Dropping the cost of making a console by more than half during the first year of its life? Doing a 200$ price drop during the first year? You do realise that's utterly impossible?

There's absolutely no reliable information claiming they're anywhere near getting the cost of production under current retail price, and they sure as hell aren't dropping the price before 2008.

Part of the cost reductions involve economy of scale, which requires increased production. The most recent report from Lazard states that PS3 production has probably been cut. Nintendo on the other hand is increasing production, so may be able to benefit from a manufacturing standpoint. I'm guessing 360 production is also ramping up for Halo 3.

It can't.

The race is already over. Distant 2nd place is their best bet and even THAT'S a longshot.

Pecking order is set early in prime competition. PS3 had fallen behind 2 months after launch. In January it was already over. Europe/PAL launch was final shot of making a comeback. It didn't pan out. The fight is now over.

Keep your eye on the year 2009. Some people may not be happy with that year as it pertains to the PS3.

John Lucas 

I did say that I'm not optimistic about it happening. 

I was just answering the question posited by the OP, which asked what would it take to get PS3 back on track.  Can you argue that this would NOT be a way for PS3 to get back on track, if it were possible?

If it were possible, Sony could build a magic PS3 factory run by Santa's elves. That would get them back on track and Sony could win.

Think one of the big keys to the lowering of the cost of the PS3 is its production and the current systems already made to be sold and well its hard to see that happening right now. A quick glance at the last weeks sales (~50k) just on this site shows it loosing ground in 2 out of 3 regions to its competetors with the Wii outselling it everywhere and the Xbox360 everywhere but Japan. To put it simply it is very unlikely the PS3 can win this generation the Xbox360 and Wii are in much better position for a price war if Sony decided to start one. Also I speculate that with blu-ray and HD-DVD player combos dropping in price those that consider the system in 2008 as soley a blu-ray player will probably have choices that are comparativly priced with less risk involved expecially if HD-DVD's decide to lower their price point anyways that last part is pure speculation.

Interesting question. Sony shouldn't have to work this hard to sell to me, but they do, and here's my position. It isn't the PS3's cost, it isn't its potential, and it isn't even its game lineup, so much. It mostly comes down to timing, the current competition and my own personal uncertainty and willingness to wait and see. I own (and thoroughly enjoy) the Wii, but am also very interested in HD gaming and movie viewing. I have an aging but well-calibrated and capable home-theatre setup -- Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS audio, a 61" Sony CRT HDTV that runs in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes. I watch HDTV over the air now and then; I'm not a big TV watcher, but I'm familiar with the dramatic improvement possible. I'm almost certainly within the target audience for the 360 and the PS3. But I'm still sitting on the fence about committing to one or the other -- the 360 has the better software library today, but the PS3 has some neat stuff coming up as well. If the PS3 upscaled to 1080i (my vintage 2000 set doesn't handle 720p or 1080p) that would be a plus in its favor; the 360 already does this, I don't know if the new PS3 1.8 firmware fixes this issue or not. If I didn't suspect that the PS3 might ultimately be the more powerful console, I'd go with the 360 and be done with it. If I had to buy today, I'd buy the 360, but I don't have to buy today. A PS3 price drop would be another plus in its favor, but might not be enough to get me to buy it until more games arrive. I hesitate to call myself a confused consumer, because I know a lot about both systems and pay a lot of attention to what's going on with them. But in a lot of ways that's true -- I'm a hesitant consumer, definitely, because yes, I'm not buying EITHER high-end system right now. I'm waiting in part for the HD movie-format war to settle out, although frankly my experience with SACD and DVD-Audio forces me to consider that neither of the improved formats will really take off at a mass-market level anytime soon. The software isn't there for me yet; to watch the kinds of obscure foreign and drive-in cult classic movies I love, DVD is still where it's at right now. Several movies I have been keeping around on VHS have only recently gotten DVD releases, and I don't expect The Apple, Shock Treatment, Spetters or J-Men Forever to turn up on either HD format anytime soon. The big surprise for me has been that, while I'm waiting to see how things settle out between the 360 and the PS3, I'm really enjoying the Wii. And apparently a lot of other people are too, which means now it's getting more of the types of games I want to play, certainly enough to monopolize my available gaming time. Committing to another console right now is therefore not an urgent matter -- it's not like I have time to play every great game that comes out, which means having more options is not a priority for me. Therefore it's entirely possible that I will wait -- and wait -- and ultimately buy a PS3 when I find it at a rummage sale for $50 with some decent games. Say in 2016, or maybe 2009 if current trends continue. I do want to mess around with a PS3 of my own at some point, yes; but the launch hype has passed and I don't really crave it right now. Not sure Sony can really do much to counteract that kind of apathy.

ddobson wrote:

>>If the PS3 upscaled to 1080i (my vintage 2000 set doesn't handle 720p or 1080p)

I doubt your tv can handle 1080i if it doesn't handle 1080p. (i.e., your tv probably does not allow for 1920 dots horizontally, much less the vertical resolution).

My understanding is that 1080i is a broadcast standard, and HDTV's can either handle it properly (with 1080p displays), or accepts the 1080i signal and properly distort it to fit the lower resolution.

My TV is 720p and has a TRUE RESOLUTION of 1366x732, and although it advertises 1080i, 1366 screen points vertically cannot display 1920 dots.

If you upscale to 1080i for your particular TV, you will be distorting it up to 1080i signal, and then your TV will distort it back down to probably 480p.  Personally, I don't think all that extra distorting actually helps quality. 

You probably missed that his is a CRT HDTV. It most likely does have 1080 lines if it doesn't overscan, and surely displays them natively interlaced as CRTs usually do. Horizontal resolution is another story, as it usually isn't specified for CRTs.

The rest of your post applies to your TV, and somewhat to LCD HTDVs in general, but not his. Actually a more common resolution for 720p LCDs is 1366x768, not 1366x732. And most 720p LCDs will not degrade 1080i to 480p - they'll deinterlace to 1080p, losing temporal resolution, and then downscale to 720p.