PlayStation3 Delayed

[Benji]

PlayStation 3 Could Be Delayed

Analysts report that Sony's PlayStation 3 may be delayed.

By GameSpy Staff | Feb. 22, 2006

Reuters reports that Sony Corp.'s launch of the PlayStation 3 video game console could be delayed if industry specifications for some of its technology are not finalized soon. Shares of Sony Corp., the world's second-biggest consumer electronics maker, saw their biggest two-day decline in 10 months after Merrill Lynch & Co. said the PlayStation 3 could be delayed until early next year in the United States.

Merrill Lynch electronics analyst Hitoshi Kuriyama wrote that the PS3 launch could be delayed anywhere from six to 12 months, with the result being an autumn launch in Japan and a late 2006 or early 2007 launch in the United States. In addition, Goldman Sachs analyst Yuji Fujimori wrote that as long as the launch takes place in time for Christmas 2006, a delay is not necessarily a negative, and that any share price decline presents an opportunity to buy on weakness.

The PlayStation 3 may cost Sony $900 to build at the time of release, and drop to $320 in three years, according to a report by Merrill Lynch semiconductor analyst Joe Osha. Microsoft loses about $153 on each Xbox 360, which retails for between $299 and $399, researcher iSuppli Corp. said. With analysts expecting the PS3 to retail at around $400, Merrill Lynch said that Sony might consider delaying the release until it can further reduce manufacturing costs in 2007.

"We're aiming for spring, but we haven't announced specific regions," a spokeswoman for Sony Computer Entertainment said, adding that it was waiting for the final specifications on some of the technology it is using in the PlayStation 3, including that related to the Blu-ray DVD drive.

"We're waiting for them until the last possible minute, but the launch could be pushed back if they're not decided soon," the spokeswoman said. If the PS3 is not ready on time, the company will choose the next best timing for the launch, she said.

Sony spokesman Kei Sakaguchi publicly refuted these reports, stating that "there is no change in our original plan," and that the company intends to release the PlayStation 3 in "spring" this year.

I stopped caring about when it's coming out a while ago (that's just me being over dramatic by the way), how many times can one console be delayed? It was originally conceived for a mid to late 2005 release. Bleh, I'm hinting towards turning to X-Box 360 to tide me over instead.

[AJ]

I've never really paid close attention to new console release dates. PS2 works fine for me for the time being. I'm in no rush to get the PS3. I'm not counting down the days or anything and I'll only start to pay attention once it's actually released.

[Guest muddatrucker]

I agree with AJ, the only people who'll be truly bugged will be kids and those that follow gaming extremely (somewhat sadly) closely, even when its released I won't buy it until the price drops and maybe even never (unless its bought for me).

I haven't looked closely at the XBOX360 but at the same time no-one has been hyping it to me so it looks like they'd need to pull something brilliant to change my mind.

[Vilge Duin]

Next-Gen DVD Copy-Protection Debacle

Hollywood screws 3 million HDTV owners, sucks in general.

by Gerry Block

February 24, 2006 - In perhaps the greatest disservice to the general consumer market yet perpetrated by players in the electronic entertainment industry, it has been revealed that next-generation DVD technologies (HD-DVD and Blu-ray) will only function with monitors and HDTVs with HDMI or DVI connections.

What does that mean to you? If you purchased an HDTV more than a couple of years ago, chances are you are using Component Video (the red, green, and blue plugs) to connect HD sources to your TV. Component Video is an analog transmission, which means that it can't work with the absurdly stringent AACS copy-protection Hollywood has insisted be integrated into the new formats. Thus, no HDMI input on your TV, no hi-def DVD for you. If you don't have a compatible TV, you'll either receive a massively downgraded sub-720p resolution version of the content, or what the studios are suggesting, a warning screen followed by nothing.

Who's to blame for screwing some 3,000,000+ HDTV owners in America that were good consumers and early adopters who purchased TVs without HDMI? A group put together by the major movie studios called Advanced Access Content System (AACS). AACS was responsible for the Reuters report last week that speculated that Sony would miss its spring launch date for the PS3, due to the fact that the AACS had still not finalized the technicalities of the protocol. After a good six months of deliberation since version AACS v.0.9 was put into testing, and only 2 or 3 months away from the supposed release of the first HD-DVD and Blu-ray players, AACS has finally made the baby step of offering provisional licensing to the likes of Sony, Toshiba, and the other early manufactures of hi-def DVD solutions.

Even if you've got an HDTV with HDMI or DVI inputs, it's unlikely your TV has more than one. Just about every HD source these days is best in HDMI, so what are you going to do when both your cable box and next-gen DVD player/PS3 need the same plug? HDMI switchers or enabled receivers are not cheap, or even easy to find. In addition, it would appear that every component involved in the transmission of an HD-DVD/Blu-ray signal must make use of Intel's HDCP technology. This extra level of protection works with the AACS protocols on a hardware level.

Why is this bad? Say you decided to be future proof and purchase a high-end AV receiver with HDMI connections and up-scaling capabilities. Seemed like a good idea last week, but not anymore. Unless it supports HDCP, and it doesn't, because no manufacturers have made HDCP models yet, you won't be routing your HD-DVD or Blu-ray player through it.

Perhaps you're a progressive type and decided to make your media center PC centric. You're screwed too. Even if you purchased a high-end ATI or Nvidia graphics card advertised as HDCP compatible, that all it is: compatible, not compliant. HDCP chips must be bios flashed at the factory, and though these new "compatible" cards have space for a TI HDCP chip, none have them yet. In addition, every link in the chain must be HDCP ready, and only a very few PC monitors have adopted the standard. Get ready to buy both a new high-end graphics card and a new monitor if you want hi-def DVD for your PC.

It gets even worse. At the same time the AACS story came to light, it was discovered that the first wave of next-gen DVD players will not support the "managed copy" option that so many proponents of the new technologies have been hyping. Now that it is apparent Hollywood is willing to absolutely screw more than three million early-adopting consumers (who are probably also some of the best DVD-buyers) is it wrong to be skeptical that the "managed copy" features aren't quite going to be as fully-fledged as we all have hoped, if and when they actually appear? Expect massive downgrades in resolution to be the major movie studio's requirement for any content they allow to escape from the closed AACS-HDCP loop.

This is a dark day for the entire consumer electronics industry. Huge manufacturers like Sony and Toshiba have allowed Hollywood executives to punish consumers for the studios' inability to protect their own content in the wild. Despite the fact that the relationship between movie piracy and the floundering movie theater receipts of recent years has not been proven to be direct, Hollywood is applying an iron fist in their aim to control the next generation of the home-theater experience. You know those previews on DVDs that you can't skip through? That's only the beginning of the ways Hollywood wants to control your entertainment experience.

Consumers shouldn't take this lying down. The difference between HD-DVD and Blu-ray quality and normal DVD isn't huge, especially in light of the rather nice results produced by up-scaling DVD players available today from Oppo, Sony, and others. Should we allow movie studios to force their biggest fans, the early adopters of HDTV and related accessories, to buy entirely new entertainment systems? Is the upgrade even worth it?

Next-gen DVD is looking pretty questionable at this point. Not only do we have a format war to deal with, we've got Hollywood's accounting departments in charge of deciding the minutia of how we're able to enjoy the content we pay for. No copy protection scheme yet developed has been able to stand up to the genius of the hacking collective, and it's unlikely that even AACS and HDCP will last for long. Just long enough, perhaps, to strangle what remains of the traditional disc-based content distribution model and open the door for ubiquitous digital content and on-demand distribution.

[Marsh]

I'm not fussed by this either. I waited a couple of years after the PS2's release before I bought that, and that was when I was younger and computer games were semi-important to me. Although I do have loads of friends that have bought the 360 and want to batter me at it online, so I might buy one of those. PS3 is so far off my radar at this point. I don't care when it's released. Maybe I'll buy it, maybe I won't, but until it's released there's nothing I can do either way and thus I don't really care.

[apsham]

I have a patience, if they need more time, give it to them. Look what happened with the 360.

[GhostMachine]

I stopped caring about the PS3 when I first heard how much it was going to cost. Anything over $500.00 for a gaming system is just too much, in my opinion. And even that it stretching it.

And I was mainly interested in the PS3 because of the game they're making that's a sequel to one of my favorite HK movies, Hard-Boiled.

