Ps3 to cost Sony $900 per console to make

[SamualFisher78]

Not only this but Yahoo news also reported that the console won't be released until Nov. for Japan and early spring for the US. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

[SamualFisher78]

Not only this but Yahoo news also reported that the console won't be released until Nov. for Japan and early spring for the US. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

[Darkeye321]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4731128.stm
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

[Furious_Gopher]

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">The Revolution Strikes Again!!</pre>

[Ninj3r]

I heard the console will be sold for $800 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

[FN57]

I hear that is the biggest rip off ever. PS3 for $800-900? Sony can take their system and shove it up their a$$.

[Ninj3r]

Yeah. I'll wait for a price drop, probably gonna take a while but I can wait. Got a 360 so it's not like I'm gonna miss out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[BliNd-]

wow. that's some bull. who cany afford 800$ for a new console?

[C.A.T.ops_v2.0]

I told you guys this would happen!

Mario forever!1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

[SC-Titan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SamualFisher78:
Not only this but Yahoo news also reported that the console won't be released until Nov. for Japan and early spring for the US. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


can u provide a link to the article where u read this info about 800-900 dollars?

[Melonie]

I'm getting it opening day of release. I don't care if I have to work in a coal mine for a month straight without seeing the light of day, I MUST have a PS3!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Although... I think I'll pass on the coal mine idea and find another job. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Spekkio9]

I'm skeptical about this one. What company in their right mind would release a console at $800?

I can see it being upwards of $500-600, but that's really pushing it.

[SC-Titan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Spekkio9:
I'm skeptical about this one. What company in their right mind would release a console at $800?

I can see it being upwards of $500-600, but that's really pushing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, im with u spekkio, i think the price tag will be high, but pushin a grand is a lil far fetched. thats why i asked for a link to where he read this info!!

[Melonie]

The graphics are really pushign the envelope though. Better graphics also means advanced gameplay, due to the fact that there will be many more options. More money for more compelling graphics, gameplay, and added features. I completely understand their reasoning, especially since they are so expensive to make!

In all reality, if your'e not willing to pay for it, you're missing out on somethign a lot less advanced. You really get what you pay for.

[Spekkio9]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">More money for more compelling graphics, <STRIKE>gameplay, and added features</STRIKE>. I completely understand their reasoning, especially since they are so expensive to make!

In all reality, if your'e not willing to pay for it, you're missing out on somethign a lot less advanced. You really get what you pay for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The only thing that supposed $800 price tag brings with it is HDTV graphics, which do not necessarily bring with it more compelling gameplay and features. I don't own an HDTV, nor can I afford one at this time, so why do I give a s***? I think it's ridiculous to pay $2k for a TV, much like I think it's ridiculous to pay $800 for a console.

[SC-Titan]

whoa!! im sitting here reading these posts and watching cnn and cnn just did a story on the cost of the ps3!! they didnt say that it will retail for 900 dollars but hey did say that it will cost sony upwards of 900 to make it, good god thats nutz!! i hope for their and our sake they pull a ms and sell it for less than the manufacturing cost!!

[quillan]

Two things:

1) This article is NOT saying the PS3 will sell for $800+; it is based upon a Bill of Materials that IBM put together, estimating that Sony will have to pay over $800 to build each unit. It's well known the companies are willing to sell the units at a loss; they make the money back on sales of games.

2) There is one big problem with the BOM: it is estimating something on the order of $350 for the Blu-Ray DVD drive. Since Sony would be manufacturing the drives themselves rather than buying them from a third party, that price seems to be massively off-base. I cannot imagine it would cost Sony $350 per unit to manufacture one drive; I would expect it to cost perhaps $100 per unit instead, at most.

[SC-Titan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quillan:
Two things:

1) This article . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what article!!?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Melonie]

Actually better graphics does mean mroe compelling gameplay. If not then you can blame the game developers. Consider the following:
The fact that the graphics have improved from the SNES days, gameplay has become broader, advanced, and innovative. I believe the same will apply as graphics continue to advanced. Better graphics open up doors for countless of extra options.

[Zedblade]

Darkeye, on the 2nd post of the thread gave a article saying basically the samething the yahoo one did.

[SC-Titan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zedblade:
Darkeye, on the 2nd post of the thread gave a article saying basically the samething the yahoo one did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok he must be talking about the yahoo article (which there is no link for), i'll go dig it up. the bbc article only talks about a delay not a price!

i think u have a valid point there Mel!

[quillan]

The original article, the one the others all reference:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-...z-merrill-lynch-mob/ (http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/)

[Spekkio9]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Melonie:
Actually better graphics does mean mroe compelling gameplay. If not then you can blame the game developers. Consider the following:
The fact that the graphics have improved from the SNES days, gameplay has become broader, advanced, and innovative. I believe the same will apply as graphics continue to advanced. Better graphics open up doors for countless of extra options. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true, to an extent. I mean, the fact that we have better graphics today means we can play games in 3-D where we previously couldn't back in the SNES days. However, where is the leap since then? Since the N64/PSX days, there has been no major renovation on how we play games, just simply crisper graphics applied to already existing concepts. So how are games getting to be richer today? They aren't. Sure, there might be more options for the graphics on an x360 or PS3, but the developers aren't going to stray from a working formula unless something works better.

If anything, I notice that today's games are shorter in content and lower in difficulty as graphics power increases.

[quillan]

You're absolutely correct about the last sentence, Spekkio, but I'd like to rephrase that:

Today's games are shorter in content and lower in difficulty BECAUSE graphics power has increased.

In the old days (80s and very early 90s) a game could be done by one single person. Anyone could slap some programming together, package it, and try to market it as a game. As the overall complexity of games has increased, it moved beyond the capability of a single person. Now it has moved beyond the capability of a small group. The cost of paying for 30-60 programmers salaries for the 1-3 years of development is what is primarily reducing the content. Well, the cost of salaries, the cost of advertising, and the development time it would take if you wanted to keep the same amount of content at the higher standard all play an effect.

[SoulFire382]

I thought I should mention...
Does better graphics really mean better gameplay? Take Full Auto for an example. Sure, it LOOKS fantastic. However, it's recieving lukewarm reviews across the board. Why is this?
I think it is, in part, because gamers expect gameplay that is equal to or greater than the quality of the graphics. Is this even possible, to a point? Is there any way of optimizing gameplay so much that it reaches that mark?
The simple fact is that we don't know yet. There have been many games with really, really good graphics, but how many with gameplay to match? Sure, you could name a few there. Project Gotham Racing 3, Dead or Alive 4, Call of Duty 2.... Although this is arguable. Even then, was the gameplay what you'd call "next-gen?"
I could type a ton of arguments to support my next idea, but it's all summarized, only way better than I could have, in this article, (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/3) and this one (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/9/4) written a couple of weeks later.

[CovertKi11]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Melonie:
Actually better graphics does mean mroe compelling gameplay. If not then you can blame the game developers. Consider the following:
The fact that the graphics have improved from the SNES days, gameplay has become broader, advanced, and innovative. I believe the same will apply as graphics continue to advanced. Better graphics open up doors for countless of extra options. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>G.r.a.p.h.i.c.s. W.h.o.r.e.

Sorry, but graphics are just what something LOOKS like, and I don't think it has a huge impact on gameplay unless it's 2D vs 3D.

I can't think of a single game with kickass graphics I stayed around to play when the gameplay sucked, and I can think of games that have hooked me for so long, despite ****ty graphics, just because the gameplay was so good. I play games to have fun, not to admire the scenery.

Oh, and on topic, $400&lt; for a console is highway robbery.

[xTSx_Suicide]

There's no way they can sell it for $900. They have to match the 360's price in order to make the console market competetive, so look for the PS3 to be $300-$400. They'll make up the loss in games.

But anyway, there isn't gonna be a whole lot of difference between the 360's graphics and the PS3's graphics. PS3 might look a little smoother or a tiny bit more detailed because its coming out later and can have more updated software, but there won't be a big enough difference to effect your gaming experience.

And I don't know what to think about the Revolution's price. If it's actually gonna be a system that can compete with the 360 and PS3 they're gonna have to charge more that $200 for it. If they don't then prepare for Nintendo filing for bankruptcy.

[Spekkio9]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I don't know what to think about the Revolution's price. If it's actually gonna be a system that can compete with the 360 and PS3 they're gonna have to charge more that $200 for it. If they don't then prepare for Nintendo filing for bankruptcy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Care to support your position? Why must Nintendo make a system that costs more than $200 per unit to compete with Sony and MS? Why will they go bankrupt if they don't?

[SoulFire382]

Aye, many holes the argument. Nintendo, oddly enough, isn't dead yet. They've still got a market in Japan, and the handheld market! Nintendo basically has an iron fist clamped firmly over the handheld market, but I believe they've basically lost footing in the U.S. console market.

[SamualFisher78]

I'm sorry guys I meant to say it's going to cost Sony $900 per console to make. Oh wait a minute isn't that what I posted. I do believe I never said that the PS3 will cost $900. Maybe people should go back to school or maybe pay more attention in school. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

[xTSx_Suicide]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Spekkio9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I don't know what to think about the Revolution's price. If it's actually gonna be a system that can compete with the 360 and PS3 they're gonna have to charge more that $200 for it. If they don't then prepare for Nintendo filing for bankruptcy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Care to support your position? Why must Nintendo make a system that costs more than $200 per unit to compete with Sony and MS? Why will they go bankrupt if they don't? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the parts in the Revoultion only cost $200 altogether then that would be a crappy system. The stuff in the 360 costs more than the system's retail price. So if the parts in the Revoultion only cost $200, it will most likely be less powerful than the 360. And if they are just charging $200 for $400 worth of parts, that won't be good for their bank account.

[SamualFisher78]

The blue ray disc player will cost $350 to make. Plus I guess the cell processor will cost $2-300 to make and that doesn't include everything else.I'm not too sure about the processor but I do remember reading that the BRD player for the PS3 would cost sony $350 to make.

Not only that but now the 360 will have even more time to get good games and more games. When PS3 comes out the 360 will be coming out with a second year graphics and game play. Sony is betting everything on this console. I hope they fall flat on there face. That's what they get for getting me to buy a HDD for $100 that is only good for 3 maps for a ****ty game. Plus by making me buy an adapter for online play. FFUUCCKKEERRSS!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


ps: Sorry I just needed to release some steam.

[Spekkio9]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xTSx_Suicide:
If the parts in the Revoultion only cost $200 altogether then that would be a crappy system. The stuff in the 360 costs more than the system's retail price. So if the parts in the Revoultion only cost $200, it will most likely be less powerful than the 360. And if they are just charging $200 for $400 worth of parts, that won't be good for their bank account. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The stuff in the 360 costs more than the retail price because the x360 has a lot of extras that don't really affect gaming. Both MS and Sony did this with the last-gen systems as well.

The biggest differences this generation are the HDTV support and multi-core processors. The former Nintendo will definitely lack, and we know nothing about the latter. Nevertheless, the HDTV support won't make a big difference for the vast majority of people. It's a nice selling point, like 'oh we support HDTV, we're better than Nintendo,' but it doesn't do people any good if you don't own an HDTV. We really don't know what the graphics will look like on a standard TV though for Nintendo's system. From what I hear, the x360 doesn't look a whole lot better, and we also know nothing about what Sony's graphics will look like. Nintendo is keeping their development very secret. Is that good? We'll find out. For second, the multi-core processors aren't even being utilized by developers yet. Will they be in the future? Maybe. But I doubt any company will be able to take advantage of a 7-core processor in this console generation. It's just a ridiculous add-on that drives up the cost of the system, which is in turn passed onto the consumer. Most game engines these days are GPU limited anyway, even with single-core processors, with the exception of Source.

So does the Rev really need HDTV support for the 15% of homes that have an HDTV, and a multi-core processor that developers haven't even begun to dive into to compete with MS and Sony? Well, I guess that's your call. But buying one of these systems is like buying a ferrari to drive around on sidestreets where the speed limit is 30 mph.

Personally, I don't own an HDTV, and I probably won't anytime soon, so that selling point is lost on this consumer.

[sam-is-a-gimp]

Originally posted by CovertKi11:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> G.r.a.p.h.i.c.s. W.h.o.r.e.

Sorry, but graphics are just what something LOOKS like, and I don't think it has a huge impact on gameplay unless it's 2D vs 3D.

I can't think of a single game with kickass graphics I stayed around to play when the gameplay sucked, and I can think of games that have hooked me for so long, despite ****ty graphics, just because the gameplay was so good. I play games to have fun, not to admire the scenery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right......

*Gears Of Wars(off screen clip):
http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=8017&pl=game&type=wmv

*Ghost Recon:AW:
http://gametrailers.com/player.php?id=9253&pl=game&type=wmv

Far Cry Instincts: Predator
http://gametrailers.com/player.php?id=9388&pl=game&type=wmv

Medieval total war 2:
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/682/682692/medieval-2-total-war-20060122073810718.jpg

Operation Flashpoint 2(note that this games maps cover 100 sq. km. without loading times):
http://www.cgm.cz/obrazek/ofp2_2.jpg

etc..

[CovertKi11]

Those are great screens and all that, but my point was that gameplay should never be compromised for graphics. I'm not saying it's impossible for a game to be fun and have cutting edge graphics.

[silentassasin05]

$900 doesnt bother me, and nor should it you. Unless sony plan to go bankrupt, they will most definatly lower prices to match Microsofts X360. If they dont, and being over a year after Microsoft selling X360, Sony might as well not release the console. When it boils down to it, the games will make the next generation, and not the console.

[sam-is-a-gimp]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CovertKi11:
Those are great screens and all that, but my point was that gameplay should never be compromised for graphics. I'm not saying it's impossible for a game to be fun and have cutting edge graphics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Word up to that, though better graphics opens up new doors for games. HL 2 wouldnt have been that special without the great graphics and physics. I mean, the NPCs wouldnt have felt as alive and levels like "sandtraps" wouldnt have been that fun.
Or just look at "Medieval 2 total war" and compare it with "shogun total war". Graphics can actually improve the gameplay IMO.

[MKCC14]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Melonie:
The graphics are really pushign the envelope though. Better graphics also means advanced gameplay, due to the fact that there will be many more options. More money for more compelling graphics, gameplay, and added features. I completely understand their reasoning, especially since they are so expensive to make!

In all reality, if your'e not willing to pay for it, you're missing out on somethign a lot less advanced. You really get what you pay for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
better graphics doesnt mean a better game. its all in the gameplay.