Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Assembly Starts End of September, Most High-End
GameDailyBiz is reporting that Sony has announced further details on the PS3 assembly process. Final assembly will apparently begin at the end of this month, with some 400K units planned for the November 17th launch. They're promising another 800,000 units by the end of the year. From that article: "Although Sony will have shipped only 2.4 million units worldwide in 2006 (as opposed to their initial forecast of 4 million), the company still believes it will hit its goal of 6 million shipped through next March. Sony said that monthly PS3 production will be ramped up to 1.2 million units in January when the Blu-ray laser supplies are expected to improve." Gamespot has further analysis, stating that the split will be about 80/20, favoring the higher-end model over the lower-end model. That is, most of the units at launch should be the $600 model with the HDMI port.
I'm guessing more in the range of $700-$800 because retailers will probably force bundled packages on us like they did with the XBOX 360 when it came out. And more likely so since this will be coming out right at the start of the holiday shopping season. It's going to be on many peoples shopping lists and people will pay those prices because someone on their list will be wanting one.
it makes Sony an extra $100. I'd imagine that's what's most important about it.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
The premium version also boasts a larger hard-drive.
The 80/20 convention is still probably the right idea, since it's the early adopters that are most willing to buy a console at launch. They're probably much more likely to own an HDTV, over the general public. Furthermore, even if they don't have an HDTV, the mindset of an early adopter is to "future-proof" themselves and get the console with the most features, even if they may not use them all yet. It may be costly to upgrade later. And finally, there's the general fanboy opinion that the core version of any console is the "sucky one" and anyone who got suckered into buying is a "n00b". So there's that to consider as well.
In fact, one of the complaints with the 360 launch is that there were too many Core systems created, instead of Premium ones. People were very much willing to fork over the extra $100 for the Premium one (especially since it had an HD and the Core did not), but were forced to get the Core. It's never a good thing when you force your customers to spend less than they want to.
-- jchenx
I remember that in previous PS3 threads whenever someone would say the PS3 cost $600, someone would always post and say "nuh-uh, most gamers will only need the $500 version!"
Well, it looks like most gamers will be stuck with the $600 version, need it or not!
Although it's probably actually a good move for launch. They can't possibly meet demand with only 500,000 PS3s at launch, so charging as much as possible makes sense.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Uh oh.
Either someone has their numbers wrong, or Sony is planning to have an extra 100K units available by the end of November. Either way, this means there will be even less units than recently stated, which was also less units than previously promised.
Sony should just hurry up and use a shotgun on their foot instead of a pistol. At least, if they are shipping more units in November but after launch, this is better than the 360, where they didn't send out additional shipments for a few weeks after initial release.
And this is exactly why Nintendo is not playing the "HD" game this time around...not enough people will be able to take advantage of it to make the expenditure worthwhile.
Expandability?
That's what we should avoid with consoles. You cannot have two standards for the same console, as the developers will then develop for the lowest common denominator to ensure maximum compatibility. By branching out, something will end up like an add-on and fade away. That's why most add-ons fail, because you can't guarantee everyone will have one, and therefore publishers are afraid they can't get the sales volume they are looking for. People don't buy consoles so they have to add on items to play, and of the games that do require an add-on, most of them, fail to live up to their potential in sales and acceptance.
As for futureproofing, that's a fallacy in buying technology. Standards and new technology are introduced so fast, that buying for the future and spending a premium on it is silly. Just think back, two years ago, stores were pushing HDTVs as "buying for the future", and people had to pay over $6000-$7000 CDN for a 42" Plasma with DVI. Yet that TV would just sit there, displaying Standard Definition, sometimes EDTV, and rarely HDTV for most of the time and not using it's full potential. Now a 42" Plasma HDTV with HDMI can be had for $2500-$3000CDN and at least now, a person can enjoy some of their channels in HDTV. So what did the person paying an additional $3000 2 years ago get? No use of the HD, DVI standard being replaced by HDMI, etc...
There's nothing like a tight supply to get the ebay vultures circling. I suspect the actual cost for the first few thousand units will be in the $1200-1500 range. Sadly, there are enough people out there who will feed the ebay scum.
Can you imagine what a Tickle Me Elmo would go for today (ex if it had happend in 2006 vs 1996), give then hype that surrounded it back then combined with the insane market that is ebay?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Actually, the dev kits currently out don't even have full hardware support. There's minimal networking support, the controllers are nowhere near final (no tilt, no final design...) It's been rumored that the GPU on the most recent dev kits are at only 80% the speed the final PS3 (which has been dropped again)...
I want to see EVERY console do well, for the greater good (in innovation, consumer costs, FUN!) that competition brings, so the fact that SONY is bunging this up as badly as they are is only depressing.......I mean come on, who wouldn't want to play Madden with 6 of your buds by your side?!?!?
a side by side comparison of HDMI vs. a good set of component cables will result in HDMI having the nicer picture.
This is worded as though there were a double blind test run by a disinterested party with this published result somewhere. Care to share that reference? Or is this just another slashdot claim pulled from nether regions (or are you running that sychrotron in the basement again)? The main distinction between HDMI and DVI/component is that the former plays more directly into the hands of the DRM proponents even though DRM makes no sense for game console output. The PS3 does include BluRay player capability so full resolution playback becomes a legacy issue. Initially we are promised full resolution for component output. If enough people only have component output it becomes less attractive for vendors to cripple future discs by turning off full resolution.
I distinctly remember a system that launched with about three games available, at a suggested retail price of $300 (or was it $400? something like that...). Supply was so scarce they sold on ebay for anywhere from $500-$2000. It's amazing what a launch right before christmas will do for you.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
What I meant is that HDMI's only advantage is the audio on the same wire. As far is video goes, HDMI has nothing over DVI. Anyway, the protocol has nothing to do with the wire it flows in. While every device that does HDMI also does HDCP, not every DVI based solutions does HDCP. But if you do own one, there's no reason for spending money on a newer TV with HDMI. You might as well use DVI/HDCP for now and use optical out for sound.
As far as being cracked for years, that's not the cable's fault, only the algorithm used in the device. DVI and HDMI are just wires.
Also, I fail to see where DVI devices unscramble/decrypt the signal before sending it to the display device.