Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PlayStation (Games) The Almighty Buck Hardware Entertainment Games

Breaking Down the Dropping Parts Cost for Sony's PS3 302

Posted by timothy
from the wait-until-it's-all-one-chip dept.
will_die writes "The people at iSuppli have taken apart an October 2008 version of the PlayStation 3 to create a bill of materials, along with providing a comparison to original PS3. The article provides information about the changes Sony has made. One of the big ones was that the hardware has gone from costing $690.23 to the current price of $448.73. This was done using a combination of removing parts (currently 2,820 vs. the original 4,048), cutting the cost of the CPU ($46.46 vs. $64.40), and cutting the cost of the graphics processor to $58.01 from $83.17."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Breaking Down the Dropping Parts Cost for Sony's PS3

Comments Filter:
  • Sony needs to... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GPLDAN (732269) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:37PM (#26270503)
    It still precludes them from selling at $299, which is where marketing data is suggesting they need to go to compete against Xbox.

    PS3 is being outsold by a good margin month to month, which means market share is dwindling (although objectively there are more PS3s in the world, which makes the equation for game developers shift) - and they seem to be losing developer mind share, as evidenced by the fact that there are few games that are PS3 exclusive. Most importantly and shockingly, Microsoft is getting Japanese game developers to come over to Xbox, where that model simply didn't exist in the PS2 days.

    Sony needs about 4-5 more Metal Gear Solid like titles, and they really need to work out the bugs with online play. I don't use my PS3 online, but from what I am to understand, it's not even close to Xbox live.
    • by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:50PM (#26270675)

      They still need to make money.
      If you sell at a loss you don't make it up in volume, you just create a larger loss. I am not sure why people in slashdot never think of this concept that a for profit company kinda needs to make profit. Selling at a loss doesn't create profit. Sony is better off trying to prove that the Play Station is worth the cost, vs. selling at a loss. Even if they don't make #1 seller for the PS 3 they will make money from their units sold. And perhaps the PS 4 can get back.

      • by repvik (96666) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:57PM (#26270769)

        They can still make money by selling the console at a loss. They just need to sell enough PS3s to create a large enough market for games.

        • by tilandal (1004811) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @04:20PM (#26271055)

          It is a myth that you can sell consoles for a large loss and make up for that in games. No console has ever had an attach rate high enough to take a $150 loss on each unit and still make money. This is not even factoring in shipping, support, development and operating expenses.

          • by Chuck Chunder (21021) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @04:41PM (#26271361) Homepage Journal

            That is slightly modified for Sony and the PS3 as it pretty much won them the format war for HD video.

            I don't know how you'd begin to calculate what that is/will be "worth" to them. Plus there are additional revenue streams these days (ie online purchases) that don't effect attach rate but could bring a lot of profit.

            That said I think the Nintendo model makes a lot more sense.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by binarylarry (1338699)

              Yeah, it's a great business model.

              Step 1) Sell product at more than it costs to make
              Step 2) ????
              Step 3) Profit!

              Nintendo is run by amazing businessmen. :)

          • by EastCoastSurfer (310758) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @04:47PM (#26271443)

            Consoles are a tricky thing. If they sold every PS3 at a decent profit margin then very few would sell and that in turn would lead to less games being developed. My guess is that they have a curve of cost vs. sales price. Originally they sell them at a loss to get them out there with the understanding that over time their input costs will drop and they'll eventually be on the positive side of the curve. Look at the PS2. They sell for $100 now I think. I'd be curious to see how much one of those actually costs to make now. At this point their profit margin on a single PS2 is probably pretty high.

        • Well lets assume that that Sony will get $10 per game. That means you will need 12 games per unit on the average. At $50+ per game most people will not get that many games on average. That is why the tech bubble popped in the 90s, All you tech guys never realize how much everything costs to make a profit. There are a slew of tiny costs that add up. Selling at a loss in hopes of raising demand is risky and more often then not fails.

          • by Hooya (518216)

            > All you tech guys never realize...

            Tell that to Bill Gates. He's selling the XBox you know. You non-tech-guys might have a thing or two to teach that tech guy.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by MBGMorden (803437)

            Sony has virtually ALWAYS sold their consoles at a loss though. They're selling PS3 at a loss now, and they sold PS2 at a loss for most of the first part of it's lifespan. Selling the system at a loss and making that back up through game sales is nothing new, and has been pretty standard fare for Sony and MS for a while now.

      • by Chyeld (713439)

        Which is why they are now trying to make the PS3 into the "everything machine".

        • by Big Boss (7354)

          Which would be a great idea, if they would loosen up a little. They NEED to support common video formats, like mkv, and allow things like a MythTV Frontend to be written for it and use the full power of the GPU and cell processors. This would allow Myth, XBMC, Windows Media Center extenders, etc..

          Until they do that, they are just trying to lock everyone into all Sony all the time. Not interesting for many people that already have an investment in other technologies. However, if they opened up a little, they

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          You mean a "PC"?

    • although objectively there are more PS3s in the world

      Objectively? Are the numbers from VG Chartz [vgchartz.com] skewed?

      • Re:Sony needs to... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by F-3582 (996772) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @04:00PM (#26270809)
        No. GPLDAN just used the word the wrong way. What he really meant was that while the absolute number of PS3s sold to customers are going up - more people buying than returning - the relative numbers (=market share) goes down, because the competitors keep outselling it.

        What I'd like to know is the real install base of the three consoles. You know, not every Xbox360 sold is actually going to a new customer due to a so-called RROD phenomenon. Is there any good data to clear that up?
        • by powerlord (28156)

          What I'd like to know is the real install base of the three consoles. You know, not every Xbox360 sold is actually going to a new customer due to a so-called RROD phenomenon. Is there any good data to clear that up?

          Likewise I know quite a few Wii's that grandparents got "for when the grandchildren come over" and rarely (if ever) get used.

          • by vux984 (928602)

            Likewise I know quite a few Wii's that grandparents got "for when the grandchildren come over" and rarely (if ever) get used.

            Fortunately, Nintendo profits when you buy it not when you use it, so they don't really give a shit.

        • by Cheeko (165493)

          The sales numbers are on new SALES, not on units manufactured.

          MS replaces RRoD machines for free, so those don't get counted in the sales numbers.

          You can use the overall sales numbers as an accurate indicator of relative install base.

          You have maybe a 1% or less variation for the rare off chance someone purchases a new one after a breakage instead of just shipping it back for a free fix/replacement.

        • What I'd like to know is the real install base of the three consoles. You know, not every Xbox360 sold is actually going to a new customer due to a so-called RROD phenomenon. Is there any good data to clear that up?

          The real install base doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of revenue (and profit) brought in by additional software and service purchases. This is what is known as attach rate, and the Xbox360 has a rather exceptionally high attach rate. And this is from a console which has long been h

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Paul Pierce (739303)
      4-5 more Metal Gear Solid like titles is a lot to ask, but I see your point.

      I think the online part is more doable and more important for PS3 to compete. The 360 was better online to begin with, but since the update the PS3 is even further behind now.

      It will be interesting to see if the games for PS3 start to really use that extra processing power. I feel that back in the sega nintendo days the first game was usually horrible compared to what developers were able to do after the system had been around a
      • by hardburn (141468)

        I'd kill just to see better indy development for the PS3. All the best ones are going to the 360.

        Lackluster online play for the PS3 is made up for by the fact that it appeals less to the teenage crowd who love the scream obscenities over the microphone because mom isn't listening at the moment. Not that the PS3 is completely devoid of teen angst, just has less of it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Enderandrew (866215)

      Actually I just bought a brand new PS3 from Sony for $250. Sign up for a Sony Rewards card, and you get a new 80 gig PS3 for $250.

      Mind you, Microsoft is losing tons of money with RRODs, and I'm not sure they can really afford to sell a 360 for $200, but they're doing it for market share.

      My Wii is gathering dust, but Nintendo sells cheap hardware for a profit, and people can't get enough. Maybe they're the ones doing it right.

      • Re:Sony needs to... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sleepy (4551) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @04:49PM (#26271471) Homepage

        >Actually I just bought a brand new PS3 from Sony for $250.

