*spin-off* Importance of graphics in the purchase decision process

[AlphaWolf]

I think a much more disturbing rumor form this 720 business is this..

is there a thread for this yet?

This would be devestating to an entire sub-industry

Yes it would be devastating for an entire sub-industry. But they pay nothing to the developers or publishers or console manufacturers so I'm not sure they should be surprised. I expect every developer/publisher/console manufacturer is thinking of ways to either cash in on this sub industry or shut it down.

It might well be disturbing to those who depend on used games to supplement their purchase habits, but it's far from unexpected as publishers have been talking about it for years. Only recently have they started to really do anything, no reason not to expect that trend to continue into the next generation.

 

[Tap In]

Yes it would be devastating for an entire sub-industry. But they pay nothing to the developers or publishers or console manufacturers so I'm not sure they should be surprised. I expect every developer/publisher/console manufacturer is thinking of ways to either cash in on this sub industry or shut it down.

It might well be disturbing to those who depend on used games to supplement their purchase habits, but it's far from unexpected as publishers have been talking about it for years. Only recently have they started to really do anything, no reason not to expect that trend to continue into the next generation.

perhaps but it will only work if all console makes agree to do it together

 

[joker454]

Some guy in the internet said it, so it must be true.

I mean truth be told...the only way I'd believe it was going to be a 6670 is if they decided to totally walk away from the old console model. Old console model being buy Console, use it for 5 years, throw it away and start all over with Console 2, use it for 5 years throw it away and start all over with Console 3, rinse and repeat.

If they instead are going to a fully iOS type model where they release a new piece of hardware whenever they see the need demands it and it's 100% compatible with the previous one, then I would believe a 6670. In other words they release a Xbox 360 Two, you sell your old 360 but everything else is fully compatible so you play all existing software and can play any new stuff that is higher spec supportive. Same games, same gamertag, same everything just like when you buy a new iPhone but now you can also play higher spec apps if any get released. That way they can go cheaper and more frequent hardware releases since the 360 then is no longer a console but a true long term "platform". Then when the 360 Two gets long in the tooth, be it in one year, two years whatever, they release 360 Three that is also fully backward compatible and higher spec still.

I know the above spells TERROR for console hardcore...but it does have it's advantages. Notably it would make it far easier to intergrate Kinect 2 since costs will be far lower for 360 Two. Also you don't fear new consoles from competition as much. Sure if the PS4 by the time it comes out is more powerful then no big deal, release a higher spec Xbox 360 Three if the need is there. Etc...

Barring that...going with a 6670 for an old console model framework of 2013-2020 lifespan? No friggen way.

 

[3dcgi]

PS3 and 360 had extreeeemely slow launches because your average PS2 owner didn't care that much about the graphics improvements or new online services or multimedia capabilities, not enough to justify rather high price points or rather poor games selection. Wii offered something that was immediately attractive to many people who had PS2s and to many who did not have one in their household, making it very successful right off the bat. Wii also made in its lifetime way more money for Nintendo than PS2 ever did for Sony.

I don't remember about the PS3 launch, but the 360 was supply constrained for the first 6 months or so. Hardly what I'd call extremely slow.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

That just means that stuff like 60fps, 8xmsaa+, 1920x1080, better shadows, longer draw distance, better ssao, physx effects, tesselation,less aggresive lod, etc, are either not important to you or you just don't notice them. To me I can see them easily from 20 feet away with one eye while someone is punching me in the head, but that's me. I'm sure many others are in the same boat as you where they just can't spot the differences much anymore, just like some see dvd and bluray as being identical. Hence why I think we're getting to the point of diminishing returns graphically.

Isn't MLB The Show 1920x1080 and 60fps? However, maybe the shadows and better SSAO doesn't stand out that much to me. I've seen pretty impressive physics (Uncharted 3, etc) and AA (God of War 3 anyone?) on both. Maybe seeing 40 miles instead of 50 isn't that big to me either (or most). I see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray just fine, too.

 

[AlphaWolf]

perhaps but it will only work if all console makes agree to do it together

If the consoles makers don't, the publishers will (some have started already). I don't doubt there is pressure from publishers on Nintendo, Sony and MS to add features to curb the used market.

 

[Brad Grenz]

$60 / year is $5 / month, way below the payment pain threshold for most households.

$5 is a lot to pay when it's just to enable the use of a service you pay $8 a month for already. And when you can buy a Roku 2 to use for Netflix for the same price as a year of Gold membership, it seems like even more. Like I said, if we're talking about a casual market having to pay extra for that stuff is going to seem stupid. They don't have to pay Apple a membership to use Netflix on their phone. They never had to pay Nintendo a membership to use Netflix on their Wii. When the Blueshirt at Best Buy tells them they'll have to pay $60 a year if they want that on the Kinect 2.0 machine they're gonna think that's a fucking joke (which, frankly, it is).

Netflix has reached device ubiquity. 360 is the only place it's locked behind a pay wall. If you care about the other things Gold offers it doesn't matter, but for anyone else it's arbitrary gouging. And lets try and remember only like 1 in 4 360 owners is actually paying for Gold right now. That leaves a lot of households for which $60 a year IS over their pain threshold. I'm a Gold member, but only when the dashboard offers me the 1 month for $1 deal.

It's been shown that people will pay more for a qualtiy experience, and there is nothing at the level of XBlive hence why people still pay for it in droves even in 2012.

Well, the technological limitations that prevented the PS3 from reaching parity with Live will be gone in the PS4. And if people are willing to pay more for a better experience, that would be good news for Sony in a scenario where their system has network feature parity, and a significant graphical advantage over a 6670-based Xbox Next, if it is within $100 in price.

 

[liolio]

Well... it's also possible that the rumor is true, but the final Xbox 720 will have 2 GPUs. ^_^

In fact if we mix all the rumors together we end we something akin to an AMD A8-3850 in asymmetric Xfire with something akin to a hd6670.

I though of it as a joke first but it seems to grant neat improvements int the real world (or for those that prefer reading).

 

[function]

Which is better, a console with an 8 year replacement cycle that you don't buy for the first two or three years because it's expensive / big / hot / very very noisy / unreliable or a console cycle that lasts six 6 but you're happy to buy it day one?

 

[AlNom]

DOAX3 is all that matters.

 

[TheChefO]

Which is better, a console with an 8 year replacement cycle that you don't buy for the first two or three years because it's expensive / big / hot / very very noisy / unreliable or a console cycle that lasts six 6 but you're happy to buy it day one?

I'll take the one which is replaced every 2 years if that means at least a 2x jump in graphics via new process node shrinks granting twice the transistor budget for the same cost.

Barring that, bring the same die budget that's been used the past two generations for new console's ... k thx.

 

[Svensk Viking]

$5 is a lot to pay when it's just to enable the use of a service you pay $8 a month for already. And when you can buy a Roku 2 to use for Netflix for the same price as a year of Gold membership, it seems like even more. Like I said, if we're talking about a casual market having to pay extra for that stuff is going to seem stupid. They don't have to pay Apple a membership to use Netflix on their phone. They never had to pay Nintendo a membership to use Netflix on their Wii. When the Blueshirt at Best Buy tells them they'll have to pay $60 a year if they want that on the Kinect 2.0 machine they're gonna think that's a fucking joke (which, frankly, it is).

Netflix has reached device ubiquity. 360 is the only place it's locked behind a pay wall. If you care about the other things Gold offers it doesn't matter, but for anyone else it's arbitrary gouging. And lets try and remember only like 1 in 4 360 owners is actually paying for Gold right now. That leaves a lot of households for which $60 a year IS over their pain threshold. I'm a Gold member, but only when the dashboard offers me the 1 month for $1 deal.



