Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

PS3 Assembly Starts End of September, Most High-End 122

Posted by Zonk
from the took-them-long-enough dept.
GameDailyBiz is reporting that Sony has announced further details on the PS3 assembly process. Final assembly will apparently begin at the end of this month, with some 400K units planned for the November 17th launch. They're promising another 800,000 units by the end of the year. From that article: "Although Sony will have shipped only 2.4 million units worldwide in 2006 (as opposed to their initial forecast of 4 million), the company still believes it will hit its goal of 6 million shipped through next March. Sony said that monthly PS3 production will be ramped up to 1.2 million units in January when the Blu-ray laser supplies are expected to improve." Gamespot has further analysis, stating that the split will be about 80/20, favoring the higher-end model over the lower-end model. That is, most of the units at launch should be the $600 model with the HDMI port.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PS3 Assembly Starts End of September, Most High-End

Comments Filter:
  • Doubt $600 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phalse phace (454635) on Monday September 11, 2006 @03:28PM (#16083480)
    I'm guessing more in the range of $700-$800 because retailers will probably force bundled packages on us like they did with the XBOX 360 when it came out. And more likely so since this will be coming out right at the start of the holiday shopping season. It's going to be on many peoples shopping lists and people will pay those prices because someone on their list will be wanting one.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Just be glad you don't live in Japan, typically the console pricing is SET by the manufacturer which is why it costs the same wherever you go (with the exception of bundles) but apparently the premium version will have "open market" pricing in Japan. Meaning retailers can charge whatever they please... I'll leave it up to your imagination which way how they'll push the prices.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by elrous0 (869638) *
        I imagine they'll go for about the same as they're going to be fetching on ebay ($1,000+). Here in the U.S., there just won't be any AVAILABLE. The ebay scalpers and store employees will grab them all up right after the stores unload them from the trucks and no one else will ever even get to see them (except for some display kiosks, maybe). You can bet a lot of greedy individuals learned a valuable lesson from the Xbox 360 fiasco, and the money to be made off short supplies.

        -Eric

        • You can bet a lot of greedy individuals learned a valuable lesson from the Xbox 360 fiasco, and the money to be made off short supplies.

          Yeah, it's called a free market economy.
        • You can bet a lot of greedy individuals learned a valuable lesson from the Xbox 360 fiasco, and the money to be made off short supplies.

          Yes, because buying a product at an artificially low price and selling at market price is so evil.
          • by elrous0 (869638) *
            Didn't say it was evil. I said it was greedy. Whether you consider it evil or not depends on your view of greed and morality (i.e. "Is greed merely a robust motivator or also a corrupting force?")

            I will say that grabbing up all supplies of a highly-demanded commodity at Christmas and selling them back to desperate parents at double the price, while not "evil," is certainly of dubious morality.

            -Eric

        • by MrDoh1 (906953)
          You know what... they can keep em too.
    • by Vaticus (1000378)
      Here in Australia the two PS3 levels are currently being advertised for $830AUD and $999AUD! I honestly cannot see how people can fork out so much for a console! Time will tell i guess... mind you, i have noticed the advertisements have dropped off substantially since the delay to release here was announced... http://digg.com/gaming_news/PS3_to_be_$830_$999_in _Australia_at_launch [digg.com] is a discussion on the Aussie pricing if anyone is interested.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by donaldm (919619)
      I am amazed that they are going to do an 80/20 (Premium to Standard) mix for a first release. A better course of action would be to do an 90/10 or even a 95/5 since the machines are going to be in short supply the people who are early adopters will buy the premium model. This usually means the early adopters are most likely to buy more games than those who just buy the standard version and like it or not Sony wants the people who buy this machine to get games or at least Bluray movies.

      It is no good selling
    • people will pay those prices because someone on their list will be wanting one.

      I'm sure that there will be people on my list that want a pony, or an Oompa Loompa, or possibly the moon.

      Like those other things, this would be one of those times that those people on my list need to face the reality that they can't have everything they want.

