-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Interview with nVidia's Jen-Hsun Huang
- Thread starter Kleegamefan
- Start date
The problem is that unless there's a blow job under the hood, I ain't paying 399.99 for any "next-gen" system. 349.99 at most on a cloudy day if every single quality game from this gen dries up all of a sudden in some sort of gaming armaggeddon. And even then... I'll probably still only snap for it at 299.99.
It's just a personal thing, but I'm willing to put up with game prices at 59.99. But my console must be 299.99, no more... only less! I'm a spoiled American.
It's just a personal thing, but I'm willing to put up with game prices at 59.99. But my console must be 299.99, no more... only less! I'm a spoiled American.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Amir0x said:
Did you miss the whole meaning behind what he said? He said this "We think about the pricing of this in the same way that Sony thinks about Playstation 3's - its not about how much is costs, its about what is the price it needs to sell at"
DO YOU SEE? Its NOT about how much its cost, but what price it needs to sell at.
sonycowboy
Member
Deg said:Exactly its a bargain given what it is.The first Blu Ray players alone will cost more than that.
Again, and it's been said multiple times, there's one of two options here regarding the PS3's price, given the constant references we're getting saying that the PS3 is an "expensive system"
1) Sony is just being overtly honest so that people aren't shocked at a $399 price so that people don't freak out when it happens.
2) They're setting everybody up, saying "it's just so powerful, with all this functionality, and the Blu-Ray player" and then comes out and flattens everyone with a $299 price point, making the Xbox 360 seem like a terriblely overpriced system if it's also selling for $299.
or, maybe option #3, is a mixture of both:
3) It'll sell for $349.
capslock said:
I think $349 for a console in the US would be pushing it, to be honest, and I think Sony knows this, too. Sure, the enthusiast crowd might bite for $449, but that's just a drop in the bucket when it comes to system sales. A $450+ price tag would make the PS3 the next-gen equivalent of the Neo-Geo, and is likely to result in a Neo-Geo - sized install base in the US. I get the impression Sony wants slightly higher numbers for their new console.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Sony's prepared to eat some losses to release this thing at an acceptable price for American consumers, and that Japan and Europe may end up getting hit with higher system prices (yet again) to partially offset those losses.
Even at $400 it will be a massive loss. The first Blu Ray players will start at $999 approx.
Sony are going with better but newer more expensive hardware. Costs will fall but at launch dont expect anything cheap.
First of all not everyone buys a console at day one. Secondly Sony will sell more than MS could ever at the price Sony will go for. Dont pretend the PlayStation brand and legacy amounts to nothing. People will get into riots at their local stores for this machine. From the looks of things Sony look to continue to increase games sales and PS3 should outsell PS2.
Sony are going with better but newer more expensive hardware. Costs will fall but at launch dont expect anything cheap.
Tellaerin said:I think $349 for a console in the US would be pushing it, to be honest, and I think Sony knows this, too. Sure, the enthusiast crowd might bite for $449, but that's just a drop in the bucket when it comes to system sales. A $450+ price tag would make the PS3 the next-gen equivalent of the Neo-Geo, and is likely to result in a Neo-Geo - sized install base in the US. I get the impression Sony wants slightly higher numbers for their new console.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Sony's prepared to eat some losses to release this thing at an acceptable price for American consumers, and that Japan and Europe may end up getting hit with higher system prices (yet again) to partially offset those losses.
First of all not everyone buys a console at day one. Secondly Sony will sell more than MS could ever at the price Sony will go for. Dont pretend the PlayStation brand and legacy amounts to nothing. People will get into riots at their local stores for this machine. From the looks of things Sony look to continue to increase games sales and PS3 should outsell PS2.
sonycowboy
Member
Deg said:
Bullcrap.
The price differences between the PS3 & the Xbox 360 are nowhere near as great as many make them out to be. It's just crazy talk.
There's a reason why Blu-Ray players will start @ $999 and it's because the volume initially will be so low that they need to charge that cover the overhead and startup charges. With the PS3's volume, that won't be nearly as much of an issue. The Blu-Ray drive will be significantly more expensive than a DVD drive, but it's not going to add $100's of dollars to the cost. It should be a very good bit less than $100.
I could be mistaken on this, Deg, but I seem to recall DVD players being substantially more expensive than the PS2 was, back when it was first released. That was part of its appeal at the time - not only was it a kickass games console, but it was also a (comparatively) dirt-cheap DVD player. And aren't those $999 units player/recorders, while the PS3 would be read-only? I seem to recall someone here saying something to that effect, though I could be mistaken.
sonycowboy said:
You are being silly. Many of the PS3 parts are not in very high volume production yet. XDR RAM for example is getting its first home use in PS3. Now compare that to DDR3. If you add these cost differences the gap in the two products prices should be very large ofcourse. Lets not pretend that the systems are practically the same because they arent.
And you think its going to be free in PS3? :lol The initial costs will be huge compared to what MS will be paying for its DVD drive.
Tellaerin said:
Precisely, the first dvd players did cost alot but now you can go Walmart and get a better one free with your cheesecake
. Although recorders tend to come out later otherwise they would be at an even higher premium.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But they will be in high demand after the PS3 comes out.
I think BluRay won't have the impact that DVD had for PS2 though. DVD offered a noticeable improvement in both content and image and sound quality over VHS that was noticeable on almost any TV set up - BluRay will only make a noticeable difference for those with an HDTV capable of using BluRay - which would be the fraction of the install base for HDTVs that are HDMI/HDCP compatible.
Also, there was a fairly significant DVD market before the PS2, while the PS3 will likely be one of the first BRD players in the US market.
Also, there was a fairly significant DVD market before the PS2, while the PS3 will likely be one of the first BRD players in the US market.
sonycowboy
Member
Deg said:
Very large? By what measure? What do you expect the price difference to be? Numbers, please. What percentage of the system's price do you think RAM will be? Relative to CELL, Blu-Ray, Nvidia GPU, etc?
Deg said:
Again, what numbers are you thinking of?
Sony will produce just about everything in-house, or in the case of CELL, they helped pay for IBM's fishkill process and are a patent holder and should get CELL for cost (and they'll also make it in-house). They'll be manufacturing the GPU, the RAM, the Blu-Ray drive, all in-house.
I wonder how cheap MS will go because they have the ability to go very cheap given what they are using. Sony seem to have gone the extra step.
Exactly thats why we get price cuts. The value of PS3 will fall of course.
They have 5 years and videogamers are more tech orientated than average.
Thats only worse for Sony at launch as they have to stomach huge costs starting the production lines and such. The payoff could be god in the long run. You dont need numbers to know that there will be a significant price difference between a product that is already much more popular and vastly manufactured to one thats only getting started. Its like comparing PS2 with PS3 in simpler terms. PS2 will just cost less regardless unless its gold plated or something
mckmas8808 said:
Exactly thats why we get price cuts. The value of PS3 will fall of course.
Fatghost28 said:
They have 5 years and videogamers are more tech orientated than average.
sonycowboy said:
Thats only worse for Sony at launch as they have to stomach huge costs starting the production lines and such. The payoff could be god in the long run. You dont need numbers to know that there will be a significant price difference between a product that is already much more popular and vastly manufactured to one thats only getting started. Its like comparing PS2 with PS3 in simpler terms. PS2 will just cost less regardless unless its gold plated or something
sonycowboy
Member
Deg said:
How is that worse? They've already got the production lines. Do you somehow think the Microsoft's contract partners are completely swallowing the startup costs of making a brand new process GPU or that IBM will completely swallow the costs of starting up a new line for a processor that's never been made as well?
I don't see any negative to Sony making it in-house in terms of actual component costs. They're much better off for this.
Where they get hit is in the upfront costs of building the fabrication plants and keeping it cutting edge with the latest technology and secondly, they can take a hit if the product doesn't take off and their factories aren't at full production efficiency which would hurt them, because they're paying for the facility regardless.
I am not saying that the PS3 won't be more expensive than the 360 initially. It almost certainly will be. However, it's not going to be a huge difference as many try to allude to. And Sony has much, much better capability to lower the costs than Microsoft does because of their semiconductor investments and being the patent holder for their CPU and Blu-Ray.
Remember, that if Blu-Ray takes off, they'll be taking in hundreds of millions to billions in licensing and royalty revenue for the technology. That's why it's in the PS3.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
I imagine with the lower than expected, but steady sales of the Value Pack PSP that a Value Pack PS3 at $349 is likely. It'll include a 128mb+ memory stick among other things. Maybe they could just throw in the HDD at $349 and make it the only option available at launch (like the Value PSP), thus having PS3 + HDD be default from launch.
Deg said:
Saying this demonstrates your complete and total lack of understanding of the difference in the pricing model of standard consumer electronics and video game consoles. The actual hardware required to play BRD / HD-DVD discs is not much more expensive than a standard DVD drive.
sonycowboy said:
You can argue all you want but with better and newer hardware comes higher costs and judging by what they have got it will cost them. Dont expect it to be cheap in anyway at first. Ms on the other hand have a very cheap design in comparsion.
Thats the very long term picture. Right now it will cost Sony alot more than what MS will spend on a basic dvd drive.
I am not repeating myself anymore. If you cant be bothered to think or listen then why bother arguing?
sonycowboy
Member
Deg said:Out of date in 3 years
Deg, man. When did you change to be a full blown damage consultant? You're much better than this.
What does that mean for Microsoft? Out of date in 6 months (when the PS3 launches).
(T for T = Tit for Tat, = Troll for troll
$299 or no dice. It's a video game system to me first, Blu-ray player and all that other bullshit, second. If history is any indicator, I'll buy a stand alone for a good quality Blu-ray player anyways, so that point is moot. It's a games system, $299 or nada.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
Deg said:
How can Sony having their own fabs and producing their parts at COST make them worse off? Can someone explain this to me?
sonycowboy
Member
Did we somehow transport back to mid-May today?
PS3 costing $500, questions about memory, Blu-Ray costs, etc....
It feels so retro.
PS3 costing $500, questions about memory, Blu-Ray costs, etc....
