Often but not always true. Nintendo famously don't operate that way - all their consoles sell at a profit from day one. And the next gen of Sony & MS consoles look to be selling for around cost - although the cost of the RAM Sony are putting in theirs might possibly tip it over.

As it is you'll get a (say) 300 quid console that will play games at least initially as well as a midrange PC (slightly lower spec but console games are better optimised). However the point that Linux was making isn't really what this thread was about. He's claiming you can get a gaming PC for 400 quid. You can, but it won't have any of the video cards discussed in the OP in it, that's for sure.

I knew that Nintendo were unique in selling their consoles at a profit from day one. I vaguely remember that when the Xbox 360 and PS3 were launched they were opened up to see the components and they were both costed as being sold at a loss to start with. Obviously both Microsoft and Sony getting other revenue from the sale of games as well, so they can afford that initial loss leader. I suspect that the next consoles might also follow the same pattern. After a year or two they will break even and from then on they will be sold at a profit and will be reduced in price as costs fall.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Thing is... that may be the plan but it didn't quite happened that way. Sony particularly made a massive loss on the hardware (there were rumours that at launch they were selling a console for $500 that cost $800 to make) and it's taken two revisions of hardware down - to a current model which to be honest feels pretty cheap and tacky - for it to be sold at at break even because as they made the hardware cheaper, they had to reduce the retail price to combat falling sales. They may have made money back on software licensing but I doubt they've made $400 per unit. MS have had their own problems - the original XBox made a massive loss overall and they may have had a plan to make a profit from the 360 but having to put $3billion aside to deal with the 'Red ring of death' problem has pretty much wiped it out.

Both of them (if you believe the industry talk) have gone for a much more 'off the shelf' design this time round - therefore (theoretically at least) more reliable and lower cost of manufacture. I don't think necessarily they've gone for the Nintendo model this time round but I suspect they're both playing it much more conservatively than they have before. They may not break even on day one, but I suspect the attach rate to get there will be much lower than the previous generation.

The PS4 has the equivalent of a Radeon 7850 in it, not exactly a high-end card. The CPU in it isn't exactly going to set the world on fire either.

The best part is the PS4 will be launching in Q4 with 2012's graphics technology in it. AMD will be releasing the 8000 series of AMD cards for PCs in 2013, so the PS4 is behind the curve before it even launches.

The new Xbox is rumoured to be even worse.

Of course Macs have always been overpriced in terms of the hardware inside them, anyone who owns a Mac accepted that the moment they purchased one.

If that is the case they may not be profitable on day one, mainly because of all the overheads of development which may be huge, but at least they will probably start to cover their development costs from day one. It is actually a sensible option. If they are using off the shelf components then that could also limit the costs of development as well so that might be a plus. I do wonder though if that also limits its lifespan as it will not be so advanced as its predecessors.

Only half the story. Even using middleware, a properly coded console game will look better than the same game running on a PC with the same video card installed because it's a consistent platform which is optimised to play games, which no PC is. Not massively better and not as good as a top end PC running one of the cards referenced in the thread top but certainly better.

Plus console graphics improve over time as the developers further optimise their code and gain experience. That never happens with PC games as the solution is always 'just buy a newer video card'.

Will the PS4 look as good as a high end games PC? No, but then it will less than half the price. Will it look better than a current PC costing the same price? More than likely yes. Will it look better than a PC you can buy in three years time for the same price as a PS4 at launch? Almost certainly not. Will it look much better than a PS4 game at launch? Almost certainly.

Can you play an acceptable current generation game on a PS3 or Xbox 360? Absolutely. Can you play a decent current generation game on a 7 year old PC? Don't be silly.

If you must have absolutely the best quality for all your games all the time, buy a PC and budget for upgrades. Want to play games that look pretty good on a platform that will evolve steadily but slowly over time for a one off payment you won't have to repeat for five years? buy a console.

To put it bluntly, different horses for different courses.

I agree with everything you've written there. I actually intend to buy a PS4, unless Valve pull out something amazing with the Steam box.

I will accept what Jon is saying. It was one reason why I was happy to get a console last time, plus no need to worry if I needed a new graphics card every year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.