PS3 $900 According to Merrill Lynch Really $800 though

[Cmtz]

http://www.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/2871_ps3900.jpg


Over the past few months we've read many predictions by gaming analysts about the Playstation 3. Some of them were often right, and sometimes just down right wrong! Yesterday, the investment firm Merrill Lynch, put out a long article that went into detail on how much each PS3 component would cost at launch, and after 3 years. They came up with a total that probably none of us expected - a whopping $900 for release and $320 3 years after. Now this is not likely for Sony to launch a console with a heavy price tag like that. It is said that Microsoft for instance is loosing $200 per console sold, so Sony will easily do something similar. Perhaps we'll be seeing it go for about $750 ?

[Jibbajaba]

Yay!!!! Another next-gen speculation thread by cmtz!!!!

W0000t!!!

Chris

[njiska]

I just saw that. Holy hell Sony's backing themselves into a very akward financial position.

On the one hand they can't charge too much because the PS3 will lose sales, but they can't financially undercharge by a substantial amount because the company simply doesn't have the cash reserves and with everything hinging on Blu-Ray the price equation becomes even more convoluded.

I pity the poor bastards at Sony who have to come up with the selling price.

[keiblerfan69]

Yeah sure, I believe this. Sony isn't stupid. They watched the 3DO die because of high cost.

[DarkStraw]

i believe anything anyone tells me.

[Dangerboy]

The Sony Staff that watched that aren't the same decision makers as the ones currently in power. After several statements made by the PS3's media faces, including Kutaragi himself, it seems the PS3's slogan is "Pay it of leave it."

Hopefully it really will be a miracle machine.

[Flack]

The PS3 will launch for, I'm guessing, the exact same price as the Xbox 360 -- maybe $50 higher because of the blue-ray drive. They've already said the hard drive will be optional, which sets the market up again for core and premium systems.

[JJNova]

Now this is not likely for Sony to launch a console with a heavy price tag like that. ?

Oh, it's a console, but you must be kidding yourself if you think it's a Video Game Console. It's a multi-purpose device, that happens to play Video Games. Sony's business practice has been the same for a long time, release hardware to get our media format into homes.

Mini Discs
Beta Tapes
Smartsticks
UMD's
Sony had their own version of WideScreen

The Playstation 3 puts Sony in an awsome position to make a large move, since most families and individuals are familiar with the Playstation name. :)

[Ed Oscuro]

Ah, thanks for the figures, cmtz..!

It looks like Sony's gonna eat most of those costs.

I wonder what the PS3 will cost consumers 3 years from now? Regardless, ouch.

[Ed Oscuro]

Mini Discs
Beta Tapes
Smartsticks
UMD's
Sony had their own version of WideScreen
Memory Sticks, actually.

Scary: UMDs should work on the PS3, Memory Sticks will (last I heard), and Blu-Ray as well. Thus a lot of items on that list will be in the PS3.

[jajaja]

Well, when PS2 was launched here it was around $750. Even if its $900 alot will still buy it. Price will drop quite fast I belive if this is true.

[portnoyd]

Merrill Lynch sure knows the video game industry - just like I know what the hell Merrill Lynch actually does!

[Cmtz]

Yay!!!! Another next-gen speculation thread by cmtz!!!!

W0000t!!!

Chris

Yay!!!! Another useless post by jibbajaba!!!!

W0000t!!!

[stressboy]

If you do the math, those numbers actually add up to $800.

[Cmtz]

If you do the math, those numbers actually add up to $800.

TRUE. WOW.

[Mayhem]

They may not have listed everything... but yeah the figures shown do only add up to $800.

[Cmtz]

They may not have listed everything... but yeah the figures shown do only add up to $800.

That might have been true as well.

[njiska]

If you do the math, those numbers actually add up to $800.

TRUE. WOW.

Yeah the two reports contradict one another. A lot of sites have been pointing this out.

[portnoyd]

If you do the math, those numbers actually add up to $800.

If this isn't a clue to not trust the source, I don't know what is.

[njiska]

If you do the math, those numbers actually add up to $800.

If this isn't a clue to not trust the source, I don't know what is.

