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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS4 is way past the time for another price cut

Tagged games:

I don't agree with it being way past the time for a price cut. Doing is soon-ish would probably be a good move though. Sometime between now and early 2020.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Around the Network

Dupe. "Problem creating your post". My ass there was!



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

JRPGfan said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

This is a good point.  PS4 is technically last gen, but they don't want people to see it as last gen.

Until theres something better on the market in terms of hardware.... its current gen.
Switch is older tech & weaker than the PS4.

So until PS5 or XB2, its current gen.

What generation would you put the Wii in?  Is it in the same generation as PS2 and XBox?  Or PS3 and XBox360?



Profit better than market share this gen it seems. If they had cut price to $199 it would likely be on the heels of PS2 totals sales by end of 2020, but i think they will launch PS5 to profit day one and cut PS4 price a few months before PS5 launches.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
JRPGfan said:

Until theres something better on the market in terms of hardware.... its current gen.
Switch is older tech & weaker than the PS4.

So until PS5 or XB2, its current gen.

What generation would you put the Wii in?  Is it in the same generation as PS2 and XBox?  Or PS3 and XBox360?

Nintendo doesnt follow logic..... their consoles have a habbit of being old tech or behinde the curve compaired to competition.
You could argue they are a gen behinde imo, and some gens have 2 consoles (short cycles x2 vs others 1 long).

The Wii U was basically onpair with the PS3 and XB360.
Switch is also closer to PS3/XB360 than it is the PS4 in terms of power.

That said I do consider the Switch current gen.... its just the slowest of the bunch because its a handheld hybrid thingy.



Around the Network

Make that profit, Sony!

You're right though. A price cut is long overdue. Maybe they announce it around the time the PS5 is officially unveiled?



JRPGfan said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

What generation would you put the Wii in?  Is it in the same generation as PS2 and XBox?  Or PS3 and XBox360?

Nintendo doesnt follow logic..... their consoles have a habbit of being old tech or behinde the curve compaired to competition.
You could argue they are a gen behinde imo, and some gens have 2 consoles (short cycles x2 vs others 1 long).

The Wii U was basically onpair with the PS3 and XB360.
Switch is also closer to PS3/XB360 than it is the PS4 in terms of power.

That said I do consider the Switch current gen.... its just the slowest of the bunch because its a handheld hybrid thingy.

The Wii is a generation 7 system.  Thanks for playing.

Hiku said:

While I agree that it's past time for another price cut, I can't argue with them on the business front. They seem to know what they're doing, even though from a consumer perspective, it seems like they should.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

What generation would you put the Wii in?  Is it in the same generation as PS2 and XBox?  Or PS3 and XBox360?

Look at what generation of games the majority of a consoles new releases come from. That's the generation it belongs to, since games define a system.

If PlayStation 5 was an 8-bit system it would not be referred to as a next generation system, because it can't play 'next generation' games.
Generations partly encompass a period of time. But that's a symptom of the process, and not the cause. That process can change. A generational cycle can last 4 years, or 7 years, depending on when the industry is ready to move forward. And it denotes more than just a time stamp.
There has to be an obvious difference in technology between a Generation 3 and a Generation 9 games. The closer the generations get though, the blurrier that line becomes.

By one metric, Switch is a Generation 9 system. As a handheld, it is an obvious generational step forward from the games of the 3DS.
As a home console though, it is not in that sense.

Perhaps pairing together console and handheld generations only made things more confusing in the end.

One thing developers generally start doing when a console generation shifts is they start producing games featuring current gen technology.
And the systems that incite this move are PS5 and Scarlett.

Your logic isn't consistent.  In one sentence you say games define a system, and then in the next sentence you are talking about the power of the hardware.  Which is it?  Is it the games or the power of the hardware?  This also ignores the fact that in the past, generations were not really defined in either way.

See, neither you nor I nor Sony nor Nintendo gets to define what a generation is.  The marketplace defines what a generation is.  The marketplace defined the Wii as a next generation system even though it's hardware was about as powerful as a Gamecube.  The Wii was the successor to the Gamecube according to the marketplace.  It also competed with the PS3 and XBox360 according to the marketplace.  During the first 3-4 years the Wii sold fantastic and the other 2 consoles sold slowly.  About the time that Wii sales plummeted, the PS3 and XBox360 started to take off.  This is not a coincidence.  They were competing.  The marketplace put them in the same generation.  

The marketplace has already put the Wii U, XB1 and PS4 in the same generation.  The PS4 has already won generation 8 in the home market.  The 3DS and Vita were in the same generation.  The 3DS has already won the generation 8 handheld market.  The marketplace is also treating the Switch as the successor to the 3DS and Wii U.  The Switch is not selling like a generation 8 system.  It is selling like a generation 9 system.  It's not competing with any other system on the market, because it is the only generation 9 system on the market.



Thought the same, really surprised Sony announced nothing till now, maybe this Holiday...?



I agree. I would not mind upgrading to a pro but I am waiting for a big price cut. Not in any rush either but that would be the only way I would.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Hiku said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Your logic isn't consistent.  In one sentence you say games define a system, and then in the next sentence you are talking about the power of the hardware.  Which is it?  Is it the games or the power of the hardware?  This also ignores the fact that in the past, generations were not really defined in either way.

See, neither you nor I nor Sony nor Nintendo gets to define what a generation is.  The marketplace defines what a generation is.  The marketplace defined the Wii as a next generation system even though it's hardware was about as powerful as a Gamecube.  The Wii was the successor to the Gamecube according to the marketplace.  It also competed with the PS3 and XBox360 according to the marketplace.  During the first 3-4 years the Wii sold fantastic and the other 2 consoles sold slowly.  About the time that Wii sales plummeted, the PS3 and XBox360 started to take off.  This is not a coincidence.  They were competing.  The marketplace put them in the same generation.  

The marketplace has already put the Wii U, XB1 and PS4 in the same generation.  The PS4 has already won generation 8 in the home market.  The 3DS and Vita were in the same generation.  The 3DS has already won the generation 8 handheld market.  The marketplace is also treating the Switch as the successor to the 3DS and Wii U.  The Switch is not selling like a generation 8 system.  It is selling like a generation 9 system.  It's not competing with any other system on the market, because it is the only generation 9 system on the market.

It's consistent. You're confusing 'what defines a console' with 'what defines a generation'. Those are two separate things. And I didn't even try to define the latter here, because it's a much broader subject imo.
When I say games define a system, I mean with everything that this entails. Because 'games' includes many different factors, and are the primary reason for why people buy consoles. If a system focuses on many different genres, then it's a diverse system. If it has many RPG's, then it's a good system for RPG fans. If it doesn't have many good games, then it's not a good system, etc.
Likewise, if a system's library of new releases consists of 99% Gen 6 games, and 1% Gen 7 games (a few cross generational titles), then it's still going to be regarded as a Generation 6 system.

When it comes to what defines a generation, its not 'which is it', because there's many factors to it. Technology being one. Which can include not just the hardware in the system, but the games themselves.

Wii shared a significant number of new releases with PS3 & 360. Similar to Switch and PS4 & XBO. And also similar to Switch, it missed out on a significant amount of releases as well. But in cases where they did, the unique games produced for it instead unmistakably (generally speaking) belong to that era of games, as far as the system can support it. Astral Chain does not appear to be a generation behind Nier: Automata in any sense of the term (despite 30fps). Nor above it. Occasionally developers deliberately go for an older look to their games. And some times there are cross-generational titles like Persona 5. Which is why we tend to compare the ones that lean more towards trying to push what a system allows them to do.

Regarding sales, Wii also sold at a pace unlike anything the other systems of that generation managed to accomplish in that timeframe. Because it appealed to a wider audience than just traditional gamers. That's not a testament to it being in a generation of its own.

You're right that the marketplace defines what a generation is. One can only analyze what that has meant in a way that's as consistent as possible across every generation.
And there's a reason why when the industry talks about 'the 9th/next generation', whether we're hearing from developers or news outlets, that it's synonymous with the advent of PS5 and Scarlett.

Even though PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are more powerful than PS4 and XBO, they're neither considered next generation systems (because as I noted before, they share the same game library as PS4 and XBO), nor successors because their predecessors are still successful and still going. That was not the case for Switch. It is possible to re-enter the same generation again. Neo-Geo did it with a CD based console that wasn't a leap in power. And PS4 Pro did it with a more powerful system, but one that used the same storage media. They're designed to primarily receive new games from that same generation.

If PS4 and XBO had been failures and discontinued, then Pro and X could have been branded and marketed as successors to those systems. Which would allow them to get unique games not available on PS4/XBO. But that's not the situation. An 8-bit PS5 would likewise not be a generational leap forward, no matter how it is marketed, because of the games.

Ok, I am trying my best to follow your reasoning here.  Let's break it down.

"You're confusing 'what defines a console' with 'what defines a generation'. Those are two separate things. And I didn't even try to define the latter."
If I confused what you meant, it might be because you didn't define the latter.   However based on your post above you seem to be saying games define a console and the marketplace defines a generation, but the marketplace uses many factors.  Let's see if the rest of what you said follows from that.

"When I say games define a system, I mean with everything that this entails. Because it includes many different factors. If a system focuses on many different genres, then it's a diverse system. If it has many RPG's, then it's a good system for RPG fans. If it doesn't have many good games, then it's not a good system, etc.
Likewise, if a system's library of new releases consists of 99% Gen 6 games, and 1% Gen 7 games (a few cross generational titles), then it's still going to be regarded as a Generation 6 system."
When the PS2 launched the library of games it played was 99% generation 5 games and 1% generation 6 games.  Did that make it gen 5 or gen 6?

"When it comes to what defines a generation, its not 'which is it', because there's more than one factor. Technology being one. Which can include not just the hardware in the system, but the technology of the games themselves."
I agree that technology can be a factor as long as technology does not necessarily mean CPU, GPU, RAM and the like.  It might be those things, but it doesn't have to be.  Technology can also be a new type of controller, or a system that functions as both a home and handheld console.

"Wii shared a significant number of new releases with PS3 & 360. Similar to Switch and PS4 & XBO. And also similar to Switch, it missed out on a significant amount of releases as well. But in cases where they did, the unique games produced for it instead unmistakably (generally speaking) belong to that era of games, as far as the system can support it. Astral Chain does not appear to be a generation behind Nier: Automata in any sense of the term (despite 30fps). Nor above it. Occasionally developers deliberately go for an older look to their games. And some times there are cross-generational titles like Persona 5. Which is why we tend to compare the ones that try to push what a system allows them to do."
This is a very one-sided paragraph, because it assumes the Wii is defined by the libraries of PS3 and XBox360.  The Wii also had a lot of games, that those consoles did not.  More importantly, Sony and Microsoft never determine what a generation is.  They are not the standard.  (Neither is Nintendo.)  Graphics are not the standard either.  The marketplace sets what the standards are.  Generally, when one console is selling well, the others are not selling well.  Competition.  This is how the market tells us that the consoles are in the same generation.  The Wii started with strong sales, and the PS3 & XB360 started with weak sales.  After a few years things switched with the Wii having weak sales and the other two getting strong sales.  This is how we know they are in the same generation.  By the same token the N64 started out strong and the PS1 weak.  But then the N64 nosedived while the PS1 grew and grew.  Competition told us they were in the same generation.

But right now the Switch sales are completely independent of PS4 sales.  The can both sell well at the same time.  The market is telling us that they are not competing even though they are both home consoles.  They are not in the same generation.  The Wii never affected PS2 sales either even though they both were home consoles with similar power levels, and a fair amount of similar games.  They were not in the same generation.

"You're right that the marketplace defines what a generation is. I just try to analyze what that has meant in a way that's as consistent as possible across every generation.
And there's a reason why when the industry talks about 'the next generation', whether we're hearing from developers or news outlets, that it's synonymous with the advent of PS5 and Scarlett."
The reason why many in the industry equate next generation with PS5 and Scarlett is that they have a financial interest in promoting these platforms.  But they don't get to define when the next generation starts.  The marketplace does.  Several times in the past, Sega has been the one to start the generation, because they launch their console first.  Sega has never won a generation, but the marketplace has always seen Sega consoles as competing with the consoles that came afterward.  That is why Sega got to start the generation 3 different times.  This time Nintendo launched the Switch before the PS5 and Scarlett, so it got to start the generation.

"Even though PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are more powerful than PS4 and XBO, they're neither considered next generation systems (because as I noted before, they share the same game library as PS4 and XBO), nor successors because their predecessors are still successful and still going. That was not the case for Switch. It is possible to re-enter the same generation again. Neo-Geo did it with a CD based console that wasn't a leap in power. And PS4 Pro did it with a more powerful system, but one that used the same storage media. They're designed to primarily receive new games from that same generation.

If PS4 and XBO had been failures and discontinued, then Pro and X could have been branded and marketed as successors to those systems. Which would allow them to get unique games not available on PS4/XBO. But that's not the situation. An 8-bit PS5 would likewise not be a generational leap forward, no matter how it is marketed, because of the games."
If you have to use an obscure system Neo-Geo CD to make an argument, then it might not be a good argument.  I mean was it in gen 4 or gen 5?  It never sold well enough for us to know if it competed with Super Nintendo or PS1.  That is why it's not a great argument.  (Wikipedia is not the authority on generations either, the market is.)  

When we look at the more mainstream systems we see that the market actively resists a company entering the same generation with a new system.  Sega even tried this with the Genesis.  "Genesis does what Nintendon't."  Nintendo = NES in this case.  The market saw the Genesis as the competitor to the SNES though.  In North America SMS launched in 1986 and Genesis in 1989.  That is a shorter span than the Wii U got.  And yet the market saw Genesis as next gen.

When you actually use the market as the standard (and it is the most objective standard), then Switch really is a generation ahead of the other systems.  It's ok to use a variety of factors as long as those factors actually come from the market.  CPU power or the launch dates of PS5 and Scarlett only matter if the market says that they matter.  So far, the market is treating Switch like a next gen system.  This is how this whole debate came about.  Sony wants to portray their system as current gen, so they aren't cutting the price.  But really they need to cut the price, because it is an old system that is about to be replaced.  Switch is not old and not about to be replaced.  They just aren't in the same generation.