A PS3 in the US in 2011 will be retailing for around $199.

[rocketpig]

crumas2 said:

rocketpig said:

Moore's law definitely applies to components, but it seems that initial pricing of each generation of consoles starts out higher than the last. Wouldn't Moore's law have more of an effect if MS were to release a next-gen console using last-gen technology?

Roughly, it means that the number of transistors double every 24 months, doubling performance every 18 months, and all of this occurs at the same price points. So, dollar for dollar, approximately every 18 months chip performance doubles. It's not constrained by technology or architecture as it's assumed that the doubling of transistors every 24 months will involve new technology.

At least that's my understanding of it. It's a pretty complex idea with more off-shoot theories tacked on over the years than I can count. So, "last gen" or "next gen" technology doesn't really apply, only speed/performance and price.

Having a background in computer engineering, I'm intimately familiar with Gordon Moore's Law.

 

What I was referring to was that there appears to be a trend where each generation of console seems to start at a higher price than the previous generation. Unless I'm mistaken, the Wii is more expensive than the initial price of the gamecube, the 360 launched at a higher price than the original Xbox, and the PS3 definitely launched at a much higher price than the PS2. This probably has something to do with the increasing sophistication (instead of just increasing speed) of each console. For example, wireless is built into the current PS3s, but wasn't included in the PS2s. Taking PCs as an example, the PC a hobbyist *really* wants is still over $2000, so Moore's Law seems to dictate that newer components can cost the same but double in complexity every 18 months, not that newer components can double in complexity AND be lower costs every 18 months.

 

So while I would love to have a 720 or whatever for $300, I just can't see it happening if MS continues to try and push the envelope of what the hardware is capable of.

 

Nintendo is the obvious exception here... but they're weird.

 

Heheh, I thought you were a tech guy. Couldn't remember for sure, though.

In any case, I was talking about pure hardware costs and limitations on tech for a certain price point. Factoring in what the market will bear and profit/loss wasn't where I was going with my point. That's an entirely different ball of wax.