Support NeoGAF

[kingwingin]

ultrazilla please have mercy on us if you enter this thread

 

[replicant-]

PS3 almost tanked PlayStation at that 600 dollar pricetag.

That was 2006, approx $790 now.

 

[Hunnybun]

I'm only having to repeat the same thing because you are continually using the disingenuous comparison of a cheap phone to an expensive phone rather than a console to a phone. You're demonstrating that they're not comparable by avoiding the comparison of the price and utility of a console to that of a phone because a console's price and utility is simply incomparable to that of a phone.

Comparing premium priced products to cheaper equivalents of the same product is disingenous when you're trying to justify the price of a totally different product. All products have overpriced luxury equivalents, that doesn't mean that the price of an unrelated product can be justified based upon the existence of an overpriced version of a totally different product. You're making an absurd reach and failing to correlate it to your claim that a console can justify such a high price.

Yes other products can pull higher prices owing to the status and fashion value they offer, that's part of their value proposition and it's something a home console cannot add. Therefore a home console loses that value proposition when trying to justify such a high price when asking a consumer to choose how they're going to spend that big chunk of cash. A phone has the benefit of greater utility, practical application, fashion and status and the base purchase can be justified on grounds of it being essential or needed for work. A home console doesn't have that - at any price range it's a non-essential luxury purchase that in terms of utility is just a toy. It's a fun toy and it can provide a lot of entertainment, but that's all it is and it's value and potential price point is therefore limited by that.

What I was saying is that you can't say a console's value is limited simply because it's not a practical device (or the pejorative 'toy'), because that's not borne out by looking at the prices of other non-essential items.

To that end, the $1k phone IS a relevant example, because the large part of that price IS NOT related to its basic functionality, because a phone with essentially the same practical utility can be bought for a small fraction of that price.

You're just placing arbitrary limits on what can add value.

What about a phone? "Oh that's a useful item, that's different"

Ok, what about an expensive phone? "Oh, that's just its fashion appeal, a console doesn't have that, that's different"

Go back to my previous example: a Netflix sub for 7 years is much more expensive than $500. It's not practical, and there's no fashion appeal. You'd accept that it must offer something - something that's purely trivial - that makes it worth >$500?

Well it must follow that value not defined as either functional or having fashion appeal MUST exist, and therefore that it's possible that a console also offers some of this value, and therefore that they're worth more than the normal asking price.

I'm not saying that the consoles would sell at $1k. That's not the point. The point is that the limit on their value isn't that they're 'toys' or that they're not desirable items you can show off like a phone. Prices aren't set by objective qualities like that, it's much more subjective. There's no obvious reason why a phone is more than Netflix and Netflix is more than a PS5. You won't find the explanation just by examining what the different products offer.

 

[JonnyMP3]

In a year where jobs are on hold or totally gone because people have had to stay at home thus making companies and businesses go bust as economies all over struggle...

Yeah, No... Another other normal yeah 600-700 could have been acceptable. Anymore than 500 and it'll probably be a slow burner, unfortunately. Maybe 550 for the physical...

 

[saintjules]

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.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of comments on that. Like I never pay for a phone up front. My S20 Ultra is a $1400 phone, but I get to pay that in increments. Consoles, it's all up front 100%. Though Xbox has that All Access option, so I guess that's the exception.

Either way I'm ready for the worst case scenario on pricing. I don't know why Sony / MS are holding off this long. If the prices are really above $500, why not mention early? Gets people better prepared imo. I still think Sony's best time to announce the price was at the unveiling of the hardware, but that's just me.

 

[saintjules]

Obligatory

Really bad Breaks production lol. Sounds like that pirated software music

 

[Starcheif]

Sony/MS launch games are already weak and if you throw in a 500 + price tag these systems will be DOA for me. I will just wait for the price drop and enjoy my backlog of games until then.

 

[Raven117]

Whatever. I’ll pay what they ask day one

 

[ShirAhava]

Neither of these consoles are worth more than $400-$500 USD

weak games across the board there is no "next gen" this time

 

[Klik]

499$ is a great price for something that will last you for 7 years and give you hundreds/thousands of playhours and fun.
Not to mention amazingly good specs

Adjusted for inflation, PS2 was about 450$

 

[Sejan]

At $400, I’ll most likely buy it at launch. At $500 I’ll probably wait a while and buy it on the following Black Friday or when something I really want drops. $600 probably means I won’t be interested in buying it at all for some time.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Not worried till I see something more legit.

 

[Punished Miku]

 

[StreetsofBeige]

$600-700? No way.

PS5 disc $500
PS5 digital $400-450

 

[Gamernyc78]

DF you know nothing so stfu just like you were riding tht ps5 is 9 TF narrative..

 

[BusierDonkey]

Given how dead silent both Microsoft and Sony are regarding price and how long they’ve drawn out revealing the price despite it being a hot topic, I’m expecting the price will be a shocker.

On the bright side, $700 consoles mean I save $1400 on consoles this year, plus likely over $1400 on the mid-gen pro versions in a couple years, or $2800 total. That will buy me a lot of new top-end PC parts like a 3080ti, new gen 4/5 mobo, CPU, gen 4 SSD, and whatever Nintendo replaces the Switch with.

 

[gradient]

What I was saying is that you can't say a console's value is limited simply because it's not a practical device (or the pejorative 'toy'), because that's not borne out by looking at the prices of other non-essential items.

To that end, the $1k phone IS a relevant example, because the large part of that price IS NOT related to its basic functionality, because a phone with essentially the same practical utility can be bought for a small fraction of that price.

You're just placing arbitrary limits on what can add value.

What about a phone? "Oh that's a useful item, that's different"

Ok, what about an expensive phone? "Oh, that's just its fashion appeal, a console doesn't have that, that's different"

Go back to my previous example: a Netflix sub for 7 years is much more expensive than $500. It's not practical, and there's no fashion appeal. You'd accept that it must offer something - something that's purely trivial - that makes it worth >$500?

Well it must follow that value not defined as either functional or having fashion appeal MUST exist, and therefore that it's possible that a console also offers some of this value, and therefore that they're worth more than the normal asking price.

Yes you can say that a console's value is limited by it's utility and how essential that utility is. It's non-essential and it's purpose is limited to that of entertainment. It doesn't offer the range of utility that the other products you're trying to compare it against do nor does it regarded as a necessity as they are.

You may dislike the term but games consoles are simply toys. Non essential entertainment products whos purpose is to be played with for entertainment. That is it's function and that is the perception of the product and that is a serious limiting factor on it's potential pricing.

And now you're trying to compare a physical product with a subscription service? Just stop already, You're boyond apples and oranges and into apples and celestial entities. One is a physical product with a large upfront payment, the other is a service with a subscription model of which the cumulative cost is limited to how long the user decides to retain the service. Seriously, stop digging. On cost alone finding $10 on a recurring, non commital basis is a hell of a lot more affordable than finding $1000 up front and isn't even a comparable financial commitment.

There's no obvious reason why a phone is more than Netflix and Netflix is more than a PS5. You won't find the explanation just by examining what the different products offer.

Yes there is. There really, really is.

And you're back to comparing things that aren't even a console again but now you're comparing a product that is not a console with a console independent service. Bloody hell, man!

 

[Punished Miku]

I've never paid more than $500 for a phone. I have an S9. TVs are dirt cheap too.

 

[itsjustJEFF]

I doubt either of these consoles could get away with $700 at launch, especially with that line up. They'd be crazy to do so. They have other revenue streams that can make up for a small loss on hardware.

 

[Golgo 13]

the longer the price are kept unknown the more you can believe smoke like that.



Unlike console they are not dedicated only to gaming and they are also important tools to be inserted in modern societies (for good and bad reasons)
you can't compare usage of them.

It’s a poor analogy — mostly because almost everyone pays about $30/month for those expensive phones — which are necessities to living, at this point. Asking someone to pay $770 out of pocket all at once during a recession is suicidal. Somehow I don’t believe this rumor. I still think it’s $500, but I guess we’ll see soon.

 

[martino]

It’s a poor analogy — mostly because almost everyone pays about $30/month for those expensive phones — which are necessities to living, at this point. Asking someone to pay $770 out of pocket all at once during a recession is suicidal. Somehow I don’t believe this rumor. I still think it’s $500, but I guess we’ll see soon.

i didn't even thought about this because this business model is near dead where i live.
for the price i don't know what to think too much contradictory opinions/rumors.
it seems it will a surprise (so a great or big price )

 

[martino]

double post

 

[anothertech]

499 and 399

 

[Codes 208]

That was 2006, approx $790 now.

I don’t believe people care for that rhetoric, if you go around asking people they’ll tell you $600 is too much for a console.

hell, $500 is already pushing it for many.

 

[Gamernyc78]

Given how dead silent both Microsoft and Sony are regarding price and how long they’ve drawn out revealing the price despite it being a hot topic, I’m expecting the price will be a shocker.

On the bright side, $700 consoles mean I save $1400 on consoles this year, plus likely over $1400 on the mid-gen pro versions in a couple years, or $2800 total. That will buy me a lot of new top-end PC parts like a 3080ti, new gen 4/5 mobo, CPU, gen 4 SSD, and whatever Nintendo replaces the Switch with.

After ps3 situation no way in the world ps5 will be anywhere near 700 or 600. We all know both are keeping pricing close to chest because they are trying to one up eachother in pricing and see how much of a lose one might have to take. It's all residual effects of this gen when Microsoft went first with pricing and Sony slayed them after with their pricing.

 

[reezoo]

Bought 175 shares of AMD when they were at 40. Now they are at 80. I am more then covered by AMD to purchase PS5

 

[Abear21]

Supply demand and covid surcharging, I believe it. I could see retailers forcing bundles on us when they restock and charge more. The systems themselves though shouldn’t be more than $550, but it’s 2020 so anything goes.

 

[Esca]

might see for the ps5 $549 disc and $449 digital edition. Xsx $549 xsx s $400

 

[Hunnybun]

I'm only having to repeat the same thing because you are continually using the disingenuous comparison of a cheap phone to an expensive phone rather than a console to a phone. You're demonstrating that they're not comparable by avoiding the comparison of the price and utility of a console to that of a phone because a console's price and utility is simply incomparable to that of a phone.

Comparing premium priced products to cheaper equivalents of the same product is disingenous when you're trying to justify the price of a totally different product. All products have overpriced luxury equivalents, that doesn't mean that the price of an unrelated product can be justified based upon the existence of an overpriced version of a totally different product. You're making an absurd reach and failing to correlate it to your claim that a console can justify such a high price.

Yes other products can pull higher prices owing to the status and fashion value they offer, that's part of their value proposition and it's something a home console cannot add. Therefore a home console loses that value proposition when trying to justify such a high price when asking a consumer to choose how they're going to spend that big chunk of cash. A phone has the benefit of greater utility, practical application, fashion and status and the base purchase can be justified on grounds of it being essential or needed for work. A home console doesn't have that - at any price range it's a non-essential luxury purchase that in terms of utility is just a toy. It's a fun toy and it can provide a lot of entertainment, but that's all it is and it's value and potential price point is therefore limited by that.

Yes you can say that a console's value is limited by it's utility and how essential that utility is. It's non-essential and it's purpose is limited to that of entertainment. It doesn't offer the range of utility that the other products you're trying to compare it against do nor does it regarded as a necessity as they are.

You may dislike the term but games consoles are simply toys. Non essential entertainment products whos purpose is to be played with for entertainment. That is it's function and that is the perception of the product and that is a serious limiting factor on it's potential pricing.

And now you're trying to compare a physical product with a subscription service? Just stop already, You're boyond apples and oranges and into apples and celestial entities. One is a physical product with a large upfront payment, the other is a service with a subscription model of which the cumulative cost is limited to how long the user decides to retain the service. Seriously, stop digging. On cost alone finding $10 on a recurring, non commital basis is a hell of a lot more affordable than finding $1000 up front and isn't even a comparable financial commitment.



Yes there is. There really, really is.

And you're back to comparing things that aren't even a console again but now you're comparing a product that is not a console with a console independent service. Bloody hell, man!

You really need to learn about supply and demand if you want to properly understand how prices are derived.

Yes, on the face of it, a console is never going to be as valuable as something 'useful' like a dishwasher, but in the real world they're actually more expensive.

Of course, all things being equal, things we need would always be more expensive than luxuries. But that is always complicated by differences in supply. That's why food is cheap and football shirts are expensive, for example.

And that's before you get into all the complicated factors that determine demand itself, only a tiny part of which is how 'useful' the product is, basically because in modern economies our needs are satisfied by only a small part of our income, leaving us to spend the rest exactly how we want. That's why we spend $800 more than we need to on a phone, or hundreds a year on Netflix, or $500 on a console: all basically for the same reason, because we want to.

 

[Derktron]

If that’s the case, then I’ll fully invest myself into getting a new gaming laptop or even making a PC myself. When it’s not going to be even worth it when games won’t even look next generation enough. In my opinion. Anything higher than $500 is enough for me to go fully PC and just wait till these consoles go down on pricing. No matter how tempting PlayStation games are.

 

[MrS]

I believe 600 is a possibility. There's a reason both companies are scared to announce price and I don't think it's because they fear each other - they fear the public backlash of an extremely high price point. 700 is not on the table. People saying 399 are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Derktron]

Imo they are going to sell the digital only ps5 at a loss just because digital sales are much more profitable, and are the main source of income for games sold.

But Im no expert

You think so? My opinion is that they won’t sell it at a loss and keep it at the same level as the base PS5. Only because of the persistent rumors of both consoles being expensive where Xbox being the only one who could pull off a cheaper version with the Series S.

 

[PresetError]

They have sources. They were the first to release the specs of nintendo nx.

So they had sources on the Switch back then. In this video they literally say "if rumors are true" and then proceed to speculate on the price tag giving a range from 500 to 700$ which means they don't know jack shit.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

After ps3 situation no way in the world ps5 will be anywhere near 700 or 600. We all know both are keeping pricing close to chest because they are trying to one up eachother in pricing and see how much of a lose one might have to take. It's all residual effects of this gen when Microsoft went first with pricing and Sony slayed them after with their pricing.

I think the plot twist would be seeing Microsoft drop the mic by undercutting the PS5. All signs are pointing to that no? Remember that PS1 $299 announcement that won them the generation. Microsoft is probably planning to do just that.

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

I think a big incentive for console exclusive players to purchase this fall would be if CP2077 will have day 1 next gen upgrades. As it stands though neither console is making a compelling case to give them my money this fall.

Instead I'll buy a 3080ti and lose myself in CP2077 for hundreds of hours and wait for each console to become a more desirable purchase.

 

[MDSLKTR]

IF it isn't true then DFs credibility is gonna take a big one.

 

[Barakov]

They'd be out of their mind to charge $600 let alone $700. $500 is already pushing it. Still it'll be $500 or lower for the XSX and PS5.

 

[Punished Miku]

This seems like marketing.

$700 thrown out to make $600 sound more appealing.

 

[gradient]

You really need to learn about supply and demand if you want to properly understand how prices are derived.

Yes, on the face of it, a console is never going to be as valuable as something 'useful' like a dishwasher, but in the real world they're actually more expensive.

Of course, all things being equal, things we need would always be more expensive than luxuries. But that is always complicated by differences in supply. That's why food is cheap and football shirts are expensive, for example.

And that's before you get into all the complicated factors that determine demand itself, only a tiny part of which is how 'useful' the product is, basically because in modern economies our needs are satisfied by only a small part of our income, leaving us to spend the rest exactly how we want. That's why we spend $800 more than we need to on a phone, or hundreds a year on Netflix, or $500 on a console: all basically for the same reason, because we want to.

Okay, I'm convinced that you're trolling at this point.

So now you're switching to an argument of supply and demand after saying:

There's no obvious reason why a phone is more than Netflix and Netflix is more than a PS5

...and then proceed to talk about about the complicated factors that influence demand after spending all of your posts in this thread dancing around and avoiding the primary factors that influence demand (utility, neccessity, fashion and social status) for the products you're making false comparisons to.

in modern economies our needs are satisfied by only a small part of our income, leaving us to spend the rest exactly how we want

That however is the tell, right there. No grasp of reality.

Most people have rent/mortgage, bills, groceries, insurance, transport, medical costs etc. taking up the majority of their income and that's before saving anything (which a hell of a lot of people can't even afford to do). The majority of people are not free to spend all but a small part of their income on non-essentials which is why such purchases become harder and harder to justify and the value proposition becomes ever more critical the higher the cost. It's not a case of getting a $1000 phone AND a $1000 console AND a more expensive car etc. - for most it's an OR proposition. That's why the toy get's curb-stomped - it's value proposition doesn't compare in that decision that people HAVE to make and as a result the console dies an over-priced death.

And stop using a service like Netflix as a comparison. It's a vastly smaller recurring cost over a period of time that can be terminated when needed. A games console with a $1000 price tag is a huge up front cost with a ongoing financial cost (games, accessories, online) that matches up to or exceeds just the cost of a service like Netflix. The price of entry on that comparison alone makes it absurd.

 

[saintjules]

Looks like not a lot of people have been saving.

 

[Amiga]

don't think Sony would project 10 million sold if this was true.

 

[DeepEnigma]

"sources" are all the rage in clickity publication

 

[Gamernyc78]

I think the plot twist would be seeing Microsoft drop the mic by undercutting the PS5. All signs are pointing to that no? Remember that PS1 $299 announcement that won them the generation. Microsoft is probably planning to do just that.

All signs aren't pointing to that. All signs are pointing to "both" wanting to undercut eachother. Sony did tht this gen and of course will look to do it again, same way Microsoft is trying not to get caught with their pants down like this gen. I don't get tht narrative, they both can mutually be trying to do the same thing lol which thy both are. Ppl act as if Sony hasnt done tht a few times already and aren't thinking the same way. Helloooo thy just did tht recently with the ps4 why you think we been waiting so long for both to show a price, it's about who blinks first.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

All signs aren't pointing to that. All signs are pointing to "both" wanting to undercut eachother. Sony did tht this gen and of course will look to do it again, same way Microsoft is trying not to get caught with their pants down like this gen. I don't get tht narrative, they both can mutually be trying to do the same thing lol which thy both are. Ppl act as if Sony hasnt done tht a few times already and aren't thinking the same way. Helloooo thy just did tht recently with the ps4 why you think we been waiting so long for both to show a price, it's about who blinks first.

right, also any info on mr grubbsman posting fuds about PS5 struggling to perform at third party devs and that games will look wack?

 

[Hunnybun]

Okay, I'm convinced that you're trolling at this point.

So now you're switching to an argument of supply and demand after saying:



...and then proceed to talk about about the complicated factors that influence demand after spending all of your posts in this thread dancing around and avoiding the primary factors that influence demand (utility, neccessity, fashion and social status) for the products you're making false comparisons to.



That however is the tell, right there. No grasp of reality.

Most people have rent/mortgage, bills, groceries, insurance, transport, medical costs etc. taking up the majority of their income and that's before saving anything (which a hell of a lot of people can't even afford to do). The majority of people are not free to spend all but a small part of their income on non-essentials which is why such purchases become harder and harder to justify and the value proposition becomes ever more critical the higher the cost. It's not a case of getting a $1000 phone AND a $1000 console AND a more expensive car etc. - for most it's an OR proposition. That's why the toy get's curb-stomped - it's value proposition doesn't compare in that decision that people HAVE to make and as a result the console dies an over-priced death.

And stop using a service like Netflix as a comparison. It's a vastly smaller recurring cost over a period of time that can be terminated when needed. A games console with a $1000 price tag is a huge up front cost with a ongoing financial cost (games, accessories, online) that matches up to or exceeds just the cost of a service like Netflix. The price of entry on that comparison alone makes it absurd.

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.

 

[Gamernyc78]

right, also any info on mr grubbsman posting fuds about PS5 struggling to perform at third party devs and that games will look wack?

You know ppl have talked about tht to death already. You know thts bs, Sony coming out swinging with quality like thy been doing. Development is just that all these devs need to get use to both systems and Sony's is more than capable and stronger in some aspects just like Micro has a stronger gpu. You've heard all the devs including third party devs talking about Sony's ssd and architecture being the best and innovating even in the pc space. PS5 is going to be

 

[meech]

It's not comparable. A phone has more utility and socially carries some degree of fashion and status (even if misplaced).

A home console is a toy.

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.)

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Can’t see it, 499 is the max acceptable price for a console. MAYBE the PS5 Digital is 499 and the Disc version higher.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

You know ppl have talked about tht to death already. You know thts bs, Sony coming out swinging with quality like thy been doing. Development is just that all these devs need to get use to both systems and Sony's is more than capable and stronger in some aspects just like Micro has a stronger gpu. You've heard all the devs including third party devs talking about Sony's ssd and architecture being the best and innovating even in the pc space. PS5 is going to be

I know I know, it's just a huge sigh to keep seeing fuds everywhere from these youtubers and influencers with their hidden agenda of sort to taint the PS5

 

[NickFire]

I'm gonna need to see a lot more near future software before I buy a console for these prices.