        I did the same exact thing last year for $299, got the 40GB model. I bought the PS3 mainly for the BluRay player.

        I did not WANT a credit card out of the deal (even if it is a Chase card), but I read the fine print:
          $100 off a PS3,
            NO INTEREST 12 months..
            AND no yearly card fee?

        I paid off the PS3 early at 10 months, the card is blank, and soon to be canceled. I told others, but no one believed the terms and I know 3 people who paid full price anyways. Wacky..

    • Re:Sony needs to... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @04:46PM (#26271435) Homepage Journal
      It has very little to with price, it has to do with games. One thing that MS is good at is making it easy for developers to create software. Combined with the reality that most developers are familiar with MS dog food, and one does have a situation where MS can get games out. People buy consoles to play games on, not to have a pretty box in their home.

      The WSJ has the same take on the PS3. It is doomed. I am not so sure. Sony always plays to the big picture, is always, as the say in politics, on script. Sony has a lot of different interest, but what is interesting is that all these interests seem to play together, none of them go off script just because it might mean more profit in the unit. For instance, the MP3 players did not sweep the market due to the fact that Sony wanted to protect it's content interests and push the memory card standard. Some might call that a mistake, others might have said it would have been a mistake to stab other divisions in the back by doing otherwise.

      So what has happened here. MS built a game console with very good games that they could sell relatively cheaply. Now, dollar for dollar it does not do so well as the WII, which it competes at the entry price level, is still selling more that the XBox. Wii sales doubled, Xbox relatively flat. To be clear, Wii sold twice as many units as XBox, and given street prices, many paid more for the Wii. OTOH, XBox games seems to be selling more. To make it cheap it did not include a big HD or a dvd drive. In effect, MS gave up the living room to save game console. But is likely not to even have the lions share of the game console market.

      Sony used an integrated strategy. The built a more expensive console, but made it a complete unit, with blu ray. I think that many would agree that the blu ray decision was a factor in blu ray winning the format wars, and that this has long term strategic significance to Sony, most specifically in keeping the living room away from MS, who bet on HD DVD.

      So Xbox likely has fewer consoles out there than Wii. Both are primed for streaming media, and not all XBox 360 are capable of playing stored movies, or at least not a lot of them. The PS3 is half in number, but each one is ready to play a new, expensive, and sometimes Sony generated blu ray disc. I think MS continues on it's way to win the battle but lose the war.

      • Re:Sony needs to... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sleepy (4551) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @05:04PM (#26271749) Homepage

        >I think that many would agree that the blu ray decision was a factor in blu ray winning the format wars, and that this has long term strategic significance to Sony, most specifically in keeping the living room away from MS, who bet on HD DVD.

        As far as Microsoft's bet... Microsoft didn't bet anything_ on HD-DVD:
        1) They just offered an add-on player and let their fanboys bet THEIR money on HD-DVD.
        2) They threw a hundred mil or so at Toshiba. Toshiba lost a LOT of standing with consumers.

        Toshiba's reputation sucks now... ask folks who bought last year's Walmart Toshiba HD-DVD players and all the movies they could. Funny how this debacle does not touch Microsoft any.

        I don't think Microsoft wanted either format to gain critical mass - wide and early adoption is a threat to Microsoft's goal of 'services', including pay per view and digital downloads. Microsoft set HD video back by a year, that's all they got and that's all they wanted.

        • Re:Sony needs to... (Score:5, Informative)

          by benwaggoner (513209) <(moc.tfosorcim) (ta) (renoggaw.neb)> on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @08:29PM (#26274105) Homepage

          I don't think Microsoft wanted either format to gain critical mass - wide and early adoption is a threat to Microsoft's goal of 'services', including pay per view and digital downloads. Microsoft set HD video back by a year, that's all they got and that's all they wanted.

          I worked on the HD DVD team back then, and we manifestly wanted HD DVD to win, and we invested quite a lot in it. However, we didn't bet the Xbox 360 on it the way Sony bet the PS3 on BD (which appears to have been a good choice from the console business perspective). In the end, Sony was willing pay to whatever cost it took for BD to win.

          Our interest was much more in delivering great video experiences than in which particular substrate thickness of polycarbonate imaged with a blue-violet laser won in the end.

          This is a sample of what I've been working on these days:

          http://smoothhd.com/ [smoothhd.com]

          Still pre-beta, but I don't think that optical media will be the hard or the interesting part of HD video delivery much longer.

      • by Talderas (1212466)

        Yup, that's what I like about Sony and Nintendo, their products have been extremely strategic, where Microsoft has seemed rather clumsy and as an after thought. In fact, I've questioned many times whether the 360 would have ever made it to market if Microsoft huge coffers weren't behind it.

  • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:41PM (#26270553) Homepage Journal

    Because the summary probably won't be fixed.

  • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:42PM (#26270571) Homepage

    A new version of Nvidia Corp.'s Reality Synthesizer serves as the graphic processing unit for the game console. The revised version of the part is priced at $58.01, down 30.3 percent from $83.17 previously.

    The summary has used the CPU prices as both. Seriously, even if you the submitter made an honest mistake writing it down, surely the editor should've noticed that both figures being the same was suspicious and double-checked? Is it really too much to ask for the slightest bit of editing?

    • by edittard (805475)

      surely the editor should've noticed

      Even with the magic of web 2.0, that would still require him to read it. Massive fail, n00bster.

  • Exchange Rates? (Score:3, Informative)

    by lekker biltong (1117517) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:42PM (#26270583) Homepage

    The article does not mention anything about exchange rates - since the PlayStation is not manufactured in the US and the article mention all amounts in dollars [the Yen strengthened considerably against the Dollar the last year or so] - I would take the amounts with a pinch of salt.

    The other possibility of course is that they converted everything from Yen into Dollars - but did not mentioned it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by canix (1176421)
      The semiconductor industry is in dollars so the foundry price of the chips will be in dollars.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by StikyPad (445176)

      A stronger Yen means they're making LESS Yen by selling at the same price USD.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:44PM (#26270607) Homepage

    They wouldn't have had to spend over $1B on repairs and extend the warranty an extra 3 years for the XBox 360. Chances are, the 360 would be cutting a small profit by now. The moral of the story if the successor to the XBox 360 is to trounce Sony, is that they need to not cut corners if they want to exploit Sony's weakness. They'd better learn that because the PS3 is a very, very powerful system and when it hits $300 will be in the range that a lot of gamers will be willing to pay.

    • Do you have evidence that the flaws that caused large numbers (I've heard estimates that its 1/3rd of all consoles that have had to be RMA'd) of xbox to go bad are due to corners cut? MS has been mum about what specifically causes the 360's to fail. Couldn't it just be that MS ordered a part from a factory/supplier and a flaw in the production process, or a flaw in design of the item, caused failures that weren't apparent in short term testing?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Amouth (879122)

        i have seen several 360's die each had the same issue which with hunting turned out to be a failure in the soder joints on the GPU due to excessive heat or some failure at that manufacturing point or maybe nV's fault (didn't they have a big back lash about GPU failures in laptops?) or it could have been alittle of all of the above.

        over all the 360 is a great consol.. but also the only consumer electronic device that i would recomend buying and extended warrenty for (well recommend before MS extended the wa

      • by alvinrod (889928) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @04:48PM (#26271465)
        Here's an article [venturebeat.com] from earlier this year that explains a lot of the problems. The article interviews a tester who worked at Microsoft and had some good first hand knowledge of what went wrong.

        Hope that helps.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by chaim79 (898507)

        After looking into this a bit, it seems MS was in a rush to get the console out a year before the PS3, they also made several last-minute decisions (mainly the HD) that got in the way of the cooling (which is what is causing the RROD), also when an engineer found the DVD Scratching issue they decided not to do anything (vs two fixes that would cost them $$)

        Both issues have come back to haunt them, the cooling issue still causes RROD on even newer models, and the DVD Scratching issue as well is still around

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)

      Of course the 360 is doing better than PS3 largely because they got to market first and they've been able to price it cheaper. If Microsoft hadn't cut corners, they might not have made it to market first, and it would be more expensive than it is now.

