Companies like MS and Sony will indeed have less of a priority as Samsung and Apple will buy the bulk of what is available and will pay à lux higher price than Sony and MS to guarantee supply, and with the amounts they are buying they always manage to have a priority over the smaller buyers. PS5s and XSXs will be a drop in the see compared to iPhone 12s and Galaxy S20s, so it could definitely have an effect on component pricing. It's not just based on the earnings statement. You
In terms of core adoption I think a $399 Series X would be more reliably impactful upfront in the current market. Cheaper and feature-deprived HD consoles tend to sell less at launch due to the audience buying into new platforms upfront being chiefly core gamers (we saw this exact thing happen for 360, PS3 and Wii U) but Lockhart/Series S might upend that if it's priced like a current gen console ($299) and can capture the more general mainstream day one (like we saw with older SD consoles like PS2 or Wii way back). There's a lot of ways this could go really, it's pretty exciting.
That's not really awkward. They just haven't given the thing you wanted when you wanted it NOW.
Obviously they will show the games at E3 and it's funny how because Microsoft said there will be no Series X exclusive games for the first year or two everyone thinks they won't look as good as PS5 games.
Yes, ending with 99 instead of 49 is always better. I think Nintendo priced the WiiU at $349 and it was disaster from the very beginning.
Even though Sony has shown less about PS5 they still have more mindshare than XSX. Most of this thread has been about PS5 and most things I see on twitter and facebook are people talking about PS5.
Sony said they plan on attending 100 events this year, you think they will go to 50 events without mentioning price while waiting for Microsoft? What are they going to talk about in those 100 events instead of attending E3?
I looked back at the Xbox 360 history and unless my data is incorrect Microsoft did not reveal the price at E3. It was announced on Agust 17, 2005 and E3 was May 18 - May 20.
Yes it will be awkward but it won't matter because there competition will be in aeven more awkward position.
In case you missed my comment above,I looked back at the Xbox 360 history and unless my data is incorrect Microsoft did not reveal the price at E3. It was announced on Agust 17, 2005 and E3 was May 18 - May 20.
Of course he did which is why I'm pretty much wasting my time. Why bother trying to talk about who should price their system first when somone isn't even interested in one of the parties to begin with. Of course he will always side with them no matter what they do. Sony is doing their own thing which is fine, and I am sure Microsoft will be much better prepared if the PS5 is $399 or $499. They won't have an expensive camera this time to deal with and they ceratinly don't want to be more expensive again while being less powerful. It's all a question of who wants to take on losses. Sony does not want to be in a position like they were with the PS3 and if Microsoft only has a system that is $100 more that will be the death of that. This is why I think the 2 system plan has substance.
Again, matching the bill of sales will not be breaking even. This is the cost of the components, it's not the cost from actually assembling, testing, packaging, shipping, and leaving profit margin for retail outlets. Sony will still be losing a pretty hefty penny at $499.
Didn't think I would find common sense in this thread but I did.
It's important to remember that income has not kept up with inflation in the US. 300 in 1995 was a Hell of a lot more affordable than 500 now.
I'm sure not a single soul at Microsoft is thinking about this possibly being a controlled leak.
The median household income in 1995 was about 56k
I mean they spent millions on R&D for a controller they don't make a profit on. (I get components become cheaper but the original design and stuff sent out was all at al loss).
The RRoD failure was straight up recall territory. The fact that they got away with just a billion dollar hit and warranty extension was a miracle. The amount of money they sunk with OG Xbox isn't that far off from Sony's PS3 black hole, and I don't think either companies want to be in that situation again just to one up each other irrespective of their reserves.
It is more expensive mainly because many of us back then likely still lived at home and didn't have a family to raise and as many bills to pay.
So true. In 1995 the average cost of one gallon of gas was $1.15. I remember when people were screaming in like 2002 when it was a little over like $1.30 or something. If they only knew!
This can't be discredited either, if you were a kid in the 90's like me then you often may have benefited from having a lot of disposable income since you lived at home and/or getting gaming things as a gift on a semi-regular basis at least. But even after taking that into consideration, the economic strain on families wasn't anything like it is now.
both were quite unique scenarios.
I'd say it's mainly more expensive because the average household has less discretionary money to spend than it did 25 years ago; you literally have less money to play with than your parents did if you're in the same income bracket
Yeah, I'm so fucking sick of people using inflation as a point of reference without keeping income in mind.
