If they announce something in 2019, they will launch march 2020 probably.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Next gen PS5 and next Xbox launch speculation - Secret sauces spicing 2019
- Thread starter Phoenix Splash
- Start date
- Status
If they announce something in 2019, they will launch march 2020 probably.
Of course it is, because the Xbox is selling much less than the PS4.
Worldwide it's outselling it more than 2:1. Probably closer to 2.5:1.
You said consumers didn't want the Pro, but the Pro alone has sold more since launch than the S and X combined in 2018.
Didn't want?
Shitpost
really? i musta missed that in a previous thread. happen to have a link?
I just made the math.
How many consoles has Sony sold since the launch of the Pro? Thats 2018, 2017, and the holiday period of 2016...I estimated 45M-50M for easier calculation, but I'm sure Welfare has a more accurate number.
How many of those 45M-50M are Pros? Numbers thrown around are 20-25%.
So that would be around 10M?
How many total SKU's has MS soldnin 2018? Well we know it's less than half of what Sony sold, and if you take 20M PS4 solds (I think it was 18M but 20 works as well) less than half that is less than 10M, which is the number of Pros estimated earlier.
I may be missing something here as I'm in bed with the flu, maybe someone with morr accurate numbers can correct me
Why the hell are we still arguing about PS4 Pro vs. Xbox One X sales numbers in a next-gen thread?
It's probably worth pointing out that calculating the amount of "loss" on a console is a bit more complex than simply the component cost. It has a lot to do with accounting actually. Since companies tend to look at their financials based on Fiscal Years, there is a lot of costs that get burdened in launch years that reduce pretty quickly as volumes go up.
So for instance, if you're ramping up to produce 15m consoles/year you're going to be buying a lot of tooling, parts, and paying a lot of employees which is divided by a small number of consoles sold. And also, chip yields improve pretty rapidly so your costs for the first run of components is significantly higher.
This is why you sometimes get two different data points that appear to be in conflict, but really aren't.
Launch consoles are VERY expensive in those first few months. But by the middle of the next year, and into the following holiday, prices come down drastically even though it was exactly the same console being made.
It's sort of a pedantic point. But in reality the pricing of launch consoles is a yield/production calculation, so most manufacturers are going to take a blended 12 month view (or 18 month to get through the 2nd holiday) which tends to smooth things out. Then you are simply asking if your overall business (Games + Accessories + Subscriptions) makes more money than you console loss. If so, you're OK. Then the second question is - how quickly does the console get to $0 loss or very close.
Where things get tricky is since cost reductions and cost amortization is based on volumes - when you don't hit those volumes things start to go awry pretty fast.
So for instance, if you're ramping up to produce 15m consoles/year you're going to be buying a lot of tooling, parts, and paying a lot of employees which is divided by a small number of consoles sold. And also, chip yields improve pretty rapidly so your costs for the first run of components is significantly higher.
This is why you sometimes get two different data points that appear to be in conflict, but really aren't.
Launch consoles are VERY expensive in those first few months. But by the middle of the next year, and into the following holiday, prices come down drastically even though it was exactly the same console being made.
It's sort of a pedantic point. But in reality the pricing of launch consoles is a yield/production calculation, so most manufacturers are going to take a blended 12 month view (or 18 month to get through the 2nd holiday) which tends to smooth things out. Then you are simply asking if your overall business (Games + Accessories + Subscriptions) makes more money than you console loss. If so, you're OK. Then the second question is - how quickly does the console get to $0 loss or very close.
Where things get tricky is since cost reductions and cost amortization is based on volumes - when you don't hit those volumes things start to go awry pretty fast.
We're in here arguing like neanderthals and then Albert drops in with the real-world business talk. Thanks for stopping by!
It makes sense if people are trying to argue the viability of price points, but then the number of total units sold is often ignored. So the discussion often appears to be little more than a pissing contest of sorts.
thats interesting hmm, but it does seem to suggest that the whole "loss" argument was actually mostly meaningless because the loss wouldnt come from the parts themselves. anyway, thanks for the explanation.
It's not meaningless, it's just complicated. I think people tend to view the "console loss" as an indicator of how far in the future technology the consoles "bought" - so the more "loss" on the console, the more future proof. At least, that's how I've always interpreted the debate when I see it, and there is a certain truth to that argument. The closer to $0 loss the launch console is, the more likely the components are mature (e.g. current-day). So there is logic to it.
HOWEVER that's not always the case, and really it's nearly impossible to understand what the true "loss" is anyway since there are ton of factors beyond component costs that can impact the "loss" that is quoted online. And yields, volumes, and production ramp impact the numbers more than anything.
So for instance - when people say the PS3 cost $900 or whatever (I don't have any knowledge of their costs) that was probably more due to the fact that they were expecting to sell more at launch, than it was due to them buying more "future tech" than the 360. I hope I'm being clear.
Knowing how this gen mid-gen refreshes did can help us speculate how next gen mid-gen refreshes will be...I'd say is perfectly pertinent
Certainly not "Why the hell.." not-pertinent?
Edit: To elaborate further I think the Pro launched at the right time, but at the wrong price. The X showed that the market is there for a $499 enthusiast SKU. So a 2016 midgen sku at $499 would've been the best solution, imo
Last edited:
As another user pointed out. Discussing how well mid-gen consoles did and potentially speculating about future mid-gen consoles is one thing. Instead, we're arguing about what sold more.
I'm not making this any better so I'll just loop things back around to the proper discussion. Mid-gen consoles certainly seem to have done well enough to warrant the continued practice next-gen. Though I have to wonder what improvements they'll offer. (Maybe Ray Tracing of some kind?)
Pfft, you don't even work for MS anymore, why should we trust you :P
Is it fair to say the console cost asymptotically approaches the BOM cost as production moves along (assuming sale targets are met)? Do firms like IHS and TechInsights do a pretty good job estimating the BOMs?
Thanks for stopping in. BTW if any of us are close on specs, blink twice.
As I said in my edit I think the both got one thing wrong and one thing right, so maybe next gen we can take that into account.
But as you say that only makes sense if there is and advancement of some kind that makes a midgen able to take advantage of that, like it was the case this gen, which was also coupled with a PR term like "4K" (not that 4K is a PR term, but a tech term that the PR guys can use)
Regarding the sales figures it was to make the point that the Pro did well enough to warrant the practice not only a continuation, as you say, but even a similar strategy. Certainly to disprove the statement that customers didnt want it
Ha.
<unblinking staring intensifies>
There is 0 chance I'm gonna comment on any of this speculation. First, I don't work there so it's not my place to talk about their plans, and second I know what the plan is (or was) so it would be really unfair to my friends and colleagues over there to give hints. So sorry, not going to get anything from me. :)
On your first question - not necessarily. It really does depend on what all you put in the console. Lots and lots of things don't really cost reduce anymore, and what's interesting is the stuff that's in a console (like disc drives, hard drives, etc.) don't have the benefit of a big industry behind them like they used to. BluRay drives for instance - guarantee game consoles are the #1 global consumer for BluRay disc drives. Contrast that to DVD drives, where consoles were probably not even in the Top 5. More and more, consoles are becoming the destination for a lot of parts where in the past they were the beneficiary of larger industry trends. This keeps costs flat.
Other thing to understand is there are two different ways of looking at the "cost" of a console. Both are very valid but very different numbers.
The first is strictly component costs. This is literally the bill for all the parts in the console.
The second is fully burdened costs. This would include amortization, transfer costs, people costs, marketing costs, etc.
Think about it this way - if I asked you what your "living expenses" are, there are two different numbers you could give me. You could give me the cost of your "bills" - things that you are committed to every month. Rent/Mortgage, Car payment, car insurance, utilities. Your committed bills would be a fair view of your living expenses (your fixed costs).
Or you could include things like groceries, eating out, video games, toys, charity donations - things that change from month/month (your variable costs)
Same with consoles. Fixed costs (your BOM) vs. Fixed + Variable are different ways to describe the cost of a console (or any piece of HW) and you use one or the other view depending on what business decision you are trying to make.
As to your second question - they do a fine job. Again, console costs aren't a "point in time" output like you get from a firm like IHS. So when I see those numbers they are generally pretty rational, but exclude a lot of critical details they can't possibly know that are equally (or more) important.
The PS3 had very low yield for the Blu-ray component. It was the problem of the PS3, not the CELL, not the GPU. The yield was so low they can't produce enough PS3 for launch. The yield was so low than the PS3 was costing nearly 850 dollars to produce at launch and they needed to launch at 599 dollars/euros. When the production cost is so high that you need to launch a console at 599 euros/dollars, you will never sold the volume you want and decrease cost fast enough. Kuturagi was asked to "resign". From a hardware perspective, the PS3 is probably the shittiest hardware of all time. Sony won the HD movie format battle but the gaming division loss nearly kill the company and the winner of HD video was the streaming. It was a Pyrrhus victory. Cell processor was difficult to master and so different that it was impossible to be backward compatible with PS4 and so shitty they need to keep some custom CELL motherboard for PS Now.
https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1302391
Last edited:
So you saying that with time and smart management HW makers can offset some "variable" costs?
Thx for the insight anyway
The Origins of Xbox One X With Microsoft's Albert Penello
This is really a excellent video to watch.
Also interesting to note, the original Xbox One was well on its way to being completed by 2010 and by 2012 the engineers were done with it. That's when they proposed what became Scorpio/Xbox One X.
This is really a excellent video to watch.
Also interesting to note, the original Xbox One was well on its way to being completed by 2010 and by 2012 the engineers were done with it. That's when they proposed what became Scorpio/Xbox One X.
Last edited:
Those answers make sense. I had never thought about the optical drive volume issue, but that's a great point. Gives them all the more reason to want to sell that kind of console, even if it erodes the part of the business that retailers actually profit on (physical game sales).
I would certainly be willing to buy in on all digital console if quick start was sorted out if I wanted to redownload a game, and they did something to guarantee offline and perpetual access to licenses. Game preservation is important for all generations of games IMO.
Not being sarcastic here - but seriously, thanks for posting this insight. I was despairing at one of my favourite Era threads descending into fanboy wars bullshit and then you came along with something worth reading and informative.
Perhaps in US, but PS4 cost 449€ in Finland, and PS3 cost 659€. It was not an issue, at least with the PS4.
To add to Albert Penello points even something like currency rates can make consoles sell at a lost .
Which would also depend on the region , as he said it's complex .
Alos thanks to him for giving people more insight .
Which would also depend on the region , as he said it's complex .
Alos thanks to him for giving people more insight .
Yeah, and so, assuming mid-gen upgraded consoles continue next gen, it would now be standard practice in 2019 (the year before Scarlett's launch) for the Xbox team to pitch a console that's a lot more powerful than Anaconda, and eventually target 2024.
Obviously things are more complicated if there is more than just Xbox Anaconda (at say $500) and the inexpensive Scarlett streaming device ($150-200) in 2020, meaning the rumored Lockhart (at say, $300).
I'd rather see Microsoft launch Anaconda and the cheap streaming console/device in 2020. The absence of a lower-end but still somewhat powerful next-gen console, lowers the ultimate graphical and gameplay potential of both Ananconda and the streaming device. If all Scarlett games are designed around Anaconda's spec, the streaming device gets to stream the same high-end ambitious games, at 1080p or whatever. The presence of a mid-range device (or low-end next gen console) would be the limiting factor. Not everything in graphics scales well with less TFLOPs, as some have pointed out.
That's just my limited opinion. I'm not an engineer or game developer.
Regardless, I'll be getting Anaconda (whatever the high-end next gen Xbox is) and the PS5, both day 1 for sure.
I don't think it's guaranteed that Lockhart is going to be cheaper than the PS5. I think there's a good chance that it'll be priced the same as the PS5.
I think they already are smart with these things. But there can be market factors that change the variables despite well-laid plans. Fires in Memory Factories, for instance.
This is a truly excellent point. Currency can get you in multiple ways - since parts are sourced globally, currency fluctuations can change not only the price you pay for parts, but the price you sell the device. It can get complicated fast. This is a whole 'nuther topic but a huge one.
How do you kind folks feel about console OS'? Do you want PS5/Nextbox to just keep the same setup as the current-gen consoles, or do you want something entirely new?
For Microsoft, I'm thinking/hoping they'll just stick with that they have. The Xbox One OS ain't broke, so don't fix it! Just keep updating it and possibly apply said updates to all Xbox hardware that it runs on.
For Microsoft, I'm thinking/hoping they'll just stick with that they have. The Xbox One OS ain't broke, so don't fix it! Just keep updating it and possibly apply said updates to all Xbox hardware that it runs on.
Currency volality. Just add a sprinkle of tarrifs.
I think the PS4 interface evolved well on PS3. XB1 feels like a step backward. So little is in active view at once, and a lot of stuff is hidden behind a button press. How do I find that game I was just playing but didn't pin? I have to press a button for a menu, navigate the menu, press another button, then navigate the library.
Naw, the last thing you did is the first thing on your home page and the 3 items games or apps are the tiles right below it.
The hardware was profitable I think I did read around t was 16 dollars in loss....the rest was the initial marketing and stuff ....they didn't produce an hardware in loss
Which is gone by the time you open up Netflix, a game demo, and another random app. If it's an everything console, it should be easier to use everything.
I can definitely see the argument for Xbox showing more "recently used" titles on the home screen. Switch and PS4 do a better job on this front. That said, I'm pretty happy with everything else. Especially Xbox's universal search function. I'd greatly prefer if Microsoft just kept tweaking what they have now.
New Navi rumors. Revealed in June, launched in July. High performance Navi not coming until 2020.
http://www.redgamingtech.com/navi-a...-july-more-powerful-navi-launching-next-year/
http://www.redgamingtech.com/navi-a...-july-more-powerful-navi-launching-next-year/
I want to see interfaces become more uniform where the "store" and the UI isn't separate. I understand it's made that way so people who aren't online can see their stuff, but to me I want ease of use when I'm looking for things.
Ideally, instead of launching the store or the library or the friends list, I merely navigate there all within a uniform UI. I think both systems are getting close to it, but they still have those weird quirks.
Instead of folders, I want the tiled layouts like Netflix where you just glide across.
Recently played would be the first thing to pop up, but you could also create a tile of pinned favorites that you start on.
When you search, you can search everything in the store, then you can narrow it to purchases.
I just think it would be better to make it all seamless together versus as separated as it is now.
I believe Adored TV said pretty much the same at the end of last year. I wonder if they have different sources.
Is there any reason why high performance Navi is out a year later? Can't they release them simultaneously?
Could a high end Navi be what we find in a PS5, as opposed to having a midrange Navi in there.
Or is that wishful thinking? From what I remember however, doesnt AMD sell weaker APU's to the public than what they produce for the PS4/Pro? Could a similar deal exist for Navi?
Or is that wishful thinking? From what I remember however, doesnt AMD sell weaker APU's to the public than what they produce for the PS4/Pro? Could a similar deal exist for Navi?
According to previous leaks and rumours, PS5 GPU won't be based on retail Navi GPUs it is vice versa. Retail Navi 12 and 10 are derivatives from what AMD is doing for Sony. Navi 12 was rumoured to be 1080ti level of performance for 250$. Both cards believed to be bang for the buck and not high-end monsters. Apparently, subsequent Navi 20, which will come at a later time will be a true high-end card but it is not to be expected before the end of 2020.
Here are 2 good articles from wccftech
https://wccftech.com/exclusive-amd-navi-gpu-roadmap-cost-zen/
https://wccftech.com/exclusive-first-amd-navi-gpu-will-have-40-cus-and-is-codenamed-navi-12/
edit: Also it is worth mentioning that wccftech believes that Navi won't be GCN, and will be a new microarchitecture.
Last edited:
I just hope everything is simple and lean. No need for a huge footprint on the OS.
That's really interesting, thanks for the links, will give them a read now :)
I still find it out how Microsoft felt the need to come out and be on stage with AMD during CES. Did they feel they needed to reassure people they weren't getting Sony's "cast-off" Navi rather than a built from the ground up version? It literally accomplished nothing outside of "we're working with AMD!"
huh, i did not realize that it was the other way around, hmm, this is very interesting.
The Navi rumor probably sounds baseless now because Vega VII is toe-to-toe with RTX 2080 or GTX 1080 Ti at $700 with a limited 5000 unit produced. PS5 is going to be a 1060/1070 contender at best.
Is it tho ? The Xbox one x is 1060 level. 3/4 years later and a 1080ti equivalent could be possible.
- Status