Yes, it was posted in full in the E&D. It was even pointed out in the release. Once I get home I will post a link. They ate the entire cost all at once.
Rpruett said:
I'm not saying they didn't post it. They posted it somewhere obviously. Did they include it in that entertainment division profit/loss report that was shown? Was it a definite cost included in that report summary? I'm not so sure. |
Yes, it was! Sheesh. One small little concerned individual with a hunch means nothing. Do some research and figure it out once and for all if you are sooooo concerned about where Microsoft put it's RRoD costs at.
And again, I see there is no point arguing with you because you just branch off into other things and dismiss my arguments anyway. Remember the thrashing you received when you argued that an integrated graphics solution was great for PC gaming?
| JaggedSac said: LOL. I am posting from my phone at work and just saw in my signature that my wife is watching tv shows on Netflix. I need to call her and make her do some laundry or clean something. LOL. |
You need to go home and make babies. You cannot rest until you have a clan of 4-5 kids to play Halo 3 with in 2019. 
Tease.
Squilliam said:
You need to go home and make babies. You cannot rest until you have a clan of 4-5 kids to play Halo 3 with in 2019.
|
That would be awesome. We could travel the country side pwning noobz and humpin dead bodies.
nightsurge said:
Yes, it was! Sheesh. One small little concerned individual with a hunch means nothing. Do some research and figure it out once and for all if you are sooooo concerned about where Microsoft put it's RRoD costs at. And again, I see there is no point arguing with you because you just branch off into other things and dismiss my arguments anyway. Remember the thrashing you received when you argued that an integrated graphics solution was great for PC gaming? |
You have no hard evidence to support your theory. I could careless where Microsoft put it's RROD costs at. You could be right, I could be right it's really irrelevant. None of us work at MS and know the exactness of their figures. I don't need to know to sleep at night.
However, Microsoft (And tons of companies) smudge several product lines together to hide the costs (Both positive and negative) to make the overall picture look better.
As I remember in the previous discussion about Integrated Graphics, I never said they were 'great' for gaming. I merely said they were feasible (not optimal) for pretty much every PC/360 game. Which they are.
| nightsurge said: Last year after the PS3 pricecut, MANY people bought it for the incredible blu-ray player value it represented. Now that blu-ray players are so much cheaper and you can get a 360 + Blu-Ray for the cost of a PS3, the PS3 lost it's momentum. By the time the PS3 can cut the price by another $100, Microsoft can cut by $50 at the least, and maintain a $150 price lead. Not to mention the PS3 still will not be in the mass market price of $200 which will continue to hurt them regardless of how "close" they are getting to the 360's price. |
Wait....Weren't you the one that stated that according to Moore's law that the cost of hardware decrease at an equal rate? If Blu-Ray players are dropping rapidly, the cost for the Blu-Ray inside the PS3 will also drop rapidly at a proportional ratio. Which aids for further profit on the PS3?
And you will be hard pressed to find a Blu-Ray player (Of the lowest quality for under 200 bucks).
The PS3 has outsold the 360 to this point in it's life cycle from essentially day one and it's cheapest model is still at the original launch price of the 360. Hitting that $200 price point will still be big for the system, but it still has several levels of price cuts that it will be able to go through to continue to push sales. The 360 has had the $200 advantage since their recent price drop. The 360 didn't have the $200 price advantage for most of the 2008 year.
When Sony drops the price on the PS3 again, it will continue where it left off in earlier 2008. (And it still hasn't hit that glorious sweet spot of $200 yet). Microsoft will not drop the price another 100 dollars. At best you will see $50 price drop which will compete and probably bring sales very close but not take away the sales momentum of the PS3.
Rpruett said:
Wait....Weren't you the one that stated that according to Moore's law that the cost of hardware decrease at an equal rate? If Blu-Ray players are dropping rapidly, the cost for the Blu-Ray inside the PS3 will also drop rapidly at a proportional ratio. Which aids for further profit on the PS3? And you will be hard pressed to find a Blu-Ray player (Of the lowest quality for under 200 bucks).
