Posted Mar 14, 2006 12:31 pm PT

now your just resorting to spam? why am I wrong? Because you say so? And that news is BS. Sony just recently annoucned Blu-Ray players will launch on May 23rd. Why would they delay now because of Blu-Ray issues? It completely contradicts what Sony said. And also, IF the PS3 does get delayed, I doubt itll be for three whole seasons worth, thats a ridiculous amount of time for a Japanese release. The Nihon Newspaper is just trying to publish random news ahead of an actual statement by Sony, in hopes that if their prediction IS right, they can say you heard it from them first.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 14, 2006 12:14 pm PT

"ur talking about disc manufacturing not drive manufacturing." ------ Nope, wrong again. Oh, and by the way, the ps3 launch is delayed until november because Blu-ray is an expensive and complicate mess.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 14, 2006 12:09 pm PT

ur talking about disc manufacturing not drive manufacturing. That shows how uninformed you are. And you havent proven anything. The companies were debating about the costs of making Blu-ray storage mediums as compared to Hd-dvd storage mediums, not reading devices, which is whats were debating about. And I changed to three companies because I checked the patents. Sony, Samsung, and LINTEC all have patents in for Blu-ray technology. The companies whom will be making their products (i.e. movies, games, etc) available through the Blu-Ray storage medium know how to manufacture the medium, not the readers. Obviously they have to have the readers specifications, as well as working readers to test their final product before mass production, but some of the technology in Blu-Ray players is completely brand new. Even if said company were to dissassemble the player and evaluate the costs of all its parts (and even then its possible the players said companies got could be damaged through dissassembly with magnetic strips), a good deal of the parts they would have no pricing precedence on. So they would have to go through those three patent holders to get the information on pricing. So again, prove to me that Blu-Ray DRIVE manufacturing costs are readily available.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 14, 2006 10:43 am PT

First off, Imavnas, use a little common sense. When the detailed specs of blu-ray are discussed in the debate over formats, one of the things discussed is the cost to manufacture. It is that detail that has been the deciding factor in some companies decisions not to back it. Is the light switch coming on? I've already proven that upwards of 20 companies know everything there is to know about blu-ray (how else would they manufacture the product?) When initially, you claimed there was only 1 company that knew. Then, you claimed there were only 3 companies that knew. It shows how truly uninformed you are. How do you explain your ignorance here? I'll give you a few days to ponder it.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 14, 2006 1:21 am PT

and why wouldnt it be? You keep on saying its out in the open. Fine. If it is then show me. If Blu-Ray technology manufacturing costs are so readily available to the public then show me. Show me either the actual info, or at the very least, the actual, proof-backed acknowledgement of a company that says so. Ill even give you a few days to look for it if you wish.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 14, 2006 12:11 am PT

Are you really trying to say that the manufacturing cost of blu-ray technology is a secret? You're killing me here. You try so hard to make fiction sound like fact, and it's painful to watch.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 14, 2006 12:01 am PT

its $800, not $900. The extra $100 comes from add-on HD speculation not from actual manufacturing costs. And I would do without the petty remarks (silly goose? o_0). Outside of the companies that are manufacturing the Blu-Ray players with Sony, component costs are undisclosed. Specs are always released on technology that is to become widespread so as to decide wether to back it as you say, but key component costs arent till the parent company or companies decide to do so. You may know how to make a dvd disc so that it can run on a dvd player, but you dont know how much the optical laser or lasers the company whos making the players are going to cost to manufacture for that company. And theirs no reason why the parent company should tell you if its a product that could fail because it has serious competition. The job of the companies backing the Blu-Ray is to make technology based on Blu-Ray specs given to them by Sony. Similarly to how software developers for consoles make games before the final console build, with packages sent to them by the console makers. So in the end, regardless of how many others have done manufacturing cost caculations, new technology component manufacturing cost information is limited to its makers.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 11:44 pm PT

