
Sony’s PlayStation 4 Will Launch “This Holiday Season” For $399 - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/10/sony-ps4-price-launch-date/
======
batiudrami
Well it certainly seems like they learned from the PS3 launch. They also
appear to have found a fairly snarky marketing team too
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA)

~~~
aspensmonster
__* The foregoing instructional video applies only to disc based games __*

PS4 multi-player online access requires PSN account & PS Plus subscription.

Kind of a buzz kill.

~~~
jlgreco
Eh, not everybody likes to play online, and at least you don't need the paid
online account shit to use other internet requiring services like netflix.

I think I might make this the first console I've owned in a decade... Just
about everything about it makes a lot of sense to me.

~~~
Narishma
Indeed, and you also get a bunch of neat stuff when you subscribe to PS+ like
free games and discounts. You also don't need it for all games, F2P games for
example are exempted from it at the discretion of the publisher.

------
oms1005
I was very surprised at the price, but with the ability to play online
multiplayer now being a part of Playstation Plus, they can afford this. I was
impressed by both conferences, but assuming Holiday season is November, I
think the PS4 is looking really good.

Also, Kingdom Hearts 3. That alone kind of made my day.

~~~
Narishma
KH3 will be available on both consoles.

------
jordan0day
Sony clearly _lost_ the last battle in the console war, so it makes sense for
them to try to undercut Microsoft in the next round.

Microsoft seems to be making a bet that people want their consoles to do more.
Sony seems to be focusing just on delivering a better pure gaming experience.
I get the sneaking suspicion that "gamers" are going to like Sony's approach
more.

Edit: Sony apparently didn't "clearly lose" the current-gen battle.

~~~
magoghm
The PS3 installed based is larger than the XBox 360 installed base:
[http://www.vgchartz.com/](http://www.vgchartz.com/)

And the PS3 was released a year later than the XBox 360.

~~~
pyre
According to the chart, we're talking 77.6M vs. 77.5M. That's really splitting
hairs about who is 'first.'

The part that's missing here is that those stats are after ~8 years of
normalization. Many people that only bought a single console at first may now
have two or three from that generation (i.e. could only afford one console,
but over the course of close to a decade could save up and buy one or two
more, especially after price drops).

The PS3 was also one of the first BluRay players, and IIRC in Japan Sony is a
more trusted brand than Microsoft (or at least _was_ ). These are all factors
at play here.

------
almontas33
I am certain that the PS4 will do better than Microsoft simply cause of the
privacy situation. I really can't stand the idea that XBOX one has to have the
camera on at all times!

------
ChrisNorstrom
This is VERY interesting. The console business is living proof for all
entrepreneurs that past success DOES NOT dictate FUTURE success. And consumers
are NOT as loyal to your brand as you think they are. It's anyone's game and
you have to win over your customers each and every decade.

=== SONY ===

[Gen1] Playstation (1st place) 102 million units

[Gen2] Playstation 2 (1st place) 154 million units

[Gen3] Playstation S3 (Last place) 70 million units

Sony slipped from being 1st to nearly last. The original lack of online
support & multi-media online content of the X360, The "Cell Processor"
mistake, high $600 price really hit the PS3 hard, it made up for it by
including a blu-ray player though and later free online multiplayer.

=== Nintendo ===

[Gen1] N64 (2nd Place) 33 million units

[Gen2] GameCube (3rd Place) 22 million units

[Gen3] Wii (1st Place) 100 million units

Things were getting bad for Nintendo until they tapped into an unknown market
known to us now as "Casual Gamers". Before 2004 (much before FarmVille and
other casual games) I had honestly never even heard the term at all throughout
my life. Well done at discovering a new market.

=== Microsoft ===

[Gen1] n/a

[Gen2] Xbox (2nd Place) 24 million units

[Gen3] Xbox 360 (2nd Place) 77 million units

Out of no-where Microsoft (one of the most hated companies in America at the
time _which inspired Google 's original "Don't be evil" moto_ ) got itself up
to 2nd place consistently by catering to "Gun-Bros" and hard core gamers (the
type that go to a lan party to play Halo Matches) and delivering online
content near perfectly (except for the price tag of Xbox Live). It revived an
old idea (playing online with strangers, something that Sega tried and failed
at twice) and made it work. It also helps that internet penetration rates were
much higher than the days of Sega. It also introduced the standard
"achievements" and "gamertag" that we now see all over the place. And it was
the 1st to launch during the Gen3 console wars.

