Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Sony Entertainment Games

Blu Ray Drive Will Cost $100 Per PlayStation 3 489

fembots writes "The Inquirer is running an article detailing how Blu-Ray drives for the PlayStation 3 will cost Sony a small fortune. It turns out that at the release of the console in the first half of 2006, Sony will have to pay more than $100 per drive which will dramatically increase the unit cost of the PS3."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blu Ray Drive Will Cost $100 Per PlayStation 3

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:33PM (#13480154)
    Replace the blue-ray drive with a 1.44meg floppy drive.
  • by SleepyHappyDoc ( 813919 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:34PM (#13480160)
    Do you want to pay an extra $130 ($100 cost of drive plus 30% profit margin) on your new PS3 for a DRM-laden drive that can 'punish' you? No thanks.
    • by thesymbolicfrog ( 907527 ) <[sloanes.k] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:37PM (#13480180)
      ...Or, you could by an Xbox and support Microsoft. Which is worse?
      • by SleepyHappyDoc ( 813919 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:40PM (#13480203)
        ...Or, you could by an Xbox and support Microsoft. Which is worse?

        I choose neither. I'll stick to my PC games, and one of my old-but-still-fun consoles when I want to play that kind of game.
      • by squidsoup ( 145936 ) <<zn.ten.enrutcon> <ta> <enustik>> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:43PM (#13480228) Homepage
        or you could wait for the Nintendo Revolution, which will probably be priced reasonably - announcements about this console (possibly a release date) should be made shortly at the Tokyo Games Show.
        • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @03:19AM (#13481895) Journal
          You know, no offense, I find the "buy Nintendo because it's priced reasonably" argument to be as bogus as "buy an XBox because it has a GF3" in it. We're not talking a lawnmower or a washing machine or whatever else that is fully self-contained and does something all by itself. We're talking a game console, which has one single use: to play games.

          So here's a crazy idea: I'll buy a console for what games it has, not for the theoretical gigapixels per second (I don't play directly with the shader pipelines, I play with games that use those), nor because it's the cheapest (even something that costs only $100 is still just a wasted $100 if it doesn't also have games that interest me.)

          _If_ the Revolution will have any games that interest me, sure, I'll buy one. But if not, not.

          _If_ Sony's consoles again are the ones with 90% of the story driven RPGs, I'll go buy a Sony console again.

          So far, I don't even like Nintendo's kinds of games, which were really the only ones that were exclusive to the N64 or GCN. Now I won't call them "bad" games or "kiddie" games, but they're just not in the genres I like. I know others like them. More power to them as far as I'm concerned. But I don't.

          So unless Nintendo hires a new designer sometime soon, _I_ just can't see myself buying a Revolution, no matter at what price. On the other, hand, being a very happy and entertained owner of both the Playstation and PS2, I can easily see myself biting the bullet and forking over $500 for a PS3.

          But again, I'll wait and see what games are available for them, and _then_ decide whether I buy either.
          • I agree 100%... if you buy a system without considering the games available for it FIRST, then you'll be stuck with the next DreamCast.

            DreamCast was great technology for it's time - beyond anything the others had then. But it flopped due to lack of titles. I have one if you want it. :)

            MadCow.
      • Disturbingly, Mircosoft seem the less evil option here...
      • by AnObfuscator ( 812343 ) <oneringNO@SPAMphys.ufl.edu> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @09:57PM (#13480791) Homepage
        ...Or, you could by an Xbox and support Microsoft

        actually, Sony and Microsoft *loose* money each time they sell you a console. They expect to make up the loss on the game sales. Thus, if you really want to hurt Microsoft, you should buy TWO xboxen.

      • False dilemma. Other options: C) Nintendo D) None of the Above
    • by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:40PM (#13480204)
      I like how you phrased that.. someone please mod the parent up, but I would just forego the "blue ray player" functionality and use it for gaming. Of course, if they try to make me connect to the net to start a game I'll tell them where to stick their console.. along with several large pineapples.
      • Eddie: This is a sex shop isn't it?
        Assistant: Yes.
        Eddie: I'll have five quid's worth then!
        Assistant: Very droll, sir. I've never heard that one before.
        Eddie: Haven't you? Shall I tell it again?
        Assistant: No thank you sir, I'd rather have a pineapple inserted violently into my rectum.
        Eddie: You've been working here too long mate.
    • I thought they (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) all take a loss on the console, and make the money back on the overly priced games?

      If this is so, then it would be more like $85 you'd have towards the drive (and if you live in Canada, it would convert to about $130).
      • by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @08:53PM (#13480523)
        Nintendo doesn't sell their consoles at a lose. Whereas MS basically took a PC and put it in a smaller box (not by much either :P) and now with the 360, there are reports of serious bottlenecks in the hardware (bottlenecks are unavoidable in PC's to some extent, but in consoles, the less bottlenecks, the less money you're throwing away) Sony has never seemed to be able to build a very cost effective (and lets not even begin on well designed and easy to develop for) system, the only reason they now make money off their hardware is because of mass production.

        Nintendo puts more research into their hardware development, so that things are more tightly designed. For example, the GCN costs them under 100$ to produce, somewhere between 50$ and 100$, yet its only a hair less powerful than the xbox, which MS is *still* selling for a loss, and yet the "number" specs of the GCN don't look anywhere near as good as the xbox. Why? Because the xbox's "specs" are more of theoretical specs, untainable because of bottlenecks. So, Nintendo can use cheaper parts, and get the same performance.

        Because of this, Nintendo never sells at a lose. The only time they've done so is a few months with the GCN after a price drop, and it was somehwere around like 2$ a system, but mass manufacturing caught up quickly. Even the GCN now, selling for what it is, and the DS at 129$ makes them a profit.
      • by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday September 05, 2005 @02:41AM (#13481783) Homepage Journal
        "I thought they (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) all take a loss on the console, and make the money back on the overly priced games?"

        Sony sold at a loss at first, but now they're making a profit on the machines. Nintendo made a profit on GameCubes sold, however there were times where they might have lost say $10 a machine or so. (like right after a price drop.) But, yes, the money is primarily made from the games.

        On a side note, there's a site that claims Sony never sold at a loss. (Acts of Gord.) Unfortunately, the author of that site is basing this assumption on a blurb in a quarterly stock report Sony released. If you run across it, I recommend taking what he says with a grain of salt. Stock reports are written to impress shareholders. It doesn't actually say they didn't sell the units at a loss, just that they would have made 175 mil if they had more units out. The latest issue of Game Informer, however, is saying Sony lost 500 mil at the launch of the PS2. So.. yeah.. whatever. Interesting note: Gord says Sony spent 2 billion (yes, billion with a b) developing the PS2. I don't think they regret it, but I do think it's interesting that they're having IBM and Toshiba help them develop the Cell processor for the PS3.

        I really am curious what Nintendo and Microsoft are spending to develop their new machines. Nintendo has a few bill in the bank, but it is difficult to imagine them spending 2 billion on the Revolution.
    • by KillShill ( 877105 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @08:38PM (#13480475)
      they punish you anyway. the console manufacturers i mean.

      when the ps3/xbox360/revolution come out soon, you can buy one. but when you buy one, even though you paid for the graphics chip, the sound chip, the cpu, the vector/simd processors, the storage units; these are all off-limits to you, THE OWNER.

      that means you need to get the company's permission to access your own PROPERTY!

      how is this any different than lexmark's position? in fact it's even worse. these COMPUTERS can be so much more and legally you are in the RIGHT to do with them anything you wish, including but not limited to, programming the chips on the units to accomplish any task.

      before you rush headlong to tell me "it's their business model"... i'll have to tell you how their business model is of any concern to me. to prevent legal access to your own property under the use of high-grade encryption constitutes a breach of commerce. to make this model work, it requires them to strip you of property rights.

      those are your chips they're holding hostage.

      and "don't buy from them" is not the answer. because here we have companies that are practicing an unethical business. you don't see gillette requiring high-grade encryption on the razor blade cartridges preventing customers from using it on any other brand of handle. how absurd would that be. software in this respect, follows the same pattern. if you give them the right to block lawful use of software, then also to be consistent you'd have to give them that kind of authority over physical items as well.

      don't let them fool you with adjacent arguments about how this is their business model or how they sell the consoles (read computers) at a loss and make it up on game sales. that's a bunch of hogwash. this isn't at all about copying games or not paying for their hard work. because up till now i've only talked about one thing: access to the programmability of the chips. your chips, once you purchase the item. we're not talking about renting here, you have the RIGHT to access those chips.

      if they have to sell consoles more expensively, then do so but any business model that deprives you of full access to your own property, is illegal and should be outlawed. this would never hold up under an educated citizenry.

