Sony Is Struggling With PlayStation 5 Price Due to Costly Parts

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
So we come full circle. The best device in an entertainment setup is a playstation. Bluray player, video streaming and gaming all in one at an affordable price. Seems like pc can't really compete in this role affordably
I have a Blu-Ray drive burner in my main PC to backup data because I do other things on my PC besides play games. I got the LG one that burns like 100GB+ size disks.

I mean if you are comparing dumpster diving to the costs of retail yea, but you just got finished calling me a minority
Someone just gave me a Corsair PC they were going to throw away and it had a Blu-Ray drive it in that I threw in my HTPC. I never use it but it's there.

Blu-ray players were expensive-----at first. Blu-rays have actually always been affordable. I was really into buying Blu-rays for the first few years and it was rarely an issue to get them for the same price as DVD or maybe slightly more. Players have been very affordable for a decade. And PC drives have been affordable for not much less time. and if you check prices, Blu-rays are usually cheaper than buying on streaming. Same with 4K blu-ray Vs. buying 4K streaming. And 4K blu-rays basically always also come with a 1080p blu-ray disc, as well. So there is some big value there.
The problem with Blu-Ray besides the commercials that you are sometimes forced to see and the needed internet connection to update your encryption key is that it costs ~$20 per movie. Streaming is $10 per month to watch unlimited movies so long as they have them. Also lets address the elephant in the room in that piracy does exist and everyone does it. You get Blu-Ray quality without the bullshit. Too bad there's no bit torrent on consoles but it is a thing that people do. Hell, I can even do it on my phone.

AJoH1cS.jpg
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
11,857
The problem with Blu-Ray besides the commercials that you are sometimes forced to see and the needed internet connection to update your encryption key is that it costs ~$20 per movie. Streaming is $10 per month to watch unlimited movies so long as they have them. Also lets address the elephant in the room in that piracy does exist and everyone does it. You get Blu-Ray quality without the bullshit. Too bad there's no bit torrent on consoles but it is a thing that people do. Hell, I can even do it on my phone.

View attachment 224800
da fuck?

seriously
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
The problem with Blu-Ray besides the commercials that you are sometimes forced to see and the needed internet connection to update your encryption key is that it costs ~$20 per movie. Streaming is $10 per month to watch unlimited movies so long as they have them. Also lets address the elephant in the room in that piracy does exist and everyone does it. You get Blu-Ray quality without the bullshit. Too bad there's no bit torrent on consoles but it is a thing that people do. Hell, I can even do it on my phone.

View attachment 224800
Why do you keep harping on the need for an internet connection when you're going whole hog promoting piracy, which also requires an internet connection? Most people have some form of internet connection these days. Even dial-up could handle getting the few kilobyte encryption keys for BD. Key updates were never the thing that held the format back. Your entire anti-BD argument right now is nonsense. You couldn't be more off base if you tried. By the way, you should fix your wording. It makes it sound like you're saying that keys cost $20 a pop, which is false.

"Everyone does it" Well that's a huge fucking lie. I can't even remember the last time I pirated a movie or video game. It's been years.

Also, you don't get blu-ray quality unless you're downloading uncompressed torrents, which can be quite large. You can't play those pirated movies on your TV or home theater set up without going through some work, which the VAST VAST majority of people are never going to do. We've already established that BD drives never really took off in the PC space so people aren't going to be burning BDs like they used to do with CDs and DVDs. Hell, many people don't even have computers any more nor would know WTF a torrent even is. Piracy is entirely the realm of children and techies now days and it's becoming less of a thing for both groups as time goes on.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,256
The problem with Blu-Ray besides the commercials that you are sometimes forced to see and the needed internet connection to update your encryption key
You can't stream without internet. So this is moot.

is that it costs ~$20 per movie. Streaming is $10 per month to watch unlimited movies so long as they have them.
Yes, so long as they have them. Streaming subscriptions have been very good for TV shows. Although, that's very quickly worsening, due to every studio fragmenting out into their own separate service. And some studios still making deals which require you to have an active cable subscription, before you can access the show on streaming.

But....streaming subscriptions are not great for movies. If you have any sort of specific taste and/or are at all critical about what you watch: streaming is a crapshoot for movies. And doubly worse for the same aforementioned reason: fragmenting services. If you are such viewer who is really looking for something specific, its likely you'll still have to buy it (or rent) on streaming. Rather than be lucky to find it offered in a subscription.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,256
da fuck?

seriously
DukenukemX is probably referring to new releases. In which case, that price is about right. New releases are usually attainable for $16 - $20. With a few stragglers demanding a higer price. Although, sometimes Target will temporarily discount new releases. But anything older than 6-12 months is highly subject to sales, BoGo deals (which i have never seen on streaming) or just an everyday lower price.

Even quite old stuff, maintains a higher price on streaming. Take for example "Paprika" by Satoshi Kon. That Blu-ray has been less than $10, for almost a decade. Its double that price to purchase on Amazon's streaming.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
Why do you keep harping on the need for an internet connection when you're going whole hog promoting piracy, which also requires an internet connection?
Because physical media is the separation of needing a connection while with piracy you paid nothing.

"Everyone does it" Well that's a huge fucking lie. I can't even remember the last time I pirated a movie or video game. It's been years.
But you have done it. Not recently but you're guilty of it. People who are broke will use one Streaming service and or pirate.
Piracy is entirely the realm of children and techies now days and it's becoming less of a thing for both groups as time goes on.
Movie piracy is going up not down. The reason they say is because of Kodi boxes that make it easy.
Screen-Shot-2017-10-30-at-12.57.531.png

Also, news shows that Sony's new PS5 is going to want some of that micro-transaction pie. Soon the Playstation is going to try to push people into micro-transactions and DLC.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
Because physical media is the separation of needing a connection while with piracy you paid nothing.


