By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - PS3 now 70% Cheaper to Produce!

Slimebeast on 31 July 2009
JEDE3 said:
LOL @ slimebeast... you should stop making a fool of yourself.


LOL @ you.



Around the Network
JEDE3 on 31 July 2009

LOL @ you for pulling numbers outta yer ass. You should be banned for knowingly spouting false information.



Slimebeast on 31 July 2009
JEDE3 said:
Slime - an average HD game would cost SONY less than 500k to break even.

They are devs. and Publisher and console manufacturer they get a lot more per game than 3rd parties. They also don't have to pay licenses or royalties to themselves. And they don't have to pay for their own dev kits. Lern yourself something. And no... the rule of thumb is NOT to take half the dev cost. You pulled that outta yer ass.


You're just wishing that because you want Sony to be successful.



JEDE3 on 31 July 2009

actually... I could easily prove what I said faster than what you said... So I think your the one that wants them failed



Slimebeast on 31 July 2009
JEDE3 said:
Slime just stop... I don't even think LBP ad campaign was 10 million. Sony said the budget themselves. And that was a Holiday release. Just stop.


You silly, an ad campaign is just a fraction of the total marketing budget.



Around the Network
Taz! on 31 July 2009

^ Those marketing numbers are fucking looney.

LBP had a £2M Advertising campaign in the UK, and it was plastered everywhere. I'd say maybe it was about $10M in total, but the likes of Heavenly Sword and Lair etc would of not had anywhere near that amount spent on them!



JEDE3 on 31 July 2009
Taz! said:
^ Those marketing numbers are fucking looney.

LBP had a £2M Advertising campaign in the UK, and it was plastered everywhere. I'd say maybe it was about $10M in total, but the likes of Heavenly Sword and Lair etc would of not had anywhere near that amount spent on them!

Total global marketing estimate for LBP was 8 million (USD) and it was a holiday release slime is just being ridic.

nightsurge on 31 July 2009
JEDE3 said:
nightsurge said:
^Even the Slim, which is what I was hinting at with my areas they could reduce costs in, would still cost $325-350 to produce....

They'd have to take out something bigger and more costly.....

I agree, Slimebeast, it has to be a misquote or something.

You'd be surprised to find that this isn't a mis quote. And you can hear it yourself. I've been saying a while now Sony could shave up to 150 dollars off on slim... but everyone wants to believe what they want.

$150 would be a very very generous estimate.  But it's still not $200.  Where would they be cutting the extra $50-75 from that seems to have no explanation?

I'm not saying that the actual quoting of the conversation is wrong, I'm saying the actual quote given IN the conversation could have been wrong/misquoted.  He did say he couldn't tell you which figure the 70% cost reduction applied to.  He may have meant an individual part or something had been reduced by 70% cost.  I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is a possibility given the extreme $200 cost reduction that would have to have been made in the last 9 months.



JEDE3 on 31 July 2009
nightsurge said:
JEDE3 said:
nightsurge said:
^Even the Slim, which is what I was hinting at with my areas they could reduce costs in, would still cost $325-350 to produce....

They'd have to take out something bigger and more costly.....

I agree, Slimebeast, it has to be a misquote or something.

You'd be surprised to find that this isn't a mis quote. And you can hear it yourself. I've been saying a while now Sony could shave up to 150 dollars off on slim... but everyone wants to believe what they want.

$150 would be a very very generous estimate.  But it's still not $200.  Where would they be cutting the extra $50-75 from that seems to have no explanation?

I'm not saying that the actual quoting of the conversation is wrong, I'm saying the actual quote given IN the conversation could have been wrong/misquoted.  He did say he couldn't tell you which figure the 70% cost reduction applied to.  He may have meant an individual part or something had been reduced by 70% cost.  I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is a possibility given the extreme $200 cost reduction that would have to have been made in the last 9 months.


I don't understand your math. 420 - 255 = 200 to 225? Really now?



nightsurge on 31 July 2009
JEDE3 said:
nightsurge said:
JEDE3 said:
nightsurge said:
^Even the Slim, which is what I was hinting at with my areas they could reduce costs in, would still cost $325-350 to produce....

They'd have to take out something bigger and more costly.....

I agree, Slimebeast, it has to be a misquote or something.

You'd be surprised to find that this isn't a mis quote. And you can hear it yourself. I've been saying a while now Sony could shave up to 150 dollars off on slim... but everyone wants to believe what they want.

$150 would be a very very generous estimate.  But it's still not $200.  Where would they be cutting the extra $50-75 from that seems to have no explanation?

I'm not saying that the actual quoting of the conversation is wrong, I'm saying the actual quote given IN the conversation could have been wrong/misquoted.  He did say he couldn't tell you which figure the 70% cost reduction applied to.  He may have meant an individual part or something had been reduced by 70% cost.  I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is a possibility given the extreme $200 cost reduction that would have to have been made in the last 9 months.


I don't understand your math. 420 - 255 = 200 to 225? Really now?

$450 - 250 = $200.  I don't see where I ever gave a range of $200-225.  That's a set number at ~$200.  The range was from stuff I actually believe they could feasibly reduce with a slim, which was $100-125 and $150 would be a very very generous estimate.