All purpose Sales and Sales Rumours and Anecdotes [2019 Edition]

Shifty Geezer said:
How does that affect the choice whether to sell PS5 at a loss? Is that a $449 PS5 with a $449 BOM, or a $449 BOM with a $549 BOM, the latter meaning a machine that better differentiates itself from 4Pro and gives PS fans a better reason to buy PS5 instead of ignoring it?
Click to expand...


My view is sony will keep ps4 around and that is the mass market device. Ps5 looks like it's expensive and is not going to replace ps4 at 249 or even 199$ any time soon. We will likely see ps4 breaking records ps2 set assuming sony can make a true cheap and slim ps4 version. If sony can't price reduce ps4 to less than 200$ does that mean ps5 will also have tough time getting cheaper?

Other angle for price reduction is that consoles used to have exotic one off hw. This would affect engineering costs, yields... There was plenty to optimize and amortize after release. Now that consoles piggy back on amd pc hw the yields and r&d cost should be much better controlled and spread around than during ps1/ps2/ps3 time.
 
You still haven't said how that strategy affects loss-leading on PS5. ;) Does keeping PS4 around for longer have any impact on the pros and cons of loss-leading PS5?
 
Shifty Geezer said:
You still haven't said how that strategy affects loss-leading on PS5. ;) Does keeping PS4 around for longer have any impact on the pros and cons of loss-leading PS5?
Click to expand...

I would first define capacity to reduce bom/price over lifetime of product. Selling at loss reduces that capacity.

Let's assume console sells at +-0 at 500$ and lifetime capacity for price reduction is 250$. This would allow eventually selling cost reduced console at 250$ while not making loss.

On above scenario if the initial loss was 100$ and retail price 500$ the lifetime low price without loss would be 350$.(600-250)

The question is, will price drive sales? How low ps5 price has to be for ps5 pro/ps6 to be able to come out in viable pricepoint?
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Loss leading adds significant longevity too IMO. Imagine a PS2 spec'd to PS2's launch price. It'd have been inferior to the machine that was released and grown relatively old and weak faster. The more hardware you can cram into your console, the greater its future-proofing. But of course, the greater its price, limiting sales, or the greater the losses and the worse the profits or, at its most dire, the greater the long-term business loss.

There's a clear sweet-spot there somewhere. The cheapest option will get old quite quick (see NSW and its rather low resolution games hitting even a couple of years in) while the most expensive, future-proof, 3DO levels of hardware just won't sell. If we look at $100 loss though, imagine a $400 BOM PS5 with a $100 SOC, and then imagine it having a $200 SOC instead and sell at a $100 loss. That's a lot more SOC. $100 loss could make a significant difference to the platform. $100 loss is the difference between an HDD based machine and an SSD one. It's the difference between a 12 GB console and a 24 GB console. It's IMO enough to make a real value difference that consumers will want. Going beyond that, more losses probably won't result in much better interest and sales. So for me, using sophisticated back of the envelope calculus and beer-mat set theory, I'd be looking at a designing a $50-$100 loss-leading box with those additional costs marked for rapid reduction and not sunk into a component that won't shed those losses within a couple of years.
Click to expand...

Perfect, thanks shifty.
 
manux said:
I would first define capacity to reduce bom/price over lifetime of product. Selling at loss reduces that capacity.

Let's assume console sells at +-0 at 500$ and lifetime capacity for price reduction is 250$. This would allow eventually selling cost reduced console at 250$ while not making loss.

On above scenario if the initial loss was 100$ the lifetime low price without loss would be 350$.

The question is, will price drive sales? How low ps5 price has to be for ps5 pro/ps6 to be able to come out in viable pricepoint?
Click to expand...

It wouldn’t be 100 more that 100 would likely reduce by a similar overall percentage wouldn’t it? So 300 not 350.

I believe also that SSD might be a source of cost reduction during the early years like the RAM on PS4.
 
manux said:
On above scenario if the initial loss was 100$ and retail price 500$ the lifetime low price without loss would be 350$.(600-250)
Click to expand...
Unless there's a reason that $100 is static, it'll scale with the rest of the system. If the price halves over 5 years, the entire price will halve, making a $50 loss on a year 5 PS5 which'll be absorbed with a game and profitable with a couple of years of network sub. I also don't see much value in pricing your console based on a mid-gen refresh. We don't know what the margins are on those mid-gen consoles and, being clearly premium boxes for a niche, you could get away with charging more for them rather than penny-pinching to reach the mainstream. I'd look only at PS5 cost and value on day 1 and through to the final year cost and value, and looking to keep that curve the best it can be. Any other devices are ancillary and shouldn't IMO be a concern for that bottom-line bread-winner back-bone business strategy of lots of boxes under lots of TVs selling lots of content.
 
goonergaz said:
It wouldn’t be 100 more that 100 would likely reduce by a similar overall percentage wouldn’t it? So 300 not 350.

I believe also that SSD might be a source of cost reduction during the early years like the RAM on PS4.
Click to expand...

Given same hw the price reduction capacity would be equal in both cases. It would not be relative to sales price.
 
I feel NAND storage could be where they take a hit in the beginning. Also the competition also plays a part in deciding what kind of loss or not to take.
 
manux said:
...slowed down moore's law...
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people are losing sight of this when they think about the leeway that companies have to launch with a significant loss leader strategy (PS1, PS2, PS3) versus a very minor loss (almost insignificant) loss leader strategy (PS4).

Node shrinks are becoming far more challenging and thus coming far more slowly. Also each node shrink now is significantly more expensive than the previous node compared to previous node shrinks. Also complicating things is that the time for the new node to reach cost parity with the older node is taking longer and longer with each new node shrink.

In other words, there may not be an opportunity to have a 200 USD SOC at launch halve in cost in 3 or so years with a node shrink. So don't look for the SOC going down significantly in cost as it has in previous generations.

The one area with potential to see major cost reductions within the lifespan of the next gen consoles is likely to be NAND. That's also probably why so much R&D is being focused on the storage subsystem in the next gen consoles. It's the one area where they can potentially spend a lot a launch and see it reduce in cost enough over the next 2-3 years that the hardware might break even.

Considering the slowing of node transitions and thus limited growth in the amount of power you can pack into an SOC, the storage subsystem is also the area that could give the greatest performance increase to games.

At least for me, the storage subsystem in the next consoles excites me far more than whatever SOC ends up inside of them.

Regards,
SB
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Loss leading adds significant longevity too IMO.
Click to expand...

That's nor your opinion. It is a fact.
But an interesting question is: do sony and ms need or even want that kind of longevity these days?
PS4 and Bone's launches showed a marked uptake in consumer's interest and dollars spent in console gaming. Dragging the old ps360 out for as long as they did proved to have dried some of the exitement around those platforms. But it ended up being necessary, because their launches were so damn expensive, and so were their successor's launch gonna be as well.
A new gen, generates Buzz, media coverage, and excitement. People who just bought a new machine, wanna buy new shine games to play on it.
Maybe sony and MS realized they don't want their platforms to last 10 years. 5 is enough. Maybe they are considering going with less.
How does selling at a Loss help, in those circumstances?
 
milk said:
That's nor your opinion. It is a fact.
But an interesting question is: do sony and ms need or even want that kind of longevity these days?
PS4 and Bone's launches showed a marked uptake in consumer's interest and dollars spent in console gaming. Dragging the old ps360 out for as long as they did proved to have dried some of the exitement around those platforms. But it ended up being necessary, because their launches were so damn expensive, and so were their successor's launch gonna be as well.
A new gen, generates Buzz, media coverage, and excitement. People who just bought a new machine, wanna buy new shine games to play on it.
Maybe sony and MS realized they don't want their platforms to last 10 years. 5 is enough. Maybe they are considering going with less.
How does selling at a Loss help, in those circumstances?
Click to expand...
They need to sell at a loss also (mainly ?) because of competition, and the main competitor of Playstation and XB is...PC. This is one of the reason Sony did their mid-gen (mid-premium) console.
 
milk said:
That's nor your opinion. It is a fact.
Click to expand...

It is arguable how well that would apply to this generation, however. For example, would we have seen the consoles reduced to their current price point if they had launched with say a 100 USD higher BOM?

Meaning, would Sony want to continue eating a 100 USD loss on each machine sold this late in the generation? Or 50 USD loss? Opportunities to cost reduce are coming more infrequently and at smaller increments than it has for prior consoles. And that applies to more components than just the SOC. For example, DVD and BRD costs dropped massively over the life of the PS2 and PS3, but are virtually flat for PS4. HDD prices dropped significantly during the life of the PS3 but haven't gone down to nearly the same extent for the PS4.

Would the install base be all that much larger? Enough to justify the lost profit?

A major part of why PlayStation and by extension Sony are so profitable right now is because they didn't follow a loss leader strategy with the PS4.

This is especially important as any losses from the PlayStation 4 couldn't be spun off as an investment to push penetration of other technologies (DVD in PS2, Cell and BRD in PS3) that would potentially bring in revenue in other areas of the company to investors.

Hell, are we even going to see significant price drops for the next gen consoles over their lifetime? PS4 dropped less in price over its lifetime than PS3. PS5 might drop in price less than PS4 in its lifetime.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
It is arguable how well that would apply to this generation, however. For example, would we have seen the consoles reduced to their current price point if they had launched with say a 100 USD higher BOM?
Click to expand...

I never argued against those points. I conceeded that subdised hardware nets the system more longevity, which is unquestionable. I still did so only to put in check the value of such longevity at this day and age anyway. All your other arguments, I agree with.
 
ZHugeEx:
"Interesting to note that Control, which released on the 27th of August, did not make the top 20 PS4 download chart for the month in the US. Meanwhile, Man of Medan, which released on the 30th, was able to chart.

Interesting to note that Control, which released on the 27th of August, did not make the top 20 PS4 download chart for the month in the US. Meanwhile, Man of Medan, which released on the 30th, was able to chart."

Reply:
"Sales have gone up because it's ~$37 on Amazon. I bought it at that price, wouldn't even have considered it at $60 right now."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1169981501653606405

https://twitter.com/x/status/1169984836435664897
 
Meanwhile, Rainbow 6 Siege has hit over 50 Million Players...

Number of Players: Nov 2016 - 10m, Feb 2017 - 15m, Aug 2017 - 20m, Dec 2017 - 25m, Apr 2018 - 30m, Jun 2018 - 35m, Nov 2018 - 40m, Mar 2019 - 45m, Sep 2019 - 50m,

One of the best success stories this gen.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1169995003487293441
 
I think September will be the better showing for Control, I believe many gamers waited for review scores and word of mouth. If I'm not mistaken, Control is now the number one game on PSN for September. Very good game indeed...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shifty Geezer
  • Sticky
All purpose Sales and Sales Rumours and Anecdotes [2024 edition]
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
16K
iroboto
iroboto
D
  • Locked
All purpose Sales and Sales Rumours and Anecdotes [2023 Edition]
28 29 30
Replies
589
Views
50K
Johnny Awesome
J
S
Is there a future for consoles without a return to exotic hardware? *spawn
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
5K
Lurkmass
L
N
Value of consoles versus PC, post PS5Pro edition *spawn
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
7K
Daozang
D
N
Review scores versus game quality *spawn
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Deleted member 11852
D
Back
Top