Kerotan Frog
Member
Sony should announce price at $399 to play chicken with MS. Would be hilarious if MS announced price at $390 just out of spite.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft is waiting for Sony to reveal PS5 price to undercut it with Xbox Series X, say Michael Pachter and Peter Moore
DonkeyKong
Member
As others have said I definitely think MS have to undercut Sony at launch but at least $50, the PS5 will sell more worldwide next gen but it may be closer in US and UK
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Didnt know you had masters in business management. Maybe they should hire you.
Entroyp
Member
Ir seems to me like MS is worried the PS5 might be $399 as Sony has been conscious of pricing their consoles at that price while MS is comfortable going for $499. But what is MS going to do if the PS5 is $399? Price the XsX at $299 or release lockhart at that price?
btw I don’t believe either condole will be lower than $499
btw I don’t believe either condole will be lower than $499
Last edited:
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
You sure about that ?
Sony Reportedly Struggling to Keep PS5 Hardware Costs Down - ExtremeTech
The more powerful hardware in Sony's upcoming console could amount to a hefty $470 price tag.
www.extremetech.com
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Is this the same topic/Pachter quotes as this this thread?
www.neogaf.com
Seems like they are both waiting on the other. Hard for me to believe the XsX will be 100 bucks less than the PS5. I’d be impressed if the XsX even matches the PS5 price
Series x could cost $400
Would be very interesting ....source is Michael patcher though https://thenerdstash.com/xbox-series-x-could-retail-for-400-analyst-says/
Seems like they are both waiting on the other. Hard for me to believe the XsX will be 100 bucks less than the PS5. I’d be impressed if the XsX even matches the PS5 price
Last edited:
Radical_3d
Member
cormack12
Gold Member
The choice might be binary but the values won't be. They'll be on an authorised scale. It will be sell the hardware for as much as possible but you have authority to price at £x - they just want to price as highly as possible but cheaper than the competition. Of course they could price competitively at £349 but if Sony then launch at £379 they probably won't get as many switching platforms. Now if Sony price at £379 first, then Microsoft price at £329, then that's a very different looking beast.
The aggressiveness of both companies is good for us, especially with one of them looking to gain market share and maybe subsidise or make a premium loss leader. If both companies were healthy and had balanced market share then we'd probably get a £429 stalemate. What would be interesting is if Sony price very competitively at £349, it doesn't give MS much wiggle room there, but if they go sub £300 (£299) then they will steal all headlines.
+I know these figures are just hypothetical/not real but I used them to just illustrate the point.
The aggressiveness of both companies is good for us, especially with one of them looking to gain market share and maybe subsidise or make a premium loss leader. If both companies were healthy and had balanced market share then we'd probably get a £429 stalemate. What would be interesting is if Sony price very competitively at £349, it doesn't give MS much wiggle room there, but if they go sub £300 (£299) then they will steal all headlines.
+I know these figures are just hypothetical/not real but I used them to just illustrate the point.
Vawn
Banned
Well, if anything ever worked - that's it. Very few people gave Sony a chance to even compete with Nintendo and Sega, after Phillips and Panasonic crashed.
Sony went on to sell over 100 million PlayStation consoles and things just got better after that and have become the biggest name in video games.
Of course, the $299 price wasn't the only factor. But it led to the install base which led to huge publishers jumping from Nintendo to PlayStation which ultimately changed the gaming landscape.
If there ever was motivation for someone to drastically undercut Sony, that would be it - whether that's Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc.
vito_don_corleone_
Banned
That's pure nonsense.
Why? If they want to go $400 it means they would lose at least $100-$150 per unit (Series X has bigger APU die, bigger SSD so the cost has to be significantly higher than PS5' $450)
So $100 x 10 000 000 = $1 000 000 000 ($1B)
Yes, Microsoft makes $10B of pure profit every quarter but no corporation would be willingly writing off that much money...
Given how close Xbox One still is to PS4 in the US after fumbling this gen. Xbox will likely pull ahead of the PS5 in the US next gen. The US is Xbox country even when it isn't.
DunDunDunpachi
Patient MembeR
That's a good way of putting it.
Optimistic Gamer
Member
I think Microsoft is in this to build a huge user base. The "console war" is not the primary location for them. This is about every platform that could support xCloud.
DaGwaphics
Member
I just don't buy the whole "Xbox looking to undercut PS line". If that were the case, I think they'd be looking for that mic-drop moment, so, they wouldn't be hinting about anything now. I think it's more of a case of them not wanting to get beat on price by PS5. The only way we see a $399 XSX is if PS5 is $399, IMO. This is why you go ahead and signal this to Sony now, basically letting them know they won't gain that $100 advantage by going low this time. If PS5 is $499, MS probably just price matches that.
vpance
Member
Maybe there was a big shift in budget towards Xbox division at MS.
They just have to be ready to take a ~2 billion hit over the next few years, assuming they sell it at $400 with a cost of $500+.
after the specs, SONY's PS5 is much closer to 399 than MS's XbxSex
On the other hand, if SONY shows strong first party at 399, even selling at 299 is not going to make MS win.
MS has done nothing to make PS4 install base drop the brand and move over to xbox. They just don't have the fucking games.
That does not mean people are not going to buy new xbox.
Also a bit of history lesson, apparently MS believes that the race to first 10 million wins the race, this is complete horse shit.
MS jammed XboxOne hardware at various retailers in 2013 to sell 10 million, the stock didn't see. It was trailing behind PS4 and hence we did not get the beautiful Limited Edition Titanfall Ed Xboxone. (was only produced far less and given to developers). I saw one on eBay and I believe it went for 5 k CDN.
On the other hand, if SONY shows strong first party at 399, even selling at 299 is not going to make MS win.
MS has done nothing to make PS4 install base drop the brand and move over to xbox. They just don't have the fucking games.
That does not mean people are not going to buy new xbox.
Also a bit of history lesson, apparently MS believes that the race to first 10 million wins the race, this is complete horse shit.
MS jammed XboxOne hardware at various retailers in 2013 to sell 10 million, the stock didn't see. It was trailing behind PS4 and hence we did not get the beautiful Limited Edition Titanfall Ed Xboxone. (was only produced far less and given to developers). I saw one on eBay and I believe it went for 5 k CDN.
Last edited:
Radical_3d
Member
My cost bets are: SX 500€. PS5 550€
My price bets are both at 450-500€
My price bets are both at 450-500€
If that was the plan, why go balls-to-the-wall with the Series X specs? I'm just not seeing it.
yurinka
Member
I think Patcher and Moore are too 'biased' or optimistic, I think they overestimate MS.
Sony is the one clearly the one in a favorable market position, not rushing to show their cards because they know their console will sell well. They are the ones waiting more.
Maybe they don't care about what MS does due to the lion market share they have, but seems that Sony is the one waiting to see what MS does and if needed, if makes sense and if possible to react to this move.
Sony didn't even show their console, their full hardware specs and features or even their main launch windows games (their Halo Infinite / Hellblade 2).
I think the price is the main thing Sony will wait to see and maybe adapt to whatever MS does. In all the other things MS announced, I don't think Sony will do anything.
From all the things MS announced and Sony not, I think that the main thing Sony may copy would be the crossbuy MS announced for some crossgen games (we know it isn't applied to all games, because at least EA will implement a time limited version, also available for PS5). But in any case, it's something Sony already had available for devs with PSP+PS3+PS4+Vita so maybe this time they will only add PS5 to the list for games that aren't just BC but have a separate PS5 sku. Same goes if we compare Smart Delivery to the PS4 Pro free improvement patches, like the One X is something Sony were already doing so I think won't change their plans too much or that would take them too much work.
I think both PS5 and Series X will be priced at $499 at launch. And even if we have the case of Sony pricing it at $499 and Series X goes for $399, Sony won't react because their existing userbase, catalog and exclusive prestige gives Sony a market advantage for next gen that would more than compensate that.
I think Sony only would react to the Series X price if it's more than $100 cheaper than PS5. They'd cut to keep the distance in $100. Example (that I think won't happen): if MS goes nuts and prices it $349 and Sony planned $499, they may reduce it to $449.
For devs, to port their games to all these SKUs and also PC it should be a pain in the ass and a high related cost, to add another one it may be too much.
Sony is the one clearly the one in a favorable market position, not rushing to show their cards because they know their console will sell well. They are the ones waiting more.
Maybe they don't care about what MS does due to the lion market share they have, but seems that Sony is the one waiting to see what MS does and if needed, if makes sense and if possible to react to this move.
Sony didn't even show their console, their full hardware specs and features or even their main launch windows games (their Halo Infinite / Hellblade 2).
I think the price is the main thing Sony will wait to see and maybe adapt to whatever MS does. In all the other things MS announced, I don't think Sony will do anything.
From all the things MS announced and Sony not, I think that the main thing Sony may copy would be the crossbuy MS announced for some crossgen games (we know it isn't applied to all games, because at least EA will implement a time limited version, also available for PS5). But in any case, it's something Sony already had available for devs with PSP+PS3+PS4+Vita so maybe this time they will only add PS5 to the list for games that aren't just BC but have a separate PS5 sku. Same goes if we compare Smart Delivery to the PS4 Pro free improvement patches, like the One X is something Sony were already doing so I think won't change their plans too much or that would take them too much work.
I think both PS5 and Series X will be priced at $499 at launch. And even if we have the case of Sony pricing it at $499 and Series X goes for $399, Sony won't react because their existing userbase, catalog and exclusive prestige gives Sony a market advantage for next gen that would more than compensate that.
I think Sony only would react to the Series X price if it's more than $100 cheaper than PS5. They'd cut to keep the distance in $100. Example (that I think won't happen): if MS goes nuts and prices it $349 and Sony planned $499, they may reduce it to $449.
I think MS won't release a Lockhart because they already have XBO S, X and SAD as cheap SKUs, and said all the games from MS during the first couple of years of Series X will also be released for them. Which I assume it means they will continue selling them. I wouldn't understand why a company would need to have 5 SKUs in the market, I think it would make sense to support maximum 2 of them (the 'cheap one' and the 'premium/high end one') at the same time. Maybe even 3 (S/SAD, X, Series X).
For devs, to port their games to all these SKUs and also PC it should be a pain in the ass and a high related cost, to add another one it may be too much.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
How PS5 cost more with cheaper parts is crazy to me.
Xbox One Series X has more expensive:
+ 2 PCB (one of them is more complex due having a 320bits bus)
+ 10 GDDR6 memory modules
+ 320bits bus
+ APU is bigger
+ 1GB SDD storage
What PS5 has more expensive:
- SSD controller and bus.
Last edited:
Optimistic Gamer
Member
They thought it was the milkshake that would bring all the boys to the yard
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
PS5 - 449
XsX - 499
That’s how I see it going down
At this rate maybe they both are so hellbent on waiting out the other that we don’t find out until the first launch day
(I’m kidding)
XsX - 499
That’s how I see it going down
At this rate maybe they both are so hellbent on waiting out the other that we don’t find out until the first launch day
(I’m kidding)
Last edited:
Papacheeks
Banned
If this was the case, why does Lockheart exist?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Why not? Sony did exactly that last generation with PS4. And MS arguably the gen before that with 360.
Is it really "balls-to-the-wall", or did they just spec out their priorities on different things that just happened to fit a somewhat more powerful system at a solid BOM? Again, back to PS4; it's not that Sony made something that was out-and-out "balls to the wall" in terms of specs (the specs were mighty impressive though), so much as MS under-delivering by relative comparison which made the PS4 look much more impressive. If XBO didn't put a large chunk of its budget towards things like Kinect, and was designed with hardcore/core console gaming at the forefront, it would measured up a lot closer to PS4 in terms of specs, if not match it or even slightly surpass it.
It's all about priorities which influences how the budgets are spent.
What are you on about in terms of "specs"? Console BOM is about more than just TFs; Sony seems to have the more expensive controller, heftier SSD I/O hardware complex and a very elaborate cooling system that costs more than the usual. The BOMs between both systems are likely very close; at this point I'd even venture the PS5's BOM is the higher of the two mainly due to those three components.
You misinterpret the "race to 10 million" phrase, because it's circumstantial, and contextual. Historically speaking though the console with a larger install base lead out of the gate tends to keep that momentum and build on it thanks to the effect of momentum. Think of it as a snowball working its way down a mountain; gravity is going to cause it to push down faster equivalent to its increasing mass as more snow builds up on its downward trek.
That tends to be what plays out, minus maybe a proverbial tree colliding in the snowball's path, or some twigs and branches for smaller road bumps which don't completely wreck the snowball or its momentum. We already know the circumstances that derailed XBO's snowball, but those circumstances are not baked-in, and certainly don't seem to be repeated with XSX.
Last edited:
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Do we even know for sure that it does?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Gotta be honest, the mention of the 360 vs PS3 situation in the context of this seems really off.
Lets face it.That was a situation where Sony launched a year late, at a much higher-price and were still taking a heavy hit on every unit sold. I see no reason why they should be so disadvantaged this gen.
And even if it were to repeat, how did that situation play out by the end of the gen? Its amazing to me that its looked upon as this "camelot" era for Xbox when the historical fact is they still ended up 3rd out a field of 3 and had to give up a ton a cash to cover the extended warramty program that allowed them to narrowly avert a product recall.
Lets face it.That was a situation where Sony launched a year late, at a much higher-price and were still taking a heavy hit on every unit sold. I see no reason why they should be so disadvantaged this gen.
And even if it were to repeat, how did that situation play out by the end of the gen? Its amazing to me that its looked upon as this "camelot" era for Xbox when the historical fact is they still ended up 3rd out a field of 3 and had to give up a ton a cash to cover the extended warramty program that allowed them to narrowly avert a product recall.
Papacheeks
Banned
YES.
Confirmed by many others at various publications that it does indeed exist. There's no way with the size of Xbox series X chip, exteranl SSD cards, and the form factor that this is not $500. The lockheart console is so they still can have their cake and eat it too. I can't see them still making xbox one s for any longer hadware wise. So what do you put in place of it for $299+ price range?
You don't say hey here's this for $499. You go here's a console that plays everything for $299-349, and here's the box you want if you want the best at $499. Makes sense.
I mean to be $399 they are going to be taking more than 10 Million subsidized. That chip is huge and will cost a lot to produce.
EDIT: Devils advocate if they scrapped the lockheart or are not going to have it at launch, then they have to be under $500 for xbox series x.
I think Sony designed their console with very targeted hardware/specs and knew what costs were going to be and where they would have to cut. They have a budget already within mind a good year in advance. $499 at the high point with them probably losing around 50-80$ per console, and then them putting it at the low of $449 with them losing closer to over $100 per console.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
MS so rich its paying factories to produce more expensive products for Sony, of course.
I think when rumors float about Sony having a hard time getting the price down, it means getting the price down to 399$. Sony last two consoles have launched at 399$, while MS launched Xbox One and X at 499$, so recent precedent is on MS's side and not Sony. But of course western media goes straight into writing senseless garbage.
fastest finger
Member
Here’s an idea - just be fair and release it for the best price you realistically can, rather than waiting to see how much you can get away with compared to the competition.
edit: spelling.
edit: spelling.
Last edited:
Sushen
Member
If Sony prices it at $500 with a first party pack-in game, $50 won't be enough. Sony got multiple first party titles to choose from and MS can't use their Halo, only guaranteed launch first party title, to counter it as it's the too valuable.
Atomic Odin
Member
Hey Peter stop with this and go sign Timo Werner pretty please?
LordOfChaos
Member
They're intent on winning, but that doesn't mean they want to lose money. Why take significant losses if the PS5 wasn't going to be that inexpensive and they could sell it at least at cost?
Bet both would rather the other reveal the price first, so this may be one of the later things we find out.
Sota4077
Member
I think the difference this time is though that this is likely the last generation where there is any major opportunity to siphon off large numbers folks to their ecosystem. With ever growing digital libraries people are becoming more and more dug in to the digital home they create. They can look to ecosystems like Steam and see that not only do gamers get dug in to their ecosystem they are actually at times rabid towards anything else that comes around (see Epic game store).
Microsoft want to "win" against Sony in market share for gaming. They current sell games on PC which is good for Microsoft. However, the only way to take folks away from the Playstation brand is by beating the Playstation console. There really is no other way. So if they can make the Series X $50 cheaper while being 15-20% more powerful that is going to position them best to compete with the Playstation moving into the next generation.
Papacheeks
Banned
YOUR Omitting the cooling solution which had patents a year or so back. If they had to make their own cooling solution which sounds like they did, to have 2ghz boost clock for gpu, then that adds a good amount to the build. But if that is something they are willing to eat since it's them that designed it, then they may not pass that along to consumers.
Also think their controllers are going to be 69.99. The tech thats in them sounds like Switch pro controller on steroids. Not cheap.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Bullshit.
This is fluff PR talk for the industry. Make it seem like Ms and Sony are in a price war, so when both consoles release expensive as fuck, they can both say "we tried"
Xbox $550, ps5 $549
This is fluff PR talk for the industry. Make it seem like Ms and Sony are in a price war, so when both consoles release expensive as fuck, they can both say "we tried"
Xbox $550, ps5 $549
Sota4077
Member
Even if the price of the Xbox is the same as the Playstation it is still a win for Microsoft considering they have the more powerful console. If they undercut them it will be by $50.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Third by what, exactly? A margin of error in system sales. We're talking 2-5 million delta in total between it and PS3's LTD, that part seems to be conveniently ignored. Considering that PS3 needed a vastly larger number of markets to eek out a minuscule delta lead over 360's LTD when all was said and done, it just shows how impressive the 360's strategy of targeted main markets was.
As in, neither strategy MS or Sony took that gen was inherently better or worst than the other on their own terms, but since MS shat the bed with XBO their global focus with 360 made it harder for XBO to gain traction in markets they did not already have a strong presence in beforehand. Conversely Sony's focus on a wider net of territories helped build up momentum for PS4 even if for PS3 it only resulted in a very small LTD gain over 360.
I've no point why you bring up RROD; we all know it happened. We know what it was. But here's another question; if it was so damaging to 360's brand, why did so many gamers re-buy 360s instead of switching over to PS3 sooner? The PS3 also had its own variant of RROD in YLOD; not as severe a problem in their case, but I was personally a "victim" of that occurring on a fat PS3. Console failures weren't a one-sided affair that gen, even if one was more severe occurring than the other.
Last edited:
Dee Dah Dave
Member
399 seems highly unlikely, especially so if the Lockhart exists. If that’s 299 then it’s only an extra hundred for a much better console.
I think at best it can be $449 and 399 pound / euro.
edit - best cost saver thing they could do to get gamers on board would be to kill off XBL Gold. It makes sense anyway with Gamepass doing well. Also what happens with Xcloud, are you supposed to sub to Gold too if you want to play a multiplayer game?...it’s just messy.
Plus that would maybe kick Sony in the nuts more. They would look a little silly having to drop the online sub after only starting it this last generation. At least MS have always done it and so it’s more of a natural progression to kill it off after the gamepass success and incoming xcloud.
No online charge and overall best hardware for multiplats is the best angle to play.
I think at best it can be $449 and 399 pound / euro.
edit - best cost saver thing they could do to get gamers on board would be to kill off XBL Gold. It makes sense anyway with Gamepass doing well. Also what happens with Xcloud, are you supposed to sub to Gold too if you want to play a multiplayer game?...it’s just messy.
Plus that would maybe kick Sony in the nuts more. They would look a little silly having to drop the online sub after only starting it this last generation. At least MS have always done it and so it’s more of a natural progression to kill it off after the gamepass success and incoming xcloud.
No online charge and overall best hardware for multiplats is the best angle to play.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
They literally said they are going to be agile on price.
Meaning they have pricing options, and the only reason to really choose one over the other would be competition.
LOL @ "I work for a fortune 50 company"... come on.. you have to know how silly that sounds.
"An hour before they sell it " wouldn't really be how that works... many days/weeks/months before they'd have agreed on a price vs. the competition. So the decision would already be made. "If they price @ X we price at Y", etc.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Western media writing senseless garbage for a PlayStation with their headquarters in California, United States of America?
Okay.
Optimistic Gamer
Member
Sony announces price for PS5: 1 Xbox Series X
No market for Microsoft, no undercutting for Microsoft.
Check mate atheists.
No market for Microsoft, no undercutting for Microsoft.
Check mate atheists.
Thirty7ven
Banned
R&D costs. Actual manufacturing cost will be close. XSX is using a vapor chamber which isn't cheap either, so it's up in the air how much if any additional cost the PS5 cooling solution will have. The point behind a better cooling solution and a cheaper APU is to save costs, not add them. People are clueless.
The controller will sell for 69.99, not cost them 69.99. The controller might be more expensive than the X1S by 2 dollars a pop.
What does that mean?
Last edited:
Well, GPU and CPU on Xbox and secondly, you don't race to 10 million with 3rd party ports.
Unless we see the launch window games from both its really hard to predict.
And I feel this undercutting price is horse shit. They are just jelly from 2013 when SONY released bare bone console at 399 where as MS jammed a Kinect down everyone's throat.
Ten_Fold
Member
Why would anyone not think Microsoft is waiting to undercut Sony. If they launch at the same price Sony will outsell them 2-1 easily. Microsoft needs to price either $50 or $100 under whatever the Ps5’s price will be. They need to bundle a year of gamepass (which is like giving a free copy of Halo infinite) and have more stock than the PS5. Also release that Kameo 2 Microsoft.
Last edited: