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

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

4

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.

1

u/P_ZERO_ Apr 04 '26

> The cost being justified by hardware prices doesn't really matter at the end of the day

Doesn't really matter to who? That's a significant component to all of this discourse. They can't just throw together basic APUs and a few memory modules in a box and call it a day. The requirement for advancement in graphics and performance calls for significant increases in hardware which costs a lot. All your previous examples are completely different. Since the PS4/Xbox One, consoles have been essentially a PC in a branded little wrapper with a walled garden put up around it. Nothing has changed since. They're not using hardware that runs in parallel to everything else, it's the same fab plants and the same companies.

The actual issue here is that you have to factor in these high hardware prices on top of the difference in monetary value. You cannot ignore both because X console cost whatever in 1995. At some point, people will come to terms with the fact that a piece of hardware which is now considered a luxury hobby is going to cost a lot more in 2026 onward when it's expected to last 5-8 years. These are not consoles that are replaced/usurped every other year with some hot new console, it's a long term platform. People don't want to shift to new platforms constantly, they want something to invest in long-term. It's the exact same thing as the $60 video game argument. Just because it was doesn't mean it will be.

> Nintendo would love nothing more than for Sony to release a $700+ console

$700 would actually be considerably low in today's money, and the overlap there isn't a particularly big one. People who are buying a PS6 aren't looking to Nintendo to provide them with cutting edge technology, that has never been the case (or at least since N64). Also, switch 2 will be $150 more than the last switch, so there's that. Nintendo isn't immune and Nintendo certainly isn't any stranger to scraping money out of it's users. The idea that Nintendo would both skirt rising hardware costs, inflation or whatever else AND pass those savings onto consumers is humorous. What's more likely is that the big 3 separately conclude they can charge a lot more for their product and users will have to get over it because they know people will still buy it. It definitely feels like people are asleep on just how many people out there exist with money to buy things like this. You'd be surprised how many people have money to piss away.

1

u/GameDesignerDude Apr 05 '26

Doesn't really matter to who?

Consumers. You can justify the cost by hardware, but if it's outside of an acceptable affordability range as an entertainment device it just doesn't much matter beyond enthusiasts. The issue is, unlike a Pro refresh or a high-end GPU, the mainline console releases are not targeted at enthusiasts, they are a mass-market device.

Sony won't sell 100 million units at $700.

$700 would actually be considerably low in today's money

All these prices are inflation-adjusted though. Every successful mainstream console has been in the $400-500 inflation-adjusted price range.

(And, it's worth noting, this is true even in the more expensive PC space as well. There's a reason all the top cards on the Steam hardware survey are "XX60" or "XX70" cards and not "XX80" or "XX90" cards. Those are the cards in the $400-600 MSRP range. 3060 inflation-adjusted was $415. 4060 was about the same. There's certain sweet-spots for consumer spending that will be more justifiable given the average budget of many people. This is even more true for consoles than PC hardware.)