Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
ElaborateSony people are going to dislike you very much with such idea's and speculations
A underpowered base PS5, which games will be based on. That doesn't sound all that great, Sony can't do things wrong so that won't ever happen. If they do, Sony people won't be happy.
Why would the people at sony care about such rumor?
The people at Sony have no reason to care about any rumor at all.
Console Gamers: The average consumer doesn’t care about specs…
In the same breath later,
Console Gamers: The premium models will have better specs, leaving the base model specs gimped.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Console Gamers: Consumers should have lots of choices.
In the same breath later,
Console Gamers: Launching an entry-level and pro-level model are bad for consumers.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Console Gamers: The average consumer isn’t going to pay over $399 for a game console…
In the same breath later,
Console Gamers: The premium models ($499-$699) will hinder base models sales because, the average consumer will feel confused on what to choose.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Console gamers in a nutshell...
Last edited:
I don't really believe in this fixed price market anymore.
I believe in price perception, trend and consoles being a multi-generational house hold device like TVs.
Most people are sheep which buy depending on their group's interest which are defined by the "leaders", aka early adopters/fans. Technical appliances with mass appeal are more or less status objects or gateways to be part of a group. We've seen it with phones and the same applies to consoles.
IMHO the old console market where the parent buys one for their kid is replaced by kids seeing other kids, their brothers or parents having them. It's not a market decided by disinterested "housewife/dads" anymore who bought these "toys" based on price and dealer suggestion in a Toys'r'Us shop.
I believe in price perception, trend and consoles being a multi-generational house hold device like TVs.
Most people are sheep which buy depending on their group's interest which are defined by the "leaders", aka early adopters/fans. Technical appliances with mass appeal are more or less status objects or gateways to be part of a group. We've seen it with phones and the same applies to consoles.
IMHO the old console market where the parent buys one for their kid is replaced by kids seeing other kids, their brothers or parents having them. It's not a market decided by disinterested "housewife/dads" anymore who bought these "toys" based on price and dealer suggestion in a Toys'r'Us shop.
Last edited:
And they will analyse the market to consider the best business move.
Two skus at launch is stupid whichever way I look at it, maybe I missed something:
1. Very close in power is inconsequential for devs and gamers, it's just a waste of money for sony.
2. Large difference means either too close to Pro, or too expensive at the high end (low sales, not targeted)
Think I have a very different definition of close in power.
4pro:
No solid state storage
No RT support
Jaguar CPU
Polaris based
I wouldn't consider that close in power to any kind of base ps5. I think people underestimate just how much difference those alone make. I know people here know TF alone isn't everything especially across gpu generations. RPM and ID buffer isn't enough to bridge that gap either.
Even if the effective gpu performance was the same I wouldn't say the consoles would be close in power and ability.
Like comparing 2 rigs and only comparing the GPU, with one running bulldozer other zen 2 etc
4pro:
No solid state storage
No RT support
Jaguar CPU
Polaris based
I wouldn't consider that close in power to any kind of base ps5. I think people underestimate just how much difference those alone make. I know people here know TF alone isn't everything especially across gpu generations. RPM and ID buffer isn't enough to bridge that gap either.
Even if the effective gpu performance was the same I wouldn't say the consoles would be close in power and ability.
Like comparing 2 rigs and only comparing the GPU, with one running bulldozer other zen 2 etc
It's just a mild misunderstanding of PSman1700's phrasing. His original statement was Sony Fans would be unhappy with a low-power PS5, assuming they read HBRU's statements as if factual as they were expressed as facts. The people at Sony don't care what forum posters say, unless some people take those posts as real and start spreading negative rumours affecting brand perception.
I know the power of what social media can have on a brand... but, if Sony or Microsoft allows some loudmouth gamers to shape their launch plans of possibly launching a premium model, I will turn back into the Ultra PC fanboy I once were. Making next-gen console gamers lives a living hell! As they silently fap in shame to the awesomeness of my computer rigs, while slowly dying inside wondering about the premium models they could of had from the start.
Making next-gen console gamers lives a living hell! As they silently fap in shame to the awesomeness of my computer rigs, while slowly dying inside wondering about the premium models they could of had from the start. 
As discussed earlier - there is an optimal point of price performance over a period of 6-7 years for a generation. Both companies looking at what 6-7 years will, where they want to be strategically and what they think the future of games will be; they'll say hey we need to be at this point by end of this coming generation. You got your features and performance points targeted. You get going on trying to figure out how best to develop a system with that performance/price target in mind.I know the power of what social media can have on a brand... but, if Sony or Microsoft allows some loudmouth gamers to shape their launch plans of possibly launching a premium model, I will turn back into the Ultra PC fanboy I once were.
Fanboys won't do shit. The deciding factor for these consoles will be and have always been math. I suspect both consoles to be largely the same, with the deviations being around where their strategy is headed.
I disagree with what I'm reading, though I'm not sure that's what you're intending to say. I don't think there is and ever can be a 6-7 year plan. There can only be a launch plan and maybe first two years, where you put in as much hardware as your budget allows. Beyond that, technology and software moves in ways no-one can predict making a 6 year plan impossible to execute. You've no real idea what silicon production will be like 6 years from launch (not any more, at least) nor what games people will be playing. Singstar, EyeToy and Kinect1 were never considerations for PS2/XB360 during the prelaunch design phase. If anything, I'd say console design should focus on being as broad as possible, giving as many options for devs to branch out in whatever direction is needed. That's one of the major reasons for advocating fast flash storage, as it gives scope for memory hungry and persistent games in case gaming goes that way
Alright i'll rephrase.
You're going to choose the best bang for buck for hardware that will last 6-7 years. I think that's the most basic way to approach it. You think about what hardware you will release will last long enough before it needs to be cycled out. You figure out your price point from there and you develop towards it.
Ah sorry, I was confused... Sony People vs Sony's People.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't think it unreasonable that the console manufacturers internally plan for an X year product run. However, it's also reasonable to expect that they know those plans are fluid and must adapt to changing market conditions.
At the very least all 3 manufacturers (including Nintendo now) now look to and expect some form of mid-life console, whether that be a cost reduced console or an upgraded console. Sony has been doing it since the PS1, Microsoft since the X360, and Nintendo on their portable consoles (including the NSW now).
I do think that they are also having to come up with ways to make the 2nd/3rd year console attractive in ways other than just price reductions as it is becoming more and more difficult to have meaningful cost reductions in just 2-3 years.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
I think it's price led, with a skew based on performance. There's a launch price rather than a launch performance target, and the best hardware is picked for that. If an opportunity comes up for more hardware, like PS4's RAM boost, it's weighed in terms of long-term cost.
We see some examples of poor decision making in flopped consoles. Sega panicking regards Saturn's design and 3DO setting out to be the the ultimate console and hang the price. You cannot get past the maximum price people will spend for a product so that has to be your starting point for a product, and once you've done that, screwing around with the formula too much is a recipe for disaster.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
