2-3 years is a significant amount of time in terms of computing...

Whats even funnier is that that staement doesn't even suggest that it took that long for the PS4 to be being sold at a profit. That was just when kaz talked about it. Nothing could have changed in the hardware space between launch and 6 months after for the console to go from  selling at a loss of any kind to selling at a profit. Well... except shipping, air freight is more expensive than sea freight and they only use the former when having stock issues.

Its no secret that that the PS4 cost only around $380 to make when it launched. And stores take a very little markup off console sales because they too make more from selling software and accessories than from the actual hardware.

Then you are having the wrong conversation with everyone.

I do not think a SINGLE person has said that XB1 (i am using the entire XB1 family here [XB1s+Scorpio] has to outsell PS4 to be successful or that anyone has even suggested that it will somehow be able to.

What people have said is that it could be doing better if they did a couple of things. In other words, they could even be more profitable if they did certain things.

We are at the halfway point, expecting around 20,21 release. I really hope they go for a 499 price tag, or hopefully by then an upgradable ps5, or a subsription / pay by the month method. I hope they have the balls to release something great and not worry about the price. When you look at what people pay for cellphones, it's crazy.

Alright, VGC really needs to do a series of articles on business economics for video game nerds because I hear crap like this and "Nintendo could lose money for the next ** years and still be fine!" and it's all nonsense.

The moment shareholders realized that it would be nearly impossible to make up the lost revenue from selling the Xbox One at a $298.99 loss the stock price would take a huge hit, the board of directors would call for an immediate end to the practice and would lose all faith in the division, and they'd probably want the person who came up with the idea removed.

The value of a publicly traded business isn't like a personal checking account. Their value relies on shareholder confidence, so doing stupid things can have huge financial implications for a company.

I think you might be a little confused. Navi and Vega are still set for their release dates. Vega 20 is another chip entirely and that could be dropping as late as 2019. Vega 10 will be launching this year with the Radeon RX500 series.
We might even see a dual-GPU Vega 10 chip this year as well.

AMD *has* to update it's entire GPU lineup with a new name (Aka. RX 500 series) on a yearly cadence for OEM's, which means at-least a couple of new GPU's.

http://wccftech.com/amd-vega-gpu-navi-gpu-hbm2-2017-2018/
https://videocardz.com/63700/exclusive-first-details-about-amd-vega10-and-vega20
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Vega-GPU-Architecture-Preview-Redesigned-Memory-Architecture
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser

When it comes to these things, I tend to have a track record of being right more often than not. ;)



********************

As for why I want consoles to have more power? That's simple. Consoles are the lowest common denominators.
They are the lowest performing platforms that mainstream AAA games are built for. The better they are, the better PC games graphically become.

Besides, I personally prefer newer chip architectures over older, antiquated designs as the older designs don't leverage new techniques and efficiency gains.

Sony will need to wait until 2019 or 2020 in order to bring a console for $399 that's a sufficient upgrade over Scorpio.

Ok.  Those are all older links, with only one being the very beginning of 2017.  Here's some newer ones I found that all point to a 2019 release of Navi.  Also, the slides in their suggest a 2018 release of the Vega 20.

http://segmentnext.com/2017/01/17/navi-10-amd-gpu/
http://www.game-debate.com/news/22121/amd-plans-to-launch-7nm-navi-10-gpu-with-up-to-128gb-memory-in-2019
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55875/amd-launch-monster-navi-10-2019-next-gen-ram/index.html
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-vega-gpu-specifications

As for the power, I can understand that.  Though, I think most devs do enough to push PCs, especially with all the graphic options they usually put in their games.  And it isn't like a single 1080 Ti can run every game in Ultra at 4K60FPS.  Of course, a lot of that has to do with devs not coding and optimizing for just one card.  Really, I don't think you're ever going to get that until tens of millions are willing to throw down $600-$700 just for a new card, which I doubt will ever happen. 

I guess you're just going to have to deal with the status quo.  Sony is going to try to put as much power as they can into a $399 box, without taking too much of a hit, because that's what tens of millions of console gamers want.  Like I have been saying, I fully expect something along the lines of a Ryzen 1700 (with the possibility of Zen+, instead) for the CPU and a Vega 10 for the GPU, both customized with some advancements from the next 2 years.  Not top of the line, but definitely enough of a gap over the OG PS4 (6x-6.5x, the same gap as last gen to the current one) to warrant a new gen.  And if Sony does another Pro, than we should see a Vega 10x Dual in there, like they did with the PS4 Pro.

This is where i will agree, and in saying that, you can say the exact same thing to any company and its products, there is always a better way in doing things, nothing is perfect. I think Scorpio will do Xbox well, it wont outsell the PS4 or Pro however it will be a successful console for MS. (My opinion)

Its always good to keep the share holders happy. However look at it like this. There are many ways to make a profit. MS could give Xbox away for free however put them as a 5 year plan though Live Subscibtions etc. They could also have Bill Gates as a major share holder who probably doesnt care as much as other share holders and probably invests for the hell of it (Assumption, dont take that too serious). Money isnt an issue at MS. They have it, plenty of it. They also want to continue to make more money hence why i said i am glad they dont care for the sales figures because if they did want to win a sales race they can afford to lose on products to gain those sales and still bring out another console.

This is why they choose to have less 1st party studios and get 3rd party studios to make there games, it clearly works out cheaper this way for them. They also are making a Scorpio and i can bet there is a Xbox 2 (Next Gen System) on its way in the next few years. If they arent making money on Xbox than they wouldnt be going though all this.

In the end i agree with the Share holder view. Iv been saying share holders is a very important aspect for years. However that doesnt mean sales mean everything, aslong as profits are turned, share holders are happy and this is why we continue to have Xbox as a console manufacture. Because Xbox and Live are bringing in the money.

Eight years of 2% inflation in the US would make a $399 value in 2013 be close to $480 in 2021.

https://inflationcalculator.mes.fm/?gclid=CNCa2JWupNMCFYEfhgodWWQItw

The US personal and household income are also pointing up since the beginning fo the decade.

A $499 price by 2020 is not that much more than the PS1 costed when launched in 1995.