      For those of you who think that the money is not much ($800 shouldn't be much to most of us), it might even be one of those things where they get to realize that they can hav
  • So... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by EggyToast (858951)
    That means that there's currently 0 Playstation 3s created? Various devkits that may feature final hardware are out there, but not in huge numbers, and they expect not only for the system to hit in, what, 2 months, and have enough to satiate demand? And have lots of fun games so people are excited to own one?

    Oh wait, they're planning on selling out, touting how it's a huge success even with the high price, and will happily ignore the lack of good launch titles.

    Doesn't sound like they're really trying

    • $700? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you think I'm not going to try and rape some moron-with-too-much-money early adopter for $10k+ on eBay for the bundle I pay $800 for at retail, you're kidding yourself. I'm putting a nice downpayment on a new car with my PS3. It's certainly not something I'd buy for the games.

      I already have a Nintendo DS for that.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by beckerist (985855)
      Actually, the dev kits currently out don't even have full hardware support [1up.com]. There's minimal networking support, the controllers are nowhere near final (no tilt, no final design...) It's been rumored that the GPU on the most recent dev kits are at only 80% the speed the final PS3 (which has been dropped again)... [theinquirer.net]
      I want to see EVERY console do well, for the greater good (in innovation, consumer costs, FUN!) that competition brings, so the fact that SONY is bunging this up as badly as they are is only depres
  • If Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is right and by the end of 2006 only ten percent of American's TVs are expected to be HDTVs, wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around and have 20% high end, 80% "low" end? Is Japan's HDTV adaption rate really that much more than the US'? Am I missing something about what the $600 version offers that makes it much more interesting than the $500 besides the HDMI port?
    • Re:20/80? (Score:5, Funny)

      by k_187 (61692) on Monday September 11, 2006 @03:32PM (#16083525) Journal
      it makes Sony an extra $100. I'd imagine that's what's most important about it.
      • by JFMulder (59706)
        Actually, you might be wrong. I mean, the 600$ package probably has more than 100$ of added value to it. Think about it : digital video output connection (HDMI), builtin flash card reader, builtin wifi, bigger HD and extra PS1/2 memory card slots IIRC. See for yourself [wikipedia.org].
        • by k_187 (61692)
          well, after I hit submit I thought about it a little more, and its more like sony loses $100 less than they would have if you bought the $500, since the damn things are being sold at a loss.
    • by musikit (716987)
      well they probably consider that 80% of the people that will initially buy a ps3 will have a hdmi tv.

      however your right on another factor. if they made 20% hdmi and 80% non-hdmi then those that couldnt get a hdmi version will buy another ps3 later so they could have made the money twice off those people. although thinking about it are they taking a loss on the console?
      • Oh, I understand now. I had though HDMI only worked for HDTVs, I didn't realized it also pertained to SD DTVs! The only word I've heard on whether they are taking a loss was from a slashdot article I can no longer find.
        • Well, I didn't find the slashdot article, but an older Gamespot report from Merrill Lynch Japan [gamespot.com]Believed that it would cost $494 to produce a unit at the time it was set to debut, but they also thought it would sell for $399.

          A later Gamepro [gamepro.com] reported that they would lose $300-$400 per unit if it shipped at $399 (so a loss of $0-$100 or $100-$200 with respect to which version.)

          In the end, neither is a very recent article, but even if they are breaking even or making a gross gain per unit, we still have to c
    • Am I missing something about what the $600 version offers that makes it much more interesting than the $500 besides the HDMI port?

      1. Expandability. If you get the low end version, you're screwed if any future games *require* one of the expansions that Sony is promising.

      2. Future proofing. Anyone crazy enough to spend $500 on a game console will probably suck it up and get the HDMI port anyway. Even if they don't have an HDTV now, that doesn't mean that they won't in the future. After all, they just shelled

      • According to this article [slashdot.org] A core package will be able to upgrade to everything the Premium has except the HDMI port. I could see future proofing, though. I've fallen into that trap before...

