EDIT - shit guys and gals, Sony just confirmed apparently that this is a one-and-done deal, no post-launch support, additions, or enhancements.
So, how is that different than the NES & SNES Classics?
There were folks talking about (and almost assuming) that these would be expandable such as Sony would release vol1, vol2 etc. I wasn't even talking about the NES/SNES classics...
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I agree with this 100%. I realize $100 is a lot of money, and just in an absolute sense it is more than people would want to spend for something like this, which is totally fine. But I don't think $100 is an unreasonable amount of money for this device, or that it is crazy overpriced or anything. Maybe from a selling standpoint they could lose some sales due to the 3-digit amount, but I still think it is 'worth' $100 to someone like me who loves playstation.
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller, I don't think it's crazy they are asking $100. Obviously, if people don't want to spend that on it, that's cool and understandable. We all have our interests.
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I agree with this 100%. I realize $100 is a lot of money, and just in an absolute sense it is more than people would want to spend for something like this, which is totally fine. But I don't think $100 is an unreasonable amount of money for this device, or that it is crazy overpriced or anything. Maybe from a selling standpoint they could lose some sales due to the 3-digit amount, but I still think it is 'worth' $100 to someone like me who loves playstation.
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller, I don't think it's crazy they are asking $100. Obviously, if people don't want to spend that on it, that's cool and understandable. We all have our interests.
The only issue with the price that I can think of is that it's starting to get high enough where people are less likely to buy it on an impulse. $60 for an NES Classic is cheap enough that people who didn't even know what it was might buy one on an impulse at Wal-Mart. For $100, the same type of people who aren't up to date on current video game news might pass on it. Luckily, it's being released near Christmas so it should make for a good gift idea.
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I really don't see how a PS1 Classic with only 20 games is worth $100 versus the value presented by the SNES classic.
The competition on the market is a much better value proposition, even before you get into the Nintendo systems being easily hackable and providing controllers that work with other systems.
There isn't much practical reason than the PS Classic should need to be priced $20 higher than the SNES classic.
Both have sufficiently low system specs that the necessary hardware for emulation is ridiculously cheap.
Both come with two controllers (and a non-analog-stick PS controller is no more complex than a standard SNES controller)
Possibly the PS1 library of games they're picking have more licensing headaches, but I'd think that's accounted for in the smaller game library.
EDIT - shit guys and gals, Sony just confirmed apparently that this is a one-and-done deal, no post-launch support, additions, or enhancements.
So, how is that different than the NES & SNES Classics?
There were folks talking about (and almost assuming) that these would be expandable such as Sony would release vol1, vol2 etc. I wasn't even talking about the NES/SNES classics...
Yeah, they were talking in reference to the Neo Geo plug-and-play system from a few years ago.
EDIT - shit guys and gals, Sony just confirmed apparently that this is a one-and-done deal, no post-launch support, additions, or enhancements.
So, how is that different than the NES & SNES Classics?
There were folks talking about (and almost assuming) that these would be expandable such as Sony would release vol1, vol2 etc. I wasn't even talking about the NES/SNES classics...
Yeah, they were talking in reference to the Neo Geo plug-and-play system from a few years ago.
Yeah it was linked to that convo but they were talking about the possibilities of using the "parallel port" in the back of the PS classic to expand via SD cards and possibly include DS controllers in maybe a future package - very hopeful thinking for sure it would be sweet. I think I actually read on a different thread that somebody was referring to it as more factual (TDIRunner thought they saw that somewhere too).
Bottom line is Sony confirmed it's one-and-done unfortunately . Would be neat if it got hacked line the Nintendo classics...
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I really don't see how a PS1 Classic with only 20 games is worth $100 versus the value presented by the SNES classic.
The competition on the market is a much better value proposition, even before you get into the Nintendo systems being easily hackable and providing controllers that work with other systems.
There isn't much practical reason than the PS Classic should need to be priced $20 higher than the SNES classic.
Both have sufficiently low system specs that the necessary hardware for emulation is ridiculously cheap.
Both come with two controllers (and a non-analog-stick PS controller is no more complex than a standard SNES controller)
Possibly the PS1 library of games they're picking have more licensing headaches, but I'd think that's accounted for in the smaller game library.
I would have expected it to be $100 for the same reason I would expect an N64 Classic to be about $100 as well. I also expect it to be priced around that range for the same reason why the SNES Classic was $20 more than the NES Classic.
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller
What extra controller? They are giving you more than the two controllers you get with the SNES classic?
Ah, I forgot about that... (and I have the SNES Classic hahah).
I don't know...not really looking to argue or defend the price for everyone. If people think it's too high for them, that's ok. I personally think it's reasonable and only a little bit more than the SNES Classic. Since I am a big Playstation fan and always have been, this is still pretty cool for me, and I'm willing to pay a bit of a 'premium' so to speak, to have the neat little classic ps, just like the other classics.
I had someone tell me a few days ago this thing was stupid and way too expensive, meanwhile he has multiple sets of joycons and themed switch controllers that in total he has spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on. If that's how he wants to spend his money, great. Personally, I see more value in something like this than a pokemon joycon or game controller, etc., so it's all just relative and about what people like I suppose.
Just like the NES and SNES, I view this as a combination little neat gaming device, but mostly a novelty and pure luxury item. $100 is a lot of money for anything, like I said, so if that's too much for something people don't really need, that's completely understandable.
I've just seen a lot of hate for this thing and all sorts of ridicule and complaints, that I think are a bit overblown [not referring to you or even this thread - talking about elsewhere mostly]. At the end of the day, people will vote with their money and what happens happens I guess, haha.
I would have expected it to be $100 for the same reason I would expect an N64 Classic to be about $100 as well. I also expect it to be priced around that range for the same reason why the SNES Classic was $20 more than the NES Classic.
I wouldn't.
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
(yes, I know Nintendo charged the $20 "because they could" -- I'm saying as a somewhat justifiable price difference from a buyer standpoint, given the headaches people faced trying to buy 2nd NES controllers for the NES Classic)
I'd expect an N64 Classic to be more expensive for no other reason than the controller requiring an analog module, and being more complex.
But a basic, pre-analog PS1 controller is practically identical to an SNES controller in cost and complexity.
(also, hardware-wise, emulating an N64 is much more "expensive" than emulating a PS1)
The $100 price is Sony trying to milk fanboys, and otherwise convince people that it's somehow a more "premium" product than the previous two Nintendo releases.
I would be very surprised if the extra $20 vs an SNES classic isn't essentially pure profit to them, and has no underlying cost justification.
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
If that's the only reason it cost $20 more then you should be bitching about the price of the SNES Classic just as much as the PS1 Classic. That's a ridiculously overpriced controller.
(Hint: That's not the only reason why the SNES Classic cost more).
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller
What extra controller? They are giving you more than the two controllers you get with the SNES classic?
Ah, I forgot about that... (and I have the SNES Classic hahah).
I don't know...not really looking to argue or defend the price for everyone. If people think it's too high for them, that's ok. I personally think it's reasonable and only a little bit more than the SNES Classic. Since I am a big Playstation fan and always have been, this is still pretty cool for me, and I'm willing to pay a bit of a 'premium' so to speak, to have the neat little classic ps, just like the other classics.
Pretty much the only reason I think the SNES Classic was "fairly priced" at $80 was because it was easily hackable/expandable.
Allows it to be a great travel console for family trips and hotel stays.
But without that feature, the original lineup would wear out pretty quick, and the $80 would not be, to me, a good deal at all.
Given the relative size of the games, I am skeptical than the PS1 will be usefully hackable (i.e. in the sense of just dumping a ton of games on it), though it will probably turn out to be hackable where you can swap games within the confines of the available space.
But there just aren't that many PS1 games I would care to play again in the first place, so I'm definitely not the target market for this thing, at any price
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
If that's the only reason it cost $20 more then you should be bitching about the price of the SNES Classic just as much as the PS1 Classic. That's a ridiculously overpriced controller.
(Hint: That's not the only reason why the SNES Classic cost more).
Weren't they charging $20 per controller for the extra NES controllers?
Sure, they charged more for the SNES Classic "because they could" and people would pay it.
Otherwise, they could have easily bundled in the extra controller for cheaper.
But I'm saying that at a hardware level, there is no meaningful justification for the cost difference between an SNES Classic and a PS1 Classic, given the relatively low computing requirements for decent emulation, by current standards.
That is, Sony is only charging $100 because they think they can convince people to pay it.
It almost certainly isn't costing them anymore to make this console than it cost Nintendo to make either of theirs.
(at least, the cost difference is almost certainly going to be <$5, and may actually be measured in pennies )
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
If that's the only reason it cost $20 more then you should be bitching about the price of the SNES Classic just as much as the PS1 Classic. That's a ridiculously overpriced controller.
(Hint: That's not the only reason why the SNES Classic cost more).
Weren't they charging $20 per controller for the extra NES controllers?
Sure, they charged more for the SNES Classic "because they could" and people would pay it. Otherwise, they'd have bundled in the extra controller for cheaper.
But I'm saying that at a hardware level, there is no meaningful justification for the cost difference between an SNES Classic and a PS1 Classic, given the relatively low computing requirements for decent emulation, by current standards.
That is, Sony is only charging $100 because they think they can convince people to pay it.
It almost certainly isn't costing them anymore to make this console than it cost Nintendo to make either of theirs.
