-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bloomberg: PlayStation 5's Bill of Materials have been pushed up to $450 due to scarce NAND and DRAM components
- Thread starter modiz
- Start date
That was just economically silly. That should never have been allowed to happen.
They should never have built a console which was that expensive.
It's a video game enthusiast forum, I would hope their marketing department is smart enough to distinguish the differences of what this forum is willing to pay vs the average consumer that will make up the bulk of ps5 users.
If Sony launch their console with a loss on each unit, it wouldn't be good for us either. They would have less money to invest on exclusives and/or they will need to find a way to recover the money lost (for example in increasing the price of the PlayStation +).
Every company wants to make as much profits as possible. That's fine. But I prefer that Sony makes this money with amazing single players AAA than with PlayStation + or MTX on Fortnite.
Last edited:
I really don't think they will take a big loss, I think they will rather sell at cost and rely on the quality of there games to sell there platform.
If it turns out like this
Lockhart 5tflop $299
Xsx 12.18tflop $499
Ps5 13.4tflop $499
I think Sony would do very well, with the quality of there first parties and "best in class" visuals. They might lose some sales because of Lockhart but still do very well.
The reports seem to be that the Xbox is going to be a bit more powerful than the PS5....Sooo.... Wouldn't that mean that the Xbox would be even more expensive to make??
Klee has said XsX is a bit higher then 12tf and he said ps5 is more powerful then That, so 13.4 is my speculation based on that.
I think that Sony [and MS] will eat a big loss [$100] only if they are aware that console will become profitable shortly after launch.
We already know that launch users spend over $1500 during the entire gen, they are the most enthusiastic "core" users who will spend a lot on software/subscriptions.
We already know that launch users spend over $1500 during the entire gen, they are the most enthusiastic "core" users who will spend a lot on software/subscriptions.
I really doubt that PlayStation 5 will be more poweful than Xbox Series X. The whole point of Xbox Series X is for Microsoft to have the most powerful console.
Also, I think that a $200 price difference would be really huge. Could PlayStation 5 still profitable? Sure, but I think it would affect sales. In my opinion, PlayStation 5 should be at much $100 more expensive than Xbox Series S.
Last edited:
I don't think so, I think Sony want to go the premium route, they want to capitalise on there "event like" first party games. They want to differeate themselves from Xbox's "anything for anyone" approach.
Last edited:
Problem is if a shortage happens, especially with smartphones taking priority for certain parts.
If the article from Bloomberg is correct (PlayStation 5 has a BOM of $450 and it was more than expected for Sony) and if ZhugeEX was right when he said that Xbox Series X BOM will be above than PlayStation 5 (even if it is slighty), I wouldn't call PlayStation 5 a "premium console."
In my opinion, Sony's approach is "PlayStation 5 for everyone." They want a great product, a true next-gen console, but not at any price. If PlayStation 5 has really a BOM of $450, I think it's more likely that the console will launch at $449 than $499. $499 for a console that have a BOM of $450 seems very greedy, more than for PlayStation 4 at launch.
That 450 does not include cost of manufacturing. It's literally the cost of the items inside the device. You think they want to build that for free?
Remember that BOM does not account for shipping, packaging, retailer cut and r + D.
When it's its all said and done the PS5 will cost Sony more like $500 per unit possibly more.
From the article of Bloomberg:
The equivalent of the price of the PlayStation 4 would be $470 for the PlayStation 5. $450 would be more agressive and Sony would take a bigger loss on each unit. $500 would be less agressive, the console would probably be profitable at launch (or really close to be), unlike PlayStation 4. In a world where digital and subscriptions are so important, what is the most likely, in your opinion?
I think the price target by Sony has always been $399, but maybe it won't be possible this time.
