PlayStation 5 - Next gen is expensive

[PaB]

16 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

 

The PeteBrant guarantee!

 

 

Worth its weight in gold . Unfortunately A small shrivelled golden testicle Doesn’t weigh very much . 

[Stanley]

6 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

The Xbox One X and PS4 Pro cost about £350 with a bundled game at Argos today. Expecting any of the next gen consoles to launch near that price is madness.

 

Series S, probably. Microsoft didn’t temporarily knock £100 off the One X bundles for nothing.

 

Edit - the Switch is still £280! Microsoft and Sony can probably justify more than a £70 price gap in the customer’s mind.

Xbox One X and  PS4 Pro aren’t the base line, you can pick those up for more than £100 less (PS4 and One S, probably more for the SAD). 
 

I mean let’s be honest if the Series S isn’t cheap than what’s the point when you can buy the same games for a regular Xbox One S? There has to be a sweet spot where the new features are viewed as being of value to the mass market. 

[AI]

Going by the fact the PS4 Pro is still selling at $399/£349 and the conversion of $399 (at the moment) is £320, that implies you take the US price, convert it and add 9% to it for the UK price for Sony's pricing methods.

 

$399 = £320 + 9% = £349

$449 = £360 +9% = £392

$499 = £399 + 9% = £436

$549 = £440 +9% = £480

$599 = £480 + 9% = £523

 

My predictions:

 

$449 - $499 , £399 - £429 (Digital Edition)

 

$549 - $599, £479 - £499 (Disc Edition)

[womblingfree]

£399 and £499 respectively.

 

Let’s face it, they don’t really want you to be buying discs anymore so why not go the full hundred quid difference to promote digital?

[PaB]

1 minute ago, AI1 said:

Going by the fact the PS4 Pro is still selling at $399/£349 and the conversion of $399 (at the moment) is £320, that implies you take the US price, convert it and add 9% to it for the UK price for Sony's pricing methods.

 

$399 = £320 + 9% = £349

$449 = £360 +9% = £392

$499 = £399 + 9% = £436

$549 = £440 +9% = £480

$599 = £480 + 9% = £523

 

My predictions:

 

$449 - $499 , £399 - £429 (Digital Edition)

 

$549 - $599, £479 - £499 (Disc Edition)

The only reason the pro and PS4 don’t match the is price dollar for pounds is because you can’t  put the price of those items up to account for currency fluctuations ( they forecast that with the launch price )

 

If you look at Apple , it’s dollars to pounds now , and there no reason to think Sony and ms will be any different . The only difference being we will have the vat included and the us price won’t include sales tax. 

[Alex W.]

I think it might be worse than that for the consoles. Apple can adjust their pricing on phones every year and tablets and laptops every 18 months. Sony and Microsoft will be living with the RRP for these consoles for at least two years. They have to hedge for further losses in the value of the pound.

[AI]

I bet 3 bollocks (not mine) my predictions won't be that far off. These companies have a history of losing money (if absolutely necessary) on hardware to sell software, subs, etc. No one, (apart from a tiny minority) is willing to pay £65+ for games to go with a £600+ games console.

 

The bonkers PS3 in 2006 with its cutting edge Cell processor and ultra-expensive Blu-Ray drive and memory card reader and built in PS2 hardware and 60gb HDD and nvidia GPU card bolted on at the last minute, etc, etc, cost Sony $840 to manufacture and they sold it to retailers for $600 with a loss of $240 per unit sold. Do we really think that the PS5 will cost $840 to manufacture in 2020 with its many PC components bulk bought by the millions with massive customer discount?

 

If Sony can get a sizable % of people on board with the digital edition (which looks a lot nicer, funny that) and with a £100 price discount over the disc edition at around £399 forcing owners to pay through the nose at PSN store prices (£69+ for the latest release, yay), they'll be laughing their heads off even if the hardware costs £599 to build (which it won't).

[Harrisown]

Sony announces £499 and £559 models.

Rllmuk goes  and then says “....oh alright then”

 

 

Silly people pay 65 quid for games. Smart people Get 65 quid credit for 55 quid and high five their friends.

[HarryBizzle]

Imagine paying £55 for a game and thinking you got a good deal. 

[Down by Law]

When the PS4 came out Killzone and Cod Ghosts were £59.99 each in game. Launch prices always take the piss cus you've only got a handful of choices. Luckily Resogun was so good that kept me busy for the first 6 months and I still had my 360 set up. With decent back compatability this time I'll be in no rush to buy games at 50-60 quid a pop 

[Harrisown]

24 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

Imagine paying £55 for a game and thinking you got a good deal. 

Some games are worth it. If your experienced enough you can look at some footage or read reviews etc and figure out if something’s worth it.

I feel I am my own expert judge because I know what I like and don’t like and I ‘get’ how games work on a broader scale.

[Ghosty]

4 hours ago, Harrisown said:

Some games are worth it. If your experienced enough you can look at some footage or read reviews etc and figure out if something’s worth it.

I feel I am my own expert judge because I know what I like and don’t like and I ‘get’ how games work on a broader scale.

 

Which games do you think are worth £55?

[Harrisown]

2 hours ago, Ghosty said:

 

Which games do you think are worth £55?

I don’t really want to get into a “Harry’s toP £55 games” debate but upon release GTA V and RDR 2 would make the list absolutely.

[bear]

9 hours ago, AI1 said:

Going by the fact the PS4 Pro is still selling at $399/£349 and the conversion of $399 (at the moment) is £320, that implies you take the US price, convert it and add 9% to it for the UK price for Sony's pricing methods.

 

$399 = £320 + 9% = £349

$449 = £360 +9% = £392

$499 = £399 + 9% = £436

$549 = £440 +9% = £480

$599 = £480 + 9% = £523

 

My predictions:

 

$449 - $499 , £399 - £429 (Digital Edition)

 

$549 - $599, £479 - £499 (Disc Edition)

For practically every console launched since the Euro was introduced the way console pricing has worked is that they replace the dollar symbol with a euro symbol and base the UK price on the European prices. 

 

[PaB]

8 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

Imagine paying £55 for a game and thinking you got a good deal. 

Imagine not understanding inflation .

[PaB]

3 hours ago, Ghosty said:

 

Which games do you think are worth £55?

Which lever ones I am happy with the value for money , and that is entirely subjective . 

[HarryBizzle]

4 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

Imagine not understanding inflation .

 

How much were microtransactions in 1993?

[PaB]

1 minute ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

How much were microtransactions in 1993?

funnily enough I spent the same on micro transactions this year as I did in 1993 . 
 

[HarryBizzle]

The point is about the price of games, not the spending of PeteBrant. Microtransactions make up 40% Of Take 2’s revenue, so the idea that inflation can be used to hand wave a price increase (or that this is anything other than a cynical early adopter tax) is clearly flawed. 

[Alex W.]

I miss when Ken Kuturagi was in charge and we could count on Sony really shitting the bed in some inventive way. Like on the PS3, not only were developers expected to make games using only the Cell (no GPU) until Naughty Dog showed it was impossible shortly before the planned launch date, but Ken Kuturagi decided late in the chip’s development that it needed 8 cores, not 6, completely obliterating IBM’s ability to turn a profit manufacturing it. And so IBM used literally every bit of contractually permissible thing they had learned in also developing an Xbox 360 CPU for Microsoft, to salvage the situation. 
 

Just outstanding bullshit. Whatever happens with the PS5 it will sadly be too similar to the Xbox Series X to really screw things up.

[PaB]

12 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

The point is about the price of games, not the spending of PeteBrant. Microtransactions make up 40% Of Take 2’s revenue, so the idea that inflation can be used to hand wave a price increase (or that this is anything other than a cynical early adopter tax) is clearly flawed. 

It’s Entirely optional . If people want to buy micro transactions they can. In the same way they can decide to buy the game . Or they can steer clear of games loaded with MTA.  It’s entirely up to them . As a single off payment £55 is better value than many previous years. And even more so given the enormous budgets some of the some them have . 
 

Of course if you decide that it’s too much then that’s entirely reasonable too . 
 

But when you say things like “imagine thinking that £55 is a good deal “ it’s you ridiculing individuals that think that’s it’s ok to pay that (or even more) . People spend their money in all sorts of silly ways , and you make your choices accordingly . 

[HarryBizzle]

You seem to be conflating two arguments. People can spend their money on what they like and I don’t think Harrisown will be crying his eyes out over my post. 
 

But “inflation” isn’t a particularly good argument when you look at all the other changes in the games market. Console piracy is essentially dead, the second hand market has shrunk massively, publishers take a larger chunk of sales from digital marketplaces and they are making money hand over fist from microtransactions (that they’re optional is irrelevant from a revenue perspective - they make up a huge chunk of it) . So the idea that this price increase is somehow justified due to inflation, when their profits are at an all time high, is farcical.

[Pob]

If there’s a £100+ price difference between the two PS5 models for a sub-£50 component then it will feel uncomfortably like I’m being enticed into consumer-unfriendly position. 
 

With the Series S and X the difference in spec and price will likely be a simple ‘standard’ vs ‘pro’ choice for people to decide what’s important to them. 
 

I still don’t trust Sony with my digital game collection so it’s very unlikely I’d go all-digital but I really wouldn’t be happy paying over £100 just to keep control of my purchases. 

[Stanley]

Series S could very likely be digital also. People always say the drive is only £30 or £50 but it’s not just the parts, there’s the license fee too, and where can you find a stand-alone UHD Blu-ray player for under £100 never mind £50? 

[HarryBizzle]

4 minutes ago, Pob said:

If there’s a £100+ price difference between the two PS5 models for a sub-£50 component then it will feel uncomfortably like I’m being enticed into consumer-unfriendly position. 
 

With the Series S and X the difference in spec and price will likely be a simple ‘standard’ vs ‘pro’ choice for people to decide what’s important to them. 
 

I still don’t trust Sony with my digital game collection so it’s very unlikely I’d go all-digital but I really wouldn’t be happy paying over £100 just to keep control of my purchases. 

I think I’d make the £100 back pretty quickly. I tend to buy games, finish them and sell them on for about £30+. About 3 or 4 sales of games and I’d be sorted. The savings over the generation would be huge.

[Clipper]

On £65 game prices...

 

It is the same every time something "new" appears - they try to raise the price. Nothing to do with justification, nothing to do with inflation - all to do with seeing what the market will pay. They will always dress it up in irrelevance but it is simple capitalist behaviour.

 

Microtransactions. Will anyone buy them? oh they will! - will they pay more? - yes! And more? - yes! what if we made the game free and really milk them? - yes! Do we make them cheaper if more people buy them? NO! Do we make them cheaper if not enough people buy them? Maybe - or cancel the game/investment

Game prices. everyone charges £40 - nextgen comes so can we get away with charging 45? yes! etc

 

Fact is that companies will charge what they think the market will pay. It has nothing to do with what is a "fair" price (whatever that is). if it costs them £10 to make they'll still charge £65 if they can AND add microtransactions on top AND loot boxes and anything else they will get away with. That is capitalism. Noone is sitting and saying "ooh now this game cost us £x to make so we will only charge £y"

 

As consumers we have the power (in theory). We choose to buy or not, we choose to pay for microtransactions and loot boxes etc. In practice there are enough gamers to milk it seems.

So even though they might be making profits they will still try and add on £5 or £10 to the price next time round.

 

And the reverse occurs, the race to the bottom. Food has been cheap for years and years because consumers want CHEAP when it comes to food.

 

 

[AI]

1 hour ago, bear said:

For practically every console launched since the Euro was introduced the way console pricing has worked is that they replace the dollar symbol with a euro symbol and base the UK price on the European prices. 

 

 

Historical Euro to GBP exchange rate:

 

PS4: Nov 2013 0.8371 = €399 - 65 = £334 (£349)

PS4 Pro: Nov 2016 0.8674 = €399 - 53 = £346 (£349)

 

Current Euro to GBP exchange rate:

July 2020 0.9009 = €399 - 40 = £359

 

Looks like Sony were shafting us back in 2013 with a £16 difference, had almost parity with the PS4 Pro in 2016, and if PS5 launched today, they would lose around £10 per console sold in the UK compared to Europe (If sold at €399/£349).

 

So I assume then the price would look like this (if launched today):

 

$399, €399, £359

 

With Brexit on the horizon, I agree it could end up being $399, €399, £399.

 

Which was the lower end price I guessed the PS5 Digital Edition would launch at. So...what was the point again?
 

[PaB]

11 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

You seem to be conflating two arguments. People can spend their money on what they like and I don’t think Harrisown will be crying his eyes out over my post. 
 

But “inflation” isn’t a particularly good argument when you look at all the other changes in the games market. Console piracy is essentially dead, the second hand market has shrunk massively, publishers take a larger chunk of sales from digital marketplaces and they are making money hand over fist from microtransactions (that they’re optional is irrelevant from a revenue perspective - they make up a huge chunk of it) . So the idea that this price increase is somehow justified due to inflation, when their profits are at an all time high, is farcical.

Inflation is a perfectly acceptable reason for price rises . Not all games have MTA . 
 

You can vote whether you buy into that with your wallet . 
 

I feel I get I get value for money for £55 . I will feel I get value for money at £60 . It’s entirely subjective . 

[Eighthours]

9 hours ago, Down by Law said:

When the PS4 came out Killzone and Cod Ghosts were £59.99 each in game. Launch prices always take the piss cus you've only got a handful of choices. Luckily Resogun was so good that kept me busy for the first 6 months and I still had my 360 set up. With decent back compatability this time I'll be in no rush to buy games at 50-60 quid a pop 

Driv3r pre-owned is probably £58.99 in GAME.

[Pob]

10 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

I think I’d make the £100 back pretty quickly. I tend to buy games, finish them and sell them on for about £30+. About 3 or 4 sales of games and I’d be sorted. The savings over the generation would be huge.

Yeah I agree and that’s what I’d do, especially with the big story-driven single player games Sony specialise in. It’s just a black mark in the ‘do I buy a PS5 a launch?’ column if I’m essentially paying an extra £100 up front to avoid being fucked over. 
 

@Stanley I’m going by Digital Foundry’s analysis re cost of Blu Ray drive to Sony. Also, agreed, the Series S could well be digital only but the combination of Game Pass and MS better track-record of handling digital game collections would take the sting out of it. I’m happy being mostly digital with Xbox - I can’t say the same about Sony.