or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PlayStation 4 - Page 252

post #7531 of 15362
Comparing the history of console cycles in the past to the current 1-2 year upgrade cycle people are now used to in cell phones and tablets is a red herring because UNTIL NOW consoles were mostly built with a reasonably high level of custom silicon and/or chip integration. Moore's law couldn't and didn't function as smoothly (economically speaking) in that kind of world. Making an xbox 360.5 or PS3.5 would've been prohibitively expensive and not economically viable as a product.

NOW the new gen consoles are mostly built as finely assembled off the shelf parts which are mostly non-exclusive. Pretty much all the parts in both XBO and PS4 will be updated by their manufacturers over time because on the whole they're part of a global industry that is far larger than just consoles. Whether you're talking CPU, GPU, memory, whatever...newer, better, more powerful (and cheaper) versions are coming.

Sony and msft may or may not use these updated parts to do point releases of the consoles, but they certainly could, and it wouldn't be economically prohibitive for them to do so like it was in the past. In fact, it might be economically detrimental for them *not* to do so.

As for current buyers feeling pissed or left out, I don't deny that that would occur, but so long as the games are forward compatible (and the updated consoles backward compatible) to preserve your investment in your library then I don't think this would stop Sony or msft from updating consoles more rapidly. And yes, they can thank Apple for priming the 1-2 year upgrade cycle pump.
post #7532 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonymoody View Post

Comparing the history of console cycles in the past to the current 1-2 year upgrade cycle people are now used to in cell phones and tablets is a red herring because UNTIL NOW consoles were mostly built with a reasonably high level of custom silicon and/or chip integration. Moore's law couldn't and didn't function as smoothly (economically speaking) in that kind of world. Making an xbox 360.5 or PS3.5 would've been prohibitively expensive and not economically viable as a product.

NOW the new gen consoles are mostly built as finely assembled off the shelf parts which are mostly non-exclusive. Pretty much all the parts in both XBO and PS4 will be updated by their manufacturers over time because on the whole they're part of a global industry that is far larger than just consoles. Whether you're talking CPU, GPU, memory, whatever...newer, better, more powerful (and cheaper) versions are coming.

Sony and msft may or may not use these updated parts to do point releases of the consoles, but they certainly could, and it wouldn't be economically prohibitive for them to do so like it was in the past. In fact, it might be economically detrimental for them *not* to do so.

As for current buyers feeling pissed or left out, I don't deny that that would occur, but so long as the games are forward compatible (and the updated consoles backward compatible) to preserve your investment in your library then I don't think this would stop Sony or msft from updating consoles more rapidly. And yes, they can thank Apple for priming the 1-2 year upgrade cycle pump.

Indeed. There's also some circumstantial evidence towards it. AMD's low level API for PC (mantle) is specific to GCN...it wouldn't make much sense to develop that unless they were planning to stick with the GCN architecture for a while. That's probably as low level as both consoles are likely to get, so presumably further developments on the PC side can be used by the consoles without breaking compatibility.

Plus now you've got MS virtualizing the OS, which would further ease compatibility concerns. Also, the fact that they aimed so low out of the gate on the GPU but so high on memory, leaves more of an clear upgrade path for the GPU. I'm also sure Sony would love to have a 4K capable console within the next few years. Not to mention the ever progressing PC is viable in the living room is a way it wasn't in 2005, and steambox will make that even more so.

The one thing I know for sure is that everything is going to change...a lot of sacred cows will get slaughtered, and this very well may be one of them.
post #7533 of 15362
Quote:
Currently when Sony is sacrificing it is doing so by a single step of either FR or RES but never both (Killzone SP 1080P/30, BF4 900P/60 are good examples) and we already have seen the XB1 Multiplat equivalents drop 2 steps in resolution like in COD and BF4 720/60 or one of each like Ryse at 900P/30 .

I haven't really been keeping up with the console news, but having to make sacrifices on games before the system is even out isn't a good sign. That being said, if I were to buy a console, that news would definitely sway me in Sony's direction. That difference in resolution would be negligible on a smaller screen, but on a projector it would be clearly noticeable.
post #7534 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

The one thing I know for sure is that everything is going to change...a lot of sacred cows will get slaughtered, and this very well may be one of them.

People where saying the same thing about used games before these consoles were announced and look what happened, gamers didn't stand for it and I don't think the majority would stand for short upgrade cycles. The one thing that console gamers have already proven early in this new generation more then anything is that they don't want things to change and they have the power to stop change they don't like.

I also don't buy the comparisons to cell phones either. Unless MS and Sony are going to subsidize the cost of these new consoles so that I can get one for $99 or free, comparing it to the quick upgrade cycle of cell phones is stupid IMO. The majority of console owners are not going to pay $400-$500 every year or 2 just to keep up. You can't sit here and say that because you have a group of hardcore Apple fanboy idiots that max out credit cards with every upgrade released that it will work for every other industry. It hasn't even translated to other cell phone companies, you don't see lines around the block whenever Samsung or HTC releases a new phone, and I don't think it would translate well to the console market. I know this is AVS, and most folks here have no problem staying on top of the latest tech, that's why this site thrives but, there is a reason consoles have thrived more the PC gaming; less hassle and less frequent upgrades needed. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I think I'm going to step aside from this debate from this point on because it is clear that I'm never gonna convince those on the other side that I'm right and they will never convince me that they are right. I'd be willing to bet money that those in this thread that support a shorter upgraded cycle are also PC gamers, and use to it, and those of us who don't are mostly console exclusive gamers. Maybe I'm wrong and totally off base with that thought but, I have a feeling that's not to far from the truth. I also believe that the majority of console owners are console exclusive gamres (or play very little PC games) and they just wouldn't support a short upgrade cycle. I know I wouldn't and would just stop buying them altogether instead of getting into a constant arms race battle every few years.

Oh well, I've stated my opinion and no one is going to convince me that I'm worng and I'm not going to convince them I'm right so, like I said, this will be my last comment on this debate.


Hey, just 10 days 15 hours and 9 minutes left!!!
Edited by rolltide1017 - 11/4/13 at 7:01am
post #7535 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonymoody View Post

NOW the new gen consoles are mostly built as finely assembled off the shelf parts which are mostly non-exclusive. Pretty much all the parts in both XBO and PS4 will be updated by their manufacturers over time because on the whole they're part of a global industry that is far larger than just consoles. Whether you're talking CPU, GPU, memory, whatever...newer, better, more powerful (and cheaper) versions are coming.

Sony and msft may or may not use these updated parts to do point releases of the consoles, but they certainly could, and it wouldn't be economically prohibitive for them to do so like it was in the past. In fact, it might be economically detrimental for them *not* to do so.

That simply isn’t true. It’s a good way to explain the difference to the layman, but these are still very much custom designed systems.

It’s true that it’s closer to off the shelf than full blown custom R&D and production, but it’s not as easy as assembling some nice PC parts. MSONY still had to shoulder the cost of R&D into customizing existing technology to their own needs. The production lines were already there which drastically reduces costs, but they still need to design the system, PCB’s, how everything works together, ect. They still needed to take existing AMD technology and make changes to silicon for their own needs.

It’s still extremely expensive to make and market. Just not as ridiculously expensive as before.

Plus the developer cost of fracturing the console market make it a no go anyways. These consoles still have code to the metal and custom tricks that need to be used to get the most out of them. There’s no guarantee a revision or next version will support that. That in tune means every game needs to take that into account, or you break compatibility with your 1.5 upgrade console.

Steambox is sort of going to be this upgrade console, but it’s because they’re going to certify all the hardware going into them and they’re going to create an ecosystem that will never break backwards compatibility at the sacrifice of some efficiency and power. They reckon that Windows/DX is bloated enough that performance gains can be taken from a streamlined SteamOS to differentiate themselves from vanilla PC’s and return performance/value to their customers close to consoles. But the key is closer, because of those problems that fixed, custom hardware doesn’t have.

MSONY/consoles are taking a different path all together. They want maximum performance and fixed hardware, without the headaches of having to certify and QC hardware from a bunch of different players. I do think now that they’re X86 though they will be looking to keep things simpler; such as not having to build a OS from scratch every generation, or being able to support hardware backwards compatibility a little bit better.
post #7536 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolltide1017 View Post



I also don't buy the comparisons to cell phones either. Unless MS and Sony are going to subsidize the cost of these new consoles so that I can get one for $99 or free, comparing it to the quick upgrade cycle of cell phones is stupid IMO. The majority of console owners are not going to pay $400-$500 every year or 2 just to keep up. You can't sit here and say that because you have a group of hardcore Apple fanboy idiots that max out credit cards with every upgrade released that it will work for every other industry. It hasn't even translated to other cell phone companies, you don't see lines around the block whenever Samsung or HTC releases a new phone, and I don't think it would translate well to the console market. I know this is AVS, and most folks here have no problem staying on top of the latest tech, that's why this site thrives but there is a reason consoles have thrived more the PC gaming, less hassle and less frequent upgrades needed. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Sony has traditionally subsidized the cost of consoles at launch. They sell them for under cost to get consumers invested in the platform with the dangle of future sales. The updated life cycle consoles (slims, ect) are probably sold for a profit.

I don't want there to be a new console every 2 years, but 8 years is a little long with tech. Maybe 4 years is a good number. You don't see the lines for Samsung/HTC releases because they are the same platform (Android) and between them and the other Android PED makers they have several releases a year.
post #7537 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cravit8 View Post

A game made for PS4/PS5 doesn't mean the PS4 has reduced graphics, that's nonsensical. Several posters have stated that idea.

There is a clearly a general misunderstanding of scalability.

True, although it might mean PS4 not getting the version that it could. These consoles do have scalability due to the base hardware, but they also have customibility that won’t allow it.

I’m guessing here, but a good example is most likely these 3rd part launch titles. I highly doubt their engines have much in the way of deep optimization for the hardware, so whats essentially running is scaled ports. They just don’t have the time or ability to optimize their engines which such tight deadlines, changing API, and the problems associated with launch. Over time developers will code more to the metal and implement deep engine optimizations specifically for the console hardware to pull out better performance.

So we have BF4 at 900P on PS4 and 720P on XBone. Now if their engines did have deep hardware optimizations, I bet both would be running at 1080P close to ultra settings.

Is 900P/high good enough? Is 1080P/ultra better? A close to straight port at 900P would probably have little trouble running on the PS4.5, but the 1080P customized might not if PS4.5 decided to go a different direction with tech customizations that might benefit it. Going the other way from 4.5 to 4 a new game might need heavy optimization to even get it running on slightly different hardware (PS4), and might have to sacrifice a lot because of scalability.

We already sort of seeing these issues by what most have called a minor difference in architecture between the XBone and PS4 (ESRAM). Rumors are COD took 3 weeks for the code base to be ported and ran at 80FPS, while 3 months in the XBone version was having serious issues. Time is money, and when push comes to shove you’ll see devs doing what they have to.

Cernys idea (and really MS too) this coming gen has been to make things easier for them, and to stop the fracturing of the development environment as much as possible. Quicker, more iterative consoles throws us right back into that problem where they have to devote more resources to different version for specific hardware and get little out of it themselves, while gamers have to worry about upgrading.
post #7538 of 15362
Great interview with Infinity Ward on the challenges of working on next gen. It mostly deals with Xbox One and their resolution choice, but there are a lot of details worth reading.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-04-xbox-one-resolutiongate-call-of-duty-ghosts-dev-infinity-ward-responds
post #7539 of 15362
Nice article...

So that was with Microsoft Help.. Even having Microsoft techs on site they couldn't do it . So I definitely see a change to the MS OS structure to free more resources on the top of their priority list. Until this happens it looks like everyone will have problems. I'm betting that the announcement to try to free some of the 10% GPU reserve was directly related to IW and their issues.
Quote:
There were Microsoft engineers there throughout development. They were always there. There wasn't an event, per se. There wasn't a meeting. It was just something that developed over time. Everybody was involved.

.

