Thing is first year sales were not poor sales wise so it look like it had greater effect later on with other factors.
Would be interesting to see all the aspects of stuff like that and how it effect things .
-
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.
Next-gen PS5 and next Xbox speculation launch thread |OT8| - The Dark Tower (See Staff Post)
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
- Status
Thing is first year sales were not poor sales wise so it look like it had greater effect later on with other factors.
Would be interesting to see all the aspects of stuff like that and how it effect things .
Good day to you sir. Since we're in a holding pattern waiting for the next gen reveals I was wondering if you might have any thoughts that you'd care to share on where Sony might take PS+ and PS Now going into next gen? I'm thinking a combined package that sells for $99 USD for a full year to convince their 38 million PS+ users to try and move over as fast as possible. It'd mean sacrificing $20 over the current individual prices separately, but IMO it's better to try and get more people to convert over to the more expensive model.
I wonder how it ranked relative to no used games, always-on DRM, priced higher than the stronger PS4, bundled Kinect, and TV TV TV. So many mistakes made outside outside of the power difference.
First year sales were not poor overall, but they were certainly well behind what MS expected and what they could have been.
I think Plus, Gold, Now, and Game Pass are all going to get serious evolutions, most parts of that welcome. I think you cant also expect more limited discounts on them to push services.
Yeah, "no used games" was biggest I think (it's been a few years now), followed by price, power, TV, etc.
Last edited:
Indeed. I'm certain Sony will touch on the subject at the reveal event because they'll want to dedicate as much time as possible at E3 to the games so I'm excited to see what they discuss.
If the reveal event is in Feb then that'll be 9 months since the MOU with Microsoft and the move to Azure was announced. I wonder if that's enough time for some updates on what's coming out of that relationship.
Pretty sure the current iteration of VRS averages a 10-15% and that's scene dependant. I understand that VRS v2 is supposed to have greater performance gains but we don't know how MS "patented" compares to either version. In the end, I'm not sure it's safe to assume that Lockhart will have more GPU compute power than the 1X. Especially since it's supposed to replace the 1S.
This has always stood out to me. If MS has some patented VRS what is it? Patents are public -- that's the point of them. MS is not known for being aggressive with patents (rather the opposite) so it was weird to me that they highlighted this
Microsoft claims 15-20% improvement depending on acceptable quality in their blog post on the initial DX implementation of VRS. Is that what they patented? Where does 25% come from? wolfenstein?
Think the problem was even when they had a chance to set the narrative they did that poorly.
They talk about a trade in program but never said how it would work, the same thing with sharing etc etc it was just poor all around.
They could not show any plus sides to any of it .
For sure, though a lot of that was on Phil Harrison who carries the kiss of death. I have a lot of thoughts on Microsoft's strategy and its benefits/tradeoffs versus the marketing but it is probably for another thread.
On topic, I just mean to agree that leaks can be damaging. They're not always. We knew almost everything (except final clockspeed and memory) about the 360 by June 2004 -- 6 months ago on an aligned timeline
I believe it. One of my friends loved the 360 and when he learned about the no used games bit he decided to look at PlayStation. He took a few other friends with him even after they learned that MS reversed the decision.
Last edited:
I agree, it's their job to discuss, look at the possibilities, speculate, all within reason.
Im waiting on a video discussing that we know Series X is RDNA1 and how MS has HW RT, Im sure Sony is in the same boat, but it's something thats out there, and I would love them to ask MS for comment on this.
Sounds great but what's gonna happen to the millions of Xs on store shelves?
I mean some are thinking Lockhart will be $199 or $299. Xbox One X is right now listed at $499 at Retail stores (deal alert! $349 right now at MS Store)...and might drop to $399 Retail by next year. (Maybe $299)
If your stats are true, then Lockhart should be able to run current and future X games at 4K...like the X does.
So what's going to happen to the X? They are not going to lower it to $199 or cheaper.
Pricing for Lockhart, X, X Series is gonna be real interesting.
Look there, definitely much higher than 15%. I know that Nvidia showed their own implementation of VRS in Wolfenstein to boost by 15%.
This is exactly what I was getting at in my original post.
If the channel begins to view the PS5 as potentially inferior from a pure computational perspective already, it WILL start to open the door for consumers to think about switching platforms. Why allow that door to open, unless they have nothing to combat the notion. Again, none of this is tied to any allegiance I hold to a specific company... I am just pointing out the possible damage that can be done when (potentially) incorrect information is allowed to take hold with no backchannel damage control. Interesting spot Sony is in with the github leak that was pulled.
Again, it might all be wrong and the PS5 could be god-tier, but still very interesting to watch this all play out.
First off, it wasn't their E3 reveal... It was their media event.
Secondly, yes it did effect it... and then continued to affect it for years on in until they made the X.
What happened to Xbox one when Xbox one S released? Same thing will happen to X
Yes but if you see his other post it was also no use games first and then price etc etc .
So it was more than one factor.
We still over a year from when these consoles going to sell and if Sony specs are higher all will be forgotten.
If there not they will show off some games or how fast there SSD is to change the narrative .
Or all this might not matter if they come in at $399 and MS at $499.
I believe it did a lot more that 1%. That was the deciding factor for plenty, particularly when we folks thought about the best multi-plat console.
Like I said, allowing this uncontrolled narrative based upon something that is at least tangibly rooted in reality (github eventually taken down) is an odd move for a multi billion dollar organization... most of these corps have astroturfers on the payroll to help spin and while dropping new nuggets to trusted leakers.
More of an observation on my end than anything. But an interesting time for complete radio silence by Sony, through backchannel or standard methods.
their media event held just before E3 with the idea of getting TV out of the way so they can focus on games at E3
instead of, you know, just doing E3 and then talking about media later
it was really terribly managed and we can all be thankful Mattrick retreated to
Let's not kid ourselves. Power matters, but PRICE MATTERS MORE. The best case scenario is providing the magical sweet spot of price / performance ratio.
A 9TF PS5 at 399 is an incredible value - and I would argue far more important in establishing a large install base - than a 499 XSX
A 9TF PS5 at 399 is an incredible value - and I would argue far more important in establishing a large install base - than a 499 XSX
The X didn't turn things around on a sales front. What turned them around from a mindshare front was Gamepass.
Yep if they the same price Sony then might have some trouble but if they cheaper than MS .
It then becomes what people think is value and what more important to them .
the problem is you think that a 9TF RDNA box with all the other technologies will cost 399.
it wont, thats a 499 box.
you are very much underestimating the BOM of such a box, especially when that 9TF is done via extremely high clocks that requires an expensive cooling too.
Something else I was thinking of while taking a shower this evening, would 9.2TF even be powerful enough for PSVR2 in terms of them wanting to run higher framerates and better graphics?
I'd call you an optimist. The performance debate was still raging 6+ months into this generation and I expect history to repeat itself whether or not roles are reversed, or even if on paper the two turn out to look quite similar. There's some deeply rooted tribal behavior at work that has little to do with playing and enjoying games.
Wow. Only very recently learned about VRS, but that is amazing.
Look there, definitely much higher than 15%. I know that Nvidia showed their own implementation of VRS in Wolfenstein to boost by 15%.
These are Tier2 VRS gains. MS is the one who came up with Tier2 I believe, or at very least standardized it.%27,data:%5B103.57,82.96,69.61,57.01,49.04,35.41,30.85%5D%7D,%20%7Blabel:%27VRS%20On%20FPS%27,backgroundColor:%27rgba(255,193,7,0.7)%27,data:%5B165.68,134.06,115.99,98.32,83.1,59.74,49.98%5D%7D,%20%7Blabel:%27Percentage%20Gain%27,backgroundColor:%27rgba(33,150,243,0.7)%27,data:%5B60,61.6,66.6,72.5,69.4,68.7,62%5D%7D%5D%7D%7D)
I assume this test shows the absolute best possible results in performance gain, since most developers would likely use their own LOD techniques to help with performance?
I mean, it still affects the Xbox. Pro outsold the X, much of that because market share is a snowball that is generally really hard to stop.
It's really important to hit the ground running.
whats important to note here is that they did a 180 on all of those things. used games were allowed. always online checks were scraped. kinect was no longer required to be plugged in and they all but removed tv from their marketing after letting don mattrick go.
they did everything but they couldnt make up the ground on power.
power matters. and not just to the hardcore who live in this thread day and night. look at the meltdowns in the digtal foundry thread in the main forum. over a 1000 posts in one day. ign, digital foundry and several other youtubers have covered this. it took three days for it to get out of this thread, and ign, df and other youtubers will make it go mainstream.
i dont think sony needs to do any damage control. PR wont bridge the 3 tflops gap. it didnt work for ms back in 2013. they just need to stick to their messaging and marketing plan instead of reacting to these leaks. doesnt matter if the leaks are true or false. if they trust their software to blow people away then they should let the games do the talking. that should work for fans of sony games. but then again, shooter and rpg fans which make up the majority of gamers will simply switch to MS's machine thanks to sony pigeonholing themselves into action adventure games this gen.
lets just hope sony isnt taking those gamers for granted like ms did in 2013.
If you were going to announce your console in a little over a month, would you want your fans to think it was less powerful or more powerful than it actually is prior to the announcement? I mean they have to think having a lot of excitement generating from the announcement is a major focus, and underplaying the specs prior would be a big part of that. For instance, 8 GB GDDR was a huge moment for them. If this is indeed below their actual spec it does play to their advantage in that way.
can they? of course.
will they take a loss of possibly $150 on their box? i dont see it.
