PS3 costs Sony $800 ?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But they still make loss on it... like they always did

 

It just shows how large the loss is Console manufacturers are willing to take to lure people to buy their systems. Manufacturing takes as much as a decent PC, but due to this artificial lowering of the price it will be cheaper for the costumer..., thus keeping a public otherwise to go to the PC due to improved power and functionality for the same price...

Unlike IBM or AMD or Nvidia or ATI they can afford to cheaply sell because they have other sources for the lost income which these 4 do not have. Nvidia doesn't get an amount for every sold game...

 

Doesn't really benefit alot actually I would suspect... and not all is made themselves. Chipsets for both X-Box 360 and PS3 have been made by... exactly Nvidia or ATI... (depending on system which one made it)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes but not as big a loss, which is important when your talking about 100,000,000 units.

 

What difference does that make ? The benifit to the comsumer is the end product since they are getting something that they could not for the same price in a PC.

If the PC cant compete thats just too bad at the end of the day. It wasnt the first games machine after all.

 

It's about 20-30% which is pretty significant. Sony are planning on sticking the cell into other devices too, which again will lower the overall costs over time.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Yes, but would it make more since to make a console with a low production value and have the extra material that people buy for it? The method that the current market uses it seems to me that they take a huge unnecessary risk each time a next gen console is made. What if people by the system, finds out it sucks, and not buy any games? The comapny would have a huge ass loss.

 

I just buy games that interest me but I don't see the point of getting a whole new console for the full price if it is only going to have 1 or 3 games that I want to play.

[Deraldin]

I just buy games that interest me but I don't see the point of getting a whole new console for the full price if it is only going to have 1 or 3 games that I want to play.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is why you likely will never understand the other point of view. There are only a couple games that you want to play. For others there can be dozens of games that are must buys for them and thus for these people a console is a good choice.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes, but would it make more since to make a console with a low production value and have the extra material that people buy for it?  The method that the current market uses it seems to me that they take a huge unnecessary risk each time a next gen console is made.  What if people by the system, finds out it sucks, and not buy any games?  The comapny would have a huge ass loss.

 

I just buy games that interest me but I don't see the point of getting a whole new console for the full price if it is only going to have 1 or 3 games that I want to play.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well thats Nintendo's theory. Since many people prefer glitz over substance it dosnt always work. Although I expect Nintendo are much happier with the hardware bill than MS was with Xbox.

 

This is just my opinion but I think Nintendo's mistake was in the chosen media and its small capacity. Without a constant stream of big name titles people lose interest. Although having said that the GC has had some fantastic games which made it well worth what I paid for it (which wasnt full price).

 

Sounds perfectly reasonable can't argue with that logic. Thats currently how I'm looking at the 360 as it happens.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I mostly stay with one genre of game. The CRPG.

 

for the most part other genres just don't hold much interest for me.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I mostly stay with one genre of game.  The CRPG.

 

for the most part other genres just don't hold much interest for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually I used to feel much the same way although not quite as narrowly defined. But having the ability to rent stuff really broadened my horizons.

 

On reflection though. Not a good way to save money

[BattleCookiee]

Yes but not as big a loss, which is important when your talking about 100,000,000 units.

 

Most of the PS2's sold was still the original "expensive" PS2. Why would they make 100,000,000 units of a console already on the market for 3 years? And indeed, it could reduce production cost... but the PS2 price drop during the Console Wars was too big for even the new units to make any profit at all. And thus, once again, they had to trust on the sales of the games.

(PS. the "new PS2" would fix in my "new ways of production" which I already confirmed would be cheaper to produce. But ofcourse by the time this new technique is discovered prices have dropped alot, so the effect (+profit) would be alot smaller than the hefty prices asked when the product is brand new.)

 

What difference does that make ? The benifit to the comsumer is the end product since they are getting something that they could not for the same price in a PC.

If the PC cant compete thats just too bad at the end of the day. It wasnt the first games machine after all.

 

Shows to Bunny and such why Sony and MS would go to a strategy of losing money on the production of console units...

Wasn't an counter-argument!

And if the PC cannot compete it will indeed be very bad; also for you (console fanboys) guys. Would you really expect Sony and MS will still artifically keep low pricings if the reason for it would have been gone. Or keep the games at the current prices? It would be "MS-domination" on the games market...

