• 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.

Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD

Status
Not open for further replies.

Krisprolls

Banned
The same logic would apply to Gears, Halo, Forza and Fable. Microsoft could make a lot of money porting those games to Playstation, but they don't.

Don't give me the shareholder rubbish, shareholders have little say in publicly run companies, let alone very profitable ones. The Xbox division is a small part of Microsoft, they have put billions into it since the original Xbox, number of shareholder revolts? None.

Bethesda cost 7.5 billion, magnitudes more than Gears. As Xbox CFO (who knows more than Riky the fanboy) already hinted, bigger Bethesda games will be on Playstation, simply because it would lose too much money to cut 50% or more of the sales. The day Xbox has tripled its market share (won't happen), yes they could be exclusive.

And you're apparently even more clueless in business and financials than you are in gaming, if it's even possible, because shareholders (which include big stake holders like funds, not only people like you and me, well probably more me) are indeed extremely powerful and can definitely influence the big corp strategy, it happens every day actually. Shareholders (big and small) are the real owners of the corporation, not Phil Spencer.
 
Last edited:

Krisprolls

Banned
This is definitely not confirmed. Nor are you really correct on your statement.

Need to understand just how insanely profitable wide-scale subscription services are.

The problem for MS is that they may not ever scale their services to their desires. But if it works out for them, the Bethesda acquisition might be key to that.

41 million people spending $15 a month for a year is around $7.5 billion. (not trying to say that's the math they are using, or that it's all profit for them alone, or that Bethesda is the only cost, but just giving you idea of how quickly a $15 a month service can generate revenue in general.)

And sub services are just insanely consistent in revenue, and make your business far more risk averse. And everything you make becomes part of a growing back-catalog that might get future buyers interested, even if someone doesn't jump in today.

To some extent, MS can't afford to NOT make Bethesda games exclusive, as their entire long-term strategy is about people buying their services who aren't currently buying them, and being willing to spend $15 a month on them or maybe more.

Sony is almost certainly considering a day-one sub service too, you can count on that.

They're very far from having 40 million subscribers though, and people subscribed mostly because it was free, not $15. They achieved nothing until now except mostly distributing subscriptions for free. I unsubscribed on PC Gamepass when it came to around €10 because there were already much better options on PC. I don't see people on PC fighting to subscribe. And Xbox accounts for a very low user base right now if sales are anything to go by (even in the UK, Hitman 3 sales are 75 % playstation). Where will the 40 million subs will come from and who could pay $15 for that ?

I highly doubt they can reach the scale you think they can and certainly not at that price, for reasons I already explained multiple times, the biggest one being people are time constrained and not money constrained in this hobby, so they choose to just buy the games they want to play, not "some game". Subscription models make a lot more sense in music or movies.
 
Last edited:

iamvin22

Industry Verified
Bethesda will become a first party studio. By that line of thinking then Halo, Gears, Fable and Forza will be coming to Playstation to tap into the user base.
Microsoft see their userbase as every Xbox, every Windows PC and now every mobile phone, that dwarfs Playstation.
you are delusional if you think they think this way. if they did they would report all those numbers for every NPD report.
 

Riky

$MSFT
Bethesda cost 7.5 billion, magnitudes more than Gears. As Xbox CFO (who knows more than Riky the fanboy) already hinted, bigger Bethesda games will be on Playstation, simply because it would lose too much money to cut 50% or more of the sales.

And you're apparently even more clueless in business and financials than you are in gaming, if it's even possible, because shareholders (which include big stake holders like funds, not only people like you and me) are indeed extremely powerful and can definitely influence the big corp strategy, it happens every day actually. Shareholders (big and small) are the real owners of the corporation.

No you are clueless.

A cost in business terms is something you can't recoup, it's a profit and loss item.

Buying an asset is not a cost, it's a purchase and moves assets from one part of a balance sheet to another.

Fanboys have been saying this about shareholders since the original Xbox, it lost money so there wouldn't be another one, then the 360 appeared.

Then the Rrod happened and that cost billions in warranty claims and people said shareholders wouldn't accept that and the Xbox division would be cut.

Then the Xbox One appeared. Then we were told that only sold 50 million so shareholders wouldn't accept that and that's the end of Xbox.

