Price vs Power

[Lucid_Dreamer]

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

Even though initial PS3 games were behind X360 titles in most aspects, except audio; I stuck with "more power". Why? It was because I knew it would show itself (and it did). Even if 95% of the 3rd party developers couldn't make it show, I knew the 1st party devs would. 1st party devs used that power to bring all kinds of new experiences to me (and STILL continue to).

If you ignore resolution differences due to lack of power, it bites you in the butt in later years. That could be extra GPGPU physics, etc that could change a gaming experience. Due to resolution already being low, that might not be considered. IF you are a gamer, that would likely be a worst case scenario for you.

It could translate into 3rd party games just leaving that additional functionality out of their games, which hurts BOTH console owners. However, 1st party devs would have those experiences on the more power console. That means it still gets to be experienced, by the owner of the more powerful console. The other is left to stew.

I don't want to be that person left to stew. Therefore, I choose the most powerful console. It doesn't matter who makes it. A strong feature set is, also, required; but those aren't a part of the OP. A $100 difference is a no-brainer with that much of a power delta between the two.

 

[KongRudi]

I think powerfull hardware is more important than price personally..
Simply because price go down, power don't go up.
However, most consumers are shortsigthted.. Hence price is probably more important than powerfull hardware nowadays.

 

[babcat]

Power is what matters.

 

[Bagel seed]

shortsighted..

Yes, in a word that explains those who voted price.

If you're that price sensitive, you shouldn't be buying consoles at launch. The first 10-15mil don't need your help, or even more for that matter looking at this past gen. Core gamers who'll gladly pay $399+ have got that covered. Besides, mid to end cycle will give you even more bang for the buck. That's where you're supposed to jump in, with a big catalog of older games at reduced prices to choose from and probably a price drop or two on the console itself.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think powerfull hardware is more important than price personally..
Simply because price go down, power don't go up.
However, most consumers are shortsigthted.. Hence price is probably more important than powerfull hardware nowadays.

Sure but the price of the other console will also drop, meaning it'll likely still be cheaper and hence still the most attractive consoles.

Again, all the power in the world won't matter if from my living room couch multiplatform games look identical unless played side by side and paused frequently so you can get up close and look for differences.

The differences while playing a game from my couch will have to be immediately noticeable and significantly better before I'd pay more money just for something that on paper is more powerful.

Considering I have no qualms about putting 1500 USD worth of hardware into my PC, I'll definitely spend the money as long as I can see the difference.

Just like on PC I won't pay for something that doesn't provide a noticeable increase, I wouldn't do it on consoles either.

Regards,
SB

 

[Inuhanyou]

I think that in order for their business model to be successful, console manufactures have to weight price versus power.

There may be those who may not care what their balancing act has to be, but a lot of other people do. A console is a gaming centric device and must be sold at a price that is attractive to people in a variety of reasonable price ranges in order to build up an install base. As long as they have been around, consoles have hit the sweet spot in terms of being competitively priced while having a decent amount of power behind them, and those consoles that haven't heeded this rule have suffered.

What do PC gamers always say? "If your that focused on power, buy a PC?" That is the alternative, then you can spend your money to your hearts content on what you want.

But i'd expect the smart people here to understand why there are people who advocate for cheaper prices without assuming they are wrong and you are right. There are obvious limitations and considerations that must be taken into account when designing a console, price, power, feasibility and attractiveness to a large group of prospective consumers.

 

[owen]

Clearly Power is already accounted for in the PC market. Consoles can't compete when it comes to power - they have always competed on efficiency and trickery. It is impossible to expand you install base making pretty games on a box that costs $600. Nobody bets on the cost going down, eventually the cost goes down so far that the console get discontinued.

 

[liolio]

25% went for price I'm surprise it is that high on a pretty geeky board.
In real life I'm confident that price would score higher.

As for the hilarious short sighted comment, I say hilarious so I don't say unpleasant...
Not everybody is blessed with high incomes and one may also have multiple hobbies, it all costs money.
I might be doing short sighted decisions... still thankfully to my "short sighted ness" I manage to have a pretty nice saving rate wrt to my revenues... strange, I might be a dumb ass...

