XBox 360 Will Beat PS3...

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
From CDR Info:

Microsoft is likely to win the next round of the game console fight against Sony based on a potentially huge cost difference that could see the Xbox 360 selling for half the price of a PlayStation 3 by the end of next year, investment firm Merrill Lynch said in a Wednesday analysis.

Based on a breakdown of the parts being used inside the two game machines, Merrill Lynch said the "PS3 will not only be significantly more costly than Xbox 360 at launch, but will continue to operate at a cost disadvantage for several years."

It said Sony's PS3 is an impressive machine, but the costly components inside could raise the price of a PS3 to around $500 when it launches in the spring of 2006. By then, the Xbox 360 could be selling for US$249, Merrill Lynch estimated.

Microsoft has announced two versions of the Xbox 360, a basic version for $300 and a premium edition for $400.

The lower cost could put as many as 10 million Xbox 360 game machines into users' hands by the end of 2006, said Merrill Lynch.

"As volumes ramp up, Microsoft should see an improved ability to lower hardware costs," said Merrill Lynch, making the Xbox 360 an even better deal for users. It would also encourage game developers to put their latest titles out more quickly, to capture the huge audience.

The biggest cost issue for the PS3 is the Cell processor, Merrill Lynch said. Although Sony hopes the new microprocessor architecture could find its way into many new products beyond just the PS3, thereby lowering its per chip cost, Merrill Lynch believes the Cell won't gain much ground in other markets.

"Processor architectures have been in consolidation mode for the last 5 years, and we think it's going to be difficult for Sony to find takers for Cell outside of the PS3," the investment banking firm said.

Heavy research costs and expensive manufacturing could cause the Cell to cost about $160 per chip initially, Merrill Lynch said, compared to the $100 for the PowerPC chips used in the Xbox 360.

The Blu-ray drive planned for the PS3 will also add about a $75 cost disadvantage, Merrill Lynch said, compared to the DVD-ROM drive Microsoft plans to install in the Xbox 360.

Merrill Lynch also highlighted Sony's weaker financial situation compared to the strong position at Microsoft.

"All of this might not matter were Sony in a position to take large losses on the PS3, but the company's financial situation raises questions about just how much money Sony is going to be willing to lose," the investment firm said.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has a less expensive game console and likely a six-month lead over the PS3 in getting to market, Merrill Lynch said. Microsoft plans to launch the Xbox 360 on November 22 in the U.S., followed by Europe on December 2 and Japan on December 10.
Full article/source:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=15446
 

AML

Well-known Member
We have all been discussing these points for a while.
No one knows whats really going to happen, but this time round Sony are most definately at a dissadvantage.

Puting in the Blu Ray drive will help sell the new format, but it will also add a cost to the PS3. Many gamers may not even bother with Blu Ray anyway. It also adds the hastle of needing an HDCP capable HDTV just to conect the PS3 through HDMI.


In the past, HD gaming on the XBox and PS2 was an option most people couldnt/didnt take advantage of.

Now with the PS3 it seems to be mandatory otherwise we cant really use the PS3 to its full potential.
Same goes for the 360, but even so its not as bad as the PS3 since it will need a 1080p panel, just to be used to its full potential. And there arent many 1080p panels out.

This means on top of the $500 asking price for the PS3 we need to spend another $4000 for a decent 1080p panel!

Its a huge gamble for sony and if it doesnt pay off I can see them going under.

I really hope they succeed as it would bring HD to the mainstream. It would usher in Blu Ray and people would start to understand what the whole HDTV fuss is all about.

I dont think MS can really do that on their own. Sony has the biggest market presence and they need to use that infulence to make people change from SD to HD.
 

kwijibo

Standard Member
Its a huge gamble for sony and if it doesnt pay off I can see them going under
I think that's unlikely! :cool:
 

Jazz Monkey Jr

Well-known Member
I reckon Microsoft have more financial backing than Sony, and will not let them beat them.
The xbox is more grown up and is the best online gaming, and will only improve with the 360.

It will be interesting to see of the PS3 is half as good as it is supposed to be, I didn't think much of the PS2 and never bought one, altough GTA 3 was good fun when it came out, but is wearing a bit thin now.

