I'm under the impression that Switch will be the start of a new console gen. If I'm correct, that would mean the PS5 will be three years late to the party. Just my take.

huh? nothing to do when going with a new 4k console is smart or not.

I never used the word gen, above. I said a new console.

The switch isnt a "part" of the same console gen as the Xbox One and PS4.

It doesnt play the game games. Nintendo is doing its own thing, with a hybrid.

So it doesnt make sense to lump them together, and go "its a 9th gen system 3 years early".

Anyways the switch will be on the market competeing against the PS4 & XB1.

That doesnt make it a new gen started early, that makes it late to the party.

Dude.  I did say "Just my take." Don't get so bent out of two shapes. 

But since the WiiU was last gen, I can phantom the Switch being this gen.

Yes I was aware. We clearly agree on this matter like you said. The rest is minor details.

Still doesn't change the fact that MS could make it happen one way or another. The shareholders may be angry right now, but would change their minds when MS had an open highway for their next console like PS did with the PS1 and PS2. However, like I said, I wouldn't want that to happen for the reason you re-affirmed.

Businesses are not people, logically, but apparently corporations are, but thats a whole nother topic altogether. It doesn't mean that businesses don't have relationships on some level with other businesses, because they most certainly do. In the end though, money talks.

You are just re-affirming the "there's nothing saying PS and MS may not look elsewhere in a pinch" and "PS and MS aren't completely locked in if they don't want to be" point I made, so we agree.

Right now most of this is rumour when it comes to Ryzen. We may have seen what it can do as of the December New Horizon event, but considering the rumours stated it wasn't performing near that well just months earlier, and rumours that clocks may be even higher at launch, it may be better than we think. There are rumours of bugs as well correct, which may throw a wrench in the good faith AMD and Ryzen has built up until now. We'll see what happens at launch.

PS or MS could use ARM yes, but unless it makes giant leaps in the next couple years, x86 would be the smarter choice for next gen. After that though, based on ARMS pace of advancement, it could give x86 a run for its money. There's a reason AMD has been tinkering with ARM for while now.

$100 for the console is absurd, $200 min would make more sense, if not higher. I'll use $100 though to follow your example.

You ironically left out the most important parts. 

MS also spends hundreds of millions if not billions on buying/creating more first party studios, their games, and new IP's. This combined with the $100 retail performance console (which we're going to assume is very close to being on par with the PS console since they cost the same in your example and MS isn't going to do something stupid like DRM, or kinect again), leads to MS grabbing a much much larger market share than even the 360 had. It would be more like taking this gen, and flipping it so XB had the huge lead, but their lead would be even greater with a much larger gap.

Now this goes on for one or two gens straight. PS is now broke and gets sold and MS has the market to themselves, for at least one gen lets say. All of those billions lost, is now made up in one gen because MS has little competition in the performance console market, and they make all that money back very very quickly since they can charge what they want, within reason of course. You may even see DRM come back. If you also assume MS is the one who is able to buy PS by some chance, then the payback is now even faster. The shareholders who were furious with the losses, are now erasing deserts with tears of joy.

MS has the money to do this overall, no problem. You are correct in saying businesses don't operate to lose money, but many times businesses lose money on purpose now, knowing they will reap the rewards later. The console sector is the perfect example of this. Consoles have almost always been subzidized each gen, which wasn't a problem because the companies knew that the amount of games sold for each one of those consoles would easily cover the initial loss.

While there are hardcore PS fans who would still only buy PS, if PS charged $400 for theirs, and MS $100 for theirs, the amount of people who would flock to XB would be unbelievably high. If MS also had more first party, more quality games, and also the third party exclusives now, do to their PS4 level console sales, those sales numbers would then outgrow even that, at record rates, and PS would be screwed. Period.

I am not saying I want this to happen, because I don't. It would almost certainly lead to terrible console experiences going forward, if not another market crash eventually. I own a PS4 this gen and don't plan on buying an XB1 and probably not Scoprio either, we'll see. This isn't because I'm a PS only gamer, I was a fan of both XB and PS2 and well as 360 and PS3. Each console had its pros and cons, and it also kept them both as honest as possible. All I was saying is why would MS compete just for the heck of it? The one thing that stands out to me is that MS probably saw PS becoming a "computer entertainment" company, and were scared that PS may start walking into their territory, so they did what any large animal would do. They got up and started chasing the intruder back to the boundary, and continued to patrol that boundry until the intruder learned their place.

All I'll say is this. The example I gave, accounted for 20M in sales amounting to a $6.4B defecit.

But in ttruth, of something like that happened MS could very well go onto sell 100M consoles if they can make them fast enough. By the time its all said and done, thats a loss of $50B.

You still think that is feasable?

You once again left out something very important.

The last time a console sold 100M units, and didn't sell 1 game, accessory, movie, online sub, etc, was......  never?

The last time a console cost the same amount to manufacture from 0 sales at launch to 100M in sales was.....  never?

I'll be generous and say MS ended up with a loss of $20B at 100M units after profits from everything else. Is that feasible? Well if you look at what MS is worth, what their typical profits and growth are overall, and take into account that your competition no longer exists, so immediately/next gen MS can now make profit on all consoles going forward as well.

Then yes, it most certainly is. The $20B would be made back very quickly and would only solidify MS' new leadership in the console space.

Let's just hope this never happens for all our sakes.

It's an "Educated" rumor.

We know AMD has cut corners as it has split up the L3 cache pools. (This impacts performance as well.)
We know AMD doesn't have a high-end platform because it doesn't offer a chipset/CPU with an appropriate number of PCI-E lanes or memory channels.

And this is from what AMD has told us, not rumor. - People are hyping up Ryzen like it's the second coming of Jesus.

Benchmarks of engineering samples (From the same sources that leaked bulldozers engineering samples which people refused to believe and turned out to be accurate.) shows that on a per-core basis it's around the same level as a Core i5. Just AMD will happily sell you more cores to compensate.

ARM can beat low-end x86 processors. Just ask Apple.
I don't believe Microsoft/Sony will go with ARM next round, but the fact is, ARM is better than most people realise, especially high-end ARM cores.

2019

All good points based on everything we know.