Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
I think it’s more about beating Sony on price for the mass market and beating Sony on power for the hardcore. Now is there gonna be a difference worth noting for a console that is having its little brother and PS5 programmed for? I don’t think so but hey they can advertise most powerful and lowest price and not explicitly state (except maybe by a little disclaimer on the bottom of the screen) that they’re talking about two different consoles |
Yes I know what it is about.
But if we go by (I know TFLOPS aren't everything, but if we are talking balanced systems on similar architecture, it summarizes good enough) 4TF Lockhart @299, 12TF PS5 @399, 16TF @499 Anaconda their cheap alternative is to weak (sure it can make 1080p good graphics) that just putting another 100 get you a 3x more powerful machine, while their strongest alternative is just 33% more powerful (so impact on IQ isn't much and is hold down by 4x weaker machine, while lacking the 1st party eye candy of Sony) for another 100.
That will make it very easy for Sony to counter. We already know that it isn't neither the most powerful nor the least expensive that wins a gen. We have seem the strongest lose all gens before this (and if you want to consider X1X, which I wouldn't because it couldn't flip the way the gen was going). We have also seem the cheapest lose with WiiU and others.
You need a value package, that sincerely on the hypothesis made one is to weak and the other to expensive to beat the single SKU of Sony. With the cheapest one having fewer price cuts to push it later and the strongest probably pushing the envelope have hard time on cuts without incurring loses. That also puts Sony on advantage on flexibility to price cut.
Usually in market strategy you use your cheaper alternative not as an item to sell, it is just there to get your attention and you think, well for just a little more I can get the much better. So it anchor the customer, but for that prices are usually near, doesn't have a competitor to take advantage of it. Just like you go watch a movie and a let's say 10oz soda is 3 USD, 15oz 4 and 25oz is just 5. That make the customer forget the 25oz is to much and to expensive, because they look at the smallest one and think I'm getting 2,5x more for only 60% more (or in this case since it is small price, just 2 bucks more). In this scenario these 3 platforms would be like 10oz for 3, 30oz for 4, 40oz for 5. The greatest incremental gain is the competitor on the 30oz for 4.
Oneeee-Chan!!! said: why do people think that PS5 will be only 1 SKU ? |
Because the only differentiation on SKU that makes sense in this case is size of HDD.
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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."