is for me:
The launch PS3 was the best model, but expensive. The newer they get, the cheaper they get. We don't even get the software emulation anymore in the UK, as we don't have an 80GB model. People say "keep your PS2", and I said "I want upscaling, otherwise I wouldn't care".
The 360 has it's ow problems, like a complete set up for me (wireless, controller charge kit) would cost more than a PS3, and plus there's the whole RROD thing that's oh so encouraging.
The Wii is okay when I play on my mate's one, but owning one would be a bad idea as aside from Zelda, Mario Galaxy, and the yet to be released Super Smash Bros Brawl, the category for serious games is looking a bit empty.
Might as well get a gaming PC...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.