        But assuming someone is buying the PS3 for the games and is not as interested in HDMI, wouldn't it be a strong arguement to wait for more core shipments if everything else is upgradeable? Or is Sony so sure the HD quality of the PS3 is whats really going to sell it? Wait a minute. Don't answer that last question.
      • Re:20/80? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by KeiichiMorisato (945464) on Monday September 11, 2006 @04:02PM (#16083844)
        Expandability?
        That's what we should avoid with consoles. You cannot have two standards for the same console, as the developers will then develop for the lowest common denominator to ensure maximum compatibility. By branching out, something will end up like an add-on and fade away. That's why most add-ons fail, because you can't guarantee everyone will have one, and therefore publishers are afraid they can't get the sales volume they are looking for. People don't buy consoles so they have to add on items to play, and of the games that do require an add-on, most of them, fail to live up to their potential in sales and acceptance.

        As for futureproofing, that's a fallacy in buying technology. Standards and new technology are introduced so fast, that buying for the future and spending a premium on it is silly. Just think back, two years ago, stores were pushing HDTVs as "buying for the future", and people had to pay over $6000-$7000 CDN for a 42" Plasma with DVI. Yet that TV would just sit there, displaying Standard Definition, sometimes EDTV, and rarely HDTV for most of the time and not using it's full potential. Now a 42" Plasma HDTV with HDMI can be had for $2500-$3000CDN and at least now, a person can enjoy some of their channels in HDTV. So what did the person paying an additional $3000 2 years ago get? No use of the HD, DVI standard being replaced by HDMI, etc...
      • 1. Expandability. If you get the low end version, you're screwed if any future games *require* one of the expansions that Sony is promising...
        the only differences between the two versions is a larger hard drive (by 40 gigs or so); built in Wifi; a memory card reader, and HDMI. with the exception of HDMI, all of these can be upgraded on Ps3 "core", and none of those can ever be "required" for games.
        • by iocat (572367)
          AFAIK, the only benefit of HDMI over component cables is a) less things to plug in, and b) HDMI will work with DRMed BluRay content while standard component cables won't. Is there any qualitative difference to the HDMI signal over component?
          • HDMI and DVI are digital signals- component is still analog and subject to signal degradation. a side by side comparison of HDMI vs. a good set of component cables will result in HDMI having the nicer picture.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by steve_bryan (2671)
              a side by side comparison of HDMI vs. a good set of component cables will result in HDMI having the nicer picture.

              This is worded as though there were a double blind test run by a disinterested party with this published result somewhere. Care to share that reference? Or is this just another slashdot claim pulled from nether regions (or are you running that sychrotron in the basement again)? The main distinction between HDMI and DVI/component is that the former plays more directly into the hands of the DRM pr
              • no, not a double blind test, but from personal experience when I used to sell electronics in college. (1999-2002, FYI.) I got the opportunity to play around with quite a bit of equipment I otherwise could not have afforded(especially when something new came in) and got a chance to do side by side comparisons on a daily basis. Sometimes for customers, but mostly because I was just curious.

                And from personal experience no matter what kind of equipment I used, (CRT, Plasma, DLP) I got a better picture using a

                • by steve_bryan (2671)
                  Don't be so naive. If it isn't about DRM than why was HDMI added when there was already a digital solution with DVI?
                  • by JFMulder (59706)
                    Because HDMI also does audio and I think it has even higher bitrates. DVI does HDCP just fine [wikipedia.org].
                    • by steve_bryan (2671)
                      Did you bother to follow some of those links? The DVI solution given in the links just unscrambles the signal and delivers it to the DVI device. Also it is worth noting that the basic HDCP protocol has been broken since 2001 so anyone who wants the unscrambled, uncompressed signal will have that option. The principle effect will be to make game consoles cost about $100 more than they otherwise would and, of course, any number of unintended annoyances that will emerge.
                    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                      by JFMulder (59706)
                      What I meant is that HDMI's only advantage is the audio on the same wire. As far is video goes, HDMI has nothing over DVI. Anyway, the protocol has nothing to do with the wire it flows in. While every device that does HDMI also does HDCP, not every DVI based solutions does HDCP. But if you do own one, there's no reason for spending money on a newer TV with HDMI. You might as well use DVI/HDCP for now and use optical out for sound.

                      As far as being cracked for years, that's not the cable's fault, only the algo
                    • by steve_bryan (2671)
                      Also, I fail to see where DVI devices unscramble/decrypt the signal before sending it to the display device.

                      Just follow the link at the bottom of the wiki page labelled:
                      # DVI HDCP and DVI MAGIC Compatibility-enhancement devices for non-HDCP monitors [5]

                      As far as being cracked for years, that's not the cable's fault, only the algorithm used in the device. DVI and HDMI are just wires.
                      The whole thing would just be comedy if it did not involve throwing away other people's money for technology that doesn't even
                    • by JFMulder (59706)
                      # DVI HDCP and DVI MAGIC Compatibility-enhancement devices for non-HDCP monitors [5]
                      I am not advocating the use of HDCP or anything, but what this is is simply a clever hack. I mean, obviously if you break the chain of trust the data won't be protected anymore. It's like the network of HDCP devices that exchange keys hack and forth that can be used with 40 or so HDCP devices to uncover the private key thus rendering the encryption useless. As far as regular DVI and HDCP protection is implemented, DVI is jus
                    • by JFMulder (59706)
                      Well, there are receivers which support HDMI input so that's useful. But I agree, HDMI on a TV is useless. Actually, it could be useful, but I'd rather pipe my audio to a 7.1 receiver than my TVs speakers.
                    • by steve_bryan (2671)
                      The big difference between HDMI and DVI is that HDMI always supports HDCP and DVI may or may not. For instance my ATI card has DVI but it does not support HDCP and this is supposed to be the case for about every video card that has been produced. Switching to HDMI insures that the device will always conform to HDCP. In the more particular case of the PS3 the choices are more stark. Component video has all the fidelity of HDTV but it never supports HDCP (the analog hole) while HDMI always supports HDCP. In t
              • The main distinction between HDMI and DVI/component is that the former plays more directly into the hands of the DRM proponents even though DRM makes no sense for game console output.

                No, the main differences between DVI and HDMI are that HDMI has a different (better) connector and can carry audio and additional control data.

                You may be thinking about HDCP, which is the copy protection (DRM) standard. HDCP can be used with either HDMI or DVI.

                Of course, the major difference between component and HDMI/DVI is t
                • by steve_bryan (2671)
                  No, the main differences between DVI and HDMI are that HDMI has a different (better) connector and can carry audio and additional control data.

                  That is what I would call a trivial difference which could hardly justify all the sturm and drang of yet another digital connection standard. On the other hand the incessant march to closed DRM standards is unmistakeable: CD -> DVD-Audio, SaCD, DVD -> BluRay, DVD-HD, HDTV (current OTA)_> HDTV over HDCP, DVI ->HDMI. In all cases attempte to eviscerate the
                  • HDCP has been cracked already. It can be used with DVI. HDMI is no different in this regard. My TV doesn't have HDMI, but it does have DVI-HDCP. It can be used with HDMI simply by changing the connector.

                    It's like mini-USB vs. regular USB. It doesn't have anything to do with DRM because DVI already supported HDCP.
                    • by steve_bryan (2671)
                      That is inaccurate. Sometimes a device with DVI is supposed to support HDCP, sometimes it does not. With HDMI there is always support of HDCP. In any case for the PS3 the options are HDMI which always supports HDCP and component video, which has just as much fidelity, but it never supports HDCP.
    • by jchenx (267053) on Monday September 11, 2006 @03:38PM (#16083587) Journal
      If Wikipedia is right and by the end of 2006 only ten percent of American's TVs are expected to be HDTVs, wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around and have 20% high end, 80% "low" end? Is Japan's HDTV adaption rate really that much more than the US'? Am I missing something about what the $600 version offers that makes it much more interesting than the $500 besides the HDMI port?

      The premium version also boasts a larger hard-drive.

      The 80/20 convention is still probably the right idea, since it's the early adopters that are most willing to buy a console at launch. They're probably much more likely to own an HDTV, over the general public. Furthermore, even if they don't have an HDTV, the mindset of an early adopter is to "future-proof" themselves and get the console with the most features, even if they may not use them all yet. It may be costly to upgrade later. And finally, there's the general fanboy opinion that the core version of any console is the "sucky one" and anyone who got suckered into buying is a "n00b". So there's that to consider as well.

      In fact, one of the complaints with the 360 launch is that there were too many Core systems created, instead of Premium ones. People were very much willing to fork over the extra $100 for the Premium one (especially since it had an HD and the Core did not), but were forced to get the Core. It's never a good thing when you force your customers to spend less than they want to.
    • by Darth Maul (19860)
      > "...wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around..."

      Ah, I think you answered your own question there. Has Sony been really making wise moves lately?
    • I have a HD TV, problem is it doesn't have HDMI or 1080p [teamxbox.com] and my case is far from unique. Without those two features you might as well stick with SD DVD's with MPEG2, you won't see much difference. Just buy your 360. It's pretty enough.

      Personally, I'm just sticking to a Wii. I'm on a budget and Link is the man.
      • My 5+ year old TV (Toshiba 50HX70) that has neither HDMI or 1080p but I can say there is a significant difference between 1080i & 480p.
        • The 1080 is displaying as 720, the low end of HD. A standard MPEG2 DVD is capable of producing 720. One must also keep in mind that though a game is made for the PS3, that does not assure that it will be full HD or even 720p. It's all up to the publishers and how they value the time, effort, and cost.

          I admit I'm jaded and think the format war is full of hooey. There is very little about either HD DVD format that really makes it worth your while, not at the cost of all new equipment and libraries. IMHO.
          • Ummm.... you are incorrect. 1080i is the highest resolution allowed for broadcast, 1080p is currently only allowed for non-broadcast private. 1080p until earlier this very year (when the first HD-DVD came out), there wasn't a single consumer device that would give 1080p output (a computer yes, nothing else). I'm completely baffled where you think 1080i is the lowend of the HD, officially 480p, 540p 720p & 1080i are the broadcast resolutions. 1080i is the highest broadcast allowed and is the 2nd high
            • I said 720 was the low end, not 1080i.
              • Now it makes a bit more sense. You were actually meaning to say "The 1080i is displaying as 540p", which from a bandwidth perspective is correct, technically using the same amount of bandwidth; but you'd be hardpressed to find people that say 1080i == 540p, as there are double the lines of resolution displayed, you are getting half the jaggies at the expense of some combing effects (I sit in the 1080/30 rather than the 720/60 camp because most of my content isn't high motion, more res = win).
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by uzor (787499)
      And this is exactly why Nintendo is not playing the "HD" game this time around...not enough people will be able to take advantage of it to make the expenditure worthwhile.
    • I have a question about Wikipedia's numbers. What is the definition (as in word meaning) of HDTV the article assumes? Do they mean full, true HD, 1080p? Or do they mean a resolution below 1080p that under FCC rules can still be called HD even though it isn't by definition? My family just bought a 1366x768 LCD from Polaroid for 900 US. It has an HDMI port, but does it count as HD? It's only 768p.

      Another question that popped into my mind as I was typing this; how many households have multiple HDTVs? In other
    • Nah, I would buy the $600 version even though I haven't got an HDTV (I won't be buying either). Most HDTVs use analog signals anyway, so even most HDTV owners wouldn't need HDMI.

