Topic: PS3 Facing Delays - 2007?

[IceCold]

Well, it's been rumoured for a while now; I didn't think they would make their Spring goal, but here it is..

Quote
SONY'S next-generation PlayStation 3 video game console might not appear in key markets this year, Britain's Financial Times has reported.
...
But Hitoshi Kuriyama of Merrill Lynch in Japan said there are reports that the PS3 could be delayed by between six and 12 months, meaning an autumn launch in Japan and a late 2006 or early 2007 launch in the US.

Looks like Nintendo will achieve their aim of launching close to the PS3. They're saying that it is to finalise the Cell chip and the Blu Ray capabilities.

Other article..

Sony Shares Fall on Report of PlayStation 3 Delay

Where's AgentSeven?

[Requiem]

Theres an article at Nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com that states the PS3 might cost $800 dollars to produce...


That's insane....

[IceCold]

It says $900+ US in one of those articles..  

[Talon]

Quote
The new unit could cost the company $US900 ($AUS1220) per unit to produce initially, according to Merrill Lynch analysts quoted in the Financial Times on Sunday.

Well we all knew it was going to be expensive no shockers there.

Quote
But Hitoshi Kuriyama of Merrill Lynch in Japan said there are reports that the PS3 could be delayed by between six and 12 months, meaning an autumn launch in Japan and a late 2006 or early 2007 launch in the US.

This could really hurt SONY if they dont release in the US by the thanksgiving/xmas holiday period.  Lol and if the US is getting it in 2007 us Aussies probably wont see it until late 2007 or early 2008.

Quote
Merrill Lynch analysts in San Francisco have estimated that the initial bill of materials for PS3 could approach $US900, falling to $US320 by three years after launch, the newspaper reported.

Even if SONY drops the price to $US300 its still going to be the most expensive system of the three.  I hope they are jamming the kitchen sink inside that box for what its worth.

Australian IT (newspaper)

I was thinking about picking up a ps3 as a second console to the revolution but im having some reservations.  Its going to be one expensive console considering the fact I would have to also buy a hdtv to get the most out of it. Unless you can hook it up to your PC monitor.  

[IceCold]

You know when Kutaragi said that he wants people to work extra hours to do what it takes to get a PS3? Well, with its projected cost, perhaps he's delaying it to give us a few extra months to get those overtime hours in..

"The PSP is perfection! It was designed that way!"

"We delayed it on purpose! Even though it was ready, we were kind enough to give all of you more time to save up money!"

[Kairon]

In contrast, here's something from a long-established site suggesting a September 2006 release for the PS3.

PS3 to launch September 2006, Compete head-on with XBox Live

Who do we believe?

~Carmine M. Red

[King of Twitch]

This is amazing buffoonery if true! All they had to do was make a souped up PS2 and be done with it.

"We designed the PS3 so only Oprah and Bill Gates could afford it! No one should question such artistry!"

[wandering]

PS3 will be the next N64. There, I said it.

edit: Oh, check out this handy chart:

Insanity! If they had any sense, they'd either drop the blue ray thing... or else go with another chip that has some actual worth outside of bragging rights.

[KDR_11k]

Merrill Lynch is a bunch of mindless jerks [..]. I think they said the XCircle Core would cost 500$ or more. I'd expect the CPU and Blu-Ray costs to be dramatically lower for Sony since you can't factor in R&D costs (since they'll be paid for by other users of those techs anyway, Sony doesn't need to use the PS3 for making those back). To Sony these things cost only material + manufacturing, no license or R&D costs here. I'd guess closer to 100 for CPU and drive, each (perhaps a cheaper drive, it has no chips where yield problems could develop and LASERs are dirt cheap, drive assembles can mostly be reused from their DVD production).

I mean, seriously, why do they rate the costs for the GPU lower than that for the CPU? GPUs are low-yield chips as well and on these Sony has to pay for NVidia's profit margin as well.

[Talon]

Analysts are generally pesimistic and would rather over estimate than under estimate.  

In my opinion though i still think the ps3 is going to be over $AUS1000.

[capamerica]

Sony has to pay IBM a profit margin as well for the Cel don't forget. Alot more work has to go into the development of the Cel chip then their videocard. Their videocard is pretty much just a normal run of the mill highend graphics card that can be found in any computer store, thats why they can get it so much cheaper. The Cel on the other hand is pretty much a modified PowerPC chip with a bunch of extra features added in. Now first off the PowerPC chip isn't a cheap chip, this is why Macs have always been expensive. Second unlike Nintendo and Microsoft they are not using normal run of the mill PowerPC chips, cause Sony has to be "Special" they have to have a special line of chips made just for them which also adds to the price. IBM doesn't have a massive manufacturing system for PowerPC chips, I mean it is big, but no where near as big as Intel or AMD.

As for using DVD parts for Blu-Ray, that really can't be done. DVD and Blu-Ray are very different hence why the debate between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD has been going on for so long. If Sony was using HD-DVD they could have just used their extra leftover parts from their DVD manufacturing, but since they have to go with their lame Blu-Ray format they need all new tech for them. $350 for Blu-Ray sounds very accurate I mean hell a standalone Blu-Ray player from Sony is going to cost you $1000+ why should a PS3 cost less?

I have a good feeling that the PS3 is going to wind up costing $800/900 maybe even more at launch. Sony is going to drop the ball BIG time on this. Either their going to have a $800/900 console or they are going to take a MASSIVE hit which each console sold. And in Sony's current state a massive lost on PS3 sales is not a good option. I don't know how Sony is going to survive this one, their not going to have the killer exclusive line up as they did with the PSOne and PS2 and they are going to have a system that costs way to much.

The more info that comes out on the PS3 the more I think wandering statement could be very true;
PS3 will be the next N64.  

[bustin98]

CNN now has an article up out the subject. They indicate a reason for the delay as Industry wide technical specifications have not been completed. There are some details that need to be finalized in regards to the Cell chip and Blu Ray. And they say developers are creating games based on estimates of what the PS3 can do, not actual hardware.

Maybe the estimates are close enough, but I thought it was said that the MGS demo was running on an actual PS3? More double talk?

[KDR_11k]

I don't think Sony has to pay much to IBM, after all it was a joint project so both of them contributed money and both of them get to make and use the result.

Saying a top-of-the-line GPU is cheap and a PowerPC isn't is kinda strange. Never mind that the Cell is based on a simplified PowerPC (or POWER?) chip and is produced in much larger numbers than PPC/POWER chips. Both of them are cheap to Sony.

Macs are expensive because Apple charges a healthy profit margin, not because the components are so pricey.

unlike Nintendo and Microsoft they are not using normal run of the mill PowerPC chips

Neither MS nor Nintendo are using normal PPCs You can't make three chips, solder them together and get a Xenon CPU or glue a few instruction sets to it and have Broadway. Both are special CPU lines. And unlike the Cell there are no unused areas in the Xenon, means even slightly defective Cells can still be used as opposed to slightly defective Xenons so the yield is higher for the Cell. Wouldn't surprise me if the Cell was significantly cheaper to make than the Xenon.

As for using DVD parts for Blu-Ray, that really can't be done. DVD and Blu-Ray are very different hence why the debate between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD has been going on for so long.

The big debate was AFAIK that BRDs require a complete retooling of the assembly line for the discs, not the drives. Parts like the assembly to rotate the disc, insert and eject the disc or move the read head don't need to be modified much. The laser assembly and the control system need to be changed. I doubt a laser assembly and a simple circuit board cost 350$, especially at production run sizes of multiple million units (which BRD players won't hit as quickly). Since the PS3 won't need the decoder hardware (it has the Cell for that) it saves a lot of money that would go into normal drives.

I mean hell a standalone Blu-Ray player from Sony is going to cost you $1000+ why should a PS3 cost less?