Bringing out the 360 well before the PS3 is going to be sony's downfall, it will have to be something else to win back the crown IMO. If it is that good, I will probably buy one anyway, there is only one winner, the consumer. :thumbsup:
 
J

JayList

Guest
No one is going to go under. All that will happend is that market share will change by 10-20%. The other console will still have a large market share.

The real question is what is going to happen Nintendo. Will the Revo sell. And what happens to ninty if it doesn't

----

I wouldn't be suprised if this was a nice 'sponsored' piece from Merrils!
 

Scotty306

Active Member
Timing is everything, if ps3 and 360 had both been on sale this christmas then things could be very different.

I think we'd all agree that the current xbox has plenty of life left in it, but MS made a great decision to get the 360 out now. In some regions we'll have had the 360 a full year before the ps3 hits the shops.

When ps3 does hit the shops MS have the option to drop the 360's price and will certainly make sure there are some big name titles ready for launch.


As for nintendo, when are they expecting to launch? I don't think it's anytime soon.
I get the impression they're waiting for the dust to settle before making their move, but will anyone have any money left to buy their console?
 

Miyazaki

Well-known Member
AML said:
Its a huge gamble for sony and if it doesnt pay off I can see them going under.
If that happens, it will be an immense disaster for all gamers, even xbox fanboys. MS will charge double for everything and they will have yet another monopoly! :(
 

AML

Well-known Member
I know some of you think this is far fetched but sony really is in a lot of financial trouble just now. I really really hope the PS3 and Blu Ray is a success for them. Honestly I do.

They made some big mistakes in the past. A quick example would be MD, Atrac 3, Betamax, and going with CRT before realising that LCD is the way forward for them.

Currently the only place sony are making a proffit is with the PS franchise.
 
J

JayList

Guest
Scotty306 said:
As for nintendo, when are they expecting to launch? I don't think it's anytime soon.
I get the impression they're waiting for the dust to settle before making their move, but will anyone have any money left to buy their console?
I read the other day that they will launch in UK before Christmas!
 
J

JayList

Guest
Scotty306 said:
lol, have they even decided on a controller design yet?
I must admit, I don't believe it. No game info, no hardware info.
 

Sly

Active Member
JayList said:
The real question is what is going to happen Nintendo. Will the Revo sell. And what happens to ninty if it doesnt
they could go back to making playing cards... :devil:
 
S

steveyg20

Guest
It's an obvious comparison to make, but one I would like to see refuted here anyway.

It was very much considered that the Sega Dreamcast launched early to 'steal a march' on the PS2 - It was an outstanding system, which technically could still go toe to toe with the PS2, and yet it sank without trace, or that should be sank Sega the home console manufacturer without trace - The Dreamcast is one of those systems that people love despite it being a commercial failure - It was simply a great console. Now, this was no small player console release, this was Sega of 16-Bit fame - That they could be destroyed so easily by a console of equivalent power coming out months (was it a year?) longer, should serve as a reminder to all those putting themselves firmly in the 360 camp, not to underestimate the corporate brand power of Sony, and this time their console is technically superior to Microsoft's, and of course the Blu-Ray capacity is surely going to see a massive gap in the quality of games for the 2 consoles - What is it, 30gbs as opposed to 9gbs? That's a hell of an advantage for the consumer when it comes to a huge RPG or even a sports (footy game), allowing for more rendered football grounds, more everything basically. The current development comparisons being made ie X-Box far easier to develop for, will surely not even be an issue in a year's time, when people are more familiar with the PS3's code, and 3rd party tools are released for the system.

My prediction? Sony to still be market leader at the end of this latest battle, Microsoft to have made gains, though the 360 ultimately becomes known as a system hampered by it's storage medium and it's lack of built in hard-drive. :thumbsdow
 

Bonesy

Active Member
Good post steve,

Agree with the analogy to sega's dominance. However, I see it a bit different.

sega were market leaders, who blew it over 1 generation of console release. So sony aren't unassailable.

dreamcast suffered because of lack of games, due to lack of developers, support etc, compared to the market ecosystem created by sony.

who do you think has the better experience and know-how for creating a 3rd party software developer market - sony, or microsoft?

I agree, after this gen sony will still have the lead, but sizeably smaller.

microsft are in this for the long run, as they want to crack the home market, and games consoles are a way in.

will sony stay in the games console market in 3 generation's time, when their market share is down to 25%
 

Miyazaki

Well-known Member
steveyg20 said:
the Blu-Ray capacity is surely going to see a massive gap in the quality of games for the 2 consoles - What is it, 30gbs as opposed to 9gbs? That's a hell of an advantage for the consumer when it comes to a huge RPG or even a sports (footy game), allowing for more rendered football grounds, more everything basically.
Disagreed with all of that post, but take special issue with the above.

PS2 and xbox both use dvd9, giving 9gb per game. The gamecube has a 1.8gb disc, far greater disparity than ps3 and x360. Most games released are cross format, and some of the games with the greatest depth of play were released on the gamecube.

People won't be making 30gb games for years yet, it just won't happen, developers can't afford to!

As for the games allowing more of everything, that is a moot point. The ps3 and x360 both operate at 1t-flop, and it is processing power, not storage capacity that determines how much a console can render at one time.
 

Scotty306

Active Member
Surey the blu-ray discs will be expensive too.

developers for the ps3 will surely attempt to fit a game on a dvd to keep the price down.

If a game was cross platfrom would it cost more to buy it for the PS3 than for the 360?
 
S

steveyg20

Guest
Games Guru said:
Disagreed with all of that post, but take special issue with the above.

PS2 and xbox both use dvd9, giving 9gb per game. The gamecube has a 1.8gb disc, far greater disparity than ps3 and x360. Most games released are cross format, and some of the games with the greatest depth of play were released on the gamecube.

People won't be making 30gb games for years yet, it just won't happen, developers can't afford to!

As for the games allowing more of everything, that is a moot point. The ps3 and x360 both operate at 1t-flop, and it is processing power, not storage capacity that determines how much a console can render at one time.
Well, seeing your avatar, let me put it to you this way; In a FIFA game (I know, I know :hiya: ), the difference between the storage capacity of the 360 and the PS3 could be the number of teams on the disc, the number of rendered grounds etc - That sort of thing is going to be determined by sheer storage, as only 1 ground/2 teams need to be in memory at any 1 time; so basically, the PS3 could have the Villa Parks and the Hawthornes rendered as well as the Stamford Bridges and Old Traffords; while you could argue that larger capacities lead to lazy development, it is ALWAYS an advantage for a console to have a storage medium with a bigger capacity.

As for you disagreeing with all of my post, why, because you find it distasteful and you put yourself firmly in the Microsoft camp? ;)
 

Munkey Boy

Distinguished Member
steveyg20 said:
It's an obvious comparison to make, but one I would like to see refuted here anyway.

It was very much considered that the Sega Dreamcast launched early to 'steal a march' on the PS2 - It was an outstanding system, which technically could still go toe to toe with the PS2, and yet it sank without trace, or that should be sank Sega the home console manufacturer without trace - The Dreamcast is one of those systems that people love despite it being a commercial failure - It was simply a great console. Now, this was no small player console release, this was Sega of 16-Bit fame - That they could be destroyed so easily by a console of equivalent power coming out months (was it a year?) longer, should serve as a reminder to all those putting themselves firmly in the 360 camp, not to underestimate the corporate brand power of Sony, and this time their console is technically superior to Microsoft's, and of course the Blu-Ray capacity is surely going to see a massive gap in the quality of games for the 2 consoles - What is it, 30gbs as opposed to 9gbs? That's a hell of an advantage for the consumer when it comes to a huge RPG or even a sports (footy game), allowing for more rendered football grounds, more everything basically. The current development comparisons being made ie X-Box far easier to develop for, will surely not even be an issue in a year's time, when people are more familiar with the PS3's code, and 3rd party tools are released for the system.

My prediction? Sony to still be market leader at the end of this latest battle, Microsoft to have made gains, though the 360 ultimately becomes known as a system hampered by it's storage medium and it's lack of built in hard-drive. :thumbsdow
There's an interesting article over at 1up.com showing the similarities between, and then the differences of, the Dreamcast and the 360. I think it's highly unlikely that the 360 will have the same fate as Sega.

As for the Blu-Ray disc being important - I personally think this could be the single biggest mistake that Sony makes in the next gen. Don't get me wrong, techno buffs such as ourselves will love the HD movies, but games really just do not need the extra storage capacity yet. You could (and they will) render most football grounds from the top leagues around the world to next-gen graphical standards on 9GB. Only very large RPGs with massive pre-rendered cut-scenes will need extra storage, something only really important for the Japanese market.

So you've got the extra cost of having to supply the Blu-Ray drive in every machine, plus if anyone chooses to use the extra capacity, the extra development time (and therefore cost) of the games. Do you honestly believe that the Sony brand is that strong that the majority of people will wait an extra year for the PS3 and pay up to double the price of a 360 (360 will be less than £200 next year, the PS3 will likely launch at £300-£400)?

Plus, don't underestimate the whole issue around the PS3 being difficult to code for - Sega did with the Saturn, and look what happened there - far more developers chose to release titles on the PlayStation.

You've got to remember that the mass market, while seeing Sony as a massive brand at the moment, are fickle over longer spaces of time. There was a time (even I can remember it!) that it was unconceivable that neither Sega or Nintendo would be the market leaders in videogames. I think MS will make significant in-roads into the next-gen market, especially if Sony doesn't come up with a launch soon...
 

nick501

Well-known Member
I reckon sony will still come out on top in the end. Talking to workmates, it seems even the ps2 is still the console of choice, nevermind the 360 or ps3.
Some gamers are just 'in denial' that there could be a better system than their trusty old ps2.

I even showed a 360 Call Of Duty 2 demo to my mate and he said 'oh yes, thats looks could....same as on ps2!! I was gobsmacked.

personally, i am a loyal gamer not loyal to a brand name, and will more than likely end up with 360 and eventually ps3.
 

Munkey Boy

Distinguished Member
nick501 said:
I reckon sony will still come out on top in the end. Talking to workmates, it seems even the ps2 is still the console of choice, nevermind the 360 or ps3.
Some gamers are just 'in denial' that there could be a better system than their trusty old ps2.

I even showed a 360 Call Of Duty 2 demo to my mate and he said 'oh yes, thats looks could....same as on ps2!! I was gobsmacked.

personally, i am a loyal gamer not loyal to a brand name, and will more than likely end up with 360 and eventually ps3.
Actually, that raises an interesting point, in that who really is going to buy next-gen products? I've heard the mumblings around the 360 demo pods of "it's nothing the Xbox couldn't do" (I see it even in forums I browse) because people don't look closely enough and have over-estimated memories of what their PS2/Xbox can do. It'll be interesting to see who'll buy into the whole next-gen thing at all - I can't wait personally, but then I'm the exception, not the rule. There needs to be that selling point that current gen just can't do, and MS are hoping it'll be the entertainment functions and the online - what is Sony bringing to the table except better graphics?
 

richard plumb

Well-known Member
why are you concerned about the cost of the bluray drive, or making bluray discs? Thats sony's problem, not yours. The only concern you should have is how much Sony charge for the machine (bearing in mind Xbox 360 competition they don't have free reign). And Sony will have to charge similar duplication/license fees to publishers to keep competitive with MS and keep publisher margins up.

Sony will need to eat any additional premium for choosing bluray. Not our problem.

As for Xbox 360 being half the PS3 price by the end of 2006, well its just another analyst report. Its like those scientist reports that one day tell you butter will kill you, then the next day its good for you. Mostly nonsense taken in isolation.




I can see several scenarios easily possible, as nothing is certain in this world

1) MS does a Dreamcast. Sony tells everyone to wait for PS3, they do. MS sells a few units but PS3 storms past and MS sell less 360s than the original Xbox, and exit the console arena.

2) MS storms ahead based on the overall package (console, LIVE, home entertainment). PS3 launches late, expensive and never catches up. Generation ends 50:50 and the lower volumes mean sony never recoups the investment and they do a deal with MS for a combined next-next gen.

3) status quo is pretty much maintained.

Its all one big game of chess and we've only just seen the opening moves. I'm interested in what Sony choose to do around Xbox 360 launch in the US and Europe. Price announcement? Date announcement to put people off?
 

rickyroma

Active Member
Some very interesting reading here !! In my opinion I reckon MS will just about be ok as far as storage media goes. Think about it , most games would fit on one DVD9 , I could only see massive RPGS needing more & I dont think it would be too mad for an RPG to come on two DVD9s , if anything its oldskool (Final Fantasy 7 anyone!)

MS should have used hard drive as standard though , would have been a big help to developers !
 

skap7309

Banned
being a regular to these forums i notice everyday the number of users viewing xbox to ps threads is around 15:1. I used to be hardcore ps2...................until i sold it for an xbox, i doubt i'll be switching back once the new machines are out and ive barely even looked up info for ps3
 

Miyazaki

Well-known Member
steveyg20 said:
Well, seeing your avatar, let me put it to you this way; In a FIFA game (I know, I know :hiya: ), the difference between the storage capacity of the 360 and the PS3 could be the number of teams on the disc, the number of rendered grounds etc - That sort of thing is going to be determined by sheer storage, as only 1 ground/2 teams need to be in memory at any 1 time; so basically, the PS3 could have the Villa Parks and the Hawthornes rendered as well as the Stamford Bridges and Old Traffords; while you could argue that larger capacities lead to lazy development, it is ALWAYS an advantage for a console to have a storage medium with a bigger capacity.

As for you disagreeing with all of my post, why, because you find it distasteful and you put yourself firmly in the Microsoft camp? ;)
I can see where you are coming from. But a game like fifa will be cross format, and ea would certainly not go to all that expense for a ps3 version, while doing a stripped down x360 version. It's just not economical.

It storage were the determinant, don't you think we would be seeing 30gb+ pc games by now?

Also, maybe you forget about compression. The x360 has a 20gb hdd, and with compression tools, much of a game could be easily unpacked into the hdd of the x360, allowing for much larger games.

I don't place myself in any camp. I am simply a gamer! :D

I have a nintendo ds, sony psp, nintendo gamecube, had an xbox and ps2 which I have now sold! :D I also have a sega dreamcast, two pcs, and a snes in the loft! :hiya:
 

Munkey Boy

Distinguished Member
richard plumb said:
why are you concerned about the cost of the bluray drive, or making bluray discs? Thats sony's problem, not yours.
You think they'll just suck it up and try and keep the cost close to the 360? I'd love it if it were true, I could maybe afford one then! But I'm dubious. Like you say, pure speculation atm.
 

Miyazaki

Well-known Member
rickyroma said:
Some very interesting reading here !! In my opinion I reckon MS will just about be ok as far as storage media goes. Think about it , most games would fit on one DVD9 , I could only see massive RPGS needing more & I dont think it would be too mad for an RPG to come on two DVD9s , if anything its oldskool (Final Fantasy 7 anyone!)

MS should have used hard drive as standard though , would have been a big help to developers !
Resident Evil 4 came on two discs for the gamecube. I agree with you, if developers need more storage, they simply put the game across a few discs. Remember FFVII on the ps1? It was on 4 discs!
 

Gary D

Well-known Member
i've never hidden the fact that i hate Sony - arrogant and bombastic sods that they are. Launching consoles late in europe, still charging 20 quid for a memory card :rotfl: arrogantly stating that they will take the hand held market from ninty and therefore spending far too much time devolping the PSP and having no serious time scale for the PS3 launch. Still not accepting that online gaming is the future of gaming for many people (i've only played 1 single player game in 6 months - after calming that Live wouldn't be that great - made some great friends and feel odd playing on my own - weird)

Let Sony fall and dont look back - its all they deserve. The PS2 is still the worst console ever built - cheap, filmsy and unreliable. to keep the price of the PS3 down it will be just as cheap - while the 360 is looking like a very solid machine.

The combination of Blu Ray and Ps3 will kill them off - both technologies need the other to succeed - i can only see 1 way out for Sony now - licensing! License it out and let others make the PS3 - tosh, denon, JVC, panasonic - now that could be a beast of a product.

And i'd have to disagree about the parallels drawn with 360/ps3 and dreamcast/ps2. Sega screwed up the marketing and had no money anyway, and sony were on a crest of a wave. M$ have marketed well and have VERY deep pockets.


