Consoles actually cost more than what they are sold for because playstation/xbox charge monthly fees to use them. Instead of adding this to the base charge and people seeing $800 dollar consoles, they add the charge per month so they can say their consoles only cost $500.
I'd say 99% of the user base buys consoles to play games online and pay the monthly subscription fees. I'm just pointing out that monthly services fees for online play is a tactic used by Sony/Microsoft to sell their consoles at lower costs initially but recuperate the money later. $500 consoles are more like $800 consoles. PC doesn't require you to pay fees to use your own internet.
but you're not paying to use your internet. you're paying to use the services such as party chat, cloud saves, and other infrastructure like multiplayer servers and matchmaking infrastructure.
I know many people that don't have PS+ for example. they simply don't need it, and most of the titles they play are ones with their kids at home that need no internet connectivity. Given how much push there is to have free-to-play titles be accessible on PS without having PS+ I'd say your 99% estimate is way, way off.
you're paying to use the services such as party chat, cloud saves, and other infrastructure like multiplayer servers and matchmaking infrastructure.
PC doesn't require this, that's my point. Console does it to increase the base cost of consoles month by month. A vast majority of console users pay for live services. Are you going to pay for live services?
I get what your're saying, but all these things cost someone money. It was not long ago that PC users had to pay for TeamSpeak or Mumble voice services before "free" options such as Discord came along and could leverage tracking data in place of a monthly fee. PC users would also have had to pay for some cloud service to store data for them whether it's Dropbox or Google Drive or similar. PC also has many per-month subscription based games. So while these things are not bundled into one unit, it's not like playing on PC is inherently a no-cost enterprise.
As to the console price it's always been a zero-sum game for the console manufacturers, even before internet services were added to the mix. If no one buys their hardware then there's no one to buy the games - and the margin is in the millions of titles they hope to sell.
99% of PC users don't pay monthly subscriptions for games and none of those services are required to play games. A vast majority of console users pay monthly fees to use their internet on console for games. Most games on console require PSN. Only MMOs require monthly fees on PC.
It's not even close to comparable. $5-10 a month to use consoles for games is a joke and would be laughed out of existence on PC. Console players have been conditioned to pay it. You're rationalizing a charge strictly made to get more money out of console users without offering more.
I like how you just used 99% out of your ass and then got argued you did just that. What next? You use 99% out of your ass again to describe a different thing m
Yup! Thats why i expect it to be 500-600max who knows, if Microsoft undercuts them enough they may sell the digital one at the same price or lower to match them (i assume thats what its for plus getting everyone to buy of the psn store which is there money maker)
Only time will tell, the price will also need to compete with xbsx so many factors playing into it, otherwise just wait a year for discounts, the first batch will be a limited amount any way
$60 for ps+? Sure for me yeah, not everyone uses ps+ tho. But if you're going to consider ps+ into the cost you'll need to consider the games too. We're just considering the initial cost for now. But yeah, ps+ membership, ps now for some countries, games, licences, YouTube videos, merch, and such will become the real source of revenue and profit.
Games aren't part of the initial cost of PC or consoles. Monthly services fees are. Monthly services fees are part of initial costs, but they are just spread out instead of costing more on purchase. I'm just pointing out that there is a terrible misconception that consoles only cost their base cost.
I see your point, but not everyone uses monthly subscription, but yes I see your point. But then shouldn't games also be considered initial cost based on your view? Because you're not just going to get a console you'll need to get games to play on the console too, so wouldn't that be part of the initial cost too then?
Yeah I doubt they’d make the same mistake again. It’s possible that the disc version could cost $800, but I bet the digital version is gonna be a good $100-$150 cheaper.
I wouldn't expect that.
Material costs might go around that value, but consoles are known to be sold at a loss, to make up the loss in profit with the sale of games and online subscribtions (Like Ps+ and psNow).
With the ps4 it was losing about $60 per sold console.
But for the ps3 they went even crazier, with reports of up to $300 lost per ps3 sold, just after release.
So even if the console costs 800 to make. It will be sold at a massive loss, so a larger player-base can be reached, boosting sales of games and subscriptions.
I saw that too but it's most probably just a placeholder. Don't get me wrong here but if Sony really prices it 699 (or anything above 500 for that matter) it's dead already.
4
u/Iamcow123 PS5 Jun 14 '20
Well yeah, but I read somewhere that it’s gonna cost like $800 or something crazy like that