Quantcast
PS4 Super Slim and PS4 Pro Slim?

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS4 Super Slim and PS4 Pro Slim?

Will we get PS4 Super Slim and/or PS4 Pro Slim?

PS4 Super Slim and PS4 Pro Slim 17 35.42%
 
only PS4 Super Slim 4 8.33%
 
only PS4 Pro Slim 7 14.58%
 
no new hardware until PS5 20 41.67%
 
Total:48
KBG29 said:
potato_hamster said:

It's because you ignore it every time it's explained to you. Unlike their Walkman, Xperia and Bravia, the people making content for the Playstation have to develop for each and every performance specification. Just like the PS4 Pro, everyone besides Sony and other rare exceptions would support this high performance console in the most minimal way they can get away with and nothing more.

Console video games don't scale the way you believe they do. If they did, the Nintendo Switch would be getting pretty much every multi-platform third party title, or at least ones that use multi-platform focused engines like unity. But you don't see that, do you? Developers have to put in the same special effort they always did. It doesn't appear to be any meaningful gains in development to port a PS4 game to the Switch than there was to port a PS3 game to the Vita. How do you explain that if " games [are] being built with dynamic frame rates, and resolution, needing nothing more than additional power to achieve locked performance" the opposite should be true, shouldn't it?

You're more likely to see Sony drop the pro model next time around than you are to see them make a super high performance model. The Pro experiment was not a success. Third parties have largely ignored it. Sony had to figure out a way to do additional post-processing to render in 4K while emulating regular PS4 functionality because third parties weren't supporting it any more than they had to. You know that"enhancement" feature actually runs games poorer than they would if developers actually took the time to support the PS4 pro properly, right?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with minimal support. It is about Sony offering their games at a level that takes full advantage of their TVs. Premium consoles are not about offering anything other than higher resolution, better frame rate, better AA, better shadows, better draw distance. A premium console does not mean they are going to develop completely different assets, it is just a better looking/performing way to experience the same content. I don't know where you get the idea that Pro was not a success or supported, a Sony executive just said it was a success and a necessary evolution. We will definitely have multiple PS5 offerings next gen.

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/12/ps4_pro_has_been_a_good_example_of_necessary_evolution_says_sony

 

Switch has nothing to do with scalability on PlayStation. Switch to PS4 is no different than PS3 to PS Vita, it is nothing like PS4 to PS4 Pro. Switch uses a different architecture than PS4/XBO/PC, so of course it takes extra work to port games to Switch. When Sony was building games for PS3 (Cell/Nvidia), PS Vita (ARM/PowerVR), and PS4 (X86/Radeon), that was a ton of work. With PS4 and PS4 Pro there is no porting, PS4 Pro runs the same code as PS4, not only are they both X86/Radoen, they are mostly the same exact X86/Radeon technology. Adding in support for the Pro's additional CU's take very liitle effort.

Here is Mark Cerny's exact quote “The target was to make sure that support [for the PS4 Pro] could be done for a fraction of a percent of the overall effort,” Cerny said to Gamasutra. “And I do mean a fraction of a percent. I mean, I’ve run the math, and it’s 0.2 or 0.3 percent for these projects — some of them. So at that point, I think it’s very natural for the development community to support the platform.”

https://gamingbolt.com/mark-cerny-converting-a-base-ps4-game-to-ps4-pro-version-is-just-0-2-or-0-3-percent-of-the-overall-effort

That means on a 5 year project, you are looking at about a week to tune in Pro support. This is with Sony offering a new system mid generation, without developers aware of the additional hardware. A future console that is built with multiple tiers in mind from the start would take even less work, as the Hardware, API's, and Development Tools are all be built from the ground up with scalability in mind. 

 

As for your final question, yes I know that Boost Mode only takes advantage of the clock boosts on the CPU and GPU, and does not take advantage of the 18 additional CU's on the Pro GPU. That just proves that extra performance can be absolutely free. If a PS5 Pro and a PS5 Premium both had the same CPU and GPU, but the Pro runs at 3.2GHz and 1400MHz, while the Premium offers 4.0GHz and 2000MHz, that would offer a significant performance boost for the Premium. In this situation it would take no additional work from Sony, it would just be a matter of setting aside the highest quality PS5 chips exclusively for the Premium model. 

