Will The PS4's Price Tag Be $499?
It's one of the biggest - if not the biggest - question concerning Sony's new PlayStation console:
How much will it cost?
Well, we may have a hint from Asashi, a well-known Japanese newspaper. As cited at Gaming Everything, the publication reports that the PS4 will cost "more than 40,000 yen." The article also makes it clear that the system will be available this year in both North America and Japan, which supports previous evidence.
If you're wondering, 40,000 yen translates to about $428 in US currency (about 317 Euros). Now, Asashi does say the console will cost over that amount, so maybe we're looking at $449 or $499; just remember that prices can change from territory to territory. A $499 price tag would kinda make sense, though- Sony probably doesn't want to release another $600 machine because it was a borderline disaster the first time. Still, they want to produce a top-quality product so it can't be much less than five hundred, right?
Would you be okay with $499?
Tags: ps4, playstation 4, ps4 cost, ps4 price, sony
2/6/2013 9:41:00 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (82 posts)
Coffeya
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:59:45 AM
matt99
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 10:35:56 PM
Reply
Last edited by matt99 on 2/6/2013 10:36:47 PM
Bonampak
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:51:01 AM
Just remember that no machine out there (since the PS1 came out) has ever made it big without mainstream gamers by their side.
The PS2 was the perfect console in the sense that it had the perfect balance of core and casual gamers. Having casual games in the PS2's library didn't stop the core games from being made.
Look around, Vita, the 3DS and Wii U are struggling because they are incapable of branching out from the dedicated Sony/Nintendo fan-base. A lot of them did support those systems. But it wasn't enough.
They desperately need the support of mainstream gamers.
But that crowd is too busy playing on smartphones or tablets or on the current home consoles to even care.
matt99
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 3:59:03 AM
Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:10:00 AM
cLoudou
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 8:36:01 AM
Highlander
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 11:00:35 PM
Reply
The original 20GB SKU which was the one Sony anticipated selling more of came in at $499.99.
Now, that was 7 years ago, 7 years of inflation, and a major economic recession ago, so I can see why a state of the art console might want to retail at the 'magic' $500 price point...
However, the article makes a point of saying "Sony probably doesn't want to release another $600 machine because it was a borderline disaster the first time.". It's just to be accurate, the PS3 launch price was $499, not $599.
Temjin001
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 11:11:35 PM
Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:12:23 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:54:21 AM
Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:58:16 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 5:14:48 AM
richfiles
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 @ 6:57:17 AM
I should also mention that I want a Vita SO bad, yet I can't afford it.
I will not be able to afford a new console either, so I'll be waiting for it.
Maybe if I can find a third job, or at least one I can rely on, then maybe I'll get one. Until my finances change... I will continue to struggle to even buy individual GAMES for the PS3 I already have.
I really think pushing new hardware, especially an investment that massive, in the current economic crap sack... Is not ideal. I get it, the systems out there are showing their age, but you know what? I'm still playing my PS3, and I'm still looking forward to new titles. I'll use it for a whole decade, as long as they keep feeding me good games.
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 11:08:01 PM
Reply
bentl78
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 11:17:16 PM
Highlander
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 11:55:44 PM
JCARROLL
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:24:25 AM
matt99
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:30:08 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:38:09 AM
Regardless of that 'bentl78' made no distinction of model and simply stated "ps3 japan release was 59,980 yen
us was 599 usd, and it was 599 euro."
That's not the case. He *may* have been referring to the premium model, but made no distinction between them, instead simply claiming the launch price was $100 more than it actually was.
The 20GB model was the code model for Sony when they launched. The 60GB systems were in short supply because they were not what Sony thought would sell. I don't know where you get your stats claiming that "90% of consumers chose the 60GB ps3" - if you have a link, I'd love to see it. The reason people talk abot the 60GB system is because when Sony launced PS3 with the 2 SKUs, the media was in anti-Sony hyper-drive and jumped on the more expensive SKU so that they could write stories about the outrageous price of $600, neglecting to mention the 20GB system at $500. Over time, people remembers that $600 price on the mode expensive unit, precisely because that's all the media talked about. I can't honestly believe we even have to have this discussion any longer, I thought that the myth surrounding the launch price of the PS3 had long since been burst.
JCARROLL
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:44:31 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:03:18 AM
JCARROLL
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:08:28 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:50:31 AM
Personally, I think it was a combination of a little less heat, a little cheaper and finally optimism from Sony that they could make the PS2 emulation work.
Highlander
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 11:56:35 PM
Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:18:22 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:53:13 AM
clockwyzebkny
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 11:53:45 PM
Reply
My cousin (the self-proclaimed xbox fanatic) said he's getting only Microsoft systems no matter what. Although i'll be interested in what Microsoft brings to the table, i'm more than apprehensive on purchasing their console just because of their history.
But brand loyalty is a given and i'm more willing to get a PS4 than any other next gen system. I bought the $600 dollar ps3 and i felt like that was one of the best purchases of my life (No exaggeration!)
matt99
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:32:51 AM
Killa Tequilla
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:10:55 AM
Reply
PoopsMcGee
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:20:30 AM
Reply
matt99
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:34:08 AM
JCARROLL
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:57:16 AM
Buckeyestar
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:21:01 AM
Reply
JCARROLL
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:29:45 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:44:00 AM
JCARROLL
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:51:32 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:05:49 AM
Beamboom
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:15:26 AM
It is more reasonable to expect the *code* to be streamed, not the visuals. The game is rendered and played locally, based on data delivered from the stream server (as opposed to local storage media). All controls and interaction with the player is handled locally, so latency and network speed only plays a role for how fast the data is transferred.
We can think of the stream server as just a very slow hard drive, something that can be balanced out with some clever thinking ahead in respect of when to start streaming what data from the server.
It's essentially the same principles as the open world games without loading zones, they load as you go.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/7/2013 1:33:09 AM
Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:25:42 AM
Beamboom
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:37:43 AM
But if the PS4 is not backwards compatible it would not be able to run the original game locally anyway, so the only reason to insert a disk in this scenario would be to confirm you own the original game.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/7/2013 2:06:50 AM
Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:50:05 AM
Highlander
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:51:50 AM
Beamboom
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 4:56:22 AM
It would be a very poor design choice (not to mention costly) to place the whole load on server side and have all these capable machines sitting idle on the client side. That'd be unwise even if there were *no* latency, if you ask me.
Pre-rendered cutscenes and other non-latency dependent stuff (background music?) might of course be streamed straight from server, but the rest is much better executed locally. Plus it makes the whole thing a lot more scalable VS network speed.
If I were to design a streaming server for this scenario, I'd design it into packets, something like this:
A "core package" that held the core mechanics of the game (input handling, score keeping, AI, all that stuff plus the static content like the player character). That package would be mostly pure code and that takes no space at all, and would have been quickly downloaded on a modern connection.
Then "node packages" who contained the data that was required to construct the logical "chapter" of the game. This model would work smoothly on linear games (at least in theory), if it was an open world/sandbox game it would have to be the root map of the part you are right now, with only the main nodes. Ref how large open world games work today, locally.
And then finally "child packages" who contained the data needed for that particular stage in the game, the "there and then". All objects, scripts and features required for where the gamer is at this point. Stuff you'd likely throw out of memory again shortly. These would be small and streamed from the server as needed.
And then all we needed was a sexy little middle layer who looked ahead and predicted the next required packages and push/pull them from the server as the gamer progressed. This layer could be placed on either side.
That's the rough idea from the top of my head. It would be real fun to design, actually. :)
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/7/2013 11:04:42 AM
bigrailer19
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:38:12 AM
Reply
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 2/7/2013 12:38:21 AM
The Real Deal
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:39:10 AM
Reply
Sony might have two iterations like the vita, but i doubt it. This is exactly why Sony chose additions, rather then revisions. Mark my words, Sony is launching with a price friendly number.
Gamer46
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:14:38 AM
Reply
touchyourtoes
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 1:31:59 AM
Reply
___________
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 3:42:40 AM
Reply
for a console with 1% more power than the ps3?
F*CK NO!
for a console with 10 times more?
F*CK YES!
more important question though is will it be region free, and will it pull the 1PSN account per system BS ala vita?
no freaking way in hell am i waiting till next year, so im hoping this will be region free and will allow people to use multiple PSN accounts.
ended up importing the vita oh boy was that a mistake!
ended up buying so many games, most which were only in japanese, and i cant play them because you can only have 1 account signed to each memory card.
Beamboom
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 6:47:22 AM
... And we *know* it's not 1% more power than then PS3 so why even bother saying such nonsense.
Last edited by Beamboom on 2/7/2013 6:47:39 AM
___________
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 8:25:46 AM
Beamboom
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 8:53:28 AM
___________
Friday, February 08, 2013 @ 8:55:49 AM
are the development kits and tools all over the place thus wasting power, like what originally happened with the ps3?
or has $ony finally learned to support their third parties properly?
how much resources is the OS reserving?
just because we know the rumored specs of the system, does not mean we know anything we still know jack because we dont know how thats going to translate!
Hand_of_Sorrow
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 7:18:45 AM
Reply
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 9:05:42 AM
Reply
JCARROLL
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 9:50:46 AM
Temjin001
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 9:59:57 AM
$400 Saturn May 2005
$300 PSX sept 2005
Fun fact: The Saturn was originally set to launch after the PSX on 'Saturn-day' a couple weeks later than the PSX. Because Sega thought it Sooo important to beat Sony to the market they quickly rushed it out in May of that year instead.
....... We all know how that plan ended, didn't work either for the Dreamcast. And the Dreamcast actually had many great games.
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 3:13:55 PM
gumbi
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 9:14:52 AM
Reply
Now, as long as it's worth that $450 - $500 price tag, then I have no beef with it.
I wait for the 20th with bated breath.
DjEezzy
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 9:27:54 AM
Reply
As far as this goes. I really hope it would sell for something more around $450. I think that is a perfect price. Oh and is anyone excited that alot of developers are saying the new sony system is going to be the go to platform for developing games the upcoming generation. I guess they're saying the new ui and os are much more user friendly than the new xbox. Of course this is rumor but if it's true i'm super excited that ps brand won't get gimped versions of multiplat games. Pretty sweet!!!
duomaxwell007
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 9:52:29 AM
Reply
wackazoa
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 10:26:24 AM
Reply
I digress... I'd like it to be cheaper than $400 when I buy it. I dont think they would lose money at that price considering the outdated hardware they are using.(Outdated for PC anyway) But whatever they charge, in the US anyway, it should be a good barometer of wether our economy is back or not.
slugga_status
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 11:04:47 AM
Reply
DrRockso87
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 11:38:24 AM
Reply
Also, Sony, seriously, I love my PS3 but DON'T, I repeat, DON'T be so arrogant this time around. You were riding high on PSOne and PS2 sales so you deliberately designed your console difficult to develop for so developers would have to develop for the PS3 and port to the 360
I'm not joking. Kazuo Hirai admitted it was on purpose to secure developers would develop primarily for the PS3 and that backfired with many of them switching to 360/Wii or handhelds. Make it developer-friendly, Sony.
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 11:47:55 AM
Reply
If it was less, I'd be worried that it'd be more like a "PlayStation U," as I mentioned before. And if it was more, I'd be concerned about a repeat of history.
Beamboom
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 2:02:08 PM
JROD0823
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 12:53:50 PM
Reply
Sony definitely needs to price the PS4 at a maximum as expensive as what the 720 will retail for, or they will only be shooting themselves in the foot again this generation.
PHOENIXZERO
Thursday, February 07, 2013 @ 3:16:06 PM
Reply
It's going to be $399.99, end of story. There is absolutely nothing in the PS4 in terms of hardware that would bring about a higher price tag.
Last edited by PHOENIXZERO on 2/7/2013 3:17:00 PM
Omnipro
Monday, February 11, 2013 @ 4:12:11 PM
Reply
If they release it for $199 with purchase of 4yr PS+ contract I may get it early.
Draven929
Wednesday, February 13, 2013 @ 11:45:30 PM
Reply

See Full Image









ethird1
Reply
Wednesday, February 06, 2013 @ 10:24:58 PM
End of Line.