-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony Is Struggling With PlayStation 5 Price Due to Costly Parts
- Thread starter CyberPanda
- Start date
pawel86ck
Banned
We will see, however right now I wonder why certain people believe PS5 will be faster (more than 12TF, better RT, better SDD), and not to mention will be cheaper compared to xbox. It sounds too good to be true.
Last edited:
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Because they think that it will come with another Kinect, I suppose.
Which is funny, because there was a rumor that PS5 was meant to come with a camera. Xbox One X showed how Microsoft works. They launched a 50 % faster console at a $100 higher price point. The same thing would happen if Sony targeted a 399 PS5 for late 2019 and Microsoft targeted a 499 XSX for late 2020. 8 TF vs 12 TF = 50 % difference. The really interesting part is that Sony then raised clock speeds to reach 9.2 TF while still aiming for that 399 price point, but in 2020. And now those plans are falling apart because of DRAM and NAND prices going up. Sony might end up with a 9.2 TF console against a 12 TF console at the same price point or having to take a deep loss on each unit sold. A $100 loss per console for Sony means 2 billion in losses for the first year of PS5. While Microsoft intends to sell way less XSX (the majority of sales will be XSS) and so can much more easily accept a $100 loss.I expect sales numbers to be
20 million PS5
4 million XSX
12 million XSS
for the first year.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
Inflation has absolutely no impact on technology. The amount of technology you get for a given price (let's say 399) only ever goes up. And by much more than the value loss at the same time. You have to look at it from the other side: PS4 price would be $38 more based on inflation - but the console is actually $200 less because of technological advancements. So they could afford to not only take the hit from inflation but also from a lower base price and still make more money. And that's why inflation doesn't matter for technology. The value degradation is far more severe than the monetary degradation, we are talking about 20 % losses of value just based on technology and a mere 1.5 % based on inflation.
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
You're correct of course, but the average consumer is either unaware of or indifferent to the "amount of technology" they're getting for the price, and the key thing is that it's not intrinsically linked to the amount of fun they're having. Advances in technology in games consoles are pretty meaningless if they don't have the fun games to take advantage of the tech. Most people just want the new box to play the new games, I'd wager most of the people that will end up buying a PS5 couldn't tell you what RTX is, or why SSDs are important. But they sure do like to see $450 price tags over $500 ones, even though you're right, they're getting insane value for $500.
Because its something called historical structure, there are a variable range of prices for phones from 100 to 1000, not to mention that most of the iphones are actually bought wiht a 24 month plan contract to cheap it to 300-400 dollars or even free.
VideoJames have been ranging from 200 to 400, with games from 40 to 60 dollars since its inception, they are an affordable acquisition since its inception.
Its like asking why we don't pay already 30k for a base Toyota Corolla to use for 3+ years but its fine to pay 180k for a house that you may not even live 10 years there.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
An iPhone gets used seven+ hours a day and keeps 80 % of its value easily. So you are actually at most paying $200 a year to always have the latest model. Which would over 7 years be $1.400. But, again, for a device you use up to half the day, every day. 17.885 hours of use for $1.400 in seven years. That's $0.08 per hour. To get the same value out of a $400 console you would need to use it for 5.110 hours or 730 hours a year or 2 hours a day. The average console owner buys 11 games in seven years. That's 464 hours you would need to spend in every single one. Let's take a more realistic scenario, where those 11 games give you on average 30 hours of entertainment. That's 330 hours in seven years. Or $1.21 per hour.
$1.21 per hour of use for a PS4 launch console purchase
vs.
$0.08 per hour of use for an iPhone launch purchase
And you wonder why $700 for a console would be unacceptable? Let's make it even more interesting. Say I don't ever sell my iPhone and just buy a new one each year. That's $7.000 in seven years. Still only $0.39 per hour. Vs. 4 times as much for the console.
TLDR: Apples and oranges.
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
D
darkinstinct
You are over exaggerating. You cant look at purchases as some mathematical equation. Some people spend money on brand name alone, most should spend on quality. I dont buy products thinking how i can get my money back or how much ill lose when buying new.
I spend money on quality and personal worth. I bought Audio Techica M50x 5 years ago and i see no reason to buy a new model. I spent $350. Do I use them even 1/10th of my day every day? No. But i paid for high quality. Just because i use my phone more often i buy cheaper brands because they all do the same shit and you use them the same way...ig,fb,watsup,browsing and maybe a phone call. No way you need a $1000 for that.
Therefore a $700 to me is more worth for a console because i know im buying it for the long run and its gonna be played. Id love for you to explain to an audiophile how because you use a phone more often, his one speaker of $20.000 os not worth the money as a new phone is. Or to a photographer that just gave $2K on a lense that if taken care of can last 10-15 years or even more. Do people buy cars every year? Motorcycles? Washing machine? No because they buy something that they are investing in the long run and consoles fall under that umbrella because they dont come out often with a new product. Phones fall under the same category as shoes, easy expandables.
My PS4 Pro i can sell half price after 3.5 years of use. Your $1000 phone after that same amount is like $300 because 4 more upgraded models got made.
You are over exaggerating. You cant look at purchases as some mathematical equation. Some people spend money on brand name alone, most should spend on quality. I dont buy products thinking how i can get my money back or how much ill lose when buying new.
I spend money on quality and personal worth. I bought Audio Techica M50x 5 years ago and i see no reason to buy a new model. I spent $350. Do I use them even 1/10th of my day every day? No. But i paid for high quality. Just because i use my phone more often i buy cheaper brands because they all do the same shit and you use them the same way...ig,fb,watsup,browsing and maybe a phone call. No way you need a $1000 for that.
Therefore a $700 to me is more worth for a console because i know im buying it for the long run and its gonna be played. Id love for you to explain to an audiophile how because you use a phone more often, his one speaker of $20.000 os not worth the money as a new phone is. Or to a photographer that just gave $2K on a lense that if taken care of can last 10-15 years or even more. Do people buy cars every year? Motorcycles? Washing machine? No because they buy something that they are investing in the long run and consoles fall under that umbrella because they dont come out often with a new product. Phones fall under the same category as shoes, easy expandables.
My PS4 Pro i can sell half price after 3.5 years of use. Your $1000 phone after that same amount is like $300 because 4 more upgraded models got made.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
GL getting $300 for a phone that's 3.5 years old.