PS5 Pro updated rumors/leaks & technical/specs discussion |OT| PS5 Pro Enhanced Requirements Detailed.

[Yurinka]

I'm very curious to see what happens in April. If there will be a different tone or approach to things...

How communication will be. If there will be any show announced.

Well, something big definitely has to be communicated one way or another. I know 2024 is going to be very telling of Xbox's own future as a console platform, but I also feel it could be (less so) telling of what potential trajectory Sony puts in place for the rest of PS5 and the PS6, in terms of if things sail ahead easily or if the seas start getting noticeably rough.

IMO, any further investment for traditional/non-GaaS ports to PC/Steam outside of legacy/catalog releases/remasters (preferably PS1 - PS4 titles) will make things unnecessarily harder for PS5, PS5 Pro and PS6. If they start doing 1-year or Day 1 windows for current-gen traditional 1P titles to PC, that's going to significantly deflate the value proposition for PS5 Pro and PS6. They need more 1P AA exclusives (either fully 1P or co-developed with 3P) to pad out the release schedule without relying on 3P title marketing deals and timed exclusives as much. And yeah, start talking about some of the new 1P non-GaaS titles in development, too.

There are other, less severe things I hope are being looked into as well. PSVR2 is great tech; it may not be a big seller but I think support can persist for a while. Hopefully they are researching ways to make cheaper but performant VR headsets that can significantly lower production costs, BOM and require less on-board processing (stream the content as VR to the headset) and such. That would be beneficial for the PS6. I'm interested to see what they do with the PS Portal going forward, too.

I think that whoever is the new CEO, will contin*0ue the strategy and project SIE had in the works for years, as previous CEO like Jim did. On top of that, they'll make some tweaks but no big shifts because their current strategy is doing wonders and they are highly growing their business in many areas, and they made many investments whose results will be shown in the next few years.

We also have to consider Sony announces stuff to be released in the next months, maximum aprox. around a year and a half from planned release. And many of these things take a lot of time to be done, most of the announced stuff in 2024 will be things greenlighted, researched, worked and developed during the Jimbo era.

Things they can/pretty likely will announce or show during the first months of the fiscal year:

• New mid-term plan (April 2023-March 2026) budget for acquisitions/investments/stock repurchases for the whole Sony, mentioning most of it will be for their entertainment divisions and particularly gaming
• 1st/2nd party games to be released in the next maximum year and a half (Concord, Wolverine, Marathon, Death Stranding 2, Fairgame$ and other announced games plus maybe Cory's new IP, Team Asobi's next game, next Firesprite game, Ballistic Moon's game)
• Some -not all- SIE GaaS may be day one on PC, but new PC ports of non-GaaS will continue to be released around 2 years or more of their original release on PS (the original one, not possible recent remasters/remakes). Likely PC ports to be announced: MLB -day one on PC, it's GaaS-, TLOU2R, GoT, Demon's Souls
• More about the China/India Hero Project known projects plus new ones included there, maybe the announcement of a LATAM Hero Project
• More big 3rd party and PlayStation Indies deals that were already in the works
• PS cloud gaming client finally released for mobile devices and smart tvs operative systems (so once the Android one is ready, they'll be able to release it for PS Portal)
• PC PSN store, Android PSN store for their games on those platforms
• Maybe PS1/PS2/PSP classics for these PC & Android stores, very likely crossbuy with the PS4/PS5 ones, they may possibly update the emulator of the PS ones to improve it
• In the same way they created PlayStation Productions to use SIE IPs in Sony Pictures movies or tv shows, they may -or should- announce that other divisions like Sony Music or Sony Pictures who have mobile games (Lasengle, Crunchyroll Games, Aniplex mobile game etc) will join forces with SIE to put all Sony mobile game business under PlayStation Mobile, share knowledge, marketing, other possible synergies etc.
• They may announce some new partnerships with teams who are big specially in the Asian mobile and PC markets (in 2021 signed with CyberAgent, Kadokawa, in 2022 they signed with Tencent and Netease, in 2023 with NC Soft etc) as could be Netmarble, Neowiz, Pearl Abyss, Com2uS, Bandai Namco, MiHoÝo, Square, Konami, Mixi, Nexon, GungHo, IGG or start showing games resulting of those past deals
• They may announce some mobile focused partnership for buotique indie games for mobile with people like Annapurna and Devolver, something like a PlayStation Indies Mobile branch where Sony would help with marketing and include in their Android store such games
• Regarding acquisitions I think that as announced they'll continue with a low profile not acquiring big publishers. But they may announce soon a joint venture with Square, who announced that plans to branch out some of their development studios as subsidiary companies to allow external investors to co-own them. I think one of them, or the main one, will be Sony in order to secure them on PS and to get their support on mobile.

Basically all these things announced in 2024 or 2025 will be things already in the works or decided during the Jimbo era.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

• Some -not all- SIE GaaS may be day one on PC, but new PC ports of non-GaaS will continue to be released around 2 years or more of their original release on PS (the original one, not possible recent remasters/remakes). Likely PC ports to be announced: MLB -day one on PC, it's GaaS-, TLOU2R, GoT, Demon's Souls

I had to single this one out because you say all of these things have been doing wonders, yet we have the sales & revenue data from recent PC ports of non-traditional games that don't align with that claim at all. A $50 million revenue in PC sales for a game that easily generated 10x - 20x that on the console(s) isn't what I'd call a worthwhile endeavor long-term, certainly not with windows that are "simply" 2 years between release on console and release on PC..

Like I said, it becomes a self-defeating cycle of devaluing the B2P cap on console since it will train more people to wait for the inevitable PC port that is "only" a couple years after, with better graphics, more QoL options, cheaper price and in cases where there's network functionality, free online. Not to mention, if the PS5 Pro is going to be a thing, keeping the porting window to 2 years just makes even less sense, because by the point more recent PS5 owners might consider upgrading to the Pro, the game will be on PC! So now they have a choice of either getting a Pro to play the game at better fidelity, or getting a decent CPU & GPU that can do the same (or potentially better) when they're in the market to upgrade.

That option may always exist to some degree, but it'd be a lot smarter to not make it so it only comes with a 2-year timer between console & PC. These are the main reasons I've said they should not port the current-gen traditional releases until, at earliest, 4-6 years after console, not 2. Because that both gives the game more opportunities for maximizing B2P on the platform with higher ARPU (PlayStation), and creates more inherent value in the console itself to convince more purchases of it and variants like the Pro. The target should be that a PC version comes within 1-2 years of a sequel or new big release from that studio exclusively to the console(s) (assuming if in some cases it's cross-gen).

Otherwise, traditional releases on PC should be relegated to catalog compilations with remastered visuals, audio, QoL updates to things like controls, trophies, of content ranging from PS1 to PS4 and strategically priced. That way they can build up an appreciation for their content with PC gamers and convince some of them to perhaps buy a PS5 (or a Pro) for access to the current-gen offerings and whatever GaaS titles happen to not make it over to PC.

This and maybe the scale of certain M&As gaming-side within the next phase are probably the only things we happen to regularly disagree on. But for the ports in particular, I see nothing wrong with extending the window as the console should be the priority, and they would still be servicing PC games with some GaaS titles and re-releases of catalog content with various updates. That helps with adding value to the console and since you want more people on the console anyway due to higher ARPU potential, it actually makes more business sense long-term than what some of the strategy for PC the past couple of years has been, IMHO.

EDIT: And to anyone questioning my rationale behind the PC porting strategy changes, I highly, HIGHLY suggest you watch this section from NX Gamer's latest podcast discussing Xbox sales collapse in Europe, to see why even the current strategy Sony has poses some of the same risks Microsoft's hyper-aggressive approach have since manifested to hurting Xbox consoles.

