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."
Cost saving idea direct from me... (Score:5, Funny)
An expensive addition... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could buy it for the GAMES, you know (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Or you could buy it for the GAMES, you know (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute!
Re:Bring it on. (Score:5, Insightful)
They certainly are if I have to choose between them and the masturbatory, self-indulgent tripe that passes for "mature" these days. Honestly, don't you guys feel the least bit patronized? Or are tits and violence the only things you want from an experience?
Re:Bring it on. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bring it on. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bring it on. (Score:5, Funny)
Because we all know how unpopular "masturbatory" forms of entertainment are...
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:2)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Funny)
Not so ob. Bottom quote (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 $130).
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nintendo puts more research into their hardware development, so that things are more tightly designed. For example, the GCN costs them under 100$ 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.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to say that, of the two, I got a lot more mileage out of the GC (which I bought on a whim) than I ever got out of the XBox (which I eagerly awaited for months before its release). But I think you're off with graphics performance at least with 'photoreal' 3D stuff like Men of Honour (where you could actually count the frame rate in some sections) to Metroid Prime, which although good, simply didn't compare to Doom 3 or even Halo 2 in terms of graphical beauty (gameplay, they're probably on a par - but then arn't all FPS nowadays).
I'd say the question next gen owners have got to ask is do they want the best online FPS experience (Xbox) or do they want to have fun playing different games. I'm definately in the latter camp. 2 bottles of tequilla, the likes of Donkey Konga/Monkey Ball/Double Dash and a group of friends in the same room will always out weigh a couple of litres of red bull, Halo 2/Rainbow 6, and few 12 year old yanks.
The question Nintendo have to ask themselves is why, when their console is cheaper, the games are cheaper and arguably better, are they being outsold by Sony and XBox on all continents? Its got to be about the 'cool' factor - something Nintendo hasn't been since the gameboy. Which is a real shame, when the only thing that seems to be 'cool' is killing innocents, blood, driving too fast and more killing. Rome _is_ the mob.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like you're being forced into buying a damn games console for god's sake...
Re:An expensive addition... (Score:5, Insightful)
(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.
shortly following.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're telling me (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So you're telling me (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So you're telling me (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the Gameboy count as a console?
Consoles are often sold at a loss (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Consoles are often sold at a loss (Score:2)
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
Re:Consoles are often sold at a loss (Score:2)
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...
Re:Consoles are often sold at a loss (Score:2)
$100? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$100? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:It's the DRM fee (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the price will not increase (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Perhaps the price will not increase (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Perhaps the price will not increase (Score:2, Interesting)
And yes, Sony has been planning on sellin
Re:Perhaps the price will not increase (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps the price will not increase (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps the price will not increase (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps the price will not increase (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen this article... but (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I've seen this article... but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've seen this article... but (Score:3, Informative)
Even though a nearly-identical story is being run on a number of online news sites (not just The Inquirer), I'm not convinced it's at all valid - none but one of them has a source attribution (the article on Addict3d [addict3d.org] points to a source on FlexBeta [flexbeta.net], but that goes nowhere).
I can't find anything in Sony/SCUS/SCEA media releases about it.
What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:2)
Because you need it in addition to the normal texture. So it increases the size.
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:2)
Quoted form the AC with a bit of editing. Texture + normal/bump map = bigger then just texture. Tripple may have been hyperbole, but also if you offer more space, they will find ways to
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
I can offer a little detail. Have a peek at this image I made here [reflectionsoldiers.com]. No, this is not an in-game mesh, but it's the sort of graphic that game consoles are rapidly approaching the ability to do in real time. There are a lot of photographic textures in that scene. Each texture is 2048 by 2048 in size. Here's a breakdown of the data involved:
- Color texture. (24-bit)
- Bump texture (8-bit)
- Specular Texture (8-bit)
- Glossiness Texture (8-bit)
- Diffuse Texture (8-bit)
- Normal Map (24-bit)
Assuming I had used normal maps and didn't use an 8-bit image for the color channel, each texture in that scene had 80-bits of data. If I could only have used 24-bit color textures, then I would have seen at least a doubling of the assets. (But not quite tripling..) If I had come from using 8-bit textures... well the numbers turn a lot worse. Unfortunately, I do not know if game companies typically use 8 or 24 bit color t
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right. Procedural textures would be significantly smaller. They also have the added benefit of scaling up quite nicely.
