-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
IGN: PS3 is much more powerful than Xenon
- Thread starter Izzy
- Start date
i dont think they'll be roughly similar in power. if the ps3 comes with a 1-8 SPE configuration, it'll be more powerful and if it comes in with 3 cell units of 1-8 configuration each, it'll be a generation ahead.
however, going by my first realistic assumption, the 1-8 configuration, you might not see a huge difference in graphics. the problem is, both machines will have similar GPUs (actually all 3), and thus their polygon throughput will be smilar. now what gives games that organic, real life look? what makes things curvy and rounded? polygons. DC games looked quite a bit worse from PS2 games because there was a huge polygonal gap. you had most DC games with angular structures, characters etc, and you had Devil May Cry with its detailed cliffsides (beginning of the game), and intricate castle interiors. and you knew, right off the bat that this was a significantly more powerful machine. at least thats how i felt. polygons have always made things look more realistic for me. add that with great texturing capabilities (xbos, gamecube, and some ps2 games) and you have great looking games.
then came the lighting and effects, which obviously the PS2 was superior at to the dc as well. and things looked significantly better.
and this is where i believe ps3 games will have the advantage, better and more effects. but looking at the xenon games with similar polygonal detail, and great effects in their own right, i doubt people will be saying...oh this is just not powerful enough! i mean that what the specialized GPU will do for xenon, it'll do some great effects, their direct x tools will help. most like it wont match ps3 effects, but visually i don't think it'll be as drastic as dc-->ps2.
i think that era sorta passed us. everything is high res, everything has high poly counts and does great lighting effects.
that's why ultimately i dont think most games will look significantly better for ps3, aside from special stuff from kojima and squeenix. and a lot of that has to do with art than sheer power.
believe what you want to obviously...but 5 years of tehse endless debates get tiring. for me anyway.
this is basically my point:
however, going by my first realistic assumption, the 1-8 configuration, you might not see a huge difference in graphics. the problem is, both machines will have similar GPUs (actually all 3), and thus their polygon throughput will be smilar. now what gives games that organic, real life look? what makes things curvy and rounded? polygons. DC games looked quite a bit worse from PS2 games because there was a huge polygonal gap. you had most DC games with angular structures, characters etc, and you had Devil May Cry with its detailed cliffsides (beginning of the game), and intricate castle interiors. and you knew, right off the bat that this was a significantly more powerful machine. at least thats how i felt. polygons have always made things look more realistic for me. add that with great texturing capabilities (xbos, gamecube, and some ps2 games) and you have great looking games.
then came the lighting and effects, which obviously the PS2 was superior at to the dc as well. and things looked significantly better.
and this is where i believe ps3 games will have the advantage, better and more effects. but looking at the xenon games with similar polygonal detail, and great effects in their own right, i doubt people will be saying...oh this is just not powerful enough! i mean that what the specialized GPU will do for xenon, it'll do some great effects, their direct x tools will help. most like it wont match ps3 effects, but visually i don't think it'll be as drastic as dc-->ps2.
i think that era sorta passed us. everything is high res, everything has high poly counts and does great lighting effects.
that's why ultimately i dont think most games will look significantly better for ps3, aside from special stuff from kojima and squeenix. and a lot of that has to do with art than sheer power.
believe what you want to obviously...but 5 years of tehse endless debates get tiring. for me anyway.
this is basically my point:
he said it perfectly and succinctly.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Dr_Cogent said:
Some might have something close
soundwave05
Member
Redbeard said:
Well it may help to post the quotes in question, since most of you sound like you haven't even read them ...
From IGN:
Talk to any developer and you'll get a range of comments, from "the system eclipses Xenon" to "it's three and a half times more powerful."
From the new issue of EGM:
One high-profile developer who has seen both the PS3 and Xbox 2 technology recently whispered into my innocent ear, "The next Playstation is way, way more powerful than the Xbox 2. Its insanely powerful."