There is a direct correlation between MS's PC porting strategy and gradual long-term damage to the value proposition of Xbox consoles, which has led to the sales catastrophes we're seeing in places like Europe and even now seemingly happening in their strongest markets of UK & US. Sony cannot follow that same strategy (especially since they actually care about and rely on console sales revenue, whereas for Microsoft it's a write-off for their larger bottom line), and any efforts that increase software gaps between console & PC in favor of the former, the better.

Remember, companies like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are platform holders, not just publishers. The moment you put your games on a competing platform like PC/Steam, your platform loses value proposition and yet another reason for people to buy it over alternatives for comprehensive and exclusive software access.

 

[Yurinka]

I had to single this one out because you say all of these things have been doing wonders, yet we have the sales & revenue data from recent PC ports of non-traditional games that don't align with that claim at all.

I posted the official numbers, combined they are generating hundreds of millions of dollars per year and their off console revenue during the first half of the fiscal year they was up 50% vs the previous year, when each port only required pretty likely maybe less than a couple millions to be made.

And all this while most PS metrics keep growing and improving every year, showing that these old ports don't cause any negative effect to PS.

Only people blind by hate to PC would think this isn't a highly profitable and successful business.

A $50 million revenue in PC sales for a game that easily generated 10x - 20x that on the console(s) isn't what I'd call a worthwhile endeavor long-term, certainly not with windows that are "simply" 2 years between release on console and release on PC.

This is a stupid and unfair comparision because you are comparing less than 8 months of an old and full priced PC port vs 5 years and 3 months of sales of the original game on PS.

Only a dumb person would expect to sell 20 millions on PC in 8 months with a full priced 4 years old port.

The thing is: once this game already generated most the money it could on PS and PS Plus, they ported it to other platform to reach more players and get additional profit, without risking to affect its sales in the original platform because it already completed its sales cycle there.

In 7 months and something it generated way over 20x the budget of the port, and this is only a portion of what is going to generate in this PC platform over years, a platform where games have a longer tail due to more frequent and aggresive discounts in the long term.

Like I said, it becomes a self-defeating cycle of devaluing the B2P cap on console since it will train more people to wait for the inevitable PC port that is "only" a couple years after, with better graphics, more QoL options, cheaper price and in cases where there's network functionality, free online. Not to mention, if the PS5 Pro is going to be a thing, keeping the porting window to 2 years just makes even less sense, because by the point more recent PS5 owners might consider upgrading to the Pro, the game will be on PC! So now they have a choice of either getting a Pro to play the game at better fidelity, or getting a decent CPU & GPU that can do the same (or potentially better) when they're in the market to upgrade.

That option may always exist to some degree, but it'd be a lot smarter to not make it so it only comes with a 2-year timer between console & PC. These are the main reasons I've said they should not port the current-gen traditional releases until, at earliest, 4-6 years after console, not 2. Because that both gives the game more opportunities for maximizing B2P on the platform with higher ARPU (PlayStation), and creates more inherent value in the console itself to convince more purchases of it and variants like the Pro. The target should be that a PC version comes within 1-2 years of a sequel or new big release from that studio exclusively to the console(s) (assuming if in some cases it's cross-gen).

Otherwise, traditional releases on PC should be relegated to catalog compilations with remastered visuals, audio, QoL updates to things like controls, trophies, of content ranging from PS1 to PS4 and strategically priced. That way they can build up an appreciation for their content with PC gamers and convince some of them to perhaps buy a PS5 (or a Pro) for access to the current-gen offerings and whatever GaaS titles happen to not make it over to PC.

This and maybe the scale of certain M&As gaming-side within the next phase are probably the only things we happen to regularly disagree on. But for the ports in particular, I see nothing wrong with extending the window as the console should be the priority, and they would still be servicing PC games with some GaaS titles and re-releases of catalog content with various updates. That helps with adding value to the console and since you want more people on the console anyway due to higher ARPU potential, it actually makes more business sense long-term than what some of the strategy for PC the past couple of years has been, IMHO.

Basically all PS metrics improved and kept improving (in fact, some faster than before) since they started to release these PC ports in around 2019. Including the ARPU, here you have the PS5 ARPU for its first 3 years vs the same in PS4:

There is absolutely nothing leading to think PC ports are causing any negative effect to their PS business. If something, it would be the opposite: The PS5 only sequels of PC ported games are selling better than the original PS versions of PC ported games, even breaking launch records for any PS exclusive ever.

So if PC ports are having any effect here is that some PC players became fans of the PS Studios games and bought a PS5 to play the other PS Studios games, knowing that they have them all there instead of only a few (remember that Sony doesn't plan to port all their games to PC) and without having to wait 2-10 years after their original release.

 

[Darth Vader]

This is a stupid and unfair comparision because you are comparing less than 8 months of an old and full priced PC port vs 5 years and 3 months of sales of the original game on PS.

Only a dumb person would expect to sell 20 millions on PC in 8 months with a full priced 4 years old port.

I love that you just recently cried that people are mean to you and then you say crap like this.

 

[anonpuffs]

I love that you just recently cried that people are mean to you and then you say crap like this.

For sure, hypocriticus maximus. And only a step above the colt eastwoods

 

[historia]

I am gonna read those paragraphs, but anyone wants to bet Zen 4 on new Pro model.

Zen was not ready for Neo but god knows about this time?

 

[KiryuRealty]

I had to single this one out because you say all of these things have been doing wonders, yet we have the sales & revenue data from recent PC ports of non-traditional games that don't align with that claim at all. A $50 million revenue in PC sales for a game that easily generated 10x - 20x that on the console(s) isn't what I'd call a worthwhile endeavor long-term, certainly not with windows that are "simply" 2 years between release on console and release on PC..

Like I said, it becomes a self-defeating cycle of devaluing the B2P cap on console since it will train more people to wait for the inevitable PC port that is "only" a couple years after, with better graphics, more QoL options, cheaper price and in cases where there's network functionality, free online. Not to mention, if the PS5 Pro is going to be a thing, keeping the porting window to 2 years just makes even less sense, because by the point more recent PS5 owners might consider upgrading to the Pro, the game will be on PC! So now they have a choice of either getting a Pro to play the game at better fidelity, or getting a decent CPU & GPU that can do the same (or potentially better) when they're in the market to upgrade.

That option may always exist to some degree, but it'd be a lot smarter to not make it so it only comes with a 2-year timer between console & PC. These are the main reasons I've said they should not port the current-gen traditional releases until, at earliest, 4-6 years after console, not 2. Because that both gives the game more opportunities for maximizing B2P on the platform with higher ARPU (PlayStation), and creates more inherent value in the console itself to convince more purchases of it and variants like the Pro. The target should be that a PC version comes within 1-2 years of a sequel or new big release from that studio exclusively to the console(s) (assuming if in some cases it's cross-gen).

Otherwise, traditional releases on PC should be relegated to catalog compilations with remastered visuals, audio, QoL updates to things like controls, trophies, of content ranging from PS1 to PS4 and strategically priced. That way they can build up an appreciation for their content with PC gamers and convince some of them to perhaps buy a PS5 (or a Pro) for access to the current-gen offerings and whatever GaaS titles happen to not make it over to PC.

This and maybe the scale of certain M&As gaming-side within the next phase are probably the only things we happen to regularly disagree on. But for the ports in particular, I see nothing wrong with extending the window as the console should be the priority, and they would still be servicing PC games with some GaaS titles and re-releases of catalog content with various updates. That helps with adding value to the console and since you want more people on the console anyway due to higher ARPU potential, it actually makes more business sense long-term than what some of the strategy for PC the past couple of years has been, IMHO.

EDIT: And to anyone questioning my rationale behind the PC porting strategy changes, I highly, HIGHLY suggest you watch this section from NX Gamer's latest podcast discussing Xbox sales collapse in Europe, to see why even the current strategy Sony has poses some of the same risks Microsoft's hyper-aggressive approach have since manifested to hurting Xbox consoles.

There is a direct correlation between MS's PC porting strategy and gradual long-term damage to the value proposition of Xbox consoles, which has led to the sales catastrophes we're seeing in places like Europe and even now seemingly happening in their strongest markets of UK & US. Sony cannot follow that same strategy (especially since they actually care about and rely on console sales revenue, whereas for Microsoft it's a write-off for their larger bottom line), and any efforts that increase software gaps between console & PC in favor of the former, the better.

Remember, companies like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are platform holders, not just publishers. The moment you put your games on a competing platform like PC/Steam, your platform loses value proposition and yet another reason for people to buy it over alternatives for comprehensive and exclusive software access.

As far as Xbox dying and PC ports goes, some on this board seem to need a reminder that correlation is not causation.

PC gaming simply isn’t big enough in the mainstream for it to significantly impact the consoles business, and Xbox was already in a nosedive when they pivoted to launching games all across their ecosystem at release.

Remember folks, PC games are built for Windows, which is another Microsoft product. MS would rather keep their ForzaGearsHalo customers within their walls than not, so their original plan was to phase out Xbox by moving the players to Windows, but the cost of PC gaming makes that strategy insufficient to replace lost Xbox sales, and here we are.

 

[Nhomnhom]

As long as the PS5 Pro is silent and has no major design fault, I just feel like I'll upgrade to a PS5 Pro anyway at this point.

The PS5 is great hardware and the PS5 Pro will likelly also be. How big the gap will be doesn't even matter to me that much, we already have plenty of games with unlocked framerate mods that will benefit from any extra performance something that was a lot less common last time.

My wish would be for Sony to actually go back and start adding those modes to important games that don't have them (and to also put pressure on third party devs to do the same), sadly that is unlikely to happen based on their history with this stuff. It's one huge advantage PC gets over PlayStation.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

As far as Xbox dying and PC ports goes, some on this board seem to need a reminder that correlation is not causation.

PC gaming simply isn’t big enough in the mainstream for it to significantly impact the consoles business, and Xbox was already in a nosedive when they pivoted to launching games all across their ecosystem at release.

Remember folks, PC games are built for Windows, which is another Microsoft product. MS would rather keep their ForzaGearsHalo customers within their walls than not, so their original plan was to phase out Xbox by moving the players to Windows, but the cost of PC gaming makes that strategy insufficient to replace lost Xbox sales, and here we are.

I see what you're saying and agree with it mostly, but what I'd like to add is while Xbox was going down (market share-wise) prior to the PC Day 1 initiative, it was that initiative that really helped to "accelerate" the drop in Xbox's relevance as a console when it comes to value perception. And, it was that type of initiative combined with the strategy of trying to lock down a big timed exclusive like Rise of the Tomb Raider immediately after, as real reasons why MS got so much flack and questioning for said deal. It made little sense for them to give up console exclusivity of their own 1P titles, but still try locking in 3P console exclusives.

As for PC market's competitive status with console...I think it's still a bit complicated. We know platforms like Steam have 130+ million accounts, but you don't have to pay for an account and most of them either don't buy any games or buy only very cheap & heavily discounted games, in some cases not very many of them. However, there's a lot more pirating on the platform compared to the consoles, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the enthusiasts core gamers (who would be among the higher ARPU for PC gamers) engage in it even if they some games and some of those at full price.

Actually the competitive status/threat PC has to console, and I still say this has manifested a large part of Xbox's drop-off in the console market, is two-pronged. One, is that the software libraries between the two for AAA and AA games is largely identical. It isn't like 20+ years ago where you actually had a lot of PC devs focusing exclusively on the platform with, for their time, AAA-level titles. If consoles were lucky, they would get watered-down ports of those games several years later, similar to the situation with arcade ports to console during the '80s and most of the '90s. The other point, though, is that much of the customer crossover between console & PC is the core enthusiast gamer, due to the libraries now being so similar.

The reason that's important, I feel, is because again when dealing with those types of gamers we're talking about relatively high ARPU spenders. They may not make up the majority of the install base on either platform, but statistically, they spend the most out of any demographic. Meaning in that sense, they are the most valued customers. But, realistically, they are not going to equally prioritize multiple gaming platforms when the vast majority of content is shared between them, and that's where consoles tend to lose. A PC core enthusiast may have a console or two alongside their PC, but which one do you think they're spending most of their time & money on? It's likely PC/Steam, and that console is relegated to one-off sessions or for whatever exclusives release on it.

Other than that, the console likely will seem like a doormat to those types of gamers and since these are, or would be, the biggest 'whales' in the console's ecosystem but no longer spending most of their money there, there are just enough of them to where a big exodus can negatively impact console install base AND general revenue...and that's exactly what we've been seeing with Xbox. We've also seen a lot of those core enthusiasts Xbox-only (or primarily Xbox) gamers also jump ship to PlayStation, but Microsoft's Day 1 Everywhere policy didn't provide any direct enabling for PlayStation. It did so for PC, and particularly, Steam, something outside of Microsoft's direct ownership.

So it's in those ways where I feel there's correlation between their policy to do Day 1 on PC and it accelerating the collapse in value proposition of Xbox consoles to the majority who weren't already core enthusiasts in that ecosystem, and now even a lot of those who up to this point were such customers. Other things like perception of quality degradation in 1P content offerings, perceived lack of performance (relative to price and competing platforms), and empty promises have also heavily contributed, but I don't want to ignore the role their Day 1 PC strategy for all their 1P have played in Xbox's market reality, either.

With that said, I agree with you that overall, it's not much to Microsoft at the end of the day. Xbox gamers who jump to PC are still more or less in Microsoft's ecosystem, because even if the storefront for choice isn't, the games on that storefront are still using Direct X, they're still using Windows APIs, MS coding products and middleware, and are still suspect to whatever Windows license agreements exist. That's all backend stuff though, and it's clear Microsoft want that type of control and association with the frontend, hence why they launched (and failed) with Windows Store.

It's why I've said if anything they need to just abandon traditional consoles altogether and refit Xbox into a PC gaming-centric hardware brand of NUC & laptop-style devices running Windows. Treat it like their Surface products, to a large extent, with economies of scale and margins in like with it. They've basically lost the gaming storefront/launcher war with Valve but at least Xbox could be useful in keeping Windows gamers on Windows instead of Steam OS and Linux, which is what Valve and probably other PC gaming companies want to shift adaption towards.

Because if that starts to happen, Microsoft lose a shit ton of backend leverage with the development scene, not just with PC but also console game development too (for the games initially developed on PCs or have phases where development is on the PC and not the devkits).

 

[Killer_Sakoman]

I see what you're saying and agree with it mostly, but what I'd like to add is while Xbox was going down (market share-wise) prior to the PC Day 1 initiative, it was that initiative that really helped to "accelerate" the drop in Xbox's relevance as a console when it comes to value perception. And, it was that type of initiative combined with the strategy of trying to lock down a big timed exclusive like Rise of the Tomb Raider immediately after, as real reasons why MS got so much flack and questioning for said deal. It made little sense for them to give up console exclusivity of their own 1P titles, but still try locking in 3P console exclusives.

As for PC market's competitive status with console...I think it's still a bit complicated. We know platforms like Steam have 130+ million accounts, but you don't have to pay for an account and most of them either don't buy any games or buy only very cheap & heavily discounted games, in some cases not very many of them. However, there's a lot more pirating on the platform compared to the consoles, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the enthusiasts core gamers (who would be among the higher ARPU for PC gamers) engage in it even if they some games and some of those at full price.

