two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 dvus <doug RemoveThis @dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> Well, I doubt M$ manufactures all the components in the XBox, but their
> specs may be more demanding than the average PC assembler.

It's not that as much as it is the amount ordered, and the age of the
part. In general, the larger your order is, the cheaper per-unit it costs
to manufacture. But if you're only doing relatively small batches, and of
an older customized chip, you're going to be paying more per unit. Hard
drives are a good example of this. Look at the prices of hard drives vs.
their size. You would think a 20GB drive would be cheaper than a 100GB
drive, right? But you'd be wrong. It's the same principle that happens
with the rest of the hardware in a game console. Unlike a PC, where you
can just say "give me the $100 hard drive", console configurations do not
change. For the most part, the console that rolls off the line at the
begininng of a console's life is functionally identical to the very last
console to roll off the assembly line 5-7 years later.

>> Microsoft wasn't as technically ambitious as Sony, however, which is
>> why they're making profits on hardware now whereas Sony is still
>> losing a bit of money on each console thanks mainly to the Cell
>> processor and the Blu-Ray hardware.
>
> I don't get why the Cell processor should be so much more expensive than
> the cpus in modern PCs, but I'm no expert in those things so there may be a
> good reason. I don't see why the Blu-Ray drive should be so damn expensive
> either, other than the fact that it's proprietary.

For the processor, again, Sony paid to have it designed from the ground
up, and for the manufacturing. New products are always more expensive to
manufacture. From a single silicon slice maybe they would get 30% viable
chips, for instance. As the process improves, you get higher yields and
fewer bad chips per slice. Another way to improve your yield is to shrink
the processor itself, so you can get more of them on a single slice.
However this all takes money, and it's not as though Sony or IBM (who
helped design the chip) are talking about nearly the same scales of
manufacturing that, say, Intel does when they come out with a new
processor.

As for blu-ray, it required a new laser, new software, and a new decoder.
In the beginning the laser for blu-ray was hard to make, making them
expensive and hard to find. This is one reason there weren't many units
on shelves - they couldn't get the parts. Then on top of all that is the
licensing fee. Sony is part of the Blu-Ray consoritum so their fees are a
lot easier to swallow. This, incidently, is also one reason Microsoft has
not, and probably never will, create a 360 with built-in blu-ray.

Remember, new tech == high prices.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

Doug Jacobs wrote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 dvus <doug RemoveThis @dvenator.com.invalid>
> wrote:

>> I wonder why I can go out and buy an eMachine with a fairly fast
>> dual-core cpu, a gig of ram, a 320 gig hdd and a dual-layer DVD for
>> $300 bucks but M$ and Sony can't make a profit on what were $450 dollar
>> consoles. Must be some pretty expensive components in those boxes.
>
> Slightly different issues here...
>
> First off, Sony isn't running with off-the-shelf parts here. They worked
> in conjunction with IBM to develop the processor in the PS3. This isn't
> a cheap process, and since Sony isn't talking about nearly the sorts of
> volume that Intel gets from their processors, the price is going to be
> higher. Second, the PS3 has blu-ray in it, not some bog-standard cheap
> DVD drive. If the PS3 was priced like a normal electronics device, it
> would have easily gone for $1800 or more (the same price as the first
> generation blu-ray players). However console makers intentionally take
> a loss on the hardware (initially, anyways) to help bring in customers
> who will buy
> games because that's where the real money is to be had. It's the same as
> with razor blades and inkjet printers.

Probably why Canon and Epson don't like PrintPal...

> Meanwhile, Microsoft was using slightly older technology with DVD, and a
> non-customized PPC based processor. However they did choose a fairly
> high end graphics processor, which boosted the price. If you were to
> have
> built a PC to the 360's specs when the 360 was released, you'd be looking
> at about $1000 in parts.
>
> As for your comparison to eMachines, they make decent PCs, but nothing
> that's going to come close to matching the performance of what you get
> out of a console - mainly because of the bloated monstrosity of an OS
> that's sitting on top of it. 1GB of RAM? Please. That's barely enough
> to boot up Vista and start up Firefox. 2GB is the minimum for a useable
> PC, and you want a minimum of 3GB of a gaming PC if not 4GB. You didn't
> mention what sort of graphics card that machine came with either, but
> I'm guessing it's not one that's capable of outputting 1920x1080.
> eMachines also makes money by making software companies pay to put their
> software on their machines, so that also helps keep the MSRP down.

The audio and video is mostly integrated, but it's decent stuff from name
brand suppliers like nVidia, ATI and Creative.

> Building a PC from scratch for gaming is still going to set you back
> about $800-1000 at least, and the price just continues to go up from
> there.
>
> There are advantages to a PC, but "cheaper" isn't going to be one them.

What about the Wii? Their graphics don't seem all that hot.

--
dvus
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

On Dec 4, 2:06 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac... RemoveThis @rawbw.com> wrote:
>
>
> However the Wii's primary focus is on family gaming, not graphics.

