It is expected at this point that after a PlayStation launches there will be a slim model released mid-generation. These slim models serve a purpose. First. The slim would normally launch around th…
It’s simply the fact that they have clearly reduced costs (or they wouldn’t have made it) yet the price for both models has technically increased because the stand is no longer included and the digital is £10 more even before the stand.
The MSRP of the Digital SKU has been £389.99 for over a year, it’s not increasing. EDIT: Notwithstanding the vertical stand not being included anymore, granted.
While it undoubtedly saves Sony money to produce and ship a smaller console none of those savings are being passed on and the new model costs the same as the current “fat” model.
There’s no attribution for what they seem to accept as nearly axiomatic, that it’s cheaper. What are they basing this on? I don’t know because this article doesn’t say, it seems to just be their assumption.
There has been a massive chip shortage and record inflation since the PS5 was launched. Not to mention that the original consoles were sold at a loss.
They may still be selling them at a loss, or possibly cost. But even if we assume that the unattributed “facts” are correct, and Sony is making a small profit after selling consoles at a loss for years, why would I be upset?
It’s simply the fact that they have clearly reduced costs (or they wouldn’t have made it) yet the price for both models has technically increased because the stand is no longer included and the digital is £10 more even before the stand.
The MSRP of the Digital SKU has been £389.99 for over a year, it’s not increasing. EDIT: Notwithstanding the vertical stand not being included anymore, granted.
We gonna bitch about 10 eurodollars and a cheap plastic stand that is completely unnecessary??
It’s cheaper for Sony to manufacture and ship yet it’s more expensive. Nobody should be OK with this.
Is it? Based on what? The article says:
There’s no attribution for what they seem to accept as nearly axiomatic, that it’s cheaper. What are they basing this on? I don’t know because this article doesn’t say, it seems to just be their assumption.
There has been a massive chip shortage and record inflation since the PS5 was launched. Not to mention that the original consoles were sold at a loss.
They may still be selling them at a loss, or possibly cost. But even if we assume that the unattributed “facts” are correct, and Sony is making a small profit after selling consoles at a loss for years, why would I be upset?