It feels so retro.
Tellaerin said:I think $349 for a console in the US would be pushing it, to be honest, and I think Sony knows this, too. Sure, the enthusiast crowd might bite for $449, but that's just a drop in the bucket when it comes to system sales. A $450+ price tag would make the PS3 the next-gen equivalent of the Neo-Geo, and is likely to result in a Neo-Geo - sized install base in the US. I get the impression Sony wants slightly higher numbers for their new console.
NEO-GEO U.S. launch price in 1990: $400 (silver) $650 (gold)
but that was 15 years ago, so inflation might account and make that cost more in todays world.
TheDiave said:
actually, starting with the 32-bit / 64-bit generation, everything has been called "next-generation"
the 3DO, Jaguar, PC-FX, Saturn, 32X, Playstation, M2, Nintendo64 were all the original "next-generation" systems. the U.S. version of EDGE magzine, "NEXT GENERATION' came out around the time these new consoles were coming into existance. that's the point where i think the phase 'next generation' caught on, and stuck for every generation to follow.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Also another thing concerning Blu-ray costs...
CELL will do decoding of DD+, dts HD, VC1, H.264 HP and whatever other BRD-related AV codecs...
Part of the costs of a stand alone BRD player/recorder is not just the drive, but also the media processing hardware needed to decode the advanced codecs..
Sony was smart to include in CELL, a videogame CPU that just also happens to be great at media processing too.....since PS3 was designed to have CELL anyway, they can just add the drive without having custom hardware to decode the Blu-ray AV codecs....two birds with one stone and all that...
Plus that CELL media processor will not just enjoy economies of scale from PLAYSTATION 3 alone but also from future Sony/Toshiba TVs, IBM server and perhaps some stand alone Blu-ray players too...
CELL will do decoding of DD+, dts HD, VC1, H.264 HP and whatever other BRD-related AV codecs...
Part of the costs of a stand alone BRD player/recorder is not just the drive, but also the media processing hardware needed to decode the advanced codecs..
Sony was smart to include in CELL, a videogame CPU that just also happens to be great at media processing too.....since PS3 was designed to have CELL anyway, they can just add the drive without having custom hardware to decode the Blu-ray AV codecs....two birds with one stone and all that...
Plus that CELL media processor will not just enjoy economies of scale from PLAYSTATION 3 alone but also from future Sony/Toshiba TVs, IBM server and perhaps some stand alone Blu-ray players too...
A recorder/player is a laser, a spindle motor and the logic. Cell/RSX will handle the logic. The spindle motors are cheap, especially if they use regular ball-bearings and not liquid-bearings. So that leaves the laser, and probably that security hardware. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, BR will not be the cost-leader in the PS3. Not even close. There's a reason it was the first official spec released for the PS3, well over a year ago now. It has not changed even in the least, even with unification talks, there was no doubt. Cell, RSX and memory will be the cost killers for the early part. XDR should drop off quickly, but Cell and RSX are big chips and not likely to get cheap until they're on 65nm. Lucky for Sony, that might happen within a couple years. PEACE.Kleegamefan said:
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
Hmmm Nvidia already got something superior than the RSX in the wings perhaps... if the next cycle is a year for the next gen...thats next June when does the PS3 launch in the US?
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
DonasaurusRex said:
nVidia folk have gone on record as saying there will be something better than RSX from nVidia available around the time PS3 is on sale(G80)...
Of course, even if G80 is more powerful than RSX, the PS3 will likely offer better game performance(not limited by PCI-Express bus, closed system, Cell much more powerful overall than Athlon 64 or Pentium D for game apps, CELL+RSX intergration)
Pimpwerx said:
Hopefully the shift to 65 nm will happen in 2007. A few years ago it was believed that PS3 would be introduced on 65nm in 2006 and then move to 45nm within a year or so after that.
We know that the pace of shrinking silicon has slowed down significantly, to the point where PS3 has to be introduced on 90nm. but you can bet that PS3 chips will move to 65nm as soon as possible. probably within 12 to 18 months after launch.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Well I see it this way.
Spend up to $500 for a PS3 or spend $5,000 on a PC that can't match it.
Spend up to $500 for a PS3 or spend $5,000 on a PC that can't match it.
PS3 is sounding more and more like a graphical monster.
The launch price of PS3 is going to depend a lot on the retail price of the 360, how much Sony thinks MS can afford to drop it to, and how well the 360 is established at the time of PS3 launch.
I think that $399 is probably the absolute minimum that we'll see PS3 launch at. In the worst case, it'll have a MSRP of $499. More than that, and I think that even the enthusiasts will start squirming, and it'll become a lot harder to get casual gamers to buy one over the 360.
The launch price of PS3 is going to depend a lot on the retail price of the 360, how much Sony thinks MS can afford to drop it to, and how well the 360 is established at the time of PS3 launch.
I think that $399 is probably the absolute minimum that we'll see PS3 launch at. In the worst case, it'll have a MSRP of $499. More than that, and I think that even the enthusiasts will start squirming, and it'll become a lot harder to get casual gamers to buy one over the 360.