Slashdot Mirror
Playstation 3 Soon Into Production
Roy van Rijn writes "According to Forbes, the Commercial Times reported that Taiwanese ASUSTeK Computer Inc. will be delivering PlayStation 3 consoles to Sony starting this month. The news comes amid concerns that Sony may not have enough Cell and RSX chips to meet production goals of 2 million units for launch. The report also states that, Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd, also a Taiwanese company, will soon begin making the PlayStation 3 consoles for Sony too. Total monthly shipments from manufacturers are expected to be 200,000 units per month."
The media will hype this as a good sign for Sony using the generic and technologically unaware phrases they always use:
"Well Jim, the PS3, as Sony has named it, is flying off the shelves. They just can't keep them in stock. This next generation gaming console is moving straight from truck to customer."
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
This has happened before...PS2's yield rate was pretty crappy, if you remember. They were low on production numbers back then too. So low, in fact, that they couldn't even fulfill the numbers for the people who had preordered the system - they first went by date and who paid in full, and the next shipment went out to first-come customers.
Obviously, the PS2 did not hurt for sales at all. They supplied the numbers demanded of them eventually, and it was extremely successful. The only real killers for Sony are potentially the hype and the massive price. I saw a couple units go for well over $500 on Ebay. Personally, at $600 I won't be buying that Sony product any time soon - not unless I get about 3 pay raises!
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Y'know, I can't refute your logic, but it is still flawed. What people say, and what people do, are two separate things. Plus, you're assuming that initial production problems will continue for the life of the product.
In addition, you cite the PS2 for two major problems the PS3 is facing: Initial production problems and low quality launch titles. The problem with using that logic is that you are making a comparison to one of the most successful consoles on the market. A console that is still outselling the 360.
If the PS3 is facing doom, why isn't there a sharp spike in 360 sales? Everyone who thinks the PS3 is crap but wants power should be flocking to Microsoft's banner. I have no current sales figures at hand, but the last time I looked I didn't see the 360 even beating the last generation console.
But as I said earlier, I cannot refute your post. Everything you say may come to pass and the PS3 will dive like Enron stock. But I think you base your conclusion on insufficient evidence.
Sure there are die-hard, rabid, Playstation fanatics who would still buy one if the price was your first born. But if you look at the fact that Sony has always had lame launch titles, the PSP's consumer excitement around it's launch could be described as "apathetic" with the die hard fans camping out for a product that didn't even sell out....
Its true that the DS is handily beating the PSP in sales, especially since the DS Lite launched; but apathetic is alittle strong. The PSP is selling about half as well as the DS. That's still something like 200k units per month.
Root kit lost a lot of fans...
Rootkit fiasco lost a lot of nerd fans. Jo Q Public still has no clue. They don't even know what a rootkit is.
Arrogance: check.
Wii rip-off: undecided. Its a natural progression, the tilt sensor they added, if you ask me. More likely this feature was bumped up in priority when Sony saw the impression the Wii remote made. I can see that one either way to be honest. This is sort of like saying that every single digital music player is ripping off the iPod.
MS 'guide' button: what are you talking about? I don't even know what this is. Hardly a feature that's touted as interesting, at any rate.
and perhaps most importantly THE PRICE.
Price is bad, I agree. Way bad in comparison to the other consoles, specifically. Of course, we don't actually know the final price yet.
Heck the reason for the high price was because of the Blu-Ray drive, and reviews thus far have shown that HD-DVD is stomping all over Blu-Ray.
Really! I'd like to see that. Cite a source?
HD-DVD has 2 layer discs (15gig per layer/30gig total) and uses the awesome VC-1 codec.
So? Blu-ray has a max storage of 200 gigs, over six layers. The codec is irrelevant; you can write a Blu-ray disc with MPEG-2, or the awesome VC-1 codec, OR the 'even awesomer' AVC codec. HD-DVD can only use MS-approved codecs and by the way, that has DRM built-in to the wrapper. (H.264/AVC does not necessarily have this stipulation (weak praise I know), but ALL MS codecs will have to deal with this.)
