Support NeoGAF

[MrAlwaysRight]

Wrap it up boys, it's done.

 

[kurisu_1974]

I'll get a Sega Xbox if that is the case

Fixed that for you

That was the Dreamcast.

 

[CeeJay]

I actually dont see any evidence that Sony would do that, they know that the high mark is around $500 (inflation not withstanding) regardless of competition, we have the PS3 to thank for that which even Sony admitted was a huge mistake in regards to its price. I actually think the PC market will keep them in check also.

$90 games on PS5 compared to PS4 is evidence. charging for online is evidence. Consoles are priced competitively is evidence itself. A company will charge the most it can get away with charging compared to its competitors. That $500 mark is way out of date as a high mark.

PS will have their USP with their own exclusives (as well as the Xbox third party stuff) so, price doesn't need to be a differentiator between them and the competition (multiple OEM Xbox machines). I have absolutely no doubt Sony will price themselves in the pack with those other guys. Where is there the motivation to carry on the tradition of losing money on each console sold when they would be the only competitor doing that? They won't. It's like charging for online. When one starts it everyone follows because that sets the median from which all the main competitors then set their own business plan. If no one else in the space is subsidising consoles how can Sony justify doing that to their shareholders? Lets be honest here, Sony increased the price of games by $10 this gen and did that have any effect whatsoever on sales? If they add $200 onto the cost of a console BUT that console is still competitively priced amongst its peers then they are not going to sell less purely based off that price. Sony are a business, businesses are there to make money and other than feelings there is no logical reason to carry on subsidising console hardware. Sony will not leave that money on the table.

Please explain why a PS6 that is $200 (it could be more or less but lets just call it an arbitrary $200 for the sake of argument) cheaper than the competition is going to make more profit than say a PS6 that is $50 cheaper or the same price when it will already be able to play the same games as those others as well as it's own exclusives. Surely a product that can do everything the competition can do and more on top should be priced higher not lower according to market forces?

 

[clintar]

an Xbox by sony

Sonyxbox?

 

[midnightAI]

$90 games on PS5 compared to PS4 is evidence. charging for online is evidence. Consoles are priced competitively is evidence itself. A company will charge the most it can get away with charging compared to its competitors. That $500 mark is way out of date as a high mark.

PS will have their USP with their own exclusives (as well as the Xbox third party stuff) so, price doesn't need to be a differentiator between them and the competition (multiple OEM Xbox machines). I have absolutely no doubt Sony will price themselves in the pack with those other guys. Where is there the motivation to carry on the tradition of losing money on each console sold when they would be the only competitor doing that? They won't. It's like charging for online. When one starts it everyone follows because that sets the median from which all the main competitors then set their own business plan. If no one else in the space is subsidising consoles how can Sony justify doing that to their shareholders? Lets be honest here, Sony increased the price of games by $10 this gen and did that have any effect whatsoever on sales? If they add $200 onto the cost of a console BUT that console is still competitively priced amongst its peers then they are not going to sell less purely based off that price. Sony are a business, businesses are there to make money and other than feelings there is no logical reason to carry on subsidising console hardware. Sony will not leave that money on the table.

Please explain why a PS6 that is $200 (it could be more or less but lets just call it an arbitrary $200 for the sake of argument) cheaper than the competition is going to make more profit than say a PS6 that is $50 cheaper or the same price when it will already be able to play the same games as those others as well as it's own exclusives. Surely a product that can do everything the competition can do and more on top should be priced higher not lower according to market forces?

So only Sony increased the price of their games? That's exactly why Sony can afford to take a loss on hardware by the way, they make it back from software sales, you can't have hardware at a loss then sell the games cheap, that's exactly why MS is now fucked (that and many other bad decisions).

 

[CeeJay]

So only Sony increased the price of their games? That's exactly why Sony can afford to take a loss on hardware by the way, they make it back from software sales, you can't have hardware at a loss then sell the games cheap, that's exactly why MS is now fucked (that and many other bad decisions).

Really, after all of my post and you home in on that one single point what about the rest of what i presented as reasoning? The $90 game will proliferate and we see them at that price on Xbox as well. This is how business rolls along, someone tries something and if it sticks then everyone else follows. Only this time Xbox has fucked itself out of the position it had as a direct competitor into some weird place that doesn't sound good.

Think about it like this. Two similar shops sit next to each other with no other similar shops anywhere one is blue and one is green. A hypothetical shop owner of one of these decides to start giving out $10 (when you spend 50) voucher on the door in the hope of increasing footfall in the shop. The other shop sees this and begins to do the same soon after. They both give $10 off a $50 shop and both share the market and things carry on like that for a while. Then one day the green shop burns to the ground and wasn't insured! Now there is only one shop. Does that shop owner carry on giving out the $10 vouchers? Does he fuck, he puts everything back to unsubsidised prices!

 

[midnightAI]

Really, after all of my post and you home in on that one single point what about the rest of what i presented as reasoning? The $90 game will proliferate and we see them at that price on Xbox as well. This is how business rolls along, someone tries something and if it sticks then everyone else follows. Only this time Xbox has fucked itself out of the position it had as a direct competitor into some weird place that doesn't sound good.

Think about it like this. Two similar shops sit next to each other with no other similar shops anywhere one is blue and one is green. A hypothetical shop owner of one of these decides to start giving out $10 (when you spend 50) voucher on the door in the hope of increasing footfall in the shop. The other shop sees this and begins to do the same soon after. They both give $10 off a $50 shop and both share the market and things carry on like that for a while. Then one day the green shop burns to the ground and wasn't insured! Now there is only one shop. Does that shop owner carry on giving out the $10 vouchers? Does he fuck, he puts everything back to unsubsidised prices!

Well all we can do is wait and see, its all conjecture at the moment anyway until we hear what MS's plans are, but I'll stick to my original point, I don't see Sony massively increasing the price of their next console (not Pro) due to lessons learned during the PS3 era. So I expect a $500 (ish, with inflation maybe $550-$600 but no higher) console, it will not be $700 or up as you suggested.

 

[CeeJay]

Well all we can do is wait and see, its all conjecture at the moment anyway until we hear what MS's plans are, but I'll stick to my original point, I don't see Sony massively increasing the price of their next console (not Pro) due to lessons learned during the PS3 era. So I expect a $500 (ish, with inflation maybe $550-$600 but no higher) console, it will not be $700 or up as you suggested.

I am not going to put a price on it, I am just suggesting that the traditional console subsidy will stop. Getting them at cost is about as much as we can hope for i fear. People are happy to pay a lot more than this for a phone that they probably change more often.

Maybe lets ask ourselves a question... If the Playstation is the only console available to buy and your choice is either buy it, buy a PC, play on a phone or stream the game. How much would the console need to be before you would pick one of the other options? If they did charge $700 and your only other options are buying a considerably more expensive PC or playing via a substandard method would you not pay it?