-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Microsoft Plays Up 'PS3 Delay'
- Thread starter Spider_Jerusalem
- Start date
- Status
Il Comodino
sorry about his english
marc^o^ said:
how can you know how much cost Ps3?
before Sony must say his price, don't you think?
Deg said:
We can? You must have seen something the rest of us have not. The difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 in raw power seems to be less than the Xbox and PS2 and that's if we were to just go with the flow and say so, because right now, we still don't have solid proof out of games, with only a couple of PS3 movies shown. That's just going by tech talk. This is going to lead to an even smaller difference in graphics than there was between Xbox and PS2.
Redbeard said:
No, it's just that you can't just say something like "RAM is the same" to imply extremely close power. These are complex systems with unique architecture, and some things are good for 360, others for PS3. The bigger picture requires far more analysis that a passing glance and a half-thought can't give, is what I'm saying.
But you're right about how no system can do something that the other can't in terms of effects, just a matter of how much, how smoothly, etc...
sonycowboy
Member
WULFER said:
22M Xbox's shipped worldwide says you're wrong. All Xbox had this generation from a widely accepted customer standpoint was (in this order, IMO)
1) Halo
2) The most powerful system
3) A ton of great shooters (Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, etc,etc)
4) Xbox Live
To say that there wasn't a wide spreak perception that the Xbox wasn't the most powerful system in one of the more ignorant statements I've heard. If not for that power differential, the Xbox would have shipped less than half of what they did, IMO.
Il Comodino said:
I thought it was a given it would be the most expensive next gen console. I'll give you hints why: Kojima and Kutagari comments strongly let us think so. Blue Ray will obviously spice up the bill. PSP is a good example of how Sony faces competition: high end product, more expensive hardware/software than competition.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
so many idiots in this thread.
SolidSnakex
Member
marc^o^ said:
No, the PSP is an example of how Sony doesn't price as high as people think they will. People were saying the the PSP would be 400 at a minimum.
Chittagong
Gold Member
Il Comodino said:
Reirom?
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Chittagong said:
:lol
evilromero
Member
I remember when Nintendo used to be the only non-profit organization. How times have changed.Bud said:
sonycowboy
Member
Xellotah said:
I have some Sony financials that disagree with that.
sonycowboy
Member
Yeah, you better run!DCharlie said:
Consider this DC.
RE: Sony pricing & profitability
The PS2 had shipped 72M as of June 30th of last year. Up until June 30th of this year, they have shipped 91M units. Let's assume, they shipped another 4M units this quarter (ending Sept 30th).
That gives them 95M units total. That's 23M more PS2's shipped at an average retail of $149 (actually, I think it's higher in Europe & Japan). If they had followed analysts / publishers / retailers / forum goers wishes and already dropped to $99, that would be 23M units times $50, or roughly 1 Billion dollars in profit they've gained by keeping the retail price of the PS2 as high as they have for as long as they have.
That's probably all going towards PS3 and IMO, can go a decent way to subsidizing the PS3 for the first year.
I know you hate to hear it, but there's absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that the PS2 has been incredibly profitable for Sony. They've sold more at higher price points than they could have possibly hoped for. It's also given them tremendous confidence enough to put out 2 new platforms that have very, very high R&D & introduction costs. And it gives Sony's new brass enough confidence to resposition the entire company around CELL, Blu-Ray, the PSP, & PS3.
Not exactly the moves of a company that is "hiding losses for a weakly performing division", is it??
Wulfer
Member
QUOTE]To say that there wasn't a wide spreak perception that the Xbox wasn't the most powerful system in one of the more ignorant statements I've heard.[/QUOTE]
You guys have really gotta stop shopping at EB and GameStop all the time. The average customer new the Xbox was more powerful (M$ made sure people new that with the TV dollars). That said, I still get people that come in and say "why is the Xbox more powerful they look pretty much the same". Those are not my words but customers so you think what you want to but, their are people out there that think the PS2 and Xbox look the same.
Yes I know Xbox is more powerful just like I think Sony will find a way to get just enough power to the PS3 to claim it's the most powerful. Don't try to convince me your right. I'm not the one that thinks youre wrong.
You guys have really gotta stop shopping at EB and GameStop all the time. The average customer new the Xbox was more powerful (M$ made sure people new that with the TV dollars). That said, I still get people that come in and say "why is the Xbox more powerful they look pretty much the same". Those are not my words but customers so you think what you want to but, their are people out there that think the PS2 and Xbox look the same.
