Neos said: 200 just in 2011? that's way too late imo..

If you saved up your yearly XBox Live multiplayer costs you would be able to buy one plus some games. Your 360 should be out of warranty and probably break from RRoD if not failed from other hardware issues, so it could be good timing.

A current factor which is not being considered is the impact of inflation and the falling US dollar ...

It is not a secret that the US government's inflation numbers (dramatically) underestimate inflation, and the value of the American dollar is falling at a steady rate. If the US averages an 8% real inflation rate over the next few years the price level will increase by 26%, 10% real inflation rate would be 33% higher, and 12% will lead to the price level being 40% higher. What this means is that Sony will have to reduce their manufacturing cost to between 35% and 40% of their current level in order to sell their system at $200 with the same (proportionate) profit/loss.

 

rocketpig said: Qly said: rocketpig said: Sony will need to be well under $200 in 2010 if they want to compete. By that time, MS will be able to launch a new Blu-ray Xbox that will smash the PS3 power-wise for about $300. Yeah, and Nintendo will launch 4 gamecubes taped together with a funny gadget that will have all the grannies going punk and name it something everybody will hate at the beggining. Seriously, NO ONE knows what will happen 3-4 years from now, if 3 years ago, when the gamecube was pityfully agonizing someone told us that Nintendo would do a come back with the cheapest non-hd console, we would all have laughed at their faces And citing moore's law seems a little ill placed, as it disagrees with the prices and positions of the current generation Moore's Law applies to standardized costs, which is what I'm talking about. MS will be able to release a $300 machine with superior specs in 2010 and take little or no loss on hardware. Whether they do so or not remains to be seen but given Microsoft's apparent console strategy, we can expect to see a new Xbox in 2010 or 2011. And at that point, Sony needs to make sure the PS3 is well under the price of the new machine.

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?

 

Why do people continue to think the PS3 will explode in sales if/when it reaches the "magic" $199 point? It didn't help the GC/XB any. And the fact that the PS2 sold most at $199 has more to do with the fact that it was at the price for longest and was at that price at the peak of its natural lifespan than any kind of inherent factor in the numerical value of the price.

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.

DKII said: Why do people continue to think the PS3 will explode in sales if/when it reaches the "magic" $199 point? It didn't help the GC/XB any. And the fact that the PS2 sold most at $199 has more to do with the fact that it was at the price for longest and was at that price at the peak of its natural lifespan than any kind of inherent factor in the numerical value of the price.

 http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/27/poll-whats-it-going-to-take-to-make-you-buy-a-ps3/

MikeB said: DKII said: Why do people continue to think the PS3 will explode in sales if/when it reaches the "magic" $199 point? It didn't help the GC/XB any. And the fact that the PS2 sold most at $199 has more to do with the fact that it was at the price for longest and was at that price at the peak of its natural lifespan than any kind of inherent factor in the numerical value of the price.  http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/27/poll-whats-it-going-to-take-to-make-you-buy-a-ps3/

You'd think that after people posted polls that indicated the PS3 was going to be more popular than the XBox 360 in North America durring the holiday season in 2007 you'd take these polls with a gigantic grain of salt.

MikeB said: DKII said: Why do people continue to think the PS3 will explode in sales if/when it reaches the "magic" $199 point? It didn't help the GC/XB any. And the fact that the PS2 sold most at $199 has more to do with the fact that it was at the price for longest and was at that price at the peak of its natural lifespan than any kind of inherent factor in the numerical value of the price. http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/27/poll-whats-it-going-to-take-to-make-you-buy-a-ps3/

Man, you really need to lay off online surveys and polls. They are completely unreliable, represent an extremely small portion of the demographic, and there is no way to track who is voting and how often they vote.

As someone who spends a good amount of my time pouring over demographic numbers for my job (advertising), your constant posting of inaccurate online surveys is both aggravating and downright misleading.

In short, they don't mean shit. They're too easy to tamper with, they represent an extremely skewed demographic (particularly surveys from tech sites), and since they involve no real dollars spent, there is nothing binding the pollee to their vote, completely negating any beneficial information we might receive from said poll. It's reeeaaaall easy to vote "yes, I'll buy one" to a $150 PS3 poll but when the PS3 does roll around at that price, there are a million other factors that might keep the voter from actually buying the unit.

"Intent" and "Action" are two vastly different things. 

I don't see it ever hitting 199, not even 250, even. The goodies inside the PS3 won't alow it to reach that price unless the cost to make a PS3 is at or under 199$ by that time due to advances in technology. I doubt it overall, however.

@ rocketpig

He asked a question, IMO the poll is of more value than your average meaningless forum opinion comment. I think it answers his question why many think if PS3 hit PS2-like pricing the platform will see similar or maybe even much better gains (value for money).