=== Moral of the Story ===

Last year's winners are this year's losers and last year's losers are now at
the top. How differently will things change in the Gen4 console wars? So far
the "Wii U" is doing terribly. PS4 looks the most innovative, and Xbone looks
like Microsoft's attempt of control and conquering everything in the living
room without asking the consumer for input (M$ as usual).

~~~
Narishma
Your current gen numbers are a bit old. PS3 is now in second place (barely,
77.6 million units vs 77.5M for Xbox 360).

------
raphaelcaixeta
I wonder what Microsoft's thought process is behind the "no used games"
policy. Anything I'm missing?

~~~
batiudrami
I'm guessing they expected a similar policy from Sony. Whether or not they had
one and killed it after seeing the reaction to the XBox One is impossible to
know, but we do know that publishers absolutely hate the used games industry,
plus Microsoft (and Sony) take a cut of every new game sold so it's in their
interest to move more new copies too.

I personally am not a fan of used games (I don't see it as being much better
ideologically than piracy, since the people who made the game are not getting
compensated on resales which provide an identical experience to one that you
get brand new), but publicity-wise it's a very smart move on Sony's part.

~~~
daeken
I personally am not a fan of used cars (I don't see it as being much better
ideologically than theft, since the people who made the car are not getting
compensated on resales which provide an identical experience to one that you
get brand new), but publicity-wise it's a very smart move on Honda's part.

~~~
Negitivefrags
If you are trying to compare games to cars, then the analogy doesn't translate
to digital products at all.

Non-digital products degrade as they are used. A car only has a certain number
of kilometres in it. The older the car is, the worse it is to drive and the
more it costs to run.

Digital goods either work or they don't. If you buy the same digital good used
then you get the exact same experience as the person who bought it new.

Things that don't wear out are just different.

~~~
jordan0day
The degradation of the non-digital product isn't what's important -- it's the
_value_ of that product that is important. Oftentimes (like in the case of
most cars), the _value_ is closely related to that degradation, but that's
just the case for cars.

The value of a digital product like a video game declines over time, as well,
even though the data on the disc doesn't degrade. The _experience_ degrades.
If that weren't the case, the used games store would be able to sell a used
game for a lot more than they do.

If publishers and studios really want to kill the used games market, they'd
acknowledge that their games lose value over time, and drop the prices over
time accordingly. Which they do, just not enough, apparently.

~~~
Negitivefrags
Those are two types of value degradation, and I don't think you can compare
those either.

A used game can be sold next to a new game at the same point in time and the
used game will be priced cheaper. You will get an identical experience
regardless of which you buy, that is to say, the real value of both is
identical.

The shop only prices it cheaper to encourage you to buy it, because they have
a higher profit margin on used games.

If you drive a car about for 50,000KM and put it back in the shop, now that
car is has lower real value than the new one next to it.

~~~
jordan0day
_" A used game can be sold next to a new game at the same point in time and
the used game will be priced cheaper."_

 _" The shop only prices it cheaper to encourage you to buy it, because they
have a higher profit margin on used games."_

So why isn't it the publishers job to ensure that neither of these statements
are true? That is, two months in, why haven't they dropped the price of the
new game enough to make it attractive compared to the used copy? If they can't
make any new sales because the used copies are so much cheaper, what's the
point of maintaining that price?

~~~
Negitivefrags
The economics of used games just don't work that way.

Before the player has played the game, the value of the game disk is shown to
be at least $60 dollars to that person. They show that by paying that price.

Once a player has completed a single player game, the value of the disk to
that person is now zero. Given the opportunity, they will sell the game at any
price they can get. They will happily trade the game in for $5.

To a new player coming along, they may still pay $60, but if there is a used
(and effectively identical) copy sitting there for $55, why not buy that
instead?

A shop will price match a used game down to below any price that a publisher
could conceivably wish to charge because they only pay a tiny price for the
identical product used.

> That is, two months in, why haven't they dropped the price of the new game
> enough to make it attractive compared to the used copy?

The comparison is meaningless because they are identical. The cheaper price
always wins, and the used game will always have the cheaper price.

Used cars are fundamentally different than digital goods due to the fact that
they can be consumed infinitely without devaluing the physical asset.

~~~
jordan0day
_"... the value of the disk to that person is now zero. Given the opportunity,
they will sell the game at any price they can get. They will happily trade the
game in for $5."_

But that's not really true, at all. "Replayability" is a term that gets tossed
around, _a lot_ when describing single player games. If "the value of the disk
to that person is now zero" were true, it's a term that wouldn't even exist.

Additionally, I hate to resort to anecdotes, but I'm not sure if there's any
unbiased research in this area -- but I don't know anyone who buys a brand new
game, plays it for a month, and then "will happily trade the game in for $5."
I mean, I'm sure there are people who do fit that mold, but if that were true,
then all the used games shops would only give you $5 for any month-old game.
But those month-old games command a much higher price than that, precisely
because people aren't happily trading in the game for $5. This is really basic
econ 101 stuff here. Supply and demand.

------
randomfool
So now MS is competing against PS4 & Apple TV with a product that costs as
much as the two combined.

Microsoft can't subsidize the HW if they are aiming for the TV audience. I
think their strategy is flawed.

------
jjsz
It's $399 because it doesn't include the camera [0]. You can also use other
apps without paying it's $50/year to play multiplayer games / PS+. We'll have
to wait a year or so though for it's exclusive to catch up with Microsoft's.
In two years when tablets get more RAM and cores, and if tablet games get
serious the death of consoles AND handhelds will be increased. After all,
unless you have people over, personally I would rather play outside, PS Vita
style remotely connected to my PC. So. There. Instant startup opportunity. The
closest I've found, is what I use with my PS3 controller [1]. I'm looking for
something like the Vita, but for the PC because I'm done with consoles. Unless
it gets 10+ games that I'm interested in, there's no point. Who wants to be
forced to buy the camera, and be monitored like that. IMO, Japan's morals and
culture continues to be the best choice when it comes to gaming.

[0]
[http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-4-Camera/dp/B00BGAA3S2](http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-4-Camera/dp/B00BGAA3S2)
[1] [http://buy.thegameklip.com/](http://buy.thegameklip.com/)

~~~
meskyanichi
Does no one consider comparing the consoles by their hardware specs? Or is a
console just a console and do specs not exist? It's seriously amazing that
they priced it at $399 with what they are shipping. Could've easily been at
$599+. PS4's spec are far superior.

~~~
KingLot
Far superior? Reference?
[http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1942974/ps4_xbox_one_hardware_v...](http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1942974/ps4_xbox_one_hardware_very_closely_aligned.html)

Also, PS4's missing the Kinect entirely, so I don't think the price point is
amazing.

~~~
jjsz
Not sure- somewhat, but here's the best comparison I've found online:
[http://www.anandtech.com/print/6972/xbox-one-hardware-
compar...](http://www.anandtech.com/print/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-
playstation-4)

------
The_Cartman
They just murdered the xbox one.

~~~
jabits
Is price really how folks decide which to buy? Even if a couple hundred
dollars separates them, it does not change my choice.

~~~
Splenivore
That must be nice.

~~~
tehwebguy
That's not entirely fair, we're talking about premium entertainment devices
with a minimum price of $399, the difference is only 20% of that.

------
jccalhoun
The question is then why would anyone buy their just announced PS3 bundled
with GTA5 for $299? Do they figure that since GTA5 comes out in September that
they can get a couple months worth of sales in before the PS4 launch?

~~~
AdrianRossouw
This is the best time to buy consoles. The prices are rock bottom, and there
are hundreds upon hundreds of great and really inexpensive games that are
pretty widely available.

