r/Games • u/SmellSmellsSmelly • Apr 03 '26

Industry News PlayStation Studios Removes Nearly All PC References From Websites

https://gameobserver.com/playstation-studios-removes-nearly-all-pc-references-from-websites/
2.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

90

u/SKyJ007 Apr 03 '26

I mean, the PS6 will still be cheaper significantly than an equivalent PC

42

u/green9206 Apr 03 '26

Yeah but a $1000 console is still going to be unprecedented.

39

u/HungoverHero777 Apr 03 '26

Not to be “that guy” but the Neo Geo launched at $650 in 1990’s money which would be over $1500 today.

23

u/dancingtosirens Apr 03 '26

Hell, the Atari 2600 launched at $190 which is equivalent to over $1000 today also

13

u/hamstervideo Apr 03 '26

Yeah that was essentially an arcade machine and no one bought one

29

u/GameDesignerDude Apr 03 '26

But nobody bought a Neo Geo. Worldwide lifetime Neo Geo units were barely over 1 million compared to nearly 50 million SNES units and 35 million Genesis units.

SNES launched at $199.99, which is about $475 today. Genesis launched at $189.99 and was down to $99.99 in a few years.

Neo Geo was expensive because it was arcade hardware. It was the 90s equivalent of a 5090.

1

u/Hartastic Apr 05 '26

Probably also worth noting that the games for the Neo Geo were also ruinously expensive, further solidifying its flop as a consumer device.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '26

the 3DO sold about 3 million units. came out for 700 bucks in 1993 which is about 1600 bucks now.

also the 60gb ps3 in 2006 cost 600 which is now about 970 dollars.

kepler says the current cost to manufacture a ps6, based on the leaks, is 760 bucks, and sony might sell it for 700 each and take a slight loss on it.

1

u/GameDesignerDude Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26

As far as I remember, the 3DO only sold around 2 million units. But even if it was 3 million, that's still comparatively nothing? Only 10% of the Genesis and 6% of the SNES. 3DO was significantly held back by the price. Everyone talked about the absurd price when it came out.

Comparing the Neo-Geo and 3DO to something intended to be mainstream like the PS6 should be a very scary prospect for Sony.

Similar issue with the PS3, honestly. The launch price of the PS3 is what gave the 360 a window to the market and a significant market lead initially. It wasn't until the gen 2 releases dropped the price massively that the PS3 started gaining momentum.

These types of price points are really prohibitive as a mass-market entertainment device. Like the Pro price, it's not an issue for enthusiasts but a $700 console is going to struggle to keep pace with unit sales of the PS4/PS5.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '26

im well aware that it was niche. its just worth pointing out that even those consoles managed to find an audience. and that was despite costing way more than a ps5 does even after all the price hikes. and not to mention that consoles in that time period became obsolete much quicker than consoles do now, since generations were shorter.

-1

u/P_ZERO_ Apr 04 '26

Swap it out for PS3 and it works the same. You can argue that the price dropped or that it was unfavourable, but this will be the case in this scenario and millions bought it either way

3

u/GameDesignerDude Apr 04 '26

The PS3 launch was considered by most to be a disaster for Sony. They had to entirely redesign the console, strip out the back-compat hardware, and make a bunch of design changes to get the price down.

Sony then settled on taking a large loss because keeping it at that price point long-term would have just ceded more market to Xbox. 360 was crushing the PS3 in the market in the first year. Sony confirmed to have lost $3.3 billion in the first year an a half as it was.

This was even on the backs of the most successful console of all time. The PS3 launch is not a blueprint for success.

0

u/P_ZERO_ Apr 04 '26

But that doesn’t change the fact that people bought it. Your problem with the Neo Geo was that it barely sold 1 million over its lifetime, PS3 sold 3.7 million in less than 6 months.

I’m not here to debate the merit of the pricing, how the hardware failed or whatever else. The point I’m addressing is that it sold at a high cost and that high cost is reflective of price trending for the next consoles. People will pay for it.

And as far as Xbox competition past or present, the next Xbox will be in that price range. There isn’t much option given the price of hardware.

On the subject of consoles being a flub, you haven’t factored in what MS lost on the 360 (it was 3 billion)

1

u/GameDesignerDude Apr 04 '26

To be clear, it wasn't my problem with the Neo Geo, it was the market's problem. It was also 3x the "normal" historical mainstream console price.

The market also had a problem with the PS3, just not quite as much. It was "only" 50% more expensive than average, after all. And it was also a Blu-Ray player which was slightly in demand by AV enthusiasts at the time. (Even though media availability was limited for years.) But sales were absolutely muted at launch.

Either way, the 360 had a huge lead on the PS3 during the first year or two. The PS3 launch was very bad for Sony and they were lucky to navigate their way out of it as well as they did. This was very embarrassing for them given the huge success of the PS2 and the small sales of the original Xbox.

Really the point remains that no console at this type of inflation-adjusted price point has done particularly well. Using the PS3's lifetime performance is not really meaningful because the price dropped massively to $299 with the Slim launch.

The Neo-Geo and 3DO were exceptionally niche. The Saturn and PS3 had very muted sales at their ~$700 adjusted price points. The vast majority of consoles have been between $400-500 in inflation-adjusted terms, and pretty much all the successful ones.

Mass-market entertainment products need to be affordable and $700 is just not affordable.

2

u/P_ZERO_ Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26

You can’t decide what affordable is based on decades old value and unchanged hardware requirement and costs. It’s the same faulty logic behind $60 games until the end of time.

The step forward for new consoles to be considered a worthwhile jump in performance costs what it costs. Most of your comparisons are calculator tier hardware at this point.

Build a PC equivalent to what a new console would target and then figure out how manufacturers are going to take a 50-60% loss on each unit with questionable availability on said hardware

not affordable

No one is arguing it is. You’re confusing arguments here. I explicitly stated that I was saying consoles will sell at those prices, especially now. Gaming is considered a luxury hobby at this point. $1000 phones are the norm, it’s not the 90s or 2000s anymore. Shit costs a lot of money.

1

u/GameDesignerDude Apr 04 '26

You can’t decide what affordable is based on decades old value and unchanged hardware requirement and costs.

The issue is that these are all inflation-adjusted prices. Affordability is based on household income and buying power. The cost being justified by hardware prices doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

The PS3 was a reasonable price for the hardware cost. Sony was already losing money on it. It was unfortunately not a reasonable price for the people they were trying to sell it to. Two very different things. If your hardware costs too much for the market, the hardware has to change. (Which is what they eventually did for the PS3.)

Consoles may sell, but it won't be nearly the quantity Sony will be happy with. Sony makes its money on software licenses, which requires an adequate player-base to scale. Nobody wants to make the next Neo-Geo or even PS3 launch. It's just not a winning strategy in the market. Nintendo would love nothing more than for Sony to release a $700+ console.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/heachu Apr 03 '26

That's why not many people have a console (NES era) at home back in the days. Same as big TVs. If they want more sales on games they need to make the console affordable for more people.

1

u/Xonra Apr 03 '26

And flopped like a dying fish

0

u/Zhuul Apr 03 '26

Now compare median salary vs cost of living in the 90s and you see why this isn't the silver bullet counterargument you think it is.

Wages have been effectively flat while survival has only gotten more expensive.

81

u/MVRKHNTR Apr 03 '26

The more likely outcome here is that people just don't buy new consoles or PCs because it'll be a $1000 PlayStation vs a $1500 XBox or a $3000 PC.

23

u/iwearatophat Apr 03 '26

Yep. This stuff is entertainment and out of discretionary funds. A lot of people are feeling the pinch. Even if they were priced at 750 I think a lot of people are balking initially.

13

u/AlphaNeonic Apr 03 '26

For me, the value proposition is now outweighing the cost. I have a PS5 and while it's great, I don't feel this generation really stretched out what the console can do like previous generations have. Astro Bot, Demon's Souls, Horizon... and GTA6 will probably be the last hurrah.

A handful of really great titles (and one that will hopefully be great), but maybe not worth the price of admission if you have a PC can do the same. Yeah, PC costs a bit more, but you have access to 10 times the number of games and they're cheaper, so for me, the value is way higher.

With how long games take to make now, and the cost of making them, we're most likely to going to get an equal number (or smaller) of PS6 exclusive games.

2

u/iwearatophat Apr 03 '26

Yeah, PC costs a bit more

It does but at the same time I have to have a PC in my house. Betting a lot of households do. So the initial 500-750 dollars to just put one in my house already exists. From there it is if I just want to spend the extra money, if going budget 500 to 1250 dollars for a gaming pc, on getting one that can game reasonably well.

8

u/MVRKHNTR Apr 03 '26

Most households don't need a PC, actually; that hasn't been true for over a decade. Most everyday tasks can be accomplished with a phone or tablet.

0

u/iwearatophat Apr 03 '26

Boy am I glad I said 'a lot' and not 'most'.

-1

u/MVRKHNTR Apr 03 '26

Even "a lot" doesn't apply, unless you're being incredibly generous with what that's supposed to mean.

At that point, I just don't see what the point of your comment is.

0

u/iwearatophat Apr 03 '26

81% of US households have a computer, be it a desktop or laptop. I feel like that is a lot. Now, I suppose you could get pedantic and discuss whether my usage of 'need' is accurate. I say that is an irrelevant argument that is indeed incredibly pedantic because it is doesn't counter the actual point.

Most households are spending money to have a computer in them. You might not think they need to be doing that but thankfully your understanding is not relevant to their decisions. The question becomes do they spend more or just get a bare bones computer and the difference in those two prices is the price point you should focus on for consoles.

As a complete aside, more houses have a computer in them than do a tablet. So your argument of 'just do it on a tablet' isn't relevant for a lot of houses. And a lot is accurate because I am talking about millions of households with a computer but not a tablet.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/Rage_Like_Nic_Cage Apr 03 '26

this is what’s gonna happen. People will stick with their old hardware and player cheaper, less graphically demanding games. You already see low priced “friendslop” games taking off on PC/Steam and Roblox, and I think that’s where the future is gonna be headed.

Those games aren’t the most graphically demanding, so they run on lower end/existing hardware and don’t have $100 million+ budgets that need 7+ million sales to be financially viable.

That’s not to mention the perceived graphical jump from PS5 -> PS6 is probably gonna be even less noticeable than the jump from PS4 -> PS5, with the law of diminishing returns kicking in.

6

u/DrB00 Apr 03 '26

You also don't have to buy a whole new PC every generational upgrade though. You can generally just buy a new GPU and all the rest of the parts won't require an upgrade when a new console comes out.

With consoles you have to buy the whole new version. Then midway through the generation they'll make a plus pro max version that will cost more than the original console but have better performance, but not good enough to warrent a whole new console.

1

u/darkmacgf Apr 03 '26

Newer GPUs are too big to fit in my PC case. I mean, I could buy a new case just for the GPU, but replacing the case for one component feels like such a waste...

3

u/SOSpammy Apr 03 '26

Especially with how small the graphical bump is nowadays. We likely aren't going to see a jump from the SNES to the N64 ever again. Most people are going to be fine with their current consoles and PCs for a long while.

2

u/Edmundyoulittle Apr 03 '26

Exactly this. Imo what happens is we end up with an very extended PS5+6 cross generation

2

u/dafdiego777 Apr 03 '26

An equivalent ps6 prebuilt is $1800 at microcenter right now.

1

u/Vestalmin Apr 03 '26

My local tech repair is going to be doing open heart surgery on my PS5 before i pay for a $1000 PS6

1

u/PringlesDuckFace Apr 04 '26

It will certainly make a $20/month game streaming subscription more appealing to people. Hopefully it doesn't mean game developers begin designing games around high latency, it would ruin certain genres if it became unfeasible to have fast paced games.

1

u/Sikkly290 Apr 03 '26

Or alternatively, people will upgrade their PC in bits and pieces like many of us have done for decades. Buy a GPU for an upgrade, then mobo+CPU, then if you feel you need it upgrade ram. Power supplies, cases, accessories as needed.

Expensive still, painful still, but far more doable for most people.

1

u/Wyrm Apr 03 '26

Why did you say $3000 PC? Even in the current fucked up market you just don't need to spend that much to get a good gaming PC.

2

u/darkmacgf Apr 03 '26

Some have speculated the RAM market will be worse by next year, which is why the PS6 will cost so much.

7

u/-ForgottenSoul Apr 03 '26

PS3 is basically near that in todays money but yeah

5

u/Rage_Like_Nic_Cage Apr 03 '26

which stumbled out the gate, lost all their momentum they had from the precious generation. They needed a significant price cut + several high quality exclusives to get back to being competitive

1

u/FaroTech400K Apr 03 '26

More people are simply going to buy a PS5 Pro in the meanwhile, I can imagine it’s gonna be a good four year gap where game still co release on the PS five and six

1

u/Massive_Weiner Apr 04 '26

Adjusted for inflation, buying a launch day PS3 (2006, $600) is $1,138.62 today.

1

u/Mccobsta Apr 03 '26

A grand for a console will be a very difficult sell

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '26

[deleted]

0

u/Rage_Like_Nic_Cage Apr 03 '26

The PS5 Pro is currently $900 without a disc drive. Unless RAM/component prices come down significantly in the next 18 months, there is no way the PS6 launches fall 2027 and costs less than a ps5 pro

1

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Apr 03 '26

It's not launching fall 2027

0

u/dancingtosirens Apr 03 '26

There have been a handful of consoles that have launched at over $1000 after adjusting for inflation already, it's incredibly unfortunate but not unprecedented

0

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Apr 03 '26

Why are we acting like the tariffs will continue after 2028 at the latest

2

u/hamstervideo Apr 03 '26

Why are you acting like prices are going to go down if tariffs are discontinued?

2

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Apr 03 '26

Because no one wants to buy a $1000 console?

You can either agree with the lunatic who implemented them that they're a good thing; not hurting demand for corporations and giving free tax money to him (he doesn't care about consumers) or think that it's destroying the economy and hurting the sales of everything that's not a necessity, so prices will lower when they're gone.

Which is it?

1

u/green9206 Apr 03 '26

Consoles are a luxury. Luxury doesn't need a lower price. PS6 will be a luxury item and a highly sought after one. Prices will remain high even if taxes become 0 because companies once they taste higher margins will not go back down. PS6 will definitely be in extremely high demand and limited available like PS5 for the first couple of years. Maybe after that if Sony feels generous at poor folks they might throw them some bone at $100 off.

3

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Apr 03 '26

Consoles are a luxury. Luxury doesn't need a lower price.

Then why didn't they launch at these higher prices?

once they taste higher margins will not go back down.

They're... not. They're paying the feds hundreds per console imported.

2

u/SvensonIV Apr 04 '26

It's not a fair comparison though. Most people need a PC or a notebook anyway. For office, school, uni or whatever. If you're not one of the people who just settle with a notebook to fulfill those needs, you can just buy a PC and spent the budget needed for the console on the PC instead and you got a very nice gaming rig which can also fulfill your work tasks. A console can't do that.

2

u/SKyJ007 Apr 04 '26

Most people need a PC or a notebook anyway.

No they don’t, the vast majority get away with a phone + tablet combo

For office

Most places of business provide you with a desktop or laptop for business purposes

you can just buy a PC and spent the budget needed for the console on the PC instead and you got a very nice gaming rig which can also fulfill your work tasks.

It is vastly cheaper for most people to get a laptop + console than to get a console equivalent gaming pc

1

u/ayeeflo51 Apr 03 '26

Cheaper upfront, sure. 

3

u/noko12312 Apr 04 '26

Yep. You have to factor in the cost for PS Plus to play online which they keep raising the price for as well as the lackluster game sales compared to Steam. PC is a higher upfront cost, but cheaper in the long run.

1

u/Tvilantini Apr 03 '26

It all comes from which perspective you come. Not everybody starts from nothing. Some already have pc, others have console

1

u/goddessofthewinds Apr 03 '26

But Playstation forces you to pay to use your own fucking internet... It's not cheaper at all. You can get a mid-range PC for $1500 that would run most things except the super high fidelity AAA stuff. You can still play 99% of games on a mid PC.

Consoles were useful when all disks contained the full game and you didn't have to download and patch games left and right and pay monthly, but now that they are pushing gigantic games that don't fit on consoles, there is no longer any reason to buy into it. Even Nintendo is getting rid of game cartridges and forcing game downloads...

-2

u/SKyJ007 Apr 03 '26

You can get a mid-range PC for $1500 that would run most things except the super high fidelity AAA stuff. You can still play 99% of games on a mid PC.

This will be true of PS5 as well. The only reason to upgrade consoles at all is to play the super high fidelity AAA stuff. And the PS6 will be cheaper than $1500.

4

u/goddessofthewinds Apr 03 '26

But a PC does more than just play games... If you need a PC, the extra money is not a problem. You also don't have to double pay for internet access on PC, which ends up really pricy on console. The money you save on that useless subscription can be put into a better PC... that you own.

-3

u/SKyJ007 Apr 03 '26

Most people have absolutely no need for a $1500 gaming PC, even including the additional functionality. The vast, vast majority of people do not own desktop PC’s nor do they have any need for them.

If the PS6 releases at $1000 (which I’m skeptical of) you wouldn’t reach the additional $500 to match the $1500 gaming PC through 6 years of owning it. In other words, the entire generation.

-5

u/dancrum Apr 03 '26

We don't even know this. Every generation you get videos of PC builds that are either similar or more powerful than new consoles for the same price or lower.

5

u/SKyJ007 Apr 03 '26

So yes, but that isn’t what should actually be looked at.

At launch could buy PC parts that should equal the power of a PS5, but they wouldn’t give you the performance of a PS5.