-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Insider: "Xbox Anaconda aims to be the clearly better performing device" compared to PS5
- Thread starter javiergame4
- Start date
- Status
Notice the use of the conjunction "or" in my post and notice the lack of the conjunction "and".
Plus if you want to be serious only Compulsion, Ninja Theory, and Obsidian are actual acquisitions. The rest were defacto first party already.
Last edited:
Actually they did make a big deal about their investment in games at the launch of the Xbox One. Problem were the cancelations, public perception of the console itself, and poor studio management.
Casuals don't typically buy consoles at or near launch. Power certainly did help Sony at the start of this gen. When my gaming news feed shows other media outlets picking up on DF articles highlighting the 720p/900p vs 1080p, power was part of the discussion.
Well said.
Lol. Next gen is definitely going to be interesting.
This is where i'm at with this whole debate. Power means jack shit if there isn't a solid reason to utilize it. I say this as I sit on my couch and stare at my X1X sitting next to my Pro. Also I have played every 1st party game and actually defended the likes of Sea of Thieves (me and my wife love it) and even State of Decay 2 to an extent (game is shitty, deserves more love from Microsoft).
But Microsoft really needs to hit A LOT of homeruns for me to be excited about much of anything concerning Xbox. I still very much look forward to Geras 5 (one of my favorite franchises ever) and Forza is fun for what it is, but I want something NEW from Microsoft, similar to how Sony takes risk and allows their development teams to experiment. It's risky but damn Microsoft needs to be bold next gen and make drastic changes.
Most games being the same "to the naked eye" actually doesn't matter a lot. People will often gravitate to what they believe to be better, even if they wouldn't pass a blind test between the differences. It wasn't how 900p games looked on XB1 that was the main issue in regards to power, it was that the PS4 was constantly cited as being the better performer for these same titles. People will then opt for what's consistently portrayed as the "better" device even if they never see the differences head-to-head for themselves.
Of course, this isn't to suggest that more powerful hardware is the alpha and omega of console success, as that's clearly and demonstrably not true. Had XB1 and PS4 had the same specs, PS4 would have almost certainly ran away with the generation on price. Had they been the same price, PS4 would have run away with the generation on power. Now, had they been the same price and the same power... MS likely would have held onto the markets they once had (primarily US+UK) but still been outsold globally due to brand awareness. If they had been more powerful at the same price, then they likely would have made some gains in other (non-JP) markets.
It's easy to just say "power doesn't win a console generation", but the truth is that there's no single thing that ever does, as much as those that state "software decides the winner" like to believe. For practically every example people provide of a console that won a generation whilst not being the strongest, there's pretty much also a direct competitor console where its perceived lack of power sealed its fate. The Saturn whilst similar to XB1 in regards to launch stupidity was harmed just as much by the constant citations of it not having the 3D performance to compete with the PS1. Dreamcast's momentum was shutdown almost immediately by a bunch of PS2 tech demos and claims of pushing 66m polygons, etc. A large part of why the strongest console of a generation doesn't typically win is due to factors that either put it outside of direct competition like the Wii (or potentially Switch), or because the strongest console launches into a generation that is already decided (OG Xbox/Gamecube, Xbox One X). Software is also clearly not the silver bullet that guarantees success, because Nintendo's output across every console since the N64 has by and large been the same, but to very different levels of success for their respective platforms.
Yeah MS has some work to do for me too
Aside from being a trophy whore and not wanting to abandon that, the only Xbox exclusive I was really interested in this gen was sunset overdrive
Even on 360 the second half of the gen was lacking in their development
Sony has always had killer exclusives for me they have just moved from third party to first party on ps3 and ps4. But the good will they built up from infamous, ratchet, uncharted, last of us, sly 4, etc on ps3 made me buy a PS4 at launch and I haven't been disappointed. If MS gets up to 4 or 5 exclusives I'm interested in I could see myself getting an Xbox but otherwise they just have mostly overlap and it'll be a big jump in power from ps4 to PS5 so I won't care about some minute difference between the next gen systems
Buying off major 3rd party games wouldn't be a win for the consumers, nor did it help them to win last gen.
And releasing a more powerful console a year earlier would be impossible, considering the competition is likely to make a powerful system as well. Not to mention, that would it be even possible to have Navi GPU for this year's release?
Confusing post they doubled the amount of studios they have in the last year and will be adding more at e3. I dont think games will be the problem going forward
Then Panay talking the leadership of the hw team came and you got the s and the x ...
You got the XBX a year later and with +100€ price increase. You won't be getting a more powerful system with a more expensive cooling solution at the same date and price as the competition.
The s .....I'm talking also about the s look how that console is built
The post you replied to was talking about more than the looks, including power.
I'm sure the 13 Xbox Studios stood up and showed the projects they are working on.
