Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
I doubt the ps5 BOM can be significantly below 500 if they have 1TB ssd and 16GB ram. XBSX would be at least 550 with 2 more ram chips and a larger die.
How much they want to lose per console is going to be interesting. Losing a billion per year for a 50 lower price, or investing a billion more per year into games that are profitable anyway. The loss on hardware only makes sense if it brings that much more users, and we've seen how great 1st party games bumped hardware sales and therefore new customers.
If they don't sell more consoles with a loss leader pricing versus breaking even on hardware, it's a pure loss in the books.
How much they want to lose per console is going to be interesting. Losing a billion per year for a 50 lower price, or investing a billion more per year into games that are profitable anyway. The loss on hardware only makes sense if it brings that much more users, and we've seen how great 1st party games bumped hardware sales and therefore new customers.
If they don't sell more consoles with a loss leader pricing versus breaking even on hardware, it's a pure loss in the books.
Yes the transitions to SSD's ups the price, but they cant come with HDD's anymore anno 2020. Also, 16GB is the least we can expect.
Then they'll be wilfully ignoring Economics 101. The higher the price, the less you'll sell. If they think the value and appeal is enough to justify a higher price, they may be right - Apple manages to command crazy expenditure from their fans. That's decidedly unproven though and I seriously doubt more people will want to buy PS5s than launch PS4 when PS5 costs more if the chief selling point is "backwards compatibility".
I think PS5 will sell out for months even at $600. Doesn't even matter about specs. Playstation cult is pretty strong and very comparable to Apple cult. All Sony has to do to be the fastest selling Playstation ever is to have enough supply. Every Playstation before has been supply constrained at launch.
Cult of PlayStation was very strong going into PS3 too. Sony expected to sell 6 million PS3 by the end of their FY it launched, but sold only 3.6 million instead. Too bloody expensive at $600 for the PS fans. Okay, $600 now is a little less, inflation adjusted, but psychologically, will people bite at that price? Especially when other CE devices like TVs have seen a veritable price-crash in the intervening years to make a $600 console proportionally more expensive by comparison?
Perhaps... although that certainly points to added costs for the latest nodes, worsening the situation.
Short of the contracts accidentaly leaking, we'll probably never know what the updated costs are for sure.
But generation to generation is probably more important here, and whatever each IHV concocts is similar to the other for the given timeframe, so it's still a relative cost vs the previous generation.
If that makes sense?
Last edited:
I slightly care about power in the sense that it impacts fps and that matters to me especially if I buy PSVR 2. But beyond that, I want to see robust first party offering complimented by a decent third party support.
This is an interesting area, Sony may push exclusives and visuals, Microsoft by supporting jaguar might have the headroom to offer 120fps on all their first party output.
Ultimately I think both will offer similar but the extremes of 4k 30fps pixel quality vs 1080p 120fps high refresh would make an interesting comparison with average users.
Nintendo is the only game company comparable to Apple. Switch never goes on sale. Nintendo first party games stay 59.99 forever, Sony/MS titles eventually get drastic sales.
We had 499 last time, 8 years ago, and people didn't by and large blink. Xbox One sold out until January (then it hit the skids...). Inflation never ends and 599 again one day is inevitable...maybe as soon as Xbox Series X!
https://apps.newyorkfed.org/markets...=TRUE&startDate=01/01/2000&enddate=01/01/2000 Inflate inflate inflate!
Last edited:
I am now a child of light and your earthly TFs holds no appeal to meee.No, we need to pull him back!
@ultragpu imagine if they sacrificed all those juicy teraflops just to have better BC!?
Then again they are probably just sandbagging with this silence and in a month or two they are ready to unleash full Messiah Cerny on stage performing 13.9TF Super Saiyan Kaio-ken.
I am now a child of light and your earthly TFs holds no appeal to meee.
Now is my opportunity to convert you to the 120Hz+ camp.
While I'm not a TF whore any more I still don't betray my roots, it's always gonna be visuals over fps for me no matter what
really depends on what the competitor is doing and what it offers for the price. PS3 offered very little over X360 for 50% more.
Cartridge based games are, disk console games had sales.
DavidGraham
Veteran
The official japan site for PS accidentally revealed the icon of PS5, it looks like the final form will have the same shape as the devkit.
The official japan site for PS accidentally revealed the icon of PS5, it looks like the final form will have the same shape as the devkit.
It is a fake.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
This is true, although I don't think a couple of DDR4 chips will increase the PCB cost for more than handful of cents, nor will the increment of an automated test for quality control.
It's not me who's telling.
We either get:
- Smaller game sizes with equally big worlds
- Smaller game sizes and bigger worlds
- Same game sizes and bigger worlds
The idea of larger game sizes isn't even being considered by Cerny.
And how does 12TF of compute mean the game sizes will be larger? 12 TFLOPs will be used to process compute, vertex and pixel shaders. Those are all relatively small pieces of code in games.
What takes the most space nowadays are texture size and shadow maps, as geometry also takes a much smaller space in comparison.
Texture size at 4K*4K already brings very diminishing returns, let alone 8K*8K. You can try 4K vs. 8K texture packs on e.g. Skyrim and see that for yourself.
Shadow maps on the big AAA games (the ones that actually ship with large file sizes) may end up getting rarely used, now that both consoles can use ray traced shadows.
That's really not Economics 101..
Pricing your products down diminishes your brand value. Diminishing your brand value gives you lower mindshare. Lower mindshare means lower sales.
Increasing your price may actually get you higher sales.
What matters is if enough people concede that your value offer is worth the price you ask for.
It's completely proven.
This last holiday season the PS4 Pro didn't go below 300€, while the considerably more expensive XboneX went for 340€ with a game bundle. The PS4 bundles never went below 200€, while the XBoneS bundles went for 130€ and the all digital version went for a crazy low 100€. Surely you don't think the 8GB GDDR5 vs. 8GB DDR3 difference between the XBoneS and the PS4 is worth that price difference at this point. Even more with Microsoft having developed a new SoC for the XBoneS with more powerful video codecs, new real-time upscaler, higher clocks, and a UHD BluRay drive.
We need to take into account that when the PS4 released, Sony was coming from a position of parity with Microsoft (87 vs. 84 million sales suring 7th gen). Even at that point, Sony sold the PS4 for $100 less than the XBone solely because it didn't bundle a Kinect. The XBone caught up (or down) with the PS4 as soon as it canceled Kinect, and then they started to progressively undercut the PS4 in price.
With >2:1 console sales over Microsoft during the 8th gen, Sony has a definite brand/mindshare advantage. Sony can charge more than Microsoft on their console, the same way Samsung can charge significantly more than LG on their flagships.
Thank God Almighty
We have no idea how many TF the PS5 will be, more likely below that.
Whch means they can earn more per console sold, it doesnt mean they will put that towards hardware. If a company can make money they will.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
