By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
padib said:
the-pi-guy said:

$100 when the internal hard drive probably costed Sony/MS something like $40.

There are some good benefits to an SSD, but even that modest sized drive would have put up the console's price at least $50.  And people would only be able to install a couple games at a time. 

Consumers would either pay a lot more or they'd be very limited in their collection.  Either way, it's not ideal for a company to try selling to the average console buyer. 

They have choices to make, and they chose not to do it. But the way I see it, SSDs are very old now, and should've been in consoles last gen. The number I gave was on the high end, but the SSDs were becomming cheaper every year. In 2012, they were at 1$ per gig, in 2013 already at 70c per gig. In 2015, they were already at 39c per gig. A 100GB drive could be sold at 40$ in 2015. Especially in mass production, it would've been cheaper to mass produce than what the average consumer pays. I don't think my suggestion is so out of left field.

Yes it is, even X1X being premium didn't put SSD on it.

And devs when talking to Cerny about what they wanted most being SSD but knowing it was impossible because consoles are made under very tight budgets (reason why they also didn't increase RAM significantly).



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."