But you have done it. Not recently but you're guilty of it. People who are broke will use one Streaming service and or pirate.

Movie piracy is going up not down. The reason they say is because of Kodi boxes that make it easy.
View attachment 224825

Also, news shows that Sony's new PS5 is going to want some of that micro-transaction pie. Son the Playstation is going to try to push people into micro-transactions and DLC.
But, again, people already have an internet connection. This isn't the early BD days anymore where not having internet was a lot more common. There are several reasons BD failed, but this isn't one of them.

Your assertion isn't "Everyone has pirated at some point" its that "Everyone is currently pirating" which is not the case.

Take every "we lose this much money to piracy" report as utter bullshit. The movie industry often claims to lose more money per year than they make in several years to piracy. It is also near impossible to actually track piracy levels. That said, if Kodi is that easy then I could see things going up.

ActiBlizz and EA also have awful sounding patents, none of which have ever materialized. It's worth getting angry over this patent now and making noise about it, but remember that US patent law does not require a company to ever actually use things they patent.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
Because physical media is the separation of needing a connection while with piracy you paid nothing.


But you have done it. Not recently but you're guilty of it. People who are broke will use one Streaming service and or pirate.

Movie piracy is going up not down. The reason they say is because of Kodi boxes that make it easy.
View attachment 224825

Also, news shows that Sony's new PS5 is going to want some of that micro-transaction pie. Soon the Playstation is going to try to push people into micro-transactions and DLC.
Your chart literally shows the ratio of purchasing to piracy that piracy is trending down.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,256
Its also worth revisiting the fact that even when Blu-ray/4K Blu-ray does cost more: you are still getting better quality. Some people care about that. Some people don't. But I'm reminded of streaming quality issues when looking at the Geforce Now thread. Lots of complaints about color banding. Yeah, that's a hallmark of compression from codecs currently used for streaming. And darker scenes can still often suffer from blocking, not just banding. If you are watching something which is dark most of the time, you're likely looking at a pretty poor presentation, on streaming.

One of my fave movies is Arrival and it looks like hell on Amazon streaming.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
Its also worth revisiting the fact that even when Blu-ray/4K Blu-ray does cost more: you are still getting better quality. Some people care about that. Some people don't. But I'm reminded of streaming quality issues when looking at the Geforce Now thread. Lots of complaints about color banding. Yeah, that's a hallmark of compression from codecs currently used for streaming. And darker scenes can still often suffer from blocking, not just banding. If you are watching something which is dark most of the time, you're likely looking at a pretty poor presentation, on streaming.
I hate streaming horror flicks.

And now with 4k and hdr being more affordable, streaming services either are unable to deliver or unwilling. The bandwidth just isn't there yet and the ISP's don't want them to have it.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
Its also worth revisiting the fact that even when Blu-ray/4K Blu-ray does cost more: you are still getting better quality. Some people care about that. Some people don't. But I'm reminded of streaming quality issues when looking at the Geforce Now thread. Lots of complaints about color banding. Yeah, that's a hallmark of compression from codecs currently used for streaming. And darker scenes can still often suffer from blocking, not just banding. If you are watching something which is dark most of the time, you're likely looking at a pretty poor presentation, on streaming.

One of my fave movies is Arrival and it looks like hell on Amazon streaming.
Yep. The only 4K streaming service I really like is Vudu as they seem to offer a higher bandwidth stream with less compression for their 4K HDR stuff compared to basically everyone else out there. Disney+ is okay as well, but I'd love to see how something like the Mandalorian would look from a UHD BD source (ideally, without Disney's usual UHD transfer issues).
 

VIC-20

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
1,029
Mortal Kombat series creator Ed Boon recently posed a question to his more than 500,000 Twitter followers: what is the most important element of the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X?

Of the 50,000+ votes polled, Price accounted for 37.5 percent of the vote, followed by last-gen compatibility (30 percent), better graphics (19.2 percent), and exclusive games (13.2 percent)




https://www.gamespot.com/amp-articl...ice-is-most-important-factor-of/1100-6473907/
Rule of Sales: Buyers are liars.

If that's truly the biggest priority, everyone would just say screw it and buy someone's entire X360 setup and library from Facebook Marketplace for $150. Or a refurb PS4. Why even buy a PS5, even if it was $249?

16 year olds with a Twitter account are not the buyers of PS5. Its 35-40 yr olds. And as of now, a large percentage of that are women.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,256
Rule of Sales: Buyers are liars.

If that's truly the biggest priority, everyone would just say screw it and buy someone's entire X360 setup and library from Facebook Marketplace for $150. Or a refurb PS4. Why even buy a PS5, even if it was $249?
Huh?



HUH?
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
But, again, people already have an internet connection. This isn't the early BD days anymore where not having internet was a lot more common. There are several reasons BD failed, but this isn't one of them.
It certainly would upset me if I bought hundreds of Blu-Ray movies. It certainly didn't help, that's for certain.
Your assertion isn't "Everyone has pirated at some point" its that "Everyone is currently pirating" which is not the case.
With the crazy rules they have, you're a pirate whether you like it or not. Some are active pirates and some do it without realizing it is piracy. Copied a song onto your phone or memory card? You're a pirate.
That said, if Kodi is that easy then I could see things going up.
A few of my neighbors bought them by accident because they saw a commercial claiming they can watch everything for free. Turns out they're just ARM boxes with Kodi installed and setup to access pirate streaming services. They came to me when these devices didn't work as expected, because they figured it works like a TV channel.
ActiBlizz and EA also have awful sounding patents, none of which have ever materialized. It's worth getting angry over this patent now and making noise about it, but remember that US patent law does not require a company to ever actually use things they patent.
I expect Sony and Microsoft to do something terrible this console cycle, because they want more revenue. Either the price of games will go up or something else.
Your chart literally shows the ratio of purchasing to piracy that piracy is trending down.
I see it as piracy accelerating since it shows exponential growth, but so does the revenue from the film industry. Either way you can't say that a Blu-Ray is required because consoles have it. It's legacy hardware that failed years ago, before the release of PS4 and XB1. Might as well put in a parallel port and com ports while we're at it.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
665
I'm personally not buying any console without a physical disk drive/removable storage format for games.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,256
It certainly would upset me if I bought hundreds of Blu-Ray movies. It certainly didn't help, that's for certain.

With the crazy rules they have, you're a pirate whether you like it or not. Some are active pirates and some do it without realizing it is piracy. Copied a song onto your phone or memory card? You're a pirate.

A few of my neighbors bought them by accident because they saw a commercial claiming they can watch everything for free. Turns out they're just ARM boxes with Kodi installed and setup to access pirate streaming services. They came to me when these devices didn't work as expected, because they figured it works like a TV channel.

I expect Sony and Microsoft to do something terrible this console cycle, because they want more revenue. Either the price of games will go up or something else.

I see it as piracy accelerating since it shows exponential growth, but so does the revenue from the film industry. Either way you can't say that a Blu-Ray is required because consoles have it. It's legacy hardware that failed years ago, before the release of PS4 and XB1. Might as well put in a parallel port and com ports while we're at it.
Blu-ray may not have matched the types of sales figures which DVD had. But....Its still the relevant option for full quality video. Whether we are talking about 1080p or 4K. and I don't see that changing anytime soon. A blu-ray is 2 - 4 times more data than a 1080p stream (depending on the bitrate offered for the stream). And a 4K blu-ray is also a similar difference in data size. That's just too much data to stream or otherwise offer as a digital download.

Digital streaming is vastly more convenient. And the video quality is mostly solid, nowadays. It costs more. Overall, the convenience wins out with consumers, it seems.

Its also worth noting that at this point, streaming options are not only convenient, but the most available way to rent. Redbox and its competitors are very nearly the only way to physically rent anymore. And not only is it less convenient but, its not uncommon to find that you have to drive around town to get the movie you want. Due to limited stock. That's an old problem with physical rental. But still a very real issue. Also with Redbox, are the limited amount of movies to choose from. They don't have the deep catalog which you'd find in a proper movie rental store. Whereas you can rent just about anything off Amazon or whatever service you prefer.

*I also think Blu-ray is a good format. The problems were mostly early days issues due to the industry not really figuring this stuff out fully, before releasing the format. So there were several growing pains, as the people behind the scenes hashed out final ideas on encryption, copy protection, etc. But there were also issues with the makers of the players cheaping out on their specs, so some of the players couldn't recieve updates and grow with the format (I.E. some blu-rays require some local data storage. But many early players did not have any or a way to add some). And many early players only met minimum specs to even run. So they were really slow.
And I don't even know what was going on with PC Blu-ray software requiring such frequent updates. Smells of spending as little money as possible on licensing and development, I guess. I bought a Sony player in 2012, to take the load off my PS3. And it has never needed an update for movie compatibility (that I have come across) (but I have updated it anyway). But PC software was still doing all that, at the time.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
This is generally a myth nowadays, especially since consoles also now have multiple configurations like the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. Also we have Vulkan and DX12 now, so that's much closer to the bare metal. The reality is when the PS4 and Xbox One were released they were around a R7 260X, which is weaker than the specs of the consoles. How does a R7 260X handle a game like Red Dead Redemption 2? This guy gets 30-40 fps at medium settings at 720P. If consoles have anything over PC it's the lack of Denuvo since that's proven to slow down games performance on PC, especially loading time.
It's not a myth. Developers can, often don't though, but can write code closer to the metal on consoles than PC hardware. As quoted here:

Shuhei Yoshida: Aaah, so we have to see... It depends on how we define the layer. The way we are approaching PS4 now is allowing developers to go really deep onto the metal, so Richard [Leadbetter of Digital Foundry] will know how that availability to the deeper hardware makes the console games way better than some PC or mobile approach. But if we do that, it will definitely require hardware to develop games.
Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-21-the-big-interview-sonys-shuhei-yoshida-on-ps4

Additionally; the hardware used in those side by side video comparisons costs a good bit more on the PC. Seeing as how the GPU is £100 and the Intel CPU used is £240. Just those two components total £340 when the PS4 launched at £349.99 and included everything needed to play. Just buy the games and connect it to a TV. The PC is gonna need a motherboard, PSU, case, keyboard/mouse, controller (optional in most cases) just to get going.

So as others have said, for the price; it's hard to beat a console. Clearly a PC is more powerful than a console, but costs more, too.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
Blu-ray may not have matched the types of sales figures which DVD had. But....Its still the relevant option for full quality video. Whether we are talking about 1080p or 4K. and I don't see that changing anytime soon. A blu-ray is 2 - 4 times more data than a 1080p stream (depending on the bitrate offered for the stream). And a 4K blu-ray is also a similar difference in data size. That's just too much data to stream or otherwise offer as a digital download.

Digital streaming is vastly more convenient. And the video quality is mostly solid, nowadays. It costs more. Overall, the convenience wins out with consumers, it seems.
I'm not saying that something like Blu-Ray isn't needed, but because of the crap and cost it lost out to NetFlix a long time ago. I remember when a new Blu-Ray movie was $70 and the player was $1k. Sure it's cheaper now but Streaming is still a lot cheaper and a lot easier to use. $10 per month is a lot more attractive than ~$10 per movie, if you're lucky. Also new movies do charge more.

It's not a myth. Developers can, often don't though, but can write code closer to the metal on consoles than PC hardware. As quoted here:


Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-21-the-big-interview-sonys-shuhei-yoshida-on-ps4
A guy who works for Sony says consoles are the best because he can write code closer to the metal. Yea... I don't see a conflict of interest there at all. I get the concept but this was a thing that came out of the PS2 and PS3 where the hardware setup was... retarded. The PS2 has the MIPS main CPU but then has the VPU0 and VPU1, which required a lot of work to use the hardware. The PS3 has those stupid SPE's which are specialized and require a ton of code. I mean, just look at this shit. No wonder Gabe Newell hated the thing.


Additionally; the hardware used in those side by side video comparisons costs a good bit more on the PC. Seeing as how the GPU is £100 and the Intel CPU used is £240. Just those two components total £340 when the PS4 launched at £349.99 and included everything needed to play. Just buy the games and connect it to a TV. The PC is gonna need a motherboard, PSU, case, keyboard/mouse, controller (optional in most cases) just to get going.

So as others have said, for the price; it's hard to beat a console. Clearly a PC is more powerful than a console, but costs more, too.
You can't buy that weak of a CPU for PC. Where can I find something as terrible as an 8 core Jaguar running at 1.6Ghz? Consoles cut corners to save money and this won't be different for the PS5 and Xbox Series X where I'm certain they'll either remove the L3 cache out entirely or remove some of it. You saw this with the PS3 and Xbox 360 where there was no out-of-order execution, which put those consoles at a huge disadvantage. Might as well run a Pentium MMX at 3Ghz and say it's faster than a 2Ghz Pentium 4. But if you have any doubts that a PC can battle a console at cost then look at the Potato Masher from this YouTuber who did just that. Not years later but when the PS4 and Xbox One were released is when he built his PC for the same price. Obviously not something a guy who plays Call of Duty is expected to be able to do, but it can be done.

 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
A guy who works for Sony says consoles are the best because he can write code closer to the metal.
He never said it was the best. He simply said the developers have the ability to code directly to the metal. Period.


Yea... I don't see a conflict of interest there at all. I get the concept but this was a thing that came out of the PS2 and PS3 where the hardware setup was... retarded. The PS2 has the MIPS main CPU but then has the VPU0 and VPU1, which required a lot of work to use the hardware. The PS3 has those stupid SPE's which are specialized and require a ton of code. I mean, just look at this shit. No wonder Gabe Newell hated the thing.
The PS3 was difficult to code for because of the extremely complex Cell processor. As was other consoles of the past. Doesn't mean they wasn't able to code directly to the metal on those systems, too. Just means more time and learning needed to be done to get results.

You can't buy that weak of a CPU for PC. Where can I find something as terrible as an 8 core Jaguar running at 1.6Ghz? Consoles cut corners to save money and this won't be different for the PS5 and Xbox Series X where I'm certain they'll either remove the L3 cache out entirely or remove some of it. You saw this with the PS3 and Xbox 360 where there was no out-of-order execution, which put those consoles at a huge disadvantage. Might as well run a Pentium MMX at 3Ghz and say it's faster than a 2Ghz Pentium 4.
My point exactly. The PS4 and XBO are doing it with a LOT less of a CPU compared to what's in the PC. They also, get this, cost less. ;)


But if you have any doubts that a PC can battle a console at cost then look at the Potato Masher from this YouTuber who did just that. Not years later but when the PS4 and Xbox One were released is when he built his PC for the same price. Obviously not something a guy who plays Call of Duty is expected to be able to do, but it can be done.

Lets see.

Xeon x3440 overclocked to 3.4 ghz Asus P7H55 LGA 1156 motherboard 8GB DDR3 memory MSI GTX 760 2GB (Masher) | Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB G1 Gaming (Masher Pro) 320GB Samsung Spinpoint HDD Cooler Master Wavemaster Case Arctic Alpine 11 GT cpu cooler EVGA 430 watt PSU Logitech KB+M combo Windows 10 64-bit

Okay so a 760 GTX that was launched at $375. That leaves $125 for the rest of the system? Yeah right... oh wait. Is that a Xeon? OHHH so it's a bunch of USED hardware most likely bought from eBay. Guess what man. You're right, not everyone can build that system because it's going to be limited to the USED market. Not like anyone could buy those parts, for that price, off the shelf that's restocked regularly. The PS5 and next Xbox will be though. ;)
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,256
I'm not saying that something like Blu-Ray isn't needed, but because of the crap and cost it lost out to NetFlix a long time ago. I remember when a new Blu-Ray movie was $70 and the player was $1k. Sure it's cheaper now but Streaming is still a lot cheaper and a lot easier to use. $10 per month is a lot more attractive than ~$10 per movie, if you're lucky. Also new movies do charge more.
I guess I have to repeat myself.

Aside from the absolute early days of Blu-ray.....

New releases have been able to be reliably bought for YEARS for $16 - $20 (since 2007. When the PS3 had its first price drop, became the reference player for Criterion, and essentially pushed Blu-ray into mainstream reality) With a few stragglers going a bit higher towards $25. Since 2007, Blu-ray culture is one of frequent sales, BoGos, release period discounts, etc. I have only payed over $18 for a Blu-ray, a couple of times ever. And I used to buy a lot of them. And I'm not talking about used sales or dredging Ebay. I'm talking about Amazon, ToysRus, Target, etc.

Blu-ray did not lose to Netflix, in terms of it is not a strict replacement for Blu-ray. Especially not right now, that Netflix lost of a lot of its 3rd party content and many studios have fragmented into their own streaming platforms or forced bundles with cable, etc. You can't even buy or rent specific movies on Netflix. Netflix is now a pretty specific vendor of original content, documentaries, standup comedy, and an incredibly random and very temporary helping of catalogue titles and B movies. That's the reason they have invested so heavily into original content, to try and keep people there. They've got a few winners.

Amazon and Vudu, you can do what netflix can't: Buy and Rent. But you still can't get the full quality video and audio. And buying a Blu-ray from Amazon, Target, Best-buy, is often cheaper than buying a digital stream on Amazon or Vudu or Apple, etc. Blu-ray still has an important role for enthusiasts. As I explained earlier, convenience wins with many consumers. But Blu-ray is still an important choice for enthusiast with great gear and/or people with any sort of specific tastes and/or specific titles in mind: until a more convenient, strict replacement comes along.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
The PS3 was difficult to code for because of the extremely complex Cell processor. As was other consoles of the past. Doesn't mean they wasn't able to code directly to the metal on those systems, too. Just means more time and learning needed to be done to get results.
That's where the myth comes from that consoles can get more out of their hardware, because nearly all of them had dev kits and documentation that was horrible at first. In time those tools got better and devs could get more from the hardware.

My point exactly. The PS4 and XBO are doing it with a LOT less of a CPU compared to what's in the PC. They also, get this, cost less. ;)
There's a reason why Sony and Microsoft went X86, because the difficulty other architectures wasn't worth it. There's less "metal" to get to on the PS4 and XB1 because everything was working correctly from the beginning. Also keep in mind that API's like Vulkan and DX12 have nearly no effect or a negative effect on a lot of Nvidia's GPUs, which suggests that coding closer to metal doesn't really matter all that much. It does benefit AMD GPU's which is what consoles are using but we're moving towards Vulkan and DX12 anyway.

Side note, this is why Vulkan is so beneficial to emulators because it removes a lot of overhead in the GPU translation process. The Yuzu devs actually explained how the GPU in the Switch works and how much of the code shares with Nvidia's OpenGL. As he puts it, "It seems that whenever Nvidia gets a chance to put something in the hardware, they take it" which is probably why Nvidia cards don't benefit much from the Vulkan API. He also says, "Nvidia’s OpenGL driver is a scary monstrosity, it’s really fast. And to achieve this Nvidia has, over the years, invested resources heavily to make their OpenGL software (the driver) and their hardware really efficient. They have not only optimized their software to be fast for OpenGL, but also their hardware. " Gives you an idea on how well optimized PC hardware is.

Lets see.

Xeon x3440 overclocked to 3.4 ghz Asus P7H55 LGA 1156 motherboard 8GB DDR3 memory MSI GTX 760 2GB (Masher) | Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB G1 Gaming (Masher Pro) 320GB Samsung Spinpoint HDD Cooler Master Wavemaster Case Arctic Alpine 11 GT cpu cooler EVGA 430 watt PSU Logitech KB+M combo Windows 10 64-bit

Okay so a 760 GTX that was launched at $375. That leaves $125 for the rest of the system? Yeah right... oh wait. Is that a Xeon? OHHH so it's a bunch of USED hardware most likely bought from eBay. Guess what man. You're right, not everyone can build that system because it's going to be limited to the USED market.
Well yea I did say that. He also explains it in this video. Keep in mind that if you did buy brand new hardware like a i5 2500K from 2011 and a GTX 970 from 2014 then you'd still be gaming at 1080p high settings 60fps to this day. Would have costed more than a $400 console but you would have saved yourself $120 a year in Xbox Live or Playstation Plus, assuming you paid the monthly fee. That's over $700 in those 6 years just to go online and play, which is something you get for free on PC.
Not like anyone could buy those parts, for that price, off the shelf that's restocked regularly. The PS5 and next Xbox will be though. ;)
Keep in mind that I could build an equivalent to the PS5 today for $700 with brand new parts, which is not looking good for Sony if they go above $500 for the console price. Sometime this year Nvidia will release their 3000 series GPU's which I'm assuming will bring cheaper prices and better performance. AMD will fart around Big Navi, which nobody will care because it'll be expensive and Nvidia will have something faster anyway. Intel will join the market sometime this year and will hopefully disrupt the GPU market. Stuff is going down this year and if Sony and Microsoft aren't careful then they could put themselves in a real bad situation.

Also just a side note but don't you think the GTX 970 disrupted the console market back in 2014? Think about it, Nvidia releases a $330 GPU that can do 1080p 60fps with max settings (at the time) and just a year later after the consoles were released. Compared to the not 1080p barely 30fps low graphics from the consoles, that seemed like an intentional blow to Sony and Microsoft. I fully expect Nvidia to do the same thing again in 2021 because unless Nvidia's Geforce Now service takes off (it won't) then they're left out again in console profits.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
I guess I have to repeat myself.

Aside from the absolute early days of Blu-ray.....

New releases have been able to be reliably bought for YEARS for $16 - $20 (since 2007. When the PS3 had its first price drop, became the reference player for Criterion, and essentially pushed Blu-ray into mainstream reality) With a few stragglers going a bit higher towards $25. Since 2007, Blu-ray culture is one of frequent sales, BoGos, release period discounts, etc. I have only payed over $18 for a Blu-ray, a couple of times ever. And I used to buy a lot of them. And I'm not talking about used sales or dredging Ebay. I'm talking about Amazon, ToysRus, Target, etc.
WoW, you spent a lot of money on a dead format.
Blu-ray did not lose to Netflix, in terms of it is not a strict replacement for Blu-ray.
Yea it did, like 10 years ago. It died as soon as HDDVD was pulled from the market, mostly because Netflix was destroying them both.
Especially not right now, that Netflix lost of a lot of its 3rd party content and many studios have fragmented into their own streaming platforms or forced bundles with cable, etc. You can't even buy or rent specific movies on Netflix. Netflix is now a pretty specific vendor of original content, documentaries, standup comedy, and an incredibly random and very temporary helping of catalogue titles and B movies. That's the reason they have invested so heavily into original content, to try and keep people there. They've got a few winners.
Streaming has its problems because it became fragmented. No longer can you spend $10 per month for unlimited access to movies and tv shows but now you need subscriptions to many streaming services. Why you think Piracy maybe on the rise with everyone pushing for exclusive content?
Amazon and Vudu, you can do what netflix can't: Buy and Rent. But you still can't get the full quality video and audio. And buying a Blu-ray from Amazon, Target, Best-buy, is often cheaper than buying a digital stream on Amazon or Vudu or Apple, etc. Blu-ray still has an important role for enthusiasts. As I explained earlier, convenience wins with many consumers. But Blu-ray is still an important choice for enthusiast with great gear and/or people with any sort of specific tastes and/or specific titles in mind: until a more convenient, strict replacement comes along.
Just looks like to me that enthusiasts are getting screwed, like always. Blu-Ray has problems as well as streaming, which is why piracy is on the rise.
 

Marees

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
424
I agree with this

And I don't even know what was going on with PC Blu-ray software requiring such frequent updates. Smells of spending as little money as possible on licensing and development, I guess. I bought a Sony player in 2012, to take the load off my PS3. And it has never needed an update for movie compatibility (that I have come across) (but I have updated it anyway). But PC so
I bought a dell Inspiron mini htpc specifically for the blu-ray drive option. Yet it couldn't play a blu-ray cd released not more than a year later as it needed new encryption keys. And the version of powerDVD shipped by dell was not free updatable to the new version that could play it.

After looking at all options, I decided to buy a standalone samsung blu ray player that so far has been able to play all cds without any update nonsense. Only time I had to go back to the pc was when I purchased a 3d cd by mistake this year & surprisingly I was able to play it on a new software that I downloaded in the PC
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,589
Well yea I did say that. He also explains it in this video. Keep in mind that if you did buy brand new hardware like a i5 2500K from 2011 and a GTX 970 from 2014 then you'd still be gaming at 1080p high settings 60fps to this day.
Hardly. My GTX 970 was starting to have issues at 1920x1080 at high settings a long time ago. I've since upgraded to a GTX 1070 and RTX 2070 but I do run higher resolutions now.

And you're over inflating the cost of Xbox Live by 100% or more. The MSRP is $60 but you can often find it for around $48 per year. Sometimes as low as $40 around Black Friday.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
That's where the myth comes from that consoles can get more out of their hardware, because nearly all of them had dev kits and documentation that was horrible at first. In time those tools got better and devs could get more from the hardware.


There's a reason why Sony and Microsoft went X86, because the difficulty other architectures wasn't worth it. There's less "metal" to get to on the PS4 and XB1 because everything was working correctly from the beginning. Also keep in mind that API's like Vulkan and DX12 have nearly no effect or a negative effect on a lot of Nvidia's GPUs, which suggests that coding closer to metal doesn't really matter all that much. It does benefit AMD GPU's which is what consoles are using but we're moving towards Vulkan and DX12 anyway.
It's not really a myth. Developers can get more out of console hardware than comparable PC hardware. There's less overhead, often times better tools, it's easier to broadly apply tricks and shortcuts, a small handful of configurations instead of millions, access to ever growing and improving documentation, 1st party devs have direct access to the people that designed the hardware, both console have custom APIs specifically designed around their hardware, and so on. There is no way in hell something like Spider-man would run as well as it does on a base model PS4 on comparable PC specs and it's even more true with the Pro.

Sony and Microsoft went x86 because it was the only viable option. If the Cell processor had actually been successful Sony would have gone with that instead.

WoW, you spent a lot of money on a dead format.
Blu-Ray isn't even close to a "dead format". Studios still make a ton of money on physical media sales. In 2019 Avengers Endgame made an estimated $69.4 MILLION in blu-ray sales alone (3.1m copies) and anther $19.5m in DVD sales. Even the lowest seller on the top 100, It Chapter 1, did over a million dollars in BD sales. Physical media isn't the juggernaut it once was but it is incredibly naive to state that BD is a "dead format". You should really do some research before making claims.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,385
Where can I find something as terrible as an 8 core Jaguar running at 1.6Ghz?
The 8-core Jaguar in the PS4 at 1.6GHz is roughly the equivalent to an Intel Haswell i3 dual-core at ~3.0GHz, at least in general purpose performance in full-SMP.
If you search for "Jaguar" on here, you will find a lot of threads where I have done the math; sorry, I'm not reposting since it is late and I'm being a bit lazy. :p

There's a reason why Sony and Microsoft went X86, because the difficulty other architectures wasn't worth it.
Aside from the IBM PowerPC-based Cell CPU, it had nothing to do with the complexity or difficulty.
Sony and Microsoft's decision purely whittled down to the cost of processors circa 2012 and 2013 when both consoles were being developed.

ARM was still 32-bit at the time (limiting total RAM and memory addressing to 4GB), and IBM did not have any PowerPC (now merged into the Power ISA) CPUs that were cost-efficient or affordable at that point; SPARC64 wasn't going to happen, either.
While Intel x86-64 CPUs would have worked, their iGPUs at the time (HD4000 era) were far too anemic for 3D graphics, which would have also required a 3rd party discrete or embedded GPU from either NVIDIA or AMD, further adding to the cost.

AMD's rough equivalent, at least cost-wise, of Intel's Atom was the Jaguar CPU, as it was a low-power and low-cost CPU designed for low-power and embedded systems.
Jaguar CPUs also offered an iGPU capability out-of-the-box, which allowed both AMD, and Sony and Microsoft, to design and customize their semi-custom APU within the PS4 and XBone.

For 2012/2013, the AMD Jaguar made the most sense due to cost efficiency, forward support (of which the PowerPC CPUs in the PS3 and 360 were near EOL), and low-level software and tool support.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,385
If the Cell processor had actually been successful Sony would have gone with that instead.
I agree with you on all of your points except this one.
The IBM Cell CPU was actually highly successful, both in and out of the console market.

The IBM Cell was about to go end-of-life outside of the PS3 (and Sony's contract with IBM), and most of the post-processing, physics, and heavy lifting, all of which would normally be done on the Cell's 6 available SPE units (to the game itself), would now be done on the AMD GPU.
The Cell CPU is the only reason the PS3 lasted for as long as it did, also allowing modern (and admittedly cut-down and limited-memory optimized) games to be played on it well into the mid-2010s, all on hardware from 2006.

I guarantee you, that even the fastest dual-core x86-64 CPU and NVIDIA Series 7 GPU from 2006, paired with only 256MB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM respectively, would not be able to play a game like Alien: Isolation, even on the lowest graphical settings.
I do understand that those said games are further optimized for closed-platform hardware than a conventional PC, but still, the fact that the devs of any of those games were able to do that was not only an impressive feat on their programming skills and capabilities, but also the capabilities of the (extremely limited by 2014's standards) hardware itself. (y)
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
Hardly. My GTX 970 was starting to have issues at 1920x1080 at high settings a long time ago. I've since upgraded to a GTX 1070 and RTX 2070 but I do run higher resolutions now.
Like what games? My sisters GTX 970 runs nearly all games fine at high settings with a 6600K. Even Digital Foundry agrees with me.
And you're over inflating the cost of Xbox Live by 100% or more. The MSRP is $60 but you can often find it for around $48 per year. Sometimes as low as $40 around Black Friday.
I specifically said if you go with the $10 PER MONTH. It's $59.99 for 12 months, $24.99 for three months, and $10 per month. That is the cost of Xbox Live. Assuming you're a smart consumer then you go for the $60 for 12 months, which still means you spent $360 since the launch of the PS4 on something that's free on PC, and arguably worse than PC.

It's not really a myth. Developers can get more out of console hardware than comparable PC hardware.
Ok.. show me an example. I've shown you that a PC with a Radeon 260X is about the same as a PS4. Show me a situation where this magic optimization has actually produced more performance compared to PC.
There is no way in hell something like Spider-man would run as well as it does on a base model PS4 on comparable PC specs and it's even more true with the Pro.
I guess we'll find out soon enough as there's people working on a PS4 emulator.
Sony and Microsoft went x86 because it was the only viable option. If the Cell processor had actually been successful Sony would have gone with that instead.
The Cell processor failed because it lacked out-of-order execution and the SPE's were such trash that in order to get something like "Hello World" you needed hundreds of lines of code, compared to the few needed in most processors and languages. Think I'm joking? Look at this shit with your special eyes.
Blu-Ray isn't even close to a "dead format". Studios still make a ton of money on physical media sales. In 2019 Avengers Endgame made an estimated $69.4 MILLION in blu-ray sales alone (3.1m copies) and anther $19.5m in DVD sales. Even the lowest seller on the top 100, It Chapter 1, did over a million dollars in BD sales. Physical media isn't the juggernaut it once was but it is incredibly naive to state that BD is a "dead format". You should really do some research before making claims.
Blu-Ray is dead tech, and the only reason it still sells is because it's the only choice if you want physical media. Do you know of any other format that competes with it?
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,733
The 8-core Jaguar in the PS4 at 1.6GHz is roughly the equivalent to an Intel Haswell i3 dual-core at ~3.0GHz, at least in general purpose performance in full-SMP.
If you search for "Jaguar" on here, you will find a lot of threads where I have done the math; sorry, I'm not reposting since it is late and I'm being a bit lazy. :p
In overall compute performance... sure. But games generally like IPC and therefore high clock speed. A 3Ghz i3 is still going to be faster for gaming than the PS4 CPU. Also people got linux working on the PS4 Pro and ran benchmarks and.... no. In Cinebench 15 it gets a score of 343 in multi-threaded and 46 in single core performance.

 

the901

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
124
If you have a great sound system then the cost of hardware isn't going to be much of a concern. Also, Blu-Ray is legacy bullshit technology that failed a long time ago because it was prohibitively expensive. You know what else is better than streamed content? Torrents, which goes to show that piracy today still offers more than legitimacy. The only reason consoles have them is because it's cheaper than putting the games onto a USB thumb drive, which is what they should be doing.
What is the source media for those torrent files?
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,892
da fuck?

seriously
I don't know what he is talking about because I've never had a Blu-ray that required me be connected to the internet to watch, I've never had a Blu-ray require an updated key in 14 years, and I've never seen a Blu-ray that forced you to watch commercials or trailers. Duke is just on a crusade of some sort and his arguments make no sense.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
I specifically said if you go with the $10 PER MONTH. It's $59.99 for 12 months, $24.99 for three months, and $10 per month. That is the cost of Xbox Live. Assuming you're a smart consumer then you go for the $60 for 12 months, which still means you spent $360 since the launch of the PS4 on something that's free on PC, and arguably worse than PC.
A smart consumer waits for sales and buys a year of Live or PS+ when it's on sale. Or they find sources for cheaper keys. I got 13 months of Live for $49 recently, then paid $15 to turn all 13 months into Game Pass Ultimate.

Ok.. show me an example. I've shown you that a PC with a Radeon 260X is about the same as a PS4. Show me a situation where this magic optimization has actually produced more performance compared to PC.
Fairly often the minimum requirement for PC ports is much higher than what base consoles are capable of and running at all low always looks significantly worse than console versions.

I guess we'll find out soon enough as there's people working on a PS4 emulator.
Don't hold your breath. Emulators require an order of magnitude more power than the system they're emulating. Look at what it takes to get PCSX2 or Dolphin running at full speed compared to the actual hardware those systems ran. Even with Vulkan rendering CEMU and YUZU require a lot more power to work than their respective consoles.

Blu-Ray is dead tech, and the only reason it still sells is because it's the only choice if you want physical media. Do you know of any other format that competes with it?
What kind of nonsensical argument is this? It's not the only physical media choice, DVD exists and is often cheaper, and even if it was that doesn't mean anything. It still sales in volume therefor it is not a dead format. Your blind hatred and desire to see it dead does not make it reality.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,011
I see it as piracy accelerating since it shows exponential growth, but so does the revenue from the film industry. Either way you can't say that a Blu-Ray is required because consoles have it. It's legacy hardware that failed years ago, before the release of PS4 and XB1. Might as well put in a parallel port and com ports while we're at it.
Okay you are all over the place on this comment.

I see it as piracy accelerating since it shows exponential growth, but so does the revenue from the film industry.

How you decide to interpret the data is your choice obviously, but then you shouldn't use facts if you are going to decide it means something opposite than what it states. Yes both are increasing, but sales are increasing at a faster rate than piracy. This shows an increase in media consumption but not a shift toward piracy, it shows a shift away from it.
Maybe try not taking a thread into a flag carrying post about how good piracy is, i swear we can't say the sky is blue without you bringing up how good pirating movies is.


Either way you can't say that a Blu-Ray is required because consoles have it.

Oddly enough you can't say what consumers don't want in a product because you have this odd vendetta against bluray


It's legacy hardware that failed years ago, before the release of PS4 and XB1.

Not finding any data to support your opinion on this, are sales slowing? Yes, but I consider 8-track dead, not bluray.


Might as well put in a parallel port and com ports while we're at it.

Look in device manager, you still have com ports as these are a software based port, but I assume you meant serial ports. Though this is the kind of thinking that Apple does with the legacy 3.5mm headphone port.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,341
Since we're talking about Blu-Ray, the PS5 almost certainly ships with a 4K Blu-Ray player.

Standalone 4K players are like $150 at the cheapest, and some as much as $300 or $400. So a $500 PS5 which also doubled as a decent 4K player would be a good deal.

Also, I imagine the games will also take advantage of the 100GB on the disc, so you can be looking at higher res textures or bigger worlds, etc. not possible on PS4.
 

VIC-20

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
1,029
Huh?



HUH?
Survey says price is more important than graphics for a new gen console. If that was the true, people wouldn't want a new console.

Surveys are often complete bullshit, especially if the people responding aren't target buyer demographic.

I don't know how to be any more clear to you.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,956
Since we're talking about Blu-Ray, the PS5 almost certainly ships with a 4K Blu-Ray player.

Standalone 4K players are like $150 at the cheapest, and some as much as $300 or $400. So a $500 PS5 which also doubled as a decent 4K player would be a good deal.

Also, I imagine the games will also take advantage of the 100GB on the disc, so you can be looking at higher res textures or bigger worlds, etc. not possible on PS4.
It is 100% shipping with UHD BD. That's one of the few things actually known about the system at this point.

If you want a good, cheap, UHD BD player the best option is honestly the Xbox One S. It's not the best UHD player, but it's better than most options near it's price point.

Maybe FF7 Remake Part 2 will be able to fit on a single disc, instead of needing two.
 

Ranulfo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,885
Hmm, I hope they use 100gb Bluray discs. That would likely drop the prices down on burnable discs in the retail market.
 
Top