I guess you are also not considering that this hypotetic scenario the publisher won't be able to sell without that price difference. Because they need authorization from the platform holder for all games launched and they would receive the same profit per HW so it isn't a draconian measure.

I don't know if most people would know how many games they will buy on a gen, but they will know that one HW is more expensive with cheaper games than the other.

The idea would be that regular folk would end up paying about the same amount he does today, difference being between paying upfront or more down payments (this would also diminish a little the pressure of the price drop on the SW few weeks after release).

This will benefit the hardcore considerably more than it would benefit the casuals. That's a terrible business model for a company looking to move 100 million units over the lifetime of the device. It's basically the opposite of what we've been hearing whispers about, in that MS is thinking about having you pay affordable monthly fee's for the hardware as long as you're subbed to their online services. If you were to put a program like that up against what you described, the monthly hardware model is going to see much greater success in terms of moving hardware. Paying for things up front is not the future, let alone the present, it's the past.

I'd prefer a $200 console with $60 games. Basically the Switch next year or so, is where the sweet spot is going to be. Hardware is not terribly exciting for most people. Games ARE exciting. Gaming is about games.

So you're suggesting them sell a console that is expensive not because of its hardware but because of deferred licensing? So not only would fewer people buy the console but the manufacturer will also get zero from game sales? How the fuck do you think that business plan will work? Literally no one would win in this scenario.

Publisher's answer: Free console handouts, 60$ monthly subscription fee, with lootboxes, microtransactions and DLC on top of that.

There is a big difference between limiting the number of games a publisher could put from what is being proposed, that they get the same profit on the game but selling at a lower tag.

I didn't propose it, but it is also possible to have the same 600 USD paid monthly for those who want. That isn't the most critical part of the idea.

But yes the biggest benefit would come to people that buy the games new and perhaps 2 years after launch (so new games cheaper and the console already discounted). People that buy very few games certainly would perceive as it being less interesting idea.

Yes the idea is that the break point is on the "average costumer". And yes for some people it is easier to justify the 20 for each purchase than the 200 for one purchase, and that is the part that is always strange to me. For me it's quite easier to justify a 400-1000 HW purchase that I'll have and use for 5-10 years than it's to justify 60 for each game that I'll play for a couple dozen hours. That is even the reason why I buy very few games new on launch, most I'll buy when they are sub 10 couple years later.

Fewer people getting the console is a projection you make, there is no assurance (but yes we could say it is a bigger risk) less people would buy it, it all depends on how you explain the concept to the customer to make he see that they are not paying more for less, they are paying it differently. One way to sweeten the pill was already gave, that you have monthly payment together with the sub. Let's say you make a contract for PS+ and a PS5 for 5 year, so you pay 10 per month on the HW plus 5 for the PS+ so a 15 bucks on the HW and a cheaper game to purchase (15 is close to what stadia is charging without you having the HW).

The consumer is too stupid to do math and those who will do the math are the ones the manufacturer will lose a shit ton of money on. This is a massive lose situation for the manufacturer. And if the manufacturer loses, everyone who bought the console will lose because of held back investment. To make this a win for the manufacturer you'd have to pay a lot more up front which makes everything even worse. Lowing the general price of games is also a terrible idea because it gives publishers room to increase the price again.

It's just overall really really terrible. Stores make their money off of game sales and there is nothing wrong with that.

I wouldn't be surprised to see console prices come down over the next decade (though this doesn't look likely for the start of next gen). Everyone is after the recurring revenue of monthly subscriptions. If MS decides that they need to compete with Stadia's upfront cost of $0-$130, they well could start selling an MS box for $99, that only works with their subscription services. Sony could well do the same.

Don't think the console maker would lose money (first because they wouldn't be selling the console at a loss at any point, and second because they would be making the average royalties profit on the HW already), but yes it probably would be met with a lot of struggle.

I haven't said or implied that making money of game sales is bad. What I said is that this could reduce second hand and price dropping.

I'm not going to go into why setting the standard software price at $40 is like...impossible but I would like to keep things as is right now. 399/60.