      The thing about it though is WiFi, more Hard Drive space and the ability to read SD cards. Considering that a WiFi upgrade would probably set you back at least forty dollars, it makes alot of sense.
    • by westlake (615356)
      If Wikipedia is right and by the end of 2006 only ten percent of American's TVs are expected to be HDTVs, wouldn't it be wiser to switch those numbers around

      The HD market is big and getting bigger:

      The transition from analog to digital broadcasting has triggered a surge in demand for TVs capable of providing the highest-quality picture. Sales of HDTV sets are expected to reach $37 billion in 2010, up from an estimated $24 billion this year, according to DisplaySearch, an industry research firm based in Te

      • That seems a bit misleading, though. I'll set aside the argument that HDTVs sold in 2007-2010 will not have any significance on the % of high end PS3 units at launch, and focus on other points. First, if estimated sales are $24 billion this year and that is still only 10% of America TVs, then that's only about a 65% increase over whatever % of the 10% of TVs expected to be HDTV by 2006 was actually bought in 2006. Furthermore, the 41% of all TVs sold are HDTVs remark is also misleading. One does not buy a n
    • by lowe0 (136140)
      The Xbox 360 Core System was pretty much universally mocked by Xbox fans - see Penny Arcade's take on it. At launch, the fans are the ones buying the systems, so it makes sense to placate them.

      Next year, when Sony's trying to move volume over the holidays, expect a different split.
  • I am sure that the slashbots will turn this into a negative somehow..

    This is not a suprise, Sony did this with the PS2 and guess what... it worked for them.
    • Actually...no it didn't.

      PS2 didn't win mass appeal until 2.5 years later when it hit the 200$ price point.

      Oh and btw, Sony provided 900,000 PS2 units to Japan opening weekend....this time its providing 100,000 PS3 units. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_2)

    • by interiot (50685)
      Not true.... I can't find the exact date that production started, but this [toshiba.co.jp] says production of the CPU ("Emotion Engine") started in Fall of 99. PS2 launched in Japan in March 00, that's at least 4 months of production to get 700,000 units [scei.co.jp]. Now, with a more complicated system, Sony is claiming to be able to build 150% of the units in 75% of the time?
    • Well, back then they

      1) had millions of units ready, instead of 500 000
      2) had a launch price of half that what the premium PS3 costs
      3) didn't face any fair competition
  • <More Dead Horse Beating>

    I can't help but wonder if their sales are going to suffer after their Root Kit shenanigans [sysinternals.com]

    </More Dead Horse Beating>

  • I'm not too fond about Manufacturing processes for Electronic Equipment other than lighting products. Does anyone have any experience of their company being able to successfully ship out so many units with in a one month deadline?

    If so, what was the projected returned products and the actual returned products?
  • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday September 11, 2006 @03:45PM (#16083660) Homepage Journal

    I remember that in previous PS3 threads whenever someone would say the PS3 cost $600, someone would always post and say "nuh-uh, most gamers will only need the $500 version!"

    Well, it looks like most gamers will be stuck with the $600 version, need it or not!

    Although it's probably actually a good move for launch. They can't possibly meet demand with only 500,000 PS3s at launch, so charging as much as possible makes sense.

    • Well, it looks like most gamers will be stuck with the $600 version, need it or not!

      No, because "most gamers" won't buy their PS3 at launch (Because even if they wanted to there wouldn't be enough PS3s). I certainly won't buy one until the first (or most likely the second) round of slashing the price down to more sane values.

      Although it's probably actually a good move for launch. They can't possibly meet demand with only 500,000 PS3s at launch, so charging as much as possible makes sense.

      It just makes

  • What's with those numbers, 400K at launch and 800K more by the end of 06? How does that add up to 2.4 million out of the promised 4 million? Oh splitting the markets makes it sound better.

    Assuming that the disparity of 1 million units accounts for the Japanese market(since the European launch has been delayed), they've managed to allude nicely so that it almost looks like they haven't completely failed their build plan. Perhaps they're hoping the price difference will keep store shelves stocked this seas
    • by Skevin (16048)
      There's an error in the article text. When they said, "400K at launch", they really meant, "$400,000 at launch", which is not surprising, given the rate the price keeps astronomically rising with every Sony PR release. However, if you decide you really need more bells and whistles, they will release the uber-luxury model for $800,000 more by the end of '06. Remember, the PS3 is not meant to be a "console" - it's a snob^W "Status Symbol".

      Buying a house can wait. I'm getting a loan to put a downpayment on
    • by Babbster (107076)
      It's 400k at launch in the US and 400k at launch in Japan, with 800k in the US and 800k in Japan by the end of December. Add those numbers up and you get 2.4 million. It's just a matter of writers mixing and matching regional numbers and total numbers.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Explode?...
  • Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyoShin (610051) <tukaro&gmail,com> on Monday September 11, 2006 @03:55PM (#16083754) Homepage Journal
    Final assembly will apparently begin at the end of this month, with some 400K units planned for the November 17th launch.
    That... that doesn't seem right...

    In an extraordinary public statement of regret and despair over having to postpone his company's PlayStation 3 debut in Europe and Australia until March, and to limit availability elsewhere to only 500,000 units come November[...] (Source) [slashdot.org]
    Uh oh.

    Either someone has their numbers wrong, or Sony is planning to have an extra 100K units available by the end of November. Either way, this means there will be even less units than recently stated, which was also less units than previously promised.

    Sony should just hurry up and use a shotgun on their foot instead of a pistol. At least, if they are shipping more units in November but after launch, this is better than the 360, where they didn't send out additional shipments for a few weeks after initial release.
    • Re:Wait a minute (Score:4, Informative)

      by Manmademan (952354) on Monday September 11, 2006 @04:07PM (#16083899)
      The article's wording is a bit off. the 400K units are for the North American launch. There's an additional 100K going to Japan. another 800K units will be shipped to North America between launch and december, and another million or so going to Japan in that same period.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Osty (16825)

      Either someone has their numbers wrong, or Sony is planning to have an extra 100K units available by the end of November. Either way, this means there will be even less units than recently stated, which was also less units than previously promised.

      The 100K discrepancy isn't that hard to figure out. They're planning on shipping 400K in the US and 100K in Japan. The real question is how 400K + 800K by end of year in the US + 100K + ???K by end of year in Japan = 2.4Million. I have a hard time believing

    • by oahazmatt (868057)

      Final assembly will apparently begin at the end of this month, with some 400K units planned for the November 17th launch.

      That... that doesn't seem right...

      That's the beauty of a plan. If the PS3 sells out (which considering the number of units that will be available, is almost certain) then Sony can turn their nose at all the nay-sayers, and say how when everyone counted the company out, it came back with a solid product that people want to buy.

      If it doesn't sell out at launch, Sony PR can spin it as

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Aerokii (1001189)
      well, lets pause a moment and consider things. They plan on starting assembly near the end of september. For all intensive purposes, we'll say September 25th. Now, from then to the release date, assuming they will need one day to ship, they hope to have 400,000 units produced and shipped. That takes a total of 53 days to produce all those units. Now, after that, they hope to make another 800,00 units. This is, once more, assuming they continue, without stop, while the other launch continues. Starting once
      • your maths are good, ut your assumptions are wrong.
        What is holding up the production is the supply of bluray diodes.
        Those are "ramping up", meaning they are producing more (better yields) every months.
        They will have enough lasers to ship 500k consoles in mid november (actually shipped well before release date I would expect). Every month after that, they will produce more lasers, reaching up to the 1.2M units in january.

        So, their 2.4M total in 2006 are the 500k of the launch plus the 1.9M shipped in novembe
        • by Aerokii (1001189)
          I keep hearing more and more about this blu-ray, and honestly, it sounds like a scapegoat to me. The PS3 price, the slow production, all of that. As for how many blu-rays they'll have made by the time the launch comes around, well, that's still up for grabs. They could either gain experience and learn how to better produce, and hopefully, better market their system, or they could continue as they are now, and pray that they don't bomb this generation, which I'm doubting they will, unless the 360 suddenly ge
    • Past info has said 400k for north america and 100k for japan. At the moment, I'm just too lazy to look it up ;)
      • by RyoShin (610051)
        I know that the US is getting 400K units, and if that's what the article was referring to (this is /., of course I DRTFA before I posted), then it isn't nearly as periless as I thought. However, the quote talks about final production for 400K units, so unless the U.S. and Japanese units are being made in different places, that still leaves 100K unaccounted for.
  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Monday September 11, 2006 @04:06PM (#16083886) Journal
    There's nothing like a tight supply to get the ebay vultures circling. I suspect the actual cost for the first few thousand units will be in the $1200-1500 range. Sadly, there are enough people out there who will feed the ebay scum.

    Can you imagine what a Tickle Me Elmo [wikipedia.org] would go for today (ex if it had happend in 2006 vs 1996), give then hype that surrounded it back then combined with the insane market that is ebay?
    • Can you imagine what a Tickle Me Elmo would go for today (ex if it had happend in 2006 vs 1996), give then hype that surrounded it back then combined with the insane market that is ebay?
      T.M.X [fisher-price.com] (Tickle Me Elmo 10th Anniversary) comes out on the 19th.
    • Why are they scum? Because they see an opportunity to make a legal profit on a non-essential item and are taking it?

      It's a video-game console. If someone's so desperate to be the first on their block to own one, why shouldn't someone make a buck (or $1000) off of that? Nobody gets hurt.
      • by cbhacking (979169)

        Why are they scum?

        Because they are artifically raising prices for their own benefit. Do you approve of gasoline price gouging [wikipedia.org] too? Even though it's not an official emergency (and thus probably legal), the fact is that these people are intentionally harming their fellows by purchasing a fixed-price item, then releasing it to the free market during a time of extreme demand. They aren't doing anything to deserve that money, and they're screwing the people who actually want to buy this product.

        Nobody gets hu

        • Do you approve of gasoline price gouging too?

          Why did you ignore the part of my comment where I said "non-essential"? Is it because nuance is too difficult for you to grasp.

          Except for all the consumers who could each have saved hundreds of dollars each plus shipping time/charges, had they been able to buy it retail. Instead, they must pay the ebay scalpers that rushed in and bought the units 20 at a time.

          Pardon me, but where is the *harm* that is done? People voluntarily paying a lot more for a video game co
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by iamblades (238964)
          They are not artificially raising prices though, it is Sony that is artificially keeping prices low.

          Demand at the MSRP is much much higher than the supply, which presents a profit opportunity for people to buy at the low MSRP and sell at the retail price.

          Without these 'gougers' many people would simply not be able to get a PS3, as they would all be bought up by store employees and the rest of the first-come crowd.

          The resellers ensure that there will be a PS3 available at some price for anyone who can afford
          • by cbhacking (979169)
            Your logic is faulty. If store employees, etc. were going to buy them all up anyhow (even if not to resell at higher prices) then nobody - consumers, price gougers, anybody - would be able to get one. Since this if blatantly obviously not the case, your argument is pointless... no, I wouldn't want to be number 6 when only 5 are delivered, and not be able to buy one. However, I'd be WAY more pissed off to be number 3 when 50 are delivered, and have the two people ahead of me buy 25 each and laugh as they wa
  • It'll sell. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Endo13 (1000782)
    I distinctly remember a system that launched with about three games available, at a suggested retail price of $300 (or was it $400? something like that...). Supply was so scarce they sold on ebay for anywhere from $500-$2000. It's amazing what a launch right before christmas will do for you.
    • by NekoXP (67564)
      Not amazing, SCARY.

      Not that the console might have an aftermarket resale value more than 4x over and above it's retail price, but that there are fucking parents out there, who will go to eBay and spend $2000 on a fucking console for their spoilt fucking brat kid.

      Fuck you, if you're one of those parents. You are exactly the kind of person that makes this world a horrible place to live in. A little patience wouldn't go amiss, you know. Jimmy will have his PS3 before he goes back to school, you don't need to g

13. ... r-q1

Working...