Sony Is Struggling With PlayStation 5 Price Due to Costly Parts

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
Can you name 5 people that have a smartphone that do not game on them in some fashion? No... then there is crossover. Sure it's a rather ephemeral crossover but it is there.
Yes. I can probably name 40-50 in my church alone.
Casual gamers are also not hardcore gamers. Why do you think people are trying to make the next flappy birds rather than develop for consoles? Even that is an entirely different market from the hardcore gaming market.

If you're arguing that cellphones dictate gaming, then you should also argue that anyone with a smartphone should also have a $5000 gaming PC. Which as I'm sure you can also guess, they don't have. Making the leap from cellphone to PC gaming is just as absurd as Cellphone to gaming console. It's not even close.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
Yes. I can probably name 40-50 in my church alone.
Casual gamers are also not hardcore gamers. Why do you think people are trying to make the next flappy birds rather than develop for consoles? Even that is an entirely different market from the hardcore gaming market.

If you're arguing that cellphones dictate gaming, then you should also argue that anyone with a smartphone should also have a $5000 gaming PC. Which as I'm sure you can also guess, they don't have. Making the leap from cellphone to PC gaming is just as absurd as Cellphone to gaming console. It's not even close.
Remind blizzard of that then.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
Remind blizzard of that then.
Precisely. Mobile Diablo has the potential to sell much more than a PC game or a game designed for consoles because people have cellphones and not consoles. If you want to prove my point, you are. Which is: high end cellphone purchases do not dictate game console sales or pc sales.

Not all gamers have a PC. Not all gamers have a PlayStation or Xbox. But all of them have a cellphone. However the reverse is not true. Not all people will cellphones are gamers.

EDIT:
In fact, if you want to play a fun game, you can go ahead and check how many people IN THE WORLD have an Android device or an iPhone (currently in use unit sales) and then compare that number to every Switch, PS4, and Xbox 1 sold combined. I guarantee that number will be less than 20%. Likely less than 10%. Considering people in India as an example buy entry level Android phones and cannot even afford a console. Technically that number will not even be accurate, as some people own multiple gaming consoles (meaning there should be overlap in terms of people and sales), but even NOT accounting for that, the numbers will prove themselves.

EDIT 2:
Switch: Units Shipped 53~ Million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch
PS4: Units Shipped 109~ Million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4
XB1: Units Sold 50~ Million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One

So roughly 212~ Million people in the world have a Game consoles (actually like I said, far less because some people have more than one console).

Android powers roughly 2.5 BILLION active devices. https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/1...ces-play-store-total-number-statistic-keynote
iOS powers roughly 1.4 BILLION active devices: https://www.macrumors.com/2019/01/29/apple-1-4-billion-active-devices/

The console gaming market doesn't even touch this. There is no bearing on cellphone usage to console sales. There's just not. Less than 1% of people with a smartphone own a gaming device. It looks like my conservative estimate of 10% was still WAY too high. It is only a fraction of a percent.

EDIT 3:
To really put this into perspective another way, Apple sells more iPhones in a YEAR than the total lifetime sales of the Switch, PS4, and XB1 COMBINED (this calculation comes from looking at Apple's sales chart by quarter for 2018 and adding their 4 quarters up. For 2018 it was over 217 Million). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
If the PS4 (or the PS5 for that matter) is supposed to match in sales or price in comparison to an iPhone, then they had better get off their ass and start selling a shit ton more. This goes to prove the point mathmatically: the price of an iPhone or high-end cellphone does not corellate AT ALL to game consoles. If anything it shows that consoles cost too much because people aren't buying them at anywhere close to the same rate as a cellphone nor is the adoption rate anywhere close either.

EDIT 4:
Or another way of putting this into perspective: the highest selling console of all time by volume was the PS2 with 155 Million Consoles sold, LIFETIME over 12 YEARS. The iPhone sells a little under ~1.5x that in a SINGLE YEAR.
 
Last edited:

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
Precisely. Mobile Diablo has the potential to sell much more than a PC game or a game designed for consoles because people have cellphones and not consoles. If you want to prove my point, you are. Which is: high end cellphone purchases do not dictate game console sales or pc sales.

Not all gamers have a PC. Not all gamers have a PlayStation or Xbox. But all of them have a cellphone. However the reverse is not true. Not all people will cellphones are gamers.

EDIT: In fact, if you want to play a fun game, you can go ahead and check how many people IN THE WORLD have an Android device or an iPhone (currently in use unit sales) and then compare that number to every Switch, PS4, and Xbox 1 sold combined. I gurantee that number will be less than 20%. Likely less than 10%. Considering people in India as an example buy entry level Android phones and cannot even afford a console. Technically that number will not even be accurate, as some people own multiple gaming consoles (meaning there should be overlap in terms of people and sales), but even NOT accounting for that, the numbers will prove themselves.

