scrapking said:
I think moving to a new architecture is also pro-profit, though. The Series S is cheaper to manufacture than the One X (that they had considered potentially keeping around instead), for example. I don't think the PS4 still being around two years later is just PS5 availability. The PS1 stayed around for years after the PS2 came out. The PS2 stuck around for years after the PS3 came out. The PS3 stuck around for a time after the PS4 came out. So, if there's no alternative budget system at the PS6 launch, why wouldn't Sony keep the PS5 around for a while too? Not only have they not dropped the cost of the PS5 Digital, they've actually raised its price in most countries. That price increase is not going to help them retire the PS4! :) |
Sorry but you are wrong on this.
A new architecture is more costlier to manufacture than the older one at the time of launch. MS is losing money on Series X and even more money on Series S, while Sony is about breaking even with PS5 and losing money on the digital version. Meanwhile PS4 is sold at profit for a long time now and didn't got pricecuts on the late life making the reduction in cost bring more profit on it.
I'll say again to you, the reason the systems are still manufactured and SW released for the older systems well into the gen is profit. Even on the other discussion we had you got it backwards, it isn't that Sony keeping the system under manufacture (even if in small quantity) that keeps the support of SW going or any mandate on it, it is just that the sales of SW on the older gen is still high enough for them to keep supporting and since they make profit on the older HW (which being discontinued wouldn't really open space to make the newer one since it is a different manufacturing process) they make it.
The sole reason MS discontinued Xbox 1 was that it was selling poorly and SW likely had dwindled a lot faster than PS4. This happens every gen, Sony keep manufacturing and supporting the older system longer than MS and Nintendo because the success they sustained on those systems allow for it to be alive longer.

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."







