Sony Is Struggling With PlayStation 5 Price Due to Costly Parts

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,326
People will buy consoles at any price the question is more if they go for a price too high will Microsoft undercut them and win this generation.
You have zero economic backing for that assertion. But more to the point, and to be obtuse, they should just charge $5000 a console then and get 10x markup.
Everyone knows, including you and despite your assertion, that there is a limit. "Any price", how about a million dollars each? What we're discussing is what is the level that people are willing to spend. $500 is too much for anyone other than early adopters. Most won't spend more than $300-$400.
If the cost didn't matter, then what Microsoft does wouldn't matter either.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,436
$500 is too much for anyone other than early adopters. Most won't spend more than $300-$400.
First, this story targeting Sony like it's only their problem makes no sense. If anything Microsoft has a more expensive build with it's bigger APU.

There is no way in hell these new Consoles are less than $500. I wouldn't be surprised if both MS and Sony target $600 this time around, given the expensive BOM we are looking at.

Heck I'd jump at $700 for either if they were compatible with vanilla Windows 10.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,655
You have zero economic backing for that assertion. But more to the point, and to be obtuse, they should just charge $5000 a console then and get 10x markup.
Everyone knows, including you and despite your assertion, that there is a limit. "Any price", how about a million dollars each? What we're discussing is what is the level that people are willing to spend. $500 is too much for anyone other than early adopters. Most won't spend more than $300-$400.
If the cost didn't matter, then what Microsoft does wouldn't matter either.
Even at $5000, I stand by my opinion that they would move units I would say around a million.
people are making a big deal about the price but it really isn't that important. people said no one would buy $1000 phones, people do by the millions, Just in another thread I have console proponents religiously defending the price gouging console makers do on accessories and games. Who would have thought that console users would gladly pay $30 to 50 a year for a subscription to play online lol to use the internet they already pay for?
Now let's go beyond that and get into more realistic numbers. Are you seriously going to tell me that $400 is the max? That is nothing and IMHO it has no bearing on the units sold UNLESS and this is my main point, you have a competitor selling a similar product for less.
So let's say that Microsoft surprises some of you and they list the Xbox series X at $700 per console. This is the reference.
So in this scenario, if Sony charges $700 we will see a good fight, but I have no doubt at those prices 10s of millions of units will move in the first year.
But if Sony listed theres at $800, then I think Microsoft would win the generation and ship more units however Sony would still ship millions of units.
If Sony on the other hand lists theirs at $600 they would destroy Microsoft and win the generation easily. But the main point is that would be an entire 50% above the $400 max you claim and they would easily move 10s of millions of units.
Now lets say they charged $5000? In this case their competition would suddenly become even the best most decked out PCs and that would be a huge problem for both of them.

Your last sentence is the one that makes the least sense Microsoft is indeed what matters most here you can see it on this forum how much people are comparing the 2. All MS and Sony are doing here is creating competition that keeps each other honest if you took either one of them out of the equation I am sure we would be looking at at least $600 consoles here. We have all seen that in the PC gaming world where AMD had become largely uncompetitive at the high end and nVidia has been free to push their top end GPUs north of $1000 and at those rates has had no problem moving millions and millions of units. Shit I can go into any random Microcenter and see 10 RTX2080Tis on the open box shelf, you know that means lots of people are buying them.
 

Revdarian

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,584
I'm not entirely sure why they'd release such a ridiculously weak second option. Outside of it being a streaming only box or something. It would SEVERELY hamper games and that much of a performance difference would create hell for developers going forward.

