PS3 Now $300 Cheaper to Make
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: PlayStation, ps3, isuppi, cost, teardown | Themes: Digital Entertainment
At the very beginning of the console’s life cycle, it was pegged as a loss leader for Sony. This original assessment was further confirmed by the research firm iSuppli, who are famous for “teardowns” for consumer electronics. By an original estimate in November 2006, the 60GB PlayStation 3 cost Sony $840 to build while only selling for $599.
As manufacturing processes and technology improve, the cost of construction also diminished. However, iSuppli has recently updated its estimates for the actual cost of the PlayStation 3 reports that it costs Sony $448 to build the 80GB PlayStation 3 while its MSRP is currently $3
99.
Sony has been selling its lead console at a loss now for two years, and according to iSuppli, it may finally reach the break even point in 2009. One of the key differences iSuppli found in its latest teardown of the PlayStation 3 is that Sony has been switching to integrated solutions for its chipsets; by iSuppli’s estimates, this amounts to a 30 percent reduction in parts used from the first generation of the console.
Overall, as the main component chips such as the Cell Processor and the Nvidia GPU come down in price, so do the total cost of the console. Analysis also noted that power consumption was lower across the board on the latest hardware revisions of the PlayStation 3, which results in a greener PlayStation experience.
Whether or not the continued decline in manufacturing costs will translate to a lower MSRP for consumers is unknown. Sony has gone on record to say that there will be no price cuts on any model of the Playstation 3. Current rumors are that prices cuts may be coming for Europe in March 2009, which Sony declined to confirm.
The PlayStation 3 has been a steady, but not stellar, performer for Sony during this generation of gaming consoles. It’s currently placed last in the console race but is far from being lost. Sony originally envisioned the PlayStation 3 as a gaming console that was built for the future, and it was to last for the next ten years (according to the keynote speech given by Ken Kutaragi at the 2006 TGS).
-
Previous News Article
Digital TV Coupons to Dry Up Soon -
Next News Article
Controller Used to Find Stolen...
so you are telling me that i clicked on this link here and generated more add revenue for the ailing tomshardware site only to find out that the headline was total bs...
what the hell...
the best part...no where in the article besides the headline does it mention that the ps3 now costs 300 even make...even the link with the tear down estimates reiterate the 448 cost...
after over 12 years i almost done with this site...
-c
the headline does it mention that the ps3 now costs 300 even make...
It doesn't say that at all. It says it's $300 cheaper to make. But according to this it's actually $400 dollars cheaper (Starting at $840 and ending at $448).
Aww, christian summer, note that I accidentally clicked the green thumb, instead of the red. I think you need to try to comprehend what you read a little more before you get upset at other people because of your own shortcomings.
Don't worry Christian I agree with you 100%. The headline is definitely misleading, but it fits in with about 70% of what's written on the site.
I think the headline describes the point of the article just fine. Some people have nothing better to do than bitch and whine.
On another front, they've been selling PS3's at a loss for all this time and will finally break even on cost/revenue just as soon as the console is ready to be replaced by the next gen machines.
Great idea, sony.
Playstation 3 lasting ten years? Why not? The PS2 lasted eight good ones, even a couple of years into the PS3's run.
Playstation 3 lasting ten years? Why not? The PS2 lasted eight good ones, even a couple of years into the PS3's run.
It's still being sold, and games are still being made for it. And the PS1 lasted for 11 years.
Although it will be sad to see the PS3 to be the first Playstation not to sell over 100 million consoles.
the technology in ps3 was away ahead of its time. it can be used again for a next generation console that will be better and cheaper.
how is the article's title misleading?
300$ CHEAPER to make
illiterate sons of b!tches!! ENGLISH MUTHAPHUCAS!
Of course, they had to eliminate components such as hardware support for the old PS2 games in order to get the price down. I still think that blu ray was a big drag on the PS3 simply due to the licensing cost. Such is the stupidity of the blu ray consortium. Blu ray is nice, but it isn't much different to me than a good upscaled DVD on my 42" Panasonic plasma.
Christian Summer is a dumb fuck.
the technology in ps3 was away ahead of its time. it can be used again for a next generation console that will be better and cheaper.
Riiiiiiight the highly stripped down 7900 the huge lacking in ram and a still yet to be seen if there is any real benafit cell processor every fan boy thinks is 8 cores, anyways.
I must say im not surprised. when it comes to this gen of consoles the Playstation really had nothing to bring to the table aside a blueray which when it came out wasnt really a big deal since people actualy thought HD was going to win for some reason.
Sony losing money.... soooooo!!!!!!!!! and that means what to me??? Really now, it don't matter if it cost 300, 400 or 6 million dollars less to make. Their executive staff is what sucking the company dry like a bunch of starved vampires. To put in the right light they ARE NOT LOSING JACK OR THEY WOULDN'T BE SELLING THEM. I wanna hear how much the executive staff ppl are making and all the percs and how we can hack them down to their knees!!! yeh baby now yer talking!!
TSM
Believe it or not but all consoles cost more to make then they sell for. That is why the games are usualy $10 more then the PC version. That extra $10 per game is what these companies use to make their money back from selling the console short. Consumers will usualy only buy one of their consoles but they will continue to purchase the games and therefor make more money in the long run.
i've heard the sales for the ps2 are making up the loss from the sales of the ps3
when it comes to this gen of consoles the Playstation really had nothing to bring to the table aside a blueray which when it came out wasnt really a big deal since people actualy thought HD was going to win for some reason.
I think other than the lack of an obscene failure rate and the inability to overcome that failure rate you could be right. I mean it's not like developers like Rockstar have ever had to overcome the lack of a guaranteed hard drive on the 360....oh...wait....Or it's not like the PS3 has about the relative power of a PS2 with a horribly, gimmicky control scheme and a complete lack of games that anyone is really interested in like the Wii does....
Of course, they had to eliminate components such as hardware support for the old PS2 games in order to get the price down. I still think that blu ray was a big drag on the PS3 simply due to the licensing cost. Such is the stupidity of the blu ray consortium. Blu ray is nice, but it isn't much different to me than a good upscaled DVD on my 42" Panasonic plasma.
Riiiiiiight the highly stripped down 7900 the huge lacking in ram and a still yet to be seen if there is any real benafit cell processor every fan boy thinks is 8 cores, anyways. I must say im not surprised. when it comes to this gen of consoles the Playstation really had nothing to bring to the table aside a blueray which when it came out wasnt really a big deal since people actualy thought HD was going to win for some reason.
Just wow. First of all if you cant tell the difference between a bluray and a dvd in motion then, you are blind or do not have any business owning a 42inch hdtv.
Also Enforcer or w/e stop reading and believing everything you read on forums and bias articles. Im sure in order for PS3 to succeed it must have a HALO franchise to back it up. Bluray is a good format, PS3 is a good console. So many people want SONY to fail and you are the worst side of humanity.
Just wow. First of all if you cant tell the difference between a bluray and a dvd in motion then, you are blind or do not have any business owning a 42inch hdtv. Also Enforcer or w/e stop reading and believing everything you read on forums and bias articles. Im sure in order for PS3 to succeed it must have a HALO franchise to back it up. Bluray is a good format, PS3 is a good console. So many people want SONY to fail and you are the worst side of humanity.
megamanx00 is either blind or simply lying to himself when he says the difference in not noticeable. I bought The Dark Knight on Blu-ray and I actually had the privilege of seeing it on DVD after, and the DVD version looked so much worse. As to EnFoRcEr's comment, it's silly to simply want a console like the PS3 to fail. I own all 3 and don't want any of them to fail.
I dont want sony to fail i love bluray and i dont read articals about ps3.
Personaly i think sony has developed the best tech in the past two decades i personaly LOVED my mini disk and i loved cd's and dvd's as well. Do i want the ps3 to fail? i actualy dont even care if it does or not. I dont care if xbox or wii fail either. Even though i wouldnt mind a wii i could care less about it. I also dont remember saying i wanted it to fail though i did say i wasnt surprised.
Ithink a couple people misunderstood me. I was just saying the ps3 wasnt exactly the revolutionary piece of hardware it was clamed to be and i didnt care about it other then the bluray.
BTW not a halo fan sorry. I know thats what you ment and yes sony needs that nitch game but they dont seem to have it on the ps3 like they did thier other two consoles.
Sriously guys not bashing sony just dont care for the consoles them selves. Wait i will bash sony for its DRM though between them and and EA I hardly have many choices on what i can buy..
Ps3 was ahead of its time but now it very out of date,video,wifi,hd and cpu, they should be working on ps4 by now....