PS2 is successful

To be fair the PS4 is a pretty fucking heinous system. It just won because the Xbone and the Wii U were even more pathetic.

>PS3
$599, once. It's a done deal. The console and the full use of its hardware is yours.
>PS4
$399, but don't you forget about your yearly $50-$60 subscription fee or else we're going to limit and restrict the hardware you bought! Have fun you fucking sheep!

how do you wake up coping so hard

It's going to be FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE US DOLLARS and have no substantial reason for people to upgrade

>the PS4 was more expensive
>names things that aren't the PS4 itself
based retard

This phone is so cheap! It's literally free! $0!
The expensive phone plan it comes with doesn't matter though, that's different!
(you)

Fucking drones.

It's already happening.

4 Playstation Home Consoles outsold 7 Nintendo Home Consoles I am sorry we joined the race 10 years late and somehow pulled ahead. I know it makes you want to cry that your daddy Nintendo isnt king anymore but just try not to cope too hard

even with PS+ costs included the PS4 is still a far cheaper system

you dont have to buy ps+ to play fortnite, the most popular game though

>even with PS+ costs included the PS4 is still a far cheaper system
But it's not. A launch PS4 only needed 3-4 years to become more expensive than the PS3. It is 6 years old already and may very well be pushing 7 before the PS5 hits.

You don't need to buy a PS4 to play Fortnite, the most popular game, either though.

cope

PS+ subscriptions are rarely full price, you can get them for 75% off easily

PS5 seems to have some monster power, I expect it to be expensive.

The success of the PS4 is almost exclusively due to the absolutely abhorrent launch of the Xbone.

Anyone unironically excited for the PS5 is an actual soi poster child here to one up Switch owners.
Literal SanFran company out to remove anything problematic. When fucking Nintendo looks good when it comes to censoring suggestive content you know it's fucked up.

And I bought my PS3 for $350 instead of $599. How about we stick to the regular prices here?

>The expensive phone plan it comes with doesn't matter though, that's different!
Do you have to pay for the plan to get the phone? If yes, you're retarded, if not, then you're also retarded. Sony sucks, but you suck more.

Attached: 1558931752149.png (562x545, 350K)

ps3 was the best console by the end of the generation with free online, a very generous premium service and the best first/third party line up

>PS5
More like PiS5 hahaha

What was so generous about ps3s service that xbox didn't have?

>PS1 is successful
>Sony continues what it is doing well
>PS2 is successful
>Sony expands on new market
>PSP is successful
>Sony gets cocky
>PS3 is unsuccessful
>Sony gets nervous
>PSVita is unsuccessful
>Sony goes back to basics
>PS4 is successful
I think the biggest problem for Sony will be them sticking to the basics too much, if the industry and the gaming audience largely moves on to streaming in the near future.
It's gonna be an interesting upcoming few years and I pity early adopters for the new gaming platforms, because you just know that at least one of them is not going to make it.

if you bought both systems at launch and continued using them for a few years the PS+ subscription becomes cheaper and cheaper. I think it was only the first year that it was even close to full price.

I'm still sad the alien looking controller was ditched.

ps subscription recently rose in price

>wrong, the post

Nintendo has lost in everything except handhelds and Wii since SNES. N64 and Gamecube were failures in hardware sales and go carried by exclusive games that every console owner bought.

For the third time.

Does the PS4 even have any worthwhile multiplayer exclusives to warrant having PS+?

not an argument

To be fair PS3 became successful after they released the PS3 slim model, it was at that point that they started competing with Xbox on an equal field.

I agree but I can't imagine that they were happy they lost a shitload of the market to the 360. Good thing M$ fucked up the Xbone so hard.

This. PS4 "won" because Microsoft said ALWAYS ONLINE and the average person STILL thinks the Wii U is an addon for the Wii

>PS4 is successful
it is, but it still overpriced garbage that cant handle stable 60fps even 30 in most games

It just won, because they installed Don Mattrick as a secret agent.

This. Sold my ps4 after all the "exclusive" games came to PC.

it's currently on sale for less than half

Microsoft did other blunders too, like stubborn clinging onto Kinect and continued attempts into getting that sweet casual crowd that bought shitton of Wiis for gimmick that had appeal in 2006.

No and thats why the argument is totally retarded to begin with.

>currently on sale
Irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that the base price increased.

Sony did not learn from their mistake they literally admitted that they do not know why the PS4 is successful.

The way they push anti consumer shit and commiefornia faggotry also shows how fucking clueless they are.

Attached: 1528604075774.png (512x512, 32K)

They're arrogant already. PS4 is way overpriced. Daily reminder that at this point in its life you could get PS2 for 100-150$. PS4 still costs like it's fucking new

Attached: 1553276246525.jpg (959x3547, 541K)

Not even multiplatform games are that interesting desu, you have CoD, BF, Fighting games and really not much else. I hope someone proves me wrong though..

ps3 was 3 years late with games. released in 2006 and games were on dripfeed until like 2009/2010. there was no reason to buy ps3 since it had no worthwhile exclusives lined up and multiplats performed better on 360. ps3 "won" the generation only because microshit stumbled with kinect late into the generation while ps3 started getting great exclusives on that said late period. but on launch ps3 was a miserable 600 dollar talladega nights machine.

100 million.

You can buy consoles on sale too. It doesn't change what their base price.

you paid $30 a year at the time for free(at the time, they were added permanently to your acc) ps3 and vita games, it was great before they fucked it with the ps4

>Irrelevant
retards

PS3 half-way failed because it was so hard to develop for. PS4 and PS5 are much easier to develop for. They can still fuck up PS5 by overpricing it, but the price will come down in a few years. PS3 couldn't just magically change its shitty development hurdles mid-cycle.

I want to say maybe since they got cocky with the 3G Vita at launch, reselling old ass Move controllers for the PSVR, and lets not forget that the PS Classic is now $30 from it launch of $100 in less than 6 months.

xbox did this too though.

Holy shit you actually are retarded. PLAYSTATION USED TO BE CHEAP. WAY CHEAPER. NOW THAT IT COSTS A FORTUNE TO GET A SHIT LAPTOP HARDWARE WITH ONE FUCKING GAME IT'S NOT WORTH IT. JUST FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING RETARD

How exactly did the 360 beat out PS3? Like, didn't it just barely outsell the PS and only in North America? Afaik Europe and Asia vastly preferred the Playstation.

PS3 failed because it was sold for a $300 loss and ended up losing Sony 3.5 billion dollars in total.

It's not a pattern if it only happened once

not until sony forced their hand with the xbox one

the subscription hasn‘t gotten cheaper genius.

ps3 was expensive because it included a PS2 chip

>sperging out this hard
autist
nobody ever buys them full price, they're on sale all the time

Just fuck off you fucking drone. Playstation costs a fortune now, it didn't used to be that way. If you defend that you're just another stupid manchild fanboy with a 2 digit IQ

*launch ps3

>tfw you had to send your launch ps3 in for a repair because of the disc read error shit and they replaced it with a ps3 that didn't have backwards compat

still doesn‘t change the fact that the base price increased multiple times.

I fucking hate the PS4 though, and I hate the direction sony has gone in general, but it's a matter of fact that the PS3 was a more expensive system. It makes very little sense to shoehorn in PS+ as a counter to that point, especially when PS+ is frequently on sale anyway.

>but it's a matter of fact that the PS3 was a more expensive system
PS3 actually went down in price so this isn't even true. More pricier initially, of course, but it went down in price and online was better and it was free.

Sony is already shooting themselves massively in the foot in terms of business decisions over the last 6-8 months.

why would it make little sense? you cannot say that netplay is something you can just ignore in 2019.
its a hidden cost they slap onto consumers to keep the console price low. ultimately everybody will play twice the console price over the course of a generation thanks to that, even if you get it on sale.

Tech is getting way more expensive and people are buying it up.
1k phones are almost the norm now, whilst costing around 400$ 5 years ago. I expect the Ps5 to be at least 500$

this discussion was about launch prices user
>ultimately everybody will play twice the console price over the course of a generation thanks to that, even if you get it on sale
that is a ludicrous exaggeration, either that or your math is terrible

Cost never bothered me. I'm fine with paying more for good tech (which both ps3 and 4 were not, they were outdated shit on release), but I don't trust Sony. I play japanese games primarily and they are censorship happy on them now, I won't support that.

and it then got cheaper afterwards due to them removing it

>this discussion was about launch prices user
No, it was about cost of owning a console, just like you're ignoring that online costs money now.

recend trends shoes consumers buying and wanting 300-500$ dollar phones more though.

oh I'm sorry you'll just have to pay 350$ on top of your 400$ console if you buy psn+ for 50$ a year.
thats ok then because its not literally double.

fanboy scum.

no it was originally about launch prices, this is where the conversation started >The PS4 was unironically more expensive at launch than the PS3 was at its launch.

The PS5 is going to be nothing but social justice garbage. Anyone developing for it is a confirmed cuck.

Even taking that into account PS4 would still be more expensive because of paid online so nice try moving the goalposts

see I legitimately don't even own a PS4, I only came into this thread to call out the claim that the PS4 being 'more expensive at launch than PS3' is retarded.

you're not fooling anybody.

>moving the goalposts
you absolute fucking retard, that is literally the very first post and what I was disputing from the beginning.

I'm switch/pcfag mostly but I did own a PS3 and PS2 before that.

60$x7 (generation is around 7 years)=420$
That's a liitle more than a console, 820$ over the course of generation!
I don't know for how many dollars it is on sale though.

But you're still ignoring that online costs money which does make PS4 more expensive, especially if you bought it at launch. That's 7-8 years. Do you even understand math you simpleton?

This

>generation is around 7 years
I don't know what metric you're using but by my math a console gen is 4-5 years

I don't think so, when Sony were developing the ps3 the entire playstation brand was barely 10 years old.

I think sony & MS will be more pragmatic going forward

I've owned a PS4 since 2014 and haven't ever paid for PS+. Any multiplayer shit I just play on PC anyway.

and you're ignoring that the first user stated "The PS4 was more expensive", 'the PS4' as in the system itself. Funny how you claim I'm moving the goalposts when that's exactly what you're doing now. The PS3 was a more expensive console at launch than the PS4. This is a fact.

Nothing says pragmatic like plunging head first into left-wing politics.

How is that not a success? Lmao

No because its not a pattern its a one-console fuck up. PS1, PS2, both fine. Nothing stupid inbetween. PS1 dominated, PS2 dominated. For PS3 they wanted to keep being a special snowflake with their unique architecture but the way the industry and how tools were being designed were fully against being closed off MUH CELL shit.

So with the PS4 they said "fuck it, x86 just like everyone else easy porting". PS5 will just be better specs and then no bullshit forced gimmicks or weird shit.

You're such a drone holy shit. Why should customers ignore that online costs a lot of money? It's part of owning a console now, that's a fact. You're just ignoring it because you know I'm right

I based it on PS3/PS4.
PS3 had around 7 years, looks like PS4 will be like that too.

okay now I'm convinced you're just shitposting and have nothing to actually say

Enjoy your monthly subscription plus tax retard

It's not even just Sony, they all do it.
SNES
360
Wii
Apple 2
Steam

They all rest on their laurel's and end up taking the market for granted.

I knew it. You ARE ignoring it.

>PS4 was unironically more expensive at launch than the PS3 was at its launch.
PS4: $399
PS3: $599 US DOLLARS $599 US DOLLARS $599 US DOLLARS $599 US DOLLARS

Underages don't know that.
GC and 64 were more powerful than PS1 and 2, yet it lost the gen, while the "underpowered hardware" actually won the gen, not lost. But he won't know that since he is underage.

now add the price of a TV

I don't own a ps4, desperate shitposter
I already replied about it in several posts before, which ironically you had ignored.

>people defending ps+
>those people think that paying for multiplayer is ok
jesus fucking christ

Attached: 1559123397591.png (400x454, 117K)

fug

>which ironically you had ignored
Yeah, in which you ignored the online price every time. Deal with it, retard.

I never once said it's okay, in fact it's fucking garbage and shouldn't be part of the industry at all. This conversation has been twisted by retarded shitposting

>This conversation has been twisted
lol.

literal fake news, anyone can read the full reply chain and see you're full of shit.

>The PS3 was a more expensive console at launch than the PS4. This is a fact.
And yet the PS4 is fucking incomplete without PS+, which costs money.

some people don't play online at all
shocking, I know.

Doesn't matter.

but they had games unlike bing bing gimmick shit and pc ports.

Irrelevant.

I think it's going to be a mix of the two. Base PS4 for basic bitches at $399 and hardcore PS4 for the gamers (tm) at $599

It's still incomplete. Literally paying for hardware that Sony restricts unless you pay a fee.

>$600 console was cheaper than $400 console at launch
>that's wrong though
>IRRELEVANT LMAO
why is this board actually braindead?
INB4 some nigger calls me a fanboy for the third time when I unironically don't own a PS4 and hate nu-sony. You're all so desperate for console wars that you end up attacking each other over nothing

buying a modern console with mandatory paid online is essentially just like buying something expensive and paying it off with monthly rates.

Only this time it will be fully digital-only and likely put some titles exclusively behind some subscription-based cloud gaming.

Corporate wanks thinking its the "Future of games"

(you)

Attached: 1438576638274.jpg (1101x611, 484K)

It's already confirmed that PS5 is using physical media.

>this sort of marketing works and worked for decades now

Attached: 1545517696832.jpg (501x509, 26K)

it still works out cheaper even if you include PS+ in your argument, which most people don't bother with as there's no online worth playing on PS4 almost no games in general, in fact

Its not in Sonys interest to go full digital yet as they need something to push their own garbage storage media like DVD or Bluray.

Of course it's irrelevant because paid online makes it more expensive than the PS3. PS4 also didn't go down in price which the PS3 did.

>no you don't understand 7 years after launch it might work out more expensive if you're dumb enough to pay for online at all

see

>7 years after
Fucking shill.

>this lamp cost less if you just don't pay for electricity

funny you bring that up as PS3 uses more power to run, so actually would cost more on your electricity bill, but that is also irrelevant amirite?

Even if I bought a PS4 now it's still as expensive as the launch price. If you somehow don't think Sony has become more arrogant and greedy than ever then I don't know what to tell you

Both the ps3 and the ps4 use it so yes it's irrelevant to the comparison retard

they do not use it at the same rate

>online is required to turn the system on

Ah then what are the numbers

Even when you adjust for inflation this isn't remotely true.

that will be $15 a month tahnk you.

5$ has been put into your account

Initial PS3: 170-200 W
Initial PS4: 70W in menu, 140W in game, 10W in standby

PS4 is about 100W although it varies a lot and can be as low as 70W on standby or as high as 140W, whilst PS3 ranges from 170-200W and is typically around 190W, so is around double the power consumption overall.

yes, I'll totally buy a videogame device in this century and then refuse to use the online functionality. thats what everybody does.

Attached: 1558566610899.jpg (540x564, 67K)

>ps4 is successful
>no e3 conference
lul

I did it with my switch, up until I got a free sub anyway

my bad it's 10W on standby, 70W is if downloading/updating in standby mode

ps4 is successful only because microsoft wasn't even trying this gen
xbox one was such a flop with their shitty always online and no games

it's just shitposters being retarded

basically yeah