[Guest clintcasey]

Actualy the system was going to launch at 400 if you read the article in the first post, but will likely cost 950 to make and ship in other words they where going to loose money and where fine with it. The never made any money selling PS2 at all but that amount they where loosing out on is going to be huge compared to 360. Out of the big three the only one that makes any money by selling consoles is Nintendo. The rest loose money selling the consoles in hopes that they'll make it back selling games (IE. Halo 3 when it comes out and everybody with an X-box 360s buys it)

[zero]

I stopped caring about the PS3 when I first heard how much it was going to cost. Anything over $500.00 for a gaming system is just too much, in my opinion. And even that it stretching it.

Well that's good since the article said it's probably going to cost $400.

Honestly, I don't care. Just like all new systems, there won't be anything worth playing until six months after the release anyway. Not to mention the first batch of hardware will be impossible to find and will likely be defective. That said, all this does is make the Revolution look like a more viable option. The 360 launch flopped like a fish out of water and it's really nothing more than a console to play First Person Shooters on. Sony's going to jerk developers around with the PS3 and no one will be able to develop a proper game for the thing until a year after launch. Nintendo may be the way to go if they can get some real developer support.

[apsham]

Consoles sell for less, but they make up for it with software sales, it was explained in an issue of EGM I was reading last year.

[Mortis]

Did you really think that PS2 technology was really 300$ when it first came out? It costs alot more than people think, and PS2 more than makes up for it in software money. Why? Because the PlayStation is specialized basicly in software. They have the best software companies at their disposal really, and honestly, everyone seems to make a game for them eventually. The PS2 Vs. Gamecube/N64, or even X-Box shows the difference in the vast majority of software. Still to this day more is sent out for the PS2, than the X-Box and 360 combined.

So yes, PS3 will likely cost alot to manufacture, however it'll more than make up for it in software revenue should they continue with the trends they'd set prior. I still think it's a little bit risky IMHO.

[Benji]

Did you really think that PS2 technology was really 300$ when it first came out? It costs alot more than people think, and PS2 more than makes up for it in software money. Why? Because the PlayStation is specialized basicly in software. They have the best software companies at their disposal really, and honestly, everyone seems to make a game for them eventually. The PS2 Vs. Gamecube/N64, or even X-Box shows the difference in the vast majority of software. Still to this day more is sent out for the PS2, than the X-Box and 360 combined.

So yes, PS3 will likely cost alot to manufacture, however it'll more than make up for it in software revenue should they continue with the trends they'd set prior. I still think it's a little bit risky IMHO.

Hooray! Somebody listened to what I said last time

[Dingle]

I feel the same as most, unless some really good titles are released early on then I wont be buying the console right away because as afore mentioned, it isn't worth it.

[Liam]

Did you really think that PS2 technology was really 300$ when it first came out? It costs alot more than people think, and PS2 more than makes up for it in software money. Why? Because the PlayStation is specialized basicly in software. They have the best software companies at their disposal really, and honestly, everyone seems to make a game for them eventually. The PS2 Vs. Gamecube/N64, or even X-Box shows the difference in the vast majority of software. Still to this day more is sent out for the PS2, than the X-Box and 360 combined.

So yes, PS3 will likely cost alot to manufacture, however it'll more than make up for it in software revenue should they continue with the trends they'd set prior. I still think it's a little bit risky IMHO.

Hooray! Somebody listened to what I said last time

I don't post often in these threads, but I've always said similar. PS consoles will always get the larger coverage with regards to software. HOWEVER, there are usually cases of console specific games for other consoles being better games than anything the PS2 pumps out (obviously, arguably). It usually just comes down to whether you want a console with a consistent stream of good games, or if you want a console for the one or two great games it might churn out.

Easy choice really, thus why I always stick with Playstation.

[Guest baseballfan2k6]

At this point, I don't have any interest at all in the Playstation 3. Sony hasn't shown anything compelling yet except what's also on the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 is already out and it already has some great games. Nintendo Revolution's far ahead of PS3 at this point as far as I'm concerned. I expected this after reading the gaming news about 2 months ago and finding out that both Sony and Microsoft know the Spring 2006 launch date is not true.

Hell, they couldn't even get a Blu-Ray disc drive out until May, because of some Hollywood copy-protection scheme. Sony doesn't seem very credible at all when they are delaying their consoles constantly. After they botched the PSP badly in the past year and it finished significantly behind the Nintendo DS in sales, I don't see how they have any credibility at all left. I don't know if its just me, but "It's like cheese you can listen to outside" doesn't really make me want to buy a product.