Sony PS3 'costs at least $805-840' to manufacture

[xvi]

sony taking risks on ps3? YEA RIGHT! sony is the biggest company in asia...(as GE is the biggest in america). sony doesnt just make video game and audio/video equipment...they also do heavy machinery, processing raw materials, civil machines, jnvoations, space equipment, and make/publish movies (new james bond is one of their works)...and god damn much more!!! their assets alone worth TRILLONS alone!

ps3 doesnt even scratch their wallets...

The point is that they're actually loosing money for every game console they sell. None of their other products matter. Sony isn't providing a free service to you. They're a company. All of the game consoles loose money on the actual unit. Like many people have said before, console manufacturers make their money on the game titles. If Sony didn't get a penny from game titles, you could expect to see the PS3 in the $900-$1000+ range at least (considerably more expensive than a PC with the same specs).

 

[Jimmy 2004]

sony taking risks on ps3? YEA RIGHT! sony is the biggest company in asia...(as GE is the biggest in america). sony doesnt just make video game and audio/video equipment...they also do heavy machinery, processing raw materials, civil machines, jnvoations, space equipment, and make/publish movies (new james bond is one of their works)...and god damn much more!!! their assets alone worth TRILLONS alone!

ps3 doesnt even scratch their wallets...

It still remains a risk over whether the PS3 will work out to be profitable or not.

 

[overcast]

It still remains a risk over whether the PS3 will work out to be profitable or not.

Every product on the face of the earth is a risk to be profitable or not. I still refuse to believe Sony is losing 50% of the cost every time they sell one.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Every product on the face of the earth is a risk to be profitable or not. I still refuse to believe Sony is losing 50% of the cost every time they sell one.

Fine, more of a risk than the Xbox 360 or Nintendo Wii if that will make people happy. I agree that loss does sound high but I'm quite convinced they aren't profiting from them at the moment.

 

[Makaveli]

Ya those figures do look oddly high. And why are u some of u even comparing the price of the blue ray drive to retail price. U think sony is even paying half that price when they order like 400,000 drives.

 

[drade]

Fine, more of a risk than the Xbox 360 or Nintendo Wii if that will make people happy. I agree that loss does sound high but I'm quite convinced they aren't profiting from them at the moment.

True, but ps3 is going to have struggles, I watched the news, they ahve to sell 50-80million of them just to be back into the zero zone, and believe it or not they can only sell about 2-6 million by march. It's the accesories games ect that are gonna help it.

Wii=cheap and mega fun
xbox 360= good price, amazing system
ps3= expensive, never played it myself, All I know is a machine down in the capital of my state over heated and fryed when people were playing it, not good.

I am a xbox-xbox 360 man, sorry sony, bad idea with blue ray.

 

[newtekie1]

At least Sony incorporated a "next gen" movie system into their console.

 

[Jimmy 2004]

At least Sony incorporated a "next gen" movie system into their console.

Well hopefully the future Xbox360s will also have HD-DVD, but I admit it is rubbish having to get an external drive atm.

 

[Lt_JWS]

I think MS made the right choice using the normal DVD drive.... loads faster then the next gen format..... MS is just giving people a choice... if you dont want HD-DVD dont get it!! If you do enjoy it in all its glory. Besides if i even become so lazy i cant get my fat arse up and change a disc somethings wrong I've played a PS3 and was left with a bad taste in my mouth.... graphic look last gen to me.... no were near the quality of the 360's games, I may be a fanboy so to speak but i think people need to get glasses that are saying the PS3's soooo much better then the 360.... ok i'll shut up now

 

[newtekie1]

The big problem with that is the fact that the DVD format is already full, the PS2 showed that. Pretty soon people won't have the choice, they will have to buy the HD-DVD drive because games will eventually be released on HD-DVD only(just my prediction) because the developers are probably going to get pretty tired of having to work around the low disk space of DVDs. The faster load times isn't true at all, the disc spin slower, but the actual data read speeds are pretty similar because of HD-DVD's larger data density. The problem that Microsoft has to face now, is what do they do about the horribly slow USB transfer speeds? Yeah, it is fast enough to stream movie data, but game load times are going to be terrible, if they can even do it.

On top of that, the people on the Xbox side constantly bitch about how expensive the PS3 is, they talk about $599 being an outragous price for a console. However, when you add up the Xbox360 Premium system($399), the HD-DVD player($199), and the Wireless Adaptor($99), it comes out to near $700. So to get the same setup it costs you $100 more then the PS3, and the PS3 comes with triple the hard drive space. Now you can step down to the $500 PS3 to get the same 20GB hard drive as the Xbox360 and lose the wireless, but the Xbox360 still comes out $100 more...

As for the graphics, the Xbox360 has had a year to develop, I think you are forgetting how crappy some of the launch titles looked. Specifically the ones that were released on both the Xbox and the Xbox360, a lot of the time it was hard to tell the difference between the two systems. Give the developers a year with the PS3 and then re-examine the graphics situation.

 

[Azn Tr14dZ]

The HD-DVD for the Xbox 360 isn't that great IMO, it doesn't even have HDMI Out, which is the best type of interface for watching Movies in HD.

 

[Lt_JWS]

So the PS3 has built-in 802.11? Also correct me if im wrong but doesn't the PS3 use ~4.5gig of HDD space per game for data cache, because of the blu-ray's read speed? There in lies the need for a bigger HDD. I dont hate the PS3 i think its a good system... but Sony has had an full extra year to make there games better and they haven't, and Perfect Dark Zero/Kameo/PGR3 still have some of the best graphics i've seen..... Like i've said i've played the PS3, i just dont feel that it lives up the extreme hype that Sony put out. Also i've got the HD-DVD player for the 360... best thing since HDTV's Its a major step up from my Upconverting DVD player and its only $200 US and you can use it on your PC

 

[Azn Tr14dZ]

It would have been better if the HD-DVD Drive for the 360 included HDMI...which many TV's now have, and it gives off a better picture quality than Component.

 

[strick94u]

New stuff is allway high example the Toyota prius in 1999 cost 50,000 to build yet sold for 26,000 today the prius makes money

 

[Lt_JWS]

I wont argue with you there, but all in all the picture/sound quality is the best i've ever seen far surpassing HD sat/cable....

Here's a nice little article that i think will help people see that disc size doesn't matter
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/11/09/Procedural_Textures_Future_Gam/1.html

Hopefully this tech will catch on!

 

[ktr]

i seen the ps3 in action, it doesnt look any better than the x360.

and the hd-dvd does have a plus being that you can use it on pc, so its not a waste.

but the ps3 can run linux...

 

[newtekie1]

So the PS3 has built-in 802.11?

Yes, the $599 version has build in wireless.

Also correct me if im wrong but doesn't the PS3 use ~4.5gig of HDD space per game for data cache, because of the blu-ray's read speed? There in lies the need for a bigger HDD.

Certain games install files on the hard drive to improve load performance. This feature can be turned off, AFAIK. Also, it isn't because the blu-ray has a crappy read speed. It is actually on par with HD-DVD and regular DVDs. No matter what form of media the PS3 used, it would have needed to cache files on the hard drive to increase load speeds. The main issues is the simply huge textures that they can fit on the Blu-ray discs. Also, not every game requires that much space, AFAIK only one game currently uses more then 2GB. I can tell you that there are several games on the Xbox360 that make me wish Microsoft had done the same thing.

I dont hate the PS3 i think its a good system... but Sony has had an full extra year to make there games better and they haven't, and Perfect Dark Zero/Kameo/PGR3 still have some of the best graphics i've seen..... Like i've said i've played the PS3, i just dont feel that it lives up the extreme hype that Sony put out.

It is always the case that the launch games don't even come close to looking as good as the games a year down the road, which are usually close to the peak of a systems visuals. Like I said, some of the Xbox360 games looked like crap. Personally I though Perfect Dark wasn't that impressive. Sony has had a year to make the hardware better, but that doesn't affect the software side, the developers have only had a few months to learn how to work with the PS3, they have had over a year to learn how to work with the Xbox360.

Also i've got the HD-DVD player for the 360... best thing since HDTV's Its a major step up from my Upconverting DVD player and its only $200 US and you can use it on your PC

The problem is that it still isn't using HDMI, and the Blu-ray movies look just as good. Of course the HD-DVD player is going to look better than DVDs, they are designed to be better in every way. However, you are still forced to run them though Component, which means that the Blu-Ray movies played through the PS3 will look even better then the HD-DVD movies played through the Xbox360.

 

[overcast]

but the ps3 can run linux...

Yeh because that means anything to 99.999% of people buying PS3.

 

[overcast]

The problem is that it still isn't using HDMI, and the Blu-ray movies look just as good. Of course the HD-DVD player is going to look better than DVDs, they are designed to be better in every way. However, you are still forced to run them though Component, which means that the Blu-Ray movies played through the PS3 will look even better then the HD-DVD movies played through the Xbox360.

What a bunch of baloney, you give me one example of HDMI providing a superior picture to component. If anything the PS3 will have a worse picture, considering the track record of Bluray titles.

 

[drade]

Can anyone here if they can post a link of them disecting a ps3 if It has even been done yet, Iv'e seen wii, Obvisouly Iv'e seen a 360, not ps3.

What I want to know if these ps3's are quite and good at cooling, and how well there wireless work. From what I see I hate it (just because I am a xbox guy, though looking inside a system also tells alot).

 

[newtekie1]

What a bunch of baloney, you give me one example of HDMI providing a superior picture to component. If anything the PS3 will have a worse picture, considering the track record of Bluray titles.

