Texas Pride
Banned
Anyone buying this is crazy. No way will it be 500+. Digital version of the PS5 will be no more than 450.
Stop kidding yourself. Tell me, what new utility phones actually gained in the last 3-10 years that actually justify buying a new one for a high price. Al slightly better camera? Everything else that a smartphone can do is easily covered even by cheap androids today that cost less than 200 bucks( organisation of appointments,email, whats app, mobile internet etc.)
Stop kidding yourself. Tell me, what new utility phones actually gained in the last 3-10 years that actually justify buying a new one for a high price. Al slightly better camera? Everything else that a smartphone can do is easily covered even by cheap androids today that cost less than 200 bucks( organisation of appointments,email, whats app, mobile internet)
If there is anything glitchy on a phone with a kirin 659 and 4 gb of ram(under 200 dollar), its the fault of really bad programmers, not the phone. And for sure no phone today has issues with whats app, mail and mobile surfing,even it its a really cheap china brand. And those are the apps the majority of people use their phones for, most of the time.If you enjoy doing all of it slower and with shitty glitchy performance, sure.
Right, fair enough, I shouldn't have said a small part of one's income. I'd have been better saying most people still have significant disposable income.
But that doesn't really change the point.
Fuck, you've already repeatedly acknowledged that lots of people spend loads on a phone, but somehow because that confers status that's somehow a more essential use of money than entertainment from a console. It's not, that's a pure value judgement.
THE POINT IS, IT'S ALL DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
There's no fundamental reason why some people spend like $500 A YEAR on a phone but wouldn't spend $1000 every 7 years on a console. None. The status you get from an expensive phone isn't OBJECTIVELY more valuable than the fun you get from a console. It's entirely subjective. That's the essential point I'm trying to hammer through your skull.
I'm not even trying to say consoles would sell at a higher price. I doubt they would and there are complicated reasons for that's but AGAIN, the fact that they're 'just' entertainment isn't one of them. Because as I've tried to make clear numerous times, people spend a shitload on all kinds of entertainment, well in advance of the $100 a year or so a console costs.
Stop kidding yourself. Tell me, what new utility phones actually gained in the last 3-10 years that actually justify buying a new one for a high price. Al slightly better camera? Everything else that a smartphone can do is easily covered even by cheap androids today that cost less than 200 bucks( organisation of appointments,email, whats app, mobile internet etc.)
I recall conversations of how insane the iPhone X launch price of $999.99 was going to be. Most enthusiasts were going to pay regardless. Subsequently, I guess today's Galaxy Fold starting at $1,980 would be close to the same conversations. Now over $1,000 usd is the standard for most phones and haven't slowed the sales of most major flagship brands.A PS5 costs roughly $450 to manufacture. I'm not sure if this is with the controller. If it isn't then the $500+ makes sense.
Also I find it really funny how people are willing to spend $700+ on a phone every 2-3 years but nothing more for than $500 for a console that they'll change in 5-7 years.
PS4 Pro can't play all the games in the future the the PS5 can. I'm confused with this post.Digital edition will be 499usd then.
No way they have everything out of mainstream budget.
I guess Sony could drop PS4 pro to 299 usd and keep going, since they don't have Lockhart.
Stop trying to pick a single element of the value proposition of a phone rather than looking at the total value proposition. It has a vastly greater utility, it provides what is now considered essential day to day functionality and as an expense it can be justified for entertainment, social, and (for many) work. Plus it has the benefit (rightly or wrongly) of serving as a fashion and status statement which is accessible in public and social situations.
A game console is an entertainment device, it's a toy. It can provide hours of entertainment for those that enjoy games but in terms of utility it can offer only a fraction of what the phone can. In terms of spending justification it has nothing "essential" about it. It's pure non-essential spending.
The fundamental reason why people would spend $500 a year on a phone and not $1000 with a recurring cost (games, accessories, online) of say $150 a year (assuming only 2 game purchases a year which would imply significantly less usage) is because the phone offers more. Yes, it offers objectively more.
The reason they're not comparable is because the phone is an essential and the games console is a toy. One offers a hell of a lot more to a far wider audience than the other.
And a console costs it's price of entry : Console + game + accessories (maybe). People don't see it's cost retrospectively after X years, they see it as the amount of money they have to put down on day 1. The cost of the console is that entry point + the ongoing cost of games, accessories, subscriptions and services - not $100 a year.
Jesus man, this is exhausting.
Forget about the phone. The phone is just an example.
It could just as easily be eating out or going to music festivals or buying expensive clothes.
Most people spend more on those kinds of things than anyone spends on gaming. They're all just entertainment/leisure/fun. None of them offer any kind of practical benefit.
The value is all subjective, just as it is with a games console.
Some of these things are cheaper than a phone, all of them are cheaper than a car, and all of them are dearer than food. There's basically no correlation between usefulness and price.
You cant determine the value of a console simply by examining how praactically useful it is. I honestly don't understand why you find this so hard to grasp.
But hey, I can't wait for you to explain how eating out a few times a year offers objectively more value than a console. Should be a laugh, at least.
You know what I think Sony and Microsoft are waiting for in order to reveal the prices of the PS5 and XSX and make them available for pre-order? I think that they're waiting for Congress to pass a second stimulus bill and therefore issue a second round of stimulus checks, because gamers will then impulsively use that money to buy at least one of the next-gen consoles.
Making the consoles available for pre-order when U.S. citizens, one of their largest consumer bases, all have at least $1200 of cash (or around half if they're a dependent) will maximize the number of pre-orders that would be made.
BOM without the controller is $450. With controller it's somewhere around $480. Add all the additional gross cost (engineering, assembly, shipping, marketing...) and they'd have to sell it at $599 to break even.
You were the one trying to argue that a console is comparable to a phone in terms of value and justifiable price. then you flip-flopped to a services comparison and now you're trying to evade your original argument entirely and usnig cumulative social activities.
Your argument now essentially boils down to people should be willing to forgoe a social life and all cumulative non-essential activities in favor of buying what amounts to one toy. You're trying to compare cumulative spending of signifiantly smaller sums over time with a single major expenditure. That's more absurd than Sony's "get a second job" delusion with the PS3 and they got a well deserved reality check from that.
Peope spending money on social activities don't start out with a grand and then whittle it down. They spend it as they earn and the expenditure is in small amounts. It's easier and more justifiable because the up front expenditure for each is small and occurs over a period of time as the money comes in whereas the console costs a huge sum up front posing a barrier to entry and an immediate and obvious implication for other activities. It's really simple and the fact that you're deliberately trying disguise the cost issue of an expensive console as a restrospective cost spread across an assumed 7-10 years of use shows that you're aware of if but trying desperately to dance around it.
Reposting this for relevance; explains pretty rationally where and why DF are hearing these MSRP prices for next-gen:
I don't think anyone else ITT is factoring that part into the equation.
I've been looking to see what the costs were, if I wanted to upgrade to a gen 4 Nvme m.2 that was capable of running on a PS5 (Sony still hasn't given the list of approved vendors/models) so I'm trying to get close.SSD can't be that damn expensive
Yeah upgrading is going to be very expensive for a number of years.I've been looking to see what the costs were, if I wanted to upgrade to a gen 4 Nvme m.2 that was capable of running on a PS5 (Sony still hasn't given the list of approved vendors/models) so I'm trying to get close.
A 1TB 4th gen 5,000 MB/s read m.2 drive is running $199.99 on Amazon right now. But since that's worth a < 200gb upgrade, the 2TB model costs $429.99. I imagine Sony isn't paying $200 consumer cost, but I can't imagine it's that much cheaper. I don't think I'm ready to drop almost $500 just on the ssd upgrade just yet.
Source:
https://www.amazon.com/Sabrent-Internal-Extreme-Performance-SB-ROCKET-NVMe4-1TB/dp/B07TN1MNJ4/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2K5SI12J8OK2L&dchild=1&keywords=1tb+nvme+gen+4&qid=1597352213&sprefix=1tb+nvme+,aps,215&sr=8-3&th=1
I think context in today’s spending habits needs to be looked into.
Phones are super expensive and nobody bats an eye.
Also $600 in 2006 is different from $600 in 2020.
I think that's going to be my plan and hopefully Sony keeps that sweet PS+ 100GB cloud storageYeah upgrading is going to be very expensive for a number of years.
I imagine most people are going to stick with the internal stick, and resort to storing the less used games on an external hdd.
There’s this thing, it’s called a credit card. You make monthly payments over time.I love how this is always mentioned but ignores the fact that very few phones are actually purchased outright but are financed over a 2 year contract/lease.
Until I see that option with consoles, paying for phones and consoles is not an apples to apples comparison.
Ive heard for years that MS was implementing something like that with Xbox Live, but it still hasn’t happened.
Fucking hell, man, it's the same principle!!
Any discretionary spending is relevant to this discussion, be it a phone, partying, flash clothes, whatever.
I'm not trying to backtrack on anything, I'm trying various different ways to make you understand a simple point. And failing, clearly.
You're actually getting close to a reasonable point without realising it, btw.
One reason people might not be willing to spend more on a console is that it's a lump sum. That's definitely plausible. If they could offer the same thing at $15 a month or so that might be much more attractive.
That's a possibility. "It's a toy, not useful".... not so much.