 

It's about 20-30% which is pretty significant. Sony are planning on sticking the cell into other devices too, which again will lower the overall costs over time.

 

What cell exactly are you talking about? And even if a large part of the PS3 is made intern, also a big part has been made extern and also MS would have had a major intern network for X-Box 360 production (does anybody knows the production cost for the 360?)

[BattleCookiee]

Yes, but would it make more since to make a console with a low production value and have the extra material that people buy for it?  The method that the current market uses it seems to me that they take a huge unnecessary risk each time a next gen console is made.  What if people by the system, finds out it sucks, and not buy any games?  The comapny would have a huge ass loss.

 

I just buy games that interest me but I don't see the point of getting a whole new console for the full price if it is only going to have 1 or 3 games that I want to play.

 

Yes. Due to the low pricing people surely buy it and if they buy enough games the cost will be made back. You just prove it with this post mentioning you won't buy a console because you only wan't 1 or 2 games (Loss for MS/Sony/Nintendo if you bought their console), and because only people buy consoles who also wish to buy many games it equals out and atlast even starts to make profit!

You actually help MS/Sony and Nintendo gain cash by NOT buying a console for these 1 or 2 games...

And yes, there is a risk... but when isn't there one? And the success of PS2 and X-Box show well enough that the risk is actually small if you have alot of finance to back it up!

Edited February 21, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Shows to Bunny and such why Sony and MS would go to a strategy of losing money on the production of console units...

Wasn't an counter-argument!

And if the PC cannot compete it will indeed be very bad; also for you (console fanboys) guys. Would you really expect Sony and MS will still artifically keep low pricings if the reason for it would have been gone. Or keep the games at the current prices? It would be "MS-domination" on the games market...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually the PC is irrelevent it's the MS/SONY/Nintendo competition that is keeping the costs down. Thus what happens to the PC as a games machine dosnt matter in the slightests (it's still going to retain it's original function).

 

As long as there are at least two console manufacturers the PC dosnt even much enter into the equation.

 

Since the PC isnt going anywhere (since it's just a bunch of components rather than a unit) if it did get to the point where there was only console manufacturer and they started to become unreasonable nothing would be be stopping anyone from making use of it as a games machine again.

[BattleCookiee]

Actually the PC is irrelevent it's the MS/SONY/Nintendo competition that is keeping the costs down. Thus what happens to the PC as a games machine dosnt matter in the slightests (it's still going to retain it's original function).

 

Nope. The competition of the PC is well there. One of the main points why people prefer consoles over PC's is because they cost less and not need expensive extra materials etc.

Do you really think if ALL 3 of these consoles would cost their production cost and extra profit (making it about $1000) the PC would not be a fearce enemy. Which is one of the reasons why they are artifically made cheap by all 3... If the wanted to they could just decide to cut the losses they make from selling under-production costs (+$500 to all 3 won't hurt a single one) but guess why they don't do that?

 

As long as there are at least two console manufacturers the PC dosnt even much enter into the equation.

 

Well, it would if these 2 wouldn't save their own succes by keeping an artificial low price and would actually produce their units at production cost...

 

Since the PC isnt going anywhere (since it's just a bunch of components rather than a unit) if it did get to the point where there was only console manufacturer and they started to become unreasonable nothing would be be stopping anyone from making use of it as a games machine again.

 

Actually there would be a problem. Who is going to make the games for a starting system (PC) if there is absolutely no proof that it would actually going to make profit games for it, or if people really wan't it again (if there actually IS a market)?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Nope. The competition of the PC is well there. One of the main points why people prefer consoles over PC's is because they cost less and not need expensive extra materials etc.

Do you really think if ALL 3 of these consoles would cost their production cost and extra profit (making it about $1000) the PC would not be a fearce enemy. Which is one of the reasons why they are artifically made cheap by all 3... If the wanted to they could just decide to cut the losses they make from selling under-production costs (+$500 to all 3 won't hurt a single one) but guess why they don't do that?

 

Well, it would if these 2 wouldn't save their own succes by keeping an artificial low price and would actually produce their units at production cost...

 

Actually there would be a problem. Who is going to make the games for a starting system (PC) if there is absolutely no proof that it would actually going to make profit games for it, or if people really wan't it again (if there actually IS a market)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm thats only competion of PC vs a console. In console vs console it means nothing hence the PC is irrelelvent.

 

Yes because they want volume and around the $500 is the maximum volume/loss ratio (it would be profit but since they sell at a loss..).Even if the PC didnt exist that wouldnt change since people are much happier spending $500 than $1500.

 

Already answered above. Just look at how small a % own a high end PC compared to a workhorse PC. It's not because they dont want one, its because they cant afford one. Which again makes the PC irrelevent to the console v console thing.

 

There is no proof that X game will make a profit right now so I dont see how that would be any different.

 

It's going to be a choice of

 

1. PS3

2. 360

3. Revolution

 

If you want the benifits highlighted. See again the PC dosnt even enter into it since it's not even a comparitve machine or in the same price range.

[Surreptishus]

Economies of Scale.

[astr0creep]

Sorry but the more you sell, the lower your production costs(to a certain point, it never becomes free), thats basic knowledge.  Offer and demand. They charge you the same though...

 

Nope. If you sell more production does not become cheaper. How would that exactly go working. Do (in game-development) developers give back part of their loan if a game sells well?

It can become cheaper if other ways of production are found... but that never happens with ALL productions in the world, nor would actually be fast after the first produced unit.

 

Ok I'm not saying it right. You have 10 employees making 10 consoles a day at 10$/hour for 10 hours a day. You sell each console 300$. That comes to 2000$ profit. You double your production. You have 10 employees making 20 consoles a day at 10$/hour. That comes to 5000$ profit. Does that make more sense?

 

I didnt say they are making profit NOW but they know they will eventually so they can sell below production costs and take a hit at the beginning.

 

Sorry. But you are wrong. X-Box 360 and PS3 will NEVER bring in profit on their own sales. Nor did the X-Box or PS2 did.

As said before; the profit comes from the XX% per game sold tax, but never from a sold unit of the console itself...

 

I won't argue with you here but I doubt they didn't make any profit whatsoever. I know manufacturers suck a lot of money out of the retail price and that more of that money should go to the Pub/Devs(mostly devs as pubs are just middle-men and should be considered as such)

 

Consoles are no different than any other product. they are built and sold to a target consumer group, just like cars, clothing, houses, etc.

 

Wrong... again.

The "other objects" you call are produced to make profit itself. A console is made to make profit with the extra side-products made for it. Exactly tell me what stuff is made for clothes, or what a construction company sells to add to your house's interior?

 

Well for clothes I could argue with buttons and included accessories. Construction companies are more like services and they buy materials to do the job and the consumer pays for the ressources and the labor. You didn't mention cars so I assume it was a good example?

 

No company sells at top prices at the beginning and then drop the price. If anything, it's the other way around.

 

Actually, almost every company does it this way. WHY do you think Blu Ray is so expensive now? Would it still cost this much next year? Not a chance! Why did DVD-players sold for $500 in the begin, and $50 now?

 

Because their cycle is over or almost over.

 

They start cheap to build a base of consumers and once everybody wants some they raise the retail price. Usually prices stay the same with some "specials" at key periods of a year/cycle.

 

Nope. The reverse. They first make it expensive so people who really wan't it pay alot of cash then lower prices when interest takes off. You see it everywhere... with games, electronics, furniture, cars etc. Don't tell me you can sell a house cheap now because "later you can make them pay more"

 

Offer and demand. If the offer is not enough to fill the demand, prices are high. if the demand is not enough to clear inventory, prices go down. Console do differ here because they keep the same price tag regardless unless a competitor drops his price, then you get a price war.

 

Console prices change only when a competitor drops their price or when the five year cycle is over and even then they don't officially go below 50% of the original retail price.

 

Wrong... AGAIN . Just compare early PS2/X-box prices to the current ones (sorry I do not have numbers spare...)

 

Ok. Here in Canada the Playstation2 is now 159.99$Can. and it was 199.99$Can before the XBox360 and the Xbox sells for 180$ but it was 249.99$Can. before XBox360. In both cases there was a first drop of 100$ or so, the result of the so called price war 2 years ago if I am not mistaken. The Playstation2 sold for 300$Can and the XBox 350$Can 2-3 years ago. Since the Xbox360 is 500$Can, I personnally expect the PS3 to be between 450$Can and 550$Can.

 

In any sector, prices for manufacturing products stay the same throughout the production cycle. Even with consoles.

 

Yes. Then why do you claim otherwise in the all of your posts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because I don't take the proper time to reread my posts properly, a laziness I attribute to years of gaming. :">

 

EDIT: Actually, Nevermind. I just can't seem to say it right so I will leave now.

Edited February 21, 2006 by astr0creep

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Its not like I haven't tried other genres of games. I mean I have played the Civ games, the Halos, given Battlefront 2 a good play through, tried out a couple of MMORPGs, and what not.

 

It just seems that only CRPGs have the material I like and what makes a game fun for me.

[alanschu]

Nope. Me buying Product X won't make it cheaper for manufacturer X to make product X. The reduction of prices is because in the begin they sell at

[Surreptishus]

Also R&D, fixed capital and initial marketing campaign are one off costs. After they are recovered the price should go down (depending on how the costs are amortised)

[alanschu]

Urge to smoke crack...rising.

[BattleCookiee]

Umm thats only competion of PC vs a console. In console vs console it means nothing hence the PC is irrelelvent.

 

I never talked about the Console VS. Console. I was trying to point WHY consoles are selling so cheap. What does the console war has to do with it, except it made it maybe even a bit cheaper (but not by that much)...?

 

Yes because they want volume and around the $500 is the maximum volume/loss ratio (it would be profit but since they sell at a loss..).Even if the PC didnt exist that wouldnt change since people are much happier spending $500 than $1500.

 

The $500 ofcourse. D

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I never talked about the Console VS. Console. I was trying to point WHY consoles are selling so cheap. What does the console war has to do with it, except it made it maybe even a bit cheaper (but not by that much)...?

 

The $500 ofcourse. D

Edited February 21, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Let me put it really simply.

 

No one owns a low end PC because they want to. Given the option everyone would love an uber rig.

 

Because the PC dosnt make money from games sold there are no other considerations.

 

If on the other hand you made your console 1000 if a person couldnt afford it then they could no longer buy for it and hence not make you any money. Because even if the hardware sold at a profit the lions share is still going to come from the games.

Edited February 21, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[BattleCookiee]

But you should have been since PC's and consoles are not the same thing and thus dont have the same purchase criteria. Consoles are selling so cheap because you have three big players all after your money.

 

And because they are different is exactly the reason why I do compare the 2. Are we still talking about the same things here actually?

And why can't these 3 just all do +$500 for every of there console, and thus making additional profit? Because "Big Bad PC" is eager to steal away costumers of them then...

 

Even if the PC didnt exist if you want to make your money by selling large volumes of games you need large volumes of people with your console. If people cant afford it because of the price thats no use to you at all. As I said no one here would say no to a top of the line PC , but not everyone can afford one.

 

Yes. Or you wan't to have the same or a slighty smaller with additional pricing. 100x100 is 10.000, but 90x120 is 10.800, and thus better for the producer...

But ofcourse the concurence of other console creators and the PC is making it harder for them to do such a thing. And for MS/Sony there is a larger profit that could be gained from the selling of units than from getting cash from games, they just don't because of the competition (of the PC)

 

Because this method of profit isnt open to the PC they cant sell at a loss period. But consoles selling at a loss has nothing to do with the PC and everything do with getting into as many homes as possible.

 

Indeed. That is what I have been saying all along. It is for getting additional customers that otherwise went PC. And if it had nothing to do with the competition they could all just up the price by a few hundred bucks, as most people who buy a console surely spend many times that money already multiplied on games anyways..

 

Ok lets say that SONY destroys the competion and the PS4 retails at $1500 and the games at $100.

 

Not only does that simply put it out of reach of most people so that even if they sell at a profit they make less money over all.

 

Does MS gets hurt by selling MS for the amount of money where you can buy almost an entire console from? "

When Sony get's market domination they just figure out what will be the perfect prices for top profit... and that is surely higher than the current ones... and then also people who would normally spend so many money on Top PC's buy Consoles... and they can probably pay a bunch, giving a huge boost in profit!

 

The PC isnt a gaming platform as such and even if no one used it for gaming it wouldnt disapear would it. You must have missed the bit where I said that there is no guarentee that games will make a profit anyway.

 

No. But did I say so? I only said that IF the PC died as gaming-platform it would be very hard for the games to return there if the console market then decides to skyrocket the prices...

And it could work VERY well as gaming platform, it is just that the positive price of consoles drove it off (heavily)...

And what DID that part has to do with it? Making a game for 1/3 thriving platforms is a very different tasks than trying to make profit from a dead platform!

 

EDIT (It REALLY looks like we are talking past each other here!)

 

Let me put it really simply.

 

No one owns a low end PC because they want to. Given the option everyone would love an uber rig.

 

Because the PC dosnt make money from games sold there are no other considerations.

 

If on the other hand you made your console 1000 if a person couldnt afford it then they could no longer buy for it and hence not make you any money.  Because even if the hardware sold at a profit the lions share is still going to come from the games.

 

Exactly. But that is from a GAMER'S POV. And why would a commercial company care at all if these few people cannot pay it anymore if it gives them additional profits from the other clients?

Edited February 21, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And because they are different is exactly the reason why I do compare the 2. Are we still talking about the same things here actually?

And why can't these 3 just all do +$500 for every of there console, and thus making additional profit? Because "Big Bad PC" is eager to steal away costumers of them then...

 

Yes. Or you wan't to have the same or a slighty smaller with additional pricing. 100x100 is 10.000, but 90x120 is 10.800, and thus better for the producer...

But ofcourse the concurence of other console creators and the PC is making it harder for them to do such a thing. And for MS/Sony there is a larger profit that could be gained from the selling of units than from getting cash from games, they just don't because of the competition (of the PC)

 

Indeed. That is what I have been saying all along. It is for getting additional customers that otherwise went PC. And if it had nothing to do with the competition they could all just up the price by a few hundred bucks, as most people who buy a console surely spend many times that money already multiplied on games anyways..

 

Does MS gets hurt by selling MS for the amount of money where you can buy almost an entire console from?  "

When Sony get's market domination they just figure out what will be the perfect prices for top profit... and that is surely higher than the current ones... and then also people who would normally spend so many money on Top PC's buy Consoles... and they can probably pay a bunch, giving a huge boost in profit!

 

No. But did I say so? I only said that IF the PC died as gaming-platform it would be very hard for the games to return there if the console market then decides to skyrocket the prices...

And it could work VERY well as gaming platform, it is just that the positive price of consoles drove it off (heavily)...

And what DID that part has to do with it? Making a game for 1/3 thriving platforms is a very different tasks than trying to make profit from a dead platform!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No because there are three of them and they are competing the PC has nothing to do with it. Thats pretty clear since even at $500 they are still not in a comparable price bracket to a PC that is capable of the same level of gameplay which is at least twice that.

 

Theres nothing big or bad about a $500 PC

 

It's things like that that make you very difficult to take seriously. Ok so the PC is a bigger threat to MS than SONY

 

No it's for getting consumers who would have gone with another console a high end PC is totally out of their price range if they cant afford $500. So again PC totally irrelevent it's about the other consoles and their price points.

 

Your not getting it are you. If they did drastically increase the prices they would at the same time drastically cut the consumer base. The handy thing about a PC is it does more than just play games. A consoles sole purpose is to play games most parents I know wouldnt pay

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Exactly. But that is from a GAMER'S POV. And why would a commercial company care at all if these few people cannot pay it anymore if it gives them additional profits from the other clients?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Guess what there are considerably more people who can afford to spend $300 than $1500.

 

Because the profits are coming from the games even if your the only manufacturer its still in your best interest to keep the prices affordable. It's pointless having a product if no one can afford it.

 

I doubt prices would go up that much. What would change is that prices would not drop since those price drops are competition driven.

[BattleCookiee]

We ARE really talking past each other... but that doens't stop me from continuing talking

 

No because there are three of them and they are competing the PC has nothing to do with it. Thats pretty clear since even at $500 they are still not in a comparable price bracket to a PC that is capable of the same level of gameplay which is at least twice that.

 

$500. Where did you get that from? When did I try to defend a $500,- PC to a console?

 

Theres nothing big or bad about a $500 PC 

 

Agreed. But I never ever said so. PS3 production cost is 800. Then if you (like a PC) sell each part with profit it will be abouy $1000.-+ You can get a decent PC for that of about equal power... with more functions! And that is exactly why the PC IS a factor in keeping the console prices low...

 

It's things like that that make you very difficult to take seriously. Ok so the PC is a bigger threat to MS than SONY 

 

Ugh... If you think I compare $500 PC's to consoles I can understand you are laughing. Except I compare consoles with equally priced (in the production!) PC's

 

No it's for getting consumers who would have gone with another console a high end PC is totally out of their price range if they cant afford $500. So again PC totally irrelevent it's about the other consoles and their price points.

 

And why is this console so low in cost? Because this way it can steal these costumers that otherwise go to the PC. Would you actually think they would care for people who cannot pay $500,- for a console when they can try to steal these pesons who spend $2000,- for a PC to buy and use their console?

 

Your not getting it are you. If they did drastically increase the prices they would at the same time drastically cut the consumer base. The handy thing about a PC is it does more than just play games. A consoles sole purpose is to play games most parents I know wouldnt pay

Edited February 21, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

$500. Where did you get that from? When did I try to defend a $500,- PC to a console?

 

Agreed. But I never ever said so. PS3 production cost is 800. Then if you (like a PC) sell each part with profit it will be abouy $1000.-+ You can get a decent PC for that of about equal power... with more functions! And that is exactly why the PC IS a factor in keeping the console prices low...

 

Ugh... If you think I compare $500 PC's to consoles I can understand you are laughing. Except I compare consoles with equally priced (in the production!) PC's

 

And why is this console so low in cost? Because this way it can steal these costumers that otherwise go to the PC. Would you actually think they would care for people who cannot pay $500,- for a console when they can try to steal these pesons who spend $2000,- for a PC to buy and use their console?

 

Yup. But for every sold copy/unit they would get additional money. Why would a commercial company care for the people who "cannot pay" if they can cash out the people who can?

And "more money on the games" is now only due to the (too) low pricing of the consoles. Surely you don't think that the selling of your own product would help more on the short run than getting a small fee for every sold game for the machine? And when the long time effects of the game selling sets in you just produce a new console to replace the old!

 

And who would publish for Dead platforms? Who, at this moment, creates games for that flawed Nintendo console? (forgot name)

 

Would you really wan't that? As then what I have been preaching all along would become true; boosts of console prices and boost of console games prices.

 

Yup. But guess what? The $1500 payers have bigger pockets! Bigger pockets is more cash to rip off!

 

But the perfect price for profit would be higher than now... I can bet on that. And as I already said before; the games tax. is only more profitable now because the consoles make loss when sold. If there is no competition in the form of the PC there would be nothing to stop them from actually selling them for more cash...

 

Well, would you prefer alot of money or ALOT of money. Would you, as company, care if less people could play your games or on your hardware if the smaller group you have at the moment would pay alot more than these others could pay?

 

MS could sell Windows for $50,- or so and still make a profit on it. Wonder why they don't... don't they wan't more people to use it?  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here

 

And because they are different is exactly the reason why I do compare the 2. Are we still talking about the same things here actually?

And why can't these 3 just all do +$500 for every of there console, and thus making additional profit? Because "Big Bad PC" is eager to steal away costumers of them then...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At which point I explained why the PC dosnt matter even though you continue to think it's somehow important to how the consoles companies are thinking...

 

No thats a rumour of the PS3 production cost and it's based on a read/write blu ray which the PS3 dosnt need to have since you dont save games to blu ray and the PS3 isnt intended as a blu ray recorder only a blu ray player although $800 for a blu ray recorder is a bargain even if you never played a game on it.

 

So what the console manufacturers are smart. I really dont care that you think its unfair because you think it's killing the PC. The PC has done more than enough to kill itself with the low quality crap and patch it later attitude.

 

As the consumer why wouldnt I ? I mean it dosnt matter to me if it costs SONY $3000 it's what It costs me that is important. A machine that plays games as well as