-
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.
What prevents Microsoft from matching Sony’s price on the high end?
- Thread starter Butt-shot Katana
- Start date
Can't think of anything tbh in the short term. They've got the exclusive games people want. Unlike, say, the PS3 launch.
The Gary from Kinda Funny argument :)
But it ignores if what you get for the lower amount of money is of value to that person. You did say in your opinion, but I feel a lot of people believe "the most X for your money" is the sole definition of value.
PS Now has more games than GamePass for less money. I wouldn't call it more valuable though, because many feel some of the games showing up Day One on GP makes it more valuable.
Nintendo gaming is expensive as shit. Those prices never go down. I've been waiting for a price drop to get a Switch, but you can't even find one because they sell out at full price. A primary Nintendo fan isn't jumping to another console for more games / less money, because they find the Ninty first party too valuable.
Same for many Sony fans, I feel. Plus Sony already has a subscription service with different benefits compared to GamePass
Declaring one the most valuable seems shaky to me unless you're taLking about yourself. I see a lot declaring XB more valuable almost as if fact though.
That's kind of subjective isn't it ...
GP doesn't interest me as of yet. It won't have any noticeable next gen games in their launch window (imo)
Of course it is. I am sure some thought the Ouya was great value too. Kinda depends on your disposable income/area you live in etc etc.
Personally I hope Sony keep things sensible. I doubt they will play the 599 card again. 499 is a great price, considering what you get.
They could just thrown in 6 months of Gamepass Ultimate and emphasize how you have access to over 100 games at no additional cost
I don't think they need to. It took awhile before we saw a price drop on Xbox One X and they still sell a very expensive controller, the Elite. Series X is aimed at the high end market for a game console, they already have a low entry priced unit with Series S and we have heard they are already taking a loss on hardware. Sony on the other hand is much more reliant on hardware sales which is why they have likely taken their time and waited on Microsoft before announcing their own prices.
We know Microsoft does not have an unlimited warchest for Xbox but you are also talking ab bout a company who signed Ninja and threw away probably at least 20 million. Sony needs to be much more conservative but they also don't want to give up their huge marketshare by being too pricey.
PS5 will not be 599 some people dream.
Why would Sony want to match 499 when they said quick transition a few months ago?
The PS3 BOM was 800+? they sold it for 599. Why would they not make 300/400 when the BOM is 450 or so?
People live in fantasy or are young enough to look back at the past and see a pattern how things go.
To say the truth Microsoft only goal is to beat Sony. Not to be the number one. With that I mean they don't aim to win the overall standings. They don't care if Nintendo wins overall sales. Microsoft only wants to beat Sony as we have seen this many times. Microsoft should aim higher and not only think of beating Sony.
They say Amazon and xxx are their competitors, but since their first console launch they haven't shown anything. Only 360 sales where good. (not tremendous)
Can someone give me the BOM of Playstation 1 and perhaps 2, but I want to know mainly the BOM of Playstation 1.
Why would Sony want to match 499 when they said quick transition a few months ago?
The PS3 BOM was 800+? they sold it for 599. Why would they not make 300/400 when the BOM is 450 or so?
People live in fantasy or are young enough to look back at the past and see a pattern how things go.
To say the truth Microsoft only goal is to beat Sony. Not to be the number one. With that I mean they don't aim to win the overall standings. They don't care if Nintendo wins overall sales. Microsoft only wants to beat Sony as we have seen this many times. Microsoft should aim higher and not only think of beating Sony.
They say Amazon and xxx are their competitors, but since their first console launch they haven't shown anything. Only 360 sales where good. (not tremendous)
Can someone give me the BOM of Playstation 1 and perhaps 2, but I want to know mainly the BOM of Playstation 1.
Sure, but it would be tough to argue that Sony is too pricey if the ps5 matches the xbox price
Microsofts only goal is to beat Sony? That's why they are putting all their games on PC?
MS is very clearly aiming higher. That's why they've gotten into PC and are making such a heavy investment into game streaming. The console market is a peice of a larger puzzle at this point. They'd love to be 2nd or 1st place in units sold, but they arent as bothered by their standings as they are about having the marketshare to be profitable and to bolster their other endeavors. They want it all.
I could see a few months of ultimate being tacked on via a code (probably too late for pack in cards)
After how many years of being in the console industry they aim this? They said this last year or now so we now have to wait and see what the result will be in 3/5 maybe 7 years.
I think that's very subjective, but you wrote it as given. If anything I think that most people will see it the other way around. Gamepass certainly offers more objective value if we want to simply count the total price of the games on offer, but I don't think that's how people (at least traditionally) consume games.
I think the way the majority of consumers purchase consoles, is they see a game they like, and then they look at the necessary steps to play that game. Their sense of value is tied to the experiences that the platform offers to them, and it's the unique experiences (the ones they can't get with other platforms) that end up influencing the consumers sense of value the most.
At least that's my take from players I have spoke to about their platform ownership in the past. Sometimes it was simply 'it was the cheapest platform I could play FIFA on' but I'd say a majority of the time those conversations came down to a particular title they could only experience on a particular platform.
I cannot imagine Sony undercutting Microsoft. The discless version might be 50€ cheaper than the regular Xbox.
I was replying to the part you suggested how would Microsoft react to being undercut.
I don't understand your question. They've committed to releasing all of their games on PC, and will be distributing hundreds of games on mobile, via gamepass. How much more clear can it be that their ambitions extend beyond selling more consoles than Sony?
