Could 9th gen consoles be $500 USD?

[Technewsreader]

Yes they could be because in this reality anything is possible. Sony or MS could try some 2006 nintendo-like move and go for VR as a focus with worse visuals than Pro and 1X. But People that think you can't really have much more impressive graphics than now or that some kind of end has already been reached are pretty wrong if you ask me. The only thing that appears to be on a very high level already is stuff that is meant to be seen close up like character models/faces during cutscenes (cutscenes not gameplay) anything else like foliage,ground,wall,builduing textures,water,fire,random A.I models could still look much better. Lighting looks solid from what i have seen in most games but of course you could still do much more with it by making it look more real, enabling it to be totally dynamic and so on.

This gen has always felt like a transition to me. Devs want to go for that movie-like CG look in many occasions but they are not quite there yet. Yes there have been some "i cant believe how good this looks" for me on Ps4 Pro but those are not constant.

2017 AAA games should look about as good PS3 games do right now 10 years from now.

 

[Scott_Arm]

No one is saying you can't have better graphics than now, or that the end is reached.

My argument is that there are diminishing returns. Here's a hypothetical example.

Generation 1: Console A = 1.5x Console B
Generation 2 (+8 years): Console C = 1.5x Console D
Generation 3 (+16 years): Console E = 1.5x Console F

Each generation will be significantly better than the previous one, but the 50% of Console C over D will not perceptually seem as significant as A over B. And console E over F will not seem as perceptually significant as C over D.

So yes, next gen games will look much better than the current generation of consoles, but if PS5 and Xbox Two are going to have games that look more perceptually similar than the current games we have now, even if they have a performance disparity that is as significant as PS4 over Xbox One, or One X over Pro.

 

[zed]

$500 is too much, see ps3 launch, xb1 launch and now currently xbx for examples of why its too much

 

[BRiT]

Its not that cut and dry...

Ps3 was 1 year later and more complicated for developers with lesser quality online services.
XB1 was weaker hardware with severe negative pre-launch feedback bundled with device some were very resistant to.
X1X was 1 year later into a well established console generation market.

 

[bunge]

$500 is too much, see ps3 launch, xb1 launch and now currently xbx for examples of why its too much

Could Sony have delivered the PS4 a year earlier at $100 more?

Last generation, that might have been a risk. I just think this generation Sony’s current system has enough traction to keep selling in the face of an overpriced successor.

Did the Pro slow PS4 sales?

Tell developers that for the first year you mostly want “multi platform” games that are basically just upgraded PS4 games on the PS5, like we have with the Pro. Save the unique “launch titles” for a year in when economics allow you to drop the price of the PS5 to $400 and developer familiarity with the system is up. Basically time shift launch titles a year forward while delivering “PS4 Pro 2” titles during the first year.

You don’t have to worry as much about shortages because demand will be tempered. You don’t have to worry as much about launch titles being less than next gen.

If you have to reign in the tech to achieve this? It might not be worth it. If you can deliver essentially an identical box a year early? There are some benefits for all involved.

 

[Rangers]

I think so.

Look to X One X, the precedent has been established. Inflation marches on...Or for that matter Xbox One in 2013 (499 debut with Kinect).

The alternative is less than desirable specs

PS4 Pro at 399 or X1X at 499? That's your choice for next gen...

Almost undoubtedly. The dollar is not worth much...middling college football coach just got signed to record deal (Jimbo Fisher 10 yrs 75 million)...every offseason middling NBA players get record deals, and so so QB's as well. Simply because it's a new year and their turn to set the record contract.

 

[dobwal]

Maybe in the first year, but right now it would have been $299 instead of $199.

PS4 with a 50% price cut after 4 years. A similar cut for a $500 console would put it at $250. The 360 didn't hit a retail price point below $299 until the end of 2009 or 4 years after launch.

Sony is going to repackage the PS4 Pro and sell it for $500? I'm not following. The PS5 will be a new beast and will likely be BC with PS4. Same will true for the Xbox.

No. No. No. LOL. Not as a top tier console. But a low end model like how AMD has sometimes repackages mid range cards as the low end for its next gen.

$500 for a PS5 with totally new hardware with a PS5 Mini with Pro guts at $200-$250.

 

[Sonic]

If they design future consoles with tiers in mind I think an APU + GPU setup may be a good way to go. For the base system go with the APU by itself and leave the GPU socket empty. For the higher end system plop the GPU chip into its socket and it would have more performance. Manufacture the same board for both and leave out the GPU and extra memory, if any, for the base unit, Maybe even provide a simple upgrade path to convert the base unit into the higher tier system. Not sure how feasible this is but I'd much prefer this at least that way the CPU part would have parity in all tiers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Could they? Yes. Should they? The high price of PS3 kept people away. A $500 XB1 didn't sell so well. So you have a question as to whether it's better to launch at $500 and sell not so many, or launch a year later at $400 at get lots of positive sales PR. I wonder if an earlier release to lacklustre sales actually negatively affects long-term sales overall, despite having an extra year on the market? At the same time, if you launch for $500, then your rival launches for $400 a year later, you can price match and then you'll have an apparent quality advantage - a $500 console for $400 versus a $400 console.

Um....so maybe.

 

[Pixel]

There are still some things the base consoles still have difficulty rendering such as extremely lush dense open world jungles full of folliage.

Could they? Yes. Should they? The high price of PS3 kept people away. A $500 XB1 didn't sell so well. So you have a question as to whether it's better to launch at $500 and sell not so many, or launch a year later at $400 at get lots of positive sales PR. I wonder if an earlier release to lacklustre sales actually negatively affects long-term sales overall, despite having an extra year on the market? At the same time, if you launch for $500, then your rival launches for $400 a year later, you can price match and then you'll have an apparent quality advantage - a $500 console for $400 versus a $400 console.

Um....so maybe.

Unless a process node shrink is available in one years time it may not be the case that one year of refinement on that identical node allows them to close the $100 gap (or possibly (maybe this next example isn't enough) a process node refinement eg 7nm finFET to 7nm finFET+). Sony was apparently considering the more expensive $499 5.5Tflop PS4 PRO but settled on the cheaper 4.2 TFLOP PRO.
So the $500 console one year later could still possibly outperform the rivals $400 console.

 

[RobertR1]

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.

 

[DrJay24]

PS4 Pro at 399 or X1X at 499? That's your choice for next gen...

Those two consoles came out a year apart. Presumably a $399 PS4 Pro that released in 2017 would be different and vice versa. They would be loser in specs and most consumers would see less a difference in the final image on screen and without DF to exaggerate still shots they would mostly see a $100 difference.

 

[dobwal]

Could they? Yes. Should they? The high price of PS3 kept people away. A $500 XB1 didn't sell so well. So you have a question as to whether it's better to launch at $500 and sell not so many, or launch a year later at $400 at get lots of positive sales PR. I wonder if an earlier release to lacklustre sales actually negatively affects long-term sales overall, despite having an extra year on the market? At the same time, if you launch for $500, then your rival launches for $400 a year later, you can price match and then you'll have an apparent quality advantage - a $500 console for $400 versus a $400 console.

Um....so maybe.

The PS3 and XB1 faced cheaper competition who actually fared better performance wise than the more pricey consoles.

A PS3 and XB1 priced $100 cheaper would have probably performed similarly to the current reality if the 360 and PS4 had launched at $299.

Both a new XB and PS5 launching at $500 wouldn't have to deal with the other benefitting from a pricing advantage. In the past pricing gaps weren't the sole variable to consider as performance differences (or lack there of), third party support and other caveats also had major influence.

The Game Cube never benefited for being cheaper while the XB never really benefited from having more performance because the PS2 had such a lock on big third party titles.

 

[Pixel]

Xbox 360 was a $500 console sold for $399

IBM the winner as the cost of materials for the Xbox 360 Premium reaches $525, well above the retail price of $399
http://www.alphr.com/news/hardware/80708/isuppli-reckoning-the-xbox-bill-of-materials

https://technology.ihs.com/336669/teardown-analysis-microsoft-xbox-360-gaming-console

Microsoft taking $126 hit per Xbox 360
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/microsoft-taking-126-hit-per-xbox-360/1100-6140383/

 

[Technewsreader]

No one is saying you can't have better graphics than now, or that the end is reached.

My argument is that there are diminishing returns. Here's a hypothetical example.

Generation 1: Console A = 1.5x Console B
Generation 2 (+8 years): Console C = 1.5x Console D
Generation 3 (+16 years): Console E = 1.5x Console F

Each generation will be significantly better than the previous one, but the 50% of Console C over D will not perceptually seem as significant as A over B. And console E over F will not seem as perceptually significant as C over D.

So yes, next gen games will look much better than the current generation of consoles, but if PS5 and Xbox Two are going to have games that look more perceptually similar than the current games we have now, even if they have a performance disparity that is as significant as PS4 over Xbox One, or One X over Pro.

You'll find people that claim this on some sites. Or that things already look "good enough".I don't think that asking for 100$ maybe even 150$ more would make that much of a difference. when you ask for 200$-300$ more then people would start comparing it to PC equivalents-and probably go for that, espeically the ones who have owned self built PC's before. These price discussions also are bit ironic to me because any gamer with additional interest in the industry knows that waiting couple years before you grab one will feel as good or better than owning a launch one. Don't tell me anything about hype i know the feeling and I was hyped about this gen in 2013 yet I easily managed to wait 3 years to pick a cheap one up.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You'll find people that claim this on some sites. Or that things already look "good enough".I don't think that asking for 100$ maybe even 150$ more would make that much of a difference. when you ask for 200$-300$ more then people would start comparing it to PC equivalents-and probably go for that, espeically the ones who have owned self built PC's before. These price discussions also are bit ironic to me because any gamer with additional interest in the industry knows that waiting couple years before you grab one will feel as good or better than owning a launch one. Don't tell me anything about hype i know the feeling and I was hyped about this gen in 2013 yet I easily managed to wait 3 years to pick a cheap one up.

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

 

[iroboto]

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

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...

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)

 

[JPT]

I got curious, googled and came upon this list

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Launch_price

Which at first glance indicates to me that inflation is not the dominant variabel in regards to launch price.

So what are the variables then? My guess

1. R&D costs ref PS3 vs PS4
2. Vendors willingness to take a loss.
3. Competing vendors price ie PS3 vs X360 or PS4 vs XBO
4. Size of initial adapters market
5. Projected total market size
6. Market habits, today more people play, but there is also more competition. In addition a lot of "older" people that grew up with video games are still playing.
7. Currency values ie Yen vs USD etc. Most components etc are bought/sold in USD.

and probably a myriad more.

 

[iroboto]

Which at first glance indicates to me that inflation is not the dominant variabel in regards to launch price.

Inflation is definitely a big part of the device in one way or another. All the parts used to build the device under go inflation. Wages etc are always on the rise.

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.

That really leads to what the market is willing to pay for their next console. And if $399 is the limit. Then price performance will be severely impacted the shorter the length of the generation.

 

[JPT]

Inflation is definitely a big part of the device in one way or another. All the parts used to build the device under go inflation. Wages etc are always on the rise.
.

Well I did say launch

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.

That really leads to what the market is willing to pay for their next console. And if $399 is the limit. Then price performance will be severely impacted the shorter the length of the generation.

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.