What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.177 Comments
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5LOL @ people criticizing Meryl Lynch, please look up who this firm even is
LOL @ people too stupid to realize neither columns add up the total stated and why
LOL @ people not realizing that at no point do they mention that this is what it will cost you to buy it
They're making a valid point that if you want to invest in Sony over the PS3, chances are you'll just be sponsoring their failure at a loss leader. - DeckardRep, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What the F is this? Their cost list of components add up to $800, not $900. Yet, they list $900 as the total at the bottom. What am I missing?
Their "Cost after 3 years" list adds up to the total price stated. Although, some of those costs are inflated. - Broadway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it's not a "he," dammit.
Some dude named Merrill Lynch is not sitting around typing up price speculations. It's a major investment firm. - antipro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@deckardRep
good call on the funny math
I have no idea where they got 900$ - WiFiSPY, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4it was a typo most likely , just add a 1 in front of the 70$ for the RSX GPU and you get 900$
do you really think a state of the art GPU is only 70$? - nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why is it that some people on here can't understand the the difference between 'cost' and 'price'?
The 'cost' will be around $900 probably
The 'price' should be considerably lower, at least half. - gbotmbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Doesn't even add up to 900. Did this guy pass grade 1?
- BlindIrishman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what? They allways lose money the first few years.
- vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol, that's a lot of people who don't understand the difference between cost to company and cost to the consumer.
- notman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"lol, that's a lot of people who don't understand the difference between cost to company and cost to the consumer."
Thank you.... I was beginning to think that I'm the only person that realizes Sony wouldn't have to pay full market retail on these parts.
Enough speculation guys. Post something when SONY states the price. Thanks - charmedguy18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is why I don't like Playstation....
- jwade1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What about that wicked sweet Atari 2600? Man, its going to be a toss up between the Atari and the Commodore 64.
All this anger over something so very trivial....makes me realize why some of these guys play WOW rather than spending some time with the opposite sex. - bigboehmboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Blu-Ray price is crap. That's not the cost for bulk, not for one of the real founders of Blu-Ray. CPU does seem low, but ive read that the average manufacturing cost for a computer one is $60. Sony Is just back to their old games again. They announced early on that the system was going to be expensive, and bragged about it, to make it seem superior to the X360. So the X360 decided to price its at 300/400, so now PS3 can come in at the same price or a little higher, but with something that everyone thinks costs 2-3 times as much.
- Xipher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3lol, that's not the prices sony pays for bulk millions of parts.
- RiotActing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While they may be guilty of a typo, Merrill Lynch knows what they are doing... if they say the cost is going to be $800 then it most likely will be close to that number. Why is everyone saying
"The PS3 wont be $800!"
No ***** dummies, that is the cost to Sony... Good luck to them setting the stupid thing at a price point that isn't going to bankrupt their asses...
This is big news from a respected financial institution, the PS3 is *****! DUGG!!! - whalesalad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Rofl you guys are nuts. Each of those components cost even less to manufactur that it even states... this thing is definitly not gonna be $900. $600 max, most likely $500. Wait and see!!! Hopefully this comment will still be here on Digg so yeah heres my dated proof.
- crazed376, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Besides the fuzzy math, you also have to take into account that Sony doesn't have to pay the normal fees for the Cell processor and Blu-Ray since they are stake holders in both technologies. Also, they would most likely be paying at cost for the RSX chip after paying NVidia for their share or development cost. This would greatly reduce the actual price for these three items, bring the cost to around $400-450 per unit. A reasonable price allowing for a per unit loss easily recouped with software sales.
- luvkit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone here: CALM DOWN! It's just a video game system. If it costs alot, who cares?! Some people need to stop defending the PS3 like it's their little brother. It won't cost $900, and it will still come out and be successful.
But Sony does have some problems. The PS3 is still barely put together, and it's supposed to come out in a few months. Combine that with their DRM debacle, and Sony isn't looking like a wise financial investment without some serious changes. There's my advice, don't invest in Sony yet. Wait until specs for the PS3 come out. If it sucks, don't buy. If it's good, buy. Sony should jump in price. - ThugEsquire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Basically, the PS3 sucks the big one.
- retawd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yup. It's right there on paper. Now we know why Sony been so completely unsuccessful in the videogame business so far... I'd guess the PS2 must have cost $900 to makeback in 2000 too, and the games, well Sony must pay at least $150/title for development, manufacturing and shipping... It's like Sony's 10 years of worldwide videogame subsidy supplying videogames @1/3 the cost to children and adults all over the world may be over. Quick. Somebody go buy a bunch of Walkmans so they don't go out of business...
- Iconoclast5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Holy conniptions Batman! Talk about hostile fan-boy reactions.
- shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jesus christ, do you people even READ? VERY Poor comprehension....
- sparkmonkeyz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sony is crazy and i really hope that they die and sell are there companys that have deals with them to nintendo, because they can do wonders with what they have. and then for the basic games they can sell to microsoft.
- jwade1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some of you guys need to calm down. Does it really matter THAT much, that you have to get so worked up? Sony is known for humping the wallet of their customers, and Microsoft is guilty of it too. It wouldn't shock me if it were $900, but I would imagine it will cost much less if it wants to compete with the XBOX 2
I myself am waiting for the new Commodore 64 to come out. - TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Another reason to get a Nintendo Revolution.
- kmedlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This isn't the cost to the consumer. An investment company could care less what the retail price is (unless it loses the company money). This looks more like a cost-to-manufacture breakdown. Sony isn't going to release it at $900.00. They'll be, just like everyone assumes, somewhere around what the XBOX360 came out for last year.
The trick will be, of course, if they can justify to their shareholders that taking a $450 dollar loss per unit will equate to long to term success. So, my guess is that the feature list is probably still up for negotiation. Since Blu-Ray is Sony's baby, that probably won't get dropped, but I'd be willing to be we see some of the other expensive ancillary technologies dropped in the name of protecting Sony. Heck, if they can get that cost per unit at launch down 100 bucks, that'd even go a long way!
Really though they should be playing the EA Games market and just buying up a TON of lucrative exclusive licenses. Signing a deal with Square Enix, maybe trying to buy out MLB from Take 2, etc. Stuff like that so that they can point to their games and say...if you don't have this system, you don't get Baseball, or you don't get Football. The biggest one that would help them worldwide is an exclusive FIFA License so that Winning Eleven would only be on the PS3! - pheonix2og, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Parts listed add up to $800 - right. However, Pay attention to the fact that the 2.5" HDD price is listed as N/A. I'm guessing they're estimating this drive to be at about $100 or less.
Beyond this there is an obvious reason why it could be $900 or more - markup. If they want to make some money and not lose it or break even, they're going to add some money to the per unit cost.
Either way, where do you learn to add your numbers? N/A = x. Unknown value. An unknown value in this case is likely being estimated up to $100. So, assuming x=100, the price is $900. Think outside of your box and don't be such a fanboy that you can't believe something negative about something. - Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That article is completely laughable.
- Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What the F is this? Their cost list of components add up to $800, not $900. Yet, they list $900 as the total at the bottom. What am I missing?"
even if the parts don't add up (the $70 GPU could be a typo...like mentioned above) these parts don't assemble, pack, box, and ship themselves to retailers on their own...there's cost outside of the individual parts
and to answer a question above...Sony has partnerships with IBM and NVidia to buy their parts (at a profit to both IBM and NVidia...) and redistribute them (ideally at a profit...but not in this case...) - xplummerx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah...but they forgot to include the price of the included rootkit....
- sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm reporting as innacurate. There's no link to the actual report from merill lynch, just a picture posted by some random dude (and if ANYONE here COULDN"T manufacture that picture, you shouldn't be digging articles anyway.) The math is innacurate, the costs are wrong, and with all the digging I've been doing through friends in the industry I'd like to think I'd have heard if it was going to be that expensive. Last projections I've heard were between 500 and 700 dollars cost to consumers (with "everything you'll need", so it's basically like the 360 bundles that have the bare minimum that you need, and it's still a ***** more powerful.)
- weebs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what the hell is wrong with you guys, it's going to cost SONY $800 to make, they're not going to CHARGE $800 for it...more like $300. The point is that they'll be losing a lot of money at launch.
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok no digg.If they can't use elemtry school math to find the price then shouldn't be ture.
- happbando, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i don't think the blu-ray component will really cost 350 bucks. they already said that it's going to be cheaper than blu-ray players because it already has the cell.
- shotgun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They'll just sell the games at $79.99 for bargain bin games, $99.99 - they could easily argue that snes use to be $59.99 (which they were at one point) and due to inflation the cost of games has to simply go up. Then again who knows, although this isn't all that surprising with bluray players costing $1500-2500 right now and those obviously don't have trick processors, 512MB of ram and trick gpus.
Oh well, I wonder what sony will be showing off at e3 in a few months. - cube5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the GPU supossedly most advanceed for all consoles is only 70 dollars??? typo most likely but it really surprises me to see how expensive the blu ray drives are. 350$$ thats enough for a 360 by itself.
- boardo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0some of those earlier comments on this page are completely pathetic.... I can't understand why people get all upset over this, it is speculation. Who cares.
- 8-bit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bull *****-no way in hell the blu ray costs that much. But I hope it does, I want to see sony disapear.
- spingk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://rsch1.ml.com/9093/24013/ds/276873_0.PDF
- ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0uhh $900? Why not just go and buy a PC? I'm holding out for the revolution.
- dogoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sony isnt THAT stupid.
- dielawn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0until sony says themselves they spend 900 per unit, i wont believe this.
- fillllll, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BS!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why is anyone surprised? Look at the hardware in the PS3. Sony can get good deals but they can't steal parts. Anyone who thinks the PS3 will sell at 200 or $300 is foolish. I'd say $499 or $599, maybe more.
- hcl40u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sure there will be a free root kit in every PS3. ;)
- mortal-god, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my guess is that the real cost of building each console in bulk will be roughly $600, in which case they will sell at around $500 to compete with the xbox.
but none of it really matters to me, viva la revolution! - zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0heh, sounds like sony hates its customers even more than i thought...
- chromo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh come on, how much more does the PS3 have to take? you think sony would launch it for 800$? no one would buy and their not total morons. does anyone know how much all the parts cost for a 360? and if their really is a big price diffrence than that would mean the PS3 probly has better graphics.
just wait till it comes out, everyone gets caught up in the supposed price or lack of support so just wait till next E3 or somthin. - geezusfreeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay guy, repeat after me:
Cost != Price
That said, $900 is ridiculous, even for the before markdown cost. If this is an accurate estimate, then Sony will probably be losing a lot of money. How many games do typical console gamers buy for a particular console? - firen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's funny, because last time they predicted the price they said it would cost 490 to make...hmm
-
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is