I don't understand why console makers are bent on being so power-conservative?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JeffMD

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2002
2,026
19
81
I don't consider the starting prices on these next gen consoles to be cheap. -_-

And as much as I would love to consider the tablet and phone market a serious threat to console gaming, it is not yet, and does not look to be yet. When I got my 3rd gen ipod and saw the 3d graphic capabilities of it, I would have wagered that it would take off and bury sonys and nintendo's handheld. They have done no such thing. Android and iOS games do exist, and do make money, some make lots of money, but its still a DIFFERENT market. The people I know who play tablet and cell phone games don't play console games. They didn't play console games before either.

On the flip side everyone I know who plays console games may have one or two time wasters on their phone, but unless they are away from their consoles they won't touch em. ie, they don't play ios and android games at home. The games are completely different. Console games are very complex, tons of content, and cutting edge graphics. tablet and phone games are meant to be simpler, easy to pick up and put down, and run on simpler hardware.

Sadly I don't see this changing. For one thing, these power house gaming phones are 600 bucks off contract, be it the iphone 5s or the galaxy s4. Very hard to get these in the hands of gamers and kids. We need to see alot of change here before phones and tablets can replace consoles. Until then however they will coexist on 2 different markets.
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
I don't consider the starting prices on these next gen consoles to be cheap. -_-

Yeah $399 isn't exactly giving the consoles away, but they are way WAY cheaper to manufacture now. The BoM (bill of materials) for the PS4 is about $275 - that's what it costs Sony to make a PS4 right now.

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2013...t_the_ps4s_bill_of_materials_is_around_usd275

For comparison's sake, the BoM for the PS3 at launch was $700-800:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/

So while the cost of the PS4 at launch is only $200 less than the PS3, it's two to three times cheaper to manufacture!
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
0 fux gvn.

I'll stick with current gen for another 5 years if it continues to have better games.

It won't. Microsoft abandons old hardware support quickly. Also this has been 8 years now...developers I think are ready to move on. Just look at what Kojima is doing with the new metal gear for example.

I think Sony will also push pretty hard to get people to adopt the ps4 and drop the ps3 after it launches in Japan. If for nothing else than the vita connection aspect.
 
Last edited:

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
Yeah $399 isn't exactly giving the consoles away, but they are way WAY cheaper to manufacture now. The BoM (bill of materials) for the PS4 is about $275 - that's what it costs Sony to make a PS4 right now.

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2013...t_the_ps4s_bill_of_materials_is_around_usd275

For comparison's sake, the BoM for the PS3 at launch was $700-800:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/

So while the cost of the PS4 at launch is only $200 less than the PS3, it's two to three times cheaper to manufacture!

Those estimates on what a console cost to make are pretty BS 99% of the time. Sony said they are selling the PS4 at a loss or around $60 but will be profitable when a person buys PS+ and 1 game.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
Those estimates on what a console cost to make are pretty BS 99% of the time. Sony said they are selling the PS4 at a loss but will be profitable when a person buys PS+ and 1 game.

I agree with the estimates being BS for the most part. Sony did state they were losing something like $300 on each launch PS3 unit though.

They can't afford to continue to do that, and it is really their own fault. Sony electronics used to be high end, how they are just high cost. Samsung destroyed their TV 'value' for most consumers.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I agree with the estimates being BS for the most part. Sony did state they were losing something like $300 on each launch PS3 unit though.

They can't afford to continue to do that, and it is really their own fault. Sony electronics used to be high end, how they are just high cost. Samsung destroyed their TV 'value' for most consumers.

Not just Samsung cause a lot of their sets are not that great for the price, but LG, and Panasonic really ripped into their market share. Also vizio's new line is pretty nice for the price.

I remember reading that MS lost 1mil or more over the life of the xbox brand. Something like that while Sony at least made some profit over the life of the PlayStation brand.
 

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
I agree with the estimates being BS for the most part. Sony did state they were losing something like $300 on each launch PS3 unit though.

They can't afford to continue to do that, and it is really their own fault. Sony electronics used to be high end, how they are just high cost. Samsung destroyed their TV 'value' for most consumers.

I know the PS3 was losing a lot money per unit for them, they said that long ago. A very large part of that cost was Blu Ray though. PS3 was the cheapest/among the cheapest Blu Ray players on the market when it came out and it was the best/among the best on the market as well. Overall the gamble paid off for Sony since Blu Ray won the format war.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
Not just Samsung cause a lot of their sets are not that great for the price, but LG, and Panasonic really ripped into their market share. Also vizio's new line is pretty nice for the price.

I remember reading that MS lost 1mil or more over the life of the xbox brand. Something like that while Sony at least made some profit over the life of the PlayStation brand.

I was referring specifically to the high end. Sony was the most expensive, but was the best. Now, Sony is still the most expensive, but they are just expensive. Samsung offers a superior product for a lesser price. Sony's quality hasn't improved to beat or even match what is being offered, but they haven't budged on bring the most expensive. I think that, along with the "budget" TVs being good enough for most consumers, is really killing them in the electronic business.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
Not just Samsung cause a lot of their sets are not that great for the price, but LG, and Panasonic really ripped into their market share. Also vizio's new line is pretty nice for the price.

I remember reading that MS lost 1mil or more over the life of the xbox brand. Something like that while Sony at least made some profit over the life of the PlayStation brand.

I believe this is reversed. Xbox 360 became profitable well before the PS3 from what I remember reading at various news outlets. Not that I care though, Ms and Sony can sell at a loss for all I care as a consumer.

The main thing is you cannot directly ascertain profitability of the xbox 360 itself from MS' or Sony income statements - the units are sold at a loss, but they have a substantial markup on accessories and licensing fees - that is where sony and MS make their money. IIRC, with that in consideration the 360 became profitable in 2008. If you look purely at income statements, it would you believe that MS has made losses over the entire lifetime, which definitely is not the case. It isn't a straightforward "look at xbox 360 profit levels" type of situation. The money isn't made from console sales, it is elsewhere - which is why both MS and Sony turned an overall profit after several years.

The first 2-3 years, though, were brutal in terms of losses. But really, consumers don't care about that mess. It's too bad MS and Sony aren't willing to incur big losses this time around...I would love to get a 250$ PS4, heh.
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I was referring specifically to the high end. Sony was the most expensive, but was the best. Now, Sony is still the most expensive, but they are just expensive. Samsung offers a superior product for a lesser price. Sony's quality hasn't improved to beat or even match what is being offered, but they haven't budged on bring the most expensive. I think that, along with the "budget" TVs being good enough for most consumers, is really killing them in the electronic business.

The difference today between a lower end set and a high end set is a lot less than a few years ago too. There are differences sure but how can they be demonstrated in a showroom? Also does Sony make plasma sets? That market has grown a bit thanks to pioneer and now Panasonic offering good pricing for superior picture quality when compared to most lcd or led sets. Plus most if not all the issues with past plasma sets is now fixed such as image retention.

I do agree that Sony sets are just expensive at this point but I was trying to say that when it comes to TV sales, high end expensive sets just aren't the best sellers. Sony needs to offer a wider range of products in different price brackets. I would also say that when it comes to consumer electronics, Samsung is more well known and respected at this point in time.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I believe this is reversed. Xbox 360 became profitable well before the PS3 from what I remember reading at various news outlets. Not that I care though, Ms and Sony can sell at a loss for all I care as a consumer.

I think the Xbox 360 ended up being profitable, but MS was so far in the hole from never making money on the original Xbox, it never really "made them money". Not that it mattered though, Windows 7 came out and made them billions. Sony was taking a hit in what seemed like every segment, so they were in much worse shape during the PS3 era. The PS4 should help and with them getting rid of Sony Picture Group (I believe they are still selling this), Sony could afford a small loss on the PS4 for awhile.

MS can still afford a loss, but for how long? Who knows. Windows 8 isn't exactly selling well.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
From looking at BOM I don't think either the PS4 or XB1 will incur losses for either company. Someone correct me if i'm wrong, though.

I would obviously much prefer for sony and MS to be willing to settle for a loss, heh. Maybe they're gauging the current "climate" of console gaming , or something.
 

JeffMD

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2002
2,026
19
81
kaotic, don't let blueray electronics fool you, they were never expensive. Sony simply owned so much of the licensing of its patents that they could ask whatever they wanted for the likes of standalone blueray players and drives.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
kaotic, don't let blueray electronics fool you, they were never expensive. Sony simply owned so much of the licensing of its patents that they could ask whatever they wanted for the likes of standalone blueray players and drives.

It doesn't matter who much the parts were; all that matter is that upon release of the PS3, quality Blu-Ray players were like $900. The PS3 had excellent value in just a good Blu-Ray that will get updates more frequently.

I remember when they (either Sony, Hitachi, or both) were blocking drive makers from making combo drives (HD-DVD / Blu-Ray) despite them using the same laser. I ended up finally getting one for like $99, but that was right before Blu-Ray won.
 

JeffMD

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2002
2,026
19
81
Smack, I merely meant it wasn't a factor in determining the cost of parts for the ps3
 

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
kaotic, don't let blueray electronics fool you, they were never expensive. Sony simply owned so much of the licensing of its patents that they could ask whatever they wanted for the likes of standalone blueray players and drives.

At the beginning it certainly was. Those laser diodes they used for Blu Ray were pretty limited and not cheap. They were one of the reasons the PS3 had larger shortage problems then it should of.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
Have you ever tried configuring a PC, OP?

When you stick in one of those huge dual-slot video cards, everything changes. You have to spend more on power supply, case, and cooling, in addition to the extra cost of the video card. More heat = more moving fans and less reliability = more money lost on RMA's.

I seriously considered making like an ITX amd fusion gaming pc at one time...the all in one compared to a standard intel+nvidia video card resulted in noticeable savings.
 

JeffMD

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2002
2,026
19
81
future, they have a crap ton of cores though. It simply means game makers will actually need to do what they should have done 6 years ago, heavily multi thread their games.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
They were extremely expensive to produce when they first came out.

For the most part, they still are IIRC. Making a game multithreaded isn't as simple as flipping a switch in the compiler. From what I read awhile ago, actually going multithreaded didn't net the performance gains substantial enough to have the extra development effort. Most of the multithreaded games just offloaded nonessential logic from the main thread, because processing the sound wasn't a big deal if it waited for the core logic to catch up. They were having problems seeing any real gains in performance because threads were waiting on other threads to complete to go forward. Now, this was years ago and hopefully, asynchronous logic is more common place as developers become more familiar with multi threaded games, but who knows.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
Now, this was years ago and hopefully, asynchronous logic is more common place as developers become more familiar with multi threaded games, but who knows.

It isn't. Most games today only really use up to two threads because of a change in directx. This change meant the render thread was separate to the game thread and it's a simple split that pretty much all games use. A few games put things like ai on separate thread (arma series) but other than that it's incredibly rare. As developers we have made no practical progress in multi threading in the mainstream since dual core CPUs came out, the tools that are emerging are still inadequate.

My working theory is that most game simulations are too complicated to reason about in a multi threaded way, it may be impossible in a general way to use multiple threads for game world updates. Particular subsets of a world updates can be multi threaded (Crysis 3 grass movement) but generally today I know of no generic solution, and most game world updates are not easy or even possible to multi thread.

I keep hearing the developers are lazy argument and it irritates me a little because I have been writing MT software for a decade and I can tell you it can take 100 times longer and often runs slower in the end. Maths is kicking us down, many simple problems simple can't be multi threaded that is just a mathematical fact.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
It isn't. Most games today only really use up to two threads because of a change in directx. This change meant the render thread was separate to the game thread and it's a simple split that pretty much all games use. A few games put things like ai on separate thread (arma series) but other than that it's incredibly rare. As developers we have made no practical progress in multi threading in the mainstream since dual core CPUs came out, the tools that are emerging are still inadequate.

My working theory is that most game simulations are too complicated to reason about in a multi threaded way, it may be impossible in a general way to use multiple threads for game world updates. Particular subsets of a world updates can be multi threaded (Crysis 3 grass movement) but generally today I know of no generic solution, and most game world updates are not easy or even possible to multi thread.

I keep hearing the developers are lazy argument and it irritates me a little because I have been writing MT software for a decade and I can tell you it can take 100 times longer and often runs slower in the end. Maths is kicking us down, many simple problems simple can't be multi threaded that is just a mathematical fact.

That is exactly what I didn't want to hear. =( Seems multi threaded applications haven't come very far since I was looking at them.
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
future, they have a crap ton of cores though. It simply means game makers will actually need to do what they should have done 6 years ago, heavily multi thread their games.

You seem to think its simple but I am not convinced it is. And even with 8 cores i think these cpu are too weak. They are cpu's designed to run lots of little apps simultaneously at decent performance. They are not ideal gaming cpus at all, far from it, stupid considering these are GAMING consoles.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
You seem to think its simple but I am not convinced it is. And even with 8 cores i think these cpu are too weak. They are cpu's designed to run lots of little apps simultaneously at decent performance. They are not ideal gaming cpus at all, far from it, stupid considering these are GAMING consoles.

I thought we stopped basing the power of a CPU on the clock speed after Conroe. Hasn't it been shown numerous times that new CPU architectures can be vastly superior clock for clock against past generations?

So, perhaps, being a custom designed CPU for the specific purpose of being in these consoles, it runs a tad bit better than a Pentium 4 at 4Ghz.

And please name a game that is actually CPU bound on PC? There are very few and they won't be making it to console.