|
>Which is exactly what Apple has done with their phones and >tablets. New one gets the price of the old, old one gets >discounted. "The most powerful console ever built" is >basically that same "best iPhone ever" rhetoric Apple does >every year as well. Each generation we get a "most powerful >console ever built", as one would expect.
Except they're entirely different products. Again, refresh cycle for each is wildly different. The way to think about it is the X1S is the normal refresh we're used to, roughly equivalent to an iterative iPhone cycle. Instead what we're seeing now with Scorpio/Neo is a tangible leap in specs (mid-generation) to accommodate new technologies. That is unprecedented for consoles. We've seen weak peripherals like Sega CD, but not an entirely new unit (with games that should also support the current base unit).
>Alright, two points here. > >1.) There's precedent for accessory/specialized controllers >selling at those prices, and they're such a high margin >business that you don't necessarily need run-away, mainstream >success. Madcatz was doing decently selling $200 fight sticks >that many of us own until they fucked up and mad a bad bet on >Rockband.
Sure, I agree with you here. While there's a difference between OEM and 3rd party products there's always been a niche market for premium products.
The same can't be said for consoles. Xbox One was >getting demolished at its launch price by the PS4 and PS3 was >getting spanked by 360 when it was six hundred united states >dollars.
I agree with you that price was a factor in those two generations but here the context is different. Each of the consoles you mentioned was the first version in its generation.
Scorpio/Neo is not that; it's a luxury upgrade that will coexist alongside the base unit. There's going to be a group of "haves" and "have nots". Some will have better framerates, resolution, the extra bells and whistles when playing the same game as others on the weaker console. Graphical limitations affecting play has been something that PC gamers have lived with forever but is that really something we want with consoles?
>2.) More importantly, Xbox One hasn't been the run away >success that PS4 has been and there have been rumors for years >that MS might exit the console business entirely. They >absolutely need to continue to build their install base and a >$500 or above console will not do that.
Sure, no problems with that. Except both Sony and MS are doing this, not just MS. And yes, MS was outspec'd this gen on X1 so they have extra incentive to outspec Sony for the mid-gen refresh. That only adds to my prediction that the new console will cost at least $600 to start. Graphics cards aren't cheap, especially for the ones that will support VR and 4k.
> >Yeah, and if they were making another system in 2020 comparing >it wouldn't make sense. > >But they're not. > >They're moving it to a product cycle that is directly >comparable to the product I'm comparing it to. > >Furthermore, there hasn't been a console maker that's gone 10 >years between systems. Nine years has been the absolute >longest (360) gap, and that was an outlier (not to mention the >360 came out only four years after the OG Xbox).
I mentioned this in the post below as well, but life cycle is not equal to refresh cycle. The most notable example is PS2, which had a game released in 2014 (PES 2014), 14 years after its release date; that's the life cycle. Sony refreshed that Playstation generation at almost 7 years, when PS3 was released late 2006. Or how the 360 still has games being released for it even though Xbox was refreshed a couple years ago with the X1. Unless a console tanks, its life cycle will typically last longer than the brand's refresh cycle.
>But, typically, they're around 18 - 24 months.
Sure, for the COD's and Assassin's Creeds of the world but not all AAA games have those franchise expectations. Heck, there's even a game at E3 that has been in development almost 10 years.
>Eye rolls back at ya and this 2008 logic. AAA PC and console >games are almost always launching at $60 nowadays, so if >you're buying games on day one like a lot of gamers are, >you're pretty much saving no money.
Except that's entirely not true. Publishers set the price and they can set prices lower on PC because of distribution advantages. See here:
https://consumerist.com/2014/03/15/the-competition-is-as-fake-as-the-blood-why-new-video-games-are-always-the-same-price/
Only certain publishers like EA and Ubi set the price equivalent to the console equivalent, and that's only for their top AAA games like COD. The vast majority of flagship releases these days release at $50 or lower.
Also, not all gamers play games day 1, especially on PC. The report is from 2014, but the idea is the same: since PC gamers know the market will drop for games, they can save boatloads of money if they wait:
https://www.destructoid.com/half-of-pc-gamers-will-wait-for-a-sale-before-buying-games-281017.phtml
Also, don't forget... there is no $50 yearly "multiplayer fee" to game on PC. Did you factor that in? Owning a console for 5 years adds from $150-$250 to the cost (depends on if you can get discounts on the Live/PSN sub) and that doesn't count if your console breaks down and you need to replace it.
>Even Overwatch is a bad example because the console version of >the game is the "Origins Edition" that comes with extra crap >and also costs $60 on PC. In fact, when you go to the official >website, that's the version of the game it points everybody >to. Blizzard deciding not to offer the bare bones version to >console owners has nothing to do with any arbitrary OEM stuff, >they just want money.
Actually, no, like the link above stated there's a distribution mandate to price console games at $60. The "Origins Edition" crap is just to make the console version look palatable. The fact that the PC version launched at $40 (even more than the typical PC discount) is evidence that PC games price to the market, console games price to the floor.
>That only makes sense if you want to use windows and don't >mind using a desktop. Most people use laptops and the most >popular laptop brand is Apple.
OK? Not exactly relevant here, and you're making a lot of assumptions.
>Heck, even people who game >normally have a laptop or other computer that they use for >regular computer stuff. I actually thought about building a PC >for actual work last year, but then realized a laptop would >make a lot more sense.
Again, more assumptions. And besides, laptop or desktop, who cares how someone games? That doesn't change the fact that you're basing the PC vs Console comparison almost entirely on the upfront cost yet ignoring the costs over the life of the platform. Try to look at it all objectively. I have no dog in this fight, I own both consoles and play different games on all three (shit, I don't even have Overwatch on PC but I own it on both PS4 and X1). I don't care if someone prefers one platform over another, but I do care if someone gets something factually wrong.
>Again, console stuff gets pretty much the same kinds of deals >nowadays.
Honest question: do you even follow PC gaming at all? This is outright, unequivocally, absolutely wrong. Seriously, browse this on a daily or weekly or monthly basis and you'll see just how quickly games shift to the market clearing price:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GameDeals/
These types of deals do NOT happen on console and the "Games for the Month" promotions are a poor facsimile (but better than nothing).
|