Sony, Samsung, and Lintec? lol, you are such a silly goose. Blu-ray information has been released as plentifully as snow over Siberia. Is it any surprise that public technology forums have gone over blu-ray's fine specs in order to decide whether to back it? Or that dozens of companies have done the same? Or that HP and a handful of other companies have decided against exclusive support of blu-ray after considering it's fine specs? What about all the other companies that know about blu-ray's technology? You fail to mention Microsoft and Intel, both of which are very aware of blu-ray's development specs... Toshiba, Nec, and Sanyo... and the list grows... add to that Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, my my... Sharp, TDK, and Thompson Mlt., LG, Fujitsu, and Sonic Solutions... wow, this is definitely information that Sony hasn't told "ANYONE". Panasonic, Apple, Dell, and Philips. All these companies are currently developing blu-ray products.. and I'm sure they know nothing about blu-ray, or how much it costs to develop. You are silly. Not only that, but blu-ray technology has been published publicly. Why? because Sony is trying to convince people to accept it as the format of choice. That would be kind of difficult if they kept it's information a secret, don't you think? Sorry to crush your little world, but it's no secret how much blu-ray technology costs to produce. The more wide-spread blu-ray technology becomes known, the more happy Sony is, because they don't care about keeping it a secret... they care about people using it and then collecting the royalties. Oh, and btw, several others have done manufacturing cost calculations for the PS3 in addition to Merrill Lynch, and they come up with the same 800-900 figures. See the studies by CNET or ISuppli for reference.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 11:17 pm PT

Okay fine, so it was Sony, Samsung, and LINTEC. Their not still about to tell analysts, especially not one with such a grand reputation as Merril Lynch, what the manufacturing costs for critical components of the PS3 are. In fact even Lynch has gone on record that they had no precedence to base their Cell and Blu-Ray prices on (check site I gave you for reference). If you happen to know something everyone else doesnt then thats you. Still ud have to either be a corporate spy, a trustee of either three aforementioned companies, or decently high up in status as an employee (or higher) of any of the three aformentioned companies. And if Merril Lynch does know, then they said what they said because Sony asked them too, so as to liquidate some shares. There could be several reasons for that, all of which I know little about. [Its almost like you WANT to keep this convo going.. -_- ]

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 10:37 pm PT

lmavnas: "Except Merril Lynch has no actual evidence or backing on Blu-Ray drive manufacturing costs as BR belongs solely to Sony, and Sony has yet to release any information to ANYONE"------- I don't know whether to laugh or drop a nickel in your hat. For the record, you are way off.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 8:57 pm PT

If your wondering where I got the information regarding Merril Lynch, it was on an article on gamesindustry.biz ; basically the place I get my gaming industry first (their usually far better informed than gamespot or ign). Its somewhat old so yo uhave to look for it in the archive. EDIT: Heres the link: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=14836

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 8:49 pm PT

Except Merril Lynch has no actual evidence or backing on Blu-Ray drive manufacturing costs as BR belongs solely to Sony, and Sony has yet to release any information to ANYONE, that being the main reason behind all of the *will sony live or die* rumors. In fact, the two components that cost the most from the PS3 are the two components Merril Lynch had to guess from scratch; the Cell and the Blu-Ray. And by the way, I think your referring to what Lynch's analyst said would cost to manufacture the PS3, not the BR drives themselves. And they F'ed up in their guesstimated costs too. Its $800 (PS3 manu. cost), and an extra $100 for a supposed add-on harddrive that may or may not come prepackaged with the PS3 (for some reason Merril Lynch thinks this might happen). So even then we see a $300 per unit loss if the PS3 is sold at $500. Considering Microsoft is taking somewhere between $150 to $200 loss per 360, and the fact that the PS3 would also be exponentially expanding the Blu-Ray Format (If sold at $500), I think Sony would be more than willing to take that $300 loss per system. If they sell enough, it will definately help propel the Blu-Ray format way above HD-DVD, and having every company in Hollywood pay you to release in your format [in the future] is definately something Sony is willing to invest in now. And thats WITH Lynch's estimates. The BR drive in the PS3 may very well cost less than Lynch is assuming (because thats what they did, assume).

