Discussion in 'Video Games' started by Aokiji, May 8, 2018.
This is why I argued previously that Sony would discontinue the PS4 Pro once PS5 is released. There would be enough PS4 Pro in the 2nd hand market that Sony doesn't need to make any more, and can focus on the PS5 production.
Edit: Mb that is the reason Fortnite is free on the PS5 but you have to pay to play it on the Xbox, a desperate attempt from MS to make at least some money of those used Xbox one sales :P
Sony buying Xbox. Confirmed.
You see, you argue that a customer who doesn't want to spend a lot of money in gaming is less valuable as a customer. But the reverse argument is that such a customer has the potential of changing his or her spending habits and thus diverting expendable income into Xbox in the future. A customer who is already spending all the money he has to spare in Xbox, is not going be able to offer more than what he has. But a new customer, low engagement he might be, has potential for adding to the money pool.
Trying to be selective and picky about who MS should get money from, is not a way to run a business. If you want MS to have less customers, then fine. But I don't think MS agrees with you.
I mean people buying second hand consoles are not that uncommon...
The X was sold at a loss at launch, and on both PS4 and XBO console hardware, the profit margins are microscopic. The platform holders make their profits on 1) physical game licensing fees, 2) accessories, 3) digital store sales, and 4) subscription services.
So they'd absolutely love someone to sell their old console to someone else. The console hardware is nothing but a trojan horse.
There is a reason that MS won't talk numbers, and Sony and Nintendo will. The interesting part here is that it looks not only possible, but likely that MS is in a solid third place by the end of 2019. The Switch will pass it sometime next year, especially after Pokemon is announced. We know that if Pokemon doesn't make it this year, it definitely will in 2019. A new Halo will come out sometime soon, and bump MS numbers in the US, but worldwide the numbers are pretty terrible for a system that is almost five years old now.
MS will hopefully provide a better value proposition in the next few years, and get back to being competitive with Sony
Every company attempts to create an ecosystem (XBL, PS , iOS, Android, etc) for market penetration and profitability. Xbox cannot achieve this unless Xbox consoles are sold.
Is Xbox broke? Hell naw. However, its competition is just destroying them. Which is why Spencer & Co. choose not to disclose the unit sales.
"Engagement is the end-game, console sales are a major part of getting there."
The platform holders have two jobs. 1) Selling as many consoles as possible and 2) Getting those console users engaged in the ecosystem. They go hand in hand. Obviously it's possible that one platform holder could do slightly worse on point 1 and slightly better on point 2. Or vice versa. A good example would be Nintendo compared to Sony - even if they both sell the same number of consoles I'd be willing to bet Sony would be making a hell of a lot more revenue through their online ecosystem.
But that was in 2013, my friend. We are in 2018. 5 years later the price of materials has gone down, so they're are not selling them at a loss now. See the difference?
I definitelly see who doesn't understand the bussines from the 2 of us, if that is any help...
You are comparing a "low-budget" costumer vs a non-costumer. Of course it's better to have a new one than not to have a new one. I was comparing a "low-budget" one vs a new one. Someone that buys the console used vs someone that buys the console new.
Of course MS rather have as the new user someone that buys the console new, than someone that buys it second hand. And if possible the X and not the S. That was my argument.
Obviously if the options are second hand or nothing, second hand is better than nothing, like Funkallero was saying up above. (But that is what is called a "false duality)
A few months later hardware already made them money.
With regards to your other comments, I didn't say the PS4 is being sold at a loss, I said the margins are microscopic, which they are. You do realise there have been several price cuts since launch too? They make far more money from physical game licensing fees, accessories, digital store sales and subscriptions. How are they going to make money from those four key elements, if your console is sat doing nothing in a cupboard? They'd much rather you sold it on to someone who might not be willing to pay the full price for a new console, but will be happy to pick one up second-hand, and then still contribute to the eco-system.
I mean, it's well known that the console market has always used the razor-blade/printer cartridge model.
Combine those together and you get a very accurate installbase estimate...because their source is direct POS data.
So why would EA's estimate ever be "wrong"? They have every possible data point available to them. If there's anyone in the world who could produce an accurate estimate, it would be EA.
I think it's very likely the case that because EA doesn't care about sell-through in Asiatic territories, this installbase figure excludes those sales...because it's just not pertinent to their business. So the calculations for a "29 million Xbox One installbase" are wrong.
I mean, wtf is going on peoples minds that we have to argue this?? Do people really believe that MS prefers that someone buys the console used from someone else's than new from them?
Do you realize how you sound?
The discussion was interesting because it goes to another argument. Can Sony release a PS5 with the specs needed by 2019 and for $399?
Most people was saying no, but if you add to those $399 another $80 that seems more posible. Or even $100, because one may argue that now companies make more profit form the "engament" than in 2013, so they should be able to take more of a loss than before.
Long story short, the speccs would be there no problem if they took that much of a loss on the PS5 launch.
Some other people argue that the time of releasing consoles at a loss is over, but I diasgree, How could that be the case, unless there's an agreement between the companies? If one of them, let's say Sony, decides not to do it and MS takes a $100 loss, the difference in speccs would be significant.
That's what happens when you rely on two countries for sales. If things slow down in those two countries, as happened from 360 to One, then you are in trouble. Nintendo has a stronger global presence, and Sony has the strongest presence of the three.
exactly what I said. Lol, amazing how people can't debate without using straw-man arguments, logical fallacies or straight up lies. At least this one is easy to disprove. Let's paste the exact quote of mine that you quoted
"In any case it's not MS is happy that some people are selling their old SKU, far from it., because they don't see a dime. They rather people keep it and new owners buy a new one from them, not a used one from somebody else"
So I'm arguing that MS rather have this new user buy the new SKU from them, than a used one.
I'm talking about 2 persons here, the one using the X, and the one using either a used console, or a new one
Instead, and I'm quoting you, you said that what I was proposing is that only one user plays the X, and stores the old one "Yes, they would rather have two people using two consoles, rather than one person using one console and another console in a cupboard. Which is what you were proposing"
Again, I was not proposing that, I was talking about 2 people
I'm afraid I made it too complicated for you, as it obvious you have problems following me. If you need I can make you saome drawings
Given this thread is veering into off topic discussion I'm going to lock it at this point.
The major points have been discussed.