Now we have two new Xbox's a rapidly growing and profitable division which just made a 7.5 billion purchase and is looking for more developers. Yet people still come out with this shareholder crap.

Most shareholders are Pension Funds etc and they are not interested in the day to day running of a business like you think they are.
 

onesvenus

Member
I'm baffled that you cannot see how you're changing your basis of comparison in the above two cases.

VRS:
Shading at a lower rate than the base native resolution buffer (i.e. less pixels)

CBR/TR:
Generating more pixels than the base native resolution buffer (i.e. the lower res native image)

You're jumping to native 4K in your comparison with the latter and thus changing your basis of comparison entirely. You're moving the goal posts.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm focusing on why you use temporal reconstruction and why you use VRS. In both cases you do it to increase performance by doing less work than what you would need to do otherwise. That's the only comparison I'm doing.
 

On Demand

Banned
Did the say their games will be exclusive? Quite the contrary. They said their games will have some kind of advantage on XB so most probably timed exclusivity. They never ever stated or implied their games won't release on Playstation. Not once.

I don’t listen to those PR wordings. MS isn’t some nice for gamers company their fanboys make them out to be.

They didn't remove anything major. You can't pass on 100 million + users installed base and make Bethesda acquisition profitable. Elder Scrolls games will definitely be on PS too. You could only make smaller games gamepass exclusives.

Xbox CFO confirmed as much in an interview iirc.

2 biggest IP’s in the whole of Bethesda are Elder Scrolls and Fallout. MS would love to have those exclusive to Xbox consoles. But even the smaller less selling games I don’t believe will be on PlayStation either. Don’t listen to those PR executives, especially good guy Phil. They say whatever sounds good at the moment.

I understand the financial point as games like Fallout 4 sold 10 million copies on PS4 alone. They will definitely be losing sales from PS5. For example no way am I buying a SX just for Starfield. I don’t even have a PS5 yet and that’s where $500+ of my money is going to this year. I would buy it though if there’s a PS5 version. You can bet there’s many other people in the same position. So that’s a lost sale for Bethesda.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I highly doubt they can reach the scale you think they can and certainly not at that price

I am not confident they can reach that scale.

IntentionalPun said:
The problem for MS is that they may not ever scale their services to their desires. But if it works out for them, the Bethesda acquisition might be key to that.

Particularly because they think they are going to do it via streaming.

But that's how they plan to do it; and it's the only thing they are interested in.. they are not interested in the traditional console business representing "Xbox." So they almost have no choice but to make Bethesda exclusive.
 
Last edited:
I am thinking logically, in the end, it's about making money/profit.

Shareholders want to see a profit, Microsoft can not afford to pass up on sony's massive console base.

They can still expand as a gaming business while raking in profits from sony's side.

I am not sure why this is so hard to see, before you reply, just think about that console base that they would not tap into if they went your route. It's colossal.

Asking Riky Riky to think... ?

wendell carter no GIF by Chicago Bulls
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
jesus fucking christ DF no one cares about Todd's rim
TBH, I would rather see some more detailed comparisons between PS5 or Xbox vs PC versions. They have only done three so far. CoD, AC and Hitman. I want to see Fenyx Rising, Borderlands 3, etc. Hell go back and see if Hitman drops frames on PC in that level xsx was dropping frames. there is so much more to cover.

I really dont think anyone cares about fucking skyrim.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
So that DF Skyrim comparison shows the XSX really struggling badly with transparency effects when there are a lot of trees in an area and atmospheric effects. The PS5 also shows a weakness here with framedrops below 60, but the xsx drops way more often and hits the low 50s.

Even Richard is starting to come around and thinks this is a PS5 advantage due to its 36 CU and high clock design. Though, as always, he thinks it will only affect last gen games as if next gen games wont be using transparency effects with higher tree counts and more atmospherics.

I guess we will see.
 
So that DF Skyrim comparison shows the XSX really struggling badly with transparency effects when there are a lot of trees in an area and atmospheric effects. The PS5 also shows a weakness here with framedrops below 60, but the xsx drops way more often and hits the low 50s.

Even Richard is starting to come around and thinks this is a PS5 advantage due to its 36 CU and high clock design. Though, as always, he thinks it will only affect last gen games as if next gen games wont be using transparency effects with higher tree counts and more atmospherics.

I guess we will see.

The point he was making with the CUs was that the PS4 Pro’s 36 compute units match up to the PS5’s 36 CU set-up, where the xbox is going from 40 to 52 (One X to SX).
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
The point he was making with the CUs was that the PS4 Pro’s 36 compute units match up to the PS5’s 36 CU set-up, where the xbox is going from 40 to 52 (One X to SX).
right, but PC GPUs increase CU counts all the time and are able to increase performance despite the parallelization of GPU instructions. It really shouldnt matter because they are basically both running in GCN 2.0 modes.
 
right, but PC GPUs increase CU counts all the time and are able to increase performance despite the parallelization of GPU instructions. It really shouldnt matter because they are basically both running in GCN 2.0 modes.
It’s legacy software for console though. I think he’s just speculating that it might be a scenario like PS4 pro playing PS4 games in non-boost mode where it just straight up deactivated the extra CUs. It’s speculation either way but it seems like a plausible theory.
 

Stooky

Member
This is definitely not confirmed. Nor are you really correct on your statement.

Need to understand just how insanely profitable wide-scale subscription services are.

The problem for MS is that they may not ever scale their services to their desires. But if it works out for them, the Bethesda acquisition might be key to that.

41 million people spending $15 a month for a year is around $7.5 billion. (not trying to say that's the math they are using, or that it's all profit for them alone, or that Bethesda is the only cost, but just giving you idea of how quickly a $15 a month service can generate revenue in general.)

And sub services are just insanely consistent in revenue, and make your business far more risk averse. And everything you make becomes part of a growing back-catalog that might get future buyers interested, even if someone doesn't jump in today.

To some extent, MS can't afford to NOT make Bethesda games exclusive, as their entire long-term strategy is about people buying their services who aren't currently buying them, and being willing to spend $15 a month on them or maybe more.

Sony is almost certainly considering a day-one sub service too, you can count on that.
They have to pay for infrastructure and other devs on game pass. The $15 a month gets stretched mighty thin. They need netflix disney+ sub numbers and then some to make Bethesda games be exclusive.. I would prepare for the wave of microtransaction ad riddled games coming your way.
 

MistBreeze

Member
about microsoft and bethesda

when microsoft showed how they aggressively about game pass two days ago

I came to conclusion that microsoft is moving away from platforms and hardware first to services first

I was watching a video on youtube about why microsoft refuse to develop windows 11 and it says platforms are costly and services strategy Microsoft is hedding to make more sense and profit to them for god sakes they sell office suite now as a subscription model

I think microsoft does not care about xbox as a platform anymore hence no sale numbers for years now

and trying to killing live service which is xbox and trying to kill digital sales and disc sales by this move and game ownership in xbox

yeah they are destroying xbox but not necessarily their gaming deviesion

I think for triple AAA games they must sell them outside of game pass whatever way possible to recoup some dev cost and maybe make profit

while keeping and growing gamepass in the same time

u see selling games on playstation at full price 70 dollar for standard edition is a huge deal with an install base of more than 100 m customers is hard to pass up

yes exclusivity for first party games make sense if microsoft care about selling as much consoles as possible or care about games copies sold

but now caring about game pass ?? yeah it does not make much sense to keep caring about exclusives

and Riky said why Microsoft does not sell gears and forza etc in ps now ??

I say for now yes but maybe when game pass grow enough for them and kill xbox for good like they are doing now maybe u will see gears on ps5

to be precise

Sony only care about exclusives cause they want to sell as many consoles as possible and cause they have a huge install base the thing that carry their eco system enough to sell their games exclusively on it

I bet if ps5 unit sales failed to match their expectations they will release all their first party games on xbox and pc too

it is all about money after all u can not sell exclusive games on a system with small install base

this is what I think at least
 
Last edited:

MistBreeze

Member
How many are actually staying subbed for a whole year ($200)? and how many sub&cancel after a month or two? What if the retention rate is well below 50%?
Think Sesame Street GIF

yes this is a common problem on all subscription models platforms

most casual people will sub for a month play games they want then bail out

only die hards will keep their subs for years

I think microsoft will combat that by making their games episodic

lets say for example instead of releasing perfect dark as a full game they will release it as episodes for 6 months maybe like episode every month

so if u want to play it u must keep ur sub for at least 6 months

but if they tried something like that in gaming will gamers respond well to this??

