Playstation 4

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I make a detailed post and talk about how graphics cards are more expensive. I even posted pretty pictures in color. You then make a blanket statement. "Graphics cards are getting cheaper". You don't respond, You don't reason or anything. You just make a stupid blank comment. Then you go stupider and accuse me of not responding with details or reasoning completely missing the irony. Wake up, get over yourself calm down have a milkshake and relax. It's just graphics cards we're talking here.

 

A Radeon 9800 went for $499 back in 2003 and benchmarks about 300 in G3D . A Radeon HD 6970 goes for about $350 and benchmarks about 3100 in the same test. FWIW

[deanb]

I know the 8800GTX was £600 on release because it was the same price as a PS3. It outpaced the PS3 of course but you needed the rest of the PC on top

 

So there's another benchmark on price n power if you want one. Oh the card is also a foot long. I may have been doing some market research on PC parts around that time...

 

(I'll reply to the other posts tomorrow. I didn't really expect this to take of like it had, you lot were all meant to be discussing Zelda and n not loving Nintendo anymore last I looked. I couldn't really chip in then and now you go n fill this up with a page n half already :/)

[Yantelope]

I make a detailed post and talk about how graphics cards are more expensive. I even posted pretty pictures in color. You then make a blanket statement. "Graphics cards are getting cheaper". You don't respond, You don't reason or anything. You just make a stupid blank comment. Then you go stupider and accuse me of not responding with details or reasoning completely missing the irony. Wake up, get over yourself calm down have a milkshake and relax. It's just graphics cards we're talking here.

 

A Radeon 9800 went for $499 back in 2003 and benchmarks about 300 in G3D . A Radeon HD 6970 goes for about $350 and benchmarks about 3100 in the same test. FWIW

 

You're comparing fastest card on the market then to a fast card today. GTX 580 ran over $500 at launch and your dual GPU fastest cards on the market are closer to $700-800 so I don't think you're making a true apples to apples there. Additionally I remember the Radeon 9800 fetching quite a premium because it was "the" card for Half-Life 2, it's why I bought mine.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Even if they're the same price, the power's increased exponentially since five or six years ago; ergo, graphics are cheaper per dollar today than they were then. A midrange card for $150-$200 today absolutely blows anything from then out of the water, and can dominate most graphics engines and outperform current gen consoles. I just don't see any evidence that graphics hardware components are getting more expensive.

[madbassman39]

You also have to count in inflation. Its not enough to make all the difference, but the rate that the dollar dropped it makes the difference less. Then you have to count in how much more power are you getting out of a card vs how much more the card is worth. If a card today is twice as powerful as a card from 5 years ago, but only costs 25% more today than the other one, then the value of the power is 4 times cheaper today. 100% increase for a 25% price increase is 4/1 power per dollar ratio. These numbers aren't exact, but as you can see by P4's statement 3100/300= 1003% power increase vs. a negative increase in price. In pure math statistics, the price of technology is vastly decreasing, more than 4 times the price.

 

That is P4's point. Sure as a whole the card may be more expensive, but when you calculate a performance rating versus a dollar rating, then you are getting more performance per dollar, ergo, technology is getting cheaper.

Edited October 21, 2011 by madbassman39

[Mal]

+++During typing this, I came onto how much each part (GPU) is and how it relates to the total cost of making each console then I quickly realize that I'm not sure at all how console makers budget for each part from its total budget for the whole console. So if any of you have a good source on it, shoot it up. I'm going to leave my original guesstimates (Guesstimate is a real word?) up. Also, I am talking out of my ass about something I am not knowledgeable about, that is why I lurk more often than post. +++

 

So yeah, the PS4 and this PS4 thread... I don't see it sporting anything like today's mid-range $200 GPU inside of it. First off it will not be a HD 6870 or whatever inside of it. It will be something made precisely for the PS4 and only Sony and whoever they are going with will know how much it will cost. It can't be a $200 PC GPU inside. It maybe a $200 piece of GPU hardware in the PS4 (Doubt it*) but with all the special things going into it, I don't think it can compare in performance to one of today's mid-range $200 GPU. Besides, if the rumors are to be believed about devs starting to make games for the PS4... then perhaps they have an idea/know about the specs of the PS4. Either way, the specs got to be old, months old even. I really want the PS4 to be a powerful machine that will wow me but eh, I don't see it.

 

*I know most consoles initially sell at a lost so if I assume the PS4 is going to be $499 (I doubt they will go back to $599) and it takes, I don't know, $650 to make. I don't think the GPU is going to be nearly a 1/3 of the cost to build the system.

 

---

Also, when it comes to money... $200 is $200. When it affect my rather stagnate pool of money, it will be felt the same way if I spent it 5 years ago on a GPU or today when I spent it on a GPU today. It doesn't matter if the modern day card is over 1000% better than the card 5 years ago. $200 is $200.

Bleh, inflation and stuff like that hurts my head. BACK TO THE PS4 PLEASE.

Edited October 21, 2011 by MaliciousH

[Thursday Next]

There's every chance that a PS4 will be something akin to an Onlive / Gaikai type device. Which would render all this talk of graphics cards somewhat moot.

[GunFlame]

I won't doubt that it will have some kind of heavy link towards cloud based gaming and streaming, but I would be surprised to see them move completely in that direction with the next console that Sony release.

 

I mean, the Vita is an impressive piece of technology, but Sony have made sure that it supports hard copies of games. They would know that with the failure of the PSP Go, that the world just isn't yet wired up to take an online only type of home console. OnLive may slowly start to prove that wrong, but right now, and even in 2 years, I just can't see it.

 

A lot of money that companies make comes from the less than dedicated gaming audience. Is that audience ready for this move? I'm not sure about OnLive's audience, but is it a mixed bunch of more relaxed as well as enthusiast gamers, or is it only engaging enthusiasts?

 

I really believe that we will end up with most forms of gaming being Cloud based, but I can't see it being the case yet. Maybe in about 8-10 years, then we'll see. But for Sony to go purely Cloud based in about 2-3 years time? That would be one hell of a risk, and if the PSP Go taught them anything, it's that you can't put all your eggs in one basket.

Edited October 21, 2011 by GunFlame

[Johnny]

I make a detailed post and talk about how graphics cards are more expensive. I even posted pretty pictures in color. You then make a blanket statement. "Graphics cards are getting cheaper". You don't respond, You don't reason or anything. You just make a stupid blank comment. Then you go stupider and accuse me of not responding with details or reasoning completely missing the irony. Wake up, get over yourself calm down have a milkshake and relax. It's just graphics cards we're talking here.

 

Advanced graphics cards have always been over 200 dollars in price. The further you go back, the more expensive they would become.

Your colour pictures showing how graphics cards now have sleek-looking casings do not change this.

 

You're full of shit. Most other people here agree by now, but they are just a bit too polite to say it.

[Thursday Next]

I agree, it probably is a little soon to go all the way into cloud gaming. I certainly think that there's a good case for building the PS4 with cloud gaming in mind. Given the low cost requirements for a cloud gaming device, the PS4 could well start out as a traditional physical media console and as the market changes it could become a cloud device. I would not, in that scenario be surprised to see a PS4 slim akin to the PSP Go in the next, say, 10 years.

[MasterDex]

I agree, it probably is a little soon to go all the way into cloud gaming. I certainly think that there's a good case for building the PS4 with cloud gaming in mind. Given the low cost requirements for a cloud gaming device, the PS4 could well start out as a traditional physical media console and as the market changes it could become a cloud device. I would not, in that scenario be surprised to see a PS4 slim akin to the PSP Go in the next, say, 10 years.

 

I think you could be right. What I see happening is Sony and Microsoft coming out with traditional consoles while OnLive and Gaikai pick up steam and other services pop up. Then I see both Microsoft and Sony setting up their own cloud-based service and imagine the generation following to mark the end of the traditional console.

 

RE: Graphics. P4 covered it pretty well but I'd also like to add that PC graphics card prices are bloated and don't necessarily represent the actual cost to manufacture. The fastest cards on the market are as expensive as they are because the companies selling them know they can get that price for them. It's why the 8800 Ultra kept its price point for so long. It was the best card on the market and people were willing to pay the price for it. They could have sold it for cheaper but why do that when it's selling at the current price point? That's beside the point however because as Malicious said, Sony won't be sticking a PC GPU into the PS4. They'll commission (or have commissioned) one of the GPU manufacturers to make a GPU based on their requirements and they'll make a deal with the manufacturer for the price per unit (or more likely the price per 1,000 units or something). If the current generation is any indication, it'll have the power of a lower-midrange PC card of a few months before release.

 

I can see Sony and even Microsoft looking at Steam for ideas too in regards to things like auto-patching, news feeds and cloud saves. I also see the initial machines being much better in regards to airflow and ventilation.

[Thursday Next]

Sony are already moving along the path of cloud saving and auto-patching. They're both a little clunky, largely because they were added in after the fact, but it gives me a good deal of hope that Sony are thinking in this direction and that the next console will have more of these features "baked in" so to speak.

 

I think the Vita will be interesting just to see what lessons Sony have learned with regard to online community (cross game chat), and cloud storage, I reckon it will give us a lot of clues as to where Sony are headed in the future.

[Yantelope]

Even if they're the same price, the power's increased exponentially since five or six years ago; ergo, graphics are cheaper per dollar today than they were then. A midrange card for $150-$200 today absolutely blows anything from then out of the water, and can dominate most graphics engines and outperform current gen consoles. I just don't see any evidence that graphics hardware components are getting more expensive.

 

So, there's an argument to be made for inflation adjustment and I get that. I don't know what numbers to use for Voodoo 2 cards launched for a max of about $300 and Geforce 2 Cards launched at a max of about $350. There didn't used to be a $500 card like the GTX580. So if you inflation adjust that maybe it's comprable. If you want to compare console launch points we could talk about how the PS2 dropped in price from $300 down to $150 after a couple of year but the PS3 only just now hit $250 after 5 years on the market. I'm not saying it's a huge price differential but cards certainly aren't getting any cheaper. You get more performance out of today's cards but I"m just saying that if you're comparing mid range then to mid range now or high end then to high end now everything is getting more expensive. The fact about power consumption also remains so you have to factor in the huge power supplies that go with the ridiculous graphics cards now too. If you thought the power brick on the 360 was bad just you wait.

 

So yeah, was never trying to argue that you can't get more flops for your buck these days, was only pointing out that if you're comparing what high end cards cost or even mid range cards cost across years those prices are creeping up not down. Certainly console prices have gone way up. $600 PS3 launch anyone? Sony's not keen to make that mistake again.

[Thursday Next]

If we're going to talk about whether the cost of graphics cards is rising or falling, shouldn't we be comparing the price of the best performance then to the price of the best performance now? (also, shouldn't we be doing so in another thread?)

 

I get that you can achieve great results for less money, but that was always the case with PC gaming. It's the same with many things. You start at the bottom and as you improve performance the cost of improving by the same amount again increases exponentially.

 

If a card is twice as powerful but costs only 25% more, then on the face of it cards are indeed getting cheaper, but if you need the best, most expensive card to run the most recent games on max settings and the most expensive cards are the same (equivalent) price as they used to be, then really nothing has changed. You maybe be getting more GB's for your dollar, but you still have to pay max dollars for max settings.

 

(Edit: Yeah, pretty much what Yante said, went for a coffee and didn't see his update).

Edited October 21, 2011 by Thursday Next

[MasterDex]

Even if they're the same price, the power's increased exponentially since five or six years ago; ergo, graphics are cheaper per dollar today than they were then. A midrange card for $150-$200 today absolutely blows anything from then out of the water, and can dominate most graphics engines and outperform current gen consoles. I just don't see any evidence that graphics hardware components are getting more expensive.

 

So, there's an argument to be made for inflation adjustment and I get that. I don't know what numbers to use for Voodoo 2 cards launched for a max of about $300 and Geforce 2 Cards launched at a max of about $350. There didn't used to be a $500 card like the GTX580. So if you inflation adjust that maybe it's comprable. If you want to compare console launch points we could talk about how the PS2 dropped in price from $300 down to $150 after a couple of year but the PS3 only just now hit $250 after 5 years on the market. I'm not saying it's a huge price differential but cards certainly aren't getting any cheaper. You get more performance out of today's cards but I"m just saying that if you're comparing mid range then to mid range now or high end then to high end now everything is getting more expensive. The fact about power consumption also remains so you have to factor in the huge power supplies that go with the ridiculous graphics cards now too. If you thought the power brick on the 360 was bad just you wait.

 

So yeah, was never trying to argue that you can't get more flops for your buck these days, was only pointing out that if you're comparing what high end cards cost or even mid range cards cost across years those prices are creeping up not down. Certainly console prices have gone way up. $600 PS3 launch anyone? Sony's not keen to make that mistake again.

The average price of a console on release has remained fairly similar once we account for inflation and the same is true of graphics cards. Your comment is a bit contradictory as you mention how prices have remained comparable for graphics cards but then don't make the same allowances when considering the consoles coming to the conclusion that everything is getting more expensive when in reality, prices have remained relatively constant. Adjusting for inflation and the increase in power we can get over previous generations, I believe the only conclusion you should be reaching is that everything is getting cheaper.

 

 

Looking at this chart, (source), we can see that adjusted for inflation, the NES cost more than the cheapest 360 model on release and the N64 and that the Saturn cost more than the cheapest model of the PS3. The prices fluctuate but the average price of a console has remained pretty constant each generation.

 

Let's look at the average price of the last four generations using the prices adjusted for inflation and sticking with the major players(including the current generation).

 

4th Generation:

Mega Drive/Genesis=$306.15

SNES=293.39

Average:$299.77

 

5th Generation:

Playstation=$393.31

N64=$254.68

Saturn=$524.41

Average=$390.80

Discounting the Saturn=$323.95

 

 

6th Generation:

Xbox=$338.45

Dreamcast=$239.86

PS2=$348.08

Gamecube=$225.64

Average=$288

 

7th generation: (Using cheapest SKU's as previous generations didn't have multiple SKU's upon release.)

Xbox 360=$299.99,

PS3=$499.99

Wii=$249.99

Average: $262.50

 

If we discount the 5th generation as an anomaly due to the unusually high price (at the time) of the Saturn, we can see that the price of the big players has constantly floated around the $300 mark. I fully expect this coming generation to be no different.

 

Disclaimer: All data contained within this comment should be treated as is. I didn't do the maths for that chart but I'm going off the assumption that it's correct.

Edited October 21, 2011 by MasterDex

[Yantelope]

that 7th generation number is highly dubious. The Xbox 360, core version was useless without a $40 memory card and only a very small % of people bought it. The PS3 $500 model was discontinued after the initial shipment and I don't know anyone who would consider the Wii a 7th generation console, at least in terms of hardware. A more real number would be $400 for the Xbox and $600 for the PS3 and that'd leave you with an average of $500.

 

Also, it's a bit strange to discount the Saturn from gen 5 but then include the DC with gen 6. If you didn't do that you'd go

 

Gen 5: $390

Gen 6: $304

 

And also, if you really really wan to nitpick you could clearly make a GC was lacking features of other consoles and brought the cost down a little.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Yantelope

[Johnny]

If the Wii doesn't count because it's an anomaly, shouldn't you also say the same about the ps3, which was far more expensive than was reasonable because of how much money they spent on developing new technology (like that fabled Cell processor) for it?

 

Both count. Otherwise you're leaving the door open to discriminating about the rest of the generations as well, and we'd lose any sort of solid base to speculate from.

[MasterDex]

that 7th generation number is highly dubious. The Xbox 360, core version was useless without a $40 memory card and only a very small % of people bought it. The PS3 $500 model was discontinued after the initial shipment and I don't know anyone who would consider the Wii a 7th generation console, at least in terms of hardware. A more real number would be $400 for the Xbox and $600 for the PS3 and that'd leave you with an average of $500.

 

Regardless of your opinion on the power of the Wii, it IS a 7th generation console. Also, I don't think it's a good move to remove the 20gb PS3 or the core 360 as no matter how long they remained on the market or how many people bought them, they still represented the lowest prices for the systems upon launch in the US.

[Thursday Next]

I agree with Johnny. You can't discount the Wii, especially given that it launched after the 360. It's slap bang in the middle of the generation.

 

I honestly don't think that either graphics cards or consoles are getting significantly more expensive relative to inflation and what not. I think they are sitting about where they always have.

[Yantelope]

Well, if we're discussing the cost of relative hardware then I think the hardware of the console certainly is more important than when the actual system hit the shelves. We're not comparing the cost of a PS3 to the cost of a SNES today are we? The Wii is just a slightly beefed up GC which was underpowered when it was released.

 

If it's about EVERY system included in each generation why did you leave out 3DO, NEOGEO, and other expensive systems?

 

I agree, TN, the cost isn't getting overly out of control, but it's creeping up.

 

Also, another thought that occrued to me was the initial investment cost of a console. When you bought an SNES you got two controllers, a game and you didn't need a memory card. A PS2 with an extra controller, a game and a memory card would have cost $420 if I recall correctly. The cost of hardware was going up so they reduced pack-ins so help maintain the perception that costs weren't going up. It's kind of like how the Vita is $250 but comes with no internal storage so that Sony can hit that magical $250 number.

 

Oh, and one final note: I don't believe that Nintendo or Sega ever sold their initial systems at a loss the way that Sony and MS do so the actual cost of hardware is not equal to the MSRP on a console at launch.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Yantelope

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

And also, if you really really wan to nitpick you could clearly make a GC was lacking features of other consoles and brought the cost down a little.

Gamecube was lacking features? (If that's what you meant by GC). It did lack DVD support, but had better processing power and graphics tech than PlayStation 2. I think the GC sits squarely with the others.

[Yantelope]

It didnt' have an internal HDD like the Xbox, that was a cost that MS had to eat. also, the GC was released a year after the PS2 and the PS2 price dropped to $200 shortly after the GC was released so I dunno. How much would a GC had cost if it were released a year earlier?

Edited October 21, 2011 by Yantelope

[Johnny]

Oh christ, Yantelope.

 

There will be discrepancies between consoles in the future, as there was in the past. You can't exclude ones that doesn't fit your picture.

[madbassman39]

Yantelope, you are comparing Price, instead of Cost. Those are two very different things. Lets say you have a bag of 50 cotton balls for $10, and a bag of 100 cotton balls for $12. The price of the 100 cotton balls is more, but the cost is less. To claim that graphics cards are getting more expensive is up for interpretation. If you are talking about Price, then yes, you are paying more, but if you are talking about Cost, then no, you are paying less.

 

If technology never got any cheaper or more expensive, then you would say that to get twice the power, you pay twice the price, if you get 10 times the power, you pay 10 times the price. So if graphics technology is not changing in price, then price = performance upgrades. To say they are getting more expensive then you are saying that the price > performance upgrade, but that is not the case. We are doing the exact opposite Price < performance upgrade.

 

Despite the fact that $200 is $200, you are still getting more for your $200.

 

As said before though, that is another topic completely.

 

There's no denying it that the PS4 will be more expensive than the PS3 today, but I think it will be within the $500 - $600 range again. As for cloud gaming/on demand, I don't think people are ready for that yet. The PS4 games will all be released on the PSN the same day as the store, I'm sure, but it won't be for another generation before we go 100% Digital Distribution (which I'm going to call DD from now on).

 

My fear with DD, and this is only limited to consoles, is the fact that if Sony decides to sell their games digitally only on their store, there is no room for competition, and no room for buying the game cheap (Searching for games on Amazon comes to mind). The only thing that will drive prices down for the DD PS(x) will be the competitive prices on the Xbox and Nintendo of that generation. You won't buy the PS(x) knowing that the games are cheaper on the competitors machines.

 

Now with DD you may not find that the games are exclusive to the PS Store/Xbox Marketplace, but you can buy codes at other retailers, and that is how it should be.

 

You see the PC will never have the issue with DD because you have different options on the PC, even today we see that we have Steam, GoG, Windows games Live, Origin, and Onlive (I'm sure there are more, but I can't remember them), but with the PS(x) we will be faced with only one service to download the games from.

[MasterDex]

Also, it's a bit strange to discount the Saturn from gen 5 but then include the DC with gen 6. If you didn't do that you'd go

 

Gen 5: $390

Gen 6: $304

 

I don't see your reasoning. Why would the Dreamcast be excluded if the Saturn was discounted?The reason I suggest the Saturn should be discounted was based entirely on the price discrepancy between it and the other consoles of its generation. I feel the price difference between it and the other consoles was enough to reason that it was anomalous and that the average price including the Saturn would not be very representative of the average console price. I presented the average with the Saturn excluded to show that without the anomalous price of the Saturn, the average floated around the same place as the generations before and after it.

 

As I said in that post however, take the figures as is. I used my own criteria (prices adjusted for inflation and sticking to the major players) but feel free to calculate your own averages with your own criteria. The 3DO and the Jaguar could be added to the 5th generation and they'd raise the average quite a bit. The NeoGeo and PC-Engine would also raise the average for the 4th generation.

 

Getting back on topic, the point of all this was that the cost of hardware hasn't drastically risen so I don't think Sony or Microsoft will have too much problem releasing next gen systems for around the same cost as the other major consoles have released in the past. They won't be paying consumer prices for their hardware and they won't be transferring all their costs onto the consumer.

 

I think the greatest challenge Sony and Microsoft will face will be keeping temperatures down without having to release monoliths.