Blu-Ray can't get good yields on dual layer discs and even single layer discs have yield problems forcing them to only be able to use 80% of it... ~20gig.
I've seen this mentioned nowhere, and your use of the word 'yields' for optical media is kind of suspect. Source?
Not to mention they're using the woefully outdated MPEG2 codec and most reviews have said that some of the movies DVD counterparts look better then the Blu-Ray versions..
Yeah you said that before, and its still completely wrong. Check yer facts jack.
Even early Blu-Ray players can only read single layer discs, so will the PS3 be stuck to only reading single layer discs as well? NOT GOOD FOR PS3 SALES particularly if Sony was banking on people buying it as a cheap Blu-Ray player. nobody wants another UMD movie format.
Pure speculation and unfounded at that. UMD is a different animal.
I think low yield might be the least of their problems. Every day I see more and more of the die-hard Playstation fans going from "of course I'm getting one" too "I'll wait and see" or in some cases "I decided to get an 360/Wii instead".
Feel free to get up from Slashdot and leave the PC for a little while, your impression might change.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
There seems to be a lot of concern in this discusssion to pick a winner, and then for a winner be an early adopter, but for a loser never ever buy it.
I think that's fine, I've done that myself, however for PS3 here is how it will work for me :
I will buy it - I decided a long long time ago and I don't particularly care what other peoples expectations of its features, value or prospects look like. Whether it's $600, or $1200, doesn't particularly matter to me. They last me for many years and I get a lot of fun out of them - PS2 was a particularly good deal, but if PS3 can save me buying an expensive separate dedicated blu-ray player it might also turn out to be a bargain.
I wont queue up or pay deposits or try really hard to get one early. I will simply wait until I happen to be in a store that has a pile of them and then I'll just pick one up.
I'll buy a few games - Jak and Daxter, Gran Turismo, Ratchett and Clank, maybe Pitfall. I'm sure a few wll be wicked and I'll love them. A few I'll play for an hour and give up on.
If PS3 takes off and starts to have even more awesome games, I'll buy a few more. If it's a failure, well, that's fine, I'm not too worried. Hey, maybe I'll buy an xbox 360 too. Several high-end consoles and some games works out a lot cheaper per hour of entertainment than, say, getting a babysitter and going out to the movies over and over. In a few years I'll let my daughter play some carefully chosen games from time to time.
I'm not going to pick a winner, and I'm not completely on one "side" or the other. Unless you count the side that says if I had enough money I'd have all the consoles and all the games and I also wouldn't have to work and would actually complete the odd game!
Well the PS2 launched at the same price as the PS1: $300. In addition to that the PS2's only competition was the hanging by a thread Sega Dreamcast, which was following up one of the worst selling consoles in their history. MS wasn't even on the radar during the PS2 launch, and neither was Nintendo. PS2's only competition was the Dreamcast, a great console but poorly marketed, with little to no 3rd party support and following up one of the WORST selling consoles of the previous generation. Again again the PS2 wasn't expensive. It was the same price their previous console launched at, it wasn't surprising at all.
The PS3 doesn't have a market in their favor this time. Towards the end of the Xbox 1's life it was selling just as many units as the PS2 on a day to day basis, hardly a comparison to the brow-beating the Saturn got in comparison to the PS1.
As for the PS2 outselling the 360... need I remind you that the PS1 outsold the PS2 for the first year of the PS2's life, uptake on expensive new consoles is slow and it's expected that last gen consoles will still sell very well into the start of the following generation. I think it's actually impressive that the 360 is selling ALMOST AS MANY units As the PS2 considering it's more then twice the price.
I'd have to disagree, the PS2 launched with one non-competitor (the dreamcast) and 2 distant non-competitors (the unproven Xbox from that crap company MS and Nintendo's un-inventive Gamecube). The PS3 by comparison has a very serious competitor with a head start in the (Xbox 360) and they also have another very serious contender with the Nintendo Wii...