I've been told by folks in development that the PS3 is "orders of magnitude" more powerful than Xbox 2
(Page 142)
I read that and I see nothing about the PS3 and how many Cells they are putting in it nor how much ram will be included (probably the most important factor next gen) . In case you haven't figured it out yet they want to use the CELL in far more than the PS3.Izzy said:
soundwave05
Member
I don't think the recent shake up of Sony brass will affect the PS3 at all.
The company has far too many other problems in other divisions for one of the few "can't miss" projects that Sony does have on deck to get mucked around with.
Plus the project is too far in development at this point I think to undergo massive changes.
The company has far too many other problems in other divisions for one of the few "can't miss" projects that Sony does have on deck to get mucked around with.
Plus the project is too far in development at this point I think to undergo massive changes.
android said:
Why should Stringer interfere in a division that with its strategy is one of the major profit posters of Sony?SCEI has its own balance sheet and Sony's divisions are all indipendent under this point of view.Until SCEI is not a problem to Sony's whole financial situation and on the contrary brings in the money there's no reason why Stringer should interfere with Kutaragi's plans who is the president of the gaming division.
Stringer has already the full electronics division to care of and the common objective of making all the divisions really communicate and collaborate between themselves.
soundwave05
Member
I'd say Playstation is not just a key cog in the Sony machine -- it IS the flagship product line for Sony undisputedly. It's the superstar player on a roster of losers.
WEGA and Walk-Man are getting their asses whupped. Sony's movie division is too up and down (too bad they can't make a Spider-Man movie every year), and all music labels have taken a beating.
Meanwhile, everything the game division does almost always turns to gold. The PSP is red hot in Japan and poised for a massive North American launch. PSOne and PS2 obviously speak for themselves.
WEGA and Walk-Man are getting their asses whupped. Sony's movie division is too up and down (too bad they can't make a Spider-Man movie every year), and all music labels have taken a beating.
Meanwhile, everything the game division does almost always turns to gold. The PSP is red hot in Japan and poised for a massive North American launch. PSOne and PS2 obviously speak for themselves.
It seems I have to because you throw up quotes claiming to show that Stringer will allow Kutaragi to go all out on the PS3, when all the quote says is that the Cell is a focus of the company. It doesn't say that they are willing to lose major money on every PS3 sold.Izzy said:
Do you think they want to throw away lets say $150 per console when they don't need to. They have the namebrand, the developer support and two dominate generation behind them. Why throw away money, when you could equal the PS2-Xbox divide and lose nothing?
unless the early launch plan is side by side with some REAL sw blockbuster news for MS ..like like-time GTA excluisves or something wacky like that i don't see it working at all.
for MS to seriously think the only reason sony beat them THIS gen was because of the head start ... just tells me MS still have ego problems and don't realise they are the smaller fish in this pond. IF xbox launched directly opposite PS2 ... MS would have been crushed ..completely ..and then nintendo would have come in later and mopped up the leftovers. it would have been a slaughter.
the closer two consoles launch to each other ..the worse it is for the loser .. you can see that in past generations. Si prob going to be the same for DS vs PSP in the long run too.
the moment you have the customer pausing to make a decision .... you have trouble.
this is where brandpower has influence ...
head starts only work if you get off to a roaring pace ... i'm talking paris ps2 lauch riots etc ... thats brand power at work.
does MS have that kind of pull? i seriously doubt it. at ps2 launch the world prob only had the thought of nintendo in the back of their minds to make them pause ...but nintendo are clearly not selling to the same demographc as sony. so the ps2 buyer had realtivly littel to make him stop and think about is purchase. throw in a flashy new tech like DVD playback out of the box and u had the cherry on top.
xbox360 is for all intents and purposes launching under the exact same circumstances as DC ...in terms of the surounding pressures on it.