If you don't consider Merrill-Lynch reliable, you're a fool.

Here's the direct PDF file straight from Merril-Lynch. http://rsch1.ml.com/9093/24013/ds/276873_0.PDF

Now it is an estimate, which means it's an educated guess not a hard set number, but it's hardly unreliable information.

[comrade]

Merrill Lynch sure knows the video game industry - just like I know what the hell Merrill Lynch actually does!

Merrill Lynch is a financial management and advice company.

It's not really the company knowing about video games, really. I think what they are doing is estimating and adding up the cost of future technologies that will be in the PS3.

[portnoyd]

If you don't consider Merrill-Lynch reliable, you're a fool.

Here's the direct PDF file straight from Merril-Lynch. http://rsch1.ml.com/9093/24013/ds/276873_0.PDF

Now it is an estimate, which means it's an educated guess not a hard, but it's hardly unreliable information.

Well, I'll be first in line to pay $900, I mean $800 because ML knows their shit!

[Sothy]

p23 will cost $4.99

The games will cost $795.00

you get free candy in the box though.

[RCM]

p23 will cost $4.99

The games will cost $795.00

you get free candy in the box though.

Very good!

I think Sony is going to bring the PS3 to market at a low price, lower than what's been thrown out there. THey did it with the PSP. Speculation ran wild. I thought $299 at the lowest. THey'll throw a low price out like $350 or $400 and everyone will think it's a great deal.

Or they could actually go full steam with this whole "PS3 isn't a game machine" thing and put the thing out for $500-$800. I can't make up my mind! I wonder if Sony can.

[s1lence]

p23 will cost $4.99

The games will cost $795.00

you get free candy in the box though.


Free Candy!!! Count me in!!!

[tholly]

no chance its that high....i think the absolute highest it might reach would be $500 for the blu-ray version....probably less....with the regular version closer to the 360 core price of $300

[stressboy]

no chance its that high....i think the absolute highest it might reach would be $500 for the blu-ray version....probably less....with the regular version closer to the 360 core price of $300

blu ray version/regular version? Where are you getting this from?

[tholly]

no chance its that high....i think the absolute highest it might reach would be $500 for the blu-ray version....probably less....with the regular version closer to the 360 core price of $300

blu ray version/regular version? Where are you getting this from?



The PS3 will launch for, I'm guessing, the exact same price as the Xbox 360 -- maybe $50 higher because of the blue-ray drive. They've already said the hard drive will be optional, which sets the market up again for core and premium systems.

i guess i meant harddrive...although i could have swore i heard 2 different disc drives.....will i guess hdd is what i meant.....

[InsaneDavid]

They may not have listed everything... but yeah the figures shown do only add up to $800.

Why would anyone listen to what they say? They can't even freaking do basic addition correctly!

Besides, Merrill Lynch is who nearly screwed Nolan Bushnell into nothing (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/09.16.99/cover/bushnell2-9937.html).

[Bronty-2]

Merrill Lynch is one of the biggest wall street firms out there. They are absolutely huge and do these kinds of analyses, as well as ones far more complex than this - all the time. Everyone slips up once in a while, although we don't even know for sure if they did here. Maybe it was an error in totalling, maybe misc. costs equalling $100 were left out of the cost highlights on purpose to avoid clutter on the page, maybe the extra $100 is labor, WHATEVER. It may be 900, 800, or 700, but the point is Sony's console is going to cost an assload to produce at launch. That much much I would absolutely bank on based on that article.

[Lozza]

Hahahahahahaha.

Oh wait...

AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!!!!!! LOL

[njiska]

Hahahahahahaha.

Oh wait...

AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!!!!!! LOL

I find your lack of context disturbing.

[badinsults]

Anyone who believes that Sony will release the PS3 for $800 is an idiot. It will sell for $400 or less, and anything more than that would be financial suicide. Of course, that won't stop you pseudo-intellectuals from debating economics.

[njiska]

Anyone who believes that Sony will release the PS3 for $800 is an idiot. It will sell for $400 or less, and anything more than that would be financial suicide. Of course, that won't stop you pseudo-intellectuals from debating economics.

Such anger Evan, but why? Is there something wrong with simple debate and speculation? And why should your baseless $400 or less comment be held as anything more then speculation from a Pseudo-intellectual? Why the angry? Why the sarcasm?

Look there's nothing wrong with discussion and this debate (minus the Merill Lynch slandering) is a good and worthy discussion. I personally think an MSRP of $499 is more then reasonable. The name alone means they can charge a little more and with $499 being less then half the cost of Sony's first gen Blu-Ray players (approx. $1200) it's certainly not out of the question.

Everyone made a big deal about the Cost of the PSP, but the damned thing still sold and sold well.

Right now anything is possible.

[-hellvin-]

One billion, gazillion, jazillion, shmillion dollars!! Mwuhahahaha.

Uh...no Scott...

[portnoyd]

Anyone who believes that Sony will release the PS3 for $800 is an idiot. It will sell for $400 or less, and anything more than that would be financial suicide. Of course, that won't stop you pseudo-intellectuals from debating economics.

Such anger Evan, but why? Is there something wrong with simple debate and speculation? And why should your baseless $400 or less comment be held as anything more then speculation from a Pseudo-intellectual? Why the angry? Why the sarcasm?

It's not baseless. Name one console that launched for $500 or more that survived. I think the history of consoles is a pretty good basis for his argument.

And he's annoyed most likely that people like you are defending ML, thinking their analysis will have any bearing on the future or what price point we'll see.

[njiska]

Anyone who believes that Sony will release the PS3 for $800 is an idiot. It will sell for $400 or less, and anything more than that would be financial suicide. Of course, that won't stop you pseudo-intellectuals from debating economics.

Such anger Evan, but why? Is there something wrong with simple debate and speculation? And why should your baseless $400 or less comment be held as anything more then speculation from a Pseudo-intellectual? Why the angry? Why the sarcasm?

It's not baseless. Name one console that launched for $500 or more that survived. I think the history of consoles is a pretty good basis for his argument.

And he's annoyed most likely that people like you are defending ML, thinking their analysis will have any bearing on the future or what price point we'll see.

#1 I retract my previous statement about the claim launching for more then $400 is financial suicide. There is a basis for that claim, however because the PS3 is considerably more then a console it is inapropriate to claim it would be suicide because we've never been in this unique situation before.

#2 ML's analysis has bearing on this debate, not on Sony's pricing decision. If there analysis is correct, which is a reasonable assupmtion, then we can assume what the cost to sony is going to be and we can use it to aid our discussion. Sony is a financial wreck and they have to be very careful when it comes to taking a loss on the PS3. All of this information affects our discussion.

#3 Again we're just talking. No one here is saying "Because ML says it costs this much, the PS3 is gonna cost this much", we're just saying, "Well if the PS3 is going to cost that much to make and Sony can't afford to lose a lot i think the sysytem will cost $xxx."

It's not like we think we're trying to change the world here. We're just a bunch of gamers discussing what we think the PS3 will cost us.

[Ed Oscuro]

I find speculation on what Sony will build the console for interesting, but you can't draw any conclusions on what they will sell it for from that. Previous release history and their competitors' pricing is more useful.

Also, the folks at Merrill Lynch who went after Bushnell = assholes. Thanks for the link David, that's chilling, and makes me never want to touch the business world o_O

[LAGO]

I'm probably missing something here but I didn't realize Sony was in a financial wreck. Can somebody give me a link where I can check that out?

[stressboy]

Didn't Merrill Lynch tell people that the PS2 would retail for $500?

[njiska]

I'm probably missing something here but I didn't realize Sony was in a financial wreck. Can somebody give me a link where I can check that out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4270302.stm

More Sony failing's (http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/struggling-sony-to-cut-10000-jobs/2005/09/23/1126982210491.html)

More Bad news (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Entertainment/Games_And_Gear/?article=/Entertainment/Games%20And%20Gear/News/T5V3J2A2)

[Lothars]

Well I still don't trust that analysis, I think it's a bloated figure

I mean I can see the PS3 having two price points with a core and a premium system but I suspect it will launch at the 399 mark

it's gonna be interesting to see.

