Support NeoGAF

[Mefisutoferesu]

Wait 1080p @ 60fps with 12bit color? Shouldn't that be 24bit? Or am I confused about the range of expressed colors? 24bit is "human" level color preception, right?

 

[qirex]

Wait 1080p @ 60fps with 12bit color? Shouldn't that be 24bit? Or am I confused about the range of expressed colors? 24bit is "human" level color preception, right?

12 bit/channel = 36 bit color total. And 24-bit can easily have banding perceivable to the naked eye, especially in darker colors.

 

[Vince]

The biggest discrepancy I find in these types of threads, IMHO, is that the people who start them tend to think in absolutist terms; not in the relative terms they should. For example:

Yes, but that is one component. That isn't including the Cell, expensive ram, Nvidia graphics chip, etc. the loss has never been that big.

When you say it's never been "that" expensive, you need to realize that IC costs are, for our purposes, bounded on a per wafer or, more specifically, per area level. The size of Cell and the RSX are roughly comparable to those experienced at the same point during the PlayStation2's lifespan with the EE and GS; especially when you compensate for the transition from 200 to 300mm wafers in the past 5 years.

Granted, the absolute complexity of the design has exploded as they're packing a good order of magnitude more transistors into the same area as they did in 1999; but the costs of doing this are of negligible increase. Most of these costs related to the complexity are front-loaded and one-time expenses to pay for the development, the recurrent production costs aren't that different.

Frankly, the Graphic Synthesizer was a bitch to physically fabricate with it's logic + eDRAM SoC design for it's time; I wouldn't be surprised if the RSX is comparably easier.

 

[tedtropy]

Fully Software-Decoded BD Player Driven by Cell Processor

High Quality Image Processing Driven by RSX Graphics Processor

1080p/60 12bit Color HDMI Output

32bit Floating Point Color Processing

32bit Floating Point Audio Processing

Perhaps I misunderstand what the "12-bit" is referring to in this case, but wouldn't such a level of color output cause pretty obvious dithering?

 

[fart]

two posts above you, tedtropy

 

[pixelfish]

People are saying that consumers will just buy the PS3 with Blue Ray dvd player instead of spending more money on a stand alone player, how is that good for Sony to undercut the companies that they are trying to get to adopt Blue Ray instead of HD-DVD?

If I was for example Samsung, I would be pissed off if I was trying to sell my stand alone player for $700 and here comes Sony and includes a Blue Ray player in a $399 console. Unlike with DVD technology, Blue Ray is Sony's baby and they have to keep their relationship sweet with the companies that have backed Blue Ray instead of HD-DVD or else they might just jump ship. I wonder how they are going to keep everybody happy?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Other than the high-end early adopter audio-videophole rapist model, do we have solid pricing on an other Blu-Ray players? I think the speculation and second-guessing is three layers deep and pretty meaningless at this point.

 

[tedtropy]

two posts above you, tedtropy

Yeah, forgot I hadn't refreshed the thread in awhile before I posted that.

 

[Beatbox]

If I was for example Samsung, I would be pissed off if I was trying to sell my stand alone player for $700 and here comes Sony and includes a Blue Ray player in a $399 console. Unlike with DVD technology, Blue Ray is Sony's baby and they have to keep their relationship sweet with the companies that have backed Blue Ray instead of HD-DVD or else they might just jump ship. I wonder how they are going to keep everybody happy?

Why would you be pissed if you were Samsung? They announced a first gen dual format HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player.

 

[Pakkidis]

Sony admitted that PS3 will super expensive, even though there taking a loss, the consumer will still be paying alot.

 

[pixelfish]

Why would you be pissed if you were Samsung? They announced a first gen dual format HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player.

I said for example, you can insert any company that will be selling the Blue Ray for more than Sony will be selling it included with the PS3.

 

[MrSingh]

People are saying that consumers will just buy the PS3 with Blue Ray dvd player instead of spending more money on a stand alone player, how is that good for Sony to undercut the companies that they are trying to get to adopt Blue Ray instead of HD-DVD?

