PS3 still NOT in production - Page 3  

Of some might say 'it's a PAYSTATION'.

Didnt they announce like a month ago they were already producing like 200k consoles per month and would have something like 6-7 million consoles out my March? Now, not only hasnt production started but they still havent set a date for it to start production. Sounds like we are missing alot of info. As someone else already posted above, there numbers by the end of the year seem to be alot less then previously stated.

If they are, then it is not going to have HDMI 1.3, since the transmitter chips won't be in production untill October 2006. So which is it? In production minus HDMI 1.3 or not yet in production with HDMI 1.3?

For all we know, Sony's definition of "In Production" means the plastics vendor has been manufacturing the covers for the past xxx months.....

Final assembly, testing, packaging, and shipping define real "production" in my book.

Vern

How in the world is the PS3 "the msot technologically advanced piece of consumer electronics ever made"? Sorry but that is BS.

As for the info...no way Sony comes out with their 2mil at launch.

I also don't think it is a given that the PS3 will be a huge seller simply because it is a PS3. Nintendo owned the market before and one would have implied it was a given with their consoles but we saw what happened. From the jist I have read, the PS3 is a pain in the ass to program for and many companies are pissed off with that and prefer the 360. Couple that with the higher price and the fact it is a year late and there is no given the PS3 will dominate sales.

Just because the last 2 gen consoles had a result doesn't mean the future will have the same result. Every industry shows this.

... we've always talked about shipping 2 million units worldwide within the calendar year. Since we're going with three territories, we haven't really come up with an allocation just yet.

:D

Once again, Sony jumps the shark...

"I think it's too early to say at this point in time which games definitively are going to be launch titles, and I certainly can't speak for the third parties."

Prepare for perhaps the worst launch library of games...ever. Eclipsing that of the PS2 launch lineup. Dread.

Over 450 dollars for a system that's real big feature is high definition playback is a real gyp... considering that it's doubtful Blu-Ray will last that long. Optical media is a large pain in the ass and for true high-res quality you need more than 10 gigs.

1. Optical will be around for a long, long time.

2. The network for direct distribution of HD content doesn't exist yet for 95% of homes.

3. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats have more than 10GB.

4. The budget Sony system, which will only make up 20% of the boxes available at launch will be $500, the other 80% of the consoles will be the $600 flavor.

where did you get this info from? I'd like to read up on it.

I believe I read it in something linked from an engadget article early this spring when the final details on the PS3 emerged.

So it might not be 100% accurate, but it's what I read.

ok, thanks. I would have been surprised if Sony actually released a statement on that info.

You quoted it like a fact though.

My apologies.

Remember also that a similar percentage of Xbox360s were sold as core systems with the large majority being sold as "premium" setups.

I honestly would be amazed if Sony didn't do the exact same thing. The "base level" PS3 is probably just a holdover until they can do their first price reduction next year. Sony is probably also losing more money on the base model than they are on the premium, I highly doubt the missing components on the base model cost Sony $100 to leave out.

I agree with your number. Who knows what will happen though.

Price Reduction?

It was 18 months before the PS2 saw it's first price reduction.
And it was a nice $100 cheaper.

No apologies needed, I was just trying to get more info on you statement :)

I've never actually seen the stats on the xbox360 percentages, just lots of guess work.
Have they actually release numbers of core to premium ratios?

With MS and the 360 my guess is that they would have been making more money off the core due to peripheral sales and it would be in MS's best interest to sell more core units. I would think the same with sony considering the 60GB HDD (versus 20GBH), HDMI included, Wifi and card reader for $100 more

Well maybe because it was $100 cheaper it's apples and oranges isn't it.

Besides the past does not predicate the future, and you know that.

your first statement is non-senciscal

With Sony, the Future and it's past are closely related it would seem.

Production issues leading up to the PS2 and PS3.
Numbers much lowered with PS2 and PS3 as launch approaches.

Hype upon hype with ps2 and ps3.

Yeah, with Sony, the future and past seem to go hand in hand.

I will wait till Sony prooves otherwise, it's not like this is new.

They definitely have attachment rates on how many accessories they expect to sell for the "core" vs. the "premium" version of the systme.

An awful lot of PS2s out there are still sitting hooked up to a 27" CRT with the single wired controller and the cheapest memory card available (just go to any dorm room).

For them to make up the $100 price difference in the two consoles (assuming that the costs to manufacture are very close) they probably have to sell $150 worth of accessories at retail. It's hard to say if people will have enough to do that any time soon after spending $500 on a console and another $150 on a pair of games for it.

Whether the PS3 rocks or sucks it's going to be the most expensive launch since the 3DO and it's going to be hard for normal non gamer nutbag folks to justify that huge expenditure for a gaming system. Even though the cost of the X360 premium bundle I bought was a lot lower than it would have been at launch, I still shivered at spending $480 on a video game setup (and $480 is not a lot of cash to me), I can only imagine what normal middle class folks are going to think of $800-$1000 bundles for the PS3 this Xmas.

That would be a great thing for Sony. That would mean over 100 million PS3's sold. That is one hell of a lot of blu-ray players on the market.

So you are predicting a resounding success for the PS3?

Yes, it should be pretty successful.

But that success won't be seen till about 3-4 years after launch, if it is seen in numbers Sony wants, 100 Million.

So I am glad that we agree that future and past do and can get tied together.

BTW maybe you're not getting it, but comparing the price drop history of a console that launchs $200 cheaper to one that launches $200 more expensive is apples and oranges.

But very few BluRay users.

I was just curious if the numbers were released to the public on those attachement rates, but I think they are lumped together for what we get to read about.

Yes, my xbox360 was expensive and the PS3 is $100 more for a semi-comparable (no HD media on the 360). In the end, it sounds like if the $200 HD-DVD add-on price turns out to be true it may be that I'll be spending $100 more on the xbox360 compared to a comparable PS3.

It's really about where people are willing to spend money and that is different from person to person.

edit: and yes from time to time I play my PS2 on a SD crt as well as my 360 ;)

If you can point me to where I agreed to this, I'll give you a nice shiny penny.

So says who? Oh.... Phdwho... that's who!

No, I get it, it was still non-sensical.

No I don't think you got it. You seem to have trouble with things like that. Besides your facts were wrong and there is certainly nothing sensical about that.

By implying 100 Million ps3's will be sold.

Penny please! :rolleyes:

Time will tell, but I'll be using it for blu-ray movies as well as others :D