Price vs Power

[Hardknock]

Given what we know about each system it looks like the PS4 will have 25-50% more power available to games. Specifically: 50% more CUs, double the ROPS, 3 times the main memory bandwidth. Keep in mind Durango is slated to have substantial multimedia features to go along with the decreased gaming functionality. But Sony won't be a slouch in this department and all or most of these features can be replicated on the PS4 using software.

The main defense I hear from MS fans is price. I personally don't feel there will be a large gulf in the MSRP for either console but hypothetically speaking if say there was a $50-$100 gap between them which strategy do you support?

I know there are a lot of lurkers on the forum and hopefully a poll will garner a large enough response to see where the general consensus stands.

 

[Davros]

Not a console expert by any stretch of the imagination but click (a bbc tech program) was talking consoles and they said price was one of the reasons the ps3 lost last time

 

[pjbliverpool]

I voted but I think the question is considerably more complex. You have to consider things like user experience, developer support, additional features etc... taking all that into account, I would have voted differently.

 

[AstoundingHolmes]

It's not simply about power vs price, its far more psychological than that. It's about getting a good deal, getting your money's worth, absolute financial thresholds that vary from person to person (ha), bias confirmation, HYYYYYYYYYYYYPE, and a host of other things.

For me personally, I'm OK with spending a bit more if it means getting a tangible bump in specs for such a long life product, but without knowing baseline prices it's hard for me to say if that will hold come PS4 / Xbox Loop price reveals. Additionally, we may have installment plans this cycle, which will throw everything for a loop.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If the games look the same, the power is wasted. At least with price you know you'll benefit. Call me when digital foundry puts the comparisons of actual games up. When that happens, if I have to go there to find the difference, I'll know the power isn't a big deal.

What would amuse me more than anything is MS announcing more powerful hardware (supernsekret 2nd system) and watching all the forum warriors change their mind.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Not a console expert by any stretch of the imagination but click (a bbc tech program) was talking consoles and they said price was one of the reasons the ps3 lost last time

Only becuase early on the PS3 was on the most extreme end of console pricing. It was probably one of if not the most expensive console at launch in history.

It still hasn't dropped to $99.

I know a lot of people talk about the high price tag for 8GB of GDDR5, but it isn't gonna cost Sony more than $120 in total, and given the APU design for the main cores they are saving a metric tonne on the PCB, power supply (thus shipping and handling - as the PSU is the heaviest component), cooling, console size (which also grants further shipping and handling savings). Sure there's the peripheral pack-ins but they aren't going to be significant costs.

PS4 will be a significanlty cheaper box than the PS3 was at launch. And if I were a betting man, I would put money down on it shipping at close to or the same price of the launch 360.

Their competitor will not undercut their price by much either, as at launch the launch buyers will pay any amount, and so MS moreso than any other company would want to extract that added value from those early adopters. I just don't see a situation where one console launches at say $499 and the other $399.

There won't be more than a $50 premuim between the cheapest of both consoles' SKUs mark my words. And I can actually see people being surprised by who it is that chooses to price their console higher.

 

[Prophecy2k]

If the games look the same, the power is wasted. At least with price you know you'll benefit. Call me when digital foundry puts the comparisons of actual games up. When that happens, if I have to go there to find the difference, I'll know the power isn't a big deal.

What would amuse me more than anything is MS announcing more powerful hardware (supernsekret 2nd system) and watching all the forum warriors change their mind.

Name one console generation where a clear difference in hw capability didn't produce a noticable difference in MP software between the two platforms?

If one console is 50% faster than the other then there will be a perceptible difference and so the power of the fater console wouldn't have been wasted becuase the games won't look the same.

In the case of PS4 and Durango hwoever the jury is still out on what the actual difference in HW capability will be, but do know that if the difference suggested by the paper specs as we currently know them prove true, then the games won't look the same at all. Actually far from it...

 

[AlphaWolf]

Name a console generation where the most powerful hardware won. Most ps2 games looked pretty damn close to xbox games and the hardware gap there was larger.

