-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry has heard from their sources that PS5 will cost $500 + and may be all the way up to $700, same applies for Series X
- Thread starter Mr. PlayStation
- Start date
- Drama Clickbait Hardware
geordiemp
Member
You have not seen ampere or RDNA2 prices yet, if the big price increase is TSMC 7nm with EUV litho for some layers and RAM prices then EVERYONE will pay more.
Last edited:
Look: the only relevance of it being a 'toy' is that that makes it frivolous. So in essence your argument is that frivolous things have a hard limit on their value.
In response, I'm advancing frivolous things which people are happy to pay significantly more money for.
That's the crux of the issue. Whether those other goods or services are similar in all respects is IRRELEVANT to that point, SO LONG AS THEY'RE ALL FRIVOLOUS.
If you agree that they're frivolous, the fact that they're more expensive proves you wrong. If you don't agree that they're frivolous, EXPLAIN WHY.
I've tried to make it simple for you. Answer that point above first, then we can go from there.
BluRayHiDef
Banned
A lot of people are receiving unemployment insurance, so the stimulus payment will be extra money for them.
and from preorder to November, what are they going to do? stay in the freezer? I mean, those who get the checks and have no money, probably are going to use the money, right?
Jigsaah
Gold Member
Don't care. Not buying a $700 console. That's out.
-hadouken
Member
My thoughts exactly.
RPGCrazied
Member
Well, that is not happening. There is no deal. Congress is on recess. There is no talks going on right now. Don't expect another check.
Last edited:
JLMC469
Banned
It will happen. Not now obviously but it will.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
But they also lost ~ $70 per system sold. That's why Sony said back then that they broke even after selling a game as well. So that could hint their total costs were around $440 or so.
Assuming the same idea here, if PS5 BOM is around $450 (this is assumed; remember the Bloomberg article didn't have 100% accurate numbers for everything, I remember a metric ton of people here at the time saying as such when the article came out
), if we assume the BOM is between $450 low end to $470 high end, following PS4 total costs figure that could put PS5 around $510 to $530. Should also keep in mind the BOM as Bloomberg were figuring, could've been for the Digital Edition, and not the disc version of the system.Also I think something else the Bloomberg article mentioned was suggesting the American side wanted to sell at a loss but the Japanese side wanted to sell at break-even or a profit. So while $599 MSRP is kind of ridiculous, if the Japanese side gets what they want and see a means to do it, they could theoretically price the disc version that high. I doubt they will; $549 would be more likely in that scenario.
So yeah, I guess the base range of PS5 price for the Digital Edition (for MSRP) could range from $399 to $449, and the disc version between $499 to $549. Series X's price'll probably fall between $499 and $549 too, Series S is the wildcard here. I think that needs to be at least $100 less than PS5 Digital, preferably $150 less. So $249 should be its peak MSRP, regardless of costs. Otherwise that puts it into potential bad value proposition territory compared to PS5 Digital.
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
It can't play ps5 games of course.
Sony don't have anything like Lockhart that is future proof while still affordable.
When one is shopping for Christmas and is supposed to get something for everyone, price plays a big role is deciding. So MS have good advantage in that aspect.
Maybe PS4 pro could be used to counter that.
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
It it frivolous. It's a completely non-essential toy designed to be played with and only to be be played with. It has no wider functionality or value like a phone or a car which you so foolishly tried to argue it's comparible to.
They're not similar, they provide more value and have an actual day-to-day purpose. Communication, transport. they get to push their prices up from the baseline into the "premium" pricing with added utility and value on top of the valuable "needed" function. A games console's function is to be a toy and a toy, it's base purpose is completely frivolous.
A phone is not frivolous - communication is integral in modern society and many people need it for work, family and emergency contact. The bells and whistles on top of it may be frivolous, but they can (rightly or wrongly) be mentally justified as being part of a essential purchase.
A car is not frivolous - people need transportation. The bells and whistles on top may be frivolous, but they can (rightly or wrongly) be mentally justified as being part of a essential purchase.
A games console is frivolous - playing video games is not in any way essential, it's merely one of MANY entertainment options. Any additional bells and whistles only serve to make the purchase even more frivolous because they only add frivolous spending to frivolous spending.
And just stop trying to compare cumulative small costs of service or grouped social activities with a huge initial outlay and recurring cost that requires significant time and financial investment in order to recoup the "value" that you're estimating over a lifetime period. People's lifetime spending on bowling, time with friends, meals out etc. is no more comparable to the cost of buying a console than their cumulative lifetime spending on carrots. It's disingenous, it's idiotic and it's absurd that you have to reach so hard in an effort to justify supporting a price hike on your favorite product.
Jaguar Victory
Member
I can't wait to play Cyberpunk and Medium on the Series X. NBA2K21 too. I love a good launch year.
Hahahahahha oh my fucking god, was it not obvious I was referring to the things I'd most recently established as equally frivolous???!?!?!?
Not a phone. Not a car.
Expensive clothes. Eating out. Music festivals. Netflix.
All ENTIRELY frivolous things (since you have insurmountable difficulty separating the frivolous aspects of products like a car or phone with other practical benefits).
Try the same test again with those things.
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
Cumulative spending and significantly smaller purchases across a wide period of time is in no way equivalent to a substantial up front cost and ongoing financial commitment. Just stop being so dishonest in your reasoning.
If someone wants to buy a new top it'll cost them $50. They need to have $50 and that $50 comes out of their monthly available spending for other items
If someone wants to buy your $1000 console it'll cost them $1000 + the cost of a game and they need to have $1000 + another $70 for a game and that $1000 + $70 comes out of their spending for other items
In terms of perception, financial impact and affordability there is no comparison.
The cost for their clothes is not $50 * X times per year * X years.
The cost for the console is not $1000 / X years (and excluding similar recurring spending on software, accessories, services and associated transactions) as you keep trying to argue as a value proposition.
The mental gymnastics you're going through trying to create equivalencies between incomparable products just to support your misguided need for your product of choice to be priced higher than it can be. You're embarrassing yourself.
Mr. PlayStation
Member
wunderbar, hoping to reach financial stability by then to get them both at launch. Never owned an Xbox before thus excited for the launch of series x
LIKE I ALREADY SAID, the structure of the expenditure involved in buying a console vs other frivolous pleasures (upfront vs continuous) IS a valid reason why raising the price of a console might be difficult. Seriously, check my previous posts. I already made this point.
But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that the price would be difficult to raise because it's purely frivolous, when we can see people already spend way more on frivolous items. Therefore the fact that it's a 'toy' can't be the determining factor!! Do you honestly not grasp that?
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
No, my argument was that a home console is not comparable to a phone in pricing. It's not. That's why you had to use the comparison of a phone against a phone rather than a console against a phone. Then it was a car, then it was a service, then it was social activities and now you're onto clothing. You're flailing about trying deperately to make ever worse false equivalencies and illogical value propositions based on contradicting calculations of cost over time.
$5, $10, $50 frivolous purchase <> $1000 frivolous purchase. Not in perception. Not in affordability. Not in financial impact.
You're literally trying to argue that a $1000 toy purchase is justifiable because people make $5, $10, $50 or even $200 purchases. And you're trying to bend time to do it by splitting the cost of one across a arbitrary time period while at the same time applying the opposite rationale and comparing it to the assumed cost of multiple other smaller costs grouped and multipled across a time period. It's clown maths.
I'm really struggling to remain patient and civil now.
This is not complicated.
YOU CLAIMED THERE'S A LIMIT ON WHAT PEOPLE WILL PAY FOR A CONSOLE BECAUSE IT'S A TOY.
My response is, ok, well the significance of it being a 'toy' is that it's frivolous.
I then provided evidence of people spending more on equally frivolous things to prove to you that any limit on expenditure can't be due to its frivolity.
This is really simple stuff. If your response is purely that the spending patterns are different, then that's a problem of finance, WHICH I'VE ALREADY ACKOWLEDGED. It's not due to differences in frivolity.
But if you're that fucking stupid that you can't isolate different factors, what about a TV? Many people spend much more than $500 on a TV every 7 years. A TV is a toy with a physical form, and has an upfront cost. Good enough?
But honestly I can't believe I'm even having this argument. How anyone can think there's some hard limit of $500 or $600 every 7 years on what people will pay for some fraction of their leisure, it's just breathtakingly small minded.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I’m wondering why Sony has became so aggressive all of a sudden with third parties. Timed exclusives happened occasionally before I think, but it seems like they are really ramping support and exclusivity up. That sort of indicates to me that their next generation machine will be exorbitantly expensive and they insinuate or hope that the exclusive or timed exclusive games will sort of make up for it. Not helping that everyone is so secretive about the price also.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Console prices this Christmas
PS5: $555
XSX: Delayed
PS5: $555
XSX: Delayed
oldergamer
Member
I think you are wrong there. My prediction:
PS5: delayed and $599 USD
XSX: Early November release and $549 or $499 USD
Slings and Arrows
Banned
It was a joke
If one gets delayed, they both get delayed
if one has a high price, they both have a high price.
This is why neither is chomping at the bit to give a solid release date + price
prinz_valium
Member
That was an estimate and Sony needed a game, controller or subscription at launch to make a profit on each PS4 sold
$499 is the probably the baseline for the Digital Edition.
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
Yes, it's a toy. Yes, that limits it's potential price point. Because frivolous purchases become significantly harder to justify the higher their price point.
You've provided no evidence of people spending more on other frivolous purchases. You've dishonestly tried to equate it with significantly smaller expenditures by attempting to measure them over an arbitrary period of time, and you've tried to compare them to items that have actual percieved necessity and manage to charge more for additional features that add utility and value to an essential expenditure.
You have provide nothing of substance and flip-flopped from one poor comparison to the next using some staggeringly poor logic to equate them. You've tried to compare it to a service, social activities and deliberately evaded the cumulative costs associated with the console while trying to cite cumulative costs of other purchases and activities as a comparison.
And don't use a TV, that only hurts your argument given the fact that 1. (Again) it's considered an essential and
2. You need one for your toy so technically you can add that onto the cost of the console if you want to take that argument. Put your console at $1000 and you force people to choose between the good TV and the Expensive console. TV doesn't need the console, but the console needs the TV. Not a hard value proposition. Get a cheaper TV? well then there goes a good chunk of the expensive console's value proposition.
There is a hard limit. Sony found out the hard way along with many a company before them. Console's sell their biggest volume when they drop below a percieved threshold. Price matters and the market has time and again demonstrated this. Get your head out of the sand.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Lease hire cars
Expensive clothing
Jewellery
Sky/BT sport/a plethora of streaming subs
HPP phones
HPP tablets
HPP laptops
The precedent is there.
Expensive clothing
Jewellery
Sky/BT sport/a plethora of streaming subs
HPP phones
HPP tablets
HPP laptops
The precedent is there.
Last edited:
Stuart360
Member
I think that at $599, both consoles would still sell out at launch, yes even XSX. The problem would be after the intital couple of months and the hardcore gamers have already bought them, what would happen?. I'd bet sales slow down considerably.
For me its all academic anyway as i dont believe either console will be more than $500.
For me its all academic anyway as i dont believe either console will be more than $500.
I give up. You're impervious to reason. You simply refuse to answer the questions put to you.
Last edited:
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
You've provided nothing to support your arguments, you've just lurched from one poor comparison to another. Throw a tantrum all you like, fact is you can't back up your claim which is why you've flip-flopped so much and from the offset have demonstrated a staggeringly poor grasp of the market and financial responsibility.
martino
Member
this.
Last edited:
THE:MILKMAN
Member
How about the reason for Sony to try and wait to do pricing is more about being as close to Lockhart pricing as they can without being more than they have to be by announcing first?
In the end they might have to anyway if Microsoft refuse to swerve....
I also think this whole game of price chicken was going to happen even without Covid.
In the end they might have to anyway if Microsoft refuse to swerve....
I also think this whole game of price chicken was going to happen even without Covid.
Oh, hi again!
Hey, I came up with another question for you to ignore!
Why do lots of people (possibly the majority of console owners) spend more on a console than they do on a phone, if prices are defined by a product's utility?
MrFunSocks
Banned
Can someone remind me if we’re calling DF Microsoft biased shills or are they ok again? Which way does this opinion move the needle?
zero chance either of them do $599 or more. Absolutely zero. $499 max.
zero chance either of them do $599 or more. Absolutely zero. $499 max.
Last edited:
Mr. PlayStation
Member
My guess:
Xbox Series S: $329
Xbox Series X: $499
PS5 DE: $399
PS5 Non Digital Edition: $499
Xbox Series S: $329
Xbox Series X: $499
PS5 DE: $399
PS5 Non Digital Edition: $499
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Honestly I don't get this about DF. I think it is clear from Alex he is PC biased and that is not subtle but John and Rich are great I think. I think it has been touched on before but basically Microsoft wine and dine the likes of DF far more than Sony do now. I'm sure in the past Sony did the same but they definitely are far more hands-off and distant now with the likes of DF/game media and the gaming public the last couple of years especially.
I agree the pricing surely has to max at $499 for both. I hope anyway.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Wrong time to get too wild with a console price IMO. People want to spend money on the games, subscriptions, peripherals, not the console.
It's ok if you want to talk about inflation, but in 2020 you enter a store and you buy a PS4 Pro for 399$. The same price you got a PS4 Pro in 2016, and the same for the PS4 in 2013. That's seven years of telling your customers you can buy the more modern PlayStation for 399$.
Meanwhile Xbox 1 launched at 499$, and the X1X at 499$. That's seven years of telling your customers to expect a 499$ price point for the more modern Xbox.
Let's roll back the years and look at the PS3. Reports say the PS3 20GB model cost Sony an incredible 805$ to make, and they sold it at 499$. The PS3 60 GB model cost them 840$ to make and sold it at 599$. See how willing Sony was to take a bath on their console because they had just come off the PS2? Also notice how even though the more expensive model only cost Sony an extra 35$ to make, they priced it 100$ more.
All that considered, I would be extremely surprised if the XSX price didn't start at 499$ and the PS5 at 399$.
It's ok if you want to talk about inflation, but in 2020 you enter a store and you buy a PS4 Pro for 399$. The same price you got a PS4 Pro in 2016, and the same for the PS4 in 2013. That's seven years of telling your customers you can buy the more modern PlayStation for 399$.
Meanwhile Xbox 1 launched at 499$, and the X1X at 499$. That's seven years of telling your customers to expect a 499$ price point for the more modern Xbox.
Let's roll back the years and look at the PS3. Reports say the PS3 20GB model cost Sony an incredible 805$ to make, and they sold it at 499$. The PS3 60 GB model cost them 840$ to make and sold it at 599$. See how willing Sony was to take a bath on their console because they had just come off the PS2? Also notice how even though the more expensive model only cost Sony an extra 35$ to make, they priced it 100$ more.
All that considered, I would be extremely surprised if the XSX price didn't start at 499$ and the PS5 at 399$.
Last edited:
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
Oh hi!
So, you're flip-flopping again. Jolly good.
It really would help if you'd support your claims with figures. Without them it really just seems like you're pulling something out your arse. Define these "lots of people" and the amount that they're spending?
Just to help you out The Playstation 4 has an attach ratio of 8.7-ish. Now this doesn't really tie with your "possible majority" implication especially on a console that's 7 years old as this would imply a very low number for top end consumers and an abysmal low end, or a consistently poor software purchase rate year on year. But, using your previous logic of spreading across an assumed 7 year lifespan works out at 1.25 games a year (I can already hear the protest against this). So if we're being generous $70 on software and then let's tack on $60 for online. Assume $400 paid (ha, I know the majority were sold at less but I'm helping you here) and the average is $188 a year.
The average monthly mobile phone bill is... well, I'll let you look that one up. (Spoiler - it's not going to help you)
PlayStaytion
Member
This topic has always been idiotic endlessly since forever, don't how they couldn't get over it.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I've lost my job, my mortgage is in arrears and my wife has left me.
But I'm definitely in for a $700 PS5 as a priority.
But I'm definitely in for a $700 PS5 as a priority.
TheSHEEEP
Gold Member
Dear sir, I have the most exquisite bridge to sell...I am not a high roller, but i am getting the PS5 day one as i did with PS4, even if it meant I'd have to take out a personal loan to get it
I was referring just to the price of a phone, not the total phone bill, you fucking moron.
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
Now, now. Temper tantrums don't back up wild claims.
Mr. PlayStation
Member
That's rough, hope the PS5 puts a smile on your face.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I'm joking lol!
What wild claim? Lots of people spend less on their phones than $400. I did. Most of the people I know did.
By your own rules, you're not allowed to split the cost over time to get to equivalent units of expenditure (you've already lost the argument on that basis, remember).
Why would that be if prices are defined by a product's usefulness?
Hell, why am I even bothering with trying to make the relatively marginal case of phones vs consoles stick?
What about a vacuum cleaner? Way more useful than a console, much cheaper. A dishwasher, the same. Lots of fridges (virtually a necessity), the same.
Why do millions of people spend more on a "toy" than essential items like those, if your theory was even remotely correct?