Quantcast
Is the market ready for a $500 console yet?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is the market ready for a $500 console yet?

What should the PS5 & Xbox 4 cost at launch?

$500 (high specs) 45 60.81%
 
$450 (moderate specs) 8 10.81%
 
$400 (low specs) 21 28.38%
 
Total:74
JamesGarret said:
I would hope so, this isnt 2006 anymore, we live in an age where people pay more than $1.000 for phones and other devices so some of that "disposition" should rub off a little on the console market, and considering its something thatll last you for ~6/7 years and help insure a more significant leap over the previous generation, I say bring it.

Why are people bring up the cost of phones as if it is remotely relatable?  Your monthly phone plan pays for most of the cost of the device.  Does your monthly subscription to PS Plus contribute a single dime to the upfront cost of your PlayStation?  No?  I didn't think so.



Around the Network
OTBWY said:
I don't think this price has ever been attractive. It seems to me the right pricing most consumers are willing to take the leap for is 400.

If you really want to be honest the right price is actually $299. 

However, its clear that at $399 the current gen consoles did better in 2013-2016 than last gen consoles did at that same price.

I think the market is read for $499. I also think that price will be dropped within 18 months.



If "less than $500" actually ends up being $499, then my respect for humanity has been lost.

But in all seriousness, the more expensive the better the hardware, and I want it to be powerful at launch. Without having given it much thought, I was expecting something right about the $500 price mark, and maybe a more expensive $600 SKU as well.

Edit: Is $500 really where consumers tend to fall off the wagon. I mean, the PS3 was $600 and that was more than a decade ago. By those standards, it would probably be closer to $700 today.



Yes it is, PS3 launched at 599 and had sales, X1 and X1X also had sales launching at 499. But still for obvious reason there is more initial sales when launching at 399 and good product than at 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

Mandalore76 said:
crissindahouse said:
I will never understand gamers if it comes to console prices.

Not only is the console itself only a small part of what you pay overall for gaming but it seems as if gamers never have more money even 30 years later even though people around them get a payraise every freaking year and inflation is a thing.

500 bucks shouldn't be really a problem if 400 wasn't 7 yesrs earlier if the console releases in 2020.

It's literally the difference between $500 getting you a console and having money left over for a couple of games, a game and a controller, etc.  Or, $500 just getting you the console and having to spend $600 just to be able to use it.

As far as payraises and inflation goes, you do realize the cost of living increasing is also a thing, right?  My dad bought a ColecoVision in 1982 for $175.  You can tell yourself that purchase would have cost $460 today.  But, I will tell you that in 1982, my dad was able to raise 4 children on a single family income.  Today, every married person I know needs a dual income to get by (both spouses working).  And, a lot of them don't have children because they fear not having the money to properly care for another mouth to feed in the household.  Declining birthrates are a thing too, you know.  But, you keep telling everybody that a $500 base purchase for a toy isn't a big deal.  I hope Sony busts out another $600 PlayStation just for you.  Because if an adjusted for inflation ColecoVision cost $460 in 1982, then a $600 PlayStation today shouldn't be a problem for anyone.  Even though we already saw in 2006 it was an absolute disaster.

Most of the increased cost of living is coming from people purchasing more useless stuff than before.

Take out the internet, phone, gaming and a lot of luxuries we have today but didn't back then and your cost of life adjusted by inflation wouldn't look to be so different.

Mandalore76 said:
JamesGarret said:
I would hope so, this isnt 2006 anymore, we live in an age where people pay more than $1.000 for phones and other devices so some of that "disposition" should rub off a little on the console market, and considering its something thatll last you for ~6/7 years and help insure a more significant leap over the previous generation, I say bring it.

Why are people bring up the cost of phones as if it is remotely relatable?  Your monthly phone plan pays for most of the cost of the device.  Does your monthly subscription to PS Plus contribute a single dime to the upfront cost of your PlayStation?  No?  I didn't think so.

You know that the cost of the phone is charged against you these plans right? Also you know that there are people that buy it for retail price right? And also know that there are people that changes phone every year or 2 and pay these high prices right?



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

Around the Network

To the general consumer no. They rather spend $800+ on a new mobile phone each year lol.

As a gamer myself, I would pay $1000 if the right gear was in it.



 

 

Personally I feel 500$ is a little to high..... consoles start to get attractive at the 300$ price point imo.

I get that the rumored specs of the PS5 more than justify a 500$ price tag to go along with it, so even if you paid 500$ for it, you wouldnt feel cheated.
PS5 is looking to be a really powerfull system for its price. Still I guess Im just not as focused about graphics as most are, I feel like 1080p is still fine tbh.

Personally I would have prefered they did a small "jump" going with PS5 and then made a cheaper system instead.
Keeping that 400$ price point.

However if we're getting 8c/16 zen2, 16GB GDDR6, Navi GPU at 12TF+, SSD HDD,... raytraceing (for sound & graphics) ect
I doubt it ll be 400$..... 500$ is more likely.



RaptorChrist said:

If "less than $500" actually ends up being $499, then my respect for humanity has been lost.

But in all seriousness, the more expensive the better the hardware, and I want it to be powerful at launch. Without having given it much thought, I was expecting something right about the $500 price mark, and maybe a more expensive $600 SKU as well.

Edit: Is $500 really where consumers tend to fall off the wagon. I mean, the PS3 was $600 and that was more than a decade ago. By those standards, it would probably be closer to $700 today.

PS3 was too expensive imo...... I think 500$ today is the upper limit of what you can do, if you dont want to p*ss off your target audience.
Sure die hards will still get it even if its 700$.... I dont think its smart to price it higher than 499$ though.

Like if Sony comes out with a 599$ price tag, they have lost their marbles.
People are over estimateing how much the avg consumer, cares for top of the line specs & graphics imo.



JRPGfan said:
Personally I feel 500$ is a little to high..... consoles start to get attractive at the 300$ price point imo.

I get that the rumored specs of the PS5 more than justify a 500$ price tag to go along with it, so even if you paid 500$ for it, you wouldnt feel cheated.
PS5 is looking to be a really powerfull system for its price. Still I guess Im just not as focused about graphics as most are, I feel like 1080p is still fine tbh.

Personally I would have prefered they did a small "jump" going with PS5 and then made a cheaper system instead.
Keeping that 400$ price point.

However if we're getting 8c/16 zen2, 16GB GDDR6, Navi GPU at 12TF+, SSD HDD,... raytraceing (for sound & graphics) ect
I doubt it ll be 400$..... 500$ is more likely.

Why bother doing small jumps?

For someone minded like you would be better that they at the time PS5 launch cut PS4 basic to 149 and PS4 Pro to 249, so for the next couple years due to the crossgen (and also BC) you have very cheap HW. And then when you are going to upgrade to PS5 the 499 became 299-349.



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

I'd say yes. The Xbox One launched at $500 with a lot of controversy and it sold really well at launch. The One X is a mid gen console and launched at $500 and it seems to have done well also. A $500 next gen console without kinect controversy will sell well.