They require playstation plus and considering they are all 3rd party games, sony would be in risk of loosing those consumers to Xbox Series S.

Ultimately when it comes down to the numbers, we have to assume sony has made a more calculated decision than any of us could hope with our loose guesses. The only thing they might get wrong is the actual demand for a digital only playtstaion. I haven't bought a physical game in 2 years but I'll still get the disc console just to be future proofed. 

A playstation plus subscription is not required to play those games.

I know you replied to me, but you didn't actually address anything I actually said.  I'll repeat the main points so that it's clear.

An all digital future benefits Microsoft and not Sony.  This is because console hardware prices will shoot up to near PC levels when retailers are not able to sell physical games.  Consoles will become like PCs for good and for bad.  They will be all digital, like PCs, and the hardware will be priced like a PC.  The PC market will grow and the console market will implode.  All of this helps Microsoft.

Something like this happened before.  I think it was a Resident Evil Limited Edition that came without a game.  I'd actually like to see this happen more.

Sony receives 70 USD per full price first party game they sell digitally. Studio's get salaries and funding for licenses and equipment, actors etc.

Sony receives around 48 USD per first party physical release. 2 digital games offsets the BOM. 3 games is extra profit.

Based on the price increase. For third party games they get more like a quarter so around 15 to 18USD.

In Europe it is similar but tax is included so digital would be around 65 euros revenue and third party around 16 euros.

Consoles will never sell over $700. Reason being that most consumers won't pay that amount for console. Nobody wants a repeat for the $599 debacle of the PS3. Anything over $500 is pushing it. The rest is a bit well, nonsense, sorry no other way of putting it.

- Your first paragraph states that Sony made a digital edition because they're worried about MS and I told you that's not the case, it's inevitable that Sony was going to make one anyways.

- You said that Sony only did that cause MS and Nintendo are doing something ballsy yet Sony was already there to begin with, ie. PSP Go.  Sony didnt include a digital edition 'just in case', Sony included it because of how the market already is, not because MS and Nintendo.

- You talked about retailers already where you think how it'll screw all retailers but I mentioned how it doesn't really because it's all about foot traffic.  You said screwing over retail is a win for MS but a loss for Sony, where that's not the case as retailers are already aware of the video game business as I've already mentioned.

- You said Sony is losing just by offering an all digital, yet many here have done the math and there is no loss when an all digital system can make them much more in the long run.  And they don't need to keep physical media around (if that's what the market wants).  Do you still think Sony is still making CD players and relying on CD sales?

Like i said, you think Sony is incapable of progress and change or something.  

Sounds like you don't even know what you're even talking about with your own comments, or else you would've known how my comment addressed to yours lol

Doesn't have to make sense. Sony can offer a $399 console just to grab market share, the 100 dollar difference between the 2 versions does not have to make sense to you or Pachter. 

If someone buys 5 games at full price, a new $70 for next gen. With a 30% cut, that is $105 of revenue for Sony. More if it is a first party game, which Sony will release 3-4 AAA games every year. 

If someone subcribes to PSN plus, that is $60 a year for Sony. 

If someone chooses a PS5 over Xbox and gets either a controller, PSVR, PS camera, headset. What are the margins on those? Probably very high. 

Just like how business class and economy class for airtickets doesnt have to make sense to you. Business class is like 5 times more expensive than economy, but does it cost the airline 5 times more to service a business class customer? No. They do it based on what price points different types of customers are willing to pay. 

You guys need to understand that BOM (Bill of Material) is only the direct cost of production of the consoles. There all the external costs such as marketing, delivery, and overhead. If you consider all does cost it's pretty clear that both Microsoft and Sony are selling these consoles at a loss. This is why competition is good for customers, while these two mega-corporations fights we get to benefit at a lower price. This is what Micheal Patcher is referring to that Sony miss out, especially if you consider that Sony would have sold out all the console this Holiday season at a $450 price point for PS5 all digital.

You clearly don't understand the difference between Revenue and Profit. People in business that actually know what they are talking about said that selling a game digitally net Sony an extra $5-7 which was mentioned by Patcher. The main reason Sony and Third-party want to raise the cost of games to $70 is to combat the rising cost of making games. Since, while Revenue might rise their actual profit is decreasing, and based on the success of the games, some games might actually not recover their actual costs of production.

If Sony can't establish the same massive install base as the PS4 with the PS5 this will mean that every project won't make as much profit. That why Sony ole speel about believes in Generations was stupid because it would have ignored their 100 Million PS4 owners during the transition. Turns out Sony was lying and was just conducting effective deceptive marketing that their fan bought up and regurgitate and spread around as facts. 

Rhonda Rhousey is chorrect.