Support NeoGAF

[Thirty7ven]

Foe me 5 years cycle for consoles is perfectly fine, better then mid gen refreshes also next gen games can be played on old hardware with lowered specifications.

So… it’s not a fiver year cycle, and the “new gen” is basically a mid gen upgrade in disguise.

It’s all about price point people. If you are aiming for 499$, unless you got custom proprietary hardware that reduces costs for same performance then there’s not much you can do to separate yourself. Calling it a new gen is just marketing.

Side note: What happened to the DLSS like ML upscaling that MS was going to use in the Series X with the humongous power of the A.I cloud Azure etc?

 

[Tsaki]

I think there is an assumption that the mid gen refresh is sold at a great margin rather than a loss, but that isn't the case.

Yeah. Taking into account BOM, shipping, taxes and retail cut, PS5 Pro (digital edition), whether it releases at $499, $549 or $599, will be sold at barely profitable numbers. I don't expect Sony to lose a single cent on it but at the same time won't make them any tangible amount of cash. Aside from the obvious economic reasons, a PS5 Pro sold with a subsidy would diminish the eventual technological jump to PS6. "It's only 2x the Pro's power?"

 

[consoul]

Xbox ONE was the most forgettable 'generation' in Xbox history. Take away the multiplatform games and there's just nothing remarkable left. So disappointing.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yeah. Taking into account BOM, shipping, taxes and retail cut, PS5 Pro (digital edition), whether it releases at $499, $549 or $599, will be sold at barely profitable numbers. I don't expect Sony to lose a single cent on it but at the same time won't make them any tangible amount of cash. Aside from the obvious economic reasons, a PS5 Pro sold with a subsidy would diminish the eventual technological jump to PS6. "It's only 2x the Pro's power?"

Unless Sony does something out of character, the PS6 is going to be the smallest jump in graphics we've ever seen between consoles.

The reality is the improvement in graphics that we see needs to come from things outside of polygons at this point. That is why there has been so much hype around ray tracing.

I mean, I think ultimately, we're hoping for a lot of AI-accelerated processing and rendering via hardware. It's one of those things where Sony and Microsoft are going to have to gauge the importance of backward compatibility and the most advanced architecture at the best price.

I think that people screaming for BC are really hurting us in terms of how much we progress from generation to generation.

 

[twilo99]

What you want sir, is a PC.

Can’t have a PC for $250

 

[DaGwaphics]

And this is were I disagree with you a little. Why change the release schedule? Why change the positioning? Because the previous plan is not good enough, for some reasons. Not a critic, but a observation. Console gaming is not just a weak PC. It is another way for people to play games, and can be used and liked even if you have a monster PC. It is not a poor man's choice, but the preferred way for many. And the console market is known to us since decades. If we follow this "tradition", and "common sense", a 400/600 €/$ console would be a Dreamcast. Dead on arrival. Because the market choose the PS5 this gen. Or at least seems to have. You can't have this early next gen be there and be successful without thinking that either A: the Series was successful too. Or B: it was not but new hardware will make it work. Remember, the Series consoles are sold at a loss. No refresh means that they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. PS5 and Switch are successful. Next year, new hardware will be available to make it even better for customers. In this environment, making a next gen console will lead to questions. How do you see this next gen box from Xbox? Made for mass market or limited numbers? Sold at a loss or at cost? Made for a 10 year plan or just to eclipse the PS5 Pro? Made for the Xbox hardcore fans, or for the casuals?

If you just ignore all the back side business, and take an overly simplistic overview, sure.

The reality is that the Xbox makes MS money overall even if it is in third place, it is also likely one of the most important sources of GP subscribers, etc. Forget PS, real business doesn't operate in a winner takes all warrior race, the Xbox business is stronger in revenue than it has ever been. As the smaller platform in third place, they could make some adjustments on the backend to lower opportunity costs for devs while at the same time giving themselves more freedom in choosing hardware partners, lowering build costs, etc. This would likely be the reason for the change if it happened.

DC is no longer relevant as an example because the market has changed too much, we've switched from stark generational divisions to more graceful transitions with a lot of cross-gen. Plus, DC released a full 4 years after the PS1, that is a little too close to the end of that gen to release a system that can't hold up vs. the future systems. If they had delayed Saturn until say 96(95?) when N64 launched they could have still been okay and not have needed to worry about that hardware holding up in the next generation (while still getting the benefit of besting PS while also keeping costs in check and avoiding losses like Nintendo did). If MS goes this way, it almost certainly dictates them switching to a more frequent release schedule for this reason, this wouldn't be 8yr hardware it would be more like 4yr hardware. These really wouldn't be traditional console generations though, just new models that likely would act as cut off points for released software at a later date (this game works on Xbox whatever + while this one requires one model newer, etc.) like a phone or a PC GPU, the lines wouldn't be drawn nearly as clearly. MS positioning themselves to release a couple years after the PS5 Pro/PS6 or whatever revision Sony has coming and then releasing a couple years after the next PS update is workable. Especially with the slowed pace of technological progression we've been seeing. If the new PS5 is a pro and we see a PS6 in 27 or 28, it isn't going to be "that much" different from a 26 Xbox (just like the 26 Xbox isn't going to be "that much" different than this 24 PS), assuming the target prices are similar of course. The ground that can be gained year over year is shrinking as it stands now. Just look at the contrast between the ground gained from PS4 to PS4 Pro in 3 years, vs what is being rumored for PS5 and PS5 Pro after 4.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Can’t have a PC for $250

You can and a pretty decent one as well.

I rather have something like this than Xbox Series S to be honest.

 

[Topher]

I think that consoles should have 3 tiers

$700-900
$400-600
$150-300

That way consumers can decide what kind of performance they want and not be stuck with one mediocre option.

Can’t have a PC for $250

You can, but certainly are not getting a range of options up to $900 on consoles.

 

[Tsaki]

You can and a pretty decent one as well.

I rather have something like this than Xbox Series S to be honest.

Is it? Theoretical peak of 1.9TF of Vega is close to a PS4-tier GPU

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Is it? Theoretical peak of 1.9TF of Vega is close to a PS4-tier GPU

Considering it’s a fully fledged PC with all the perks of that platform + it’s an absolutely amazing emulation device, I’d say it’s great value.

Again, I much rather have this than Series S for similar price.

 

[Tsaki]

Considering it’s a fully fledged PC with all the perks of that platform + it’s an absolutely amazing emulation device, I’d say it’s great value.

Again, I much rather have this than Series S for similar price.

I didn't know this existed and I agree it's amazing value as a PC and I really like this borderline pocket-size hardware. I'd probably buy one but I expect the shipping and import taxes to make it not worthy in my country.

 

[REDRZA MWS]

So did PS4

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I didn't know this existed and I agree it's amazing value as a PC and I really like this borderline pocket-size hardware. I'd probably buy one but I expect the shipping and import taxes to make it not worthy in my country.

Mini PC market is booming and it's better than ever. Check this overview (spreadsheet) by Retro Game Corpes:

RGC Mini PC comparison

Sheet1 Top Pick!,Brand,Model,CPU/APU,Avg Price,Link,Video / Media,Retro,GC/Wii,PS2,Xbox,3DS,Wii U,Switch,PS3,PC Gaming,Batocera,Comments Chuwi,HeroBox Pro,Celeron N4500,$170,<a href="https://amzn.to/3qCkdi4">https://amzn.to/3qCkdi4</a>,BAD,720p,Native,Unplayable,Untested,Untested,Untested,Untested

docs.google.com

 

[Daneel Elijah]

If you just ignore all the back side business, and take an overly simplistic overview, sure.

The reality is that the Xbox makes MS money overall even if it is in third place, it is also likely one of the most important sources of GP subscribers, etc. Forget PS, real business doesn't operate in a winner takes all warrior race, the Xbox business is stronger in revenue than it has ever been. As the smaller platform in third place, they could make some adjustments on the backend to lower opportunity costs for devs while at the same time giving themselves more freedom in choosing hardware partners, lowering build costs, etc. This would likely be the reason for the change if it happened.

DC is no longer relevant as an example because the market has changed too much, we've switched from stark generational divisions to more graceful transitions with a lot of cross-gen. Plus, DC released a full 4 years after the PS1, that is a little too close to the end of that gen to release a system that can't hold up vs. the future systems. If they had delayed Saturn until say 96(95?) when N64 launched they could have still been okay and not have needed to worry about that hardware holding up in the next generation (while still getting the benefit of besting PS while also keeping costs in check and avoiding losses like Nintendo did). If MS goes this way, it almost certainly dictates them switching to a more frequent release schedule for this reason, this wouldn't be 8yr hardware it would be more like 4yr hardware. These really wouldn't be traditional console generations though, just new models that likely would act as cut off points for released software at a later date (this game works on Xbox whatever + while this one requires one model newer, etc.) like a phone or a PC GPU, the lines wouldn't be drawn nearly as clearly. MS positioning themselves to release a couple years after the PS5 Pro/PS6 or whatever revision Sony has coming and then releasing a couple years after the next PS update is workable. Especially with the slowed pace of technological progression we've been seeing. If the new PS5 is a pro and we see a PS6 in 27 or 28, it isn't going to be "that much" different from a 26 Xbox (just like the 26 Xbox isn't going to be "that much" different than this 24 PS), assuming the target prices are similar of course. The ground that can be gained year over year is shrinking as it stands now. Just look at the contrast between the ground gained from PS4 to PS4 Pro in 3 years, vs what is being rumored for PS5 and PS5 Pro after 4.

If you had told me that in 2020, I would have said yes. I was certain that Microsoft would put pressure on Sony with 2 consoles on 2020, then a revision with a Pro and a cheaper Series X, then the same for 4 to 5 years later... I was afraid when Xbox disclosed that they would use the Series X as a base for their Cloud plans. That would mean millions of hardware on top of the consoles that they plan to sell, so maybe that was the way to make the console cheaper to make, by using Microsoft bigger bank account? Then reality, and Covid happened. We are in 2023, and Xbox have yet to make one console revision like Sony did. Their console must be as costly now as they were at launch, outside of a few changes, like the 350$ Series S. I am not really knowlegable about the console history of the end of the 90s, but wasn't Sega at war with itself? With Sega of America and Japan having different plans? And that the Saturn was how it was because they did not believe in 3D the way that Sony did?

Going back to Xbox situation. Yes it got more money than before. But some of that money was from buying publishers. Some was by being helped by Microsoft, in obvious moves like selling consoles at a loss, and less obvious moves like Gamepass servers, that are from Azure business. Unlike Sony and Nintendo, Microsoft can do what they want with their numbers, and they can, and did, accept to loose money for a potential gain later. Xbox did some big moves this gen, like making 2 consoles, selling them at a loss, putting their games on Gamepass Day one and making good offers to have third party games on the service. And they are still looking at a possible collapse of their console sales this holiday season and after. This go back to my first question to you. Why change? Because the 2020 plan needed to be reworked. Maybe because they did not plan on gaining ABK when they did it, or maybe because they have to because they got caught by the PS5 Pro. I don't think that going out of sync with the Playstation is a bad idea in itself, but it have to be done the right way. Nintendo had to do it because the Wii got old faster than the PS360. And the Wii U failure forced them to react again. But Nintendo decided to try for another part of the market, and got them. Xbox want the same consumers as Sony. But they are not getting them at the same pace. And a significant part of their revenue will be on PS going forward.

So no matter what they do, 2024 will hurt them. Will they continue as they have done, overpay for Gamepass and marketing deals? Put more of their games on PS? This is not winner takes all, but a console need to sell well to make all parties happy. If Xbox was selling more consoles than Sony, we would not have the Baldur's gate PS5 accidental exclusivity. And this will get worse if the trend continue. And this led to the end of generations part of your post. Before, a new generation was possible because of tech advances. Now, tech have slowed down, and consoles like the PS4 are still relevant now and getting games in 2024. But the push to the PS5 was still needed. We need that push for things like making SSD and Ray tracing standard. What will Xbox propose for next gen? And will that allow them to have a console that will be relevant in 10 years? This is where some of us have huge doubts. Said in other words, if the Series S/X will sell 30 millions in 4 years, this next gen will sell as much, more, or less? And how to force the market to put games on it? The One X was more powerful than the PS4 Pro, but not that many games used it. I think that it will be the same if their next console is just that. A more powerful PS5 Pro. That will be limited by the PS5, but even more by the Series S. And a few years later, the PS6 will arrive with Sony working behind the scenes for years to make it as good as possible, and with as many games exclusive to it as possible. With the ambitions that having a 100 millions+ console potential can allow to have. Consoles and PCs are still different markets. For a casual, the consoles we have now are more than good enough. So having a new console that will be supported only by Xbox will be hard to do IMHO. A 300$ PS5 is possible for 2026. How would this next Xbox console fight with that? When it will have to play games made for the Series S? Do you think that Xbox will make some of their games like Perfect dark exclusive for it?

 

[Pelta88]

I listened to the Jez and Rand podcast recently and it became clear that they're only concerned with info they can spin as a "Win."

They advocate for adds embedded in, or, that run in game. Where the user has to pause the experience to watch them as that could make XB successful. They then dismiss hardware data as XB doesn't need hardware. Minutes later, they become enthusiastic about XB releasing hardware 2 years early to beat the competition... In hardware.

Is Rand on the forum?

 

[twilo99]

You can and a pretty decent one as well.

I rather have something like this than Xbox Series S to be honest.

That thing is awesome but I meant something you can play most games on.. Somehow I doubt you will be able to run Fortnite on that for example

 

[wolffy66]

I've been hearing that phones will kill consoles since 2010 and the ps3 would be the last console ever released. Still waiting.

You've been hearing it because it's obvious that technology is only gonna get better.

 

[twilo99]

You can, but certainly are not getting a range of options up to $900 on consoles.

I haven't seen $250 PC that can run modern games but maybe you can show me.

I think there will be quite a bit of interest for a high end console.

If you think about it we are almost there:

PS5 pro ~600
PS5/xbx ~450
Xss - $200

 

[Panajev2001a]

And a PC is a Xbox, kinda. But Xbox isn’t a PC, yet.
The solution is right there. Treating Xbox like an isolated console at this point makes no sense. They need to pop that bubble. Just synchronize the products and make the ecosystem make sense, let the Xbox be a living room PC.

Xbox ecosystem - Play everything on a Windows PC or Xbox console. Choose the performance with your wallet.

And in the future when mobile tech is better, play everything on mobile too.

And further out when cloud computing and internet infrastructure is better, play everything wherever you can start a Xbox launcher, on your computer, console, Chromecast, TV, car, fridge, baby monitor.

Turkeys really do give seasoning advice for Thanksgiving . This strategy seems to fuse the negatives of PC’s (games are very abstracted from the HW and targeting a shifting low common denominator) with the negative of consoles (no HW or SW modding).

 

[NickFire]

I listened to the Jez and Rand podcast recently and it became clear that they're only concerned with info they can spin as a "Win."

They advocate for adds embedded in, or, that run in game. Where the user has to pause the experience to watch them as that could make XB successful. They then dismiss hardware data as XB doesn't need hardware. Minutes later, they become enthusiastic about XB releasing hardware 2 years early to beat the competition... In hardware.

Is Rand on the forum?

In my humble opinion, I think its also become clear that the evangelical types have helped tarnish the brand and should be shunned by MS going forward. The lack of compelling software (sufficient to hold or gain market share) was not their fault. But the flexing and dunking about the acquisitions probably helped expose the failings and probably made the acquisitions look desperate. Did anyone ever stop and think about whether it really made sense to celebrate the acquisition of games that Xbox would be getting regardless of the acquisitions?

We'll never know, but can always wonder how things would have played out if the acquisition party line started and remained as: We bought these companies for two reasons. One is to make sure no one enters into timed exclusivity deals and deprives Xbox owners from playing their games at launch. The second was to allow us to incorporate the games into GP.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

That thing is awesome but I meant something you can play most games on.. Somehow I doubt you will be able to run Fortnite on that for example

I'm shocked that people think that on a dedicated gaming forum. Fortnite, timestamped:

 

[Topher]

I haven't seen $250 PC that can run modern games but maybe you can show me.

I think there will be quite a bit of interest for a high end console.

If you think about it we are almost there:

PS5 pro ~600
PS5/xbx ~450
Xss - $200

MidGenRefresh showed it already. I think that's about as far consoles will go as far as options are concerned. Consoles are not targeting the high end customer.

Did Microsoft cut XSS to $200?

 

[JackMcGunns]

MS does not have a Pro planned and so a new narrative has to be made.

Do we care what they call it? I want my refresh machines NAAO!

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yes and we are told this is the way....

WTF, we love cloud gaming now™

 

[twilo99]

MidGenRefresh showed it already. I think that's about as far consoles will go as far as options are concerned. Consoles are not targeting the high end customer.

Did Microsoft cut XSS to $200?

I looked the one he linked up and while you can run some emulators on it, most modern games are.. well, see for yourself here



It does reasonably well considering the 30-40W power draw.

I think the xss does much better at a lower price, and you can also use it for emulating older games.

You can technically get a Raspberry PI for $80 , but we are talking about playing games.

You can find the xss for lower than $200 at Costco

 

[DaGwaphics]

@ Daneel Elijah , I think you are just so stuck in that console warrior, winner takes all mindset, that it's difficult for you to remove that from your thought process. Sony is the market leader, they'll likely stay that way and life goes on. MS moves are likely built around their own business more than they are around Sony's. It doesn't matter if they are 3rd, 4th, or 10th at something if they can run a profitable business from that position. A bit like how AMD is still running a profitable GPU business in spite of being completely run over by Nvidia, LOL. The $ matter more than the sales ranking to these companies.

I think you are also being a bit overly pessimistic in regards to Xbox sales as well. Sony is doing exceptionally well yes, but BF this year was still like the 3rd best sales day for Series systems overall.

 

[Topher]

I looked the one he linked up and while you can run some emulators on it, most modern games are.. well, see for yourself here



I think the xss does much better at a lower price, and you can also use it for emulating older games.

You can technically get a Raspberry PI for $80 , but we are talking about playing games.

You can find the xss for lower than $200 at Costco

Eh....you referenced Fortnite and that's what he showed so seems to meet your qualification. Doesn't mean all games are going to look great on it, granted.

Good to know on XSS pricing. Thanks.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

@ Daneel Elijah , I think you are just so stuck in that console warrior, winner takes all mindset, that it's difficult for you to remove that from your thought process. Sony is the market leader, they'll likely stay that way and life goes on. MS moves are likely built around their own business more than they are around Sony's. It doesn't matter if they are 3rd, 4th, or 10th at something if they can run a profitable business from that position. A bit like how AMD is still running a profitable GPU business in spite of being completely run over by Nvidia, LOL. The $ matter more than the sales ranking to these companies.

I think you are also being a bit overly pessimistic in regards to Xbox sales as well. Sony is doing exceptionally well yes, but BF this year was still like the 3rd best sales day for Series systems overall.

Thanks for the answer. I am maybe less objective on this than others subjects, but this is human. I think that as in my country the Series don't really sell that much my vision is different than yours. But yes each player do what they can to run a profitable business. And as consumers we need that competition to have the best products. I think that AMD and Xbox positions are different, as AMD principal activity is GPU and CPU, but Xbox is a small part of MS. But I can get your point. What is making me thinking is that consoles need to sell well to make the ecosystem stronger and allow all parties to be happy. Xbox is a part of the industry now. By buying ABK they put themselves in a safer position. It allows them to make moves that they could not have made before. A early next gen being one of them. If this console is a 1000+$ PC like machine, made to support the Series S and X, but not take over and not mandatory (maybe with PC storefronts on it?)until a more mass market version arrives, I would consider that a good idea. But a 600$ console, mandatory to access the Series S/X market, would hurt the industry. And if optional, I doubt that Xbox can make it work alone. But I understand that you have a different opinion. Time will tell.

 

[VideoGameEnjoyer]

The brand is just a complete embarrassment at this point. These 'journalists' who need to spin everything into a positive somehow need to demand a pay raise from Phil. Gotta be the hardest job in the industry.

 

[Pelta88]

@ Daneel Elijah , It doesn't matter if they are 3rd, 4th, or 10th at something if they can run a profitable business from that position. A bit like how AMD is still running a profitable GPU business

Completely false. You must have missed the info MS provided to regulators and courts. They’re nowhere near “profitable.”

 

[DaGwaphics]

Completely false. You must have missed the info MS provided to regulators and courts. They’re nowhere near “profitable.”

I think you missed it. The business as a whole is profitable, hardware itself isn't as that isn't how the console ecosystem functions (unless you are being ripped off, AKA Nintendo LOL). The hardware itself is loss leader but the software and services made possible by those systems cover that and turn a profit of 8-9% for them (MS). If you were saying I was wrong about AMD, that's also not correct because the GPU business runs at like 50% profit for them (the bastards), but at least it isn't 70% like Nvidia.

 

[twilo99]

Eh....you referenced Fortnite and that's what he showed so seems to meet your qualification. Doesn't mean all games are going to look great on it, granted.

Good to know on XSS pricing. Thanks.

Well ye, isn't Fortnite, CoD, and FC what most people care about? I don't think any $250 PC would be viable overall tho.

Just like there are people who want a cheap console, there are people who would love a high end console in the $800-1000 range that can provide them with higher performance.

 

[twilo99]

I think you missed it. The business as a whole is profitable, hardware itself isn't as that isn't how the console ecosystem functions (unless you are being ripped off, AKA Nintendo LOL). The hardware itself is loss leader but the software and services made possible by those systems cover that and turn a profit of 8-9% for them (MS). If you were saying I was wrong about AMD, that's also not correct because the GPU business runs at like 50% profit for them (the bastards), but at least it isn't 70% like Nvidia.

Yeah but look how beautiful that profit margin is on their revenue.. from an investor's standpoint, there is very little to be upset about.



If xbox is brining in 8-9% profits home there is no way they will stop making consoles... why would they? If they were operating at loss, then of course, but not if the division is profitable.

 

[Little Chicken]

Foe me 5 years cycle for consoles is perfectly fine, better then mid gen refreshes also next gen games can be played on old hardware with lowered specifications.

5 years is perfect. "Cross-gen" games won't matter as much because of diminishing returns and they'll just be natively 60/120fps on the newest console, with "native" releases coming out at the 2/2.5 year mark.

I think $500 every 5 years is perfectly reasonable.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Yeah but look how beautiful that profit margin is on their revenue.. from an investor's standpoint, there is very little to be upset about.



If xbox is brining in 8-9% profits home there is no way they will stop making consoles... why would they? If they were operating at loss, then of course, but not if the division is profitable.

Well, I know, from a business perspective it's amazing. For Joe gamer though it sucks, Nvidia could more than afford to get these prices down and would if they weren't in such a dominant position. When companies start running at 50 or 60% profit that's a big sign that more competition is needed in whatever area of business that is, can also be a sign of collusion as well.

 

[twilo99]

Well, I know, from a business perspective it's amazing. For Joe gamer though it sucks, Nvidia could more than afford to get these prices down and would if they weren't in such a dominant position. When companies start running at 50 or 60% profit that's a big sign that more competition is needed in whatever area of business that is, can also be a sign of collusion as well.

True.

It looks like they are brining $3 billion from their gaming hardware, and you are saying they running at ~60% profit margin on that? Crazy.

The demand for high end graphics is very healthy, which is why I think a high end console would also do well. Running the next GTA at 4k/120 instead 1440p/30 would get a lot of people excited

 

[DaGwaphics]

Regarding the profit percentages, I think it was the company as a whole and not an individual part at 70%, but still if you can run it up that high competition can't be that great. Even AMD's 50% is quite high.

Regarding an expensive console (1k plus or something), I mean it certainly could. I wouldn't be against it. I'm not against the idea of the mid-gen systems or just shorter generations either. Options are always good. It might not be super high volume though. I'd be against it if MS decided to make that their only console as was suggested earlier, but it would be fine if there was a base console available in the usual $400-$600 range.

If the PS5 Pro can raise 30fps games to 60fps while at minimum maintaining base model IQ, I think there could be a lot of value in that. If it's more like last-gen, mid-gen machines, where it is still 30 but prettier by a modest degree, I don't have much interest in that. I skipped 1X and PS4 Pro and would do the same again if it was the same deal. I think a lot of console buyers would be the same. It's really all about what it is they are offering specifically at what price.

 

[twilo99]

Regarding the profit percentages, I think it was the company as a whole and not an individual part at 70%, but still if you can run it up that high competition can't be that great. Even AMD's 50% is quite high.

Regarding an expensive console (1k plus or something), I mean it certainly could. I wouldn't be against it. I'm not against the idea of the mid-gen systems or just shorter generations either. Options are always good. It might not be super high volume though. I'd be against it if MS decided to make that their only console as was suggested earlier, but it would be fine if their was a base console available in the usual $400-$600 range.

If the PS5 Pro can raise 30fps games to 60fps while at minimum maintaining base model IQ, I think there could be a lot of value in that. If it's more like last-gen, mid-gen machines, where it is still 30 but prettier by a modest degree, I don't have much interest in that. I skipped 1X and PS4 Pro and would do the same again if it was the same deal. I think a lot of console buyers would be the same. It's really all about what it is they are offering specifically at what price.

Nvidia was at 51% profit for the quarter, check the graph I posted, 70% would be insane.. that might be their gaming division tho

I don't think either Sony or Microsoft would go for a high-end console, but it will be very nice to have as an option.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Nvidia was at 51% profit for the quarter, check the graph I posted, 70% would be insane.. that might be their gaming division tho

I don't think either Sony or Microsoft would go for a high-end console, but it will be very nice to have as an option.

Yeah, the more I think about it, it might have been that the revenue had grown by 70% or something like that. There was a 70% number that got passed around at some point and people were grumbling about it.

Even the 51% is damn high.

 

[Topher]

Well ye, isn't Fortnite, CoD, and FC what most people care about? I don't think any $250 PC would be viable overall tho.

Just like there are people who want a cheap console, there are people who would love a high end console in the $800-1000 range that can provide them with higher performance.

Perhaps, but if all a guy cares about is Fortnite then that $250 PC is viable. Also got to remember that PC gamer ain't paying online fees. Take that into consideration that boosts the budget a little more compared to consoles.

 

[VideoGameEnjoyer]

Games take 5 years to make these days, often longer. Cycles should be getting longer not shorter. We used to be able to bang out a Mass Effect trilogy in one console generation and not think twice about it. Now all three games would be made for separate consoles.

 

[twilo99]

Games take 5 years to make these days, often longer. Cycles should be getting longer not shorter. We used to be able to bang out a Mass Effect trilogy in one console generation and not think twice about it. Now all three games would be made for separate consoles.

PC moves too fast for that to work unfortunately.. Just Imagine the PS5 being the most powerful console in 2030 when you have Windows machines running 6090s at the high end and 4090 type performance at the low end.

 

[twilo99]

Even the 51% is damn high.

Yes, it's really high but that's for the whole company, their consumer GPUs might as well be even higher

 

[VideoGameEnjoyer]

PC moves too fast for that to work unfortunately.. Just Imagine the PS5 being the most powerful console in 2030 when you have Windows machines running 6090s at the high end and 4090 type performance at the low end.

Honestly, it seems like since Uncharted 4 the best graphics have been coming from Sony first party and Rockstar who release first on console. Sure the PC can give you all the extra bells and whistles, but am I wrong to say all the best looking games these days start out on consoles?What is the modern PC game that is really cutting edge graphics wise, like Crysis back in the day?

I’m definitely not a graphics expert but it seems like we’ve been getting diminishing returns for the better part of a decade. Now that we have very good looking games running 60FPS I really don’t see a need to constantly upgrade for what are very marginal improvements. To my eyes at least.

 

[twilo99]

Honestly, it seems like since Uncharted 4 the best graphics have been coming from Sony first party and Rockstar who release first on console. Sure the PC can give you all the extra bells and whistles, but am I wrong to say all the best looking games these days start out on consoles?What is the modern PC game that is really cutting edge graphics wise, like Crysis back in the day?

I’m definitely not a graphics expert but it seems like we’ve been getting diminishing returns for the better part of a decade. Now that we have very good looking games running 60FPS I really don’t see a need to constantly upgrade for what are very marginal improvements. To my eyes at least.

That because developers target console hardware and not mid/top tier PC hardware.