Quantcast
The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

AsGryffynn said:
DonFerrari said:

If PS5 isn't much more powerful, the right price and longer presence in the market can help MS keep a foothold.

I was actually going to mention this. At 6TF, Microsoft basically cornered the competitors before the next generation even started in the first place. Jumping much higher after this yields negligible benefits to performance, and the cost will skyrocket afterwards. Attempting to go further might be costly, so Sony either needs to find a way to be better which precludes power, or risk MS starting with an already vast catalog and around a million or more users. 

They actually played a good hand this time. They did something that would ensure they remained the top dog one way or another once this generation ends... 

If that graphical power was coupled with a CPU half way capable of utilizing it, would blow the X out of the water in games like Assassins creed where you have cpu hungry scenes killing the X, stick a Ryzen 1600 in place of the Jaguar and you have a next generational Console instantly.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Around the Network

6TF is such a waste with a shit CPU.
At the end of the day, it's still mostly a sub 30FPS box.
$500, what a rip off.
My opinion of course.



Ganoncrotch said:

Feels strange when such a hot new console is already being bundled with €100 of extras by gamestop to sell some for Christmas



Also if you ask me... a terrible idea to ship a premium console like the Xbox1X along with basically a beta of a game which chugs down as low as 4fps on the system at times... I would feel terrible if I was a clueless gamer and got home to my new system to find it ran the only game I got for it like that. Would be instant buyers remorse.

As for talking about a consoles launch week as though it's some sort of "come back" against the other systems. Wow

Yep I don't think MS choose good games to show-off the potential of X1X, with those simple looking indies, Minecraft 4k, Crackdown 3 and now a pre-release game that doesn't look pretty.

AsGryffynn said:
DonFerrari said:

If PS5 isn't much more powerful, the right price and longer presence in the market can help MS keep a foothold.

I was actually going to mention this. At 6TF, Microsoft basically cornered the competitors before the next generation even started in the first place. Jumping much higher after this yields negligible benefits to performance, and the cost will skyrocket afterwards. Attempting to go further might be costly, so Sony either needs to find a way to be better which precludes power, or risk MS starting with an already vast catalog and around a million or more users. 

They actually played a good hand this time. They did something that would ensure they remained the top dog one way or another once this generation ends... 

It shall not cost more than 399 USD to put a lot better machine in 2020-2021 that is when I expect PS5. Even more when CPU can be a lot better without additional costs by that time.

Random_Matt said:
6TF is such a waste with a shit CPU.
At the end of the day, it's still mostly a sub 30FPS box.
$500, what a rip off.
My opinion of course.

The idea behind both Pro and X1X is more on resolution improvement, so keeping the fps at the same level was important to keep the leveled playfield between base and midgen HW. So the CPU upclock is just enough to keep the same framerate at the additional pixelcount.



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

Ganoncrotch said:

Feels strange when such a hot new console is already being bundled with €100 of extras by gamestop to sell some for Christmas



Also if you ask me... a terrible idea to ship a premium console like the Xbox1X along with basically a beta of a game which chugs down as low as 4fps on the system at times... I would feel terrible if I was a clueless gamer and got home to my new system to find it ran the only game I got for it like that. Would be instant buyers remorse.

As for talking about a consoles launch week as though it's some sort of "come back" against the other systems. Wow

On the plus side, they also get like two free weeks of Game Pass (a month if they're smart!) so they can also download more graphically impressive stuff like Gears of War 4 by redeeming the code that comes with the console.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

My take on this: Ps4 pro had two targets for Sony

1) Bring in a device which would platform 4k content so that 4k TV and monitors would become intresting, both for consumers to buy and for manufacturers to offer. I think the synergy with TV has been great but on monitor side 4k HDR is still rare

2) Make a better PSVR experience. I think this has been playing out well during this holiday season when also games are available (skyrim)

 

 

 



Around the Network

We really won't know for a long time yet.

Which mid-gen console sold more total units? Which console had the most unique new users as opposed to upgrading users? Did either console significantly affect brand market share outside of the launch period?

Personally, I think Microsoft might have had the better idea of differentiating their premium console with more power and a higher price tag in order to draw in the people who look for that kind of thing. With the PS Pro, I think those kinds of enthusiasts and rich kids were often fine with the base model. Of course, some of that has to do with the original Xbox One being well behind the original PS4 in real world results.

However, I think Microsoft waited too long. Sony had the better release point.



trasharmdsister12 said:

I think both companies took the right steps for their respective platforms. Sony being the more popular platform going into the mid gen upgrades decided to create something that was compelling for Ultra HD screens while not alienating their existing large fanbase. This also allowed them to come out with it sooner to ride the wave of their global sales success while capitalizing on their onslaught of 2017 exclusives while making PSVR more compelling as well.

Meanwhile Microsoft wanted to combat the stigma of their low powered console by creating something with a much bigger jump that they could use to market and combat the overall market mindset. And they've done that with more than just the XB1X. They phased out the original XB1 with the XB1S which had a slight bump in performance while including the ability to output decently upscaled games to 4K with HDR (which does make a great difference in visuals IMO). Anyways, they've made a big marketing push with the XB1X and have mostly succeeded in battling the narrative.

Does that mean they are going to win the gen or make a huge comeback? Far from it. They still have a lot of work to do on the content front but one problem at a time with full focus seems to be their current mantra in improving things.

So in short, I think both were good moves for their respective strategies. If you want us to compare strategies I'd say Sony's strategy is currently better for us as consumers. But that's only because everyone is still trying to figure out what MS's strategy really is. They haven't been clear about it and it could really go either way as far as who it's meant to benefit most. And before anyone comes in with the cynical "They obviously are looking out for themselves and want a strategy that benefits them," that's true of all companies. But it can still be mutually beneficial and market success is commonly linked to mutual benefit.

 

Pretty much this. I still think Sony‘s decision was the wiser and more respectful one. Unless MS severely drops the price, which is already happening via bundle deals, they’ll have a problem competing with a 300-350 dollar Pro next year, worldwide but also in the U.S..

Sony’s big system sellers will release soon and PSVR is another one with no match on X1X yet. Content is key and in that regard MS still have a lot to prove.



konkari said:

My take on this: Ps4 pro had two targets for Sony

1) Bring in a device which would platform 4k content so that 4k TV and monitors would become intresting, both for consumers to buy and for manufacturers to offer. I think the synergy with TV has been great but on monitor side 4k HDR is still rare

2) Make a better PSVR experience. I think this has been playing out well during this holiday season when also games are available (skyrim)

I'm quite excited for PSVR to sell well and games keep growing. I have like the concept of VR since I was a kid in the 80's.

pokoko said:
We really won't know for a long time yet.

Which mid-gen console sold more total units? Which console had the most unique new users as opposed to upgrading users? Did either console significantly affect brand market share outside of the launch period?

Personally, I think Microsoft might have had the better idea of differentiating their premium console with more power and a higher price tag in order to draw in the people who look for that kind of thing. With the PS Pro, I think those kinds of enthusiasts and rich kids were often fine with the base model. Of course, some of that has to do with the original Xbox One being well behind the original PS4 in real world results.

However, I think Microsoft waited too long. Sony had the better release point.

release window can also be a great factor if PS5 releases by 2020, X1X would either be cut very prematurely or MS will have to abide to the non-gen strategy



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

I cant say anything about sales but from a hardware perspective i think it was a better decision by Sony to release the Pro earlier and being cheaper, as both consoles cant do 4K or 60fps for most games, speaking as a 1080p user.



Ruler said:

I cant say anything about sales but from a hardware perspective i think it was a better decision by Sony to release the Pro earlier and being cheaper, as both consoles cant do 4K or 60fps for most games, speaking as a 1080p user.

4k user... but usually being first to the market can be good if you can prevent the competitor will be much cheaper or better.



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