The DS4 here is pictured inside the screen view. There is no need to look away from the screen to see the virtual mini-screen of the DS4. Or maybe I am missing the point.AstroBot.
Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Silent_Buddha
Legend
No actual tech involved, but from this interview (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-11-15-the-big-xo19-interview-xbox-boss-phil-spencer ), posted in a couple other threads here...
Interesting quote on various levels. First, they don't want a repeat of the XBO launch. Second, while at first glance someone could interpret that as Phil Spencer claiming Project Scarlett will be as powerful or more powerful than PS5, another way to look at it is that they will make sure to price the console to be competitive with other consoles on the market.
So, if we were to use XBO as an example, Phil Spencer would have tried to price the XBO lower than the PS4 because it was less powerful.
The other thing to take from this, is that it appears to be him saying that they are willing to go loss leader strategy if they have to depending on their price and performance relative to the PS5. In other words, they have a set target for Project Scarlett WRT performance. And regardless of how much it costs to reach that target, they will make sure to price the console competitively to the PS5 depending on how it compares in terms of relative performance.
I didn't think either company would go big on loss leader strategy, but this at least appears to be MS saying that they will do that if they have to.
Regards,
SB
Interesting quote on various levels. First, they don't want a repeat of the XBO launch. Second, while at first glance someone could interpret that as Phil Spencer claiming Project Scarlett will be as powerful or more powerful than PS5, another way to look at it is that they will make sure to price the console to be competitive with other consoles on the market.
So, if we were to use XBO as an example, Phil Spencer would have tried to price the XBO lower than the PS4 because it was less powerful.
The other thing to take from this, is that it appears to be him saying that they are willing to go loss leader strategy if they have to depending on their price and performance relative to the PS5. In other words, they have a set target for Project Scarlett WRT performance. And regardless of how much it costs to reach that target, they will make sure to price the console competitively to the PS5 depending on how it compares in terms of relative performance.
I didn't think either company would go big on loss leader strategy, but this at least appears to be MS saying that they will do that if they have to.
Regards,
SB
Neither are going to do a PS3, specs will most likely be close to eachother, perhaps half a TF difference nobody cares about.
PR line that means absolutely nothing. They are not going to safrifice performance for price. So it will be $2000 otherwise they would be safrificing performance to reach a $999 price point. No wait it will be a million dollar otherwise they sacrifice performance for price.
True. But I wonder if his statement is more inline with a two sku launch approach. Flexibility towards pricing on the entry-level system ($399) and less-so on the premium model ($699). That the premium models would have higher GPU/CPU clocks and no disabled CUs... or even the slight possibility towards a dual GPU chiplet setup.
Because they never are.
You might be surprised. It's a completely different scale and aspect, and limited space. Anything designed for the big screen being shoe-horned onto a little screen would not do so well, and designing explicitly for both is overhead. And for both what gains are there exactly for the devs? Just sticking a UI on there is a fairly meaningless feature. It only makes sense as a game changer, doing something with the second screen not possible with the TV which adds to the game, which limits your audience to those who buy the thing. Could be great for local coop, removing individual player UIs from the TV, but then you need all four players to have this thing...which is where it needs to be a pack in and part of the sell, with a good focus for the entire system being local coop. And even then, perhaps there are better ways to communicate the info without using a conventional UI in the first place?
There are, but these were game changers providing something new impossible without them, rather than slight improvements on what's already possible. There are many other peripheral features like motion control in Sixaxis that went basically unused. If adding a screen was going to be as revolutionary as adding a second thumbstick, sure, it'd be targeted by devs and consumers would buy in for the improved game. Realistically, a little screen as an afterthought owned by a subset of the install-base that can't be relied upon to make a significant difference to the game experience isn't going to see meaningful focus from devs. The economics prohibit it. As a standard feature, it'll at least have a fighting chance of realising its potential (though history suggests that'll not happen).
As an interface, game-defined touch buttons is actually pretty good for new players. The game can also present context senstive buttons without the players having to remember which face-buttons do what. But taking your eyes from the TV to use it isn't great.
When is earlier out of interest?
Edit - looks like around 2009 - so half-way through rather than near the end.
Ok, BRiT said "from the start or very early on" I said "around a year" - it was 8 months, hardly wrong and I'd argue more accurate as the implication is within a few months.
Last edited:
Not getting that impression at all. It all sounds to me like MS isn't confident in their hardware to be stronger than PS5 but not so weak like a XBO to PS4 situation, also willing to be priced very comparatively. This actually resonate to all the rumors we've heard lately from those three reliable insiders (Reiner, Kleegamefan, Jason) that PS5 is slightly more powerful which kinda forced MS to tune down their power boasting parade. I'm not counting on MS to mindlessly taking huge losses either like Xbox fans would assume, they are a business first company, not charity just like Sony and neither has ever taken huge losses in their respective console history.
I think by now the gpu and cpu are locked and loaded, ram amount is most certainly set too. I mean you can add more ram but bandwidth would be totally wasted if your gpu isn't strong enough to feed it. It's all tweaking the clock now and we're talking about what 0.1-0.2tf increase at most? My guess is PS5 leading 0.2-0.5tf by launch with Scarlett closing 0.2tf of gap by OCing and both being over 10tf RDNA.
I think you need rephrase that after PS3 happened.
Edit: Also, original XBox....
Last edited:
I thought it was the BD Drive at the time that spiked up the price heaps, otherwise Sony didn't want to take up a huge loss for the sake of much superior gpu or cpu. Or maybe I'm wrong here?I think you need rephrase that after PS3 happened.
I thought the BD drive was just causing shortages and delays
Cell also cost a lot. BD drive added something like $100 to the losses, but the losses were way beyond that also - iSuppli estimated $800 BOM (which I think we all disregarded, but Sony's latter financials pretty much testified to it!). It was a huge loss-leader by design with misplaced expectations that it'd be worth it in the long run. Xbox was similar. Both companies have chosen big lossy consoles to try and push the advantage, with catastrophic consequences to their bottom line that they probably don't want to repeat.
I also think PS2 was a loss leader. TBH that's been a common myth for consoles that they use loss-leading designs to gain longevity.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Which is a great statement from a PR perspective as people will mentally drift towards their preferred interpretation.
But consider that Xbox One didn't sacrifice performance for the sake a price yet it was less powerful and cost more! Nobody should read too much into PR like this.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Well at some point they did sacrifice performance for the sake of price. Instead of a 350mm^2 SoC, they could have gone with a 300mm^2 quad-module bulldozer CPU with dedicated DDR3 and 350mm^2 Tahiti with dedicated 384bit 3GB GDDR5, with a 500W power supply and AiO watercooler with radiator for dual 120mm fans.
It would have definitely wiped the floor with the PS4 on performance.
Maybe my comprehension of the english language is subpar to yours that we come to completely different interpretations.
It's imho fact that the X1 sacrificed performance for the sake of its costs so they could add freaking Kinect to it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
