Wedbush Morgan: PlayStation 4 Will Retail For $349 And Xbox One For $399

In an E3 preview note to investors, Investment firm Wedbush Morgan forecasted that PlayStation 4 will retail for $349 while Xbox One will retail for $399.

According to the company, PlayStation 4 hardware components cost Sony $275 per console while Xbox One components cost $325. These numbers doesn’t include R&D, marketing and distribution costs, so the consoles actually cost more than that.

While Wedbush Morgan expects Xbox One to be more expensive than PlayStation 4 at launch, the company also expects that Microsoft will offer SKUs at a subsidised price through a subscription contract from a broadcast, cable or ISP provider.

"We believe the ability to watch live TV from a cable, telco, or satellite set-top box through Xbox One could entice an MSO to drive subscriptions through a subsidised box in exchange for a multi-year contract," the preview note reads."The 'always connected' requirement for the Xbox One likely means that a broadband connection will be required, suggesting to us that ISPs may have an incentive to offer a subsidy as well."

"In addition, Microsoft could conceivably subsidise the Xbox One through prepaid Xbox Live Gold subscriptions (as it has done on a limited basis in the past) or premium Skype functionality as well. Similarly, Sony could subsidise the PS4 through prepaid PlayStation Network subscriptions, but unlike Microsoft, it does not have a history of doing so."

As for Nintendo, Wedbush Morgan affirms that it"risks losing additional share to its console competitors if the quality and volume of content available for Wii U does not pick up markedly in the near-term."

"In addition, if the Wii U's popularity does not improve by the end of the year, many third-party publishers may pass on producing games for the console. We note that EA recently announced that it had no Wii U games in development, and it remains a possibility that the publisher will abandon the platform entirely. Should other third parties follow EA's lead, the Wii U could be relegated to a first party only platform."

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


too cheap

I really cant see the price of these being under $400. Sony and MS know they have the consumer. and they believe the consumer will pay the price. Even a WiiU is over 300 and selling at a loss. theres no WAY that psfour and XB1 will be close to its price-point. just my 2cents

It's interesting to read the

It's interesting to read the speculative pricing structure. Both consoles were pretty comparable in price to begin with but Microsoft were able to price Sony out not long after the launch of the PS3. ------- I think that the speculative price is based on a bundled Microsoft console, which would include the second generation Kinect. I guess we'll have to wait and see. ----- Still, i'm still looking forward to the PS4 more. Especially if, as they stated at their Playstation conference, they are getting back to the roots of gaming. ------ God knows that we've been missing that for some years, regardless of what platform games are played on.


I agree that some of the producers of these huge games deserve to get money from production ideally but they are not directly entitled to second hand sales. If you make a physical product (cd/dvd/bluray,etc) that you can play all the way through 1 time in 7 hours that has no replay value, why should one have to just hang onto that game (that cost ~60-70 dollars) just because (and half the time the game sucks anyway). You physically paid for the cd/dvd/whatever and are entitled to sell it, trade it or do as you wish. The difference between physical and intellectual properties is essentially the same as long as there is one physical copy. Book publishers, movie production companies, musical artists do work to diminish overt piracy but you dont see this same bullcrap where you hear those companies fighting consumers, ebay sellers, libraries etc on their consumers not being able to sell those properties second hand. As money hungry as the RIAA are, even they realize that one person bought one physical copy of a good and is therefore entitled to trade, sell or do whatever else they wish with it. Its been like this for at least hundreds of years, tell me how all of a sudden this should change. This type of behavior is striking back and punishing the consumer who is purchasing your goods. If publishers want to sell more games, instead of punishing consumers, theyre going to have to offer consumers more to fit in with this restricted model of intellectual property to justify purchasing items that one would only play for very brief peroid of time and then [often] never use again: stratified price reductions after release dates, DLC, etc. I think steam does a great job of doing this by lowering prices to the point (where you get consumers that you wouldnt normally get otherwise) just by being so cost effective. Steam offers conviences that you wouldnt have otherwise as a tradeoff to offset the fact that you cannot trade your games (archiving games, no physical cd to have to deal with, direct/instant downloads, social integration features, etc)

Would love to see that.

That's crazy, very impressive. Feeling so bad for Nintendo right now...I'm sure they need a drastic price cut when ps4 arrives. Isn't Wii U at $300 or $350 right now already? Man, no way they can charge the same price as Ps4, that seems insane to me...

with fukin stupid DRM on

with fukin stupid DRM on used games, xbox is almost certain to fail. unless people find a way to mod it, so that it can play backups and downloaded games. i will buy playstation, still hope that it will also be moddable and can play backups.