The PS3 accepts proprietary media that pays Sony ~10$ per unit in license fees. The PS2 cost much less than a DVD player at the time and the PS3 will do the same. It's both a way for Sony to generate software sales and a userbase for BRDs. BRDs succeeding and being widespread is important to Sony. Not only do they get part of the royalties on all discs and players made, they give their movie division a new way to sell a movie to someone who already owns the DVD of it. Sony can rerelease their entire back catalogue on BRDs and get people to buy them all over again. That is important. People have finished rebuying their collections on DVDs so the movie industry's income is taking a severe hit (which they are attributing to piracy for now but that excuse is running flat as well). That's the real reason a new format is introduced, to get people to pay for things they own all over again.

I have a good feeling that the PS3 is going to wind up costing $800/900 maybe even more at launch.

I have a feeling that won't happen. Kutaragi may be nuts but he answers to superiors nonetheless and those will be more than likely to fire him on the spot if he dares to sell the PS3 at such a pricepoint (Kutaragi is the only one who MIGHT do that, the rest of SCEJ would never okay a decision that'd make it exceed even 400$). No, I don't think it'll be above 400$. Maybe they'll talk a bit about high prices so everyone thinks they're getting a bargain when the thing comes out at 400$ or to keep MS thinking they can make an expensive console and charge appropriately. What if they announce a price of 300$ just before launch and just wanted MS to feel secure? They did that before. It sank Sega. If MS is calculating that by dropping the Premium to 350$ (maybe removing some extra stuff and of course killing the Core) they could undercut the PS3 a price of 299$ would be devastating for their plans.

Back when the next generation was freshly announced it seemed so super-powerful but now that it's drawing closer I don't think it's that different from previous generations. It even seems likely that the PS3 will cost as much to make or only a minimal amount more than the PS2 did at launch.

[capamerica]

There is no actual PS3 yet. All they have are Gaming PCs rigged up to be "close" to what the PS3 is. There is talk that what they have been giving developers won't even be able to fit into the PS3 case they have been showing off. Also there was a rumor awhile back that said that Sony did send out something like 100(give or take) test PS3s to developers and all of them wound up suffering melt downs after 30mins of on time and after that happen the whole PS3 development team was fired. This happend when Sony was doing this massive layoff a few months back. I don't know if its true or not since I'm not a developer, but based on all the stuff they are putting into it and the size It wouldn't surprize me that the systems did suffer melt downs.

I seriously think Sony once again is promising more then it can deliver.

[capamerica]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I don't think Sony has to pay much to IBM, after all it was a joint project so both of them contributed money and both of them get to make and use the result.

Saying a top-of-the-line GPU is cheap and a PowerPC isn't is kinda strange. Never mind that the Cell is based on a simplified PowerPC (or POWER?) chip and is produced in much larger numbers than PPC/POWER chips. Both of them are cheap to Sony.

Macs are expensive because Apple charges a healthy profit margin, not because the components are so pricey.

No PowerPC chips are costly, Look at how much a PowerPC IBM Server goes for. The PowerPC servers go for about double that of a normal Intel Server.

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
unlike Nintendo and Microsoft they are not using normal run of the mill PowerPC chips

Neither MS nor Nintendo are using normal PPCs You can't make three chips, solder them together and get a Xenon CPU or glue a few instruction sets to it and have Broadway. Both are special CPU lines. And unlike the Cell there are no unused areas in the Xenon, means even slightly defective Cells can still be used as opposed to slightly defective Xenons so the yield is higher for the Cell. Wouldn't surprise me if the Cell was significantly cheaper to make than the Xenon.

Actually ya the PowerPC chips can pretty much be stacked. Thats why the Dual and Quad PowerMac G5s are so easly avalable. If you ever look at a dual G5 or G4 chip its just two cards side by side pretty much. And Cause there are dual and quad G5s the chip in the Xbox360 was very easy to come by.

From the little I've heard about the Broadway chip all it is is a faster version of the Gekko, So insted of a 485Mhz chip we have a 1.45Ghz chip. and the Gekko was pretty much just a run of the mill G4 PowerPC chip with a few extra features. It didn't take a big chage to the current system to make them.

The cel on the other hand was pretty much a re-invented verion of the PowerPC chip which I still think was a stupid waste of money on Sony's part. The chip was all ready avalable pretty much, if the just took a G5 chip and added the features they wanted they could have had the same thing for alot less.

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
As for using DVD parts for Blu-Ray, that really can't be done. DVD and Blu-Ray are very different hence why the debate between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD has been going on for so long.

The big debate was AFAIK that BRDs require a complete retooling of the assembly line for the discs, not the drives. Parts like the assembly to rotate the disc, insert and eject the disc or move the read head don't need to be modified much. The laser assembly and the control system need to be changed. I doubt a laser assembly and a simple circuit board cost 350$, especially at production run sizes of multiple million units (which BRD players won't hit as quickly). Since the PS3 won't need the decoder hardware (it has the Cell for that) it saves a lot of money that would go into normal drives.

I was under the impression that it takes alot more changes to the hardware.

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I mean hell a standalone Blu-Ray player from Sony is going to cost you $1000+ why should a PS3 cost less?

The PS3 accepts proprietary media that pays Sony ~10$ per unit in license fees. The PS2 cost much less than a DVD player at the time and the PS3 will do the same. It's both a way for Sony to generate software sales and a userbase for BRDs. BRDs succeeding and being widespread is important to Sony. Not only do they get part of the royalties on all discs and players made, they give their movie division a new way to sell a movie to someone who already owns the DVD of it. Sony can rerelease their entire back catalogue on BRDs and get people to buy them all over again. That is important. People have finished rebuying their collections on DVDs so the movie industry's income is taking a severe hit (which they are attributing to piracy for now but that excuse is running flat as well). That's the real reason a new format is introduced, to get people to pay for things they own all over again.

Okay I could see footing the bill for the Blu-Ray inorder to get people to re-buy their movies again, BUT I think its very unlikely we will see anything remotely close to that of when people moved from VHS to DVD. Blu-Ray just doesn't offer enought to make people do the jump. DVDs offered so much that VHS couldn't. Blu-Ray just offers a better picture to the 10% of consumers who own a HDTV. Plus how many people are going to be willing to update their collections again expseically when some people are still making the switch from VHS to DVD.

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I have a good feeling that the PS3 is going to wind up costing $800/900 maybe even more at launch.

I have a feeling that won't happen. Kutaragi may be nuts but he answers to superiors nonetheless and those will be more than likely to fire him on the spot if he dares to sell the PS3 at such a pricepoint (Kutaragi is the only one who MIGHT do that, the rest of SCEJ would never okay a decision that'd make it exceed even 400$). No, I don't think it'll be above 400$. Maybe they'll talk a bit about high prices so everyone thinks they're getting a bargain when the thing comes out at 400$ or to keep MS thinking they can make an expensive console and charge appropriately. What if they announce a price of 300$ just before launch and just wanted MS to feel secure? They did that before. It sank Sega. If MS is calculating that by dropping the Premium to 350$ (maybe removing some extra stuff and of course killing the Core) they could undercut the PS3 a price of 299$ would be devastating for their plans.

Back when the next generation was freshly announced it seemed so super-powerful but now that it's drawing closer I don't think it's that different from previous generations. It even seems likely that the PS3 will cost as much to make or only a minimal amount more than the PS2 did at launch.

I just have a hard time seeing Sony chageing anything under $500 for the PS3.
And as much of a Sega fan as I was, Sega really screwed them selves over. They pretty much disapeared for a Generation leaving their fans clueless. Most Sega fans moved over to Nintendo or Sony and once Sega came back they were kind of like.. why should we go back? you abandoned us. Then Sony came in waving their backwards compadability and their Cheap DVD player. I still think it was a mistake on Sega's part for not having a DVD player.

Anyway ya I don't think its going to be a cheap console, Sony is trying to add to many features that are just not needed and they think they can pull the DVD thing again with Blu-Ray which I think will backfire big time on them.

[Smash_Brother]

It's not just the cost of the chip, but the cost of the proprietary architecture which surrounds the chip which also has to come into consideration.

The PowerPC is more expensive. Always has been, always will be. Just one of the many reasons the Intel macs are going to be cheaper than their G5 PowerPC counterparts.

However, the motherboard technology for the chip is also going to effect the cost considerably. I can't be 100% on the costs now, but the PowerPC has always been historically more expensive, especially in early IBM mainframe servers with full 64-bit throughput: they could haul ass but cost a goddamn fortune (and they were the size of an adult irish wolfhound, to boot. Most of the strength in my back and chest came from lifting those damn things for years, heh).

I was confident that the thing would be around $300, but after seeing what's happening to consoles lately, I think it could easily be over $500, especially if the PSP is any indicator of what Sony thinks is a good price point.

I can't understand people paying $60+ for games, either. That seems to violate some of the most fundamental rules of gaming and I can't help but assume that Nintendo will have a decisive edge by being the cheapest console and quite possibly the most fun to play in the coming console war.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo, this is an opportunity.  Take it.  If Sony scares everyone off then you want to be the console they all merge to.  Right now MS is that console.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Nintendo, this is an opportunity.  Take it.  If Sony scares everyone off then you want to be the console they all merge to.  Right now MS is that console.

MS is guilty of that as well, though. They likewise have $70+ games out there and their core system is pricey because they want to nail as many early adopters as possible.

Unless they intend to drop the cost of their games AND console when the Rev launches, the advantage is still decidedly Nintendo's on price point alone.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It's not just the cost of the chip, but the cost of the proprietary architecture which surrounds the chip which also has to come into consideration.

Also market research, as a firm doesn't just decide on specifications but has to go through the process of determining the best combination of power, cost and performance, which gets incredibly expensive.

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I can't understand people paying $60+ for games, either. That seems to violate some of the most fundamental rules of gaming and I can't help but assume that Nintendo will have a decisive edge by being the cheapest console and quite possibly the most fun to play in the coming console war.

Yes, as someone else mentioned, this could quite possibly be a flip of the N64 era. Sony looks to be making all of the mistakes Nintendo did at #1, and it will be interesting to see how much capital they will be willing to spend on the ordeal.

[couchmonkey]

I said it before, and I'll say it again: everyone was expecting PSP to launch at $400, and it didn't.  PS3 may be the most expensive of the three, but I really doubt it'll be more than $600.  The delay is also not a big surprise.

Sony does seem to be making a lot of mistakes, but I thought the same thing with the PS2.  I wouldn't make any predictions about Sony's failure until the company announces the real launch price, and shows off the actual games that will be available.

Still, it is good news for Nintendo that Sony was lying about having the system out in spring.

[KDR_11k]

The Cell is a modified PPE so it's not as completely different as you say and IBM is going to make Cells anyway for other customers so they'll reconfigure at least some production lines anyway.

Okay I could see footing the bill for the Blu-Ray inorder to get people to re-buy their movies again, BUT I think its very unlikely we will see anything remotely close to that of when people moved from VHS to DVD. Blu-Ray just doesn't offer enought to make people do the jump.

Bluray is just like the last format but in HD. Uh, wait. Isn't it the same for the consoles?

Whether it works or not, it's Sony's best bet for now.

I still think it was a mistake on Sega's part for not having a DVD player.

Sega pushed the limits so far they already took a big loss on the DC. Because they didn't have the manufacturer advantage Sony had they would have paid a LOT more for DVD support.

Anyway ya I don't think its going to be a cheap console, Sony is trying to add to many features that are just not needed and they think they can pull the DVD thing again with Blu-Ray which I think will backfire big time on them.

It always looks expensive before release. I don't think the PS3 is much bigger of a leap than any previous console.

Smash_Brother:
I think it could easily be over $500, especially if the PSP is any indicator of what Sony thinks is a good price point.

