Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

PlayStation 3 Not So Much Delayed?

Posted by Zonk on Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:18 AM
from the back-and-forth-up-and-down dept.
PlayStation (Games) Sony
Chris Morris, on the CNN Game Over column, points out that even if Merrill Lynch's suggestion that the delayed initial launch of the PS3 is true, that's unlikely to affect the U.S. launch of the console. From the article: "Logic sometimes isn't enough, though. To get additional perspective on the situation, I spoke with several of Sony's partners (who are in regular contact with the company) and competitors (who keep a close eye on the PS3's launch window) about the report. No one was willing to talk on the record for fear of reprisal, but the consensus was nearly universal. The promised spring launch (which was expected in Japan, but not North America) will likely be pushed back, they said. The North American launch, which was always expected to occur later this year (November is the consensus), is not expected to change. Europe may well not see the PS3 until next year." The price tag reported, though, is still probably accurate. C|Net has a breakdown of the PlayStation 3's components.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] PlayStation 3 Delayed, Over $800? 487 comments
AWhiteFlame writes "Cnet is reporting that a research report issued by Merrill Lynch suggests that the Sony PlayStation 3's American release may be postponed until 2007. From the article: 'The analyst firm proposed the idea that high costs and Sony's decision to use an 'ambitious new processor architecture--the Cell' is making it look like the company might not be able to meet its goal of getting the PS3 out in the U.S. this year.' Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment." The official report (pdf) would also seem to indicate that the console will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $900 when it launches.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

PlayStation 3 Not So Much Delayed? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Those Component Costs are off (Score:5, Informative)

    by JordanL (886154) <jordan.ledoux@NosPaM.gmail.com> on Friday February 24 2006, @11:24AM (#14793687) Homepage
    C|Net claims $150-200 for the proc and $200-300 for the drive. That's way off the money.

    IBM has reported fab costs of the Cell below $50 and much of the cost on the BR drive is due to the unique processing and decoding hardware attatched to the drive, not the drive itself. This hardware is already present in the PS3 in the form on the Cell.
      • Nope, Sony is going to fab their own, (as they also own the IP and the patents). It will cost them about what it costs IBM, and no more.
          • Sony actually payed for a part of IBM's fab in fishkill, NY... So it's not a relationship like IBM had with apple where apple basically just ordered processors.
            • Sony actually payed for a part of IBM's fab in fishkill, NY... So it's not a relationship like IBM had with apple where apple basically just ordered processors.

              So if Sony is basically the "manufacturer" of the Cell processor and the manufacturer of the BluRay drive, the cost to them is way off. They don't have to pay someone else's marketing, sales and profit on these products, only the core cost of actually building the parts.

              This is like a short term gasoline shortage we had about a decade ago. Almost a
      • The PowerPC core and eight* SPUs are all on the same core. It's just one chip.

        I'd say the $200-$300 for the drive is *way* off.

        When it comes down to it, the Blu-Ray drive is pretty much like a DVD drive except for a more expensive laser and presumably more accurate actuators for lens positioning. It'll be more expensive than a DVD player, but not *that much* more expensive.

        The expensive parts of a Blue-Ray player are likely to be the video decoding sections, not the drive unit itself.

        *seven usable - one is
      • The Cell CPU has a number of cores, all of which are on one chip. Sony owns the rights to make the chip [extremetech.com]

        The cost of making a Blu-Ray player should fall dramatically once cheaper high-speed multimedia chips(a.k.a. Cell) are available.
      • No, cell is one chip with multiple processing cores on board, much like a Pentium with Hyperthreading is still one chip, or like a Pentium 1 had many more transistors than a 386. Where you may be getting confused is that some of the individual cores do resemble previous complete processors, AND that there will be more than one Cell chip used in a PS3, for even more power.
  • Is retailers have their biggest quarter in the fall. This works to Sony's advantage by maintaining the dominant negotiation position.

    I'd guess the retailers are getting the entire PS3 show in June/July. If there is an enterprising individual willing to incur the wrath of Sony and probably jeapordize a career, your opportunity at a "scoop" would be around that time.
    • Yep. They call if the "golden quarter."

