What about the many games that launch at $60-$80 and are $30-$40 just 6 months later? Heck, AC Origins had only been out for about a month and was $80 at launch, yet only 1 month later on BF I paid $45 for it. GOW was $80 at launch in April, and I'll be getting it in a few days for $30.

What about the majority of companies who launch or are selling a product earlier in the year, fully intending to offer a worthwhile deal for that product on BF, whether it be a price drop or bundle deal?

If you would feel burned, then either wait, or don't ever buy anything at all. Time waits for no one, and time has a value as well.

Not if the console you bought was called something like "25th Anniversary Limited Edition" and had a different color or whatever then 6 months later they release a "normal"h black version of the console. 

The only shock for me is (not that Sony is not attending. I knew at some point they would not be showing up) that Nintendo, with their, "half in, half out" presence at E3, was not the first one to abandon the show entirely. That is truly shocking.

No. Releasing 2 SKUs at once is not a good idea. Just look at the PS3. Its like no one remembers that there was a $499 sku.

Secondly, the first 5-10M people that buy a new console are usually the loyalists. The core fanbase. The early adopters, the least likely to be deterred by whatever price the console costs. And if you are branding that launch SKU as an early release limited edition console pending "full production" people will buy it as such. Some will even see it as a collectors item.

Either way, everyone will know that the "mainstream" cheaper release will be in 6 months. As you said, the limited edition will sell out either way.

All I am saying is that that only needs to be done for the first 6 months. And only if sony is making a $450 box that they will have to sell for $399... this strategy just gives them some breathing room.

You just explained how they are half out and then said they are not really half out, "in that sense" which makes no sense. You also failed to mention that many of Nintendo's biggest announcements come after E3 (like SNES Classic, DOOM, Wolfenstein) when they damn well could have come at E3. Nintendo has definitely scaled back and had one foot out the door but they are still present and they do give some effort. They are pretty much the definition of "half in, half out" if you give it further thought.

One normal model that's $399, and a visually different 25th anniversary edition for $499, probably isn't going to go over very well, especially if that leads to $399 editions being out of stock constantly. Maybe a $499 25th edition with some 25th ann swag and memorabilia could work, but your still going to probably have the overwhelming majority of people wanting to buy the cheaper normal edition, which defeats the purpose if the console hardware is most certainly worth $499.

PS won't really know PS5 is selling well until 6-12 months after launch. A 25th anniversary edition at launch will just be another reason to own one and be part of the group. If that isn't necessary and PS5 sells amazing anyway at $499, then what's the difference? It's not like PS can offer it a year later on their 26th year.

That's if they have another next gen console to chose from. If Scarlet doesn't show up for 6 months to a year after PS5, then all they'll be doing is telling the customers to wait. Just because your a PS loyalist, doesn't necessarily mean you have or $400 or $500 in your back pocket for their next console. That's also why giving consumers a heads up well in advance isn't a terrible idea, because it builds hype if done right, and allows them time to save up or hold off on some games or trade in early before existing hardware loses even more value, to be able to afford that next upcoming purchase.

More inclusive only matters if the console won't sell well enough at $499. That's because $299 or even $199 for PS5 would be by far the most inclusive, but that may not fit the business plan at launch and during year 1 sales. They could even make a 3rd $299 1080p/60 model for all of us who won't be upgrading to 4k anytime soon. The name of the game with consoles is simplicity, as much as reasonably possible, and an initial $499 25th PS5 late 2019 or early 2020, followed by a $399 PS5 holiday 2020, is about as simple as it get's for a console that's specifically built to be worth every penny of that $499 price point.

We're not talking about a $30 drop in software.  We're talking about a $100 drop in hardware.  Software has to compete with new releases within weeks, and therefore have a shorter shelf-life at full retail in general.  Hardware prices are more stable, because they generally face the same competition for years.  I don't think a hardware manufacture would want to intentionally put into the consumer mindset that if they wait 6 months, they can save $100 on their console purchase.  That size of price drop that quickly is usually a reactionary measure from a device struggling to gain traction.  When the 3DS dropped $80 in price within 6 months of release, Nintendo gifted 20 games to all early adopters (Nintendo 3DS Ambassador Program) to soften the blow.  The total value if purchased through Virtual Console would be $129.89.  If Sony were to intentionally drop the price of the PS5 by $100 6 months after launch, that would be a bad PR road to go down.

$30 savings on one game. So if you buy just 3 sale priced recently launched games in one year, or 1 full priced game plus dlc, you've spent $100 already. Why is PS5 selling for $499 late 2019 or early 2020 a problem then if it's price drops to $399 by holiday 2020? Sure, PS4 and Pro have sold very well given their $399 launch prices, but due to inflation, and the want and need to push the boundaries of next gen, a $399 price point can only go on so long before it's completely unfeasible. There's no doubt PS is probably thinking about trying to put the VR breakout box in the console as well, which would mean even weaker standard hardware at $399, if they choose to go that route. The smarter idea in that case, to make sure the specs don't look like they suffered, would be to have the standard specs cost around $450 ish, plus the breakout box at let's say $50, so $500 total. Sell PS5 at $499 year 1, at cost, then the following holiday, subsidize it $100 and drop the price to $399. This may hold back PS5 sales somewhat earlier on, but would be done so to strengthen VR sales in the long run.

If Scarlet was on the market, and was competitive in terms of hardware specs, and was $100 cheaper, then yes, $499 for PS5 could potentially be a bit of a hindrance, maybe. If there is no direct competition for the first year, or majority of it, then your not competing with anyone but yourself.

It does matter, depending on the business plan in place. Unless they can sell that many more games at higher prices overall, or more subs at higher prices, those costs have to get paid for somehow. Just offering more cheaper hardware doesn't solve the input cost problem.

How bad off was the XB1X at launch? How far ahead was it announced before it's launch? In which gen did the majority of pubs/devs only make games exclusively for next gen systems during their first, second or even third year on the market? In which new gen was the hardware architecture identical to the prior?

Being inclusive either means making sure the console can do everything it typically can, whatever the price, or making sure the console is cheap enough that the largest audience can purchase it asap. Which would mean something like a $499 console that's worth at least $499, or something like a $299 console that as many people as possible can immediately get their hands on, pending manufacturing volume. Even if PS5 was $399 at launch, all the people who wanted one, that couldn't afford it until the price dropped to $199, wouldn't be considered "included". Having to wait 5 or 6 years to get something wouldn't be considered "inclusive", because apparently having to wait just 1 year isn't being "inclusive" enough.

$399 was, and has been the sweet spot up until now. $299 used to be the sweet spot. At some point in time $499 will be the sweet spot. For the same amount of time that PS has thought $399 was the sweet spot, XB has thought it was $499. Maybe XB was wrong, and maybe XB has been thinking ahead. There seems to be a fair amount of PS fans that almost think they would be betrayed if PS5 was $499, yet if Scarlet is $499, it'll just be another day in the world of XB, for XB fans as well as PS fans.

So for 6 months, PS actually makes some money or breaks even on PS5, to then lose money 6 months later, so more people can be included as quickly as possible, and that doesn't help to solve the input cost problem any more than starting at $399 and only losing money on hardware? Just look at XB1 sales at $499 for the first 6 months, and that's after one of the most botched console launches in history. If PS only has price to worry about, that's unbelievably minor in comparison to the XB1 and PS3 issues, so they should be able to sell plenty just fine at $499 for 6 months to a year before they drop to $399.

Only laying out one specific scenario is like randomly pointing to one star in the sky and saying yup, that's the system with life in it. If PS could launch PS5 late 2019 for $499, and then drop it to $399 late 2020, you would rather PS just wait until late 2020 and launch at $399? Why not allow the console an extra year on the market? Should MS have waited and launched XB1X this holiday for $399?

So be more inclusive, but not too inclusive? Sounds a lot like 'I can afford $399, and that budget should be enough to please my hardware needs, and I like to be first just because, so that's what PS should do'. PS is a business first off, and secondly, they have 100 million+ people to try to cater to, who range from rich to poor. The best way to please as many as possible would actually be to follow in the path MS looks to be taking, and offering multiple hardware SKU's, at different performance ranges and prices. A 1080p/60 SKU for $299, and a 4k/60 SKU for $499 makes a tonne of sense to me, for those who can't afford to go 4k anytime soon, but some would argue 2 SKU's is a death wish. While there are PS fans who would like that, or wouldn't care, there are others who will not stand for it. So what's the right answer when your stuck between a rock and your fan base, without hurting yourself financially?

Yes, launch prices over time will continually increase. PS1 and PS2 were $299, while XBOX was $299. PS4 and PS3 ($549) should have been $399, while 360 and XB1 ($499) should have been $399. Pro and XB1X during this transition period could have been either $399 or $499, since $49 prices are more rare. PS5 and Scarlet should be $499, but I don't think they should remain at $499 for anywhere near as long as PS4 remained at $399.