There will be carry forward into this gen. The sales dominance of their other consoles is no accident. The only hope MS has to build market share is to expand the market. I don't expect MS to be competitive with Sony in the amount of consoles sold. Where they can compete is by having multiple platforms and their sum total reach matching or exceeding Sony's. That's not going to be dramatically effected by whether Sony decides to take a big loss on hardware or not.
All purpose Sales and Sales Rumours and Anecdotes [2019 Edition]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
There will be carry forward into this gen. The sales dominance of their other consoles is no accident. The only hope MS has to build market share is to expand the market. I don't expect MS to be competitive with Sony in the amount of consoles sold. Where they can compete is by having multiple platforms and their sum total reach matching or exceeding Sony's. That's not going to be dramatically effected by whether Sony decides to take a big loss on hardware or not.
That's true, but what's the limiting factor? for PS3, it was BRD drives. for PS5, it'll be what? Is it something that, spending more up front, Sony would be able to get stronger launch sales, or is there a hard limit to 3ish million launch units, and 15 million tops in the first year?
5 years between ps2 and ps3 eol sales. If 5 years holds between ps3 and ps4 we could have eol ps4 sales 2022. I suspect ps4 lifecycle will be longer than that as ps5 will not go to low pricepoints and sony will probably be selling entry level ps4 for long time. Ps4 should have a lot of life left once 199$ pricepoint is reached. Maybe last breath will be slim with slow ssd and no optical drive with new tiny soc on smaller manufacturing node. Could be a tiny box with very low power consumption.
To me it looks like ps4 has a chance to take sales record from ps2. That is insane, I thought that to be impossible when ps4 was introduced.
7nm foundry capacity?
Or you take a hit for the first six months to a year because you can only manufacture so much and guarantee the most powerful baseline you could for the rest of the generation? I feel in this moment in time momentum is even more important than ever before because of social media. Look how Microsoft had to backtrack on the no used games at the beginning of this gen because of all the negative vibes that was going around on social media.
It's a game of tick/tocks. Shoot too high and that limits capability to do pro version in reasonable price. Scaling isn't what it used to be anymore. Also ahooting too high means limits on price reducing over time meaning mass sales in low pricepoint are not going to happen.
I doubt xbox affects sony any more than apple affects android. Only major screw up on hw/services/content would majorly disrupt status quo. Fastest console means something but it's not end all be all.
I doubt xbox affects sony any more than apple affects android. Only major screw up on hw/services/content would majorly disrupt status quo. Fastest console means something but it's not end all be all.
It's a combination of power and price and of course games but as I've stated in my previous post I feel momentum and word of mouth because of social media is very important. Good Lord I've had people I've known my whole life who have had no interest in technology at all tell me not to get a certain cellphone because it's got a weak chipset
and they have no idea what they talking about but someone on Twitter or Facebook has said something
I'm not saying Microsoft or Sony are going to go crazy with the losses they going to take but I feel it will be more than the current gen.
and they have no idea what they talking about but someone on Twitter or Facebook has said somethingI'm not saying Microsoft or Sony are going to go crazy with the losses they going to take but I feel it will be more than the current gen.
Sony is in a pretty good position if they decided to take on a certain amount of BoM losses. As long as they can cut BoM losses within 2-3yrs they should be relatively fine. The PS1 was $430/BoM ($299 at launch) and PS2 was $479/BoM ($299 at launch). So, something like $200 in initial losses on $600-700 worth of hardware ($399 - $499 launch price) over the next 2-3yrs isn’t going to hurt them as long as software and services sales are high or similar to today's numbers.
Plus, PS4 continuing hardware/software sales will still provide a lot of headroom ($M) for initial PS5 BoM losses over the next 2-3yrs, well after PS5 is launched. And backwards compatibility also guarantees a larger capture of PlayStation (PS4) users towards PS5.
Plus, PS4 continuing hardware/software sales will still provide a lot of headroom ($M) for initial PS5 BoM losses over the next 2-3yrs, well after PS5 is launched. And backwards compatibility also guarantees a larger capture of PlayStation (PS4) users towards PS5.
I think that'd be daft, picking a console target based on plans for a refresh. A console should be made as ideal as possible. Worry about a possible mid-gen refresh when and if that opportunity arises.
As daft as apple going all in one year on phones and unable to release something next year?
We already saw in this gen the midgen refresh raised pricepoints and even the lowend hw is still expensive as ways to decrease bom via better manufacturing nodes has slowed down.
Playing long game is smart, short game only creates shitty unmaintainable product port folio and headache. BC is part of this long game.
Going all in to 499$ with 100$ loss would make it difficult to do similarly priced pro version. Pro would be pushed to higher price point which is uncharted territory for consoles.
This makes no sense to me. Risk the possible success of your console so that you can release a pro console mid gen?
World's apart. Mid-gen refreshes are something new tried this year, and they haven't set the world alight. They don't clearly improve income in following years - it's very questionable how many mid-gen adopters would have left their console ecosystem if that option wasn't available.
The only reason mid-gen happened this gen when it never has before is because the hardware could be 'cheaply' increased thanks to it all being 'PC', but that wasn't really the case and they were expensive creations. So planning for a mid-gen as you suggest means making a poorer launch product, less sales, weaker ecosystem in the first few years, up to the mid-gen refresh where you'll get some people levelling up but probably not all that many. The other option is to go all in for the launch hardware with a view to it lasting 5+ years (unlike Apple), getting the strongest sales up front, and getting 5+ years of revenue through software and services.
to me, it's obvious 2 million extra sales in the launch year is going to be worth way more than 3 or 4 million mid-gen sales 3 years later, unless those mid-gen boxes have significant hardware margins which is unlikely. And realistically, you'll get more launch sales through a strong launch platform than you'll get midgen updates on a mediocre launch platform.
Sony addressing the Stadia concerns their shareholders have by starting things off talking about PSNow? I think the 700K numbers were good for any sort of streaming/download subscription service.
That's 700K out of 98 million PS4 owners before you add in however many millions of PC users. Though they're limited to certain countries, perhaps 15 now?
9.
700K after 5 years of operations I think; and no competition really. (at least the streaming space)
I can't say the number is great or bad without looking heavily into invested operations. But if a lot of cash flow is tied up there and the profit is bad without having higher numbers, then yea, it would be considered a disappointment.
Investors are probably worried that the number isn't high enough to stop Google and MS from making huge strides in this space.
What i'm trying to argue is ps4 launched at 399$, minimal loss. Ps4 today is what 270$? Maybe ps4 will be hitting 199$ if stars align. It's a long road to price reduce expensive ps5 as it's more and more difficult every year.
To me it looks like having super duper expensive console would never price reduce enough to sell a lot. It's a game of tick/tock and having robust products to different price categories.
Short term for sony it might be 199$ ps4, 349$ pro, 499$ ps5. Guess which sells a lot...
Eventually ps5 might hit 349 or 399 without loss and leave room for pro around 499/599$ price range. If ps5 bom at launch is 599$ It's a long road to price starting with 3.
If anything pro models have shown sales are at lower pricepoints. Making ps5 not reach those low pricepoints during it's lifetime would be bad idea.
Pc gpu/phone market has shown manufacturing scaling is not there anymore. New nodes are few and far between and scaling happens via bigger/more chips. Highend is more and more expensive every year. Can console market support same pattern or is it better idea to design lower pricepoint in mind?
Of course if we have some kind of a major breakthrough in manufacturing things would change.
To me it looks like having super duper expensive console would never price reduce enough to sell a lot. It's a game of tick/tock and having robust products to different price categories.
Short term for sony it might be 199$ ps4, 349$ pro, 499$ ps5. Guess which sells a lot...
Eventually ps5 might hit 349 or 399 without loss and leave room for pro around 499/599$ price range. If ps5 bom at launch is 599$ It's a long road to price starting with 3.
If anything pro models have shown sales are at lower pricepoints. Making ps5 not reach those low pricepoints during it's lifetime would be bad idea.
Pc gpu/phone market has shown manufacturing scaling is not there anymore. New nodes are few and far between and scaling happens via bigger/more chips. Highend is more and more expensive every year. Can console market support same pattern or is it better idea to design lower pricepoint in mind?
Of course if we have some kind of a major breakthrough in manufacturing things would change.
Last edited:
Sony games division has an operational budget. They may be able to take a loss on hardware to guarantee more sales, but what are other investments they sacrifice in doing so? Is that the best place to put money in to guarantee sales and profit?
Maybe it's better spent on promotion, 1st party production, exclusivity deals, dev devport...
Maybe it's better spent on promotion, 1st party production, exclusivity deals, dev devport...
At least we can finally clearly answer that damn question. Which console sold better: X360 or PS3 ? It was PS3 by more than 3 millions units.
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
If they manage to achieve a significant cost reduction for PS4 (under 199$), it could be capable of selling 130-140m units, I don't think it will surpass PS2 but it will be very close.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Locked