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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony will not be at E3 2019 for the first time!!!

EricHiggin said:
twintail said:

Surprisingly, neither does offering PS5s at a higher price for a mere 6 months and then instantly being capable of dropping the price. The time-frame is way too short to change any input cost problem.  Just going into production with the launch PS5 setup will deter a proper production run.

I don't really know what to say, but these situations you have brought up are not the same thing, since they have their own unique characteristics making them different. Why not produce an example of a console that was announced at a particular price while simultaneously announced to have a price cut 6 months down the line?

I said more inclusive, that is allowing more ppl to be able to purchase something, and not that the largest possible audience should be able to purchase. 

So then you believe that console launch price points are just going to forever increase? Anyhow I am not dismissing the price of $499. As I said, they will do it if they have no choice. But if they can be profitable with $399, that is what they will go for. Services are where the Playstation brand is making it's money. With a network focused CEO, it is more than likely that this is where their focus will be. 

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. 


GhaudePhaede010 said:
twintail said:

If your definition of a big announcement includes ports of Doom and Wolfenstien, then it is no wonder that your willingly ignore all the other stuff Nintendo does at E3 (far and beyond what even MS and Sony do in some cases).

Not all companies use E3 for their biggest announcements: Sony haven't either in some cases too.

not doing a live conference is not an example of Nintendo of showing disinterest in E3. Maybe initially when it first happened, but the have actually ramped up their E3 presence in the last couple of years quite significantly.  If you do not think so, then that is cool I guess.

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.



Around the Network

I didn't watch the last 2 e3's so assuming Sony are there in 2020 and I watch it live it will be the first e3 I've watched in 4 years. Crazy to think that.



twintail said:
EricHiggin said:

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. 

You will end up upsetting some of those who want the $499 model who can't afford it or who think it shouldn't be $100 worth of swag and instead $100 worth of physical tech in the console. Who would you rather anger, the people who can easily afford a higher price, as well as those who live to be early adopters regardless, or the people who can't and wish they could be? I think it would be fair to say the early adopting loyalists are probably fans who have old games, that could be useful depending on PS5 BC capabilities, so PS NOW really isn't a sub they will probably get, which only leaves PS Plus, at $50 for the year. So PS subsidizes PS5 $100 year 1, to take 2 years to pay that off through subs? Why not just full price year 1, then drop the price $100 year 2? It's not like your going to have many people who can afford a $500 console, even if they had to save, who are pissed off because they had to subscribe to play online, which they know is a given on every console now. Most also know you probably have to upgrade the mass storage as well, internal or external, which is extra.

So you don't like my example of adding the PSVR breakout box to the PS5, even though PS would clearly like to grow that market, and the best way to do that initially is usually to subsidize it. While they could just drop the price of the PSVR kit, it's more beneficial to hide that by making every single PS5 customer pay a fraction of it, without lowering the kit price. It's not like a previous console named PS3 added extra, non essential hardware to the console that led to the price being on the high side. It's not like a previous console named XB1 added extra, non essential hardware to the console, but with a $499 budget, that led to the specific gaming hardware being gimped.

If the console is only 4k/30, they can probably get away with $399. That's not all that far off of Pro though, and it seems like the many feel like Pro wasn't all that large of a jump, even though it may have been fine for the price mid gen. If PS5 is only 4k/30, then those Pro owners and more, will probably be disappointed and wonder why they should bother making the transition. 4k/60 is going to be really tough to do, with the rest of the hardware necessary to make it feel like next gen for under $499, without significant subsidies, assuming a launch in the next couple of years. That's also not including if they try to stuff PSVR in there as well. Look at the $399 PS4 price point, then the $399 Pro, and look at the specs gap. Imagine another 3 or 4 year gap and a $399 price point for PS5. Look at the jump in 4 years from XB1 to XB1X, and while XB1 should have only been $349 initially in terms of gaming hardware, XB1X was $499, and look at what that got you in terms of hardware advancements.

A special edition model, anniversary or not, is not something you leave on the market for too long. It goes against calling it special. A year should be the max. Selling a 25th ed console in the 26th year just doesn't make sense either. If PS cares so much about their services, that much more than pushing next gen capabilities, then why wouldn't they just make another PS4 model that's a little bit better than XB1X for $399 again, and launch holiday 2019? Maybe because another PS4 regardless of specs, could be too much of the same possibly? Maybe people require enough of a jump in specs to rationalize buying into a new gen that will bring new games with unforeseen awe inspiring experiences because of it? While consoles and low cost go hand in hand, pushing the limits in games and pushing the limits of affordability also do as well.



EricHiggin said:
twintail said:


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. 

You will end up upsetting some of those who want the $499 model who can't afford it or who think it shouldn't be $100 worth of swag and instead $100 worth of physical tech in the console. Who would you rather anger, the people who can easily afford a higher price, as well as those who live to be early adopters regardless, or the people who can't and wish they could be? I think it would be fair to say the early adopting loyalists are probably fans who have old games, that could be useful depending on PS5 BC capabilities, so PS NOW really isn't a sub they will probably get, which only leaves PS Plus, at $50 for the year. So PS subsidizes PS5 $100 year 1, to take 2 years to pay that off through subs? Why not just full price year 1, then drop the price $100 year 2? It's not like your going to have many people who can afford a $500 console, even if they had to save, who are pissed off because they had to subscribe to play online, which they know is a given on every console now. Most also know you probably have to upgrade the mass storage as well, internal or external, which is extra.

So you don't like my example of adding the PSVR breakout box to the PS5, even though PS would clearly like to grow that market, and the best way to do that initially is usually to subsidize it. While they could just drop the price of the PSVR kit, it's more beneficial to hide that by making every single PS5 customer pay a fraction of it, without lowering the kit price. It's not like a previous console named PS3 added extra, non essential hardware to the console that led to the price being on the high side. It's not like a previous console named XB1 added extra, non essential hardware to the console, but with a $499 budget, that led to the specific gaming hardware being gimped.

If the console is only 4k/30, they can probably get away with $399. That's not all that far off of Pro though, and it seems like the many feel like Pro wasn't all that large of a jump, even though it may have been fine for the price mid gen. If PS5 is only 4k/30, then those Pro owners and more, will probably be disappointed and wonder why they should bother making the transition. 4k/60 is going to be really tough to do, with the rest of the hardware necessary to make it feel like next gen for under $499, without significant subsidies, assuming a launch in the next couple of years. That's also not including if they try to stuff PSVR in there as well. Look at the $399 PS4 price point, then the $399 Pro, and look at the specs gap. Imagine another 3 or 4 year gap and a $399 price point for PS5. Look at the jump in 4 years from XB1 to XB1X, and while XB1 should have only been $349 initially in terms of gaming hardware, XB1X was $499, and look at what that got you in terms of hardware advancements.

A special edition model, anniversary or not, is not something you leave on the market for too long. It goes against calling it special. A year should be the max. Selling a 25th ed console in the 26th year just doesn't make sense either. If PS cares so much about their services, that much more than pushing next gen capabilities, then why wouldn't they just make another PS4 model that's a little bit better than XB1X for $399 again, and launch holiday 2019? Maybe because another PS4 regardless of specs, could be too much of the same possibly? Maybe people require enough of a jump in specs to rationalize buying into a new gen that will bring new games with unforeseen awe inspiring experiences because of it? While consoles and low cost go hand in hand, pushing the limits in games and pushing the limits of affordability also do as well.

How do you factor that a a fan wanting PS5 for PS4 BC is any less inclined to get a subscription over someone who is either not interested in BC or not a fan? Can you provide any evidence that this would be the case? The ppl getting upset in your scenario would still be so in mine, on top of the other problems I mentioned, something you can't really say about your suggestion. So you are changing the time for delay from 6 months to a year? Are you still counting on having Sony tell ppl to wait a year because a price cut is coming? Either way, a year before a price cut at least seems realistic, and is far more digestible for early buyers, late buyers, and publishers. I agree a price drop then makes sense.

 

I don't recall you presenting the idea of PSVR in PS5 to me. Even then, that sounds like a huge expense on their part if included. Nonetheless, your idea of PS5 adding PSVR is not historically in line with PS3 so that link doesn't make sense. It is in line with XB1, sure, and well all know how MS ultimately had to cut off the Kinect and make the X1 cheaper cause the price point was a point of contention with buyers. So, are you saying that Sony will also have to cut out PSVR when they make the PS5 cheaper? Are they going to drop the price because they will be forced to due to lagging sales? If not, then where are the similarities with your idea of a console that has a since-launch-known price drop in 6 months? 

