Forbes: Sony "Fashionably Late"

[Lefein]

http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/15/son...acescan01.html

This was an excellent read. It would seem that not all the news is bad even on the financial end for the PS3s "delay." It allows Sony to launch strong with better software and a much more desirable pricepoint. Just read the article, I'd quote it, but Forbes deserves the site hits IMHO. No fanboyism, just facts.

[WhatRuOn]

Hmm, interesting. An independent financial analyst not flinging pooh. I think penguins are flying.

[sol-lekz]

Wouldn't this allow them to even put in the new cell chips that use less power? which would help out with the over heating??

http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/165

[Goldfiinger]

I'd quote it, but Forbes deserves the site hits IMHO

Not when i get no less than three pop ups !

[Naboomagnoli]

what was their opinion on the matter beforehand?

[Organic_Shadow]

Wouldn't this allow them to even put in the new cell chips that use less power? which would help out with the over heating??

http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/165

If they can get them out fast enough. Im not sure weather or not they have a large number of the 90nm CELL chips ready to go. They could always us the 90nm in the final dev kits and ship those in June, and use all the 65nm CELL chips for the actual PS3's right?

[Lefein]

If I end up getting a 65nm chip in my PS3 I will be incredibly impressed by this move!

[Cera]

Wouldn't this allow them to even put in the new cell chips that use less power? which would help out with the over heating??

http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/165

Don't think so. That's probably something we'll see in the slimline version, which will take some time.

But who knows. Accoding to Ken's slides, we see don't see the final Cell till April.

[Scaptain_Carlet]

I'm fairly optomistic that sony will increase the cell in PS3 from 3.2GHz to 3.4/3.6 GHz, but stick with 7 SPEs

[Aleman]

What does it matter? It's not like you'll be able to notice a difference between a 65 nm and a 90 nm Cell.

[GoreTex]

What does it matter? It's not like you'll be able to notice a difference between a 65 nm and a 90 nm Cell.

What about heat consumption?

[Lefein]

What does it matter? It's not like you'll be able to notice a difference between a 65 nm and a 90 nm Cell.

I'm a tech geek, I'm also a huge supporter of AMD. I'd like to slap an AMD sticker on my PS3 since the 65nm Cells will feature AMD technology

[Aleman]

What does it matter? It's not like you'll be able to notice a difference between a 65 nm and a 90 nm Cell.

What about heat consumption?

Yea but if the console is designed properly, heat wouldn't be a problem anyways.

Maybe you'd notice that your electric bill is 25 cents lower per month or something

[Redsoxfan24]

The thing about PS3 that I think a lot of people forget is that it has a different image than 360. PS3 is supposed to be like God's console of choice, wheras Xbox 360 is the console of mortals, if you understand this analogy. PS3 has a lot of stuff you just can't see on 360. Free internet, Blu-Ray, tons of great franchises, HDMI 16-bit outputs, more computing power. Overall, if someone looks at PS3, they see a better machine, technically speaking. 360 has "rush job" written all over it to me, johnny consumer. And now I feel like MS is trying to exploit me, cuz they make me pay to play online, while Sony doesn't charge a thing. I can go and play PS2 and PS1 games on PS3, enabling me to feel like my I didn't get ripped off in the last generations, and that I can't play old games anymore. 360 doesn't offer very good back compatibility, so as a last-gen gamer with Xbox, I feel like I'm getting the old screw job, since MS is making me buy all new games. People will see Sony's console coming later, so they will also assume that it's better, cuz we know that later consoles are better. Most laymen would assume this, look at say PS1 to PS2. Johnny consumer doesn't know that the time differential is less than a year, he knows that PS3 came after 360, and is better. Microsoft is in bad shape on paper, at least, to most people in the market for a next-gen console. Software is where Microsoft made its fortune, and may save 360, but boy, they better pull all the stops, and drop the equivalent of a hype "a-bomb" at E3, or Sony is gonna walk all over them. Cuz we know that Sony is playin for keeps now, and is gonna stop the show with any PS3 related stuff. Look at the way the gaming media stopped after the PS3 press conference. Basically, we got, Worldwide Nov. Launch, PS3's equivalent of live, but better, and free, and PS3 would likely ship with an HDD for downloadable content/game functionality, and blu-ray was delaying ps3. No games whatsoever, no controller, no price, nothing about hd, or cell, or RSX. It was a spartan conference, to reassure the populace, and keep the media from hyping 360 into first. Well, it worked, just cause PS3's prominece. Sony knows that they have the gaming world by the balls, they've just gotta twist right to come out on top.