Could anyone fill me on what the effective differences are between a dual GPU setup (ie. chiplets or some other method) and the butterfly design used on the PS4 Pro? Are there any major cost, performance, design difficulty, or other changes?
I know it's said that dual GPU setups like SLI would create a ton of inefficiencies, does the butterfly design share any such inefficiencies? I know SLI is a different beast, but I'm just using it as an example.
I know it's said that dual GPU setups like SLI would create a ton of inefficiencies, does the butterfly design share any such inefficiencies? I know SLI is a different beast, but I'm just using it as an example.
I'd wager Sony and Microsoft can both can afford to aim to break even on hardware when averaging costs over the first year or two. So how large a loss they can take initially is tied directly to how fast their costs are expected to ramp down, which isn't something many here are likely to have any real insight into. It does become an interesting variable because you have to factor in the expected price curve over time and risk tolerance associated with those projections.
I think you're overestimating. If it's actually 9TF, I'm expecting the PS5 to be $399. It'll be a hit, there will be cheering and reaction videos about how Sony has done it again and we can all move on to launch.
Look there, definitely much higher than 15%. I know that Nvidia showed their own implementation of VRS in Wolfenstein to boost by 15%.
These are Tier2 VRS gains. MS is the one who came up with Tier2 I believe, or at very least standardized it.
Yeah I think the Wolfenstein results is where I'm getting the earlier quote from. I'd hope what we see in next gen systems will be better. I just don't think we should treat it as a bullet point for huge gains.
Not that I think it will tip the scale in favor of the Xbox but we can't ignore Lockhart in the price talk.
What the lower prices for both Lockhart and PS5 may also do is make it easier to be the 2nd console IMO. Assuming both come in at the prices most are expecting.
$399 box with 8 core 16 threads zen 2 CPU, 16GB of GDDR6 from a type of chip which isnt even listed yet (18gbps), an ultra fast SSD with speeds on par with high end PC SSDs, a Navi GPU which is twice as powerful as the most powerful console on the market, which released 2 years ago and launched at $499, a cooling solution to cool a GPU that runs at 2000mhz, and a power supply that needs much more wattage than before? good luck with that, because that aint happneing.
Warren speculates that XSX will outperform PS5 at the cost of price. If PS5 is $499, then MS either takes a bigger loss on the hardware or sells it > $499.
Microsoft was the market leader in the US
Their sales were well down on what the US market leader would have expected to be, let alone worldwide.
I can't agree, honestly. Having a 30% better graphical baseline that allows for games to fundamentally look better and run smoother for the whole next generation and for the rest of their lives is, to me, more important than saving $100 once.
I can't see any clear advantage to announcing pricing first if the generally accepted lineup here is correct. In fact, if Lockhart is a conditional play depending on what Sony announces I can see them drawing out any announcement about pricing to force Microsoft to commit one way or another as their production deadlines approach. It's could be a very dull year until it gets really interesting.
That's the point. All of it. Sony saw incredible success at $399 where the PS4 maintained for years before the Pro took over that price point. I think what Cerny said was setting a stage to embed the idea that it's going be pricey for Sony to come on stage and announce everything you just said above at the amazing price of $399.
i dont see MS PS3ifying their gen with 2 SKUs where one is $599, and i dont see MS taking a big loss on their premium sku (see zhuge's tweets) either
Yeah, the point of a premium SKU is to run up margins, not take bigger losses.
Considering how much money they're raking in these days yes they can afford to take a loss. Services weren't nearly as big a factor when the current gen launched and they've got additional ways to supplement losses in an effort to gain marketshare compared to past gens. We know launch users on average end up giving them what, 1600 or 1700 dollars, not counting the cost of the console itself so that's a huge incentive to get people into your ecosystem.
We know Sony said the PS4 would be their main profit driver for the next three years so that tells me they could be expecting to lose money on the PS5 and are going to help prop up those losses on the back of the PS4. Here's that statement:
"Ryan added that backwards compatibility with PS4 games will be "absolutely key to that happening," making it easier for users to upgrade. He added that, with all the excitement around the upcoming fifth PlayStation home console, "we must not forget PS4" and he expects the console to be the main driver of profits and user engagement "for the next three years or so." "
link
Now of course that is also true because there're 100 million + PS4's versus what will be FAR fewer PS5's for the first 3 years, but I feel that's the way things are going to wind up happening.
I don't think this is anywhere near widespread enough to matter. I think the big meetings and events with the actual info will easily drown out everything up to this point anyway. There will be far, far more hype and attention given to those in comparison to this rumor and speculation stuff.
But that wasn't the case with the One X. Phil said it didn't have good margins
ignoring what you know about the specifics of the consoles, and considering the existence of 2 SKUs do you see MS going with a $599 price point for the premium sku?
- Status