Jump to content


Photo

Psm Article, Or Hoax?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 calderra

calderra

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 26 April 2006 - 11:47 PM

From TeamXbox:

"The latest issue of PSM has revealed new details about the PlayStation 3. While CNNís Chris Morris claims that Sony wonít announce a price for the PS3 at E3 2006, PSM says the PlayStation 3 is expected to sell for about $399 in the U.S., Ä322 in Europe and •45,965 in Japan.

The magazine also claims that the console will come standard with a 60GB, non-removable hard drive.

For those who care about backward compatibility, PSM also revealed that PSO and PS2 games will run on the PlayStation 3 in 720, 1080i and 1080p.

The magazine also confirms some info we already knew. First, all games will come in Blu-ray Disc media and there wonít be regional lockouts. Second, the launch line-up, as well as the final design for the controller, will be revealed at next monthís E3 expo.

Finally, the console will launch in the first half of November with the PlayStation Network Platform service launching simultaneously with the console and offering free online gameplay.

Thanks ZBOX."

...

So the system is more expensive to produce in every measurable way, yet it will cost the same as a Premium Xbox 360? Unless this is the biggest coup in gaming history, someone needs to stop drinking the water.

#2 Mr Invader

Mr Invader

    X-S Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts
  • Location:Texas
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 April 2006 - 12:45 AM

In my personal opinion, Sony is lieing. Sony purposely lied about their release in the spring, and now they are lieing about the price.

Secondly, the non removable hard drive is not a good idea. At least with the 360 harddrive you can take it out and buy a bigger one. The 100 gb harddrive thats coming out for the 360 is gonna make the 60gb for the PS3 look weak.

Thirdly, most games that are for the xbox 1 are compatible with a HDTV, even the xbox 1 had its own HD adapter.

And lastly, a free online service obviously isn't going to be as good as one that you have to pay for. Fifty dollars a year isn't alot for Xbox live anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would rather see more footage of the games to come out on it. Though i dont like playstation games very much, theres usually a one or two that gain my interest

#3 luda06

luda06

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 27 April 2006 - 12:52 AM

Sony hasn't lied about anything. They set expectations, it's just that so many people take what they say as a fact. Similar to the pre-PS2 days, people just had too many expectations.

I like the $399 price tag for what they're offering.

#4 Mr Invader

Mr Invader

    X-S Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts
  • Location:Texas
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 April 2006 - 01:02 AM

QUOTE(luda06 @ Apr 26 2006, 06:59 PM) View Post

Sony hasn't lied about anything. They set expectations, it's just that so many people take what they say as a fact. Similar to the pre-PS2 days, people just had too many expectations.

I like the $399 price tag for what they're offering.


You think Sony could ship out PS3s by the spring? Sony isn't THAT stupid, come on now. Sony knew that it wouldn't be able to launch in the spring, but they said they could just to counter act the hype with the 360s. Good move on Sony, but the delay came as a dissapointment, and it showed everyone how far Sony will stretch the truth.

#5 luda06

luda06

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 27 April 2006 - 01:09 AM

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Apr 27 2006, 01:09 AM) View Post

You think Sony could ship out PS3s by the spring? Sony isn't THAT stupid, come on now. Sony knew that it wouldn't be able to launch in the spring, but they said they could just to counter act the hype with the 360s. Good move on Sony, but the delay came as a dissapointment, and it showed everyone how far Sony will stretch the truth.


Like I said, they set their own expectations and people like yourself take it as a solid fact. Like I mentioned earlier, none of this is new coming from Sony knowing how they handled the PS2. I don't even think all of the analysis is needed on Sony's part, they usually meet their goals down the road.

I will say if the PS3 can come through with their launch titles and the $399 price tag, MS won't have that huge advantage it holds now.

#6 CattyKid

CattyKid

    X-S Messiah

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,618 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Great Continental 48
  • Interests:Everything
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 April 2006 - 03:09 AM

QUOTE
For those who care about backward compatibility, PSM also revealed that PSO and PS2 games will run on the PlayStation 3 in 720, 1080i and 1080p.


1080p?
PS3 games aren't even in 1080p, that "feature" was dropped.
Also, the running of games at 120 frames per second was dropped.

Article loses all credibility for me.

#7 calderra

calderra

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 27 April 2006 - 01:52 PM

QUOTE(luda06 @ Apr 27 2006, 01:16 AM) View Post

Like I said, they set their own expectations and people like yourself take it as a solid fact. Like I mentioned earlier, none of this is new coming from Sony knowing how they handled the PS2. I don't even think all of the analysis is needed on Sony's part, they usually meet their goals down the road.

I will say if the PS3 can come through with their launch titles and the $399 price tag, MS won't have that huge advantage it holds now.


