The Console Arms Race: Is This What Console Gamers Want?

[Deleted member 11852]

Hence we can trust that PS4 will remain the devs target, and 4.5 will just get quality adjustments like a more powerful GPU. There's little reason to think 4.5 will be the target platform and PS4 will struggle to tun the titles.

Arguably the Xbox One will remain the dev target. PS4 owners generally get thrown a higher resolution or framerate but it's rare that even the touchpad gets more use than a secondary menu button. Things are easy to scale get scaled, things that aren't often don't.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Apple claimed today that the iPad Pro has more power than an Xbox 360.

I was only half paying attention but I'm sure this statement on the GPU's maximum number of floating point operations. This is not quite the same thing!

 

[Egmon83]

Think of a PS2.5 in 2003 that played SotC at a stable 60fps. Or a PS3.5 in 2010 that played Borderlands at a solid AA'd 60 fps. The base PS2 and PS3 would be exactly the same for those consoles as we experienced. There'd just be a Gamer+ mode for the more serious gamer who's willing to invest a little more in their hobby for a better epxerience.

If it's like that, and they don't lose terrain to MS (and thus allowing MS to rebuy exclusive rights to games), then I might get the upgraded model. Although I'd rather see 5 year cycles but if everyone wants in between cycles then..go democracy

 

[Rurouni]

I'm not against yearly upgrade for console, but I have a feeling that one of the reason that they could price console at or near cost is because they projected it to last long. Basically each passing year they probably make more money per console sold. That model will be harder to do with yearly console, which might resulted in console being sold with more margin, thus either the console will be more expensive or the hardware will be less powerful for the money (all relative to current console business model).
If they can do yearly upgrade while still use the current console pricing model (sold it at or near cost), thus consumer get better performance/dollar vs PC, then I don't mind. But if not, well, no. That is why I think half gen is better since by the time the console has reach it, the gap to its initial price is big enough that they can introduce a new console at the normal console launch price ($400) while keeping the current price of their current gen console (or probably time the launch to coincidence with a planned price drop for current gen console).

Of course I haven't look at this whole pricing thing deeper, it's just a shallow look on current console pricing without doing an actual research. Having said that, I've never seen a product that is being updated annually sold at cost. Actually, I also don't remember seeing a mass market product being sold at cost or at loss besides consoles (phone being subsidized by telco doesn't count since it is a different model). So selling console annually at cost might work... or not. I don't know.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I don't see a issue with shorter cycles, with a new console with a sizable performance upgrade but not necessarily as historically the case. So lets say every ~ 4 years. However this will require a lower entry price which might not make much of a hardware upgrade assuming Sony/MS aren't willing to make a loss on the hardware.

Yearly upgrade cycles seem look a poor idea the me. The way I see it there are two reasons for consumers to buy consoles and one reason for devs to develop for consoles.

Consumers.
1. Buy a console because it guarantees they have a device that will play games for ~5 and those games will be the same on their and their friends console.
2. Consoles are cheap and require no technical knowledge to keep running.

So a yearly upgrade cycle clearly won't work because it means they will either have to invest in new hardware on a yearly basis or accept that on their console games might perform worse, look worse and don't support certain features that their friends console does. It also makes things harder for them because suddenly they have to consider whether game X is fully compatible with their console and, if not, whether they can live with whatever downsides they'll have on playing that game on their console.

Devs.
A platform that doesn't change for ~ 5 years. On pc they can get away with less than stellar optimization and just up the minimum specs. With yearly console upgrades they'll have a lot more work optimizing stuff and even then there is no way revision A is going to perform the same a revision E 5 years later.

I don't see any upside to yearly upgrades. If console gamers would want to play the upgrade game they'd be gaming on pc to begin with.

I don't see why MS or Sony would want consoles to be forward compatible either. They're going to launch a new console so people can play old games? I'm sure they much rather see people buy new console and then have them buy new expensive software and slightly less expensive remakes of games they already bought last gen. That way they make money twice rather than not at all.

 

[BRiT]

The reason for forward compatible isnt just for continued revenue from increased game sales, its also for decreased costs of developing the core OS of the consoles. No longer will they need to spend years to redevelop the base OS, they already have that due to forwards compatibility.

You need to look at internal developer costs too.

 

[Rangers]

The reason for forward compatible isnt just for continued revenue from increased game sales, its also for decreased costs of developing the core OS of the consoles. No longer will they need to spend years to redevelop the base OS, they already have that due to forwards compatibility.

You need to look at internal developer costs too.

Microsoft at least seems to like redesigning everything every five minutes anyway by choice...cue XBO OS...

Also, not sure of any "increased game sales". From what? It doesn't work on PC...at least for Triple A that sell well less than on console.

It's my impression there's a "core" of active game buyers at any given time, and it's limited. Why Halo selling into 100m, console base doesn't sell anywhere near 10X more than Halo selling into a 10m base (if more at all)

The more I think about this the less sense it really makes.

I'm still waiting for somebody to actually do this, like ship hardware, before I believe it will come to pass.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

The reason for forward compatible isnt just for continued revenue from increased game sales, its also for decreased costs of developing the core OS of the consoles. No longer will they need to spend years to redevelop the base OS, they already have that due to forwards compatibility.

You need to look at internal developer costs too.

I didn't mean to say they should start over from scratch every time, just that I don't see the point in MS or Sony allowing forward compatibility for games (even if its technically working) because it'll hurt their bottom line. Better yet, make all games forward compatible just don't allow previously bought online store/disk content to work with the new console. Instead sell old content for 10 ~ 25 YFC. They'll literally be making money on old software without doing anything.

 

[Rangers]

I'm not against yearly upgrade for console, but I have a feeling that one of the reason that they could price console at or near cost is because they projected it to last long. Basically each passing year they probably make more money per console sold. That model will be harder to do with yearly console, which might resulted in console being sold with more margin, thus either the console will be more expensive or the hardware will be less powerful for the money (all relative to current console business model).
If they can do yearly upgrade while still use the current console pricing model (sold it at or near cost), thus consumer get better performance/dollar vs PC, then I don't mind. But if not, well, no. That is why I think half gen is better since by the time the console has reach it, the gap to its initial price is big enough that they can introduce a new console at the normal console launch price ($400) while keeping the current price of their current gen console (or probably time the launch to coincidence with a planned price drop for current gen console).

Of course I haven't look at this whole pricing thing deeper, it's just a shallow look on current console pricing without doing an actual research. Having said that, I've never seen a product that is being updated annually sold at cost. Actually, I also don't remember seeing a mass market product being sold at cost or at loss besides consoles (phone being subsidized by telco doesn't count since it is a different model). So selling console annually at cost might work... or not. I don't know.

Yeah, this is another weird thing. The focus with consoles is typically reducing price. And of course the eventual even lower cost slim redesigns to hit the mass market.

That's all out the window with a incremental upgrade. If they cant currently sell a PS4 for 299, they certainly cant sell one with even more expensive upgraded hardware for that. It's a choice, price cut or better hardware.

 

[eastmen]

Yeah, this is another weird thing. The focus with consoles is typically reducing price. And of course the eventual even lower cost slim redesigns to hit the mass market.

That's all out the window with a incremental upgrade. If they cant currently sell a PS4 for 299, they certainly cant sell one with even more expensive upgraded hardware for that. It's a choice, price cut or better hardware.

I think the xbox 360 proved you don't need to do that. They sold 80m + xbox 360s . In 2005 the console was released at 300/400. With the Kinect release the console again sold for $300/400 . The hardware had to be a great profit maker for MS at that point in its life .
The upgraded / new console is just a way to replicate the Kinect. You still can price reduce the xbox one. After all a transition to 14nm should make the xbox one apu quite cheap and if they add ddr 4 support they should be able to reduce the size of the motherboard a lot also so they will see large decreases in cost across the board. Then they have the low end xbox one at $200 bucks and the high end at $400 or $500 .

The new console from them would be a good way to get VR support plus higher resolutions which is what they are sorely missing. Without Kinect taking up a large portion of the bom they can instead commit to better hardware.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yeah, this is another weird thing. The focus with consoles is typically reducing price. And of course the eventual even lower cost slim redesigns to hit the mass market.

That's all out the window with a incremental upgrade. If they cant currently sell a PS4 for 299, they certainly cant sell one with even more expensive upgraded hardware for that. It's a choice, price cut or better hardware.

Why not both? Nothing about releasing new hardware prevents them from cost-reducing the current hardware as normal. If they do release new hardware it would probably be November 2017. If they simultaneously launch a PS4.5 along with a cost-reduced PS4, the prices could be $400 and $200. Or maybe $500 and $250.

 

[function]

There will come a point when an "upgraded" console is cheaper than a legacy console.

To use an extreme example, a Raspberry Pi is probably cheaper to make than building a Megadrive or SNES, yet many (many) times faster.

A more relevant example might be that, at some point in the not too distant future, DDR4 2800/3200/whatever will be cheaper than DDR3 2133. At that point, staying with the original, worse performing configuration would actually be more expensive (and possibly more power hungry too). Similarly, a newer CPU revision might have the same die area/cost but be able to run faster while consuming less power, and needing a cheaper cooler. Again, staying with the original configuration is both more expensive and worse from a performance POV.

Just because you "slim" an old model doesn't necessarily mean it'll be cheaper (or slimmer) than a faster revised model.

 

[GrimThorne]

.

The new console from them would be a good way to get VR support plus higher resolutions which is what they are sorely missing.

A good way? Most likely the only way. They won't get VR support without it. Even a nascent attempt at VR would cause the X1 to deep fry in it's own silicon.

I have to admit that at one time I would have vehemently protested this sort of thing. Now I find the possibilities very intriguing. If it happens, console gaming will have turned a major corner in it's industry.

 

[Entropy]

Why not both? Nothing about releasing new hardware prevents them from cost-reducing the current hardware as normal. If they do release new hardware it would probably be November 2017. If they simultaneously launch a PS4.5 along with a cost-reduced PS4, the prices could be $400 and $200. Or maybe $500 and $250.

Sales volumes would differ from the current business model. If you introduce more new hardware per unit time, total volume per each of those will drop. Stockkeeping costs increase, and there are a number of relatively small cost such as whatever software updates are needed to accomodate different hardware. You simply can't lower costs as effectively as before. Lithography is not your friend here either - fixed costs are up, cost savings per transistor is down. Add smaller runs as insult to injury, and the question gets to be just how much you can cost reduce your silicon at all. It may pay off better to stay on the older node, but then you can't save on power supplies, cooling systems and such, nor can you appeal to other customer segments with a more compact device.

There is no reason to believe the console providers have been oblivious to forward and backward compatibility for thirty years. Doesn't mean things can't change, but apart from the PC architecture being shared across all platforms, other current trends argue against frequent hardware updates.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You're still selling the device on an 8 year cycle. That's a very long time in the electronics world.

 

[Entropy]

You're still selling the device on an 8 year cycle. That's a very long time in the electronics world.

Sure, but you are overlapping with your own more desireable device. So volume will obviously be down vs. if that device didn't exist. Also, the enthusiast early adopters will be replacing their consoles, flooding the second hand market further reducing the sales volume of the "slim". I doubt making shrunk and cost reduced versions of consoles will be viable under the proposed new model. Beyond 16nmFCC, it may not be viable under any circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sure, but you are overlapping with your own more desireable device. So volume will obviously be down vs. if that device didn't exist. Also, the enthusiast early adopters will be replacing their consoles, flooding the second hand market further reducing the sales volume of the "slim"

When the enthusiast sells his old console to another person that's one more person in the ecosystem who could be buying games - which is where the real profit is. There's isn't much profit in hardware. The console manufactures are mostly aiming not to make a loss, beyond the you want to price your console as cheaply as possible because the lower the barrier to entry, the more people can get onboard.

Second hand consoles are good for the console industry, it's second hand games where platform holders and software publishers lose. Console economics has almost always been cheap, low-margin hardware combined with high-margin software.

 

[Entropy]

When the enthusiast sells his old console to another person that's one more person in the ecosystem who could be buying games - which is where the real profit is. There's isn't much profit in hardware. The console manufactures are mostly aiming not to make a loss, beyond the you want to price your console as cheaply as possible because the lower the barrier to entry, the more people can get onboard.

Second hand consoles are good for the console industry, it's second hand games where platform holders and software publishers lose. Console economics has almost always been cheap, low-margin hardware combined with high-margin software.

Of course, but the second hand market already exists. It is distinct from the walk-into-shop-and-buy-a-cheap-bundle-for-christmas. Shorter generations means lower volumes for each generation. I would be concerned about the cost implications of that, and how that would affect total market volume.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Of course, but the second hand market already exists. It is distinct from the walk-into-shop-and-buy-a-cheap-bundle-for-christmas. Shorter generations means lower volumes for each generation. I would be concerned about the cost implications of that, and how that would affect total market volume.

I'm not concerned about this. The game console ecosystem is the only market left that tries to throw the baby out with the bathwater every 5-8 years. Other ecosystems don't and seem to thrive. Hell they become more resilient and promote user retention within the ecosystem. If this works in the clusterfuck fragmented monstrosity that is the Android ecosystem, it can work in the console space.

There are certainly technical and commercial reasons not to want to have progressive hardware upgrades but I'd like to think the technical issues can be resolved with low-level APIs and the commercial reasons are really about new consoles owners having to lose their existing game library and this simply isn't consumer friendly. And I don't think the console industry is blind to this, or thinks that consumers are blind to this.

 

[Entropy]

I'm not concerned about this. The game console ecosystem is the only market left that tries to throw the baby out with the bathwater every 5-8 years. Other ecosystems don't and seem to thrive. Hell they become more resilient and promote user retention within the ecosystem. If the works in the clusterfuck fragmented monstrosity that is the Android ecosystem, it can work in the console space.

There are certainly technical and commercial reasons not to want to have progressive hardware upgrades but I'd like to think the technical issues can be resolved with low-level APIs and the commercial reasons are really about new consoles owners having to lose their existing game library and this simply isn't consumer friendly. And I don't think the console industry is blind to this, or thinks that consumers are blind to this.

I won't argue against backwards compatibility having a value to the consumer. I will say however that the value in console space seems modest, and that it only really appeals to the already entrenched, it's difficult to see how it would drive overall market volume.

We do have examples in console space. I can't see that they make a compelling case for the proposed model. The most incompatible console right now is also the most successful. The most backwards compatible is the least successful. I think that should give some pause. The most interesting scenario might be if Microsoft tried to go that path, and Sony kept with their current, and let the market choose.