Pemalite said:
EricHiggin said:
Pricing is a given though. They may not have talked about pricing here, but it's not like it doesn't apply. It certainly won't be free.
|
Pricing is irrelevant to the discussion. Stop trying to shift the goal post.
Sony made a blanket statement, price had nothing to do with it, statement was false... That is all there is to it, they deserve the criticism for it.
EricHiggin said:
I can only assume you must think a two model launch is what PS should do, because otherwise based on your pricing, a single unit launch leads to something like this gen's sales flipping, and PS5 becoming the XB1, especially come the XB mid gen upgrade.
|
I haven't made any assertions in regards to Sony's launch strategy or the number of consoles they should launch or their pricing structure.
So how you came up with those assumptions beats me.
EricHiggin said:
If hardware is much more important than lot's of high quality AAA games to play on it, then I guess the more expensive the console the better, because poor sales will lead to less, lower quality games.
|
Some of my favorite consoles were the most powerful for any given console generation.
And they may have had less volume of games, but they also had some of my favorite games of all time.
I will happily take 1 super high quality game that defies expectations and has me engrossed for months/years on end than a dozen games which are forgettable.
The Nintendo 64 and Original Xbox are a couple of examples.
Again, the sales of a console isn't my problem, it's the companies who produce that hardware that are trying to turn a profit... Problem.
EricHiggin said:
A $1,000 PS5 will not be like PS3 where it makes a comeback, even if it's like PS3 and has prior gen hardware in there, which would have to mean a special high end unit, or the dumbest move they've made since PS3. Two or three years of a $1,000 PS5 and then a $400-$500 slim with no more BC isn't going to fly again if they try it.
In a single unit launch, there is no way PS5 costs more than $500.
|
I never made the statement that a console should be $1,000, $1,500, $400, $500. - So your ramblings on price is again... Irrelevant. - I don't care about the price.
I will buy whatever console is the most compelling, I couldn't give two rats about the brand name on the front of it, I am a PC gamer primarily.
|
Yet so far all PS has officially said is that it's using PCIe 4.0 and gave an example of how much faster it can be in one situation. You went on to guess at what that could mean in terms of what else may be part of the SSD setup, even though PS has said nothing about that. Is that adding extra relevant information based on separate knowledge of what SSD's are capable of, or is that also shifting goal posts?
As for the pricing I'm mostly just pointing out that you're not taking everything into account that you would need to based on separate console pricing knowledge. The price of the console will matter as to how they decide on what tech to use and how much they could customize it. If you don't base it off a likely price, then we might as well guess it'll be $1,000 and that could very well likely mean that the SSD could have customizations, and could be as fast as the fastest consumer PC's out there. Like you and I said though, that's not going to happen, and that's because the PS5 isn't going to be $1,000. Unless of course there is a top tier model that uses very similar tech, just beefed up like the rest of the components would be to justify the higher price.
We're both just putting separate relevant points forward from what I can see.
