It's an extra $250 over the Slim Digital, the extra power and extra 1TB of SSD storage might be worth $250 to a few new adopters.

But for people who already own a PS5 upgrading is a HARD sell, especially for owners of the older fat model. I'd be lucky to get £250 for my Fat PS5 Digital so £450 to upgrade to the Pro.

I paid £280 last year to enter the PS5 generation with a preowned digital, I'm not paying £450 just to upgrade. It's not a new generation lol.

It'll use the existing Slim disc drive, not a new one.

The economy and inflation were much better during PS4, but that doesn't really explain fully why the PS5 price has to remain steady 4 years in, and why PS5 Pro has to be so much more than PS5 Slim.

Another reason, which I think you may be suggesting, is that SNY thinks they didn't make the best of the PS4 Pro since it was their first go at it, and should've made different choices. Though that would seem to mean that PS4 Pro should've been more expensive, whether or not that meant even better performing hardware.

Higher PS4 Pro pricing would likely have led to lower overall units sold. Hard to say how much less since some buyers probably would've just remained on PS4 Slim or would've chosen a PS4 Slim due to lower price, but some new gamers, or gamers transitioning from PC or XB etc, might not have with higher Pro pricing.

This is the kind of thing that may have made SNY more money in the end possibly, but would mean a smaller audience to profit from. That's not necessarily a good thing for those gamers depending on how those profits are eventually spent, not to mention gamers who would like to join the PS ecosystem. PS4 Slim didn't get very cheap after all this time and PS5 (Slim) isn't either.

As for digital, it's certainly a growing market, but are most of those gamers casuals or hardcore enthusiasts? If PS5 Pro is for the hardcore, then it should cater to them shouldn't it?

That's a lot of rose tinted glasses viewing.

PS3 had a terrible game library the first year(s), far behind the 360. I remember a long game drought after launch.

All my PS3 controllers have failed, those things weren't durable at all. Very flimsy, especially compared to the 360 controllers. I had problems with the charging ports, the sticks, the directional buttons, the triggers. They were nice lightweight controllers yet now I use a DS4 controller for my PS3 since all 7 or so of my PS3 controllers are either dead or have issues. (One continuously fires directional buttons at the lightest touch of the controller)

Both my 60GB launch PS3 and 80GB 'movie player' PS3 died from YLod. PS3 slim is still going.
PS3 never had full BC in Europe, only US versions had the complete package. But unfortunately they died on me, no more full BC, no more card reader.

But yes, that was still a time where tech got cheaper a lot faster over time and scaling up production. Now inflation and scarcity have changed that for all computer electronics. But let's not forget Sony lost 4 billion or more on PS3 :/ Just get blu-ray to win over HD-DVD (luckily). PS3 was sold at $300 loss, it was actually a $899 console.

They will certainly try if XB clearly starts backing off on future hardware and focuses on GP, but they can only push so far.

They'll just find themselves in another PS3 situation or worse, with much poorer than is typical hardware sales, and they won't be able to just keep jacking up the prices of everything like now. It works now partially because of competition in the case of the console war, but if XB backs off enough or stops making hardware altogether, then there's no reason for really high PS hardware pricing other than offering hardware that is too high end and niche, or pure greed.

PS gamers wouldn't just sit there and take it if there's no competition. All they'd see after enough time is corporate greed and if that time comes, SNY won't be able to just halt price increases or offer some discounts. At that point there would end up serious backlash and sales would suffer considerably because of things like social media and memes, something that was only in its infancy back during PS3.

In memory of James Earl Jones.

The PS3 sold at $300 loss, the price is that high now because Sony is not interested in loss leading the pro.

A comment on Eurogamer says it best

"They didn't want a mass market upgrade. They have plenty of data from the PS4 Pro and I suspect what their data says is that the Pro model was not good at capturing new customers, but was good at getting more out of existing customers - getting them to buy new hardware, getting them interested in buying more games, etc. So this time around the PS5 Pro is about selling the most lucrative of existing customers on a profit-driving piece of hardware, and one that hopefully will get them buying more games (and perhaps even prevent them from shifting their spending over to PC by "narrowing the gap"). In other words, it is about retaining "money is no object" customers, not about offering a mass-market upgrade."

And there are plenty that can afford and will buy a pro at that price. Remember the PS5 sold for more at launch via scalpers... You can blame them for setting the price people are willing to pay :/

PS6 will most likely start as a loss leading console again, less expensive than the PS5 Pro. Maybe with more difference between the digital and physical version next time. If the premium version still gets a disc drive. Otherwise their might be other differences like different tier storage space.
If the PS6 prices itself outside the mass consumer marker, a new competitor will have a way into the console market. So I doubt Sony will want to open that door. PS5 Pro simply isn't intended for mass market, just like the Dualsense Edge controller. And just like PSVR2, priced as an enthusiast product.

According to usinflationcalculator.com a launch PS3 would cost $936.88 in today's money. But...

Online was free.
It was fully backwards compatible.
The controller didn't break after 2 years.
It included a disk drive.
Exclusive games were actually exclusive.

Meanwhile a PS5 Pro is $779.98 once you add the cost of a disk drive. $79.99 a year for online. $75 for a new controller every two years. So after two years of PSN and a new controller it costs the same as the PS3. After four years it costs even more because you've bought another replacement controller and paid for PSN two more years. Ridiculous.

Modern.
Consoles.
Suck.

Depends a lot on what happens with inflation, but also the companies profits and what they can "afford to lose".

If inflation doesn't change much either this gen needs to be extended to like 10 years, or PS6 ends up not enough of a leap in power for previous PS5 Pro owners and then what? A $499 PS6 at 20TF? The majority will be fine with that, but how does SNY sell that to those who bought a PS5 Pro?

I don't see SNY going back to loss leaders unless they're forced to by competition, and I also see that as unlikely after MS' failed attempts vs SNY.

Exactly this. I'm the customer Sony is looking at and I'm day 1 there for the console. I sell my old one and pay like $400 overall for it. It helps games perform better and that's all I want especially with FPS. 

I love the way PC games perform but I hate everything else about PC gaming so I will never go back to it.