-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Playstation 3 intial cost?
- Thread starter Oblivion
- Start date
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
MassiveAttack said:
Crap!! How I miss this?!
:lol :lol :lol
C- Warrior
Banned
I really don't see the PS3 being priced at more than 349.99
Consoles that were priced higher all failed, 3DO being the most prominant expample.
There are a lot of 'features' on the PS3 that can be booted off if Sony feels they can't hit that 299 or 349 sweet spot.
But then again, Kutaragi's quotes "The PS3 will be expensive." "You will pay a lot for the PS3." "You will need to work to buy the PS3." etc. etc. seem kind of off-putting.
Did he make those comments for the PSP? PS2? Nope--but why for the PS3? GAF logic dictates the PS3 to be more expensive.
Dun Dun Dunnnnnn O_O
Consoles that were priced higher all failed, 3DO being the most prominant expample.
There are a lot of 'features' on the PS3 that can be booted off if Sony feels they can't hit that 299 or 349 sweet spot.
But then again, Kutaragi's quotes "The PS3 will be expensive." "You will pay a lot for the PS3." "You will need to work to buy the PS3." etc. etc. seem kind of off-putting.
Did he make those comments for the PSP? PS2? Nope--but why for the PS3? GAF logic dictates the PS3 to be more expensive.
Dun Dun Dunnnnnn O_O
C- Warrior said:
You say that, but the biggest reason for the 3D0's failure would have to do with the fact it was a giant piece of crap without a good amount of software support.
Hell, much better consoles that have been cheaper have still failed.
You guys are all the same... citing price as the be all and end all of success.. but I'm not convinced.
You guys suck. All of you. Except the ones not making the argument higher price = instant failure.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Open Source said:
Big words coming from a game developer :O
MassiveAttack
Banned
Link1110 said:
Thanks, but it's still the best evidence available that PS3 will not be a penny more than $299.99.
MassiveAttack said:
I think the price line HAS to be broken by someone, it can't always be a game of chicken. It's dangerous for everyone to keep pricing it so much below manufacturing cost. I believe personally that Sony will break it and PS3 at 349.99, a hundred buck gap between PSP and PS3 sounds right to me. I know there is some "evidence" is that they won't go above 299, but there's not exactly many generations we have to set firm precedents.
Amir0x said:
It will be 299.99 in the US because Sony can't afford to let MS have any advantage. X360 will be 299.99 because MS can't risk Sony undercutting their price. It will be a game of chicken this gen because the stakes are too high. When we're living in the One Console Future (TM) then the game of chicken won't apply and we'll probably see higher console launch prices.
Fatghost28 said:
My view is that Sony will price it at 349.99 and hope consumers see the value advantage in PS3. This is a gamble, but if it works out Sony won't lose as much money.
But, again, just an opinion. Either way I think people are going to be very surprised at the PS3 pricing, and there will be much doom saying either way.
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Let's not forget that a lot of these same folks, now that Sega has been shamed out of the console business it's MS, thought the Dreamcast was going to put Sony in it's place for sure. All prior to PS2geddon of course. 
optimist? I really cannot understand how people think Sony can compete with a price substantially higher than the competition, or, barring that, how Sony can think they can compete with such a price difference. Sony has been historically aggressive with their pricing (E3 '96 and the PSP for instance), and why would that change now?Ruzbeh said:350 dollars???
You're an optimist.
Pseudo judo
Member
ManDudeChild said:
:lol Too true. It would be close to $600 after taxes and that's without a game, hdd/memory card, remote, cables, extra controller and insurence. First day purchase could easily climb to 800 - 900 CAD. No one but the rich and PS fanbois would pay that kind of moolah. I'll assume that Sony hasn't lost their minds and this $410 USD price is incorrect.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Fight for Freeform said:
It will be $299. This rather odd pronouncement from Kutaragi about cost is part of the psychological gamesmanship that leads the public to believe that PS3 is so special and bleeding edge that it MUST cost more. When the $299 price point is finally announced in North America, everyone will suddenly declare it a bargain. The Sony marketing juggernaut cannot be stopped.
MassiveAttack said:It will be $299. This rather odd pronouncement from Kutaragi about cost is part of the psychological gamesmanship that leads the public to believe that PS3 is so special and bleeding edge that it MUST cost more. When the $299 price point is finally announced in North America, everyone will suddenly declare it a bargain. The Sony marketing juggernaut cannot be stopped.
I realize you know some stuff from time to time, so do you have any actual indication that it'll be 299 or are you just speculating like the rest of us? I'm just trying to see the line. I can't imagine how it'd be 299, but they can surprise me...
Amir0x said:
I don't think Sony can bank on consumers seeing the "value" proposition. MS is a serious competitor in the US, has a decent piece of hardware on offer, some real gaming pedigree this time around, and is not a threat to be taken lightly.
In Japan and possibly in Europe, Sony could afford to have a price premium for the PS3 because the competition isn't as fierce. In the US, the price will be 299.99 for both consoles. Just don't expect to see any price drops from either side for a long time.
EDIT:
Don't forget all of the Kutaragi statements about PS3 being expensive have been in Japan for a Japanese audience. The Japanese market situation is very different than the US one, Sony has no real competition in Japan anymore.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Amir0x said:
I can confirm that one of the big 3 (ERTS, ATVI, TTWO) has $299 figured into their forecasting models. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why that would be the case.
Vince posted this @ B3D on the subject of a single chip costing around $100 and i cannot believe he hasn't posted it here.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22624&page=2
"This topic is filled with much (read: all) speculation and totally groundless speculation that's akin to randomly picking a number out of a hat. I can't understand why people don't atleast try to get some data points to form an approximation that's atleast in the same ballpark as reality -- as this took me 10minutes using Google and MatLab -- but I distress.
As of April, 2002, this report from UC-Berkley on the costs associated with 300mm PD-SOI substates (both processing and material) pegs the cost of an SOITEC Unibond wafer at $1800/wafer and their competitor, Ibis, offering their SIMOX at $1300/wafer in low-volumes and $700/wafer in high volumes.
It also contains a processing cost curve which, for our purposes, we can assume is approximated by a logarithmic decline, and that as wafer production increases it'll follow this rate. But, since people can disagree with this, I'll stick to their explicit data points of $250 processing costs per a volume of 100K wafers and $450/10K wafers. It's been stated that when looking at production volume in the long-term, Sony's Fab2 (SOI lines) at Nagasaki will have a net production of 15,000 wafers/month, OTSS at Oita has a stated volume of 12,500 wafers/month, and an unknown volume from IBM's E.Fishkill lines. Needless to say, it's obvious that when summed over the longterm, the production costs collapse to a level bounded by the $200 value (or below).
So, knowing this we can make some reasonable assumptions based on the actual costs and physical aspects which influence costs (Jvd, transistor counts are irrelevent when modeling this abstractly, you might want to stop repeating that). We can state the following:
* 300mm wafer has a theoretical area of 70,685mm2.
* Wafer area usage, intrinsically, isn't 100% effecient
* Cell-DD2 has an area of 235mm2
If we assume a usable area per wafer effeciency of 80%, that yeilds 56,548mm2 of usable space. Enough space to fit 240 Cell-DD2's @ 100% effeciency. At the the following yeilds:
* 90% - 216
* 80% - 192
* 70% - 168
* 60% - 144
* 50% - 120
* 40% - 96
* 30% - 72
* 15% - 36
* 10% - 24
Using the above listed costs per SOI wafer(SOITEC & high-volume SIMOX) and a static processing cost of $300/wafer, the cost for a singular Cell-DD2 is:
* SOITEC; 2003 prices per yeild:
90% - $9
80% - $10
70% - $12
60% - $14
50% - $17
40% - $21
30% - $29
15% - $58
10% - $87
* SIMOX high-volume, 2003 prices by yeild:
90% - $7
80% - $8
70% - $9
60% - $11
50% - $13
40% - $16
30% - $22
15% - $44
10% - $66
EDIT|PS. Please PM or repond for any numerical errors or suggestions. My suggestion is that whomever stated a >$130 cost/IC needs to stop freebasing."
Take that as you will.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22624&page=2
"This topic is filled with much (read: all) speculation and totally groundless speculation that's akin to randomly picking a number out of a hat. I can't understand why people don't atleast try to get some data points to form an approximation that's atleast in the same ballpark as reality -- as this took me 10minutes using Google and MatLab -- but I distress.