[InsaneDavid]

Also, the folks at Merrill Lynch who went after Bushnell = assholes. Thanks for the link David, that's chilling, and makes me never want to touch the business world o_O

Yeah, I know they totally freaking screwed him over. :( Still, gotta admire how he just shrugs it off.

Also can we get some link truncation in here? Thanks.

[jajaja]

no chance its that high....i think the absolute highest it might reach would be $500 for the blu-ray version....probably less....with the regular version closer to the 360 core price of $300

blu ray version/regular version? Where are you getting this from?



The PS3 will launch for, I'm guessing, the exact same price as the Xbox 360 -- maybe $50 higher because of the blue-ray drive. They've already said the hard drive will be optional, which sets the market up again for core and premium systems.

i guess i meant harddrive...although i could have swore i heard 2 different disc drives.....will i guess hdd is what i meant.....

They did talk about releasing 2 versions of PS2 also. One with CD-ROM drive and one with DVD-ROM, but it never happend. I dont think Sony will release a blu-ray version and a dvd version of the PS3 tho. Integrated HDD maybe.

[Lozza]

Anyone who believes that Sony will release the PS3 for $800 is an idiot. It will sell for $400 or less, and anything more than that would be financial suicide. Of course, that won't stop you pseudo-intellectuals from debating economics.

Such anger Evan, but why? Is there something wrong with simple debate and speculation? And why should your baseless $400 or less comment be held as anything more then speculation from a Pseudo-intellectual? Why the angry? Why the sarcasm?

It's not baseless. Name one console that launched for $500 or more that survived. I think the history of consoles is a pretty good basis for his argument.

And he's annoyed most likely that people like you are defending ML, thinking their analysis will have any bearing on the future or what price point we'll see.

NEO GEO AES survived in my opinion. They made games for years and years.

[Lozza]

If people spend $350 on ipod video, $500+ on TV's, why is it hard to believe that the PS3 could cost $500 or more? It's expensive to buy new technology... I personally don't care that much. If PS3 is very expensive then the Revolution will be more popular. Can't wait. Fucking Sony.

[LAGO]

I'm probably missing something here but I didn't realize Sony was in a financial wreck. Can somebody give me a link where I can check that out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4270302.stm

More Sony failing's (http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/struggling-sony-to-cut-10000-jobs/2005/09/23/1126982210491.html)

More Bad news (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Entertainment/Games_And_Gear/?article=/Entertainment/Games%20And%20Gear/News/T5V3J2A2)

That pretty much says it all. Thanka a bunch.

[Mangar]

Something to keep in mind.

No serious discussion of the PS3 should be had, without first considering the home theatre market and the impending HD-DvD Vs. Blu-Ray DVD format war. These two issues will impact the PS3's pricepoint more then any single videogame or videgame market related factor, which in itself is both unique and odd for a videogame console. Sony has stated outright that they are looking at the PS3 to help subsidize and flood the market with Blu-Ray disc players, and this makes sense since Blu-Ray becoming the de-facto "standard" means more to Sony from a business sense then pretty much anything.

With that said, the 800$ estimate isn't completely ludicrous. If you look at the recent press releases for the upcoming HD-DvD and Blu-Ray disc players, you will notice that the average expected retail price is somewhere around 800$. This is just the player alone. Most are going to retail at 1000$, with the high-end Pioneer Elite going for 1800$, and the absolute cheapest announced next-gen players being HD-DvD models at 500$. (Which is a super-budget model, with lots of stuff turned off and removed supposedly. RCA and Toshiba announced this pricepoint) - No Blue-Ray player has yet to be announced at under 1000$ yet, and since they still haven't fully set every standard up - Pricepoints can vary and most likely will vary "higher" then lower. According to most industry experts, even the prices i listed will more then likely be 100-200$ higher in actual stores for the first year or so.

So you may very well have a situation where if the PS3 did come out at 800$, it would actually be the single cheapest Blu-Ray disc player on the market by about 200$. If they decided to take a loss(And Sony has stated they are more then willing to do so, since again: The #1 priority with the PS3 is market penetration so they can spread around the Blu-Ray format) and released at 600$. You are now 400$ cheaper then a standalone player.

This is all speculation of course, but when speculating it's best to include the Blu-Ray and Home Theatre factor. Another thing to keep in mind is that the 800$-900$ pricepoint from Merril Lynch only consider pure raw materials. NOT the cost of shipping thousands of machines overseas by boat, packaging, labour, and some other factors. All of which traditionally do get passed on to the consumer in some way. Even at 800$, Sony could be taking a loss.

[Griking]

I don't believe this kind of report is supposed to show what Sony will charge for the PS3, it's supposed to show what the estimated cost of the componants are and approxamately what it costs Sony to make a PS3. Like all other console makers, Sony will no doubt sell it for a lot less than it costs for them to make it and take a loss on each one sold. This report just gives an idea of how much of a loss they'll take. Merril Lynch is a finiancial company and calculating profits and losses it what they do. The fact that it's a gaming console is of no relevance to them, they just analyze the numbers.

Also, as far as the numbers not adding up, that list doesn't detail all of the parts needed to build a PS2. Where's the cost of the case itself, the power supply, etc...? They also listed but didn't associate a value of the detatchable hard drive which isn't free.

[slip81]

The PS3 will be over priced at around $400, though people will still buy it like cocaine, the system will be plagued with bugs, and will also be sold out from every retailer for the first 4-5 months.

Then after people stop killing each other to get their hands on the latest grossly overpriced machine, price will drop, production will increase and everyone will be able to get one.

Oh, and if you go to GameCrazy now and pre-order six, your future offspring will be able to attend Harvard with the profit you earned selling them on ebay.

I almost forgot, one more thing, Sony will hail it as the unhackable machine, but two hours after it's release some guy in Germany will have SNES9x running on it to play Super Metroid in 1080p.

[Ed Oscuro]

Them's fightin' words, slip, let's see if you're right though :)

[badinsults]

Anyone who believes that Sony will release the PS3 for $800 is an idiot. It will sell for $400 or less, and anything more than that would be financial suicide. Of course, that won't stop you pseudo-intellectuals from debating economics.

Such anger Evan, but why? Is there something wrong with simple debate and speculation? And why should your baseless $400 or less comment be held as anything more then speculation from a Pseudo-intellectual? Why the angry? Why the sarcasm?

Look there's nothing wrong with discussion and this debate (minus the Merill Lynch slandering) is a good and worthy discussion. I personally think an MSRP of $499 is more then reasonable. The name alone means they can charge a little more and with $499 being less then half the cost of Sony's first gen Blu-Ray players (approx. $1200) it's certainly not out of the question.

Everyone made a big deal about the Cost of the PSP, but the damned thing still sold and sold well.

Right now anything is possible.

My argument as stated in my post is perhaps baseless, but I am pretty certain that I have made my points in one of the other speculation threads on PS3 pricing. At this point, I think it is beating a dead horse. :deadhorse:

[Bronty-2]

Not aimed at you, but this really isn't a speculation thread on ps3 pricing, I don't know why people can't understand that.

This is a speculation thread on ps3 costing :D ;)

Nobody is saying for a minute that the ps3 will launch at 800 - never happen. That's just the initial estimated cost to produce.

[slip81]

Them's fightin' words, slip, let's see if you're right though :)

I'm sure you, and everyone else saw it, but just for anyone who didn't (since I don't like flame wars), it was meant mainly as a sarcastic post.

But I do believe that there is some truth in there, since my describe scenario is pretty much how the last four console launches have went down.

Honestly though, I'm thinking that if the PS3 really does all the things Sony wants it to do, and it is this super hub for all your media/entertainment needs, then $500 won't be too bad. But I think if it's gonna get into that price range, things like Wi-Fi and HDD's should be built in.

[cyberfluxor]

If it does turn out to be $900 or more I wouldn't be suprised, and they will sell, but mainly to wealthier people that spend the several grand on entertainment centers, sound systems, projectors, and amplifiers. Personally, I wouldn't spend that kind of money on it because there's many other things I can spend that large of money, like to build a really nice computer. So if they wish to target the mainstream of gamers, something will have to give and make it cheap. I'm sure they'll be able to do something if this is an accurate analysis.

[Joker T]

If it does turn out to be $900 or more I wouldn't be suprised, and they will sell, but mainly to wealthier people that spend the several grand on entertainment centers, sound systems, projectors, and amplifiers. Personally, I wouldn't spend that kind of money on it because there's many other things I can spend that large of money, like to build a really nice computer. So if they wish to target the mainstream of gamers, something will have to give and make it cheap. I'm sure they'll be able to do something if this is an accurate analysis.

Agreed...If the PS3 really is as expensive as we have been hearing it could go the way of the "PSX"

For those who didn't know about the PSX
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/458/458369p1.html?fromint=1+

[vincewy]

If it does turn out to be $900 or more I wouldn't be suprised, and they will sell, but mainly to wealthier people that spend the several grand on entertainment centers, sound systems, projectors, and amplifiers. Personally, I wouldn't spend that kind of money on it because there's many other things I can spend that large of money, like to build a really nice computer. So if they wish to target the mainstream of gamers, something will have to give and make it cheap. I'm sure they'll be able to do something if this is an accurate analysis.

Seeing how much people are willing to pay for brand new console right after launch during holiday period (XB 360), Sony should sell PS3 at cost, and why not? It'll curb the demand and minimize people trying to resell them on eBay, especially if Sony can't produce enough to meet demand before Xmas. It's also a good way to gauge the market, if units keep moving off the shelf at that price point, it should be retained until stores are backed up with systems.

[Mattiekrome]

If you do the math, those numbers actually add up to $800.

LOL man that killed me LOL *dies*

[Diatribal Deity]

For all of you poking fun at Merrill Lynch, a friend of my family's works there and makes an annual salary over $500,000 (+bonus) = >$1,000,000. He's also only in his early thirties. Finance degree + MBA = $$$.

[hezeuschrist]

For all of you poking fun at Merrill Lynch, a friend of my family's works there and makes an annual salary over $500,000 (+bonus) = >$1,000,000. He's also only in his early thirties. Finance degree + MBA = $$$.

Amazing. Really, thats fascinating. Thanks for contributing nothing to the topic at hand.

Speculation on cost to produce aside (those numbers could rapidly change from now until they actually begin production), I still firmly believe Sony will launch at $500.

They've done all this talk about how the PS3 is the greatest things since blowjobs, how you'd be willing to bang AIDS infested man-whores just to afford one on top of the 12 jobs you work 30 hours overtime at every day. They spout all this shit for one reason:

When the console launches for $500 or less, the general public won't crucify them for it. That is, if it does indeed launch under $500.

[Diatribal Deity]

For all of you poking fun at Merrill Lynch, a friend of my family's works there and makes an annual salary over $500,000 (+bonus) = >$1,000,000. He's also only in his early thirties. Finance degree + MBA = $$$.

Amazing. Really, thats fascinating. Thanks for contributing nothing to the topic at hand.

Speculation on cost to produce aside (those numbers could rapidly change from now until they actually begin production), I still firmly believe Sony will launch at $500.

They've done all this talk about how the PS3 is the greatest things since blowjobs, how you'd be willing to bang AIDS infested man-whores just to afford one on top of the 12 jobs you work 30 hours overtime at every day. They spout all this shit for one reason:

When the console launches for $500 or less, the general public won't crucify them for it. That is, if it does indeed launch under $500.

I was merely hoping most people here would read between the lines and understand that Merrill Lynch is THE AUTHORITY on retail related companies. Their market value is $70 billion vs. Sony's shrinking mid $30 billion. The fact that they are able to pay their employees that amount of money says alot about their reputation and industry status. To question their analysis is ridiculous if it came from a legitimate source.

As this article partially concerns the credibility of the company (as many criticized the number analysis) I was merely presenting a figure that hopefully would lead some to investigate the power and viability of their analysis. If it went above your head, I apologize.

Next time I will try to resort to more inflammatory and uninformed remarks like yours.

[Poofta!]

Not aimed at you, but this really isn't a speculation thread on ps3 pricing, I don't know why people can't understand that.