It doesn't help any that the Wii only comes with a composite cable
making the graphics even worse than they could be. I would imagine
most Wii owners don't even know they could be seeing significantly
better graphics on their HDTV's by upgrading the cable.
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 dvus <doug.RemoveThis@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Building a PC from scratch for gaming is still going to set you back
>> about $800-1000 at least, and the price just continues to go up from
>> there.
>>
>> There are advantages to a PC, but "cheaper" isn't going to be one them.
>
> What about the Wii? Their graphics don't seem all that hot.

The Wii is basically using the same graphics chip from the GameCube. It
doesn't support HD, and barely supports 480p (not widescreen even) That's
the main reason the Wii came out for $250 compared to the $300-400 for the
360, and the $500-600 for the PS3.

However the Wii's primary focus is on family gaming, not graphics. You
don't need HD graphics to play bowling with Grandma and have a good time.
Likewise, most grandmothers aren't going to appreciate something like
Resistance: Fall Of Man, in HD or not.

--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

On Jan 19, 9:28 am, "shawn" <yuppicide....TakeThisOut@optonline.net> wrote:
> Why do you think those who buy a Wii buy the fewest games? I would figure
> they'd buy more games since the system is cheaper.

Maybe they aren't loser gamers whose only life is playing video games
in the basement?
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

Why do you think those who buy a Wii buy the fewest games? I would figure
they'd buy more games since the system is cheaper.

I wouldn't buy as many games, though, since the Wii sucks.

"Conor" <conor_turton RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.238646f9fc98ceeb9896a7@news.individual.net...
> Console sales aren't the most important figure - the number of games
> sold is. For example, those who buy a Wii buy the fewest games.
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

Who spend hundreds on a system and only buys 8 games?

I have the 360 Elite Black 120GB model. I own about 40 games.

"AirRaid" <airraidfighter.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df000f6b-df06-4b75-b2b9-b202a839e8a2@h23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> True, and as far as games sold, Xbox 360 is clearly in first place in
> that area. Their tie ratio is 8:1
> (8 games sold for every console sold).
>
>> Console sales aren't the most important figure - the number of games
>> sold is. For example, those who buy a Wii buy the fewest games.
>>
>> --
>> Conor.
>>
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

So, why make it then? A PC chip is just as good if not better and they're
readily available.

"Gareth Halfacree" <usenet RemoveThis @halfacree.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6oi4i3F3nutjU1@mid.individual.net...
> There is a good reason indeed: it's radically different to any other CPU
> on the market, and significantly more complicated to manufacture: this
> leads to lower yields (the percentage of chips you make that actually
> work) and higher costs. There's economies of scale to think about, too:
> when you build an x86 chip (like Intel or AMD) you can sell millions of
> them to PC manufacturers as well as supercomputer manufacturers and games
> console manufacturers. When you make a chip as specialised as the Cell
> Broadband Engine, you're limited to supercomputer manufacturers and games
> console manufacturers - missing out on the massive market for PC CPUs.
> Add in the huge costs of R&D and you're left with a chip that costs a
> pretty packet.
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

I will never buy ink from a refill place. You pay for what you get.. cheap
ink from China or something. Doesn't look as good. Might not dry as good,
etc. I never buy anything but genuine stuff.

"dvus" <doug DeleteThis @dvenator.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:6plrr6F8gsn6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Probably why Canon and Epson don't like PrintPal...
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

That's the reason a lot of people don't want a Wii. For that reason alone.
The graphics blow.

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs DeleteThis @rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:r6SdndbMwYndpaXUnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@posted.rawbandwidth...
> However the Wii's primary focus is on family gaming, not graphics. You
> don't need HD graphics to play bowling with Grandma and have a good time.
> Likewise, most grandmothers aren't going to appreciate something like
> Resistance: Fall Of Man, in HD or not.
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

On Jan 19, 10:29 am, "shawn" <yuppicide... RemoveThis @optonline.net> wrote:
> Who spend hundreds on a system and only buys 8 games?
>
> I have the 360 Elite Black 120GB model. I own about 40 games.
>
I have a PS3 and don't own 1 game... Gamefly
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

"shawn" <yuppicide138 DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in message
news:OAEwJwkeJHA.5344@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That's the reason a lot of people don't want a Wii. For that reason alone.
> The graphics blow.





and yet even less people want a 360 or ps3.
the wii is the clear market leader - it's people like my non game playing
brother who are buying them -he doesn't care about the graphics at all.
it's only the dedicated gamer who does - and there's less of us.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and 

The coming PS3 price cut along with some good games will certainly
help PS3's sales in 2009 to some degree but it certainly won't be
enough to allow PS3 to catch up to Xbox 360.

Unfortunately there won't be FFXIII or GT5 until 2010 so Sony won't
have games that are assured to drive hardware for another year+
 >> Stay informed about: two years after release, PS3 still in LAST place in U.S. and