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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony: "Unlike PS3, we are not planning a major loss with the launch of PS4"

osed125 on 09 May 2013
VGKing said:
osed125 said:
VGKing said:
Zero999 said:
VGKing said:

PS4 is a high-end product. I'd say $499 is reasonable for what you'll be getting. $450 would be generous of Sony and $400 would be a steal. Let's not forget that next-gen consoles aren't targeted at the mainstream. 

It all depends on the HDD size, whether or not a game is included..etc..etc. 

Ps4 is a video game and therefore 399 is expensive, 449 is too expensive and 499 is more than abusive.

just to be clear, i'm not talking about the cost of the console against the cost of components. another example: with ps3 at launch, you'd pay 499/599 for something that costs 700+. it's a great deal but it was still a videogame and that price is incredibly high for one.

considering the recession, i think 499 is the new "599" from 2006 so it is worrying when the bare minimun price we can think of is 399 wich is already expensive.

Gaming isn't a cheap hobby, it never has been. For those that can't afford a PS4, there's the PS3.

This thing will last people 7+ years. PS4 will be more than a just a video game console though. It will be an entertainment hub just like PS3 was.

Being an entertainment hub won't be a selling point. There are TONS of other devices that are cheaper where you can watch movies, TV series, etc. Heck you can use Netflix with your smartphone, which is more than enough for a lot of people. Gaming consoles sell because of games, all this entertainment stuff are just bonuses which will only be a second thought or not even a priority for a lot of people.  

Is true that gaming has never been a cheap hobby, but the economy is not in a well position for people to spend $400+ on a simple hobby. As long as the 360 and PS3 have games coming for them and the PS4 and Xbox Infinity are expensive (let's say until they reach a $300-$350 price point (not counting subscription base models, if there are any)), then both consoles will suffer in the sales department, at least that's what I think.

It is a selling point. Who would buy a console that can't even have internet access? These things are expected these days. 

I agree. PS3/360 will sell 3-4x more than PS4/720 this holiday. No one is expecting PS4/720 to sell 1 million on Black Friday like 360 did one year.

Having internet and using it as entertainment media are two different things. Internet is obviously required to play online multiplayer, buy games and DLC, all of them game related. But most people aren't simple going to spend $400 to watch Netflix on it. Watching movies will be a second thought.

It's like the 360, I remember an article saying that a high percentage of 360 consoles on american households are being used mainly as an entertainment hub. This is because those families bought the console for the kinect to play kinect games, once they got bored they end up using it for their Netflix, Hulu+ or what have you. I remember an article saying something similar about the Wii. 



Nintendo and PC gamer

Around the Network
platformmaster918 on 09 May 2013
osed125 said:
platformmaster918 said:
osed125 said:
platformmaster918 said:
Wagram said:
Never understood selling a product at a loss to recoup through software or accessories. I don't believe i've ever seen that as a successful viable strategy.

PS1 and 2 say hi

Both did lose money during the first year, the following years were profitable. Also there's the fact that Sony other divisions were extremely profitable at the time (especially TVs which is now in a very difficult position). They could take the losses very easily, and one of the reasons they decided to go the same route with the PS3 (and obviously didn't worked for them).

Loosing money on hardware is a very risky business decision, companies try to avoid as much as they can, but is something they most do in order to have an attractive price point. 

unfotuneatly people don't seem to realize what a deal they're getting on game systems even when you sell them at a loss.  If you went out and tried to build these things you would have to spend over $600 easily (especially considering they get significantly more performance out of those same components).  I think they should start out at $500 since most people wait for the first pricedrop and every pricedrop gives them a sales boost.  Why start at $400 when sales will drop off quick when you can start at $500 and cut price to $450 the following Fall to give yourself a boost.  Obviously it gets to a point where this gets stupid and no one would start at $700 or whatever but I'm saying that $500 can be accepted by hardcore fans and make a profit hopefully for a little and then you just have to hold out for long enough to not have to have an ambassador program.  In the end as WiiU and Vita have shown us you just gotta create an enticing product.  WiiU is lower than the other next gen systems most likely but it's not selling because it looks like a 7th gen console and people just aren't excited.

Selling the system at a high price just for your fanbase is a double edge sword. How long can your fanbase satisfy your sales? And even the most hardcore fans can't simple pay $500 because of money issues or other stuff. That didn't worked with the PS3 (and that was worst because they were already taken a $300 loss on every console) and it probably won't work now.

If you don't have good sales at the beginning, you're not going to get support, no support = no sales. Unless you do a very risky price cut (like Nintendo did with the 3DS) most consoles don't have an official price reduction until their first or one and a half year on the market. Sony had a hell of time restoring the PS3, not sure if they can do that again.

Companies need to attract every fanbase from the beginning, if they don't it will result in another PS3 all over again, which can't be good for Sony.

Yeah if sales are deplorable I don't think it'll be good but if PS3 can get support PS4 will.  I was mainly talking about how they could actually make money from the start because as you said they were already taking a huge loss with PS3 and still had to cut price early by big margins $100 instead of $50).




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

DietSoap on 09 May 2013
platformmaster918 said:
osed125 said:
platformmaster918 said:
osed125 said:
platformmaster918 said:
Wagram said:
Never understood selling a product at a loss to recoup through software or accessories. I don't believe i've ever seen that as a successful viable strategy.

