Phil seems to keep mentioning "consoles". I'd be surprised now if Lockhart didn't exist, unless it's just a super cheap streaming box instead.
Based on that:

$299-$399 Lockhart
$499 PS5
$599 XBSX

I think this is partially why the hardcore push is coming from MS in terms of the XBSX power narrative. It makes sense in general, but if they want to charge $100 more than PS5, the paper specs alone don't make it look like it's worth $100 more. Marketing would be key to selling it at $100 premium.
If MS went with a two tier approach, I can't see there being much money in the budget for subsidies, unless Lockhart is super weak garbage hardware at whatever cost, but based on XBSX I kinda doubt that. With little to no money for subsidy since it was spent on Lockhart, I can't see XBSX and PS5 being the same price. SNY only having PS5 also means they likely have some room to subsidize if they so choose.

I don't know if the Dualsense will impact the RRP of the PS5 they most likely will pick the closest  $?99.00 price point  that they feel is both sustainable and most importantly not so high that they are seen to be overpriced, any extra costs incurred by the boxed  dualsense will most like be offset by the pricing and profit from all those second and third controller sales.

Sony is clocking it's GPU higher so despite the fact it might be a smaller chip... It might just be as expensive as the Xbox Series X's GPU due to less chips able to hit such high clocks at a sustainable voltage. - At-least initially until 7/7nm+ becomes extremely mature.

The SSD is MUCH more expensive, so is the controller... And we don't know what other "features" Sony has cooked up yet either that could increase the pricing.

Heck. We don't even know what the console looks like or the materials it's made from, might be Aluminum for all we know so the whole case acts like a big heatsink. (Unlikely, the point is... Not enough information.)


I am going to hypothesize that the pricing will be identical. Or about $650 AUD, Microsoft has made the construction of it's console and controller as simple and as cheap as possible whilst driving home that APU and it's memory subsystem.

I'm not an expert, so it's just a guess.
You may be right.
Anyway, thank you for your feedback.

Well $499,- was never a success in console history but $399,- sounds way to cheap either, so I think both will be around $449,- with at least $150,- losses per console.

I did say it was unlikely, didn't think it was necessary to also Bold/Underline it.

Point is, we don't have the information, for all we know the console will be shaped like a Hello Kitty head.

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker, so it was hard to know whether it's a joke or not.

Why? I'd guess exactly the opposite could be true.

We know the ssd in the PS5 consists of 12 generic 512Gbit chips and a custom design controller, and hardware inside the SoC. Development of the custom controller and the hardware in the SoC falls into general development costs. If Sony actually has the ssd controller manufactured, then the only ssd-specific costs would be some generic copyright levy to whoever "owns" the basic controller. (If Sony made the controller all by themselves, zero additional costs. That is not entirely impossible, given they had several years to develop this system).

On the XSX, we actually know almost nothing on the hardware specifics, other than the generic "12 TFlops! 12 TFlops!" shouting from the rooftop. We only know the ssd is a generic nvme 2.4GB/s drive (probably Seagate) of higher capacity (=more expensive). So MS pays full price for the controller, and pays more for the chips as there are more chips around.

If the rumours are true and MS developed (at least) two new consoles, then the general development costs will be higher than that for Sony. On the grand total, the "ssd costs" could be (and probably are) higher on the XSX than on the PS5.

The PS5 had BETTER be cheaper or I see trouble on the horizon zero dawn for Sony (see what I did there?)