It might make sense to them if it were to allow them to minus 1 from the first digit when writing "PS5 starting at $XXX"
It might make sense to them if it were to allow them to minus 1 from the first digit when writing "PS5 starting at $XXX"
Yeah, this feels about right to me. I gotta say, I was thinking of the GPU sacrifices as counterbalance for the SSD and cooling, but it does seem unlikely that they would be THAT expensive in the end. The PS5's GPU has A LOT less CUs than the Series X. In fact, it's closer to the Series S in terms of CU count than it is to the Series X, just clocked significantly higher to reach performance similar to the SX. Considering the Series S is able to reach a 299 price point, I don't think 399 is out of the question at all. In fact, in the Road to PS5 video, Cerny insisted that the reason for the lower CU count and higher clock rate WAS to maintain a responsible price point for users.
Yes, very true. But the Series S was Microsoft Big Mic drop moment, which now they have been denied. Sony are obviously in a much stronger position regardless, and now have the icing on the cake too.
Nevertheless, rational would say, if you are coming in with a lower spec console, let's just take the head figure of 10TF vs. 12TF, then you should expect it to be cheaper, like £50. So now thats £450. Naturally, the DE version must be cheaper still. That brings us to the magical £399.99.This is the likely outcome.
I think BOM of the Dualsense is likely higher than the Series controller. There new Xbox controller is mainly just some minor tweaks to the existing Xbox One controller. Whereas the Dualsense is a major revision, with several brand new features, requiring additional components.
Heh, won't be a major enough difference to influence price. Controllers are historically very profitable, the pack in's cost will be negligible and replacements /extras will subsidize.it for sure.
Spider-Man for free? No, but bundled in the $500 sku, of course. And yes to a $400 sku.. anything else?
Yeah, i see what you mean. Maybe the $299 price for Xbox Series X would have made an even bigger impact if we already knew the PS5 price, i can see that situation, indeed.
By the way, it is possible that Microsoft would have gone first anyway, since according to Phil Spencer, they were going to announce the price next week if it wasnt the leaks. We dont know when Sony was (or even is) going to originally announce the PS5 prices. Hopefully it happens soon.
About price, i think the PS5 with the disc drive will be the same price as the Xbox Series X ($499), even if the PS5 is a weaker system (at least on paper). I dont know if the PS5 Digital Edition will be $399 or $449, but i can see both being possible.
Because they're getting cute with access points to their ecosystem.
For one, they wanted to retain the power crown, Spencer has been very clear about that. Presumably they felt that wasn't possible at $399, and saw a gap in the market for a lower-cost entry into next gen.
To offer an option for large swathes of the population that cant commit to these prices. Maintain power superiority.
Ok, but they losing at least $100 combined on both sku i would figure.
And $399 is hella affordable/mass market price, even more so when you consider folks can also trade current gen console to help with purchase.
There are two markets: enthusiasts, and people with budgets. A $400 console means making compromises to both of those markets. There's no way they could just make the X $400 without significant cuts to the hardware. The budget market is just going to wait until it hits $300 anyways like they did with the PS3 and PS4.
I've owned many consoles in my life, I'm probably closer to an enthusiast than a casual gamer, I've never been able to afford $399 (or the U.K. equivalent) at launch, I've always had to wait for price drops. The last console I could afford at launch was the Dreamcast at $199 So no, it's not hella affordable.
While both will sell out at launch and PS5 will sell more lifetime I don't think people are realising how tempting a £249 console with game pass is to parents etc not willing to spend £450+ for a console and one game, particularly this year.
As for that 100 million Xbox claim, I think it is quite a ways off. I think they would be happy to have combined (S and X) numbers in the 70-80 million range, up from the 50-60 million this time. Along with 20-25 million game pass subs. Think 100 million is a bit too much this gen, still too much to make up for from last gen.
Only if you ignore the fact that PS5 uses a much higher spec SSD, has a more expensive and advanced controller, and the advanced 3D audio processor. Those all add cost.
From the sounds of things, the Series consoles have got a similar audio processor, it's just not been part of Microsoft's marketing.
Well, yes and no. Whilst I agree the SSD is more performant, and thus potentially more expensive, there is less storage, 825 vs. 1TB. As far as I can gather from the hotchips presentation, the audio solutions are very similar. With respect to the controller, it had to improve both in quality/ergonomics and feature set as in my view its current design was somewhat inferior to MS overall design. But yes it may have cost them a bit more to add in the resistive based triggers.
MS has the higher overall specced console, so that's what I was basing my rational on.
Some folks and insiders are suggesting it could be priced higher, I just can't see this happening, regardless of BOM. But I'm ready to be surprised.