Printable View
$500 seems very optimistic to me. I don't see Sony chopping another $100 off the Vita, no matter how poorly it's selling. At some point losing money just to lose money has to end. Unless it's that new, cheaper model that hasn't been released yet, and even then, $550 seems more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
We have recently identified and eliminated three of the most common crash issues on PS4 in a hotfix. We will continue to investigate and eliminate stability issues as we find them. We have a game update on PS4 in the works for the week of Nov 25 and will be able to share details on it soon.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4...5219650959667/
You're right. For some reason I had the Radio Shack Vita price in my head instead of the MSRP. $550 is definitely a better bet, though I am not sure 8.3% off for a bundle of that magnitude is all that enticing, so I still think there's a chance it'll be $500.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Good, because the game has pretty much been a giant turd since it launched.Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Ri
That's a hell of a bundaru.
Brack Friday?
Attachment 72562Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
But when you look at Sony historically, they've operated more on the "added value" ticket as opposed to the "price reduction" one. For years and years, the PS3 was $300. They just kept adding larger harddrives. Though it was apparent the Vita needed a price cut rather soon after launch, they instead added a game and a memory stick (madden, ass creed, CoD) and kept the price the same. It was just, what, 6 months ago that they threw in the towel and reduced the Vita to $199?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
But who knows, maybe they're in panic mode, time will tell. But I'd be highly surprised, especially with the might-as-well-be-mandatory PS+. With free games every month, the razor blade model loses some of its efficacy, and considering how much money Sony is losing with the Vita already, it wasn't that efficient to begin with.
You're exactly right about the history. I was actually surprised there didn't seem to be any of that "added value" on the box shown in fact, although there are a couple boxes too small to read, one of which is PS+ something.
I wonder how lucrative PS+ is. Maybe they're playing the SaaS angle here with a side of the razor blades. They sold 1M PS4s day one. If every one of those consumers subscribes to PS+ for five years at MSRP, that's an annuity worth $216.47M NPV (at an arbitrary 5% interest) compared to the $400M revenue from the hardware sales. If we extend that to seven years, it's $289.32M. 10 years is $386.09M. I have to believe the profit margin on PS+ is way higher than on software as well, so that would make the case even more compelling than just those revenue numbers.
That's true. I was looking at the mandatory PS+ for online as a way to cover the cost of their online service. But I suppose since the online has always been free and thus subsidized by some other part of the budget, the accounting wizards can work it so that those costs are still covered by whatever, and all this newfound PS+ money is gravy.