PlayStation 4

Here's a post from a commenter.

this dude wrote:Let's assume the $160 RAM is only costing them $100.
Let's assume the $200-or-so CPU is only costing them $150. (An 8-core AMD proc, so I'm using the FX-8350 as a reference)
Let's assume the $300 GPU is only costing them $250. (Rumored to be a HD79xx GPU, but they're claiming almost twice the processing power of the HD7950, which costs $300 as a retail card. So they're talking a better GPU than that, but we're also talking about the pure GPU and not a full card.

That's $500 right there.

Now, they have to add a power supply, case, motherboard, optical drive, etc.

I think $600 is probably a fair estimate for their cost for the base system (no camera or controller) which is rumored to sell for $430.

I can't imagine they're able to produce the above for less than $500.

It's possible they may sell the console at a loss initially and try to make up for it with all the conversion from Microsoft and game developers. They sold the PS3 for a loss without much makeup.

I dunno, Wii U is selling below it's manufacturing costs, with the idea that they'll make up the shortfall with online transactions and software sales.

PS4 might do the same, as echos of PS3's disastrous 599 US dollars price tag really hurt them out of the gate last time.

WiiU is selling bad also because of bad marketing.


I like to think of myself as on the ball with gaming news but even I didn't know the WiiU was a new console till a little while after it launched. I thought it was just a new peripheral.

How do you think their casual gamer audience took it? A lot of them probably STILL don't know it exists.

Lord Pheonix wrote:WiiU is selling bad also because of bad marketing.


I like to think of myself as on the ball with gaming news but even I didn't know the WiiU was a new console till a little while after it launched. I thought it was just a new peripheral.

How do you think their casual gamer audience took it? A lot of them probably STILL don't know it exists.

I also think that, but even then, I was completely dumbstruck when they released it over here because there had literally no marketing beforehand to let you know it even existed, let alone be a new console.

I also think a lot of people were and still are waiting to see what Sony and Microsoft are doing for the coming generation and are holding back until all 3 consoles are announced/released. People don't want to buy a brand new console, then find out 6 months later, one they'd enjoy more comes out and they can't get it because it's too expensive.

Just thought of something.


I heard about ZombieU more than the WiiU lol.


They fucked up on marketing somewhere down the line son.



Also in all honesty Sony and Microsoft fans weren't going to wait around to see what nintendo came out with. They were going to get the new Playstation or Xbox. They were just waiting on nintendo to see what they weren't getting and to have something to compare to for making themselves feel better about whatever console they purchase.

Which is why there are fanboys. They just have to put down X so they can feel better about having bought Y. Meanwhile us adults just enjoy what we have or better yet buy BOTH since we are employed and don't have to use mommy and daddys money to get a new console.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Here's a post from a commenter.

this dude wrote:Let's assume the $160 RAM is only costing them $100.
Let's assume the $200-or-so CPU is only costing them $150. (An 8-core AMD proc, so I'm using the FX-8350 as a reference)
Let's assume the $300 GPU is only costing them $250. (Rumored to be a HD79xx GPU, but they're claiming almost twice the processing power of the HD7950, which costs $300 as a retail card. So they're talking a better GPU than that, but we're also talking about the pure GPU and not a full card.

That's $500 right there.

Now, they have to add a power supply, case, motherboard, optical drive, etc.

I think $600 is probably a fair estimate for their cost for the base system (no camera or controller) which is rumored to sell for $430.

I can't imagine they're able to produce the above for less than $500.

It's possible they may sell the console at a loss initially and try to make up for it with all the conversion from Microsoft and game developers. They sold the PS3 for a loss without much makeup.

Some of his comparisons are quite a jump, seeing as:
The 7950 has 10 more compute units (~55% more then the one in the ps4, which has 18), making it more comparable to the 7850 (~$200, has 16 compute units).

The processor doesn't seem to be on par with the FX-8350, as its 1.6ghz making it seem more like a mobile part (yeah ghz doesn't matter much compared to architecture, but stock clocks like that implies its a mobile part, meaning its less powerful, so it's probably more like a $150 cpu).

The big thing is the ram, as it's GDDR5 (they're using the same ram in your gpu for everything, a highend gpu these days has 2-3GB of GDDR5) (speed of GDDR5 is 48 GB/s x number of chips vs the standard ddr3 that's in most newer computers these days (8 GB/s to 24 GB/s, with 16 GB/s being what most people have, increased by the number of channels (quad channel coming soon)). That ram is much more expensive then ddr3.

I feel alone in this, but I knew the WiiU was its own console since they announced it at e3 in 2011. And since I didn't even attend the Nintendo press conference, opting instead to sit in line for The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3, I feel like I was at a distinct disadvantage regarding that information.

Nintendo got shot in the foot in this console race. I mean, with the PS4 announcing it'll be compatible with tablet devices, who would even think of getting a WiiU now?

Answer: Well the Nintendo fans. Nintendo may not have the best features, but it'll always have its games.

I'm also under the impression that nintendo could shove out another console to compensate for the WiiU too, not sure why.. >.>

Gauz wrote:Nintendo got shot in the foot in this console race. I mean, with the PS4 announcing it'll be compatible with tablet devices, who would even think of getting a WiiU now?

Answer: Well the Nintendo fans. Nintendo may not have the best features, but it'll always have its games.

I'm also under the impression that nintendo could shove out another console to compensate for the WiiU too, not sure why.. >.>

The problem with the WiiU, as I've said is due to be it being a weird hybrid of gimmick and hardcore trappings, which appeals to neither. The poor marketing didn't help either.

Well Xbox will probably have Surface support, as they've been bringing that in over the last year, so all 3 will have some tablet connectivity.

WiiU will probably get by on the first party releases (Mario, Zelda etc.) and push the casual market in with some gimmick (Wii Fit U) or something.

I'd guess they'll sell at a loss like they're starting to now with the PS3.

This news definitely leaves me with a mixed bag of feelings.

The controller is nice. I wish the D-Pad and left thumbstick were swapped (especially with that touch pad there), but I know Sony would never do that to the dual shock. Given all the features the controller has, I'm also skeptical about how much it will cost. Also, will it still have six-axis?

The streaming service is interesting. I suppose it's the best they can do to add backwords compatibility, but I'm cautious to embrace it. Will it have a subscription cost? How smooth will the experience be? We're talking about sending I/O over a network connection and waiting for a response to come back over that same connection.

Also, there's not a lot to go off of from the hardware specs, even less considering the drastically different architecture. It's nice that there is a separate CPU for downloads. I am surprised they went with an HDD instead of an SSD, though. At least put the OS on a smaller SSD.

They've also left me with a number of other questions:
Will PSN still be free? Will it still play BlueRay? How smooth will the UI be? Will it still perform well while recording? Why would I ever want to interface this with a tablet or Vita? Or why would I ever want someone else to play my game for me? And how much will the bloody thing cost me?


EDIT: Yes, it still has BlueRay.

CivBase wrote:Also, there's not a lot to go off of from the hardware specs, even less considering the drastically different architecture. It's nice that there is a separate CPU for downloads. I am surprised they went with an HDD instead of an SSD, though. At least put the OS on a smaller SSD.

Because the performance benefits of an SSD are minor compared to using a more expensive GPU/CPU, and the fact that a 120Gb SSD is $100, a 30Gb SSD is $50, and a 1 tb HDD is $75. If I had to choose between 1tb of space on an HDD instead of 120Gb on an SSD, I'd go with the 1tB of space. The few seconds saved on boot time when using an SSD for the OS doesn't really make a difference I've found.

Elabajaba wrote:

CivBase wrote:Also, there's not a lot to go off of from the hardware specs, even less considering the drastically different architecture. It's nice that there is a separate CPU for downloads. I am surprised they went with an HDD instead of an SSD, though. At least put the OS on a smaller SSD.

Because the performance benefits of an SSD are minor compared to using a more expensive GPU/CPU, and the fact that a 120Gb SSD is $100, a 30Gb SSD is $50, and a 1 tb HDD is $75. If I had to choose between 1tb of space on an HDD instead of 120Gb on an SSD, I'd go with the 1tB of space. The few seconds saved on boot time when using an SSD for the OS doesn't really make a difference I've found.

The Playstation OS is hardly a large one, and an SSD provides a substantial boost in responsiveness. It wont increase game graphics or performance - especially since they would probably be on a standard HDD - but it would drastically increase responsiveness for the OS (which is noticeably lagged in current-gen consoles).

Besides, I would think that an SSD on a game console would be a much higher priority on a gaming machine than tablets and laptops.

I think it's fucking stupid that Digital games on PC are still being sold for $60 at launch.


It makes sense for Disk games because they have to put the games on disks, ship the disks, and the game stores have to either buy the games in bulk and sell them to make a profit I imagine.

Digital PC games have none of this bullshit and yet we're still paying $60 a game and usually having to wait an extra couple of months for release. Is bullshit. Should sell us the games for $30 or $40 dollars and maybe keep it a month back to compensate for sales to encourage CD buying but for $60 and extra months it's bullshit.

one major reason digital releases cost full price is to avoid directly butting heads with hard copy retailers.

