Could 9th gen consoles be $500 USD?

[iroboto]

Well I did say launch



And the market is basically feelings and psychology and less about actual value of the product.

The average gamer did not care much about the Cell CPU or Kinect kamera, especially if we look at the Nintendo Switch, it sells well and is not a powerhouse, but it has the portable option of course.

I don't disagree, I think I agree with the notion that gaming doesn't have to be driven by visuals.
It's just that of the group, Sony's 1st Party is largely marketed and known for by it's visuals.
Coming into next gen with another middle of the pack GPU setup is actually fine, but I don't know if people would be upset by it, I wouldn't be. I only want PS5 to have PS4 BC, and I will likely make the purchase then

 

[Gubbi]

It may not affect the launch price, but asking for $399 again in 2019 would imply significantly less buying leverage to make a powerful console to work with, the only thing able to mitigate that is a significant improvement in price/performance or a willingness to take a loss. Which we’ve seen this generation that neither companies are really willing to do.

It doesn't make much sense to deviate too much from the $399 price point.

Spending 60% of $399 on your main SOC+RAM will afford you 3-400mm² of main SOC silicon and 12GB DRAM in 2020. That'll give you 8x 3.5GHz Zen CPUs and a 10-12TF GPU. That leaves you with $160 for HDD ($25), flash ($30)/optical ($20-25), support peripherals, PSU, controller, packaging and a small profit.

You can build a bigger SOC and add more DRAM, but all that does is make you more vulnerable to price wars and DRAM market price swings and for what ? 3-5TF more GPU performance which only makes a difference in DF technical analysis.

Cheers

 

[iroboto]

That'll give you 8x 3.5GHz Zen CPUs and a 10-12TF GPU

I like your post!
I don't have enough data points around this area, but the 8x 3.5GHz Zen + 10-12TF for 399 is what I don't believe will happen. That would have to be a significant improvement in price performance.

When we went from 28->16, 3 years after PS4, the needle only moved from 1.8 -> 4.2 TF. I don't anticipate that the move to 7nm will be able to increase the power by ~ 2 to 3x and keep the cost the same in 3 years time. As we approach smaller nodes, we're not seeing the same doubling in performance for the same price every other year. Not only is the tick tock longer, but the performance improvement is starting to get more expensive not less.

I dunno, I'm just skeptical. If you have data points I'll surely read through.

 

[London Geezer]

Could 9th gen consoles be $500 USD?

No, they will come in loot boxes.

 

[Globalisateur]

It doesn't make much sense to deviate too much from the $399 price point.

Spending 60% of $399 on your main SOC+RAM will afford you 3-400mm² of main SOC silicon and 12GB DRAM in 2020. That'll give you 8x 3.5GHz Zen CPUs and a 10-12TF GPU. That leaves you with $160 for HDD ($25), flash ($30)/optical ($20-25), support peripherals, PSU, controller, packaging and a small profit.

You can build a bigger SOC and add more DRAM, but all that does is make you more vulnerable to price wars and DRAM market price swings and for what ? 3-5TF more GPU performance which only makes a difference in DF technical analysis.

Cheers

In 2020 releasing a console with no more memory than a 2017 console ? Not likely.

That's why it has to cost at least $449 because of memory.

 

[DrJay24]

With regards to inflation $399 2013 vs $399 at 2019+, we should be looking closer to the $450 (straight 3% annual inflation puts this closer to 476.00) price point. If you keep $399 in 2019...

I don't think electronics prices have ever obeyed inflation.

The $499 price point of Scorpio today is telling. I’d be impressed if it was $399 in 2019 as a standard price (non BF)

Telling in what way? The price of Scorpio will be mostly dictated by it's competition in 2019. If it is the same as today, they will pick whatever price gets them the margin they want. If there is a PS5, they will need to drop it or watch it become irreverent.

 

[iroboto]

I don't think electronics prices have ever obeyed inflation.

Telling in what way? The price of Scorpio will be mostly dictated by it's competition in 2019. If it is the same as today, they will pick whatever price gets them the margin they want. If there is a PS5, they will need to drop it or watch it become irreverent.

That's because the rate in which the cost to produce PCs have dramatically dropped faster than inflation can increase.
PC prices have historically dropped lower and lower because fabrication became increasingly cheaper.
That rapid reduction of price while doubling in performance has/is nearing the end, as the node gets smaller the process increases in cost now (because of complexity) so we should see an increase in price for more performance.

 

[Technewsreader]

So you're agreeing with me because lots of people want to buy cheap.

yes, but lots would also be ready to invest more for a better product. I''d rather have more expensive console but optional Ps plus and FREE online mp

 

[Scott_Arm]

yes, but lots would also be ready to invest more for a better product. I''d rather have more expensive console but optional Ps plus and FREE online mp

You'd rather have a more expensive console, but not pay for it, which is kind of the point. Sure, everyone wants to have more until they actually have to pay.

 

[Scott_Arm]

In 2020 releasing a console with no more memory than a 2017 console ? Not likely.

That's why it has to cost at least $449 because of memory.

This is true. $399 may still be the sweet spot for pricing, but I guess if memory prices continue to be crazy, then it may be inevitable that the consoles are $450.

 

[Pixel]

I don't think electronics prices have ever obeyed inflation.

Telling in what way? The price of Scorpio will be mostly dictated by it's competition in 2019. If it is the same as today, they will pick whatever price gets them the margin they want. If there is a PS5, they will need to drop it or watch it become irreverent.

That because between then and now large portions of the industry moved away from north america and japan to lower labor cost areas of the world like China, Vietnam and Malaysia. Margins have also gotten slimmer, and fewer and fewer ic foundries exist now days, 4-5 compared to 30+ in the mid 90s. Economies of scale in all aspects of fabrication, diffusion, manufacturing etc have gotten larger as well as increased efficiency in those industries as well, as well as increases in automation reducing labor costs.

 

[eastmen]

if people want a true leap it will have to be $500. A 2020/2021 console at $400 may not provide a large enough leap over a $500 2017 console. We could enter another situation where the hardcore are not happy with the power of the new systems. It will also mean whoever launches first at that $400 mark could be in a serious disadavantage when it comes to power. As others have said that extra $100 can go right into the most important parts of the system the apu / ram

 

[Scott_Arm]

if people want a true leap it will have to be $500. A 2020/2021 console at $400 may not provide a large enough leap over a $500 2017 console. We could enter another situation where the hardcore are not happy with the power of the new systems. It will also mean whoever launches first at that $400 mark could be in a serious disadavantage when it comes to power. As others have said that extra $100 can go right into the most important parts of the system the apu / ram

It only has to provide a large benefit over a $400 console from 2013. Most people are still on or buying the base ps4.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I’d say yes. Force the market to move up. Give people a reason to spend the premium with core package performance and don’t rely on gimmicks such as kinect/move/psvr etc.

You can't "force" somebody with only $400 to pay $500. The economics of the console market has been thinner profits on hardware, especially at launch, with large profits on software. If you make the hardware more expensive then you force consumers to spend on a thinner margin product while at the same time leaving them less money to spend on the high margin games software.

Videogame consoles is an industry built not on performance first, but profit margins which are thin if you're going for performance. There have been attempts to try consoles focussed on performance, including Intellivision, NeoGeo and 3DO - and none were commercially successful. Bear on mind it's not just the economics of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo here, but third party publishers. Don't expect as much launch support from Activision, Ubisoft, EA and others if you launch expensive console because they know returns will be less.

The industry can sustain a $500 console but only if you accept less being buying in quickly. Less people = less $$$.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The industry can sustain a $500 console but only if you accept less being buying in quickly. Less people = less $$$.

Not if the shift is to rolling generations. Then a 500 USD console is always pragmatic because there will always be a 250 USD (+/- 50 USD) console that represent the previous generation node that plays all the games available for that console albeit at lower graphical fidelity.

I know you're going to argue that new consoles bring new gameplay. But that hasn't been true now, for the most part, for the past 2-3 generations. With the exception of maybe Claybook and the upcoming Dreams, nothing released this generation would be impractical to do on the previous generation when lowering graphics fidelity. Even HZD would have been completely doable on the previous generation with lower graphics fidelity (the biggest would be shorter draw distance and more aggressive LOD pop-in).

And speaking of Claybook and the upcoming Dreams, considering when they are coming out, they wouldn't have to support those generations (ps3 mid gen/x360 mid gen which obviously doesn't exist, but hypothetically speaking) as those would be 2 generation nodes back. You'd only need to support 1 generation node back to have everything operate pretty much exactly like the traditional "generations".

Hence, for example, RDR 2 wouldn't have to be able to run on anything less than a PS4/XBO as it would only have to support 2 generational nodes (PS4/XBO and PS4-P/XBO-X) in a rolling generation paradigm. Of course, the developer would have the option of allowing their game to run on even older generational nodes. The requirement would only be that games must support the 2 newest generational nodes. In other words, game support exactly like traditional generations.

In that paradigm, there's always room for a 500 USD console because there's always a 200-300 USD console that can run the games for people that can't afford a 500 USD console.

TL: DR

• Traditional generation - 5-8 years.
• Rolling generation support - 5-8 years.
  • Generation node - 2-4 years.
    • Newest node machine - 500 USD
    • Previous node machine - 200-300 USD
  • Games must support 2 latest nodes.

[edit] Just thought of VR as something that wouldn't be doable on previous generation. But then PSVR came out basically at the same time as PS4-P, so even PSVR would only have had to support PS4 and PS4-P. IE - the 2 newest generational nodes.

Regards,
SB

 

[eastmen]

It only has to provide a large benefit over a $400 console from 2013. Most people are still on or buying the base ps4.

For how long ? People who bought a 2013 console may be ready to buy a $400 or $500 console in 2017 or 18 or 19 or 20 esp as they come down in price

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Not if the shift is to rolling generations.

If. And that itself would impact the traditional economy. Currently when new hardware released you can generally expect the early adopters, which are traditionally those with more expendable credit, to also invest generously in new software to accompany their machine. Once new hardware brings benefits and improvements to existing software (like on PC) you may find plenty of folks are as content to replay older software (also like on PC).

The console industry has survived on the predictability of buyer habits of owners, this will largely go out of the window but only time will tell how much and it'll impact both console manufacturers and third party software publishers.

 

[AlNom]

Would be interesting to see multiplayer-heavy titles shift to a more platform-based model where they just keep adding new maps over time instead of resetting the MP population at every sequel (while also throwing away all the add-on content that they worked hard to produce previously).

 

[Scott_Arm]

For how long ? People who bought a 2013 console may be ready to buy a $400 or $500 console in 2017 or 18 or 19 or 20 esp as they come down in price

Exactly?

If someone bought a PS4 for $400 in 2013, they'll probably be ready to buy a PS5 at launch for $400, and it doesn't have to be a huge leap from Pro, it just has to be a huge leap from the PS4 they own.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Would be interesting to see multiplayer-heavy titles shift to a more platform-based model where they just keep adding new maps over time instead of resetting the MP population at every sequel (while also throwing away all the add-on content that they worked hard to produce previously).

Rainbow Six Siege is basically doing seasons. I can still see them doing a Siege 2 when they want to re-do the tech, but it would make sense to carry over maps etc.