      i sincerely have no idea why more people aren't competely outraged over this. you're not renting these devices. you outright buy them. you buy everything, including the right to use the software on the machines. yeah, you purchased a copy of the core system software.

      and we're not talking about 8bit microcontrollers (though the principle still applies), these are powerful multimedia processors. you have the right to have full access to those resources. it's not like you broke into IBM's hq and are running programs on their mainframes, this is YOUR property and the bastard companies are denying you your right to access it.

      if they can't make money (and there's no reason whatsoever that they can't and still allow end-users to fully have access) then they need to find a business they can or go out of business.

      for heaven sakes people, fight for basic rights like property rights or you'll truly regret it in the future.

      the right to read comes to mind... but if all text is electronic and you don't and can't own the hardware with full access... it'll make you pine for these days we live in now as the good old days.

      oh and btw, there are other ways to prevent "piracy", you don't need to deny the owner their property rights just to outlaw game copying.

      just to reiterate, i have no interest in game "piracy", i only want full access to my own hardware. and i'm sure you do too.
      • before you rush headlong to tell me "it's their business model"... i'll have to tell you how their business model is of any concern to me.

        From the breadth, lack of capitalization, and general content of your rant, I'll presume that you believe in Free Software. (You could just be arguing by coincidence, but then that's your fault.)

        It's YOUR business how they intend to make money, because you want to be using their chips. If you want them to change to fit how you think the world should work, you need to understand them and know where and how to argue.

        And "property rights" aren't exactly basic rights. They're second-tier rights useful only becasue they perserve certain first tier rights--namely, liberty and the right to a fair share of the profit from your labor.

        Remember that "property rights" were used throughout our nation's history for distasteful racism. It's not an argument that has a lot of leg left in it.

        (And let's not forget that the best answer to a company that sells you a $400 box with a legal bomb in it is to just buy somebody else's $400 box.)
      • by Osty ( 16825 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @11:14PM (#13481110)

        when the ps3/xbox360/revolution come out soon, you can buy one. but when you buy one, even though you paid for the graphics chip, the sound chip, the cpu, the vector/simd processors, the storage units; these are all off-limits to you, THE OWNER.

        (The rest is just blah blah blah)

        News flash: The act of modifying a console has never been found illegal. While companies have tried (Sony in Australia, everybody going after Lik Sang, etc), the only cases that ever hold up are those that also involve piracy. Thus, you certainly can hack your Xbox36/PS3/Revolution to your heart's content, so long as you're not doing anything otherwise illegal (using it to pirate movies and games, accessing services that otherwise bar modified consoles like Xbox Live, etc).

        There's certainly a grey area around console modification due to the DMCA, but that's about circumventing a copy protection device. If you're modifying your console to run linux, or to play homebrew games, you can argue that you're not breaking the DMCA. If you were to come under fire, which is doubtful as companies like Sony or Microsoft really only target the egregious offenders (people modifying Xboxes and then selling them with pirated games already on the hard drive for example), any competent lawyer should be able to do the right thing so long as there's no evidence of piracy (you mention you don't want to pirate games, so don't fall to that temptation once you do modify your console).

        In short, take off the tinfoil hat and realize that there's no way they can stop you from poking around in the internals of your console in the privacy of your own home. You may lose certain services (voided warranty, banned from online play), but in terms of the hardware itself you can do whatever you please.

  • by GenKreton ( 884088 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:36PM (#13480173) Journal
    This shortly following the announcement of additional DRM in blu-ray. Maybe Sony has finally made a fatal mis-step. Obviously they haven't learned from history yet.
  • So you're telling me (Score:4, Informative)

    by knappz ( 856470 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:36PM (#13480175) Homepage
    That I'm going to be paying even more than the $300 pricetag that was on the PS3 before this spec was released? That just makes me wonder why I'd even get one in the first place, especially with the performance statistics and upgradeability of current PCs. If you ask me, console gaming is pointless if you have a worthwhile PC. If the game isn't on the platform, run an architecture emulator. Like the controller? Buy an adapter. Consoles are a waste of money.
    • by BewireNomali ( 618969 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:43PM (#13480229)
      You're thinking about having a worthwhile PC for playing recently released games. Standardization is an issue. Consoles standardize platforms for developers and ensure that games play the same way across the spectrum. You're paying modestly (even at $400 US) for standardization and a uniform game experience.

      Also, gaming in front of a PC is not as cool as vegging out on the couch with your XBox or PS2.