I understand what you are saying. I really do. But... bare with me here.

If a game on PC/Console explodes in sales on a phone. Then the mobile customers discover they can get a better than phone experience on a TV with a Console... this is the market the Sony and Xbox's would love.

Same reason that games are going cross platform as well with Xbox/Pc crossover.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
I understand what you are saying. I really do. But... bare with me here.

If a game on PC/Console explodes in sales on a phone. Then the mobile customers discover they can get a better than phone experience on a TV with a Console... this is the market the Sony and Xbox's would love.

Same reason that games are going cross platform as well with Xbox/Pc crossover.
If that was going to happen it would have happened a long time ago. The iPhone has existed since 2009 and Android slightly before then. Its been 10 years. Gaming consoles have existed since the 70's. People know if they want them or not. My Mom will never buy a gaming console. She just never will.

Experience only matters to people that are in the enthusiast category for that product. Most folks will NEVER move past casual. Which is what the cellphone gaming market is. People are far more interested in watching Youtube and using Snapchat than they ever will be on playing any game.

The only hope for what you're talking about is essentially having modern high-end computing power on a cellphone or tablet, but that would be the reverse of what you're hoping for. Essentailly it would be high-end gaming on a mobile platform. But those players would be highly unlikely to reverse and move to consoles afterwards. If anything at that point it would move to airplaying your game on your TV long before consoles would come into the picture, with an added bluetooth controller. That's FAR more likley to be successful in that market than a dedicated gaming console or PC.

However, even with that occurring, it will likely be hardcore gamers that pick that up. Which is actually how Apple intends to break into the gaming market if I could guess. Eventually ARM processors will be fast enough that the Apple TV will have the power to be a gaming console. Or alternatively your iPad could be a gaming console. Both of which allow bluetooth gamepad pairing. But converting those players to a console or a PC is unlikely. It's far more likely that the hardcore PC gaming crowd moves instead to those mobile devices.
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,423
MS will sell their console at a loss just to fuck with Sony. If they don't, it would be extremely foolish of them since Sony doesn't have even close to the same revenue and profits as MS.
 

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,182
Well if my internet subsidized me a console by simply having me remain in a contract for 2 years, I'd have a next gen console too :D
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,440
What happens if gog closes. I’m talking disc based games.
Although to be fair even to that point I can’t remember the last game I bought that didn’t have a multi GB day 0 patch.
All games on GoG have installers you can download and store on your own. Even if the store and site go down you can still install and play any games you downloaded the installer for.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
17,671
Well if my internet subsidized me a console by simply having me remain in a contract for 2 years, I'd have a next gen console too :D
Anyone still subsidize phones? I think Sprint was one of the last ones I think when I got my iPhone SE. That was the the last year they were doing the 2 year contract subsidizing.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,440
Anyone still subsidize phones? I think Sprint was one of the last ones I think when I got my iPhone SE. That was the the last year they were doing the 2 year contract subsidizing.
It's not about subsidizing the phones. It's about not paying for the phone in one lump sum but instead spread out over a couple of years and just added into the phone bill. That's how so many people are getting these really high dollar phones they wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. You can't do that with a console, though.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,348
The PS3 was still underpriced at $500/$600. It should have costed over $700. Sony lost money on every console and it nearly bankrupted them. It was the console that got Kaz Hizarai fired. It was a massive Pyrrhic victory. Sony's gaming division literally almost sunk the entire company. They learned a lot of lessons from that. A) people aren't willing to pay just any price. And B) selling consoles that lose money is a losing strategy.



The one that sold the most is the iPhone XR and then the 11. Most people are not buying $1000 phones despite your fantasy. Most people aren't buying $600 consoles. Most people aren't even buying $300 consoles. You still haven't addressed how one item is viewed as a necessity of life with nearly 100% market penetration (as in, virtually everyone owns a cellphone of some variety) whereas a Playstation is a gaming device that only a fraction of gamers own, not even 100% of that particular market.

It's entirely different markets. Even if phones costed $5000 and people bought them, it wouldn't prove that the market would bear $600 game consoles. I might as well say: Mercedes Benz sells cars for $100k, so people can afford a $1000 console. Those two markets DO NOT RELATE AT ALL.
I was reading an article from 2018 that iPhone X did like 20 million units in half a year. PS4 took 7 years to do 75 million units.

