DonFerrari said:
Always the "scalable" as if it was something magical. We should think scaling from baseline up, not the other way around. If they decide for a weak "1080p platform" as base then they can scale up to the stronger 4k console and basically put res and some effects to use the extra power. And that will hold what is possible on the whole gen. It isn't make a game with the stronger SKU as base and then cut until it fits on the weak. Plus if someone in 2020 decides to be budget minded and buy the cheapest 1080p console, they better stick to X1/PS4 that will be much cheaper.
They will aim and market 4K. Sure several games will have internal rendering much lower than 4k. But you can pretty sure PS5 will output a 4K signal regardless. If being 3x weaker at only 100 USD cheaper isn't bad enough, being 1080p vs 4k will make it a marketing nightmare. Even if the other SKU is stronger than PS5 it won't be similar trouble... Let's say X2 1080p SKU - 299 -> 4TF PS5 4k only SKU - 399 -> 12TF X2 4k SKU - 499 -> 16TF It is pretty easy for sony on the middle ground to win against both, because it can sell as only 100 more than 1080p while having 3x the power, while at 100 less than 4k xbox having only 25% less power. Only way MS could float this 1080p console is at 199 (which they can with minimal loss considering it will be standard HW), otherwise they are DOA on this type of plan.
Early adopters are the ones that will do research and pay the price. For those the differences are quite important, as well as brand loyalty. X1 sold quite good in the first 6 months and then slowed. So having the overall best possible single SKU at a 399 price at launch then cutting to 299 2 years after is much better strategy than having weak SKU at 299 and strong SKU 499 on start. Because what will they do latter when the 399 SKU rival have their price cut 299 and maybe extra cut to 249, will they sell their 299 at 149 or 99 just 2 years in the gen? And what about the strong SKU will they try to sell for double the price of the rival or will eat great loses to keep the price difference not a problem? |
Saying 3 x weaker at only $100 less is misrepresenting things though. Only it's GPU is weaker - everything else is the same or similar.
So, you're getting a machine that can do everything the top sku can do but at a lower resolution.
I'd also say that if you show the average gamer the same game running at 1080 & 4k on anything less than a 65" display that they're not going to appreciate a lot of difference.
So, in fact, a more accurate way to frame the situation (imo) is to say for £100 less (or whatever the difference is), you're getting an experience that most people will see as almost the same as the premium model... Sounds like a good deal to me!
The pitfall that I believe you and others are falling into is to assume that the general console gamer cares about the nuts and bolts of the hardware or the nuance of performance as much as you do, or in fact, at all. If I was to ask my friends who own consoles what frame-rate they're playing at I know that I'd be greeted with blank stares. They play the new Fifa and maybe one other game per year and that's it. You & I likely spend more time on this forum than a lot of console owners actually spend gaming...
And I don't think the 'early adopter' thing really applies here. It's not like a brand new technology, like say, the new folding phones Samsung or Huawei are launching, where the gen 1 design will have issues and the price will be eye-watering. Consoles have become iterative, with solid hardware out the gate & competitively priced. To go back to phones, if I buy the new oneplus 7 within the 1st year of its launch am I an early adopter? To me, the term only makes sense (within the context of this discussion) when there is some major drawback that someone faces when making that early purchase (ie. very expensive or premature hardware), which requires that person to be really passionate to take the plunge.
There will be plenty of people who enjoy Madden or the yearly Call of Duty who will buy the new PS or XB when it releases because they want to see what the new lick of paint looks like on their favourite characters and they have some spare cash... ($300 to $500 every 5-7 years isn't a lot of money to a lot of people)
As for your price suggestions, let's say you are correct and we have XBLockhart $299 / PS5 $399 / XBAnaconda $499 - I personally think that would put MS in a good position - they will have a good chance at cornering the value-focussed customers on one end and the enthusiast at the other. When it comes time to drop the price, they'll do so across both models to maintain the gap / value propositions.
And why would it be a marketing nightmare exactly? Both Sony and MS have 2 different skus right now, I don't see why the staggered release makes any difference... Nintendo will also likely soon have multiple skus. Look at how many skus iPhone has - doesn't seem to hurt their sales any! If a customer doesn't understand the difference between full HD & 4K then it's likely they'll be just fine with Lockhart anyway, which to me legitimises it's existence in the first place!
