and
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/10/8/technology/sony-plays-ps4s-fanbase
There may some other interesting bits in there.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Sony originally wanted to include camera at $399
- Thread starter artist
- Start date
There may some other interesting bits in there.
UnluckyKate
Member
Camera or 8gb ddr5, I'm glad they choose the right thing
Aussie Legend
Banned
I'm okay with this.
But If they could afford it they wouldn't be right?
Except since pretty much every 3rd party will develop their titles to work on both platforms none of them are going to make significant camera implementation a big part of the core game design.
Sony not including a camera effectively kneecaps the utilization of camera tech even on the XB1, effectively making it a non-standard peripheral as far as publishers are concerned.
electroshockwave
Member
Any idea what the loss on each PS4 is then? Must be fairly close if the camera was considered at $399.
Fixed. I feel the same way.
Fixed. I feel the same way.
that's fine since Microsoft is money hatting developers to hold the visual fidelity of the ps4 back purposely for some developers.
Opus Angelorum
Member
So does this suggest Sony is losing some money on the hardware? Has this been spoken about elsewhere?
That's true, but $399 is good value for what we're getting. Even if they did include it, I doubt a lot of people would use it. Making it a separate product for people who want it is a smart move.
And thankfully, they didn't raise the price just to pack it in.
Simply from the competitive angle it would've really beat down on XB1 further, even if it'd be the one piece of the equation that likely can be proven is straight up superior on XB1.
But from practicality? Yeah, this is for the best, and perhaps the camera can be made cheaper int he future to be safely bundled in.
But from practicality? Yeah, this is for the best, and perhaps the camera can be made cheaper int he future to be safely bundled in.
I am pretty sure they are losing money on hardware. Eurogamer expects about $60 loss per console.
Giving more tech for our money is always the right move. The point here is that Sony prioritized the right tech when it was time to cull back the bill of materials. They didn't gimp the core hardware to keep an accessory most have no interest in, instead they bumped the RAM and lost the accessory to make sure their system was the best hardware they could offer for the price point.
Agreed but it's FREE.
I think it will be bundled in eventually, regardless.
Opus Angelorum
Member
That's not too bad, compared to the PS3.
Canis lupus
Member
Yes, Sony expects to lose 60 dollars per unit at launch but make up for it with game sales and PS+.
They're losing less money on it than PS2 and PS3 at launch.
Zeyphersan
Banned
Wait, people are acting like it was between the camera or higher specs?
Guys, it was a debate to include the camera with the final specs at the same price point, and they chose not to because they'd lose a ton more money on each unit. I respect their decision, but let's not act like it was between 6 gigs of RAM and the camera.
Even if you never used it, a packed-in camera is more functionality for the same price-point, which for the consumer is never a bad thing. Obviously for corporate they wanted to sell it at as little a loss as possible, but from my viewpoint a non-required accessory at the same price is the definition of added value.
This is the shit I'm talking about.
Guys, it was a debate to include the camera with the final specs at the same price point, and they chose not to because they'd lose a ton more money on each unit. I respect their decision, but let's not act like it was between 6 gigs of RAM and the camera.
Even if you never used it, a packed-in camera is more functionality for the same price-point, which for the consumer is never a bad thing. Obviously for corporate they wanted to sell it at as little a loss as possible, but from my viewpoint a non-required accessory at the same price is the definition of added value.
This is the shit I'm talking about.
If they were planning to include it, the better and ultimately final choice to use 8GB of GDDR5 over only using 4GB was the correct decision. It probably wasn't one or the toher, but once that extra 4GB got put in that choice was always going to be more difficult to make in the cameras favour.
If they had only had 4GB then putting the camera in as well would have happened.
Reading the article, House never actually says that the tried to bundle it and were told no from above.
If they had only had 4GB then putting the camera in as well would have happened.
Reading the article, House never actually says that the tried to bundle it and were told no from above.
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
It is a good thing Kaz is at the top, looking down on all.
Yep, they were losing $300 on each 60GB launch PS3 sold.
Sure, but MS can't money hat forever and if Sony's superior price point leads to a tangible worldwide sales lead that only gets more expensive. At that point it becomes very easy to utilize the extra horsepower the PS4 in order to compete with the 3rd parties MS isn't funneling cash to, not to mention Sony's own first party teams.
Case in point - I'd bet that the next CoD and BF after Ghosts and 4 will make FAR better use of the PS4's hardware after Killzone: Shadow Fall mops the floor with the PS4 versions of both titles at launch.
Meanwhile camera implementation from 3rd parties will forever be gimped short of MS pulling off a miracle and handily winning not just the U.S. but Europe as well. Even then Japanese 3rd parties won't make extensive use of it.
nature boy
Member
Prince Vultan
Banned
I'd only lament this loss if House of the Dead Overkill 2 was headed to PS4 and I'd need the camera for my Move to play it.
But that's not happening, so... I think I can live without thanks.
But that's not happening, so... I think I can live without thanks.
Callibretto
Member
I don't think so, if Kinect takes off again, that mean consumer are okay with $500 console with included camera, Sony can simply make a $450/460 bundle with ps camera.
anyway, I think the big gamble here will be the vr device, we know Sony is working on it, and Ms also have fortazela glasses or something. both will need camera so Ms will have an edge there since consumer only need to buy the glasses while Sony will need to bundle camera and vr device together for people who didn't have camera already.
Lovely Salsa
Banned
It was becuase of the CELL, right?
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
and I am guessing the Blu-ray as well. as back then the cheapest Blu-Ray players were around a grand.
ebullientprism
Member
I wonder if MS had gone in for 399 would they have been pressured to put it in there?
The 100 bucks price difference gave them enough confidence to put the console out there without one.
The 100 bucks price difference gave them enough confidence to put the console out there without one.
PaulKersey
Member
If they were close to just eating that cost it might have been better to just cut the price an extra 50 dollars instead.
Lovely Salsa
Banned
IIRC it cost Sony only 100 bucks to manufacture bluray on ps3
If you saw what Adam Boyes said post the E3 conference and read this interview, they chose the $399 price first. They wanted to hit that "badly". Once Phil mumbo-jumbled the "four hundred and ninety nine" at the Xbone conference, people rehearsing at Sony presser were walking up the halls high-fiving each other.
$399 is a great price point. Why come out at $349 when they don't need to? If they introduce the hardware at $399, they have more room to drop it in 12 months or whatever when Microsoft drops the price on XB1. Where could they realistically go from $349, at least for the foreseeable future?