And it wasn't a lack of effort. It wasn't that it was like last minute. We had the theoretical hardware for a long time. That's the thing you get pretty quickly and that doesn't change dramatically. It was more about resource allocation. The resource allocation is different on the consoles.

from a related article
Quote:
Speaking to Edge-Online, Rubin said that they have to tread lightly now, because the situation might have created a bit of a discomfort between the relationship Activision has with Microsoft. However, he said, developers are away from all the corporate back and forth that goes on.
[laughs] It makes us tread lightly, obviously. Regardless of the situations, we never want to really be negative towards any of the consoles so yeah it is obviously a tricky situation. But it’s not one that’s specific to this incident or specific to our relationship with Microsoft. We always want both the systems to be good and actually from our perspective having the two systems, having them compete and drive themselves to be better through that competition…we’ll see a lot of cool stuff come from both sides of the fence because of that competition.

Edited by samendolaro - 11/4/13 at 8:01am
post #7540 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

MSONY/consoles are taking a different path all together. They want maximum performance and fixed hardware, without the headaches of having to certify and QC hardware from a bunch of different players. I do think now that they’re X86 though they will be looking to keep things simpler; such as not having to build a OS from scratch every generation, or being able to support hardware backwards compatibility a little bit better.

I really think we're going to see more frequent releases with targets to older hardware. It's not that hard to do when there is N number of fixed platforms to target.

I see what Valve is doing with SteamMachines but I don't think it is going to take. The PC market is becoming more fragmented. Nvidia is creating all this custom tech for their hardware and AMD is doing the same. Both are trying to create their own ecosystem and I don't think this is good for PC gamers in the long run. People whine about Direct3D today but it was absolutely 100% critical to the growth of PC gaming and the 3D industry in general. We needed it a lot more than we need Mantle or G-Sync or whatever.
post #7541 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

True, although it might mean PS4 not getting the version that it could. These consoles do have scalability due to the base hardware, but they also have customibility that won’t allow it.

I’m guessing here, but a good example is most likely these 3rd part launch titles. I highly doubt their engines have much in the way of deep optimization for the hardware, so whats essentially running is scaled ports. They just don’t have the time or ability to optimize their engines which such tight deadlines, changing API, and the problems associated with launch. Over time developers will code more to the metal and implement deep engine optimizations specifically for the console hardware to pull out better performance.

So we have BF4 at 900P on PS4 and 720P on XBone. Now if their engines did have deep hardware optimizations, I bet both would be running at 1080P close to ultra settings.

Is 900P/high good enough? Is 1080P/ultra better? A close to straight port at 900P would probably have little trouble running on the PS4.5, but the 1080P customized might not if PS4.5 decided to go a different direction with tech customizations that might benefit it. Going the other way from 4.5 to 4 a new game might need heavy optimization to even get it running on slightly different hardware (PS4), and might have to sacrifice a lot because of scalability.

We already sort of seeing these issues by what most have called a minor difference in architecture between the XBone and PS4 (ESRAM). Rumors are COD took 3 weeks for the code base to be ported and ran at 80FPS, while 3 months in the XBone version was having serious issues. Time is money, and when push comes to shove you’ll see devs doing what they have to.

Cernys idea (and really MS too) this coming gen has been to make things easier for them, and to stop the fracturing of the development environment as much as possible. Quicker, more iterative consoles throws us right back into that problem where they have to devote more resources to different version for specific hardware and get little out of it themselves, while gamers have to worry about upgrading.

I'm sure the PS4 is going to remain the target platform, and unless they've lost their minds they won't change the architecture. They'll just use the space savings of a die shrink to cram more CUs in it and call it a day.

About 3 years from now we're gonna hit that point where PC games start pushing effects that the consoles won't even touch. The PS4.5 will just ride that wave, while the PS4 will go through the typical late generation phase where high resolution and stable frame rates start to slip in favor of better graphics. The PS4.5 will restore that balance, and those not willing to upgrade will face the same degradation of basic quality that they'd face anyway. Devs are going to start going down different paths....some will choose 1080p/30 - PS4.5 can restore that to 60fps. Some will chose 720/900p/60....PS4.5 will restore that to 1080p. The few games that actually push 1080p/60 will finally be able to get halfway to 4K or even 1080p/60/3D.

By then I'm sure Sony will have a PS4 for $299 or less, and they can easily get away with $499 for the PS4.5.
post #7542 of 15362
Quote:

Killzone Shadowfall confirmed to run at 1080p and 60fps

Sid Shuman, the social media manager at SCEA has confirmed that Killzone Shadowfall with run at 1080p and 60fps and that also includes the single player mode, which was originally stated to be running at 30fps.
post #7543 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post


And now I'm interested again!

If killzone can do it, so can drive club. Maybe this will be the 60fps generation after all.
post #7544 of 15362
I may be switching my CoD preorder for Killzone...
post #7545 of 15362
So I got my Vita on Friday..

I can say this for sure... I am old, this confirms it..... May need some bifocals and my hands are still getting used to the form factor. (the noticeable arthritic grip after play is over)

Overall a quick learning curve of frustration with PS+ and the menu system but after you get that down it is pretty smooth. PS+ has about 6 free games already but my biggest problem is the memory. even with the included 4gb card You may only get 1 or 2 games on it .

Ended up ordering the 64gb card, that should get me everything I need . Overall a pretty nice unit. Can't wait to link this to the PS4 in a couple weeks. Looks like I'll be picking up a vita-TV as well when they hit the US
post #7546 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

So I got my Vita on Friday..I can say this for sure... I am old, this confirms it..... May need some bifocals and my hands are still getting used to the form factor. (the noticeable arthritic grip after play is over)Overall a quick learning curve of frustration with PS+ and the menu system but after you get that down it is pretty smooth. PS+ has about 6 free games already but my biggest problem is the memory. even with the included 4gb card You may only get 1 or 2 games on it .Ended up ordering the 64gb card, that should get me everything I need . Overall a pretty nice unit. Can't wait to link this to the PS4 in a couple weeks. Looks like I'll be picking up a vita-TV as well when they hit the US

Get a grip for it, makes all the difference in the world. I still only play mine a little at a time but its a lot more comfortable. I'm impatient so I went to GS and got the Sony one but the Nyko is supposed to be awesome.
post #7547 of 15362
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EDIU5IW

They listed this drive on reddit , 1.5tb 5400 9,5mm .. I'll wait for reviews before upgrading but its a decent price.
post #7548 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post


wow, that is impressive considering how much better it looks than the other two launch FPS's .
post #7549 of 15362
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=708899
Looks like the Killzone 60FPS Campaign announcement was wrong .



I should know better by now.. always double check GAF before announcing good news.
post #7550 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EDIU5IW

They listed this drive on reddit , 1.5tb 5400 9,5mm .. I'll wait for reviews before upgrading but its a decent price.

It looks to be the same spec (even manufacturer, at least from the german tear-down) as the base unit. If all you're looking for is 3x the storage, i'd say it's a safe bet.

I've seen some questions about reliability and heat from some of the other HGST drives though...which is why I don't feel safe going that route just yet. I also decided to go hybrid to see if I could get some performance gain on load times.
post #7551 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I'm sure the PS4 is going to remain the target platform, and unless they've lost their minds they won't change the architecture. They'll just use the space savings of a die shrink to cram more CUs in it and call it a day.

About 3 years from now we're gonna hit that point where PC games start pushing effects that the consoles won't even touch. The PS4.5 will just ride that wave, while the PS4 will go through the typical late generation phase where high resolution and stable frame rates start to slip in favor of better graphics. The PS4.5 will restore that balance, and those not willing to upgrade will face the same degradation of basic quality that they'd face anyway. Devs are going to start going down different paths....some will choose 1080p/30 - PS4.5 can restore that to 60fps. Some will chose 720/900p/60....PS4.5 will restore that to 1080p. The few games that actually push 1080p/60 will finally be able to get halfway to 4K or even 1080p/60/3D.

By then I'm sure Sony will have a PS4 for $299 or less, and they can easily get away with $499 for the PS4.5.
I've been reading this "speculation" that many of you guys have discussed over the past day about a 3 year refresh cycle for these new consoles and must say that I am miffed at how long this talk has gone on.

To understand the console market, you must first have a firm understanding of the strategic and business process planning involved, the cost of R & D, and the cost of marketing. The difficulty or ease of development is actually of least concern, simply because if a platform is popular, the market will drive the development process to use that platform. In other words, 3rd party firms will want to do whatever is required to be on that platform because they know they'll make money.