Yes I know Xbox is more powerful just like I think Sony will find a way to get just enough power to the PS3 to claim it's the most powerful. Don't try to convince me your right. I'm not the one that thinks youre wrong.
sonycowboy said:
I agree that the PS2 has been very profitable (and continues to be so), but I think you are using fuzzy math here. The idea of dropping the price is that Sony would the sell more units. You are calculating the numbers as if shaving 1/3 of the console's cost wouldn't drive sales numbers higher.
Granted, it's a hard estimation to pull from thin air, but given that sales would certainly increase, Sony wouldn't neccessarily have lost any profit on the venture, if they made up with sheer volume. It would also further their already dominant position in the market (which could be more important that dollars and cents in the long run).
Wax Free Vanilla
Member
marc^o^ said:
I don't think it was aimed at you.
Reirom is a Brasilian man who pretends to not know English that well and types in a funny way.
sonycowboy
Member
urk said:
With the transition to the new hardware, they couldn't possibly have shipped any more units as they had none to ship. In addition, while the PS2 is reportedly less than $100 to produce since last year (so likely well less than that now), selling at $99 might have only been a break even venture, such that they made NO more profit from each unit.
Certainly, Sony might have made back ~some of the $1B in profitability with lower cost / higher volume, but it's doubtful that they could have even made 1/4 of it given the production costs of the hardware itself assuming they could have produced more.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
well, you make a couple of assumption there - that they'd have only sold 23 Million at $99.
The second is that they would make $50 extra profit at $149 - we don't actually know how much profit they make per unit (or at least, i haven't looked) - i'd suggest it's not in the $1 billion range given how average the results look over the last 12 months.
"That's probably all going towards PS3 and IMO, can go a decent way to subsidizing the PS3 for the first year."
"Probably"
Look - we've been through this several times before - the end game plays out the same - i _cant_ get involved in this arguement for several reasons, but you are entited to believe what you want. Definition of profitable - if taken as Total cost of project vs. profit on project - the word "incredible" wouldn't come into it IMO and the opinion of infinitely more qualified people than me.
if you look at your financials from 2003 (maybe they aren't on the financials you see, but i'm 99% sure they are) , sony explicitly state that they are moving games related costs for things like Cell, Bluray, Prototyping to electronics. They are perfectly entitled to do this. But it does give a much nicer picture of the games department (the jewel in the crown) whilst Electronics continues to get hosed. I'd do the same too.
Interestingly though - results have continued to be flat or poor. If the costs have moved, what the hell is keeping the results down? As far as i recall in the previous flat quarter they don't mention dev costs, R^D etc...
Anyways , trying to pre-empt what is coming next :i assume the counter argument will be "but some of those techs will be used in other devices" - but let me ask you - which of those devices are the company projecting to sell over 120 million units of? With that in mind, you have to attribute a large bulk of those R^D costs to the Game sector. Because with out Cell and bluray, there is no PS3 - both touted as the key to winning this next gen war. And there sure as hell isn't going to be another product anywhere near those level of implementation of those two components.
See - this is what i was banging on about before - no offence sonyc, i think you are a great poster, and i know i'm a bit of a tosser in other threads, but when people take the love into trying to defend a company at the actual business level it just smacks me of blind loyalty to all things Sony. They make great games, are a great tech house, but a well run business they are not. They are DOMINANT in the industry, yet Nintendo are still making nearly as much profit as the WHOLE OF SONY. Something is WRONG.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Chittagong said:
I agree. It'll come out in Japan around the Spring, and the US later in the year (maybe going toe to toe with the Revolution around November?).
I'm tired of hearing MS constantly brag and strut, as if they have accomplished anything. Last time I checked, the original Xbox got stumped by the PS2 by a margin of around 60 million units, and the 360 STILL has no chance in Japan. Despite MS' continual bragging, the Japan launch titles are a complete joke. Perfect Dark 0? Woo hoo, let's see how that goes down in the land of the rising sun.
Sony isn't scared at all. In fact, they could just wait and release the PS3 in Japan in the summer; the PSP and PS2 will have no problem outpreforming the 360. They still haven't even shown their true hand. When they have shown glimpses, they've blown the Xbox 360 and MS out the water (remember MGS4?). Sony is still in the driver's seat, and I can't wait until this blows up in Allard, Moore, and all these other idiot's faces.
Wax Free Vanilla
Member
jarrod said:Most sane people were saying $300... and Sony came in a whopping $50 less than expected. PSP was also a good example of what to expect from Sony concerning launch dates.... "worldwide launch in 2004".
touche`
(no, I'm not looking up that funny symbol in the ascii table)
Aika'svyse
Banned
Yeah at the point MS could use this time more wisely, if PS3 is going to be delayed spend more time hyping and selling 360 and kill the coporation attacks, but the hell if Sony are angels, whoever thinks that is stupid. I like it how fans act like they have a crystal ball(Sony wont do this, sony wont do that)---How the hell do you know? We don't know what they will do. Atleast I don't, hell they could launch before 360 for all I know, unlikely but just an example. I'd rather any company take their time and do a full well planned launch than to rush and launch with bugs.
To answer someones question about how MS knows what Sony is doing...there are industry spies and MS is well connected, they probably have a good Idea where Sony is at, but they may be exaggerating, surely they'd love if Sony fans bought a 360 and gave in to the PS3 will be delayed hype.
To answer someones question about how MS knows what Sony is doing...there are industry spies and MS is well connected, they probably have a good Idea where Sony is at, but they may be exaggerating, surely they'd love if Sony fans bought a 360 and gave in to the PS3 will be delayed hype.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
jedimike said:
Nó nééd tó lóók ánythíng úp, júst hóld thé ríght-hánd Ált kéy (Ált Gr) ánd préss É.
(Ór ány óthér vówél fór thát máttér
)Ít's éásy
Please, don't ever gamble. How do you know that the PS3 will display MUCH better graphics? Is that your hope? If you're basing your PS3 purchase on this then you will be SEVERELY dissapointed. There will be NO difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 titles. They will look equally impressive.Deg said:
Launching later doesn't mean that the hardware is one year more advanced. That's one of Sony's disadvantages. The games won't look any better than the best Xbox 360 titles. Direct ports (*cough* EA *cough*) exacerbates the problem. Those with realistic expectations will be absolutely thrilled with the PS3. But folks like you with these pie-in-the-sky expectations will be miserable next gen. You should be waiting a year for the PS3 for the PS3 exclusive games, not the illusion that all PS3 games will look like Killzone and all Xbox 360 games will look like Tony Hawk.
Arsynic said:
And how do you know it wont? You are making a lot of bullshit assumptions here. Everything I've seen from specs to 'target videos' say PS3 will have better graphics than 360 (now whether or not that actually happens remains to be seen). Maybe it's your hope that they'll be equal?
What specs? Specs based on Sony-provided criteria? I see you still have the images of Sony's BS E3 PP presentation in your head. They basically said, "Okay let's assume that CPU floating-point processing is the be-all end all and let's compare it to the Xbox 360 CPU floating-point performance." "They say they have 1TFLOP of performance, let's say we have 2TFLOP." Then they show a bunch of movies. Like a typical PSbot, you trump up Sony's manipulated specs, but if I posted the Major Nelson graphs, you would cry foul. There's no difference between the MN graphs and Sony's presentation. They're both fudged in that they are comparisons based on criteria that Sony and Microsoft decide. The Xbox 360 has better general purpose processing capabilities than the PS3, so it's "teh bettah!"Razoric said:
I won't get into the CG movies debate. It's fruitless. I'll just laugh when we finally see a real PS3 running real games and it only looks on par with what the Xbox 360 can do. Some of you are really setting yourselves up. I hate to see it. I can easily agree with waiting for a PS3 because you want to play MGS3 and Devil May Cry 4, but if you're expecting the PS3 to provide graphics visibly superior to the Xbox 360, then you're in for a huge negative shock.
SolidSnakex
Member
Arsynic said:
From whats been shown and confirmed to be realtime, its already doing exactly that.
SolidSnakex said:
I don't want to continue the pissing match, but realtime cuts are hardly comparable to gameplay. I have little doubt that the PS3 will be more powerful, but I'll reserve my final judgement until both machines are up on the rack and real specs are taken. Marketing isn't going to sway me.
I think you know what I meant. There will be no PS3 title that you can point to and say, "See, this proves that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360!" and vice versa. Again, wait for the games. That's easily justifiable. I know you guys WANT to believe that the PS3 is much more powerful than the Xbox 360, but that simply isn't true. You want to pick and choose criteria? Your belief is based more on faith than facts since half of the PS3 architecture is unknown.Culex said:
Secondly, there was a few weeks after E3 that Kutaragi couldn't keep his mouth shut. Now we haven't heard a peep from him in months. You'd think that with the Xbox 360 launch looming, Kutaragi would be eager to piss on Microsoft's parade. What's wrong?
- Status