By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
twintail said:
EricHiggin said:

So for 6 months, PS actually makes some money or breaks even on PS5, to then lose money 6 months later, so more people can be included as quickly as possible, and that doesn't help to solve the input cost problem any more than starting at $399 and only losing money on hardware? Just look at XB1 sales at $499 for the first 6 months, and that's after one of the most botched console launches in history. If PS only has price to worry about, that's unbelievably minor in comparison to the XB1 and PS3 issues, so they should be able to sell plenty just fine at $499 for 6 months to a year before they drop to $399.

Only laying out one specific scenario is like randomly pointing to one star in the sky and saying yup, that's the system with life in it. If PS could launch PS5 late 2019 for $499, and then drop it to $399 late 2020, you would rather PS just wait until late 2020 and launch at $399? Why not allow the console an extra year on the market? Should MS have waited and launched XB1X this holiday for $399?

So be more inclusive, but not too inclusive? Sounds a lot like 'I can afford $399, and that budget should be enough to please my hardware needs, and I like to be first just because, so that's what PS should do'. PS is a business first off, and secondly, they have 100 million+ people to try to cater to, who range from rich to poor. The best way to please as many as possible would actually be to follow in the path MS looks to be taking, and offering multiple hardware SKU's, at different performance ranges and prices. A 1080p/60 SKU for $299, and a 4k/60 SKU for $499 makes a tonne of sense to me, for those who can't afford to go 4k anytime soon, but some would argue 2 SKU's is a death wish. While there are PS fans who would like that, or wouldn't care, there are others who will not stand for it. So what's the right answer when your stuck between a rock and your fan base, without hurting yourself financially?

Yes, launch prices over time will continually increase. PS1 and PS2 were $299, while XBOX was $299. PS4 and PS3 ($549) should have been $399, while 360 and XB1 ($499) should have been $399. Pro and XB1X during this transition period could have been either $399 or $499, since $49 prices are more rare. PS5 and Scarlet should be $499, but I don't think they should remain at $499 for anywhere near as long as PS4 remained at $399.


What exactly are the downsides to having both SKUs? Loyalists will still buy the more expensive limited edition. Those who want the cheaper model will buy the cheaper model. You avoid ppl being upset if the price drop is sudden (and maybe seen as not being supportive of their dedicated fans), you avoid ppl just not buying the console and waiting 6 months if they know its coming (which could lead to lower demand). You get more ppl on subscriptions sooner (which is where the real money is).

Well no. Citing a specific scenario is indeed what you need to do to back up your claims. You can't just pull the historical evidence card if it shares only vague similarities. As it stands, nothing is like what you are suggesting Sony do, so you don't have evidence from previous consoles to support your claims.

No, I am not suggesting they wait till 2020. I am questioning why you think $499 is the price they go for.

Yes, PS is a business: one currently making money from network services. So being more inclusive not only allows more ppl to buy into their services (where Sony makes the bulk of their money) but also allows their hardware to be profitable (even if backed up by software/ subscription money). What exactly is the financial disincentive here? If they can afford to do a higher priced PS5 for 6 months then drop the price, then they could just do both prices from the start and keep the anniversary model running a little longer than 6 months. 

Yeah perhaps they will, but they will reach a ceiling where the asking price is too much. 

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.