-
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.
PS5 and Xbox Series speculation launch thread |OT9| - For flops sake!
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
- Status
Of course the first two years are important. But not for mainstream adoption. I just don't think a 499$ launchprice would affect sales for the early adopters. Provided the value is there of course.
I would do exactly what MS is doing : we can´t compete in a parity scenario, we can´t compete with a higher pricing machine and we can´t compete with a weaker machine.
What do we do ? Options to not land into closed scenarios we obviously can´t compete and hope it works.
This is your mistake .
Thinking all user are the same they are not .
Sony make twice the amount of money off early buyers than they do late buyers and power is a factor there .
Also they won't be losing money off the consoles whole gen but just for a years or 2 .
For eg they move to 5nm as soon as they get the chance.
Gives them an excuse to bring the Series X at a higher price point. They can introduce the S first to make it really presentable and then:
"Here's the S....buuuuut if you want the fastest most powerful Xbox, then here you go!"
Something like that anyway.
Agreed. I think both of these consoles are going to deliver amazing upgrades from the current consoles, regardless of the exact tflops count. I'm super excited about both.
So what about the major fact that all Consoles user not worth the same amount of money .
I don't comment directly on Microsoft's plans or strategies, simply because I had in-depth knowledge before I left. So I either risk leaking something that I shouldn't, or I say something that's no longer correct because the plan has changed in the 1.5 years since I've left (which I'm sure it has in some ways). Neither one is a great place to be (that's why I stick to only commenting on Sony's stuff because I really don't know)
So I'll sound more cagey than I would like - but IF the rumors around a Lockhart-like device are true, then I think it's something that would have to ship at the same time as Series X, simply to make sure that games work on it. I don't see how you could launch something like that later and have games guaranteed to work without a huge lift on the internal teams.
Why can't that functionally on-par box be 10+ TF? (Not really directed at you, but for those hell bent on 8 or 9TF) Why must it be less than 10TF to make sense? I have this feeling sony will make a 10+ TF box for 400 dollars. Any thing more is just a bonus
I see two scenarios from Sony perspective:
1. Aim for 399 and risk being sandwiched by significantly better offering in Series X on one end (potentially loosing people who care about power and all or at least 3rd party purchasing revenue they bring), and on the other hand competing with significantly cheaper machine which will suit customers who just want the cheapest entry.
2. Aim for 499 and risk the same as above (however significantly reduced if the power gap is still in favour of MS). They would be loosing the people who want the cheapest entry regardless.
In my opinion option 2 works better as it is unlikely that many people would be that bothered going from 399 to 499 launch price and like I say people that want the cheapest will go for Lockhart regardless and frankly I don't believe these people are a core demographic to either MS or Sony (no offence)
How can you count X when that's a mid gen refresh? The last time Microsoft launched at $500 it didn't end well for them.
Flanking maneuver against Sony. You then get to own both the lowest price title and the top performance title. It is a great maneuver IMO to grab low-end marketshare. The only issue is how far off the "baseline" the value model is from a compute perspective... which could hamstring progress from a development front.
Sony is clearly in pole position to "win" next generation if you are talking about console sales, but there are some real wildcards that could be in play to make things much more interesting across the board this time with a potentially cheaper Xbox Series S/Lockhart option (could be up to $200 cheaper if Sony really did decide to target $499 price point), Xbox Game Pass providing a new console's entire first party launch lineup as part of a subscription on day one (likely bundled) which has never happened before and even xCloud coming into focus more in 2020 and through launch as just another alternative way to play Xbox ecosystem content from Game Pass when you aren't on your console.
Mark Cerny also convinced them to create a custom memory interface for the PS Vita. Part of the challenge will be how the system cost reduces over time.
Good analysis. There are a lot of confounding factors however that are difficult to evaluate simultaneously:
- What is the importance of early adopters and what do those buyers look like?
- What does the lifetime spend of an early adopter look like vs other buyers?
- How important are those early adopters to influencing future sales?
- You can pretty count on selling out the first 4-6 months you are on the market. How fast can you cost reduce after that?
- Are you prepared to take more of a loss to adjust to the market? You can cut price after launch to adjust to market conditions. You can't bump
Last edited:
I find it fascinating that there is such a strong narrative being created about how Sony must (under mostr circumstances anyway) price the PS5 at $399.
That Microsoft have free-reign to price within a range ($399 with losses or $499) for XsX, but that Sony would never do this because "business reasons".
Now I get the reasons, they're valid - "fastest transition", mass-market price, only 9tf to keep costs of silicon down with small die area - all of these can be argued, however, based on what little info has been leaked around the PS5, it doesn't sound to me like a cheap/mass-market device. It sounds just as premium as the XsX looks like it will be.
$499 is not a very high price to pay for a console that is supposed to last for a 7 years (~$71/year). But apparently the rule is that Sony cannot ever price a console above $399 and they would never take a loss (on a consumer good that until this last generation was notorious as a loss-leader/razor and blades model)...all this when Sony makes so much money from subs that *for once they could easily subsidise a cheaper launch price*
There are good arguments for a mass-market price for *both* XsX and PS5 - if you think it's in Sony's best interest to price the PS5 at $399, why does the same also not apply to Microsoft? And Lockhart/"Series S" doesn't count here as it hasn't been officially announced so it may never launch.
That Microsoft have free-reign to price within a range ($399 with losses or $499) for XsX, but that Sony would never do this because "business reasons".
Now I get the reasons, they're valid - "fastest transition", mass-market price, only 9tf to keep costs of silicon down with small die area - all of these can be argued, however, based on what little info has been leaked around the PS5, it doesn't sound to me like a cheap/mass-market device. It sounds just as premium as the XsX looks like it will be.
$499 is not a very high price to pay for a console that is supposed to last for a 7 years (~$71/year). But apparently the rule is that Sony cannot ever price a console above $399 and they would never take a loss (on a consumer good that until this last generation was notorious as a loss-leader/razor and blades model)...all this when Sony makes so much money from subs that *for once they could easily subsidise a cheaper launch price*
There are good arguments for a mass-market price for *both* XsX and PS5 - if you think it's in Sony's best interest to price the PS5 at $399, why does the same also not apply to Microsoft? And Lockhart/"Series S" doesn't count here as it hasn't been officially announced so it may never launch.
Miracles that have been progressively entirely hidden behind a carpet of vague statements and superlatives by Microsoft's accountants.
The inflation argument isn't a great one though, being honest.
In the late 70s/early 80s there WAS no system in place to ensure that only certain devs could release games for a system, and by the same token there was no platform holder cut of profits per game sold. The margin was in the sales of the console itself, accessories, and first party titles.
The lockout chip popularized by the NES (though the 5200 had something similar as well) changed this- the platform holder could approve or deny games that would play on the system and charge a cut of profits in the process. This of course changes the calculus of how much a system would/could cost, and every other major system released from the time of the NES through the Xbox used the same model- except for one.
That was the Panasonic 3D0, which had a rather unorthodox model of "licensing" the right to make 3D0 systems to hardware manufacturers (like Panasonic and Goldstar) who were expected to make their profit margin on the system, not the software. Predictably, the 3D0 launched at $700 (a mindblowing $1200 in current money), was widely panned for it, and no one tried going back to the Atari-Era business model ever again.
With the release of the Xbox360 and PS3, the profit model changed again. Robust digital storefronts accessible from the console itself meant that the retailer margin could now be cut out of a significant percentage of game sales, making per game sales more profitable, and Microsoft popularized the practice of charging money for online access alone on top of that, which created another revenue stream alongside somewhat lesser new revenue streams like online advertising. (edit: because someone will inevitably be pedantic, yes i'm aware digital storefronts existed before the 360 and PS3. No, they weren't significant enough to bring in enough revenue to change the calculus on how much the system could cost at that time).
Again, this changes how much a console should cost, because the profitability of each console sold went WAY up. The PS4 has only been on the market since 2013, but is already more profitable than the PS1 and PS2 combined.
Given that, doing a straightline comparison to 1977 and saying that "console costs haven't kept up with inflation" doesn't actually make a lot of sense. The business is completely, totally different. Inflation doesn't matter. Get profitability high enough and you could even see these things given out like Cable Boxes with the service.
That being said I agree with this completely. Sony will charge what the market will bear, and there is ample evidence that the market can easily support a $499 system. Even $599 might be in play had not the PS3 left such a bad impression there.
Last edited:
Lockhart is the main reason whether you want to count it or not.
We know the answer to this one $1600 early buyers and $700 later ones.
Which is why saying they only want to move the most units not looking at the full picture .
Even more so if we talking about launch since they can adjust later on.
Seconded. It's the best post I've come across in these console warrior threads. Who the fuck cares about power anyway when a single next gen game has yet to be unveiled and demoed properly?
I feel like so many massage board gamers are still trapped in the "MOAR power mindset" when it's all about the games.
People don't realize that frame-rate is a race between the CPU and GPU, whoever finishes last will set the frame-rate (with 1 frame offset). They've heard the words "the frame-rate is limited by the CPU" so many times in the past 6+ years because of the atrocious Jaguar that it's been engraved into their brain.
FPS is limited by whoever is taxed more, the CPU or the GPU.
If you talking business it's much more than that .
Being less powerful mean you can lose money from early buyers .
Which mean less money from subs , fee, dlc etc etc .
I should not when i say less power i mean by a gap and not some small amount.
I'm hoping that the PS5 turns out to be the culmination of Mark Cerny having free reign on its design and specs as a thanks for catching lightning in a bottle with the PS4, without going full Kutaragi of course, think that's what he meant by "will be appealing in light of its advanced feature set", maybe Sony was planning a $399 console back in 2019 but with the advancements in Ray-tracing, VRS, SSD and how efficient Navi is over GCN etc, an opportunity was presented here this time around for next gen and these are things Cerny REALLY wanted the PS5 to have as a really good generational leap and actually successfully convinced Sony to accept a $499 price tag.
I think the PS5 will outsell the Xbox at a 20% power disadvantage. I don't think it really matters.
Are you suggesting that these companies don't base their entire multi billion dollar gaming business strategy on letting their users quote bigger numbers at the opposition in forum posts?
Perfect post. Basically all of my thoughts on the matter as well.
It's not about outselling them , think they will even with a power gap .
It's about making the most money possible.
If your a business that is what you try to do and people just disagreeing on the way to do it when it comes to price point and power.
I don't even think this would be possible. The games need to run on the system, to there is dev work required. They have to launch at the same time. It's not like the mid-gen upgrade where you could just run the base version if the devs didn't update the game.
Perfect. Excellent post. The Switch is selling extremely well for not being the most powerful based solely on its brand, first party titles and price.
In the end all three are fighting for different segments of the market and all three can do very well.
Thanks, I couldn't remember the stat.
And in my opinion, the last time a bunch of corporate suits got in a room together to design a console that could sell hundreds of millions, we got the Xbox One :)
exactly. Early adopters and launch era buyers aren't price sensitive at all, going by their purchase history. They care about performance, they care about software library, and a number of other things. a $100 difference isn't going to sway those buyers- and Sony can sell as many units as they can manufacture, at least for a couple of years.
There's no real incentive for them to crank out a cheap console, especially since there is no significant competition for the PS5 in 2/3rds of the market where they sell them.
Once the early adopters have subsidized the system for everyone else- sony has room to drop costs to bring more price sensitive gamers on board.
Another question:
- Will they actually have less early adopters if they don't shoot for the moon with a loss leader console?
I REALLY want Sony to go big and be willing to spend big; everyone should, it's what is best for consumers.. but even early adopter / enthusiasts are pretty damn sold on the Sony ecosystem by and large. I don't think they need to sell a big loss leader to attract the enthusiast crowd at all.
It could mean it sounds like a $500 console but costs $400. I could mean it has features of much more expensive PCs, ala NVME/16gb ram/8c16thread cpu/ray tracing, but for a fraction of the price.
At the end of the day, it's all just PR speak for now.
Thats the impression the guy got who was asking him the question
Cerny: I believe that we will be able to release it at an SRP [suggested retail price] that will be appealing to gamers in light of its advanced feature set.
Rubin: Meaning that it may cost a bit more but what you're getting is well worth it?
Cerny: That's about all I can say about it.
I wouldn't take that statement at face value. I still believe it's Sony setting the stage to come out at $399 with the general reception being it's an incredible value for the tech they have in the console.
I think the problem some people have in here is thinking the MS and Sony brand equal WW like how it is in US\UK.
Sony has a lot more options when they have a WW base to sell to and with how PS4 sales are.
That's true, ultimately, console wars aside, the division on this is all about one person's belief on whether they're willing to take risks after the massive success that came about by going "conservative" in their hardware design last gen (even though that's debatable considering their options but I digress).
People keep saying that, but they also keep having console warrior meltdowns when someone suggests both two consoles might actually be around that number.
Interesting question. Sony has built up a lot of trust this generation, but they remember how bad it was less than 10 years ago when they were "arrogant Sony". This may steer them away from chasing the performance crown.
No matter what the PS5 ends up looking like specs wise, there is no doubt that Sony will bring a clear message around why they decided on that power level and feature set.
Thanks. To me, it's clear launching XSX at $499 or above may leave MS vulnerable to a $399 PS5 And that's the reason around a Lockhart. It's just difficult to picture at a price point to undercut Sony such as $299.
- Status