PS3 Price Slash Question

[jalexand42]

[ QUOTE ]
Well im certainly glad i got a launch console now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the rumblings about this crap is why I went ahead and bought a launch console - after the prices got lower than retail on ebay :P

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
Well im certainly glad i got a launch console now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, as that was an important feature to me, but I think as more games get on the PS3 this will be less of an issue. I mean think of all the great games on the PS that were forgotten after the PS2 was out for a couple of years.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sony is also apparently planning to sell their Cell (chip used in the PS3) production facilities to Toshiba. Should have some interesting implications for the PS3 and its production costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this cut costs on production of the PS3's dropping the price even more? It looks like Sony will still be able to use them while Toshiba will be able to use it in their electronics. This looks like the smartest thing they have done in a while.

Wouldn't this also improve development on the cell since there are two companies using it? Seems like good news to PS3 owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will not be developing/using/pushing the Cell anymore outside of the PS3. Sony is planning to "shed costly semiconductor assets and focus on the production of strategic products such as image sensor chips used in digital cameras and camcorders..

And, in general, buying a product that used to be made in-house from a third-party is almost never going to be cheaper. In the first instance you only need to cover overhead and materials. In the latter case, you need end up covering the new manufacturers overhead, materials and profit margin. Of course there's no way to know what sort of deal they'll work out, but this definitely isn't an: "Oh, they're selling their production facilities used to make a chip. They'll obviously be able to buy them cheaper from somebody else producing them in the exact same production facilities."

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imho if you're gonna buy a PS3 without proper backwards compatibility you may as well not get one at all. PS2 has loads more better games than its successor and is a lot cheaper. Paying £300 for a PS3 is still quite a bit considering MS has also cut the price of their 360.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then buy a PS2, why would you get a PS3 to play PS2 games anyway if that's what you want to play? Both the 360 and the PS3 are quite expensive, even w/ the current price cuts. I really want both of these systems to fight over which is better because I want to see some better games out of both which means both have to do something to get more systems out into the public. Especially the PS3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ace, you seem to constantly miss the possibility that people might not want to have to have 8 systems in their living room. A big reason why I would've bought a PS3 before would be that I could get rid of my PS2 (mostly, except Guitar Hero because the controller doesn't work). Of course, I'm pretty sure this will be as irrelevant to you as the possibility that people don't want to pay $600 for a video game system.

You know your stuff, but you need to realize that not everybody out there has the same preferences as you for their game systems, which is why price could send someone to the 360, or backward compatibility would make them shy away from these newer PS3's. Its not the same for everybody, but they're legit reasons.

[AceLuby]

Quote from the article:

"To secure a stable supply of chips for its game machines after the possible sale, Sony is considering to set up a joint venture with Toshiba to take over actual production activities at the manufacturing facilities, the sources said."

Why would they do this if it was going to be more expensive for them? Also, doesn't joint mean sharing, which means sharing both the gains and losses?

Edge,

I see your point, but I think as more games come out for the PS3 (GH3, Rock Band, MGS, RE, FF) this will be less and less of an issue. How many PS1 games do you play? That was also a great library, but as time went on that feature became less and less necessary IMO. I do have to say that this is a little too soon as there are still new games coming out on the PS3. IMO a year from now would have been a better choice.

[Edge34]

Ace,

I agree that as time goes on, the need for backwards compatibility is going to be less and less, but there are still a few I keep around. I think that if they had done it in a year when there was actually a solid library of games out then it wouldn't be such a bad idea.y

At this point, I don't think PS3 is even CLOSE to having that level of quality in their library. I think at this point the ability to play PS2 games on a new system would be a HUGE selling point, and taking that away basically says "OK, we may drop the price on the system, but now if you want to play it, enjoy waiting for a decent game to come out every 6 months."

FWIW - I have played the PS3 and enjoy it. Its simply too much investment and not enough quality in the games that keeps me from getting it now. Most games I want are on 360. A loss of backward compatibility basically means guys like me will be waiting longer to get a PS3 because now we can only play PS3 games instead of PS2 games that are still good (GH2, etc.) In a year, I may reevaluate.

[AceLuby]

Totally agree excepty you can't play GH2 on PS3, so you would need to have the PS2 around anyway. But that's nitty. I'm not saying it's a good move, but hopefully w/ some good games coming out in the next 6 mos (MGS, RE, GT, GTA, etc...) hopefully this move for a cheaper console and some good games will get more PS3's out in the market.

[daaaaahawkz]

[ QUOTE ]
Ace,

I agree that as time goes on, the need for backwards compatibility is going to be less and less, but there are still a few I keep around. I think that if they had done it in a year when there was actually a solid library of games out then it wouldn't be such a bad idea.y

At this point, I don't think PS3 is even CLOSE to having that level of quality in their library. I think at this point the ability to play PS2 games on a new system would be a HUGE selling point, and taking that away basically says "OK, we may drop the price on the system, but now if you want to play it, enjoy waiting for a decent game to come out every 6 months."

FWIW - I have played the PS3 and enjoy it. Its simply too much investment and not enough quality in the games that keeps me from getting it now. Most games I want are on 360. A loss of backward compatibility basically means guys like me will be waiting longer to get a PS3 because now we can only play PS3 games instead of PS2 games that are still good (GH2, etc.) In a year, I may reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree that the ps3 library is lacking the heavy hitters right now but that will change soon. the ps3 has so many more things going for it longterm that i could care less about the lack of games right now....i have a system that actually works, an amazing bluray player, free online service, disks that hold 50 gigs not 30, and an amazing list of games due out in the next 3-6 months

[4 High]

Did Dire really just try and claim that Sony is giving up on the Cell outside of PS3?

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
Did Dire really just try and claim that Sony is giving up on the Cell outside of PS3?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've referenced my sources. Interpret them however you like. There's no 'right' answer. Heck, it's just speculation right now anyhow. Although, here is another source that states in no uncertain terms that this could signal Sony's eventual complete withdrawal from the semiconductor market. But hey, who knows?

Anyhow, this thread was about the production costs for the PS3 and how they may change. Sony selling their production facilities for one of the most costly components of the PS3 seemed relevant, and it's also very recent news, so I brought it up.