I don't think many of you realize that if the bill of materials is $450 and they sell the console at $499 they will be taking a loss between $50 to $100 a box due to other costs.
I want to believe this but everybody is saying $499
Taking on a 200+ dollar loss per console = "Eating more food"
I don't think many of you realize that if the bill of materials is $450 and they sell the console at $499 they will be taking a loss between $50 to $100 a box due to other costs.
2months when considering the real presentation...this was january, the console released march. there were teasers in october though.
600 dollars in 2003 is 841 dollars today
So when comparing the ps3 price to a new console think through that
With the $450 unit cost and a similar gross margin, the PlayStation 5's retail price would have to be at least $470. That would be a hard sell to consumers, considering Sony's most expensive machine now is the $399.99 PS4 Pro and is often discounted, according to Macquarie Capital analyst Damian Thong.
It's not too hard to get the gist of what I'm saying. That's ok though. Not sure where Xbox would be losing 200 compared to Sony's 100 comes from anyways.Taking on a 200+ dollar loss per console = "Eating more food"
I'm D E A D XD
So you think the actual cost (parts, production, and into my hands) is ~$600?I don't think many of you realize that if the bill of materials is $450 and they sell the console at $499 they will be taking a loss between $50 to $100 a box due to other costs.
When you add in warehouseing cost, retail markup, shipping, marketing, fabrication and overhead it can be.So you think the actual cost (parts, production, and into my hands) is ~$600?
MS will take their loss on Lockhart, if anything.Time for MS to take that loss, sell at 399. Would be a bold move and I'd like to see how it turns out.
Gotcha. Do we know how much materials were for PS4 when it launched?When you add in warehouseing cost, retail markup, shipping, marketing, fabrication and overhead it can be.
Yeah, I agree with that read of it. In terms of prognosticating, I think that if it was business as usual on that front there'd be no reason to point it out to allay fears of a pricey console to stakeholders. I personally will be surprised if there's more than one or two games that are PS5 exclusives.
Gotcha. Do we know how much materials were for PS4 when it launched?
YupWatch the PS5 and Series X both be $599. A BOM for $450 doesn't include R&D, marketing and retailer cut costs, these things could easily get up there.
$381 according to the article. Doesn't mention all the other associated costs, though.Gotcha. Do we know how much materials were for PS4 when it launched?
Could just be coincidence, but Albert Penello's reading of the Sony CEO's comments about pricing and limiting budgets was that the Sony BOM costs were likely trending higher than anticipated, and that they were considering their options on how to deal with that. This story fits right into that theory.Just a quick FYI: The author of this article, Takashi Mochizuki, is known for making up shit:
And in May 2018 he also wrote this, and claimed he got this info from Sony PR (which was obviously a lie):
Sony Says the Next PlayStation Is Three Years Off
Sony wants to spend three more years readying its next videogame move, the head of the PlayStation business said—a slight slowdown in the six-to-seven-year update cycle for the console since the first one in 1994.www.wsj.com
Bloomberg: Sony did not say that PS5 is 3 years away
Yesterday, WSJ reported "Sony Says the Next PlayStation Is Three Years Off". This was quickly picked up by several news outlets: Gamespot Kotaku Polygon Ars Technica ...and many more. But apparently, without any additional fact-checking, which is kind of interesting considering this is...www.resetera.com
So better take this article with a huge grain of salt.
I'm not sure how realistic $300 for Lockhart ever was, but if PS5 is $499 the attractiveness of a $300 Lockhart is all the greater.
Very true.. and good points. Hell. Take the loss on both. Get everyone in the ecosystem and then make the money back on gamepass and live and all the rest of that type of stuff. We shall see. What an exciting console launch this is going to be!MS will take their loss on Lockhart, if anything.
Remember the talk of $500/400/300 XSX/PS5/XSS?
I'm not sure how realistic $300 for Lockhart ever was, but if PS5 is $499 the attractiveness of a $300 Lockhart is all the greater.
Very easy for me to see all the "next gen consoles - compared" articles all concluding that XSS is the next-gen console to buy if you can forego Sony exclusives, because on sets less than 75 inches the difference between 1080 and 4k isn't noticeable for most people. And packaging in three months of Gamepass could be enough to convince some current PS4 owners to leave their digital PSN libraries behind and save the $200.
MS' two-ski next-gen condole strategy is endlessly fascinating. Could be genius. Could be disaster.
Finally someone gets itI don't think many of you realize that if the bill of materials is $450 and they sell the console at $499 they will be taking a loss between $50 to $100 a box due to other costs.
You really think the XSX will be even near 300 one year after release?Not necessarily, when people can pick up a $150 XB1S at Gamestop and play 98% the same games it's going to be a bit harder to sell a $300 (optimistic) entry-level next-gen machine. By the time Xbox's next-gen exclusives start rolling in, the XSX will probably already be cheaper than its launch price and bundled to hell and back, depending on sales performance
$381 according to the article. Doesn't mention all the other associated costs, though.
I'm still thinking Sony is gonna shoot for $399 even if they have to sell at a loss for a little while. They did it with PS3 and they know the PS4 price is a huge part of what won them this generation. The rarity thing is a temporary issue, where as pricing higher than MS could incur long term headaches.
I thought Microsoft were supposed to be this mega rich company that could easily undercut Sony, so why would they release such an expensive console that would doom them.
It's not going to be $800. Series X will retail between $499 and $599.
Can't do direct comparison due to economies of scale ordering. Since both companies will be ordering in the millions plus efficiencies of not selling it as a standalone product, it will be considerably cheaper.
And it would be DoA if it did. Any console launching at a price more than $600 is DoA. Hell, even $600 is a significantly tough sell.
But most posters on here always say to me that retail price has nothing to do with the components of the console.
I agree with all of this (well, mostly). What I'm saying is that I won't be surprised by such a high price since I can totally see why they would need to price it like this. Whether they will or even will actually need to at the end of the year remains to be seen.At that price it becomes a niche product like the 3DO was and NeoGeo.
xbox one s performance compared to series x performance will be such a massive gulf that most people will not want to go with the cheaper (and soon harder to find ) option. I disagree with your point in every way imaginable.Not necessarily, when people can pick up a $150 XB1S at Gamestop and play 98% the same games it's going to be a bit harder to sell a $300 (optimistic) entry-level next-gen machine. By the time Xbox's next-gen exclusives start rolling in, the XSX will probably already be cheaper than its launch price and bundled to hell and back, depending on sales performance
well I wouldn't say X1X selling to 20% of Xbox buyers, which was the lowest selling console this gen (unless Wii U is included) at roughly 8M per year (so 1.6-2M X1X per year) doesn't exactly scream success for that $499 price. And they did rush to get XB1 down to $399 like 6 months after launch.
and smartphone sales have slowed as prices got higher, people are upgrading every 3 years instead of 2, so yes people are okay with higher prices but it doesn't necessarily mean they will buy at traditional rates/timelines.
We going back to "the Xbox division has access to the ms warchest" again? While cloud is important and the Xbox has a partial part in that, they don't get a blank cheque. The investors would go nuts
With the context to Microsoft it sure isn't.'Access to the warchest' and ' blank cheque' are two distinctly different things. At no point did I imply or insinuate a limitless budget.
The only explanation I can hazard as to why you completely misconstrued my last comment is that you may not be a native English speaker.
Because BOM isn't the only cost to make a consoleSo why don't they just sell it at cost for $449.99? No loss, no profit. Only a $50 increase from the PS4 which released over SIX years ago.
If Xbox X does $499.99, they win. If Xbox X does $399.99, an extra $50 for a (hopefully) more premium console isn't much to ask.
The $450 figure doesn't include additional costs such as packaging, transportation, retailer margins etc. The actual cost is significantly higher.So why don't they just sell it at cost for $449.99? No loss, no profit. Only a $50 increase from the PS4 which released over SIX years ago.
If Xbox X does $499.99, they win. If Xbox X does $399.99, an extra $50 for a (hopefully) more premium console isn't much to ask.
You really think the XSX will be even near 300 one year after release?
And hell, even if it was, do you think Lockhart would just be chilling at 300 the entire time?
xbox one s performance compared to series x performance will be such a massive gulf that most people will not want to go with the cheaper (and soon harder to find ) option. I disagree with your point in every way imaginable.
You shouldn't try to talk down to me, I didn't misconstrue anything. You said that you suspect that Microsoft would "fund it as much as they need to" implying going above any standard budget it may be given at the start of the fiscal year. You might not know this, but no matter how important a product is to a company, it still has a set budget at the start of the year.'Access to the warchest' and ' blank cheque' are two distinctly different things. At no point did I imply or insinuate a limitless budget.
The only explanation I can hazard as to why you completely misconstrued my last comment is that you may not be a native English speaker.
$381 according to the article. Doesn't mention all the other associated costs, though.
I'm still thinking Sony is gonna shoot for $399 even if they have to sell at a loss for a little while. They did it once with PS3 so it wouldn't be out of character for them, and they know a $399 PS4 is a huge part of what won them this generation. The rarity thing is a temporary issue, where as pricing higher than MS could incur long term headaches.