Ramifications if this is true?
Possibly matching (or better) perf/wat as the current Nvidia RTX line (excluding the RT hardware).
Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [pre E3 2019]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 5 bytes non sequitur
- Status
Possibly matching (or better) perf/wat as the current Nvidia RTX line (excluding the RT hardware).
$450 or $500 dollars at launch with another $100 loss subsidy would net a heck of a lot more console than a $400 break-even box.
I think the question is a hypothetical $600 “value” Console, say, sold at $500, to last 6-7 years. Or a $400 “value” one, sold at $400, which is then replaced by a Pro in three or four years, which is what I and many others did.
It's best for Sony to capture/maintain as many PS4 users for the PS5 upfront, rather than later. Backwards compatibility helps, but having a better experience from the jump is far more compelling.
You then risk competing against a $400 box, sold at $300.
I wouldn't bet on that being succesful.
Cheers
$299 Lockhart?
If so, A $499 Anaconda is more of threat to $399 PS5, than a $299 Lockhart. Simply put, If Lockhart is providing less than X levels of performance and gaming, gamers aren't going to be pressed on upgrading from their current generation of systems. If anything, the battle towards maintaining and gaining users will be at the premium level.
Nowadays there's less cost reduction opportunities. The next nodes will have diminishing returns and high development cost. They need a cost reduction to eventually break even, and to reduce the msrp as the generation age. Today, a 600 BOM would never reach the 299 target for impulsive customers and lower income gamers. This must happen within a few years after launch.
Keeping a permanent $100 loss per console would add up to a total money sink bigger than the entire PS3 generation. While the ps3 started with a ridiculously high loss, it was breaking even (or close) after a few years.
Keeping a permanent $100 loss per console would add up to a total money sink bigger than the entire PS3 generation. While the ps3 started with a ridiculously high loss, it was breaking even (or close) after a few years.
That doesn't matter if the net gains are far, far higher. It's a case of maximising install base. If $100 loss on every console means 30 million extra consoles sold versus otherwise (people buying rival), that's 30 million more $hundreds of extra monies. We need to consider only revenue and positioning versus rival, and not historical models.
That said, the $700 and $1600 spend figures are gross, not net profits. Sony's real profit per user is maybe 30% of that? Whatever, there's Real Maths to be done regards average profit per console, install base, growth rate, and competition. If a $100 loss per unit means running away with the generation and getting a 150 million install base again, it's worth it. If that $100 loss ends up gaining nothing because of moves your rival makes, it's pointlessly lost money. Of course, nobody knows!
As gamers and console owners though, I think we'd all prefer the big ticket box over the cautious one. Where's the fun in that?
Then console gamers need to expand their economical thinking. Either they want visuals rivaling high-end PCs (ending the constant bitching of consoles being underpowered) with more costly premium hardware, or they except visual/performance declines from generation-to-generation with more off-the-shelf parts from yesteryears *cough* Switch *cough*. Because the $399 dollar magic sideshow isn’t going to last forever with ever expanding/expensive tech.
Yes it still boggles me to se such disconnect in people who are mostly geeks..
These people would not even blink an eye when buying a 800-1200$ phone which would be obsolete in 6 months, They would not even look twice when buying a 600 $ graphic card...
but they would ague a 450-500$ console vs 399$ console that would last for 5-6 years...
I think we pretty much know how this will play out in the future. Console platform providers want to maximize their number of users to make steady money from royalties and services.
High-end PC gaming is a small niche compared to console volumes. Attacking that niche will be incidental, although consoles will arguably benefit competitively be the overall technological stagnation. PCs won’t be able to run away from them like previously as the console cycle progresses.
borntosoul
Regular
That’s up there with the smartest post you’ve made.
borntosoul
Regular
A $300 box will not get you much past a ps4 pro, what is that gonna net you when the other console at $500 shows far and away a better experience? I wouldn’t upgrade unless the new console shows something special and l go wow, l want that. $200 is nothing in the life cycle of a console, AGAIN , this is a marketing job that needs to be addressed, some people in here don’t get it. You need to tell the consumer how it is and sell based on value, not on cost alone because gaming is an expensive hobby anyway, Nintendo lives mostly in the kiddy space which is a different market, ps4 and Xbox do not, serious console for serious gamers.
Last edited:
That depends on what current box you have now. If you're budget shopping for next-gen, you likely budget shopped for last-gen. Anyone still on a PS360 that upgrades to a possible $300 PS5/XNext will see massive improvements. Same thing for those still rocking out the XOne editions. The real improvement there comes in the CPU and what's afforded by that.
Bitching won't stop either way, consoles can't be upgraded, nor will they contain the latest high-end hardware on launch as specs are defined/locked way before launch.
borntosoul
Regular
Budget shoppers will mostly buy the ps4 slim and similar. A budget shopper mostly never buys current tech anyway, they stay away from the curve. As l said Nintendo have that space and do it very well, Sony and Xbox play away from it.
This is not about tech only, it’s about marketing and positioning a product to fit a demographic - which in PlayStation and Xbox are gamers and mostly serious ones at that.
Allocate said funds to the software?
I think this best sums it up....
I believe PS4 will keep Sony's gaming division healthy during these losses for the next 3-4yrs (or at least until shrinks arrives and/or BoM becomes significantly cheaper) after PS5 arrival. And I'm pretty sure Sony has been socking away a certain amount of PS4 hardware/software/service profits towards such PS5 losses.
- Status
Similar threads
