Guestimations on PS5 & Xbox "Scarlet" Specs

[Frraksurred]

Some interesting info in here for the hardware junkies. Both promising and concerning.

 

[Brian_B]

I would be surprised if the specs end up surprising anyone here. AMD tech is a pretty open book

 

[defaultluser]

I would be surprised if the specs end up surprising anyone here. AMD tech is a pretty open book

Right, I don't even have to watch he video, and know it's going to be:

Ryzen 2 8-core 16 threads.
Heavily cut Navi, with some form of added RT.
16GB 256-bit GDDR6 unified memory, to feed the beast (16Gbit modules were announced 6 months ago)
Likely some local DDR4 (for the OS.)
A PCIe 4.0 SSD, or at least 512GB, or possibly a smaller 128GB cache with the same old 5400 RPM hard drive.

A price between $450 and $500.

 

[Derangel]

Nothing really too surprising here. Its going to be like this gen. Both systems will have very similar hardware and one will likely have an edge over the other (early rumors point to Sony having a tech edge again).

Right, I don't even have to watch he video, and know it's going to be:

Ryzen 2 8-core
heavily cut Navi.
16GB 256-bit GDDR6 unified memory
Likely some local DDR4 (for the OS.)
A PCIe 4.0 SSD, or at least 512GB, or possibly a smaller 128GB cache with the same old 5400 RPM hard drive.

Why do you think they won't have the GDDR6 shared between everything? Every time a console tries to have a split memory system it bites them in the ass. It makes more sense for them to have a single shared pool of memory. Console OSes tend to be fairly light-weight (at least well designed ones) and give up resources a lot better than something like Windows.

It will be a PCIE 3.0 drive. 4.0 drives will be way too expensive. I doubt they'll have a HDD at all. They're both hyping up SSDs so much that it wouldn't make sense to have a HDD.

 

[defaultluser]

Nothing really too surprising here. Its going to be like this gen. Both systems will have very similar hardware and one will likely have an edge over the other (early rumors point to Sony having a tech edge again).



Why do you think they won't have the GDDR6 shared between everything? Every time a console tries to have a split memory system it bites them in the ass. It makes more sense for them to have a single shared pool of memory. Console OSes tend to be fairly light-weight (at least well designed ones) and give up resources a lot better than something like Windows.

It will be a PCIE 3.0 drive. 4.0 drives will be way too expensive. I doubt they'll have a HDD at all. They're both hyping up SSDs so much that it wouldn't make sense to have a HDD.

Did You not read the lines I wrote? I said UNIFIED memory, exactly like the PS4 and Xbone.

Man some people on here need fucking glasses. I said dedicated DDR4 for the OS because that was added with the PS4 Pro (increases available ram in games to 8GB). It doesn't mean that the Pro can't access the unified ram, only that it pushes any apps loaded into the DRAM when Pro-capable games launch.

 

[Derangel]

Did You not read the lines I wrote? I said UNIFIED memory, exactly like the PS4 and Xbone.

Man some people on here need fucking glasses. I said dedicated DDR4 for the OS because that was added with the PS4 Pro (increases available ram in games to 8GB). It doesn''t mean that the Pro can't access the uniofied ram, only that it pushes any apps loaded into the DRAM when Pro-capable games launch.

Instead of being a jackass, maybe realize that I was talking about the fucking split memory system (GDDR6 and DRR4 for the OS) you mentioned.

 

[vegeta535]

They will have 1TB QLC nVme very likely. They won't be sub $500. $400 is the sweet spot for a console but they will have to bump it up to $500 if they want to pack in all this tech. $600 is not out of question either. I can see both Sony and MS waiting til the other releases a price so they can under cut them. Like Sony did with the PS4.

 

[defaultluser]

Instead of being a jackass, maybe realize that I was talking about the fucking split memory system (GDDR6 and DRR4 for the OS) you mentioned.

That's why I said "likely," but if they feel the 16GB is large enough, they can always go back to the dedicated DRAM later, with a "PS5 Pro" Refresh.

The rest of the specs I stated are almost guaranteed (aside from arguing over the price of a PCIe 4.0 controller by next winter). I think it's highly probable, alomng with 1TB storage (if the thing launches at $500).
.

 

[Derangel]

They will have 1TB QLC nVme very likely. They won't be sub $500. $400 is the sweet spot for a console but they will have to bump it up to $500 if they want to pack in all this tech. $600 is not out of question either. I can see both Sony and MS waiting til the other releases a price so they can under cut them. Like Sony did with the PS4.

$500 would have to be the absolute max. Even that might push it out of the realm of what a lot of people are going to want to pay. At $600 they'd need some VERY compelling games and reasons to convince people to jump on board.

That's why I said "likely," but if they feel the 16GB is large enough, they can always go back to the dedicated DRAM later, with a "PS5 Pro" Refresh.

The rest of the specs I stated are almost guaranteed (aside from arguing over the price of a PCIe 4.0 controller by next winter).

See, that is a much better answer than before and I agree. It will be interesting to see where the cut-down Navi ends up. Just in terms of keeping cost, heat, and power requirements down I'm wondering if the GPU won't see that massive of a boost over something like the X.

 

[defaultluser]

We know pretty well what the majority of the specs will be.

What we don't know is PRICE.


Will we have a a $400 console, or $500? The PS4 Pro and current Xbox One X prices point to $500 still being unsustainable!

So, if you aim for $400, that means smaller storage (512gb flash, or flash cache plus hard drive), and possibly more heavily-cut Navi, or possibly going 6 Zen 2 cores.

I don't think they can build this dream machine (8 cores plus lightly cut navi plus 16GBGDDR6 plus 512GB-1TB NVMe)for less than $450-500. And if last gen is any indicator Sony is not going to lose massive amounts of money money on any new console sold.

 

[Brian_B]

Will we have a a $400 console, or $500? The PS4 Pro and current Xbox One X prices point to $500 still being unsustainable!

Don't forget that there's full backwards compatibility this gen. At least confirmed by Sony, and I'm inferring at least partial from MS since they have it in current gen and are going nearly all-in on cloud-based solution.

I think that has a couple of effects:

First, the tail from the current-gen console I think will go a lot longer. Dev's won't be so quick to switch over to the current gen exclusively, so we may see an additional year or so of releases that support current gen hardware. GIven that it will be very similar architecture setups, it wouldn't be inconceivable to think that even AAA releases that go next-gen could still support a current-gen release (with lower graphics options, of course), provided that the controllers don't have some radical departure.

If that occurs, that allows the current-gen hardware to also have a longer tail. Sony could discontinue the existing PS4 Pro, and market the PS5 in it's place, while keeping the PS4 Slim around as the budget alternative. That allows both to position this at a premium price point (which is particularly important to capture that early adopter margin), without completely losing all budget sales. In that regard, I could see a $500+ initial MSRP as being plausible.

I'm thinking almost directly of the Wii - Wii U transition, where Wii U had near universal backwards compatibility, and the Wii continued to see game releases for a long time because of it. Now, the Wii U was a trainwreck, but I think that had more to do with the gimmick they used and the fact that it didn't really upgrade much from the Wii, particularly in light of other consoles available at the time.

Second, Sony and MS both have some sort of cloud-based streaming agreement in place now. Which is odd, since Sony already had a streaming service in place, but interesting in that it points to a direction. I could see, once this gets off the ground well enough, that the current "budget" platform goes to some gimped out streaming-only thin client. That would allow both companies to transition away from budget console hardware, and keep a premium price on at-the-home "high performance" hardware.

I don't think Sony or MS needs to price this at $400 to have a big seller. They just need to have the right strategy. And I think that they certainly are watching each other like hawks to see who will blink first. Last gen, Microsoft went all-in on Kinect and the "One" theme (and a premium pricetag), and it totally blew up on them and Sony turned it against them in a very big way. It went the other way previous generation though. So will be interesting to see how it plays out this go around.

 

[Derangel]

Don't forget that there's full backwards compatibility this gen. At least confirmed by Sony, and I'm inferring at least partial from MS since they have it in current gen and are going nearly all-in on cloud-based solution.

I think that has a couple of effects:

First, the tail from the current-gen console I think will go a lot longer. Dev's won't be so quick to switch over to the current gen exclusively, so we may see an additional year or so of releases that support current gen hardware. GIven that it will be very similar architecture setups, it wouldn't be inconceivable to think that even AAA releases that go next-gen could still support a current-gen release (with lower graphics options, of course), provided that the controllers don't have some radical departure.

If that occurs, that allows the current-gen hardware to also have a longer tail. Sony could discontinue the existing PS4 Pro, and market the PS5 in it's place, while keeping the PS4 Slim around as the budget alternative. That allows both to position this at a premium price point (which is particularly important to capture that early adopter margin), without completely losing all budget sales. In that regard, I could see a $500+ initial MSRP as being plausible.

I'm thinking almost directly of the Wii - Wii U transition, where Wii U had near universal backwards compatibility, and the Wii continued to see game releases for a long time because of it. Now, the Wii U was a trainwreck, but I think that had more to do with the gimmick they used and the fact that it didn't really upgrade much from the Wii, particularly in light of other consoles available at the time.

Second, Sony and MS both have some sort of cloud-based streaming agreement in place now. Which is odd, since Sony already had a streaming service in place, but interesting in that it points to a direction. I could see, once this gets off the ground well enough, that the current "budget" platform goes to some gimped out streaming-only thin client. That would allow both companies to transition away from budget console hardware, and keep a premium price on at-the-home "high performance" hardware.

I don't think Sony or MS needs to price this at $400 to have a big seller. They just need to have the right strategy. And I think that they certainly are watching each other like hawks to see who will blink first. Last gen, Microsoft went all-in on Kinect and the "One" theme (and a premium pricetag), and it totally blew up on them and Sony turned it against them in a very big way. It went the other way previous generation though. So will be interesting to see how it plays out this go around.

MS has said that ALL XB1 games will work on Scralett. They've also said 4 generations of Xbox games will work on the system. So, I'd presume, all the OG Xbox and 360 titles currently supported on the XB1 will work on Scarlett either out of the box or soon after launch. The team working on OG Xbox titles has already shifted all of their focus onto Scarlett. Sony will probably (though not officially confirmed yet) support all PS4 and PSVR titles on the PS5, but PS3 titles will probably still be tied to PS Now and anything prior to that is totally unknown.

A year+ for cross-gen titles sounds reasonable. If these consoles are $500 then people are going to hold on to their current gen systems longer, which means more people will still be buying the PS4 and XB1 versions of games and it will mean 3rd party publishers will want to keep releasing titles on those systems. If I remember right, cross-gen stuff was around for a good while this generation as well.

 

[T4rd]

MS has said that ALL XB1 games will work on Scralett. They've also said 4 generations of Xbox games will work on the system. So, I'd presume, all the OG Xbox and 360 titles currently supported on the XB1 will work on Scarlett either out of the box or soon after launch. The team working on OG Xbox titles has already shifted all of their focus onto Scarlett. Sony will probably (though not officially confirmed yet) support all PS4 and PSVR titles on the PS5, but PS3 titles will probably still be tied to PS Now and anything prior to that is totally unknown.

A year+ for cross-gen titles sounds reasonable. If these consoles are $500 then people are going to hold on to their current gen systems longer, which means more people will still be buying the PS4 and XB1 versions of games and it will mean 3rd party publishers will want to keep releasing titles on those systems. If I remember right, cross-gen stuff was around for a good while this generation as well.

Yeah, it's great (despite being expected due to both being x86 architecture) that it's going to be fully BC with PS4 games, but I'm still disappointed with them not bringing PS1-PS3 BC on the PS5 as well. There's absolutely no reason to not at least have PS1 and PS2 emulation, considering all PS3s still have PS1 BC (not sure if they used software or hardware emulation though) and hardware at this point is plenty fast enough for good PS2 and PS3 software emulation. But I understand Sony would rather sell you another sub service with PS Now for all that, if only they would expand the library considerably for the first few gens of consoles and allow you to download them to play offline (which they let you now on PS4 games only) so it would be worth it.

 

[Armenius]

$500 will not be the ceiling the next gen. I am predicting $800. It follows the general upward trend of tech prices overall. Cell phones are pushing $1,400-$1,600 for top-tier models when not a couple years ago the media was crying doom when Apple launched the $1,000 iPhone X. I think the price of next gen consoles will fall in the range of "$599" to "$799."

Also, "guesstimate" is not a real word. I don't care if it's in the dictionary.

 

[Derangel]

$500 will not be the ceiling the next gen. I am predicting $800. It follows the general upward trend of tech prices overall. Cell phones are pushing $1,400-$1,600 for top-tier models when not a couple years ago the media was crying doom when Apple launched the $1,000 iPhone X. I think the price of next gen consoles will fall in the range of "$599" to "$799."

Also, "guesstimate" is not a real word. I don't care if it's in the dictionary.

Very few people pay full price for a cell-phone upfront. Those $1000+ phones are paid off in two-year installments or in "yearly upgrade" plans. Extra costs for cell phones are also optional. You should have, but don't need, a screen protector. You should have, but need, a case. You're not paying $60+ for extra controllers with a cell phone. You're not paying $60 a year to play online with a cell phone. You're not paying $60-$80 a pop for video games on a cell phone. You don't need a TV to use a cell phone. The comparison is utterly ridiculous.

 

[defaultluser]

$500 will not be the ceiling the next gen. I am predicting $800. It follows the general upward trend of tech prices overall. Cell phones are pushing $1,400-$1,600 for top-tier models when not a couple years ago the media was crying doom when Apple launched the $1,000 iPhone X. I think the price of next gen consoles will fall in the range of "$599" to "$799."

Also, "guesstimate" is not a real word. I don't care if it's in the dictionary.

You're not even close. They're raising the price of cell phones because (1) there is demand for larger phones, and that ups the costs (larger screen + larger battery = more money), and (2) makers like Apple enjoy their lock-in on a premium device, and raise prices even further.

Consoles enjoy no such driving force: they're already as powerful as people want them to be (hence why the PS4 Pro / One X didn't sell like hotcakes), and 2: there is no lock-in because consoles are cheap enough so that almost everyone can buy more than one.

There's a big difference between stupidly-exclusive cell phone sizes and prices, and console specs and prices. Just like the majority of iOS new device sales are the older models (iPhone 8), the majority of console sales are at the low-end.

 

[Armenius]

You're not even close. They're raising the price of cell phones because (1) there is demand for larger phones, and that ups the costs (larger screen + larger battery = more money), and (2) makers like Apple enjoy their lock-in on a premium device, and raise prices even further.

Consoles enjoy no such driving force: they're already as powerful as people want them to be (hence why the PS4 Pro / One X didn't sell like hotcakes), and 2: there is no lock-in because consoles are cheap enough so that almost everyone can buy more than one.

There's a big difference between stupidly-exclusive cell phone sizes and prices, and console specs and prices. Just like the majority of iOS new device sales are the older models (iPhone 8), the majority of console sales are at the low-end.

Sony and Microsoft see a demand for more powerful hardware, and that is what is going to drive the cost up.

 

[defaultluser]

Sony and Microsoft see a demand for more powerful hardware, and that is what is going to drive the cost up.

Do you know what the price of the Xbox One X is right now? $360 fucking dollars.

https://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-X-1TB-Console/dp/B074WPGYRF

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Microsoft-Xbox-One-X-1TB-Console-Black-CYV-00001/276629190

$400 at Best Buy

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/micros...ltra-hd-blu-ray-black/6290110.p?skuId=6290110

That's the three largest electronics resellers in the USA, and none of them charge more than $400 to get the One X out the door. And it's not even Black Friday Sales Time

The PS4 Pro LAUNCHED at $400, the same price as it's predecessor.

You think this all somehow points towards some fantastical market were people will shell $800 fucking dollars for a console? I want whatever the fuck you're tripping on!

If it was really sustainable, a really powerful box like the One X would be at $500 even 18 months after launch (much like the PS4 Pro is still $400 3 years later), but it hasn't been. It's spent most of the last year at $380 (on both Walmart and Amazon), and is now down to $360.

 

[Armenius]

Do you know what the price of the Xbox One X is right now? $360 fucking dollars.

https://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-X-1TB-Console/dp/B074WPGYRF

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Microsoft-Xbox-One-X-1TB-Console-Black-CYV-00001/276629190

$400 at Best Buy

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/micros...ltra-hd-blu-ray-black/6290110.p?skuId=6290110

That's the three largest electronics resellers in the USA, and none of them charge more than $400 to get the One X out the door. And it's not even Black Friday Sales Time

The PS4 Pro LAUNCHED at $400, the same price as it's predecessor.

You think this all somehow points towards some fantastical market were people will shell $800 fucking dollars for a console?

Both the Pro and X literally use the same exact hardware as their original models, just tweaking clock speeds. The One X launched at $499. Compared to the Pro, though, the X replaced the DDR3 memory with more GDDR5 and they ditched the ESRAM. The proposed CPU in the next gen is 10 times faster than the Jaguar core as a function of both speed and IPC.

People will initially be shocked by the price, yes, but I do think it will happen. Do you believe people won't buy the 5700 XT just because they thought it would be a $300 video card and it's going to sell for $449?

 

[defaultluser]

Both the Pro and X literally use the same exact hardware as their original models, just tweaking clock speeds. The One X launched at $499. Compared to the Pro, though, the X replaced the DDR3 memory with more GDDR5 and they ditched the ESRAM. The proposed CPU in the next gen is 10 times faster than the Jaguar core as a function of both speed and IPC.

It's not ten damn times as powerful. Once again you have no clue what you are talking about.

Sandy Bridge Celeron G1101 is %50 faster than Jaguar Athlon 5350 single thread in Cinebench 10, at the same clock speed:

Most of the tests show the same 50% OR LESS performance gap at single-thread.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7933/the-desktop-kabini-review-part-1-athlon-5350-am1/4

Just divide the Athlon 5350 multi-threaded tests by two, and compare to the Celeron G1101. Wwith the exception of Dolphin, it's always 50% or less. per-clock.

Jaguar on AM1 only got a bad reception in desktops because performance was too low in single-thread use cases. The platform was fine for consoles, which could target multi-core. Jaguar has DUAL 128-bit AVX units per-core, and by no surprise had similar IPC to Piledriver.

Zen is 60% faster than Piledriver. Add in 20% improvement for Zen to Zen+ to Zen 2.0, then 20% for ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF AVX 256-CAPABLE CODE (this is accurate based on most games and applications).

So, at-most, Zen 2 is TWICE THE IPC of Jaguar. So with twice the clocks and HT taken into account, the theoretical speedup is 5x. Nowhere near 10x: that only happens if you assume that all code is vectorizable to 256-bit wide (which we know is hard to do in the real-world), so I assume %20 increase for the highly-parallel computation portion of game code.

Is it more of an improvement than Jaguar made over the 360? Sure. But it's not mind-blowing like the 360 was over the Xbox original. And they had the decency to only charge $400 for that much of a processing improvement.

 

[Deleted member 134608]

Do you know what the price of the Xbox One X is right now? $360 fucking dollars.

https://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-X-1TB-Console/dp/B074WPGYRF

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Microsoft-Xbox-One-X-1TB-Console-Black-CYV-00001/276629190

$400 at Best Buy

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/micros...ltra-hd-blu-ray-black/6290110.p?skuId=6290110

That's the three largest electronics resellers in the USA, and none of them charge more than $400 to get the One X out the door. And it's not even Black Friday Sales Time

The PS4 Pro LAUNCHED at $400, the same price as it's predecessor.

You think this all somehow points towards some fantastical market were people will shell $800 fucking dollars for a console? I want whatever the fuck you're tripping on!

If it was really sustainable, a really powerful box like the One X would be at $500 even 18 months after launch (much like the PS4 Pro is still $400 3 years later), but it hasn't been. It's spent most of the last year at $380 (on both Walmart and Amazon), and is now down to $360.

Very excellent points. I'd agree completely, but there was no system selling game that required the X or Pro.

If they can pay off some devs (Epic? lol) to make new games requiring the purchase of a PS5 or Scarlett they might be able to push up the price. If all the new titles are released working on both old and new gen, they will shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[bigdogchris]

Several months ago I talked about next gen specs and how the consoles were on track for over 100GB of memory. Of course with the cost of memory that is unfeasible. So I found it really interesting how Richard points out that the near-hardware integrated NVMe storage will likely be used as an extension of RAM. I recall either Microsoft or Sony stating it would be used as swap space. That means in a round about way, they are still going to have possibly hundreds of GB of virtual memory space available depending on the size of the NVMe drive.

What makes me wonder though is how are they going to handle storage upgrades. I suspect they will have the ability to add internal SATA storage or possibly just require them to use USB external hardware.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

If history teaches me anything, being highly priced will be the death of your system. Sony learned that lesson with the PS3 which almost caused them to shutter their doors. I highly doubt they're going to ever do that again.
The second major reason why they won't is because that console wars are won by units sold. They're won by having greater adoption rates than the competition. If either Sony or Microsoft has a $100 price discrepancy they will get crushed. MS learned that with the XBox One when they forced all users to adopt their ridiculous camera system (Kinect) that no one wanted. Eventually they split that off, but by then it was too late. It had already affected the adoption numbers by having a $100 price discrepancy.

$500 is an absolute ceiling. And in all honesty I don't think that will even be attainable except in the case of having different SKU's. In other words that would be the premium model. In the case of a $500 console there better be a much more cost effective "base" model that is ideally in the $350 range. Because otherwise they aren't going to get good adoption rates.

 

[bigdogchris]

If history teaches me anything, being highly priced will be the death of your system. Sony learned that lesson with the PS3 which almost caused them to shutter their doors.

The whole PS3 price fiasco is overblown. It only "looked bad" relative to how well the 360 did at first. Compared to other well known "overpriced" consoles like the 3DO or Saturn the PS3 sold very well. And for the record, the PS3 did outsell the 360 so the lack of sales from cost only went so far.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

The whole PS3 price fiasco is overblown. It only "looked bad" relative to how well the 360 did at first. Compared to other well known "overpriced" consoles like the 3DO or Saturn the PS3 sold very well. And for the record, the PS3 did outsell the 360 so the lack of sales from cost only went so far.

It isn't overblown. The cost of Sony's hardware meant they were losing money on every sale. Which they definitely learned to reverse with the PS4. They realized that a loss on every console almost killed them. That's objectively fact. Ironically selling more gave them a pyrrhic victory. Later after the cost of manufacturing the cell processor went down (and they made lower cost models eliminating backwards compatibility) they were able to stabilize, obviously along with software sales and licensing. But the PS3 wasn't really profitable until 'relatively' late in its life.