 

[dagamer]

Sure but the price of the other console will also drop, meaning it'll likely still be cheaper and hence still the most attractive consoles.

Again, all the power in the world won't matter if from my living room couch multiplatform games look identical unless played side by side and paused frequently so you can get up close and look for differences.

The differences while playing a game from my couch will have to be immediately noticeable and significantly better before I'd pay more money just for something that on paper is more powerful.

Considering I have no qualms about putting 1500 USD worth of hardware into my PC, I'll definitely spend the money as long as I can see the difference.

Just like on PC I won't pay for something that doesn't provide a noticeable increase, I wouldn't do it on consoles either.

Regards,
SB

There's a reason why Sony has more first party studios than Microsoft, so those kinds of comparisons aren't needed. When Sony can say its got good looking 3rd party games and excellent first party games, the onus is on Microsoft to say why people should buy its console instead. Just look this year at the exclusive games Sony has on the PS3 compared (Ni No Kuni, The Last of Us, God of War: Ascension, Beyond: Two Souls, etc..) to the one exclusive on the 360 (Gears of War: Judgement).

 

[BRiT]

Please try not to derail this thread into one of which console games look better or which console has more exclusives. That discussion goes nowhere fast.

 

[warb]

Power. If there's a noticeable difference and more power/higher price means that games actually run better on the system and not the reverse. The price still has to be reasonable, not $599.

 

[rockaman]

I'm more about the hardware these days. In the fifth or sixth generations it was different. A console could separate itself with unique games. Costs were lower to develop those games. Companies could take risk and third parties had more creative freedom, I feel, to experiment with specific games for specific platforms. Resident Evil had exclusive games on Nintendo and PlayStation systems in the same generation for example.

Back then, internet and services meant nothing to me on a console. What I needed was the console with Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo and Dark Cloud.

Last generation and this are completely different. Hardware and platform has grown even more important than ever since third parties have been developing games for what can be seen as 'one' console. There are few software titles to differentiate a console today.

What differentiates the consoles today is almost exclusively first parties, and hardware. And now that the internet age has caught up to the gaming world, the hardware and services must cooperate to become a cohesive experience.

Today there are only three things that make consoles unique: hardware, services, and first party.

And since the differences are so few, each one of those pillars is several times more important than before. The fact is today is that it is hard to choose between the consoles, so for one to take the whole cake is to take distinct control and show superiority in these categories in my opinion.

That is for the ones on the fence though. I have already decided for myself and I will be picking the PlayStation as I've picked 3 generations in a row already. And I'm picking it because I believe at this time it will be the console for a gamer and that is why I buy consoles.

 

[KongRudi]

Sure but the price of the other console will also drop, meaning it'll likely still be cheaper and hence still the most attractive consoles.

Again, all the power in the world won't matter if from my living room couch multiplatform games look identical unless played side by side and paused frequently so you can get up close and look for differences.

The differences while playing a game from my couch will have to be immediately noticeable and significantly better before I'd pay more money just for something that on paper is more powerful.

Considering I have no qualms about putting 1500 USD worth of hardware into my PC, I'll definitely spend the money as long as I can see the difference.

Just like on PC I won't pay for something that doesn't provide a noticeable increase, I wouldn't do it on consoles either.

Regards,
SB

Well, in the case of PS4.
What I mean, is that if they (Sony) could swap out the touchpad with a similar touchscreen, you'd get extra cost, i.e. let's assume it raise the cost by 20 USD.
You'd get all the same functionality as the touchpad, but in addition you could also get extra features.
i.e. a small keyboard could pop up when text input came up on the screen, or programmable buttons, saying 'map' instead of select.
i.e. stuff that I think would be better.

Let's assume that would raise the final price from 430 USD, to 450 USD.
That'd be totally worth it to KongRudi, but on the internet the same scenario would be a crisis for joe gamer. :-/
So even if I had to work one hour extra, to afford the 20$ extra cost - more hardware is more important to me, rather than waiting 6-7 years for the next more powerfull consoles.
That's what I mean by most consumers beeing shortsighted with regards to console-pricing.

I don't mean that I would want a PS4 costing 2k dollar..

 

[liolio]

KongRudi, I still disagree with how you confuse the "saving type" for short sighted.
If one is to pay the difference (say 100$ or 150$) between system 1 which is clearly decent and system 2 that outdoes it in IQ but doesn't do anything the first system does not, you are likely to have the same behavior with other goods: clothes, shoes, TV, etc.

Usually it adds up pretty fast, speaking obviously only for my self, but I am as strict with my other purchases as I'm with console. It is not short sight as long as for the sake of saving money you don't buy plain crap (for example a product that obviously lasts half the time a nicer, more expensive one).
Here putting aside the for now hypothetical difference in business model (wrt to subscription, etc. and how that affects TCO), none of those systems are crap, not worth spending a Pennie in, one is not likely to outlast the other (wrt to reliability, etc.).
Ultimately if you buy system1, you save a few money and you will play the same game, might not sounf like much but if you have the same attitude with you other buys, it adds up.

It is not short sight, it is simply that lot of people are on a budget and expenses add faster than they don't.

 

[KongRudi]

Power. If there's a noticeable difference and more power/higher price means that games actually run better on the system and not the reverse. The price still has to be reasonable, not $599.

PS3 launched at a 499, it's the SKU with a 3 times more storage space on the HDD wich launched at 599. :-/

 

[Arwin]

Most of Europe didn't even get to coose iirc

 

[AlphaWolf]

Neither did NA really. The 20GB models shipped in very low volumes.

 

[(((interference)))]

For the purposes of the thread, it should be taken that all other things are equal and the only two variables are price and power.

Since Sony isn't going to price the PS4 more than $50-100 over the equivalent 720 SKU, it basically comes down to whether you want to pay 12-25% more to get 50% more power, which probably means MP titles that look 10-20% better in the real world (Sony exclusives will likely stretch the gap, if this gen is anything to go by).

So say the MP difference would be something like RDR,GTA4, Black Ops or Skyrim running on 360 vs their PS3 counterparts.

Paying 12-25% more to get a similar increase in visuals/performance seems like a pretty reasonable value proposition to me for people who do like having the best looking version of the game.

Then of course, if Sony allows used games while MS doesn't, then the $50-100 price advantage 720 might command is eroded as you'd easily make more than the difference back by being able to buy and sell used games.

 

[AlphaWolf]

For the purposes of the thread, it should be taken that all other things are equal and the only two variables are price and power.

Since Sony isn't going to price the PS4 more than $50-100 over the equivalent 720 SKU, it basically comes down to whether you want to pay 12-25% more to get 50% more power and faster, which probably means MP titles that look 10-20% better in the real world (Sony exclusives will likely stretch the gap, if this gen is anything to go by).

So say the MP difference would be something like RDR,GTA4, Black Ops or Skyrim running on 360 vs their PS3 counterparts.

Paying 12-25% more to get a similar increase in visuals/performance seems like a pretty reasonable value proposition to me for people who do like having the best looking version of the game.

Then of course, if Sony allows used games while MS doesn't, then the $50-100 price advantage 720 might command is eroded as you'd easily make more than the difference back by being able to buy and sell used games.

If the current gen is anything to go by most people won't notice a difference in a title until DF does a comparison. Except of course for the forum warriors trying to justify their brand.

And all things are never equal so the poll is just bs, but most of us knew that anyway.

 

[(((interference)))]

Ah, but see perceived differences in power, are probably more important than actual differences in power.

It's why so many people held off from buying the Dreamcast and why the SDF vent such fury on 'lazy devs' when the PS3 comes out worse in Face Offs.

If word gets around that all Durango titles look worse than their PS4 counterparts, that's not going to be good - no matter if your average consumer can actually tell the differenc between the two.