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.
What exactly are the downsides to having both SKUs? Loyalists will still buy the more expensive limited edition. Those who want the cheaper model will buy the cheaper model. You avoid ppl being upset if the price drop is sudden (and maybe seen as not being supportive of their dedicated fans), you avoid ppl just not buying the console and waiting 6 months if they know its coming (which could lead to lower demand). You get more ppl on subscriptions sooner (which is where the real money is).
Well no. Citing a specific scenario is indeed what you need to do to back up your claims. You can't just pull the historical evidence card if it shares only vague similarities. As it stands, nothing is like what you are suggesting Sony do, so you don't have evidence from previous consoles to support your claims.
No, I am not suggesting they wait till 2020. I am questioning why you think $499 is the price they go for.
Yes, PS is a business: one currently making money from network services. So being more inclusive not only allows more ppl to buy into their services (where Sony makes the bulk of their money) but also allows their hardware to be profitable (even if backed up by software/ subscription money). What exactly is the financial disincentive here? If they can afford to do a higher priced PS5 for 6 months then drop the price, then they could just do both prices from the start and keep the anniversary model running a little longer than 6 months.
Yeah perhaps they will, but they will reach a ceiling where the asking price is too much.
1) SNES CLASSIC! If your definition excludes the biggest announcement of the year and the best selling hardware of the year being announced just days after E3, then it is no wonder you willingly ignore how Nintendo is half out the door.
2) I know that. But that is not the goalpost we are using here.
3) I did not say... you know what, it is clear you do not know what, "half in, half out" means as you are only focusing on one half of the equation. Since I already took into account Nintendo are still half in from the beginning, nothing you said added anything to the conversation except your blatant willingness to ignore the other side of this coin. Which is fine, I guess.
1) Are you even following the conversation? I didn't include SNES because I wasn't questioning it being a big announcement. I know it is. This is quite obvious from the fact that I only questioned why you thought Doom and Wolfenstein were big announcements. Did I question why you said SNES? No I didn't. Besides, that makes 33% for big announcements based on your chosen examples: that is not exactly a large number.
2) Even though this is a thread about Sony, and even though you name dropped Sony in your post, you expect me to reply to you only about Nintendo?
Other companies, including Sony who I mentioned, not always making big announcements at E3 is the goalpost here. you set that up yourself. Just because you want to shorten them now as you are unable to actually defend your argument here is not my problem. Nintendo doesn't make all their big announcements at E3. Guess what? Neither does Sony. So what exactly is your point here?
3) I know what it means. But I question if you actually even know what you are saying. Nintendo's live conference was replaced with 1) a streamed video, 2) Treehouse which are live demos, and 3) esports tournament, which is live, and they have more floor presence. Nintendo are doing even more at E3 than they have ever done before. They have positioned themselves as being part of E3 more so than most publishers, if not possibly all of them.