DonFerrari said:

PS4Pro have double power than PS4 vanilla, and still you see minimal notable gains. This super premium would have much more power probably 4-6x almost a gen difference. But the games to show it would be very few, so unless Sony do it for mindless profit without concern to have its devs showing it off, there is no point in it.

I'll tell you the same thing I said to potato_hamster. The idea of a Pro or Premium console is not about seeing notable gains. It is simply about improving the same experience.

A Premium console doesn't even necessarily ave to have a different chip set from the Pro Version. It could simply be a significant improvement to cooling, paired with the best quality chips yielded from each die. That combo would allow a massive increase to clock speeds for the GPU and CPU, which would mean completely free performance.

I gave potato the PS5 example, but I'll give you a PS4 example. Say Sony does drop a PS4 Pro Slim this year. Going from 14nm to 7nm they could easily increase the clock speeds on the CPU and GPU. In theory, say they bump the CPU to 3.0GHz and the GPU to 1200MHz. That would be more than enough to make games that scale between 1440 and 4K lock in at a steady 4K, or make games that bounce between 50 - 60fps run at a rock solid 60fps.

For all we know Sony could be putting things into motion for something like this right now. It could be the reason we have not seen any consumer facing OS upgrades for 2 years. They could be doing background work to make PS4 Super Slim and PS4 Pro Slim run all games better, by boosting the clocks on these new 7nm chips. Or it could be because they are building this kind of scalability into PS5, which means we could see a $299.99 PS5 Basic, a $499.99 Pro, and a $999.99 Premium.

 

 

One thing is for absolute certain. Scalability is the future of gaming. Offering games within any given ecosystem, that run between multiple different devices is going to be the new norm. You don't have to believe me, just listen to Phil Spencer, Satya Nadella, Shawn Layden, Kenichiro Yoshida, John Kodera, Reggie Fils-Aime, Lisa Su, Jensen Huang or any other person in power involved in Computing, Games, and Applications. It is an industry wide road map to tech in the 2020's.

If the games played don't offer a sensible difference it will be a hard time selling if for 3 times more. That is why we said that without support there is the problem on pushing the games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

Would you people please stop this 7nm PS4 nonsense?
Apparently there is a lack of insight at just how extremely espensive a redesign in 7nm would be. And for what? To sell maybe a million more consoles than the expected end of production phase will actually sell? Keep selling the tail end PS4s a few months longer than expected?
At this time we likely are at 100mio PS4s produced, and the end of producing them is already foreseeable. There is neither time nor money for such 7nm nonsense (not even talking about fractioning the userbase even more which is a bad idea right out of the gate), all they do is planning for the next system.



DonFerrari said:

PS4Pro have double power than PS4 vanilla, and still you see minimal notable gains. This super premium would have much more power probably 4-6x almost a gen difference. But the games to show it would be very few, so unless Sony do it for mindless profit without concern to have its devs showing it off, there is no point in it.

PS4 Pro is an interesting one...

Because in Floating Point Compute, Texture Fillrate, Pixel Fillrate, Geometry performance... It more than doubles the Playstation 4 Vanilla.

But on the CPU and Bandwidth side of the equation it is significantly less...
So in Bandwidth bound scenarios it's gains are going to be really really small... And that happens more often the higher in resolution you go.

The Pro is a decent box though, no doubt about it... It's just a shame that it is held back by the launch consoles somewhat... Same issue the Xbox One X has.

drkohler said:
Would you people please stop this 7nm PS4 nonsense?
Apparently there is a lack of insight at just how extremely espensive a redesign in 7nm would be. And for what? To sell maybe a million more consoles than the expected end of production phase will actually sell? Keep selling the tail end PS4s a few months longer than expected?
At this time we likely are at 100mio PS4s produced, and the end of producing them is already foreseeable. There is neither time nor money for such 7nm nonsense (not even talking about fractioning the userbase even more which is a bad idea right out of the gate), all they do is planning for the next system.

Legit though, these chips would probably be cheaper keeping them on 14nm... Or the "14nm refined" node. Aka. 12nm.
7nm is expensive right now.



Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

PS4Pro have double power than PS4 vanilla, and still you see minimal notable gains. This super premium would have much more power probably 4-6x almost a gen difference. But the games to show it would be very few, so unless Sony do it for mindless profit without concern to have its devs showing it off, there is no point in it.

PS4 Pro is an interesting one...

Because in Floating Point Compute, Texture Fillrate, Pixel Fillrate, Geometry performance... It more than doubles the Playstation 4 Vanilla.

But on the CPU and Bandwidth side of the equation it is significantly less...
So in Bandwidth bound scenarios it's gains are going to be really really small... And that happens more often the higher in resolution you go.

The Pro is a decent box though, no doubt about it... It's just a shame that it is held back by the launch consoles somewhat... Same issue the Xbox One X has.

drkohler said:
Would you people please stop this 7nm PS4 nonsense?
Apparently there is a lack of insight at just how extremely espensive a redesign in 7nm would be. And for what? To sell maybe a million more consoles than the expected end of production phase will actually sell? Keep selling the tail end PS4s a few months longer than expected?
At this time we likely are at 100mio PS4s produced, and the end of producing them is already foreseeable. There is neither time nor money for such 7nm nonsense (not even talking about fractioning the userbase even more which is a bad idea right out of the gate), all they do is planning for the next system.

Legit though, these chips would probably be cheaper keeping them on 14nm... Or the "14nm refined" node. Aka. 12nm.
7nm is expensive right now.

Agree with you and the reason I think a super premium 1000 usd would have minimal appeal and result.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

KBG29 said:
potato_hamster said:

It's because you ignore it every time it's explained to you. Unlike their Walkman, Xperia and Bravia, the people making content for the Playstation have to develop for each and every performance specification. Just like the PS4 Pro, everyone besides Sony and other rare exceptions would support this high performance console in the most minimal way they can get away with and nothing more.

Console video games don't scale the way you believe they do. If they did, the Nintendo Switch would be getting pretty much every multi-platform third party title, or at least ones that use multi-platform focused engines like unity. But you don't see that, do you? Developers have to put in the same special effort they always did. It doesn't appear to be any meaningful gains in development to port a PS4 game to the Switch than there was to port a PS3 game to the Vita. How do you explain that if " games [are] being built with dynamic frame rates, and resolution, needing nothing more than additional power to achieve locked performance" the opposite should be true, shouldn't it?

You're more likely to see Sony drop the pro model next time around than you are to see them make a super high performance model. The Pro experiment was not a success. Third parties have largely ignored it. Sony had to figure out a way to do additional post-processing to render in 4K while emulating regular PS4 functionality because third parties weren't supporting it any more than they had to. You know that"enhancement" feature actually runs games poorer than they would if developers actually took the time to support the PS4 pro properly, right?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with minimal support. It is about Sony offering their games at a level that takes full advantage of their TVs. Premium consoles are not about offering anything other than higher resolution, better frame rate, better AA, better shadows, better draw distance. A premium console does not mean they are going to develop completely different assets, it is just a better looking/performing way to experience the same content. I don't know where you get the idea that Pro was not a success or supported, a Sony executive just said it was a success and a necessary evolution. We will definitely have multiple PS5 offerings next gen.

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/12/ps4_pro_has_been_a_good_example_of_necessary_evolution_says_sony

 

Switch has nothing to do with scalability on PlayStation. Switch to PS4 is no different than PS3 to PS Vita, it is nothing like PS4 to PS4 Pro. Switch uses a different architecture than PS4/XBO/PC, so of course it takes extra work to port games to Switch. When Sony was building games for PS3 (Cell/Nvidia), PS Vita (ARM/PowerVR), and PS4 (X86/Radeon), that was a ton of work. With PS4 and PS4 Pro there is no porting, PS4 Pro runs the same code as PS4, not only are they both X86/Radoen, they are mostly the same exact X86/Radeon technology. Adding in support for the Pro's additional CU's take very liitle effort.