EA support will help ... but DC did launch with the best looking NFL game avail on a console at the time ..and that didn't help it any ... it all comes back to the consumer pausing and wondering about what is just around the corner in the other camp, "that looks amazing ..but if i wait a few mths &&^%$ is bound to be even better!"
the playstation brand isn't any less visable now than it was several years ago .. and with psp providing that "new toy" distraction to current PS2 owners as a hold over to ps3 ..thats even more pressure on xbox360.
the only chance MS has is hoping they have some REAL sw exculisves that mean a dam, (and i still dont see how MS could score GTA4 to themselves when even sony couldn't keep GTA , even with the userbase advantage ps2 had over xbox) ..and that LIVE is just so amazingling awesome over everything else ..... but the percentage of ppl online is still small ..and the percentage of those ppl who care about one system having a better interface than the other is even less ...socom and madden being online via ps2 is perfectly fine for the majority ...)
so in essence i think MS has made a mistake launching 1st ..they are throwing away what they have achived this round. they have created the xbox brand and through force of will and spending created a visable brand. If they had waited and held their nearve for a post PS3 launch ... sure they still would be behind ..but i would have thought that this time around they would have 'more' ppl waiting and pausing on that ps3 phurchase.
for MS to seriously think the only reason sony beat them THIS gen was because of the head start ... just tells me MS still have ego problems and don't realise they are the smaller fish in this pond. IF xbox launched directly opposite PS2 ... MS would have been crushed ..completely ..and then nintendo would have come in later and mopped up the leftovers. it would have been a slaughter.
the closer two consoles launch to each other ..the worse it is for the loser .. you can see that in past generations. Si prob going to be the same for DS vs PSP in the long run too.
the moment you have the customer pausing to make a decision .... you have trouble.
this is where brandpower has influence ...
head starts only work if you get off to a roaring pace ... i'm talking paris ps2 lauch riots etc ... thats brand power at work.
does MS have that kind of pull? i seriously doubt it. at ps2 launch the world prob only had the thought of nintendo in the back of their minds to make them pause ...but nintendo are clearly not selling to the same demographc as sony. so the ps2 buyer had realtivly littel to make him stop and think about is purchase. throw in a flashy new tech like DVD playback out of the box and u had the cherry on top.
xbox360 is for all intents and purposes launching under the exact same circumstances as DC ...in terms of the surounding pressures on it.
EA support will help ... but DC did launch with the best looking NFL game avail on a console at the time ..and that didn't help it any ... it all comes back to the consumer pausing and wondering about what is just around the corner in the other camp, "that looks amazing ..but if i wait a few mths &&^%$ is bound to be even better!"
the playstation brand isn't any less visable now than it was several years ago .. and with psp providing that "new toy" distraction to current PS2 owners as a hold over to ps3 ..thats even more pressure on xbox360.
the only chance MS has is hoping they have some REAL sw exculisves that mean a dam, (and i still dont see how MS could score GTA4 to themselves when even sony couldn't keep GTA , even with the userbase advantage ps2 had over xbox) ..and that LIVE is just so amazingling awesome over everything else ..... but the percentage of ppl online is still small ..and the percentage of those ppl who care about one system having a better interface than the other is even less ...socom and madden being online via ps2 is perfectly fine for the majority ...)
so in essence i think MS has made a mistake launching 1st ..they are throwing away what they have achived this round. they have created the xbox brand and through force of will and spending created a visable brand. If they had waited and held their nearve for a post PS3 launch ... sure they still would be behind ..but i would have thought that this time around they would have 'more' ppl waiting and pausing on that ps3 phurchase.
soundwave05
Member
android said:
The bottom line is you don't argue with results. The PSOne and PS2 employed big losses, and so is the PSP. And they're all winners or they're shaping into winners.
You don't ask James Cameron why he needs to rebuild Titanic or why he needs to spend $200 million if he's going to give you a movie that grosses 10x that much. You don't ask him why he needs a fancy computer generation liquid metal man, when a stop motion puppet would be cheaper.
The game division is one area Sony cannot afford to fuck up, its more important to Sony than it is to Microsoft. So when you guys ask why Sony would give the game division such leeway ... look at the track record. Imagine the state the company would be in if their game division faltered.
I think that should answer those question.