In this way they learned to copy Nintendo, whom have wisely profited from every console sale since their inception.

If you don't buy what I'm saying that (though I lived through it) you can also read wiki's article and check their sources. This is what caused Ken Kutaragi to retire in shame. Having the games division lose $2billion US in one fiscal year isn't imaginary. Or overblown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Sales_and_production_costs

Although its PlayStation predecessors had been very dominant against the competition and were hugely profitable for Sony, PlayStation 3 had an inauspicious start, and Sony chairman and CEO Sir Howard Stringer initially could not convince investors of a turnaround in its fortunes. The PS3 lacked the unique gameplay of the more affordable Wii which became that generation's most successful console in terms of units sold. Furthermore, PS3 had to compete directly with Xbox 360 which had a market head start, and as a result the platform no longer had exclusive titles that the PS2 enjoyed such as the Grand Theft Auto and Final Fantasy series (regarding cross-platform games, Xbox 360 versions were generally considered superior in 2006, although by 2008 the PS3 versions had reached parity or surpassed),[198] and it took longer than expected for PS3 to enjoy strong sales and close the gap with Xbox 360. Sony also continued to lose money on each PS3 sold through 2010,[199] although the redesigned "slim" PS3 has cut these losses since then.[200]

PlayStation 3's initial production cost is estimated by iSuppli to have been US$805.85 for the 20 GB model and US$840.35 for the 60 GB model.[201] However, they were priced at US$499 and US$599 respectively, meaning that units may have been sold at an estimated loss of $306 or $241 depending on model, if the cost estimates were correct,[202] and thus may have contributed to Sony's games division posting an operating loss of ¥232.3 billion (US$1.97 billion) in the fiscal year ending March 2007.[203] In April 2007, soon after these results were published, Ken Kutaragi, President of Sony Computer Entertainment, announced plans to retire. Various news agencies, including The Times[204] and The Wall Street Journal[205] reported that this was due to poor sales, while SCEI maintains that Kutaragi had been planning his retirement for six months prior to the announcement.[205]

In January 2008, Kaz Hirai, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, suggested that the console may start making a profit by early 2009, stating that, "the next fiscal year starts in April and if we can try to achieve that in the next fiscal year that would be a great thing" and that "[profitability] is not a definite commitment, but that is what I would like to try to shoot for".[206] However, market analysts Nikko Citigroup have predicted that PlayStation 3 could be profitable by August 2008.[207] In a July 2008 interview, Hirai stated that his objective is for PlayStation 3 to sell 150 million units by its ninth year, surpassing PlayStation 2's sales of 140 million in its nine years on the market.[208] In January 2009 Sony announced that their gaming division was profitable in Q3 2008.[209]

Since the system's launch, production costs have been reduced significantly as a result of phasing out the Emotion Engine chip and falling hardware costs.[210][211] The cost of manufacturing Cell microprocessors has fallen dramatically as a result of moving to the 65 nm production process,[211][212] and Blu-ray Disc diodes have become cheaper to manufacture.[210][213] As of January 2008, each unit cost around $400 to manufacture;[214][215] by August 2009, Sony had reduced costs by a total of 70%, meaning it only costs Sony around $240 per unit.[216][217][218]

 

[defaultluser]

Very excellent points. I'd agree completely, but there was no system selling game that required the X or Pro.

If they can pay off some devs (Epic? lol) to make new games requiring the purchase of a PS5 or Scarlett they might be able to push up the price. If all the new titles are released working on both old and new gen, they will shoot themselves in the foot.

Actually the PS4 had the highest launch sales ever (aside from the PS2), even thouh it had the worst launch exclusives ever, and no backwards compatibility.

This implies that the market prefers the "best-value" console., with the best future library All that was the launch PS4, at $400.

The only thing that saved the PS3 from being completely in the dumpster after t's $600 launch was aggressive price cuts, and THREE Uncharted games in SIX YEARS. ALL THIS COST Sony AN ESTIMATED FIVE BILLION DOLLARS, more money than it made on the PS2!

You don't see Sony having to whip-out more than one Uncharted game, now that the PS4 had an easy win. And that's all because they understand their market.

The PS5 doesn't have to be $800 to bring Sony tons of income. The person who can afford ONE $400 console will buy the PS5, while the person who can afford an $800 console will buy a launch PS5, then be the first to buy a second console for the den, and then a PS5 Pro 3 years after launch, and then a PS5-edition VR kit.

That is the reason Sony's PlayStation unit i swimming in cash: you hook them with a great value, but with excellent potential. and then they keep feeding the fire selling locked-in hardware upgrades / accessories. But the less-cash-endowed gamers still get a great value, and increase the potential market for game sales.

They hook you with cheap handles, then sell you razor blades for life.

 

[Derangel]

The whole PS3 price fiasco is overblown. It only "looked bad" relative to how well the 360 did at first. Compared to other well known "overpriced" consoles like the 3DO or Saturn the PS3 sold very well. And for the record, the PS3 did outsell the 360 so the lack of sales from cost only went so far.

The PS3 only outsold the 360 at the tail end of the generation. It took them almost seven years to, barely, outsell the 360. Sony lost a ton due to their arrogance going into the PS3. They relied on the Playstation division to make up for the losses in basically every other division. Sony had to make drastic cuts to the PS3 hardware (cutting out hardware BC) in order to drive costs down so they could make the system more affordable. Going into the PS4, there was serious concern if Sony would be able to stay afloat long enough to capitalize on its potential. Make no mistake, if the PS4 had been as much of a failure early on as the PS3 was Sony would have been fucked. That is how bad last generation went for them.

 

[Deleted member 134608]

Actually the PS4 had the highest launch sales ever (aside from the PS2), even thouh it had the worst launch exclusives ever, and no backwards compatibility.

This implies that the market prefers the "best-value" console., with the best future library All that was the launch PS4, at $400.

The only thing that saved the PS3 from being completely in the dumpster after t's $600 launch was aggressive price cuts, and THREE Uncharted games in SIX YEARS. ALL THIS COST Sony AN ESTIMATED FIVE BILLION DOLLARS, more money than it made on the PS2!

You don't see Sony having to whip-out more than one Uncharted game, now that the PS4 had an easy win. And that's all because they understand their market.

The PS5 doesn't have to be $800 to bring Sony tons of income. The person who can afford ONE $400 console will buy the PS5, while the person who can afford an $800 console will buy a launch PS5, then be the first to buy a second console for the den, and then a PS5 Pro 3 years after launch, and then a PS5-edition VR kit.

That is the reason Sony's PlayStation unit i swimming in cash: you hook them with a great value, but with excellent potential. and then they keep feeding the fire selling locked-in hardware upgrades / accessories. But the less-cash-endowed gamers still get a great value, and increase the potential market for game sales.

They hook you with cheap handles, then sell you razor blades for life.

You also need to mention the PS4 launched that way because of the backlash against MS by their X360 buyers. MS tried to sell TV, Kinect and promised account locked physical media. You really have no idea would have happened if MS didn't just announce used games were history and they just stuck to gaming. People loved the 360 and the extra $100 wasn't the biggest issue by far.

 

[Domingo]

I'm very curious how this is going to work. Are people going to care about the new systems if the older ones can play the majority of the games? Are there going to be (m)any exclusives and if there are, how many? How big of a difference will there be? Are we talking FPS, more details, higher resolutions, or what?
Did the X and Pro systems sell well? Whether they were a bit step up over the older systems doesn't really matter. Did people think they were and did they care? I honestly don't know. I do know they had no exclusives and anecdotally only my serious hardcore friends bit on them.

 

[Comixbooks]

I won't buy one I don't care if it's the shape of a sex toy PC gaming has all the good stuff today.

 

[T4rd]

I'm very curious how this is going to work. Are people going to care about the new systems if the older ones can play the majority of the games? Are there going to be (m)any exclusives and if there are, how many? How big of a difference will there be? Are we talking FPS, more details, higher resolutions, or what?
Did the X and Pro systems sell well? Whether they were a bit step up over the older systems doesn't really matter. Did people think they were and did they care? I honestly don't know. I do know they had no exclusives and anecdotally only my serious hardcore friends bit on them.

I can't speak for other gamers, but I know if The Last of Us 2, Ghosts of Tsushima, and Death Stranding are available at launch on the PS5, I'm probably going to pick up a PS5 at launch despite those games hitting PS4 only a handful of months before the PS5 launch. So those aren't even exclusives to the PS5, but I'll still be getting it if just for proper 4K support and much faster loading times alone. I just hope Sony will allow us to "upgrade" our PS4 copies to the PS5 version if even for a small charge for the upgrade. Because it would look pretty bad for them to allow full PS4 BC on the PS5, but if you have a PS4 copy right there on PSN and it's the exact same game on PS5, there's no reason they couldn't easily allow you to upgrade it from there. But I'm betting they'll just "Remaster" those games with a couple extras and resell them at full price on the PS5, which I will probably still buy as well like I did with the Last of Us on PS3 and Remastered again on the PS4 (don't think that was quite full price at least though - maybe $30-$40), lol.

