By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 21 November 2018
Edit Thread
twintail said:
EricHiggin said:

One normal model that's $399, and a visually different 25th anniversary edition for $499, probably isn't going to go over very well, especially if that leads to $399 editions being out of stock constantly. Maybe a $499 25th edition with some 25th ann swag and memorabilia could work, but your still going to probably have the overwhelming majority of people wanting to buy the cheaper normal edition, which defeats the purpose if the console hardware is most certainly worth $499.

PS won't really know PS5 is selling well until 6-12 months after launch. A 25th anniversary edition at launch will just be another reason to own one and be part of the group. If that isn't necessary and PS5 sells amazing anyway at $499, then what's the difference? It's not like PS can offer it a year later on their 26th year.

That's if they have another next gen console to chose from. If Scarlet doesn't show up for 6 months to a year after PS5, then all they'll be doing is telling the customers to wait. Just because your a PS loyalist, doesn't necessarily mean you have or $400 or $500 in your back pocket for their next console. That's also why giving consumers a heads up well in advance isn't a terrible idea, because it builds hype if done right, and allows them time to save up or hold off on some games or trade in early before existing hardware loses even more value, to be able to afford that next upcoming purchase.

More inclusive only matters if the console won't sell well enough at $499. That's because $299 or even $199 for PS5 would be by far the most inclusive, but that may not fit the business plan at launch and during year 1 sales. They could even make a 3rd $299 1080p/60 model for all of us who won't be upgrading to 4k anytime soon. The name of the game with consoles is simplicity, as much as reasonably possible, and an initial $499 25th PS5 late 2019 or early 2020, followed by a $399 PS5 holiday 2020, is about as simple as it get's for a console that's specifically built to be worth every penny of that $499 price point.

 

Why wouldn't it go over very well? Because ppl buy the cheaper model? As long as the same number of stock of the higher SKU sells with 2 SKUS on the market or as a single SKU, it doesn't really matter how it gets done. The only difference is that the cheaper model is at least allowing a higher percentage of the population to jump in on the PS5 sooner. The more ppl who get on board quicker, the more ppl who will potentially buy into a sub/ continuing their existing sub, which in turn just equals more money.

Sony will know after about 6 months since they obviously will have metrics in place. They aren't selling a product in a vacuum without at least understanding the social-economic climate. They will have forecasts and they will have historical data to compare with. Short term sales are not medium or late, but its still a viable source for them to use in the years that follow.

And telling ppl in advance also just tells them to wait. This is not something that only affects consumers, it also affects developers/ publishers. This is why price cuts are not mentioned so far in advance. If a more consumer friendly priced PS5 comes out after 6 months to which consumers know, then publishers will just wait too.

Being more inclusive doesn't mean losing money. There s no reason for you to make such extreme examples of $199 PS5 because that is just missing the point.

That said, I highly doubt Sony does a $499 PS5 unless they are forced to do so. $399 is the sweet spot, and they know it. Of course they could always take the gamble and use profits from PS Plus and PS Now to offset the hardware price. Which is a viable option considering how much they actually make in the network services side of PS.

It does matter, depending on the business plan in place. Unless they can sell that many more games at higher prices overall, or more subs at higher prices, those costs have to get paid for somehow. Just offering more cheaper hardware doesn't solve the input cost problem.

How bad off was the XB1X at launch? How far ahead was it announced before it's launch? In which gen did the majority of pubs/devs only make games exclusively for next gen systems during their first, second or even third year on the market? In which new gen was the hardware architecture identical to the prior?

Being inclusive either means making sure the console can do everything it typically can, whatever the price, or making sure the console is cheap enough that the largest audience can purchase it asap. Which would mean something like a $499 console that's worth at least $499, or something like a $299 console that as many people as possible can immediately get their hands on, pending manufacturing volume. Even if PS5 was $399 at launch, all the people who wanted one, that couldn't afford it until the price dropped to $199, wouldn't be considered "included". Having to wait 5 or 6 years to get something wouldn't be considered "inclusive", because apparently having to wait just 1 year isn't being "inclusive" enough.

$399 was, and has been the sweet spot up until now. $299 used to be the sweet spot. At some point in time $499 will be the sweet spot. For the same amount of time that PS has thought $399 was the sweet spot, XB has thought it was $499. Maybe XB was wrong, and maybe XB has been thinking ahead. There seems to be a fair amount of PS fans that almost think they would be betrayed if PS5 was $499, yet if Scarlet is $499, it'll just be another day in the world of XB, for XB fans as well as PS fans.