Because 1080p is still the standard worldwide and it would need 1/4th the gpu so giving 1/3rd would save them enough money while being good enough to do "last gen" (xb1) at 4k.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,326
Even at $5000, I stand by my opinion that they would move units I would say around a million.
people are making a big deal about the price but it really isn't that important. people said no one would buy $1000 phones, people do by the millions, Just in another thread I have console proponents religiously defending the price gouging console makers do on accessories and games. Who would have thought that console users would gladly pay $30 to 50 a year for a subscription to play online lol to use the internet they already pay for?
Now let's go beyond that and get into more realistic numbers. Are you seriously going to tell me that $400 is the max? That is nothing and IMHO it has no bearing on the units sold UNLESS and this is my main point, you have a competitor selling a similar product for less.
So let's say that Microsoft surprises some of you and they list the Xbox series X at $700 per console. This is the reference.
So in this scenario, if Sony charges $700 we will see a good fight, but I have no doubt at those prices 10s of millions of units will move in the first year.
But if Sony listed theres at $800, then I think Microsoft would win the generation and ship more units however Sony would still ship millions of units.
If Sony on the other hand lists theirs at $600 they would destroy Microsoft and win the generation easily. But the main point is that would be an entire 50% above the $400 max you claim and they would easily move 10s of millions of units.
Now lets say they charged $5000? In this case their competition would suddenly become even the best most decked out PCs and that would be a huge problem for both of them.

Your last sentence is the one that makes the least sense Microsoft is indeed what matters most here you can see it on this forum how much people are comparing the 2. All MS and Sony are doing here is creating competition that keeps each other honest if you took either one of them out of the equation I am sure we would be looking at at least $600 consoles here. We have all seen that in the PC gaming world where AMD had become largely uncompetitive at the high end and nVidia has been free to push their top end GPUs north of $1000 and at those rates has had no problem moving millions and millions of units. Shit I can go into any random Microcenter and see 10 RTX2080Tis on the open box shelf, you know that means lots of people are buying them.
I've talked about this extensively in this thread. But people keep putting up the same arguments without evidence. Using anecdotal evidence at best. No one would buy a $5000 console. No one. It wasn't possible to sell a Neo Geo or Jaguar for 1/5th of that price. You're incredibly delusional if you think it's a remote possibility.

Apple sells more iPhones in a year than all of the Switch, XB1, and PS4 lifetime sales combined. This isn't even considering how many phones Samsung sells or any other manufacturer. People are not buying consoles at the same rates as phones. In fact there is no correlation between phone sales and console sales. Most people have phones. Less than 1% of people that own a smartphone also own a console. To reiterate there is ZERO correlation you can draw between a $1000 cellphone and a console. If you want all the math, here you go: https://hardforum.com/threads/sony-...e-due-to-costly-parts.1993028/post-1044497098

In terms of current console sales the XB1X and PS4 Pro account for less than 20% of all lifetime sales for their respective consoles (both Microsoft and Sony have refused to give official numbers on the higher priced consoles, leading me to believe it's far less than 20%). Most people are purchasing the lower end units which generally on sale are sub $300. Often times sub $250. There is zero math that supports that people will buy $600 consoles other than early adopters. But you don't have to worry about or consider the real math as a console failure doesn't mean your ass on the line.

EDIT: For more actual numbers and math, here is the Steam Hardware survey: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Granted, Steam doesn't have 100% of people's hardware in the world, but it's a good cross section of gamers. The 2080 Ti accounts for .70%. That is less than 1%. Want to know the most sold? It's the GTX1060. The 1060, 1050 Ti, and 1050 account for 25% of the hardware in the survey. You have a very warped view of what people are buying and what they can afford. Middle America making $45k-$55k a year is not buying $1200 graphics cards, $1000 phones, or $600 video game consoles. They just aren't. That's why this thread exists in the first place. Sony execs know this information. Driving the price down as much as possible as quickly as possible has to be priority #1.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,355
Realistically we are looking at $500. The PS5 is rumored to cost $450 to make, and I can't see Sony taking a hit on the price (the loss leader tactic has not been done for a while). Maybe $449 if they want to sell at cost.

We don't know how much the XSX costs to make, but given the specs it is likely more than the PS5. But $600, I don't know that is steep for a mainstream console. And we see what happened with Xbox1 and PS3, the price was a big reason for the slow sales at first.

My guess is that the companies will price them the same to be competitive, and I think $500 would be somewhat realistic (if they don't want to lose money).
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,436
A mistake Sony won't make twice.
PS3 launched at $499, the bigger HD model was $599.

I don't see an issue if both PS5 and XBSX launch at $599. The bigger issue of PS3/XB360 launch was the price mismatch, as it was for PS4/XB1

Ultimately inflation pressures will move prices up over time, and $599 today is actually less buying power/hours worked than $499 was in the time of the PS3.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,592
PS3 launched at $499, the bigger HD model was $599.

I don't see an issue if both PS5 and XBSX launch at $599. The bigger issue of PS3/XB360 launch was the price mismatch, as it was for PS4/XB1

Ultimately inflation pressures will move prices up over time, and $599 today is actually less buying power/hours worked than $499 was in the time of the PS3.
The $600 price tag really hurt Sony up front, as well as being a year late. Inflation matters, but I'm not sure that will resonate well for many buyers. And that likely varies heavily depending on country/currency.

I'm going to assume the parts cost for Sony/Microsoft are even lower than what many people are assuming.
 

KingGlade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
144
I think the PS5 will cost $499 and the Xbox Series X will be $599. I would be pleasantly surprised if they were any cheaper. I'll probably buy both next year but I wan't a newer GPU this year with ray-tracing.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,494
While 4k tv's are cheap they still are not the majority of the market.
Doesn't matter if they are the majority, it matters if they are the majority for the niche market that is going to buy a new game console, and remember that console has to be somewhat future proof for its planned lifespan.

4K is already the norm now, and those that don't have a 4K set in the home are likely the type of shoppers that are picking up used playstations anyways.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,655
I've talked about this extensively in this thread. But people keep putting up the same arguments without evidence. Using anecdotal evidence at best. No one would buy a $5000 console. No one. It wasn't possible to sell a Neo Geo or Jaguar for 1/5th of that price. You're incredibly delusional if you think it's a remote possibility.

Apple sells more iPhones in a year than all of the Switch, XB1, and PS4 lifetime sales combined. This isn't even considering how many phones Samsung sells or any other manufacturer. People are not buying consoles at the same rates as phones. In fact there is no correlation between phone sales and console sales. Most people have phones. Less than 1% of people that own a smartphone also own a console. To reiterate there is ZERO correlation you can draw between a $1000 cellphone and a console. If you want all the math, here you go: https://hardforum.com/threads/sony-...e-due-to-costly-parts.1993028/post-1044497098
I've talked about this extensively in this thread. But people keep putting up the same arguments without evidence. Using anecdotal evidence at best. No one would buy a $5000 console. No one. It wasn't possible to sell a Neo Geo or Jaguar for 1/5th of that price. You're incredibly delusional if you think it's a remote possibility.

Apple sells more iPhones in a year than all of the Switch, XB1, and PS4 lifetime sales combined. This isn't even considering how many phones Samsung sells or any other manufacturer. People are not buying consoles at the same rates as phones. In fact there is no correlation between phone sales and console sales. Most people have phones. Less than 1% of people that own a smartphone also own a console. To reiterate there is ZERO correlation you can draw between a $1000 cellphone and a console. If you want all the math, here you go: https://hardforum.com/threads/sony-...e-due-to-costly-parts.1993028/post-1044497098

In terms of current console sales the XB1X and PS4 Pro account for less than 20% of all lifetime sales for their respective consoles (both Microsoft and Sony have refused to give official numbers on the higher priced consoles, leading me to believe it's far less than 20%). Most people are purchasing the lower end units which generally on sale are sub $300. Often times sub $250. There is zero math that supports that people will buy $600 consoles other than early adopters. But you don't have to worry about or consider the real math as a console failure doesn't mean your ass on the line.

EDIT: For more actual numbers and math, here is the Steam Hardware survey: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Granted, Steam doesn't have 100% of people's hardware in the world, but it's a good cross section of gamers. The 2080 Ti accounts for .70%. That is less than 1%. Want to know the most sold? It's the GTX1060. The 1060, 1050 Ti, and 1050 account for 25% of the hardware in the survey. You have a very warped view of what people are buying and what they can afford. Middle America making $45k-$55k a year is not buying $1200 graphics cards, $1000 phones, or $600 video game consoles. They just aren't. That's why this thread exists in the first place. Sony execs know this information. Driving the price down as much as possible as quickly as possible has to be priority #1.
In terms of current console sales the XB1X and PS4 Pro account for less than 20% of all lifetime sales for their respective consoles (both Microsoft and Sony have refused to give official numbers on the higher priced consoles, leading me to believe it's far less than 20%). Most people are purchasing the lower end units which generally on sale are sub $300. Often times sub $250. There is zero math that supports that people will buy $600 consoles other than early adopters. But you don't have to worry about or consider the real math as a console failure doesn't mean your ass on the line.

EDIT: For more actual numbers and math, here is the Steam Hardware survey: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Granted, Steam doesn't have 100% of people's hardware in the world, but it's a good cross section of gamers. The 2080 Ti accounts for .70%. That is less than 1%. Want to know the most sold? It's the GTX1060. The 1060, 1050 Ti, and 1050 account for 25% of the hardware in the survey. You have a very warped view of what people are buying and what they can afford. Middle America making $45k-$55k a year is not buying $1200 graphics cards, $1000 phones, or $600 video game consoles. They just aren't. That's why this thread exists in the first place. Sony execs know this information. Driving the price down as much as possible as quickly as possible has to be priority #1.

You aren't being realistic or comparing apples to apples. A console is a whole system, not just a GPU. $500 is nothing to go up a mere $100 over things that happened 5 to 10 years ago. The 2080ti is a new card and you are looking at it only in that regard. Add up every card on the Steam hardware survey for the last entire generation of consoles that was sold for $500 or more and see where you land. There is alot more money floating around out there than you think. Right away I see the 4th most common card is the 1070 which was a $500 card for a while sitting at 5th place is the 1080. Thats only the GPU, nothing else. There is plenty of correlation between cell phones and consoles plenty. And if nothing else the xbox one x was proof of that, why would you buy that when you could just user the cheaper model? People are willing to pay for an edge, pay for performance. Throw in some inflation and look at all the other costs going up and going up to $500 or $600 is nothing. Except if your competition launches a similar product cheaper....
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
You aren't being realistic or comparing apples to apples. A console is a whole system, not just a GPU. $500 is nothing to go up a mere $100 over things that happened 5 to 10 years ago. The 2080ti is a new card and you are looking at it only in that regard. Add up every card on the Steam hardware survey for the last entire generation of consoles that was sold for $500 or more and see where you land. There is alot more money floating around out there than you think. Right away I see the 4th most common card is the 1070 which was a $500 card for a while sitting at 5th place is the 1080. Thats only the GPU, nothing else. There is plenty of correlation between cell phones and consoles plenty. And if nothing else the xbox one x was proof of that, why would you buy that when you could just user the cheaper model? People are willing to pay for an edge, pay for performance. Throw in some inflation and look at all the other costs going up and going up to $500 or $600 is nothing. Except if your competition launches a similar product cheaper....
Exactly how many XBX's sold in relation to the cheaper models?
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,326
You aren't being realistic or comparing apples to apples. A console is a whole system, not just a GPU. $500 is nothing to go up a mere $100 over things that happened 5 to 10 years ago. The 2080ti is a new card and you are looking at it only in that regard. Add up every card on the Steam hardware survey for the last entire generation of consoles that was sold for $500 or more and see where you land. There is alot more money floating around out there than you think. Right away I see the 4th most common card is the 1070 which was a $500 card for a while sitting at 5th place is the 1080. Thats only the GPU, nothing else. There is plenty of correlation between cell phones and consoles plenty. And if nothing else the xbox one x was proof of that, why would you buy that when you could just user the cheaper model? People are willing to pay for an edge, pay for performance. Throw in some inflation and look at all the other costs going up and going up to $500 or $600 is nothing. Except if your competition launches a similar product cheaper....
Show me your hard evidence. Show me where the money is floating around. It isn't.
Also as it has been shown, console gamers aren't necessarily even PC gamers. You're drawing that correlation, I'm not. Even if you could prove that 100% of people bought 2080Ti's (which is absurd at less than 1%, a number that it has stayed at after being out for a year and a half) it has zero correlation from people buying PC gaming hardware to people who buy PS4's or XB1's.
This is meanwhile in the face of the fact that at minimum 80% of consoles sold are $300 or less variants. Show any hard evidence to refute any of those points.
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,436
The $600 price tag really hurt Sony up front, as well as being a year late. Inflation matters, but I'm not sure that will resonate well for many buyers. And that likely varies heavily depending on country/currency.

I'm going to assume the parts cost for Sony/Microsoft are even lower than what many people are assuming.
But, three differences this time:
1) Inflation, $600 today is nothing like $600 in PS3 time frame.
2) PS5 won't be late.
3) XBSX will also be priced the same.

Also this time both MS and Sony can point to their late generation refresh consoles (PS4 Pro, XB1X) as the cheaper option for the price senstive.

The line between the generations is blurred. Expect backward and critically, forward compatibility.
 

KingGlade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
144
But, three differences this time:
1) Inflation, $600 today is nothing like $600 in PS3 time frame.
2) PS5 won't be late.
3) XBSX will also be priced the same.

Also this time both MS and Sony can point to their late generation refresh consoles (PS4 Pro, XB1X) as the cheaper option for the price senstive.

The line between the generations is blurred. Expect backward and critically, forward compatibility.
That's a good point. I don't think that the consoles will be equivalently priced though. Sony seemed to make a lot more cost conscious decisions when constructing the console. Less storage and CU's. Cerny even explicitly stated the reason for the strange storage size was to reduce cost to the consumer during his presentation.
 

vividshock

Weaksauce
Joined
May 31, 2014
Messages
127
Yeah I don't know anyone who would be willing to plop down more than $400 for a console right now...in my state when we are in a quarantine. It's going to hurt a lot of purses for the next couple of months.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
That's a good point. I don't think that the consoles will be equivalently priced though. Sony seemed to make a lot more cost conscious decisions when constructing the console. Less storage and CU's. Cerny even explicitly stated the reason for the strange storage size was to reduce cost to the consumer during his presentation.
Here's the thing: If Sony had used the same storage solution as MS they could have had a bigger internal SSD. So they're saving cost by using less flash, but spending a lot more on that custom controller and everything else needed to make that 5.5GB/s read usable by the console.
 

KingGlade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
144
Here's the thing: If Sony had used the same storage solution as MS they could have had a bigger internal SSD. So they're saving cost by using less flash, but spending a lot more on that custom controller and everything else needed to make that 5.5GB/s read usable by the console.
True. I agree that fast memory is costly. I mean just look at the NVME Gen. 4 prices vs. Gen. 3. I think the most expensive component difference is the GPU though. 16 CU's is quite a difference in GPU size wouldn't you say?
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,592
Also this time both MS and Sony can point to their late generation refresh consoles (PS4 Pro, XB1X) as the cheaper option for the price senstive.
That won't work for the console crowd. It would be like telling someone they can upgrade from a Samsung S10 to an S10+ because they can't afford an S20. It just isn't compelling for the majority of buyers; if they wanted a refreshed console they already own it.

And most new games going forward won't be on the previous gen consoles. You have about a year of leeway until new games stop appearing on previous gen consoles. Essentially the games that were in progress and close to release will have previous gen releases, but anything coming post 2021 won't be on the last gen. So it really isn't a valid option.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,436
That won't work for the console crowd. It would be like telling someone they can upgrade from a Samsung S10 to an S10+ because they can't afford an S20. It just isn't compelling for the majority of buyers; if they wanted a refreshed console they already own it.
The "console crowd" is not some kind of uniform mob. The well heeled will the $500 or $600 next gen beasts, and the broke can wait, keep playing what they have now, or buy lower tier machine, that will likely play 99% of the new games.

None of my close friends have a PS4, let alone PS4 Pro. Most have PS3 and/or Wii and they or their kids still game on those.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,735
But, three differences this time:
1) Inflation, $600 today is nothing like $600 in PS3 time frame.
Just a reminder that the Dow Jones is now 19,000 and a lot of people lost their jobs. You really think inflation is justification for people to spend more?
2) PS5 won't be late.
You don't know that.
3) XBSX will also be priced the same.
You really don't know that. I doubt Sony would price the PS5 the same as the Xbox Series X. That would be financial suicide.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,852
Just a reminder that the Dow Jones is now 19,000 and a lot of people lost their jobs. You really think inflation is justification for people to spend more?

You don't know that.

You really don't know that. I doubt Sony would price the PS5 the same as the Xbox Series X. That would be financial suicide.
No, I think Microsoft can take a loss by pricing it at a thg loss. Sony, i am not so sure of.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,735
No, I think Microsoft can take a loss by pricing it at a thg loss. Sony, i am not so sure of.
Considering nobody has announced prices, I don't think anyone wants to take a loss. Microsoft wants to hear what Sony has to offer and Sony wants to hear what Microsoft is offering. If Microsoft offers the Xbox Series X for $600 then Sony has no problem with $500. If Microsoft offers it for $500 then Sony will probably aim for $450. At $400, it'll be hard for Sony to justify offering the PS5 for a lower price since they have to deal with shareholders. Microsoft could eat the cost easily, but this doesn't guarantee that the Xbox Series X will succeed where the Xbox One failed. If Microsoft wanted to gain moment in the market they'd be better off offering free online multiplayer. Better yet, they could bundle their best game with the console at launch to drive sales. Something Sega did to increase sales of the Genesis by offering a free copy of Sonic the Hedgehog with every Genesis sold.

As it is right now, the PS4 has a lot of amazing unique games you can't find anyplace else, and that trend will likely continue with the PS5. This is coming from a PCMasterRacist who is looking forward to a PS4 emulator. Xbox One has no unique games worth buying, and Halo Infinite looks like another disappointing Halo game. If the Xbox Series X ran Windows 10 then I'd be like, holy crap I can't wait to install Steam, Origin, Epic, and etc to play all my favorite games I already own but in better quality and frame rates. But no, this is a console and therefore you have to either wait for Microsoft to create an emulator for backwards compatibility with Xbox One games or buy the same game you already own but remastered. Sony will likely scrap PS4 compatiblity since RDNA2 doesn't have any GCN functionality built in, and I doubt Sony will make a PS4 emulator for backwards compatibility.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,852
Considering nobody has announced prices, I don't think anyone wants to take a loss. Microsoft wants to hear what Sony has to offer and Sony wants to hear what Microsoft is offering. If Microsoft offers the Xbox Series X for $600 then Sony has no problem with $500. If Microsoft offers it for $500 then Sony will probably aim for $450. At $400, it'll be hard for Sony to justify offering the PS5 for a lower price since they have to deal with shareholders. Microsoft could eat the cost easily, but this doesn't guarantee that the Xbox Series X will succeed where the Xbox One failed. If Microsoft wanted to gain moment in the market they'd be better off offering free online multiplayer. Better yet, they could bundle their best game with the console at launch to drive sales. Something Sega did to increase sales of the Genesis by offering a free copy of Sonic the Hedgehog with every Genesis sold.

As it is right now, the PS4 has a lot of amazing unique games you can't find anyplace else, and that trend will likely continue with the PS5. This is coming from a PCMasterRacist who is looking forward to a PS4 emulator. Xbox One has no unique games worth buying, and Halo Infinite looks like another disappointing Halo game. If the Xbox Series X ran Windows 10 then I'd be like, holy crap I can't wait to install Steam, Origin, Epic, and etc to play all my favorite games I already own but in better quality and frame rates. But no, this is a console and therefore you have to either wait for Microsoft to create an emulator for backwards compatibility with Xbox One games or buy the same game you already own but remastered. Sony will likely scrap PS4 compatiblity since RDNA2 doesn't have any GCN functionality built in, and I doubt Sony will make a PS4 emulator for backwards compatibility.
AN emulator for playing xbox one games? Are you entirely daft? I will be able to play all my XBox one games without emulation on day one. I will also not have to re buy any games. Sony will not make an emulator for PS4 games and they will not need to, they will play immediately on day one. As for PS3 and earlier games...... LOL!
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,735
AN emulator for playing xbox one games? Are you entirely daft?
I know that Xbox One has no unique games anyone would want to play but someone did make an Xbox 360 emulator, so crazier things have happened.
I will be able to play all my XBox one games without emulation on day one. I will also not have to re buy any games.
If the Xbox Series X will play original Xbox games then its an emulator. Chances are the Xbox One backwards compatibility will be emulation as well. As far as day one, I don't know about that one. Took Microsoft a while to fully emulate all 360 games on Xbox One.
Sony will not make an emulator for PS4 games and they will not need to, they will play immediately on day one.
From what I understand is that RDNA1.0 was made specifically for backwards compatibility with GCN, and therefore PS4 games. That's why there was confusion if RDNA was GCN or not, because it does have GCN functionality for this reason. RDNA2.0 though has scrapped GCN entirely for a more optimal performance, but this means that backwards compatiblity through hardware on the PS5 is not going to be easy and will likely need emulation.
As for PS3 and earlier games...... LOL!
Which any competent computer made in the past 8 years can do. The only reason Sony wouldn't include compatibility is because Sony is trying to promote PS Now service.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,856
If the Xbox Series X will play original Xbox games then its an emulator. Chances are the Xbox One backwards compatibility will be emulation as well. As far as day one, I don't know about that one.
These are all x86-based consoles that use DirectX. There will likely be call interceptions and translations, perhaps even the use of virtualization to provide the right 'environment' for games designed for older consoles, but the hardware itself does not need to be emulated.

Took Microsoft a while to fully emulate all 360 games on Xbox One.
And these are entirely heterogeneous architectures. The GPU in the 360 is a hacked up abomination from ATi (or was it AMD?) that straddled DX9 and DX10, but that's the easy part; the CPU was an IBM Power design. That will require emulation.

From what I understand is that RDNA1.0 was made specifically for backwards compatibility with GCN, and therefore PS4 games. That's why there was confusion if RDNA was GCN or not, because it does have GCN functionality for this reason. RDNA2.0 though has scrapped GCN entirely for a more optimal performance, but this means that backwards compatiblity through hardware on the PS5 is not going to be easy and will likely need emulation.
RDNA is not GCN, according to AMD. Not at all. RDNA 1.0, i.e. Navi, has drivers based on GCN and looks like GCN from a software standpoint, purposefully to ease the transition. RDNA 2.0 is simply a claimed improvement that includes RT hardware. Neither of these are certain to play out of the desktop, but should be more than adequate for the lower targets that consoles aim for.
Which any competent computer made in the past 8 years can do. The only reason Sony wouldn't include compatibility is because Sony is trying to promote PS Now service.
That may be one motivation, and generally, Microsoft has simply recognized the selling point and been willing to do the work, while Sony has not.

There's nothing technical stopping Sony from running every Playstation game ever made on the PS5, as you note!
 

KarsusTG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
3,099
Honestly, as long as I can get out the door under $1k for the new Xbox I will be happy with it. I, like most people I know use it as an HTPC and gaming replacement so I don't have to have a gaming computer and/or use my work pc for gaming.

I am actually looking forward to it. I have and xbox one x and it's been fantastic, but it starts really choking at about turn 100 on most civ 6 type games.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,852
Honestly, as long as I can get out the door under $1k for the new Xbox I will be happy with it. I, like most people I know use it as an HTPC and gaming replacement so I don't have to have a gaming computer and/or use my work pc for gaming.

I am actually looking forward to it. I have and xbox one x and it's been fantastic, but it starts really choking at about turn 100 on most civ 6 type games.
Well, considering the console itself will probably be $500, I would imagine games, storage expansion and other stuff will be in your shopping bag. :)
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,852
Yeah, my confusion just came from the R600 that AMD released based on the tech that went into the 360. That was an abomination.
Considering the R600 tech was already in the process before AMD even bought ATI....... Guess ATI knew what they had and wanted out as quickly as possible.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,856
Considering the R600 tech was already in the process before AMD even bought ATI....... Guess ATI knew what they had and wanted out as quickly as possible.
You mean, ATi's management wanted to avoid the consequences of their failure and happily passed it to AMD, who continued to fail with it for years?

Yeah, we were all there. Didn't miss that mess.
 

KarsusTG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
3,099
Well, considering the console itself will probably be $500, I would imagine games, storage expansion and other stuff will be in your shopping bag. :)
Meh, maybe. I seem to collect games in the same way my Steam library keeps growing. "That looks cool, let me grab it on sale and I will play it when I get time." But my 4ish hr/week gaming habit never really allows me to complete most games, or really get to most of them... Dozens to hundreds of non-played games in my library has proved this true year after year.
 
Top