 

[Nesh]

Cant vote for any. Both are important. They just have to hit the right combination

 

[Hardknock]

Name a console generation where the most powerful hardware won. Most ps2 games looked pretty damn close to xbox games and the hardware gap there was larger.

I see a lot of people making these generalizations without taking into account all the other factors. The PS2 was released a year and a half before the competition (Xbox, gamecube). Was the successor to the most successful videogame machine of all time. Developers had no reason to take advantage of the additional power of those systems because the install base was so radically in the Ps2s favor. 120 million vs. 20 million or so. The ps4 and durango will be releasing at the same time. A whole different scenario where the most powerful system just might be the best selling as well. If that's the case I expect significantly better visuals on hardware with 50% better graphics capabilities.


And no ps2 games did not look close to games developed from the ground up on Xbox. The difference was night and day in a lot of cases. Soul caliber was 720p on the Xbox while standard def on the ps2. Compare ninja gaiden, doom, Riddick, dead or alive ultimate, splinter cell to anything on the ps2. It wasn't pretty. Most multiplatform games had better framerates and IQ on the Xbox platform without them even trying.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Name a console generation where the most powerful hardware won. Most ps2 games looked pretty damn close to xbox games and the hardware gap there was larger.

PS2 games looked nowhere near Halo:CE and Riddick Escape from Butcher Bay. Those games were in another league entirely.

Also, is there some magic curse or natural law of the universe that negates a console from being eligible to win a generation just because it IS the most powerful AND that such hasn't happened historically?

So because the weakest console won this gen that automatically grants the weakest console next-gen the console sales crown?

It's a terribly weak and tired argument, especially as it completely ignores the plethora of factors that contributed to why the consoles of the past that won did in fact win in their respective generations.

The only reasonable connection with the most powerful of the past console not winning, and any kind of precedent for the future I can see, is that if any of the three major console vendor was to chase the bleeding edge this round, although they would be satisfying the whims of the super hardcore, they would risk pricing themselves out of the market (like the PS3 very nearly did).

It's abundantly clear from the leaked and revealed specs of these next two consoles, that neither is chasing the bleeding edge, and so any relationship between power vs relative sales performance of this coming gen and any that has gone before it is in fact pretty moot.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I see a lot of people making these generalizations without taking into account all the other factors. The PS2 was released a year and a half before the competition (Xbox, gamecube). Was the successor to the most successful videogame machine of all time. Developers had no reason to take advantage of the additional power of those systems because the install base was so radically in the Ps2s favor. 120 million vs. 20 million or so. The ps4 and durango will be releasing at the same time. A whole different scenario where the most powerful system just might be the best selling as well. If that's the case I expect significantly better visuals on hardware with 50% better graphics capabilities.


And no ps2 games did not look close to games developed from the ground up on Xbox. The difference was night and day in a lot of cases. Soul caliber was 720p on the Xbox while standard def on the ps2. Compare ninja gaiden, doom, Riddick, dead or alive ultimate, splinter cell to anything on the ps2. It wasn't pretty. Most multiplatform games bad better framerates and IQ on the Xbox platform without them even trying.

Exactly.

Only I would argue that developers certainly did take advantage of the extra power afforded by the Xbox over the PS2 in MP games. Take GTA:San Andreas for example, that game was in a league of its own compared to the PS2 version. Clearly better by every discernable metric.

The Xbox also recieved "defacto" exclusives in the forms of PC ports like Morrowind and Doom 3, simply becuase of the HW capability it afforded over the PS2.

The Xbox's problem was that it came so late that it was irrelevant to the market by the time it arrived.

I would even argue that technically the PS2 was the most powerful console when it won that generation. In that by the time the Xbox launched there was no console war to fight for becuase it had already be cleaned up before that box even stepped onto the scene.

 

[Hardknock]

Yep it's really funny when people bring up the PS2 and how power doesn't matter when it was quite obvious that it's perceived power killed the $100 cheaper Dreamcast dead in it's tracks. The Dreamcast even had an included modem and other features like 4 controller ports and the VMU controller(far ahead of their time) and it still lost to the hype of a presumably more powerful ps2.

 

[upnorthsox]

Name a console generation where the most powerful hardware won. Most ps2 games looked pretty damn close to xbox games and the hardware gap there was larger.

Won what? Best looking games?

 

[Nisaaru]

Name a console generation where the most powerful hardware won. Most ps2 games looked pretty damn close to xbox games and the hardware gap there was larger.

The console market looked a lot different back then. For me a lower price will only be a factor if the console has a few exclusive titles I want to play while the console with the best multi platform performance would be my main console. It's the Nintendo effect.

 

[MrFox]

I love this concept of winner and loser that's so pervasive throughout internet forums. "It's not enough to succeed, others must fail"

In most competitive markets there's usually a place for 3 segments to succeed in parallel, without destructive predatory competition tactics. The Best, the Low Cost, and the Different. It's getting very interesting for next gen, because each company try to compete in more than one, the competition is a nice threesome. No more Wii alone in it's Different market.

PS4 clearly targets the Best segment, and also competes for the Different. Not even trying to compete in the Low Cost segment, which they never do.
720 is the strange one, they seem to aim for a balance and be "close enough" in all segment, without being either the Best or Lowest Cost or the clearly Different, but beating at least one of their competitor in each category, and not being too far from the other.
WiiU tried to be both the Different and Low Cost a second time in a row. It's failing because the Different angle is now lost (kinect and eyetoy/move are there to say Hi), and the tablet controller is now in the "who cares" category. Their only hope is to lower the price, and they'll have to fight MS there, what are the odds?

 

[Bagel seed]

Which strategy do I support? For myself, power. For mass market, power too, because it's good for them even though they may not be aware of why it would be

Because eventually the price will come down. But if it's weak at launch it'll be weak until the next box comes out. Everyone will hit $299, but not everyone can make it to 2TF.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Which strategy do I support? For myself, power. For mass market, power too, because it's good for them even though they may not be aware of why it would be

Because eventually the price will come down. But if it's weak at launch it'll be weak until the next box comes out.

Must really suck for the WiiU then...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

IF I was going to buy a next gen. console (I'm currently not planning on it). Then this poll certainly doesn't address anything in significant detail.

How much more powerful? How much cheaper? What about extra features?

Going by the cheap/powerful line with nothing else to consider then...

The only way I'd spend more for a more powerful console is if it is no more than 100 USD more and the increase in graphics IQ is significantly better in games. NOT specs, but in games.

If I have to pause a game and then compare it side by side with a paused game on another console, then for all intents and purposes it isn't "more powerful."

If I cannot immediately tell that the game looks superior on one console versus another from my living room couch on my TV, then neither console is "more powerful" than the other.

I don't buy consoles based on their specifications. I buy them based on the game playing experience.

I'm willing to bet that many of the people that chose "More Power" also bought the PS3, despite the fact that most cross platform games either performed worse or looked worse in head to head comparisons. Which illustrates my point exactly. Unless the GAMES are obviously better on one platform over another, NOONE cares which one is more powerful with regards to specs.

Oh but X next gen console is going to run games at a higher resolution than Y next gen console. So, does that mean most of you voting "most power" also own an X360 as many of the multiplatform games run at a lower resolution on PS3.

Again, if it isn't immediately noticeable when playing the game...who cares? Certainly not the people with PS3s (in theory) even if head to head comparisons show the competition to generally have higher res, faster speed, or better graphics in multiplatform games.

So...back to me.

Unless one is obviously and immediately better looking in games. Then all the specs in the world mean nothing. I'll buy the cheaper console.

Of course, that's completely ignoring the most important factor for me. The other services and capabilities that might be included in next gen consoles to make the living room a nice place to be in. This and only this may potentially get me to buy a next gen. console. It has to be a complete package. I'm not going to bother with a console if the only thing it does well is play games.

Regards,
SB

 

[Bagel seed]

Must really suck for the WiiU then...

Yes. Not even $299 could save them. Casuals didn't show up, and core gamers didn't either.

$299 at launch is an invitation to casuals. Can't respect that strategy because you lowered the performance bar for the core to cater to a fickle crowd. A crowd that would come looking around anyways 2-3 years later after price drops.