By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Wii U vs PS4 vs Xbox One FULL SPECS (January 24, 2014)

superchunk said:

"The Wii U is a custom 45nm #power7 chip. Same SOI design in #ibmwatson"

I think that tweet confirms beyond a doubt that Wii U is NOT a broadway based CPU in any form. Its clearly a Power7 CPU and therefore more powerful than PS360 in any configuration.

I'm not that technical, so I don't really know what this means... what will this mean for WiiU?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Around the Network
DanneSandin said:
superchunk said:

"The Wii U is a custom 45nm #power7 chip. Same SOI design in #ibmwatson"

I think that tweet confirms beyond a doubt that Wii U is NOT a broadway based CPU in any form. Its clearly a Power7 CPU and therefore more powerful than PS360 in any configuration.

I'm not that technical, so I don't really know what this means... what will this mean for WiiU?

It simply means that the rumor that said WiiU was using a Broadway enhanced CPU was BS.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:
DanneSandin said:
superchunk said:

"The Wii U is a custom 45nm #power7 chip. Same SOI design in #ibmwatson"

I think that tweet confirms beyond a doubt that Wii U is NOT a broadway based CPU in any form. Its clearly a Power7 CPU and therefore more powerful than PS360 in any configuration.

I'm not that technical, so I don't really know what this means... what will this mean for WiiU?

It simply means that the rumor that said WiiU was using a Broadway enhanced CPU was BS.

Oh, I get THAT ;) But what will it mean for WiiU's graphical ability? Is that something we can guess at now?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin said:
JEMC said:
DanneSandin said:
superchunk said:

"The Wii U is a custom 45nm #power7 chip. Same SOI design in #ibmwatson"

I think that tweet confirms beyond a doubt that Wii U is NOT a broadway based CPU in any form. Its clearly a Power7 CPU and therefore more powerful than PS360 in any configuration.

I'm not that technical, so I don't really know what this means... what will this mean for WiiU?

It simply means that the rumor that said WiiU was using a Broadway enhanced CPU was BS.

Oh, I get THAT ;) But what will it mean for WiiU's graphical ability? Is that something we can guess at now?

Oh, that.

I'm not sure it will have any impact on the graphics of the console, that's what the GPU is for, but at least it won't be a bottleneck unless they have clocked it at a ridiculously low speed.

We'll have to wait for Viper1 or someone with more knowledge about this things to know more.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Viper1 said:
And a $100 loss per console is far too much for them as a company now than it was back in 2006. In 2006, they were a financially sound comapny. That is not the case today. If they sold 10 million units at a $100 loss, that's a $1 billion loss to a company that can't handle taking on another billion dollar loss.

They won't make a $1 billion loss. They'll lose that much on consoles, but make it back within maybe a year through software sales and to a much lesser extent peripheral sales (if they make a profit), give it another 6 months oon top of that for R&D, manufacturing and what not.

Viper buys a PS4, Sony loses $100. Viper then buys 5 or 6 retail games over the next year, a few smaller downloadbles and maybe some Minis, subscribes to Netflix, maybe a new streaming service or PS4 or PS+, he makes some microtransactions on F2P games, possibly buys another controller or PS eye/Move 2 (or whatever they may have)... etc.

That money is definitely made back (unless it's PS3 scale money), it's just a matter of how long it takes. A year/year and a half due to $100? Not a problem. 



Around the Network
Andrespetmonkey said:
Viper1 said:
And a $100 loss per console is far too much for them as a company now than it was back in 2006. In 2006, they were a financially sound comapny. That is not the case today. If they sold 10 million units at a $100 loss, that's a $1 billion loss to a company that can't handle taking on another billion dollar loss.

They won't make a $1 billion loss. They'll lose that much on consoles, but make it back within maybe a year through software sales and to a much lesser extent peripheral sales (if they make a profit), give it another 6 months oon top of that for R&D, manufacturing and what not.

Viper buys a PS4, Sony loses $100. Viper then buys 5 or 6 retail games over the next year, a few smaller downloadbles and maybe some Minis, subscribes to Netflix, maybe a new streaming service or PS4 or PS+, he makes some microtransactions on F2P games, possibly buys another controller or PS eye/Move 2 (or whatever they may have)... etc.

That money is definitely made back (unless it's PS3 scale money), it's just a matter of how long it takes. A year/year and a half due to $100? Not a problem. 

Unless things turn out like PS3 again: lackluster launch titles, lackluster sales, consoles sitting on store shelves.  They can't afford to take that risk again.  Another loss like PS3 will not just bury the computer division of sony, it would bury sony all together.  The board of directors would not take such a risk.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.

Crono141 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Viper1 said:
And a $100 loss per console is far too much for them as a company now than it was back in 2006. In 2006, they were a financially sound comapny. That is not the case today. If they sold 10 million units at a $100 loss, that's a $1 billion loss to a company that can't handle taking on another billion dollar loss.

They won't make a $1 billion loss. They'll lose that much on consoles, but make it back within maybe a year through software sales and to a much lesser extent peripheral sales (if they make a profit), give it another 6 months oon top of that for R&D, manufacturing and what not.

Viper buys a PS4, Sony loses $100. Viper then buys 5 or 6 retail games over the next year, a few smaller downloadbles and maybe some Minis, subscribes to Netflix, maybe a new streaming service or PS4 or PS+, he makes some microtransactions on F2P games, possibly buys another controller or PS eye/Move 2 (or whatever they may have)... etc.

That money is definitely made back (unless it's PS3 scale money), it's just a matter of how long it takes. A year/year and a half due to $100? Not a problem. 

Unless things turn out like PS3 again: lackluster launch titles, lackluster sales, consoles sitting on store shelves.  They can't afford to take that risk again.  Another loss like PS3 will not just bury the computer division of sony, it would bury sony all together.  The board of directors would not take such a risk.

Nobody is talking about a PS3-like loss. This isn't even close to being on the same scale. 

PS3's lacklustre sales can largely be attributed to its price, which shouldn't be a problem this time around, unless you think they'll release a $600 console again. For launch titles we'll have to wait and see.



Andrespetmonkey said:
Viper1 said:
And a $100 loss per console is far too much for them as a company now than it was back in 2006. In 2006, they were a financially sound comapny. That is not the case today. If they sold 10 million units at a $100 loss, that's a $1 billion loss to a company that can't handle taking on another billion dollar loss.

They won't make a $1 billion loss. They'll lose that much on consoles, but make it back within maybe a year through software sales and to a much lesser extent peripheral sales (if they make a profit), give it another 6 months oon top of that for R&D, manufacturing and what not.

Viper buys a PS4, Sony loses $100. Viper then buys 5 or 6 retail games over the next year, a few smaller downloadbles and maybe some Minis, subscribes to Netflix, maybe a new streaming service or PS4 or PS+, he makes some microtransactions on F2P games, possibly buys another controller or PS eye/Move 2 (or whatever they may have)... etc.

That money is definitely made back (unless it's PS3 scale money), it's just a matter of how long it takes. A year/year and a half due to $100? Not a problem. 

You are trivializing how hard it is to regain $1 billion on hardware losses.   If it were that easy, Why don't Sony and MS chop off $100 from their consoles right now?

And your quote, "unless we are talking PS3 scale money" is exactly what I talked about in the rest of my post.  Why didn't you address that?   That was pulled from the middle of my post.

 

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Andrespetmonkey said:
Viper1 said:
And a $100 loss per console is far too much for them as a company now than it was back in 2006. In 2006, they were a financially sound comapny. That is not the case today. If they sold 10 million units at a $100 loss, that's a $1 billion loss to a company that can't handle taking on another billion dollar loss.

They won't make a $1 billion loss. They'll lose that much on consoles, but make it back within maybe a year through software sales and to a much lesser extent peripheral sales (if they make a profit), give it another 6 months oon top of that for R&D, manufacturing and what not.

Viper buys a PS4, Sony loses $100. Viper then buys 5 or 6 retail games over the next year, a few smaller downloadbles and maybe some Minis, subscribes to Netflix, maybe a new streaming service or PS4 or PS+, he makes some microtransactions on F2P games, possibly buys another controller or PS eye/Move 2 (or whatever they may have)... etc.

That money is definitely made back (unless it's PS3 scale money), it's just a matter of how long it takes. A year/year and a half due to $100? Not a problem. 

Except the average consumer doesn't spend nearly that much money on games ...

For every year they owned their system the average Wii owner bought 2.81 games, the average PS3 owner bought 3.01 games, and the average XBox 360 owner bought about 2.75 games; all very rough calculations. Being that you can really only associate the licensing fees to cover the costs of the hardware, if you assume $10 in licensing fees it would take (on average) about 3.5 years to cover that $100 loss for the average consumer.

If your system is like the PS2 and launches before the competition, manufacturing costs are dramatically reduced prior to facing price cuts so the $100 loss on a system is a temporary thing, and you eventually build a massive userbase that buys games to cover your initial losses a $100 (or even $200) loss can probably be justified. In contrast, if you're like the XBox and you launch later than your competition who forces you to lose money on hardware throughout the system's life you will probably lose $4 billion in a generation off of a $100 loss per system.



Andrespetmonkey said:
Crono141 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Viper1 said:
And a $100 loss per console is far too much for them as a company now than it was back in 2006. In 2006, they were a financially sound comapny. That is not the case today. If they sold 10 million units at a $100 loss, that's a $1 billion loss to a company that can't handle taking on another billion dollar loss.

They won't make a $1 billion loss. They'll lose that much on consoles, but make it back within maybe a year through software sales and to a much lesser extent peripheral sales (if they make a profit), give it another 6 months oon top of that for R&D, manufacturing and what not.

Viper buys a PS4, Sony loses $100. Viper then buys 5 or 6 retail games over the next year, a few smaller downloadbles and maybe some Minis, subscribes to Netflix, maybe a new streaming service or PS4 or PS+, he makes some microtransactions on F2P games, possibly buys another controller or PS eye/Move 2 (or whatever they may have)... etc.

That money is definitely made back (unless it's PS3 scale money), it's just a matter of how long it takes. A year/year and a half due to $100? Not a problem. 

Unless things turn out like PS3 again: lackluster launch titles, lackluster sales, consoles sitting on store shelves.  They can't afford to take that risk again.  Another loss like PS3 will not just bury the computer division of sony, it would bury sony all together.  The board of directors would not take such a risk.

Nobody is talking about a PS3-like loss. This isn't even close to being on the same scale. 

PS3's lacklustre sales can largely be attributed to its price, which shouldn't be a problem this time around, unless you think they'll release a $600 console again. For launch titles we'll have to wait and see.

For the graphical leap PS fans are expecting it to have, it'll be another 600 dollar console, with over 100 dollars of loss per console baked into that price.  Or a 400 dollar console with 300 dollars of loss built in.  No one is going to greenlight that project.

Otherwise, it'll look just like WiiU graphics.  Who's going to buy a PS4 that has graphics like a WiiU with less titles for 100+ dollars more than a WiiU?  The Sony faithful, and the sony faithful only.

And I wasn't talking about the loss per console like PS3.  I mean the general loss situation like PS3.

Not to mention that the console is going to get panned for its hardware being left over unwanted PC components just like the original Xbox got panned for the same thing.  Because from what I'm hearing, that is exactly what PS4 is going to have: an x86 AMD processor with built in gfx processor.  In fact, they may be trying to do what they've done every gen since PS2 and claim its actually a computer, not a game console.  Heck, it might even launch with Windows 8 installed.  Wouldn't that be ironic.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.