First-up: Kutaragi was promising a Spring release up until the moment when even CNN was calling his bluff, and he only gave in to the November talk when that bluff was called. Sony failed to come through with their console's LAUNCH- so expecting them to come through with good pricing and good titles is already looking a bit rough. wink.gif

But look at the facts:
-Merril Lynch estimates the console costs ~$900 to make. JUST in parts, not including labor or advertising or anything like that.
-This is backed up at least in part by the fact that we KNOW BluRay is more expensive, Cell is more expensive, the supposed dual HDMI ports are more expensive, the 7 controller ports are more expensive, the 60GB hard drive will be expensive (although if it's not miniaturized like the 360's... that could level the field here, even though it'll make the box bigger, which could be a reason why the current hardware has been stated as being up to 50% too large for the PS3 case shown at e3), and you get the idea.
-MS loses at least $100 on the Xbox 360 getting it to market. Perhaps even up to $150, because it's more expensive to produce than they're charging for it.

So how could Sony pull this off? The best-case scenario would be they waved a magic wand that go their suppliers to take losses on all the parts they shipped... that doesn't seem possible.

They could just be taking a $300-or-so loss on every single console. That seems like way too much, especially considering they want to get several million units out the door ASAP- can the company afford to lose half a billion dollars on the console hardware alone? You can do a lot making up the price in game sales, but that's A LOT OF ***** GAMES!!!

So if the $400 price is true, how did it happen? The entire hardware industry would be turned on its ear- apparently, there's some little-known method for driving hardware costs down that not even MS knows, if this is right.

Unless, of course, the whole race has been a lie, and the 360 is actually going to drop price to $199 and $299 for the Sony launch, and Revolution will wind up hitting for more like $150. But that's just insanity.

#8 calderra

calderra

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 27 April 2006 - 02:32 PM

Actually, I just thought of something crazy- what if the PS3 price point of $400 is absolutely true, but just not for the reasons that Sony fanboys expect? Follow me.

Power/Performance: The Playstation 3 has not yet shown any indications that it is significantly more powerful than the Xbox 360, assuming you look at only truly confirmed in-game action that has actually been played by an outside source. Any magazine that's gotten a hands-on with the system has said it basically looks the exact same as the 360, but perhaps with a little more on-screen at once. If you remember that PS3 games are just being released later than the launch 360 titles they're being compared to, you see that we have every indication that the two systems might wind up having the same or very similar overall power.

BluRay: Although BluRay can hold more data, there is some speculation that the first wave of drives won't be able to spin very fast, perhaps only reaching the PS3 at 1x speed (the slowest commercially useful speed). Maybe the PS3's BluRay drive doesn't cost that much more than an HD DVD drive because it is slow, and therefore doesn't need any high-stress tested parts, meaning cost can be managed throughout the drive. Note, however, that this means it'll be very difficult to squeeze any decent loading times out of the system, even pre-loading data onto the hard drive. PS3 developers have noted they would be very concerned if the system went any lower than 10x speed, and it might go much lower in the end.
This would also mean that burning a BD-ROM on the system would be a great feat indeed. 1x speed is, essentially, 150Kb/sec, meaning that if the drive only goes up to 1x, burning (or for that matter, reading all the data on) a 25GB disc would take, assuming my math is anywhere near correct, roughly 2 days.

Cell/cooling: Cell processors are supposed to be extremely expensive, and very difficult to cool, meaning both an expensive chip and an expensive cooling system. But if the Cell being used isn't actually that powerful- perhaps if it's underclocked to avoid the heating concerns or because the hardware around it won't allow peak processing- it might be possible to find a cheaper chip and a cheaper heating solution. Especially since, as also mentioned, Sony has let the PS3 hardware balloon out to massive size, not choosing to particularly focus on actually getting all of this into a system box. Assuming you believe the performance note, the PS3 might not be much harder to cool than the 360. The Cell chip could be manufactured to lower standards, and potentially be reduced in price similarly.

So, is it possible that Sony is lying incredibly much, just not in the way that we're expecting? I thought it was incredibly intriguing, anyway. Because if the hands-on reports that the PS3 isn't really that much more powerful than the 360 pan out, the $400 price tag might just be confirmation that they are, in fact, basically the exact same system in two different packages. Sony would still have to take more loss than MS to meet this price point, but it might be closer to $200 if I'm right, which makes this whole thing move closer to a region I'm willing to call "sanity". They'd also be losing money on the free online service. And they'd have to slash prices on the BluRay discs to meet M$... I don't see how this can possibly work financially, but maybe I'm missing some piece of the puzzle? Like an as-of-yet unannounced in-game advertising partnership, not unlike the one MS may be contemplating? Hmmm....