If I was for example Samsung, I would be pissed off if I was trying to sell my stand alone player for $700 and here comes Sony and includes a Blue Ray player in a $399 console. Unlike with DVD technology, Blue Ray is Sony's baby and they have to keep their relationship sweet with the companies that have backed Blue Ray instead of HD-DVD or else they might just jump ship. I wonder how they are going to keep everybody happy?

Why should Sony care about making the other companies happy?

 

[pixelfish]

Why should Sony care about making the other companies happy?

I don't know, maybe because it's their technology they are trying to get out there?

 

[BlueTsunami]

I don't know, maybe because it's their technology they are trying to get out there?

Its a joint effort and just because a BDA exist doesn't mean everyone has to be buddy buddy. Its still business and all of them are still competing against eachother. They just all agree that Blu Ray is the way the inustry should go.

Do you honsetly think all hardware manufactuers are thinking about how much the other companies are pricing their Blu Ray players and say..."Oops, we don't want to go to low, don't want to make them mad"

 

[DarienA]

Because there's little crossover. Folks who have no interest in gaming aren't going to run out and buy a PS3 just because it has a cheap Blu Ray player in it. Didn't we get a similar argument last generation?

 

[Teddman]

Just like Microsoft with the original Xbox, expect Sony to take huge losses on the PS3 in an attempt to establish Blu-ray as the successor to DVD.

One thing that's not "just like Microsoft" about Sony... They don't have the financial standing to take losses of that size.

 

[Xenon]

Because there's little crossover. Folks who have no interest in gaming aren't going to run out and buy a PS3 just because it has a cheap Blu Ray player in it. Didn't we get a similar argument last generation?

I have to agree most people buying blu ray in the first year are going to be videophiles who are going to want "the best player" possible. I find it hard to believe that the PS3 is going to offer everything that than stand alone hardware can.

Most of the PS3 sales will be from people who want it for games and find extra value in blue ray support. Thus, making that $499 price tag easier to swallow.

 

[MrSardonic]

Is the BR drive really going to be that big a selling point? I think this is different to the consumer shift from VHS to DVD...is there really a market full of consumers who will buy the PS3 based on the BR drive as a big selling point, and who are interested in upgrading their DVD collection to BR, and who have HDTVs? I don't know what the situation is in the US, but I just can't see the BR functions being a selling point in Europe.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Is the BR drive really going to be that big a selling point?

Not for the guy at Wal-Mart who just wants a 'next gen' system from Wal-Mart, at a $199 price point and the ability to play Madden. These guys don't even give a shit about 480p DVD, let alone 'bloo ray'.

And these guys are a HUGE chunk of the game playing public.

If 360 hits $199 before PS3, they will gain marketshare over the past generation, high-def movies be damned. You can drink beer on that.

 

[fse]

15% of Americans have HDTV's. That seems like not that many :\

 

[xsarien]

People are saying that consumers will just buy the PS3 with Blue Ray dvd player instead of spending more money on a stand alone player, how is that good for Sony to undercut the companies that they are trying to get to adopt Blue Ray instead of HD-DVD?

The PS2 didn't really hurt sales of standalone DVD players, it stands to reason that the PS3 won't really dent dedicated Blu-Ray devices either. Sony's including movie playback to get an instant Blu-Ray installed-base, which will benefit everyone involved, from studios backing the format to people who may step up to a "real" player down the line.

Hell, it may even convince other manufacturers to drive the cost of their own players down as quickly as possible.

 

[MrSingh]

To answer the original question:

Magic.

The same magic that brought us the PSP at $200-$250.





Or underpaid workers in 3rd world countries.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

How?

Because new standalone A/V tech is sold at absurdly high profitable prices and videogame consoles are sold under cost.

 

[elostyle]

How?

Because new standalone A/V tech is sold at absurdly high profitable prices and videogame consoles are sold under cost.

The last part is yet again not true stated generalized like that.

 

[Flo_Evans]

one word: volume.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

The last part is yet again not true.

Well it's true for Sony consoles and MS too.

 

[elostyle]

Well it's true for Sony consoles and MS too.

I don't think PS1 and PS2 were ever sold under cost.

 

[Avtomat]

Its a joint effort and just because a BDA exist doesn't mean everyone has to be buddy buddy. Its still business and all of them are still competing against eachother. They just all agree that Blu Ray is the way the inustry should go.

Do you honsetly think all hardware manufactuers are thinking about how much the other companies are pricing their Blu Ray players and say... "Oops, we don't want to go to low, don't want to make them mad"

Have you not justdescibed an oligopoly working on the principles of game theory ?

 

[M3wThr33]

I don't think PS1 and PS2 were ever sold under cost.

It took Sony just under a year to start profiting on the PS2. They sold it at a loss that was quickly cancelled out by software sales.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Have you not justdescibed an oligopoly working on the principles of game theory ?

You made me use dictionary.com for oligopoly

;_;

I can see that issue but I honestly don't think the price of a Blu Ray player would be $1,000 to manufacture, not even $500 (not sure how low past that point). With that said, Hardware manufactures are taken it upon themselves to price so high.

Also, I belive someone brought it up already, but the reason why its priced so high is because these players are the first ones to hit the market. Just taken advantage of people who need to adopt now...

 

[jetjevons]

I'm going to be amazed if the PS3 is <$500. The hit Sony would be taking per unit must be gigantic.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I'm going to be amazed if the PS3 is <$500. The hit Sony would be taking per unit must be gigantic.

How would it be gigantic?

 

[elostyle]

It took Sony just under a year to start profiting on the PS2. They sold it at a loss that was quickly cancelled out by software sales.

Was that in one of their financial reports? How do you know? I think there might have been R&D cost factored in with that.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I don't think PS1 and PS2 were ever sold under cost.

It's pretty well known that the PS2 was sold at a loss. Why do you think so many people were expecting it to be 500+ before the release?

 

[Mrbob]

one word: volume.

Winner.

It is much easier to price something at a lower cost when you are producing 10 to 20 million a year versus 50,000 to 100,000.

 

[Jonnyram]

I'm going to be amazed if the PS3 is <$500. The hit Sony would be taking per unit must be gigantic.

Don't worry... the HDD is a separate add-on so you don't need to include that. I think <$500 is doable, but they'll leave out a lot of the options that core gamers need, in favour of making it a more attractive multimedia station for casuals.

 

[DCharlie]

"As has already been said. Unlike with dvd, Blu-Ray IS SONY. They don't have to pay tons of royalties on the parts and they can make everything in-house for cheap. Also as has been said, those $1000 players probably cost like $50 to manufacture and are just $1000 to recoup on R&D and royalties."

errr.... okay

isn't Blu-ray a group of companies splitting the R+D? If that's the case, then surely they'd also get a bit of a break on costs.

$50 to manufacture - i assume you just mean the drive, because i don't think it plays anything by itself. $50 on a video decoder , digital out put, sound processor etc seems insanely low.

 

[Mrbob]

errr.... okay

isn't Blu-ray a group of companies splitting the R+D? If that's the case, then surely they'd also get a bit of a break on costs.

$50 to manufacture - i assume you just mean the drive, because i don't think it plays anything by itself. $50 on a video decoder , digital out put, sound processor etc seems insanely low.

Cell and RSX are handling the video and audio decoding for Blu Ray movies on PS3.

 

[BlueTsunami]

isn't Blu-ray a group of companies splitting the R+D? If that's the case, then surely they'd also get a bit of a break on costs.

Thats exactly what Blu Ray is. Theres seems to be these view that Blu Ray=Sony. Appearently theres a founding members list or something. Blu Ray isnt' Sony (as you already know).

Cell and RSX are handling the video and audio decoding for Blu Ray movies on PS3.

There you go....

All you would need is a drive and you don't need alot of the other compenents BD players need. Cause you've already have RSX and Cell.

 

[choplifter]

The biggest discrepancy I find in these types of threads, IMHO, is that the people who start them tend to think in absolutist terms; not in the relative terms they should. For example:



When you say it's never been "that" expensive, you need to realize that IC costs are, for our purposes, bounded on a per wafer or, more specifically, per area level. The size of Cell and the RSX are roughly comparable to those experienced at the same point during the PlayStation2's lifespan with the EE and GS; especially when you compensate for the transition from 200 to 300mm wafers in the past 5 years.

Granted, the absolute complexity of the design has exploded as they're packing a good order of magnitude more transistors into the same area as they did in 1999; but the costs of doing this are of negligible increase. Most of these costs related to the complexity are front-loaded and one-time expenses to pay for the development, the recurrent production costs aren't that different.

Frankly, the Graphic Synthesizer was a bitch to physically fabricate with it's logic + eDRAM SoC design for it's time; I wouldn't be surprised if the RSX is comparably easier.

Vince, dude, nice post. I cannot disagree with ya.

your post just made me kinda wide-eyed & tech-hungry for PS4 CPU which I imagine will be a 'many core' SuperCell with dozens of next-gen SPEs and the PS4 GPU which I imagine will be an Nvidia-Sony 'CGPU' (i made that term up) which could kind of mean a
CPU-GPU -or- a GPU that produces CGI-like visuals. Hey, I am just dreaming here, having fun. Not getting overally technical. hehe. I also imagine that PS4 will have the kind of power that Kutaragi originally boasted that the PS3 would have..... not that I'm saying PS3 is not powerful or anything.

ta

 

[Gattsu25]

I don't think PS1 and PS2 were ever sold under cost.

heh

 

[BlueTsunami]

heh

lol

Sony has been losing money on the PS1 and PS2 ever since launch I guess

 

[DCharlie]

"Cell and RSX are handling the video and audio decoding for Blu Ray movies on PS3."

yes, but Bebpo was saying that "those $1000 players probably cost like $50 to manufacture" and the cash was to get R&D back and to pay royalties. That's not talking about the PS3.

Also - what seems odd is that what is implicit in that comment is that the companies have to help pay for the overall R+D cost , but STILL have to pay all the royalties to sony.

I've seen some crazy figures for the overal cost of Blu-Ray development, but if Sony DO come out of this as

1) the sole royalty collector
2) partial R+D payer
3) company to put out a severely discounted BR player , cheaper than what everyone else can afford to (and able to play all media (dual/single sided)

then what the hell do the rest of the Bluray group gain from this? I assume the answer is "a platform to put out more media" - then , i guess we have to see what exactly is happening with royalty payments (to whom and at what level) - and to what level the R&D was split. I thought it was roughly even (?) but perhaps Sony did pony up the majority... (?)


Or Vinces answer of "they'll make money back on recorders" - which i don't agree with.

 

[Teddman]

one word: volume.

Winner.

It is much easier to price something at a lower cost when you are producing 10 to 20 million a year versus 50,000 to 100,000.

Not necessarily. At a lower cost per component, but it will still result in a massive loss overall on hardware if you are selling at a loss for each unit.

For instance, if you are losing 200 dollars per console, you make 1 million, you are down 2 billion. I'm not saying that's what the actual figures will be, but it illustrates that economies of scale don't completely take the bite out of selling at a loss per unit.

Sony is a few billion from bankruptcy, right? I don't think the PS3 will launch until it is financially reasonable for Sony to mass produce it. 2006 might not be an option for them. They may be riding the hype wave as long as they can first in order to get in better financial position.

 

[sonycowboy]

"Cell and RSX are handling the video and audio decoding for Blu Ray movies on PS3."

yes, but Bebpo was saying that "those $1000 players probably cost like $50 to manufacture" and the cash was to get R&D back and to pay royalties. That's not talking about the PS3.

Also - what seems odd is that what is implicit in that comment is that the companies have to help pay for the overall R+D cost , but STILL have to pay all the royalties to sony.

