By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 said:
crissindahouse said:

I think consoles would also sell for a higher price but only if MS and Sony would ask for $599 bucks and not only one of both. The PS3 had to compete against the 360 with a lower price and for many people, it offered pretty much the same to not care about the PS3. And the PS3 still sold well while having more problems than the price. Worse online structure, worse multi platform games and so on).

If PS5 and Series X would be $599 and there wouldn't be a lower priced Xbox, we would see really good sales numbers. I really doubt this magical "a gamer will never pay more than 500 bucks for a console while paying 600 isn't harder for him nowadays than 500 some years ago" now. 

It makes no sense that a gamer is a different kind of human who doesn't accept higher prices while everyone else on this planet accepts it for everything else as long as he also earns more. 

And I know that some other stuff even decreased in prices the last 20 years or so (TVs) but that's the industries itself who decided this direction since they could go down and went for lower prices to convince people to replace it faster which in the end still means higher spendings I guess. 

If they launch at $600 I expect a larger than normal drop in post launch sales.  I could see the consoles trailing the Ps4 and XBO.

Agreed. XB1 sold 3m by the end of 2013 and PS4 sold 4m. I could see similar numbers for XSX and PS5 at $600, but after that sales would drop off quite steeply once those couple million hardest-core gamers all had theirs. I'd be surprised if XSX passed 7m and PS5 12m by the end of 2021 if they launch at $600, even with a price cut to $500 Holiday 2021 (compared to 11m XB1 and 19m PS4 by the end of 2014). 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 29 December 2019

Around the Network
ironmanDX said:
EricHiggin said:

Then again, what if there's just two consoles, and they're both $599? Than what?

Time to get... 2 new jobs? 

The...perfect...response. LOLOLOLOLOL

shikamaru317 said:

I personally just can’t see $600 happening. MS and Sony know that gamers are highly resistant to price increases, it’s why the price of AAA games has stayed at $60 for like 15 years, when everything else from food to movies to utilities has gone up by 30%+ in that same time frame, publishers know that they would face extreme backlash if they increased to $70 or $80. The vast majority of console gamers will not spend $600 on a console, even $500 is too much for most of them.

I also think $599 is unlikely for both. I do think $599 for a higher tier console, that's worth way more than that when compared to PC, competing against a worthy $499 console, is a possibility. More expensive for less or the same clearly isn't acceptable. More expensive for clearly more? It won't be the lead seller, but it would sell enough. Most likely, if there's a gap, it's $399 and $499 again though.

In terms of the people who don't want a console that's too expensive for them, or who don't want multiple SKU's of different performance for many reasons, the best a $599 situation could be, is one where Lockhart exists, but is actually $399 and worth every penny. A very similar type of situation as this gen, just right out of the gate. Games made for a worthy next gen system, that perform better on the more expensive SKU, but are held back slightly because of the base system. It worked ok this gen, so no reason why it really shouldn't work next gen.

crissindahouse said:

I think consoles would also sell for a higher price but only if MS and Sony would ask for $599 bucks and not only one of both. The PS3 had to compete against the 360 with a lower price and for many people, it offered pretty much the same to not care about the PS3. And the PS3 still sold well while having more problems than the price. Worse online structure, worse multi platform games and so on).

If PS5 and Series X would be $599 and there wouldn't be a lower priced Xbox, we would see really good sales numbers. I really doubt this magical "a gamer will never pay more than 500 bucks for a console while paying 600 isn't harder for him nowadays than 500 some years ago" now. 

It makes no sense that a gamer is a different kind of human who doesn't accept higher prices while everyone else on this planet accepts it for everything else as long as he also earns more. 

And I know that some other stuff even decreased in prices the last 20 years or so (TVs) but that's the industries itself who decided this direction since they could go down and went for lower prices to convince people to replace it faster which in the end still means higher spendings I guess. 

This was where I was getting my $599 for both from. If they both want to offer a massive jump like PS3 did, as long as they both had a similar price with similar worthy hardware, the sales wouldn't be as bad as some would think. They wouldn't be stellar mind you, but over time they would end up similar to how PS3 did overall. Mostly casuals would save up and 3-5 years down the road they would upgrade.

How would this impact mid gen sales though, if that takes place again? Would it be better or worse? Upgraders should have more willing buyers for their older cheaper hardware.

Is $599 a reasonable price? In general no, but if the only direct competition is also the same price, then that to a degree justifies it.

Also take into account what that would mean for a next gen Switch. If it can barely play downgraded games from a $399 launch console, what about when those next gen launch consoles are $599? 

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 29 December 2019

Got the 500 points for doing the Gears 5 task was easier then I thought it would be just played some horde mode and got an achievement for it.



shikamaru317 said:
haxxiy said:

The prices were sometimes higher back then due to how expensive the cartridges were. Many people don't realize just how expensive those carts were to make. Big games back in those days could have budgets as high as $300m, higher than GTA V's massive $265m budget 20 years later, but like 8/10ths of the budget back then was the cost of manufacturing the cartridges, cases, and manuals, with the other 2/10ths going to development and marketing budget. By comparison, GTA V's manufacturing budget for the launch shipment was estimated at just $7m of it's $265m budget. My point is that AAA game cost has stayed at $60 for the last 15 or so years, without suffering from the inflation seen in just about every other product, because the publishers know they would face extreme backlash for a price increase. Instead publishers rely on things like microtransactions and deluxe/gold editions to cover the cost of inflation, charging those who are willing to pay more while avoiding the ire of those who aren't willing to pay more than $60 for a game. Likewise Sony and MS know that they would face extreme backlash for a console price increase next gen. Phil Spencer said that Microsoft understands what gamers consider to be a reasonable price for a console and suggested that they wouldn't go above that price on Series X. 

PC and console gamers are two entirely different demographics. Besides, the vast majority of those hundreds of millions of PC gamers worldwide are on low-end systems with integrated graphics, playing games on the laptops and such that they already own for work or school. Even in the west the most popular graphics cards are low-mid range. Most PC gamers aren't spending $1000+ on their systems and then spending $500+ on upgrades every few years, and though there are those that do, they are an extreme minority. Are there core console gamers who would spend $600 or more on a console? Sure, but they are an extreme  minority, that is not a mass market friendly price for a console. MS or Sony might sell 4m consoles within a few months of launch at $600, but after that sales would fall off a cliff until the first price cut. 

In which universe has a cartridge game ever cost $240 million dollars in cartridges? The 40 million Super Mario Bros. games out there wouldn't have costed 240 million dollars. Even at the highest price anyone has ever claimed for the fee Nintendo charged for N64 cartridges late in the 90s - $35 which also included Nintendo's licencing fees, by the way - that'd still be an initial order of over 6 million cartridges. Needless to say, there's no game back then that came anywhere close to this. Not even from Nintendo itself. And the fact most N64 games were no more than $10 - $20 than the competition points out to developer fees being lower than that on average.

Also, notice there's some 150 million active Steam accounts and, according to Steam's own hardware survey, half of them game on GTX 1060s or above. CPU-wise, 75% have four core CPUs or more. These two components alone translate to about $400 at the very least. The remainder who don't fit the mentioned specs are mostly people on laptops. While I can't say for certain the entire system will exceed $1000 for more than 50% of them, that still sound way more than "an extreme minority."

Also, it seems a bit rich to talk about "extreme backlash" (extreme again, my dude?) without evidence of what would actually happen (no one knows) while the same term could be applied, with far more evidence, to the same strategies developers are adopting to increase their profit margins, incluiding DLC, microtransactions, season passes, GAAS, etc.



 

 

 

 

 

600 Bones for the Series X is definitely something that can happen. The case would be if the performance over the competition justify the price. It really does not matter how much TF the Series X has over the PS5, the only thing that matter is if those extra TF show a significant difference between the 2 systems. The problem with the PS3 when it launch at 600 bones was not its price, it was the fact that the games did not look or perform better at the time of release then the 360. As developers were struggling to get the power out of the system, there were a lot of games that just performed better on the 360 then PS3 which caused gamers to have to justify paying that extra cost.

If the latest rumors are true, the Series X chip is going to be a beast. This thing is going to be huge and cost a pretty penny and MS has already shone they are not willing to subsidize cost just to gain marketshare. I believe the Series X will be 100 dollar difference between the PS5 but it will be up to MS to show the performance difference and have the right game line up at launch to justify the price or Sony probably will kill it. If there is a lockhart to coming in at 300 to 350 bones, then MS may have their mass market device but if its at 4TF compared to PS5 9.2, then I would believe it would definitely have to be 300 or below if its going to compete.



Around the Network
haxxiy said:
shikamaru317 said:

The prices were sometimes higher back then due to how expensive the cartridges were. Many people don't realize just how expensive those carts were to make. Big games back in those days could have budgets as high as $300m, higher than GTA V's massive $265m budget 20 years later, but like 8/10ths of the budget back then was the cost of manufacturing the cartridges, cases, and manuals, with the other 2/10ths going to development and marketing budget. By comparison, GTA V's manufacturing budget for the launch shipment was estimated at just $7m of it's $265m budget. My point is that AAA game cost has stayed at $60 for the last 15 or so years, without suffering from the inflation seen in just about every other product, because the publishers know they would face extreme backlash for a price increase. Instead publishers rely on things like microtransactions and deluxe/gold editions to cover the cost of inflation, charging those who are willing to pay more while avoiding the ire of those who aren't willing to pay more than $60 for a game. Likewise Sony and MS know that they would face extreme backlash for a console price increase next gen. Phil Spencer said that Microsoft understands what gamers consider to be a reasonable price for a console and suggested that they wouldn't go above that price on Series X. 

PC and console gamers are two entirely different demographics. Besides, the vast majority of those hundreds of millions of PC gamers worldwide are on low-end systems with integrated graphics, playing games on the laptops and such that they already own for work or school. Even in the west the most popular graphics cards are low-mid range. Most PC gamers aren't spending $1000+ on their systems and then spending $500+ on upgrades every few years, and though there are those that do, they are an extreme minority. Are there core console gamers who would spend $600 or more on a console? Sure, but they are an extreme  minority, that is not a mass market friendly price for a console. MS or Sony might sell 4m consoles within a few months of launch at $600, but after that sales would fall off a cliff until the first price cut. 

In which universe has a cartridge game ever cost $240 million dollars in cartridges? The 40 million Super Mario Bros. games out there wouldn't have costed 240 million dollars. Even at the highest price anyone has ever claimed for the fee Nintendo charged for N64 cartridges late in the 90s - $35 which also included Nintendo's licencing fees, by the way - that'd still be an initial order of over 6 million cartridges. Needless to say, there's no game back then that came anywhere close to this. Not even from Nintendo itself. And the fact most N64 games were no more than $10 - $20 than the competition points out to developer fees being lower than that on average.

Also, notice there's some 150 million active Steam accounts and, according to Steam's own hardware survey, half of them game on GTX 1060s or above. CPU-wise, 75% have four core CPUs or more. These two components alone translate to about $400 at the very least. The remainder who don't fit the mentioned specs are mostly people on laptops. While I can't say for certain the entire system will exceed $1000 for more than 50% of them, that still sound way more than "an extreme minority."

Also, it seems a bit rich to talk about "extreme backlash" (extreme again, my dude?) without evidence of what would actually happen (no one knows) while the same term could be applied, with far more evidence, to the same strategies developers are adopting to increase their profit margins, incluiding DLC, microtransactions, season passes, GAAS, etc.

Super Mario World for SNES from what I'm reading on the video game sales wiki. 20.6 million cartridges times $15 per cartridge comes out to $309m in manufacturing costs, and that's not even including the development budget or marketing budget.

The 3 most popular graphics cards on Steam are the 1060, 1050, and 1050ti, all 3 of which are classed as low-mid range cards now after 3 years on the market. Also, Steam is mostly people in the west, latest estimates suggest there are 1.3 billion PC gamers in the world, Steam hardware surveys only accounts for 90m of them (Steam currently has about 90m monthly active users). The vast majority of those 1.3 billion PC gamers aren't using systems that are as up to date as those you see on the Steam Hardware survey, as those monthly active users on Steam are mainly core gamers, not casuals. The casuals, as well as core gamers in poorer countries, do not have super powerful gaming PC's. But even disregarding all of that, comparing the PC market to the console market is apples to oranges, they are two entirely different beasts. PC gaming has a higher upfront cost for the hardware, but cheaper games, as many PC gamers wait for large discounts in Steam sales and grab humble bundles and such for cheap games. PC's are also multi-purpose devices, spending $1000 on something that you can use for everything from web browsing, to work, to gaming, is alot different than spending $600 on a console that will primarily be used for gaming.

We've seen the backlash against microtransactions and deluxe/gold editions when publishers decided to implement those to cover inflation costs instead of an across the board price increase to $ $70 or 80 for AAA games. If gamers got so pissed off about MT's and deluxe editions, which are optional purchases for those who are willing to spend more, you'd better believe the backlash would be extreme if publishers raised the price of AAA games to $80 for everyone. Gamers are a spoiled, entitled bunch sometimes. 



Jurassic World Evolution is pretty much all I'm playing lately. Really good park building simulator, even if it has some flaws. Some of them are easily fixable in a patch but that probably won't happen anymore. Very happy about this GwG title.



Category Top Pick Runner-Up
Best Shooter  Apex Legends CoD Modern Warfare 
Best Action/Action-Adventure  Kingdom Hearts 3  
Best RPG  Outer Worlds  Outer Worlds
Best Platformer    
Best Fighter  Jump Force  
Best Horror  Blair Witch  
Best Sports/Racing  Madden NFL 20 FIFA 20 
Best Soundtrack  Kingdom Hearts 3  Apex Legends
Best Art Design  Kingdom Hearts 3  Outer Wilds
Best Graphics  CoD Modern Warfare  Gears 5
Best Male Performance  Baary Sloane  Roman Dean George
Best Female Performance  Laura Bailey  
Best Moment/Sequence in a Video Game Going Dark- CoD Modern Warfare Fortnite chapter 1 end
Best Singleplayer  CoD Modernwarfare  
Best Multiplayer  Apex Legends  CoD Modern Warfare
Best Story  Life is Strange 2  Gears 5
Best Games With Gold Release List  Celeste  
Best Backwards Compatibility Release List    
Best Indie  Blair Witch  
Best Xbox Console Exclusive  Gears 5  
Overall Xbox Game of the Year  Apex Legend  CoD Modern Warfare
Most Anticipated 2020 Multiplat  Cyberpunk 2077  Elden Ring
Most Anticipated 2020 Xbox Console Exclusive  Halo Infinite  Bleeding Edge



Sounds like the Series X will be more expensive than the PS5.



jason1637 said:

Sounds like the Series X will be more expensive than the PS5.

Hopefully MS is smart and aims for a $50 gap then. XB1 X vs PS4 Pro already proved that selling a more powerful console for $100 more does not equal a sales victory for Microsoft.