| slowmo said: There is plenty of reasons posted by the people who do not believe it possible andare backed up with plenty of valid reasons. If you cannot understand the mentality I suggest you open your mind more to what people are saying. I personally feel that it's impossible for the PS3 to reach 100 million but by the same token I can understand why people who are pro Sony may let their bias cloud their judgement into seeing a more rosy situation than is actually the case. Bear in mind I also realise my favouritism toward the 360 may mean I don't see the PS3 situation in it's best light either which I have tried to take into account in my opinion. People keep making this assumption that the PS3 will decrease in price like the PS2 and maintain sales like the PS2 did. I'd love to know how this is the case when the main costs involved in manufacturing a PS3 (GPU, CPU, HDD) are all not going to be reduced in price dramatically further at the moment. The removal of the HDD for flash memory onboard will likely save about $25-50 but that's the last big cost cutting they'll have unless they manage to convince IBM and Nvidia to die shrink the CPU and GPU further. The one thing we can take from this generation is all other previous generations rules no longer apply. |
There is a smaller cell chip die size than the one currently used in the PS3 model today, so that will reduce costs throughout the system by the reduction of size, power, and heat. Which is why the newest model is much smaller. As far as reducing it again, I don't see that happening since IBM did stop production. I wouldn't be surprised if the new PS3 was $100 to manufacture without a HDD and that's why I see a $150 16gb model happening. Potentially it could drop to $99 years down the road when a few more cost saving methods take effect over time, but I'm not sure.
Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(
