|
Home > Archive > Xbox forum > February 2006 > EDGE magazine reports PS3 will have Harddrive as standard
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
EDGE magazine reports PS3 will have Harddrive as standard
|
|
| Air Raid 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Edge's feburary edition seems certain on the HDD issue:
quote:
..........................................................
ONLINE OPTIONS
Sony has on several occasions been asked its opinion of Xbox Live. In
its most recent commentary on the topic it has conceded that
Microsoft's online console infrastructure does certain things it
admires, but that we should bare in mind that, most importantly, more
people play online games via PS2than any other console. Which is no
boast-it's precisely what you'd expect Sony to be able to achieve with
the hardware numbers it's shipped. The truth of the matter is that Sony
has not been able to fully commit to an online console strategy the way
Microsoft has because of its own fragmented technology. With PS3
shipping with a hard drive as standard, the deal immediately changes.
............................................................
| |
| listermonocle@hotmail.com 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| That would be awesome, but if it's true, they're the only ones that
know it. And Blu-Ray PLUS hard drive? How much is this damn thing going
to cost?
| |
|
|
| Skykid 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Air Raid wrote:
quote:
> not a great article, going by what I remember of how good EDGE and Next
> Generation magazines were in the 1990s, but still worth reading I
> suppose.
>
Edge continues to be the magazine to read if you have an IQ over 70 and
are over the age of 18. If not, then magazines such as GamePro and PSM
are more appropriate.
Regards,
SK
| |
| Dreamcasted 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Skykid wrote:
quote:
> Air Raid wrote:
>
> Edge continues to be the magazine to read if you have an IQ over 70
> and are over the age of 18. If not, then magazines such as GamePro
> and PSM are more appropriate.
>
> Regards,
> SK
ahh, but what if you are over the age of 19 and have an IQ over 80?
huh? ever think about that?
--
| |
| Sir Chewbury Gubbins 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| On 2006-02-13, Air Raid <AirRaidJet@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> I'm guessing $400 ~ $500 tops
There's no reason for Sony to price down the PS3. Look what people paid
for the PS2? They have major brand recognition. They'll charge enough to
cover costs and make a profit.
Choobs
--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury.gubbins@nelefa.org>
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1967
http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings [ESC]:wq
| |
| Android66 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| No they won't.
Very few game console manufacturers have ever charged enough to cover
costs and make a profit on the hardware. Nintendo might have done it
with the GameCube--since it didn't play CDs or DVDs, the cost of
manufacturing the unit was probably close to the original $199.99
retail price, although I don't know for sure. Panasonic and others
tried to do it with the 3DO system--which is why it retailed for $700
and didn't sell well at all. They had to do this, since they didn't
make money on software under that particular business model.
For the most part, however, companies take a loss on the hardware and
make their money back on software. If the PS3 costs Sony $600-$700 to
manufacture, which is more than people will historically pay for a
"game" machine, they will likely retail for $300-$400. Don't cry for
Sony, though. They'll charge a licensing fee of ~$18-$20 per game, so
when Rockstar's next Grand Theft Auto game sells 2 million copies,
that's ~$40,000,000 for Sony. If every PS3 owner purchases 15 or more
games over the lifetime of the system, which averages out to 3 or so
per year, that will make up for any losses on the console (Considering
how many PS2 games I own, I've personally made up for the loss on
thousands of consoles...they should be thanking me!  ). And this
doesn't even account for re-engineering the system over time to make it
cheaper to manufacture.
Something else we need to take into account is the Blu-Ray capabilities
of the PS3. Since Sony Pictures will make money selling their movies
in that format, they'll want more people to have access to Blu-Ray
players. A $700 PS3 isn't going to have as big an installed base as a
$400 PS3, so once again there is an incentive for Sony to take a loss
on the console knowing that they can make money on the movies as well
as the games.
If you think Sony will charge enough to cover costs and make a profit
on the PS3, you're off your nut...
| |
| Silvio3d 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| > Sony, though. They'll charge a licensing fee of ~$18-$20 per game, so
microsoft, sony and nintendo have a licensing fee of max 10$, near 5$ in the
platinum series
quote:
> If every PS3 owner purchases 15 or more games over the lifetime of the
> system
officially from the financial report of sony
the "attach rate" of playstation 1 is 12 game per console (after more then
10 yars)
the "attach rate" of playstation 2 is 11 game per console (after 6 yars)
for the xbox 1 i have bought 54 games but non all peoples do the same
| |
| Sir Chewbury Gubbins 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Yes they will.
What is this - remove all context week?
Choobs
--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury.gubbins@nelefa.org>
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1967
http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings [ESC]:wq
| |
| ticars@gmail.com 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| I agree that Sony will most likely take a loss on their console, but
there is no way they are going to sell a console that cost $600-700 for
$300-$400. That is an initial loss of anywhere from $200-$400 per
console. Even if they pulled in $20 per license, that would require
each console buyer to purchase 10-20 games just to break even. If you
factor in the time value of money you are probably talking about 13-26
games if you figure those games are purchased over a 4-5 year span.
They maybe willing to take a loss, but there is little chance that will
take that large of a loss. I would expect something closer to a $600
system selling for $550+.
ALthought the calculations in the real world are nowhere near this
simple. They have to figure that manufacturing costs will decrease
quicker than system discounts, research for this system can be used to
discount other technology, and the value of getting market traction
early on.
| |
| Air Raid 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| PS3, even an expensive version, cannot retail for a penny more than
$500.
otherwise that is suicide. even for Sony. and they know this.
| |
| Andrew Ryan Chang 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| Android66 <mandrovich@wifibullseye.com> wrote:
quote:
>Very few game console manufacturers have ever charged enough to cover
>costs and make a profit on the hardware. Nintendo might have done it
Well, no, not at first.
But I'm fairly sure the PS2 sells at a profit for Sony _now_. I
would guess that the XBox is the only (nominally) successful console in
history to never reach breakeven/profit just on the unit itself...
quote:
>If you think Sony will charge enough to cover costs and make a profit
>on the PS3, you're off your nut...
But on the other hand, there's a limit to how much any company can
subsidize a console.
--
"I yused to coudnt spel injunear, now I are one."
-attribution ?
| |
| Sir Chewbury Gubbins 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| On 2006-02-13, Air Raid <AirRaidJet@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> PS3, even an expensive version, cannot retail for a penny more than
> $500.
> otherwise that is suicide. even for Sony. and they know this.
How much did the PS2 retail for at launch?
Choobs
--
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury.gubbins@nelefa.org>
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1967
http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings [ESC]:wq
| |
| Li'l Slugger 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
|
"Sir Chewbury Gubbins" <chewbury.gubbins@nelefa.org> wrote in message
news:45dn5pF65q04U1@individual.net...
quote:
> On 2006-02-13, Air Raid <AirRaidJet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How much did the PS2 retail for at launch?
You couldn't buy a $300 PS2 at launch without having to purchase overpriced
packages with crap you don't need, including worthless $100 extended
warranties.
| |
| listermonocle@hotmail.com 2006-02-25, 10:30 pm |
| I bought a PS2 at launch for $299.
| |
| Andrew Ryan Chang 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Li'l Slugger <Maromi@paranoiaagent.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>You couldn't buy a $300 PS2 at launch without having to purchase overpriced
>packages with crap you don't need, including worthless $100 extended
>warranties.
The extended warranty money goes straight to the retailer, not
Sony...
--
One side wants to find out [what happened before and on 9/11]; the other
doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact.
- Talking Points Memo, March 26 2004.
| |
| Li'l Slugger 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Andrew Ryan Chang" <archang@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:dstmd7$73k$1@morgoth.sfu.ca...
quote:
> Li'l Slugger <Maromi@paranoiaagent.com> wrote:
overpriced[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The extended warranty money goes straight to the retailer, not
> Sony...
Not the point. The point is you couldn't buy a PS2 at launch outside of a
humongous overpriced package.
| |
| listermonocle@hotmail.com 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| "Not the point. The point is you couldn't buy a PS2 at launch outside
of a
humongous overpriced package. "
Sure you could. I did and I'm sure many others did.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| In microsoft.public.xbox Li'l Slugger <Maromi@paranoiaagent.com> wrote:
quote:
> Not the point. The point is you couldn't buy a PS2 at launch outside of a
> humongous overpriced package.
That wasn't Sony's fault. And a few months later, after the supply crisis
passed, you were able to buy just the console for $300.
If anything, this is just yet another reason not to go crazy trying to get
a console at launch. You'll just end up with too many useless extras.
| |
| Skykid 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
quote:
> Android66 <mandrovich@wifibullseye.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, no, not at first.
>
> But I'm fairly sure the PS2 sells at a profit for Sony _now_. I
> would guess that the XBox is the only (nominally) successful console in
> history to never reach breakeven/profit just on the unit itself...
Sony broke even on the PS2 in 18 - 20 months which helped excellerate
the re-design of the slim PS2. On the other hand, Microsoft never broke
even on the first gen Xbox.
Regards,
SK
| |
| ticars@gmail.com 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
quote:
> Not the point. The point is you couldn't buy a PS2 at launch outside of a
> humongous overpriced package.
I did. I walked into Best Buy and bought one (actually two of them)
the morning of the launch for the suggested retail price. Didn't have
to buy a warranty or any game packages.
| |
| Chris F 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:13:36 GMT, Skykid <somewhere@nowhere.com>
wrote:
quote:
>Air Raid wrote:
>
>Edge continues to be the magazine to read if you have an IQ over 70 and
>are over the age of 18. If not, then magazines such as GamePro and PSM
>are more appropriate.
>
Edge is an overly pretentious rag.
--
gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
| |
| Ian Harvey 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
|
"Chris F" <chris@asifimtellingyoulot.com> wrote in message
news:rfsjv19n2n2ur3oaqgc2ob6j8pdnrj7r83@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:13:36 GMT, Skykid <somewhere@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> Edge is an overly pretentious rag.
> --
>
> gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
> http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Chris is there any other games magazine that is even readable by someone
over 14?
| |
| Andrew Ryan Chang 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Ian Harvey <ianeharvey@whateveridontreadit.com> wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Chris is there any other games magazine that is even readable by someone
>over 14?
Games TM, though they just folded, right? But until they did, I'd
say they were slightly better than Edge.
--
.... the real Rabbi Hillel taught the 12-year-old Jesus to
inspire, that is to rally-raise-train-evolve-unite-UNITE the whole
Human race, lightning-like in our almighty Eternal Father's great
All-One-God-Faith! For we're All-One or none! -Dr Bronner
| |
| Chris F 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:20:51 -0000, "Ian Harvey"
<ianeharvey@whateveridontreadit.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>"Chris F" <chris@asifimtellingyoulot.com> wrote in message
>news:rfsjv19n2n2ur3oaqgc2ob6j8pdnrj7r83@4ax.com...
>
>Chris is there any other games magazine that is even readable by someone
>over 14?
>
GamesTM, RetroGamer (if its still even going)
persoanlly i rarely bother with games magazines any more, theyre all
awful.
edge is one of the worst though, as it tries to make itself highbrow
and superior.
i see edge as being a magazine in a similar vein to FHM. slaims to be
for intellectual 20-something males, but is mostly read by pubescent
boys who like to pretend theyre older and sophisticated.
--
gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| EGM
"Ian Harvey" <ianeharvey@whateveridontreadit.com> wrote in message
news:7t6dneWQO4JZfmHeRVnysw@pipex.net...
quote:
>
> "Chris F" <chris@asifimtellingyoulot.com> wrote in message
> news:rfsjv19n2n2ur3oaqgc2ob6j8pdnrj7r83@4ax.com...
>
> Chris is there any other games magazine that is even readable by someone
> over 14?
>
| |
| Skykid 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Andrew Ryan Chang wrote:
quote:
> Ian Harvey <ianeharvey@whateveridontreadit.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Games TM, though they just folded, right? But until they did, I'd
> say they were slightly better than Edge.
>
>
They were trying to be an "Edge" but never succeeded.
Regards,
SK
| |
| Mothra 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| listermonocle@hotmail.com wrote:
quote:
> That would be awesome, but if it's true, they're the only ones that
> know it. And Blu-Ray PLUS hard drive? How much is this damn thing going
> to cost?
>
Merrill Lynch are quoting $800.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=14836
| |
| Tim Miller 2006-02-25, 10:31 pm |
| Chris F wrote:
quote:
>
> edge is one of the worst though, as it tries to make itself highbrow
> and superior.
>
What tosh. It doesn't "try" to, it just is. It's well written, full of
insight and clever comparisons. It uses English well, and explains
everything in a clear and well-thought-out way.
quote:
> i see edge as being a magazine in a similar vein to FHM. slaims to be
> for intellectual 20-something males, but is mostly read by pubescent
> boys who like to pretend theyre older and sophisticated.
That is just one of the most ludicrous statements I've read in a long
while. Firstly - you're not seriously comparing Edge to a magazine full
of half naked women? And secondly - Edge sells to many development
studios and publishers staffed by people older than 30, because it's the
best and most informative magazine available. I've never seen anyoe
under the age of 20 even glance at Edge in the newsagents.
Tim (tm)
--
tim (at) economic-truth.co.uk
http://www.ugvm.org.uk - the uk.games.video.misc magazine
|
| |
|
|