Square/Enix have some of the most successful console games and their main mobile game dwarfs them all in sales.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
I was reading an article from 2018 that iPhone X did like 20 million units in half a year. PS4 took 7 years to do 75 million units.
I fully broke down the math here: https://hardforum.com/threads/sony-...e-due-to-costly-parts.1993028/post-1044497098
The short answer, less than 1% of people in the world that own a smartphone also own ANY current gen console. That's further than 3 standard deviations. Meaning statistically you can draw ZERO correlation between smartphone ownership to console ownership, and also proving mathematically that people buying expensive smartphones doesn't mean that they will buy expensive consoles (as literally there is no correlation between the two).

The other part of the equation is that expensive consoles have been tested before and the market would not bear the cost. So, in having a very expensive console, there would have to be a very compelling case for it. And before anyone goes off on a tangent about the XBox 1x or PS4 Pro, both of those consoles are incredibly small players in comparison to the regular console versions. The PS4 Pro as an example is only 1/5th of sales, and that of course is only since its launch in 2016. The actual number of PS4 Pros sold no one has, but the point is that only at most 20% of total PS4 owners are willing to spend $400~ on a console (yes sales, etc drive the cost lower, but we're talking about launch costs. Also as another aside, the fact that Sony won't release PS4 Pro specific sales number tells me they're being cagey. I suspect it's far, far lower than 20% overall). Meaning trying to have a console be even more expensive than that is setting yourself up for failure. And that is even considering the fact that the original non-pro PS4's launch cost was also $400.
If anything it shows that early adopters will eat $400, but most people want to pay $300 or less on a console and they'd rather wait. We're 6 years in on PS4 and people are still 80% of the time buying the less expensive non-pro model over the more expensive pro model. The numbers speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
In retrospect , the PS1 cost $400 dollars at launch.
You mean if you're adjusting for inflation? In current dollars, the PS1's launch price of $299 in 1994 would be closer to $527 dollars. The SNES's launch price at $199 in 1990 would be closer to $400 launch price in 2020 dollars.
But adjusting for inflation isn't perfect as different good are tracked to show inflation of prices. You could say that inflation affects different products at different rates. Generally the CPI is used to track inflation, but it is far from perfect.

Generally I would say that to your point, the launch price of consoles has stayed relatively steady when accounting for inflation. ~$400 has more or less been shown to be what the market will bear.
 
Last edited:

Smashing Young Man

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,596
The original Playstation launched at a price of $299, which equates to about $522 when adjusted for inflation. A launch price of between 500 and 600 dollars for a PS5 doesn't seem outrageous.

Hell, I paid over $700 for a 3DO when it first launched, which is like $1300 now. That was a pretty dumb move on my part, but just sayin'.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
17,856
I'll pick one up as long as it's $500 or less at launch.. maybe more if they launch with a nice remake/remaster of one of their PS4 exclusives like TLOU2 or Horizon or something, otherwise I'll wait until the next big exclusive comes out and there's a bundle/sale on it.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
18,580
I'll pick one up as long as it's $500 or less at launch.. maybe more if they launch with a nice remake/remaster of one of their PS4 exclusives like TLOU2 or Horizon or something, otherwise I'll wait until the next big exclusive comes out and there's a bundle/sale on it.
Bluepoint Games is rumored to be working on a Demon's Souls remaster...if that's the case I'll be getting a PS5 (same way I bought a PS4 for Bloodborne)
 

zehoo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
349
A higher price is hardly unexpected considering they're using a brand new custom APU with the latest die shrink size rather than an old off the shelf PoS APU that the ps4/xbone used. Then combined with the fact they're probably moving to pcie 4.0 nvme and how large game installs are now. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the compromise is that both systems use hybrid storage to keep costs down (256-512GB SSD + 2-4TB rust).
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
Scarce components have pushed the manufacturing costs for Sony Corp.’s next PlayStation to around $450 per unit, forcing a difficult price-setting decision in its battle with Microsoft Corp., according to people with knowledge of the matter

The PS4, released in 2013 at a retail price of $399, was estimated by IHS Markit to cost $381 to manufacture...with the $450 unit cost and a similar gross margin, the PlayStation 5’s retail price would have to be at least $470...that would be a hard sell to consumers, considering Sony’s most expensive machine now is the $399.99 PS4 Pro and is often discounted...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/sony-struggling-playstation-5-price-035030181.html
I dont see the problem. For many generations the various companies have sold at a loss and had their profit come from game sales, subscriptions, and microtransactions. If the new console costs $450 to make, Sony should easily be able to sell it for $400 with the same economics these companies have always had other than this very last console generation.
 

Marees

Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
724
Sony has already canceled some previously planned features for a new mirrorless camera due this year owing to the constrained DRAM supply, several people with knowledge of the matter said

The company’s biggest headache is ensuring a reliable supply of DRAM and NAND flash memory, with both in high demand as smartphone makers gear up for fifth-generation devices, according to people familiar with Sony’s operations. Samsung Electronics Co. just announced its Galaxy S20 product range, each variant of which will have 5G and a minimum of 12GB of RAM in the U.S



https://bgr.com/2020/02/14/ps5-price-struggles-bloomberg-report-blame-galaxy-s20/
This report suggests that unlike PS5, Xbox price may not go up by much due to increase in DRAM prices

If sony & MS were targetting same launch price as PS4 pro & Xbox 1X, then if now Sony is forced to release PS5 starting $450 but MS might still release the Xbox sX at same $500 as the DRAM fluctuations may not impact them to the same extent as Sony

Using a DRAM-less drive allows Microsoft to keep the costs of manufacturing down while not having to sacrifice PCIe 4.0 speeds

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7010...ss-pcie-4-nvme-up-3-7gb-sec-speeds/index.html

via https://www.windowscentral.com/sony-struggling-keep-playstation-5-price-down-xbox
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,709
The original Playstation launched at a price of $299, which equates to about $522 when adjusted for inflation. A launch price of between 500 and 600 dollars for a PS5 doesn't seem outrageous.

Hell, I paid over $700 for a 3DO when it first launched, which is like $1300 now. That was a pretty dumb move on my part, but just sayin'.
It's not really a matter of absolute value, but what consumers are willing to pay. There are just mental blocks people have for certain products at certain price limits and $600 seems to be an amount that people just don't want to pay for a game console. Some of them are the very same people who will happily blow $1000/year on a new phone, it isn't a matter of can or can't afford as much as choosing to afford. So companies have to balance that, particularly since the real money is in the long game of licensing and sales of games.

Also game consoles are very prone to feedback loops: If everyone buys your console, game makers want to target it since everyone owns it, leading to more people wanting it. Likewise if nobody buys your console getting games on it is harder since nobody has it leading to nobody wanting it. Thus pricing is hard. You'd like to sell it for at least break even, if not a profit, so that you can sell as many of them as possible and not impact your bottom line negatively. However you also want to get them in to as many houses as possible so that people hopefully buy a lot of games, which means you want to lower the price even to money-losing levels. There's not an easy answer.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
All they need to do to win is launch the ps5 with a remastered ffvii and art related. To that on the box. Have that be the only way to get that game for three months. Then release the game after that. The FOMO will make people nuts for it and it will sell out in hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,182
Anyone still subsidize phones? I think Sprint was one of the last ones I think when I got my iPhone SE. That was the the last year they were doing the 2 year contract subsidizing.
Well subsidized in the fact that you have an "$80/month plan" and get to swap out your phone every 2 years for the next one. You're paying for it the phone, just think of it as the cost of having a cell plan because you feel that's "the price" things should cost because it's a big name carrier (Sprint, AT&T, etc)
It's not about subsidizing the phones. It's about not paying for the phone in one lump sum but instead spread out over a couple of years and just added into the phone bill. That's how so many people are getting these really high dollar phones they wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. You can't do that with a console, though.
Exactly, an $800 phone spread out over 24 months is another $33/month which seems a lot more doable then "hey why should I pay $800 for a phone... when my old phone still works fine, it's just not as shiny". $21 a month for 24 months to have a $500 console? Many more people would probably do that, especially if it's integrated into the internet bill.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,348
talking about inflation since PS4 as if that should make a more expensive PS5 ok, is rubbish.

Pay doesn't generally match inflation and on top of that, cost of living is way up in many areas, since 2012. Nearly everything is more expensive.

The lower the price, the better. if these things cost more than $399, it could very well be a slow start.


This report suggests that unlike PS5, Xbox price may not go up by much due to increase in DRAM prices

If sony & MS were targetting same launch price as PS4 pro & Xbox 1X, then if now Sony is forced to release PS5 starting $450 but MS might still release the Xbox sX at same $500 as the DRAM fluctuations may not impact them to the same extent as Sony

Using a DRAM-less drive allows Microsoft to keep the costs of manufacturing down while not having to sacrifice PCIe 4.0 speeds

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7010...ss-pcie-4-nvme-up-3-7gb-sec-speeds/index.html

via https://www.windowscentral.com/sony-struggling-keep-playstation-5-price-down-xbox
The drives shown for Xbox so far, are basically 3.0 performance with a 4.0 interface
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,271
talking about inflation since PS4 as if that should make a more expensive PS5 ok, is rubbish.

Pay doesn't generally match inflation and on top of that, cost of living is way up in many areas, since 2012. Nearly everything is more expensive.

The lower the price, the better. if these things cost more than $399, it could very well be a slow start.
It really depends on marketing and how much they can get people excited about it. If Sony announces "every Playstation game will be playable out of the box" that will drive a lot of sales. If either of them makes a PS3 or XB1 level fuck up they're going to have a lot of trouble however.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
It really depends on marketing and how much they can get people excited about it. If Sony announces "every Playstation game will be playable out of the box" that will drive a lot of sales. If either of them makes a PS3 or XB1 level fuck up they're going to have a lot of trouble however.
It really doesn't. If cost changes were simply acceptable as a direct result of marketing (regardless of advertising amount "necessary") they'd skip $500 and move straight to $2000. If you can understand why that's absurd, then you can understand why there is a direct limit to what people are willing to pay for anything. This is a concept called: price elasticity of demand. Marketing isn't magic. Just because either you "or people you know" are willing to accept a $500, $600, or $700 console, that doesn't represent what a vast majority of consumers are willing to spend. Annecdotal evidence doesn't counter hard facts that the market will absolutely not bear a massive price increase, or perhaps virtually any price increase.
Sony might be able to get early adopters to buy at an increased price for a short period of time, but if they expect to move north of 25 million lifetime they're going to have to offer some variation of the system at $300 (or less of course). If you want to see that in action, just look at the pricing for the PS3 and the PS4 over time along with their sales numbers. Sony learned that $600 consoles are suicide. No amount of "marketing" will change that, and Sony more or less is the king of advertising.

Hell, literally the entire point of the discussion of this thread is that Sony recognizes creating an expensive machine is bad for them (hence the news article). Sony has had A LOT of failures in its console business that they've had to learn from in order to become successful. Them being incredibly careful with pricing is probably one of the smartest decisions they've made (which is a marked change from the PS3 to the PS4 launch price as an example). [Even skimming the article, it talks directly about market analysts and cost basis for the console versus the competition.]

The PS3 launch console was backwards compatible with both PS2 and PS1. And it nearly killed them. BC will not save a $600 console.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,271
It really doesn't. If cost changes were simply acceptable as a direct result of marketing (regardless of advertising amount "necessary") they'd skip $500 and move straight to $2000. If you can understand why that's absurd, then you can understand why there is a direct limit to what people are willing to pay for anything. This is a concept called: price elasticity of demand. Marketing isn't magic. Just because either you "or people you know" are willing to accept a $500, $600, or $700 console, that doesn't represent what a vast majority of consumers are willing to spend. Annecdotal evidence doesn't counter hard facts that the market will absolutely not bear a massive price increase, or perhaps virtually any price increase.
Sony might be able to get early adopters to buy at an increased price for a short period of time, but if they expect to move north of 25 million lifetime they're going to have to offer some variation of the system at $300 (or less of course). If you want to see that in action, just look at the pricing for the PS3 and the PS4 over time along with their sales numbers. Sony learned that $600 consoles are suicide. No amount of "marketing" will change that, and Sony more or less is the king of advertising.

Hell, literally the entire point of the discussion of this thread is that Sony recognizes creating an expensive machine is bad for them (hence the news article). Sony has had A LOT of failures in its console business that they've had to learn from in order to become successful. Them being incredibly careful with pricing is probably one of the smartest decisions they've made (which is a marked change from the PS3 to the PS4 launch price as an example).
First off: Remember, this entire thread is based on a rather dubious rumor. Bloomberg's track record is abysmal and the writer is pretty hit and miss as well. It would be unwise to take the rumor as if it were a fact.

Beyond that, $500 and $2000 are world's apart. MS already got the market used to seeing $500 consoles. The X might not have sold gang busters (for many reasons) but people have seen "the most powerful console ever built" at $500. So now we have two consoles that are drastically stronger and will promise the moon. The kicker is really going to be what they can do to sell people on them. MS is in a rough spot since they won't be making SX exclusives for an entire year, but since the XB1/XBX sold so poorly it's not like that many people have time (comparatively). Sony, on the other hand, can leverage their massive IP library to push sales. Promise a Spider-man sequel, tease a new God of War, announce a Bloodbourne sequel or remaster/remake of Demon's Souls, and so on. Have everything as PS5 exclusive. It will push sales. I really don't think the market will find $500 as unreasonable as you do. Now, IF this rumor is true than I could definitely see one or both of them eating the cost to get the system's down to $400-$450. However, until compelling evidence says otherwise I'm expecting a $500 price point.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
First off: Remember, this entire thread is based on a rather dubious rumor. Bloomberg's track record is abysmal and the writer is pretty hit and miss as well. It would be unwise to take the rumor as if it were a fact.

Beyond that, $500 and $2000 are world's apart. MS already got the market used to seeing $500 consoles. The X might not have sold gang busters (for many reasons) but people have seen "the most powerful console ever built" at $500. So now we have two consoles that are drastically stronger and will promise the moon. The kicker is really going to be what they can do to sell people on them. MS is in a rough spot since they won't be making SX exclusives for an entire year, but since the XB1/XBX sold so poorly it's not like that many people have time (comparatively). Sony, on the other hand, can leverage their massive IP library to push sales. Promise a Spider-man sequel, tease a new God of War, announce a Bloodbourne sequel or remaster/remake of Demon's Souls, and so on. Have everything as PS5 exclusive. It will push sales. I really don't think the market will find $500 as unreasonable as you do. Now, IF this rumor is true than I could definitely see one or both of them eating the cost to get the system's down to $400-$450. However, until compelling evidence says otherwise I'm expecting a $500 price point.
Microsoft selling a $500 console doesn't mean they sold it in any volume. A point you acknowledge. You'd have to create a MUCH more compelling reason as to why people would change their buying behavior now when they wouldn't in the past 4 years. Claiming the fastest or best console title isn't enough. The XB1 amongst other consoles directly proves that (XB1 TOTAL sales including the 1X is just over 50M. Less than half of of PS4 sales. Their $500 console is DEFINITELY NOT moving in any real volume). The PS3 also "Promised the Moon" at launch and it was a disaster. So did the PS4 Pro, and only sold in any volume at 20% lower cost than the XB1X. There are plenty of examples in the recent past and further past that exemplify this. If this was your 1 billion to gamble, you'd be a fool to price at $500 without thinking of a way to get lower on that price as soon as absolutely possible.

I'm also willing to bet you didn't even skim the article. I'd also give significantly more credit to a Bloomberg article writer sighting industry analysts and Sony insiders versus some guy on an internet forum. Additionally it's sighting actual facts, like demonstrating that the PS4 price will drive next gen price and that people didn't buy the PS4 either until it commonly "went on sale" at $300. Regardless of what you think of Bloomberg that information is reality.

They might end up with a $500 launch console, but I guarantee you they'll try to have that price lowered by at least $100 within a year. I also guarantee there will not be significant sales of any next gen console at $500, it will only sell after it goes well south of that.

(You also don't get analogies. Yes $2000 is a lot more than $500. The point is that the dollar amount doesn't matter, price elasticity of demand does. For every single percentage point increase in price, the amount of people willing to buy that product goes down. Increasing the price 25% isn't a number you can throw out there and "hope" people will buy because you think you have the best product or BC).
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,271
Microsoft selling a $500 console doesn't mean they sold it in any volume. A point you acknowledge. You'd have to create a MUCH more compelling reason as to why people would change their buying behavior now when they wouldn't in the past 4 years. Claiming the fastest or best console title isn't enough. The XB1 amongst other consoles directly proves that. The PS3 also "Promised the Moon" and it was a disaster. So did the PS4 Pro, and only sold in any volume at 20% lower cost than the XB1X.

I'm also willing to bet you didn't even skim the article. I'd also give significantly more credit to a Bloomberg article writer sighting industry analysts and Sony insiders versus some guy on an internet forum. Additionally it's sighting actual facts, like demonstrating that the PS4 price will drive next gen price and that people didn't buy the PS4 either until it commonly "went on sale" at $300. Regardless of what you think of Bloomberg that information is reality.

They might end up with a $500 launch console, but I guarantee you they'll try to have that price lowered by at least $100 within a year. I also guarantee there will not be significant sales of any next gen console at $500, it will only sell after it goes well south of that.
Price drops always drive sales, along with bundles and just time in general. You're ignoring one thing with your comparisons: The PS3 was more expensive than the 360. The XB1 was more expensive than the PS4. I'm talking about a scenario in which BOTH consoles are the same price (barring MS' rumored second system). You should note that I'm not saying either system will set sales records at $500, I'm simply saying the market will bear it and one or both will do fine. I don't expect either system to explode in popularity early on, not unless they launch at $300, but I also don't think they'll be complete failures at $500 either. As long as both of them are there. Now, if you want to talk about a situation in which only one is $500 and the other is $50-100 less then, yeah, no way in hell is the more expensive one going to sell as well.

The reliability of the source is important when looking at rumors. Anyone can claim to have contacts, some of them might even be semi-reliable. However, the source of a rumor needs to be trustworthy. Industry analysts are not overly reliable sources of information. They make guesses, not accurate predictions. The guesses are based on a lot of information (usually) but they're wrong about as often as they're right. Let's not forget that Michael Pachter is one of the biggest game industry analysts out there and his lack of reliability speaks for itself. So, no, I'm not going to take this rumor as anything more than one of a million other next gen rumors.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
Price drops always drive sales, along with bundles and just time in general. You're ignoring one thing with your comparisons: The PS3 was more expensive than the 360. The XB1 was more expensive than the PS4. I'm talking about a scenario in which BOTH consoles are the same price (barring MS' rumored second system). You should note that I'm not saying either system will set sales records at $500, I'm simply saying the market will bear it and one or both will do fine. I don't expect either system to explode in popularity early on, not unless they launch at $300, but I also don't think they'll be complete failures at $500 either. As long as both of them are there. Now, if you want to talk about a situation in which only one is $500 and the other is $50-100 less then, yeah, no way in hell is the more expensive one going to sell as well.
Okay. So the only way your solution works is if you can guarantee that Sony can predict what Microsoft will do in terms of pricing and then match it. You see how that's problematic right? If Microsoft even gets a whiff that Sony is forced to price their console at $500 and they can undercut them at $400, you know they'll do that every time right? They could reverse their record on PS4 vs XB1 pricing the exact opposite way.

This is the deal with "if" and "woulds" and "coulds", when you're making a billion dollar bet, you make the safe one. Unless you have trillions (or in other words a large enough sum of money that the money lost isn't detrimental). But even then the gamble has to be educated or you're just being foolish. The only way to guarantee you're not the one left holding the bag is to have lower pricing to begin with. Sony is a mega corporation. They aren't just going to price it at $500 and see what happens. They have to be sure they'll see good ROI. That's the major difference between the way analysts and business people look at this decision versus armchair forum-ers.

The reliability of the source is important when looking at rumors. Anyone can claim to have contacts, some of them might even be semi-reliable. However, the source of a rumor needs to be trustworthy. Industry analysts are not overly reliable sources of information. They make guesses, not accurate predictions. The guesses are based on a lot of information (usually) but they're wrong about as often as they're right. Let's not forget that Michael Pachter is one of the biggest game industry analysts out there and his lack of reliability speaks for itself. So, no, I'm not going to take this rumor as anything more than one of a million other next gen rumors.
Yes, reliability is important, but lets examine that for a moment.
1.) Bloomberg is a corporate entity, but it's made up of a body of journalists. You have to prove that the journalist him or herself has a track record of being incorrect. While also examining his/her sources for accuracy.
2.) In your checking of his/her accuracy and making a statement contrary to his/her statements you'd have to show that your own track record has been better. In other words, how are you the authority greater than him/her?
3.) Takashi Mochizuki (the author) has sources. He spoke directly with Sony PR, insiders dealing with manufacture, and analysts that follow the gaming industry. What sources are you using to make your assessments or assertions? Can you show how any of the numbers ("$500") you come up with are validated by any source? How is your "making guesses" better than their making guesses when they have sources and you do not?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,271
Okay. So the only way your solution works is if you can guarantee that Sony can predict what Microsoft will do in terms of pricing and then match it. You see how that's problematic right? If Microsoft even gets a whiff that Sony is forced to price their console at $500 and they can undercut them at $400, you know they'll do that every time right? They could reverse their record on PS4 vs XB1 pricing the exact opposite way.

This is the deal with "if" and "woulds" and "coulds", when you're making a billion dollar bet, you make the safe one. Unless you have trillions (or in other words a large enough sum of money that the money lost isn't detrimental). But even then the gamble has to be educated or you're just being foolish. The only way to guarantee you're not the one left holding the bag is to have lower pricing to begin with. Sony is a mega corporation. They aren't just going to price it at $500 and see what happens. They have to be sure they'll see good ROI.



Yes, reliability is important, but lets examine that for a moment.
1.) Bloomberg is a corporate entity, but it's made up of a body of journalists. You have to prove that the journalist him or herself has a track record of being incorrect. While also examining his/her sources for accuracy.
2.) In your checking of his/her accuracy and making a statement contrary to his/her statements you'd have to show that your own track record has been better. In other words, how are you the authority greater than him/her?
3.) Takashi Mochizuki (the author) has sources. He spoke directly with Sony PR, insiders dealing with manufacture, and analysts that follow the gaming industry. What sources are you using to make your assessments or assertions? Can you show how any of the numbers ("$500") you come up with are validated by any source? how is your "making guesses" better than their making guesses when they have sources and you do not?
Fucking Christ dude. Pull the tree limb out of your ass. This is a debate entirely on the basis of hypothetical situations. If you don't like it kindly fuck off.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
Fucking Christ dude. Pull the tree limb out of your ass. This is a debate entirely on the basis of hypothetical situations. If you don't like it kindly fuck off.
I have debated your directly and done so with a very level head using economic principles and sighting sources. If you've reached an impasse, that's on you.

This isn't even hypothetical. Hypothetical would be to be talking about the PS6 and the XB2 or whatever. And what will pricing be in 10 years. This is a decision that has to be decided very soon with manufacturing happening probably now in order to meet a November/December launch date. In other words the PS5 is happening and it's far more than a theorietical piece of hardware. It deals with very real manufacturing and pricing structures. Not to mention news sources directly talking about both of those things.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,271
I have debated your directly and done so with a very level head. If you've reached an impasse, that's on you.