In general though, I do think exclusives definitely help sell consoles and is why PS4 did so well this generation over Xbox that had very few between it and PC. I know that's pretty much the only reason I have a PS4 at least and decided to pick up the Pro as well. But there were no exclusives for the Pro/X consoles because that would have really alienated and annoyed owners of the base consoles, plus it really wouldn't have made much sense given that they're still on the same architecture and aren't that significant of a jump over the base consoles (esp. on the CPU side).

 

[vegeta535]

I can't speak for other gamers, but I know if The Last of Us 2, Ghosts of Tsushima, and Death Stranding are available at launch on the PS5, I'm probably going to pick up a PS5 at launch despite those games hitting PS4 only a handful of months before the PS5 launch. So those aren't even exclusives to the PS5, but I'll still be getting it if just for proper 4K support and much faster loading times alone. I just hope Sony will allow us to "upgrade" our PS4 copies to the PS5 version if even for a small charge for the upgrade. Because it would look pretty bad for them to allow full PS4 BC on the PS5, but if you have a PS4 copy right there on PSN and it's the exact same game on PS5, there's no reason they couldn't easily allow you to upgrade it from there. But I'm betting they'll just "Remaster" those games with a couple extras and resell them at full price on the PS5, which I will probably still buy as well like I did with the Last of Us on PS3 and Remastered again on the PS4 (don't think that was quite full price at least though - maybe $30-$40), lol.

In general though, I do think exclusives definitely help sell consoles and is why PS4 did so well this generation over Xbox that had very few between it and PC. I know that's pretty much the only reason I have a PS4 at least and decided to pick up the Pro as well. But there were no exclusives for the Pro/X consoles because that would have really alienated and annoyed owners of the base consoles, plus it really wouldn't have made much sense given that they're still on the same architecture and aren't that significant of a jump over the base consoles (esp. on the CPU side).

Definitely not getting upgrade copy to ps5 for free or small charge. Sure the ps5 might upgrade the PS4 version some but you won't get all what the actual ps5 copy would give you.

 

[T4rd]

Definitely not getting upgrade copy to ps5 for free or small charge. Sure the ps5 might upgrade the PS4 version some but you won't get all what the actual ps5 copy would give you.

I never said free or that I expect them to give us an upgrade option, it would just be nice if they did considering PS5 is fully BC with the same games they're just porting to PS5 anyways. Pretty much the same as Ultraviolet or whoever that was that let everyone upgrade their DVD movies to Blu-Ray for only a few dollars a piece. But like I said, I expect that they'll just "remaster" the game for PS5 and add a considerable amount of extra IQ and resolution to the game, which is fine with me too as long as they only charge $30-$40 for it at that point like I remember them doing for the Last of Us Remastered and God of War 3 Remastered. But they got me either way, as I'll be buying them twice regardless, hah.

 

[Domingo]

Based upon some of their comments, I interpreted the games to be sold as a single product that would work on either the current system or the new one. The new system would have enhancements, but the disk/download would be the same. Basically just like a PC title. Is that unlikely to be the case?

 

[Verge]

Based upon some of their comments, I interpreted the games to be sold as a single product that would work on either the current system or the new one. The new system would have enhancements, but the disk/download would be the same. Basically just like a PC title. Is that unlikely to be the case?

That will not be the case.

 

[Domingo]

That will not be the case.

That's not really different than previous generations then. A good chunk of launch titles for previous systems were just enhanced ports from the previous generation. So much for a new paradigm.

 

[Verge]

That's not really different than previous generations then. A good chunk of launch titles for previous systems were just enhanced ports from the previous generation. So much for a new paradigm.

A few launch titles is not what that poster was referring too. I'm sure there will be some titles on both systems for some time to come.

 

[Master_shake_]

do they even need to make a ps5?

can't they just keep refreshing the playstation as it sits?

just rebrand it the Playstation no numbers or any other bullshit.

 

[Verge]

do they even need to make a ps5?

can't they just keep refreshing the playstation as it sits?

just rebrand it the Playstation no numbers or any other bullshit.

This type of forward thinking is sony 1989.

Sony 2019, no way.

 

[bigdogchris]

do they even need to make a ps5?

can't they just keep refreshing the playstation as it sits?

just rebrand it the Playstation no numbers or any other bullshit.

I think that would cause confusion around game compatibility. With PS4 and Pro, they don't make "Pro only" games. With incremental updates, while not a bad idea, eventually you would want to make exclusive content for higher powered systems. You could take the Apple approach of 2019 PlayStation or better, or something similar, eventually you'll have games with compatibility all over the place. I don't think that is something that console makers want to do considering it's always been game X for system generation Y for the past 40 years.