(at least, the cost difference is almost certainly going to be <$5, and may actually be measured in pennies )
The SNES Classic had fewer games, and fewer third party games than the NES Classic. Additionally, the fact that they bundled the extra controller with the unit so they didn't have to run a production line just for a controller means that the overall produciton cost for the SNES Classic was considerably lower than it would have been for the NES Classic. It could have been cheaper and they still could have turned a profit. They charged more for a "more advanced" system because they could.
Sure, they charged more for the SNES Classic "because they could" and people would pay it. Otherwise, they'd have bundled in the extra controller for cheaper.
The SNES Classic had fewer games, and fewer third party games than the NES Classic. Additionally, the fact that they bundled the extra controller with the unit so they didn't have to run a production line just for a controller means that the overall produciton cost for the SNES Classic was considerably lower than it would have been for the NES Classic. It could have been cheaper and they still could have turned a profit. They charged more for a "more advanced" system because they could.
The NES Controller hardware was almost certainly all on the same "production line"
The only "extra production line" would be for the boxes and subsequently boxing up some proportion of the controllers that were all made on a common line.
The savings was having a secondary box built, not producing the controllers themselves (which are by far the core cost of production for the controllers )
But I think you may be over-estimating how much it costs a production of this size and scale to box something separately, on a per-unit basis.
In terms of "because they could"... that is exactly what I said when I clarified, from Nintendo's perspective, why they'd decide charge that.
My initial comment was just saying from a consumer standpoint, the value proposition of the TOTAL price of the console plus two controllers was comparable between the NES and SNES Classic systems, to where one could be OK with the price difference for that reason alone -- doesn't require any consideration, at all, for the "more advanced" nature, since that really just washes out with the different quantity of games, and doesn't justify a higher price at all.
Anyway... all my initial point was, is that I don't think there is an extra $20 of value in a PS Classic versus an SNES Classic, unless they somehow dump a bunch of extra on-board storage onto it to where it is as conveniently hackable as an SNES Classic.
But I doubt it, since PS1 games are getting into a size range where buying unneeded storage space would be a measurable waste of money in production.
(versus SNES and NES classics where they were likely buying the cheapest chips they could get and by happy coincidence they were MUCH larger than what was required for the supplied games)
Sony kept their stuff backward compatible for long enough (and had better online/digital purchase support and options), and so little of their library has the "quick pick-up-and-play" element that makes the Nintendo Classic consoles fun (to me), that I personally don't see the appeal.
To each his own, but I think they are taking advantage of their fans at the price point they have selected.
The NES Controller hardware was almost certainly all on the same "production line"
The only "extra production line" would be for the boxes and subsequently boxing up some proportion of the controllers that were all made on a common line.
The savings was having a secondary box built, not producing the controllers themselves (which are by far the core cost of production for the controllers )
But I think you may be over-estimating how much it costs a production of this size and scale to box something separately, on a per-unit basis.
In terms of "because they could"... that is exactly what I said when I clarified, from Nintendo's perspective, why they'd decide charge that.
My initial comment was just saying from a consumer standpoint, the value proposition of the TOTAL price of the console plus two controllers was comparable between the NES and SNES Classic systems, to where one could be OK with the price difference for that reason alone -- doesn't require any consideration, at all, for the "more advanced" nature, since that really just washes out with the different quantity of games, and doesn't justify a higher price at all.
Anyway... all my initial point was, is that I don't think there is anywhere close to an extra $20 of value in a PS Classic versus an SNES Classic, unless they somehow dump a bunch of extra on-board storage onto it to where it is as conveniently hackable as an SNES Classic.
But I doubt it, since PS1 games are getting into a size range where buying unneeded storage space would be a measurable waste of money in production.
(versus SNES and NES classics where they were likely buying the cheapest chips they could get and by happy coincidence they were MUCH larger than what was required for the supplied games)
Since I do this for a living, I think I'm in a position to say that combining the extra controller into the packing of the main unit instead of packaging it separately is a significant cost savings. Unless you want to provide me Nintendo's standard cost analysis that says otherwise. Nintendo set the precedent that the price goes up as you release more advanced classic editions. Sony is simply following along (as they are well known for doing). A $100 price tag shouldn't surprise anyone except the people who were down on this thing before it even existed.
Since I do this for a living, I think I'm in a position to say that combining the extra controller into the packing of the main unit instead of packaging it separately is a significant cost savings. Unless you want to provide me Nintendo's standard cost analysis that says otherwise. Nintendo set the precedent that the price goes up as you release more advanced classic editions. Sony is simply following along (as they are well known for doing). A $100 price tag shouldn't surprise anyone except the people who were down on this thing before it even existed.
Define "significant" (per unit? or just in aggregate over the total production run?)
Clearly Nintendo thought they were making enough money packing the controllers separately to justify the cost the first time around.
But printed cartons, in the quantity they're buying them, are pretty cheap.
And I'm assuming all of the controllers were boxed in China prior to shipping, so I'd be pretty skeptical that the labor cost difference (between all in one box, and separate boxes) approaches the cost of the box, itself, on a per-unit basis.
So yes, it's going to be cheaper, but "significant" may be pushing it.
And I don't find the $100 price "surprising", but I don't think it's a reasonable deal at that price, and in terms of "where the money is going" people should recognize that the vast majority of that $20 difference from the SNES Classic is profit and almost certainly has nothing to do with covering any underlying hardware cost difference.
To clarify, the NES controllers are only $10 and are actually available to order on Amazon right now for Prime members, limited to 1 as an add-on item for delivery in a few weeks:
To clarify, the NES controllers are only $10 and are actually available to order on Amazon right now for Prime members, limited to 1 as an add-on item for delivery in a few weeks:
Were they $10 when they were released? Thought they were originally $20, for some reason.
Didn't buy an NES Classic, though, so never really locked that consoles prices into my memory like the SNES Classic.
And Nintendo themselves, selling them for $10/each on Amazon, of all places, seems to show just how little they're saving (per unit) by consolidating the packaging on the SNES classic
When I think about spending $100, I think about the fact that I've seen used ps4's go for $160 - $180. A used backward comparable ps2 with dual shock is $30. And the NES and SNES classics games have held up much better over time than what ever they are going to put on the ps1 classic. There will be less replay value on the ps1 classic, guaranteed.
The production cost of SNES Classic with two controllers built in will be cheaper than the production cost of running two completely separate lines for the NES Classic and the separate controllers. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing that because there is really nothing there to debate.
Ultimately, you are arguing that the PS1 Classic is overpriced because there ins't $100 of value. That's fine if you feel that way because it's an opinion. But you have to understand why your argument comes across s "fanboy-ism" if you aren't making a similar argument about the SNES Classic. If we are arguing value based on games, the SNES Classic should have been CHEAPER than the NES Classic, but it actually cost more. You are saying that it only cost more because of the second controller, but we've already established that isn't true. Nintendo priced the SNES Classic higher because they are putting a higher value on a more advanced system, just like how they charged more for SNES games on the VC compared to NES. That's all Sony is doing. The PS1 is a more advanced system and they are valuing it that way. If you don't like it, you certainly don't have to buy it, but arguing that it should cost the same as the SNES Classic is silly when you consider how Nintendo has been pricing their products.
The production cost of SNES Classic with two controllers built in will be cheaper than the production cost of running two completely separate lines for the NES Classic and the separate controllers. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing that because there is really nothing there to debate.
Ultimately, you are arguing that the PS1 Classic is overpriced because there ins't $100 of value. That's fine if you feel that way because it's an opinion. But you have to understand why your argument comes across s "fanboy-ism" if you aren't making a similar argument about the SNES Classic. If we are arguing value based on games, the SNES Classic should have been CHEAPER than the NES Classic, but it actually cost more. You are saying that it only cost more because of the second controller, but we've already established that isn't true. Nintendo priced the SNES Classic higher because they are putting a higher value on a more advanced system, just like how they charged more for SNES games on the VC compared to NES. That's all Sony is doing. The PS1 is a more advanced system and they are valuing it that way. If you don't like it, you certainly don't have to buy it, but arguing that it should
cost the same as the SNES Classic is silly when you consider how Nintendo has been pricing their products.
To your first sentence, I really did want you to quantify what you considered "significant", since I didn't say it wasn't cheaper, just that it is clearly cheap enough on a per-unit basis to justify them now continuing to sell those separate controllers for only $10 each through a high friction source like Amazon.
But I thought I qualified my opinion of the SNES Classic value pretty well, as in, if it had not been easily hackable, it would not have been worth the $80 they were asking.
Maybe the PS1 will have a bunch of excess memory and ALSO be easily and conveniently hackable (to where you don't have to swap games off of the system to make room), but given chip sizes and how much bigger PS1 games are due to cut scene video and CD music, I'm making an educated guess that it won't be the case.
Additionally, even if the PS1 is hackable, the lack of analog sticks completely eliminates the ability to play certain highly desirable PS1 games (like Ape Escape).
Part of my earlier point was that you're overstating how much "premium" Nintendo was putting on the SNES price vs the NES because it included the second controller.
So from a consumer point-of-view the necessary package (of a console plus 2 controllers) was not that much different in price, if at all.
The PS Classic price premium for a "more advanced system" is considerably higher than SNES-vs-NES, and the true value proposition is likely even worse when you get down to the hackability of the system.
But I'm sure Sony has just as many fanboys as Nintendo willing to pay more than I'd personally find reasonable for something like this.
Comments
https://gematsu.com/2018/09/esrb-...
SOTN is getting a PS4 release. I'd guess that makes it less likely to be on the classic then.
Sick!
EDIT - shit guys and gals, Sony just confirmed apparently that this is a one-and-done deal, no post-launch support, additions, or enhancements.
So, how is that different than the NES & SNES Classics?
Price
EDIT - shit guys and gals, Sony just confirmed apparently that this is a one-and-done deal, no post-launch support, additions, or enhancements.
So, how is that different than the NES & SNES Classics?
There were folks talking about (and almost assuming) that these would be expandable such as Sony would release vol1, vol2 etc. I wasn't even talking about the NES/SNES classics...
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I agree with this 100%. I realize $100 is a lot of money, and just in an absolute sense it is more than people would want to spend for something like this, which is totally fine. But I don't think $100 is an unreasonable amount of money for this device, or that it is crazy overpriced or anything. Maybe from a selling standpoint they could lose some sales due to the 3-digit amount, but I still think it is 'worth' $100 to someone like me who loves playstation.
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller, I don't think it's crazy they are asking $100. Obviously, if people don't want to spend that on it, that's cool and understandable. We all have our interests.
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I agree with this 100%. I realize $100 is a lot of money, and just in an absolute sense it is more than people would want to spend for something like this, which is totally fine. But I don't think $100 is an unreasonable amount of money for this device, or that it is crazy overpriced or anything. Maybe from a selling standpoint they could lose some sales due to the 3-digit amount, but I still think it is 'worth' $100 to someone like me who loves playstation.
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller, I don't think it's crazy they are asking $100. Obviously, if people don't want to spend that on it, that's cool and understandable. We all have our interests.
The only issue with the price that I can think of is that it's starting to get high enough where people are less likely to buy it on an impulse. $60 for an NES Classic is cheap enough that people who didn't even know what it was might buy one on an impulse at Wal-Mart. For $100, the same type of people who aren't up to date on current video game news might pass on it. Luckily, it's being released near Christmas so it should make for a good gift idea.
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I really don't see how a PS1 Classic with only 20 games is worth $100 versus the value presented by the SNES classic.
The competition on the market is a much better value proposition, even before you get into the Nintendo systems being easily hackable and providing controllers that work with other systems.
There isn't much practical reason than the PS Classic should need to be priced $20 higher than the SNES classic.
Both have sufficiently low system specs that the necessary hardware for emulation is ridiculously cheap.
Both come with two controllers (and a non-analog-stick PS controller is no more complex than a standard SNES controller)
Possibly the PS1 library of games they're picking have more licensing headaches, but I'd think that's accounted for in the smaller game library.
EDIT - shit guys and gals, Sony just confirmed apparently that this is a one-and-done deal, no post-launch support, additions, or enhancements.
So, how is that different than the NES & SNES Classics?
There were folks talking about (and almost assuming) that these would be expandable such as Sony would release vol1, vol2 etc. I wasn't even talking about the NES/SNES classics...
Yeah, they were talking in reference to the Neo Geo plug-and-play system from a few years ago.
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller
What extra controller? They are giving you more than the two controllers you get with the SNES classic?
EDIT - shit guys and gals, Sony just confirmed apparently that this is a one-and-done deal, no post-launch support, additions, or enhancements.
So, how is that different than the NES & SNES Classics?
There were folks talking about (and almost assuming) that these would be expandable such as Sony would release vol1, vol2 etc. I wasn't even talking about the NES/SNES classics...
Yeah, they were talking in reference to the Neo Geo plug-and-play system from a few years ago.
Yeah it was linked to that convo but they were talking about the possibilities of using the "parallel port" in the back of the PS classic to expand via SD cards and possibly include DS controllers in maybe a future package - very hopeful thinking for sure it would be sweet. I think I actually read on a different thread that somebody was referring to it as more factual (TDIRunner thought they saw that somewhere too).
Bottom line is Sony confirmed it's one-and-done unfortunately . Would be neat if it got hacked line the Nintendo classics...
I wish it could be a $10 item, but that doesn't change the fact that this is priced extremely fairly considering the competition on the market.
I really don't see how a PS1 Classic with only 20 games is worth $100 versus the value presented by the SNES classic.
The competition on the market is a much better value proposition, even before you get into the Nintendo systems being easily hackable and providing controllers that work with other systems.
There isn't much practical reason than the PS Classic should need to be priced $20 higher than the SNES classic.
Both have sufficiently low system specs that the necessary hardware for emulation is ridiculously cheap.
Both come with two controllers (and a non-analog-stick PS controller is no more complex than a standard SNES controller)
Possibly the PS1 library of games they're picking have more licensing headaches, but I'd think that's accounted for in the smaller game library.
I would have expected it to be $100 for the same reason I would expect an N64 Classic to be about $100 as well. I also expect it to be priced around that range for the same reason why the SNES Classic was $20 more than the NES Classic.
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller
What extra controller? They are giving you more than the two controllers you get with the SNES classic?
Ah, I forgot about that... (and I have the SNES Classic hahah).
I don't know...not really looking to argue or defend the price for everyone. If people think it's too high for them, that's ok. I personally think it's reasonable and only a little bit more than the SNES Classic. Since I am a big Playstation fan and always have been, this is still pretty cool for me, and I'm willing to pay a bit of a 'premium' so to speak, to have the neat little classic ps, just like the other classics.
I had someone tell me a few days ago this thing was stupid and way too expensive, meanwhile he has multiple sets of joycons and themed switch controllers that in total he has spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on. If that's how he wants to spend his money, great. Personally, I see more value in something like this than a pokemon joycon or game controller, etc., so it's all just relative and about what people like I suppose.
Just like the NES and SNES, I view this as a combination little neat gaming device, but mostly a novelty and pure luxury item. $100 is a lot of money for anything, like I said, so if that's too much for something people don't really need, that's completely understandable.
I've just seen a lot of hate for this thing and all sorts of ridicule and complaints, that I think are a bit overblown [not referring to you or even this thread - talking about elsewhere mostly]. At the end of the day, people will vote with their money and what happens happens I guess, haha.
I would have expected it to be $100 for the same reason I would expect an N64 Classic to be about $100 as well. I also expect it to be priced around that range for the same reason why the SNES Classic was $20 more than the NES Classic.
I wouldn't.
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
(yes, I know Nintendo charged the $20 "because they could" -- I'm saying as a somewhat justifiable price difference from a buyer standpoint, given the headaches people faced trying to buy 2nd NES controllers for the NES Classic)
I'd expect an N64 Classic to be more expensive for no other reason than the controller requiring an analog module, and being more complex.
But a basic, pre-analog PS1 controller is practically identical to an SNES controller in cost and complexity.
(also, hardware-wise, emulating an N64 is much more "expensive" than emulating a PS1)
The $100 price is Sony trying to milk fanboys, and otherwise convince people that it's somehow a more "premium" product than the previous two Nintendo releases.
I would be very surprised if the extra $20 vs an SNES classic isn't essentially pure profit to them, and has no underlying cost justification.
It better have the classic Playstation boot screen!
Yes! PS1 and gamecube have the best boot screens.
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
If that's the only reason it cost $20 more then you should be bitching about the price of the SNES Classic just as much as the PS1 Classic. That's a ridiculously overpriced controller.
(Hint: That's not the only reason why the SNES Classic cost more).
When you think about the additional storage requirements for playstation games versus 8/16 bit, and the extra controller
What extra controller? They are giving you more than the two controllers you get with the SNES classic?
Ah, I forgot about that... (and I have the SNES Classic hahah).
I don't know...not really looking to argue or defend the price for everyone. If people think it's too high for them, that's ok. I personally think it's reasonable and only a little bit more than the SNES Classic. Since I am a big Playstation fan and always have been, this is still pretty cool for me, and I'm willing to pay a bit of a 'premium' so to speak, to have the neat little classic ps, just like the other classics.
Pretty much the only reason I think the SNES Classic was "fairly priced" at $80 was because it was easily hackable/expandable.
Allows it to be a great travel console for family trips and hotel stays.
But without that feature, the original lineup would wear out pretty quick, and the $80 would not be, to me, a good deal at all.
Given the relative size of the games, I am skeptical than the PS1 will be usefully hackable (i.e. in the sense of just dumping a ton of games on it), though it will probably turn out to be hackable where you can swap games within the confines of the available space.
But there just aren't that many PS1 games I would care to play again in the first place, so I'm definitely not the target market for this thing, at any price
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
If that's the only reason it cost $20 more then you should be bitching about the price of the SNES Classic just as much as the PS1 Classic. That's a ridiculously overpriced controller.
(Hint: That's not the only reason why the SNES Classic cost more).
Weren't they charging $20 per controller for the extra NES controllers?
Sure, they charged more for the SNES Classic "because they could" and people would pay it.
Otherwise, they could have easily bundled in the extra controller for cheaper.
But I'm saying that at a hardware level, there is no meaningful justification for the cost difference between an SNES Classic and a PS1 Classic, given the relatively low computing requirements for decent emulation, by current standards.
That is, Sony is only charging $100 because they think they can convince people to pay it.
It almost certainly isn't costing them anymore to make this console than it cost Nintendo to make either of theirs.
(at least, the cost difference is almost certainly going to be <$5, and may actually be measured in pennies )
The only reason the SNES Classic was $20 more than an NES Classic is that it came with two controllers instead of one.
If that's the only reason it cost $20 more then you should be bitching about the price of the SNES Classic just as much as the PS1 Classic. That's a ridiculously overpriced controller.
(Hint: That's not the only reason why the SNES Classic cost more).
Weren't they charging $20 per controller for the extra NES controllers?
Sure, they charged more for the SNES Classic "because they could" and people would pay it. Otherwise, they'd have bundled in the extra controller for cheaper.
But I'm saying that at a hardware level, there is no meaningful justification for the cost difference between an SNES Classic and a PS1 Classic, given the relatively low computing requirements for decent emulation, by current standards.
That is, Sony is only charging $100 because they think they can convince people to pay it.
It almost certainly isn't costing them anymore to make this console than it cost Nintendo to make either of theirs.
(at least, the cost difference is almost certainly going to be <$5, and may actually be measured in pennies )
The SNES Classic had fewer games, and fewer third party games than the NES Classic. Additionally, the fact that they bundled the extra controller with the unit so they didn't have to run a production line just for a controller means that the overall produciton cost for the SNES Classic was considerably lower than it would have been for the NES Classic. It could have been cheaper and they still could have turned a profit. They charged more for a "more advanced" system because they could.
Sure, they charged more for the SNES Classic "because they could" and people would pay it. Otherwise, they'd have bundled in the extra controller for cheaper.
The SNES Classic had fewer games, and fewer third party games than the NES Classic. Additionally, the fact that they bundled the extra controller with the unit so they didn't have to run a production line just for a controller means that the overall produciton cost for the SNES Classic was considerably lower than it would have been for the NES Classic. It could have been cheaper and they still could have turned a profit. They charged more for a "more advanced" system because they could.
The NES Controller hardware was almost certainly all on the same "production line"
The only "extra production line" would be for the boxes and subsequently boxing up some proportion of the controllers that were all made on a common line.
The savings was having a secondary box built, not producing the controllers themselves (which are by far the core cost of production for the controllers )
But I think you may be over-estimating how much it costs a production of this size and scale to box something separately, on a per-unit basis.
In terms of "because they could"... that is exactly what I said when I clarified, from Nintendo's perspective, why they'd decide charge that.
My initial comment was just saying from a consumer standpoint, the value proposition of the TOTAL price of the console plus two controllers was comparable between the NES and SNES Classic systems, to where one could be OK with the price difference for that reason alone -- doesn't require any consideration, at all, for the "more advanced" nature, since that really just washes out with the different quantity of games, and doesn't justify a higher price at all.
Anyway... all my initial point was, is that I don't think there is an extra $20 of value in a PS Classic versus an SNES Classic, unless they somehow dump a bunch of extra on-board storage onto it to where it is as conveniently hackable as an SNES Classic.
But I doubt it, since PS1 games are getting into a size range where buying unneeded storage space would be a measurable waste of money in production.
(versus SNES and NES classics where they were likely buying the cheapest chips they could get and by happy coincidence they were MUCH larger than what was required for the supplied games)
Sony kept their stuff backward compatible for long enough (and had better online/digital purchase support and options), and so little of their library has the "quick pick-up-and-play" element that makes the Nintendo Classic consoles fun (to me), that I personally don't see the appeal.
To each his own, but I think they are taking advantage of their fans at the price point they have selected.
The NES Controller hardware was almost certainly all on the same "production line"
The only "extra production line" would be for the boxes and subsequently boxing up some proportion of the controllers that were all made on a common line.
The savings was having a secondary box built, not producing the controllers themselves (which are by far the core cost of production for the controllers )
But I think you may be over-estimating how much it costs a production of this size and scale to box something separately, on a per-unit basis.
In terms of "because they could"... that is exactly what I said when I clarified, from Nintendo's perspective, why they'd decide charge that.
My initial comment was just saying from a consumer standpoint, the value proposition of the TOTAL price of the console plus two controllers was comparable between the NES and SNES Classic systems, to where one could be OK with the price difference for that reason alone -- doesn't require any consideration, at all, for the "more advanced" nature, since that really just washes out with the different quantity of games, and doesn't justify a higher price at all.
Anyway... all my initial point was, is that I don't think there is anywhere close to an extra $20 of value in a PS Classic versus an SNES Classic, unless they somehow dump a bunch of extra on-board storage onto it to where it is as conveniently hackable as an SNES Classic.
But I doubt it, since PS1 games are getting into a size range where buying unneeded storage space would be a measurable waste of money in production.
(versus SNES and NES classics where they were likely buying the cheapest chips they could get and by happy coincidence they were MUCH larger than what was required for the supplied games)
Since I do this for a living, I think I'm in a position to say that combining the extra controller into the packing of the main unit instead of packaging it separately is a significant cost savings. Unless you want to provide me Nintendo's standard cost analysis that says otherwise. Nintendo set the precedent that the price goes up as you release more advanced classic editions. Sony is simply following along (as they are well known for doing). A $100 price tag shouldn't surprise anyone except the people who were down on this thing before it even existed.
Since I do this for a living, I think I'm in a position to say that combining the extra controller into the packing of the main unit instead of packaging it separately is a significant cost savings. Unless you want to provide me Nintendo's standard cost analysis that says otherwise. Nintendo set the precedent that the price goes up as you release more advanced classic editions. Sony is simply following along (as they are well known for doing). A $100 price tag shouldn't surprise anyone except the people who were down on this thing before it even existed.
Define "significant" (per unit? or just in aggregate over the total production run?)
Clearly Nintendo thought they were making enough money packing the controllers separately to justify the cost the first time around.
But printed cartons, in the quantity they're buying them, are pretty cheap.
And I'm assuming all of the controllers were boxed in China prior to shipping, so I'd be pretty skeptical that the labor cost difference (between all in one box, and separate boxes) approaches the cost of the box, itself, on a per-unit basis.
So yes, it's going to be cheaper, but "significant" may be pushing it.
And I don't find the $100 price "surprising", but I don't think it's a reasonable deal at that price, and in terms of "where the money is going" people should recognize that the vast majority of that $20 difference from the SNES Classic is profit and almost certainly has nothing to do with covering any underlying hardware cost difference.
https://www.amazon.com/Nintendo-CLVACNES-NES-Classic-Controller/dp/B01JT77EDK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1538063314&sr=8-5&keywords=NES+classic+controller
To clarify, the NES controllers are only $10 and are actually available to order on Amazon right now for Prime members, limited to 1 as an add-on item for delivery in a few weeks:
https://www.amazon.com/Nintendo-C...
Were they $10 when they were released? Thought they were originally $20, for some reason.
Didn't buy an NES Classic, though, so never really locked that consoles prices into my memory like the SNES Classic.
And Nintendo themselves, selling them for $10/each on Amazon, of all places, seems to show just how little they're saving (per unit) by consolidating the packaging on the SNES classic
Ultimately, you are arguing that the PS1 Classic is overpriced because there ins't $100 of value. That's fine if you feel that way because it's an opinion. But you have to understand why your argument comes across s "fanboy-ism" if you aren't making a similar argument about the SNES Classic. If we are arguing value based on games, the SNES Classic should have been CHEAPER than the NES Classic, but it actually cost more. You are saying that it only cost more because of the second controller, but we've already established that isn't true. Nintendo priced the SNES Classic higher because they are putting a higher value on a more advanced system, just like how they charged more for SNES games on the VC compared to NES. That's all Sony is doing. The PS1 is a more advanced system and they are valuing it that way. If you don't like it, you certainly don't have to buy it, but arguing that it should cost the same as the SNES Classic is silly when you consider how Nintendo has been pricing their products.
The production cost of SNES Classic with two controllers built in will be cheaper than the production cost of running two completely separate lines for the NES Classic and the separate controllers. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing that because there is really nothing there to debate.
Ultimately, you are arguing that the PS1 Classic is overpriced because there ins't $100 of value. That's fine if you feel that way because it's an opinion. But you have to understand why your argument comes across s "fanboy-ism" if you aren't making a similar argument about the SNES Classic. If we are arguing value based on games, the SNES Classic should have been CHEAPER than the NES Classic, but it actually cost more. You are saying that it only cost more because of the second controller, but we've already established that isn't true. Nintendo priced the SNES Classic higher because they are putting a higher value on a more advanced system, just like how they charged more for SNES games on the VC compared to NES. That's all Sony is doing. The PS1 is a more advanced system and they are valuing it that way. If you don't like it, you certainly don't have to buy it, but arguing that it should
cost the same as the SNES Classic is silly when you consider how Nintendo has been pricing their products.
To your first sentence, I really did want you to quantify what you considered "significant", since I didn't say it wasn't cheaper, just that it is clearly cheap enough on a per-unit basis to justify them now continuing to sell those separate controllers for only $10 each through a high friction source like Amazon.
But I thought I qualified my opinion of the SNES Classic value pretty well, as in, if it had not been easily hackable, it would not have been worth the $80 they were asking.
Maybe the PS1 will have a bunch of excess memory and ALSO be easily and conveniently hackable (to where you don't have to swap games off of the system to make room), but given chip sizes and how much bigger PS1 games are due to cut scene video and CD music, I'm making an educated guess that it won't be the case.
Additionally, even if the PS1 is hackable, the lack of analog sticks completely eliminates the ability to play certain highly desirable PS1 games (like Ape Escape).
Part of my earlier point was that you're overstating how much "premium" Nintendo was putting on the SNES price vs the NES because it included the second controller.
So from a consumer point-of-view the necessary package (of a console plus 2 controllers) was not that much different in price, if at all.
The PS Classic price premium for a "more advanced system" is considerably higher than SNES-vs-NES, and the true value proposition is likely even worse when you get down to the hackability of the system.
But I'm sure Sony has just as many fanboys as Nintendo willing to pay more than I'd personally find reasonable for something like this.