Nvidia: Not Enough Money in a PS4 GPU for us to bother

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,188
2
76
Funny...poeple talk about profits...whne everyon know the console are sold at loss....but they earn that money back on higher game-prices.

Everytime a new console comes out, it appears the community gets a collective memory loss and the same failed used arguments as when the least generation console came are regurgitated over and over again.

People were all in arms about the RSX....then this happend:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1685433

What are you even talking about? Also, prove to me that they will be selling this generation of consoles for a loss. Everything I have read so far has stated that they will not do that again (sony especially) and that's why they are using pretty much off the shelf semi custom parts to reduce costs.

The suggested $70 MSRP is not to pay of this console generation. It's to pay developers because the increased capabilities of these consoles will require more artists, modelers, and programmers to put these next-next-gen titles together. That labor is not cheap.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Then why do they bother?

If not for the PS3, Blu-ray would have failed.

Microsoft wants control of the living room, and home entertainment. They tried with MSN TV and that failed, then they tried Windows XP Media Center Edition and that failed.
 
Last edited:

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
You're right, people get collective memory loss. They think that just because there is a PC GPU with better specs on paper, the console is going to be "gimped" and worthless. And yet that "less powerful than a 7800" GPU has lasted 8 years, still outputting games as good looking as God Of War III.
Which bring me to my second point, thnaks for using the fallacy.

You talk like a game on a console and a PC is the same, but you ignore facts like
- Resolution (upscaled dosn't mean HD)
- Shadowmaps
- Textures
- FPS
- Draw distance
- AA
- AF


By your definition MEtro 2033 is the same on a conole or a PC...too bad for you the develpoers don't see it that way:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/53247/Metro-2033-Graphics-Far-Superior-On-PC

Graphics-wise, the PC version of the 4A engine is far removed from the console versions. All too often we've seen PC games that are identical to the 360 equivalents, simply offering you the ability to run at higher resolutions with higher frame-rates.

Metro 2033 features superior volumetric fog, double the precision in the PhysX, 2048x2048 textures (up against 1024x1024 on console), better shadow-map definition and filtering, object blur in DX10, sub-surface scattering for superior skin shaders, parallax mapping on all surfaces and better geometric detail with less aggressive LODs. There's also going to be support for tessellation in DirectX 11. In basic terms, tessellation interpolates new polygons, so the closer you get to a tessellated object, the more polygons are generated.

Same thing my ass...
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
What are you even talking about? Also, prove to me that they will be selling this generation of consoles for a loss. Everything I have read so far has stated that they will not do that again (sony especially) and that's why they are using pretty much off the shelf semi custom parts to reduce costs.

The suggested $70 MSRP is not to pay of this console generation. It's to pay developers because the increased capabilities of these consoles will require more artists, modelers, and programmers to put these next-next-gen titles together. That labor is not cheap.

You call it "next-gen"...LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

It's DX11 hardware ffs....we have that already!!!

PS4 and the new Xbox will NOT be albe to run "next-gen" games.

The amount of lies and FUD being used to promote conoles are just way too stupid..."Next gen".

LOLOLOLOLolololol...

PS. By that reasoning, a lot of PC games should cost a LOT more...LOL!!!
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,519
6,029
136
Which bring me to my second point, thnaks for using the fallacy.

You talk like a game on a console and a PC is the same, but you ignore facts like
- Resolution (upscaled dosn't mean HD)
- Shadowmaps
- Textures
- FPS
- Draw distance
- AA
- AF


By your definition MEtro 2033 is the same on a conole or a PC...too bad for you the develpoers don't see it that way:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/53247/Metro-2033-Graphics-Far-Superior-On-PC



Same thing my ass...

Well done, yes, a graphics card from 5 years in the future with a vastly larger power budget will defeat the console. I don't think anyone was arguing with that. :rolleyes: What we're saying is that given roughly the same hardware, a console will extract more from it. How well does Metro 2033 run on a PC, on a Geforce 7800?
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Well done, yes, a graphics card from 5 years in the future with a vastly larger power budget will defeat the console. I don't think anyone was arguing with that. :rolleyes: What we're saying is that given roughly the same hardware, a console will extract more from it. How well does Metro 2033 run on a PC, on a Geforce 7800?

At hte time the consoles ame out...I had higher fidlity on my PC.
Depsite fanboy claims about the same thing.

But unlike console-nugget...I don't stagnate for 6-7 years...take a small step...and wait 6 more years.
I progress all the time.

But keep saluting stagnation, autoaim and shooters on rails...the "benefits" of consoles on gaming.

I wonder if that is why more and more devs and studios are going back to the PC, stating thatthe console is a limitation...do you? ^^
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Last gen consoles are still a loss with all gaming and online services added. -3B$ for MS and -5B$ for Sony.

According to this they turned profitable 3 years ago. I don't know if that means they recouped the total investment, or that they are selling for more than they cost finally. Either way, that was 3 years ago.
Sony's PlayStation 3 Turns Profitable

Sony has finally begun making money on its PlayStation 3 console and expects its game business to turn a profit this year, the company said Thursday.

I guess they are spending more on them now and not selling as many?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/196214/article.html


About the initial costs of the ps3. (Note the CPU and GPU prices)
ps3_costs_isupply.gif


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061117130000.html
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
Another myth debunked. Here we all were thinking Microsoft and Sony had some idea of what they were doing, fortunately the AT forum financial acolytes, engineers and programmers have once again set everyone straight.

:biggrin:
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
I'll just post think link Again, since it got ignored the first...this time I will quote it...just for that nice foot-in-mouth feeling, some posters have gotten used too:

http://www.vg247.com/2013/01/07/xbo...-billion-ex-sony-employee-paints-grim-future/

Xbox 360 and PS3 losses total $8 billion, ex-Sony employee paints grim future

Xbox 360 and PS3 have cost Microsoft and Sony a combined total of $8 billion, according to a new article penned by industry veteran Ben Cousins.

lots-of-money.jpg

According to Cousins’ report on Kotaku, Microsoft has spent some $2.996bn on Xbox 360 since it launched in 2005, while Sony has fared worse, spending $4.951 billion on PS3. Both figures are a loss, and you can see an overview of both company’s losses in Cousins’s financial table here.
Cousins, who has worked at a string of high-profile studios over the years – including Sony EA and Lionhead – has shed serious doubt on the future of the home console as we know it, citing SOny and Microsoft’s plan to sell each console at a loss as a reason for such poor fortune. It’s a poor strategy he says, as even with a combined total of 70+ million consoles sold, both companies are still losing money.
“Consoles like Xboxes, PlayStations & the Wii U are sold at a loss”, said Cousins. “It costs more to manufacture and distribute the device than it is sold for. Console manufacturers do this because they hope to make back the money from the license fee they charge for every game sold on the system.
“In order to offset the huge cost of hardware production, distribution, R&D and marketing, a hardware platform holder must sell vast quantities of hardware, and even bigger quantities of software. So much needs to be sold, in fact, that the data points to PS3 and Xbox 360 having made huge losses, despite having sold 70+ million units of hardware each.
“Of those 70 million Xbox 360s sold, a large proportion (approx. 40%) were bought after the most recent price cut of August 2009. Of the 70 million PS3s sold, a large proportion (approx. 42%) were bought since the introduction of the PS3 Slim.”
With such a large proportion of consoles being sold post-price cut, it seems as if the loss-leading strategy is failing to bear fruit for both companies. The issue isn’t being helped by some 50% of home console owners also owning a smartphone, tablet or both, devices which are seeing a rapidly advancing capacity for supporting triple-a game content.
Today’s reveal of the Tegra-4 powered Project Shielf from Nvidia shows that mobile gaming is rapidly gaining ground, and could pose a real threat to the home console market as we know it in 2013. As a final bullet point in his report, Cousin addressed this very issue, “Mobile developers and publishers are starting to target these ‘mainstream console gamers’ aggressively. I work for a mobile publisher just slightly smaller than EA, and we are targeting them aggressively.”
Predicting what he sees on the horizon for the industry, Cousins continued, “In the future, I see gaming as having two main markets:
“Mobile devices like smartphones and tablets will serve the biggest market—covering kids, casual gamers and the mainstream console people.
“The core and ultra-core gamers would be served by PC gaming, which will be smaller than mobile, but that will continue to grow. Many of the old-school PC gamers I know that moved to playing games on Xbox over the last 10 years are coming back to PC because of free-to-play and indie games, controller and TV support, as well as incredible digital distribution on platforms like Steam.”
So now it’s over to you readers. Which of the two brackets above would you say you’ll fall in to, should Cousin’s predictions come to pass? Are home console manufacturers really in trouble, or is this a knee-jerk reaction? Let us know below.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
The game software biz is comparable to Hollywood movies. Those GFWL and Windows logos on the boxes don't come for free. MS gets a piece of all games for it's console. Sony the same. Those exclusive titles like Gran Turismo, probably much more %.
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,519
6,029
136
At hte time the consoles ame out...I had higher fidlity on my PC.
Depsite fanboy claims about the same thing.

At launch? Sure, I can believe that. Because the PS3 was notoriously hard to code for, and it took a long time for games to get the most performance out of it. But the visual quality of console games has consistently improved for years, despite the fixed hardware. Just play and compare Halo 3 and Halo 4 to see what several years' worth of optimization can do. Compare Gears of War with Gears of War 3. Compare Assassin's Creed with Assassin's Creed III. Equivalent PC hardware to the 360 or PS3 could not match the performance that they get out of it for these fine-tuned games, honed for a fixed platform.

But unlike console-nugget...I don't stagnate for 6-7 years...take a small step...and wait 6 more years.
I progress all the time.

Throwing considerably more money at your hardware generally does give you better performance, yes. Again... nobody is arguing with that.

But keep saluting stagnation, autoaim and shooters on rails...the "benefits" of consoles on gaming.

You don't think that EA and Activision would churn out derivative, stagnant crap on the PC just as easily as consoles? Go look at the Simcity launch and tell me more about your PC gaming nirvana.

I wonder if that is why more and more devs and studios are going back to the PC, stating thatthe console is a limitation...do you? ^^

The majority of the massive budget games focused on impressive visuals are still console-centric. The main exception in recent times is Battlefield 3, and that was effectively a trojan horse for EA to get their engine for the next gen consoles ready ahead of time (focus on DX11 features and good use of large numbers of cores). The most exciting and dynamic part of PC development is indie gaming, where they don't give a damn about the visuals as long as the game is good... which has nothing to do with the processing power of the platform.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
The link to the costs of the original PS3 show that the GPU was around $130, and the CPU $90.

If AMD gets anything near that it's seems like a pretty high price for so many sales. I wouldn't doubt AMD gave them a cheap deal because they need all the $ they can get, but I doubt they are doing it for free, and certainly not at a loss.

So, console makers are losing money, AMD will still get paid. If NV had one this you wouldn't be so upset about how sony and ms losses are so big.

Who cares, in the end AMD is able to undercut and provide something NV couldn't.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
At launch? Sure, I can believe that. Because the PS3 was notoriously hard to code for, and it took a long time for games to get the most performance out of it. But the visual quality of console games has consistently improved for years, despite the fixed hardware. Just play and compare Halo 3 and Halo 4 to see what several years' worth of optimization can do. Compare Gears of War with Gears of War 3. Compare Assassin's Creed with Assassin's Creed III. Equivalent PC hardware to the 360 or PS3 could not match the performance that they get out of it for these fine-tuned games, honed for a fixed platform.



Throwing considerably more money at your hardware generally does give you better performance, yes. Again... nobody is arguing with that.



You don't think that EA and Activision would churn out derivative, stagnant crap on the PC just as easily as consoles? Go look at the Simcity launch and tell me more about your PC gaming nirvana.



The majority of the massive budget games focused on impressive visuals are still console-centric. The main exception in recent times is Battlefield 3, and that was effectively a trojan horse for EA to get their engine for the next gen consoles ready ahead of time (focus on DX11 features and good use of large numbers of cores). The most exciting and dynamic part of PC development is indie gaming, where they don't give a damn about the visuals as long as the game is good... which has nothing to do with the processing power of the platform.

You want to talk games and smack..okay...wake me up when ARMA2 run on a console.
I bet I will be playing Arma3 by then...oh wait! :biggrin:
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,519
6,029
136

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
There's a reason that both companies are going with an AMD single chip design based on existing building blocks this time- they actually want to make a profit...

So AMD has entered a unprofitable market....nice ^^
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,330
126
The link to the costs of the original PS3 show that the GPU was around $130, and the CPU $90.

If AMD gets anything near that it's seems like a pretty high price for so many sales. I wouldn't doubt AMD gave them a cheap deal because they need all the $ they can get, but I doubt they are doing it for free, and certainly not at a loss.

So, console makers are losing money, AMD will still get paid. If NV had one this you wouldn't be so upset about how sony and ms losses are so big.

Who cares, in the end AMD is able to undercut and provide something NV couldn't.

playstation_3_bill_of_materials.jpg



Playstation 3 released in 2006. Back when a blu ray drive was $125, they can be had for $25 today, and that is full retail end user price. Look at the rest of what went in the machine and the pricing...

The AT forum financial acolytes know better though. I'm sure once their revelations are brought forward to Microsoft and Sony, the PS4 and Xbox next will be cancelled and there will never be a console market again.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Groove still don't like hard facts and number...now he tries to make a $8 billon loss..and make it seem like a fabrication of forum posters.

I guess he is still hurt over ARMA3 broke his E-peen ^^
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,519
6,029
136
You want to talk games and smack..okay...wake me up when ARMA2 run on a console.
I bet I will be playing Arma3 by then...oh wait! :biggrin:

Oh yes, that well known graphical powerhouse with worldwide blockbuster sales. :rolleyes:

arma2.jpg
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,519
6,029
136
So AMD has entered a unprofitable market....nice ^^

*sigh* There is a teeny-tiny difference between selling components to go into a product, and selling a product. Every single company in your supply chain could make a very healthy profit, and you could make a loss on your finished product.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Oh yes, that well known graphical powerhouse with worldwide blockbuster sales. :rolleyes:

arma2.jpg

Try running it on a PS3 or Xbox360...are you going to be so stupid I need to school your ass over what the engine does, compared to all other engines? ^^^
Or are you just mad someone don't like the new crapboxes, they stagnation an their crappy specs (like I always have said about consoles)
?
Or are you just mad at me? ^^
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
*sigh* There is a teeny-tiny difference between selling components to go into a product, and selling a product. Every single company in your supply chain could make a very healthy profit, and you could make a loss on your finished product.

So consoles a negative earnings and crappy graphics...damn it something be enthusiasthic about...erhmm...wait :hmm:
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
Try running it on a PS3 or Xbox360...are you going to be so stupid I need to school your ass over what the engine does, compared to all other engines? ^^^
Or are you just mad someone don't like the new crapboxes, they stagnation an their crappy specs (like I always have said about consoles)
?
Or are you just mad at me? ^^

Oh. This guy. :rolleyes: