News Sony wants to break even on PS3 by March

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/07/27/sony_want_to_break_even_on_ps3_by_march/1

Sony plans to break even on the PlayStation 3 by March 2008 apparently, thanks to reduced production costs and a smaller chip size.

 

i dont think they will make a profit for a long time yet maybe 2009 in March and I have my 360 which is yet to break and I hope it does so I have a reason to get an Elite but mines being reliable bar for the eating of my gears disc

 

Same here it will be along time before they make any money out of the ps3 console, but saying is they make their money from the games we buy.

 

PS3 making profit full stop is a joke, another 360 user here, and had mine at launch and still going strong, no damaged disc either!

 

Does anyone really care if they make a profit or not?? Only people that should care are the shareholders as its them that get richer or poorer. As long as the console sticks around for 10 years like Ps1 and Ps2 then im happy that Ill still have new games to play when I get one.

My 360 hasnt died and is now 8 months old but it does crash alot. Just hope it hangs in their for Halo 3 etc.

 

My friend's 360 is crashing every other day and it's getting worse, but even so I would recommend he get another one or an Elite just because of the game selection so far. Yet, after this Xmas if Sony adheres to their promise of bringing multiple AAA titles to the console, along with Playstation Home/Achievements and maybe a price-drop then I may decide to get one, but that's gonna be a long shot.....

 

Inst a BD drive a DVD drive with a BD laser (and maybe marginally different chips ...)

Why is it so expensive to produce them ....

 

correct me if I'm wrong but would moving to 65nm not decrease the number of CPU's they're able to turn out on a per wafer basis because of more CPU's not having enough operational cores to meet the requirements ( IIRC one or two cores can be faulty and the CPU will still be used)

 

QFT

As long as they get that price down enough for me to buy one and keep the standard of the games up I won't give a monkeys left testicle

 

it depends on the failure rate in 65nm

however, because the wafer size is still the same size, you get more CPU's out of a wafer, which decreases the cost of the CPU's (wafers are damn expensive)

 

that's fair enough, i was assuming a higher failure rate because of the increase in the degree of accuracy required at 65nm (although thinking about it that would probably have been accounted for in the fab process to start off with)

 

I think that Sony are looking to go to 45nm for the new Cell chips, not 65nm (this from someone I know who works at the IBM fab in Fishkill, NY, where a lot of the PS3 Cells are made(*)) - true, it'll mean fewer chips per wafer, since there's a greater chance of manufacturing defects or rejects (a lot of companies now demand sub-nm precision) but it may have a positive impact on power consumption - my biggest beef with the 360 and the PS3 is their power draw.

Sony really need to drop the price of the PS3 - I bought mine off a mate for £175 and must admit that I'd have been seriously hacked off if I'd paid full price for it. It currently runs F@H most of the time since there are practically no games for it that appeal to me(**) ("Killzone 2" is tempting though - even though I dislike FPSes). The 360, on the other hand, is one of the best purchases I've made since I bought my PS2 *mumble* years ago and, thus far, I've had no reliability issues with it - then again, I usually copy the games onto the HDD and play from there since the rattling from the DVD drive drives me nuts.

My girlfriend has a Wii and even she now admits that it's nothing more than an expensive toy. I've only been telling her for nearly a year ... go figure.

(*) - I used to work in the semiconductor industry, but I've recovered.
(**) - so far - there are some promising titles due later in the year, but as things stand now my PS3 may yet end up on FleaBay or Amazon.

 

*looks at date*
This was posted around 2 years ago so March would have been March 07 not March 09.