      If they don't get it out by November, they'll miss the holiday season rush. I doubt Japan has anything so big in spring, so they won't lose much by pushing back that release. My bet is that they'll finagle the Japan/whatever release however they need to, to ensure that they get in on the holiday season here.

  • All press... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Serapth (643581) on Friday February 24 2006, @11:25AM (#14793692)
    Can you tell Sony subscribes to the belief "Any press is good press". Im already sick of these reports. Frankly, I hope its not delayed so these stories can finally die.
    Sadly then, we will have to read story after story about shortages, then manufacturing problems, etc... etc... Even though im a gadget whore and will probrably buy all 3 ( already bought the 360 ), all of this stuff has just burned me out on console gaming.

    • Speak with your wallet and dont buy a PS3. Stick to a console that isn't heavily influenced by TCA principles; If you bought the 360, why oh why would you complain about Sony's problems. Everyone knew the PS3 would late in coming just because of the elaborate amount of new tech they put in it. As the article said, there will likely be no delay in the NA market even though there will be a delay in Japan. This means Sony delays bringing the PS3 to international market completely intentionally, and it is

  • PlayStation 3 Not So Much Delayed (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    a.k.a. Delayed.
  • The PS3 isn't delayed, just intentionally very late!

    If it ships to North America and Europe over a full year after the XBox360, is it really in the same "generation"?

    • Well, is the DreamCast considered part of the GCN/PS2/XBox generation? Or is it considered between the PSX/N64 generation and that generation? I think of it as the former.
    • I may be mistaken, but I think the PS2 came out almost a year before the gamecube and the Xbox. The PS2 was still considered part of that generation.

      What sort of amazes me is that even though their last console came out before everyone else's, their newest console is a year behind the latest generation. I realize that the PS3 uses a totally new processor technology, but they still have taken a long time...
        • So then what's your excuse for the Gamecube which came out 3 days after the xbox? Same generation and still a year after the PS2...

  • Accurate, my ass... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ivan256 (17499) * on Friday February 24 2006, @11:28AM (#14793744)
    The price tag reported, though, is still probably accurate.

    Oh, please. The article itself says why it's not accurate. It lists the memory price as the same for the 360, and the PS3, and then goes on to describe how the PS3 is the first to use the new, expensive XDR memory, while the 360 uses GDDR3 which was designed speciffically to be cheaper than DDR2.

    Not only that, but they have component prices listed as if they were being sold with a profit margin. You can bet Sony isn't going to markup chips it sells to itself, and for third party chips, you can bet they're paying a lot less. Even the launch quantities of these boxes far surpass what normally qualifies as economies of scale.

    I'd say they have the costs far too high for both machines in that article. Both machines will have sub-$100 manufacturing costs on the CPU very early on in the production life, for example. Also, the BD-ROM drive is probably going to end up being more like $70. The DVD drive in the 360 is even cheaper than the $20 quoted, etc...

    The PS3 will be expensive... More expensive to build than the 360, but neither machine is as expensive as this over-rated Merryl-Lynch report that's been being passed around.
    • If the PS3 is more expensive to produce than the 360, and Microsoft usually sells it's consoles at a loss, while Sony as a rule does not, then how much do you thing the PS3 will sell for. I could easily see them pricing it at $600 to $700, which is way too much for a console.
      • If the PS3 is more expensive to produce than the 360, and Microsoft usually sells it's consoles at a loss, while Sony as a rule does not, then how much do you thing the PS3 will sell for.

        I think the small army of Sony marketeers have a pretty good clue on how many units it'd sell at different price points. Even if they have miscalculated on what the final price would be, I doubt they'll follow up a bad decision with a horrible one. Taking a financial loss to get them out the door is painful but acceptable,
      • while Sony as a rule does not

        Where is that rule from?

        • The PS2 and the PSP both sold at a loss. (Note: The PS2 eventually became profitable. That is a big difference between the PS2 and the XBOX.)

          Sounds like youa re repeating something you heard somewhere. The big difference between the XB and the PS2 is that the per-unit net profit on the PS2 was always positive. The only way it didn't start out turning a profit is if you include R&D costs as part of production costs... in which case the first PS2 cost $4.2 billion, and every one after turned a profit.
      • Unless BD-ROM starts getting picked up by a lot of PC and Consumer Electronics OEMs, and soon, the price is going to be high for a while.

        I think that's BS. A lot of what makes BluRay player expensive is already included in the infrastructure of an HD console.

        The format isn't even locked down,

        Neither is the DVD format (!). It's locked down enough.

        the "winner" of the HD-DVD/BD war *still* isn't clear cut!

        That doesn't matter. Besides, the hardware components for the two will be cross compatable. The differenc

  • Want next gen? Try current gen. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pubjames (468013) on Friday February 24 2006, @11:31AM (#14793771)

    I hadn't used my PS2 for a few years until just recently. If you're in a similar position, my advice is if you want great "next generation" games, try some of the ones that have come out recently for your "old" console. The graphics and gameplay on Resident Evil 4, for instance, blew me away, and "Shadow of the Colossus" looks even more impressive. And we've got "Starcraft:Ghost" to look forward to later in the year.

    So I'm not bothered if the PS3 doesn't come out for a while, PS2 games are at their peak and are probably be better than first gen PS3/XBox360 games.
     
    • Yes, not to mention it plays PS games too, I'm wanting to get ahold of all (four?) Silent Hill games, and then the entire Resident Evil series.

    • Re:Want next gen? Try current gen. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Serapth (643581) on Friday February 24 2006, @11:45AM (#14793929)
      As the proud owner of a PS2, Xbox and XBox 360 I can say, atleast IMHO you games are better on the 360 already. I say that subjectively as I prefer certain types of games that you may not, especially racing games. As a result two games im playing to death right now are Project Gotham Racing 3 and Need for Speed Most Wanted.

      In every measurably regard, NFS:MW on the 360 is better then the XBox or PS2 versions.
      With PGR3, graphically and controlwise, it is a much superior game to PGR2. They made some design decisions some people dont like ( car acquisition ) but excluding that, it is a much better game.

      Lastly, CoD2 imho, is a better FPS then anything released for either platform, including Halo. Only beef here is online, which is rumoured to be fixed.

      So, early on, I can already give you 3 examples of games that are much improved over the current generation, atleast, in my opinion.
      Dont get me wrong, some arent going to compare as well ( Gun and 2k sport games come to mind ), but you will see that with every platform launch.
    • I was in a similar situation as you. my PS2 sat for several months after not wanting to play GTA much anymore. I started buying up Midway, intellivision & sega game compilations for a quick 5-10 minute play session or 3. Also bought True Crime: NYC and loved it. For 30 for true crime, and not more than 13 for the arcade compilations, I found great value & fun in them. Finding the games involved having to wade through what seemed like an infinite amount of snoozer PS2 titles, reminding me of all the
  • "...when we post another story about people wildly speculating about the release date of a next-gen console or game, and pick the winning dates from a hat!"
  • Why in the world would Sony launch a new console while thier PS2 is the current best selling console? They would only be competing with themselves, and that my friend is bad business.

    The 360 has barely put a dent in PS2 sales therfore Sony can sit back and wait. The longer they can drag out the launch of the PS3, the more they can allow the PS2 to act as a cash cow. And even better, the longer they wait, the more steam they can take out of the only other competitor on the horizon (the Revolution)
    • The longer they can drag out the launch of the PS3, the more they can allow the PS2 to act as a cash cow.

      I can see where it would be a decent idea to finish up the ps3 and spend extra time hand holding your third party developers through the creation of your launch lineup. To me the 360 had a horrible launch, sony would be doing themselves a big favor with an awesome launch lineup + full backwards compatability.

    • Why in the world would Sony launch a new console while thier PS2 is the current best selling console? They would only be competing with themselves, and that my friend is bad business.

      Even in the keynote where Stevie Jobs introduced the nano line, he specifically went over the continuing success of the Minis, which the nanos then promptly replaced.

      Apple competed with itself in the sense you're talking about, and it hasn't been bad business at all.

    • Why in the world would Sony launch a new console while thier PS2 is the current best selling console? They would only be competing with themselves, and that my friend is bad business.

      Same reason car manufacturers sell more than one car - different markets. The PS2 currently sells for about $125 I think, and plays a ton of older games, though probably not all the current titles by the time the PS3 comes out. The PS3 will have a limited supply of games, but *will* have some exclusives (I guarantee it), and

  • Europeans will have to wait again (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As most of the time, we Europeans are getting the sore end of the launch planning.

    You have to give it to Microsoft that they decided for a global launch, despite the shortage situation in the US. It makes you feel part of the show when you don't have to sit and watch the forums cheer for their new toys when your release date is months away.

    In the last months, some games were even released for the DS (BoF III) and PSP (Virtua Tennis) in Europe before the US got them. I thought we were catching up, but Sony s
  • That CNet article supposes a blu ray drive will cost Sony $200-300. That sounds unimaginably unlikely.
  • Delayed a little, who cares... but twice as much as the competition? That stings... for the "next next" generation of consoles we should all open up IRA accounts right now.

    I know some of the packages for XBox 360's this holiday cost way up in that range or more on eBay... But seriously... who are these people willing to fork over a pretty good house payment for being the early adopter? For that kind of money... it better make me breakfast. [gorillamask.net]
  • I say "bring on the confusion"

    Seriously, this is not good for Sony. They obviously cannot control the rumor mill and there are multiple sources each with their own "inside contacts" who are making predictions that are all over the map. This can only cause confusion with potential buyers who may well just spend their money on something else rather than even consider saving up for a playstation....
  • A word of advice from your friendly internet gamer : Pre-order a few PS3's.

    Sell them for an inflated price when there's a mad rush to purchase them, and it will cover the cost for whatever time you've put in to it. If demand seems like it's going to be really good, i'd buy more than two if I had enough cash. It wont matter what the production costs are if there's some kind of a shortage, which there usually always is.

    I've sold consoles like that on ebay & by word of mouth to several people in th
  • Processor: The PS3 will be a showcase for the Cell processor from the SIT powers (Sony, IBM, Toshiba).

    Let's get HP involved.... then it will become the SITH powers (Sony, IBM, Toshiba, Hewlett-packard)

  • Though Sony hasn't disclosed the price of the PS3, analysts figure it will have to be in the ballpark of $299 to $399--the price for the two versions of the Xbox 360.

    Great, so it is the same as the Xbox 360. That it costs Sony more to make only means it is better for me, getting more for less. I can't understand how these articles make it sound like news that the new type of processor will cost more, or the drive will cost more. There seems to be a consensus that the price will have to be competitive,
  • By delaying the PS3 launch, Sony is giving Microsoft time to develop more and more software for the Xbox 360. It is the games that make the console. This is why Xbox only just recently caught up to the popularity of the PS2, because there are finally enough software titles out there to make it more than a very expensive dust-collecting paperweight. Sony seems to be turning into the next Nintendo. Nintendo was number one, got cocky and lazy, and plummeted in status when another company came along and off

  • Ummm (Score:5, Funny)

    by just_forget_it (947275) on Friday February 24 2006, @12:29PM (#14794389)
    I question the validity of any chart where one of the rows is labeled "Other doodads."
  • matters: The console will be in the stores, with games, before Thanksgiving of the year of release.

    Half of all revenues will be made between Thanksgiving and December 27th. So if you miss that window, you miss most of the money for the year.

    So, a spring release can easily be pushed to summer, and even to fall, but never much later than Halloween.
  • at Costco (blue state firm that pays medical benefits and profit shares with employees) in December of release year, most likely bundled with at least one game.

    If you wait until summer the next year, the same box will sell for $199 at most.
  • On the subject of the processor:

    Yes, cell is bigger than the Xbox 360's chip, but one factor they are completely ignoring is the fact that one SPE will be disabled. It does not matter which SPE is disabled, and this redundancy (which the 360 doesn't have) will improve yields. You can't simply say chip A is bigger so it will cost more.

    In any event, the prices listed for both chips look closer to what the chips would cost if they were sold at retail, not the manufacturing cost.

    On the subject of the drive:

    Ye

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.