I do not know

either that or if u putting games full in game pass I think they must sell it full price outside the service to get revenue
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
They have to pay for infrastructure and other devs on game pass. The $15 a month gets stretched mighty thin. They need netflix disney+ sub numbers and then some to make Bethesda games be exclusive.. I would prepare for the wave of microtransaction ad riddled games coming your way.
Of course; there are lots of costs and the revenue is shared (as I mentioned in my post.)

I was just giving a rough picture of the sheer amount of money a sub service can generate. And that's just the sub service itself; non-subscribers will continue to exist, and subscribers still buy games + DLC. Lots of secondary avenues that are boosted by the Bethesda purchase.

And Netflix has over 200 million subscribers worldwide.. do you understand the sheer magnitude of the money that would be generated if Gamepass could do that, even if the average person spent $10? That's $2 billion every single month.. and MS likely gets the brunt of it. That would be more money in a year than all of PlayStation has ever made in a year.

And I think people overestimate how much they have to give 3rd parties outside of key deals... most of the 3rd party games are long past their launch and are going on a service like GamePass and I think MS is getting killer deals because the goal is just as much to increase the popularity of the game / generate hype for a sequel / generate DLC sales / etc. And much like Netflix of 2021, once MS has a flood of their own content on GamePass, they will rely on 3rd parties less and less.

And I really don't think you are getting the big picture here; MS is only in this business now to scale GamePass / XBL... they aren't spending $7.5 billion to make some money selling Bethesda games on PlayStation. They want that purchase to add millions of GamePass subs, it's going to do far less of that if the games are available on their biggest competitor.

Bethesda also already generates tons of revenue on PC, has their back catalog to generate revenue, etc. The purchase will start bringing in revenue right away without MS doing anything.
 
Last edited:

MistBreeze

Member
What “most devices ever sold in a launch month” even means? Help me understand the spin machine.
microsft dodging mentioning sales numbers as always

this is telling and clearly series x not selling enough

they do not care about xbox anymore

it is just game pass now for microsoft gaming

I expect to see gamepass on every console including ps5 and switch in the future

smart TVS and mobile phones for xcloud
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
What “most devices ever sold in a launch month” even means? Help me understand the spin machine.

Probably not accounting for the extra 12 days they had in their "launch month" compared to Xbox One.

But they are largely shipping / production constrained in their largest markets anyways.
 
Last edited:
The point he was making with the CUs was that the PS4 Pro’s 36 compute units match up to the PS5’s 36 CU set-up, where the xbox is going from 40 to 52 (One X to SX).
That's awkward from them considering they constantly repeated since launch that XSX was fully using its 12tf (so 52CUs) of power for BC games.

It's confirmed that while back-compat gets 12TF of compute power...Rather you're seeing what a 12TF GCN-based console with Zen 2 would've looked like...
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
That's awkward from them considering they constantly repeated since launch that XSX was fully using its 12tf (so 52CUs) of power for BC games.
There's 52 CUs available, it's incredibly unlikely a last-gen game would be designed in a way where it would make use of them though.

That's really the problem potentially facing XSX in general though. If games have 36 or under CU utilization, they should perform quite a bit better on PS5.
 

kyliethicc

Member
So that DF Skyrim comparison shows the XSX really struggling badly with transparency effects when there are a lot of trees in an area and atmospheric effects. The PS5 also shows a weakness here with framedrops below 60, but the xsx drops way more often and hits the low 50s.

Even Richard is starting to come around and thinks this is a PS5 advantage due to its 36 CU and high clock design. Though, as always, he thinks it will only affect last gen games as if next gen games wont be using transparency effects with higher tree counts and more atmospherics.

I guess we will see.
This was probably a reason why the PS5 is same 36 CU GPU as PS4 Pro.

Sony 1st party dev engines will have the same amount of CPU cores and GPU shaders to use coming across generations. Probably makes the move to PS5 easier and helps their code be optimized faster.

Plus saved cost on die size etc.
 
There's 52 CUs available, it's incredibly unlikely a last-gen game would be designed in a way where it would make use of them though.

That's really the problem potentially facing XSX in general though. If games have 36 or under CU utilization, they should perform quite a bit better on PS5.
It's the problem XSX is facing in most games PS5 has the advantage. It's what Cerny (and many of us) have being talking about since before launch. PS5 is more efficient because it has less CUs by shader array. It will always be the case. Some of those games are next-gen ready like COD (with RT) or NBA (next-gen assets), and they are still performing better on PS5 no differently than cross-gen or BC games.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
It's the problem XSX is facing in most games PS5 has the advantage. It's what Cerny (and many of us) have being talking about since before launch. PS5 is more efficient because it has less CUs by shader array. It will always be the case. Some of those games are next-gen ready like COD (with RT) or NBA (next-gen assets), and they are still performing better on PS5 no differently than cross-gen or BC games.
We still don't know what will happen long term.

Using cross-gen games can be misleading; we'll just have to see.

But as it stands, PS5 is winning overall pretty handily, and it may be down to the narrower/faster design.
 

Great Hair

Banned
That's $2 billion every single month.. and MS likely gets the brunt of it

To achieve those numbers, they need 200 million subs ... ; Right now they have been selling less subs on a daily basis since the 15 million milestone. 30% for licensing, platform fee is a given, but the bigger chunk goes towards the publisher, distribution, servers, hardware, personnel and so on (3rd parties, less for 1st parties).

 
Last edited:
My biggest concern with Gamepass is what level of subscription retention will be maintained after the stacked $1 subs start ending. I have many friends that stacked a maximum of 3 years and many of them will not re-up their subs when it expires. Personally I buy Gamepass one month at a time with a pre-paid card when there are games I want to play.
Not sure if this comment is on or off topic... let me know.
This comment is in regards to Microsofts financial report.
 
Last edited:
And Netflix has over 200 million subscribers worldwide.. do you understand the sheer magnitude of the money that would be generated if Gamepass could do that, even if the average person spent $10? That's $2 billion every single month.. and MS likely gets the brunt of it. That would be more money in a year than all of PlayStation has ever made in a year.
This is exactly MS's thinking.

IMHO, however, I think it's a pipedream. They won't get every major gaming publisher to put all their games up on GamePass. They also won't be able to buy every major gaming publisher.

Given how Xbox users on PC are miniscule, Xbox streaming on mobile is even more of an unproven market, together with the fact that MS's console hardware has been growing less and less popular even in core markets for them, I'm not seeing how reaching anything close to even 100m subscribers is reasonable... much less 200m.

MS would really need to break into some entirely untapped market like China to reach those kinds of numbers. And historically, MS have had the absolute worst track record for gaming companies making attempts to break into international, especially non-English speaking, markets.

It's easy to talk about hypothetical growth of MS's subscription service. But practically, I don't think there exists a gaming company other than perhaps Nintendo who has the global appeal and IP reach to drive a potential gaming subscription service to the hundreds of millions of active subscribers. And even then, the technical challenges of having to rely on streaming for delivery to mobile devices in countries with heavy BW caps, kinda renders it all a non-starter.

People lean too much into the Netflix comparison when discussing GamePass, all the while entirely ignoring the fact that the two mediums (i.e. game versus TV/film) are inherently different and thus the barriers to ensuring a reasonable, enjoyable and economical end user experience are almost completely different in the two cases.
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
My biggest concern with Gamepass is what level of subscription retention will be maintained after the stacked $1 subs start ending. I have many friends that stacked a maximum of 3 years and many of them will not re-up their subs when it expires. Personally I buy Gamepass one month at a time with a pre-paid card when there are games I want to play.
Not sure if this comment is on or off topic... let me know.
This comment is in regards to Microsofts financial report.
 

Well... when they start reaching multiple tens of millions of subscribers and shareholders still aren't seeing the commensurate levels of expected revenue 2yrs in, Xbox management will have some important questions to answer to their shareholders.
 

kyliethicc

Member
People lean too much into the Netflix comparison when discussing GamePass, all the while entirely ignoring the fact that the two mediums (i.e. game versus TV/film) are inherently different and thus the barriers to ensuring a reasonable, enjoyable and economical end user experience are almost completely different in the two cases.

Exactly. For example, there are no free to play TV shows or movies. Many of the biggest games in the world are free. Huge difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom