D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I think the early Sky boxes, before digital satellite were relatively expensive and the big expense that never really diminished was the installation. Having to send out a dude, with few installations being completed in under an hour due to safe mounting of the dish and fairly-decent wiring to your TV, plus box setup, enabling the card etc and travel to/from etc.I mean, I'm not arguing that it can't be done. Of course it can be done. For example: Sky in the UK decided years ago to subsidise the box and include it in their subscription, however the Sky box must cost like a bag of chips, and the Sky subscription is shockingly high. Also, Sky does not have 100 million subscribers in the UK. So it does make sense.
I simply don't know that Sony or MS would see the value in subsidising something that could sell more than 100 million units, making them a loss of, say 5 billion dollars, and lose all the profit they have made on games and subscriptions for that? After all the R&D, time and effort to build those games and amazing subscription services? I really don't see the point of doing that.
I definitely don't see Sony doing much on this, the conventional approach of selling the box as cheaply as possible, selling loads of them and recouping all costs and more with accessories, games and services has worked out very well for them as we know this because PlayStations' finances are transparent. The only time Sony had to price high was PS3 and with the speculation of PS5 possibly being higher-priced (which I take to be above $399) it wouldn't surprise me if Sony did try to subsidise the cost for 12-18 months until they could get costs under control; they've been good at cost-reducing hardware in the past and there are many options for doing this.
I still do not fully understand the economics of GamePass, but it feels like Microsoft are in part subsidising gamers by letting them play loads of games for a low-low price. Who, if not Microsoft, are subsidising publishers for lost sales?
GamePass feels like a long-term thing and to be frank, I think Microsoft do need to be bold given their console base is now third behind Sony and Nintendo. I don't think Microsoft want to to do this, but making games super cheap is something they can do to make their platform more appealing. I'm dubious if it would be viable if, nextgen, Xbox had the greater market share. I think it would diminish in quality/quantity like PS+.
Last edited by a moderator: