Next-gen Cross-Platform Strategy [2020]

[Deleted member 11852]

XB1X is ~5x faster than XB1. A next-gen console is typically 8+ times faster with a whole load of other features on top of. You are spending the same money as a next-gen console for a mid-gen without getting anything like as much improvement or value for money.

If I don't care about performance, why am I buying XBSX? Why am I not just continuing to use my Xbox One/S/SAD? What are other features? It feels like your comment should be in baseless thread because nothing is known about these "a whole load of other features". Xbox One had a a whole load of other features and sold half as well as Xbox 360. Somebody also kicked the UI in the teeth and made it awful to use. A whole load of other features doesn't necessarily guarantee sales.

XBSX won't be selling to XB1X owners but XB1 owners.

XB1 > XB1X = 4x improvement; $500, 20% say, "yes, that seems a good upgrade."
XB1 > XBSX = 10x improvement ; $500, 95% say, "yes, that seems a good upgrade."

So for people for whom performance is not a consideration you think a 10x improvement in performance is a swing factor where 4x performance is not? Why? Why are people suddenly going to pay $500-600 for a new console when there have been great One X bundles for almost half that? Why? Why not just spend that money on games/coffee/tacos?

Based on sales of base PS4/Slim (vs. Pro) and XBO/S/SAD (vs. X) the vast majority of the videogame console market do not wish to pay more for an improved technical experience. For those that feel this way but who do want to play new games, what will drive them to upgrade is their inability to play new games on their current console.

The same is true for the reasons to upgrade to PS5. For as long as games are released on both PS4 and PS5, it will take one-or-more stellar PS5 exclusive games to get PS4 owners to even begin thinking about splashing out a significant amount of cash for a new box.

 

[see colon]

Like my watch then. I don't see phones and tablets are being that relevant a comparison. If they are are so close, why do so many more people buy phones and tablets than videogame consoles?. When you've answered that, you have you reason for why it's not a great comparison.

It's not why do people buy phones, it's why they upgrade phones when the one they have is perfectly functional. The same reason they buy new game consoles even though theirs works perfectly. They want something faster, smaller or bigger, and with newer features. I fail to see how this would be any different when comparing the new slate of consoles that are said to be backwards compatible, with no exclusive software at launch outside of stuff built into the OS, but with better performance and newer features.

It's not the library that motivates people, at least not at first. Think about the launch years of Xbox 360, Wii and PS3. That's 2005 and 2006. That was a very successful generation. Wii went on to be the second best selling home console (or third, as it looks like PS4 just passed it), and PS3 and 360 each sold 85+ million systems. In total that generation moved about 275 million systems, by my count the most ever. But this is coming off the success of PS2, which had a huge installed base and continued to have releases after the launch of PS3. Not just shovel ware either, God of War 2 came out in 2007, Yakuza 2 and Persona 4 in 2008... There are so many games on PS2 that if you played one per week it would take you over 30 years, and that's just the North American library. I think there are about a thousand PAL and JPN games that never made it over. So why did people upgrade. Surely they haven't played every PS2 game, and there were still quality titles being released. Features, form factor, and performance.

 

[green.pixel]

Hell, Deus Ex came out in 2000. There is still basically nothing that matches it. The recent games in the series are but a shadow of that game. Why? Graphics became the focus rather than game play. And even that wasn't doing anything new WRT gameplay compared to games that came before it. It just did it better.

compared to which games before it?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not why do people buy phones, it's why they upgrade phones when the one they have is perfectly functional. The same reason they buy new game consoles even though theirs works perfectly. They want something faster, smaller or bigger, and with newer features.

It's both, or neither. In the past, people didn't buy a console to play old games improved because that wasn't an option. Consoles were bought to play new experiences impossible on the old consoles. However, going forwards, clearly, despite DSoup's protestations, people will like the option to have a better experience even if for a while it isn't completely new, as evidenced by people buying things like phones or cars or TVs or GPUs that provide the same previous experience only a little better. The GPU market is a good example of that as rarely does one buy a new GPU to access experiences that were unavailable to you. GPU sales are entirely about having the same experience only better.

A console launching without exclusives but able to play older games in better quality (and new cross-gen games in better quality) will have appeal to gamers, although less appeal than a console that launches with exclusive experiences not possible on previous machines. It's not 100% 'they don't care for better' nor 100% 'they don't care for exclusives' or any somesuch polarised argument.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's not why do people buy phones, it's why they upgrade phones when the one they have is perfectly functional. The same reason they buy new game consoles even though theirs works perfectly.

Videogame consoles and phones are very different devices with very different usage scenarios.

Phones and tablets, by their nature, are mobile devices handled vastly more by the user and often used a lot more per day. Because they are devices carried about they are more susceptible to knocks and other damage and their battery condition will deteriorate after just a few years. In terms of "works perfectly" that depends on your device. Apple devices tend to be supported with new firmware updates for a good 5 years after initial launch, Android phones are more hit and miss. Your device may work perfectly, i.e. a well (or better) than it did at launch, but it may not run all the latest software the user may want to run.

It's not the library that motivates people, at least not at first.

The library cannot motivate people at launch but previously the library was largely reset at launch. Mostly it was vastly better technology. Xbox/PS2 represented slow, tired tech when 360/PS3 were introduced and 360/PS3 were creaking along when XBO/PS4 were introduced. That huge tech leap forward isn't happening for that nextgen. If tech is the motivator and you can play new games on your old console, why buy a new console?

However, going forwards, clearly, despite DSoup's protestations, people will like the option to have a better experience even if for a while it isn't completely new, as evidenced by people buying things like phones or cars or TVs or GPUs that provide the same previous experience only a little better.

People will have liked the option to have had a better experience since 2016 in the PS4 ecosystem and 2017 in the Xbo ecosystem. And I'm not protesting anything, I'm asking those make the assertions that nextgen is somehow mysteriously different, so evidence these bold claims. But many products across product categories have offered better features or experience at a price and in no product category does the better experience sell more than a small fraction of the product offerings with a budget-minded price.

So I ask again, if a consumer is not somebody for whom framerate or resolution is important, why am I buying a nextgen console if new games will be released for the hardware I already own? Why?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So I ask again, if a consumer is not somebody for whom framerate or resolution is important, why am I buying a nextgen console if new games will be released for the hardware I already own? Why?

You ask the same question which has been answered but you don't accept that answer. For some reason, you consider the improved visuals part without the cost and value part, as if money doesn't come into it. It's nota case that framerate and resolution isn't important, but it has a degree of imprtance that comes with a dollar value. For some, $500 is worth the improvement of mid-gen consoles. For others, $200. For others, $50 - if the mid-gen consoles had released at $50, they'd have upgraded.

I repeat, the same reason some people choose to upgrade their PC GPU, when the offering of "improved performance : price" satisfies them, they'll upgrade. Mid-gen refreshes did not satisfy that; the level of improvement wasn't worth the asking price. Next-gen will because the level of improvement will be so much more - not just framerate and resolution, but lighting and shadowing, speed of loading, better console interfaces (one assumes this time the OSes will be nice; we can but hope!), 3D spatial audio, and stuff.

Edit : Another example showing framerate and resolution are important (just not black/white on/off important as you suggest, but as a per-person subjective value) are remakes/remasters. These games offer people exactly the same experience they had on the older console, with just pretties improved, but they sell none-the-less.

 

[PSman1700]

The i wonder why people bought new consoles at launch every gen, as launch lineups have never been stellar. Do people buy all new hardware for one or two titles that offer new graphics? Either that or people know a console typically lasts longer then one year.

 

[iroboto]

The i wonder why people bought new consoles at launch every gen, as launch lineups have never been stellar. Do people buy all new hardware for one or two titles that offer new graphics? Either that or people know a console typically lasts longer then one year.

Ignoring this generation; typically the upgrade in performance was in the 50x to 100x range.

There was a lot of reason to upgrade and software could not possibly backport such a large distance.

this time around it’s only about <10x from base machines. 2x from mid gen. with typically more or less the same features. Same architecture...

I guess @DSoup position is that it’s pointless to upgrade if you aren’t getting new games that you couldn’t get on your existing system. But if I flip that perspective why should you have to buy new hardware when those software titles could clearly and likely run on your existing console ?

i don’t see how we can be sold that it can’t run. We see all sorts of titles on NSW that was never designed to run on it. We can’t possibly expect new titles to be so far ahead of the curve that it’s not possible to backport for the first year of launch titles.

If the answer is; I want to run it on a better system for a better experience, then we’ve come full circle then.

The only difference between Allowing a backport and not allowing a backport is simply just the removal of options for the consumer.

 

[mrcorbo]

I feel very positively about a more organic transition between console generations which happens at a pace that works for the industry as a whole and the gamers who it serves rather than at the whim of a company or handful of companies motivated by their own self-interest. If these consoles can't sell on their own merits and if because of this there is no motivation in the industry to support them with new, not-possible-on-prior-gen, gaming titles than they don't need to exist IMHO.

I'm all for moving the industry forward. I'm just not for dragging it forward against its will and then locking the gate behind.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm all for moving the industry forward. I'm just not for dragging it forward against its will and then locking the gate behind.

Nice sentiment, but economically not possible IMO. The hardware companies have to commit to a new platform years in advance, at great cost, and need returns on it. They can't put together a PS5, release it, find it was too early and no-one wants it, and set about creating a new platform for a couple of years later when maybe consumers will be interested. Once the platform comes out, they need people to transition to make it worth it.

That only stops when generations stop and we have incremental advances, which then means new tech being severely underutilised for years after its introduction.

As it is now, with a console hardware generation creating the impetus for gaming tech to advance to the benefit of PC gamers, I think that's the best balance for gaming. No-one is forced to upgrade to expensive new consoles on day one, and can transition over time, while devs get a new baseline target for all their algorithms.

 

[mrcorbo]

Nice sentiment, but economically not possible IMO. The hardware companies have to commit to a new platform years in advance, at great cost, and need returns on it. They can't put together a PS5, release it, find it was too early and no-one wants it, and set about creating a new platform for a couple of years later when maybe consumers will be interested. Once the platform comes out, they need people to transition to make it worth it.

And my answer to that is make an upgrade that's worth the cost for the consumer and they will transition over. If you can't do that then your product isn't good enough.

 

[AlNom]

So I ask again, if a consumer is not somebody for whom framerate or resolution is important, why am I buying a nextgen console if new games will be released for the hardware I already own? Why?

I can only think of the WiiU to Switch transition, but this gets rather narrow in reasoning/situations, I think. The cross-generation won't last forever as more people switch to the next. You'll have early hardcore adopters, and then the rest consist of people waiting for software or bundles, friends, and/or price (or inevitably caving in once established after year N that prices aren't changing much.)

The slowing down of sales for current gen may or may not be indicative of people waiting for the price and/or waiting for the impending next gen. The total addressable market is something to consider on there while PS4 has crossed 100M sales at the end of Year 6, and XO @ <50M. Between the PS360 sales (~87<+80M), that's roughly 20M somewhere out there (jokes aside regarding RROD/YLOD). Switch is at over 50M and rising, although that's muddled from traditional Nintendo portable/home users.

hrm...... I don't know how shifty the market has been over the years (Are the same people still buying consoles, are younger folks being introduced to such in light of mobile, what are the number of folks who own multiple consoles... etc.).

If they're waiting for the price, a lower cost next-gen SKU might be interesting as a jumping board early on for the cost-minded folks who don't care enough about pixels, although the software argument becomes greater. (or it bombs like the schemes of Mon Dattrick, a not-star wars character )

somewhere in there is an argument.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And my answer to that is make an upgrade that's worth the cost for the consumer and they will transition over. If you can't do that then your product isn't good enough.

Is that not the case? I cant think of any console generation that was too early and not worth the cost of upgrade.

 

[mrcorbo]

Is that not the case? I cant think of any console generation that was too early and not worth the cost of upgrade.

Then it shouldn't be necessary to strategically withhold content from people on the prior gen. I say solely let the market dictate the support, or lack thereof, of the prior gen machines.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Exclusives may not be about forcing people forwards. There's a cost to develop for more platforms, and the if the old platform suffers too much, as you'd hope with a game that expressly targets the next-gen power, it may be deemed not worth doing. It may just be a simple case of "releasing on next-gen only, we're a big fish in a small pond, more attention on us, higher conversion from the smaller install base. If we release cross-gen, despite the old gen having a huge install base, the framerate and cut-backs will be pretty lousy, costly to implement and test, and the game will look so overstretched and forced that no-one will really want it on that platform."

In an ideal universe where cost isn't a consideration. sure, release on everything and let the consumers decide. In the world we're in, devs/pubs have to make choices where to invest, and cutting ties with the old gen when gamers dollars are moving forwards (lower software sales on old platforms) is the sensible move to make. AFAIK games like FIFA show a pretty quick transition to the new generation (where the improvements are mostly cosmetic).

 

[mrcorbo]

Exclusives may not be about forcing people forwards. There's a cost to develop for more platforms, and the if the old platform suffers too much, as you'd hope with a game that expressly targets the next-gen power, it may be deemed not worth doing. It may just be a simple case of "releasing on next-gen only, we're a big fish in a small pond, more attention on us, higher conversion from the smaller install base. If we release cross-gen, despite the old gen having a huge install base, the framerate and cut-backs will be pretty lousy, costly to implement and test, and the game will look so overstretched and forced that no-one will really want it on that platform."

In an ideal universe where cost isn't a consideration. sure, release on everything and let the consumers decide. In the world we're in, devs/pubs have to make choices where to invest, and cutting ties with the old gen when gamers dollars are moving forwards (lower software sales on old platforms) is the sensible move to make. AFAIK games like FIFA show a pretty quick transition to the new generation (where the improvements are mostly cosmetic).

I'm not arguing against next-gen exclusives, though. I'm arguing against the practice solely as a means to force people to upgrade. And your FIFA example is pretty much backwards. Those games tend to be cross-gen for the longest. In fact , there's a FIFA 19(!) for Xbox 360, though, to be fair, this appears to be FIFA 17 with roster updates.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

EA still sell them (old games with roster updates), but they don't sell any meaningful numbers. And the fact that EA makes these games is because they sell enough to justify it (cheap roster updates!). Other devs don't port their games to last-gen because they don't sell - if they did, they'd support the old platforms. No-one forces the publishers to go next-gen exclusive. Nothing's stopping any dev releasing a new game for PS4 and PS3.

PS3 release in 2019 : https://store.playstation.com/en-gb...dium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=psn store

2018 : https://store.playstation.com/en-gb...dium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=psn store

When another gen comes out, people transition in their own time, and software sales follow the market. I don't think any of it is really forced. Rather, devs get to stretch their legs with the new platform and focus on it rather than dividing their attentions with last-gen machines. Devs love getting new toys to play with and the opportunity to make bigger and better and prettier.

 

[mrcorbo]

EA still sell them (old games with roster updates), but they don't sell any meaningful numbers. And the fact that EA makes these games is because they sell enough to justify it (cheap roster updates!). Other devs don't port their games to last-gen because they don't sell - if they did, they'd support the old platforms. No-one forces the publishers to go next-gen exclusive. Nothing's stopping any dev releasing a new game for PS4 and PS3.

PS3 release in 2019 : https://store.playstation.com/en-gb/product/EP2005-CUSA03437_00-RAINBOWMEGABUNDL?emcid=GM300000_store&utm_campaign=PX - PlayStation - Brand - UK&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=psn store

2018 : https://store.playstation.com/en-gb/product/EP4151-NPEJ00523_00-MGSTOG00000000EU?emcid=GM300000_store&utm_campaign=PX - PlayStation - Brand - UK&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=psn store

When another gen comes out, people transition in their own time, and software sales follow the market. I don't think any of it is really forced. Rather, devs get to stretch their legs with the new platform and focus on it rather than dividing their attentions with last-gen machines. Devs love getting new toys to play with and the opportunity to make bigger and better and prettier.

Which, again, isn't anything I take issue with. To try to make it clear, I don't agree with the concept that if you have a platform you must have exclusives to sell the platform. I'm not arguing that exclusives don't help to sell a platform, nor that exclusives shouldn't ever happen. Exclusives are good and necessary in many cases and allow developers to maximize the platform they are on in ways not possible for multiplatform releases. That having been said, if your new hardware platform can't deliver enough of an improved experience over the prior gen to warrant a purchase (by those who are inclined to purchase a launch console) without exclusives, then your new console sucks, IMHO.

 

[Nesh]

EA still sell them (old games with roster updates), but they don't sell any meaningful numbers. And the fact that EA makes these games is because they sell enough to justify it (cheap roster updates!). Other devs don't port their games to last-gen because they don't sell - if they did, they'd support the old platforms. No-one forces the publishers to go next-gen exclusive. Nothing's stopping any dev releasing a new game for PS4 and PS3.

PS3 release in 2019 : https://store.playstation.com/en-gb/product/EP2005-CUSA03437_00-RAINBOWMEGABUNDL?emcid=GM300000_store&utm_campaign=PX - PlayStation - Brand - UK&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=psn store

2018 : https://store.playstation.com/en-gb/product/EP4151-NPEJ00523_00-MGSTOG00000000EU?emcid=GM300000_store&utm_campaign=PX - PlayStation - Brand - UK&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=psn store

When another gen comes out, people transition in their own time, and software sales follow the market. I don't think any of it is really forced. Rather, devs get to stretch their legs with the new platform and focus on it rather than dividing their attentions with last-gen machines. Devs love getting new toys to play with and the opportunity to make bigger and better and prettier.

I think what might change this time is this thing with "forward compatibility" where devs might not have to port games anymore, but they might release one game that scales to the lower and higher platform accordingly.
Thats what MS was planning and I think Sony noticed. The idea of FC kind of exists within the mid-gen releases of Pro and X.
So we wont have cases like Alien Isolation or Watch Dogs or MGS V where we had PS3 and PS4 versions, but we could have one version that runs on PS4 and PS5.
This might change things.
The very few PS5 games announced so far look like PS4 games that run at higher framerates and improved IQ but nothing really fancy or next gen. I can see those games being scaleable.

 

[PSman1700]

The very few PS5 games announced so far look like PS4 games that run at higher framerates and improved IQ but nothing really fancy or next gen. I can see those games being scaleable.

PS5 will get exclusive games (like all consoles do), but those will be few, they get fewer for each generation.