Support NeoGAF

[Drizzlehell]

Does the same apply to graphics cards on the PC?

No because it's a completely different ecosystem. For example, you can still squeeze out reasonably good performance even out of an aging PC hardware when on consoles you were stuck with 30 FPS and lower resolution unless you shelled out another 400 bucks for a "refresh" 3 years after the original console came out.

 

[Three]

Phil confirmed in an interview about a year ago that they 'have multiple consoles in development'. I will be very surprised if one of them isnt a mid gen refresh.
I'm guessing that they just dont want Sony to know, although with the way businesses work with this stuff, Sony will already know.

It's more likely they don't want you to know because it can lower sales so they lie about it in interviews and PR material until it actually does happen.

 

[DeepEnigma]

No because it's a completely different ecosystem. For example, you can still squeeze out reasonably good performance even out of an aging PC hardware when on consoles you were stuck with 30 FPS and lower resolution unless you shelled out another 400 bucks for a "refresh" 3 years after the original console came out.

 

[Stuart360]

It's more likely they don't want you to know because it can lower sales so they lie about it in interviews and PR material until it actually does happen.

Yeah i was actually going to say that as well.
Again if theyDO have multiple consoles in development, i'll be very surprised if one of them isnt a mid gen console.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Thanks for posting a GIF to confirm that you have nothing to rebut this.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Thanks for posting a GIF to confirm that you have nothing to rebut this.

Because your post is pure mental gymnastics.

 

[Clear]

MS already has two quite differentiated SKU's, adding a third would be adding a whole bunch of weight to their dev pipeline that I doubt they could justify.

Sony would be better positioned, and I don't doubt for a second they have ongoing R+D for an enhanced PS5, but I'm uncertain if they will ever pull the trigger on mass production given the economic climate.

Objectively a "Pro" version would be targeting a $599 - $699 MSRP which isn't prohibitively expensive, but it would limit its appeal to the enthusiast segment.

 

[DeepEnigma]

MS already has two quite differentiated SKU's, adding a third would be adding a whole bunch of weight to their dev pipeline that I doubt they could justify.

Sony would be better positioned, and I don't doubt for a second they have ongoing R+D for an enhanced PS5, but I'm uncertain if they will ever pull the trigger on mass production given the economic climate.

Objectively a "Pro" version would be targeting a $599 - $699 MSRP which isn't prohibitively expensive, but it would limit its appeal to the enthusiast segment.

Unless they do the price cut think like last gen for the current models when those refreshes happen as well. They are profiting on their systems sold.

 

[GHG]

No because it's a completely different ecosystem. For example, you can still squeeze out reasonably good performance even out of an aging PC hardware when on consoles you were stuck with 30 FPS and lower resolution unless you shelled out another 400 bucks for a "refresh" 3 years after the original console came out.

If you're on an older PC configuration you're also stuck with lower framerates or lower resolutions/details. The only difference is that you have a choice in terms of what sacrifices you wish to make.

What do you think mid generation "ti" (Nvidia) or xx50 (AMD) cards are? They happen every generation and they are mid gen refreshes of existing products. To make matters worse, there's a brand new GPU and CPU generation from PC hardware vendors every 18-24 months.

Nothing about any of this is a "rip off". You know what you're getting when you buy it. It's technology and the one guarantee with technology is that it will become outdated sooner or later. Whether you choose to upgrade at every given opportunity or not is a choice, nobody is forcing it upon you.

 

[Buhaj]

They got into a hissy fit here on GAF when a sharp-eyed gamer proved that they were actually lying in that analysis, John took it so far that he was posting suicide messages here, then finally he admitted it being BS analysis and that he was singing MSFT gospel.

When was it? I'd love to read the discussion.

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

 

[SlimySnake]

I think we all know that if Sony releases a PS5 Pro, especially if it blows all current consoles out of the water with its capabilities, MS will follow suit with a Pro variety of XBOX. I mean, these companies "say" a lot of things, then change their tune with the tides.

MS wants to be the biggest dick on the block. They will wait till either the PS5 Pro specs leak or when sony reveals their console and then follow suit.

Their console for whatever reason is very expensive to make and probably the reason why they were trying to push the series s for so long. Just like how sony undershipped their digital SKU which was likely being sold at a loss, MS kept the series x out of the stores for the same reason. Now that they are getting close to breaking even, releasing a more expensive console would be counterproductive.

id also like to know just how many x1x's were sold. Sony said 20% initially, but we got no such number for xbox and we all know the xbox sales dropped off the cliff limping to 50 million lifetime after posting a relatively strong first three years with around 33 million. i really dont think the x1x sold more than 5 million units. highly doubt MS cares about the 10% of people who might buy this thing. they will release it to win the tflops wars knowing full well it wont sell all that well.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Because your post is pure mental gymnastics.

And yours presents an argument that's both obvious and redundant.

Obviously no one's forcing anyone to buy it but by sheer virtue of existing it's guaranteed that it will sell to people who want it, and the console manufacturer will laugh all the way to the bank. You can skip on the pro version but then you're stuck with inferior experience of playing on slower hardware. It's a situation that is only advantageous to the makers of the hardware and people who didn't buy the basic version at launch, while early adopters can either pay up or get fucked.

Explaining basic logic to an adult, smh...

 

[MikeM]

If you're on an older PC configuration you're also stuck with lower framerates or lower resolutions/details. The only difference is that you have a choice in terms of what sacrifices you wish to make.

What do you think mid generation "ti" (Nvidia) or xx50 (AMD) cards are? They happen every generation and they are mid gen refreshes of existing products. To make matters worse, there's a brand new GPU and CPU generation from PC hardware vendors every 18-24 months.

Nothing about any of this is a "rip off". You know what you're getting when you buy it. It's technology and the one guarantee with technology is that it will become outdated sooner or later. Whether you choose to upgrade at every given opportunity or not is a choice, nobody is forcing it upon you.

Agreed.

I am curious if part of the reason why there likely won’t be pro consoles is that AMD has weak options. Mid-range this gen from both AMD and Nvidia has been very weak gen-on-gen and may point to a lack of any material performance increases when compared to the OG consoles.

 

[DeepEnigma]

And yours presents an argument that's both obvious and redundant.

Obviously no one's forcing anyone to buy it but by sheer virtue of existing it's guaranteed that it will sell to people who want it, and the console manufacturer will laugh all the way to the bank. You can skip on the pro version but then you're stuck with inferior experience of playing on slower hardware. It's a situation that is only advantageous to the makers of the hardware and people who didn't buy the basic version at launch, while early adopters can either pay up or get fucked.

Explaining basic logic to an adult, smh...

More mental gymnastics.

If you're on an older PC configuration you're also stuck with lower framerates or lower resolutions/details. The only difference is that you have a choice in terms of what sacrifices you wish to make.

What do you think mid generation "ti" (Nvidia) or xx50 (AMD) cards are? They happen every generation and they are mid gen refreshes of existing products. To make matters worse, there's a brand new GPU and CPU generation from PC hardware vendors every 18-24 months.

Nothing about any of this is a "rip off". You know what you're getting when you buy it. It's technology and the one guarantee with technology is that it will become outdated sooner or later. Whether you choose to upgrade at every given opportunity or not is a choice, nobody is forcing it upon you.

 

[Clear]

Unless they do the price cut think like last gen for the current models when those refreshes happen as well. They are profiting on their systems sold.

Honestly I think they'll just bank any manufacturing cost savings as a bolster against variances in supply-chain conditions. The fact is inflation hits every part from transportation to warehousing, and if they are seeking to keep MSRP flat they need to factor this in.

I mean, this is part of the appeal of the detachable bd-rom option. Its not just the simplification around tooling, its that they can very likely get more units per pallet as the volume occupied by shipping primarily digital only devices, with the drives as an "option" will be less.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Honestly I think they'll just bank any manufacturing cost savings as a bolster against variances in supply-chain conditions. The fact is inflation hits every part from transportation to warehousing, and if they are seeking to keep MSRP flat they need to factor this in.

I mean, this is part of the appeal of the detachable bd-rom option. Its not just the simplification around tooling, its that they can very likely get more units per pallet as the volume occupied by shipping primarily digital only devices, with the drives as an "option" will be less.

Which I think the same thing would apply to the Pro version which would use the same detached drive.

 

[Drizzlehell]

More mental gymnastics.

Nah, you just got nothing because you know I'm right.

If you're on an older PC configuration you're also stuck with lower framerates or lower resolutions/details. The only difference is that you have a choice in terms of what sacrifices you wish to make.

Maybe if you're not very good at owning a PC. Almost every build that I ever owned was over half a decade old before I did any serious upgrades to it and every time I was able to squeeze out solid performance out of it until it wasn't possible anymore. It is not even in the same ballpark as this console situation.

 

[Three]

MS already has two quite differentiated SKU's, adding a third would be adding a whole bunch of weight to their dev pipeline that I doubt they could justify.

Sony would be better positioned, and I don't doubt for a second they have ongoing R+D for an enhanced PS5, but I'm uncertain if they will ever pull the trigger on mass production given the economic climate.

Objectively a "Pro" version would be targeting a $599 - $699 MSRP which isn't prohibitively expensive, but it would limit its appeal to the enthusiast segment.

MS would only be reactive much like they were with the One X. They would only release a midgen if Sony does and I have doubts Sony will either.

Unlike the Series S the MS Pro console wouldn't hamstring development though because at the end you can almost ignore it and treat it like a regular XSX/PS5. Little to no additional optimisation or features added in development, some headroom to maybe boost/maintain framerate or res. If Sony release a PS5 Pro though you can gain whatever optimisations or features third parties would do for it with a similar machine.

 

[The Alien]

I'm sure both companies are working on their mid-gen model. Neither will thoroughly discussnatbthisnpiint as to not impact sales of models currently on store shelves.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Nah, you just got nothing because you know I'm right.

Maybe if you're not very good at owning a PC.

What about "adult logic," again?

 

[Topher]

And yours presents an argument that's both obvious and redundant.

Obviously no one's forcing anyone to buy it but by sheer virtue of existing it's guaranteed that it will sell to people who want it, and the console manufacturer will laugh all the way to the bank. You can skip on the pro version but then you're stuck with inferior experience of playing on slower hardware. It's a situation that is only advantageous to the makers of the hardware and people who didn't buy the basic version at launch, while early adopters can either pay up or get fucked.

Explaining basic logic to an adult, smh...

Console manufacturers typically make very little money, if any, on hardware. And actually if you take into the consideration that these new consoles require more work to take advantage of the newer specs then overall it is probably a loss. So I don't see how they are laughing all the way to the bank. They are trying to remain competitive. That's a good thing and provides options for their customers.

 

[Thirty7ven]

The major reason for cost reduction is the better designed cooler, cheaper component cost and the move to 6nm. Everything Microsoft is fully capable of doing. Who knows why they haven't, maybe they feel no pressing need.

Why does it always come down to "MS could but they wont because of lack of want" even when it makes no sense?

 

[Drizzlehell]

What about "adult logic," again?

I'm sure you'll find it one day.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm sure you'll find it one day.

 

[GHG]

Maybe if you're not very good at owning a PC. Almost every build that I ever owned was over half a decade old before I did any serious upgrades to it and every time I was able to squeeze out solid performance out of it until it wasn't possible anymore. It is not even in the same ballpark as this console situation.

That has nothing to do with "not being good at owning a PC" and has everything to do with how much money you're able to throw at it when you build/buy your PC. If you only ever purchase high end hardware then that issue is somewhat negated since it enables you to hold on to your hardware for longer while still playing the latest games without the need to sacrifice. Consoles are typically not high end PC hardware.

Every hardware survey out there shows that most people own mid/low range gaming PC's. They will currently be having to contend with the exact same sacrifices that I outlined in my previous post. The likes of Intel/AMD/Nvidia give them multiple upgrade path options every year.

The idea that console manufacturers offering mid generation refreshes is a "rip-off" but somehow the same cannot be said in the PC hardware space is asinine.

 

[Topher]

Why does it always come down to "MS could but they wont because of lack of want" even when it makes no sense?

I'm wondering if Microsoft is wary of another hardware launch when they just filled up their datacenter with a bunch of XSX. Perhaps one "high end" SKU was to promote the cloud gaming service all gen and they did not want to compete with an even beefier Xbox console. Just shooting from the hip....

 

[Thirty7ven]

I'm wondering if Microsoft is wary of another hardware launch when just filled up their datacenter with a bunch of XSX. Perhaps one "high end" SKU was to promote the cloud gaming service and they did not want to compete with an even beefier Xbox console. Just shooting from the hip....

Well for somebody who shoots from the hip you got quite the wrist control because that looks dead on.

 

[Zathalus]

Why does it always come down to "MS could but they wont because of lack of want" even when it makes no sense?

I don't know, I'm not them. Do you think there is some technical reason they couldn't move to 6nm?

 

[Drizzlehell]

That has nothing to do with "not being good at owning a PC" and has everything to do with how much money you're able to throw at it when you build/buy your PC. If you only ever purchase high end hardware then that issue is somewhat negated since it enables you to hold on to your hardware for longer. Consoles are typically not high end PC hardware.

Every hardware survey out there shows that most people own mid/low range gaming PC's. They will currently be having to contend with the exact same sacrifices that I outlined in my previous post. The likes of Intel/AMD/Nvidia give them multiple upgrade path options every year.

The idea that console manufacturers offering mid generation refreshes is a "rip-off" but somehow the same cannot be said in the PC hardware space is asinine.

This whole argument is kinda pointless when you consider that PCs are customizable and consoles are not. I never had to spend ridiculous amounts of money on my PC builds either because I was able to buy a lot of the parts second hand. When speaking of costs vs. longevity then PCs blow consoles out of the water in that comparison but then the comparison itself is kinda unfair because your options are vastly limited with a console.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I don't know, I'm not them. Do you think there is some technical reason they couldn't move to 6nm?

All I'm saying is that the idea that MS just isn't that interested in reducing costs for any reason other than them not feeling like it sounds... questionable.

 

[PropellerEar]

When was it? I'd love to read the discussion.

There were couple of parallel threads too... good luck in finding them.

But here is the post and thread in question:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stopped-supporting-digital-foundry-on-patreon-left-wondering-if-patreon-needs-improving.1504594/page-5#post-255584311

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

You are reading too much into this. This was just PR by MS back at the reveal. Nothing more than that.

I think I clearly referred to this being another example of a bad PR take...

Here...

That this is even a conversation or needs to be said, is the exact kinda PR obfuscation that MS seems to be masters at doing. They say things that could only mean they sincerely believe everyone is stupid. like there is NO other explanation.

So no, not reading too much into this. I am aware this was PR, but it was bad PR... and hence, why threads like this even exist.

And that MS PR could say stuff like this...just proves my point.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm wondering if Microsoft is wary of another hardware launch when they just filled up their datacenter with a bunch of XSX. Perhaps one "high end" SKU was to promote the cloud gaming service all gen and they did not want to compete with an even beefier Xbox console. Just shooting from the hip....

The CMA saw it.

 

[Topher]

The CMA saw it.

Folks angry about the lack XSX stock.....

literally

 

[adamsapple]

Nothing about any of this is a "rip off". You know what you're getting when you buy it. It's technology and the one guarantee with technology is that it will become outdated sooner or later. Whether you choose to upgrade at every given opportunity or not is a choice, nobody is forcing it upon you.

But it kinda is a rip off, based on the same video, they say the split between base and Pro consoles last gen was 80-20. In a case where the base consoles are left shortchanged because the developers want to push the Pro consoles more, the 80% base console userbase will feel ripped off.

Consequently in the case where developers want to make sure the game works good on the base console, they won't be maximizing the Pro console to its fullest, which will make the Pro console install base feel ripped off.

Like you said, on PC you have a lot of customization in the software itself along with other user modifications that can be made outside the software to maximize your hardware, that is not possible on console.

IMO the better solution is that instead of having a 8~10 year cycle, the consoles can have a 5~ year cycle instead and not divide the current generation with mid-gens. Have a clean break instead of a splintered one.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Folks angry about the lack XSX stock.....

literally

 

[Topher]

But it kinda is a rip off, based on the same video, they say the split between base and Pro consoles last gen was 80-20. In a case where the base consoles are left shortchanged because the developers want to push the Pro consoles more, the 80% base console userbase will feel ripped off.

Consequently in the case where developers want to make sure the game works good on the base console, they won't be maximizing the Pro console to its fullest, which will make the Pro console install base feel ripped off.

Eh......sounds like an anti-Series S argument.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Eh......sounds like an anti-Series S argument.

You can't make this shit up.

 

[Thirty7ven]

But it kinda is a rip off, based on the same video, they say the split between base and Pro consoles last gen was 80-20. In a case where the base consoles are left shortchanged because the developers want to push the Pro consoles more, the 80% base console userbase will feel ripped off.

Consequently in the case where developers want to make sure the game works good on the base console, they won't be maximizing the Pro console to its fullest, which will make the Pro console install base feel ripped off.

So Xbox One X was a rip off?

Is this what they call the mandela effect?

 

[adamsapple]

So Xbox One X was a rip off?

Is this what they call the mandela effect?

The One X is/was a much more capable machine than the PS4 Pro but because its tied to the One S, it's missing some new game releases which would have technically been really good on it, like SF6, RE Village, Re4 remake etc.

So, yeah, you can see the point I'm making about splintered releases being an issue.

Eh......sounds like an anti-Series S argument.

Only if one of the two Series were released after a couple of years maybe

 

[Thirty7ven]

The One X is/was a much more capable machine than the PS4 Pro but because its tied to the One S, it's missing some new game releases which would have technically been really good on it, like SF6, RE Village, Re4 remake etc.

So, yeah, you can see the point I'm making about splintered releases being an issue.

You just went from a game development issue issue to a userbase issue.

 

[adamsapple]

You just went from a game development issue issue to a userbase issue.

It's like you didn't read the first 2 lines of my original post at all. What did I refer there ?

 

[Topher]

Only if one of the two Series were released after a couple of years maybe

Not really. Everything you said are arguments that could be applied to the here and now for Xbox.

 

[DeepEnigma]

So Xbox One X was a rip off?

Is this what they call the mandela effect?

The One X is/was a much more capable machine

 

[adamsapple]

 

[DeepEnigma]

That's how I feel reading your posts as you tie yourself into knots careful not to directly criticize The Brand™, yes.

 

[Team Andromeda]

DF is all about graphics and frame rates. SAD

 

[GHG]

This whole argument is kinda pointless when you consider that PCs are customizable and consoles are not. I never had to spend ridiculous amounts of money on my PC builds either because I was able to buy a lot of the parts second hand. When speaking of costs vs. longevity then PCs blow consoles out of the water in that comparison but then the comparison itself is kinda unfair because your options are vastly limited with a console.

I don't understand what point you're attempting to make anymore?

Second hand consoles also exist. Meaning you can sell your old hardware and upgrade via a used console if you wish.

If you want to talk about a "rip off" then why not look at the console that got a $50 bump in price for an extra 512GB and a colour change.

But it kinda is a rip off, based on the same video, they say the split between base and Pro consoles last gen was 80-20. In a case where the base consoles are left shortchanged because the developers want to push the Pro consoles more, the 80% base console userbase will feel ripped off.

Consequently in the case where developers want to make sure the game works good on the base console, they won't be maximizing the Pro console to its fullest, which will make the Pro console install base feel ripped off.

Like you said, on PC you have a lot of customization in the software itself along with other user modifications that can be made outside the software to maximize your hardware, that is not possible on console.

IMO the better solution is that instead of having a 8~10 year cycle, the consoles can have a 5~ year cycle instead and not divide the current generation with mid-gens. Have a clean break instead of a splintered one.

Since you're a console only gamer, are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that you don't want the option to play Starfield at a resolution higher than 1296p and a framerate higher than 30fps?

Also why did what you're saying with regards to "maximising" hardware not apply during the discussions surrounding the Series S reveal? Considering what Microsoft said in terms of how they consider the Series S and X you're already in that very situation. "Ripped off" from day one, it's a shame.

 

[Thirty7ven]

It's like you didn't read the first 2 lines of my original post at all. What did I refer there ?

Games skipping Xbox has nothing to do with developing a game for two targets of the same hardware family.

DF's line reading at the beginning of the gen was that Series S wouldn't hold back the SX or the generation. Now they are trying to convince us that a PS5 PRo would negatively affect a base PS5. People, you included, said Series S was a nice option for cash strapped gamers while Series X was great for enthusiasts, and now we are talking about Sony ripping off people with a PS5 PRo?

Is this what they call cognitive dissonance? Or does that only apply when we are talking about Nathan Drake's body count?