We have no way of knowing if they can or can't. It's possible they could, especially based on some of the stuff that is getting posted recently in other threads with regards to what the solutions for the Anaconda and Lockhart are.
Come on man, you know this is patently false. I can understand the hesitancy around Undead Labs and Compulsion. But PG, Ninja and Obsidian are first rate studios, especially now they're under first party umbrella.
Klobrille you tease man! This man knows what's up.
How exactly could they make a more powerful system with XBX-like cooling, and sell it at the same price and date as a less powerful competitor with a cheaper cooling solution? The year between the Pro and XBX, and the 100€ price difference made that possible. The cost would be even greater, if they tried to replicate that for a simultaneous launch. Even if it was possible to reach such a power gap on the same date, and stay within the console wattage limits.
Microsoft, unlike Sony, actually has money they can burn to beat down the competition. They have the pockets to release a system at a loss and be fine with it. It's just that last gen they thought they'd get away with an all-in-one box no one asked for.
I personally have no problem paying $600 plus for the most powerful system next gen.
lol, Sony is just as capable of selling the PS5 at a loss if they choose to. The PS4 was sold at a roughly $60 loss when the company as a whole wasn't doing too hot, and these days they're pulling in record profits.
Also, I have yet to see any evidence that Xbox has unlimited access to Microsoft's infinite warchest. There have to be limits on what they can spend and how much they can lose before shareholders start taking notice.
It's fascinating how this narrative doesn't die. Yes, Microsoft has money. But they did not get there by "burning money". In fact, they did get there by doing the exact opposite. Microsoft is led by bean counters and very calculated business men (and I don't mean that in a negative way), who manage a company with many different business areas. They won't just drop a massive amount of money into one of their lower performing businesses to make some gamers in forums happy.
And while Sony has less money, their PlayStation business is much more critical for their company compared to Microsoft and Xbox. There is a bigger incentive for Sony to be aggressive with their investments.
They both likely try reach the most power they can get for a certain price and wattage. I don't see how either could go beyond that in the same tine frame. The year inbetween made that possible for XBX, including staying within the wattage limits, and it still cost more. The size of war chest isn't going to change that, as they're both using similar Navi and Ryzen. If it could change it, why wouldn't they have done it before?
I am still rather surprised that so many are convinced based on unsubstantiated rumours and what Microsoft says...I mean a statement of intent by a company doesn't mean much. Especially when they said they likely had no clue what the other company is cooking up. Now for sure it is possible that the nextbox will be more powerful, but the fact that not sure honestly isn't is the most represented option is pretty funny. The same rumours perculated last gen that the Xbone was going to have 8gb while the PS4 was going to have 4gb...which may have been true during dev, but turned out false alter.
Well I never had any Microsoft console, will but ps5 regardless of it's position in the table. This conversation is exciting but we must be aware that power ≠ leadership. Case in point: N64 vs PSX and GC vs PS2.
If they get a better solution, but get away with BluRay, for instance, they'll weaken their presence in developing countries.
Or if it gets too expensive with bad launch titles and exclusives, same thing.
If they get a better solution, but get away with BluRay, for instance, they'll weaken their presence in developing countries.
Or if it gets too expensive with bad launch titles and exclusives, same thing.
While Sony can take a loss, the PlayStation brand and all the stuff involved with it are /is Sony's most profitable division. Them taking a loss on the PS5 would be very hard for Sony as a whole to do. While they can do it, it would be a big strain on Sony as whole to take a loss on each PS5 sold. MS on the other hand has a big warchest and they have other divisions that are very profitable which would allow them an easier way to take a loss on each Next Xbox. Just looking at each company, it is MS that is financially in a better position. Will this all translate into one or both taking a loss, who really knows, but just looking at the numbers, MS is better positioned to do it and not take as much of a hit on the company as a whole.
Its the same tired old excuse from diehard MS fans that have no basis in reality.
Excuse - MS is loaded, they can afford to lose money unlike Sony
Reality - MS wants to make money and have already sunk billions into Xbox and yet never come out on top. Lost tonnes of money on xbox, relatively hardly and profits on 360 (spent 1B fixing rrod), below expectations on xboxo (if selling half the consoles as the precious gen is considered below expectations). The profit they do get (if any) next gen has to be worth their time, we already saw them close lionhead studios even though they trippled their investment. Sony are also in a much better place financially and could easily invest in the front end to get paid back tenfold through PSN money.
Excuse - don't worry, Microsoft is finally investing in games this time I swear.
Reality - they have invested in companies in before and what has it resulted in? Basically nothing worthwhile other than sequel factories (with one major successful franchise in Forza and diminishing returns for others) or flops. Things could be different this time under Phil but this excuse has LITERALLY been used since halfway through the 360 gen and so far never come true.
Now does this mean MS are doomed to failure? Of course not, anything can happen but history so far has shown a series of failures and directions that haven't helped them at all and doesn't instill me with any confidence.
The exact same thing was said before the current gen consoles were revealed, and how that turned out?
I don't think Xbox Anaconda will be priced the same as PS5. I'm expecting it to cost more. And Lockheart less.
What? No they weren't, no more than Insomniac is for Sony. 100% independent.
That only really applies if you take the PS5 being sold at a loss in a vacuum and don't consider anything else. They'll be selling PS5 games, subscription services and accessories to make back that money on a PS5 loss. At the same time they'll still be selling the profitable PS4 for many more years along with the games and accessories for that device. They've built up a nice cushion to soften the blow from selling the PS5 at a loss and have multiple ways of making that money back very quickly. Plus of course the cost of the console would come down over time so those losses won't last forever.
How much will they sell it at a loss for, if at all? No idea. My expectation though is at least a $100 loss judging only by the amount of loss they took on the PS4
I think so.
I mean realistically how much do people expect the platform holders to take as a hit? When you look at attach rate and likely the lifetime income of an average piece of hardware, I bet they have little to play with.
It's hard to say now that companies have multiple ways to subsidize that loss. PS+, PSNow, XBLG, Game Pass, game sales, microtransactions from BC and new titles, are all ways Sony and MS can take a loss and expect to make it back relatively quickly.
I don't think either company cares about taking a $100 hit selling you the console if you'll subscribe to Plus/Gold for 6 years, use their online stores and buy their first party stuff. That $100 hit vanishes so fast.
Why would we be? Console gens typically last 6-7 years. Selling at a loss initially allows them to cram more features and hardware into the box to ensure better logevity. Plus those losses won't last forever as the cost of parts will come down and eventually they'll be making a profit on the same device. Also in a game of one-upmanship between these various companies, selling at a loss can make your hardware more appealing either because it's got better hardware than the other guys for a similar price, or similar hardware to the other guys at a lower price. Not to mention console manufacturers are in a better position than ever to recoup those losses from subscription services and making money off of online sales.
There are two different rumors going around, which set Anaconda at the same price and a hundred more. If the PS5 ends up costing 500€, like some suggest, would XB4 cost 600€ like the PS3? Let alone offer XBX-like expensive cooling solution, if their similarly priced competition goes with a cheaper method? That was my main argument, when some people expected both more powerful and quiet system during the same launch window. It just seems like an unrealistic expectation to me.
Not very surprising.
- Microsoft has more money to throw at and lose on a console than Sony.
- Xbox leadership came out after the X was announced and set the narrative that this brand should be synonymous with power.
- Xbox consoles historically have pushed performance moreso than their PlayStation counterparts barring the base Xbox One.
- Microsoft doesn't want a repeat of the reoslution war for their next console unless it's in their favor.
- Sony lucked out on the PS4 in that the Xbox One was a media box and compounded with the lackluster PS4 Pro that failed to deliver on consistent 4k content, have not iotherwise instilled much confidence
- Sony is already trying to spin the narrative by announcing that their next console is 8k capable without proper conext like primarily being for video playback - which we're all aware of
We're in an age where it's normal for a company to spend hundreds of millions developing a game they give away for free (because they know they can sell you stuff and recoup that way).
Well that is cool and all.... but that hasn't happened in their worst generation to date. Why was the X so premium priced if they wanted to 'beat down the competition'? Why wasn't it prices like the Pro? Why is the Xbox One All Digital priced so high? If they didn't burn money to beat down the competition this gen they sure as hell aint going to do it In the next.
I think both consoles will be comparable, however I can see Microsoft going deeper in their pockets for slightly better tech, maybe a difference of 2 teraflops at the most?
I can see MS try to make the most powerful console again. They really learned their lesson from last time by making the Xbox One underpowered to focus on Kinect and entertainment. They've made a 180 since then so focusing on power just makes sense.
With that being said, and as always, power only plays a small part in this matter. It's always going to come down to games, features, price and marketing. So which will end up being the better console is still on the table.
Also if the PS5 really is going to be $500, having a less powerful but cheaper Xbox like what's also rumored is a brilliant movie.
With that being said, and as always, power only plays a small part in this matter. It's always going to come down to games, features, price and marketing. So which will end up being the better console is still on the table.
Also if the PS5 really is going to be $500, having a less powerful but cheaper Xbox like what's also rumored is a brilliant movie.
If MS is at all serious about an elite sku, don't make it a penny less than $699. Put actual components in there worthy of that price tag & "elite status." Your diehards will save up for it & buy it eventually or get the cheaper $299 sku available at launch. But I gotta say, I really don't want them to drop the console baseline too much again next gen. Make the base sku at least decent & not total shite because I want better quality 3rd party games next gen, thanks.
- Status