Quantcast
Should consoles cost $500+ ?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Should consoles cost $500+ ?

Snoopy said:
It depends. You all have to remember when making a big purchase, you have to break it down on how long it will last. Thats why I didn't mind buying a 4k tv this weekend. It will last me a long time (around 10 years) and it will be used daily. The t.v. cost me around $800 dollars, so that is about $80 a year. Completely worth it. If the next xbox lasts me about 7 years and costs me $500 dollars, I will gladly drop money for it. Break it down people.

I saw a pretty good 4k TV but I keep hearing about how there's better ones on the way. I know that's how technology works . There's always something better just around the corner but, at least when it comes to TVs , I can wait. I have no such willpower when it comes to consoles!



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Around the Network

Why would someone even get a console that expensive? Smarter to invest in a PC(unless you live with a family and just want a console for the convenience).



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

No.



I personally think $500 consoles and $250 Handhelds are a waste of money.

But in terms of building hype, I think the Neo and Scorpio are worth it for Sony and MS in the long run. The home console industry is in need of another reinvigoration. Neo and Scorpio will push sales of SW on the cheaper SKUs when people see how great games look on the Neo and Scorpio. The reason being of course is because 60m people already own those consoles that play the same games, they just won't look as good.



I enjoyed gaming as a kid, even though I could only afford about two games a year back then. I don't know. I just feel like gaming is a kid's hobby that kids can't really afford anymore. We took it from them because gaming grew when we grew.

It's kind of like comic books. They were always kind of mature but still not threatening. The fans got older and so the stories got darker. Kids can enjoy it but it's not really for them anymore.

I'm grown, I can afford it, and appreciate the presentation these days but maybe console gaming (despite people saying they're weak) is a little too advanced these days. Just thinking out loud.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Around the Network
d21lewis said:
I enjoyed gaming as a kid, even though I could only afford about two games a year back then. I don't know. I just feel like gaming is a kid's hobby that kids can't really afford anymore. We took it from them because gaming grew when we grew.

It's kind of like comic books. They were always kind of mature but still not threatening. The fans got older and so the stories got darker. Kids can enjoy it but it's not really for them anymore.

I'm grown, I can afford it, and appreciate the presentation these days but maybe console gaming (despite people saying they're weak) is a little too advanced these days. Just thinking out loud.

Too bad your opinion is invalid for me. I was making about 50,000 dollars a year in stocks when I was a kid. Now, I am a millionaire. Life is so easy when you're as cool as me.



Snoopy said:
d21lewis said:
I enjoyed gaming as a kid, even though I could only afford about two games a year back then. I don't know. I just feel like gaming is a kid's hobby that kids can't really afford anymore. We took it from them because gaming grew when we grew.

It's kind of like comic books. They were always kind of mature but still not threatening. The fans got older and so the stories got darker. Kids can enjoy it but it's not really for them anymore.

I'm grown, I can afford it, and appreciate the presentation these days but maybe console gaming (despite people saying they're weak) is a little too advanced these days. Just thinking out loud.

Too bad your opinion is invalid for me. I was making about 50,000 dollars a year in stocks when I was a kid. Now, I am a millionaire. Life is so easy when you're as cool as me.

..... Can you loan me five bucks until payday? I swear I won't spend it on beer.

😸



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

I don't mind. If the hardware is that good i will pay for it, but that's me and i get it that not all gamers are like me and probably do it on a budget. That's why different skus were invented. Give me a more powerful console with lower loading times i will get that instead of the cheaper one.



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

greenmedic88 said:
In short, the answer lies in the marketing.

You can buy a high end smartphone for $399, with the bare minimum storage (non expandable). The manufacturer is happy to sell the same phone with more internal storage at an inflated price. Apple adds $200 to the price to "upgrade" from 16GB of barely usable storage to 128GB. This does not change the bare minimum SKU, it simply allows the manufacturer and retailers who sell the device to say the phone costs $399.

During the 7th generation, both MS and SCE attempted a similar SKU structuring by the third hardware refresh, effectively stripping the specs (in this case, the HDD) in the interest of selling a bare minimum MSRP SKU. It's arguable that both companies did the same thing with the initial SKUs with the Xbox 360 Core and PS3 20GB, both of which were limited in use due to the cost cut packages in the interest of providing those lower tier entry priced SKUs.

What's interesting about the 8th gen is that only Nintendo offered a stripped down SKU initially, whereas MS tethered Kinect to the XBO with a single $500 SKU. SCE offered a single $400 SKU and the rest is history.

You can sell a $500 console; there is a market for one, provided what the consumer is getting for that price is perceived to provide a cost/yield benefit, typically in the form of specs which should be directly tied to real world performance. However, the market for $500 consoles is much smaller than the market for $400 consoles, meaning the manufacturer would be wiser in offering that $400 option, without hobbling the performance.

I'm more of the notion that manufacturers simply maintain the same price while taking advantage of current advances in processing and memory capabilities, rather than continuing to manufacture the same dated ICs using cheaper manufacturing processes and passing a portion of the savings on to the consumer.

It makes less sense financially to sell that same updated hardware at a significantly higher price as this automatically shrinks the potential consumer base, unless the manufacturer is deliberately attempting to sell a smaller niche product, typically by marketing it as a "premium" product.

Great post, I agree with this. I remember always fighting back when people use the tired, old argument that 199$ is "mass market price", when the truth is that anything is mass market price with the right marketing, and smartphones have showed this in earnest in the past decade or so. The modern, highly convenience driven market, craves products that can be tailored and have broad area of use and features, most of all, they are also a lot more sensitive on format and direction rather than actual, sheer technical content and prowess (even relative to price).



End of 2016 hardware sales:

Wii U: 15 million. PS4: 54 million. One: 30 million. 3DS: 64.8 million. PSVita: 15.2 million.

No, I don't think consoles need to cost more than $300, but that's just me.