There are a couple of problems with procedurals that I suspect is preventing them from being used in gaming. One is that their very nature means they can generate a shimmery/sparkly effect when the detail gets too small. I imagine there are software work arounds for this, but those eat up cycles. That is an unfortunate side-effect of using procedurals with Lightwave. It is easy to make a very noisy render with procedurals if you perform an extreme camera movement, like zooming way out for example. We've been able to partially fix it by having the higher detail procedurals fade out when the camera reaches a certain distance. Raster textures are nice because they get filtered in such a way that this effect doesn't happen near as badly. The other problem is that it takes time and CPU power to generate these cycles. When you're rendering, the difference isn't noticable. But in a real time environment, the CPU (GPU?) will have to generate the appropriate texture value for every pixel on the screen that is rendered. From what I understand, I'm quite certain this would prove to be a headache for the programmers who are trying to maintain a constant frame rate. However, I suspect that some clever programming could alleviate some of these problems. (one of these days I'm going to write a procedural shader so I can understand this a little better...)
There is an interesting way they can solve both the problems I've mentioned. That would be by using a procedural to generate a raster texture. They'd still use up texture memory, but they'd also be able to do that with a managable rendering speed and probably even refine out the sparkly issue.
Anyway, yep, they could save disk space that way.
Re:Will next-gen titles use higher pixel for HDR? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
Erm. Hehe. Part of the problem with the N64 textures is that, if I recall properly, they had a limit of 4k per poly for the texture image. They had to make some awful compromises to work that out. Add to that that the textures were such a low res that ANY form of compression was hurtful. With the cur
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:2)
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.
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:2)
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
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:2)
Well couple reasons (Score:2)
Re:Well couple reasons (Score:2)
Re:Well couple reasons (Score:2)
1) Does the console have the power to decode that? MPEG-4 and VC-1 (WM-9) are much more intense than MPEG-2. To play the MS demos it takes like a 3ghz P4. I don't know that th
Re:What's wrong with DVD anyway? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
SACD proves this wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SACD proves this wrong. (Score:2)
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
Re:SACD proves this wrong. (Score:2)
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
Re:SACD proves this wrong. (Score:2)
Odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This is true at the start, but (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Interesting Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Arguably your first mistake.
Huh? (Score:2)
Isn't their some argument (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
My two cents worth of opinion? With this decision, Sony is going to have a much better HDTV compatible offering.
Re:HDTV Reqs (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also an assumption that there would be a use for FMV...with the kind of graphical fidelity on the upcoming systems, there's less need for FMV...which I personally find annoying, it's not as immersive.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Will MS have to pay Sony to use BluRay? (Score:2)
So . . . if you hack your drive . . . (Score:5, Funny)
If you know consoles you know thats insane! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If you know consoles you know thats insane! (Score:2)
*Estimates*
Blu-Ray $100
GPU $100
Ageia Physics $70
CPU $200
Misc Materials $30
Labor $10
EST Total $510 and thats being generous.
Wait! Wait wait wait wait wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheesh, we may as well wait to justify the Playstation 4 and XBox 720.
You're missing the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wait! Wait wait wait wait wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, even a "cheap" HDTV runs $599 and up. As I wrote a while back, this simply isn't an amount everyone is g
TheInquirer aren't reliable sources (Score:5, Informative)
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-
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-
sony and microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
*Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge* (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Very Old & Incomplete News (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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?
Re:DVD Wars (Score:4, Insightful)
Your freedom.
Regards,
Steve
Re:next generation (Score:3, Interesting)
Now with Nintendo being the only company to stand up and say "Fuck HD" and probably keep their historical focus on cheap hardware, fun games and lower load times.... I could be about to buy a Revolution.
I suspect it's either that or 'do nothing'.
Dave
Re:A huge advantage of BluRay... (Score:3, Informative)
Since PC games are currently coping with similar capabilities/restrictions, and yet I'm not aware of anything other than Myst 4 requring a second dual-layer DVD to hold all that, I'm not entirely sure it's all necessary just yet.