release date pushed back?

Really, it damn well should be pushed back. With a $900 price tag, they're gonna need to either nerf the specs down to a reasonable price, or push it back until the technology they're gonna us cheapens. Either that and be stupid by taking a huge loss on each console, or having one that costs an outrageous amount of money.
 
If they move it back too much, it will compete with both Halo 3 AND the Revolution. Unless Microsoft goes ahead and unleashes the Master Chief ahead of the PS3 (which it said it wouldn't do). That could work out well for the Revo. If you walk in to buy a new system and you have the Revo for $150 or so and the PS3 for $500+ (most likely the +), both consoles have slick games on them (even if the PS3 does look better), which one will be bought?

Hardcore gamers will get both. Casual gamers? I know my family will choose the Revo.
 
I'm really looking forward to the ps3 but $900 sounds way overpriced. While it might be the cheapest they can sell it at, it's way more than anyone really wants to spend, I mean the neo geo arcade home console had cutting edge technology at the time and sold horribly due to the price tag.
 
that was how much it will cost them to make it. Just like it costs Microsoft $715 per 360. I wonder how much of a loss they can take on every PS3 made?
 
I was wondering about that. Merryll Lynch tallied the cost of components, but I'm not sure exactly how they came up with that figure. CNN had an article a while back that said Microsoft lost $140 per 360 sold. That would put the total at around $540 cost to make. I would like to see a cost breakdown of how they came up with those numbers.
 
Well, they used the average total cost of each unit for the 360, which accounts for the equipment they had to buy to build the consoles. So Microsoft hasn't produced enough 360s to offset this, which is why it looks like they're undercutting the cost statistically.
 
Ah, I thought that might be the case. Of course, in a couple of years, the equipment will be paid for and most of the sales will be all profit. I suppose they have to treat each console as a new company. No new company is really expected to make money the first year and a lot of times 2 years.
 
Here's apart of a new article:

A Sony public relations representative didn't specifically deny the report, stating to Reuters, "We cannot comment on analyst reports. At the present, we're aiming for a spring 2006 launch, just as planned." Reuters points out that Sony's comments did not specify a territory.
While sticking to its guns regarding a spring launch, the SCE PR agent admitted, "If we cannot finalize the specifications, we cannot release the PS3," adding, "We're currently waiting until the last minute for the specifications to be finalized." Asked what would happen in the case of a delay in finalizing the specifications, the Sony rep said, "We'd end up selecting the best time and releasing it. However, we cannot comment yet."

I haven't really thought about it, but they could go ahead and release, and then release upgrades later.
 
Well, Microsoft (I heard) is doing that sort of thing with the 360. That they're recalling the ones out now and releasing some modestly enhanced version. Though, they may have planned that from the start, which may be the reason they did a last-second cutback on 360 shipments at the release.
 
I got the second release version, and haven't had any of the issues the first rounders had. If they want to recal mine and give me a better system, I'm all for it. If Sony waits too long, though, they may get a slow launch like the Gamecube did. I personally think the GC would have done better if it had released sooner.
 
The Cube and the Xbox came out almost at the exact same time. I think Nintendo would've done better if they didn't practically become a proponent of the kiddy image they have now. I think if they started out with a Resident Evil and Metroid Prime and DIDNT RUIN THE LEGEND OF ZELDA they Cube would've done much better.
 
Wow, been so long I almost forgot that the cube and xbox were released so closely together. And a good point with that Zelda thing. Also, my opinion is that Nintendo didn't market the cube as much as they should have.
 
They took the road they thought best. They saw that xbox was targetting an older market, sony was targetting both, but primarily was going to go toe-to-toe with microsoft on the older market. That left the younger market wide open. Why take on a juggernaut and a wildcard? They didn't know what the xbox would do, but they didn't want to risk going heads up against it and the PS2.

At the time it made sense to market it the way they did. Now they have a strong following for the younger market, whereas, xbox doesn't. The big N is now trying to inch further into the older category too while keeping the young.
 
Good point. Hopefully Nintendo will have a larger share of the next gen market. Building on the already impressive response to the DS, this should less of a problem.
 
What did i say earlier??.....Blu-Ray is not ready....Hell, it has took awhile for True HD to come around....One thing companies should learn is do not rush a new concept.....Once again, as stated by me in earlier forum topic....BLU-RAY=INSTABILITY!!.....Read the articles and then bow down to the Man!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom