It's closer to 6 if you count remasters and director's cuts, to be fair. Which is more than Microsoft released on Xbox Series, if you don't count the Bethesda games, or any of the ABK games, or any of the remasters that were just released as a free title update and never had exclusive Series only retail packaging.
Do you think there will be a mid gen refresh console from Sony and Microsoft?
- Thread starter invictis
- Start date
This! They really should have started with a Series X then for midgen released a portable Series S. I think this is one thing they can do as well by 2025. A Switch like portable console and make a serparate devkit for it. Games developed for this portable machine and the Series S. This would be way smarter than what they're doing now. They seem to be dogmatically pushing the cloud play anywhere on any display philosophy. Instead of doing whats needed now. They underestimate the ease with which consumers find using products like the Switch.
Xbox hasnt even released one. Granted there was a pandemic but it affected everyone. Halo Infinite was through and through a last gen game, Redfall(speaks for itself), Starfield through and through a last gen game with a last gen engine, Forza Horizon 5 was decent but nothing next gen about it, maybe the loading times. Forza Motorsport was not good in some cases even worse than the previous title.
Maybe Gears HiveBusters? But that was through and through a DLC. If they had done a few more DLCs like Gears Hiverbusters for titles like Quantum Break, Ryse, etc then things wouldnt have been so bad.
You are conflating subjective quality of a game and it's objective availability in a generation of hardware. Starfield, Redfall, Forza Motorsport are all "next gen" titles. So were Hi-Fi Rush, Flight Sim, the AOE IV, Deathloop and Ghostwite Tokyo.
Gears Hivebusters is DLC. It's available for Xbox One, and thus not a "next gen" title.
The problem is consumers can see through when someone tries selling them last gen's stuff retitled as "next gen". And so they vote with their wallets by not subscribing to the games services or buying the hardware.
The reason I called Starfield, Redfall and Halo Infinite last gen is because indeed they used last gen game engines without doing enough to make the games feel and look current gen. Just look at the multiple loading screens in Starfield, no way you can tell me these guys actually designed this game around the SSD. The gameplay is all so old and dated. And the consumers can see through this laziness. I was shocked but how terrible Redfall looked from the first scene. There's nothing objectively next gen about. Its as bad as consumers said. And thats the problem with Xbox at the moment. They need to realize consumers see past all the positive hype they build around products they know are terrible.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
I think it's going to take 3nm for the Series S to become a Switch/Steamdeck style portable.
The worst case scenario of power consumption I could find was 84W. A bit too beefy for a handheld. At 5nm, that would make it (84*.7=)58.8W so still just a touch too much for a handheld IMO. But at 3nm and (58.8*.7=)41.16W that starts to look somewhat feasible if we factor in possible LPDDR, a less power hungry storage solution, and a size in the region of a 10" tablet.
If that thing could boot up Windows too, they'd have rather an excellent little device on their hands IMO. I'd certainly want one, and I'm a PlayStation guy.
There aren't any engines that are next gen. The only thing defining what a next gen title is or is not is what platforms a game has been released on. What a game looks or feels like is irrelevant. Your example of Hivebusters is literally a last generation title, available on Xbox One.
Yeah shows you how bad the launch line up was that HiveBusters DLC was the stand out. My point was while other companies were repurposing and updating their game engines for the new gen, Xbox devs slept on the job. Look at the loading times in Starfield and the traversal. Its really a last gen game.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Not the point. MS wasn't screaming to the rafters about "we believe in generations" like Sony was. Without remasters next gen output is pretty similar between MS and Sony.
Why are we doing metacritic list wars in this thread?
Info from new leaks pointing to total cumulative PS4PRO sales at 14.3 milion units as of january 2020. No wonder Microsoft is not bothering with PRO model given average xboxes sales of half or third of that of PlayStation and todays skyrocketing chip R&D production costs. Whole thing might not even break even for them selling only few millions.
For Xbox it makes little sense considering they've had issues with the GDK supporting both Series S memory constraints and X. For Sony its a no brainer. They looked at the figures for the PS4 pro and while designing the PS5 had the pro eventually in mind. If you compare between the two strategies, I think its safe to say Sony has performed better this gen so far. They know what they are doing with the PS5 pro.
The cost of making one, software developer support have all been factored in since day one. Xbox unfortunately decided to make a super underpowered base console and their pro console called the Series X. They told media outlets such as DF this but considering DF only revealed this bit in 2023 its safe to assume Xbox didn't want the public to know as they tested out the two console strategy.
Unless something happens its going to break even because the biggest change is going to be the GPU which is likely going to be an underclocked 7800XT. The rest are going to be largely the same as the base PS5. The cost of a higher clocked CPU is nothing. Cost of 16GB of GDDR6 memory is same as the base PS5 even if using newer modules. It will be on a newer node N4P(5nm) so lower cost of silicon. Its really a no brainer for Sony to do one.
So the 20% figure seemed to maintain fairly closely throughout the years. I'd love to know what the sales threshold is for profitability.
Last gen profitability was still probably not an issue. Traditionally console makers quickly jumped on smaller node allowing them for handsome cost cuts(or make a pro). This gen they have yet to make die shrink to 5nm despite node available for almost two years, its pretty telling. Even porting older chips to new nodes is not simple optical shrink anymore. Profitability threshold for launching such things must be much higher now.
Sure that make sense for MS. For Sony since the moment they released it they were selling about 1/4 of Pro, I'd say they'll sell 1/3 of Pro this time and will prevent a good chunk of customers to go the PC route. Totally worth it for them.
The reasoning here to prevent PS users to leaving to PC feels contradictory to releasing all their titles on PC.
A PC will now get you all VR, all PC, all Xbox, and with delay nearly all PS titles. I’m not seeing prevention of heading to PC as a strong reason to rolling out a pro this generation.
snc
Veteran
I would probably went back to pc if there wasnt midgen refresh this year as current gen consoles starts to show age with low internal res on demanding games. Also sony wont bring theirs aaa singleplayers titles day 1 on pc, I also dont see releasing psvr2 titles soon.
Not really. Sony is like any other conglomerate; keeping one foot in the door (i.e., PC in this case), while trying to grow and maintain sells of the PlayStation brand.
Sony releasing PS titles on the PC really does mirror Rockstar's strategy for the most part. Make the vast majority of sells within the console space, then later on PC with a good mixture of PC gamers and those console gamers willing to purchase the title again for a better experience.
When Sony goes day one with their first-party titles on PC, that will represent a great shift in their business strategy and one that could potentially harm PS hardware sales.
Honestly, Pro just serves as another platform for those already locked into the PS ecosystem and willing to pay more for a better PlayStation experience.
For someone like me, having a good experience (or the best experience), is attractive proposition or option in any gaming space. While I primarily game on PC, purchasing a potential PS5 Pro is a no-brainer on wanting a better PS experience with first-party titles.
Wait really? Only 14.3 Million? That is so low... Incredibly low
Why bother with a PS5 pro then? There'd have to be good hardware margins to justify it. I guess $100 profit is ~$1 billion, but that would have to be profit above BOM and cost to design and produce. The 'break even/loss making' model would just be a pointless money sink.
Similar threads
