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

I believe you are oversimplifying.  The difficulty is not only in the technology.  Microsoft is making all of their first party games available to gamepass on day 1.  That means this is a new business model.  It's a new business model that very well may crash and burn.  Or it may prove to be very successful.  But if it does end up successful then that will give Microsoft a hell of a head start against Sony.  The first year of a console's life is it's most important.  A strong start during the first year means Microsoft will probably be strong for the whole generation.  Or a really weak start probably means they are going to have a rough time all generation.

No oversimplification here bro.

This thing is simple. What is game pass?

Its a subscription service that has a library of games that you can "download" to your console. 

That's it. Period. Done. 

How does sony emulate such a service?

Expand the already existing PS now, which also allows game downloads mind you (easy way) or just start a new service, hell call it PS Nation, and add games released on PS+ over the last 4 years (that's 96 games) and then go onto add all your first-party releases to the service and every upcoming release on day one and as many third party new releases as you can secure. 

Things like these aren't that hard at all. And when sony starts isn't what matters, what matters is what games will be on the service and as far as that is concerned, Sony has by far the better software library. But as I keep saying, sony WILL NOT DO this, because they don't need to do it. But if they see that somehow its doing wonders for MS, then it something they can easily adapt.

Personally, I think you are attaching to much significance to gamepass. It's a great idea, but I just feel that for games, its an unsustainable business model. 

Sony can even do a way that only games being over 2 year old would be in their sub instant library if the impact of GP isn't big that way they don't lose their sales as well.

EricHiggin said:
Intrinsic said:

$300 4TF watered-down version of the XSX vs $400 10.3TF version of the PS5 with the only difference being a disc drive?

I said this before this reveal, that the XSS would be in the $300 - $350 range and would likely be all digital, and even then, I said the only thing sony needs to worry about is not having a $399 console.

The XB1 has been at a lower price than the PS4 (albeit unofficially) all of this generation and that didn't stop the PS4 from outselling it. A $100 difference is not going to suddenly make someone that wants a PS5 to go and get an XSS instead. Especially when for that $100 more with the PS5AD, you get a larger SSD and almost 2.5x the power.

I also said this before, the last thing S would want, is a $399 10TF PS5 that falls in the middle of their $299 4TF offering and their 12TF $499 offering. The XSS existing at $299 actually makes a $399 appear to have the better value and a $499 XSX be too expensive.

If however the cheapest PS5 you can buy costs $449/$499 (which as I also said before would be dumb on sony's part if there is a $299 XSS on the market), then you can kiss all this goodbye and then in that case you would have a decent fight on your hands in some territories.

I remember, as well as those who thought a 1080p next gen console was crazy and was never going to happen, because it would be so stupid. Well it's not so crazy now, but we're still yet to determine how smart or stupid this decision was.

A $399 PS5 DE would cast a partial shadow over the XBSS, but if MS is smart, they will make it darn clear that the XBSX would be a waste unless you're gaming on a 4k screen. If they can push that messaging, clearly and loud, it will hurt PS5 DE sales, because why pay $100 more for that extra performance if you don't need 4k capabilities? The casuals won't take the games argument into account like the hardcore will, and XBSS would benefit from it's $100 advantage. Depending on the XBSX price, the XBSS may also be the preferred sale because it's costing MS less and is probably less of a sub, if not breaking even compared to cost and losses of XBSX.

Perhaps a stupid question, but has it been 100% confirmed by SNY that PS5 and PS5 DE are identical in every way, other than the optical drive? It's been explained what's in the PS5, and I've gone through a few articles quickly here, but none of them clearly state that both the PS5 and PS5 DE are exactly the same specs, minus the optical drive. Now based on their form factor and what's been talked about, I would assume they're the same, but do we really know?

PAOerfulone said:
Absolutely no chance at all.
It’ll close the gap and it’ll be a closer race than the PS4/XBO was, but that’s not saying much.

That race will likely finish as follows:
PS4 - 125 million
XBO - 50 million

And THIS race will probably look like this:
PS5 - 105 million
XSX - 70 million

There’s going to be a lot of early adapters, more than usual for a new console generation thanks to that $300 Series S, and then when those consumers eventually want to upgrade, they’ll be much more likely to go to Series X than PS5c since they’ll already have an account, Game Pass, and be well familiar with the Xbox Series ecosystem at that point.

Microsoft still doesn’t stand a chance, but that’s ok, because it would still be an improvement over last gen and they would be on they can build off that momentum so that one day, they might be able to compete.

If there's a $100 gap between PS5 DE and XBSS, I'd guess XB should be able to put themselves back in 360 sales territory, if they can bring the games. This was about the only choice they had anyway. If they tried to go toe to toe with PS5 and compete as directly as possible, very little would have changed from this gen.

The next move would be to eventually slim down the XBSX and make it all digital, while introducing a new top tier model (with an optical drive again). Get the all digital crowd to not only upgrade, but remain all digital.

So you want MS to nuke their own console saying PS5 is pointless make Series X even less worth since it will be even more expensive for lower increment.



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."