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

Tagged games:

BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep, cutting price and getting additional PS+ subs plus some people tied to their system until they go for PS5 could also help they more long term than just doing a little more money per HW sold in the short term.

They really lost the chance this year, there was no major exclusive until mid november, they should have cut the price in September.

I really hope they don't hold it $300 until the time to fully reveal the PS5 next year and then cut it to $250.

PS4 sales will fall like a rock.

Fall from the cliff.



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

Around the Network
jlauro said:

You completely misunderstand Nintendo and tech.  The wii was all SSD storage, and Sony and Xbox are only getting around to that next year. 

The Wii/WiiU used emmc NAND, which was dog slow... Which is why the Wii and WiiU interface was so slow and clunky, it wasn't using a fast SSD... In-fact it wouldn't surprise me if a fast mechanical hard drive was faster than the Wii and WiiU's storage. (I.E. Not the slow 5400rpm mechanical drives in our current consoles.)

jlauro said:

Nothing in the Wii was old tech.  However, the difference with Nintendo is they go after affordable mainstream tech in their designs, and only pick leading edge tech if it's affordable to produce and gives them a unique advantage.  Where as Sony / Microsoft push to the leading edge more on the "specs".  The wii might not of been bleeding edge, but it was by no means old tech even compared to the PS3 and 360, it just wasn't as spec heavy, and thus did not cost as much.

The CPU/GPU/Ram in the Wii was old technology, based upon the technology in the preceding console, the Gamecube.
And even the emmc NAND is old as it's been around since the 90's... emmc is cheap, nasty and good for cost-sensitive devices like a console.

The bulk of the Wii's innovation was sunk into the controllers, which... Despite being "done" before wasn't done in such a convenient package.

SammyGiireal said:

The Wii was an upclocked Game Cube with motion controls. It was the biggest money grab in Nintendo's home console history. It was in fact less powerful than 2001's Xbox. I considered the machine part of that PS3/360 Gen simply because it was released along side the PS3 in 2006, but the guts of the machine were out dated and it showed.

Nintendo also had motion control support for the Gamecube at some point too.
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/10/prototype-wii-remote-from-the-gamecube-era-sells-at-auction/

In fairness though, the Wii did have a few technical advantages over the OG Xbox, especially in the texturing department... Although the Xbox's mechanical hard drive would potentially have allowed for texture/mesh streaming to save on memory. (Which didn't become a standard thing until the mid 7th gen with Modern Warefare 2.)

And then you have the pixel shaders, something the Wii lacks. - Although technically with the TEV you can leverage it's functionality to theoretically perform the same effects but with a corresponding hit to performance as you needed multiple passes.

Shadow1980 said:
Price cuts this late in a system's life have minimal effect. The increase in sales, if any, are likely to be insufficient to justify less per-unit revenue. And it's not like the PS4 has atrocious sales. It's definitely post-peak and declining, but not to a degree so pressing that Sony needs to cut the price.

The flipside to that is there is a potential need to "lock" customers into their ecosystem, it's an easier task to ask people to migrate to a newer console if they already support all your subscription based services.

It should be interesting either way.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
jlauro said:

You completely misunderstand Nintendo and tech.  The wii was all SSD storage, and Sony and Xbox are only getting around to that next year. 

The Wii/WiiU used emmc NAND, which was dog slow... Which is why the Wii and WiiU interface was so slow and clunky, it wasn't using a fast SSD... In-fact it wouldn't surprise me if a fast mechanical hard drive was faster than the Wii and WiiU's storage. (I.E. Not the slow 5400rpm mechanical drives in our current consoles.)

jlauro said:

Nothing in the Wii was old tech.  However, the difference with Nintendo is they go after affordable mainstream tech in their designs, and only pick leading edge tech if it's affordable to produce and gives them a unique advantage.  Where as Sony / Microsoft push to the leading edge more on the "specs".  The wii might not of been bleeding edge, but it was by no means old tech even compared to the PS3 and 360, it just wasn't as spec heavy, and thus did not cost as much.

The CPU/GPU/Ram in the Wii was old technology, based upon the technology in the preceding console, the Gamecube.
And even the emmc NAND is old as it's been around since the 90's... emmc is cheap, nasty and good for cost-sensitive devices like a console.

The bulk of the Wii's innovation was sunk into the controllers, which... Despite being "done" before wasn't done in such a convenient package.

SammyGiireal said:

The Wii was an upclocked Game Cube with motion controls. It was the biggest money grab in Nintendo's home console history. It was in fact less powerful than 2001's Xbox. I considered the machine part of that PS3/360 Gen simply because it was released along side the PS3 in 2006, but the guts of the machine were out dated and it showed.

Nintendo also had motion control support for the Gamecube at some point too.
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/10/prototype-wii-remote-from-the-gamecube-era-sells-at-auction/

In fairness though, the Wii did have a few technical advantages over the OG Xbox, especially in the texturing department... Although the Xbox's mechanical hard drive would potentially have allowed for texture/mesh streaming to save on memory. (Which didn't become a standard thing until the mid 7th gen with Modern Warefare 2.)

And then you have the pixel shaders, something the Wii lacks. - Although technically with the TEV you can leverage it's functionality to theoretically perform the same effects but with a corresponding hit to performance as you needed multiple passes.

Shadow1980 said:
Price cuts this late in a system's life have minimal effect. The increase in sales, if any, are likely to be insufficient to justify less per-unit revenue. And it's not like the PS4 has atrocious sales. It's definitely post-peak and declining, but not to a degree so pressing that Sony needs to cut the price.

The flipside to that is there is a potential need to "lock" customers into their ecosystem, it's an easier task to ask people to migrate to a newer console if they already support all your subscription based services.

It should be interesting either way.

Thank you for the more elaborate tech explanation. 



Shadow1980 said:
Price cuts this late in a system's life have minimal effect. The increase in sales, if any, are likely to be insufficient to justify less per-unit revenue. And it's not like the PS4 has atrocious sales. It's definitely post-peak and declining, but not to a degree so pressing that Sony needs to cut the price.

They should do it for the record books :) (selling more > selling less) (if not for profit)
Or just to be good-guys, that ll brigten the world, with more players getting to enjoy a gameing machine.

I wanna see the PS4 go beyound 130m, which I assumed was possible..... Sony have been to laxed with price cuts.

Also as permalite said:
"The flipside to that is there is a potential need to "lock" customers into their ecosystem, it's an easier task to ask people to migrate to a newer console if they already support all your subscription based services."


Sony should go with a price cut imo, its time to stop being so greedy.
The increased sales would probably be close to same profits, and have better longterm effects.



Maybe they'll still cut the price and the lowballing is merely the old "we beat our estimates" thing companies love to do ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Seriously, though, their financial / advertising offices probably considered the whole matter in way more detail and with way more data than we can, so there's no use to speculating whatever they might've decided and why.

That being said, if the PS3 retailed fro $199 at one point, it's entirely feasible for the PS4 to do likewise, even if it's only by the time the PS5 launches.




 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network

Its still doing over 200K a week. I don't think the price is hindering this beast all that much.



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.  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.

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.

This. I never get why people don't understand what the word generation means. It's a time period.

Wii/PS3/X360 all were sold during the same time period. Switch/PS4/X1 were sold in the same time period.

If we want to talk about technology, well, then that means all consoles are several generations old, because PC is generations ahead. But that's not how we should be talking about generations when it comes to tech. We actually don't because we refer to Switch/PS4/X1 as current gen.

There's context and if technology is part of it, it's only relative to the brand. Wii was a more powerful Gamecube, and WiiU was a more powerful Wii. There are still generations of consoles here despite Wii not being technologically competitive with PS3/X360. Switch is a new generation of Nintendo's tech and it sells at the same time as PS4/X1. So it's current gen. Simple.



danasider said:

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.  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.

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.

This. I never get why people don't understand what the word generation means. It's a time period.

Wii/PS3/X360 all were sold during the same time period. Switch/PS4/X1 were sold in the same time period.

If we want to talk about technology, well, then that means all consoles are several generations old, because PC is generations ahead. But that's not how we should be talking about generations when it comes to tech. We actually don't because we refer to Switch/PS4/X1 as current gen.

There's context and if technology is part of it, it's only relative to the brand. Wii was a more powerful Gamecube, and WiiU was a more powerful Wii. There are still generations of consoles here despite Wii not being technologically competitive with PS3/X360. Switch is a new generation of Nintendo's tech and it sells at the same time as PS4/X1. So it's current gen. Simple.

I mostly agree with you, except Wii U/PS4/XB1 were sold in the same time period.  They all launched in the 2012-2013 time period.  Switch launched several years afterward, so that makes it next generation.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

I mostly agree with you, except Wii U/PS4/XB1 were sold in the same time period.  They all launched in the 2012-2013 time period.  Switch launched several years afterward, so that makes it next generation.

You're right WiiU/PS4/XB1 were in a generation. Switch came out around the time of the Pro/X (all within a year), although Pro/X are half generational steps since they share the same DNA as their precursors whereas Switch is a completely new generation of Nintendo hardware.

But yeah, the point I was agreeing with is that the market decides what a generation is, not the tech specs. And that's usually because the consoles compete in sales for the market at a given period of time. 



Probably they'll prefer BF and Xmas bundles and possibly time limited discounts this year, while the definitive price cut will be defined when they'll decide the PS5 pricing strategy, and they'll also decide if they'll do it before, after or at the same time of PS5 launch (in this case probably not even calling it a cut, but simply releasing the new list of prices for the whole PS product range).



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!