I've seen some crazy figures for the overal cost of Blu-Ray development, but if Sony DO come out of this as

1) the sole royalty collector
2) partial R+D payer
3) company to put out a severely discounted BR player , cheaper than what everyone else can afford to (and able to play all media (dual/single sided)

then what the hell do the rest of the Bluray group gain from this? I assume the answer is "a platform to put out more media" - then , i guess we have to see what exactly is happening with royalty payments (to whom and at what level)

Or Vinces answer of "they'll make money back on recorders" - which i don't agree with.

Money is made on the early adopters and the media. All of the consumer electronics companies get a portion of the royalty and thus have a reason to sell the hardware even at ridiculously low volumes early on (thus the high prices, plus it keeps a tiered market in place allowing them a level of control on the adoption curve).

Sony most assuredly isn't the sole royalty collector, but the do get more than everybody else for Blu-Ray as they are the principal developers and have the most invested financially.

And mad money is made on royalties at a certain part in the curve of the adoption cycle.

I must say I am surprised at the price disparity between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players. The cost of the hardware DOES not account for the difference at all. To me, it shows extreme confidence on the Blu-Ray side such that they believe they've already won. I expected them to be much more aggressive at CES and I think it allows HD-DVD to live on, which might just bite them in the ass eventually.

 

[dynamitejim]

3) company to put out a severely discounted BR player , cheaper than what everyone else can afford to (and able to play all media (dual/single sided)

No one knows how long it will stay like that. It's 2006 and the PS2 is still $150, quite a bit more than a quality DVD player these days and the price dropped much more slowly than standalones. If the PS3 debuts at $399 how long do you expect it to take for it to reach $150? I'm sure other BR players will reach that price well before the PS3 does.

 

[elostyle]

lol

Sony has been losing money on the PS1 and PS2 ever since launch I guess

Then we look at Sony's stock report for Oct-Dec 2000, and there is an
interesting little blurb. It said that had Sony been able to meet demand
with another 1 million PS2 units, they would have pocketed $175 million in
profits. $175 million divided by one million consoles equals $175 per
console profit.

Now, that is a bit high. This assumed that the average consumer continues to buy four games per console (so around $24 in royalties), and 2 accessories (about $30 in profit total). That reduces the $175 to about $120. Sony is making $120 profit per system.

In both the press conferences for follow-up questions pertaining to the 2000 and 2001 stock report for investors, which were available online in audio files on Sony's website for months after the publication of their annual report, Sony openly discussed how the PS2 is profitable on each unit sold.

You guess. And sony very much likes that.

 

[inpHilltr8r]

http://www.abtelectronics.com/scripts/site/site_product.php3?source=froogle&id=17501

A $3500 DVD player? How do Sony make money on PS2?

 

[sonycowboy]

Not necessarily. At a lower cost per component, but it will still result in a massive loss overall on hardware if you are selling at a loss for each unit.

For instance, if you are losing 200 dollars per console, you make 1 million, you are down 2 billion. I'm not saying that's what the actual figures will be, but it illustrates that economies of scale don't completely take the bite out of selling at a loss per unit.

Sony is a few billion from bankruptcy, right? I don't think the PS3 will launch until it is financially reasonable for Sony to mass produce it. 2006 might not be an option for them. They may be riding the hype wave as long as they can first in order to get in better financial position.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Economies of scale for the CELL and Blu-Ray (2 company owned technologies) make it where you lose less the more units you produce. Especially, with the CELL chips that don't make PS3 grade cantidates for Blu-Ray players, TV's and whatever other consumer electronics they care to put it in. The yields for Sony should be quite nice relative to the CELL because of this, which drives the cost down substantially.

Plus Sony can afford to subsidize the Blu-Ray player to an extent banking on it winning the next gen DVD format and giving them huge royalties in a few years that will continue on for a long time.

Blu-Ray is in the PS3 for both sides of the equation. It benefits the PS3, but IMO, it much more benefits Blu-Ray as a standard and as a revenue stream for years to come.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Money is made on the early adopters and the media.

Big money is made on the mainstream crowd that buys in after a couple of price cuts and rising profit margins.