Price Increases of Consoles and Services *spawn*

[orangpelupa]

if they can get the SOC cool enough that they don't need the liquid metal anymore.

Hopefully that will be the case with the new PS5 revision rumored for this year.

Knowing my luck, I will get the PS5 with the leaky gaspers.

 

[Nesh]

That doesn’t change just because MS increased prices.

There is nothing to change if it wasnt there to begin with beyond an assumption.

 

[iroboto]

There is nothing to change if it wasnt there to begin with beyond an assumption.

I’m not sure if we are debating the same arguement. The price increase was always going to come that was not in doubt.

Increasing the price isn’t a sign of exploiting their monopoly, but given their differential in revenue and profitability Sony could have held out much longer than Xbox than to raise prices first.

The fact that Sony raised prices first and still gained record returns during a time which MS held their prices to compete and gain new customers by having an overall cheaper system to play 99% the same library of games shows that they actually likely control a monopoly in tbe console space. They was the argument.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The world isn't currently running out of anything in the current generation consoles, but the price of materials continues to go up due to continuing high demand. One of the most important for electronics is the price of copper.

Most of the important sub-components of the consoles use ... copper.

There are just a few grams of copper in PS5 since the 2021 redesign - a small plate between the APU core and main aluminium heat sink.
How much do you think copper costs?

Nothing in PS5 that I'm aware of has increased in relative to inflation. It's simply inflation across the board, which has impacted everything including food.

 

[Nesh]

I’m not sure if we are debating the same arguement. The price increase was always going to come that was not in doubt.

Increasing the price isn’t a sign of exploiting their monopoly, but given their differential in revenue and profitability Sony could have held out much longer than Xbox than to raise prices first.

The fact that Sony raised prices first and still gained record returns during a time which MS held their prices to compete and gain new customers by having an overall cheaper system to play 99% the same library of games shows that they actually likely control a monopoly in tbe console space. They was the argument.

I actually see it the reverse. Sony as a company has less liquidity and less profitability than MS. Considering the increase of costs and availability of material supply, it was Sony that was more likely to have to make that decision. Sony relies on Playstation for revenue generation more than MS does for XBOX.
That price increase also came before the console supply issues were resolved and Sony in their reports were reporting underperforming in relation to their initial revenue forecasts because of limited hardware availability having an effect on software sales. The increase of price was something that Sony needed more than MS does. The healthy demand could facilitate such decision.

 

[iroboto]

I actually see it the reverse. Sony as a company has less liquidity and less profitability than MS. Considering the increase of costs and availability of material supply, it was Sony that was more likely to have to make that decision.
That price increase also came before the console supply issues were resolved and Sony in their reports were reporting underperforming in relation to their initial revenue forecasts because of limited hardware availability having an effect on software sales.

That doesn’t explain the record profits. Price increases should reduce demand, they did not, a perfectly cheaper alternative was there, they did not switch.

 

[Nesh]

That doesn’t explain the record profits. Price increases should reduce demand, they did not, a perfectly cheaper alternative was there, they did not switch.

Define "record profits", the period you are refering to because thats also important, and how that refutes the fact that Sony has less liquidity or the fact that Playstation is a far more critical business for Sony.
Demand is strong while alternatives are available. Apparently it's a good product people want. How is that an argument for you though?

 

[iroboto]

Define "record profits", the period you are refering to because thats also important, and how that refutes the fact that Sony has less liquidity or the fact that Playstation is a far more critical business for Sony.
Demand is strong while alternatives are available. Apparently it's a good product people want. How is that an argument for you though?

How critical it is for your business is irrelevant. You judge profits from your previous years of sales at the same time periods.

Xbox wanted to point out that Sony is not as weak as they made themselves to be during the CMA feedback process.

The original argument is establish the strength of the brand and product on whether they would be able to survive COD going exclusive on Xbox. They pointed to the strength of the brand by pointing at basic economics that even at a higher price points in both games, and console, they continue to do YoY gains. The alternative is both cheaper in games and hardware and subscription services for COD and they still cannot grab or duplicate the success of PlayStation.

Thus the argument holds fairly well that Sony has a strong entrenched position in the market that is unlikely to be removed from the market as a result of MS acquisition of ABK.

 

[Nesh]

How critical it is for your business is irrelevant. You judge profits from your previous years of sales at the same time periods.

Xbox wanted to point out that Sony is not as weak as they made themselves to be during the CMA feedback process.

The original argument is establish the strength of the brand and product on whether they would be able to survive COD going exclusive on Xbox. They pointed to the strength of the brand by pointing at basic economics that even at a higher price points in both games, and console, they continue to do YoY gains. The alternative is both cheaper in games and hardware and subscription services for COD and they still cannot grab or duplicate the success of PlayStation.

Thus the argument holds fairly well that Sony has a strong entrenched position in the market that is unlikely to be removed from the market as a result of MS acquisition of ABK.

I am trying to figure how your post is relevant to what I wrote above. Sony was presented by some here that they are taking advantage of their monopoly hence why they increased their prices. You didnt provide any arguments related to what I posted. Even though MS themselves said that there was a need to increase prices and they were going to do it too. Which is what happened.
We aren't discussing what MS said and what Sony said to the CMA. They have personal incentives to convince and exaggerate for their own case. If MS did use the "price" argument to present Sony as an undisputable monopoly whose market cant be shaken thats an example of them cooking an argument just as Sony is cooking theirs.

 

[Jay]

Sony was presented by some here that they are taking advantage of their monopoly hence why they increased their prices

I've not gone into the ABK merger thread probably since jan or so. But I don't ever remember seeing this being presented in B3D anywhere?
I've seen that Sony was able to increase prices and know it would not have a negative affect on sales compared to xbox. Which turned out to be the case.
And also people mentioned they never raised it in USA where competition is stronger.

May just be wording but yours makes it sound like it was scummy. Lots of prices was going up at the time.

 

[iroboto]

I am trying to figure how your post is relevant to what I wrote above. Sony was presented by some here that they are taking advantage of their monopoly hence why they increased their prices. You didnt provide any arguments related to what I posted. Even though MS themselves said that there was a need to increase prices and they were going to do it too. Which is what happened.
We aren't discussing what MS said and what Sony said to the CMA. They have personal incentives to convince and exaggerate for their own case. If MS did use the "price" argument to present Sony as an undisputable monopoly whose market cant be shaken thats an example of them cooking an argument just as Sony is cooking theirs.

no one here said that Sony was exploiting their monopoly by charging their userbase more money for fun. It was that they could charge their userbase without impunity and still profit even further that reinforces their strength in the market.

I think you may have gotten that reversed. The claims were made by Sony to the CMA and MS had to respond to those in kind during the investigation process.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

no one here said that Sony was exploiting their monopoly by charging their userbase more money for fun. It was that they could charge their userbase without impunity and still profit even further that reinforces their strength in the market.

Passing on costs to consumers is the whole world for the last two years. Sony didn't want to eat those costs and passed them on and had no idea what that would mean for sales because they don't have a crystal ball.

Consumers decided that despite the price increase, the value proposition of PS5 was worth it. Why is Sony's situation any different to oil, gas, electricity, food etc? Well for a start they are necessities and you need them, nobody needs a PS5. People will pay for what represents value to them.

The way you write this is like Sony are getting away with some scam, I'm truly baffled.