Which combination of console price and gaming price would you prefer? | |||
| 399 USD console; 60 USD game | 11 | 47.83% | |
| 599 USD console; 40 USD game | 12 | 52.17% | |
| Total: | 23 | ||
Games come down in price anyway. I'd rather pay less for the console, and then wait for games to be cheap.
| couchmonkey said: Do we have a source for console makers getting $20/game? I find it hard to believe. |
It's 30% for Digital Games ($18). 30% is the standard rate across most stores, Google Play, Apple, Steam etc.
The platform holder gets a lower cut from Physical games around $12, as retailers need to take a cut. Though not every source says the same thing, and certain games may cut deals with the platform holder. I.E Platform holder taking less of a cut for Exclusive content, or early dlc on that platform.
^ This image includes marketing, which is questionable as that's paid for beforehand, really that should probably just be added to the Publisher's cut.
So if the Platform Holder waived their cut and no other changes were made you'd get this price instead of $60:
Digital - $42
Physical - $48
DonFerrari said:
Complexity and size of the games make it basically impossible to be full bug free. Almost all games have patch nowadays. But it is very pug and play still. It is automatic patching. |
Yes, currently technology is much more complex. Every piece of software either on your PC, iPhone, Console or even web sites, require day 1, day 2 and day 3 patches. It's quite impossible to release anything bug free, unless it's a very minimal product.
God bless You.
My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+
When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019
There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?
| BraLoD said: Games already drop into that price range decently fast (Nintendo being the exception). Unless that means games would fall to ~20 instead. I preffer the way it is, and I think it's better for them too. Having a lower enter price brings more people to their systems which brings more sales to the games there, increasing the enter price with raising the consoles price considerably would take away people from their platform. They would be profiting a lot with each console unit sold but be completely dependant on it. Consoles get a lot cheaper to make down the road and they end up profiting in both ways during the generation, more people into their console also means more services to be sold, aside of just games. (Like PS+) On our consumer side, it would take too much of an investment to even get into it. At least here and Brazil you know the prices as already quite prohibitive, increasing that a lot means people stay longer on older gen, which also means they will be buying games cheaper by default too, not needing them to release for cheaper. |
Consoles should be even cheaper in my opinion, particularly now that console makers make money with subscriptions. The entry price for console gaming should as minimal as possible to bring as many people as possible to the party earlier.
God bless You.
My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+
When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019
There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?
| BraLoD said: Games already drop into that price range decently fast (Nintendo being the exception). Unless that means games would fall to ~20 instead. I preffer the way it is, and I think it's better for them too. Having a lower enter price brings more people to their systems which brings more sales to the games there, increasing the enter price with raising the consoles price considerably would take away people from their platform. They would be profiting a lot with each console unit sold but be completely dependant on it. Consoles get a lot cheaper to make down the road and they end up profiting in both ways during the generation, more people into their console also means more services to be sold, aside of just games. (Like PS+) On our consumer side, it would take too much of an investment to even get into it. At least here and Brazil you know the prices as already quite prohibitive, increasing that a lot means people stay longer on older gen, which also means they will be buying games cheaper by default too, not needing them to release for cheaper. |
Games would probably drop slower/less and second hand would be less interesting so pubs could benefit from it.
And well many games drop below 20 within 2 years (not even counting sport games).
I do understand that the higher tag on the console can make people frown and perhaps have lower sales from HW. But platform holder would dimish risk of loss since they are taking the profit at the sale of the HW. It is a different idea that I wanted to see people opinion, and seems like it is mostly against.
Well I know for Brazil it would totally sucks, but on the strategy of consoles Brazil isn't much regarded... well after Bolsonaro aproves the cut in taxes for electronics maybe this reality will change and we may buy cheap PS5 *.*
BraLoD said:
And that's what they mostly try to do. Sony usually take loses to bring PS as cheap as they possibly can. Even those $600 PS3 were making they lose money being sold at that price. |
Hey you can't agree with him after our bet over the 399 vs 499.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
This scenario is way too unrealistic to really vote one way or the other. If they get no royalties than, from the companies perspective, option 2 is the only viable option since you'd try to sell the system for $200 more. If royalties are taken, then option 1 is what will happen (assuming no competition which would affect the price in the real world). It's just outlandish.
From the consumer's perspective, I picked the second one but it wouldn't matter since companies dictate the price.
Visit my site for more
Known as Smashchu in a former life
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
