Slim Revision Speculation

[BRiT]

You can't though. You can't convince people wanting a $200 console to buy a new $400+ console. You release the expensive product for the big spenders, and the low cost item to suck up the small spenders with different priorities. Not having a low-end option just means losing that segment. And if your rival has that option, they'll be the ones mopping up and attracting consumers to their ecosystem.

The bargain shoppers can pick up all the used PS4 systems used as trade-ins on the shiny new PS5s. Yes, it doesn't make money directly for Sony, but they will make money on the software.

More critically, isn't there a limited amount of resources to go around for building consoles so balancing of those limited resources has to be considered, no? How much production can be sustained of PS4s when (if) PS5s are selling 20 million a year?

 

[zed]

And now consider what your profit would be if you can drive all those people to the PS5 instead.

prolly less, I'm betting sony made more cash in 2017 vs 2016 even though they sold less hardware. i.e. software is where the real profits are (esp at the start of console cycle where they often are sold at a loss)

FY 2017
246.9 million software
19 million PS4

FY 2016
217.9 million software
20 million PS4

for most ppl if they are spending $400 on new hardware ps5 thats less $ they can spend on software

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It's been mentioned here slightly but it bears emphasizing.

Both PS1 and PS2 occurred at a time when node transitions were larger (difference between nodes), cheaper and more importantly very frequent. These were all things that led to Intel thinking they could scale up the Netburst architechture (Pentium 4) to 10+ GHz. Coincidentally they also allowed for the rapid reduction in price for the consoles.

The PS3 came when node transitions were far less frequent and not nearly as cheap. Hence it never got to the 99 USD price point despite being on the market without a replacement far longer than either the PS1 or PS2. Also why Intel's Netburst architechture never came close to 10 GHz. Also why it took so long before you could run Crysis maxed out at 60 FPS.

The current generation is faced with slow node transitions as well as each transition taking far longer to reach cost parity (cost/transitor) to the previous generation. This is what's been mentioned before in this thread.

Cost reductions can't rely on node transitions as they used to. And when they do get them, they aren't going to be as large of a cost reduction as in previous generations.

This is also exacerbated by price of memory being high as well as physical HDDs being at a relative plateau currently. IE - hard to find cost reductions there as well.

This is also going to have an impact on future consoles and how performant they are for a given price range.

Regards,
SB

 

[Magnum_Force]

I selfishly want Sony to release another PS4 slim revision so I can make my PS4 portable a reality. Hopefully they'll oblige.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The bargain shoppers can pick up all the used PS4 systems used as trade-ins on the shiny new PS5s.

70 million PS4 owners aren't going to trade up to PS5 instantly. There'll be a couple of years minimum during which those who value consoles only at the <$200 price will be wanting them, for presents etc.

Found this...

Exactly the same arguments for not continuing PS4 into PS5's territory existed for PS1 and PS2. Sony felt they were worth keeping on for 5+ years after the new console released. Nintendo did the same with the NES. The trend has always been to keep top-selling hardware on the market for a long time, and only dead-end hardware is axed as soon as the new hardware is release. You're still growing your audience selling new hardware, even when the old hardware is given away or sold on. 80M PS4's when PS5 releases will remain 80M if PS4 production stops, but that can become 100+M if sales are continued without impacting sales of PS5 at all; instead, it'll be prepping even more people to upgrade to future PlayStations.

 

[Picao84]

70 million PS4 owners aren't going to trade up to PS5 instantly. There'll be a couple of years minimum during which those who value consoles only at the <$200 price will be wanting them, for presents etc.

Found this...

Exactly the same arguments for not continuing PS4 into PS5's territory existed for PS1 and PS2. Sony felt they were worth keeping on for 5+ years after the new console released. Nintendo did the same with the NES. The trend has always been to keep top-selling hardware on the market for a long time, and only dead-end hardware is axed as soon as the new hardware is release. You're still growing your audience selling new hardware, even when the old hardware is given away or sold on. 80M PS4's when PS5 releases will remain 80M if PS4 production stops, but that can become 100+M if sales are continued without impacting sales of PS5 at all; instead, it'll be prepping even more people to upgrade to future PlayStations.

PS2 was still being shipped by Sony until 2013????

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PS3 launched at the end of 2006. In the following years, PS2 sold some 40 million units, taking total lifetime sales from 110M to 150M. Software sales did plummet though (no doubt a significant 2nd hand market being tapped by new users), so if you can't make money on the hardware, it's not worth shrinking the console.

In PS4's case, it's priced far higher than PS2 still. I think the longevity in terms of active use and new software sales to new users would be higher than PS2. I think there's a middle band of gamers who'd buy FIFA et al but can't/won't spend more than $200 for the opportunity. Below them are the bargain budget consumers who'd get a console cheap and buy 2nd hand software. PS4 doesn't become less desirable to owners still on PS360 generation when PS5 comes out - it still offers the same generational advance they are wanting.