If they were only concerned with topping Sonys hardware sales, why would the be creating avenues to circumvent buying xbox hardware?
Last edited:
I think that's your opinion and not a good business strategy. When you can't even find current gen consoles at the big online retailers and people are charging over MSRP for Xbox one S consoles on eBay, I would say the rules have changed. We have been warned these consoles are going to sell out. The demand for video game consoles are much higher than supply with the pandemic. So, with 100s of millions of dollars on the line, I don't think you can cut announced console prices just to prevent "bad press."
Well of course it's my opinion, but this line of thinking isn't something which doesn't have any truth to it. Of course I might be wrong, but there's a very good reason why price cuts just months after release rarely happen. Even XB1 didn't get a price cut until about six months after release, even though it would've definitely needed it right from the start.
Take Apple in 2007 for example. They dropped the price of iPhone from $600 to $400 two months after its release and basically angered their most loyal user base - early adopters. Apple got a ton of negative feedback through different channels, and even Steve Jobs made a statement that they had abused their core customers. In the end every early adopter got $100 worth of store credit and Apple basically admitted that they had made a mistake.
If every decision could just be made in a bubble with no repercussions, this kind pricing you're suggesting would happen a lot more, but unfortunately things aren't always so simple.
OP
OP
They can't sustain the losses as well. Truly, they can't. Their subscription install isn't significant enough, and their streaming and Game Pass competitor isn't sufficiently developed.
And if Xbox removes Xbox Live for online play? MS can make it up with Game Pass, but Sony doesn't have a competitive product.
Surely you Kid?
The same company that sold PS3 at close to $200 loss for years?
Last I recalled XBOX doesn't pull the same numbers on network revenue as PlayStation, your suggestion of removing XBLG (which is a pipe dream IMO) reduces revenue greatly, not to mention they already hiked the price in some regions, I don't know why people think it's going anywhere.
Neither are they making a profit on GP but somehow MS can handle the losses but Sony can't?.
Anyways, the XSX has a more powerful GPU, better RAM, More SSD space.
It only takes simple logic to know it's BOM cost more to produce than the PS5,
Sony wouldn't be taking PS3 Levels of losses but they absolutely can take some if they feel it needful to compete. I'm glad MS came in at $299 $499, hell I'd hope they take more losses and go $449 even, should force Sony hand which means I get a cheaper box.
OP
OP
No, but I think some are finally coming around that a $499 PS5 is more logical than one priced higher.
Now....the DE is what some may be thinking about.
Basically, the Wednesday PS5 showcase is coming.....
I get what you're saying....but lol.
OP
OP
How many years? And how long until they were forced to strip features? There are stories that PS4 was make or break for Sony, and that's largely because of the PS3.
Do you meanto suggest they'd willingly flirt with disaster again?
Well, some doesnt mean all.....
Pretty sure if you look around you can still find ppl thinking it will be over $499....
I think they can. And will.
I dont even know what to think about this post overall.....
There is nothing stopping them from doing that, though I can't see it unless the PS5 non DE edition is lower than $499, which I don't see happening. Remember that Sony owns all the mindshare right now, they have no incentive to lose extra money just to beat the Xbox prices when they could just match and not lose as much.
I get what you're saying....but lol.
As opposed to what? The price being $600? Because that's not happening.
You said some are finally coming round to it not being over $499.
Almost everyone has always thought it won't be over $499.
Sony would be OUT of their minds if they sold the standard for higher than $499. Do they really want a repeat of PS3? It has nothing to do with inflation but perception. We're also in the middle of a pandemic and a recession. The BOM of the PS5 was around 450$, and that was while COVID-19 already had an affect on prices. Finally, Why would Sony ramp up the production if we are looking at $499, and $549-599 MSRP Consoles?
I mean, I'd be hypothetically willing to bet a lot of money on it.
If Sony does any crazy price shenanigans, it'll be the 399 DE.
I didnt think the consensus was that it would be $499 max. I still see a contingent posting $549, $599 to this day.
I could be wrong.
Are we debating about semantics right now?
I wouldn't be surprised if PS5 is announced for $300 and then MS changes XSX to $250 just because they can and to exert maximum damage. It's going to be an interesting next couple of weeks........
Is Microsoft even making money on Gamepass? I don't know if I'd use that as a reason Microsoft is able to sustain a loss on hardware better than Sony. So you're saying that Microsoft can handle taking a loss on Hardware because they are also taking a loss on Game Pass?
They are probably going to be the same price, and although it's impossible to know if we are talking $50 less I think that results in an insignificant amount of increased XSX sales at the cost of taking $50 more of a loss per console which adds up. With sketchy napkin math that's probably $100 million extra in lost revenue (and however else you want to quantify the amount of money needed to make a profit per console sold) just in the launch period. Considering these consoles are unlikely to reduce in price quickly or a whole lot over the course of the generation, and I don't see the benefit.
I'm still on the $550 bandwagon. $550 for standard ps5, $500 for digital. Then Sony can say they matched xsx on price
I mean MS could bleed money for all eternity on Xbox and still not even feel it :p they could match whatever price if they really wanted to.
I think in this scenario MS just places more marketing emphasis on All Access over the regular RRP.
"Get a console and access to hundreds of games from just $25/month"
Will become their end of ad message, I know that doesn't appeal to everyone on Era but phone contracts have taught us that nobody thinks about how expensive their thousand dollar iPhone is, just the cost of the contract per month. The only question then becomes whether this is a way people want to pay for a games console.
Last edited: