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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - If the 9th gen consoles launch with BC in 2020, is there any reason to produce 8th gen consoles beyond 2020?

Tagged games:

 

When will both 8th gen consoles end production?

Today 1 3.23%
 
Tomorrow 1 3.23%
 
2019 0 0%
 
2020 0 0%
 
2021 1 3.23%
 
2022 22 70.97%
 
2525 6 19.35%
 
Total:31
UltimateGamer1982 said:
PS4 still has lots of shelf life left. Xbox one, probably not.

PS4 will be selling for years to come with a slimmer model and lower price. Perfect for ppl who want a great console with tons of great games and can’t afford a $400-$500 PS5.

7th gen hardware sales dropped fast even though new consoles were $400-500. Also, based on software sales its evident that avid gamers were to first to upgrade because 7th gen software sales also declined quickly. Now we also have Trump saving the world, so people have more money for consoles!

In theory the PS3 and 360 should have had a long shelf life, they should have had significant price drops as $99 was often rumored, but it didn't happen. Both declined in sales quickly and major software support ended sooner than expected along with cancellations. Even as popular as PS4 is at the moment, avid gamers will want a PS5 and that's where the major revenue goes.

Ultimately, what does a long shelf life really mean? Regardless how long 8th gen consoles stay on shelves, sales will be a fraction when the 9th gen is here.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
EricHiggin said:

The OG PS3 models were expensive partially due to housing prior gen hardware. The first big price drop came when PS decided to remove BC, which meant they could remove that hardware. I don't see why you would think the PS3 got so cheap if you believe the cost to manufacture was $750-$1000 initially. If PS were selling PS3's at cost by the end of the life cycle that would be quite surprising.

PS3 SS wasn't a large benefit because it's price wasn't reduced by enough to really matter. It also only had a year on the market before the PS4, which was only $399. PS3 SS was $299 and remained so throughout the PS4 launch period. PS even made it clear themselves in advance that the PS3 price wasn't going to drop anytime soon after the PS4 launch. Since it wasn't that large of a price gap, it's not crazy to think that PS wanted to move on from PS3 asap, so they probably kept the price high to push consumers to buy a PS4, not even taking into account they may still have been losing money on every PS3 sold. You would have to also think with all the dev complaints about PS3, they probably wanted to focus on PS4 instead, and that doesn't happen if PS3 keeps trucking along like the PS2 did.

To have a $199 PS4 SS by late 2020, and a $399-$499 PS5, makes a tonne of sense in terms of profits and goodwill. PS4 is so much cheaper to produce than the PS3 was and the market can't get enough of the PS4, much like the PS2. Unless they decide to try the same thing again, and keep the PS4 at $299 and drop PS5 at $399, but then PS is basically saying they only care to try and hold onto the 120 million PS4 customers they have by then. You can't really expand your market much if you remain a closed ecosystem and you don't create more affordable physical access to your devices, unless you want to offer a compatible handheld or hybrid or Pro level console along with the PS5.

I can see why you might think PS may go with this same type of approach and try to push consumers to PS5, but I don't really see the need or evidence for it at this point in time. With x86 BC, and a slower cross gen exclusive transition, the need to get PS5 off the ground like PS4 did isn't there this time around, with XB being so far behind and Switch being a different type of device.

Well getting back to my original point, I can see $249 for 8th gen specs if the 9th gen consoles launch for $399.

But what if the 9th gen consoles manage to hit $299 at launch? Maybe something like a X1X in GPU power but with a modern CPU, more/better RAM, etc. Essentially 9th gen games simply aiming for 1080p or higher when possible. If that happens, there won't be much interest in pushing 8th gen specs. Instead they may just try to clear out 8th gen inventory.

A $299 base PS5 would make things interesting. As long as the XB1S SKU's didn't get too much cheaper than PS4, then PS could potentially wait for the base PS5 price to drop to cater to that sector of the market. Depends if XB Lockhart launches and how cheap it is. Also whether or not the base PS5 was subsidized at launch and how long it would take to get it down to $249 and lower. If it's like PS4 and sits at the same launch price for years and years, then I would guess a PS4 SS would still be worthy as long as it launches by late 2019, which I would then plan on a $199 price by late 2020 to go along with the PS5 multi SKU launch. This way in say 3 or 4 years, those cheap PS4 SS buyers would have the opportunity to upgrade to a $249 or lower base PS5 Slim.



Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

Not sure if they were as cheap as you think and if they were making a lot of profits on the HW. I don't remember any reports on this account.

And if you consider PS3 released for 499-599 and were finished at 199 this was and even bigger drop than PS2 299 to 99.

The parts didn't drop quickly. Sony done several price cuts while still losing a lot of money until the Super Slim. Do you have source for good profit on PS3 sold (HW alone)?

MS kept the price "high" because the direct competitor were losing money at that point and MS had to recover from the previous gen plus RROD. They probably didn't though they would sell much more at a lower price so better keep the price that makes money.

Again, final revisions of PS3 and 360 hardware became cheaper to produce but prices stayed about the same FOR CONSUMERS. PS3 was really $499-$599 at launch but they were pushing the $599 model. Prices went down drastically because the cutting edge hardware was expensive to produce at launch, PS2 specs were eventually removed and the 16GB model didn't have a HDD which is junk.

You're missing the point or changing the argument. I'm saying the PS3 Super Slim DID NOT BENEFIT CONSUMERS. Hence, cheaper to produce models doesn't mean we, consumers, will get cheap hardware. MS could have done a price war with 360 to boost sales, but I'm sure they were content to boost revenue instead.

Either way, at this point I believe Sony and MS rather keep prices relatively high for profits. The price war days on hardware are seemingly over.

You haven't sent any evidence that PS3 Super Slim was selling for big profit to show how it could have been heavily discounted. Still we had several places in USA and Canada that you could buy an used X360 for under 99.

Sony haven't ever done price war as far as I know. They cutted price on PS1 and PS2 while dominating with a lot of headroom, they have cut the price of PS3 when losing massive money and have kept price on PS4 even when X1 undercut them.

Sony cuts the price when the projection of sales needs a new price point, have done it for 4 gens. Won't say if MS have tried to price war against Sony, I remember seeing they reacting to Sony prices but I won't pretend to have enough data to affirm it was done because of Sony instead of their own internal projections.

The main reason why you were not getting major discounts on the last revision of PS3 was because they already gave you all the saving before hand. Also at the end of the gen there is almost no reason to lose money on HW because there is less revenue expected from SW. But with PS4 costing much less for the whole life, it having PS+ revenue and BC on PS5 all making much more advantage to lock customers to platform makes more sense for a PS4 SS MSRP 199.

Last edited by DonFerrari - on 08 May 2019

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Zoombael said:

"Because [the PS5] is based in part on the PS4’s architecture, it will also be backward-compatible with games for that console,"

Technically, there's no real barrier. The question is, will Sony activate the feature? They could just block PS4 discs from reading and force you to buy the remasters for the PS4 instead. Until they announce it, we can't be totally sure Sony will include the feature.

Yea. They could also make PS5 release a deadly nerve agent when a Ps4 disc is inserted.

Sorry, but there really isnt anything that points against PS5 BC. Its not like Sony has ever been outspokenly against compatability to the previous generation of games. There were exceptions made in the past due to exorbitant costs and hardware difficulties. Nothing of this has remained. With technology emerging (Ps4p) capable to upscale and improve games in other ways with relative ease, it is actually more likely than ever. It is cheaper, less resources binding than remastering. It makes remaster obsolete.

From the economical point of view it would make no sense to invest into a such versatile technology with great potential and not make full use of it. I mean, it is so cheap, even Microsoft is doing it.

Sony didnt do a clean hardware cut for nothing in this difficult period of time. Cerny had to bring very convincing arguments to the table. If it wasnt a sure thing he wouldnt be allowed to be so open about it.

The only thing you can be unsure of, how exactly they re going to handle the digital part. 

Another thing im sure of, in the future people will obscure what was said, similar to the "ps4 used game/DRM" case.



Hunting Season is done...

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Again, final revisions of PS3 and 360 hardware became cheaper to produce but prices stayed about the same FOR CONSUMERS. PS3 was really $499-$599 at launch but they were pushing the $599 model. Prices went down drastically because the cutting edge hardware was expensive to produce at launch, PS2 specs were eventually removed and the 16GB model didn't have a HDD which is junk.

You're missing the point or changing the argument. I'm saying the PS3 Super Slim DID NOT BENEFIT CONSUMERS. Hence, cheaper to produce models doesn't mean we, consumers, will get cheap hardware. MS could have done a price war with 360 to boost sales, but I'm sure they were content to boost revenue instead.

Either way, at this point I believe Sony and MS rather keep prices relatively high for profits. The price war days on hardware are seemingly over.

You haven't sent any evidence that PS3 Super Slim was selling for big profit to show how it could have been heavily discounted. Still we had several places in USA and Canada that you could buy an used X360 for under 99.

Sony haven't ever done price war as far as I know. They cutted price on PS1 and PS2 while dominating with a lot of headroom, they have cut the price of PS3 when losing massive money and have kept price on PS4 even when X1 undercut them.

Sony cuts the price when the projection of sales needs a new price point, have done it for 4 gens. Won't say if MS have tried to price war against Sony, I remember seeing they reacting to Sony prices but I won't pretend to have enough data to affirm it was done because of Sony instead of their own internal projections.

The main reason why you were not getting major discounts on the last revision of PS3 was because they already gave you all the saving before hand. Also at the end of the gen there is almost no reason to lose money on HW because there is less revenue expected from SW. But with PS4 costing much less for the whole life, it having PS+ revenue and BC on PS5 all making much more advantage to lock customers to platform makes more sense for a PS4 SS MSRP 199.

I never argued the PS3 Super Slim was being sold for big profit. I AM ARUGING PS3 SUPER SLIM WAS CHEAPER TO PRODUCE.

Sony losing money on the PS3 is one of the best examples of a console price war. They did it simply to stay competitive. I'm not arguing there is a price war happening in the 8th gen. When prices are cut to increase audience/market share, that's pretty much the definition of price war. Price cuts can also be a response to a competitor which is why they tend to happen around the same time.

Please quit making excuses for the PS3 Super Slim staying expensive, that's not the point. I'm simply pointing out they made cheaper (to produce) hardware with no real benefit to consumers. MS did the same thing with the 360 E.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

You haven't sent any evidence that PS3 Super Slim was selling for big profit to show how it could have been heavily discounted. Still we had several places in USA and Canada that you could buy an used X360 for under 99.

Sony haven't ever done price war as far as I know. They cutted price on PS1 and PS2 while dominating with a lot of headroom, they have cut the price of PS3 when losing massive money and have kept price on PS4 even when X1 undercut them.

Sony cuts the price when the projection of sales needs a new price point, have done it for 4 gens. Won't say if MS have tried to price war against Sony, I remember seeing they reacting to Sony prices but I won't pretend to have enough data to affirm it was done because of Sony instead of their own internal projections.

The main reason why you were not getting major discounts on the last revision of PS3 was because they already gave you all the saving before hand. Also at the end of the gen there is almost no reason to lose money on HW because there is less revenue expected from SW. But with PS4 costing much less for the whole life, it having PS+ revenue and BC on PS5 all making much more advantage to lock customers to platform makes more sense for a PS4 SS MSRP 199.

I never argued the PS3 Super Slim was being sold for big profit. I AM ARUGING PS3 SUPER SLIM WAS CHEAPER TO PRODUCE.

Sony losing money on the PS3 is one of the best examples of a console price war. They did it simply to stay competitive. I'm not arguing there is a price war happening in the 8th gen. When prices are cut to increase audience/market share, that's pretty much the definition of price war. Price cuts can also be a response to a competitor which is why they tend to happen around the same time.

Please quit making excuses for the PS3 Super Slim staying expensive, that's not the point. I'm simply pointing out they made cheaper (to produce) hardware with no real benefit to consumers. MS did the same thing with the 360 E.

"PS3 started very high in price, but the parts also dropped quickly and they removed things to lower the price. By 2013 they were selling it at a good profit." http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9004676

Seems like your memory is a little odd, unless you want to say good is different then big. Still please prove they were making good profit.

Of course PS3 SS were either cheaper to produce and/or to ship and sell, if it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in developing it. But if the cost reduction was made to not have loss on HW anymore then no one should expect it to receive a price cut.

You are basically taking a single point and trying to make it the most common thing.

And on the real benefit you were already prove wrong by Pema but seems like you won't admit. Price isn't the single benefit to customer.

Sony lost money on the HW of every single Playstation through launch and up to over 2 years of launch, they were aggressive on discounting PS1 and PS2 after revisions and launch of new systems even thought they dominated their gens. So no, cutting price to drive sales isn't price war. I'll repeat for you to let it sink, if they aren't cutting price in response to competitor they aren't doing price war. Sony sold PS3 at 200-300 loss from the beginning of the gen where you can't say they weren't doing price war as they launched and kept that price at a time they were already expected to dominate (wrongly) and they sold the console 200 more expensive than PS2, so clearly they weren't pricing it against X360 but trying to not be that much over regular console pricing (they failed) and win the format war. The price cuts from PS3 most came from reduction on the cost to produce instead of trying to follow MS cuts (I would say it was the opposite though).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I never argued the PS3 Super Slim was being sold for big profit. I AM ARUGING PS3 SUPER SLIM WAS CHEAPER TO PRODUCE.

Sony losing money on the PS3 is one of the best examples of a console price war. They did it simply to stay competitive. I'm not arguing there is a price war happening in the 8th gen. When prices are cut to increase audience/market share, that's pretty much the definition of price war. Price cuts can also be a response to a competitor which is why they tend to happen around the same time.

Please quit making excuses for the PS3 Super Slim staying expensive, that's not the point. I'm simply pointing out they made cheaper (to produce) hardware with no real benefit to consumers. MS did the same thing with the 360 E.

"PS3 started very high in price, but the parts also dropped quickly and they removed things to lower the price. By 2013 they were selling it at a good profit." http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9004676

Seems like your memory is a little odd, unless you want to say good is different then big. Still please prove they were making good profit.

Of course PS3 SS were either cheaper to produce and/or to ship and sell, if it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in developing it. But if the cost reduction was made to not have loss on HW anymore then no one should expect it to receive a price cut.

You are basically taking a single point and trying to make it the most common thing.

And on the real benefit you were already prove wrong by Pema but seems like you won't admit. Price isn't the single benefit to customer.

Sony lost money on the HW of every single Playstation through launch and up to over 2 years of launch, they were aggressive on discounting PS1 and PS2 after revisions and launch of new systems even thought they dominated their gens. So no, cutting price to drive sales isn't price war. I'll repeat for you to let it sink, if they aren't cutting price in response to competitor they aren't doing price war. Sony sold PS3 at 200-300 loss from the beginning of the gen where you can't say they weren't doing price war as they launched and kept that price at a time they were already expected to dominate (wrongly) and they sold the console 200 more expensive than PS2, so clearly they weren't pricing it against X360 but trying to not be that much over regular console pricing (they failed) and win the format war. The price cuts from PS3 most came from reduction on the cost to produce instead of trying to follow MS cuts (I would say it was the opposite though).

Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics. The PS3 was selling at a profit in 2010, that's the official word. Which was even before the Super Slim released and became even cheaper to produce.

Honestly, I don't even feel like reading your post. This discussion is over. The PS3 Super Slim and 360 E were cheaper to produce but no benefit to consumers in regard to price. That's really my point and you're on a tangent.

Lastly, PS1 and PS2 dominated but they were still trying to crush competitors for the little market share they had. This is objective.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
UltimateGamer1982 said:
PS4 still has lots of shelf life left. Xbox one, probably not.

PS4 will be selling for years to come with a slimmer model and lower price. Perfect for ppl who want a great console with tons of great games and can’t afford a $400-$500 PS5.

7th gen hardware sales dropped fast even though new consoles were $400-500. Also, based on software sales its evident that avid gamers were to first to upgrade because 7th gen software sales also declined quickly. Now we also have Trump saving the world, so people have more money for consoles!

In theory the PS3 and 360 should have had a long shelf life, they should have had significant price drops as $99 was often rumored, but it didn't happen. Both declined in sales quickly and major software support ended sooner than expected along with cancellations. Even as popular as PS4 is at the moment, avid gamers will want a PS5 and that's where the major revenue goes.

Ultimately, what does a long shelf life really mean? Regardless how long 8th gen consoles stay on shelves, sales will be a fraction when the 9th gen is here.

PS3 and 360 was a totally different animal. The cell processor alone was the reason Sony never got it to $99, that and the hard drive cost made it impossible. Plus, PS3 was nowhere near as popular as PS2 and PS4 as it often had inferior multi plat ports compared to the 360 versions. 

For 360, Microsoft lost their ass on it with the rrod three year warranty extension that cost them in excess of $1Bil. You think they were gonna lower the price after all that? 

 



UltimateGamer1982 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

7th gen hardware sales dropped fast even though new consoles were $400-500. Also, based on software sales its evident that avid gamers were to first to upgrade because 7th gen software sales also declined quickly. Now we also have Trump saving the world, so people have more money for consoles!

In theory the PS3 and 360 should have had a long shelf life, they should have had significant price drops as $99 was often rumored, but it didn't happen. Both declined in sales quickly and major software support ended sooner than expected along with cancellations. Even as popular as PS4 is at the moment, avid gamers will want a PS5 and that's where the major revenue goes.

Ultimately, what does a long shelf life really mean? Regardless how long 8th gen consoles stay on shelves, sales will be a fraction when the 9th gen is here.

PS3 and 360 was a totally different animal. The cell processor alone was the reason Sony never got it to $99, that and the hard drive cost made it impossible. Plus, PS3 was nowhere near as popular as PS2 and PS4 as it often had inferior multi plat ports compared to the 360 versions. 

For 360, Microsoft lost their ass on it with the rrod three year warranty extension that cost them in excess of $1Bil. You think they were gonna lower the price after all that? 

PS3 didn't struggle because it had inferior ports. Price was a bigger factor in the early years, plus Xbox was a better competitor in the 7th gen for various reasons.

I'm arguing they don't want to sell cheap last gen consoles anymore while new consoles are on the market. I feel 360 and PS3 didn't get really cheap because they wanted the higher revenue and they wanted consumers to move to the next gen.

Its also worth noting if you really want a cheap last gen console, the used market like Gamestop is pretty great for that. A used X1 or PS4 will probably be $99-$149 when the next gen starts.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 10 May 2019

Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

"PS3 started very high in price, but the parts also dropped quickly and they removed things to lower the price. By 2013 they were selling it at a good profit." http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9004676

Seems like your memory is a little odd, unless you want to say good is different then big. Still please prove they were making good profit.

Of course PS3 SS were either cheaper to produce and/or to ship and sell, if it wasn't there wouldn't be a point in developing it. But if the cost reduction was made to not have loss on HW anymore then no one should expect it to receive a price cut.

You are basically taking a single point and trying to make it the most common thing.

And on the real benefit you were already prove wrong by Pema but seems like you won't admit. Price isn't the single benefit to customer.

Sony lost money on the HW of every single Playstation through launch and up to over 2 years of launch, they were aggressive on discounting PS1 and PS2 after revisions and launch of new systems even thought they dominated their gens. So no, cutting price to drive sales isn't price war. I'll repeat for you to let it sink, if they aren't cutting price in response to competitor they aren't doing price war. Sony sold PS3 at 200-300 loss from the beginning of the gen where you can't say they weren't doing price war as they launched and kept that price at a time they were already expected to dominate (wrongly) and they sold the console 200 more expensive than PS2, so clearly they weren't pricing it against X360 but trying to not be that much over regular console pricing (they failed) and win the format war. The price cuts from PS3 most came from reduction on the cost to produce instead of trying to follow MS cuts (I would say it was the opposite though).

Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics. The PS3 was selling at a profit in 2010, that's the official word. Which was even before the Super Slim released and became even cheaper to produce.

Honestly, I don't even feel like reading your post. This discussion is over. The PS3 Super Slim and 360 E were cheaper to produce but no benefit to consumers in regard to price. That's really my point and you're on a tangent.

Lastly, PS1 and PS2 dominated but they were still trying to crush competitors for the little market share they had. This is objective.

Not losing money is good profit. Well that is new for me.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."