News & Rumours: Playstation 4/ Orbis *spin*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will never understand why are digital prices same as retail ones. Who is getting retailer cut in that case, console holder? Also, EU prices need to be more in line with US prices [sub 60€]

Lame.

I'll never understand people who pay those full DD prices, knowing they can't recover some of the cost by selling when finished with the games.

Some people are claiming they will buy the DD versions at the same prices, so that they don't have to insert the discs. This is for X1.
 
I'll never understand people who pay those full DD prices, knowing they can't recover some of the cost by selling when finished with the games.

Some people are claiming they will buy the DD versions at the same prices, so that they don't have to insert the discs. This is for X1.

When I was all physical (most of the PS360 era) I didn't resell my discs. I also got certain games day 1 and paid full retail price. Anything I didn't get on release day I waited for a price drop before buying (or just happened to catch something on sale). The situation is quite similar now going digital only. Digital works quite well for my use case, along with the possibility for pre-loads which get me the content even faster. I will still be buying physical CE editions that really catch my eye, however (like the Titan Fall CE).
 
When I was all physical (most of the PS360 era) I didn't resell my discs. I also got certain games day 1 and paid full retail price. Anything I didn't get on release day I waited for a price drop before buying (or just happened to catch something on sale). The situation is quite similar now going digital only. Digital works quite well for my use case, along with the possibility for pre-loads which get me the content even faster. I will still be buying physical CE editions that really catch my eye, however (like the Titan Fall CE).

Except for the physical CE editions part, this is my situation also.
And I totally get people want to resell their games, but I have never done that. Either I still have them or I have given them away to some friend or relative etc.
 
Pretty much my situation: I never re-sold my games though 95% of the times I buy day one.
I also buy SE when I can.

If DD prices were lower and PS Store had Digital Special Editions I would not buy discs at all.
I pray it will happen before the end of this gen but I am not optimistic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll re-sell games just to piss off the developers and publishers. ;)

No you have to exercise the first-sale doctrine rights before they try to take them away.

Plus I don't see the point in leaving finished games on my shelf collecting dust.
 
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/so...lity-to-mimic-ps2-more-than-ps3/1100-6416438/

The PS3 was famously expensive to produce and Sony struggled to make a profit on the system for some time. The same will not be true for the PlayStation 4, Sony UK MD Fergal Gara told Bloomberg TV in a new video interview.

The PlayStation 4's economics, that is, the business conditions surrounding the production of the system that ultimately dictate profitability, are closer to the PlayStation 2 than the PlayStation 3, he explained.

"The economics of PS4 are far closer to the economics of PS2 than they are to PS3. So if you consider with PS3, it was a highly bespoke architecture; it was expensive to make. And we weren't making money on many of those devices, even at a high price point," Gara said. "With PS4 we come at it at a very lean price point and our economics will be far, far [more] favorable to the PS3. So that is a job to be commended really for the internal team and of course it's done with the gamer in mind."
 
Sony worldwide seems change for the better. But local sony in my country still absolutely the bloody same arrogant seller and support.

Although their PR department have got significant changes to the better. Although they will still give answers that does not give answer. But now in easy going manner.
 
"So that is a job to be commended really for the internal team and of course it's done with the gamer in mind."
Nice, completely lie at the end to try and turn it into a positive. It's better economy for Sony as a business. Gamers are better served (at lest in the shorter term) by stupidly powerful hardware sold at an extravagant loss. Buying hardware that makes the company profit doesn't do the consumer any favours. Could just as easily say...

"Our digital delivery model has some great profit margins for us. This model means we can whack prices up and get obscene profit margins. Uh, of course it's all done with the gamer in mind."

:p
 
It's not entirely unfair of them though - easier ports from PC, a price entry point of 399 rather than 599, getting better versions of multi-platform titles, more opportunities for getting cheaper components in the future, in the end all these things are done to please us, because if we don't buy the hardware, the profit margin becomes irrelevant.

Only if the components become much, much cheaper in one year's time and they don't lower the price, then we could say that they are favoring us more than them. ;)

They can't survive another PS3, and I don't think the gamer is served that well by not having Sony around at all either. I know I wouldn't like that! They are and have been my favorite of the three so far, even if I really appreciate what the others bring to the table and wouldn't want to get rid of them either.
 
Regardless of the benefits to gamers, when they sat down to design PS4 and one of the targets was 'not loss making', their only interest was their profitability. Pick a price-point for mass adoption and choose hardware that won't bankrupt Sony in the process. Which I don't have any problem with! It's just annoying that the spokesperson felt compelled to a pointless PR spin on the end. In a business journal they wouldn't have bothered.
 
He may have been right to do so though, as it's obviously not just business people who end up reading this.
 
Sony management really changed, I'm impressed by the extend.
Speaking of the PS2 implies that they are expecting significantly higher market shares, though he doesn't state it in any explicit manner, the arrogance that used to plague Sony PR now seems long gone, that is pretty nice.

Ironically Ken Kutaragi's departure might have helped. He was a truly visionary and insane person. The videogame industry might not have been the same today if it wasnt for him and his baby. At the same time his way of doing things became irrelevant and he probably got carried away by his vision as he the success of the PS brand grew exceptionally. The PS3 could have been a monster and the chance to fulfill his vision if he did things right. I think he gave too much attention to technological achievements and forgot completely the functionality and all the needs of those who would provide content for the product. He looked very far in terms of technology, but probably way too far ahead for his own good. Functionality and friendliness wasnt his motto. Its probably his approach that make Phil Harrison abandon Sony who saw an untapped market and a missed opportunity in the casual and family experience that Sony completely ignored with the PS3's launch.

A price that was hard to afford? Check
Extremely hard to develop for? Check
A product that forgot the casual who made the PS1 and PS2 such a success? Check
A console envisioned to attract the tech savvy? Check
Too expensive to produce? Check


The PS3 did the opposite of all the things that made PS1 a hit and did almost everything that made the Saturn fail

It must have hit Phil very hard when he saw Wii's outstanding success knowing that Sony was so almost already there with the Eye Toy, Singstar and so many other related projects in R&D. They were testing motion control inputs since the PS2's early days.

Based on some interviews we read, SCE was a one man show. He was the one who made the decisions and there was not enough teamwork. I was also amazed by some of the comments I read about him. He was visionary but also couldnt see what worked in the market. When he didnt like something he didnt have the best way to communicate it either. I read somewhere that he trashed Crash Bandicoot at Cerny's face before its release and at the end it was probably the best selling franchise on the console.

Phil Harrison and Mark Cerny I am sure would have been an unbeatable duo if they could unite their minds.

Mark Cerny and Shuhei Yoshida thankfully put the Playstation back on track, from where the PS1 has left off.
 
He's referring to the price point. People cheered when Sony announced that price, so gamers should be happy at the economics too.

"With PS4 we come at it at a very lean price point and our economics will be far, far [more] favorable to the PS3. So that is a job to be commended really for the internal team and of course it's done with the gamer in mind."
 
I don't see a cheaper box with cheaper components being anything to cheer about. The reason PS4 wasn't $600 was because it has less in it relative to PS4. The PS3 put $800 of hardware in a $600 box. PS4 puts $400 of hardware in a $400 box. How is PS4 far more favourable for gamers? The same favourability would put $500+ of hardware in a $400 box, or sell the current PS4 at $300.

Of course, that'd be stupid business sense and something Sony shouldn't do, but claiming it's for the good of the gamer is PR fluff. PS4's hardware is relatively less than PS3's was, so it's not surprising it's cheaper.
 
I don't see a cheaper box with cheaper components being anything to cheer about. The reason PS4 wasn't $600 was because it has less in it relative to PS4. The PS3 put $800 of hardware in a $600 box. PS4 puts $400 of hardware in a $400 box. How is PS4 far more favourable for gamers?

Simple economics. More people have $400 to spare for a hobby than $600, no matter if that $600 gives you $800 worth of hardware, you can't take $200 worth of hardware out of it and sell that on so you can afford it with your $400 budget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top