I'm so broken I can't tell if your kidding anymore. Posting financial charts is not console warring FFS.i believe he is referring to Nintendo comparison.
-
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.
Next-gen PS5 and next Xbox speculation launch thread |OT7| - nm
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
- Status
I added a pic to show you they do not get the same at retail .
If Sony get 30% at retail how much you think would be left for pubs after retail margins and everything else.
All your other points don't change the main point which is they pay out most of there money off the psn store.
Most of the software , dlc , mtx etc etc sales are not first party and all those other things can make up the amount of money that brings in .
Last edited:
lol im not kidding. i too think its ridiculous that people get so butthurt over a sales chart but this is era and ive been reported and banned for less.
Speaking of Sony subscription services,it seems they want to get rid of PS Vue:
That thing is losing money, it has only ~ 500k subscribers...
That thing is losing money, it has only ~ 500k subscribers...
Either way AegonSnake they make way more off DD than they do retail .
Also shipping can cost that much when have shipped and packages copies all over the world\country .
It's not like blu ray factories in every country or state .
EDIT packaging is more likely cheaper now since game booklets are dead lol
The same poster was stoking the flames just a few days earlier. Some people are committed to stirring controversy.
Agreed they are definitely not making such a statement on the back of a 40CU 9TFLOPs console. Doesn't mean Sony hasn't done better, but I'm very confident Scarlett will not be sub-Stadia.
Of course I also think Lockhart is still coming so feel free to ignore me, lol.
In 2019 a 8-9 TF Navi console is the best that any console manufacturer can do. Don't forget such a console is still 2x over 1X and cost more BOM than 1X on launch. Probably over 150W TDP too.
In 2020 the options are better. 7nm would get 7% perf boost and 7nm euv is 10%-15% perf boost.
I'll watch it all, but can you drop us a damn bread crumb here with a time stamp?
Thanks for sharing. It is interesting that the Durango code name made it into some of that information too which let him down a path of thinking Xbox was involved here.
Maybe the person who initially published this did it without permission?
Completely unsubstantiated leaps of logic. Because they're both APUs, Rembrandt must necessarily be Scarlett SoC derived? It's 5nm, just because? What about the fact neither Zen2, Zen3, or Navi are native to 5nm?
They use famous names/places because they're public domain and are subject to copyright/trademark concerns. Any overlap is coincidence.
I know what Durango was (OG XBone codename in 2012/2013) and I know Arden is something new but no idea what it is or if it is even related to Xbox Scarlett.
I don't try to decode all the codenames anymore. Though I thought it is a nice speculation for the future. How they all related would be pure speculation on my part.
Thanks for all the answers guys about how Sony gets their money back from selling consoles at a loss.
Did not know PSN was so profitable in the billions, Wonder if Sony will explore the idea of having a $150 or even $200 loss on the PS5 and go insane on the specs, similar to the PS3.
The PS3 selling at more than $200 loss per console in the 1st few years totalling $3 billion over the course of 6 years as Toni mentioned earlier, money that can barely making a dent into SCEI today thanks to modern day PSN, so why wont they go big, do what AegonSnake believes and make a 14TF RDNA behemoth and sell it for a $200 loss per unit and use PSN/Year 1 game sales to easily recuperate the loss.
Did not know PSN was so profitable in the billions, Wonder if Sony will explore the idea of having a $150 or even $200 loss on the PS5 and go insane on the specs, similar to the PS3.
The PS3 selling at more than $200 loss per console in the 1st few years totalling $3 billion over the course of 6 years as Toni mentioned earlier, money that can barely making a dent into SCEI today thanks to modern day PSN, so why wont they go big, do what AegonSnake believes and make a 14TF RDNA behemoth and sell it for a $200 loss per unit and use PSN/Year 1 game sales to easily recuperate the loss.
Why is Durango interesting? It's more than 6 years old now, as far as being a name.
Durango = Xbox One
Orbis = PS4
Durango = Xbox One
Orbis = PS4
Why would they? They are a business at the end, losing $3Billions just to have 14TF is nuts.You try to downplay how much that is but its HUGE amount of money.
The power aspect will not hurt the console if the gap is little from Xbox, average consumer won't care, especially if Sony keep producing incredible exclusives.
Huh, I was talking about Microsoft initially stating that their next gen console would be the most powerful, continuing the legacy of the X1X. 2019 didn't alter history. That's what they first posited, now they seem to have backtracked and they're using different language about THEIR most powerful console and the most immersive console.
I don't know whether Orbis was the PS4 project Codename or something else, but Orbis was squarely an internal Sony codename.
Liverpool is the name of the SoC for PS4 and the AMD codename for the same was Thebes (as per the PCI-E database).
Yes, it is.We don't know what the distribution of all that revenue is, and saying "most goes to third parties" probably isn't accurate either. PSN revenues are subscription based revenues, PSNow based revenues, advertising revenues, revenues from sales of first party titles and add ons, revenue from digital video services, etc etc.
Sony's financial reports don't go into that kind of deep dive. But regardless 12.5 billion in revenue is still 12.5 billion in revenue, and it's recurring revenue year over year. Over 5 years that's 60 billion in revenue.
It's in Sony's best interest to KEEP that revenue stream going, which means keeping people in the ecosystem. That revenue stream wasn't in place for the PS1, PS2, PS3, or PS4 at launch:
so any calculation of how much was lost on those systems isn't likely to be a good measure of what Sony is willing to lose on this one. It's in Sony's best interest to retain the gamers they have AND get new ones into the ecosystem as fast as possible, since the longer they own the system the greater network revenue is.
Sony still gets to keep a nice chunk of change, but a huge amount of the revenue and profit growth for Sony and MS has been because they now own the retailer.
i dont think they will be willing to lose $200 per console. $100 max. thats $400 million per quarter which they should be able to hide with some big game releases in each quarter.
but will they? i dont know. its definitely in their best interest to keep those ps+ billions rolling in every year. its definitely in their interest to rake in $12 billion in revenue from third party sales and microtransactions every year. so long term, the $1.5 billion loss will net them $100 billion in revenue alone. some investors might not like it for the first few quarters, but if they fuck up and lose market share to microsoft because thermals need to be under 200w for whatever reason then the investors will be even more upset.
with so many shake ups recently, i dont know what they are planning to do. i do think that phil has shown them hes no don matrick and that put them off of releasing a $399 console. everyone says that ms needs to have the most powerful console but sony has more to lose next gen than ms. ms posts $10 billion in profit every quarter, sonys best quarters are $3-4 billion in profits and they heavily rely on the ps business to get there. ms gets to $10 billion inspite of xbox.
sony has a lot riding on the next console and while they might win next gen with a $399 8 tflops console, will they take that chance? i highly doubt it.
Don Matrick released a $499 Xbox One and Phil Spencer has released a $499 Xbox One
There is almost no chance that MS will manufacture a 360mm^2 APU next Fall on 5nm. That will be reserved at best for Apple and small A14 chips.
But I'd love to be proven otherwise if MS launches a 14TFLOP chip.
But I'd love to be proven otherwise if MS launches a 14TFLOP chip.
My theory always was that Lockheart got canceled because Anaconda was meant to be a 500$ monster but around E3, when MS found out that the PS5 is at the same power level as Anaconda or maybe even more powerful, the whole idea of being the top dog by making a monster went down the drain. So they had to go to their last resort, 399$. If Anaconda is 400$, there is no reason for a 349$-399$ Lockheart, it's not like they are going to sell it for 250$ and lose 100$+ on each unit of a product that is aimed at a more casual market which doesn't spend as much.
That's my tin-foil-hat theory, Scarlett is 399$ because MSRP price and their financial backbone is MS's only way to combat Sony at launch.
That's my tin-foil-hat theory, Scarlett is 399$ because MSRP price and their financial backbone is MS's only way to combat Sony at launch.
Last edited:
Brad Sims has a video on Arden
Claims it's the name of the Scarlett SOC
This never made any sense. Cancel the console that would undercut Sony so you can... Undercut Sony? Especially if the performance delta is as small as people say it is, and especially given they are STILL selling the X at $500 and have shown no appetite for massive losses just to get console sales
500$ VS 500$ MS will lose, hands down. Going lower than Sony is their only option. Back when they thought they had the power card, that could have been an advantage. But if the PS5 is as or more powerful? MS is basically doomed unless they undercut them in price.
If they are going to undercut the PS5 at a lower price, they can't have Lockheart anymore. You can lose 100$+ on a hardcore machine made for the hardcore because they are trendsetters that will spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on software and services over the years. But a cheap 1080p machine meant for a more casual audience? That's not something you are going to sell at a 100$+ loss.
Regarding the X, no one is going to lose money on a console in the second half of the generation, that's just mad. But still, X is sold for much less than 500$ all the time, right now you can get it around 380$ with a free game on Amazon.
Last edited:
Mostly agree with this. However the MSRP may be $500 on the X but no one is paying that. It's almost on constant promotion. $500 is for stupid consumers.
- Status