      So maybe the lesson is that if they want to beat Sony in the next generation, they'll have to cut corners then too.

  • by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:49PM (#26270659) Journal
    Keep all the price comparisons either from-to or all to-from. Don't mix the two because you'll confuse people (eg me). When I saw "...the hardware has gone from costing $690.23 to the current price of $448.73." it triggered me to read the last sentence as "cutting the cost of the graphic processor from $46.46 to $64.40.". I thought I was seeing some sort of Orwellian finances in effect.
  • by larsoncc (461660) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @03:52PM (#26270699) Homepage

    I'm all for a cheaper PS3, which apparently can only happen with a bit of "wow" taken out of the box, but for a bit of history:

    *The original 20 and 60 GB models of the PS3 supported full hardware backwards compatibility for the PS2 (with the notable exception of the Guitar Hero controllers). The 60GB had a lot of extras, like card slots.

    *The 80GB unit without FULL backward compatibility still supports 80% of PS2 titles, and retains the memory card slots.

    The way I see it, you shouldn't degrade a tech product over its life cycle, you should add features to it. Or failing that, it should get VERY cheap, and super small.

    PS3 isn't doing either. I'm glad I own the 80GB model.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Sony has also removed SACD support from the newer models.

      Not a big deal since the overlap of SACD listeners and game players is probably me. But I'm very happy to own a 60 GB model, I just hope that when (not if) it breaks Sony can repair it and I can keep my 99% compatibility and the multi-channel PCM output of my SACDs over HDMI (my old SACD player would only output SACD over the 5.1 analog jacks).

      • the overlap of SACD listeners and game players is probably me.

        I feel the same way about how they are treating the media player features - I could do with a little more choice in the music player eye candy, and support for Web Radio streaming, and definitely a more support for selection of photos for the slideshows (like, why can't we get everything in a selected sub-folder?!?)

        PS3 is cool for what it is, but I'm thinking that something like an eeeBox is eventually going to take over the primary HDMI input on our TV. I'm not ready to spend the money on hardware yet,

    • Sony isn't the first to remove features over the console's life; Nintendo is notorious for doing this (NES 2 lost the RCA jacks, SNES 2 lost the RF port and RGB out, GameCube lost the component video out, and the DS is losing the GBA slot).
      • by mmkkbb (816035)

        Three of those are new products (NES 2, SNES 2, and DSi) and the fourth is a discontinued accessory. Is this new cheaper PS3 a whole new product launch or a revision (albeit big) of an existing product?

        • Personally, I would classify the new PS3 revisions in the same class as the NES 2/SNES 2, as the revised products perform the same basic function (play NES/SNES/PS3 games) without adding technical capabilities. (That's where I'm willing to let the DSi slide—it's does actually add new things in its revision, unlike the changes to the other three consoles.)

          As for the component out, they discontinued the accessory because they pulled the port, not the other way around. Ordering cables from their store wa

    • I have the original 60GB, and I wish I had the new 65nm cell chip - the fan in my PS3 is louder than anything else in the house, we have to crank up the volume to hear movie dialogue over it.

      Now, assuming that I did plump out another $400 just to get a quieter box, how much of a pain in the a$$ would it be to transfer all of my downloaded games onto the new unit?

      • by eison (56778)

        Make sure the front right corner of the box is clear of obstructions. Elevate it and get it outside of an enclosed cabinet if you can. When I moved my PS3 to the left side of a shelf instead of having it up against the right side of the shelf, my fan noise suddenly got bearable.

        • Yep, mine is on its left side (discs go in vertically), and the right side is perhaps a little too close to the shelf above, maybe 1.5cm of clearance - it definitely gets warm up there. The shelf is too shallow to comfortably sit the unit on it's bottom, so, unless I move the (screwed and painted to the wall) shelving a bit, I'm stuck.