Look at the difference between the two and see for yourself. Component is ANALOG, which means that every little bit of interference shows up in the picture. I can see an affect from every other device you have in the cabinet with the player. I can see an affect from every single power wire that even comes close to the Component cables. Every time there is a loud sound and my amp has to do some work I can see it in the picture, wether it is a color slightly changing, or a slight ghost image, it always happens. Now that I have switch to HDMI with a DIGITAL signal, all of that is gone. So yes, there is a very signifagant picture quality difference between component and HDMI. It may not be noticeable on lower end TVs, but I can notices it on my TV very clearly.

Also, if you must have an example:

http://www.hifi-writer.com/blog/20040408.htm#20040423-2032

There is an article with pictures showing the difference and explaining them.

 

[overcast]

Look at the difference between the two and see for yourself. Component is ANALOG, which means that every little bit of interference shows up in the picture. I can see an affect from every other device you have in the cabinet with the player. I can see an affect from every single power wire that even comes close to the Component cables. Every time there is a loud sound and my amp has to do some work I can see it in the picture, wether it is a color slightly changing, or a slight ghost image, it always happens. Now that I have switch to HDMI with a DIGITAL signal, all of that is gone. So yes, there is a very signifagant picture quality difference between component and HDMI. It may not be noticeable on lower end TVs, but I can notices it on my TV very clearly.

Also, if you must have an example:

http://www.hifi-writer.com/blog/20040408.htm#20040423-2032

There is an article with pictures showing the difference and explaining them.

I have seen the diffference, and it is no where dramatic as those pictures make it out to be, if at all. $25,000 worth of stereo equipment and the last ten years being obsessed with the stuff, should give me a slight bit of experience with it. If your cables are properly shielded they should not be showing any bit of interference from the outside world, especially not in the magnitude that you claim to be seeing. I've been through 100's of cables of every type of standard on the planet. If you're having ghosting images, and color changes every time there is a loud sound, then you have more things to worry about in your setup than cable type.

By far HDMI's biggest advantage is convenience. With the new 1.3 standards, both HD Video and the new HD Audio standards can be transmitted over one little cable. Rather than 3 for component and at least 6 analog lines for audio.

 

[newtekie1]

Well obviously I didn't have anything more to worry about then cable type since a simple cable type change fixed the problems. High end Amps both suck up and put out a lot of power, and there is going to be interference. I much prefer buying a simple $10 HDMI cable and completely eliminating the image issues over spending $100 or more on shielded component cables and still have slight image issues due to interference.

And yes, the difference is as dramatic as those pictures make it out to be, if you don't notice the difference buy a better TV or get glasses, because I can easily notice the difference on any good TV.

In the end it comes down to the person sometimes. Some people just can't see the difference, I can clearly. You said give you one example, I did. End of story. HDMI provides a better image then Component, and usually at a cheaper price(cable wise). I am not going to spend $700 on a console and have it outputing a shitty image over Component. I bought an HDMI ready TV for a reason.

 

[overcast]

Well obviously I didn't have anything more to worry about then cable type since a simple cable type change fixed the problems. High end Amps both suck up and put out a lot of power, and there is going to be interference. I much prefer buying a simple $10 HDMI cable and completely eliminating the image issues over spending $100 or more on shielded component cables and still have slight image issues due to interference.

And yes, the difference is as dramatic as those pictures make it out to be, if you don't notice the difference buy a better TV or get glasses, because I can easily notice the difference on any good TV.

In the end it comes down to the person sometimes. Some people just can't see the difference, I can clearly. You said give you one example, I did. End of story. HDMI provides a better image then Component, and usually at a cheaper price(cable wise). I am not going to spend $700 on a console and have it outputing a shitty image over Component. I bought an HDMI ready TV for a reason.

Of course they can be as dramatic as those pictures, and as you described, if you have poor quality cables. My contact lenses correct my eyesight, and I have a 60" SXRD - arguably the best consumer display on the market. ISF calibrated. Anything else I need?

HDMI is nice, yes, but to say in comparison that component puts out a "shitty" picture is just ridiculous. When you have actually dealt with endless HDMI handshaking issues between processors, projectors, scalers and displays - you'll change your tune.

While we're on the subject, tell me about your reference system.

 

[newtekie1]

Well I haven't dealt with any of issues with HDMI, neither will the majority of users, so they don't matter. And yes, the difference between HDMI and component makes component look like complete and utter shit. If you can't see that then you don't need to be bragging about your "great" system because you are blind and unable to use it. You can talk about your great system all you want. I have a 60" Sony VVEGA SXDR that I bought as Sam's club, and I can see the difference between the two clear as day sitting 20 feet away. I am not arguing with you any more. HDMI is superior to component, the difference is very evident to me, and many others, I have given you your requested example of the differences. You can not argue that component is just as good as HDMI because it simply isn't true. End of discussion.