Might Sony go with a two-SKU strategy next-gen (like Microsoft did with Series S)?

[DonFerrari]

scrapking said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

I agree with your points, but disagree with your conclusions.  You say the new architecture is more expensive to manufacture.  That can be true, but only if it's truly leading edge architecture.  Zen 2 and RDNA 2 are very good, but not quite leading edge compared to absolutely top-end PC components.  However, the new architecture being more efficient means the chips themselves are more expensive, but Series S gets better overall performance than the One X despite having less RAM, less memory bandwidth, etc.  So the new CPU/GPU might be more expensive, yet the system itself might be cheaper overall once you factor in the savings with the memory, the buses, etc.  One X was also a niche product, where Series S is a mass market product, and that further confuses the issue.

Your observation that Microsoft is losing money on the Series S doesn't disprove any of the above, since we don't know how much money they were making/losing on the One X.  And in any case, the One X was sold at a higher MSRP than the Series S, with further obfuscates things.

When it comes to software support, I continue to see evidence that it's a little bit of both.  Yes, the huge installed base of units is a contributing factor, and the fact that the system is still on sale is a contributing factor.

I dunno why we should consider X1X for this instead of let's say base PS4 since we are talking about making a cheaper model for 2 SKUs instead of keeping crossgen support. There is no question based on the data we have that having the base model (and possibly even the pro, but that wasn't the focus anyway on the crossgen, it isn't pro plus nextgen, it was base plus nextgen the pro only is supported by default in the end) after all the cut in costs (even if they gone and gave another pricecut) will be cheaper to manufacture than the entry level next gen for a few years at least.

Let's make an imagination exercise. Series S is estimate to lose up to 200 USD per HW sold (I guess Series X lose 100USD or possibly less... Phil Spencer said they lose 100 to 200 on every console sold) on the 299 pricetag so cost would be likely 499 to manufacture Series S, X1X was always sold at profit (MS said it was luxury/enthusiastic product so always sold at profit even on launch, same for PS4Pro) starting at 499 so after several years in the market it likely dropped manufacturing cost and would at least lose less money than Series S (but sure a much less capable machine at that).