This isn't even hypothetical. Hypothetical would be to be talking about the PS6 and the XB2 or whatever. And what will pricing be in 10 years. This is a decision that has to be decided very soon with manufacturing happening probably now in order to meet a November/December launch date. In other words the PS5 is happening and it's far more than a theorietical piece of hardware. It deals with very real manufacturing and pricing structures.
No, hypothetical is "can the market support $500 consoles", which is exactly what we're discussing. That's why it deals with "what" and "ifs" because IT'S HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT CURRENTLY REAL.

My stick comment was about you getting pissy over me questioning the authenticity of a fucking rumor and telling you not to treat it as fact because the sources responsible for it do not have a track record that makes it worth taking the rumor as anything more than a rumor. Stop acting like I'm trying to claim that I know differently when all I'm saying is don't take rumors as fact. Jesus Christ.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,670
No, hypothetical is "can the market support $500 consoles", which is exactly what we're discussing. That's why it deals with "what" and "ifs" because IT'S HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT CURRENTLY REAL.
Yes, and as economics, history, and sources show, the answer is clearly "no". Not for any sustained period anyway. (EDIT: Like the bloodbath that was the XB1 launch as an example).

My stick comment was about you getting pissy over me questioning the authenticity of a fucking rumor and telling you not to treat it as fact because the sources responsible for it do not have a track record that makes it worth taking the rumor as anything more than a rumor. Stop acting like I'm trying to claim that I know differently when all I'm saying is don't take rumors as fact. Jesus Christ.
I didn't get pissy at all, I would say that the reverse is true in this situation. I directly pointed out that if you're going to call into question the validity of a source then you'd have to demonstrably show that you have more and better information. Which was clear in the post. And there is a difference between a "rumor" that is to say I heard people say some things, versus having a discussion with insiders and getting information. If that's a "rumor" to you, then you probably also think that "insider trading" should be allowed.

Read the article. They're quoting Sony execs and analysts that know the pricing structures.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,271
Yes, and as economics, history, and sources show, the answer is clearly "no". Not for any sustained period anyway.
I disagree, because there is no history to call upon when both options are the same price. Neither company is stupid (well...Usually). They have a good idea of what each other is doing and I'm sure they both have an idea of what the other plans to charge. This is also likely why they are both waiting as long as they can to lay all their cards on the table. I don't think both at $500 will set the world on fire, but I do think they'd do fine. Or, at least, one would do fine. If history were to repeat itself and one is cheaper then, well, history will repeat itself in terms of sales.

Of course this is all discounting the rumor of MS having a second, cheaper, system. If that turns out to be true then who the heck knows.



I didn't get pissy at all, I would say that the reverse is true in this situation. I directly pointed out that if you're going to call into question the validity of a source then you'd have to demonstratably show that you have more and better information. Which was clear in the post.
I'm questioning the RELIABILITY of the site and the writer. Bloomberg's record with leaks and rumors isn't great and the writer's is hit and miss. The lack of a proven track record means that rumors originating from them should be taken with a pinch of salt. It might be true, but I'd put it on level with every other "yeah, that sounds like a thing that could be true" rumor that exists for these systems. There is always a flood of rumors for consoles as it gets closer to launch. It's an interesting thing to consider, but I always caution people against taking rumors at face value. We're at a point now where hardware is locked down (probably) but price points, launch dates, reveal plans, and everything else not directly tied to hardware and software can change at any time. It makes every rumor more suspect because even if someone has a rock solid leaker their information could be wrong before they even have a chance to leak it.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,180
If PS5 can play all previous Playstation games, then it would be worth $500.

I'd love to go back and play some games I missed (namely, the Silent Hill series and the Ghost in the Shell game).

I know there is emulation, but it want to play the actual original titles on a console. If PS5 has some enhancement features, even better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Marees

Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
724
A hypothetical question

What would be an acceptable launch price for PS5, if Sony publicly committed to NOT having a PS5pro before the eventual PS6

& vice versa i.e if Sony has a PS5 pro penciled in for 2024, then what would be an acceptable launch price for PS5
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,271
A hypothetical question

What would be an acceptable launch price for PS5, if Sony publicly committed to NOT having a PS5pro before the eventual PS6

& vice versa i.e if Sony has a PS5 pro penciled in for 2024, then what would be an acceptable launch price for PS5
I don't know if I'd trust them to keep to that commitment. Strong enough hardware out of the gate might mitigate the need for it, but if Sony thinks it's worth the money they'd go back on their word in the heartbeat.
 
Top