Why are you using those numbers? In may the CFO said 10% loss per system sold. Which would put it at about 420. Now he is saying 70% reduction. With isupply putting it at about 850 in the begining. That is pretty accurate since Sony confirmed at selling for loss and they probablly should of been selling at higher than 900 dollars. 70% of 850 is 255. That is a 165 dollar reduction as of their costs right now. You gave the 200-225 range when you said "Where is the other 50-75 dollars" after I said 150 dollars.

And 150 dollars is actually very conservative.

Hehehe, I'm amused at Slimebeast's deluded belief that the average Sony 1st party title loses money.

Industries differ; there's no way marketing for a game is as much as 50% of the title's budet (notable exception being Halo 3).

Also, in general throughout your posting, you just pull figures from your arse and even at times don't follow your own logic.

You suggest Pacific Rift had a budget of $15 million (lol - it was Motorstorm 1 in a jungle setting) and then suggest that its marketing was $10 million (lol #1 - it was not marketed heavily at all, lol #2 - that's not even following your own ridiculous "50% rule").

Oh, and really pointless suggesting that Warhawk didn't at least break even. Hardly the most expensive game ever created, and even without PSN sales and with poorly-tracked disc numbers we know it passed the half million mark (and all PSN and disc combined, I'd be confident of ~ 1 million).

Only Lair was a real stinker, and even then, if we estimate EU sales, it probably broke 500k...

@Slimebeast:

Maybe if you gave us reliable sources we could believe you but what your saying at the moment sounds ridiculous.

Serioulsy the marketing for Uncharted or Motorstorm could not have been above $5 million. I highly doubt that Sony fist party exclusives that sell over 1 million do not break.

400 / 10 = 40 and that's in MAY I clearly said my figures were from 9 months ago.  Back in like October/November 2008 the PS3 cost ~$450 to produce.  So even if it were to cost only $420 in May, that means they only reduced it by $30 in 6 months.  Further adding to the ridiculous thought that the current PS3's only cost $252 to produce.  Obviously it HAS to be referencing a slim.  And then I said how even with all the reductions involved in a Slim they could only have saved $100-125 (or your $150 which would be an even more generous estimate).

Also, when I said that, I meant from my figures of $100-125, where would the extra cost be if they were actually saving $150(your guess)-200(theirs).  $100(my lower limit) + 50 = $150 (your guess).  $125(my upper limit) + 75 = 200(theirs).

With all the different numbers being thrown around, I used $850 as the original cost, and so 30% of that is $252.  And the iSupply numbers as of late 2008 were $450.  $450 - 252 = ~$200.

Have I explained my math enough yet?

You're doing it wrong. 400 is what the retailers sell for. Not what sony sells for. Secondly the 450 number is wrong. I'm assuming you are talking about isupply's number which was 440. and it was always an estimate. It wasn't until the CFO came out and gave us numbers till we got a clear indication of the cost. i supply was pretty sccurate though.

Now as I said. Yes it is for the slim. Just because it isn't on shelves doesn't mean it isnt current numbers. Sony is already manufacturing these things. It is the present for them. Not the future.

Now answer me this one cause this will determine where the conversation goes.

What are the Cell and RSX at as of May? I know they are 65nm at least but is one of the 45nm? Or is that comming in the fall?

That´s right. Everybody seems to forget the retailers´profit. How much is it ? 10%, 20%, 30% ? Anyone knows ?

Assuming Sony sells to retail for a price of $360 per console, that's $400 to make and a loss of 10%/$40 per console.  That was in MAY or whatever.

The $450 I am using from iSuppli is from December (not oct/nov like I thought.  I actually looked it up this time)

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2008/tc20081222_257990.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_technology

So in 5 months they lowered costs by ~$50 (which is likely due to just refining the manufacturing process and maybe getting another mobo/die shrink in there somewhere, possible one of the chips got to 45nm).  So as of MAY that means they still have another $150 to drop.  2 months goes by and Sony figured out how to shave off another $150?  As I said, the original $50 reduction had to be from some sort of shrinking somewhere, so that means that they have even less they could do to lower costs on the Slim.  45/45nm + smaller mobo + less shell plastic + less cooling I doubt would equal $150 (or $200 using my figures from December).

I would also like to say I never doubted it was the Slim.  In fact I was making arguments to show that in the very least it HAD to be the Slim.