By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AEGRO on 10 September 2015
Edit Thread
d21lewis said:
AEGRO said:


"The combined materials and manufacturing costs for each device come to about $806 for the model with a 20GB hard drive, excluding the cost of the controller, cables, and packaging, iSuppli said.

With a suggested retail price of $499, that would mean Sony is taking a loss of about $307 on each console it sells. The differential for the 60GB model is less, with the cost exceeding the price tag by $241."

  • On the other hand, Microsoft:

"By comparison, the materials and manufacturing costs for the hard-drive version of Microsoft's rival device, the Xbox 360 are $323, iSuppli estimated. That's less than the suggested retail price of $399."

 

  • Then, they talk about the "Retarded Cell Proccessor":

 

"Most of the cost comes from the PlayStation 3 console's processing power. The multicore Cell processor alone, which was co-designed by Sony, Toshiba, and IBM, and is the gaming device's main processing engine, accounts for about 10 percent of the cost of each machine, iSuppli said. 

The research company also highlighted Sony's use of dual graphics chips from Nvidia and Toshiba, and its use of four 512-megabit DRAM chips from Samsung Electronics. Sony's motherboard probably costs the company $500 in total, compared to $204 for the Xbox 360, iSuppli said.

This is all good news for customers, who get all that computing power for a relative bargain. iSuppli called the PlayStation 3 an "engineering masterpiece," with a motherboard that looks more like that of an enterprise server or network switch than a games console. 

The console provides "more processing power and capability than any consumer electronics device in history," iSuppli said."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Its amazing how people love to shit on Sony, but when the Ps3 was released, they sold a +800$ cutting edge console for 200$ less. Not to mention the BluRay, Bluetooth, etc. When they are the "broke" company according to almost everyone.

Lets see if Nintendo or Microsoft, which are bathing on 100$ bills do this.

Hindsight is 20/20, they say.  Sony took the hit on the hardware which they expected to make up in software after another generation of PlayStation dominance--not because they just loved the gamer so much.  It cost them tons and tons of money.  Some would say, financially, the PS3 was a disaster.

 

As for taking a hit, Microsoft took a $100 loss on every Xbox (2001). It was to establish the Xbox brand, not because they wanted to give us the gift of happiness.

That article from '06 was great.  I'm sure Sony thought they were making great decisions but I'm willing to bet they feel differently, now. They gave us a box that did "everything" but by the end of the gen, that box did significantly less. Did they stop caring about gamers out did they decide "Hey, we need to cut out some unnecessary stuff to try and make some money!"

 

Great console for us gamers, I admit.  Not exactly a winner for Sony.  Luckily, they aren't making the same mistakes for the PS4.  M$ is.


I dont own, nor im planning to own Sony stocks.

Im well aware that ALL companies are in the game to make money, but im not going to be that stupid to compain about buying a 800$ device at 600$.

At the end of the day, the Ps3 ended with (imo) the best exclusives of the 7th gen, so as a customer im more than happy.