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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony FY2017 - HW 19 Million Sold, SW 246.9 Million Sold. 79 Million Shipped Ending March 31st.

GOWTLOZ on 29 April 2018
thismeintiel said:
GOWTLOZ said:

The Pro was called a 4K console but it doesn't have any 4K game that's not a sports game and 7th gen games. The difference between PS4 and Pro's GPU is not enough for what it was supposed to offer and CPU is a small increase in frequency. The memory bandwidth is the same and the RAM is the same. Its why  higher resolution games have the same textures as PS4 but on One X they have 4K textures. Waiting for 1 year at $400 would have made a better console.

You should see the PR side as well. The Pro didn't deliver what it promised and has a bad image but One X has a positive image. Its why there is any talk of One X outselling PS4 Pro at all and if PS4 Pro had the power of the X it would have sold more at $500. Its the reason I haven't bought a Pro, though I would like to play Infamous: Second Son and God of War at 60fps. Sony failed to support it themselves, no reason why God of War 3 Remastered doesn't run at 4K60fps on PS4 Pro and Driveclub didn't get Pro support.

Sony never promised that all games would run at 4K on the Pro. Hell, they showed off checkerboard rendering at the reveal. Like I said, there's a reason Sony is selling at $399 and making a profit, while MS sold at $499 and supposedly sold at a loss. The Pro is supposed to just be a mid-gen upgrade, not a leap in a gen. MS, on the other hand, had nothing they could do but push for a more powerful machine. They sure as hell couldn't have released something on par with the Pro. But, even with that power, it still can't run all games at 4K, so maybe it was half-hearted, too?

Of course, there are two things that make your point moot. One, that power isn't helping MS that much. Sure, it's up YOY for several months, at least for NPD. However, that's compared to last year, where it was down YOY from 2016. And most of the push is coming from a S that needs to be $70+ cheaper than the PS4 to push those numbers. And two, the PS5 is going to be here in 1 1/2 - 2 years to put both of them to shame. At which point, crossgen games will probably drop below 4K on X even more. Why was it so half-hearted? 

PS4 Pro's GPU can't run most games at even checkerboard 4K. Most games are checkerboard 1440p to 1800p. The GPU upgrade was tiny for a 4x increase in resolution. The CPU upgrade was tiny for performance in games. The RAM wasn't upgraded to make room for high resolution textures. Memory bandwidth is low.



Around the Network
Lawlight on 29 April 2018
GOWTLOZ said:
thismeintiel said:

Sony never promised that all games would run at 4K on the Pro. Hell, they showed off checkerboard rendering at the reveal. Like I said, there's a reason Sony is selling at $399 and making a profit, while MS sold at $499 and supposedly sold at a loss. The Pro is supposed to just be a mid-gen upgrade, not a leap in a gen. MS, on the other hand, had nothing they could do but push for a more powerful machine. They sure as hell couldn't have released something on par with the Pro. But, even with that power, it still can't run all games at 4K, so maybe it was half-hearted, too?

Of course, there are two things that make your point moot. One, that power isn't helping MS that much. Sure, it's up YOY for several months, at least for NPD. However, that's compared to last year, where it was down YOY from 2016. And most of the push is coming from a S that needs to be $70+ cheaper than the PS4 to push those numbers. And two, the PS5 is going to be here in 1 1/2 - 2 years to put both of them to shame. At which point, crossgen games will probably drop below 4K on X even more. Why was it so half-hearted? 

PS4 Pro's GPU can't run most games at even checkerboard 4K. Most games are checkerboard 1440p to 1800p. The GPU upgrade was tiny for a 4x increase in resolution. The CPU upgrade was tiny for performance in games. The RAM wasn't upgraded to make room for high resolution textures. Memory bandwidth is low.

If Horizon can run 2160p checkerboard, then most, if not all, games should be able to run as well.



GOWTLOZ on 29 April 2018
Lawlight said:
GOWTLOZ said:

PS4 Pro's GPU can't run most games at even checkerboard 4K. Most games are checkerboard 1440p to 1800p. The GPU upgrade was tiny for a 4x increase in resolution. The CPU upgrade was tiny for performance in games. The RAM wasn't upgraded to make room for high resolution textures. Memory bandwidth is low.

If Horizon can run 2160p checkerboard, then most, if not all, games should be able to run as well.

Not all games run on Decima and have Guerilla working on them ;)



KazumaKiryu on 01 May 2018
Guitarguy said:
How did the TV division go?

I dont know. by the way: "Breaking Bad" and "King of Queens" are by Sony, right?

JamesGarret said:
That´s a lot of Plus subscriptions!

in may, "Beyond Two Souls" is free for ps+ members :) Thats cool.



LiquorandGunFun on 01 May 2018

this is what good first party support does.



 

Around the Network
Angelv577 on 09 May 2018

I can't find how much revenue playstation generated last quarter



DonFerrari on 09 May 2018
GOWTLOZ said:
PS4 could have sold more if the Pro wasn't such a half hearted attempt at a mid gen upgrade. The difference in Far Cry 5 is staggering, 1620p on PS4 Pro and 4K on One X and its the same for many multiplatform games. There is no freesync and no backwards compatibility and the Switch has captured public attention. They have to do more if they want to keep the price at $300 and $400 but if they do a price cut it could sell amazingly.

Considering PS4Pro sells around 20-25% of the total and the X1X failed to really increase X1 sales significantly, the half assed approach didn't far so bad.



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."

DonFerrari on 09 May 2018
flashfire926 said:
something that was not noticed was that 43% of last quarters game sales were digital, which is a new high. Digital will eventually completely demolish physical. just give it five or so years.

Not something I really want to see.



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."

DonFerrari on 09 May 2018
StarDoor said:
JRPGfan said:

I must be a conspiracy nut then...
cuz it feels like they have done low forecasts every year, and every year they beat them and go "we re so surprised by the support" ect.

That's not exactly true.

In FY3/2014, Sony projected selling 15 million PS3+PS4 units, and they ended up selling 14.6 million.
In FY3/2015, Sony projected selling 17 million PS3+PS4 units, and they ended up selling 17.9 million.
In FY3/2016, Sony projected selling 16 million PS4 units, and they ended up selling 17.7 million.
In FY3/2017, Sony projected selling 20 million PS4 units, and they ended up selling 20 million.
In FY3/2018, Sony projected selling 18 million PS4 units, and they ended up selling 19 million.

If anything, I'd say that their projections have been very accurate. The biggest discrepancy throughout the PS4's lifetime was only +1.7 million, and the average is +0.64 million. In the same period, Nintendo's biggest discrepancies were -5.76 million for 3DS, -6.28 million for Wii U, and +5.05 million for Switch.

3DS and WiiU saw a lot of jokes for all the revision of forecast being severely lowered and fans defending that this new projection would be easy to hit and them they miss.



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."