By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Shadow1980 said:
danasider said:

Good point.

And to put it another way, inflation-adjusted household incomes for the typical middle-class American has remained relatively stagnant, being about the same in 2017 (the most recent year data is available) as they were in 2000, with a modest dip during the late 00s recession (a time when console sales were growing). This means that the PS4's launch price as a percentage of the total income of a middle-class household is about the same as the PS2's was 14 years prior. That also means that $450 ought to be roughly the same size expenditure in 2020, and $500 only $50/11.1% more than that.

Even if you go by other metrics, like what portion of household income is consumed by a large purchase like a game console, or how many hours the average American might have to work to buy a console, a $500 PS5 or XBO in 2020 is not outrageous by any stretch, and wouldn't be considerably more than what they spent on the PS4 if they bought one at launch.

DonFerrari said:

Your post is perfect. I would just disagree on one point, people don't really understand inflation. But they certainly have the feeling of "stuff is getting more expensive", this is a complain almost everyone have.

So the guy that earned his wage on 1980 compared price of other stuff to decide if 100 USD for NES was good, will today compare PS5 at 500 to other stuff to see if it is good. It is exactly because gaming doesn't exist in a vacuum and people compare stuff that inflation is a thing that affects all (but differently, each person experience it different based on what they consume).

I got my first job in 1998. I have spent enough time "adulting" to notice the changing numbers on the price tags and on my paychecks. In adjusted terms, I'm not making considerably more now than I was 21 years ago. And I can say with confidence that gaming isn't any more expensive for me now than it was back then in terms of how much of my income percentage-wise goes to a console or a new game. Putting food on my table isn't more expensive. Keeping the lights on isn't more expensive. My housing costs are actually higher now that I own my own home instead of renting a room from a friend (though that's offset a good bit by having a roommate who pays me rent). I live a life of modest means, and I'm good with money, so even with my less-than-impressive income (~$21,800 last year) I'm not struggling. I don't find $500 unreasonable for a new console at launch one bit. I would have found it unreasonable 20 years ago.

Yes, you know how money and economy works so you can track the changes, but even people that are working for 5 years or less and don't know economy "fell the inflation".

I tought I had tagged @John2290 but I haven't, so I'll say here. I'm more likely expecting a 599 console sold initially at 450 and cut to 399 on first holiday after the initial leaks. To have it straight 399 and cost covered by selling PSN+ plus some games on the first couple of years would also be great, but seeing how much PS4 have been able to sell without pricecut, what is going to probably happen is Sony will wait for MS reveal with price and will plan their losses accordingly. This way if they are stronger than any Xbox sold they will sell at same price or a little higher (and due to bulk probably lose less money), if they are weaker they will sell at 50-100 less and lose more money than MS. Anyway they will likely sell twice more than X4 on first year =]

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

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"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."