Reply
Wastelander
Registered: 10/18/2011
Offline
758 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 22, 2012

Let's call it a draw.  What do you guys think of a superbowl commercial and how would you do it?  please post in " wouldn't it be cool " post ( I think?)

Message 21 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 04/09/2010
Offline
2090 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 22, 2012

Logical_Dolphin wrote:

This has been the problem, you keep reading into this so called "subtext" I have apparently been saying, which is apparently is only what you are reading into what I am saying, as opposed to what I actually said. You have been absolutely terrible at this in the past, and you should only take what I said at face value. So if you see a "slant" in my posts, it is likely only your imagination.

As far as not agreeing with the prices you stated in post 7: "also these prices were taken out of some guys bum" That doesn't sound like you agree with the estimates to me. That's OK, but don't state that you never did.

As far as the tone of my statement, I am only talking about the cost of the parts in the Vita nothing else. I find this notible because Sony has usually sold systems that sold for LESS than the cost of the parts. Once again there are other costs involved including R&D and marketing, but that would be difficult to monitize without getting the numbers directly from Sony. So there isn't really anything else to discuss here.

After UBM's findings it would be hard to argue that Sony isn't making a profit on the Vita purely on the cost of the parts, factoring in everything else Sony has to do to launch and developing a product, it would take longer for the Vita to reach overall profitability, but it will take less time than it did with the PS3.

You might think I picked you out in this thread but you were the only one to challenge the validity of UMB's findings, and then support it with outdated links.

Even one of your own sources when talking about the Vita, they were only talking about the parts:

"Kazuharu Miura, SMBC Nikko Securities analyst has made the predictionthat Sony would be losing 5000 yen ($60) for each PlayStation Vita device sold in the market, followed with a decrease to 2500 yen ($30) before the end of the fiscal year in 2013. 

This is not the first time Sony will be making a loss on each of their system sold. In 2006, when the PlayStation 3 was unveiled, the Japanese corporation are reported to lose as high as $400 per console shipped. However, the company has now making a profit on each of their console after the price of their components on the PS3 has been decreased, citing a few reports in 2010."

So what I get from that is that he made an educated guess that Sony would be losing money on each Vita sold, which is a reasonable prediction at the time since very little was known about the hardware itself. Now after UBM has done a teardown analysis on the finalized hardware, that is no longer seems to be the case.

The second paragraph is relating the Vita to the loss Sony was making producing the PS3, and it specifically stated they were making a profit because the price of the components have decreased. So this article is clearly only talking about parts only.

I think you are getting hung up on the term "profit", I am only talking parts and not how long it will take the Vita to become profitable to Sony.

And stating "again do you read?" (in post 13) I find very insulting, I believe most people would. You shouldn't have to resort to that to make your point.

Also stating "I see no prices do you?" wreaks of sarcasm IMO, if you had taken time to look over the whole page at UBM, you would have noticed that you would have to pay to get the full report.

So let me summarize again MY point again (without "subtext" this time): Apparently the cost of the parts to make the Vita is less than what they are selling it for, because of this I believe this can allow Sony some room to lower the price (should that need arise) and not take a loss on the manufacturing cost per unit.

the subtext in my post was I do not think that where the prices came from were legit not that the prices were not legit.

I asked because I had to say the same thing more then once. so it is seeming like you are not reading what I said. is there a nicer way to say that?

again I see no prices on site nope. (I see no side pay things either but I'm taking your word for it. since I have ad block on all I have on the sides is will not load crap.)

also parts wise sony has always made a profit. where sony does not make a profit is R&D and such.

the fact is every one has a subtext in one way or another. it stems from how one says things or how one words things.

also that was showing to you that not just sony said that they were selling ps vita's at a loss. I know what it says.

____________________________________________________________
Want a option to buy avatar's on the ps vita's psn store. Then vote on the link by copying it to your web browser.

http://share.blog.us.playstation.com/ideas/2012/07/21/option-to-buy-avatars-on-my-playstation-vita/
Message 22 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 04/09/2010
Offline
2090 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 22, 2012

submission44 wrote:

Let's call it a draw.  What do you guys think of a superbowl commercial and how would you do it?  please post in " wouldn't it be cool " post ( I think?)

already did.

____________________________________________________________
Want a option to buy avatar's on the ps vita's psn store. Then vote on the link by copying it to your web browser.

http://share.blog.us.playstation.com/ideas/2012/07/21/option-to-buy-avatars-on-my-playstation-vita/
Message 23 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 01/14/2012
Offline
5 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 22, 2012

Ok... Logical_Dolphin... I don't see your full point on the price.

If you are actually logical you should know this;

You can't compare two things and battle their differences.

I'm sure you have been taught that with people... But you have to understand it works the same way with items as well. For an example; the 3ds is the 3ds yet the PSVita is the PSVita. Yeah sure the general price on the 3ds is $160.00 but that is the 3ds. We are looking at the last of a dieing breed... Portable gaming systems. In my most personal and most unhumble opinion I believe that there is no problem with the price and you get what you pay for! I was in Japan for Christmas and tried my cousins PSVita.... Trust me they made it perfect and it lives up to expectations.

Did you also know that Sony cut the price before it came out?... Yep, this was originally going to be a $350 - $400 system.... I'd love to hear what you'd have to say about it if it were going to be that price range.

Overall... Look and the system for itself and don't compare it to something that may be half the price yet is not the same company and does not include the newest of features.

Sorry, just read your actual article and is totally different than above.

1. That is inaccurate information... Sony is making $30 - $40 every unit.

2. And they originally planned to have the system be even more expensive than it is!

3. Who cares? They have to make money some way!

Message 24 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PIayStation MVP
Registered: 07/14/2000
Offline
12905 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 22, 2012

Incagneto wrote:

Logical_Dolphin wrote:

This has been the problem, you keep reading into this so called "subtext" I have apparently been saying, which is apparently is only what you are reading into what I am saying, as opposed to what I actually said. You have been absolutely terrible at this in the past, and you should only take what I said at face value. So if you see a "slant" in my posts, it is likely only your imagination.

As far as not agreeing with the prices you stated in post 7: "also these prices were taken out of some guys bum" That doesn't sound like you agree with the estimates to me. That's OK, but don't state that you never did.

As far as the tone of my statement, I am only talking about the cost of the parts in the Vita nothing else. I find this notible because Sony has usually sold systems that sold for LESS than the cost of the parts. Once again there are other costs involved including R&D and marketing, but that would be difficult to monitize without getting the numbers directly from Sony. So there isn't really anything else to discuss here.

After UBM's findings it would be hard to argue that Sony isn't making a profit on the Vita purely on the cost of the parts, factoring in everything else Sony has to do to launch and developing a product, it would take longer for the Vita to reach overall profitability, but it will take less time than it did with the PS3.

You might think I picked you out in this thread but you were the only one to challenge the validity of UMB's findings, and then support it with outdated links.

Even one of your own sources when talking about the Vita, they were only talking about the parts:

"Kazuharu Miura, SMBC Nikko Securities analyst has made the predictionthat Sony would be losing 5000 yen ($60) for each PlayStation Vita device sold in the market, followed with a decrease to 2500 yen ($30) before the end of the fiscal year in 2013. 

This is not the first time Sony will be making a loss on each of their system sold. In 2006, when the PlayStation 3 was unveiled, the Japanese corporation are reported to lose as high as $400 per console shipped. However, the company has now making a profit on each of their console after the price of their components on the PS3 has been decreased, citing a few reports in 2010."

So what I get from that is that he made an educated guess that Sony would be losing money on each Vita sold, which is a reasonable prediction at the time since very little was known about the hardware itself. Now after UBM has done a teardown analysis on the finalized hardware, that is no longer seems to be the case.

The second paragraph is relating the Vita to the loss Sony was making producing the PS3, and it specifically stated they were making a profit because the price of the components have decreased. So this article is clearly only talking about parts only.

I think you are getting hung up on the term "profit", I am only talking parts and not how long it will take the Vita to become profitable to Sony.

And stating "again do you read?" (in post 13) I find very insulting, I believe most people would. You shouldn't have to resort to that to make your point.

Also stating "I see no prices do you?" wreaks of sarcasm IMO, if you had taken time to look over the whole page at UBM, you would have noticed that you would have to pay to get the full report.

So let me summarize again MY point again (without "subtext" this time): Apparently the cost of the parts to make the Vita is less than what they are selling it for, because of this I believe this can allow Sony some room to lower the price (should that need arise) and not take a loss on the manufacturing cost per unit.

the subtext in my post was I do not think that where the prices came from were legit not that the prices were not legit.

I asked because I had to say the same thing more then once. so it is seeming like you are not reading what I said. is there a nicer way to say that?

again I see no prices on site nope. (I see no side pay things either but I'm taking your word for it. since I have ad block on all I have on the sides is will not load crap.)

also parts wise sony has always made a profit. where sony does not make a profit is R&D and such.

the fact is every one has a subtext in one way or another. it stems from how one says things or how one words things.

also that was showing to you that not just sony said that they were selling ps vita's at a loss. I know what it says.

Yes there is a nicer way. Perhaps something like "Maybe you missed this, but.." or something like that, a response more diplomatic in nature.

I also feel you consistently ignore what I am writing too, which I do agree does make things frustrating.

I don't understand you point there, with the PS3 that certainly wasn't true since it was sold for less that the cost of the parts back in 2006. I have a chart illustrating this if you like to see it (from a teardown analysis from iSupply)

With me you keep getting the subtext wrong, like when you were sure when I was blindly going along with what the media sites were saying about the Vita's sales, then you finally changed your mind, when I pointed out points you thought I said, but didn't. If you think I am saying something other than face value, just ask, instead you tend to argue about something you "read into" I stated.

I realize that. But since those statements were made prior to the Vita's release, it is just speculation and not based on any real analysis with the actual components that make up the Vita. That is the problem.

Message 25 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PIayStation MVP
Registered: 07/14/2000
Offline
12905 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 22, 2012

NymfBeam wrote:

Ok... Logical_Dolphin... I don't see your full point on the price.

If you are actually logical you should know this;

You can't compare two things and battle their differences.

I'm sure you have been taught that with people... But you have to understand it works the same way with items as well. For an example; the 3ds is the 3ds yet the PSVita is the PSVita. Yeah sure the general price on the 3ds is $160.00 but that is the 3ds. We are looking at the last of a dieing breed... Portable gaming systems. In my most personal and most unhumble opinion I believe that there is no problem with the price and you get what you pay for! I was in Japan for Christmas and tried my cousins PSVita.... Trust me they made it perfect and it lives up to expectations.

Did you also know that Sony cut the price before it came out?... Yep, this was originally going to be a $350 - $400 system.... I'd love to hear what you'd have to say about it if it were going to be that price range.

Overall... Look and the system for itself and don't compare it to something that may be half the price yet is not the same company and does not include the newest of features.

Sorry, just read your actual article and is totally different than above.

1. That is inaccurate information... Sony is making $30 - $40 every unit.

2. And they originally planned to have the system be even more expensive than it is!

3. Who cares? They have to make money some way!

When Sony first announced the price point of the Vita (at E3 2011), they officially announced the $250/$300 price points. Prior to that no official price points were announced. I have heard rumors of higher price points (prior to E3 2011), but nothing official from Sony...

Message 26 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 08/04/2009
Offline
7106 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 23, 2012

Incagneto wrote:

oh btw if you read my links at all Kaz Hirai says that they are selling the ps vita at a loss not some random joe.   so again the pricing is missing some figures.

"Kaz Hirai said that the company expects to begin making a profit on their new console within three years." that does not sound like a profit to me. hes a head of sony.

First, I'm curious where that quote came from since it wasn't in your linked articles.  Second, I just thought it was interesting that it is slighlty different from what you linked, which are basically the same as each other.  The last one says, "Sony’s Kaz Hirai stated that Sony aims to make a profit on the PlayStation Vita in three years."  "Aim" is pretty different from "expect," even though it's the same end in mind.  Without a direct quote from Kaz, it's hard to say exactly what he meant. 

In any case, it doesn't necessarily mean they will sell it at a loss; they could be selling it for profit and the statement would still make sense.  This is likely not the case, but it doesn't actually confirm anything; it just kind of leans in the direction of it being sold at a loss.

Message 27 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 04/09/2010
Offline
2090 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 23, 2012

http://andriasang.com/comw7e/vita_loss/

going to the sources of articles help alot. also he is well spoken in english so there is no translation problems.

JERM7 wrote:

Incagneto wrote:

oh btw if you read my links at all Kaz Hirai says that they are selling the ps vita at a loss not some random joe.   so again the pricing is missing some figures.

"Kaz Hirai said that the company expects to begin making a profit on their new console within three years." that does not sound like a profit to me. hes a head of sony.

First, I'm curious where that quote came from since it wasn't in your linked articles.  Second, I just thought it was interesting that it is slighlty different from what you linked, which are basically the same as each other.  The last one says, "Sony’s Kaz Hirai stated that Sony aims to make a profit on the PlayStation Vita in three years."  "Aim" is pretty different from "expect," even though it's the same end in mind.  Without a direct quote from Kaz, it's hard to say exactly what he meant. 

In any case, it doesn't necessarily mean they will sell it at a loss; they could be selling it for profit and the statement would still make sense.  This is likely not the case, but it doesn't actually confirm anything; it just kind of leans in the direction of it being sold at a loss.

____________________________________________________________
Want a option to buy avatar's on the ps vita's psn store. Then vote on the link by copying it to your web browser.

http://share.blog.us.playstation.com/ideas/2012/07/21/option-to-buy-avatars-on-my-playstation-vita/
Message 28 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 02/08/2008
Offline
498 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 23, 2012

Anyone saying the Vita costs $160 to make and should be dropped in price, clearly has issues with comprehension...

The COMPONENTS COST $160..... not to mention the prices are more then likely off (the 3DS was supposedly around $100 worth of parts)

This takes nothing else into consideration, you have a hunk of plastic on your desk and a bunch of components scattered around...

Companies need to pay into research and development, not to mention manufacturing, shipping costs, marketing costs, packaging etc to get to a final price.

People pay $600 for an iPad without batting an eyelid, and guess what? The parts used in the Vita are almost 2x the current tech inside the iPad, time to stop using a number as the basis of item's final value people!

Think about it for a bit, you would probibly die if you realised that the $1,000,000 supercars are made out of $5000.00 worth of metal, it is all down to how it is made and the research and technology used behind it.

Ask people that make master moulds for a living, those blanks can cost well over two hundred thousand dollars to setup and make.

Before you jump to conclusions on ANY product parts breakdown, you have to consider everything involved getting those bare parts and materials formed and assembled into the final product.

I am not just defending the price of the Vita but the price of anything else that has ever been given grief over one of these ridiculous reports, yes the raw materials cost that much (maybe depending on who they got their prices from) but do not at any time relate that to the final product's actual assembled cost to the company.

Sony had also publically stated that they wouldn't even see a profit for 3 years on the Vita at it's current price point, so stop being so ignorant and look into the processes needed to go from start to end instead of ranting about a trivial component price!

Message 29 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 08/04/2009
Offline
7106 posts
 

Re: Report: PlayStation Vita Components Cost $160

Jan 23, 2012

I wasn't suggesting any translation problem, just that no one has a direct quote from him, and therefore there is a small discrepancy between the different sources.

Incagneto wrote:

http://andriasang.com/comw7e/vita_loss/

going to the sources of articles help alot. also he is well spoken in english so there is no translation problems.

Message 30 of 41 (296 Views)
Reply
0 Likes