Biggerboat1 said:
|
No man, you really didn't got it. If you have a system that is balanced to that GPU of let's say 12TF in PS5 case and 16TF for Anaconda, if you just cut back GPU to 4 TF and keep all the rest the same to have only the GPU being weaker you are making all rest excessive to the GPU you have.
I'm not saying it is impossible to have 4TF and 16TF balanced SKUs, I'm saying that for both to be balanced it won't be just GPU that is 4x weaker. And sorry to burst your bubble, but the weaker system will always hold out the rest, so don't get surprised when Sony 1st parties look much better than most games even on Anaconda, plus having much more going on because they don't have to go for the same ceiling. Even now you would have a hard time finding much games on X1X prettier than SM and GoW running on Pro.
Switch isn't 4x weaker than X1, sorry to tell you that.
So you agreed that Marketing will tell whatever they can get away without accusing of lie, thanks. And a lot of people do believe on the marketing, if they didn't no one would put that much money on marketing.
How am I agreeing to your point? Some people can be either big or small amount. Some people find a good deal on what most would say is terrible.
Your head is turning over because you are adamant in believing people won't see as much better proposition to be 3x stronger at only 100 USD more, only 25% outpowered but 100 USD less. That is a very good position for Sony to put themselves in. You said people don't see the difference, and I showed you that even if they don't (your argument, not mine) still 20% of PS4 sales were Pro while perhaps 50% of Xbox were X. That is plenty of people that buy even if there isn't much perceived difference.
You wanting to fit a word to a definition you want, doesn't change reality. PS3 at 600 had a lot of people lining up to buy it, X1 at 500 and very bad review had record sales before failing down. Also, non-enthusiast would prefer to just buy the game on what they already have than pay 299 to play the same game on a new system. If they aren't enthusiast about how much it would improve why would they be there buying system on launch, this doesn't make much sense.
So you accept MS won't win, so not sure why you are defending this as a good model. If 4TF is 299, 12TF 399 (PS5) and 16TF is 499 it is pretty obvious from where it comes that for only 100 more you get 3x the experience and on the next 100 more you only get 33% improvement, so the middle machine gets a much easier selling.
If you don't get the problem perhaps you better analyse better your argument before keeping at them. PS4Pro and X1X plays the same games as PS4 and X1 so they couldn't call it PS5 and X2, also it wouldn't be a proper gen jump nor would it be timed away enough to justify a new gen.
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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."