This is a speculation thread on ps3 costing :D ;)

Nobody is saying for a minute that the ps3 will launch at 800 - never happen. That's just the initial estimated cost to produce.



yeah seriously, im extremely surprised people didnt pick up on this. that analysis is pretty much spot on, for the COST of the console. the extra 100 dollars is probably distribution. but again, whether sony decides to sell at this price point or not remains to be seen. microsoft sells it's consoles well below cost, losing couple hundred dollars on the hardware.

as the gaming industry has taught us, it is not and never was about profiting off the hardware. its all about the software. software is where true profit comes from (and for companies that do not produce their own, the profit comes from licensing fees). therefor the hardware is often sold well below cost, and at a loss, in hope of good market penetration that will lead to massive profit on the software front.

i personally do not see the ps3 SELLING for over 500. we'll see =] either way i dont see myself paying over 250 for ANY console (which is why i dont have a 360 yet, and have never bought a console on release date).

[hezeuschrist]

For all of you poking fun at Merrill Lynch, a friend of my family's works there and makes an annual salary over $500,000 (+bonus) = >$1,000,000. He's also only in his early thirties. Finance degree + MBA = $$$.

Amazing. Really, thats fascinating. Thanks for contributing nothing to the topic at hand.

Speculation on cost to produce aside (those numbers could rapidly change from now until they actually begin production), I still firmly believe Sony will launch at $500.

They've done all this talk about how the PS3 is the greatest things since blowjobs, how you'd be willing to bang AIDS infested man-whores just to afford one on top of the 12 jobs you work 30 hours overtime at every day. They spout all this shit for one reason:

When the console launches for $500 or less, the general public won't crucify them for it. That is, if it does indeed launch under $500.

I was merely hoping most people here would read between the lines and understand that Merrill Lynch is THE AUTHORITY on retail related companies. Their market value is $70 billion vs. Sony's shrinking mid $30 billion. The fact that they are able to pay their employees that amount of money says alot about their reputation and industry status. To question their analysis is ridiculous if it came from a legitimate source.

As this article partially concerns the credibility of the company (as many criticized the number analysis) I was merely presenting a figure that hopefully would lead some to investigate the power and viability of their analysis. If it went above your head, I apologize.

Next time I will try to resort to more inflammatory and uninformed remarks like yours.

Sorry, but unless ML has people that work for both them and Sony, and are assigned to the PS3 project, they know just about as much about what's actually going to be in the unit as the general public.

It's an educated guess on what's going to be in there, and what it might cost. Sony clearly isn't ever going to produce a machine that would sell for 1/2 of cost, and unless they want to price themselves out of the race entirely, they aren't going to build that system ML has spec'd out.

And really, your "Highly paid executives = super smart people" analysis is brilliant. Tell the people who worked for Enron that. The credibility of Merryl Lynch has nothing to do with anything here, they made a GUESS about what it'd cost given what Sony has said to date, which is not much, and what they have said, as always, is complete doublespeak. Based on that analysis, we can all be fairly certain that the machine ML just presented in this analysis is not the machine that will hit store shelves, and if it is, it's going to be farther off than expected to delay costs.

[njiska]

New News. Sony admits that the PS3 may be delayed after all.

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2352&Itemid=2

[Damion]

you know, As much as I hate others for doing it (like with the 360) I'm thinking I should jump on the bandwagon of preordering a crap load of PS3's and reselling them for a years salary on ebay.

Hmmmm.....

/sarcasm

[Poofta!]

And really, your "Highly paid executives = super smart people" analysis is brilliant. Tell the people who worked for Enron that.

actually that argument IS good. and the guys at enron WERE brilliant. thats how they managed to extort so much money. the reason it all went down the shitter is some key people got greedy/arrogant. research = good. ML isnt far off.

[Griking]

New News. Sony admits that the PS3 may be delayed after all.

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2352&Itemid=2

Notice that they quote Merrill Lynch in that story as well.

[vincewy]

New News. Sony admits that the PS3 may be delayed after all.

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2352&Itemid=2

Are we all surprised? Hardly, judging by how MS had tough time supplying XB 360 to meet demand, we all know this is coming.

[hezeuschrist]

And really, your "Highly paid executives = super smart people" analysis is brilliant. Tell the people who worked for Enron that.

actually that argument IS good. and the guys at enron WERE brilliant. thats how they managed to extort so much money. the reason it all went down the shitter is some key people got greedy/arrogant. research = good. ML isnt far off.

Those guys weren't brilliant, they just had the right access to the right people and then fucked it up and ruined a lot of lives because they're crooks. Now they take it up the ass from some 400lb black guy named Nancy. Education != Intelligence.

And yes, research is fine, but you have to realize that what ML is going on is nothing more than whats available to the public. They're certainly able to price the pieces far more accurately than you or I, but regardless of the source it's still all speculation, unless it's coming straight from Sony.

[Buyatari]

If you don't consider Merrill-Lynch reliable, you're a fool.

I used to work there. I don't trust anything they say.

[Bronty-2]

Interesting. I used to work at ernst & young and I have a similar distrust of the motives within organizations like that... everyone involved is just trying to make money and/or make partner so you can't really trust anything the organization makes public because it's all spin IMO. But I do trust their ability to do these kinds of analyses. Certainly at e&y a ton of work went into vetting anything like this... was that not the case at ML?

[Poofta!]

And really, your "Highly paid executives = super smart people" analysis is brilliant. Tell the people who worked for Enron that.

actually that argument IS good. and the guys at enron WERE brilliant. thats how they managed to extort so much money. the reason it all went down the shitter is some key people got greedy/arrogant. research = good. ML isnt far off.

Those guys weren't brilliant, they just had the right access to the right people and then fucked it up and ruined a lot of lives because they're crooks. Now they take it up the ass from some 400lb black guy named Nancy. Education != Intelligence.

And yes, research is fine, but you have to realize that what ML is going on is nothing more than whats available to the public. They're certainly able to price the pieces far more accurately than you or I, but regardless of the source it's still all speculation, unless it's coming straight from Sony.


education does equal intelligence, thats why everyone involved in enron had an MBA from top schools in the world. sure they cheated people out of money, but that doesnt make them stupid. you should watch the documentary "Enron: The smartest guys in the room"

[Buyatari]

education does equal intelligence, thats why everyone involved in enron had an MBA from top schools in the world. sure they cheated people out of money, but that doesnt make them stupid. you should watch the documentary "Enron: The smartest guys in the room"

ehh they are not stupid. I don't trust a word they say. But they aren't stupid. Plus I am accusing them of being ignorant which is different than being stupid.

When these guys tell me something I say its guilty until proven innocent. PROVE IT then I'll believe it.

[Buyatari]

But I do trust their ability to do these kinds of analyses. Certainly at e&y a ton of work went into vetting anything like this... was that not the case at ML?

I only trust them when it doesn't involve money.

[Sothy]

hezeuschrist said:
Diatribal Deity said:
For all of you poking fun at ,Merrill Lynch a friend of my family's works there and makes an annual salary over $500,000 (+bonus) = >$1,000,000. He's also only in his early thirties. Finance degree + MBA = $$$.


Amazing. Really, thats fascinating. Thanks for contributing nothing to the topic at hand.

Speculation on cost to produce aside (those numbers could rapidly change from now until they actually begin production), I still firmly believe Sony will launch at $500.

They've done all this talk about how the PS3 is the greatest things since blowjobs, how you'd be willing to bang AIDS infested man-whores just to afford one on top of the 12 jobs you work 30 hours overtime at every day. They spout all this shit for one reason:

When the console launches for $500 or less, the general public won't crucify them for it. That is, if it does indeed launch under $500.


I was merely hoping most people here would read between the lines and understand that Merrill Lynch is THE AUTHORITY on retail related companies. Their market value is $70 billion vs. Sony's shrinking mid $30 billion. The fact that they are able to pay their employees that amount of money says alot about their reputation and industry status. To question their analysis is ridiculous if it came from a legitimate source.

As this article partially concerns the credibility of the company (as many criticized the number analysis) I was merely presenting a figure that hopefully would lead some to investigate the power and viability of their analysis. If it went above your head, I apologize.

Next time I will try to resort to more inflammatory and uninformed remarks like yours.

FVCK Merrill Lynch