RolStoppable said:
What we shouldn't forget is that there were also quite a few discussions regarding PSV costs. Back then people were also suggesting that it's sold at a profit or at worst at a tiny loss. Plus apparently costs would come down fast, because the system is using standard cell phone parts or something like that. Yet here we are 1.5 years later and Sony still refuses to announce a long overdue price cut in America and Europe to spur hardware sales.
People repeatedly underestimate the costs of video game systems, so why should the PS4 be any different? The system is sold at a loss, no ifs and buts. Just like the PSV had proprietary memory cards as a sign that Sony is trying to offset losses on the hardware itself, so does the PS4 have paid online multiplayer. Instead of guessing the bills of materials, people should look at what a company does. If the PS4 was selling at a profit, then why would Sony give up a major selling like free online multiplayer? |
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. PSV was sold at a loss day 1, Sony said that officially. 1.5 year later Sony isn't cutting the price in the West not because it can't, but because it would be stupid - it has nothing to do with the current manufacturing costs. They cut the price in Japan cause there was a great 2 month window packed with games and it allowed them to sell quite a lot of consoles. There is no such offence of numerous great games released in a short period of time in the West that could help them take advantage of the price cut. Cutting the price now would be throwing money into mud, cause it would cause them to lose significant money and wouldn't really help sales - the same is the case with Wii U. You need software to carry the wave of a pricecut. I guess we can expect a Vita pricecut when KZ:M and Tearaway are released, cause that would be the best time in the foreseeable future, especially if by that time we get some announcements about the games released in the Christmas period (hopefully a new AC and a Sony Bend game).
Sony would be braindead if they didn't introduce mandatory PS+. The added profit easily outweights the profit they would get from people buying the console because MP is free. Especially in a world where MS policy is so ridiculous that nobody really cares about the paid online on PS4. PS+ is awesome in comparison to Live (which is a success) and is totally worth the price, so Sony is still better than MS was with X360, while MS made many big steps the wrong way as is so much worse than in the past.
So both these decisions are business ABC and don't indicate what you are implying.
Personally I don't care if PS4 is sold at a small profit or at a small loss. Even if it's sold at a loss, it can't be huge and PS4 will be profitable for Sony starting with year 1, not year 3-4 like it was with the PS3 (I'm not including R&D costs, though these should also be lower than PS3 R&D costs - no BR or Cell this time).
Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!
My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/
My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.