PS1 and 2 say hi

Both did lose money during the first year, the following years were profitable. Also there's the fact that Sony other divisions were extremely profitable at the time (especially TVs which is now in a very difficult position). They could take the losses very easily, and one of the reasons they decided to go the same route with the PS3 (and obviously didn't worked for them).

Loosing money on hardware is a very risky business decision, companies try to avoid as much as they can, but is something they most do in order to have an attractive price point.

unfotuneatly people don't seem to realize what a deal they're getting on game systems even when you sell them at a loss.  If you went out and tried to build these things you would have to spend over $600 easily (especially considering they get significantly more performance out of those same components).  I think they should start out at $500 since most people wait for the first pricedrop and every pricedrop gives them a sales boost.  Why start at $400 when sales will drop off quick when you can start at $500 and cut price to $450 the following Fall to give yourself a boost.  Obviously it gets to a point where this gets stupid and no one would start at $700 or whatever but I'm saying that $500 can be accepted by hardcore fans and make a profit hopefully for a little and then you just have to hold out for long enough to not have to have an ambassador program.  In the end as WiiU and Vita have shown us you just gotta create an enticing product.  WiiU is lower than the other next gen systems most likely but it's not selling because it looks like a 7th gen console and people just aren't excited.

Selling the system at a high price just for your fanbase is a double edge sword. How long can your fanbase satisfy your sales? And even the most hardcore fans can't simple pay $500 because of money issues or other stuff. That didn't worked with the PS3 (and that was worst because they were already taken a $300 loss on every console) and it probably won't work now.

If you don't have good sales at the beginning, you're not going to get support, no support = no sales. Unless you do a very risky price cut (like Nintendo did with the 3DS) most consoles don't have an official price reduction until their first or one and a half year on the market. Sony had a hell of time restoring the PS3, not sure if they can do that again.

Companies need to attract every fanbase from the beginning, if they don't it will result in another PS3 all over again, which can't be good for Sony.

Yeah if sales are deplorable I don't think it'll be good but if PS3 can get support PS4 will.  I was mainly talking about how they could actually make money from the start because as you said they were already taking a huge loss with PS3 and still had to cut price early by big margins $100 instead of $50).

All first Playstation price cuts are by $100, and the first PS3 first price cut  (November 2007, 12 months after launch) wasn't much different in timeframe than either the PS1 or PS2.

PS1 price was slashed $100 8 months after launch, PS2 price was slashed $100 19 months after launch. 13 months is the average time it takes for $100 price cut on a Playstation home console, 13 and a half if you don't include the PS3.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Price_cuts

 

 



NintendoPie on 09 May 2013

Goodness, this could mean a range of things.

The PS4 shouldn't be as difficult/pricey to develop so I doubt it'll as ridiculous as the PS3's price, but it still can't be low or nearly a "competing" price. But who knows, maybe Sony came up with an alien way to make things recently!



NintendoPie on 09 May 2013
VGKing said:

Not gonna happen. Isn't the Wii U still selling at a loss? 
Another thing to consider....the PS3 and 360 will be dirt cheap this holiday. They're still very much relevant.

I think as though the Wii U is still selling at a loss. A price-cut isn't necessary, however. Real games that make people want to buy the system are.



Around the Network
Viper1 on 09 May 2013
DietSoap said:

A little more on this, kind of interesting

 "It was also noted that Nintendo are currently losing 20 billion yen each year on Nintendo hardware, but that this loss will be reduced by reusing the production plants for the next generation of hardware. A closing comment was made that if Nintendo could reach an operating profit of 150 billion yen for the year, the stock price could well rise to 20000 yen (it is currently around the 12500 mark)."

http://www.the-magicbox.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9151

 

 Dates for price cuts if anyone's interested:

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Price_cuts

That figure was analyst speculation and I'm very dubious at that number to begin with as that would mean a $197 million loss per year on GC hardware. 

DietSoap said:

Source then?

 

"IGNcube: Okay. Now GameCube is selling for $99 and it's doing great. But is Nintendo losing money on each unit sold? 

Perrin: I would say that our losses are really negligible. It's such a small amount"

http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/01/15/gamecube-sales-update?page=2

 

They made up for it with software of course like they assuredly did at launch as well, but they still sold the console for a loss.

Then perhaps that si when they took the $9 hit per unit.  I was under the impression it was at launch.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

DietSoap on 09 May 2013

^ $200 million is chump change for pure hardware all things considered, sounds accurate enough. They did also lose at launch, I've heard the under $10 figure you were talking about often.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/537



Viper1 on 09 May 2013
DietSoap said:
^ $200 million is chump change for pure hardware all things considered, sounds accurate enough. They did also lose at launch, I've heard the under $10 figure you were talking about often.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/537

I mean if they were really losing $200 million on GC hardware per year, that would have made some serious noise in the media and on game forums.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

DietSoap on 09 May 2013

Per year is misleading, it's obviously talking about 2003 in particular after the drop to $99 since the article is smack dab in the middle of 2004.



Viper1 on 09 May 2013
DietSoap said:

Per year is misleading, it's obviously talking about 2003 in particular after the drop to $99 since the article is smack dab in the middle of 2004.

Per year is misleading.  A year, a quarter...doesn' tmatter.  Nintendo losing that kind of money ont he GC for any period of time would ahve been huge news.  



The rEVOLution is not being televised