What price are you comfortable with new consoles being released at?

[Yoshi]

The Switch was never sold at a loss. Let's not pretend this is universally true.

[Baron Baldric]

$150

[Yoshi]

I'd actually welcome a 21st Century Neo Geo. Make it $1,000 (arbitrarily chosen for roundness), but don't cut any corners. With the way consoles are all based on off-the-shelf parts these days, it wouldn't even need to have its own games. It could just be the Xbox One XX or whatever, a high end version of the same architecture. If Nintendo did it with the Switch, that would be all the better, because the portability makes it more expensive almost by definition and is something my PC can't offer.

[isturbo1984]

I have no idea why fanboys continuously advertise they are retarded on the internet. Over and over. Like stupid is the new smart or something, lol.

[isturbo1984]

I'm fine with a console up to $600. Inflation is understandable. It's insane to think you could land yourself a new PS5 or Xbox Scarlett for just 400 bones. I bought my original Xbox One for $500 and my PS3 for $600. I have money. But anything more expensive than that would feel too soon.

[ExaltedFrog]

$400 and up is a bit excessive, but it really depends on the console e.g. Xbox One X is around $400. However, I'm primarily a PC player, and I would be happy spending a lot more on a PC than a console

[Aidy]

Yeah, pretty stupid of those multi-billion companies like Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft to assume that people are going to buy millions and millions of games for their consoles. It's quite a gamble, let's hope it pays off!

[Aidy]

Your fanboyism and trolling is really adding a lot of quality to this thread. 4/5 would read again.

[Garrett]

The sad thing about the outdated hardware is that the audience still expects ever-increasing graphical quality despite the tech not having been significantly improved. That's when you get bad performance, and in my opinion most importantly for consoles, no more split-screen coop. Halo 5 doesn't have split screen because the XBONE is garbage but 343 still had to get those cinematic graphics. Graphics quality demand can't keep up with console hardware evolution, so gameplay quality and features will suffer.

[ciderPunk1877]

$300-$400 isn't what it used to be. Inflation.

The $400 the Xbox 360 launched for is, in today's equivalent, about $515.

[Garrett]

Oh, I didn't realize the license fee was that big of a contributor. Kinda stupid to bet on the sales of games rather than the system. Sounds like an oil company building luxury cars and selling them for cheap so they could increase gasoline consumption. What's curious is that a 60 dollar game costs 60 dollars on PC as well despite that platform not having the license fee. So I don't really feel bad for shitting on consoles because apparently multiplatform publishers are screwing over PC players anyway. "Let's not tell anyone we have to pay Microsoft and Sony, and make the price of the cheaper game the same. Free money."

[Animusisters]

I wouldnt mind paying more if I get Hardware that is not already outdated the day a console launches.

[Aidy]

In my opinion, hardware with specific technical capabilities with proprietary software designed to streamline user experience should be priced just as high as the cost of its components, with the price being inflated slightly due to the proprietary nature. A $400 computer even without an operating system included in the price is a shit computer. I think you should expect a shit console if you expect it to be that cheap. I know, "but with a computer you can do all sorts of things not just play games" -yes that's exactly the problem. Console operating systems have been specifically designed so that the users would have a narrow array of functionality with the hardware. That's not a reason for selling it cheaper, that's a reason for making it more expensive because it's specialized, not general. A self-driving car is more expensive than one you need to learn to drive.

The difference being that computers are sold for a profit, but consoles are sold at a loss as the manufacturer gets their money from the games. If you don't understand that pretty basic concept then maybe it's best you don't comment on the thread. This whole thread is clearly about consoles yet every post (apart from theblackswordsman ) are from a PC gamers dragging the thing off-topic with why PCs are better. So tedious.

Also to the OP, people from all over the world use the internet, "$" means nothing. Is that the US dollar? Canadian dollar? Zimbabwe dollar?

[Garrett]

In my opinion, hardware with specific technical capabilities with proprietary software designed to streamline user experience should be priced just as high as the cost of its components, with the price being inflated slightly due to the proprietary nature. A $400 computer even without an operating system included in the price is a shit computer. I think you should expect a shit console if you expect it to be that cheap. I know, "but with a computer you can do all sorts of things not just play games" -yes that's exactly the problem. Console operating systems have been specifically designed so that the users would have a narrow array of functionality with the hardware. That's not a reason for selling it cheaper, that's a reason for making it more expensive because it's specialized, not general. A self-driving car is more expensive than one you need to learn to drive.

[theblackswordsman]

anything more then $400 dollars is to much. and i don't even feel comfy paying that. if we get relaxed on bargaining then the companies win. next thing we have are kids buying there kids a console (if they are still around) that's 2000 dollars. that's extreme i know. but the fact of the matter is i am right. we need to pay less and get more then pay more and get less. game as it stand is in shambles because triple a developers want to make investors happy and we get the left overs. i should not have to say its not right. but that seems to be the case. developers have gotten to relaxed.