The North American launch of Sony's much-anticipated PlayStation 3 could be delayed until next year, according to a research report issued by Merrill Lynch.

 

In the report , the analyst firm proposed the idea that high costs and Sony's decision to use an "ambitious new processor architecture--the Cell" is making it look like the company might not be able to meet its goal of getting the PS 3 out in the U.S. this year.

 

The report suggests the possibility that the PS 3 would launch this fall in Japan and in late 2006 or early 2007 in the U.S.

 

Naturally, it's impossible to know what will really happen with the PS 3, as Sony has maintained a policy of being about as tight-lipped as it could be. But there's no doubt that any significant delay in the next-gen console's launch would be a big black eye for the company, especially since Microsoft has had its Xbox 360 out since last November.

 

Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

In the end, we probably won't know what's going to happen until at least May, when the video game world converges on Los Angeles for E3, the industry's biggest gathering. But it's looking more and more like Sony may be forced to keep mum even there, and that certainly wouldn't play well.

 

(also in the report is that the initial cost of a PS3 is expected to be $900)

 

Article Link: http://news.com.com/PlayStation+3+may+be+d..._3-6041327.html

 

 

Apparently Sony's stock crashed in Japan on this news. WTF is going on?

Dear God, if its like 900 and not out until 2007, you can lay 50 to 1 odds that the Revolution will become the big winner out of this.

 

Geezus, this is a huge fuck up on the part of Sony if this is true.

This could be really bad for Sony. If they don't release the PS3 until next year, Microsoft could have a new and improved system ready to go like six months after the release of the PS3 that could obsolete, in a way, the system.

 

That is if Microsoft were content with the 360 only being around for a little under two years strong and really wanted to put it to Sony.

 

I'm still skeptical of the Revolutions controller. If I can't turn that son-of-a-bitch sideways and just use it like an 8-bit NES controller, I don't think I have any desire to play the system.

I wouldn't worry about controllers too much, there's always going to be a third party controller that will be 100x better than the stock one anyway.

It's not saying it's going to cost 900 to buy. It's saying they estimate it will initially cost that much to manufacture. How much Sony will charge to buy one is up in the air, depending on how much of a lose Sony is willing to take.

 

The same people also predicted PS2 would cost 400. PS1, PS2 and PSP all had analysts predicting doom and gloom. It's not coming from Sony, it's all guess work or an "estimate" from Merill Lynch analysts and they don't know anything we don't know. I predict it'll launch for under 400. Breaking News: Some random girl on the internet estimates PS3 launch price to be under 400!

 

 

A bit from an interview about these very "estimates".....

 

PSM: There some concern about PS3 being priced out of the reach of everyone but the hardcore early adopters. Is this valid?

 

Kai Hirai: I woud say that our past performance is the best indication of our future performance, and for at least three platforms, I think we have been bringing an excellent value to consumers, but also providing them with cuttingedge technology. I go back to less than a year ago when people looked at the PSP, and I got questions like "wow, this thing is great, but what do you think? $500?" and I said, "well, the proof is in the pudding: we've done Playstation and Playstation 2 at an affordable price," and people just said "yeah, right!" response. But we went out there with a $249 value pack, and I think people were pleasantly surprised. I not saying, therefore, that the PS3 is going to be $249, $299, whatever, but I think we have pretty good history of providing value for what we bring to the consumers.

 

 

 

As for the delay.....MS can't even get systems out there for people to buy.

The question is how long can companies afford to eat the costs of systems? Even Sony will feel the pinch if they sell PS3s for $299 that cost them 2-3x that to build.

I doubt that Sony is going to go out of business any day soon. That said, the company seems to follow the philosophy of "our way or the highway" on technology, whether it be memory sticks, blu-ray or getting to market late against a competitor that took the first place crown on console gaming over the last few years. You would think that Nintendo would serve as an example.

That's bullshit, they had game demos months ago. $900? That's still like ?475 and that shit is ridiculous money.

Sony may as well jack the prices up to ridiculous amounts initially because they know damn well that people will be willing to pay upwards of $1000 on eBay during that first month, so why not just cater to that crowd immediately?

Sony and 3rd Party developers make money from game and accessory sales. At that kind of price sales would drasically go down. With a small userbase game sales would be horrible. In the long run they'd make more by having as many PS3s out there as possible.

 

50,000 people buy a PS3 for 1,000 dollars and then 4 games.

3 million people buy a PS3 for 500 dollars and then 4 games.

 

It's best to get as many out there as quickly as possible. That's why Sony and MS took loses to get Xbox/PS2/360 priced reasonably. They're lose leaders. The best case scenario is to make a system you can sell for cost to make or a little bit less.

Just for fun, using Anya's methods (and assuming games are $50 each).

 

$1,000 tag = $6M profit.

$500 tag = $2.1B profit.

 

Sony would have to have 1.8M people buy the PS3 at $1,000 as well as 4 additional games in order to reach the same figure as the $500 ($2.16B).

Just for fun, using Anya's methods (and assuming games are $50 each).

 

$1,000 tag = $6M profit.

$500 tag = $2.1B profit.

 

Sony would have to have 1.8M people buy the PS3 at $1,000 as well as 4 additional games in order to reach the same figure as the $500 ($2.16B).

I'm not saying to keep that as the MSRP, but initially these things are gonna fly off the shelves and sell out immediately, THAT crowd of shoppers are the ones who would pay any amount of money for the product. After they all get their fill, then lower the price down to regular levels.

The question is how long can companies afford to eat the costs of systems? Even Sony will feel the pinch if they sell PS3s for $299 that cost them  2-3x that to build.

It's kind of funny that Nintendo gets bashed constantly on the net by MS and Sony fanboys yet Nintendo never seems to have such issues with releases.

I'm not saying to keep that as the MSRP, but initially these things are gonna fly off the shelves and sell out immediately, THAT crowd of shoppers are the ones who would pay any amount of money for the product.  After they all get their fill, then lower the price down to regular levels.

At most a few thousand people paid high prices for a 360 on Ebay. So Sony caters to them and sells PS3 for 800 or whatever? Great except then sales are terrible compared to everything else and they have to annouce the price drop just 6 months aftwards. The bad press, perception of failure and alienation from fans would hurt the company more than the extra money they made from gouging the price. It would completely kill any momentum a system launch should give them.

 

The bigger the userbase the more games you sell. The more games you sell the more 3rd party companies make. The more they make on your system the more exclusives they give you. The more big name exclusives you have the more systems you sell. So you want the largest userbase in the fatest time. Even if you lowered the price to an affordable level just 6 months after launch that's a lot of wasted time, half a year you've lost to make a few extra hundred per customer. That's half a year you could have been selling many times more systems and selling tons more games.

 

 

Think of the big picture. What you're suggesting honestly could be one of the worst moves in the history of console gaming and could be a key factor in the lose of their position as market leader.