How much would you pay for the next gen consoles?

Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Posts
5,276
Interesting question.

For me there are two main considerations.

Outright capability and shelf life.

I would happily drop 600-1000 on a beast of a console. But if predicted life was only 3 years before the new iterarion then meh. I would wait to get a 2nd hand one cheaper. For top dollar I would want at least 7 years before next release.

Seems console markets are moving towards running 3 year cycles and thats fine but I would only want to pay 450 at most. Would prefer 350-400.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Jul 2010
Posts
117
Location
Scotland
£350 is what I'd pay max for a next gen console. Then again, I really shouldn't since I have a PS4 Pro, PS4, Xbox One and Switch all just sat there doing nothing whilst I just keep playing on my PC.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Posts
5,276
eh? based on what

As below

Probably talking about the mid-term upgrades (Pro, X).

This. It strikes me that it may be more than just a "we dropped the ball first time we better release an upgraded version".

It reminds me very much of how apple rleases the iphone <insert number here> and 6 months later they release the 's' version. Its a business model designed to produce more sales as techies want the latest and greatest. How many PS4 owners double dipped with a pro? Likewise xbox owners with the x?

If the sales figures show a boost, then pound to a penny the folks at sony / microsoft will be looking to capitalise.

Regular refreshes seems to be the market in general for games too. A new fifa every year. Or a new cod etc. Then within those releases are 2-3 special editions costing more.

Movies are the same. A new star wars each year. A new marvel/dc movie every 6-12 months A new fast and furious movie. So on and so forth.

With consoles its a way to keep the tech more up to date and maximise sales from those who must have the latest. It also reduces impact of one manufacturer releases a turkey and the other releases a beast. Design life arguably doesent need to be as long so componentry can be cheaper too and thus rrp lower. Theres many benefits.

Just my opinion, call it a hunch. I may be totally wrong! :p
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2011
Posts
5,683
£600 is my upper limit.

It reminds me very much of how apple rleases the iphone <insert number here> and 6 months later they release the 's' version.

Apple update their flagship phone once a year, not six months.

How many PS4 owners double dipped with a pro?

I doubt it's as many as you think... most players are casual. I can't back that up with anything other than anecdotal evidence.

It doesn't feel like a 3 year cycle to me, and the option for more choice is a good one as far as I'm concerned. With that being said I'm well and truly ready for the next generation of consoles to land, the PS4 and Xbox One feel long in the tooth now.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2005
Posts
3,609
Location
London, UK
^ If my TV had died, I would have absolutely jumped on the pro and 4k bandwagon.

500 sheets considering game prices have crept up from 40 to 60 a pop. The TV will be dying one way of another if its still going when the 5 releases ...
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Posts
5,276
£600 is my upper limit.



Apple update their flagship phone once a year, not six months.



I doubt it's as many as you think... most players are casual. I can't back that up with anything other than anecdotal evidence.

It doesn't feel like a 3 year cycle to me, and the option for more choice is a good one as far as I'm concerned. With that being said I'm well and truly ready for the next generation of consoles to land, the PS4 and Xbox One feel long in the tooth now.

Re apple - fair enough, my mistake but you get my point?

Wouldnt be just hardcore gamers keeping sales up. If you have a regular refresh then people new to the market or upgrading from older devices will likely plump for the best console spec available at the time which will carry a higher rrp.

I might be barking up the wrong tree, but I guess time will tell.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2011
Posts
5,683
Re apple - fair enough, my mistake but you get my point?

Genuine comment here, but I'm not sure I do get your point (I'm not being an arse, happy for it to be spelled out, it's been another long, hot day, and I've got a myriad of health problems thrown up! My mind ain't so sharp right now...) :(

We've seen continuous upgrades on tech since the beginning of time - I know they're more regular these days but honestly it doesn't make the old hardware obsolete. Look at the iPhone or Apple subreddits, there's a huge following for the old phones, a community still very much alive and active.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Posts
5,276
Genuine comment here, but I'm not sure I do get your point (I'm not being an arse, happy for it to be spelled out, it's been another long, hot day, and I've got a myriad of health problems thrown up! My mind ain't so sharp right now...) :(

We've seen continuous upgrades on tech since the beginning of time - I know they're more regular these days but honestly it doesn't make the old hardware obsolete. Look at the iPhone or Apple subreddits, there's a huge following for the old phones, a community still very much alive and active.

My point was Apples mid gen upgrades with the S models are similar to what we had with the pro/x.

Similar strategy. Strange for both main manufacturers to do this to up the performance to the extent they did.

My hunch (and it is just that - I have no evidence) is that the gen life for consoles will be shorter moving forwards as a sales strategy.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,056
I'm not sure I get it either?

Xbox, Xbox 360 and Xbox One, PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 all got console mid life refreshes with hardware changes. The only difference was that XB1 and PS4 got a spec bump which was an additional (note not replacement) SKU. The main difference over the last generation has been the MASSIVE push for resolution and frame rate increases from 720P30 and 1080P30 to 1080P60 and 4K30 on top of quickly advancing software (games). The original hardware just couldn't hack it. In reality there was nothing at the price point of a console 4 years ago that could run AAA games 1080P60 let alone 4k .

