If the 9th gen consoles launch with BC in 2020, is there any reason to produce 8th gen consoles beyond 2020?

[DonFerrari]

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

You haven't sent any evidence that PS3 Super Slim was selling for big profit to show how it could have been heavily discounted. Still we had several places in USA and Canada that you could buy an used X360 for under 99.

Sony haven't ever done price war as far as I know. They cutted price on PS1 and PS2 while dominating with a lot of headroom, they have cut the price of PS3 when losing massive money and have kept price on PS4 even when X1 undercut them.

Sony cuts the price when the projection of sales needs a new price point, have done it for 4 gens. Won't say if MS have tried to price war against Sony, I remember seeing they reacting to Sony prices but I won't pretend to have enough data to affirm it was done because of Sony instead of their own internal projections.

The main reason why you were not getting major discounts on the last revision of PS3 was because they already gave you all the saving before hand. Also at the end of the gen there is almost no reason to lose money on HW because there is less revenue expected from SW. But with PS4 costing much less for the whole life, it having PS+ revenue and BC on PS5 all making much more advantage to lock customers to platform makes more sense for a PS4 SS MSRP 199.

I never argued the PS3 Super Slim was being sold for big profit. I AM ARUGING PS3 SUPER SLIM WAS CHEAPER TO PRODUCE.

Sony losing money on the PS3 is one of the best examples of a console price war. They did it simply to stay competitive. I'm not arguing there is a price war happening in the 8th gen. When prices are cut to increase audience/market share, that's pretty much the definition of price war. Price cuts can also be a response to a competitor which is why they tend to happen around the same time.

Please quit making excuses for the PS3 Super Slim staying expensive, that's not the point. I'm simply pointing out they made cheaper (to produce) hardware with no real benefit to consumers. MS did the same thing with the 360 E.

"PS3 started very high in price, but the parts also dropped quickly and they removed things to lower the price. By 2013 they were selling it at a good profit." http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9004676

Seems like your memory is a little odd, unless you want to say good is different then big. Still please prove they were making good profit.

Of course PS3 SS were either cheaper to produce and/or to ship and sell, if it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in developing it. But if the cost reduction was made to not have loss on HW anymore then no one should expect it to receive a price cut.

You are basically taking a single point and trying to make it the most common thing.

And on the real benefit you were already prove wrong by Pema but seems like you won't admit. Price isn't the single benefit to customer.

Sony lost money on the HW of every single Playstation through launch and up to over 2 years of launch, they were aggressive on discounting PS1 and PS2 after revisions and launch of new systems even thought they dominated their gens. So no, cutting price to drive sales isn't price war. I'll repeat for you to let it sink, if they aren't cutting price in response to competitor they aren't doing price war. Sony sold PS3 at 200-300 loss from the beginning of the gen where you can't say they weren't doing price war as they launched and kept that price at a time they were already expected to dominate (wrongly) and they sold the console 200 more expensive than PS2, so clearly they weren't pricing it against X360 but trying to not be that much over regular console pricing (they failed) and win the format war. The price cuts from PS3 most came from reduction on the cost to produce instead of trying to follow MS cuts (I would say it was the opposite though).