Here is Mark Cerny's exact quote “The target was to make sure that support [for the PS4 Pro] could be done for a fraction of a percent of the overall effort,” Cerny said to Gamasutra. “And I do mean a fraction of a percent. I mean, I’ve run the math, and it’s 0.2 or 0.3 percent for these projects — some of them. So at that point, I think it’s very natural for the development community to support the platform.”

https://gamingbolt.com/mark-cerny-converting-a-base-ps4-game-to-ps4-pro-version-is-just-0-2-or-0-3-percent-of-the-overall-effort

That means on a 5 year project, you are looking at about a week to tune in Pro support. This is with Sony offering a new system mid generation, without developers aware of the additional hardware. A future console that is built with multiple tiers in mind from the start would take even less work, as the Hardware, API's, and Development Tools are all be built from the ground up with scalability in mind. 

 

As for your final question, yes I know that Boost Mode only takes advantage of the clock boosts on the CPU and GPU, and does not take advantage of the 18 additional CU's on the Pro GPU. That just proves that extra performance can be absolutely free. If a PS5 Pro and a PS5 Premium both had the same CPU and GPU, but the Pro runs at 3.2GHz and 1400MHz, while the Premium offers 4.0GHz and 2000MHz, that would offer a significant performance boost for the Premium. In this situation it would take no additional work from Sony, it would just be a matter of setting aside the highest quality PS5 chips exclusively for the Premium model. 

 

Just because a exec says something doesn't mean it's written in stone. Microsoft could very well publicly say they are pleased with Xbox One sales, but they're so proud of its sales that they don't actually post the numbers so. Just like Sony intentionally groups the sales of PSVR and PS4 Pro sales into broad sales categories, as is to mask their numbers, as if they're not actually that proud of them. Care to explain that?


You still don't get it do you? There absolutely is something wrong with minimal support. How many people are willing to spend an extra $1000 on a PS5 ultra that only has 4-6 games every year released for it that actually take advantage of the hardware? I can't help but think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, besides you, that's willing to accept that. Those features you're suggesting? They have to be programmed in. Developers have to put effort into it. Mark Cerny can make all the claims he wants about what little effort it takes, the fact of the matter is that Sony had to change it's policy on PS4 Pro support because of developer push-back - because it was so much additional effort from the start. Remember, that Boost Mode came out after the fact mostly as a result of so few developers actually being willing to put any effort into adding PS4 Pro support. It's honestly not worth the effort at all for any third party. It doesn't make their games sell better and it makes game development cost more. Third parties do not give a fuck about the PS4 Pro and would prefer if it didn't exist. IT's a minor pain in the ass (albeit a minor one) and nothing more.

Switch has everything to do with the current state of scalability, but because you fundamentally don't understand how game scaling actually works, you see it as a different thing. Game engines are what have to to have the game scalability built into them. Not the hardware. Not the game itself. The engines, and engines like unity or the unreal engines are built from the ground up to be multi-platform, yet games, to this day, do not scale well among the platforms they support. You can literally recompile a PS4 game to run on Switch, and it still requires a massive amount of work to get it to run at acceptable levels. Please explain that - and I'll give you a hint. It has almost nothing to do with architecture.

Also, wasn't VR the future of gaming? It appears to me you can't make up your mind.



Around the Network

Pro Slim will happen, they might even phase out PS4 production once PS5 comes.
Though it would be nice to have a cheaper system around for developing countries like here, having a more powerful system takes it place for good for not that much more may make PS4 legs last longer.
Can't get a PS5? PS4 Pro Slim is still a decently powerful and kinda affordable option for cross gen early titles.



potato_hamster said:
KBG29 said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with minimal support. It is about Sony offering their games at a level that takes full advantage of their TVs. Premium consoles are not about offering anything other than higher resolution, better frame rate, better AA, better shadows, better draw distance. A premium console does not mean they are going to develop completely different assets, it is just a better looking/performing way to experience the same content. I don't know where you get the idea that Pro was not a success or supported, a Sony executive just said it was a success and a necessary evolution. We will definitely have multiple PS5 offerings next gen.

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/12/ps4_pro_has_been_a_good_example_of_necessary_evolution_says_sony

 

Switch has nothing to do with scalability on PlayStation. Switch to PS4 is no different than PS3 to PS Vita, it is nothing like PS4 to PS4 Pro. Switch uses a different architecture than PS4/XBO/PC, so of course it takes extra work to port games to Switch. When Sony was building games for PS3 (Cell/Nvidia), PS Vita (ARM/PowerVR), and PS4 (X86/Radeon), that was a ton of work. With PS4 and PS4 Pro there is no porting, PS4 Pro runs the same code as PS4, not only are they both X86/Radoen, they are mostly the same exact X86/Radeon technology. Adding in support for the Pro's additional CU's take very liitle effort.

Here is Mark Cerny's exact quote “The target was to make sure that support [for the PS4 Pro] could be done for a fraction of a percent of the overall effort,” Cerny said to Gamasutra. “And I do mean a fraction of a percent. I mean, I’ve run the math, and it’s 0.2 or 0.3 percent for these projects — some of them. So at that point, I think it’s very natural for the development community to support the platform.”

https://gamingbolt.com/mark-cerny-converting-a-base-ps4-game-to-ps4-pro-version-is-just-0-2-or-0-3-percent-of-the-overall-effort

That means on a 5 year project, you are looking at about a week to tune in Pro support. This is with Sony offering a new system mid generation, without developers aware of the additional hardware. A future console that is built with multiple tiers in mind from the start would take even less work, as the Hardware, API's, and Development Tools are all be built from the ground up with scalability in mind. 

 

As for your final question, yes I know that Boost Mode only takes advantage of the clock boosts on the CPU and GPU, and does not take advantage of the 18 additional CU's on the Pro GPU. That just proves that extra performance can be absolutely free. If a PS5 Pro and a PS5 Premium both had the same CPU and GPU, but the Pro runs at 3.2GHz and 1400MHz, while the Premium offers 4.0GHz and 2000MHz, that would offer a significant performance boost for the Premium. In this situation it would take no additional work from Sony, it would just be a matter of setting aside the highest quality PS5 chips exclusively for the Premium model. 

 

Just because a exec says something doesn't mean it's written in stone. Microsoft could very well publicly say they are pleased with Xbox One sales, but they're so proud of its sales that they don't actually post the numbers so. Just like Sony intentionally groups the sales of PSVR and PS4 Pro sales into broad sales categories, as is to mask their numbers, as if they're not actually that proud of them. Care to explain that?


You still don't get it do you? There absolutely is something wrong with minimal support. How many people are willing to spend an extra $1000 on a PS5 ultra that only has 4-6 games every year released for it that actually take advantage of the hardware? I can't help but think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, besides you, that's willing to accept that. Those features you're suggesting? They have to be programmed in. Developers have to put effort into it. Mark Cerny can make all the claims he wants about what little effort it takes, the fact of the matter is that Sony had to change it's policy on PS4 Pro support because of developer push-back - because it was so much additional effort from the start. Remember, that Boost Mode came out after the fact mostly as a result of so few developers actually being willing to put any effort into adding PS4 Pro support. It's honestly not worth the effort at all for any third party. It doesn't make their games sell better and it makes game development cost more. Third parties do not give a fuck about the PS4 Pro and would prefer if it didn't exist. IT's a minor pain in the ass (albeit a minor one) and nothing more.

Switch has everything to do with the current state of scalability, but because you fundamentally don't understand how game scaling actually works, you see it as a different thing. Game engines are what have to to have the game scalability built into them. Not the hardware. Not the game itself. The engines, and engines like unity or the unreal engines are built from the ground up to be multi-platform, yet games, to this day, do not scale well among the platforms they support. You can literally recompile a PS4 game to run on Switch, and it still requires a massive amount of work to get it to run at acceptable levels. Please explain that - and I'll give you a hint. It has almost nothing to do with architecture.

Also, wasn't VR the future of gaming? It appears to me you can't make up your mind.

Sony have released sales of PSVR some times already and also the rate of PS4Pro sales, both seems healthy.

But yes you are right, an exec saying they are pleased with something doesn't mean it is true.

And yes, we have a dichotomy on the premium. If it is easy to take advantage from the power difference between base, pro and premium then that difference will be small and pointless, if it's meaningfull it will be few who take it. So in the end yes Sony could make Premium console and make some profit and assure all people with disposable income buy it even knowing it won't have much benefit (well devkit may make it offer some whistles and bells on a good balance on effort/result), but that will only work if they accept like 1M or less of sales of this premium edition.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
potato_hamster said:

Just because a exec says something doesn't mean it's written in stone. Microsoft could very well publicly say they are pleased with Xbox One sales, but they're so proud of its sales that they don't actually post the numbers so. Just like Sony intentionally groups the sales of PSVR and PS4 Pro sales into broad sales categories, as is to mask their numbers, as if they're not actually that proud of them. Care to explain that?


You still don't get it do you? There absolutely is something wrong with minimal support. How many people are willing to spend an extra $1000 on a PS5 ultra that only has 4-6 games every year released for it that actually take advantage of the hardware? I can't help but think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, besides you, that's willing to accept that. Those features you're suggesting? They have to be programmed in. Developers have to put effort into it. Mark Cerny can make all the claims he wants about what little effort it takes, the fact of the matter is that Sony had to change it's policy on PS4 Pro support because of developer push-back - because it was so much additional effort from the start. Remember, that Boost Mode came out after the fact mostly as a result of so few developers actually being willing to put any effort into adding PS4 Pro support. It's honestly not worth the effort at all for any third party. It doesn't make their games sell better and it makes game development cost more. Third parties do not give a fuck about the PS4 Pro and would prefer if it didn't exist. IT's a minor pain in the ass (albeit a minor one) and nothing more.

Switch has everything to do with the current state of scalability, but because you fundamentally don't understand how game scaling actually works, you see it as a different thing. Game engines are what have to to have the game scalability built into them. Not the hardware. Not the game itself. The engines, and engines like unity or the unreal engines are built from the ground up to be multi-platform, yet games, to this day, do not scale well among the platforms they support. You can literally recompile a PS4 game to run on Switch, and it still requires a massive amount of work to get it to run at acceptable levels. Please explain that - and I'll give you a hint. It has almost nothing to do with architecture.

Also, wasn't VR the future of gaming? It appears to me you can't make up your mind.

Sony have released sales of PSVR some times already and also the rate of PS4Pro sales, both seems healthy.

But yes you are right, an exec saying they are pleased with something doesn't mean it is true.

And yes, we have a dichotomy on the premium. If it is easy to take advantage from the power difference between base, pro and premium then that difference will be small and pointless, if it's meaningfull it will be few who take it. So in the end yes Sony could make Premium console and make some profit and assure all people with disposable income buy it even knowing it won't have much benefit (well devkit may make it offer some whistles and bells on a good balance on effort/result), but that will only work if they accept like 1M or less of sales of this premium edition.

Sony only releases PSVR sales when they reach milestones (1 million, 2 million, 3 million) but they obfuscate them in quarterly reports and other places. They never bothered to announce the total sales for PSVR when they announced PS4's end of year sold even though large swaths of PSVR communities were convinced it had already surpassed 4 million in sales over the fall. As far as we know PSVR sold between 1.3 in 2018 despite being sold at $200 during the peak sales period of the year. In 2017 it also sold around 1.3 million, and that was again boosted by slashing over $100 off the price a little over a year after release. That means the device's sales have already leveled off. If that's "healthy" to you for the worlds most popular VR headset by a large margin to be on the verge of declining sales a little more than 2 years after release, then you have a very different definition of "healthy" than I do.

As for PS4 pro, they said they were pleased in the months after release... and have said practically nothing since. We have no idea how many PS4 Pros have been sold. We have no idea if they're still selling at the same 1 for every 5 PS4s sold that they initially released at, and I think that the facts that we don't know is indicative that it's not something they feel is worth bragging about. Let's also keep in mind that Sony has released limited edition, highly collectable PS4 pro consoles over the past year (God of War, 500 million, Spider-man editions) and none of that has apparently led to a PS4 Pro sales number worth nothing despite God or War and Spider-man selling at a rate higher than almost any PS4 game ever has.

Last edited by potato_hamster - on 18 February 2019

potato_hamster said:
DonFerrari said:

Sony have released sales of PSVR some times already and also the rate of PS4Pro sales, both seems healthy.

But yes you are right, an exec saying they are pleased with something doesn't mean it is true.

And yes, we have a dichotomy on the premium. If it is easy to take advantage from the power difference between base, pro and premium then that difference will be small and pointless, if it's meaningfull it will be few who take it. So in the end yes Sony could make Premium console and make some profit and assure all people with disposable income buy it even knowing it won't have much benefit (well devkit may make it offer some whistles and bells on a good balance on effort/result), but that will only work if they accept like 1M or less of sales of this premium edition.

Sony only releases PSVR sales when they reach milestones (1 million, 2 million, 3 million) but they obfuscate them in quarterly reports and other places. They never bothered to announce the total sales for PSVR when they announced PS4's end of year sold even though large swaths of PSVR communities were convinced it had already surpassed 4 million in sales over the fall. As far as we know PSVR sold between 1.3 in 2018 despite being sold at $200 during the peak sales period of the year. In 2017 it also sold around 1.3 million, and that was again boosted by slashing over $100 off the price a little over a year after release. That means the device's sales have already leveled off. If that's "healthy" to you for the worlds most popular VR headset by a large margin to be on the verge of declining sales a little more than 2 years after release, then you have a very different definition of "healthy" than I do.

As for PS4 pro, they said they were pleased in the months after release... and have said practically nothing since. We have no idea how many PS4 Pros have been sold. We have no idea if they're still selling at the same 1 for every 5 PS4s sold that they initially released at, and I think that the facts that we don't know is indicative that it's not something they feel is worth bragging about. Let's also keep in mind that Sony has released limited edition, highly collectable PS4 pro consoles over the past year (God of War, 500 million, Spider-man editions) and none of that has apparently led to a PS4 Pro sales number worth nothing despite God or War and Spider-man selling at a rate higher than almost any PS4 game ever has.

Except that on numerous Media Create, NPD, UK and other places from time to time we do receive what was Pro and what was vanilla and 20% seems less than what it is doing.

If you are selling more than all competitors together then you can't say it's bad.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
potato_hamster said:

Sony only releases PSVR sales when they reach milestones (1 million, 2 million, 3 million) but they obfuscate them in quarterly reports and other places. They never bothered to announce the total sales for PSVR when they announced PS4's end of year sold even though large swaths of PSVR communities were convinced it had already surpassed 4 million in sales over the fall. As far as we know PSVR sold between 1.3 in 2018 despite being sold at $200 during the peak sales period of the year. In 2017 it also sold around 1.3 million, and that was again boosted by slashing over $100 off the price a little over a year after release. That means the device's sales have already leveled off. If that's "healthy" to you for the worlds most popular VR headset by a large margin to be on the verge of declining sales a little more than 2 years after release, then you have a very different definition of "healthy" than I do.

As for PS4 pro, they said they were pleased in the months after release... and have said practically nothing since. We have no idea how many PS4 Pros have been sold. We have no idea if they're still selling at the same 1 for every 5 PS4s sold that they initially released at, and I think that the facts that we don't know is indicative that it's not something they feel is worth bragging about. Let's also keep in mind that Sony has released limited edition, highly collectable PS4 pro consoles over the past year (God of War, 500 million, Spider-man editions) and none of that has apparently led to a PS4 Pro sales number worth nothing despite God or War and Spider-man selling at a rate higher than almost any PS4 game ever has.

Except that on numerous Media Create, NPD, UK and other places from time to time we do receive what was Pro and what was vanilla and 20% seems less than what it is doing.

If you are selling more than all competitors together then you can't say it's bad.

I cant seem to find any of those reports. Do you have any sources? I'd be really interested in reading them.

Just because you're selling more than all of your competitors together doesn't mean your product is successful, it's growing like it expected, and it's worth a continued investment.