Support NeoGAF

[Owari]

Next gen should be $450 for console, $450 for VR headset. So you can spend $1000 and still get a game.

 

[PeterLegend]

499 could work potentially if the hardware is powerful and the games are there at launch.

But 399 is really the sweet spot for launching a new console with good graphics.

 

[soulassssns]

They can go right ahead and launch at $599.

I'll be waiting for $399.

Agreed

 

[wanderjahr]

I think this conversation is about 3 years premature.

 

[Rolodzeo]

Or an overpriced console.

Fixed that for you.

 

[JordanN]

A better way to keep consoles competitive is by shorter 4 year cycles and fewer, less dramatic price drops. The hardware would still be competitive enough and the sell would be a lot easier. People are generally a hell of a lot more comfortable with short replacement/upgrade cycles than they are with high up front costs.

Given the nature of longer game dev cycles and the increase of cross-gen games, I don't think this is going to work like in the past.

There's not enough time to get exclusive games that make use of the new hardware (in a meaningful way) to fill-up launch or the first year of a system's life. As a result, you have a console that still has to compete against last gen's library while being more expensive.

 

[gruenel]

I'd spend up to $1k if the specs live up to the price, but I know I'm in the minority.

 

[gatti-man]

The PS3 and Xbox One's failure at $599 and $499 respectively. The general public has clearly put a ceiling on how much they will pay for a video game console. If that is not in your wheelhouse you should be probably become a PC gamer.

If you really love gaming it's hard to be JUST a PC gamer. There are always great exclusives that are console only.

 

[Valnen]

Fixed that for you.

Price isn't everything, as this generation is teaching us. We got skimped on build quality wise with the PS4.

 

[The Wraith]

499$ is the highest I'll pay for a console. I bought my PS3 after the first 100$ price drop. If they launched at 499$ I would buy it as soon as it launched.

 

[120v]

Personally, with PC gaming the way it is now, I don't see a point in paying over $400 for a console. Ten years ago that wasn't an issue but now, unless your console has must-buy exclusives dropping left and right or some kind of killer "hook", it just doesn't seem practical buying at the entry price.

Luckily for console manufacturers, that's just my opinion

 

[The Maverick]

I'd go PC before I buy a 600 dollar system.

 

[Harmen]

Can't say the 4 and One are doing badly at this moment, so no.

Sony's first party games were lookers so far, and UC4 and Horizon are shaping up to be extremely impressive technical marvels. And then there is that Dreams thing of media molecule and the recent mass destruction tech demo of Crackdown shown by MS. I also expect Quantic Dreams to blow minds, seeing how Beyond looked and their Ps4 techdemo looked. Morpheus games seem to shape up nicely, with clean, simple yet effective graphics.

And even though 1080p is not the standard, the average resolution is still a step up from previous gen. And performance is something the general public has never been bothered by for most genres. 4k and 120 fps are great, but I think that is not feasible for the pricepoints consoles require to sell to the masses. At least not anytime soon.

 

[Pachinko]

They can totally launch consoles for 600 bucks if they want them to crash and burn and hasten the slow death of the videogame console.

Calling the PS3 a success isn't really correct, it failed to really sell well until it's price lowered to 400$ , despite all it could do - 600 bucks was simply too much.

Going forward I think even charging 400$ might be asking too much for what you get from these set top boxes. They might have to aim lower instead of higher and build the best box they can for 299.99 in another 3 years. Not sure how they will pull it off with the slowdown in fabrication achievements lately but I feel like Next gen systems (ps5/XB4) are going to be even more technically disappointing than these current ones are. The current ones are pretty much 2011 level tech crammed into a 2013 released box so it's safe to assume the next ones will be cramming 2017 tech into a 2019 released box. How much better will things really get in 2 more years for PC tech ?

 

[infiniteheteroskdasticity]

Given the nature of longer game dev cycles and the increase of cross-gen games, I don't think this is going to work like in the past.

There's not enough time to get exclusive games that make use of the new hardware (in a meaningful way) to fill-up launch or the first year of a system's life. As a result, you have a console that still has to compete against last gen's library while being more expensive.

That's definitely a point but given we're likely going to be all x86 going forward its less of an issue. It guarantees full backward and forward compatibility. Most devs already support multiple performance targets on PC. In this case, they'd need to support at most two different IQ and fidelity targets on identical architectures. Hypothetically, say the PS5 came out in Q4 2017 with the ability to come close to 4k @ 30 fps. All games released from 2017-2019 would render ~1080p on the PS4 and ~4k on the PS5. Apple does something similar with its i devices. Developers would be making games for multi device platforms, not single consoles.

 

[RoninChaos]

This might honest be the dumbest question I've ever seen on this forum. No offense OP, but for fucks sake, this is an industry that desperately tries to fuck it's customers regularly. The Xbone launched at 499 and is get its ass kicked by Sony. Sega launched a 400 dollar Saturn when Sony launched a 300 dollar PSOne and Sega got its ass kicked. Sony launched a 599 ps3 and spent the rest of the gen chasing Microsoft in America. Nintendo launched the wii I at 350 and got their ass kicked.

