PlayStation 5 - Now with FAQ in OP.

Homelander

Mike3287 wrote: »

PC users have been robbed blind for years, €1200 for an RTX 2080 ti, laughable prices

AMD are in bed with the console manufacturers, bread and butter for them

They'll be making 50 million SOC a year for them, stock price shot up when they won those next gen contracts, its what keeps them afloat, they need them

PS5 and XSX will be €500 for sure and have rtx 2070/2080 performance, will be amazing machines

Sony and MS are paying no where near €400 for that SOC from AMD for 3700x/5700xt+ combo, more like €150-€200 max

Thats the kind of savings you get from a 150 million part order

If AMD only made €20 profit per part thats €3,000,000,000 profit.

This is completely all untrue, to the extent that I'm sure you're deliberately trolling but lets assume not.

You do know when Sony released the PS3 at $599 they were still losing money on it. A 3700X and 5700XT+ custom machine with an enthusiast level 1TB SSD at €150?

Sorry but that's beyond ludicrous. If they sell these at €499 they will be making calculated strategic losses.

AMD has never made big money off consoles. Despite being supplier to both the PS3 and 360 there were a few years there where they were in serious trouble. Some years they were losing several hundred million.

Have a gander yourself at their financial records. They actually recorded losses a fair few years due to the failure of FX and falling behind Nvidia in the desktop card stakes, despite owning the console market.

Nvidia exited the console market for this reason, the desktop/laptop/corp market is far more lucrative. The original Xbox was an Nvidia chip. PS2 was Sony in-house. Only the Gamecube used AMD.

They most certainly never made "billions of profit" from consoles like you suggest or anything close to it. In fact before Ryzen, at one point they lost something like close to 600 million dollars in one year.

Wing126

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Article was from before COVID lockdowns took their toll.
If supply issues were driving prices up at that stage what do you think it has done since?

Not much if this is to be believed - https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-52851506

HairySalmon

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Article was from before COVID lockdowns took their toll.
If supply issues were driving prices up at that stage what do you think it has done since?

Can’t imagine it’s making things any cheaper but they’ve been very vocal to say supply chains are working well.

Asian factories have been full steam ahead for months while the western world has been on lockdown. Even then, factories have largely remained operational.

HairySalmon

Homelander wrote: »

This is completely all untrue, to the extent that I'm sure you're deliberately trolling but lets assume not.

You do know when Sony released the PS3 at $599 they were still losing money on it. A 3700X and 5700XT+ custom machine with an enthusiast level 1TB SSD at €150?

Sorry but that's beyond ludicrous. If they sell these at €499 they will be making calculated strategic losses.

AMD has never made big money off consoles. Despite being supplier to both the PS3 and 360 there were a few years there where they were in serious trouble. Some years they were losing several hundred million.

Have a gander yourself at their financial records. They actually recorded losses a fair few years due to the failure of FX and falling behind Nvidia in the desktop card stakes, despite owning the console market.

Nvidia exited the console market for this reason, the desktop/laptop/corp market is far more lucrative. The original Xbox was an Nvidia chip. PS2 was Sony in-house. Only the Gamecube used AMD.

They most certainly never made "billions of profit" from consoles like you suggest or anything close to it. In fact before Ryzen, at one point they lost something like close to 600 million dollars in one year.

Nvidia was charging too much which was the reason AMD was chosen for PS4 and X1.

Nvidia haven’t exited the console market as they supply the Switch’s X1 chip. It’s about the only mainstream product to still use such an old chipset, so essentially they supply the gaming market there.

IIRC, Nvidia were quite sour about not being considered for supplying other consoles. It’s an easy and consistent additional revenue stream for a manufacturer, so why would they not want to build a monopoly given a chance?

Homelander

Because the price AMD is willing to supply at is not hugely profitable. That's literally the point I was making.

Again. Look at AMD's revenue for all the years they were supplying the console market. They made horrific losses most years.

The point being that consoles are not the cash cow being made out by some people. They make steady income, but not huge profits.

Some years, AMD were making $500 million annual losses while Nvidia were making multi-billion dollar profits.

Nvidia aren't in the console game because it's not worth their time compared to what they're making elsewhere. They're content to let AMD take the low profit console game because they're making piles of cash in the desktop/corp space.

Same reason Intel don't make console CPU's anymore. AMD are now making major inroads in the consumer market with Ryzen but still finding it tough elsewhere.

Nvidia tech suits the Switch because they're much better than AMD at performance per watt, which is crucial for the Switch.

BloodBath

HairySalmon wrote: »

MS and Sony will be buying components in extraordinary bulk, so that will reduce cost substantially. AMD appreciates how lucrative gaming was to them in 2013 when they weren't giving anywhere near the same competition to Nvidia as they are now, and console gaming really propped them up, so I would imagine there has been some agreements and deals made to get the best value from them.

Plus, subscription services and digital game sales will allow them to take larger loses on hardware to get people in the door.

I very much doubt they ever intended for these machines to retail over 600, let alone 700.

I would buy one, but I'd be pushed - and I'm an enthusiast! The general public, who overwhelmingly are families or causal gamers just looking for FIFA and COD. They're not going to purchase for years at 500 until price cuts come in, so they'll be waiting longer if it's priced at 700.

I am well aware of that and that has been taken into account in my pricing. These things are already mass produced and AMD still need to make a little profit as do the stores selling the consoles.

I'm not saying they will retail for £700. I'm saying that it's costing Sony at least £700-750 per unit to manufacture. They may chose to lose £100-150 per unit to get it down to £550-600. I can't see it being any less than that at launch.

Mike3287 wrote: »

PC users have been robbed blind for years, €1200 for an RTX 2080 ti, laughable prices

AMD are in bed with the console manufacturers, bread and butter for them

They'll be making 50 million SOC a year for them, stock price shot up when they won those next gen contracts, its what keeps them afloat, they need them

PS5 and XSX will be €500 for sure and have rtx 2070/2080 performance, will be amazing machines

Sony and MS are paying no where near €400 for that SOC from AMD for 3700x/5700xt+ combo, more like €150-€200 max

Thats the kind of savings you get from a 150 million part order

If AMD only made €20 profit per part thats €3,000,000,000 profit.

The 2080ti has the highest profit margin of any graphics card so it's not a very good example. The profit margins on the likes of the 5700xt is far lower so there's not as much room as you think.

If you think Sony are getting a 8/16 ryzen + a better than 5700xt grade card with 16GB of GDDR6 for €150-200 then you are delusional. The memory alone would cost in the region of €100 even with such a large order.

The PS4 pro is still retailing around £400 and the hardware in the new console is at least 3-4 times better with a very high end SSD on top.

BloodBath

BloodBath wrote: »

I'm not saying they will retail for £700. I'm saying that it's costing Sony at least £700-750 per unit to manufacture.

£750 is $940

That's over 2x higher than the Bloomberg BoM estimate, and 2.5x higher than the PS4 BoM at launch. That huge discrepancy should be a red flag that you don't understand electronics manufacturing and procurement costs at scale.

billybonkers

Deleted User wrote: »

Like most I think there's no way they can break even at $399 (which they did with the PS4). But I think that price was a target for them once again and they will take a loss on the all-digital model and price it at $399 or very close. I don't see the with-disc model being over $499.

That loss-leading strategy for gaming consoles isn't new. At its launch in 2013, Microsoft's Xbox One had a production bill of $471 for manufacturing and materials according to IHS, compared to its launch price of $499.

Sony's PS4, which launched at $399, cost $381 to make. After factoring in marketing, shipping, and other operating costs, Microsoft and Sony likely lost money on each console sold. Both companies also subsequently lowered the prices of their consoles several times.

Anchors for software and subscription sales.

They both made loses at launch and lower the prices further...

jester77

I see that the former head of xbox marketing believes there is no way the PS5 price will be above $499.

gimli2112

Interesting ploy, raise expectations and then watch the world burn when it's launched at $800

Markitron

Cienciano wrote: »

But people will pay €300k for a house. Surely they'll pay €500 for a console

Lol, you said it better than I did.

Oafley Jones

billybonkers wrote: »

That loss-leading strategy for gaming consoles isn't new. At its launch in 2013, Microsoft's Xbox One had a production bill of $471 for manufacturing and materials according to IHS, compared to its launch price of $499.

Sony's PS4, which launched at $399, cost $381 to make. After factoring in marketing, shipping, and other operating costs, Microsoft and Sony likely lost money on each console sold. Both companies also subsequently lowered the prices of their consoles several times.

Anchors for software and subscription sales.

They both made loses at launch and lower the prices further...

Of course it’s worth noting that cost of manufacturing decreases throughout the consoles lifespan. I think most consoles (Nintendo the exception here, where they mostly aim to make money immediately) aim to be profitable within 12-18 months.

Retr0gamer

Consoles usually are loss leaders for a long time and make the profits from game sales and licensing fees.

Rossi IRL

Can't see them being more than 500 for the digital edition.

Wing126

I think I prefer them vertically. I wonder if the stand is included in the box, would have to be wouldn't it?

Markitron

Wing126 wrote: »

I think I prefer them vertically. I wonder if the stand is included in the box, would have to be wouldn't it?

It looks like its overheating and folding in on itself.

Not a fan of the design.

HairySalmon

Wing126 wrote: »

I think I prefer them vertically. I wonder if the stand is included in the box, would have to be wouldn't it?

It definitely seems like it comes in the box. People are theorising that the stand will help maintain optimum airflow. They’ve never had a stand for horizontal placement, so it points to it being included.

I originally hated the design but the digital edition standing vertically has grown on me a lot.

Penn

HairySalmon wrote: »

It definitely seems like it comes in the box. People are theorising that the stand will help maintain optimum airflow. They’ve never had a stand for horizontal placement, so it points to it being included.

I originally hated the design but the digital edition standing vertically has grown on me a lot.

It's weird, I prefer the Digital version vertical and the Disk version horizontal.

HairySalmon

Penn wrote: »

It's weird, I prefer the Digital version vertical and the Disk version horizontal.

I’m the same. It’s really not a versatile design.


The series X looks great standing, but awfully blocky on its side as well.

Wonder is standing the optimum position for both?

Markitron

HairySalmon wrote: »

It definitely seems like it comes in the box. .

They 100% have to include it if it can't sit flat by itself. A wobbly console would probably end up costing them more in the long run

Zero-Cool

Penn wrote: »

It's weird, I prefer the Digital version vertical and the Disk version horizontal.

Yupp, the disk actually makes it look better when it's horizontal. I'd love to know the dimensions. My pro fits under my tv with a half inch to spare, would like to swap it straight out but if it's got better ventilation standing, then I'll find another spot for it.

Penn

HairySalmon wrote: »

I’m the same. It’s really not a versatile design.


The series X looks great standing, but awfully blocky on its side as well.

Wonder is standing the optimum position for both?

I'd nearly imagine horizontal would have to be optimum, the fins on the PS5 and how the vent on the XBSX is curved inwards, that'd reduce dust getting in on both.

Creamy Goodness

Penn wrote: »

It's weird, I prefer the Digital version vertical and the Disk version horizontal.

that makes perfect sense, the digital version is missing the mirrored symmetry where the disk slot is :pac:

Wing126

Zero-Cool wrote: »

Yupp, the disk actually makes it look better when it's horizontal. I'd love to know the dimensions. My pro fits under my tv with a half inch to spare, would like to swap it straight out but if it's got better ventilation standing, then I'll find another spot for it.

Rough estimates based on the size of the USB drive and the Disc drive, put it as the largest console ever made. Definitely won't fit in the same spot if this is in any way accurate - https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/h7ls6s/size_of_ps5_next_to_other_consoles_source/

Stone Deaf 4evr

Wing126 wrote: »

Rough estimates based on the size of the USB drive and the Disc drive, put it as the largest console ever made. Definitely won't fit in the same spot if this is in any way accurate - https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/h7ls6s/size_of_ps5_next_to_other_consoles_source/

I never had a ps3, but I'm surprised at how big that Phat version is.

Zero-Cool

Wing126 wrote: »

Rough estimates based on the size of the USB drive and the Disc drive, put it as the largest console ever made. Definitely won't fit in the same spot if this is in any way accurate - https://www.reddit.com/r/PS5/comments/h7ls6s/size_of_ps5_next_to_other_consoles_source/

Jesus yeah, no way that's going under the tv.

Iyob

pretty cool

Penn

Zero-Cool wrote: »

Jesus yeah, no way that's going under the tv.

Maybe your TV might fit under it

FAILSAFE 00

I think there will be a redesign very quickly compared to previous generations.

Zero-Cool

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I think there will be a redesign very quickly compared to previous generations.

No need, looks class.