[Aleman]

The thing about PS3 that I think a lot of people forget is that it has a different image than 360. PS3 is supposed to be like God's console of choice, wheras Xbox 360 is the console of mortals, if you understand this analogy. PS3 has a lot of stuff you just can't see on 360. Free internet, Blu-Ray, tons of great franchises, HDMI 16-bit outputs, more computing power. Overall, if someone looks at PS3, they see a better machine, technically speaking. 360 has "rush job" written all over it to me, johnny consumer. And now I feel like MS is trying to exploit me, cuz they make me pay to play online, while Sony doesn't charge a thing. I can go and play PS2 and PS1 games on PS3, enabling me to feel like my I didn't get ripped off in the last generations, and that I can't play old games anymore. 360 doesn't offer very good back compatibility, so as a last-gen gamer with Xbox, I feel like I'm getting the old screw job, since MS is making me buy all new games. People will see Sony's console coming later, so they will also assume that it's better, cuz we know that later consoles are better. Most laymen would assume this, look at say PS1 to PS2. Johnny consumer doesn't know that the time differential is less than a year, he knows that PS3 came after 360, and is better. Microsoft is in bad shape on paper, at least, to most people in the market for a next-gen console. Software is where Microsoft made its fortune, and may save 360, but boy, they better pull all the stops, and drop the equivalent of a hype "a-bomb" at E3, or Sony is gonna walk all over them. Cuz we know that Sony is playin for keeps now, and is gonna stop the show with any PS3 related stuff. Look at the way the gaming media stopped after the PS3 press conference. Basically, we got, Worldwide Nov. Launch, PS3's equivalent of live, but better, and free, and PS3 would likely ship with an HDD for downloadable content/game functionality, and blu-ray was delaying ps3. No games whatsoever, no controller, no price, nothing about hd, or cell, or RSX. It was a spartan conference, to reassure the populace, and keep the media from hyping 360 into first. Well, it worked, just cause PS3's prominece. Sony knows that they have the gaming world by the balls, they've just gotta twist right to come out on top.

"Johnny consumer" doesn't care what console comes out first or last.

By your logic, Xbox should have outsold the PS2 last generation.

It's a combination of games and price that will win the console wars.

[Lefein]

The thing about PS3 that I think a lot of people forget is that it has a different image than 360. PS3 is supposed to be like God's console of choice, wheras Xbox 360 is the console of mortals, if you understand this analogy. PS3 has a lot of stuff you just can't see on 360. Free internet, Blu-Ray, tons of great franchises, HDMI 16-bit outputs, more computing power. Overall, if someone looks at PS3, they see a better machine, technically speaking. 360 has "rush job" written all over it to me, johnny consumer. And now I feel like MS is trying to exploit me, cuz they make me pay to play online, while Sony doesn't charge a thing. I can go and play PS2 and PS1 games on PS3, enabling me to feel like my I didn't get ripped off in the last generations, and that I can't play old games anymore. 360 doesn't offer very good back compatibility, so as a last-gen gamer with Xbox, I feel like I'm getting the old screw job, since MS is making me buy all new games. People will see Sony's console coming later, so they will also assume that it's better, cuz we know that later consoles are better. Most laymen would assume this, look at say PS1 to PS2. Johnny consumer doesn't know that the time differential is less than a year, he knows that PS3 came after 360, and is better. Microsoft is in bad shape on paper, at least, to most people in the market for a next-gen console. Software is where Microsoft made its fortune, and may save 360, but boy, they better pull all the stops, and drop the equivalent of a hype "a-bomb" at E3, or Sony is gonna walk all over them. Cuz we know that Sony is playin for keeps now, and is gonna stop the show with any PS3 related stuff. Look at the way the gaming media stopped after the PS3 press conference. Basically, we got, Worldwide Nov. Launch, PS3's equivalent of live, but better, and free, and PS3 would likely ship with an HDD for downloadable content/game functionality, and blu-ray was delaying ps3. No games whatsoever, no controller, no price, nothing about hd, or cell, or RSX. It was a spartan conference, to reassure the populace, and keep the media from hyping 360 into first. Well, it worked, just cause PS3's prominece. Sony knows that they have the gaming world by the balls, they've just gotta twist right to come out on top.

"Johnny consumer" doesn't care what console comes out first or last.

By your logic, Xbox should have outsold the PS2 last generation.

It's a combination of games and price that will win the console wars.

I will have to disagree. It's all about the games. People are willing to pay more if they feel they are getting a good system. The N64 was uber cheap compared to the PS1, but we all know how that turned out. Even the PSP is "hanging in there" with the Nintendo DS in worldwide sales. Price won't make or break a system.

[December Spade]

Absolutely, software sells systems. Look at 3D0 and Jaguar. Superior consoles in their respective gens, but lack of support... young gamers don't even know what those things are.

Why did PS2 outsell Xbox and is now a part of over 30% of American homes? Software support. Games, baby, games. Xbox has some killers, of course. Master Chief became MS's Mario, Dead or Alive is a flagship fighter. There are other of course, but... right now in this moment - not too much else comes to mind as really groundbreaking, or memorable. That's not a knock on Xbox, OR neccessarily a bad thing. I am just one who prefers lots of options. There isn't a catalog of stellar titles - for me, personally.

The 360 launched with far too many FPSs, personally. I got so caught up in the hype of it all, I forget that the 3 games I bought were all shooters. Subsequently trading 2 in for NBA 2K6 (drool).

I think Sonys move of putting off launch is good. Anyone in the know, the real gamers, KNEW that PS3 wasn't going to be anywhere near an American shore this spring. It just wasn't happening.

***Pay Attention to this statement***
When was the last time a piece of videogame hardware, or software, from ANY MANUFACTURER, came out on it's ORIGINALLY PROPOSED release date? Very few times. Especially things of immense hype and anticipation. Especially new gen consoles. For the MS fanboys, how many times did 360 get pushed? Get a grip, fellas.

Anyhow, I am ecstatic that it will be in my hands this year. I (and most others) had probably prepared themselves mentally for a NEXT spring launch. Good move Sony - get your ducks in a row, get production facilities pumping out units, and do what you do best. Make some b!tchin' games.

See you in November.

[JordanL]

Master Chief became MS's Mario

No. Absolutely not.

Nintendo takes Mario and related characters, and constantly makes new and refreshing games with them. Bungie has made TWO games with the "Halo characters", and they are essentially the same thing rehashed two different ways.

That comparison gives Bungie way too much credit, and Nintendo not nearly enough.

[Aleman]

When was the last time a piece of videogame hardware, or software, from ANY MANUFACTURER, came out on it's ORIGINALLY PROPOSED release date? Very few times. Especially things of immense hype and anticipation. Especially new gen consoles. For the MS fanboys, how many times did 360 get pushed? Get a grip, fellas.

I don't believe the 360 was delayed... I think holiday '05 was their target all along.

[Lefein]

Yeah, they stuck to that November launch even though it meant having a horrid launch lineup and bad shortages.

[arfi-gorgona-O]

Yes because they need to launch before sony,thats all that mattered to them at least then...

[Ricokillercon]

Yes because they need to launch before sony,thats all that mattered to them at least then...

Yes they though that a year a few months will guarantee way more sales than sony. Really i does not work that way. Look at nintendo, they did the worst in terms of numbers, but they don't feel rushed.

[invisible_on_ice]

The thing about PS3 that I think a lot of people forget is that it has a different image than 360. PS3 is supposed to be like God's console of choice, wheras Xbox 360 is the console of mortals, if you understand this analogy. PS3 has a lot of stuff you just can't see on 360. Free internet, Blu-Ray, tons of great franchises, HDMI 16-bit outputs, more computing power. Overall, if someone looks at PS3, they see a better machine, technically speaking. 360 has "rush job" written all over it to me, johnny consumer. And now I feel like MS is trying to exploit me, cuz they make me pay to play online, while Sony doesn't charge a thing. I can go and play PS2 and PS1 games on PS3, enabling me to feel like my I didn't get ripped off in the last generations, and that I can't play old games anymore. 360 doesn't offer very good back compatibility, so as a last-gen gamer with Xbox, I feel like I'm getting the old screw job, since MS is making me buy all new games. People will see Sony's console coming later, so they will also assume that it's better, cuz we know that later consoles are better. Most laymen would assume this, look at say PS1 to PS2. Johnny consumer doesn't know that the time differential is less than a year, he knows that PS3 came after 360, and is better. Microsoft is in bad shape on paper, at least, to most people in the market for a next-gen console. Software is where Microsoft made its fortune, and may save 360, but boy, they better pull all the stops, and drop the equivalent of a hype "a-bomb" at E3, or Sony is gonna walk all over them. Cuz we know that Sony is playin for keeps now, and is gonna stop the show with any PS3 related stuff. Look at the way the gaming media stopped after the PS3 press conference. Basically, we got, Worldwide Nov. Launch, PS3's equivalent of live, but better, and free, and PS3 would likely ship with an HDD for downloadable content/game functionality, and blu-ray was delaying ps3. No games whatsoever, no controller, no price, nothing about hd, or cell, or RSX. It was a spartan conference, to reassure the populace, and keep the media from hyping 360 into first. Well, it worked, just cause PS3's prominece. Sony knows that they have the gaming world by the balls, they've just gotta twist right to come out on top.

"Johnny consumer" doesn't care what console comes out first or last.

By your logic, Xbox should have outsold the PS2 last generation.

It's a combination of games and price that will win the console wars.

I will have to disagree. It's all about the games. People are willing to pay more if they feel they are getting a good system. The N64 was uber cheap compared to the PS1, but we all know how that turned out. Even the PSP is "hanging in there" with the Nintendo DS in worldwide sales. Price won't make or break a system.

By the time N64 for released. PS1 went from $600 to $300, the year after $200. So I really dont see N64 as uber-cheap, when I bought it for a bundle with games for $300 at launch. The N64 console itself was a decent price, wasnt all that cheap. It's games price was way overpriced for the time. Alot of games were selling for $60, while PS games were selling for $30-$40.

I agree Games are the most important to gamers. I just think the comparisons you made are alittle off. As we can tell with game gear, and 3do price can scare away consumers. Price wont make or brake a system as you said. It certainly will have a heavy influence , Its going to come down to games (as usual) and online this time. Xbox live and Halo 2 practically carried the xbox. We should see an online boom this coming generation and the one who takes the biggest advantage of it will most likely be victor of the console race.

It's strange how Microsoft brags about it's online support, when out of the box Xbox 360 doesnt have Wi-Fi support which I think is a critical mistake by them.. Wi-Fi is huge, and definately will play a big role in getting users online. No one wants to buy the console and pay $50 dollars to play online, than have to pay an addition $100 for the Wireless accessory. It's common sense most people dont want have cable wires across their whole house to play online. We will see if Microsoft releases new versions of xbox 360 with built-in WiFI support. If not, I predict it will be fatale blow. Perhaps even the Revolution pulling ahead of them. It will be indeed ironic to see Microsoft arguably a leader in the online gaming with xbox live, fall behind to the likes of Sony and Nintendo who kind of dismissed it before.

[Trinity]

ms products are over priced, 100 bucks for a 20 gb hdd and another 100 bucks for a stupid wi fi adapter? out of their mind. The ps3 will be a server with linux, top it.

[OKlondon]

The hardware is great, online is great, HDD is great, 1080p is great but with no exclusive games none of them are great.