-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Or 449.99. How much does a disc drive really drive up the cost? (I genuinely don't know).
I was always in the 449.99 / 499.99 camp for PS5.
At this point, I don't think Sony will go up to 599.99.
I don't think PS3 was going to be attractive at that price regardless. The demand for it was so much lower. PS2 was flying, was cheap and had great games even in its last year.
Subscription revenue for MS and Sony is not even the bulk of XBL and PSN revenue.
The stupid thing is that, even at that "horrifying" price for the PS3, they were still reportedly taking something like a $300 loss on those early launch consoles. Cell was the problem. Neat tech, but an apocalyptically bad business decision.
Is this the general mindset of Xbox Era? It can't be..
Selling at a loss has been expected, just wonder how much on the S?
Why did you cut off what followed? It explained the option that i dont think Sony will opt for. And MS have discontinued the One X, so that doesnt work technically. PS4 Pro is still sold at that RRP, feels unlikely they'll price their top spec'd next gen machine (diskless) the same as their last gen console that they're still selling. Unless they take a huge cut. Which i dont think they will.
Welp, there we go.
Last edited:
I don't even think the loss will effect MS's bottom line at the end of the day. They could literally get away with packing the series S in cereal boxes for free . The only program is it won't fit.
Sony has the position of market leader and brand loyalty is high, you could easily justify a split of $450 (digital) $499 ( disc) and ignore the Series S all together, but I think that would be a missed opportunity.
If you can make the numbers work. I think you have to try and hit $399.
Even without a Series S, a $399 PS5 is very compelling offering for the market place.
Same. My dark horse bet is that the DE was actually their way of hitting a $499 price point, and the standard PS5 costs $549. Assuming they don't reactively choose to take a bigger hit in response to Microsoft's announcements, of course.
But I think doing that would also be kinda foolish for Sony. You outsold the Xbox 2:1 this generation. You're in the driver's seat. Microsoft need to take a bath to try and regain competitive foothold, whereas being the leader means Sony can be a bit looser, safe in the knowledge that the PS5 is going to sell gangbusters either way.
Not so loose that you have another PS3 situation, of course. But I certainly see no reason for them to go below $499.
I mean, Microsoft can technically afford to do a lot of things - they are valued at over 16x Sony's market cap as of today. But that's not the same as it making business sense for them.
With both Series X and PS5 being so similar tech wise, how can you be so sure?
Insane. They really must have believed they were going to get PS2 sales.
Amazes me when things like that get greenlit and not enough people say "this is crazy".
Same with with wii u. Just don't know how Nintendo of all people realesed something which would be so expensive to manufacture.
PS3-launch Sony were 100% high on their own supply at the time. The PS2 really made them think they were invincible. My favourite moment is still Ken Kutaragi's legendary comments in response to the sticker shock, confidently asserting that people would work more hours to be able to afford one.
Or this one, whose attitude should be kinda familiar to anyone who remembers the Xbox One TVTVTV thing:
"The PS3 is not a game machine. We've never once called it a game machine...With the PS3, our intentions have been to create a machine with supercomputer calculation capabilities for home entertainment."
Kutaragi was amazingly delusional.
I don't think it's a coincidence these things happened after Nintendo's and Sony's biggest console success at that time. Hell, same with Xbox and their Xbox One always online debacle and $500 with mandatory Kinect inclusion for a weaker console than the $400 PS4.
Sony already had 100M console with the ps1 and another 100M console with the ps2.
It was not because of their biggest console, the reason the ps3 fail was because they were trying to build 3 markets around the ps3 instead of focusing just on the gaming side.
With the ps4, they said fuck all of that and just focus on gaming.
Yes. It's not our responsibility to worry about MS's bottom line. Plus it shows their commitment to the space and buy in for the future. All good news IMO, and their early losses this gen will pay off thru install base growth and high margin digital purchases/subscriptions.
You know what's crazy if Sony didn't use that crazy fast SSD we could of had a 400 dollar console again.
Yes.
I knew they whould take a loss at the series S but didnt expect them to take a loss at the Xbox X, i guess Microsoft wants to lock the high end consumer as well. It is bold strat.
Yeah of course. MS is investing in a SaaS business model now.
If a customer's average lifetime value with MS is $600 through sub services, then acquiring that customer for $100 or less (after marketing expenses and console loss) ... That's not bad at all!
Not a shocker. With the last generation, the plan was to recuperate and quickly made profit once people bought games and Gold subscriptions.
The plan next gen is to make that sweet $$$ once everyone joins the Gamepass family and start paying closer to the full cost of the subscription fees lol
The plan next gen is to make that sweet $$$ once everyone joins the Gamepass family and start paying closer to the full cost of the subscription fees lol
Whatever division Xbox is lumped in will take the hit. The SSd is about a third of the price of the Xbox, but that's not had me puzzled by your post. It's you thinking they'll sell 100 million Xbox's 😐
I don't think MS's best case scenario projections for their full lifespan of next gen console sales come close to 100 million Xbox's. LOL
Pretty sure that factored into the decision to continue supporting the DS4. I wonder if they'll sell a model without the gamepad.
It's kind of funny. They put so much effort into hardware design, power, Game Pass, BC, but the 1st party software continues to be hit and miss. I'm sure it's going to get better but it's going to take time which isn't going to help start off with a lot of momentum. Obviously getting the price to $299 is a good base.
Considering the price of the Series S and X leaked a week early, by none other than Windows Central - I suspect they've heard/know something about the price of the PS5. They usually leak stuff if it's positive for MS...
Which unfortunately might mean a more expensive PS5 than the Series X. Dusk Golem had been hinting at this too. I'm no fan of a market leader getting lazy and pricing a weaker console higher than their competition, so if they do - I hope it bites them in the ass.
Have you heard anything about a potential pricepoint or an event where they'd announce that kind of stuff, like Dusk has?
It's not a puzzle . You have to follow the bouncing ball here. 299 next gen steal of a console . That box has more value in it than any launch console EVER. I would argued Halo being delayed saved the PS5. They literally dodged a bullet.
The point is the potential. MS has spent years building up to this point with their services. This is just the beginning. Their whole philosophy is not to sell consoles, but to sell services, hence they can and will take a bigger hit to get more subscribers. I feel that Sony has a different strategy and for them it wouldn't make sense to sell their consoles at a massive loss just to sell more first party games.
What is? A more expensive PS5? Right now, I'm not ruling it out. I was team $399 not too long ago... Like, yesterday. I'm starting to doubt though.
Well, the first part of coment is just ridiculous.
Second, expecting both ps5 models or any model to be above the Series X is another. I have yet to see a good reason for that fact
Sony's philosophy isn't just to sell consoles. It's to sell services and games that generate revenue to the business.
The bulk of their revenue isn't coming from selling first party games lol
They are making money selling DLC, third party software, microtransactions, subscriptions, and more. They aren't taking a loss with the hopes that everyone buys first party games and they recoup that money.
PSN revenue is huge. It's bringing in more money than Nintendo's entire game division. They have a lot to lose by having a massive shrinking customer base.
The alternative to not taking a substantial loss is losing that massive revenue stream PSN is generating.
Microsoft is taking losses in the hopes of enticing gamers to join the ecosystem, buy games, gamepass, DLC, Xbox Live, etc.
Sony is taking losses for the same reasons minus game pass. But a recurring subscription service simply is not a requirement to make up losses nor is selling a subscription service the only reason to take a loss.
I was joking 🤪
...but now with this (maybe) pricey DualSense talk, I don't know what to think anymore! (haha, no)
I seriously doubt they will push 100m consoles but it will eventually be sold at a profit.
But Game Pass being profitable ? I still dont see when and how
What is with this constant binary thinking people keep doing in regard to Xbox's overall strategy? Their philosophy is to sell both consoles and services and more. It's not an either/or situation Xbox is picking. Xbox wants to increase their overall market share in gaming in general and have offered multiple ways of access on multiple platforms including consoles for ways to generate as much revenue as they can and not have all their eggs in just one basket.
Honestly don't see why it's so far fetched. They had an absolutely dreadful launch with Xbox one. Weaker, bad PR, and overpriced. Still managed 50 million sold seemingly. Would I bet they hit 100 million no not at all but why would it be so far fetched ?