Jump to content



Photo

Yoshida: Making PS4 always-online was never considered


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#16 OP Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 09 May 2013 - 00:07

A Cell processor cost ~$38 to manufacture in 2009, by now I can't imagine it costing more than $20, and even that is a generous estimate. They could have sold a premium SKU for $100 more and still turned a profit, but they chose not to.


I think you're being a little naive if you think

a) That definitely ensures a profit (we won't know the PS4 parts estimate alone till launch/after launch). The non-BC PS4 may have to ride with a small loss to start with, especially if a new move camera/headset is being included.
b) $100 more on top of whatever the PS4 is will be a reasonable price for a large enough audience to warrant it.

If a PS3 launches at $400, you really think people will be wanting to spend $500?

Then you have to consider how long do they continue to maintain factory lines producing the BC SKU and the non-BC SKU (something which adds to costs as well)? Indefinitely?

This generation has shown a mish-mash of SKUs has been anything but successful (Xbox 360 launching without a hard drive, PS3 being too costly and hugely hurting Sony).

You have to streamline, you have to allow consumers to use their own hard drives and then the rest is history. No confusion, no cost-cutting measures to save your company involving taking features away, and no money grabbing tactics like no hard drive/built in WiFi to annoy developers and consumers.


#17 giantpotato

giantpotato

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 27-January 04
  • Location: Montreal, Canada

Posted 09 May 2013 - 00:48

My point is that if the $400 sku is making a profit, a $500 sku with the extra hardware would also make a profit. Adding last-gen hardware is not something that's going to turn the tide between the PS4 selling at a profit, or selling at a loss.

By your logic, nobody would have bought the more expensive SKU's of the PS3 or 360, because a cheaper version was available. Why would you want to take choice away from consumers, let them buy whatever sku fits their budget.

#18 +FiB3R

FiB3R

    aka DARKFiB3R

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 06-November 02
  • Location: SE London
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise
  • Phone: Lumia 930

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:10

Is it too much to ask to be able to play all the entire Uncharted, Infamous, Halo etc. series' without needing 4 consoles.

Yes, it really is. (exaggeration notwithstanding)

#19 Emn1ty

Emn1ty

    Web Programmer

  • Joined: 09-April 06
  • Location: Irvine, CA
  • OS: Windows 8.1, OSX Mavericks
  • Phone: Driod Razr

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:42

I think you're being a little naive if you think

a) That definitely ensures a profit (we won't know the PS4 parts estimate alone till launch/after launch). The non-BC PS4 may have to ride with a small loss to start with, especially if a new move camera/headset is being included.
b) $100 more on top of whatever the PS4 is will be a reasonable price for a large enough audience to warrant it.

A) most consoles sell at a loss and make it back in software sales. The only exception to this was the Wii. I'm 100% sure this will be true for the PS4 and the Xbox Infinity.

#20 OP Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:06

A) most consoles sell at a loss and make it back in software sales. The only exception to this was the Wii. I'm 100% sure this will be true for the PS4 and the Xbox Infinity.


I know that, but were you not here at the start of this generation with Sony posting billions of yen in losses, Ken Kutaragi stepping down and sales much lower than expected due to $599. In recent times Sony have sold off their main HQ in Japan, and even more recently all of the top staff/CEO etc are not getting their bonuses to save money.

Its not as simple as we will sell at a loss now and sometime in the future our hardware will make profit. That's a risk. A huge risk. So if you are going to do it, things better be planned well, and go to plan.

It took till 2010 for the PS3 to become profitable. Sony cannot and will not be able to afford that sort of timescale with a PS4.

#21 Boxster17

Boxster17

    Porsche Enthusiast

  • Joined: 30-October 04
  • Location: Halifax
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro x64

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:42

Microsoft and Sony aren't stupid, I'm sure they did the math the amount of people that use backwards compatibility on the X360 and PS3 is likely a couple percent. I have a near launch 60GB one and have a couple dozen PS2 games that I tried a couple times and it looked awful so never bothered again. I'm buying the new consoles for the new games, not to play games that came out several years ago.

That said I'll still be keeping my PS3 for a while like I did with my PS2 as Sony tends to still launch some great games after/near their new console launches. Same goes for if/when I pick up the next Xbox, I've played all the exclusives this gen so I have no interest in backwards compatibility there either as I'm looking for what's new.

Speaking to the majority of my friends who own own either or even both (speaking of the X360/PS3), they tend to share the same feelings. It seems to be a small vocal minority that makes out backwards compatibility to be a bigger deal than it really is. Not to mention people seem to underestimate the amount of re-engineering that would likely be needed for these consoles to add these chips and to accommodate the extra power draw/heat.

#22 Blackhearted

Blackhearted

    .....

  • Joined: 26-February 04
  • Location: Ohio
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S2 (VM)

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:09

Microsoft and Sony aren't stupid, I'm sure they did the math the amount of people that use backwards compatibility on the X360 and PS3 is likely a couple percent. I have a near launch 60GB one and have a couple dozen PS2 games that I tried a couple times and it looked awful so never bothered again. I'm buying the new consoles for the new games, not to play games that came out several years ago.

Speaking to the majority of my friends who own own either or even both (speaking of the X360/PS3), they tend to share the same feelings. It seems to be a small vocal minority that makes out backwards compatibility to be a bigger deal than it really is. Not to mention people seem to underestimate the amount of re-engineering that would likely be needed for these consoles to add these chips and to accommodate the extra power draw/heat.

Sony didn't really give people very long to actually try to use the PS2 BC, as they started cutting it out at like the first hardware revision. So if they did have any numbers on that they wouldn't really mean much.

Also, You seem to think that what you and your circle of friends think accounts for everyone. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Just because you and your friends appear to be the type who beat a game and then never revisit it again, doesn't mean all (or the majority) of the rest of the people are.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!