Slashdot Mirror
360 Costs Half As Much As PS3 By 2006?
EGSonikku writes "According to Merrill Lynch, after doing a breakdown of hardware and manufacturing costs., the XBox 360 may end up as little as half the cost as Sony's PlayStation 3 by 2006.
Citing Sony's financial woe's and Microsoft's deep pockets, they predict '...Microsoft's Xbox 360 should emerge as the early winner in the next round of the game console wars.'"
Microsoft continues to follow the IE strategy I see...
And, again, I don't understand why they're leaking this now. Who wants to pay $400 for an XBox 360 now when they can wait about 6 months and get it for half price?
(Although I don't think it'll be half price that fast.. probably within 3 or 4 years as is the normal degradation... unless they get into a price war early on)
Microsoft claims another victim.
Software Wars
Wasn't that exactly how the last generation played out, and still PS2 stomped all over Xbox in almost every arena?
Well it seems like the battle between Xbox and PS3 has been won by Xbox, though we can't determine for sure considering neither consoles are even released yet. But where does the Revolution come into play? Honestly I think it's going to be apart from the competition and have it's own sucesses. The revolution is so different from the 360 or PS3 that it may end up being very successful as well, but with a different part of the consumers. Then again, it could just as easily be the biggest mistake in console gaming as well..
Add me as a friend!
Can we please have some news, as opposed to speculation? I own all three of the current gen systems. I was an early adopter (ouch) for all three, and each have had their ups and downs. I've had one PS2 and one XBox die on me. I try not to hold it against them. The fact of the matter is ITS ABOUT THE GODDAMN GAMES. If the PS3 came out in 2009 and cost 1200$, I might give it some serious thought if they had a (good) NaNa-OnSha game being released for it. If I knew there were remaking or making a new Steel Battalion game for the 360, I'd pick it up too. I know I'll be picking up a Revolution, for nothing more than being able to play SMB3 without getting the NES out of the closet. IMHO, the only people who care about articles like this are the fanboys, who just have another paper tiger to flame with on GameFAQS about how their magical system is going to utterly crush the competition. Please, focus on why we game, for fun.
...will they have any good games by then? I love my Xbox, but I don't see anything particularly interesting coming out for the 360 at launch.
Now, that I hadn't noticed before. Very surprising.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
The 360 could easily be 200 bucks by the PS3 release. Microsoft has no problem picking it's own pockets. And the only thing they're paying real money for is the chips. DVD and hard drives are cheap (yeah, I know this HDD is a small one, but you can get a 20 Gig of the same size for a whole lot less than 100 bucks right now).
The problem is, if they're going to drop the price (sorry, couldn't read the article, my work sees fit to keep me from most gaming sites) then they shouldn't anounce it before anybody buys their consoles or nobody will. If nobody buys the boxes, then nobody makes the games. No games, no boxes sold. A vicious loop.
Easy enough to take care of if you can get a good fan-base, 1-2 million in the US should be easy to sell. Seeing as there are probable some odd hundred thousand pre-orders, this won't be hard either way. That, and most consumers only hear hype, and believe it. They don't read all the game sites. They just see the ads and buy what they're told to buy. The X-Box 360 kiosks I've seen are drawing mediocre attention, at best... so, from what I can tell. It's anybody's market right now.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
I hate MS as much as the next guy...but...I hope they put those bastards at sony out of business.
Sony: Wow -- neat hardware, big PS2 user base. Too bad crappy dev tools and byzantine Cell architecture by themselves generate several months of delays for developers. PS3 is gonna be on the front line of the war for the living room, so it's gonna be real pretty. Wait. You didn't think you actually owned any of your own content, did you? Hell, if you read the EULA carefully, you won't actually be owning the PS3 either!
M$: Nicer dev tools, and a relatively vanilla design (insofar as 3 PPCs can be boring, it is). Too bad you have to pay a subscription fee to M$ to use it online. The 360 can't compete with Windows Media Center, so it won't be _that_ pretty -- or it'll cost extra to use it that way. Engineered shortage? What are they going to do when they don't have the sellout they made their retailers guarantee?
Revolution: Cool controller. Y'all got a console that works with?
The question isn't "Who's going to win this?" But rather, "Who's gonna buy any of these?"
Of course xbox 360 will be the early winner, it's coming out a year before PS3.
Dreamcast (2000) - $150
Playstation 2 (2000) - $300
Honestly there seems to be a awful lot of speculation about this but the truth is, no one knows jack about the PS3. Sonys keeping their cards as tight to the chest as Nintendo is to the point that even if it is easier to program for the 360 (and it was easier to program for the original than it was to program for the PS2 if you remember) it doesnt mean that the Xbox will win. They have just as many flaws as the PS3 does and some of them are just as critical (no true backwards compatability is a huge killer, that right there is what sold me on the PS2 and why I am buying the PS3 and Revolution, I have a HUGE library of games and I am not one to have 9 machines to play them) Likewise they have this whole fake sellout issue, which no offence but right there as a gamer makes me NOT want to play the 360. Its one thing to make a lot of them and sell out, its another to make almost none of them. I would rather wait till the price drops later, especially since there are still no real hit games comming out for the 360 on launch and everyone knows the good games dont come out till well after the developers get a grasp on the new systems and their abilitys which can be months after they are released.
The decision on who won wont be known for years after, probably in the end of 06 or even 07, so lets stop with the e penis siize matchup and wait patiently for what really happens.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
They say the system is going to cost 340 at launch to make. and Sony's going to cost 495. So nice of them to forget production. Anyone remember the fact that there's people they pay to put these systems together, it's not just faceless magic that assembles these systems, in addition there's other costs.
And Sony doesn't want to make a profit on the system, they need to make the profit on the game, every company knows this. Microsoft has opted for a lesser system in hopes to avoid going into an initial debt which is what happened to the Xbox and they never got out of it.
besides half of the price difference is blu ray, but what happens when MS upgrades the 360 to have the HD DVD, Which they keep saying they will do. I'm betting that will cost them 100 bucks more.
And if there's not enough on the bias yet... Let's look at these lines
Blu-Ray is also cited as an expensive solution for PS3. The cost of the drive is estimated to cost at least $75.
Optical Media Blu-Ray $ 100
And yet NOTHING in the article so conclusive proof that We think that the Xbox 360 could be selling at half the price of PS3 in the latter half of 2006." Is even close to believeable. They show even pointing at 3 years it'll be much cheaper to make Xbox NOT 1 year.
Seriously though this is just a "Microsoft's good, now please let our computer's work faster Lord Gates" piece, proof stock market gurus know nothing about the industry (remember when they said the Xbox will beat the PS2 easily because of the year in time, now it's the Xbox 360 will beat the Ps2 because it's coming out a year earlier? Yet wasn't it the Dreamcast that came out a year earlier then the ps2? )
What has so far been make or break for a console? Is it hardware? Well no, sorry console fans but if you want the best graphics you buy a pc. Is it who launches first? No, the crown of console king has been won to many times by "newbies" from the ones who been there.
What makes or breaks a console im my opinion is simply having the games that people want to play. It is certainly how I choose my console. You don't think I hand pc makers a small fortune because I like them? No, the games I want are only available on top end PC's.
X-box had halo, nintendo had ehh... final fantasy? or was the sony? GBA had tony hawk 2. Only console I ever owned. Brilliant game.
Yeah sure not a brilliant reason but just ask the average consumer how many games they actually own. You would be suprised how few out of the total collection are bought by the general public.
These are the MUST have titles and they are the titles wich sell the console. Why do you think MS wants so many exclusives?
X-box 360 line up is not good so far. I am not anti-console, just never been attracted. However I did just see a x-box 360 stand at a gameshop story in Osdorp Amsterdam Holland and it look nice. Not 100% sure if the graphics weren't fake nice (we all know MS's record on this) and wether the pretty graphics weren't just typical racer sweet pictures zero debt stuff.
Sony can still pull a winner IF at its launch it has the MUST have titles and MS still hasn't come up with the goods. Personally I think the worlds economie at the moment is not that healthy, especially when parents can buy the cheaper PSP or Nintendo DS and still have a happy kid, plus a happy kid you can kick outside instead of being in your living room.
All this and everything else anyone says has been done said before, but the half price thing is the most insane, just compare the price of the gamecube (less then a gba) with the price of the PS2. Yet who won?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If console price/overhead = winnar, then wouldn't Nintendo be at the top of the mound?. It might just be me, but ML is definatley way off the mark on this call. XB360 might come out on top overall (in the end), but it isn't strictly due to console prices and devaluation.
The numbers look a little defective, too. A 20GB 2.5" HDD for $25 today? And $15 in three years? Probably fairly unlikely. I doubt that cost will change, even if you accept that Microsoft is only paying $25 for the HDD today. I would expect that the price of DVD-ROM drives has pretty much hit the lowest point you can expect to see, so I don't know how they think that Microsoft will manage to get them for 60% less in three years time.
Unless they think Sony is going to release the PS3 at the $600-700 price point (it'd be suicide), I wouldn't expect the X-Box (with HDD according to those numbers) to be 1/2 the price of the PS3.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
This is obviously George Bush's Fault. He's to blame for propping up Microsoft and wanting to take the evil Japansese company from infiltrating our shores!!!
What did the XBox do to ruin your gaming experience? How has Microsoft made a mess of everything?
I'm a gamer, I like to choose games that I like to play. More choice = more chance I will find fun. This has been true all the way back to ye olde Atari vs Commodore days.
I love adventure games, unfortunately for me they are out of public favor at the moment (though a few fun titles came out this year, joy!). But the release of lots of games in sports, mmorpgs, and other genres I don't particularly care for does nothing to ruin the fun of the games I do enjoy.
Did an XBox run over your dog or something?
The worst part is that people think this is a good thing! MS just released stock info and has warnings everwhere about the poor sales expected.
If the product was in such high demand, adn such a stellar product, 50% price reductions in less than a year WOULD NOT be on the top of the list. The 360 and PS3 are failed products, they will fail.
I've been saying it (and taking massive attacks/flames) for months but it will turn out to be true. To all those who modded me down and flamed on, please re-read through my posts from a few months back on this subject in the coming months and I think we will see who's been pretty on target here. I'm not bragging, it's just that I have a number of years in this industry and all the people who said "so what" and "so that makes you an expert" and "nuh-uh, troll"
The Revolution keeps looking better positioned by the day, and I'm really hoping that the focus comes back to the actual games rather than mass-appeal eye-candy, and immature rubbish. This arms race between Sony and MS is going to take some heavy tolls on both sides.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Why would anyone buy it when they know it's gonna be 50 bucks in 2012!? yadda yadda yadda...
See, kids, there's these people called early adopters and pretty much anything consumer electronics oriented- they buy it ASAP. Why? Because they can, because it's fun, and because not everyone can get one.
Early adopters have been enjoying HDTV, pixel shaders, portable MP3 players, progressive scan DVDs, hell- MICROPROCESSORS and AUTOMOBILES for alot longer than the rest of us.
With consumer electronics enjoying an all time high in popularity, I'd say there's more of these folks than ever.
Early adopters notwithstanding, the scenario in 2006: Abundant 360s with price drop plus Halo 3 (free mulitplayer w/Silver Subscription) vs. scarce, scary-expensive PS3s with an overdone remake of Final Fantasy 7.
This will not be the first time the champ has gotten too big, too lazy and too confused to win.
The best part about that is that it was modded insightful rather than funny.
Guess it's news to some people that sex is fun...
"This is considered plagiarism."
What is with all the replies about the lack of strength of the 360's lineup?
FPS - Perfect Dark Zero, Quake4, Call of Duty 2, Gears of War. There has never been a release with a better set of FPS games. PDZ will be fantastic, and anyone who has played COD2 in a Wal Mart has walked away beyond impressed.
Sports - Typical EA and ESPN lineup with nearly every sport being represented. NBA NFL Soccer CBB - only major gap is college football.
Big Sellers - Saints Row will be out in early '06. This is often called a GTA clone, but it will go above and beyond. Elder Scrolls 4 - Slightly delayed but will help with a 1Q push in '06 of 360 sales.
Lastly, in its own catagory, Splinter Cell 4. The next in the best series of games on Xbox and PS2. This will be out in early '06.
Microsoft is hitting hard with solid games up front and some major ones in early '06. Their market penetration will be considerable by Late '06. Sony is NOT happy right now.
I'm still not buying one (nor did I buy an Xbox).
I already have a (non crippled) PC to play games on.
No Thanks, Microsoft.
AC
Although an Xbox is large and intrusive enough to kill small animals, no. It's just that I don't have very much hope that there will be "more choice" in the near future. I dont have enough trust that Microsoft will allow other companies to peaceably exist alongside them and create more choice for the market. Choice has arguably been dimished somewhat recently as it is, and I don't see Microsoft changing that for the better. Call me a pessimist, but I'm just saying how I see it.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
SO M$ leaked this, but does it really matter? Who is going to be buying a xbox 360 when they first come out? Not people who have read the article, but how many people is that really? So a few hundred people decide to wait a couple of months and pay half price for the xbox 360, but M$ still has gotten all the money that they need from the preorders and people trying to get it a soon as possible
"Citing Sony's financial woe's and Microsoft's deep pockets, they predict '...Microsoft's Xbox 360 should emerge as the early winner in the next round of the game console wars.'"
;).
If losing hundreds and hundreds of dollars per console is considered "winning", I'd rather lose. Yes, they make money with game sales, but think about it, how much do developers pay in licensing fees? How many games does the average person buy over the life of a console? Multiply those two numbers, then subtract the loss MS generates with the sale of each console (including fixed costs like advertising), and I'm thinking they'd end with a negative number.
So, you might say Microsoft isn't going for money this generation, they're going for market share. But why? Are they trying to suffocate Sony and Nintendo out of the market so they can gain a monopoly and then jack up prices and lower quality like there's no tommorow? Doesn't sound like Microsoft to me
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Yeah, I read that article earlier... the thing is, the new PS2 hardware (which I presume is being integrated into the PS3) only breaks at most a couple dozen older games. Not being able to play a few games is a small price to pay for having full compatability with the other hundreds of games for the older system.
The Xbox on the other hand, will only WORK with a couple dozen games, and those will only work if you have the hard drive for storing the emulators/patches that make thos specific games run properly. If the PS3 shoips with a harddrive, then it may be quite possible that sony can also make a workaround for the few broken games, thus giving full backwards compatability.
Now, granted that backwards compatability shouldn't be the biggest factor in which of the new consoles to buy, it will still be a major influence on consumers. I think that the biggest influence will be on parents of younger children, as many youger kids don't really care what Spongebob's polygon count is, or what lighting/rendering/whatnot algorithms are used. Parents will want to buy the console that lets the kids keep playing their favorite older games as well as daddy's shiny new games, and I honestly doubt that there are many - if any - kids games on the list for being made backwards compatable on the 360.
I'll believe it when I see it. The thing is over priced, and has too
few good games.
I have yet to see a *must have* system-selling title. There is no Halo.
And let's face it, X-Box was a "halo-box" for most first-time buyers.
The only title that was remotely interesting was OBLIVION and its delayed.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The estimates for "Analog IC, ASICs, I/O" after 3 years are $20 for the Xbox and $40 for the PS3. Ignoring the fact that they already itemised USB, Ethernet, Wi-Fi and controllers so there's bamn little I/O left to account for, where did they pull those numbers from? Sony, with 50 years of consumer electronics experience and in-house assembly lines will end up paying 100% more and Microsoft? Yeah, Right.
Sony will be paying more for 256Mb of Ram than MS will for 512? Laughable!
Microsoft have 1 loss-making console and some keyboards worth of experience manufacturing consumer hardware, while Sony have consistently proved with the PSOne and Slimline PS2 that they can and do trim every last excess cost from a product. They do this sort of thing all the time across their entire product range.
The article also conveniently ignores the fact that for the most expensive part, the CPU, Sony are part of the Cell consortium, have invested in the chip from the start, and are going to build the CPUs for other uses as well, whereas Microsoft are just customers of IBM (a company that probably wants Microsoft to lose the battle and get cut down to size a bit). The same goes for blu-ray, it's a Sony in-house product, so nobody else is getting a cut of the price.
The cost of the case, packaging and distribution are conveniently ignored, presumably because that's another area where Sony's experience and consumer electronics presence will pay off well.
Finally... $100 for a triple-core 3.2 Ghz PPC chip *today*? If that was the case, Apple would never have switched to Intel, and would be shipping 12 core 3.2Ghz boxes for $1999, not 4 core 2.5Ghz ones for $3300!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Yeah like how MS is fully supportive of 2D games, so North America at last got a console release of the superlative Metal Slug 3. They also let indie devs sell 2D (and 3D!) games on Xbox Live Arcade and the X360 comes with a 2D game (Hexic HD) as a pack-in title. But Sony of America is vehemently anti-2D and wouldn't allow MS3's release because of that, and this attitude helped practically destroy the whole 'genre' in the 32-bit era (really all they would let in is the major 2D fighters and 2D bundles). That is a definite sign that "Choice has arguably been dimished somewhat recently as it is" and those bastards at MS are clearly to blame!
[/sarcasm]
It's a safe bet that if MS became some kind of console monopoly there would be a limitation of choice. But there is no sign of that happening anytime soon with two major competitors, we saw the same thing happen when Sony and Nintendo were the champs, and Windows is still a much more open platform than any console that has been released. At the very least shouldn't we be willing to reward MS when they do play nicely with others? You know, some kind of positive feedback?
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Well the very least, thanks for not jsut labeling me a fanboy troll, and you raise a very good issue. I'm actually a big fan of 2D fighters, which I have to admit got done proper justice on the Xbox. It's about the only hope a person without an arcade can get some good competition (Live). I loathe Sony's stance on 2D games. Also, I never knew about the Live arcade, whichc seems like it could actually become a promising venue for indie and low budget developers to publish. Online is the perfect distribution method and being able to do it for a console seems all the better. Hmmmmm... I'm actually starting to have a lil respect for this thing?!
Or at least I now see that it has some up-sides along with the downside of being attached to Microsoft's name. And being large in size. And the new kid in town. Not sure if I'll get an Xbox or a 360, but at least I can see where it's done some good in the industry. I guess you've changed my view a little.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
have you actually seen how much xbox360 retails for? I looked at the walmart catalog and couldn't find a single NONBUNDLE version of xbox360. The bundles are WAY more expensive than the MSRP of $400. This is expected though when a single game cost between $50 and $70. So my point is that at the current prices I highly doubt that MS will build up enough momentum so that they can afford to cut down the price in half and still be making any profit. But then again xbox never sold for a profit either so who knows ... it's good to be the undisputed king of software...