Collector's Edition
Whether it is too expensive really depends on what you
think you're getting for your money. A console that can
play the entire back catalog of PS1 and PS2 games, in
addition to new games made specifically for it certainly
has appeal to people like me who have older consoles
that will need to be replaced in order to play the
game library they've acquired over the years and who like
picking up old games for a couple of bucks (lots of older
games are more fun that these pretty new games).
If I decide that a $600 PS3 has more value for me than
a $400 Xbox360, I'll buy it when I'm ready to upgrade
consoles. I'm not a poor college kid and so an extra $200
for a one-time purchase won't even show up on my financial
radar.
I suspect there are lots of people like me who have decent
jobs and are willing to pay for the product they want rather
than settle for a cheaper product that isn't what they want.
*sigh* back to work...
Absolutely right. The average age of Playstation owners hit 21+ sometime in the mid-late 1990s. The average subscriber of "Official Playstation Magazine" is 24. For these people, a $100-$200 difference in initial launch price isn't going to be a dealbreaker. What will decide the fate of the console is whether it has the games people want to play. Microsoft's biggest problem is that their library isn't up to snuff. They had the same 1-year headstart in this generation that the PS2 had on the last generation. By this time in the PS2's lifecycle, it had built up a very decent head-start on the library front, and its sales were pulling even with the PS1s. Microsoft has not managed to do either of these things with the 360.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Let's say Sony somehow manages to launch with 2 million systems, 1 million systems, 10,000 systems, it really does not matter as now the demand will outstrip supply regardless of the price of the PS3 INITIALLY. It will be very difficult to get a PS3 if they launch worldwide with 2 million systems. In fact, ebay sales will make up most of initial purchases. In the 360 line at launch at least half of the people there were buying to resell on ebay. Nontheless, where are the killer games? What is the killer app? ALL of the games shown at the E3 seemed way off from shipping and there was no mention that the Flagship title of Metal Gear Solid 8 would be ready at launch. Sony is in a very tight spot. Miss the launch and wait for the games and lose more ground, or ship unfinished, crappy games that drive their fans directly to buying an XBox 360 instead, at half the price. Lastly, Sony is going to become the niche player this time around. Parents faced with $5 a gallon gas this year may buy a $299 360, but certainly not a $700 PS3.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
Ummm, dude, I probably agree with you on every single one of your individual points, but you still come across as an asshole. Actually, if you read his post, it doesn't come across as fanboyish in the slightest, he takes a good step back from everything and surveys it fairly well. If anything, YOUR post comes across as anti-Sony fanboyish. I may agree a little more with your actual conclusions, but you could learn some communication skills from this guy. Oh, and spelling a company you don't like with a "$" sign, that's so funny, I wish I'd thought of that!
Sure, I don't believe the PS3 will be a huge success, but I don't believe it will fail either... the PS2 did so well, the PS3 is guarenteed a good ride for a while on its success, even if it is little more than a toaster glued to a frying pan. Now, the PS4 may be a disaster because of it, but that's a different story.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Yeah, reading back on my post, I guess I do come across as an asshole. Sorry about that, stressful day at work. And the whole $ony thing, it has to do with the rootkit... it hid the files using the $? After the M$ stuff, I thought that it was fitting. I agree, and even admit, to being an anti-sony fanboi fanboi. I just get tired of reading so much fud on both sides of the fence without anything backing it up.
The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel...
I reckon Sony could make a PS3 out of cardboard and it will sell millions, and I think they know this as well.
I however am with you, I don't usually bother with consoles, but I play less, can't afford to keep upgrading this box (and dont want to buy more M$) just to play games. But I find myself drawn to Nintendo's new offerings.
I really don't know how I have resisted the urge to get a DS Lite yet.
If this were really happening, what would you think?