The PS3 has outsold the 360 to this point in it's life cycle from essentially day one and it's cheapest model is still at the original launch price of the 360. Hitting that $200 price point will still be big for the system, but it still has several levels of price cuts that it will be able to go through to continue to push sales. The 360 has had the $200 advantage since their recent price drop. The 360 didn't have the $200 price advantage for most of the 2008 year. When Sony drops the price on the PS3 again, it will continue where it left off in earlier 2008. (And it still hasn't hit that glorious sweet spot of $200 yet). Microsoft will not drop the price another 100 dollars. At best you will see $50 price drop which will compete and probably bring sales very close but not take away the sales momentum of the PS3.
|
Really? I just bought one of high quality brand new for $160 at Best Buy even.
Oh and the Blu-Ray players will decrease differently than a blu-ray DRIVE in the PS3. The Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 only costs about $80-90, while blu-ray players are still $160-500+. Blu-Ray players will therefore lower in price "faster" than teh blu-ray drive in the PS3 because 10% of even the cheapest model of player is still more than 10% of the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3.
Seriously... think things through man.
And since we are speaking like we know the future, I say that Microsoft CAN drop the price $100 if they wanted to. They aer likely to make the switch to Valhalla (single 65nm chip for both CPU/GPU) which will drastically reduce heat and costs. I also say that any PS3 price cut is likely only to be $50, and will still not overtake the 360's sales. I also say that Microsoft will cut again at the perfect time for the holidays so as to have the best price at the perfect time to absolutely crush the PS3 again.
Oh... and from our last convo where you said integrated graphics "could easily play Mass Effect" on PC. I won't start bring all the info I gathered into this thread. Just remember that chart of video cards I posted, and how the integrated 7100 was actually much worse than the minimum required 6600GT that you so kindly included as the minimum spec.
| nightsurge said: Really? I just bought one of high quality brand new for $160 at Best Buy even.
Really? That sure is interesting. I just looked up Best Buy.com . And the cheapest Blu-Ray player is $199.99. Guess you just get crazy good deals eh? LOL. Click here LOLs
Oh and the Blu-Ray players will decrease differently than a blu-ray DRIVE in the PS3. The Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 only costs about $80-90, while blu-ray players are still $160-500+. Blu-Ray players will therefore lower in price "faster" than teh blu-ray drive in the PS3 because 10% of even the cheapest model of player is still more than 10% of the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. Seriously... think things through man.
Riddle me this, What component in the Blu-Ray players is sparking this drastic decrease in price? I guess the PS3 Blu-Ray Drive doesn't contain that component...right? Seriously, think things through man.
And since we are speaking like we know the future, I say that Microsoft CAN drop the price $100 if they wanted to. They aer likely to make the switch to Valhalla (single 65nm chip for both CPU/GPU) which will drastically reduce heat and costs. I also say that any PS3 price cut is likely only to be $50, and will still not overtake the 360's sales. I also say that Microsoft will cut again at the perfect time for the holidays so as to have the best price at the perfect time to absolutely crush the PS3 again.
Microsoft could drop the price $100 if they wanted to, but then where do they go? When did I ever say the PS3 will over take the 360s sales? A $100 dollar price cut would let the PS3 take over WW sales on a week to week basis. (Just like it did throughout 2008). I agree a 50$ price cut is more likely though. This will close the gap between Xbox 360 and PS3 on a week to week basis and not hurt Sony's bottom line nearly as much. And really, when you sell your console for HALF the price of your competitor...Is it really some "crushing"victory worth mentioning? I find it kind of sad actually. The cheapest console on the market still can't touch the Wii on a week to week basis. Even with that AMAZING software lineup.
Oh... and from our last convo where you said integrated graphics "could easily play Mass Effect" on PC. I won't start bring all the info I gathered into this thread. Just remember that chart of video cards I posted, and how the integrated 7100 was actually much worse than the minimum required 6600GT that you so kindly included as the minimum spec.
Unless you've tried to run Mass Effect on that card, you really have nothing other than assumptions to go on (Which is par for the course for you). I seem to remember a guy who worked at Dell who also said that Mass Effect would run on that PC. |
Rpruett said:
|
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