Interesting...
laugh.gif

#9 Neilinator99

Neilinator99

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:Ilinois, wheaton
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 April 2006 - 05:01 PM

the 100 gb harddrive thats coming out for the 360 is gonna make the 60gb for the PS3 look weak.


where did you hear that.... not confirmed but i wou ph34r.gif rolleyes.gif uhh.gif ld like that


#10 Xeriak

Xeriak

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 298 posts
  • Location:Manitoba, Canada
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 April 2006 - 05:32 PM

A 60GB non-removeable harddrive for the PS3?? WTF?? Thats pretty gay if you ask me, since you'll never be able to upgrade it.. unless Sony has built in a second expansion bay so that the PS3 will have dual harddrives.. which i highly doubt.

In this case, Xbox 360 will win the storage war for HDD, as far as thats concerned.. 60GB is a fawkin joke... tho so is the Xbox 360's current 20GB.. but at least its upgradeable..

#11 CAjr45

CAjr45

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 232 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.6
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 April 2006 - 08:38 PM

QUOTE
I will say if the PS3 can come through with their launch titles and the $399 price tag, MS won't have that huge advantage it holds now.


If ps3 sold its consoles at 400$ (and it costs 900$ to make) MS wont even have to worry about Sony as a coompany anymore. seeing as they will lose soo much money they WILL go bankrupt

free online service. a non-removable HDD is because they havent brought the idea of upgrading HDD's to the table which is extremely neccesary.

Sony cant set expectations too high or they will lose money



it's now not about competition. but survival. sony will need a miracle to even be xbox 360's competition

#12 k3vin

k3vin

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 27 April 2006 - 10:07 PM

Sony have a big problem here tho, the price they set is going to either limit or make sure that the ps3 wins, if they set around $500 then the "parents" are going to question buying little timmy the PS3 when they can have a 360 for a lot less, if they set it at the same price point as the 360 then yes they are going to pick up the customers but they are going to be loading themselfs with a hell of a lot of debt, it all comes back to how much are they going to charge for the games can they make up for the loss with the software they and others put out and at the end of the day you ask anyone who has not actually used a 360 they think the ps3 has the sun shining out of its hdmi ports and the 360 is poor... on what i have seen tho all my ps/2 owning friends now have 360 and no intention of buying ps3 they have spent the money they had set aside and chosen the console they have had hands on and have not been disappointed with, the games are only getting better and better.



#13 yourM0M

yourM0M

    X-S X-perience

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Location:West Orange County!!
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:none

Posted 27 April 2006 - 11:46 PM

plain and simple if you ask me....."PSM" article......its all lies.......$399 is a joke, the loss that sony will suffer will be unbelievable based upon the hardware inside the ps3......then again its been said when the ps3 specs were released....this will be the end of SCEA......or like they have been doing theyll just continue to cut features to lower the cost......why is there a need for 7 controllers anyway or dual hdmi besides the 1080p which again is unbelievable......they already were smart and dropped the built in hub....but now they put in a non-removable hdd at 60gb.....didnt sony talk about downloadable content already?? why wouldnt they make the move like m$ and have upgrades on the hardware which will be more revenue in the end....they are closing that all up....i mean ya thats good for the consumer when they are purchasing but the loss.....

oh well e3 is going to be INSANE....the lies that are uncovered, the new controller, the WII (heh cant believe that), and soooo much more....just cant wait love.gif

#14 Deftech

Deftech

    X-S Transcendental

  • XS-BANNED
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,917 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 28 April 2006 - 12:20 AM

most people dont realize sony has some huge $$ problems. They cannot afford to sell it and lose 300.00 per system, let alone 4 or 500.00

selling it at 400.00 is good for the customers at the onset, but will kill sony financially. They cant afford to lose $$ like MS.

another thing...sony would NEVER release a 400.00 blu ray player for 400.00 when their stand alone bluray players will be 1,000.00 and higher. They cant be that stupid to undercut another one of their products like that. They are their own worst enemy, and anyone who said MS didnt force sonys hand in any of this is a blind fool.

when the ps3 hits, even if it IS a measly 400.00, the Premium 360 will be 300, and the core will 250 or 225.00, and the rev will be super affordable. yeah good luck with that....

pop.gif anyone?

biggrin.gif

IPB Image

#15 UHYVE

UHYVE

    X-S Young Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 12:18 AM

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Apr 27 2006, 12:52 AM) View Post

In my personal opinion, Sony is lieing. Sony purposely lied about their release in the spring, and now they are lieing about the price.

PSM isn't owned by Sony, so Sony probably hasn't said anything, I would assume this article came from "reliable sources".


QUOTE(CattyKid @ Apr 27 2006, 03:16 AM) View Post

1080p?
PS3 games aren't even in 1080p, that "feature" was dropped.
Also, the running of games at 120 frames per second was dropped.

Article loses all credibility for me.

Wouldn't running PS2 games in 1080p be easier than running PS3 games in 1080p? The feature wasn't dropped though btw, developers just said it wouldn't be possible without horrible reductions in framerate. It could still be possible in games with really crappy graphics (low poly and such)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users