You have no idea what you're talking about, Mott.Spending roughly $500 on the next-gen PlayStation would've seemed ludicrous a decade ago; now it only seems plausible because of the PS4 Pro's price. Owning the latest-and-greatest console is becoming ever more costly.
The consoles themselves generally don't bring in much money, if any at all, for the company selling them, at least at launch. Oftentimes consoles will be priced at cost, or even below what it takes to manufacture them, with the actual profits made from things like game licensing and distribution, online services and peripherals. The console hardware itself doesn't necessarily need to be profitable.PlayStation owners might have to spend more than expected on the PlayStation 5. Bloomberg reported yesterday that it costs Sony about $450 to manufacture each unit of the next-gen console. The company may have to set the PS5's retail price at nearly $500 to make even a little bit of profit on each unit.
People who write about PC tech all day are liable to regard deflation as the norm, I guess. A $500 console is roughly where the last gen was in terms of purchasing power. On the other hand, the same money can get you a pretty decent laptop these days, whereas $400 a decade ago would only get you something at the entry level. I don't think $300 could buy you anything at the time of the Xbox 360. And what PC tech could we get back in the 80's for the price of the NES? Maybe a couple RAM chips? A print port card?I'm confused, why is the price at 450-500 outlandish? People keep quoting that it's insane for a console to cost this much.
You could get a font cartridge for your printer for about $150-$200. There are some old computer shows on TV from the 80's on Youtube. A guy was reviewing a printer in one of them and noted how a 6 pack of fonts for the printer was only about $800, and that's not adjusted for inflation.And what PC tech could we get back in the 80's for the price of the NES? Maybe a couple RAM chips? A print port card?
That's probably at least partly due to laptops being somewhat less in demand, once smartphones and tablets became more popular. With increased competition from those devices for mobile computing, the laptop manufacturers likely can't charge as much of a premium for mid-range devices. It's also arguable that laptop performance isn't improving as quickly as it once did, and even older laptops can handle most everyday tasks pretty well, so people see less need to buy a new one as often.On the other hand, the same money can get you a pretty decent laptop these days, whereas $400 a decade ago would only get you something at the entry level.
Thanks. That was very informative.Here's what launch models of some popular consoles cost in the US, with their approximate prices adjusted for inflation in parenthesis...
As you point out, that was a special case of them trying to break into an established market. I don't expect we'll see quite the same degree of subsidization.The Xbox supposedly cost more than $400 to build at launch, yet it sold for just $300, meaning Microsoft lost over $100 on each console sold.
Interesting point.People who write about PC tech all day are liable to regard deflation as the norm, I guess. A $500 console is roughly where the last gen was in terms of purchasing power.
I think one reason people were interested in trying to use XBox 360 and PS3 as PCs was precisely because they were cheaper than PCs available at the time.I don't think $300 could buy you anything at the time of the Xbox 360.
It's a little before my time, but there were entry-level computers that used a TV as a display, such as Apple II, Commodore 64, a couple Atari models, Texas Instruments, Tandy, etc. According to this, C64's price bracket started just above the NES, at least at times.And what PC tech could we get back in the 80's for the price of the NES? Maybe a couple RAM chips? A print port card?