Prediction: PS5 is going to cost 599$ and it will be ok.

[DonFerrari]

COKTOE said:

shikamaru317 said:

$20 I think. It's alot cheaper than buying a whole new controller when your battery life starts to get bad after a couple of years, so I actually like that Xbox controllers have replaceable batteries. But I do wish they bundled a rechargeable battery with the console and separate controllers. 

I think you're maybe underselling the life-span of these batteries. Taken at it's most literal, a couple means 2, and after 14 years of using rechargeable controllers and 18 years for portable systems, I have never had a single one become noticeably compromised in 2 years. Having said that, the controllers usually need to be replaced after roughly 4 years for other reasons, so that is roughly, my battery ceiling for controllers. But again, the battery never showed signs of needing replacement after heavy use. That's across 2 full gens with no hint of battery degradation. I'll even toss in my grand champion of battery life, my launch Vita. I abandoned it in Dec 2018. Almost 7 years, and roughly 4-5 thousand hours, it still held a charge almost perfectly. The DS and DS Lite didn't get quite as much time, but they still never faltered. Furthermore to this, LI batteries are fairly easily replaceable.

And on a personal note. F*** "replaceable batteries". That's some 80's sh**.

I haven`t had a single case of battery exaustion on my controllers. 2 PS3 controllers and 3 PS4 controllers each being used extensively for like 6 years 30-40h a week, and if the battery was dead I could just open the controller and replace the battery.

On battery explosion it happened with my PSP that I loaned to a friend and he left it unussed for over 2 years.

freebs2 said:

DonFerrari said:

At a very big cost and several corrections. And you do understand the point =p

May it launch at 599? Sure Sony can make mistakes, but the reasoning of OP and people agreeing is very off.

PS3 had the advantage of BD and being more powerful, plus it was loosing 200 per unit so it was as low as possible. With the PS5 BOM estimative 450, it would make zero sense to launch it at 599 and leave MS to smack them on price while also more powerful and with essentially the same features.

Honestly I missed the article about the PS5 BOM, if that's accurate maybe we could be looking more at $499 for the digital only edition and $549 for the phisical version. 

Though the BOM doesn't consider production, delivery and intermediation costs, for $499 they would still be taking a loss, maybe even for 549$ they would barely brake even. 

About PS3, the BD wasn't much of an advantage...console players didn't really care about it. Also, as mentioned before PS3 actually started in a far worse position, launching 1 year late with a weak lineup while the X360 already had an impressive library.

But most importantly, Sony at the time didn't have the brand reputation it has today in terms of 1st party content. 1st party reputation is their most important differentiation factor VS the XB. It's true that MS has invested a lot opening new studios... but it in any case it will take them some time to build that kind of reputation. 

Daniel Ahmad said it couple months ago that the BOM for PS5 was 449 and Xbox like 30 USD more.

Sony have been selling for loss on every console until now and I don`t expect a change so discless should be lower than 449, probably even 399.

BD was an advantage first because on value PS3 launched costing less than even a regular BD player, second the audio and videos were better than on X360 and you didn`t need multiple discs.

Sony reputation on first party was already great on launch of PS4 and that didn`t make them overprice. Sony makes money on the SW so they will likely sell for a loss again and make money on SW by accelerating HW sale instead of trying to profit on HW.

freebs2 said:

Bonzinga said:

Overpricing isn't the best way to win people over if your competition offers better value. Forcing gamers to pay more than they believe they should is exactly why many will turn there head in the other direction facing the alternative options. Remember the PS3 vs the 360? Remember the PS2 vs the Dream Cast? remember the XB1 vs the PS4? Do you need a PS5 vs the XSX? Doesn't matter how good the games might be, the pricing is extremely important. Because if any company thinks majority will jump on board there product regardless of price balancing is surely to lose a lot of momentum and reputation. I don't believe Sony will overprice there console, I believe we are looking at a slightly more expensive PS5 compared to the PS4 and I feel the XSX will match it.

You used correctly the term "value". It's the overall value proposition that determines how much a customer is willing to pay for a product and hardware specs are just a part of it.

Software is a key driver of value proposition and Sony showed they can offer both established popular series and new IPs from renowned studios that won't be avaliable anywere else. MS on the other hand has yet to demonstrate they can offer a comparable output of exclusive content both in terms of quantity and variety. That's why at the current status Sony's proposition has an advantage despite comparable specs.

Looking at past examples, if specs were the only key driver of value, Nintendo would have left the business a decade ago.

And there haven`t been a real case of increased value from PS4 to PS5. It will play newer and prettier games, but that is the case on all new gens, but nothing that justify 200 extra on launch.

Bonzinga said:

freebs2 said:

You used correctly the term "value". It's the overall value proposition that determines how much a customer is willing to pay for a product and hardware specs are just a part of it.

Software is a key driver of value proposition and Sony showed they can offer both established popular series and new IPs from renowned studios that won't be avaliable anywere else. MS on the other hand has yet to demonstrate they can offer a comparable output of exclusive content both in terms of quantity and variety. That's why at the current status Sony's proposition has an advantage despite comparable specs.

Looking at past examples, if specs were the only key driver of value, Nintendo would have left the business a decade ago.

Customers dont always want to spend more just because a brand is pushing more features. Its like if these console makers added a coffee machine into the consoles, sure it adds value but the console will now be $699. Does that mean customers are okay with paying more? I wouldn't think so either. They will opt for the cheaper model hence why cheaper sells more.

All console brands have well established IPs that are proven. To say one company offers it while the others dont, is looking at the scenario blindly. Any IP can be turned around into a hit if the right talent is behind it.

I also wouldnt be underestimating Xbox Studios. They brought and aquired some good talented devs and even formed acouple internally. Masterpieces dont happen over night, infact Sony didnt really hit hard with good 1st party games until the PS3 era in my opinion.

I would have to counter you with Gran Turismo, Syphon Filter on PS1, God of War on PS2 among many others before PS3.

freebs2 said:

Bonzinga said:

Customers dont always want to spend more just because a brand is pushing more features. Its like if these console makers added a coffee machine into the consoles, sure it adds value but the console will now be $699. Does that mean customers are okay with paying more? I wouldn't think so either. They will opt for the cheaper model hence why cheaper sells more.

All console brands have well established IPs that are proven. To say one company offers it while the others dont, is looking at the scenario blindly. Any IP can be turned around into a hit if the right talent is behind it.

I also wouldnt be underestimating Xbox Studios. They brought and aquired some good talented devs and even formed acouple internally. Masterpieces dont happen over night, infact Sony didnt really hit hard with good 1st party games until the PS3 era in my opinion.

I agree with you at least on two points.

Yes, customers are not willing to spend more for just any additional feature. And the "coffee machine" example is actually on point, because I think it explains the difference between and PS3 situation and currrent situation. With the PS3 Sony acually tried to put a sort of "coffee machine" into the console; the main reason why the PS3 was so expensive was the BD player, an extra feature that no one asked for and didn't actually add anything to the gaming experience (despite Sony at the time tried to tell otherwise). This time Sony could ask for a premium but becasue they have an advantage in terms of software output capability (imo), something that players do care about.

I also agree with the last statement, it takes time to create masterpieces and Sony started to build its first party reputation mainly in the PS3 era. That's also the practical reason why MS will still be at disadvantage in terms of software for some time. Their recently bought studios may very well have "masterpieces" in the oven but it will take time for those games to hit the market and it will take even more time for them to build a reputation comparable to Sony's first party. It's not to diminish Xbox Studios but so far they have only 3 exclusive long running quality series (Halo, Gears Of War, Forza) other games have been hit and miss so far.

The BD drive had lower lifelong effect on price than Cell and PS2 HW inside it. And BD at least added somewhat useful function while the CPU itself as long as run the games no one cares and we also discovered that for even a lot talk how important BC is it never really pushed sales.