PlayStation 4 report suggest price over $400

[KingVamp]

I think my Laptop cost about the same price on sale.

Not entirely surprising. Sony never seems to learn from previous mistakes in pricing.

It will sell, because people go apeshit for shiny things.

Surely they would lose some people because of the price alone from the get go from launch,but I didn't think the pricing is too bad. I'm pretty sure most PC gamers would at least double that price for their PC and it isn't $599 us dollars.

And shit like this is why Ouya might be my last console until the next...next generation. Gaming is getting way too expensive and not so family friendly. The ironic part is that the industry wants to be considered mainstream entertainment so badly yet they pull shit like this to turn people off and away.

In the Wii u case,it's $50-100 more than last gen with a $10 increase in the top games and with the ps4 is actually cheaper than last gen. Hopefully the game prices wouldn't go even higher. The expense is pretty much the same, really. Don't get me wrong, I wish they were cheaper too.

What's getting me is these recent rumors that been going around. No used games and always online.

They aren't trying to not off "family friendly" gamers or even cater to them, it's more now about striking a better balance between them. All of the companies are trying to do so, thought I feel Nintendo may be trying harder to find that balance.

I think a luxury can be regarded as anything in life that you don't need at all to continue living. This can be anything from video games to fancy foods.

Video games are use for stress relief and entertainment. I didn't know about you, but I can't live without some form of entertainment (at least not happily and/or comfortably) and video games is one of my choices for entertainment even if I can go for everything and the biggest thing.

Internet (isn't a phone deem so too?) is becoming/is essential thing, why can't my form entertainment be to me?

I think it's a bit worrying that console prices are getting close in price with PCs. Nowadays, even the lower-end PCs have some kind of 3D acceleration and can play at least some older games. It's normal to find for a relatively cheap price, PCs that can run recent games even if it's on lowest settings. PCs are getting more potent and cheaper as time passes and consoles are going the opposite way in this regard.

Not that this add much of anything to this, I just want to say since console are built to play games and doesn't have unnecessary,hindering software then a console at the same price would be able to do more with games than a PC. Especially since they would most likely be sold at a lost.

Actually, not necessarily... If we didn't eat any junk there would be no need for toothbrush, the problem is we eat too much candy

EDIT: Ever noticed how animals don't brush their teeth and still they don't need to use denture?

Spoiler

 

[wolfmanz51]

A good gaming PC is still $1000+.

And gaming consoles are generally cheaper than years before, adjusting for inflation. Exception is the PS3 when it launched but even that's not as expensive as older consoles.

so if you have a decent gaming pc (which is Microsoft's best platform which is why i dont count them/xbox in this post) a wii/wii u a Ps3 a psp a DS light a 3DS what will the PS4 offer to gaming that isnt possible with the stuff i have now, the only thing i see coming from sony is higher polly count, and real 720p native games (ps3 and xbox 360 really are not that HD). Really what consumer should give two shits till there are games announced for it(publishers making AAA titles), right now I know its not fair to make a call either way.

Yet I cant help but think this situation this gen could be dire for Sony whom is all ready in a dire situation financially with everything outside of the game profits. The PlayStation move is underutilized due to the fact that it was not included at launch, the vita is flopping around like a fish out of water gasping for air because it didn't innovate enough to distinguish it self from ps3, psp, or 3ds.

The ps3 had advanced capability's and it had bluray. the ps2 had emotion and DVD, but now people want something fresh. GBA to ds offered dual screens and touch controls, DS to 3DS offered 3D gaming, console like online and graphics. GC to wii offered new control methods and online capabilitys, Wii to Wii U brings a number of advancements, new architecture, new disc format that reads 2.5 times faster than Bluray, dual screen gaming, game-pad only gaming, asymmetrical gaming, and social gaming via Miiverse (though ps4 and xbox 3 will likely have there own versions of this).

So what does PS4 offer... nothing, yet.

 

[KingVamp]

so if you have a decent gaming pc (ido) a wii/wii u a Ps3 a psp a DS light a 3DS what will the PS4 offer to gaming that isnt possible with the stuff i have now, the only thing i see coming from sony is higher polly count, and real 1080p native games (ps3 and xbox 360 really are not that HD). Really what consumer should give two shits till there are games announced for it(publishers making AAA titles), right now I know its not fair to make a call either way.

The ps3 had advanced capability's and it had bluray. the ps2 had emotion and DVD, but now people want something fresh. GBA to ds offered dual screens and touch controls, DS to 3DS offered 3D gaming, console like online and graphics. GC to wii offered new control methods and online capabilitys, Wii to Wii U brings a number of advancements, new architecture, new disc format that reads 2.5 times faster than Bluray, sdd,dual screen gaming, game-pad only gaming, asymmetrical gaming, and social gaming via Miiverse (though ps4 and xbox 3 will likely have there own versions of this).

So what does PS4 offer... nothing, yet.

So, the ps4 wouldn't at least offer a number of advancements and a new architecture?
Do you honestly think they wouldn't bring something more than just "polly count"? Of course it doesn't offer anything yet, we didn't really know anything about it.

 

[Valwin]

is ps3 all over again is like sony never learnsssssss

 

[Bladexdsl]

looks like they didn't learn their lesson from the ps3 launch prepare to sell it at a loss yet again $ony

 

[wolfmanz51]

So, the ps4 wouldn't at least offer a number of advancements and a new architecture?
You don't thing they wouldn't bring something more than just "polly count"? Of course it doesn't offer
anything yet, we really didn't know anything about it.

all though just as you said really we know nothing of ps4.
but based on whats floating around:
a touch pad on a Dualshock hmm im not a fan of the vita rear touch panel thing, and again this is available on vita, 3ds, wii u.
The new architecture uses a revised version of the LibGCM API used on PlayStation 3 and PS Vita which is good because devs will be able to port easily.
What i meant by the new architecture thing with wii to wii u is Nintendo basically released a suped up gamecube with wii, and wii u is not a suped up GC. I didnt mean ps4 would not have new architecture just that, that's all its offering right now.
So far PS4 will have faster ram, a more accessible CPU and a far superior GPU so yeah it offers better graphic capability and bigger open world games.
So to me as a game designer ps4 would be my last choice to make a game for because the only thing it would challenge me to do is spend a lot of money on producing highly detailed graphics to compete with other high end games on the platform, a risky investment that could spell the death of my studio if it flops.
You could also see games being touched by too many hands to have that finely crafted feel i love so much, AC3 suffered due to 600+ people working on the game.
Also its common knowledge that the best selling platform is never and has never been the most powerful one.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

so if you have a decent gaming pc (which is Microsoft's best platform which is why i dont count them/xbox in this post)

PC is NOT a Microsoft platform. MS only makes a OS compatible with PC... The Personal Computer is an open platform originally developed by IBM. Also, MS doesn't license games made for Windows, so MS doesn't profit from games made for Windows directly...

Sorry to pull your ear, but you're not the first I've seen saying this and it's just plainly wrong.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

PC is NOT a Microsoft platform. MS only makes a OS compatible with PC... The Personal Computer is an open platform originally developed by IBM. Also, MS doesn't license games made for Windows, so MS doesn't profit from games made for Windows directly...

Sorry to pull your ear, but you're not the first I've seen saying this and it's just plainly wrong.

I know this is just being the devils advocate here but I would call owning ~90% of a market as being that market. Google isn't the only search engine on the planet but if I tell you to go Google something you will know exactly what I am talking about even if you hate using Google as your search engine.

Microsoft might as well be the PC market, so effectively it's known as this that even Apple says in it's commercials "I'm a PC, and I'm a Mac!"

 

[BlueStar]

It'll probably bump down to $399 for everywhere else (which is a reasonable launch price).

What do you mean by 'everywhere else'? Based on previous console releases that would mean a price of around £350-£399 - or around $599.