Yeah that's why I think they should just put the games a month or two behind the releases and sell em at reduced price.


They already do it now for some games so they might as well do it to all if we can get them cheaper. No reason other than greed.

Meh, I don't think $60 for a triple-a game is too much to ask for with most triple-a games as long as they are down to $30 within a year. $60 isn't that much considering the amount of entertainment a full experience with a game should provide you.

PC gamers just have so many games (many of which are shorter indie experiences) that there isn't enough time to get the full experience from a game so the $60 seems like a much greater sacrifice. That's a good thing, but I don't think a lot of triple-a devs can justify PC ports if they slash the price drastically (of course, this could alternatively be fixed by nuking the crappy publishers from orbit).

The situation is a little awkward, but I like to see it more as a "Look at how much great-value content indie devs have managed to put out!" rather than "Look at how much Bioware and Bethesda are trying to rip us off!"

But maybe I'm crazy.

CivBase wrote:Meh, I don't think $60 for a triple-a game is too much to ask for with most triple-a games as long as they are down to $30 within a year. $60 isn't that much considering the amount of entertainment a full experience with a game should provide you.

Skyrim came to Steam Nov 11, 2011 and is still $60 for us meanwhile a Disk gamer can walk into a gamestop and buy a used game for probably about 40 bucks.

Download gamers can't get returned game deals like the rest of the Disk gamers and still have to pay full price for games way down the road. I admit Steam is fucking fantastic with giving deals but those generally don't apply to new games and when they do it's a 10% discount.

CivBase wrote:
PC gamers just have so many games (many of which are shorter indie experiences) that there isn't enough time to get the full experience from a game so the $60 seems like a much greater sacrifice. That's a good thing, but I don't think a lot of triple-a devs can justify PC ports if they slash the price drastically (of course, this could alternatively be fixed by nuking the crappy publishers from orbit).

Maybe i'm not reading this right but is your argument boiled down to "PC Gamers have so many games that they can't possibly get the full experience of so they shouldn't complain about paying $60 for them"?

Lord Pheonix wrote:

CivBase wrote:Meh, I don't think $60 for a triple-a game is too much to ask for with most triple-a games as long as they are down to $30 within a year. $60 isn't that much considering the amount of entertainment a full experience with a game should provide you.

Skyrim came to Steam Nov 11, 2011 and is still $60 for us meanwhile a Disk gamer can walk into a gamestop and buy a used game for probably about 40 bucks.

Download gamers can't get returned game deals like the rest of the Disk gamers and still have to pay full price for games way down the road. I admit Steam is fucking fantastic with giving deals but those generally don't apply to new games and when they do it's a 10% discount.

I definitely agree that Skyrim needs to drop its price.

Lord Pheonix wrote:

CivBase wrote:
PC gamers just have so many games (many of which are shorter indie experiences) that there isn't enough time to get the full experience from a game so the $60 seems like a much greater sacrifice. That's a good thing, but I don't think a lot of triple-a devs can justify PC ports if they slash the price drastically (of course, this could alternatively be fixed by nuking the crappy publishers from orbit).

Maybe i'm not reading this right but is your argument boiled down to "PC Gamers have so many games that they can't possibly get the full experience of so they shouldn't complain about paying $60 for them"?

Not quite. I'm not so much arguing that the prices are justified by this, but I'm just pointing out that PC gamers have less incentive to pay the $60 simply because PC provides a much larger selection of games, many of which are indie games which use low prices to stay viable without having a well-known dev team behind the wheel.

That sentience should probably be divided up, but I'm too lazy.

Basically, my thought is this: I don't mind most triple-a games being $60 at release since they tend to be somewhat expensive projects and they usually provide a sizable experience, but it's stupid. I'm talking Nocbl levels of stupid here. that some of them stay at that price for as long as they do (like Skyrim).

I really don't need incentive to pay less money for things. I'm damn happy to pay $40 instead of $60 for a game.


And I don't know how many indie games you play, but most of them are shiiiiiiiiiiit.


Sometime a piece of gold is found in the shit pile, but mostly it's all shit.


Also this

Is "Nocbl levels of stupid" a filter?

Lord Pheonix wrote:Yeah that's why I think they should just put the games a month or two behind the releases and sell em at reduced price.


They already do it now for some games so they might as well do it to all if we can get them cheaper. No reason other than greed.

and see, thats the exact opposite of what I want.

I want every game on ps3 and xbox available for digital pre-order that automatically downloads at midnight. And I don't care about them being full price, because the only alternative is to still pay full price anyway.

The alternative to them being full price is for them to NOT be at full price.

these are facts...

NT's got Stockholm Syndrome