Report: PS4 costs $381 to build

With PlayStation 4 consoles out in the wild, it's time they got torn down.

54

With PlayStation 4 consoles out in the wild, it's time they got torn down. The folks at IHS iSuppli have been tearing down systems for years, giving estimated manufacturing costs. According to a new report, the cost of making a PS4 is $381, just $18 less than its retail price.

As AllThingsD points out, "Sony is taking a very small gross margin or even a possible loss on the console." However, the possible loss pales in comparison to PS3. Although that console sold for $599, it cost over $800 to make. Expensive Blu-ray technology at the time was to blame.

According to the teardown, the AMD chip inside PS4 is its most expensive component, costing about $100 to build, while memory adds about $88. The highly-regarded DualShock 4 costs about $18 to make.

Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    November 19, 2013 11:30 AM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Report: PS4 costs $381 to build.

    With PlayStation 4 consoles out in the wild, it's time they got torn down.

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 11:44 AM

      Wow, so after you factor in the R&D costs they are probably taking a bath on this. I hear the shareholders rabble rousing soon...

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 11:45 AM

        With a slight profit and a 2.46 attach rate, I doubt anyone is going to complain about this launch financially.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 11:49 AM

          That attach rate is great for a launch.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 12:42 PM

          Do they get the full $399 from retailers? Don't they get a cut of that?

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 12:50 PM

            Yeah retailers will get a cut. Not sure how much. Maybe 50 bucks or so?

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 12:54 PM

              Retailers get very little on consoles sometimes as low as a buck.

              • reply
                November 19, 2013 2:59 PM

                PS2s in Canada when they launched netted EBGames $1.63 each. I worked there at the time.

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 12:51 PM

            I don't know but I remember when I worked at Babbage's in 1999 or so we were told we actually lost money on every console sold. Something like $25/unit.

            That might have been bullshit to explain why our employee discount didn't apply to console hardware purchases, but if it was true (and if it's still true somehow) then it would underscore that for a retailer a console sale is a loss leader in order to sell games, accessories, etc.

            Which would also feed into the theory that if the hardware makers ever try to cut the retailers out of the games pie (i.e., making the thing digital dist. only) they'd be tossed right out of the stores, or have to be sold at a much higher profit point.

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 12:55 PM

              When I worked big box computer retail in 1999 (high five buddy!) we were told that our employee discount on consoles would make it below cost, hence why the discount didn't apply.

              • reply
                November 19, 2013 1:11 PM

                Yeah, there tends to be either no, or a -very- small store discount on consoles. They make their money on accessories.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 11:56 AM

        Day one profitability is a bad thing? Are you crazy? Also considering the scope of the project how much r@d went into what at its basic form is a PC on sony's end? They didn't make the cup or the graphics card. I'd say most of those r@d numbers are figured into the costs that they are paying out to third party manufacturers already for the components they are assembling.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 12:05 PM

          Not only that, but per-unit production costs descend as processes mature and yields increase.

          Also, if I'm reading this right, Sony makes double the margin off of one Dual Shock 4 as they do on a PS4. Also, platform holder royalties for PS4 titles, and online store and ad revenue bring in money.

          Makes me wonder how far over $400 the per-unit XBox One cost is.

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 12:25 PM

            But the X-Bone is selling for $500, right? Or did they drop the price?

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 12:31 PM

              nope, xbone is making a small profit on each machine. smart move on both sony and ms's part, and this is actually news to me because the last i read about console prices suggested that sony was taking about a $60 hit on each console sold.

              • reply
                November 19, 2013 2:14 PM

                Yes, the X-Bone is selling for $500.

                • reply
                  November 19, 2013 8:22 PM

                  i was answering your 2nd question, i thought that would have been obvious

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 12:30 PM

        What R&D? They're just using an AMD apu.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 12:47 PM

          You're right, they probably just go buy a bunch of parts and toss them into a box. The UI probably wrote itself, and their API probably amounts to "go fucking figure it out yourself"

          No thought went into the PS4 at all and they're making a sweet $18 per unit.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 12:56 PM

          Obviously you've never worked as an engineer. That's like saying GM doesn't do any work to design a car because they just buy the tires from Goodyear.

          You still have to design and layout a custom PCB to hold all the components, interface them together to maximize performance for your particular needs; write drivers, an OS, and UI (as well as various tools, apps & other support SW). That's not to mention the mechanical engineering for the box itself as well as the controller (tons of design and trial & error went into that great, new DS4 everyone is raving about), software validation, hardware validation, CE and other regulatory approvals, etc. etc. There's only a few million things that have to be decided, spec'd, and designed in to work perfectly with everything else as a simple out of the box unit.

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 2:09 PM

            Iawtp. Years of hard work were put into this console. Its not as simple as putting together PC components in a custom box.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 1:05 PM

        There's an invisible dollar value attached to every box sold based on how much they make from PSN subscriptions, music and movie purchases, peripheral sales etc etc etc. We have no idea what that number is.

        On avg per box it's probably not much but with economies of scale across tens of millions of boxes it ads up and is a constant stream of revenue which is what the accountants want. The more boxes they can get out there the more money they make and this is all accounted for over several years which is why they keep telling us there wont be a new box for a decade. I find that ten year plan laughable btw.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 1:18 PM

        Wow, checkmate. Your move, Sony.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:15 PM

        Do you have any idea how much the PS3 lost per console? This is nothing.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 6:30 PM

        sure you do, mancide. sure you do.

      • reply
        November 20, 2013 2:14 AM

        The more they sell the more they will get from PS+ subscriptions. I don't see how that should worry shareholders, but I'm also aware that Sony failing would make you a happy man.

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 11:45 AM

      1080p

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 11:58 AM

      Huh interesting, but it does not surprise me that both consoles are not losing any money(pretty sure XB1 is in the same boat) this cycle. To me they should both be able to do 1080p @ 60 FPS with no concerns or issues(those where my expectations). Devs should really have no problems with that target on day one if you consider where last gen was at with its hardware etc so I can see they cut money in certain areas and had diff targets this round.

      Got to say I love my PS4 and I may get shited on for saying this and above but I wish they had added at least $150 or $200 more into the GPU and CPU or all into the GPU and took a hit. Consumer talking of course no lose is how you want to run your business so MASSIVE hats off to Sony for making an awesome console with no lose etc.

      10 years is a long time I just don't think they both thought long term on either machine and maybe that was smart. If both consoles could do 1080p @ 60FPS with no effort I would not have any complaints what so ever in my perfect next gen console world. PS4 sounds like it is the closest @ that base target I believe all PS4 games are actually are in 1080p( just not 60fps, case basis).

      Time will tell if this paid off for both companies, I guess in the worst they could cut the 10 year cycle to 5 or what ever so really does it matter? Maybe it really doesn't any more, if you want the best go build a PC most are aware of this now.

      Might go as far to say this is how all consoles will have their business model -> no lose build the best console with what you have at a none lose target price. In Sony's case they did that hands down.

      Interesting, times have changed I guess, if you want to survive you have to that's life.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 6:15 PM

        I'm also disappointed. I suppose I was a teenager at the last launch so I didn't really have a concept of what people could afford in a gaming rig, but it felt like the PS3 was significantly more powerful than the vast majority of PCs out there. It was costing £800 to build back then, imagine taking into account inflation what kind of beasts they could bring out with that kind of money now.

        My rig that I didn't invest too much money into a couple of years ago is still significantly more powerful than the next gen consoles hardware wise. Obviously with things like RAM etc. you need less for a console and you can optimise better, but it still feels wasteful.

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 12:07 PM

      Wow those are razor thin margins. Wasn't PS3 or Xbox losing money on each console sold in the past? Can't remember.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 12:16 PM

        Both lost money massively at launch, especially the PS3.

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 12:45 PM

      It kinda rubs me the wrong way that they are making a profit at launch. I would want both companies to be taking at least a $100 loss on each console at launch. The advantage of a home console over a PC is it has basically been subsidized by Sony and Microsoft which makes gaming a little more affordable.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 12:48 PM

        How dare companies aim to make profits! They should be giving us money!

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 12:49 PM

        Im also pissed off that they arent spending more money on me

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 1:00 PM

          Devil's advocate: the whole point of a console is to either

          a) Control the whole stack for your game development (see: Nintendo)
          b) Lure people in with cheap hardware, cheaper than they could do for themselves (i.e., an entire PS4 costs less than a high end PC video card) in exchange for that higher-than-average hardware power point to be somewhat future-proof

          Sony/MS are clearly b) in the scenario above, and have been for a few generations now. On launch day, a $600 PS3 cost $900 to manufacture. In return you got impressive (for 2006) hardware and the best Blu-Ray player for years to come.

          Now sure, hardware makers like Sony/MS can get economies of scale because they're manufacturing tons of these things, and they don't have to profit on the hardware (or else it would be a lot more expensive), and some of the cost in previous generations was due to custom chip design, but really to some extent the PS4 and Xbone are essentially cheap PC's that don't run Windows.

          Which to some extent might make Valve's Steam Machines a contender since they're also going to be cheap (?) PC's that don't run Windows. But you likely have a decent library for them already.

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 1:07 PM

            It's still cheaper than you could get. They've negotiated bulk prices that you couldn't get elsewhere, and the systems are balanced much better so you're not wasting money on components that won't be fully utilized. Plus, the fact that it's a fixed platform means lower driver/API overhead, and just generally better optimized games.

            You don't have to lose money to produce cheaper HW than a consumer could piece together themselves.

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 1:20 PM

              Yeah I probably didn't explain it right but what I meant was not that the average gamer is going to be able to construct a system as good or better for the same price, I'm saying that there's some amount of validity to the concern that a system whose hardware is taped out at the same level for a long time would ideally be more forward looking than what we may have here.

              The PS3 came out in 2006. The Xbox 360 came out in 2005. They were both sold at a loss (well, the PS3 was for sure) and as a result were decently future-proofed. However that generation went way longer than anyone thought it would. The 360 is eight years old at this point. People with trilogies for franchises didn't know what to do at the end there because they hadn't planned on coming out with a part 4 before the next generation hit.

              So as a result, while I think XwingVmanX is being kind of a shithead, the idea of a game console having modest enough specs to be able to be sold at cost or a slight profit, when that hardware might have to last 7-8 years, could be seen by some as disappointing. Also, if the opposite is true (i.e., the PS5 comes out in like four years) then it's going to be disappointing because if the PS5 can't play PS4 games like the PS4 can't play PS3 games then people will feel burned for a different reason.

              A console whose hardware is advanced enough to be sold at a huge loss as well as having a long (but not too long) lifespan is the best case scenario, but it doesn't look like any of the hardware players want to do that this round (Nintendo included, though they did it with the Wii as well)

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 1:09 PM

            is there some truism I'm missing stating that all consoles must cost 50% more than their sale price?

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 1:21 PM

            The point of these consoles is:
            c) Lure people into your media and entertainment walled-garden for 5+ years.

            Selling the initial hardware at a loss is a damn good price to pay if you succeed.

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 1:32 PM

              To put it another way: imagine if the PS4 launched at $299. Nintendo would have to have dropped to $199 and Microsoft would have to make Kinect an optional accessory.

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 1:57 PM

              Except it's not, anymore. I believe neither the PS3 nor Xbox 360 made a profit altogether. Xbox 360 maybe, but it's doubtful.

              • reply
                November 19, 2013 2:00 PM

                The 360 had some profitable years, but by some estimates the Xbox division is still in the red over the last decade.

                http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsofts-xbox-division-has-lost-nearly-3-billion-in-10-years

                • reply
                  November 19, 2013 2:46 PM

                  well xbox1 put them in a huge hole
                  sorry, OG XBOX I mean

              • reply
                November 19, 2013 2:47 PM

                I'm pretty sure the 360 was profitable, but that the original Xbox investment was such a huge loss lead that that division of MS is still recovering.

                • reply
                  November 19, 2013 6:52 PM

                  It may be... barely. But I don't think any chance the PS3 was. The point is that this isn't a viable business model anymore. You need to make money on the HW.

                  Honestly I think Sony fucked up with their pricing, they should've gone up to 449 or something to at least give them a little bit of cheese per sale. Right now they're going to have to sell 2-3 games to even break even on licensing fees. And only after that can they begin recouping R&D costs, marketing, etc.. I'm sure they'll make money eventually, but it doesn't seem like it's going to be a major business unless they somehow manage to sell hundreds of millions of these fuckers (and with the lack of casual appeal, media capabilities, etc. that seems very doubtful).

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 12:49 PM

        How does that make it more affordable at all for the end user? Them making a profit means more money they can put into patching in more features into the existing box.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 1:10 PM

        lol wut?

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 1:52 PM

        Why stop at a $100 loss? If you ask me, all the next gen consoles should be free.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:04 PM

        fucking lol

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:05 PM

        They didn't earn the name M$ by catering to poors

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:16 PM

        where's my free car, too?

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:17 PM

        There are entitled gamers, and then there's you. Jesus Christ.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:21 PM

        hahaha

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:49 PM

        Add in shipping plus profit for retailers and I can't image Sony is making anything off it.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 6:39 PM

        never change front page posters..

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 6:47 PM

        I'm a total hippy, and I don't understand this post.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 6:51 PM

        I'm going to guess you're not a business man. At all.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 8:32 PM

        This is fantastic.

      • reply
        November 20, 2013 11:30 AM

        KaboomZZZ is that you???

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 12:48 PM

      I wonder if that's just cost of goods, or if it includes manual labor. Plus, add shipping, packaging etc, and they're going to be taking a hit on each one. I have heard they were sinking about 70 bucks per unit, all told.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 12:55 PM

        According to the AllThingsD article, I think this is just pure cost of components.

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 1:17 PM

      I think this really goes to show that you might as well just buy a cheap PC. You're not getting much out of a console other than a stripped-down OS and some exclusives that would be available on all platforms if people weren't buying into console gaming in the first place.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 1:23 PM

        what PC can you buy for $400 that can play BF4 at 1080p, medium to high settings, at a minimum of 30fps in SP?

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 1:48 PM

          900p, but point taken.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 1:55 PM

          Can't play BF4 without paying a monthly sub, either. We could do a '5 years out' calculation and try to match the kinds of free games you'd get on PS+ with cheap shit you could get on a Steam sale. It's not a big difference (IMO).

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 2:39 PM

            A PC today that will play PS4 titles at the same performance wont be able to play PS4 games 5 years from now.

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 6:29 PM

              But a PC at the same price point of a PS4 in 5 years will absolutely dwarf it.

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 2:40 PM

            is this you admitting defeat, or are you seriously suggesting playing BF4 on a $45 Celeron and no video card?

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 2:42 PM

              oh I missed the 6670... lol yeah surely that powerhouse will match the PS4. Have fun in 2 years when you can't play anything that comes out.

              • reply
                November 19, 2013 6:31 PM

                Or you could play them now at lower settings and wait 2 years and then pay the price of a PS4 for something that will completely outmatch the PS4 for the rest of the generation.

                • reply
                  November 19, 2013 6:42 PM

                  but then you'd be paying $800 instead of $400 right? how do you see this working?

                  • reply
                    November 19, 2013 8:16 PM

                    .. You already own a PC. Use that to play the games on low settings for the next 2 years then spend $400.

                    Okay, the first time you ever buy a gaming rig you might pay a bit more, but, okay, my pc now is more powerful than the PS4, so if I just make one small upgrade in the next 7 years I'm sorted for the whole gen, then I get a new PC at the end of the gen.

                • reply
                  November 19, 2013 6:46 PM

                  So then... spend $800 and buy 2 pc's?

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 3:00 PM

            Good luck playing bf4 at those settings on a celeron and 4gb of ram. 6670 is like 60% of my 570gtx and my comp chugs at like 25fps on high settings at around 900p.

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 3:19 PM

              I don't know a whole lot about budget cards but the Anandtech GPU bechmarks say an nvidia 650 ti puts out 58 fps in BF3 on 1080p Ultra quality, and I see it costs $110 on NewEgg.

              I have no idea what that translates to in BF4.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:11 PM

        Surely its the complete opposite. If anything you're getting great value for money on the hardware as Sony don't have any profit margin.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 6:52 PM

          He's saying they shouldn't be making a profit at all. These units cost $381 to build. PS3s cost $800 to build in 2005 without factoring in inflation. The PS3 had to last 8 years, and it's still been cripplingly bad compared to PC for the past several years. This gen will have no longevity vs. pc hardware.

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 6:51 PM

        With PC's you're stuck with paying $60 for a single-use license code. No thanks.

        • reply
          November 19, 2013 6:53 PM

          More like $5. Have you even heard of Steam?

          "I like consoles because I can choose to buy a game second hand and not give the developers any money, and then sell it on afterwards so more people don't give the developers any money".

          Great.

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 6:55 PM

            You were able to get AC4, Ghosts, or BF4 for $5?

            • reply
              November 19, 2013 8:25 PM

              Well, obviously not at launch. But do you really have to play a game ASAP?

              Even failing that, look:

              http://savygamer.co.uk/?s=battlefield&submit=Ok

              This is the cheapest you can possibly get these games in the UK by meticulously abusing coupons and ridiculous listing prices. On Xbone/PS4 that gets them down to £42.

              On PC? £26.

              http://savygamer.co.uk/?s=ghosts&submit=Ok

              Ghosts: Xbone, PS4: £45.

              PC: £30.

              And then I have that game on every PC (and increasingly Mac/Linux build) that I will ever own, from anywhere on Earth instantly at my disposal, without swapping any discs around.

              • reply
                November 19, 2013 8:30 PM

                What a pointless subthread, you're retreading the same arguments that have been rehashed a million times in the stupid PC vs Console war. I can write this stuff for you before you even post it.

                What you're not considering (and gets pointed out in every single one of these threads) is that you can't resell the PC copy, while you can resell the console copy. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

                Next you're going to mention how you need to buy an HDTV to use a console.

                • reply
                  November 19, 2013 8:37 PM

                  Why on Earth would I say that?

                  You can't resell the PC copy, sure. But you pay 60% of the price. I don't know what it's like in the US, but over here if you trade in a game you get 25% of what you paid back. So you're paying 75% if you buy, play, sell, and you have nothing left. I pay 60% and have it forever.

                  Plus the developer gets 0.6x moneys from my sale, from your sale they get 1x, which then sells onto another person for cheaper, which they get 0 of, (so 0.5x average on those 2 sales that were made, because obviously the retailer expects to be able to sell your game again). Then if they trade it in again they've made 0.333x average on those sales, whereas on pc by this point they'd have made 1.8x as much money. And everyone kept their games. And paid less. And have it in a convenient format.

                  I don't understand your point.

                  • reply
                    November 19, 2013 9:56 PM

                    You're paying too much.

                    I bought the deadspace series (1 & 3), Crysis 2, and Mirrors Edge for $1. I bought another 5 or so games from the X series for ~$6.5. Bought Divinity 2: Dragon Knight Saga a couple years ago for $10. Borderlands 2 for $7.5 I think. Mass Effect 1 and 2: $10 total. All of this on the PC, all of them high end games. Also, Planetside 2: $0.

                    You get the idea...PC, you can shop on the cheap for great games between steam holiday/summer sales and humble bundles. I love it...the most I've spent on a game in the past few years, aside from Skyrim, was on Kickstarters like Planetary Annihilation and Star Citizen, but even then that's only $20-$30 tops if you go for just the base game.

                    • reply
                      November 20, 2013 10:33 AM

                      Yeah, I understand that. Obviously after a year or two PC prices are ridiculously cheap, especially during the Christmas sale. But not even taking that into account, just based off prices on consoles vs PC at launch, you still save money even if you were going to trade the console games in afterwards.

                • reply
                  November 20, 2013 2:26 AM

                  You're rehashing the same argument as ever. Yes we can't resell games, we know. For a lot of person, the pc is a better value proposition, believe it or not.
                  From cheap digital downloads, to more diverse games, back compatibility allowing me to play 10 years old games that i didn't resell. These are reason enough to spend $300 more on hardware.

                  • reply
                    November 20, 2013 5:44 AM

                    wow... that's exactly what I was pointing out! they're the same tired arguments and there's no point in even bringing them up. Nothing new or interesting ever gets said, including here which is why I wrote off this thread earlier. I know how this entire conversation goes because I've read it a hundred times!

                    I wasn't arguing for or against reselling games. Just pointing out something he completely ignored in his simplistic analysis. I'm not arguing PC gaming as a whole is cheaper or more expensive than console gaming either, just pointing out that it's NOT as black and white as people are making this out to be, every. single. time. this stupidity gets argued.

                    FYI I've got an amazing gaming PC and a backlog of 500 games on Steam, so It's not like I don't understand the appeal of the platform.

                    • reply
                      November 20, 2013 7:49 PM

                      .. "Simplistic analysis".

                      I already answered your question completely, and showed you that you were utterly wrong, and even if you resell at an optimal price you STILL lose money, even at launch games, not counting ridiculous christmas sales, and I see that you didn't reply to it. And now you're here bitching that I couldn't address your problem.

                      But I did address your problem. I showed you that you were wrong. You just didn't reply to it. Because you have no retort.

                • reply
                  November 20, 2013 4:59 AM

                  Believe it or not a lot of us don't resell our copies of the game. The "but but but used games!" argument is the same tired edge case refrain as "but what if I want to play the online-only game on an airplane!"

                  Your being able to resell games is not a good enough reasons for consoles to continue to exist.

              • reply
                November 20, 2013 5:09 AM

                You're obviously invested in the PC. That's fine. I'm not invested in either. I was a PC gamer from the mid to late 90's to most of 2000's but migrated to console once I saw every PC game was starting to be tied to the Steam DRM.

                If I ever decide to move somewhere else or move out of gaming entirely, I can sell all my console games and hardware. All of your spending is sunk. If you want to keep sinking cash in that, that's your prerogative. Have fun!

                • reply
                  November 20, 2013 5:11 AM

                  I love the passive-aggressive sign off there. HAVE FUN!
                  huehuehue

                  • reply
                    November 20, 2013 5:24 AM

                    And Good Night to you, Sir!

                • reply
                  November 20, 2013 7:45 PM

                  Nice assumption, but completely untrue. I'm a Nintendo fanboy.

                  I've bought every Nintendo home console at launch since the N64 (and I also have a SNES), a Master System II, a Mega Drive, a Gameboy, Gameboy Pocket, launch GBA, launch NDS, launch 3DS. Both myself and two of my housemates own 360s, one of my housemates has a PS3, and someone who isn't in the UK right now has long term left me his PS3 to take care of.

                  I have never sold a video game. I have ~30 SNES games, ~20 N64 games, ~60 Gamecube games, ~30 Wii games, ~20 360 games, ~30 DS games, 3 3DS games, 290 Steam games.

                  I'm not invested in PC. I'm not a PC gamer. I've spent way more on consoles. When I owned a Gamecube, I was a teenage kid with only birthday/Christmas/pocket money to spend on video games. But I spent probably £1500 on gamecube games. I've probably spent less than a grand on my Steam games and I've been using it for 5 years (and have 4.5x as many games for the same price). As well, I heavily invested in the GH/RB series so my price per game rockets there (I got the pro guitar and pro keyboard too, 3 drumkits, been through 4 les pauls, 2 ghwt guitars, 1 xplorer, 1 rock band guitar).

                  I am a PC gamer second. But I also understand that the PC price structure is insanely better value, more developer friendly, more user friendly and makes more sense. If Valve controlled the console business, everything would be amazing.

                  Also, I can sell my hardware too. Sure, it won't go for a good price. Neither will your consoles.

          • reply
            November 19, 2013 6:58 PM

            The $5 you gave the developers really saved the industry.

        • reply
          November 20, 2013 5:10 AM

          The last time I paid $60 for a game was the orange box. There are so many pre-release sales now the most one has to spend is $48 for a new game, there is always 20% off discounts.

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 2:22 PM

      Then there’s the controller, which costs another $18 to build. It contains Bluetooth chips from Qualcomm, an audio chip from Wolfson Microelectroncs and a motion sensor chip from Bosch. The system ships with only one controller in the box.

      And costs like $60 for the consumer. Don't be fooled, they have ways of getting that cash back ; )

      • reply
        November 19, 2013 2:24 PM

        $40 on amazon.ca right now!

      • reply
        November 20, 2013 7:07 AM

        Wow....that's a pretty nice profit there. Sony will definitely make some bread there. I wonder how much the camera costs to make?

    • reply
      November 19, 2013 6:27 PM

      Probably mentioned already, but ps+ yearly fee will be a must for most gamers these days, which they didnt enforce as much in ps3 days.