1) SNES CLASSIC! If your definition excludes the biggest announcement of the year and the best selling hardware of the year being announced just days after E3, then it is no wonder you willingly ignore how Nintendo is half out the door.

2) I know that. But that is not the goalpost we are using here.

3) I did not say... you know what, it is clear you do not know what, "half in, half out" means as you are only focusing on one half of the equation. Since I already took into account Nintendo are still half in from the beginning, nothing you said added anything to the conversation except your blatant willingness to ignore the other side of this coin. Which is fine, I guess.

I didn't watch the last 2 e3's so assuming Sony are there in 2020 and I watch it live it will be the first e3 I've watched in 4 years. Crazy to think that.

You will end up upsetting some of those who want the $499 model who can't afford it or who think it shouldn't be $100 worth of swag and instead $100 worth of physical tech in the console. Who would you rather anger, the people who can easily afford a higher price, as well as those who live to be early adopters regardless, or the people who can't and wish they could be? I think it would be fair to say the early adopting loyalists are probably fans who have old games, that could be useful depending on PS5 BC capabilities, so PS NOW really isn't a sub they will probably get, which only leaves PS Plus, at $50 for the year. So PS subsidizes PS5 $100 year 1, to take 2 years to pay that off through subs? Why not just full price year 1, then drop the price $100 year 2? It's not like your going to have many people who can afford a $500 console, even if they had to save, who are pissed off because they had to subscribe to play online, which they know is a given on every console now. Most also know you probably have to upgrade the mass storage as well, internal or external, which is extra.

So you don't like my example of adding the PSVR breakout box to the PS5, even though PS would clearly like to grow that market, and the best way to do that initially is usually to subsidize it. While they could just drop the price of the PSVR kit, it's more beneficial to hide that by making every single PS5 customer pay a fraction of it, without lowering the kit price. It's not like a previous console named PS3 added extra, non essential hardware to the console that led to the price being on the high side. It's not like a previous console named XB1 added extra, non essential hardware to the console, but with a $499 budget, that led to the specific gaming hardware being gimped.

If the console is only 4k/30, they can probably get away with $399. That's not all that far off of Pro though, and it seems like the many feel like Pro wasn't all that large of a jump, even though it may have been fine for the price mid gen. If PS5 is only 4k/30, then those Pro owners and more, will probably be disappointed and wonder why they should bother making the transition. 4k/60 is going to be really tough to do, with the rest of the hardware necessary to make it feel like next gen for under $499, without significant subsidies, assuming a launch in the next couple of years. That's also not including if they try to stuff PSVR in there as well. Look at the $399 PS4 price point, then the $399 Pro, and look at the specs gap. Imagine another 3 or 4 year gap and a $399 price point for PS5. Look at the jump in 4 years from XB1 to XB1X, and while XB1 should have only been $349 initially in terms of gaming hardware, XB1X was $499, and look at what that got you in terms of hardware advancements.

A special edition model, anniversary or not, is not something you leave on the market for too long. It goes against calling it special. A year should be the max. Selling a 25th ed console in the 26th year just doesn't make sense either. If PS cares so much about their services, that much more than pushing next gen capabilities, then why wouldn't they just make another PS4 model that's a little bit better than XB1X for $399 again, and launch holiday 2019? Maybe because another PS4 regardless of specs, could be too much of the same possibly? Maybe people require enough of a jump in specs to rationalize buying into a new gen that will bring new games with unforeseen awe inspiring experiences because of it? While consoles and low cost go hand in hand, pushing the limits in games and pushing the limits of affordability also do as well.

I'm a fan, and not the biggest by any means, and if PS5 plays my older PS games, then I see next to no reason at the moment to buy into PS Now. Most of my gaming friends see things the same way. We don't hold allegiance to any brand, and the majority of us would go for the cheaper model, which would require subscriptions to make up the difference due to the hardware subsidy, as you put, and the only sub they get from most of us is PS Plus. A few newer to the PS brand might consider PS NOW and a few only buy into PS Plus monthly from time to time.

Looks like I mixed up this thread with another with that example. My bad. It does prove a point though. It does show PS was willing to widen the scope of the internal hardware while raising the price. Now while they won't drop another $599 console anytime in the near or foreseeable future, even if there's a slightly cheaper model (they could if the cheaper model is affordable possibly), that doesn't mean they wouldn't add the PSVR cost and some worthier hardware specs to hit $499. Kinect added $100 to the price of XB1. PSVR box should only be around $50. PS gamers don't typically care as much about the specs, within reason, as long as the games are there. Pro isn't exactly getting it's but kicked by XB1X either with considerably weaker specs. The fact that the PSVR kit would end up $50 cheaper, or can add $50 more in terms of upgrades to add serious value to the cost, should make up the difference of any reduction of PS5 sales. Trying to sell a $599 PS3 against a $399 XB360, isn't much different than trying to sell a $399 XB360 against a $249 Wii. It's a losing battle. Now, selling a $499 PS5 against a $499 Scarlet, shouldn't be all that much of a hindrance to PS.

Frame rate will matter if they want to push PSVR. The higher the frame rate the more immersive the experience. PSVR really is just getting by as it is. If PS5 can hold solid 60fps in it's games, then PSVR will be able to have considerably better graphical fidelity than it does now, with even higher frame rates. 30fps on PS5 will be a hindrance to VR going forward if they choose to stick with big res number marketing.

You talked about having lower hardware prices and being more inclusive which would lead to more sales and more profits, from items such as services, which tend to sell better with more affordable hardware, leaving money to burn on subscriptions. Another PS4 would be the better route to take if that was the main goal going forward. That hinders future games though and the games are what matters. If another gen with more expensive hardware leading to new, must have experiences, is what is necessary for those games, then that is what needs to be done, without becoming completely unaffordable like the OG PS3 was in 2006. $399 is no doubt a stronger entry point, but $499 is the tipping point, so as long as they remain within that, and not for so long they eventually teeter over the edge, they can offer the best future proof hardware and please as many as possible over the entirety of the gen.