twintail said:
How do you factor that a a fan wanting PS5 for PS4 BC is any less inclined to get a subscription over someone who is either not interested in BC or not a fan? Can you provide any evidence that this would be the case? The ppl getting upset in your scenario would still be so in mine, on top of the other problems I mentioned, something you can't really say about your suggestion. So you are changing the time for delay from 6 months to a year? Are you still counting on having Sony tell ppl to wait a year because a price cut is coming? Either way, a year before a price cut at least seems realistic, and is far more digestible for early buyers, late buyers, and publishers. I agree a price drop then makes sense. I don't recall you presenting the idea of PSVR in PS5 to me. Even then, that sounds like a huge expense on their part if included. Nonetheless, your idea of PS5 adding PSVR is not historically in line with PS3 so that link doesn't make sense. It is in line with XB1, sure, and well all know how MS ultimately had to cut off the Kinect and make the X1 cheaper cause the price point was a point of contention with buyers. So, are you saying that Sony will also have to cut out PSVR when they make the PS5 cheaper? Are they going to drop the price because they will be forced to due to lagging sales? If not, then where are the similarities with your idea of a console that has a since-launch-known price drop in 6 months? I concur, the inclusion of so much tech would rise the price assuming Sony goes for 4K/ 60 as a standard. Historically, I wouldn't bet money on them doing that though. 60fps has not been something they themselves push. Obviously the system will be able to do 4k/ 60 but not at the fidelity that Sony themselves target with their games. But yes, increased tech in the PS5 would increase the price. I don't think they will go too far but I can't disagree with what you are saying either. Well its a 25th anniversary and can easily last close to a year since that time frame would still include the anniversary year. It is a LE only for the 25th birthday of Playstation. It is pretty easy to market and for consumers to understand. Why are you suggesting another PS4? What makes you think the price has to increase with the added tech? PS4 was 399 and had way better tech than the PS3 which launched at 499. They can hit the PS4 (or Pro) price with increased tech and also make money off subscriptions. |
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.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 25 November 2018
