I come to GAF a lot for color on what is both my hobby and my job - I cover gaming stocks for a hedge fund. I'd like to provide some friendly words of advice-
I really don't see where doing this gives you any leverage. If anything, watching gaming stocks, you should know that the consumer's reaction is key. The importance of Metacritic for a publisher tells it all.
Get over it and stop sounding so entitled.
People feel cut off from something that doesn't cost Sony something to run, and we're feeling entitled? We're discussing the implications and voicing our concerns. Having this "oh, you're just a bunch of stupid consumers" is probably the worst thing a stock-broker can do, if you first are going to use that "status".
People don't buy the new iPhone and you invested in Apple? Do you tell your boss that the consumers are entitled and just don't know better?
MSFT and Sony aren't in this because its a charity and its right and proper that they expect a reasonable profit for their efforts.
I am pretty sure no one expects them to give away their consoles for free.
The X1 is very fairly priced but Sony especially has gone above and beyond to please the 'core' as represented here.
If you had any idea what you talked about, you'd know that there's nothing surprising about either price-point, and the profit might be the same for both consoles. MS are making a worse spec, more expensive console (yield problems), and they've thrown in the Kinect. That that adds 100$ to their BOM is not surprising at all.
For a company that just posted their first annual profit in four years, Sony alone had the b*lls to take a loss on every console sold.
Nintendo too. Are we really going to say this is a ballsy move? It's a business strategic plan. It arguably worked. But this has nothing to with the PS4.
Perhaps everybody stupid enough to whine about this would prefer a $499/549 rrp but charging for online multiplayer (Not entertainment like Netflix etc) is one way to make a fraction of that back.
Yes, perhaps we are opposed to console makers feeling they can hide everything behind a paywall. Perhaps gamers feel attached to their medium, and feel that Sony are being opportunistic, not smart. These very, very valid points. It's about how to make enough money, not how to make enough money per customer. Because if you scare away half your playerbase, you'll need quite a lot more profit per customer to make it stick. So I don't get what you're trying to say.
With the rrp that low and no mp paywall to cushion the blow all the gifs in the world wouldn't save Kaz from his angry shareholders.
As if you have shit clue what the BOM is, or if they're taking a loss of profit for this. You're making so many assumptions, and you think stockholders are more important that consumers.
The PS4 is the most powerful game console ever made and they're selling you a hell of a lot for a ridiculously low (some might even say ill advised) rrp.
Who might even say that? You're again, acting as if you know what it takes to make this. This is not PS3. These are all established technologies. If you care about Sony-stocks, it's time to pay attention to CBOAT and some of the other brilliant minds on NeoGAF that have some very, very persuasive wafer-prices calculations and what it means for MS's BOM. Sony has made a fantastic console. It's smaller, quieter and less costly to make, while still being better hardware than MS. Let's applaud that, not take more money for it.
I'm not even going to mention the entire DRM/used game angle.
What does this even mean? MS are ostracizing consumers by imposing this new system. You sound so rubbed up against the profit per customer number that you have no idea that losing customers might be bad. For this, it's good for Sony.
PC multiplayer might be free but equivalent hardware is 3x as expensive
I'm sure that has nothing to do with producing in bulk, and it being one product instead of several from various manufacturer. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the architecture of the system, or otherwise standardized opportunities that lower the cost for console-makers. And let's not even pretend that the equivalent teraflops would cost 1350$. Or that hardware cost of PC is in anyway subsidizing online.
and all your favorite console games will be late/missing.
Now you just sound like a PR-person. There's a much richer world of content that's exclusive to PC. This is just silly.
GAF played a constructive role in helping Sony decide their ownership policies. Don't start whining about this and risk sounding to the outside world like a bunch of entitled kids that want everything for free.
All in all, your conclusion is not even found in your own arguments, let alone in the arguments of that which is true. Yes, Sony can make more profit per customer if they pay-wall online, but stopping there, and saying that's required, then, is outrageous.
