DonFerrari on 26 November 2018
Intrinsic said:
DonFerrari said:
Problem is that they really would prefer to not have anything below MS at the start of the gen for then to take cheapshots.
If they can put 1TB SSD for the same price of 128GB SSD and 2TB HDD then sure it's a much better solution. But if they go and have a console at launch that is 128 or 256GB SSD it will be seem as downgrade from this gen and much inferior to a Xbox with 2TB HDD for the casual buyer and also be pushed in marketing.
I wouldn't mind paying 500-600 USD on the console if all that budget is used to put the best components on price benefit to push for best possible graphics in budget, but it'll be hard to see over 399 launch from Sony.
|
I really don't think hard drive size could ever be used as a reason to buy a console. Ever.
If anything the fact one is an SSD and the other is a HDD and one is faster and the other is slower will make for more relevant talking points. When there are videos of games loading in half the time on one console vs the other no one will say " takes twice as long to load but at least you can store twice as many games at once though".
I think the most the consoles can cost will be $499. And even that may be pushing it.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see a $399 SKU without a disc drive and 1TB of storage and a $499 sku with the disc drive and 2TB of storage. And then have an external disc drive as an accessory for around $79.
|
If HDD was never a reason to buy X360 and PS3 then they wouldn't have had multiple sizes along the gen and always at least 2 at the same time for each.
And you seeing multiple HDD sizes and different prices already show you know it is a selling point. It is the way they can profit most since it's the single component in the two gen where they could increase price and profit without differentiating performance.
Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:
OK we have an agreement on the first part. But it seemed you were putting it all on getting the cheapest period.
|
In Microsoft and Nintendo's case, they did go for the cheapest.
Still this is a PS5 discussion and you were talking as if all always gone for the cheapest (still I don't think X1X with vapor chamber is the cheapest option they had).
DonFerrari said:
Launch is different than design. At the time they decided the architeture and components the memory was still more expensive (and you can see the reactions on this forum on the relentless discussion on the memory decisions of both consoles). You can let it go and accept that sometimes the console makers will choose something that is more expensive at the moment of launch if they see that long run it will make they more money even if at first they need to eat up a little of the cost, Sony have made it with PS1, 2 and 3. Or will you say to me that BD drive was the most cost sensitive decision? Or Cell?
|
I recognize that sometimes they will opt for more expensive hardware, what I am trying to say is that consoles have a budget, they aren't going to break through that budget... And sometimes a console manufacturer might make a priority of one component over another... Case in point the Playstation 4 prioritized Ram over the CPU.
They have a budget, but sometimes they can break it, Sony have always sold consoles for loss at launch (PS4 was just the lowest loser and still needed a game and PSN sold to have break even at launch).
But... Even though they might choose something which is a little more expensive, doesn't mean it's high-end.
Between cheapest and high-end there is a world, of over 3000 USD difference if you were looking PC. So It is quite easy to see that for a performance they will look at best cost benefit, but as said they will look full gen not just launch.
The Playstation 3 was a unique beast as Sony went all out on everything. - Did they really need to include the PS2 components when software emulation could have been sufficient?
When they removed HW emulation the SW didn't make 100% compatibility, and quite possibly as Sony isn't a SW company they didn't saw it as an easy match to do it all by SW, because even after they manage to do it they removed later.
Did they really need to spend an obscene amount of money on a CPU when a CPU more along the lines of what the Xbox 360 had would have been perfectly sufficient?
Did they really need to opt for their expensive memory setup?
Did they really need to include a card reader?
...And the price was reflected in that, to the point where some people needed a second job to afford such a console.
The second job is quite the exaggeration, USD 499 for the 20GB isn't obscene nor really prohibitively expensive. And even so Sony lost over 200 USD per console sold. So you really lost all your leverage on always choosing the cheapest or even the most cost conscious option with PS3 example alone. But please explain the choice of DVD for PS2 at a time when DVD players costed as much as a PS2.
It wasn't until the PS3 went on a diet and cut out allot of that rubbish that it became more tenable for the masses, that was the big lesson that Sony learned with the Playstation 3.
|
