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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which will prevail? Xbox Power or Playstation Speed?

Tagged games:

 

Pick your side!

XBOX 27 31.03%
 
PLAYSTATION 50 57.47%
 
Master Race 10 11.49%
 
Total:87
thismeintiel said:
victor83fernandes said:

Hahaha mate, go learn about tech before commenting, 400dollars? Did you even see the new SSD and audio chip? Those things are expensive, minimum of minum 450dollars if sony will take a loss, if they don't want a loss then 500dollars. Xbox will be minimum 550dollars, and that already a huge loss, it has vapor cooling, 12tf graphics, great processor, great ram, ssd, the module design, etc

How about we try not to be dickish?  No one said anything about them breaking even at $399.  Of course they would be taking a $50+ loss, but that is still something Sony would be fine with doing.

EricHiggin said:

(Lockhart - $299)
PS5 - $499
XBSX - $599

I can't see PS5 being any less than $449 with a sub, so I'd guess they stick with $499 and try and make Lockhart or last gen look extremely inferior. I think PS5 ends up 2:1 against both XB consoles. If by chance Lockhart doesn't show up, then 3:1 if not worse.

If both consoles end up $399 and $499 somehow, I will be stunned.

Well, we already know Japan gives them a 8M-9M advantage.  EU should go big in Sony's favor, as usual.  NA and the UK, I can see it being pretty damn close.  Unless the launch prices are something like $399 vs $599.  In that case, MS can brag about power all they want, it won't help them.  Of course, you also have the fact that Sony will still have games that you can't get anywhere else. 

As for realistic prices, I could definitely see Sony taking a $50-$100 hit to land at a $399 price point.  This will be a very important gen for them, and PS is one of the largest pillars for the company.  They need it to succeed.  Definitely can't see them going above $449.  MS, on the other hand, are going to sell this thing as close to cost as possible.  That's why I can see it going for anywhere from $499-$599, depending on how much it sctually costs to make.

Sony certainly plan on undercut MS on the higher spec consoles, that is the reason they didn't set the price. The cost is on refining calculation, the retail price already have the range they can tolerate, now they just want to be more certain of how much cheaper they can and will sell.



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."

Around the Network

My SSD's, and eventually my NVME.



thismeintiel said:
EricHiggin said:

(Lockhart - $299)
PS5 - $499
XBSX - $599

I can't see PS5 being any less than $449 with a sub, so I'd guess they stick with $499 and try and make Lockhart or last gen look extremely inferior. I think PS5 ends up 2:1 against both XB consoles. If by chance Lockhart doesn't show up, then 3:1 if not worse.

If both consoles end up $399 and $499 somehow, I will be stunned.

Well, we already know Japan gives them a 8M-9M advantage.  EU should go big in Sony's favor, as usual.  NA and the UK, I can see it being pretty damn close.  Unless the launch prices are something like $399 vs $599.  In that case, MS can brag about power all they want, it won't help them.  Of course, you also have the fact that Sony will still have games that you can't get anywhere else. 

As for realistic prices, I could definitely see Sony taking a $50-$100 hit to land at a $399 price point.  This will be a very important gen for them, and PS is one of the largest pillars for the company.  They need it to succeed.  Definitely can't see them going above $449.  MS, on the other hand, are going to sell this thing as close to cost as possible.  That's why I can see it going for anywhere from $499-$599, depending on how much it sctually costs to make.

I didn't mean $499 would be without a sub. I should have been more clear. I think even $499 would require a reasonable sub. $449 would require SNY to get more generous then they have been. Maybe they would, maybe not, but $399 seems crazy to me right now.

If MS can, and does decide to make XBSX $50 more than PS5 no matter what, then SNY might as well set their price at $499. Above that already get's MS into minor trouble. At $399 that could mean a $449 XBSX, and who wouldn't pay that much for it? $549 though? Also, if Lockhart exists, and is less than $399, then a $499 PS5 makes Lockhart look really weak and questionable to those who can afford to wait to save up for a PS5 (or buy a PS4 or Pro instead).

DonFerrari said:
thismeintiel said:

How about we try not to be dickish?  No one said anything about them breaking even at $399.  Of course they would be taking a $50+ loss, but that is still something Sony would be fine with doing.

Well, we already know Japan gives them a 8M-9M advantage.  EU should go big in Sony's favor, as usual.  NA and the UK, I can see it being pretty damn close.  Unless the launch prices are something like $399 vs $599.  In that case, MS can brag about power all they want, it won't help them.  Of course, you also have the fact that Sony will still have games that you can't get anywhere else. 

As for realistic prices, I could definitely see Sony taking a $50-$100 hit to land at a $399 price point.  This will be a very important gen for them, and PS is one of the largest pillars for the company.  They need it to succeed.  Definitely can't see them going above $449.  MS, on the other hand, are going to sell this thing as close to cost as possible.  That's why I can see it going for anywhere from $499-$599, depending on how much it sctually costs to make.

Sony certainly plan on undercut MS on the higher spec consoles, that is the reason they didn't set the price. The cost is on refining calculation, the retail price already have the range they can tolerate, now they just want to be more certain of how much cheaper they can and will sell.

Also depends on if Lockhart exists. SNY being put in the middle would make their pricing strategy that much more crucial. They are really going to want to know how much both XBSX and Lockhart cost before they put a price on PS5.



Chazore said:

My SSD's, and eventually my NVME.

NVME?

And that's Numbah 5 I believe?



It feels like this thread is designed to create a false equivalence? The Xbox is clearly a significantly more powerful machine.

We'll have to wait for some real world examples, but the Xbox is clearly targeting delivering extraordinary graphics with very, very small load times and rapid fast travel.

If MS can load games in 4 seconds, it is going to be irrelevant if Sony can load them in 2 seconds. This will only matter if there is some sort of major loading differential. Other than that, every comparison video online is just going to have better looking games on Xbox.

Now that is unlikely to shift the sales battle on its own due to Sony's enormous incumbent advantage, but lets not try and tear down MS for those things it has clearly committed to doing better.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network

I really do wish that Sony would have gine for atleast 1TB. Even with a slower SSD you can still store more games on the XSX which will be more convenient for people that play multiple games at once. I voted Xbox cause i have a One, 360, and OG Xbox games and with BC it only makes sense to make that jump unless Sony has some epic system seller that makes use of that SSD at launch.



EricHiggin said:
thismeintiel said:

Well, we already know Japan gives them a 8M-9M advantage.  EU should go big in Sony's favor, as usual.  NA and the UK, I can see it being pretty damn close.  Unless the launch prices are something like $399 vs $599.  In that case, MS can brag about power all they want, it won't help them.  Of course, you also have the fact that Sony will still have games that you can't get anywhere else. 

As for realistic prices, I could definitely see Sony taking a $50-$100 hit to land at a $399 price point.  This will be a very important gen for them, and PS is one of the largest pillars for the company.  They need it to succeed.  Definitely can't see them going above $449.  MS, on the other hand, are going to sell this thing as close to cost as possible.  That's why I can see it going for anywhere from $499-$599, depending on how much it sctually costs to make.

I didn't mean $499 would be without a sub. I should have been more clear. I think even $499 would require a reasonable sub. $449 would require SNY to get more generous then they have been. Maybe they would, maybe not, but $399 seems crazy to me right now.

If MS can, and does decide to make XBSX $50 more than PS5 no matter what, then SNY might as well set their price at $499. Above that already get's MS into minor trouble. At $399 that could mean a $449 XBSX, and who wouldn't pay that much for it? $549 though? Also, if Lockhart exists, and is less than $399, then a $499 PS5 makes Lockhart look really weak and questionable to those who can afford to wait to save up for a PS5 (or buy a PS4 or Pro instead).

If the BOM that Forbes estimated was correct (~$450), then $499 should be break even, maybe a tiny profit.  Sony has always sold at a loss.  $449 should be the max we should expect.  Unless MS does price theirs at $599, then they may figure they can get away with a $499 price.  Remember, Sony took at $200+ loss when they felt they had to for the PS3.  I don't think a ~$100 loss is completely out of the question.  Not when this gen is very important to the future of their company.

And MS is not going to try to beat Sony or 100% be only more than them by $50.  Xbox is not a huge pillar in their company.  Satya Nadella does see it as a way to break into streaming, which is his background.  But, they are not in the business of losing millions/billions on HW, again.  If the XBX costs $100 more to make than the PS5, expect it to cost $100-$150 more than the PS5.  This is why the Lockhart existed to begin with.  Series X was to beat Sony with power, but definitely not price.  Lockhart was to beat it with price, definitely not power.  We'll have to see if they actually release the Lockhart, given some of the leaks that some devs aren't exactly excited with having to develop on it if they want to make a XBX game.



thismeintiel said:
EricHiggin said:

I didn't mean $499 would be without a sub. I should have been more clear. I think even $499 would require a reasonable sub. $449 would require SNY to get more generous then they have been. Maybe they would, maybe not, but $399 seems crazy to me right now.

If MS can, and does decide to make XBSX $50 more than PS5 no matter what, then SNY might as well set their price at $499. Above that already get's MS into minor trouble. At $399 that could mean a $449 XBSX, and who wouldn't pay that much for it? $549 though? Also, if Lockhart exists, and is less than $399, then a $499 PS5 makes Lockhart look really weak and questionable to those who can afford to wait to save up for a PS5 (or buy a PS4 or Pro instead).

If the BOM that Forbes estimated was correct (~$450), then $499 should be break even, maybe a tiny profit.  Sony has always sold at a loss.  $449 should be the max we should expect.  Unless MS does price theirs at $599, then they may figure they can get away with a $499 price.  Remember, Sony took at $200+ loss when they felt they had to for the PS3.  I don't think a ~$100 loss is completely out of the question.  Not when this gen is very important to the future of their company.

And MS is not going to try to beat Sony or 100% be only more than them by $50.  Xbox is not a huge pillar in their company.  Satya Nadella does see it as a way to break into streaming, which is his background.  But, they are not in the business of losing millions/billions on HW, again.  If the XBX costs $100 more to make than the PS5, expect it to cost $100-$150 more than the PS5.  This is why the Lockhart existed to begin with.  Series X was to beat Sony with power, but definitely not price.  Lockhart was to beat it with price, definitely not power.  We'll have to see if they actually release the Lockhart, given some of the leaks that some devs aren't exactly excited with having to develop on it if they want to make a XBX game.

Something I just read on a few sites said that SmartShift only works in laptops with separate AMD CPU and GPU. PS5 has SmartShift, so does that mean it's not a monolithic APU? SNY's slides showed a layout much like how AMD's slides do, with separate CPU and GPU and I/O die, which is how Zen 2 is laid out (minus the GPU die). AMD also showed they were working on infinity fabric that allowed for the CPU and GPU to operate together, but for servers. Could PS5 be using a consumer form of this, and could that be cheaper? The smaller chiplets certainly should be a lot cheaper than a large APU, and it would partially explain the much higher GPU clocks as well.

I read your last reply wrong. I thought you said MS would try and keep XBSX close to PS5 cost, but you said it's own costs. Oops. Even if both have monolithic APU's, then XBSX's should cost a lot more. Though the PS5 SSD should cost a bit more than XBSX's, even with slightly less storage space. XBSX also doesn't sound like it's audio portion will cost as much as PS5's either. It's hard to say. While I don't think they'll be the same price, I don't see more than a $100 difference at most. SNY really doesn't like $50 launch pricing. That's why $499 for PS5 and $549-$599 for XBSX make more sense to me. I think that would work better than most may think for PS5. XBSX may only be another $50, but it would be over that $500 mark and that will immediately turn some people off. Unless MS sets the price at $499, then PS has to decide what they want to do, and if they can afford it, they may just bite the bullet and go with the tried and true $399. PS5 specs at $399 would destroy PS4 launch sales, if they aren't hampered by covid.



I think the systems seem close enough in certain aspects that it may just come down to everyone picking the one that has the most games they like anyway.
And that's the case for me. Though the feature I'm mostly interested in is what PS5's SSD can do with game design. Eliminating (or close to) load screens is really nice as well.

shikamaru317 said:

Must be a benefit of the newer RDNA 2 architecture then. I remember older DF videos where they compared overclocked GPU's with the next GPU tier up with stock clock rates, and even though flops wise the overclocked GPU was a match for the larger GPU with slower clocks, the larger slower GPU was faster in real game performance. 

DF specified that the Boost Mode mentioned is not the same one you'd see with PC's, cell phones, etc.

starcraft said:
It feels like this thread is designed to create a false equivalence? The Xbox is clearly a significantly more powerful machine.

We'll have to wait for some real world examples, but the Xbox is clearly targeting delivering extraordinary graphics with very, very small load times and rapid fast travel.

If MS can load games in 4 seconds, it is going to be irrelevant if Sony can load them in 2 seconds. This will only matter if there is some sort of major loading differential. Other than that, every comparison video online is just going to have better looking games on Xbox.

Now that is unlikely to shift the sales battle on its own due to Sony's enormous incumbent advantage, but lets not try and tear down MS for those things it has clearly committed to doing better.

It's not just loading games or loading screens that was interesting about Sony's SSD approach, but how you can build games when large amounts of data can be loaded in instantaneously. Digital Foundry went over this and seem the most interested in this feature. 

https://youtu.be/4higSVRZlkA?t=1076

Essentially, from my understanding level design in video games have always been held back by how quickly assets can load. If it takes you one second to turn around, the stage can only be designed in a way that it has to be able to load in everything neccesary in one second. Hence why level designers put up walls, and shape corridors, streets etc with this in mind. You didn't necessarily take a right turn there because it made the most sense from a design perspective, but rather the limitations of hardware.
PS5's SSD would seemingly eliminate the need to design games with this limitation in mind. And that's very interesting.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 March 2020

KLAMarine said:

NVME?

And that's Numbah 5 I believe?

NVMe drive, and yeah.