Sorry to be that guy~

You and people like you with your sense of entitlement and desire to get something for nothing is a major contributor to DRM. I don't like DRM as much as the next consumer, but you are a metaphoric **** in everyone's punch bowl.

sorry but if i buy a game,

sorry but if i buy a game, buy a console i expect to play it without being told to connect to the internet, with this type of DRM they are doing is now more like RENTING the game, if people dont have an internet connection are up **** creek because all they games they have will not able to run because of the forced requierments also is was confirmed the patent for microsoft has been granted, this patent allows them to remote turn on the kinect on anyones xbox even tho it was turned off and to top it off it transmits the gathered information to microsofts servers in the usa, this means they can spy on you without your authorization or knowlage, so yeah i buy a game i hereby OWN that game and i can do what i want with that game, but with this drm bollocks means all the games are now just rented at full price.

Pre-owned games is a form of piracy?

Pre-owned games are not a form of piracy. If you buy something you own it, you're entitled to sell it / trade it if you don't want it anymore. If pre-owned games are a form of piracy, then buying a used car or previously-owned house would also be piracy. Any used item you buy an eBay would be "piracy" as well. Piracy here is about downloading games illegally (stealing), and trying to play on Xbox.

Welcome to the real world kid...

It really doesn't matter if you feel like you own something or not, the truth is you do not own software you buy, end of story. Pre-owned game sales are THE reason for DRM to exist, not piracy. Devs and publishers have known for a long time that pirates are mostly people who wouldn't buy their games to begin with, they are accounted for in the sales forecasts and gaming moves on just fine. But pre-owned games are different, someone who buys a second hand game would almost certainly buy a new one (even if the person had to wait for prices to drop) eventually, devs and publishers don't get a dime off of second hand sales. That means lost revenue, which makes it far more aggravating than piracy in the eyes of the companies that live off of selling games. It doesnt matter it they're huge multi billion companies, if they lose their main source of revenue, they will die. So it's actually people like you, with your false sense of entitlement over things you do not understand, that are hurting us all by forcing companies to create DRMs which we all know and hate.


reselling games isnt a loss of revenue for developers. They sold the game once, any other sales that they seek on the same game is called GREED. That is messed up. Its not right. They make half made games and sell add ons after launch that complete the game, never mind bonus features. Case in point, look at EA and how they handled Dead space 3, Mass Effect 3 etc. etc.

It seems you missed the part

It seems you missed the part where i pointed out why piracy is more acceptable to them than second hand sales. Please re-read as I'm not going to re-type it just because you're lazy. But I did explain how it means lost revenue for them so this post of yours is completely invalid until you have something to refute my argument with.

Piracy is more acceptable?

Disagree with the idea that developers find "piracy more acceptable to them than second hand sales." That sounds insane, can't count how many times I've read articles about developers complaining about game piracy, from EA to Nintendo to Sony. The reason Nintendo went with a mini-disc on GameCube was in hope of stopping illegal burning and copying. I remember Crytek a while back during Crysis 2 threatened to withdraw from PC for their next Crysis game because of the magnitude of lost sales (of course it was a bluff, crysis 3 is on PC now! But you get the point). Captcha: Be serious now :)


LOL at your comparison of software with physical goods like cars, you are clearly ignorant and just pulling beliefs out of your ***. Try to educate yourself instead...

if there is nothing wrong in

if there is nothing wrong in your form of game trading, xbox wouldn't have go through such length to stop it now wouldn't they? 10 people downloading a game, and 10 people, buying the same preowned DVD, is equally the same, both, did not give a single cent to game companies, only the 1st person who buy that dvd did.

speaking as a gamedev

Games cost 50(min)-100eur in some places in Europe where national average salary is 500eur (+ ie. rent is guaranteed to void 80% of it ). Dam right people want to know what they buy works - which sort of sounds obvious yet surprisingly is not. Not only some of the DRMd PC titles I have purchased did not work(Hint at UBISOFT), there are regional restrictions, always on internet requirements, countless account registration requirements and problems etc.... why? Option to play rented titles is also a big plus. If person is willing to mod/burn a game, risk ban what not on consoles then that represents very well the desperation or lack of resource that person has (which mostly happen to be kids ). Further more if you look up Valves pricing in countries like Russia(a lot of pirates there), after an experiment where they lowered the price 50%+, it became one of their main markets. In other words **** anyone who justifies this, you really do not know better

Add new comment