• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Digital Foundry: If Xbox One X is $500 - How much will next-gen consoles cost?

Hot(?) take:

Next gen won't happen until 2-3 years after we hit 7nm. So possibly 2023 or so, since the PS4 Pro X and Xbone X Pro will presumably be on 7nm.
 

Kilrogg

paid requisite penance
when you adjust for inflation snes and mega drive were around the $500 mark, stuff like Neo Geo was for the enthusiast crowd. nothing really has changed much in that regard. PS360 era was a combo breaker because those were very high end for their time

Where are you getting those numbers? I found a few articles that put the SNES and Mega Drive at around $350. Don't know about Europe and the UK though.
http://kotaku.com/36-years-of-console-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-1485353267
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/04/comparing-the-price-of-every-game-console-with-inflation
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power

Interestingly enough, it would seem that the NES is Nintendo's most expensive system ever, lol. Still didn't reach $500.

You're absolutely right about the Neo-Geo though. It was insane, but at least it was an isolated case, with a clear value proposition: all the exclusive SNK arcade games in your home. It was commercially much more legitimate and valuable to me than "play all these non-exclusive games but the image quality is higher and the framerate too sometimes, a bit."

@jroc74: the Pro is absolutely more reasonable than the XOX, but it's still a completely unnecessary midgen upgrade. It's not gonna do anything for the PS4 in Japan, and even in the West, it's not doing that much so far. I wonder how many of those are sold to existing owners of a PS4. I don't know, these 4K systems feel like a completely pointless proposition, and they're trying to sell us an idea that doesn't hold much water if you look at the history of the industry.
 

AmFreak

Member
The Southern and Volcanic island lines were firebreathing monsters plus everyone was stuck on 28nm. Now add to that the Bulldozer disaster...

Any SoC from AMD in that period was not going to be optimal for consoles.
Yes, everyone was stuck including the 5.6TF gpu.
The gpu had the exact same problems and the gulf was still there.
And that Bulldozer disaster helped gpu performance, because they then put a tiny cpu in their SoC.
 
We have history on our side, while you have speculation. Nintendo is literally schooling Microsoft in how to sell a console to the masses, and it's not about flops and 4K.

I'm also bewildered at the number of console users so thirsty for more power, yet are afraid to plunk money down on a PC. Meanwhile you're hoping your $500 X console is replaced with another $500 model by 2020. Absurd.
One thing this forum will never get over is being so wrong about how much specs matter. The 'NX' being underpowered for 299 was listed as a common reason why the console would underperform.
 
@jroc74: the Pro is absolutely more reasonable than the XOX, but it's still a completely unnecessary midgen upgrade. It's not gonna do anything for the PS4 in Japan, and even in the West, it's not doing that much so far. I wonder how many of those are sold to existing owners of a PS4. I don't know, these 4K systems feel like a completely pointless proposition, and they're trying to sell us an idea that doesn't hold much water if you look at the history of the industry.

In 2013 people were screaming that you had to buy a PS4 over an Xbox One because people had 1080p TVs and the PS4 could take advantage of it better.

Four years later, 4K TVs are so quickly replacing 1080p sets that it's hard to find a 1080p TV outside of a $200 Walmart one, and now people are saying that your video game system doesn't need to make use of your TV's resolution?
 

gamz

Member
I think the 499 pricing of the X1X is going to bite them in the ass, hard.

In two years we'll see the PS5 for 399 that likely blows it out of the water again. That's the pricing sweetspot.

In two years MS can release a new console and have the X replace the S.
 

AudioEppa

Member
1. Do you think consoles will ever reach a stupidly high price of $1000?


2. How long do you see Sony or Microsoft continuing on with a dedicated game box? MS is already doing PC. Would Sony follow that same strategy?
 
SSD prices fall way too slow. Not even regular HDDs are falling as much as they used to, which is why we still get only 1 TB in Scorpio. The smart way is to do it like Nintendo and Microsoft, have 8 GB Flashmemory in the box for the OS and dedicate the HDD/SD card solely to games. That way you have a speedy OS and faster loading times.

As long as normal HDDs are available these will always be in consoles because they are cheaper. 32 GB GDDR6 in 2020 would cost $200. There's no way. Same goes for an APU with 16 Teraflops. Just not possible for less than $100 (not even for less than $200). Murphy's Law is slowing down, not accelerating.

true.

my dream is dead then

1. Do you think consoles will ever reach a stupidly high price of $1000?


2. How long do you see Sony or Microsoft continuing on with a dedicated game box? MS is already doing PC. Would Sony follow that same strategy?
1) There is no point to consoles if the price is too high. There is no point to a 1000$ console..

2) Sony has say in the past that they aren't interested. I don't see them changing course anytime soon
 

120v

Member
We have history on our side, while you have speculation. Nintendo is literally schooling Microsoft in how to sell a console to the masses, and it's not about flops and 4K.

I'm also bewildered at the number of console users so thirsty for more power, yet are afraid to plunk money down on a PC. Meanwhile you're hoping your $500 X console is replaced with another $500 model by 2020. Absurd.

thing is history doesn't follow a straight line. '$599' was a flop in 2006 because of numerous factors (blu ray/HD adoption wasn't quite there, people had no prob going from ps2 to 360 like expected, wii upset a chunk of the market, ect)

stars were aligned for sony to release a $400 console in 2013 because there really wasn't a demand past 1080p/30fps... whatever sony/MS releases in the early 2020s will be expected to output 4K and support PC tier VR. not something you can easily cram under the hood for some arbitrary "affordable" pricepoint
 

E-Cat

Member
Assuming PS5 releases in Fall 2019
It won't. Next-gen needs 7nm, and the yields will still be too low for a mass-produced console for a Fall 2019 launch, even if there will--and there probably will--be 7nm discrete GPUs on the market.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Where are you getting those numbers? I found a few articles that put the SNES and Mega Drive at around $350. Don't know about Europe and the UK though.
http://kotaku.com/36-years-of-console-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-1485353267
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/04/comparing-the-price-of-every-game-console-with-inflation
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power

Interestingly enough, it would seem that the NES is Nintendo's most expensive system ever, lol. Still didn't reach $500.

You're absolutely right about the Neo-Geo though. It was insane, but at least it was an isolated case, with a clear value proposition: all the exclusive SNK arcade games in your home. It was commercially much more legitimate and valuable to me than "play all these non-exclusive games but the image quality is higher and the framerate too sometimes, a bit."

@jroc74: the Pro is absolutely more reasonable than the XOX, but it's still a completely unnecessary midgen upgrade. It's not gonna do anything for the PS4 in Japan, and even in the West, it's not doing that much so far. I wonder how many of those are sold to existing owners of a PS4. I don't know, these 4K systems feel like a completely pointless proposition, and they're trying to sell us an idea that doesn't hold much water if you look at the history of the industry.

The articles you found from 2013 are quite obsolete. The closest one would be the 2016 article.

You don't really need an article to tell you this, though. Just use the CPI calculator and the launch month from Wikipedia and you can get numbers, just like the authors of articles like that do.

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

You're right, though. Mega Drive and SNES were closer to $350 in 2017 dollars than to $500.
 

Jumeira

Banned
I remember the same uproar with $400 console, $500 will be there new norm, as long as the tech matches it that's perfectly fine.
 

Blanquito

Member
Sony has made it quite clear that they targeted the $400 price point and then put in the best hardware they could get to match that price.

I fully expect them to do something similar for ps5 -- target a reachable price point ($399, $349?) and put they best they can get for that price point in.
 

gamz

Member
It won't. Next-gen needs 7nm, and the yields will still be too low for a mass-produced console for a Fall 2019 launch, even if there will--and there probably will--be 7nm discrete GPUs on the market.

So realistically what are we looking at? 2020-2021?
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Nintendo is it's own thing. They are Disney for games. You can't compare Sony and Xbox to it.

They'll always have what the other two don't. Nintendo's IPs. Different markets and the same reason Nintendo schooled Sony on handhelds.

Nintendo's ips aren't a guarantee off sales as we've seen with the Wii U. It's about creating hardware that excites the massss, and it's what they've done in a $300 box. The Pro isn't setting the world on fire, and the X is going to bomb even worse at that price. The masses don't give a crap about 4K, DDR5, and flops.

This arms race some of you are so hungry for every couple years isn't healthy for the industry.
 

Renekton

Member
no that was the period of a very very well running 28nm advanced process
20nm was never used for anything beside mobile phones
It's used for Nintendo Switch 😀

I messed up the timeline though, likely not ready by 2013 had it actually been feasible for Fiji Maxwell.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think the current pricing model should be carried over.

"Entry level" or "Basic" next-gen console for $399 and an "enhanced" version for $499 or a mid-gen refresh for the same price range with the base models dropping $100 or more.
 

jdstorm

Banned
2019 just screams "a tad better GPU, much better CPU" to me which sounds too small of a jump.

Even that 1 year delay could mean noticeably cheaper parts which is why I'm thinking it's fall 2020 at earliest.

But why delay a year when you can do a Pro Version a few years later with the upgraded GPU? Thats 2 sales to enthusiests and games are no longer being held back by 2012 CPU and Ram standards. Seems like a win/win.
 
Yes my money is on 2020 too for PS5, and possibly like now MS go the year after. Scorpio has a bit longer legs than the PS Pro, and is on the market for 1 year less. Though I think that will depend on the market and their position closer to the time.

2019 IMO is too early for the tech and price point to fall into place.
 

Trickster

Member
I think the fact that we are already seeing 4k gaming on 400-500 dollar machines is amazing in itself. A similarly priced console 3-4 years from now will be crazy
 

120v

Member
Where are you getting those numbers? I found a few articles that put the SNES and Mega Drive at around $350. Don't know about Europe and the UK though.
http://kotaku.com/36-years-of-console-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-1485353267
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/04/comparing-the-price-of-every-game-console-with-inflation
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gaming-inflation-time-and-purchasing-power

Interestingly enough, it would seem that the NES is Nintendo's most expensive system ever, lol. Still didn't reach $500.

You're absolutely right about the Neo-Geo though. It was insane, but at least it was an isolated case, with a clear value proposition: all the exclusive SNK arcade games in your home. It was commercially much more legitimate and valuable to me than "play all these non-exclusive games but the image quality is higher and the framerate too sometimes, a bit."

i ballparked the 16 bit era too high but my point is 'mainstream' consoles for their time were always sold at a premium, more or less

caveat here is "next gen" standards are kind of bottlenecked at cost/performance at this point. so it'll be more expensive unless gen 8 rides out another 5 years or so
 

Jumeira

Banned
An uproar with 400? When?
You forgot the 400 premium 360 and the (at the time) basic version? MS made the basic sku to soften the 400 price. People on NeoGAF were expecting $300 and blamed MS for new expected RRP. They also labeled it Xbox 1.5 and the audacity to charge $400 for a a minor upgrade was symbolic of evil MS. This was whole year before 599 price which put everything into perspective.
 

Kilrogg

paid requisite penance
In 2013 people were screaming that you had to buy a PS4 over an Xbox One because people had 1080p TVs and the PS4 could take advantage of it better.

The key word here is "people". As in, "people on messageboards and people in the industry". I.e. not the average consumer. People also told you you had to get a PSP because of the graphics, and that the Wii wasn't worth $250 because the hardware was weak and it couldn't do 720p. Heck, 1080p is this thing that supposedly we should have gotten with the PS360 era, and for all the talk about 1080p being so important, there are so many games on the PS4 that still can't achieve 1080p to this day. Yet, I don't see so much outcry outside of forums on the internet.

The real reason why you'd want to get a PS4 back then was because of the inevitable exclusives and because Sony wasn't trying to pull a fast one on consumers unlike Microsoft when they first unveiled their strategy with the XBO. Also because they weren't trying to sell you a Kinect.

Four years later, 4K TVs are so quickly replacing 1080p sets that it's hard to find a 1080p TV outside of a $200 Walmart one, and now people are saying that your video game system doesn't need to make use of your TV's resolution?

The TV market would deserve a separate thread, but really, this is the same discussion that has been had since the Blu-Ray/DVD and SD/HD days: we shouldn't confuse supply and demand, as manufacturers will gradually replace old tech with new tech once they've sold the first few models to enthusiasts at a premium and brought costs down. And we also shouldn't automatically assume that a 4K TV is bought because it's 4K. It's even worse than that: even if someone tells you they're buying it because it's 4K, you shouldn't assume that they know exactly what 4K is, or that they even notice the difference. And even if they notice, that doesn't mean that they care all that much about it, or that they wouldn't trade it for other benefits they value more (such as price, design, weight, features, or some kind of interesting innovation). Most likely they'll buy it because the picture looks nice, the screen is big enough, the price is low enough, and someone told them 4K is the latest and greatest.

If you ask people, even me, what they'd rather have between HD and 4K, they'd say 4K. It's just like that Henry Ford quote: "if I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". With all else being equal, a fuzzy knowledge of tech, and no real alternative proposition on the market, you'll end up choosing what's seemingly better along the existing metrics, or nothing at all.
 
But why delay a year when you can do a Pro Version a few years later with the upgraded GPU? Thats 2 sales to enthusiests and games are no longer being held back by 2012 CPU and Ram standards. Seems like a win/win.

Agreed, CPU and RAM is what is holding back developers the most right now and is the most needed upgrade, as they have worked wonders with current GPU's, and that shouldn't be a major issue with the next gen consoles.
 

gamz

Member
Nintendo's ips aren't a guarantee off sales as we've seen with the Wii U. It's about creating hardware that excites the massss, and it's what they've done in a $300 box. The Pro isn't setting the world on fire, and the X is going to bomb even worse at that price. The masses don't give a crap about 4K, DDR5, and flops.

This arms race some of you are so hungry for every couple years isn't healthy for the industry.

What I'm saying it's silly to compare Sony and MS to Nintendo, which is what you were trying to do. Nintendo's users don't give a fuck about flops and shit I agree because of their IP's are the star. Sony and MS are different because they want the power, pretty graphics and what not. Cone on, you know this.

Why are all these Sony people jonsin' for a PS5 with more power if it doesn't matter?
 

jviggy43

Member
Eh, they might be that much if the xbx sells stupid well and demand is high but if it isn't then the 500 price tag is likely as high as it will go. That's generally seen as the high end of consoles anyway and unless next gen really blows the doors off of the market I doubt it's going much higher if at all. The xbx price has already made me realize I will likely just end up using that money on a pc.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
I think the 499 pricing of the X1X is going to bite them in the ass, hard.

In two years we'll see the PS5 for 399 that likely blows it out of the water again. That's the pricing sweetspot.

Hahaha, no.

"blows it out of the water" and in "2 years" is simply impossible. We've hit the graphical plateau and hit it hard, as Richard from DF said, we're likely to see the smallest generational leap for a high price.

Sony basically has to wait for good yields on 7nm fab (~2021, 2022) to even show it's worth the upgrade over the mid-gen Pro & X consoles.

Even at 7nm, what are they hoping to achieve, 10 Tflop maybe at best? Console TDP and form factor cannot crank that much beyond that i believe in a few years. With the focus on 4K, this will barely move the graphical sliders up.
 

illamap

Member
Agreed, CPU and RAM is what is holding back developers the most right now and is the most needed upgrade, as they have worked wonders with current GPU's, and that shouldn't be a major issue with the next gen consoles.

I disagree about ram holding games back, Hdd load and seek times are much bigger bottleneck.
 
Thing is inflation alone is eventually going to make a $400 price point impossible. That's before considering greater silicon allocation for better CPU's, or doubling the RAM amount.
 

Quasar

Member
What I'm saying it's silly to compare Sony and MS to Nintendo, which is what you were trying to do. Nintendo's users don't give a fuck about flops and shit I agree because of their IP's are the star. Sony and MS are different because they want the power, pretty graphics and what not. Cone on, you know this.

In that respect Nintendo reminds me of Apple.
 
i'll just leve this here
1-1080.920127384.jpg



Xbox One X is 360mm for an APU and already the biggest SOC in a console
 
I disagree about ram holding games back, Hdd load and seek times are much bigger bottleneck.

To some degree that is an issue too but CPU and a bigger memory bandwidth will help, Xbox One X is supposed to deliver faster load times ect, will have to see how it goes but CPU is still the biggest problem this gen.
 

E-Cat

Member
The key word here is "people". As in, "people on messageboards and people in the industry". I.e. not the average consumer. People also told you you had to get a PSP because of the graphics, and that the Wii wasn't worth $250 because the hardware was weak and it couldn't do 720p. Heck, 1080p is this thing that supposedly we should have gotten with the PS360 area, and for all the talk about 1080p being so important, there are so many games on the PS4 that still can't achieve 1080p to this day. Yet, I don't see so much outcry outside of forums on the internet.

The real reason why you'd want to get a PS4 back then was because of the inevitable exclusives and because Sony wasn't trying to pull a fast one on consumers unlike Microsoft when they first unveiled their strategy with the XBO. Also because they weren't trying to sell you a Kinect.



The TV market would deserve a separate thread, but really, this is the same discussion that has been had since the Blu-Ray/DVD and SD/HD days: we shouldn't confuse supply and demand, as manufacturers will gradually replace old tech with new tech once they've sold the first few models to enthusiasts at a premium and brought costs down. And we also shouldn't automatically assume that a 4K TV is bought because it's 4K. It's even worse than that: even if someone tells you they're buying it because it's 4K, you shouldn't assume that they know exactly what 4K is, or that they even notice the difference. And even if they notice, that doesn't mean that they care all that much about it, or that they wouldn't trade it for other benefits they value much (such as price, design, weight, features, or some kind of interesting innovation). Most likely they'll buy it because the picture looks nice, the screen is big enough, the price is low enough, and someone told them 4K is the latest and greatest.

If you ask people, even me, what they'd rather have between HD and 4K, they'd say 4K. It's just like that Henry Ford quote: "if I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". With all else being equal, a fuzzy knowledge of tech, and no real alternative proposition on the market, you'll end up choosing what's seemingly better along the existing metrics, or nothing at all.
Good post.
 

GodofWine

Member
Lets say 2 years from now ps5 is on shelves. If it has a slightly better/upclocked version of the xbx gpu, but a ryzen 4 type cpu it will cost about the same and perform so much better.

The xbx and pro are so bottlenecked. 1080/60 would be the floor with a good cpu and that would be awesome. Id love to see people play a game back to back at 1080/60 and 4k30 and comment on what they liked more.
 

jono51

Banned
2019 is too early. Next gen is only getting started, what with the Switch, X1X, PS4Pro, PSVR, etc. A 2020 announcement for a 2021 release sounds about right for PS5/XboxTwo,
 

Gradly

Member
I don't think we should take X1X as an indication, its just an odd device for the following reasons:

  1. It's priced like a next-gen console yet it's not
  2. Microsoft wanted a big jump yet it's seen as a mid-gen refresh
  3. Spencer doesn't compare it to PS4 Pro yet it relies heavily on similar techniques
I'd say there is a gen/mid-gen refresh every 3 years with a price around $399. If there are 2 SKUs at the same time, Id' say $399 for the Standard, and the Pro is anywhere between $449 and $499
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
You know, one thing I am taking away from this video, is that I think MS really over egged the XOX.

There's way too many expensive, custom components in what is fundamentally just a souped up XO. There really does not seem like a huge amount of wiggle room to get that price down in the long run, and I can't help but feel that's not going to be the case for the PS4Pro's more straight forward design, and I now think we're only going to see the price difference between the two increase as time goes on.

It really does not bode well for price cuts and a sustainable, growing market once the die hard fans and tech enthusiast early adopters get their fill.

Given that even the dirt cheap XOS sales fell off a cliff this year already, I'm even less convinced this is going to be the 'saviour of the Xbox brand' MS were hoping for than I was previous, and I've always been pretty sceptical on that notion.

It also messes thing up going forward.

Let's say MS can get away with $499 because the xb1s still exists for normal consumers. But that doesn't work for a brand new console launch.

So if they want a new console in 2019, at $399, either company will find it hard to create a meaningful improvement over Scorpio. Only two years later and needing to be $100 less is a big ask. And ram prices seem firm right now too.

Could sony or MS go for a fully incremental model like iOS? I just don't know how feasible a full new generation is anymore. Tech seems to be progressing quite slowly, and mid-gen refreshes really don't help.



I suppose they could go for a $499 narrow launch window to allow a little more leeway to push the envelope, with the aim to being down to $399 12 months later. Launch aiming at early adopters willing to take the hit on price and to seed the market, with mass market waiting a little longer.
 
I don't think we should take X1X as an indication, its just an odd device for the following reasons:

  1. It's priced like a next-gen console yet it's not
  2. Microsoft wanted a big jump yet it's seen as a mid-gen refresh
  3. Spencer doesn't compare it to PS4 Pro yet it relies heavily on similar techniques
I'd say there is a gen/mid-gen refresh every 3 years with a price around $399

Ps4 $399
XB1 $499
Pro $399
XB1X $499


so how is the XB1X not an indication?
$399 is the lowest possible one could imagine and that does not factor in price driving factors at all
 
Top Bottom