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 5:01 pm PT

I mentioned the blu-ray player's price simply because, and I'm sure we can all agree, that manufacturing the PS3 with a blu-ray drive would cost Sony more than if they were to exclude it, undoubtedly a contributing factor to Sony's "expensive" remarks. Merrill Lynch analysts calculate that it will cost sony $900 dollars for each blu-ray drive manufactured in the first line of PS3's. Have I ever predicted how much the PS3 will cost, outside of it being "expensive"? No. But looking at the numbers, there's a chance that Sony could be taking up to a $500 price hit per-console if they release the console at the price range you predict. $400 for the blu-ray drive, and the typical $100 or so associated with the console itself. That's certainly interesting, if Sony were to sell the system at $400 dollars, for each system they sell they could possibly lose $600 dollars. Do I think the PS3 will cost X amount of dollars? To manufacture, perhaps. But to sell? I've never said as much. So you are really arguing a moot point.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 3:33 pm PT

Im not responding rashly, and im not confused, irrational or defensive. U think its going to be expensive, but in your first post, u "implied" it was going to be AS expensive as the Blu Ray Player priced at 1k. Reread your first post and ull see what I mean. By the way, I worded my last post incorrectly. I wanted to say "not your intention to imply the PS3 was going to be as expensive as the Blue Ray Player". My mistake (it was 3 am when I responded to that, forgot to proofread). And grnidbandit; The PS3 may very well end up priced at higher than $500, and you may still buy it, but itll mark the end of Sony's dominance of the gaming market quite abruptly, as anything priced over $500 wont sell enough to move more PS3's than the amount of 360s that wouldve sold by PS3's launch. The reason I dont think its going to be priced any higher that $500 is because I doubt Sony would be stupid enough to give up their market dominance because they themselves were unable to deliver. Alas, anything can happen, as it all comes down to their release and price announcement, and theirs 5 dates on the 06' calendar which could play host to that information from Sony: March 15th (this wednesday), March 22nd, And May 9-11 (e3 game show conferance).

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 12:31 pm PT

lmavnas, we're bringing up your posts because you need to be accountable for what you say. You have been saying a lot of things that are irrational, confused, defensive, and frankly unrelated to what we have posted. For example, how can you tell me that the intention of my original post was "obviously not" to imply that the PS3 is going to be expensive? When in reality, that was the whole purpose of my post. Just think a little bit more before you respond rashly to people's posts. Read them a little more carefully and think about what is being said. This might help you to avoid situations where multiple people are trying to clarify things to you.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 11:08 am PT

grnidbandit: thats ok and all, except u had responded to that post on page ten already. Then u responded to it on page 11 as if u has never responded to it on page ten, lol. Im not talking about what I said, lol, but why u responded twice to my one same post, when i had posted more comments after that. Yetoso: No thats not how I think it. Look thats why I said you need to up ur comprehension skills. U dont need to actually "say" anything to "imply" something. From what ur telling me here it was obviously not your intention to imply that the PS3 was expensive. Alright thats cool. I get ya. But the sentence structure, the word usage, and the method of execution; it all gave the idea that you were indeed implying the PS3 was going to be in the price range of a blu ray player. *sigh* This is taking up to much of my time considering im arguing semantics and you two are arguing over my old posts, ignoring the fact that im not arguing about your responses on those. Im out.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 10:36 am PT

lmavnas, I implied only that which Sony has said themselves. I never stated a price range. I never slapped a sticker on Sony's "expensive" remarks. I mentioned oranges, and you argued apples. It seems you get so defensive, that even Sony's own statements are hostile to your mind's picture of the ideal PS3.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 6:14 am PT

lets just wait until these RPGs come out in Japan and see how many RPG fans jump ship/cross-platform.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 13, 2006 5:28 am PT

lol at m$ for the horrible performance of the 360 over in Japan!!!!!

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment