Because up until now consoles were weak AF and not really competition for high end PCs. Plus while these new consoles are competing now they're competing with current but about to be last gen stuff on pc. New stuff will drop from both AMD and Nvidia very soon and if you want the best you gotta pay to play, it's terrible but it is what it is. Consoles will help out the midrange cards though for sure. Rising tides lift all boats or however the saying goes.Lets say its around 399-499 for the PS5 and Xbox Series X, are PC Gamers getting scammed paying 699 for a GTX 3080 (+ the rest of the PC) of $500 for a rx5700XT how can Nvidia/AMD charge so much?
I can stomach maybe 30-40% of an over pay - but if I have to pay $2000 for a total PC build - that's like a 400% difference. Somebody hack and install windows on these things.
Not true. A new release costs $70 on PSN. Sony gets 30% of those 70 bucks, so $21 per game. That would mean they got their loss back in just 5 games (not counting DLC). However; Sony gets 100% of every first party game and PS+ is still a thing, so if someone would buy Spider-Man and a year of PS+ at launch for instance Sony would already be making a profit.Nope they're about about $17 to $20 which is why it won't be $100 difference, even with Sony making more on digital games it would be extremely stupid to lose $100 extra on every console on top of what they'd already be losing on every console. They have to sell like 8 to 10 digital games to make that up, not counting actually profiting on it.
Keep in mind the average attach rate for the ps4 is around 10 games lifetime. Meaning they would make no money on this machine compared to the disc version. The average person isn't going to buy 20 games just because they went all digital.
You can say but what about mtx or subs to services but there's no proof that buying a digital console means you're more likely to spend on that stuff then someone who buys discs.
Nope they're about about $17 to $20 which is why it won't be $100 difference, even with Sony making more on digital games it would be extremely stupid to lose $100 extra on every console on top of what they'd already be losing on every console.
100$ price difference makes sense, because they make more profit through digital sales, right?
Because up until now consoles were weak AF and not really competition for high end PCs. Plus while these new consoles are competing now they're competing with current but about to be last gen stuff on pc. New stuff will drop from both AMD and Nvidia very soon and if you want the best you gotta pay to play, it's terrible but it is what it is. Consoles will help out the midrange cards though for sure. Rising tides lift all boats or however the saying goes.
Until it's $70 across the board it's much safer to assume $60 as the average sale price (not to mention not every game launches at full price and not every gamer buys at full price). If they make $18 per game then at 10 games sold which is pretty high (most consoles don't hit that's on average) they make $180 so $100 lost on the digital plus the about $100 they'd already be losing on the hardware makes them break even or slightly negative. You cant count ps plus or ps now as a factor in the $100 digital price difference because you need that on either machine so it's a non factor, yes that would be close to straight profit but you're forgetting billions in R&D, marketing, employees, cost of making games. PS plus and mtx aren't going to pay for all of that alone. They have to sell as many games as possible and make money on the console as fast as possible. In my opinion we're gonna see at best $449/499 but I really think it's going to be $499/$549Not true. A new release costs $70 on PSN. Sony gets 30% of those 70 bucks, so $21 per game. That would mean they got their loss back in just 5 games (not counting DLC). However; Sony gets 100% of every first party game and PS+ is still a thing, so if someone would buy Spider-Man and a year of PS+ at launch for instance Sony would already be making a profit.
Of course it's not as black and white as this, but they will have that $100 difference back in no time.
The fact that the DualSense, Remote & Pulse Headset all cost 50 Euros shows this is bollocks.
Yea Lockhart is the biggest unknown in the whole equation but if Lockhart is a huge success overall for Microsoft I just don't know how to even quantify how much it would affect Sony. There just so strong from a brand standpoint. Like for example people still buy $700 iphones even though the $400 android phones do all of the same stuff. We'll see it's definitely interesting.They also have to compete with Lockhart, which if the rumours are true will probably mean it's able to retail for a lower price than the PS5
It might be worth positioning the digital PS5 as $100 cheaper for the reasons people have already stated, plus as a means to negate Lockharts appeal
If the digital PS5 and Lockhart are close in price, then maybe the fact the PS5 is a fully powered system and not a weaker system will sway people into getting the PS5 over Lockhart
I can totally see Sony eating 100 bucks per digital version just to give an extra kick to xbox's rumored series S. Its less about the cost of a blueray player, and more about undercutting the competition by eating a 100 bucks per device. Also Digital sales easily makes them their money back.A bluray drive isn't going to cost $100 in 2020. I don't think this is accurate.