Importance of being the most powerful console *spawn

[Magnum_Force]

I think this idea always ignores the potential negative effect the pro ski may have on the cheap one. Cheap asses don't buy day one. Launch day consumers are looking for the latest and greatest. Who among those would want to the cheap one. They'd be left with a model nobody wants because it's perceived as the lesser, and one few can afford because it's too expensive. It's a risky move.

Potentially, but not as risky as letting your competitor launch a more powerful console that steals some of your market share. Competing with yourself is not ideal, but it's better than losing out to a competitor. Look how Nvidia or Intel (up until Zen) managed. Halo products count.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Potentially, but not as risky as letting your competitor launch a more powerful console that steals some of your market share. Competing with yourself is not ideal, but it's better than losing out to a competitor. Look how Nvidia or Intel (up until Zen) managed. Halo products count.

They've not counted in the console space, where the most powerful console has never swallowed up the market. If your rival launches with significantly more power, they'll be significantly more expensive too. There are far more important features to offer than raw power.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

They've not counted in the console space, where the most powerful console has never swallowed up the market.

PS4?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We don't need this discussion again. ;-) Lots wrong with XB1 and you know it. PS4 didn't steam-roll because it was the most powerful, but for many factors. Just putting out the most powerful machine doesn't win you the console generation, as proven over 40+ years of consoles. No-one designing these machines will be thinking, "we have to have the most powerful console, otherwise we'll lose," at least not if they've been paying attention.

 

[Magnum_Force]

The most powerful console will most likely not swallow up the market, correct, just like the top tier products from Nvidia and Intel didn't swallow up their respective markets. If the argument was what is best to do if you launch only one console, I would agreed going more powerful and thus more expensive would be a bad idea. That's not the same position as making an affordable console as well as making a more powerful, more expensive console to capture that customer base.

The best way to look at it would be this scenario:

Console maker A releases a 12 Tflops machine with 16GB ram for £399.

Console maker B releases a 12 Tflops machine with 16GB ram for £399 also, and also releases a 16TF machine with 24GB ram for £499.

Which company do you think will sell more consoles, all else being equal?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The second, but all else isn't equal and never will be, and adding a second more powerful SKU may mean a significant loss of profits depending on what it costs to make and how many of each SKU sells. If you're not reusing parts, it's akin to releasing two self-competing products, adding additional overhead for questionable gains.

If it's just binned parts with a marginal improvement that you can charge a premium for to milk the higher-end of the market, it's good economy. Otherwise, not, unless the second machine expands the audience and generates more sales. That's where the division would favour a typical console and a cheap stream-box, say, which would expand the market into the low-end at little cost.

 

[Xbat]

Console maker A releases a 12 Tflops machine with 16GB ram for £399.

Console maker B releases a 12 Tflops machine with 16GB ram for £399 also, and also releases a 16TF machine with 24GB ram for £499.

This is also leaving out impact of first party devs which I feel has a big impact. Even if the first party games aren't there at launch people now that they coming.

 

[vipa899]

PS2 was the weakest by far (not counting dc) but was most successful by far. Psx was weaker then n64 but we know which did better.

 

[eloic]

PS2 was the weakest by far (not counting dc) but was most successful by far. Psx was weaker then n64 but we know which did better.

I wouldn't say "by far" (plus, there was the Dreamcast, which clearly wasn't more powerful).

 

[Nesh]

I wouldn't say "by far" (plus, there was the Dreamcast, which clearly wasn't more powerful).

DC and PS2 were the most powerful at release with an awesome pricepoint.

 

[eloic]

DC and PS2 were the most powerful at release with an awesome pricepoint.

Indeed. I was only addressing vipa's message regarding PS2 being the weakest of that generation.

 

[Nesh]

PS2 was the weakest by far (not counting dc) but was most successful by far. Psx was weaker then n64 but we know which did better.

"Do Not Underestimate The Power of the Playstation"

I ll never forget that slogan. Performance was what made the PS such a hit. It was considered the most powerful for a substantial period. Even after the N64 the PS was still considered more powerful thanks to marketing, the CD medium and a ton of games that the N64 could not have mainly due to its cardridge limitations. The N64 never had a game to compete against FF7, GT, MGS and Tekken

 

[anexanhume]

Well you said it would absolutely be more powerful if they spend $100-$200 more but you didn't actually say how or how much more powerful other than they can make the chip bigger. How much bigger can they make the chip and how much does everything else they have to do eat into the extra $100-$200.
So how much more TFlops or RAM can they put in for the extra $100-$200?

Yes you did mention the other factors in your post but I feel those factors aren't as simple to just sort out especially during the launch period. So I just reiterated them and there was nothing magical of me suddenly using $100 instead of the $100-$200 range it's just that I forgot.

Thinking about it though a $600 console will be dead on arrival though especially if it's what only 4 more TFlops.

Because it’s compounding too many unknowns to say with a degree of certainty. We know die costs were estimated around $80 last gen, and memory prices were right around there. We’re openly discussing the possibility of them using half the number of physical memory chips, so that cost could easily be less. What we don’t know are 7nm die cost, what they’ll be in 2020, much less 7nm+ if they use that.

We also don’t know defect rates and what the cost curve looks like for die size. Nevertheless, it’s not difficult to imagine 50% more GPU with a budget that may well be double the die cost. Huge die tend to go in high margin products, so the true cost is somewhat obfuscated.

Use extra money to improve cooling and power delivery to improve clocks and you’re easily at the PS4 XB1 power disparity was well publicized. Heck, MS just got accused of paying for graphical parity on The Division. It’s clearly a salient point.

 

[Magnum_Force]

This is also leaving out impact of first party devs which I feel has a big impact. Even if the first party games aren't there at launch people now that they coming.

I did indeed, and that was more to make this point of comparison a bit more straightforward. I truly believe 1st party titles do encourage sales, but this, like power differentials, are hard to qualify. I think they all add up to a culmative effect.

I own both a PS4 Pro and a xbox One X, the PS4 Pro for the high quality 1st Party exclusives and the Xbox one X for the best quality 3rd party (due to it being the most powerful).

If Sony managed to be the most powerful and maintain the high quality exclusives, they get all my money. If MS are the most powerful and manage to surprise with great 1st Party titles, they will get all my money.

As software sales tend to be both companies bread and butter, it's in both there interests to entice me to buy on there platform. Having the best quality 3rd party titles by having the most powerful hardware is one way to entice. The other is an excellent software lineup only available on that platform.

 

[vipa899]

Indeed. I was only addressing vipa's message regarding PS2 being the weakest of that generation.

It was the weakest, discounting the DC. Xbox had much more powerfull hw yet it sold a fraction of ps2 sales.

"Do Not Underestimate The Power of the Playstation"

Yeah true that, il never forget MGS even if i wasnt so much into graphics at that age.

 

[Nesh]

It was the weakest, discounting the DC. Xbox had much more powerfull hw yet it sold a fraction of ps2 sales.



Yeah true that, il never forget MGS even if i wasnt so much into graphics at that age.

It was important that when released it was the most powerful, surpassing even the DC by large at least in people's minds. Power is important. Thats why I bought the PS2. There was massive hype about it's "CG" visials since 1999. People weren't flocking the shops just because games had good gameplay. The console was gathering steam from tech demos, rumors and E3 showcases. Gamers were salivating over the idea of playing their favorite PS franchises in gorgeous "CG" graphics. MGS2 trailer was shown and it became the Matrix of videogames. GT looked ultra realistic. XBOX was an unknown when it was announced so people didnt give it much attention. GC was like the N64. Released later with a limited storage medium. The PS2 had it all in 2000. DVD, Power and all all the tech to support your favorite franchises.

When the XBOX became a reality gamers were discussing about the PS2's secret sauce potential and Naughty Dog's rumored XBOX killer game that became Jak and Daxter. But by then the PS2 was such a massive success and had such an attractive price point that it was hard to beat. XBOX's superior perfoance became irrelevant.

The PS was always about good price and top of the line tech at release. People expect no less. The PS3 would have been far worse if there was no performance hype, no games to support the supposedly more powerful performance, no Blu Ray, the "it does everything slogan" etc. People believed that it was the most powerful regardless what the truth was.

The PS4 would have also faired far worse if it came only with the rumored 5-6GB GDDR5 memory and had simultaneous release with the XBOX One. A more attractive pricepoint wouldnt have been enough to ensure this generationss dominance, now that hird party exclusives are an even bigger rarity. The XBOX One lost additional steam since media outlets made a fuss that it couldnt reach 1080p most of the time.

The PS and XBOX are now equals. They get the same franchises/games, they are released at similar time frames and offer the same services. Performance became an even more important factor.

Sony can't brand the PS like a Ninendo console and expect gamers to be happy. They really want their powerful Playstation.

 

[vipa899]

True, i meant of the generation though, ps2/xbox/gc, sony had the weakest console of the 6th gen, but launched first, and between xbox and ps2 the difference was quit big, alltough MS platform not being pushed as much as Sonys.

If ps5 has the weakest hw, but launches first, it will still be the most powerfull console at the time like ps2.
As for ps2 it didnt show either its abilitys untill the later part of 2001 as its launch titles where a big jump compared to 5th gen, werent exactly that stunning aside from TTT.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

When the XBOX became a reality gamers were discussing about the PS2's secret sauce potential and Naughty Dog's rumored XBOX killer game that became Jak and Daxter. But by then the PS2 was such a massive success and had such an attractive price point that it was hard to beat. XBOX's superior perfoance became irrelevant.

PS2 did actually deliver a massive power increase to the market, Xbox was basically launching against GT3, MGS2 and GTA 3 and what else. a tough lineup to overcome, perhaps the toughest point ever to launch a console... However the power helped it carve a 25m unit foothold to the market. Imagine the Xbox being weaker than the PS2? What would have happened then?

People still read someone saying that power is important as power being the only thing that's important... It's not the most important thing, not as important as having a good established brand image, hitting the right price points and release windows, but it's high up in the list anyway and if you can match the things above it, it naturally becomes even more important. The power of Xbox One X is not nearly enough to fend of the 1st party lineup of Sony with that higher price point and unfavorable general console market trends, but I think it's a good thing for them.

 

[eloic]

It was the weakest, discounting the DC. Xbox had much more powerfull hw yet it sold a fraction of ps2 sales..

Yeah, and in this generation the PS4 is the weakest if we ignore the Switch... And BTW I replied the first time mainly because you said that the PS2 was the weakest by far, which isn't exactly true.

 

[vipa899]

Yeah, and in this generation the PS4 is the weakest if we ignore the Switch... And BTW I replied the first time mainly because you said that the PS2 was the weakest by far, which isn't exactly true.

No idea if your serious or not downplaying the ps4 like that, on a forum crowded with mainly sony supporters :S

But yeah between ps2 and xbox, the xcpu was about two times as fast compared to ee+vu0 (cpu), it had double the amount of ram, and nv2a was a whole generation ahead and so much more capable. Xbox also had a rather huge audio advantage, lets not forget the standard built-in hdd either as that enabled caching from the hdd. Yes i call that by far, a halv gen or more ahead. If it showed in software is another discussion, but truth is hardware doesnt essentially make a console.