 

I concur, the inclusion of so much tech would rise the price assuming Sony goes for 4K/ 60 as a standard. Historically, I wouldn't bet money on them doing that though. 60fps has not been something they themselves push. Obviously the system will be able to do 4k/ 60 but not at the fidelity that Sony themselves target with their games. But yes, increased tech in the PS5 would increase the price. I don't think they will go too far but I can't disagree with what you are saying either. 

 

Well its a 25th anniversary and can easily last close to a year since that time frame would still include the anniversary year. It is a LE only for the 25th birthday of Playstation. It is pretty easy to market and for consumers to understand. Why are you suggesting another PS4? What makes you think the price has to increase with the added tech? PS4 was 399 and had way better tech than the PS3 which launched at 499. They can hit the PS4 (or Pro) price with increased tech and also make money off subscriptions. 




twintail said:
EricHiggin said:

You will end up upsetting some of those who want the $499 model who can't afford it or who think it shouldn't be $100 worth of swag and instead $100 worth of physical tech in the console. Who would you rather anger, the people who can easily afford a higher price, as well as those who live to be early adopters regardless, or the people who can't and wish they could be? I think it would be fair to say the early adopting loyalists are probably fans who have old games, that could be useful depending on PS5 BC capabilities, so PS NOW really isn't a sub they will probably get, which only leaves PS Plus, at $50 for the year. So PS subsidizes PS5 $100 year 1, to take 2 years to pay that off through subs? Why not just full price year 1, then drop the price $100 year 2? It's not like your going to have many people who can afford a $500 console, even if they had to save, who are pissed off because they had to subscribe to play online, which they know is a given on every console now. Most also know you probably have to upgrade the mass storage as well, internal or external, which is extra.

So you don't like my example of adding the PSVR breakout box to the PS5, even though PS would clearly like to grow that market, and the best way to do that initially is usually to subsidize it. While they could just drop the price of the PSVR kit, it's more beneficial to hide that by making every single PS5 customer pay a fraction of it, without lowering the kit price. It's not like a previous console named PS3 added extra, non essential hardware to the console that led to the price being on the high side. It's not like a previous console named XB1 added extra, non essential hardware to the console, but with a $499 budget, that led to the specific gaming hardware being gimped.

If the console is only 4k/30, they can probably get away with $399. That's not all that far off of Pro though, and it seems like the many feel like Pro wasn't all that large of a jump, even though it may have been fine for the price mid gen. If PS5 is only 4k/30, then those Pro owners and more, will probably be disappointed and wonder why they should bother making the transition. 4k/60 is going to be really tough to do, with the rest of the hardware necessary to make it feel like next gen for under $499, without significant subsidies, assuming a launch in the next couple of years. That's also not including if they try to stuff PSVR in there as well. Look at the $399 PS4 price point, then the $399 Pro, and look at the specs gap. Imagine another 3 or 4 year gap and a $399 price point for PS5. Look at the jump in 4 years from XB1 to XB1X, and while XB1 should have only been $349 initially in terms of gaming hardware, XB1X was $499, and look at what that got you in terms of hardware advancements.

A special edition model, anniversary or not, is not something you leave on the market for too long. It goes against calling it special. A year should be the max. Selling a 25th ed console in the 26th year just doesn't make sense either. If PS cares so much about their services, that much more than pushing next gen capabilities, then why wouldn't they just make another PS4 model that's a little bit better than XB1X for $399 again, and launch holiday 2019? Maybe because another PS4 regardless of specs, could be too much of the same possibly? Maybe people require enough of a jump in specs to rationalize buying into a new gen that will bring new games with unforeseen awe inspiring experiences because of it? While consoles and low cost go hand in hand, pushing the limits in games and pushing the limits of affordability also do as well.

How do you factor that a a fan wanting PS5 for PS4 BC is any less inclined to get a subscription over someone who is either not interested in BC or not a fan? Can you provide any evidence that this would be the case? The ppl getting upset in your scenario would still be so in mine, on top of the other problems I mentioned, something you can't really say about your suggestion. So you are changing the time for delay from 6 months to a year? Are you still counting on having Sony tell ppl to wait a year because a price cut is coming? Either way, a year before a price cut at least seems realistic, and is far more digestible for early buyers, late buyers, and publishers. I agree a price drop then makes sense.

I don't recall you presenting the idea of PSVR in PS5 to me. Even then, that sounds like a huge expense on their part if included. Nonetheless, your idea of PS5 adding PSVR is not historically in line with PS3 so that link doesn't make sense. It is in line with XB1, sure, and well all know how MS ultimately had to cut off the Kinect and make the X1 cheaper cause the price point was a point of contention with buyers. So, are you saying that Sony will also have to cut out PSVR when they make the PS5 cheaper? Are they going to drop the price because they will be forced to due to lagging sales? If not, then where are the similarities with your idea of a console that has a since-launch-known price drop in 6 months? 

I concur, the inclusion of so much tech would rise the price assuming Sony goes for 4K/ 60 as a standard. Historically, I wouldn't bet money on them doing that though. 60fps has not been something they themselves push. Obviously the system will be able to do 4k/ 60 but not at the fidelity that Sony themselves target with their games. But yes, increased tech in the PS5 would increase the price. I don't think they will go too far but I can't disagree with what you are saying either. 

Well its a 25th anniversary and can easily last close to a year since that time frame would still include the anniversary year. It is a LE only for the 25th birthday of Playstation. It is pretty easy to market and for consumers to understand. Why are you suggesting another PS4? What makes you think the price has to increase with the added tech? PS4 was 399 and had way better tech than the PS3 which launched at 499. They can hit the PS4 (or Pro) price with increased tech and also make money off subscriptions. 

I'm a fan, and not the biggest by any means, and if PS5 plays my older PS games, then I see next to no reason at the moment to buy into PS Now. Most of my gaming friends see things the same way. We don't hold allegiance to any brand, and the majority of us would go for the cheaper model, which would require subscriptions to make up the difference due to the hardware subsidy, as you put, and the only sub they get from most of us is PS Plus. A few newer to the PS brand might consider PS NOW and a few only buy into PS Plus monthly from time to time.

Looks like I mixed up this thread with another with that example. My bad. It does prove a point though. It does show PS was willing to widen the scope of the internal hardware while raising the price. Now while they won't drop another $599 console anytime in the near or foreseeable future, even if there's a slightly cheaper model (they could if the cheaper model is affordable possibly), that doesn't mean they wouldn't add the PSVR cost and some worthier hardware specs to hit $499. Kinect added $100 to the price of XB1. PSVR box should only be around $50. PS gamers don't typically care as much about the specs, within reason, as long as the games are there. Pro isn't exactly getting it's but kicked by XB1X either with considerably weaker specs. The fact that the PSVR kit would end up $50 cheaper, or can add $50 more in terms of upgrades to add serious value to the cost, should make up the difference of any reduction of PS5 sales. Trying to sell a $599 PS3 against a $399 XB360, isn't much different than trying to sell a $399 XB360 against a $249 Wii. It's a losing battle. Now, selling a $499 PS5 against a $499 Scarlet, shouldn't be all that much of a hindrance to PS.

Frame rate will matter if they want to push PSVR. The higher the frame rate the more immersive the experience. PSVR really is just getting by as it is. If PS5 can hold solid 60fps in it's games, then PSVR will be able to have considerably better graphical fidelity than it does now, with even higher frame rates. 30fps on PS5 will be a hindrance to VR going forward if they choose to stick with big res number marketing.

You talked about having lower hardware prices and being more inclusive which would lead to more sales and more profits, from items such as services, which tend to sell better with more affordable hardware, leaving money to burn on subscriptions. Another PS4 would be the better route to take if that was the main goal going forward. That hinders future games though and the games are what matters. If another gen with more expensive hardware leading to new, must have experiences, is what is necessary for those games, then that is what needs to be done, without becoming completely unaffordable like the OG PS3 was in 2006. $399 is no doubt a stronger entry point, but $499 is the tipping point, so as long as they remain within that, and not for so long they eventually teeter over the edge, they can offer the best future proof hardware and please as many as possible over the entirety of the gen.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 25 November 2018

Around the Network

I would have left too, E3's been garbage - way better to host your own show.



    

Basil's YouTube Channel