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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Can Sony afford to make PS5 more expensive than PS4 launch price?

 

How much should it cost?

400 45 52.94%
 
450 15 17.65%
 
500 21 24.71%
 
550 0 0%
 
600 0 0%
 
600+ 4 4.71%
 
Total:85

Can Sony afford to make PS5 more expensive than PS4 launch price?

Of Course they can, but that would most likly mean slower sales compared to PS4. Personally, I am always for lower price point for consoles.



Around the Network
twintail said:
drkohler said:

That is in no way obvious. 

Nah it is.

Retaining their customers is of utmost importance considering how strongly they are relying on network related purchasing for profits .

Not having BC , at least digitally, will undermine all the hard work they have done this gen.

Agreed.  And it shouldn't be too difficult with them sticking with AMD and the x86 architecture.  I'm hoping that PS4 B/C will come with the same benefits that running those games on a Pro sees.

@ OP

They may get away with it at launch, but just like the XBO saw, the sales will plummet quite a bit after the launch window.  I think Sony knows the sweet spot is $399.  Also, keep in mind that Sony isn't going to be making a $375 machine that they will see profit on, or even a $400 machine they will break even on.  Sony has always sold HW at a loss, and the PS5 will be no different.  They will be making a system that will be as powerful as they can for $450-$475, which also includes chips they get at cheaper prices due to bulk sales and buying them directly from AMD, and recoup losses with SW and PS+ sales.  And without greatly custom chips, the prices for the HW will drop to where they are at least breaking even on HW after 6-12 months.

Personally, I'm expecting what amounts to slightly parred back or underclocked Ryzen 2700Xs and Vega 64s.  The CPU gain would be quite incredible over the Jaguar ones that the Pro and X still use.  And the GPU would be ~11-12 Tflops.  This should be enough for 4K/30fps to be the new standard, though I assume many devs will choose to use 4K CB to push the HW further or help achieve 60fps.  Even with some of the worse devs, I think native 1440p is going to be the lowest resolution we'll see next gen.  As for memory, I expect at least 16 GB of GDDR6, with 1-2 GB of DDR4 for the OS.  And it will most likely launch with a 1-2 TB HDD.



I'm all for a more powerful console at a higher price, but I don't think Sony will do it. At this rate the PS5 will probably only be 30% more powerful than the Xbox X. These mid generation upgrades have probably made the jumps seem smaller.



thismeintiel said:

Also, keep in mind that Sony isn't going to be making a $375 machine that they will see profit on, or even a $400 machine they will break even on.  Sony has always sold HW at a loss, and the PS5 will be no different.  They will be making a system that will be as powerful as they can for $450-$475,...

https://www.engadget.com/2013/11/19/ps4-costs-381-to-make-according-to-hardware-teardown/

 

thismeintiel said:

...which also includes chips they get at cheaper prices due to bulk sales and buying them directly from AMD, and recoup losses with SW and PS+ sales. 

Why exactly should they get a much better price from AMD than the graphics card manufacturers who also buy AMD chips in bulks? Especially in a market where the demand for powerful chips is much higher than the supply due to crypto-currency mining?

 

thismeintiel said:

And without greatly custom chips, the prices for the HW will drop to where they are at least breaking even on HW after 6-12 months.

Just like the prices for Polaris chips dropped in the last 12 months or the prices for VEGA chips dropped in the last 6 months, right. And don't let us forget the price drops for RAM and flash memory in the last 12 months...



Conina said:
thismeintiel said:

Also, keep in mind that Sony isn't going to be making a $375 machine that they will see profit on, or even a $400 machine they will break even on.  Sony has always sold HW at a loss, and the PS5 will be no different.  They will be making a system that will be as powerful as they can for $450-$475,...

https://www.engadget.com/2013/11/19/ps4-costs-381-to-make-according-to-hardware-teardown/

 

thismeintiel said:

...which also includes chips they get at cheaper prices due to bulk sales and buying them directly from AMD, and recoup losses with SW and PS+ sales. 

Why exactly should they get a much better price from AMD than the graphics card manufacturers who also buy AMD chips in bulks? Especially in a market where the demand for powerful chips is much higher than the supply due to crypto-currency mining?

 

thismeintiel said:

And without greatly custom chips, the prices for the HW will drop to where they are at least breaking even on HW after 6-12 months.

Just like the prices for Polaris chips dropped in the last 12 months or the prices for VEGA chips dropped in the last 6 months, right. And don't let us forget the price drops for RAM and flash memory in the last 12 months...

1. That's just an estimate.  I believe it when Sony themselves say they will sell at a loss, but recoup it with game sales, not some firm I've never heard of. 

2. I don't know, common sense.  The price you see on cards not only includes everything on those cards besides the chips (like cooling), it also includes the profit AMD wants from the chips PLUS the profit the card maker wants to see from the card PLUS the profit the retailer gets for selling the card.  Buying directly from AMD only includes the profit that AMD wishes to see, plus savings that manufacturers always give for buying in large quantities.  And given that Sony is going to be selling tens of millions of these things, if not 100M+, they can negotiate for lower prices than a card manufacturer can get for selling a few million.

3. The crazy crypto frenzy is going to have died down by the time PS5 goes in production, especially now that Bitcoin has proven its volatility lately.  Even if it wasn't, AMD can choose to prioritize who gets their chips.  And their future is going to rest on gamers upgrading HW, not miners chasing a few "coins."  Same goes for RAM.  The conditions of today are not going to be what they are in a year or two.  Prices are going to start to fall as manufacturers increase production to meet demand.



Around the Network

Just to break the mold, I wonder what the switch's influence in all this would be.



Shadow1980 said:
$500 isn't worth as much now as it was at the start of last generation. Adjusted for inflation, the 20GB PS3's launch price was $615, and the 20GB 360's was just over $500.

I think a $500 system released in 2020 or 2021 would work if Sony found a way to justify it, and they could do so by making the PS5 as powerful as possible for the price point (yay, alliteration). After 14-15 years of inflation, $500 just isn't outrageous for a console as it once was. Now, a $500 PS5 may have lower initial sales and be a slower burn like the 360 & PS3 were, but that also means that through strategic placement of price cuts Sony could extend the generation longer, maybe to where the PS6 won't need to be released until 2028 at the absolute earliest.

Now, MS could undercut Sony with a $400 Xbox 4, but such a system will either A) come at a loss if it matches the PS5's specs, or B) it will be underpowered compared to the PS5, perhaps to a non-trivial degree. This could have an effect. The 360 was $100 less expensive than the PS3 at launch (counting just the 20GB SKUs), but the two were roughly on par in terms of capabilities as a gaming system, with the PS3's only real advantage being its ability to play Blu-ray movies

A slightly slower launch for PS5 will be fine, they just need to make sure the price gets down to $400 reasonably soon. Assuming another Nov launch, lets say a full year at $500, then a drop to $400 for BF and $429 or $450 bundles for the rest of the holiday, with a permanent drop back down to $400 early in the new year. This should allow them to recover their costs even quicker without losing much pace with PS4.

XB could undercut PS, but they have to be careful about this. If PS5 is worth $500 and costs $500, and 'XB2' is worth $500 but costs $400, then if PS drops the price by $50 to $100, XB should be persuaded to drop the price by the same amount to keep their lower price advantage. This means XB has to be willing to take a $200 loss, or potentially lose sales to PS5.

If PS5 is worth $500 and costs $500, and 'XB2' is worth $400 and costs $400, then PS can drop the price by $50 or $100, which should force XB to drop the price by the same amount. XB has to be willing to take $100 loss if this happens, or potentially end up losing sales to PS5. The same could be said if 'XB2' is $500 and the PS5 is $400. This would actually seem to be a more likely scenario since XB requires a larger performance jump than PS does compared to this gen.



The PS4 cost $400 so the PS5 should cost $500. It only rhymes, like poetry.



Intrinsic said:

700mhz over the PS4, 200mhz over the Pro.

Jaguar ia jaguar tho, there isn't any amount of sorcery that will change how weak it is conpared to what PCs will be in thw next gen consoles. Likw we are talking likw 4-5 times the processing power. Anything that needs to be done to make the most of the jaguar PCs at that time will simply not-be worth the effort.

Well. The Playstation 4 is the lowest common denominator for CPU this generation, hence why I represented it as the baseline.

And I agree. But... The less work you do on that terrible CPU, the better, which gives the Xbox One X a larger advantage than the raw numbers would otherwise imply.

I would not be surprised if the Xbox One X's CPU was a good 60-80% faster than the Playstation 4. It's still shit, just less shit.

Errorist76 said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/6tmtvq/amd_vega_coming_to_ps4_pro/

It’s not a bold claim, it’s the truth. Sony helped on the development and AMD got to keep the features (can’t find the exact article, but there’s are many similar ones). Can’t believe you didn’t know that....you always seem to know everything.


You are joking with the reddit post right? Try again.

Errorist76 said:

https://youtu.be/z-qLsuPTgvE

That doesn't demonstrate where Sony helped AMD "Invent" Rapid Packed Math.
Nor is a Youtube video with some persons (wccftech) opinion empirical evidence.

Errorist76 said:

https://www.techradar.com/news/why-amds-new-graphics-cards-could-mean-good-news-for-ps4-pro-owners

"Dan Horbury at Mad Fellows Games, described this technology as being like "hyper-threading for GPUs"" - When talking about Rapid Packed Math.

I'm dead.

Nor does that Article show how Sony helped AMD invent Rapid Packed Math.

You do understand what empirical evidence is right? Now try and demonstrate how you got from Conclusion A to Conclusion B, the burden of proof lays with you.

malistix1985 said:
I hope they make it more expensive personally, we don't want a jaguar potato 30fps generation part 2. Ofcource it will have Ryzen cuz prices have dropped down but if they spent an extra 100 on more RAM that will make the next 5 years so much better, they could also choose to take a bigger loss/hit and sell it at 400 but for the love of god make it powerful.

30fps will likely always be a "thing" regardless of how powerful the console hardware is, some developers simply prioritize it for artistic/graphics reasons.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Basically everything. Just check what Nintendo can manage to get out of their hardware even though in raw power it's massively lagging behind since the Wii. This doesn't only count for graphics directly, but also other things like texture compression and anything hanging on recurring algorithms.

Nintendo's games aren't graphical powerhouses, they haven't been for generations.
But they do have some of the best artists in the industry, that is undeniable.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Less than that and it won't have enough to differentiate itself from the PS4 Pro or the XOX. Even in 7nm that will need a pretty big chip, and the bigger the chip, the more expensive it gets, nearly exponentially so in fact.

Indeed. AMD also recognized this, so you know what they did? They used a fabric to stitch together smaller chips that have orders-of-magnitude better yields.
And thus costs were lowered substantially, more working chips you get out of a wafer, the better.

I wouldn't be surprised if next-gen took a similar multi-chip approach.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

DRAM is not artificially inflated, the prices are high because there's simply not enough production capacity worldwide for those chips. Hopefully this will change next year when some fabs come online, but it might still not be enough if demand keeps growing like it does right now.

Oh. They are artificially inflated. Fabs switched production from DRAM to NAND.

We may actually have an oversupply of NAND soon, which means more fabs will switch back to fabricating DRAM.

https://epsnews.com/2017/11/07/samsung-end-tight-dram-supply-earlier-expected/
https://epsnews.com/2017/09/22/expect-tight-dram-supply-2018-possible-oversupply-nand-flash/

Bofferbrauer2 said:

bolded: Did you mean DDR5 with that? If yes, you got something mixed up. DDR5 is getting specified this year. Until commercial release it will take a couple more years, probably 2021 or 2022 if it takes about as long as it took for DDR3 and DDR4.

Nope. I meant GDDR6 which has twice the density over GDDR5. And has already entered production this year.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3216-hw-news-gddr6-mass-production-msft-telemetry-amd-newhires

Bofferbrauer2 said:

But a PS4 will most probably use GDDR, not simple DDR Memory, based on DDR4. Such a memory is sill not out, though a GDDR6 is probably coming any time now and will probably be used in a PS5.

Whatever provides the most performance for the lowest cost is what the console manufacturers will use.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

In singlecore, sure. But would that still be true in multicore with it's 8 processor cores? Unless it's a core 2 quad, I doubt it. Jaguar is weak, but not that weak.

The 8x Jaguar cores in the Xbox One and Playstation 4 consoles are roughly equivalent to a Haswell Core i3 @ 3.0ghz.

The Core 2 Quad I have happily operates at 3.8ghz and will outbench that when all cores are loaded. (The Haswell still has a big single threaded advantage.)
Which is why... Despite that CPU being almost a decade old... I can still play most games just fine on that system.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1367?vs=49

Here a Core 2 Quad @ 3ghz is roughly equivalent to a Core i3 @ 2.9Ghz in mult-threaded scenario's. Throw another 800mhz (27%) increase in clock rate for the Core 2... And well. You get the idea.

Besides, the consoles don't get all 8x CPU cores for gaming anyway.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

I want it to be $600 and release with Lair 2 and Genji Days Of The Blade 2 so I can relive my nostalgia



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick