I Love Rock 'n' Roll
Member
Just like they did with the OneX at 399$€. I mean loooooooooool at you dudes. Again?
I wouldn't be shocked if we dont get price till AugustPS5 - 449
XsX - 499
That’s how I see it going down
At this rate maybe they both are so hellbent on waiting out the other that we don’t find out until the first launch day
(I’m kidding)
I wouldn't be shocked if we dont get price till August
If they don't give it in their event in June or July I assume they make a blog post and annouce it by a tweet in August .Would there be a whole separate price reveal event in August or would each company just tweet it out one day in August?
Third by what, exactly? A margin of error in system sales. We're talking 2-5 million delta in total between it and PS3's LTD, that part seems to be conveniently ignored. Considering that PS3 needed a vastly larger number of markets to eek out a minuscule delta lead over 360's LTD when all was said and done, it just shows how impressive the 360's strategy of targeted main markets was.
As in, neither strategy MS or Sony took that gen was inherently better or worst than the other on their own terms, but since MS shat the bed with XBO their global focus with 360 made it harder for XBO to gain traction in markets they did not already have a strong presence in beforehand. Conversely Sony's focus on a wider net of territories helped build up momentum for PS4 even if for PS3 it only resulted in a very small LTD gain over 360.
I've no point why you bring up RROD; we all know it happened. We know what it was. But here's another question; if it was so damaging to 360's brand, why did so many gamers re-buy 360s instead of switching over to PS3 sooner? The PS3 also had its own variant of RROD in YLOD; not as severe a problem in their case, but I was personally a "victim" of that occurring on a fat PS3. Console failures weren't a one-sided affair that gen, even if one was more severe occurring than the other.
Personally, if im Spencer, I announce a $400 price tag at their July event regardless of what Sony has or hasn't announced. Stay aggressive. Put the pressure on them.
I mean.. game sales hardly fit this narrative.People rebuying 360's are the reason MS was close at all. It inflated the sales numbers more than people want to admit. I replaced 5 myself so I don't believe they'd be close without all those extra sales. Your point hurts your overall argument with that.
If Microsoft paid me $400 to take one I probably would.
No. People make this claim during E3, whenever both consoles announced prices, people swore Sony based their price on what Microsoft said. Or whoever went first.They literally said they are going to be agile on price.
Meaning they have pricing options, and the only reason to really choose one over the other would be competition.
LOL @ "I work for a fortune 50 company"... come on.. you have to know how silly that sounds.
"An hour before they sell it " wouldn't really be how that works... many days/weeks/months before they'd have agreed on a price vs. the competition. So the decision would already be made. "If they price @ X we price at Y", etc.
No. People make this claim during E3, whenever both consoles announced prices, people swore Sony based their price on what Microsoft said. Or whoever went first.
Did they have the brand power to compete at the same price when the PS3 came out? Just wondering.It only show they don’t have brand power to compete at same price.
That is nothing related with the confidence in the product.
FIne go back to the first sentence, its still insane to believe that they are operating this way.Your first sentence in this thread was "I hate that people believe this."
I'm not just addressing the E3 stuff; I'm addressing your dismissal of the idea that MS is potentially waiting to undercut Sony.
The idea that Sony made a decision off the cuff is dumb; the idea that MS and Sony price based on each other... is not remotely dumb, despite your dismissal because you "work for a Fortune 50."
Thats over simplifying a lot.How PS5 cost more with cheaper parts is crazy to me.
Xbox One Series X has more expensive:
+ 2 PCB (one of them is more complex due having a 320bits bus)
+ 10 GDDR6 memory modules
+ 320bits bus
+ APU is bigger
+ 1GB SDD storage
What PS5 has more expensive:
- SSD controller and bus.
It's not remotely insane. MS has said they are still figuring out pricing and are going to be agile; what's INSANE is thinking the price of their direct competition isn't going into that discussion.FIne go back to the first sentence, its still insane to believe that they are operating this way.
I’ll tell you what... if these guys don’t make fall for these things I’m just going to blow 1000 bucks on a graphics card and call it a day. This is the worst rollout of a generation I’ve ever seen.
text of fanboy boy drivel
What does that mean?
People rebuying 360's are the reason MS was close at all. It inflated the sales numbers more than people want to admit. I replaced 5 myself so I don't believe they'd be close without all those extra sales. Your point hurts your overall argument with that.
While I enjoy your colorful speech, I don't think it does much to help your argument. Especially when you say things like "way" higher clock speed.Thats over simplifying a lot.
PS5 has:
• a Cell-based sound processor that needs an absurd array of microphones to make the most of it. It can eat up to the 20% of the system bandwidth.
• way higher clock speed, and therefore worse yields results per waffle.
• the SSD although smaller is out of the future, not a SSD that you can buy in a shelf like the SX one.
• the “controller” is not a controller. Is a controller and a whole I/O system to make the most of the Marty McFly drive, with ¿6? lanes that put data directly on the RAM. Making of it an unknown addition of silicon space.
• probably an expansion bay that uses all of the above?
• a state of the art cooling solution that pierces through the motherboard in a unprecedented move.
• an actual next gen controller with all the gimmicks you can think of.
• whatever the hell the geometric engine is.
The PS5 isn’t the most powerful console but it doesn’t sound like the cheapest one to me. Maybe I’m wrong.
Well if the difference in clock speed in an AMD GPU that usually has less room to scale than the nVidia one is an hyperbole then it’s ok. As I said is my opinion anyway.While I enjoy your colorful speech, I don't think it does much to help your argument. Especially when you say things like "way" higher clock speed.
Your post basically boils down to hyperbole and speculation.
Microsoft taking a loss on the console doesn't really fit when you look at their strategy as a whole which includes surface and eventually phones later this year.
They haven't been about not making money on the hardware to insure they quality of the device doesn't have compromises. Breaking even at launch is best case scenario I think at this rate.
Outselling the ps5 is obviously a goal but they also aren't stupid. They know the chances of that are low and cutting the price to get the box in the door doesn't do much if they can't get people into their services.
They can still have the value proposition with Gamepass since they will have Halo and most likely a Forza at or near launch. They can market that without having to take a hit on the box.
It's funny because at face value you'd think a financial analyst and a former head of X-box would be the perfect people to listen to on this subject.If Pachter has actual insider information on the industry he doesn't give it away for free in vlogs or interviews with gaming outlets.
So whatever, he may be right or wrong, so far his guesses don't seem better than those of the average Joe.
If Sony prices it at $500 with a first party pack-in game, $50 won't be enough. Sony got multiple first party titles to choose from and MS can't use their Halo, only guaranteed launch first party title, to counter it as it's the too valuable.
My living room is full, but I have some place in the garage or in a closet, just in case their studios finally do something interesting... Who am I kidding, my living room PC does an amazing job.If Microsoft paid me $400 to take one I probably would.
So tell me what we know about the both cooling solution.YOUR Omitting the cooling solution which had patents a year or so back. If they had to make their own cooling solution which sounds like they did, to have 2ghz boost clock for gpu, then that adds a good amount to the build. But if that is something they are willing to eat since it's them that designed it, then they may not pass that along to consumers.
Also think their controllers are going to be 69.99. The tech thats in them sounds like Switch pro controller on steroids. Not cheap.
They did not.Did they have the brand power to compete at the same price when the PS3 came out? Just wondering.
It's not two companies starting at 0 and slightly more powerful isn't a clear cut reason to buy a console. There are so many factors at play that you need to do whatever you can to keep getting an edge of your competition. PlayStation has a lot of brand loyalty and now increasingly people have a lot of games tied to PlayStation from digital distribution. People choose their console for different reasons and anything that can give you another advantage (for a subset of people) it's arguably going to make you more successful in the end. It's not about not being confident it's about not being arrogant and doing the best that you can to be competitive. You don't let your guard down, you go hard and you keep going. Sony was arrogant with the PS3 and Microsoft was arrogant with the Xbox One. Intel didn't do enough to keep their lead and now AMD is doing super well and catching up.If MS is going to do that, it means they are not confident on their product, if they allegedly are selling a beefier console than Sony, and they are trying to sell it at a lower price than Sony, it only shows they lack confidence in their product.
Did they have the brand power to compete at the same price when the PS3 came out? Just wondering.