 

[shakirmoledina]

$400 is not bad but then again like the vita initial sales will be slow unless they drop the price. that's how sony goes.
when they see other consoles losing their magic, they drop the price and hell breaks loose on the sales.

 

[porkiewpyne]

Oh man. It's turning into the "Is entertainment a necessity?" discussion which we had in the last "Is piracy okay?" thread

 

[RodrigoDavy]

I know this is just being the devils advocate here but I would call owning ~90% of a market as being that market. Google isn't the only search engine on the planet but if I tell you to go Google something you will know exactly what I am talking about even if you hate using Google as your search engine.

You didn't get my point. Software and hardware are two completely different things. When you talk about the PC platform, you're talking about the hardware. So, saying MS
dominates the PC market doesn't make any sense. Now saying companies like Dell or Hp or Samsung that actually sell PCs dominate the PC market would be more precise.

What MS dominates is the PC OS market, that is correct.

As a counter-example, it is known that Sega's Dreamcast used a embedded version of Windows. If the Dreamcast was the best-selling console of it's generation, then who would have dominated the gaming market that generation, Microsoft or Sega?

Microsoft might as well be the PC market, so effectively it's known as this that even Apple says in it's commercials "I'm a PC, and I'm a Mac!"

Might as well remember you that Apple is a hardware manufacturer, so in that said TV commercial they didn't care to distinguish that "Windows sucks", they wanted to say "PC (the hardware) sucks". Also, since 2006 Macs are essentialy IBM PC compatible and you can even run Windows in it.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

is ps3 all over again is like sony never learnsssssss

No, it's the PS4. Are you even paying attention?

 

[DiscostewSM]

I'm reading the article, and I think with it saying over 40,000 yen would mean at least 40,000 yen, so yeah, the possibility of it being $400 is thre, but also the possibility of it being a little more or a lot more than that much.

 

[wolfmanz51]

You didn't get my point. Software and hardware are two completely different things. When you talk about the PC platform, you're talking about the hardware. So, saying MS
dominates the PC market doesn't make any sense. Now saying companies like Dell or Hp or Samsung that actually sell PCs dominate the PC market would be more precise.

What MS dominates is the PC OS market, that is correct.

As a counter-example, it is known that Sega's Dreamcast used a embedded version of Windows. If the Dreamcast was the best-selling console of it's generation, then who would have dominated the gaming market that generation, Microsoft or Sega?



Might as well remember you that Apple is a hardware manufacturer, so in that said TV commercial they didn't care to distinguish that "Windows sucks", they wanted to say "PC (the hardware) sucks". Also, since 2006 Macs are essentially IBM PC compatible and you can even run Windows in it.

Yes but If I'm a serious game developer releasing a AAA title on a PC I'm going to use Direct X11 by Microsoft, and the programs/midddleware that supports it which requires Windows which is owned by Microsoft, then I can port to MAC using wrappers as ugly as that is.
It is that way I fucking hate Windows OS but if you're a gamer on PC and you want to play 90% of the games that's what you do. So no Microsoft does not Make PCS but every PC ships with windows heck even my macbook has windows, just to play games/use programs to make games. your quibbling over something silly. Microsoft doesn't "make" all of the xbox ether if you wanna put it that way; they use chips made by other companies and merely designed the xbox and only really make software for it. so in a sense the xbox is a pc with a crappy limited version of windows on it that shows Advertisements every time you boot like add ware built in, oh and did I mention that you have to pay microsoft to play online; wtf my pc (and every other platform) has free to play games online with voice chat.

 

[Qtis]

You didn't get my point. Software and hardware are two completely different things. When you talk about the PC platform, you're talking about the hardware. So, saying MS
dominates the PC market doesn't make any sense. Now saying companies like Dell or Hp or Samsung that actually sell PCs dominate the PC market would be more precise.

What MS dominates is the PC OS market, that is correct.

As a counter-example, it is known that Sega's Dreamcast used a embedded version of Windows. If the Dreamcast was the best-selling console of it's generation, then who would have dominated the gaming market that generation, Microsoft or Sega?

Actually you could just as well say Microsoft dominates the PC market. While the PC stands for Personal Computer, you can't honestly say that MS isn't the leader in PC OS software (and possibly in hardware too in a way), because you can't use a computer without an interface. Sure you have OSX and Linux, but those are a very small minority. Only real reason I could understand a corporation using OSX is for graphics/video/publishing. Pretty much all engineering CAD and ERP software for example are pretty much Windows exclusive (thanks to Apple f'ing up their computer sales in the beginning of 2000s and AutoCAD for OSX being trashed). Gaming is very close to the previous example. Most games are Windows exclusive or have a far superior version version for Windows. A good recent example is Starcraft II: on OSX it was a shitstorm and lagged very much, but on Windows 7 no real problem and graphics were set to high. I'm talking about the same computer here (MBP 15", 2.66 GHz i7, GeForce GT 330M). Sure you could blame Blizzard for it, but it's just as well a problem with the OS. In my opinion, for gaming: Windows > OSX > Linux. This is all from personal experience. Actually only reason why I have a Windows partition on my Mac..

As for the latter question, I'd say both. You can also say Google dominates the mobile phone OS market, but Samsung is the global leader in selling the hardware. It's not necessary to go that deep into the discussion, but both interpretations are just as valid on the matter.

Might as well remember you that Apple is a hardware manufacturer, so in that said TV commercial they didn't care to distinguish that "Windows sucks", they wanted to say "PC (the hardware) sucks". Also, since 2006 Macs are essentialy IBM PC compatible and you can even run Windows in it.

Actually it doesn't have anything to do with IBM PC compatibility per se, it's all about Macs running on Intel processors instead of PowerPC. After the change from PowerPC to Intel was done, Windows was compatible. If Macs were still in the PowerPC wagon, I doubt Windows would run on it.

As for the PS4 price, I don't see any problem with it. People already mentioned gaming being a luxury. Well, hate to break it to you folks, everything new is a luxury. You don't have to buy the latest and greatest to play games. That's why there are older models too. In the car industry Audi makes something an extra for a cost. The next year it's already part of the basic model and VW has it as an extra customizable feature for a cost. After a year or so, it's also a standard for the basic line of VW.

Compared to the price, I think the WiiU is overpriced compared to what it has to offer vs the competition at the moment, it doesn't mean it won't come down after early adopters have had their share and Nintendo is confident with lowered manufacturing costs to lower the price. It's also pretty much the same for the PS4 and Nextbox. Once a console has something really great to offer for you, go ahead and buy it. If you don't break it and keep buying software for it, you'll get your moneys worth out of it. Regardless of the price.

(Note to all: I don't mean that the WiiU is bad, on the contrary. It has fantastic games, but the amount of games offered is still relatively small and most ports have been out for the other consoles for a while before the WiiU launch. I'll probably get me a WiiU at some point, but I'll just wait to see if there are any serious hardware problems like the RRoD for 360s, YLOD for PS3s or the Wii heating issues with the internet connect).

 

[Deleted-185407]

-

 

[Issac]

$428 = $599?

Oh right, I forgot about the exchange rates from USD to stupidity.

Actually, that's more like USD to Swedish Kronor back to USD, almost...
$399 -> Video Game Price Conversion -> 3999 SEK -> Normal Price Conversion -> $629

sooo, for Swedes: $399 = $629....
(Hell, the launch 3DS at $250 was $399 here in Sweden when I bought it)

 

[Deleted member 318366]

Seeing how I payed a lot for my 3ds, wii and wii u I don't think I'll have any problem getting the ps4...just as long as it never goes past the $800 margin lol

 

[chartube12]

It'll probably bump down to $399 for everywhere else (which is a reasonable launch price).

No it isn't. Anything that cost a 3rd or 4th of average monthly pay check is too high. Looks like I'll be jumping ship this generation for a long time. At least my father inlaw get's pc parts from his company for free. Looks like I have legitimate reasons to go PC gaming. Unreasonable pricing and console DRMs are not for me.