Prediction - PS3-PS4 and X360-XOne last big performance spec leap

[EricHiggin]

curl-6 said:

EricHiggin said:

Correct. Flops are just an indicator like HP is for a vehicle. There are many other things to consider when analyzing specs in comparison to what is actually output on the screen. There really is no way to make a completely accurate comparison of the old consoles, taking into account everything, so I just used flops, as it was a simple way to indicate where PS5 could end up possibly. I had to change the past (PS3), to create a somewhat linear path to follow though, so that in itself is a big indicator it's a wild guess. It's just as possible PS5's specs, price, and launch date, will be totally different. Nobody but PS knows.

PS3 and 360 being so powerful was good in some ways, but not so great in others. To name a few good things, obviously the res and effects were a major upgrade, the media capabilities, 360 was affordable, PS3 had free online, and it also allowed the gen to last 7 years. Whether or not PS3 and 360 could have lasted 7 years still with around 125Gflops, is also something to take into account. Both consoles most certainly would be do for a next gen performance jump in 2013 if that were the case.

A few bad things would be two really expensive consoles that were heavily subsidized (PS3 more so), which was not good for either company and led to "weaker", cheaper, "off the shelf" semi custom PC part consoles. XB rushing/poorly engineering 360 as one of the causes for the red ring issue and huge losses, leading to the bulky design of the XB1. PS3's "it can only do everything" strategy being taken up by XB, trying to make the XB1 a more balanced, all in one box, instead of a focused gaming console. 360 charged for all of its online services, most likely to cover some of the console subsidy, and PS3 was crazy expensive due to their cell/media box/bc/we're PS so we can do whatever we want and they will buy into it attitude, etc.

I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad thing that PS3 and 360 were as powerful as they are, I'm just saying based on console history, it would have made more sense back then, now, and going forward, if they ended up being less powerful than they actually were. Instead of being a slightly lesser jump in performance, they were a greater leap. That is something that could not be sustained and could only lead to two things. Future consoles seeming like weaker jumps but being affordable, or similar leaps in performance with even more insane launch prices, massive subsidies, and console case shells that would make the XB1 look like a toothpick.

PS3/360 were expensive at first, but they came down in price over time. And 360's reliability problems weren't the inevitable result of its power.

Sure, in retrospect if they'd been weaker but cheaper MS/Sony may have made more money, but then we wouldn't have gotten games as jaw-dropping as we did last gen, not just in terms of graphics, but also in terms of other aspects made possible by more power, like physics, world scope and complexity, AI, etc.

Well PS3 was $500 and $600. XB360 was $300 and $400. For 2005/2006, PS3 was expensive, but 360 was affordable. The prices did come down reasonably fast, but because of things like PS3 removing BC. Your right, 360's performance wasn't the sole reason for the red ring, but it was part of the entire XB vs PS battle royal that was about to begin. The fact that MS decided to create the 360 themselves for the first time, and get it out well ahead of the PS3, was a mistake. They should have either delayed the launch, tweaked and backed off the performance a bit, or relied more on third party engineering.

I agree the games would have been worse than they were, but how much better than 6th gen is good enough? If we would have had PS3 (and 360) around 125Gflops, that still would have been a 21X improvement over the PS2, and it still would have been more than enough to satisfy everyone. Looking back, sure, nobody wants to assume having something worse would have been better, but that sometimes can be the case, in terms of the bigger picture.

I for one don't care all that much that the jump from PS3 to PS4 wasn't as large in terms of Flops. My worry is that over time, as the improvements become less and less, selling new consoles to casuals will become much harder. Mid gen upgrades helps this situation for now. For all we know, PS wants hardware upgrades to become a lesser yearly/bi-yearly thing, so they can focus on online and digital services instead of physical hardware. I know they have said thats not the case and that gens aren't going away, but console marketing, especially as of late, says a lot that is only partially true, or flat out false.