But the question is does Stringer know that or does he want to balance the books and stop all bleeding of money in the company. A loss is still a loss even if it is in a sector you dominate. It still hurts the bottom line and puts you further into debt.soundwave05 said:
Edit :And if Titanic had flopped Cameron would have been run out of hollywood.
Nintendo once had a bigger share of the market than Sony will have at the end of this generation.
Sega launched the Genesis a full year before them in the US maket.
People were probably expecting Nintendo to come roaring back into first place. Well, the company did end up in first place, but it wasn't quite a stomping.
My point? Well, while the two situations don't carry many similarities, they do carry the lesson that launching first can get your foot in the door, even when the incumbent kicked your ass last generation. (like Nintendo did to Sega with the NES vs. Master System)
Sega launched the Genesis a full year before them in the US maket.
People were probably expecting Nintendo to come roaring back into first place. Well, the company did end up in first place, but it wasn't quite a stomping.
My point? Well, while the two situations don't carry many similarities, they do carry the lesson that launching first can get your foot in the door, even when the incumbent kicked your ass last generation. (like Nintendo did to Sega with the NES vs. Master System)
soundwave05
Member
Speevy said:
What people don't tell you about this analogy is NEC launched the Turbo Grafx 16 before the SNES too. That certainly didn't help them.
The situation with the Genesis really came down to Sega pushing for a edgier/older demographic with their games and marketing.
That trick really doesn't work against Sony, since they also focus on that same demographic.
So when Sega tried that same trick against Sony with the Dreamcast -- it didn't work.
android said:
That is what you think,we don't know anything about what's going on behind the scenes,what is their strategy,how they want to position their console,how they're working with the developers and how they're trying to secure their support, and throwing away loss numbers without knowing anything about the costs they actually have doesn't put the basis for a logic discussion.
Stringer has to let the portable audio sector literally reborn,he has to cut production prices on TVs and all the other products where they have the strong competition from other cheap Asian makers,he has to reposition all their electronics business,make all the divisions collaborate instead of ostaculating between themselves as happened until now between the content divisions and the electronics division.
Definetly too much things to do and all much more important than cutting expenses on the PS3 interfering with the strategy of their current best profiting division.
soundwave05
Member
android said:
It's not a loss if its part of an actual business strategy which has effectively yielded strong profits for Sony the past ten years. Its more like an investment, not a loss.
Kutaragi is not flushing money down the toliet for the sake of fun.
The line of thinking you're advocating (since PS1/PS2 were successful, lets cut the losses and mail the PS3 out there) is exactly the type of complacency that would take Sony down to no.2.
I doubt investors would be thrilled that Stringer comes in and messes around with the one division that is making money for Sony consistently. Quite frankly he has much bigger fish to fry.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
I understand why people think Sony is going to run away with this, but I look at it like this.
1. It's Microsoft
2. It's Microsoft, with a head start.
3. It's Microsoft, with a shitload of money, with a head start.
The constant, it's Microsoft. I think some people are underestimating their resolve severely
1. It's Microsoft
2. It's Microsoft, with a head start.
3. It's Microsoft, with a shitload of money, with a head start.
The constant, it's Microsoft. I think some people are underestimating their resolve severely
Agent Icebeezy said:
But this isn't the normal environment they operate in. They're usually competing against small companies. MS would simply copy the design (Usually poorly), and then give away the product (Or did OEM OS bundles that made it more expensive not to take the products) and they basically bled the companies out of existence. MS didn't have to make any money on the product, whereas the companies they were competing against usually obtained all profits from that product line that MS was basically dumping. The entire game was to use their massive wealth to wait their competitor out and take it over. This is a whole different industry and those principals can't be exploited.
soundwave05
Member
MS has had plenty of failures outside the relam of OS.
MSN got destroyed by AOL.
MSNBC got beat by CNN.
WebTV was a flop.
XBox got whupped by the PS2.
MSN got destroyed by AOL.
MSNBC got beat by CNN.
WebTV was a flop.
XBox got whupped by the PS2.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Are you guys still arguing about this? 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lets wait until E3 to see more solid specs before we decide.
Sony is clearly the dominant player in video games at the moment. Microsoft is, arguable number 2, and has shown the resolve to get aggressive, stick through the tough area of building a brand, and feels more prepared for an even fight in the next gen. We'll all have to wait to see how this plays out.
We're really arguing two different things in this thread. PS3 power vs. Xbox 2 power and Sony vs. Microsoft's strategies. Frankly I wouldn't want to bet against either one of them, but for Sony it's a more important market. If Sony's videogame division went belly up, they would be in a world of hurt. If Microsoft's gaming division did the same, they'd lick their wounds, transfer assets over to their PC division, and exit from the market to pursue their multitude of other interests.
God, you've got to love the periods between generations!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lets wait until E3 to see more solid specs before we decide.
Sony is clearly the dominant player in video games at the moment. Microsoft is, arguable number 2, and has shown the resolve to get aggressive, stick through the tough area of building a brand, and feels more prepared for an even fight in the next gen. We'll all have to wait to see how this plays out.
We're really arguing two different things in this thread. PS3 power vs. Xbox 2 power and Sony vs. Microsoft's strategies. Frankly I wouldn't want to bet against either one of them, but for Sony it's a more important market. If Sony's videogame division went belly up, they would be in a world of hurt. If Microsoft's gaming division did the same, they'd lick their wounds, transfer assets over to their PC division, and exit from the market to pursue their multitude of other interests.
God, you've got to love the periods between generations!
Hitler Stole My Potato
Banned
Scoot said:
He's Futami. Of course he's a joke.
seismologist
Banned
I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 is more cutting edge than whatever MS can throw together. Just look at how badly they leapfrogged in handhelds.
This isn't like when the PS2 launched and there was no real competition.
This isn't like when the PS2 launched and there was no real competition.
Hitler Stole My Potato
Banned
Now we've got Gigadent and Futami in the same thread.
This thread will collapse by the weight of its own irony in 3, 2, 1,......
This thread will collapse by the weight of its own irony in 3, 2, 1,......
It seems like nobody here is looking at the big picture.
a) How much is Sony willing to spend on a single PS3 (and at what loss?)
b) How about heat constraints?
c) How about the possibility of the cpu being rated higher than it really is?
Remember the PS3 is going to be using a BRD (very expensive), an Nvidia GPU and Media processor (very expensive and very hot) and using expensive ram (probably runs hot too.)
So even say Sony decides to use a 4SPE cell @ 4 GHz... that's 128 gflops. What if it's still too hot even on a lower process? Considering the compactness of consoles you'll probably see the clock decrease (I'd say minimum 3 GHz... maximum 3.8 GHz). 70° for pretty much any processor is error land.
So if you're running a 4SPE Cell @ 3 GHz, according to Sony specifications that would land it in Xbox 2 CPU territory with a rating of 96 GFLOPS. (4SPE Cell @ 3.8 GHz would be ~120 GFLOPS) Plus there's also the possibility that the processor is rated higher because of any fixed function but this is CELL so that possibility is almost nil.
So either think of it like this... Either PS3 will be in the same league as Xbox 2 at launch or a full powered console at >$500.
Devkits for CELL probably are more like software kits at the time being, most likely the work being done in a virtual environment until hardware arrives (which is probably starting to make it's rounds at internal/1st party Sony studios)
I'm not trashing CELL, it's a very very flexible CPU and will be powerful (albeit a bitch to program for... programming thread timings = sigh
) I just think some of you have your sights set WAY too high. But I bet you'll just brush me aside and say "heil Cell!" anyways. So what was the point of this post? I'm not quite sure.
DC launched nearly 2 years before PS2 as an UNDERPOWERED console going for a bargain price of $199. Xbox 2 will be launching in a shorter window and will be a VERY HIGH END part when it debuts. This is why I think you guys are overhyped, you're thinking PS3 is absolutely going to crush Xbox2 even though the X2 will still be a very powerful console when the PS3 debuts (and probably still a money loser for MS)
a) How much is Sony willing to spend on a single PS3 (and at what loss?)
b) How about heat constraints?
c) How about the possibility of the cpu being rated higher than it really is?
Remember the PS3 is going to be using a BRD (very expensive), an Nvidia GPU and Media processor (very expensive and very hot) and using expensive ram (probably runs hot too.)
So even say Sony decides to use a 4SPE cell @ 4 GHz... that's 128 gflops. What if it's still too hot even on a lower process? Considering the compactness of consoles you'll probably see the clock decrease (I'd say minimum 3 GHz... maximum 3.8 GHz). 70° for pretty much any processor is error land.
So if you're running a 4SPE Cell @ 3 GHz, according to Sony specifications that would land it in Xbox 2 CPU territory with a rating of 96 GFLOPS. (4SPE Cell @ 3.8 GHz would be ~120 GFLOPS) Plus there's also the possibility that the processor is rated higher because of any fixed function but this is CELL so that possibility is almost nil.
So either think of it like this... Either PS3 will be in the same league as Xbox 2 at launch or a full powered console at >$500.
Devkits for CELL probably are more like software kits at the time being, most likely the work being done in a virtual environment until hardware arrives (which is probably starting to make it's rounds at internal/1st party Sony studios)
I'm not trashing CELL, it's a very very flexible CPU and will be powerful (albeit a bitch to program for... programming thread timings = sigh
) I just think some of you have your sights set WAY too high. But I bet you'll just brush me aside and say "heil Cell!" anyways. So what was the point of this post? I'm not quite sure.DC launched nearly 2 years before PS2 as an UNDERPOWERED console going for a bargain price of $199. Xbox 2 will be launching in a shorter window and will be a VERY HIGH END part when it debuts. This is why I think you guys are overhyped, you're thinking PS3 is absolutely going to crush Xbox2 even though the X2 will still be a very powerful console when the PS3 debuts (and probably still a money loser for MS)
I think that the xbox2 will be able to close the gap in the console wars, but they'll need to be dead on with their marketing over the time span between when they come out and when the Sony machine comes out. I mean, we're talking a solid library, a couple series games (KOTOR and Halo maybe? Or a new Fable?) and sustaining themselves online. They do that they might be able to tighten the screws against Sony for awhile.
...unless Sony comes out with an amazing library and undersells everyone (which wouldn't surprise me)...
...unless Sony comes out with an amazing library and undersells everyone (which wouldn't surprise me)...
seismologist
Banned
Amir0x said:
looks like I'm back
Hopefully they dont ban me again for being a "viral marketer" for Nintendoseismologist
Banned
The idea behind Cell is that it gives you more bang for your buck so that's one way. And dont forget Sony has their own factories so even at the same cost they'll be able to have more cutting edge technology.
sonycowboy
Member
DopeyFish said:
Why are any of those questions different for Sony vs Microsoft?
1) Microsoft has shown that their willing to lose billions to get into this game and given that they contract out the work, there's more than a little likelihood that Sony will be able to cost reduce their system substantially, since it will mostly be made in house.
2) Apple needs to have like 5 fans with liquid cooling for their G5 processor right now. And the Microsoft version is a dual core at a higher clock speed.
3) That's true for every CPU ever invented and again, IBM has developed them both. It's not like Sony is giving out the specs or made this system by themselves.
:lol
Not only does the CPU run hots, but so does the GPU, and so does the RAM???? :lol
Dopey forecasts HOUSES BURNING DOWN BECAUSE OF THE PS3!!
Oh, wait, that's some other system
I think this is the single most one-sided "analysis" I've seen yet.
sonycowboy said:Why are any of those questions different for Sony vs Microsoft?
1) Microsoft has shown that their willing to lose billions to get into this game and given that they contract out the work, there's more than a little likelihood that Sony will be able to cost reduce their system substantially, since it will mostly be made in house.
2) Apple needs to have like 5 fans with liquid cooling for their G5 processor right now. And the Microsoft version is a dual core at a higher clock speed.
3) That's true for every CPU ever invented and again, IBM has developed them both. It's not like Sony is giving out the specs or made this system by themselves.
:lol
Not only does the CPU run hots, but so does the GPU, and so does the RAM???? :lol
Dopey forecasts HOUSES BURNING DOWN BECAUSE OF THE PS3!!
Oh, wait, that's some other system
I think this is the single most one-sided "analysis" I've seen yet.
one-sided? wtf. I said you'd brush me off but whatever.
1) Sony is struggling.
2) The Xbox 2 CPU isn't a dual G5 it's a triple core PPC. Get your facts straight.
3) There is still the possibility, regardless of WHO is making it.
Oh of course though, sonycowboy knows all! Hot running CPU and GPU and even RAM (ever see ram catch on fire?) ever notice that GPUs and Rambus ram *cough* use HEATSINKS?! God damn man, you said mine was one-sided? Yours is short-sighted.
With all the hardware running inside a console, the temperature can build to unstable levels because of how closed it is. So you either use heatsinks, fans, advanced cooling apparatus or you offset your processor, gpu and ram operating speeds and frequencies until your system can maintain operation within a room with a temperature of ~25C.
Oh well. Fine if i can't beat your "wah wah you're one-sided" ass i might as well join ya!
ALL HEIL CELL! IT'S GOING TO DO 23480723 TFLOPS~ WOO! It's a QUANTUM COMPUTER DUDE! WOAH!!! OMG! SONY IS SO GRACIOUS! They will sell their super super super computer ps3 with 400 cell processors and an upscaled nvidia multi-sli on a single die with 50 petabytes of ram for only $249! YES! Sure they might be losing $5 million a console but it's sony! They think of their customer and development partners first! Right guys?
....
guys?
Doom_Bringer
Banned
nm
soundwave05
Member
Sony has a few advantages.
For starters, they can overprice in Japan. They could sell the PS3 for $450 even (include a Blu-Ray movie or two), early on, and they'd sell out. This can ease the losses on the first few batches of systems and let them get mass production levels up.
The PS2 debuted in Japan at about $380 USD.
Secondly, I don't know what a Blu-Ray player costs Sony, but I bet its a lot cheaper than what Microsoft or Nintendo could get a Blu-Ray player for. Having your own electronics division and owning your own factories makes a huge difference. That goes for all various components inside the PS3, not just the BRD.
Finally, the PS2 was a huge investment too, but will have yielded billions in profits for Sony when this generation is done. I guess the question is how important is the game business to Sony?
Right now, I think its their core business to be honest. Even though traditionally they're been a broader electronics company, the video game division is really what's carrying the company right now and has been really for a few years at least.
I don't think there's really the same sense of urgency at Microsoft or even Nintendo.
Playstation 3 cannot be a failure for Sony. It is the most important product they have in development. No if, ands, or buts about it.
For starters, they can overprice in Japan. They could sell the PS3 for $450 even (include a Blu-Ray movie or two), early on, and they'd sell out. This can ease the losses on the first few batches of systems and let them get mass production levels up.
The PS2 debuted in Japan at about $380 USD.
Secondly, I don't know what a Blu-Ray player costs Sony, but I bet its a lot cheaper than what Microsoft or Nintendo could get a Blu-Ray player for. Having your own electronics division and owning your own factories makes a huge difference. That goes for all various components inside the PS3, not just the BRD.
Finally, the PS2 was a huge investment too, but will have yielded billions in profits for Sony when this generation is done. I guess the question is how important is the game business to Sony?
Right now, I think its their core business to be honest. Even though traditionally they're been a broader electronics company, the video game division is really what's carrying the company right now and has been really for a few years at least.
I don't think there's really the same sense of urgency at Microsoft or even Nintendo.
Playstation 3 cannot be a failure for Sony. It is the most important product they have in development. No if, ands, or buts about it.