Anyway, there is also a mistake being made in comparing the PC gaming market and cycle, to that of consoles. These are apples and oranges guys. PCs are almost as fast changing as smartphones. PC gamers with hardcore rigs usually make annual investments into their hardware; they also make necessary upgrades themselves. These two actions are taken because PC gamers tend to "work" in IT, usually in software. They have both the financial discretionary income, and technical knowledge and skill to modify their own systems, much like auto mechanics tend to have more mods on their cars. Console buyers are largely just "consumers" from all walks of life. Accessibility and convenience are most important to console gamers. These gamers DO NOT have the income, nor technical knowledge/skill to make annual/36 mo upgrades and most certainly will not perform self mods.

Console makers sell these products at a loss. PC makers largely pass along the costs of ware to the consumer, hence my $2200 Macbook Pro Retina vs, $400 PS4. Sony likely has eaten $200-$300 on each console, where in contrast Apple makes about a $500-$700 profit on my laptop. Why is this? The phenomena is "economies of scale" (EOS) and licensing.

Apple doesn't care what I "run" on my laptop. I can install any software I'd like. Use any peripheral I like, etc. As result, they make their money up front. This also encourages faster refresh cycles, not because of power, but they want the costumer to come back and buy in a hurry.

Sony, or MS with these consoles take that up front loss because they will make their money on the backend. For example PS+ for $50 per year, games and peripherals must be licensed, etc. This encourages slower/longer refresh cycles because until economies of scale come into play (smaller market than PC sales), the console is not profitable. I estimate that EOS won't come into play until at least 15-18 million units are sold. This may likely take 3 years alone. From that point, they will be even, only after year 4-5 may the console become profitable and hopefully over 20-30 million units. The business case for faster updates beyond improving the efficiency and lower production costs of these consoles just isn't there.

Sorry to be long winded, but Business Strategy in Technology is what I do. PS5 won't be seen for at least the next 7 years, maybe.
post #7552 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=708899
Looks like the Killzone 60FPS Campaign announcement was wrong .



I should know better by now.. always double check GAF before announcing good news.

Word is it's running 30-60 with tripple buffered Vsync (no tearing). Probably won't see it dip below 30 unless in a cutscene.

MP is 60, but not sure on Vsync.
Edited by TyrantII - 11/4/13 at 10:35am
post #7553 of 15362
Quote:
So I got my Vita on Friday..

I can say this for sure... I am old, this confirms it..... May need some bifocals and my hands are still getting used to the form factor. (the noticeable arthritic grip after play is over)

Overall a quick learning curve of frustration with PS+ and the menu system but after you get that down it is pretty smooth. PS+ has about 6 free games already but my biggest problem is the memory. even with the included 4gb card You may only get 1 or 2 games on it .

Ended up ordering the 64gb card, that should get me everything I need . Overall a pretty nice unit. Can't wait to link this to the PS4 in a couple weeks. Looks like I'll be picking up a vita-TV as well when they hit the US

I bought one for my kids and they love it. Get the Nyko Power Grip - it will add 5 hours of play time and it has a really nice rubbery-ish coating which prevents it from slipping out of your hands. There's a knockoff version that doesn't have a built-in battery - skip that one.
post #7554 of 15362
With Gakai, I feel the PS4 life will be extended a couple more years. (aka 8-10)

All the extra work will be done by the cloud.

The only new boxes released will be Slims, and Super slims... each being small and cooler and more security features.
post #7555 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMABLUHD View Post

I've been reading this "speculation" that many of you guys have discussed over the past day about a 3 year refresh cycle for these new consoles and must say that I am miffed at how long this talk has gone on.

To understand the console market, you must first have a firm understanding of the strategic and business process planning involved, the cost of R & D, and the cost of marketing. The difficulty or ease of development is actually of least concern, simply because if a platform is popular, the market will drive the development process to use that platform. In other words, 3rd party firms will want to do whatever is required to be on that platform because they know they'll make money.

Anyway, there is also a mistake being made in comparing the PC gaming market and cycle, to that of consoles. These are apples and oranges guys. PCs are almost as fast changing as smartphones. PC gamers with hardcore rigs usually make annual investments into their hardware; they also make necessary upgrades themselves. These two actions are taken because PC gamers tend to "work" in IT, usually in software. They have both the financial discretionary income, and technical knowledge and skill to modify their own systems, much like auto mechanics tend to have more mods on their cars. Console buyers are largely just "consumers" from all walks of life. Accessibility and convenience are most important to console gamers. These gamers DO NOT have the income, nor technical knowledge/skill to make annual/36 mo upgrades and most certainly will not perform self mods.

Console makers sell these products at a loss. PC makers largely pass along the costs of ware to the consumer, hence my $2200 Macbook Pro Retina vs, $400 PS4. Sony likely has eaten $200-$300 on each console, where in contrast Apple makes about a $500-$700 profit on my laptop. Why is this? The phenomena is "economies of scale" (EOS) and licensing.

Apple doesn't care what I "run" on my laptop. I can install any software I'd like. Use any peripheral I like, etc. As result, they make their money up front. This also encourages faster refresh cycles, not because of power, but they want the costumer to come back and buy in a hurry.

Sony, or MS with these consoles take that up front loss because they will make their money on the backend. For example PS+ for $50 per year, games and peripherals must be licensed, etc. This encourages slower/longer refresh cycles because until economies of scale come into play (smaller market than PC sales), the console is not profitable. I estimate that EOS won't come into play until at least 15-18 million units are sold. This may likely take 3 years alone. From that point, they will be even, only after year 4-5 may the console become profitable and hopefully over 20-30 million units. The business case for faster updates beyond improving the efficiency and lower production costs of these consoles just isn't there.

Sorry to be long winded, but Business Strategy in Technology is what I do. PS5 won't be seen for at least the next 7 years, maybe.

They've both been fairly up front on how they're not taking a loss on hardware this time.

Times have changed.
post #7556 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

They've both been fairly up front on how they're not taking a loss on hardware this time.

Times have changed.
I don't see how that's true. Once the consoles are released and a company that fixes hardware releases their report, try pricing the individual components yourself. Both consoles look like well appointed computer by todays standards. The costs of parts alone likely top $500. Saying that, yes, the costs will go down over time, but trust me that they are each taking a loss.

Remember to also factor in R&D. I have no idea of the calculation of man hours in designing these machines, but it took at least 4 years and I would imagine a few hundred million each.

I stand by my earlier post on the refresh cycle.
post #7557 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

They've both been fairly up front on how they're not taking a loss on hardware this time.

Times have changed.

Sony already reported that they are taking a $60 loss on every PS4 which they are hoping to make up with game and PS+ sales
post #7558 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

Sony already reported that they are taking a $60 loss on every PS4 which they are hoping to make up with game and PS+ sales

Don't forget retailer markup, 20% over what they pay is the average profit margin retailers shoot for. Console makers calculate loss based on retailer pricing so $60 loss does not mean it costs $460 to build.
post #7559 of 15362
I'm pretty sure I remember MS saying they were taking a loss on every console also. that was part of the discussion that the kinect was half of the cost of producing the console.

Also, I don't think they actually mark up the consoles that much. Consumer electronics are generally a 30% markup, but I don't think it's anywhere close to that with the consoles or games. They barely make anything on the consoles or the games themselves. All of the money is in accessories and used game/console sales. Kind of like gas stations only making a couple cents a gallong on gas. The whole goal is to get you in there buying chips and drinks and stuff.
Edited by RemoWilliams84 - 11/4/13 at 11:38am
post #7560 of 15362
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemoWilliams84 View Post

I'm pretty sure I remember MS saying they were taking a loss on every console also. that was part of the discussion that the kinect was half of the cost of producing the console.

Also, I don't think they actually mark up the consoles that much. Consumer electronics are generally a 30% markup, but I don't think it's anywhere close to that with the consoles or games. They barely make anything on the consoles or the games themselves. All of the money is in accessories and used game/console sales. Kind of like gas stations only making a couple cents a gallong on gas. The whole goal is to get you in there buying chips and drinks and stuff.


I didn't hear that they took a loss though, the PS4's GPU and Memory is where the $ went for sony. Looking at the Xbox architecture they really don't have anything else, My bet is that the XB1 is not selling at a loss.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PlayStation Area