      Some would argue that GAMING PCS are a waste of money. What is it going to cost you to keep your PC current and viable as new games come out? I got my XBox for ~$150, and that was like 15 months ago.
    • by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:50PM (#13480265) Homepage
      Sony has with its previous consoles sold the console at a loss initially, then gradually moved into profitability on each unit as their production costs come down. The Microsoft XBox was selling at a tremendous loss initially and is probably still doing so now, right up to the point where the console is being discontinued-- Microsoft H&E is still continuously losing money.

      Sony will probably sell the PS3 at a loss initially.

      Costs for Sony don't mean costs for you as a consumer. Businesses don't necessarily set prices for goods based on what it cost them to make it, they set prices based on what they think the market will bear. If you raise the price of your product by $100 and only half as many people are willing to buy your product as a result, your revenues have just gone down, right? Of course if you lower your prices below your per-unit cost you aren't going to make any per-unit profit, but there's more than one way to make profit; for example, Sony makes licensing fees on every PS3 game sold, and the more people own PS3s the more people there are out there buying PS3 games.

      We didn't know whether the PS3 was going to be $300 when that number was batted around. We don't know whether the PS3 is going to be $400 when that number was being batted around. We have no idea what the PS3 is going to cost except that it's almost certainly going to be too expensive. If you don't like that, Nintendo would be more than happy to sell you something cheaper.

      If you ask me, console gaming is pointless if you have a worthwhile PC.

      So $300 for a console that will last you four to five years is crazy unreasonable highway robbery, but $3000 for a computer that will play this year's top-of-the-line games (but might not play next year's top-of-the-line games unless you buy an expensive new video card) is only just, normal and rational?

      Right...
      • You can get a pretty good video card right now for $300. You don't have to stay bleeding edge to compete with consoles. And most people already have their computer hardware. All they usually need is (maybe) a new video card to play a new game. You can easily get away with waiting 2-3 years between video card purchases. So it's not really so different from consoles in that respect.

        It's a mute point anyway. Console games and PC games are different. People usually like one or the other. I happen not to like co
        • You can get a pretty good video card right now for $300.

          Or I could wait until the PS3 release (or maybe the first price reduction) and get one of those for the same $300... or get a Gamecube for $100 right now and spend the other $200 on games...

          Since, as a Macintosh user, I'm afraid I'm highly unlikely to be doing anything with that graphics card, these are more attractive options for me...

          It's a mute point anyway. Console games and PC games are different. People usually like one or the other. I

      • There was a time when your prices were true. In the last few years however games pushing the hardware to the limit are rare. Basically the only games doing that are some FPS. And even those rarely need more than a replaced graphics card to run reasonably well.
  • $100? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:36PM (#13480177)
    Where did that figure come from? Sony owns the patent so it's not from licencing, unless they need gold wires/contacts through out the reader I doubt that $100 figure is accurate. It will have both an economy of scale as well a verticle intergration for this hardware, I'm more inclined to beleive 40$ of raw materials and a fudged math estimated R&D of 60$ per unit.
    • Re:$100? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:41PM (#13480215) Homepage Journal
      It does cost money to make the optical mechanism, it's a little more complex than the DVD mechanism, and blue lasers are harder to make reliably.

      Still, $100 more is still better than a $1000 separate machine. Some companies are announcing HD disc machines and $1000 is what the cost will be price for the first ones.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • I doubt that's the case. MS's XBox Live already manages to ban most modded XBoxs. Only difference now is that they'll try and make the internet service mandatory (which they won't be able to do, so whatever).
  • by iced_773 ( 857608 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:37PM (#13480181)

    IIRC, Microsoft sold each XBox at a loss, and game sales made up for the loss. Is it possible that Sony will think the same way?
    • sony does think the same way. It's a current tactic in the console business when launching a new box to sell it at a loss and make it back on the games, this has been going on for years.
    • Almost all companies do this at first with their consoles, including Sony with the PS1, PS2, and PSP. Microsoft just did a bad job with it and not only never made the money back, but also still sells the XBox at a loss today (something they'll look to reverse with the XBox 360). I've heard reports that it costs Sony less then $99 USD, so some analysts are expecting them to make a price cut soon to have something to compete against the XBox 360 until PS3 comes out.

      And yes, Sony has been planning on sellin
      • Please give a citation for the proposition that Sony sold the PS1, PS2, and PSP at a loss. I am willing to believe it, if I see numbers. But I have never seen an authority say Sony is selling its units at a loss. In fact, I have seen dissections of SEC filings showing the profits that Sony makes from its consoles, on a per-unit basis. The most I have seen that would support you is jealous guesstimation from outsiders who don't vertically integrate production.
    • But what you are forgetting is that Microsoft DIDN'T make up the loss. They only made a profit on the Xbox division one quarter out of the Xbox's entire lifespan. And that one quarter was when Halo2 was released.
  • by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:37PM (#13480184) Homepage
    Where are they getting this from?

    The Inquirer doesn't say where they got this number from... they don't have a source... it just seems to have come out of nowhere. Do they have a source they just forgot to cite? Or are they just running rumors without checking them?

    This is the same number ($100) the Merill Lynch analyst report about the manufacturing costs of the PS3 (which slashdot itself has reported on at least once in the last few months) gave. I have the same doubts about it that I had then; it isn't from an "official" source (or in this case... any source at all), and I wonder if that $100 represents real per-unit costs or things that ought to be considered sunk costs, things that are just a natural byproduct of getting blu-ray production lines up and running. The reason this distinction matters is because Sony is going to have to be paying the second category of costs anyway, since for whatever reason they're going to be building blu-ray drives for sale anyway... so bundling those costs into the per-unit costs of the PS3 doesn't make all that much sense.
  • by zbuffered ( 125292 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:37PM (#13480185)
    Can they seriously not fit all their games' data in a Dual-layered DVD?

    This might be a deal-breaker for me. If I can interface my PS3 with, say, my PC or share it out to the network to use the Blu-Ray drive with non-gaming discs, then it's useful new technology and adopting it with the PS3 may end up cost-effective in the long run. Otherwise, this is Sony using new tech for... What purpose, exactly? Copy protection? Gee, thanks.
    • by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:45PM (#13480238)
      Can they seriously not fit all their games' data in a Dual-layered DVD?


      Textures can be very big, bump maps can doubel ro tripple that size, and then there is audio/fmv's. The actual game binaries woudl fit on a CD but it's the Art assets that are huge.
    • its not about having more space for the games, its about sony getting its standard for the next-gen DVD spec into a ginormous number of homes through the PS3. why buy a HD-DVD player when you can watch Blu-Ray disks on your PS3!
      • Exactly. They could continue putting games on DVDs for a while longer, but they need something to get people to buy the blu-ray players. I think it's the entire reason behind this. When the PS2 came out, one of the selling forces was a DVD player because at the time, it cost over a hundred for a stand along DVD player. Sony is taking a gamble, but it could pay off in the end.
    • 640k is enough for everybody. :P

      Seriously though, putting Blu-Ray on PS3 is most likely what will give Blu-Ray its marketing win over HD-DVD.

      Considering Sony will most likely lose money over production of the consoles, having their games DRM'ed makes a TON of sense, at least for them.

      • Seriously though, putting Blu-Ray on PS3 is most likely what will give Blu-Ray its marketing win over HD-DVD.

        Good point. MS is launching with just DVD, so HD-DVD is going to have nobody to carry their torch. Sony needs a win for Blu-Ray, so they have to push it through this channel.

        Still not a very compelling reason to buy. I understand that some games would be multi-disc, but I seriously doubt that swapping a DVD when you're at hour 29 of Final Fantasy XII is going to be a problem that causes you to wan
    • Can they seriously not fit all their games' data in a Dual-layered DVD?

      What about a double-sided dual layer DVD? Some kind of custom drive that could read the top and bottom simultaneously would put the storage capacity in the 17GB range...should be more than enough for the current game market, and the internal-flipperiness (sorry, couldn't think of a better term) would work as a form of copy protection, if this technology isn't handed down to PC DVD-writers (say, some instruction on side A needs some dat
      • Good idea, but Sony and MS are using off-the-shelf drives for their consoles, and I wonder what that custom solution would cost in terms of price. Maybe Blu-Ray will become as cheap as current DVD players are when the PS3 really hits it's stride..
    • 1) Remember Sony is a Japanese company and, in Japan, one unit doing many things matters. I always thought it was stupid that people would whine about consoles not being backward compatible or not playing DVDs or something. I thought "So fucking what? Your old one doesn't stop working, keep both and get a seperate DVD player!" Ok well I live in an 1800sq ft condo, I'd never seen pictures of Japanese apartements. Suddenly I understand why yes, it really DOES matter to have even one more small unit because th
    • No. We really can't.

      I worked on one game that had a lot of textures. I think it may have been something around 30gb of textures before compression, if not more. After compression I was able to cinch this down to about 7gb (blah blah "jpeg can do better" remember these had to decompress in realtime on a PS2 at very high speed. The decompression algorithm had to be about the same speed as a simple Huffman lookup. It was, and got better compression besides.)

      I'm told the PS2 turned out to have curious problems
  • Wise Business idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goldfinger7400 ( 630228 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:39PM (#13480193)
    This is actually a very smart move by Sony in my opinion. With Sony backing Blu-Ray (I'm assuming) for the next generation DVD format, this will enable Sony to move large numbers of Blu-Ray drives, driving down the price and increasing the installed base of consumers with Blu-Ray players. Not to mention Sony gets to safely sell at a loss with game licensing backing up their bottom line... Leaving Sony and the Playstation as the best vendor and device for Blu-Ray movie playback and price.
    • Ya, just like they did with SACD. All their DVD players and DVD dream systems were being made with SACD to give the format a foot in the door. The bottom line is that nobody wants SACD because nobody has a great stereo and nobody cares enough to notice a difference. It's the same with Blu-ray. 90% of people don't own a TV that is going to show a difference and they don't want to re-buy their recently bought DVD collection. Even those with nice HDTVs largely don't want any more. The market for Blu-ra
      • It's the same with Blu-ray. 90% of people don't own a TV that is going to show a difference

        We're visual creatures, most of us cannot distinguish between 44khz sound and 56khz sound, MP3 and OGG sound the same to most of us too. But we do notice 30 fps over 28. We also notice a difference between 1200x1024 versus 1024x768. We will all the way up until about 4000 x 4000. So people will notice an improvement in visual quality.

        HD-TV isn't as uncommon as many people think, in the small sample size of my exstende
      • You're probably right. On the other hand, if they had sold them with only the bluray drives (no option of dvd), then nobody would be able to copy them initially, and assuming bluray-r technology becomes available (i'm assuming it won't be available initially), the cost of blanks will be more expensive than the games initially and the cost of a burner too high to make it worthwhile.

        Roll on the game royalties!!!

        (of course the other side of this is that nobody will buy one because you can't get illegally copi
        • There had better be several games on sale that require 20 Giga Bytes of space to play them. That should be at least 10 hours of hd quality video. These games will have to be price at around $50 a piece too. I do not see them able to produce such games economically now or in the near future either. If they have to be online to play the game than the video would be much better if it was also downloaded and therefore drastically reduce the need for any copyright protection scheme.
  • Odd... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squidsoup ( 145936 ) <<zn.ten.enrutcon> <ta> <enustik>> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:40PM (#13480200) Homepage
    Do Sony really expect a lot of people to be able to afford these? Given the depressed state of the US economy, I can't see people snapping these up.

    I suspect the Nintendo revolution will be reasonably priced, and I'll most likely buy one of those instead.

    I own a ps2, but really can't justify spending that much on a console.
  • by artifex2004 ( 766107 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:42PM (#13480221) Journal
    Over the life of the console, this will come down significantly. So the average cost of that player will end up being somewhat less. Also, if you consider what a new standalone Blu-Ray player will likely cost when Sony introduces the PS3, it makes the PS3 look like a much better deal, even to people who mostly just want to play Blu-Ray, not games.

    As I recall, in markets outside the United States, the PS2 saw a large percentage of its initial sales attributable to being an inexpensive (for the time) DVD player, that happened to also play games. It looks like they're repeating what worked well for them, before.
  • Interesting Idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:43PM (#13480227) Homepage
    Well, depending on Sony's pricing strategy they may end up selling at a loss again. If the console were to retail for $300 (at this point that's looking doubtful), that would be 1/3 of the cost of the console. That is a LARGE chunk. Now over time that drive would get dirt cheap, but that is still a lot of money.

    Now it does add value (just like the DVD drive in the PS2) if you want a Blue Ray player. That said, I still think it's a good move for Sony in future-proofing. We are already seeing multi-disc DVD games, and with the kind of graphics that people will expect on the XBox 360 you will need lots of space for artwork and models. That means more and more multi-disc games. Having all that extra space will surely help as time goes by.

    It's a gamble. I think it will pay off, but it is a surprisingly high cost for the drive. The Revolution and the XBox 360 are both sporting DVD drives from what we know right now.

    The one thing that comes to mind most with this is: one more reason for Sony to hike the price up. I've been buying consoles at their release since the PS1. But even though I now have a job and it pays well enough, I'm not planning on buying a XBox 360 because it is WAY too expensive. I'll wait for the price drop, or to buy one used because someone didn't like theirs. I trust Sony and would like a PS3. I was planning to buy one. But if it costs more than $300, I'll wait on that too. The Revolution is the only one I don't know the price of, but I'd be willing to pay up to $300 (I expect them to launch at $250), and I intend to buy it.

    Sony and MS are trying to price me out of the market (especially with games). And at this point, they have succeeded at delaying my purchase. If they're not careful, I'll learn I can live without it. If there is one thing I learned during this last generation, it was that I was right assessing the previous generation. N64 vs PS vs DC games? 30+ vs. 6. vs. 4. 'Cube v XBox vs PS2 games? 15+ vs 5 vs 8. DS vs PSP? 10 vs 4.

    Nintendo systems always seem to have the most games that I want. Sony and MS aren't helping themselves with their prices.

  • by putko ( 753330 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:47PM (#13480246) Homepage Journal
    That gamers (1) don't care about DRM or other "side issues" -- they just great games and (2) have money to burn for the great games?

    Are they thinking that if they get this out, create some envy/demand and drop the price as they hit production volumes, they could have a hit?
  • HDTV Reqs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VoidEngineer ( 633446 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @07:53PM (#13480277)
    What people are forgetting about here is the HDTV specs, which roughly triple or quadruple the memory requirements of video footage stored on a game cartridge/disk. Forgetting about the dual layer capabilities in the future, a 24G Blu-Ray disk, divided by 4, equals 6G. Approximately the size of a standard DVD. "But wait!" you say, "A DVD already can play HDTV!" Ah yes, but a typical game with multiple avenues of game play doesn't record the content of a single linear gameplay... it records many different avenues of gameplay. Which winds up tripling or quadrupling the storage requirements.

    My two cents worth of opinion? With this decision, Sony is going to have a much better HDTV compatible offering.
  • If MS does indeed ship a console with HDDVD or BluRay later, isn't Sony already kind of guaranteeing that BluRay will be the nextgen format of choice? So if MS later includes a BluRay drive in the 360 .. Will they indirectly be paying Sony to use the BluRay technology in the 360?
  • by Ph33r th3 g(O)at ( 592622 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @08:03PM (#13480336)
    . . . will just the drive be disabled? Or will the DRM gods take out your whole PS3 as just compensation for daring to defy their digital restrictions management/regional price scam schemes?
  • $100 for some as seemingly trivial as the optical drive is simply insane for a console. I was a bit skeptical when Sony said this would be expensive, I figured they were blowing smoke to get MS to up the price of 360 but if this article is true then our wallets (well not mine) are in for a world of hurt. Estimates Blu-Ray $100 GPU $100 Ageia Physics $70 CPU $200 Misc Materials $30 Labor $10 EST Total $510 and thats being generous.
    • Sorry I forgot the HTML in my post, here it is with better spacing. $100 for some as seemingly trivial as the optical drive is simply insane for a console. I was a bit skeptical when Sony said this would be expensive, I figured they were blowing smoke to get MS to up the price of 360 but if this article is true then our wallets (well not mine) are in for a world of hurt.

      *Estimates*
      Blu-Ray $100
      GPU $100
      Ageia Physics $70
      CPU $200
      Misc Materials $30
      Labor $10
      EST Total $510 and thats being generous.
  • by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @08:07PM (#13480356) Homepage
    The point of ANY high def drive is moot. Seriously. How long is it going to take for enough people to upgrade to a high definition set that could take advantage of (and justify) the drive's capabilities?

    Sheesh, we may as well wait to justify the Playstation 4 and XBox 720.
    • by oGMo ( 379 )

      The point of ANY high def drive is moot. Seriously. How long is it going to take for enough people to upgrade to a high definition set that could take advantage of (and justify) the drive's capabilities?

      You're kidding right? The point of these is not "HDTV", though it will be nice for HDTV. The point is that you can throw 50-100GB on a single disc. This in turn means large, detailed textures, hi-poly models, audio, video, and anything else they want to throw on the disc.

      DVDs just don't cut it.

    • Folks (everyone responding), for one, conventional televisions can barely display graphics on a level that BR-DVD would allow for. A game may be set up to display in 1080P, but then if you have a SDTV, you're not going to see any benefit. A perfect example of this is if you took a 5 megapixel photo and displayed it on your grandparent's Zenith TV. You aren't going to see any improvement. Period.