Price matters. It always has and always will. And people who REALLY care about 1080p/60 already have pcs.

 

[DaV]

As Nintendo's Peter Main said long ago, ''it's all about the games''. I'd much, much rather have an underpowered and cheap console with cool games, than an overpriced, powerful one with nothing to play. Also history has proven that people think this way too. The console ''wars'' have always been won by the games they run, never hardware.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

If you really love gaming it's hard to be JUST a PC gamer. There are always great exclusives that are console only.

It's nice to want things but at some point you have to understand the realities of the market and why your niche isn't being served.

 

[inner-G]

$199 or bust

 

[NoblesseOblige]

$599 is too much for hardware that will likely continue to be out-shined by DIY computer builds. At that price point I'd just build/upgrade my current desktop and wait a couple years for the console price to drop. Especially considering more of my favorite games are coming to PC, resulting in fewer exclusives to provide me with incentive to purchase.

 

[FirewalkR]

Funny thing is, I have this feeling that if Apple launched a console at that price (or higher) they'd sell bucketloads. But only Apple could do that.

 

[Gaogaogao]

ps3 didn't do well until after price drops. until then, they got destroyed by 360. and this generation, history repeats itself, only the roles reversed.

so no, you need to be $400 or less.

it doesn't matter if people complain later, developers will make it work as long as the architecture stays simple. maybe they use an intel apu next time.

 

[The Baron Count]

This not true at all. When the ps3 released, the gtx 8800 have already came out. That thing was several times more powerful than the ps3.

I knew someone was going to mention this. I should have clarified before.

I was really talking about the 360 in this case. The GPU they used was based on architecture that was pretty damn bleeding edge at the time. That system as a whole was incredibly forward thinking. multi-core CPUs were still pretty new at the time and you had a lot of devs that didn't like the idea of having to create multi threaded applications.

The PS3 never had a very powerful GPU to begin with but the Cell processor certainly made up for that. It was incredibly powerful. Not even remotely comparable to an off the shelf CPU however.

 

[AP90]

I think $400 is here to stay because the market has spoken this Gen. I do think that MS will create a $500 console next Gen and sell it for $400 (which is acceptable to market) so that they can have that powerful console edge.

The only way I could see a $599 or $699 future console working would be to offer xbl or psn free for the life of that console for x number of accounts .

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Funny thing is, I have this feeling that if Apple launched a console at that price (or higher) they'd sell bucketloads. But only Apple could do that.

I doubt they would. Game consoles are not mass market in the same way phones or tablets are. Apple has the success it has when they create premium products in markets that appeals to EVERYONE.

 

[ramparter]

Never paid more than 250€ for a console and never going too.

 

[Rizific]

id much rather spend $600 on a gpu instead of an underpowered console. id say $400 for a console would be the sweet spot for me whereas $300 would be impulse buy territory.

 

[Hideous Snake]

Nobody is going to repeat PS3's mistake. Look at the X1 at launch! $500 and people didnt go for it.

 

[The Baron Count]

I doubt they would. Game consoles are not mass market in the same way phones or tablets are. Apple has the success it has when they create premium products in markets that appeals to EVERYONE.

Keep in mind that Apple's thing is to pretty much take something that isn't totally mass market yet and make it so.

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

The NES generation has been grown up for quite a bit, and you tend to forget that they have rents and shit to pay. Getting older means they can't spend that much money in a "toy".

Also, no matter how much power you put on your 600€ console, it's going to get outdated by a PC in less than a year. And devs will always struggle because graphics > performance no matter what.And the higher price means slower adaption so more cross gens ports holding back your new system. So at the end, you would end up accomplishing nothing.

Yes, you would. You would push the industry a little further, give devs a little more freedom, and allow them to make a little more innovative games. Of course, any piece of hardware will eventually become outdated, but it's well known that most games are made for the current generation of consoles, then get bells and whistles added on top for PC. That still means that devs are limited though, as they try to ensure that the gameplay and world is the same, resulting in more limited games. Just look at what the jump from Gen 7 to 8 has meant for games in general.

Growing up and getting a job does generally mean you have more disposable income, that's just a fact. Even if you do end up spending a lot on food and housing.

 

[The Baron Count]

Yes, you would. You would push the industry a little further, give devs a little more freedom, and allow them to make a little more innovative games. Of course, any piece of hardware will eventually become outdated, but it's well known that most games are made for the current generation of consoles, then get bells and whistles added on top for PC. That still means that devs are limited though, as they try to ensure that the gameplay and world is the same, resulting in more limited games. Just look at what the jump from Gen 7 to 8 has meant for games in general.

Getting older does generally mean you have more disposable income, that's just a fact.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was saying.

Consoles are the lowest common denominator here and them being more powerful means higher standards all around.

 

[kittens]

Nah. Accessibility and affordability are more important to me than fancy graphics. As long as there's a steady improvement in graphics, I'm happy.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Given your example it's still only $200 dollars more regardless of the other stuff you will buy, 10 cents a day for 5 years for better graphics / possibilities. Hell, set aside a quarter a day and you'll have enough for NEXT gen day one, tax and all. I don't understand the line of thinking of not saving up money long term for something you want.

An extra $200 may not be much to you but I'm not spending $800+ for what is essentially a toy. It's crazy to me that you think your spending habits can or should be universally adopted. The market has already rejected high price points multiple time so you don't even have history on your side; people don't want to do this.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Fixed that for you.

If it's packing the meat then why is it over priced?

 

[gatti-man]

It's nice to want things but at some point you have to understand the realities of the market and why your niche isn't being served.

Yeah I understand that. It's not like I hate my ps4 lol.

 

[TGO]

Makes zero difference to me in the UK as the price is aways $599+ anyway

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

I think the last generation showed that even after 8 years, games could still look great. I think this generation will be similarly long. So 4K will be possible for cheaps by then

 

[MilkyJoe]

I think the last generation showed that even after 8 years, games could still look great. I think this generation will be similarly long. So 4K will be possible for cheaps by then

But they will never put out in 4k

 

[Croatoan]

Have a $400 model and a $600-$700 model with better hardware.

Force developers to develop for the $400 machine at 1080p(900p) 30fps, premium machine would run at 1080p 60fps.

Fixed.

Basically the cell phone model that allows enthusiasts the option to pay for a premium model.

Also, there is no real reason that consoles shouldn't simply be custom pcs running on a custom os. With the ability to upgrade hardware like you do a pc.

Wanna upgrade graphics? Buy Sony's tier 2 gpu.

They could make a killing on people upgrading.

 

[Chastten]

Sure.

At that price, it'll drop like a rock, get huge discounts and I can buy a more powerful machine two years after launch.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Have a $400 model and a $600-$700 model with better hardware.

Force developers to develop for the $400 machine at 1080p(900p) 30fps, premium machine would run at 1080p 60fps.

Fixed.

Basically the cell phone model that allows dossiers enthusiasts the option to pay for a premium model.

It's not like there is just a 60 FPS switch they can flip. the optimization necessary would be a mess. Eventually developers would stop meaningfully supporting the premium model (because it would probably sell like shit) and make the standard model their top priority.

 

[dreampeppers99]

"People are more careful than ever about their spending habits"

exactly

 

[Alcoholikaust]

If the console makes 1080p 60fps a minimum standard in all games: I'd shell out 600 bucks.

That's an impossibility but I mean- if they did: I would.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I think the last generation showed that even after 8 years, games could still look great. I think this generation will be similarly long. So 4K will be possible for cheaps by then

I think last gen went on too long, i think we get PS5 by holiday 2018, holiday 2019 at the latest.

 

[AmFreak]

The market has already rejected high price points multiple time so you don't even have history on your side; people don't want to do this.

The market has rejected multiple low price consoles, looks like history isn't on your side either; people don't want to do this.

 

[Croatoan]

It's not like there is just a 60 FPS switch they can flip. the optimization necessary would be a mess. Eventually developers would stop meaningfully supporting the premium model (because it would probably sell like shit) and make the standard model their top priority.

Ohh you mean like the 60 or 30fps switch found in pc titles (via frame limiting or vsync)?

My argument requires Sony and MS to stop making these consoles with highly specialized components and start making then pcs with a custom non windows os.

On pc i can go from 30fps to 60fps just by upgrading my gpu. Even if devs target the low gpu, giving the option to unlock the framerate and upgrade the hardware will equal better performance via brute force.

 

[Caayn]

I'll pay whatever amount is necessary to get consoles that aren't made up of low-end hardware.

I don't want another generation with weak consoles like the current ones.

Build a PC.

I already have.

 

[Croatoan]

I'll pay whatever amount is necessary to get consoles that aren't made up of low-end hardware.

I don't want another generation with weak consoles like the current ones.

Build a PC.

 

[mrklaw]

That's definitely a point but given we're likely going to be all x86 going forward its less of an issue. It guarantees full backward and forward compatibility. Most devs already support multiple performance targets on PC. In this case, they'd need to support at most two different IQ and fidelity targets on identical architectures. Hypothetically, say the PS5 came out in Q4 2017 with the ability to come close to 4k @ 30 fps. All games released from 2017-2019 would render ~1080p on the PS4 and ~4k on the PS5. Apple does something similar with its i devices. Developers would be making games for multi device platforms, not single consoles.

This is what I've been trying to suggest. It allows MS/Sony to have shorter cycles while at the same time giving existing platforms a long time on the market, and publishers a relatively stable environment and ability to sell across both platforms for low incremental costs. Then when PS6 comes out you drop support for PS4 so you always have only two active platforms

 

[shouamabane]

The 60GB PS3 was a great value for me. I'd buy a fully BC premium system for $600 again.