"Microsoft folks must be grinning ear to ear. Despite some flubs, the XBox 360 is going to stay in cat bird seat for a long long time. Analysts over at Merrill Lynch are predicting delays for PlayStation 3 gaming console. The impact of this could be felt through the entire food chain - impacting graphics chip makers to software companies to even retail outlets. In other words, there should be a whole slew of fiscal resets coming."
- http://gigaom.com/2006/02/17/playsta...-delays-ahead/



Sony, Sony, Sony...

 

its to give everyone time to save up the $500 dollars

 

not surprised at all.... In fact I was pretty sure this would happen. The PS3 always seemed far from complete and I even thought the tentative November 2006 launch was VERY optimistic. This is an issue involving all aspects of the PS3. For something that is supposed to be as ground-breaking as its made out to be, they have like nothing in place. They just did a fan survey about how to setup the online component what, like one month ago? Blu-Ray seems to still be up in the air, people still talk about the Cell processor in theory, they don't seem to have finalized the control design, the whole damn thing may as well be vaporware at this point.

This can only be bad news for Sony - one reason is that if there were any people "waiting for PS3" - but generally "on the fence" regarding both systems - guess what, they will buy 360. Because at this rate, there's no telling when PS3 will come out.

Microsoft really pulled a good fast one on Sony with the release of 360... I give my props to em for that.

 

That sux. Sony trying to go too big, but the clock is ticking, and the consumer will start to look toward the 360 for their fix.

 

my dad has a friend who works at Microsoft here in.....abilene maybe...i dunno, but anyway he said that Micro. is working on somthing else already for after the 360...is that true? they are on their game if it is!!

 

It is true...some say the 360 was a go between model between the xbox and the true next gen xbox console.

 

Yep. The 360 is simply an interim system, it was a quick jab in the kidney to Sony, and it just so happened to save Microsoft a few bucks on costly Xbox 1 hardware components.

There will be an Xbox to shame the PS3 and, at this point, it will probably come before PS3

I mentioned all this in another thread, but I just have to deliver the point... anyone who thinks the 360 is anything more than a stepping stone for Microsoft is insane. The true PS3 competitor is still in the works.

 

how pissed off are people going to be when the next xbox1080 or whatever comes out next year, and their $400 xbox360 is already out of date.

 

figures...

 

let microsoft work all they went, the ps3 will take on anything they bring out. ill wait as long as it takes.

 

 

ps. nice 1k post..

 

holy fanboys batman!!!

 

i havent seen anything from microsoft that can even compare to what ps3 should be, so it not me being a fanboy

 

You haven't even seen the PS3 idiot

Fanboyism at it's best.

 

Oh dang, I didn't even notice.

 

Well, that's good...gives me more time to save up!

 

yes, we have seen the specs for the ps3. nothing from microsoft can compete with that. and woah, microsoft is already working on their next console. big deal, im sure both companies never stop working on the next generation.

 

are you seriously 23? because you have the logic of a 4 year old.

 

The specs of both systems are very similar. They both have 512mb of ram - the PS3 has slightly faster ram, but they do not have a UMA (Unified Memory Architecture) like the 360 has which pretty much nullifies any speed advantage.

Both have very similar performing GPU's.. Some analysts are giving the edge to the 360 which has a USA (Unified Shader Architecture) and has DirectX10 (WGF) features which the RSX (GPU in the PS3) has.

On paper, the Cell processor offers greater performance than Xenon (360 CPU) but from every article I have read, Cell is very difficult to program for and the benchmarks Sony loves to tout are only for every specific media or mathematical streaming. For general purpose processing, the Cell has challenges.

Even if the PS3 has a CPU advantage, this will not be apparent on the screen. You may see better physics and AI, but the graphics should be very similar between systems.

Saying you want to hold off because you prefer Sony games, I can understand. Holding off because you think the PS3 will be highly superior, get ready to be disappointed whenever the PS3 shows up.

 

From that same Merril Lynch analysis, they predict the PS3 will initially cost Sony $900 to produce. I definitely take this with a grain of salt, but that cost is prohibitively expensive which may account for a few of the delays:

Merril Lynch report:
http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http...0784&lop=nl.ex

PS3 Cost Estimates:
edit: deleted pic - hotlink replaced by NWS pic

 

^^^ good read.

I'm telling you... (and I've said this before) - I think the PS3 won't be released til like, Summer-Fall 2007.

edit: Now this is REALLY funny. The numbers DON'T add up to $900. They add up to $800. I guess when you see the name "Merrill-Lynch" on a very official-looking report, you kinda assume the numbers are right. Now this makes me wonder whether that was made by some Xbox-fanboys who happen to work for ML... hahaha... Also - the "detachable 2.5 HDD - NA" row? Why add this? It sounds like they added it just to point out it doesn't have one.

Anyway - hope none of you have ML doing your finances...

edit 2: Well the PS3 fanboys have gone on a revolt because of this PDF... check the counterpoints here, I'm not gonna bother posting em here because there is too much. This is why I can't stand speculation. In the end, its pointless. It really is.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/p...-mob/#comments

 

no im not 23. and are you serious? show me something from microsoft that can compare with what the ps3 will be....blu-ray alone will bury any game for 360. its hard to believe how much more "game" they can fit on each disc versus what can be put on a DVD.

 

I'm confused. Someone compare Blu-Ray to XB360's DVD thingy please.

 

while your point may be arguable in a few years, at this point developers are not getting close to needing the full capacity of a DVD. By the time they do, guess what - Microsoft will have their next console out, surely addressing those needs.

I doubt we will see any game that will need the full capacity of a Blu-Ray disc, anytime soon. Unless it uses like HD movie footage for cut-scenes or something... I guess that's a possibility, but games look good enough at this point and the technology is fast enough that they can just use realtime-rendered CGI as needed... if a game had to use 40GB its either gonna be the longest game in the history of the universe or the most inefficiently coded game in the history of the universe.

Hardware-wise, the 360 and PS3 are about the same. Games for both systems will look and play about the same. For now. Maybe in a few years developers may start stretching the envelope on the PS3 and actually using the extra Blu-Ray space. But like we have said, Microsoft will have another Xbox out by then that btw will likely be much more powerful than the PS3.

 

i will be buying PS3 solely because im a playstation loyalist....i have playstation 1....playstation 2...and hopefully playsation 3.....hopefully ps3 will be able to play all of my ps1 and ps2 games...thats a prime benefactor in my decision

 

I noticed the same thing at first, but if you read the article, it lends more insight.

So yes, if you just look at the table, the math is wrong, but if you read the text they are clearly including a buffer that's not listed on their table. If you look at the table closely you will notice that they also don't include the cost of the case, fans, controller, or power supply either, so there goes part of that buffer.

I definitely think they should have been more clear though.

 

Great response! I couldn't have said it better myself.

The worst that could happen for a very large 360 game is the fact it would have to appear on multiple discs like some PS1 games like FF7, but by that time when games are that large, I think it will be more important for the Xbox720.

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/18/pl...unit/#comments

read comment #18.... pretty damn funny. he sounds like the Indian dude who goes to work for Van Wilder in hopes of getting laid... except he wants a PS3... LOL.

 

so I guess one could say they were estimating the total cost when they said $900.. but still - they presented it such that the numbers in the column added up to $900. Anyway.. little stuff, just funny because it seems like such an "official" doc from a quite "official" company..

 

360's (dual-layer) DVD drive reads discs capable of holding up to 9GB of data (just like a standard DVD player can).

PS3's Blu-Ray drive reads discs capable of holding up to 54gb of data.

 

lol.... he got his own story.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/18/le...anboy-to-sony/

 

you've got issues.

i won't bother countering your points because i believe them to be beyond your level of comprehension (plus they've already been countered).

 

Well, I think the mods should move this thread into R&P at the rate we're going...

 

damn - Sony is shooting themselves in the foot with the PS3 release.... waiting longer will reduce the cost to produce it.. but waiting longer will cause people to lose interest and jump to 360. If they release it in mid-2007, it's specs are gonna be old news. It's gonna sound dated - shit they might have to up some of the original specs just to keep up with the times. The machine is going to be just about at the same level as the 360, except the only problem is, the 360 would have been released almost 2 years earlier... DAMN. Sony is gonna be in some hot water. They can say they are not competing with Microsoft all they want - it's not going to matter. There will always be the PS fanboys but there will also be a large amount of people that simply lose interest in the PS3...

Wake up and make some material decisions and then ACT on them, Sony!!!! quick!!

I know, easy for me to say.

/thinking out loud

 

More info about a delay:

Nvidia conference call confirms PlayStation 3 is late

February 17, 2006 - 5:08pm Jeff Greeson

Nvidia LogoWhile Sony maintains that they're going to release the PlayStation 3 this spring, the entire industry, including financial analysts, developers and publishers, says that there's no chance that the console will release anytime before the fall season. Now you can add one of Sony's major component providers, Nvidia, to the list of those who say that the PlayStation 3 will not make it this spring. During Nvidia's latest financial conference call, Nvidia CEO, Jen-Hsun Hwang, noted that the company would not receive any royalty payments during the current quarter (which ends in April) from the company's RSX chip, Sony's PlayStation 3 graphics engine.

Graphics chip maker Nvidia reported today that it doesn't anticipate any royalties from Sony during the current fiscal quarter which closes at the end of April. In a conference call, Chief Financial Officer Marv Burkett made the statement. Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO, said that he couldn't talk about the schedule for the PlayStation 3. He said that Nvidia's RSX graphics chip for the PS 3 is done and the company has production silicon for it.

However, since Nvidia won't be collecting royalties on the chip this quarter, that suggests that Sony isn't going to be producing machines during the months that close at the end of April, 2006. That suggests that Sony won't be shipping the PS 3 anytime soon, despite its comment last May that it would ship in the spring of 2006.

While this bit of factual information pretty much nails the PlayStation 3 as being late, Sony still refuses to back down from their spring release target.

So if PS3 is Fall 2006 in Japan... then we can expect Spring 2007 for USA and EU.

 

Don't forget the 360's add on HD-DVD drive.

 

I don't think Sony will lose much in delaying the PS3. There are many people such as myself who will wait for it, especially if the delay will yield a more complete product.

The PS2 is still rolling strong and that will tie me over for more than 1+ years. There are many great titles out there still to be played.

 

 

Single sided BluRay discs (which are what the PS3 games will be using) are 25gb. The dual sided discs can go above 50gb, but they are expensive and the technology isn't quite there yet for mass production of these discs.

Current games and planned future games do not need more space than a DVD. With the latest compression algorithims for data and video, a dual-sided DVD is fine.

Look at PC games. Most still use CD's for their games.. DVD isn't even widely adopted yet.

The only types of games that really would need the space of BluRay are games like Final Fantasy with tons of HD CG, but with the power of these systems, CG isn't all that necessary anymore.

Overall, it is space that isn't really needed this gen.