      Secondly, even a "cheap" HDTV runs $599 and up. As I wrote a while back, this simply isn't an amount everyone is g
  • by doctor_no ( 214917 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @08:09PM (#13480362)
    I wouldn't trust The Inquirer regarding PS3 news.

    They were the ones who spread false PS3 news last week based on a message board post saying that the Nvidia 7800GTX was faster than the PS3's RSX. It turned out that the person on the message board misread PSM magazine and it really said the RSX is FASTER than the 7800GTX. I don't think that they do any fact checking. Likelyhood is that Sony manfacters the Blu-ray drives in house and it won't cost more than adding the DVD to the PS2 and they would likely be able to leverage economies of scale in the long run(which were very expensive at the time of the PS2 launch).

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25838 [theinquirer.net]

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25862 [theinquirer.net]

    http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9126/PlayStation-3-G PU-Less-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/ [teamxbox.com]

    http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-G PU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/ [teamxbox.com]
  • sony and microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by frankmu ( 68782 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @08:19PM (#13480396) Homepage
    i wonder if Sony is spreading this rumor to let microsoft increase their price on the 360? there is no source behind this rumor as others mention. the price might be quite lower than people assume, but if sony could fake out microsoft by letting them shoot for a higher price. sony may come back with a $299 console
  • by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @09:20PM (#13480639)
    Sony: Say, Random HD-DVD Manufacturer, how much would we be paying for some HD-DVD drives for the PS3?

    Random HD-DVD Manufacturer: For the PS3? Well, since you're going to be buying about 6 quintillion of them, I'd say about $25 a drive. Hell, make it $15 if you put our logo somewhere on the case.

    Sony: Let me rephrase that. How much would we be "paying" for some HD-DVD drives if we wanted to justify an insane price-point for the first 12 months of the PS3 release?

    Random HD-DVD Manufacturer: Oh, then it's $100 per drive. But if the first batch would turn out to be "bad" for some reason, we would of course be obligated to ship you 5.9 quintillion drives at a vastly reduced price - Say about $25 - to make up for our error, if it would help ensure future business with you.

    C. Montgomery Burns: Excellent!

    Yeah yeah, I know, new technology, blah blah blah. All I know is that this 4th gen console war is quickly making me want to dust off the Dreamcast.
  • by iamghetto ( 450099 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @10:26PM (#13480899) Homepage
    "The Inquirer is running an article detailing how Blu-Ray drives for the Playstation 3 will cost Sony a small fortune. It turns out that at the release of the console in the first half of 2006, Sony will have to pay more than $100 per drive which will dramatically increase the unit cost of the PS3."

    Though this story was recently posted by the inquirer, it's very old news, and only a third of the story.

    I already rebuked the story a couple days ago on my own website at http://www.gamegeeknews.com/?p=140 [gamegeeknews.com] which itself referenced a GamesIndustry story from the end of June.

    In short, Merril Lynch Japan has determined that it would cost Sony +$101 per part to manufacture each of the PS3's key components (Cell CPU, nVIDIA GPU, Blu-Ray Drives). That said, it expected Sony to sell the PS3 for $399 and to stomach a +$100 loss on each system sold. So this isn't new news, it doesn't mean the PS3's price is going to sky rocket... It's all already been covered.
  • no real point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by akhomerun ( 893103 ) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @10:49PM (#13481015)
    there's no real point to sony including blu ray discs on PS3 games. a standard single layer blu ray holds 23GB, you could get that much space from 3 dual layer DVDs (actually, you get a little more with the standard DVDs). then sony would save about $70.

    i doubt that sony will use multiple layer blu rays for the PS3 games themselves, really it's just for movies. and who is going to be willing to connect to the internet to watch a movie anyway?

    seriously, who is dissatisfied by the visual quality of DVDs? people consider DVDs to have the best picture quality around, i dont see how sony could possibly expect to win any kind of format war, if you can call it that since nobody's going to buy HD DVD either. people will see these new technologies and think "i probably need $2000 in equipment just to use this"

    and they'd be right. it's the same reason why everyone doesn't have a DVR, cable HDTV channels, or any of the more hardcore TV watching stuff out there. TV isn't really worth watching anymore, so why pay monthly fees to use a DVR or buy a $3000 TV for marginal picture improvement. at this point, you'd have to be pretty blind not to be somewhat satisfied by standard picture quality. you can see what's going on, can't you? then why does it matter?

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Working...