As of April, 2002, this report from UC-Berkley on the costs associated with 300mm PD-SOI substates (both processing and material) pegs the cost of an SOITEC Unibond wafer at $1800/wafer and their competitor, Ibis, offering their SIMOX at $1300/wafer in low-volumes and $700/wafer in high volumes.
It also contains a processing cost curve which, for our purposes, we can assume is approximated by a logarithmic decline, and that as wafer production increases it'll follow this rate. But, since people can disagree with this, I'll stick to their explicit data points of $250 processing costs per a volume of 100K wafers and $450/10K wafers. It's been stated that when looking at production volume in the long-term, Sony's Fab2 (SOI lines) at Nagasaki will have a net production of 15,000 wafers/month, OTSS at Oita has a stated volume of 12,500 wafers/month, and an unknown volume from IBM's E.Fishkill lines. Needless to say, it's obvious that when summed over the longterm, the production costs collapse to a level bounded by the $200 value (or below).
So, knowing this we can make some reasonable assumptions based on the actual costs and physical aspects which influence costs (Jvd, transistor counts are irrelevent when modeling this abstractly, you might want to stop repeating that). We can state the following:
* 300mm wafer has a theoretical area of 70,685mm2.
* Wafer area usage, intrinsically, isn't 100% effecient
* Cell-DD2 has an area of 235mm2
If we assume a usable area per wafer effeciency of 80%, that yeilds 56,548mm2 of usable space. Enough space to fit 240 Cell-DD2's @ 100% effeciency. At the the following yeilds:
* 90% - 216
* 80% - 192
* 70% - 168
* 60% - 144
* 50% - 120
* 40% - 96
* 30% - 72
* 15% - 36
* 10% - 24
Using the above listed costs per SOI wafer(SOITEC & high-volume SIMOX) and a static processing cost of $300/wafer, the cost for a singular Cell-DD2 is:
* SOITEC; 2003 prices per yeild:
90% - $9
80% - $10
70% - $12
60% - $14
50% - $17
40% - $21
30% - $29
15% - $58
10% - $87
* SIMOX high-volume, 2003 prices by yeild:
90% - $7
80% - $8
70% - $9
60% - $11
50% - $13
40% - $16
30% - $22
15% - $44
10% - $66
EDIT|PS. Please PM or repond for any numerical errors or suggestions. My suggestion is that whomever stated a >$130 cost/IC needs to stop freebasing."
Take that as you will.
You expect at say 40% yield, that prices have risen by a factor of 5. Grow up. Even if they have doubled, it is still $40 per chip at 40% yield. If they get 60% costs would have grown 8X to get a $100 chip. God forbid that they use cells with some fubared SPEs in other products, A HDTV could get by with a 1X2 cell, therefore making their effective yield much higher and each chip cheaper.
Both Sony and MS would be able to access around these prices for the chip volumes that they are likely to want. And if you think Sony will be paying much more than MS for chips you are high. Conversely Sony are likely only to have incremental advantages over MS this gen as far as chip costs go.
Both Sony and MS would be able to access around these prices for the chip volumes that they are likely to want. And if you think Sony will be paying much more than MS for chips you are high. Conversely Sony are likely only to have incremental advantages over MS this gen as far as chip costs go.
sonycowboy
Member
seanoff said:
Despite the facts that:
a) Sony is a license owner of CELL
b) Sony paid for IBM's fishkill production of the CELL
c) Sony will be manufacturing the CELL themselves at their facility soon
d) Sony will be using the chip in their consumer electronics division (if nowhere else
)e) Sony has the ~odds of selling quite a few more systems than Microsoft, thus lowering the cost per chip.
f) Sony has the ability to combine their GPU & CPU down the road as they will be manufacturing both
g) Sony already has made allowances for imperfect yields by allowing an SPE to be non-functional, thus increasing PS3 CPU yields.
Yeah, well other than that they should pay just about the same
imastalker co.
Banned
i could see 360 being $329.99 at launch. then dropping to $299.99 at the PS3 launch.
over all though, i can't see either of them going for more than $329.99 at launch. although i guess i wouldn't be suprised if either of them hit the $349.99 tag.
it's bound to happen.
over all though, i can't see either of them going for more than $329.99 at launch. although i guess i wouldn't be suprised if either of them hit the $349.99 tag.
it's bound to happen.
Hopefully it just goes for 500 bucks or so, so that Best Buy will offer me SIX MONTHS NO INTEREST FINANCING WHEN I PURCHASE A PLAYSTATION 3 AND FIVE GAMES, A KEYBOARD, A DIDO CD, A PRP, REWARDZONE AND A BLACKLIGHT DILDO THAT EMITS MERCURY WHEN IT SQUIRTS!
Man, I'd be the happiest guy ever!
Man, I'd be the happiest guy ever!
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
>>>Wasn't 3D0 like $599 or $699 when it came out?<<<
3DO was $699, Saturn $399.
And the same idiots who think that PS3 will be 400 thought at one time that Xbox, PS2, and PSP would be 500. And, I recall there being people on message boards throwing around a $600 figure for PSP.
3DO was $699, Saturn $399.
And the same idiots who think that PS3 will be 400 thought at one time that Xbox, PS2, and PSP would be 500. And, I recall there being people on message boards throwing around a $600 figure for PSP.
Well I quoted the UC-Berkeley study because it supplied both the competitive pricing of a PD-SOI wafer, but I was just as interested in the processing costs associated with it (which are harder to find) and they provided the volume curve, so.
I wouldn't expect a wafer's cost to increase, so these numbers are most likely a worst-case scenario. In 2003, SOI was alot more obscure and used in alot smaller volume than today, in which both IBM and AMD are bulk buyers. So, the fact that it's from 2003 isn't much of a problem in and of itself; I can talk to some EE guys during the week, but I don't expect the numbers to change much.
seanoff said:
I did.. last month
Link. Like I wouldn't post here... PS. Does anyone want to pull the 12" cock out of QRoach's ass for me, thanks. The guy freaks me out in the whole 60 year old bald guy named "Ralph" following a 13 year old girl around kinda way.
sonycowboy said:d) Sony will be using the chip in their consumer electronics division (if nowhere else
g) Sony already has made allowances for imperfect yields by allowing an SPE to be non-functional, thus increasing PS3 CPU yields.
This is a good point and deserves to be recognized for just what it is. When you look at the Cell-DD2 ASIC, roughly 50% of the die is idiosyncratic and composed of SPE's. You can plow through the probability theory bullshit, but the general idea is that since every lithography flaw is independent, as the number of flaws increase upwards they have a high probability of landing in the SPE area. I think it would likely resemble a logistic equation because when you add more and more errors, the chance they fall in a non-redundant part increases. Anyways, in as long as the lithography flaws hit the SPE banks, Sony can use the IC for something.
A flawless die with 8SPEs can be sold for a [nice] premium in an IBM Cell-based Blade Server. 7 SPEs and it goes into a PlayStation3, 6 SPEs and it can be used (SMPed) with another Cell in Homesever, any less can be used in anything from a HDTV to a fully programmable and (essentially) future-proof audio reciever...
This is something nobody is really considering when they talk about the PlayStation3 price and say Cell is extremely expensive. Sony Group fabricates their own parts, thus they pay per wafer and have a fixed cost. They throw down money per SOI substrate, not per working ASIC, so if they can use the IC in any way, shape, or form in a product they are selling, it - in effect - dilutes the cost per PlayStation3-Cell and is a net positive for them. It's not like if the chip doesn't have 7 working SPEs they need to throw it out and the cost per IC inflates...
PS. Thanks Pimp.
The Faceless Master
Member
yeah most of the 'cost' for the blu-ray drive goes straight to their R&D budget...Pimpwerx said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Do you know the manufacturing cost? If you do what is it?
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
mrklaw said:
I agree...
If anyone rapes Sony on cost.. it will be Nvidia. I still agree though, everyone is getting thier panties in a knott over initial costs. It is likely the same as the PS2 at launch, but I think Sony might test a $349 price point just for the heck of it. Probably get away with it too.
mrklaw said:
Didn't the PS2 use some type of new unit for it's drive mechanism? Some new special one-laser setup that was able to read both CD and DVD as oppose to the normal 2 laser setup of regular DVD players? I vaguely remember reading something about this...