In terms of life cycle the XB360 and PS3 were outliers, 5 years is pretty standard across the board all the way back to the NES.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/8log5n/average_console_life_cycle/
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
12,596
As below



This. It strikes me that it may be more than just a "we dropped the ball first time we better release an upgraded version".

It reminds me very much of how apple rleases the iphone <insert number here> and 6 months later they release the 's' version. Its a business model designed to produce more sales as techies want the latest and greatest. How many PS4 owners double dipped with a pro? Likewise xbox owners with the x?

If the sales figures show a boost, then pound to a penny the folks at sony / microsoft will be looking to capitalise.

Regular refreshes seems to be the market in general for games too. A new fifa every year. Or a new cod etc. Then within those releases are 2-3 special editions costing more.

Movies are the same. A new star wars each year. A new marvel/dc movie every 6-12 months A new fast and furious movie. So on and so forth.

With consoles its a way to keep the tech more up to date and maximise sales from those who must have the latest. It also reduces impact of one manufacturer releases a turkey and the other releases a beast. Design life arguably doesent need to be as long so componentry can be cheaper too and thus rrp lower. Theres many benefits.

Just my opinion, call it a hunch. I may be totally wrong! :p

Yeah deffo modern business practice. Rockstar do it with their games, timed exclusive on consoles, they will refuse to answer questions "will it come on PC", then of course after everyone buys for their console they release on PC and people buy a second time.

On the ps4 launch model, the two obvious oversights were the small hdd and limited wifi capability, at the time of the launch 5ghz wifi was a very mature technology that you could get even on low end phones and laptops, so I think it was a conscious decision to omit it, knowing later down the line people would double dip to get that kind of enhancement.

Also as you say very common on phones.

JRPG devs have been doing this for a decade or more on their games.

In PS3 era. would often get game in japan first.
Then released in EU/USA with added content, then "rereleased" in japan called "international edition" with the updated westernised features. Then they often still not done, would often be a release on the competitor console (as often they did timed exclusive), the competitor console would get further new content. Tales of vesperia, XBOX360 version, later on the PS3 with added content, same with eternal sonatra, star ocean 4 didnt get new content as such but did get enhancements like UI selection and language selection.
Also in that era we had store exclusives, etc. taking off, when Fable 2 got released, you had to buy 4 copies of the game to get all content, and you also had to buy a mobile phone to get a DLC linked to that phone. Even to this day dev's dont feel like they ripping people off when they tie content to specific stores, its crazy anti consumer practice. But thankfully is less common than it used to be.

It looks like with consoles we going to be moving to 3 year releases. The upside been at least BC looks like it may be common place (at least on microsoft, not so sure about sony yet) so one could skip generations maybe.

My ps4 game library is a fraction of the ps3 library I have, much less games released and a shorter shelf life as a bonus.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Posts
5,276
I'm not sure I get it either?

Xbox, Xbox 360 and Xbox One, PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 all got console mid life refreshes with hardware changes. The only difference was that XB1 and PS4 got a spec bump which was an additional (note not replacement) SKU. The main difference over the last generation has been the MASSIVE push for resolution and frame rate increases from 720P30 and 1080P30 to 1080P60 and 4K30 on top of quickly advancing software (games). The original hardware just couldn't hack it. In reality there was nothing at the price point of a console 4 years ago that could run AAA games 1080P60 let alone 4k .

In terms of life cycle the XB360 and PS3 were outliers, 5 years is pretty standard across the board all the way back to the NES.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/8log5n/average_console_life_cycle/

Thats a really interesting link. This massive push you talk about - Its still going on. As a PC gamer the nirvana was hi res at 120hz. Then 144hz. Not sure what it is now as I left PC gaming a few years ago but im guessing its something high (and therefore expensive). 8k displays are the next thing and we are already seeing major brands releasing home versions. Another few years and we will see them trickling down in price and becoming more mainstream. Will we see another push to enable 8k@30 then 8k@60 and so on for consoles? But even before that theres native 4k@60 and 4k@120 to aim for.

Theres constant evolution. R&D on 8k started in the mid 90's and was around as a technology in the naughties. It will be exclusive and expensive to begin with then it will be homogenised for affordable domestic applications relatively quickly. 4k outperformed 'mainstream' sales expectations six fold.

So 4k grew a lot faster than expected and theres no reason 8k wont do the same. If enough media producers facilitate it (which they will in order to be able to charge more £££'s) i can see 8k becoming the next thing the gen of consoles at the time wont have enough grunt for if they keep to typical release periods.

Basically the other tech markets are moving fast so consoles with 5+ years of shelf life may be caught on the hop.

x86 architecture means devs wont even be constrained too much with more frequent refreshes. Develop for PC being the benchmark and then set a console 'profile' to reduce fidelity and tweak settings as needed to maintain acceptable fps vs visuals.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Oct 2003
Posts
31,840
Location
Chestershire
I think 8K is a different kettle of fish. The upgrades from 720p (approx 1 million pixels) to 1080p (approx 2 million pixels) to 4K (approx 8 million pixels) were manageable. But 8K is approx 33 million pixels which is a massive jump. I don't even know why the next-gen consoles are touting this as for the average gamer it'll be irrelevant. Very, very, very few people will be gaming on >65" screens to make it noticeable.
 
Back
Top Bottom