Not a lot, E3 is still somewhat large for attendance (60-70k since going public). Globally there are many tradeshows that are much larger like Tokyo Game Show (250k+), Paris Games Week (300k+), Brazil Game Show (300k+) and Gamescom (350k+) but in NA only the PAX shows are somewhat larger (70k+). A big part of that is that public tickets for E3 are still limited (they're expanding to 25k for 2020) and it's still mostly press. In terms of press passes it's still the largest tradeshow too iirc, which is probably why it's viewership metrics still far surpass larger shows like TGS or Gamescom.
edit: misread, thought you said a lot in NA. 😓
Last edited:
If its more power or very very close in power to the XsX I think it will be the same price, if its weaker it will be $449
I think that it's also possible that PlayStation 5 is $499 and Xbox Series X $549. I doubt it will happen ($449 and $499 is more likely for me), but if the price of the components grow more than expected, it isn't impossible.
Whatever happens if lockhart is a thing ms will have a significant price advantage.
That's not really a concern if it achieves thier goal (establish them as market leaders in cloud services & streaming).
No, it was designed to be a cheaper option.
Having the goal of a lower price from the get go will have significant advantages when it comes to price.
I'm sure Phil came to Satya like I plan on losing $150 per Lockhart, that cool?
Absolutely. The most expensive PlayStation 5 is, the most sense Xbox Series S makes.
The PS3 was expensive because Sony was using it as a trojan horse to get both Blu Ray and the Cell Processor viable for a larger audience.
The Cell was intended to be a mass market processor used in everything from desktops to televisions, and Toshiba actually did produce a Cell-TV. For various reasons this strategy didn't pan out.
Blu Ray won its format war handily vs. HD-DVD in no small part to inclusion in the PS3, but Sony didn't anticipate digital distribution (i.e. Netflix) obliterating the market for ownership of discs as fast as it did.
If either one of these plans had worked out as intended, the price of the ps3 would have been justified. Sony (and its partners) just didn't anticipate both failing.
Victory laps? You ok bud? We have no idea if Lockhart is office let alone the specs or what shortage is affecting what.
I've already got two jobs so I'm ready to jump into the next generation.
With at least two games at launch and another controller I'll be spending over $700 USD after taxes, might need an extra year of PS+ too lol.
With at least two games at launch and another controller I'll be spending over $700 USD after taxes, might need an extra year of PS+ too lol.
Sony has to be aware of their history. Even though they're not going to be at E3 this year, it'll be 25 years since....
$299 (mic drop).
$299 (mic drop).
I can afford $999 or more.......but I know I am not in the majority. In the end, a price that satisfies everyone is better for everyone. The console sells well and is better supported.
I'm cool with $499 btw
Or a 25 000 dollar car every 8 years. Absolutely comparable things.
With that logic then companies should just make the consoles $4000. After all they last 4x as long as the average phone upgrade.
Yes, you're right. It's why I moved to PC gaming mostly, it's probably unfair wanting to have the
Fair enough.
But you have to aknowledge that consoles have been 399 for nearly two decades, and games 60 for three.
Manufacturers sell consoles with a loss (well, not Nintendo) and publishers/developers mtx the hell out of games to find other ways of revenue.
Not saying this is a good reason to up the price, but to me.. It would make sense.
But I'm of the opinion that I would gladly pay 80 for a complete game that does not try to win my money with skins and whatnot.
Same for consoles, i'll gladly pay an extra 200 for some tech upgrades.
Edit: I messed up my quotes..
This thing will be $475-500 all day long, people thinking they will stick with last gens price point will be disappointed!. Last gen used out of date mobile based tech, this time round there using more modern desktop based hardware
This is just wishful thinking and doesn't make any sense. Why would XsX be less powerful and still be priced the same as PS5? Is there a Kinect included again or what?
The difference is about 10%, which won't cause a big price difference.
It could just be a case that the ps5 has 100mhz higher clocked gpu.
And its not wishful thinking my prediction is based on multiple insiders.
it is wishful thinking. No one has said the GPU in the PS5 is better than Series X.
You clearly have not been in the next gen speculation thread.
Former gamefan writer "klee" has said ps5 is more powerful, so has game informer writer Andrew Reiner has said the same.