Gary
 

chillo

Active Member
Gary D said:
Still not accepting that online gaming is the future of gaming for many people (i've only played 1 single player game in 6 months - after calming that Live wouldn't be that great - made some great friends and feel odd playing on my own - weird)Gary
great point! couldnt agree more :thumbsup:
 

CAS FAN

Distinguished Member
I must say that first and fore most that I agree with Games Guru in that a monopoly for any company would be very bad for the industry. The hold that Sony has at the moment is not good and thankfully I can see that changing. I personally hope that it doesn't alter too much though as the best thing we can hope for as gamers is two or even 3 very competetive companies.

I do think that the addition of a Blu Ray drive to the PS3 is a gamble as if it pushes the cost up too high then it simply will not sell. People buy a console for games and other bits are just a bonus. Why would someone pay £400 for a console with an unproven HD optical storage format built in when they could pay £200 for a similarly speced console with a proven SD optical drive in it. People just won't go for the machine that is twice the price of the other, especially when the format it is pushing is unproven. The only way that I can see Sony shifting consoles is if they sell them for a huge loss with the long term goal being that Blu Ray becomes the winning format (as everyone has it built into their PS3). IMO the PS3 needs to sell sat £300 to compete against a premium 360 which will probably be around the £200 mark when PS3 launches and that would mean a huge initial loss for Sony. Whether they could withstand such a loss is debatable and whilst I think that maybe MS could, I don't think that Sony could.

Both Sony & MS are companies that have diversified into gaming fairly recently (obviously Sony have been around a generation longer but that's nothing really - just an extra 5 years in an industry that is now around 30 years old!) and they both have alteria motives in the industry where as say Sega & Nintendo were/are purely games orientated. Sony want the integrated AV unit which will help sell it's latest media formats and MS wants a machine that it can integrate with its windows platforms to enhance the ways that we can interact with our PC's & networks and the media on them. Neither company is just in it for the games and both are kind of using a gaming platform to strengthen & build the other sides of their business. MS has always seen the X-Box as almost an extension of your PC and Sony have always used their consoles to push new formats that they have an interest in - Sony really pioneered CD's and DVD's in consoles (infact they initially were going to just make a CD drive for Nintendo!) and now they are looking to bring Blu Ray to the masses. No doubt if they had released a console in the 80's it would have used VHS as a storage device :smashin: .
 

AgentCool

Well-known Member
I've personally hated Sony with a vengeance ever since they destroyed Sega's hardware days which were, I'm sure many will agree, the golden days of gaming. Dreamcast should have trounced the PS2 if it were about quality of games. We're talking about a console that was released 6 years ago and had better graphics than most current-gen PS2 games. Not only that but classic games were being released on an almost weekly basis during the years 2000 and 2001. We had ChuChu Rocket, Soul Calibur, Virtua Tennis, F355 Challenge, Daytona USA, Jet Set Radio, Space Channel 5, Rez, Crazy Taxi, Phantasy Star Online, Sonic Adventure, Metropolis Street Racer, Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue to name but a few. What the hell did Sony have? Yet another Metal Gear Solid/Gran Turismo.

The PS2 only won because it was monstrously over-hyped on the back of the PS1's success over the under-rated Saturn. I mean, who remembers the graphics demos Sony were releasing? Has anyone seen anything on the PS2 that looked anything like that because I haven't? At the end of the day though, gaming is about gameplay and Dreamcast had it all. I've never anticipated a games console as much as I did the Dreamcast and probably never will again.

Having said that, I bought the Xbox and the GameCube because I felt they would compensate for the loss of a Sega console which, to an extent, they did. I will buy Xbox 360 and Revolution because they're clearly trying to bring innovation to the market but I will never touch an over-hyped Sony console. I know that in this dog-eat-dog market it's supposed to be a game of the "better man winning" but that simply isn't the case in this easily manipulated society we live in. It's all about hype and 'fashion' and to quote George Bernard Shaw, "Fashion is nothing but an induced epidemic".
 

Trending threads

Latest news

T+A expands E-Series with PA 1100E integrated amplifier
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins unveils new PX wireless ANC headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Roku Premiere streaming device with 4K HDR hits UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
CTA launches 8K UHD TV display certification programme
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Huawei launches Google-less Mate 30 and Mate 30 Pro phones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Latest threads

Top Bottom