          I already went to the trouble of putting in a wired ethernet connection because the wireless was a little too puny to stream video, at some point you have to ask "is it wo

      • by chaim79 (898507)
        Not a pain, just lots of downloading. All games and demos you download from the PSN store can be re-downloaded (go to PSN store, one of the icons in the top right is "downloads", which is a list of all the downloads you have ever done on your PS3), it's the saves you want to transfer to a memory stick to transfer to your new console. (I've been through this from the standpoint of putting a new HD in my PS3, 160gb baby!)
      • by bilbravo (763359)
        If you're really asking, all you have to do is sign in to the new PS3 with your PSN id and then go to the store and download the games.

        And since you have a 60gb PS3, you can use an SD, CF, or Memory Stick flash card to copy your save games. Or you can use a USB flash drive if you prefer.

        I had to get my 60GB unit replaced and was surprised how easily the "replacement" process was after I got my new unit.
        • If you're really asking, all you have to do is sign in to the new PS3 with your PSN id and then go to the store and download the games.

          Cool, that's how it should be. I was concerned that they'd have the licenses keyed to some sort of serial number in the device itself.

    • by sorak (246725)

      I can see your point, but getting the price down to something more competitive is much more important.

      Besides...

      • In the next year, PS2 will become less relevant than it currently is. At some point, nobody will care if it can play PS2 games.
      • They cut the hardware price by $241.50. The cost of a new PS2 is $129. The money saved could almost by two PS2s.
      • by Geoff-with-a-G (762688) on Tuesday December 30, 2008 @05:38PM (#26272297)

        1. In the next year, PS2 will become less relevant than it currently is. At some point, nobody will care if it can play PS2 games.
        2. They cut the hardware price by $241.50. The cost of a new PS2 is $129. The money saved could almost by two PS2s.

        They're still releasing new PS2 games. If you go to Game Rankings right now, the top game on the main page is Persona 4 [gamerankings.com] for... Playstation 2.

        This used to be a source of pride for Sony - look at how well we support our platform, we're still releasing top-quality games for it 8 years after it came out, and 2 years after it's "replacement" was released. According to good old Wikipedia, it's the top-selling console ever, at 140 million. Now they're actively removing that platform of games from their current product? Taking steps away from compatibility with it? Sure, eventually it will become less relevant, but I think it's gonna take a while. If we jump over to a DRM-related story, you'll find long threads complaining about "what happens if I buy this game, and 5 years from now their servers get shut down, or the company goes away? I still play my old computer games once in a while, I don't want them taking that away from me..." Forget Persona 4 just being released, aren't there people who will want to play Final Fantasy X or XII again? Kingdom Hearts? Gran Turismo 3 (wow, 14 million copies sold, really?).

        Yes, as you say, we can just buy a PS 2, or keep an existing one. But there's plenty of reasons that's a pain (inputs, controllers, and space mostly) and it's just a big visible step backwards for the product. And cost alone doesn't justify that, the $240 cut isn't all from the Emotion Engine, and if you check the eBay listings for 60 Gig PS3s, you'll see how much of a premium their customers are willing to pay for that feature. I'm one of those people - and there's plenty of others in this thread - stuck between buying a new one and keeping my old PS2, buying an old one off eBay for a premium price, or waiting and hoping Sony steps up instead of down with a future revision. In the meantime, I'm one more customer not buying a PS3, even with their modest price cuts.

    • Not all markets have backwards compatibility. Eg, in Australia, the 80GB model doesn't. In fact there is NO PS3 model in Australia that has it at all. The old discontinued 60GB models are prized.

      Australia's a small enough market that Sony just doesn't give a shit about its customers.

      ws

      • by dltaylor (7510)

        Sony is the company of DRM, and the "no it's not better, but we control both the content and the player" Blu-Ray. The WORLD is not a big enough market for Sony to "give a shit about its customers".

    • You forgot to mention that the new 80GB model, the only 80GB model currently sold, doesn't have any backward compatibility because Sony cut the software "to save costs."

      Joystiq has a handy-dandy chart [joystiq.com] comparing the various PS3 models.

    • by King_TJ (85913)

      I totally agree. I own the original 60GB model myself, and I'm really happy it has full hardware PS2 compatibility. I actually bought more PS2 titles to play on it than native PS3 titles, for the first few months I owned the system. (The PS2 games were available dirt cheap in the bargain bins at local game stores.)