Well, the technological limitations that prevented the PS3 from reaching parity with Live will be gone in the PS4. And if people are willing to pay more for a better experience, that would be good news for Sony in a scenario where their system has network feature parity, and a significant graphical advantage over a 6670-based Xbox Next, if it is within $100 in price.

The Live subscription is also only for one Gamertag only, not for all Gamertags playing on the console
And these 60 dollars a year sure add up over the years

 

[function]

DOAX3 is all that matters.

Kinect + DOAX = ... I don't know. But I want to see it.

Oh wow. Move + DOAX.

 

[BRiT]

<off-topic>
Why does everyone insist on using the $60 price for a 12 month XBox Gold subscription when in the first years you could routinely find them for $30 and the last 2 years you can find them for $36. There is also the XBox Gold Family-Pack 4 User subscription for $100.

If you're going to keep spouting off prices, why not use readily available prices?
</off-topic>

Yes, graphics are important, but once you hit a certain level it does not have a significant impact on the purchase decision.

 

[almighty]

Here's a question, If PS4 released 12months after Xbox 720 buy was 50% more powerful but was $100-200 more expensive, Would you buy it?

Or would you consider $100-200 more then the extra performance is worth?

 

[BRiT]

Would the PS4 be getting the game franchises I enjoy to play such as Gears / Halo / controller-free motion-based games ?

 

[specwarGP2]

They don't provide the same services.
Even if you consider games, prices are quite different between iDevices & home consoles...

Really Apple to Orange comparison.

Well, years ago people used to say $200 is the price for mass market adoption of a consumer electronics device. ipad doesnt follow that rule.

The funny thing about ipads are that most people who own one probably dont make much use of it. People buy these things because its cool and clever marketing.

Yes I know they are different devices, but my point is that a $500 price isnt going to kill PS4 if has the performance and its marketed correctly

 

[Brad Grenz]

Why does everyone insist on using the $60 price for a 12 month XBox Gold subscription when in the first years you could routinely find them for $30 and the last 2 years you can find them for $36. There is also the XBox Gold Family-Pack 4 User subscription for $100.

If you're going to keep spouting off prices, why not use readily available prices?


Yes, graphics are important, but once you hit a certain level it does not have a significant impact on the purchase decision.

I don't know, why do you ignore the many people who pay month to month at a rate of $9.99? Those people probably cancel out the "got lucky on a prepaid card sale" people so the normal price of $60 a year is the only sensible figure for a discussion. Not everyone lives on CAG and slickdeals, so it's disingenuous to pretend a 40% discount is the rate everybody pays.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't know, why do you ignore the many people who pay month to month at a rate of $9.99? Those people probably cancel out the "got lucky on a prepaid card sale" people so the normal price of $60 a year is the only sensible figure for a discussion. Not everyone lives on CAG and slickdeals, so it's disingenuous to pretend a 40% discount is the rate everybody pays.

You don't really have to 'get lucky' on a prepaid card sale. MS advertises for Live Gold on the console and several times a year they sell live memberships at a rate of about $40 for a year. They also tend to give away quite a few free months with various promotions. I expect that since 2005 my avg price for a month of live is about $3 when I've had to pay at all (off the top of my head I've gotten around a year free and still have a few one month free cards lying around).

And while $60 might be the normal MSRP, checking amazon I see about 30 etailers all selling them for less than $50.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Look, we can tell from the revenue they report and the estimated number of Gold members that the average person is paying about $60. Some pay less then that, some pay more than that. But on average it's a $60 a year service. Since that's the actual MSRP it's the most useful figure for a discussion of the service. Leaning on a "best case" price to make it seem like a better value doesn't help anything.

Since we were originally talking about a casual consumer in a store hearing they would have to pay extra if they want to use Netflix, we can't count on the Blueshirt to say, "oh and if you check these websites you can find better prices, or just sign up as silver and hopefully you'll get a dashboard ad with a better offer." They're going to say, "we have the 12 month cards for $60. You can take it home and be up and running tonight."