The PSP cost 200$ (in Japan, "core" version, add 50$ for all the stuff in the "Value Pack"). I don't see why that's unreasonable. It's uncommon but not unreasonable. The Gameboys managed to stay at a low price by using VERY simple technology, usually portable computers cost more than non-portable ones (because they include a screen and battery, plus more specialized components). Hell, my PDA has more processing power than a DS if I run it in power saving (50% clock rate) mode! Sony thought that because the PSP uses more advanced technology it can cost more than the DS. The PS3 doesn't have as much of an advantage over the other consoles (the DS and PSP are almost a generation apart tech wise!) so it cannot cost twice as much. MS can sell the XC for 300$, Sony better does their damn best to match that because MS will drop prices by then.

I can't understand people paying $60+ for games, either.

Well, it's hard but I bought my PS2 for Katamari so I felt like I had to pick it up for the launch price. I paid 70$ for We Love Katamari, I paid 70$ for Xenosaga II, I paid 70$ for Resident Evil 4. In other words, that's what the rest of the world pays for console games, you better get used to it. Or make your currency stronger. You're already getting the cheapest deal out there.

[capamerica]

It should be noted that Sony is loseing money on every PSP sold, not sure how much, I did a search on Google but couldn't find any hard number on how much, One site said that they lose about $200 on every PSP sold. But I can't confirm if thats true. BUT none the less they are loseing money on it. So The PS3 could cost $900 to make but Sony might see it worth taking a $500 lost on each console and sell the PS3 at $400.  

[capamerica]

Oh another thing I should point out is that right now Microsoft loses $120 on every Xbox360 sold. So if Microsoft wants they could drop the price down to $300 for the Premium and $200 for the Core and take a $220 lost which is actually less of a lost then what they took with the Xbox when it launched. the Xbox had a lost of $300 per system when it first came out and today at the end of its life I still think they are losing about $100 on each Xbox sold. Microsoft can take the lost, Sony on the other hand is not really in a area to be taking such a huge lost on each console.

Right now they are trying to save money thats why there have been all those layoffs and why they have been closing down devisions of Sony. You think they killed of the Aibo just cause the didn't feel like deal with it any more? The thing has been around forever and its never made money, what their doing is cutting off loses ends to save money. Sony never likes to admit that something they created is a failure and will keep putting money into it until they can find something to replace it with... or not. I mean come on they still are supporting MiniDiscs and it took Sony getting into HD to finally kill off BetaMax, which was a total failure in the home market and should had died at least 10 years ago once Computers were powerful enough to do video. But Sony keeps on pushing them and making their stuff only work with them. Look at UMDs and MemorySticks... *grown* There over prices Sony only formats. Infact Sony recently started to take a lost on MemorySticks just so they could compete with SD and to make people actually buy them for the PSP.

I just don't know how Sony can stay afloat with so many holes, It just doesn't make sense.
Maybe they aren't really stay afloat, maybe all the money they had is being used up to keep them afloat and they are putting all their eggs in the one basket labeled PS3 promising all these great things that they won't be able to deliver in hopes that so many people would buy the PS3 that they can force Blu-Ray and Memory Sticks on them all so they can return to their former glory.  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Well, it's hard but I bought my PS2 for Katamari so I felt like I had to pick it up for the launch price. I paid 70$ for We Love Katamari, I paid 70$ for Xenosaga II, I paid 70$ for Resident Evil 4. In other words, that's what the rest of the world pays for console games, you better get used to it. Or make your currency stronger. You're already getting the cheapest deal out there.

Even in the US, the games sell for $59 average, sometimes more.

It had always seemed that $50 was the magic number which no one crossed but that's not the case with the next gen consoles.

[Galford]

This is Sony's generation to lose...

Another reason that the PS3 might be delayed is the ASSC system that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD use is not complete yet.  Stand alone players which were suppose be released in March are now pushing a May-June date.

Sony needs the PS3 to be out, the last thing Sony wants is a Xbox360 with Halo 3 with no shortages of consoles...