      The only problem I've recently had with my PS3 though (and it's one I've seen referenced on several other web sites) is my HDMI port dying. I had to start connecting it to my plasma TV with a

  • While the part about needing to be $299 to compete was interesting (but it was in a comment), is this really newsworthy? Now, if the price of the parts went down and the price of the system DIDN'T go down, that might be more worth it. But how interesting is a news flash telling us that the price of electronic components has reduced in price over the last few years? Hmmm.

    On the other hand, I did find the pricing interesting, as those prices are a lot cheaper than I get for my computer. I wonder if that'

    • by repvik (96666)

      If you bought parts for your computer in the scale of millions, you'd get them a hell of a lot cheaper...

    • I wonder if that's because computer parts are marked up more, or because the PS3 components aren't t as powerful (what a very relative, subjective, and non-descript word... sorry) as my computer components.

      A combination most likely. If the GPUs and/or their boards are being custom made, then they might be able to leave things out that are required for computers. Also, they deal directly with the manufacturer whereas we deal with two layers in between. Finally, they purchase so many units that they surely get a bulk rate, especially since they can play the companies off of each other.

  • in Europe. If a PS3 costs them $448.73 (317,48â) to make, that means they make almost 80,00â for every console sold in the EU (they sell for 399,00â). A price drop *could* be possible here in the old continent.

    • by tilandal (1004811)

      That is including VAT. If you assume 20% VAT the actual "cost" would be 320Ã.

    • That would be true if there wasn't a shwack of other costs associated with each unit in addition to the cost of the parts. It costs money to build factories, ship units, print packaging, do quality control testing, etc etc. Unless Sony has also managed to make all of those things cheaper, I would bet they still aren't actually making a profit on each PS3 sold.

      That said, Sony may still decide to drop the price to encourage sales now that the holiday shopping season is behind them.

  • No matter how you look at the numbers, PS3 lost, even before it came out. I know people who gotten the PS3 just as a Blu-Ray player, simply because they were cheaper than stand-alone Blu-Ray players at the time, and they have not gotten any games for it. Of course now that stand-alone Blu-Ray players are actually cheaper than PS3s, that market share is no longer there either.

    They need to drop the price point to be just slightly above the average Blu-Ray player to be competitive, I think. Which will never ha

    • Keep in mind that there are different Blu-Ray formats and those newer, cheaper players don't support all Blu-Ray features like the PS3 does. I looked into it myself before I got a PS3 on craigslist to play Blu-Rays and my old PS2 games.

      As an aside, I actually prefer my PS3 to my Xbox. I think the menu on the XBox sucks, it's slower at loading up the media on my home server, and I've never liked the controllers much. XBox Live is ok but I've never seen it as being super-amazing like everyone says it is. Ma
  • "...parts (currently 2,820 vs. the original 4,048..."

    Sheesh. Sony does make some intricate stuff, but even a Walkman had fewer parts, the cassette models even.

    Maybe they need to re-think the parts count? 1,000 would seem a target for me.

    • by Kneo24 (688412)

      Why would they need to rethink the parts count? The reason it went down was because they've been removing features from the console. When you remove a port, for example, then you can also remove all of the necessary electronic parts that are associated with said port. Removing backwards compatibility? You can also remove all said electronics for that as well. 2820 really isn't a whole lot when you look at the bigger picture.

      • by rickb928 (945187)

        2,820 parts in a PS3 sounds like twice as many as are necessary, even counting the Blu-Ray.

        I wonder how many parts there were in Selectric typewiters? Just sounds like too many, that's all.

        And I fixed Selectrics back in the day. Never counted the parts, but there are probably 300 parts in the keyboard. Another 100 in the cycle clutch and drive.

  • More games... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MaWeiTao (908546)

    I just got an 80GB PS3 for Xmas. It's a bit shocking to compare this version to previous ones and notice what's been cut. To be honest, however, this is the version Sony should have released from the start because what was cut I consider largely superfluous for the PS3's primary purpose which is playing games.

    I can only imagine that some higher ups at Sony had this unrealistic vision that both the PSP and PS3 were going to be complete entertainment and information centers to replace everything else. Things

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...