Was AMD a bad choice for the consoles? *spawn

[DegustatoR]

I mean, I guess AMD are kind of directly affected by the failure of people like Phil Spencer to make their console more attractive.

Or maybe it's the companies which are making these consoles who are negatively affected by AMD's h/w being unattractive?

 

[neckthrough]

Or maybe it's the companies which are making these consoles who are negatively affected by AMD's h/w being unattractive?

How so? It’s not like they were forced into using AMD hardware at gunpoint. They chose AMD because they could meet their requirements at a cost that was acceptable to them.

Also don’t forget that AMD is a one-stop shop for CPU and GPU. A single unified x86 based SoC probably adds a good amount to the attractiveness of the solution, primarily from a cost and complexity standpoint. For example, if they had to go with an Nvidia GPU but wanted an x86 CPU they would have to negotiate an entirely different contract with either Intel or AMD for the CPU, which would inevitably drive up costs. Not to mention board design complexity, cooling costs. All that is to say that either the resultant price would have been much higher, or the specs would have to be nerfed to bring costs back down. It’s very likely that going with an AMD SoC was Pareto optimal for this generation — assuming an x86 CPU was considered a non negotiable starting point.

For future generations it looks like ARM is being considered, which makes the calculus a little more interesting.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That seems implausible. I can't imagine many people are considering a new console and then declining because the silicon isn't strong enough.

 

[DegustatoR]

How so? It’s not like they were forced into using AMD hardware at gunpoint. They chose AMD because they could meet their requirements at a cost that was acceptable to them.

Sure it was their decision but the attractiveness of the product depends on the h/w it is using and the "bang for buck" ratio of said h/w.

I am mostly just pointing out that the "blame" for weak console sales here can be just as easily put on the underlying h/w as on the console platform owners.

 

[Cappuccino]

There was a weird commit that was copied out to Steam Fallout 4 directory specifically mentioning "New Vegas 2" just a few months ago. I mean, Obsidian already has 2 teams up working on Avowed and The Outer Worlds 2, why not a third team on Fallout, lead by New Vegas Lead Josh Sawyer?

Err... AMD. Right...

I’m not following, what does AMD have to do with a New Vegas sequel?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I’m not following, what does AMD have to do with a New Vegas sequel?

Frenetic Pony was trying to bring the thread back on topic. The more pertinent question is "what does a New Vegas sequel have to do with AMD's Execution in 2024?"

 

[Subtlesnake]

Sure it was their decision but the attractiveness of the product depends on the h/w it is using and the "bang for buck" ratio of said h/w.

I am mostly just pointing out that the "blame" for weak console sales here can be just as easily put on the underlying h/w as on the console platform owners.

Typically the best selling games are those with a compelling or original gameplay loop, which is orthogonal to the quality of the lighting system used. I don't think that upgrading the lighting system can redeem a badly designed game. Just look at the reception for Avatar.

 

[Seanspeed]

Or maybe it's the companies which are making these consoles who are negatively affected by AMD's h/w being unattractive?

Embarrassingly bad take and we all know where it's coming from. We shouldn't have to actually treat comments like this with any seriousness.

 

[DegustatoR]

Embarrassingly bad take and we all know where it's coming from. We shouldn't have to actually treat comments like this with any seriousness.

Why is that? If it would be otherwise then why even make Series X or 5 Pro?

Also please stop talking for anyone but yourself.

 

[entity279]

Sure it was their decision but the attractiveness of the product depends on the h/w it is using and the "bang for buck" ratio of said h/w.

I agree witth the above that I find this point a very bad take.

This does not fly in the free market: if going the AMD route it's what is holding AMD down, there's nothing stopping console vendors to swich away from AMD, and as such reaping all the sales from having , according to you, an "atractive" product. Vendors sticking with AMD will thus get punished

Yet next gen consoles (xbox & PS) are very very likely going to be AMD again. Thus they "believe" that on balance and overall, AMD silicon is going to be very competive

 

[DegustatoR]

This does not fly in the free market: if going the AMD route it's what is holding AMD down, there's nothing stopping console vendors to swich away from AMD, and as such reaping all the sales from having an atractive product. Vendors sticking with AMD will thus get punished

Sure but this way the h/w vendor could be doing better while the console platform owner could be doing worse in $. It is a question of what comes first to whom and it is entirely plausible that a console made on a different h/w would be doing better now.

Note that such h/w could be made by AMD just as well. Since apparently some people here can't think past their own fanboy mentality.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why is that? If it would be otherwise then why even make Series X or 5 Pro?

I thought your comment was tongue in cheek. You were being serious? You think a more expensive console with nVidia hardware, and possibly no BC, would have sold significantly better? What would an nVidia console have brought and what would the gamer reaction have been? Was that even an option - do nVidia have the slightest interest in consoles when they can sell GPUs at huge margins?

edit: If not nVidia, what could AMD have done differently? What is this alternative console HW you can think of, and its price, and where does the responsibility lie regards AMD and the console companies?

 

[entity279]

Sure but this way the h/w vendor could be doing better while the console platform owner could be doing worse in $. It is a question of what comes first to whom and it is entirely plausible that a console made on a different h/w would be doing better now.

The console platform owner is facing the market and hence the scenario where they make less money in favor of the h/w vendor is non existent. I'm not seeing your point , please clarify as this seems too hyptotetical to me

Since apparently some people here can't think past their own fanboy mentality.

Please dispense with these poisonous ad hominems

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Please dispense with these poisonous ad hominems

Seanspeed started it. Everyone cut it out.

 

[Subtlesnake]

What difference would a 3060 class GPU, say have made? I assume it would give around 60% more ray tracing performance plus DLSS. So I guess that would mean a sharper looking performance mode, and the potential to add one or two extra RT effects.

Is the market analysis telling AMD that consumers are not interested in buying more consoles mainly because the 60 FPS modes look too "soft" relative to the mostly non-existent 60 FPS modes on the prior generation? Or that they need RT shadows + GI to consider making the jump?

 

[tunafish]

But the ASP of RDNA3 GPUs has gone down constantly, the 7900XTX, 7900XT, 7800XT, 7700XT all are sold for lower than launch prices.

The comparison is not the ASP of a single model, but over the entire stack, and largely between the 6000 series and the 7000 series.
It seems like AMD sold comparatively more 7800 and 7900 models than 7600 and 7700 vs 6800 and 6900 than 6600 and 6700. (Which actually makes some sense, because 6700 was actually not terrible and 6600 was decent for the cost, while 7600 just ugh and why would you buy a 7700 instead of 7800?)

How can that be when AMD themselves speak of lower Radeon sales and the GPUs are sold for less than MSRP?

Radeon MSRP has been a joke for a long time. AMD sets it high, tries to fleece early adopters, and then lets it fall well below it without ever actually officially cutting prices. I don't like the practice, but you really cannot infer anything from "sells below msrp".

 

[DegustatoR]

You were being serious?

Wasn't that clear? The idea that console owners are solely to blame for weak sales makes no sense to me as sales of a product is a result of its qualities in comparison to competing offers. The fact that Sony is making a faster version of PS5 right now proves that Sony also thinks that the h/w has enough of a selling power on its own for that to be feasible.

You think a more expensive console with nVidia hardware, and possibly no BC, would have sold significantly better?

Who knows? We don't have such options so we can't really know that. But consider this: both console platforms are struggling despite having mostly similar s/w on them. In such a scenario if one platform would be providing sizeable advantages over the other in h/w (perf, features) it would probably be struggling less if sold in a similar pricing ranges, don't you think?

This also means that console owners can't really do much on their own as the main selling power for both platforms lie in 3rd party s/w right now. Looking back I do wonder if a console with different h/w would do better now simply because of that being a differentiator between the options - even if it would lack some b/c.

What would an nVidia console have brought and what would the gamer reaction have been? Was that even an option - do nVidia have the slightest interest in consoles when they can sell GPUs at huge margins?

That's where the risk comes in as that option would be more expensive for the console manufacturer - but maybe that additional investment would've lead to better sales now and in the future? Impossible to tell unless someone would opt for that.

edit: If not nVidia, what could AMD have done differently?

Console makers have successfully pushed AMD into adopting "Turing" tech for their next gen console h/w, and I have little doubt that if console makers would want that they could've just as successfully pushed AMD into making faster RT h/w or adding more ML h/w into their respective console designs - something which Sony is apparently doing now with 5Pro anyway. Hell even adding infinity cache on console APUs could've provided some interesting benefits for RT as well.

These new console APUs as they are can barely keep up with running previous gen games at 2x the framerate. It was very obviously a safe bet on part of console makers costs but this safe bet has lead to the decline in sales about twice faster than they'd probably prefer.

What is this alternative console HW you can think of, and its price, and where does the responsibility lie regards AMD and the console companies?

There are a bunch of options outside of AMD but all of them require more investment on part of console makers - which is basically the only reason why AMD has been getting these designs for the last decade. You could use Arm for CPUs, you could ask Intel to make a console APU, you could license GPU IP from Nvidia (they do that these days), you could even do something weird like RISK-V and IMG GPU for example.

The console platform owner is facing the market and hence the scenario where they make less money in favor of the h/w vendor is non existent. I'm not seeing your point , please clarify as this seems too hyptotetical to me

Does making less money for 20 years sounds worse than making more money for 5?

 

[DavidGraham]

Digital Foundry already shares this view, having both consoles share the same hardware has lead to boring stagnation, the two consoles are identical except for the brand on the boxes, they are no different from each other, worse yet both are also weak compared to modern PCs even based on old Turing hardware, especially as these can use DLSS to compensate for any gap in performance. As a result, both consoles get competition from PCs as well.

Sony's PS5 Pro is an answer to that. A more powerful SoC will be used to differentiate PlayStation with new features that make it stand apart from Xbox and make it compete well with these old and new PCs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Who knows? We don't have such options so we can't really know that. But consider this: both console platforms are struggling despite having mostly similar s/w on them. In such a scenario if one platform would be providing sizeable advantages over the other in h/w (perf, features) it would probably be struggling less if sold in a similar pricing ranges, don't you think?

Yes, but then company selling that console might go bust. We were told at the beginning of this gen that these consoles were sold at a loss. After several years, they have all had a price increase. That's why they are struggling versus previous generations that had $300 and $200 and even $100 SKUs.

The rest of your points seem to follow an argument that ignores the cost of this hypothetical console including all the other aspects that'd need to be increased to support a faster GPU such as RAM BW and board complexity. Given the absence of concrete evidence that AMD (or someone else) could have provided a console at a different price point that'd sell better, I don't see any value whatsoever in this discussion within the AMD Execution thread.

It's a hypothetical with no sound basis for deriving an analysis of AMD's operations and I need to don my Mod hat to draw this to a close and return to AMD Execution, excluding a consideration of hypothetical alternative console scenarios.

If there's a relevant current-gen console discussion here, it's what actual options did AMD have at what price-point to consider AMD activities going forwards.

 

[DegustatoR]

Can we have an "okay" reaction emoji?

I'll just point out that the whole discussion started from AMD suffering losses from declining console sales. If AMD wouldn't be as conservative with their console h/w - or just GPU h/w really - this could've never happened. So the discussion is squarely where it should be - in the AMD execution thread.