Actually the competitive status/threat PC has to console, and I still say this has manifested a large part of Xbox's drop-off in the console market, is two-pronged. One, is that the software libraries between the two for AAA and AA games is largely identical. It isn't like 20+ years ago where you actually had a lot of PC devs focusing exclusively on the platform with, for their time, AAA-level titles. If consoles were lucky, they would get watered-down ports of those games several years later, similar to the situation with arcade ports to console during the '80s and most of the '90s. The other point, though, is that much of the customer crossover between console & PC is the core enthusiast gamer, due to the libraries now being so similar.

The reason that's important, I feel, is because again when dealing with those types of gamers we're talking about relatively high ARPU spenders. They may not make up the majority of the install base on either platform, but statistically, they spend the most out of any demographic. Meaning in that sense, they are the most valued customers. But, realistically, they are not going to equally prioritize multiple gaming platforms when the vast majority of content is shared between them, and that's where consoles tend to lose. A PC core enthusiast may have a console or two alongside their PC, but which one do you think they're spending most of their time & money on? It's likely PC/Steam, and that console is relegated to one-off sessions or for whatever exclusives release on it.

Other than that, the console likely will seem like a doormat to those types of gamers and since these are, or would be, the biggest 'whales' in the console's ecosystem but no longer spending most of their money there, there are just enough of them to where a big exodus can negatively impact console install base AND general revenue...and that's exactly what we've been seeing with Xbox. We've also seen a lot of those core enthusiasts Xbox-only (or primarily Xbox) gamers also jump ship to PlayStation, but Microsoft's Day 1 Everywhere policy didn't provide any direct enabling for PlayStation. It did so for PC, and particularly, Steam, something outside of Microsoft's direct ownership.

So it's in those ways where I feel there's correlation between their policy to do Day 1 on PC and it accelerating the collapse in value proposition of Xbox consoles to the majority who weren't already core enthusiasts in that ecosystem, and now even a lot of those who up to this point were such customers. Other things like perception of quality degradation in 1P content offerings, perceived lack of performance (relative to price and competing platforms), and empty promises have also heavily contributed, but I don't want to ignore the role their Day 1 PC strategy for all their 1P have played in Xbox's market reality, either.

With that said, I agree with you that overall, it's not much to Microsoft at the end of the day. Xbox gamers who jump to PC are still more or less in Microsoft's ecosystem, because even if the storefront for choice isn't, the games on that storefront are still using Direct X, they're still using Windows APIs, MS coding products and middleware, and are still suspect to whatever Windows license agreements exist. That's all backend stuff though, and it's clear Microsoft want that type of control and association with the frontend, hence why they launched (and failed) with Windows Store.

It's why I've said if anything they need to just abandon traditional consoles altogether and refit Xbox into a PC gaming-centric hardware brand of NUC & laptop-style devices running Windows. Treat it like their Surface products, to a large extent, with economies of scale and margins in like with it. They've basically lost the gaming storefront/launcher war with Valve but at least Xbox could be useful in keeping Windows gamers on Windows instead of Steam OS and Linux, which is what Valve and probably other PC gaming companies want to shift adaption towards.

Because if that starts to happen, Microsoft lose a shit ton of backend leverage with the development scene, not just with PC but also console game development too (for the games initially developed on PCs or have phases where development is on the PC and not the devkits).

You can write a 500 page book in one hour, dude.

I haven't and have no time to read that thicc wall of text, but I agree with you anyway

 

[Nhomnhom]

You can write a 500 page book in one hour, dude.

I haven't and have no time to read that thicc wall of text, but I agree with you anyway

"The text discusses the decline of Xbox's market share and suggests that the PC Day 1 initiative, along with other strategies, has accelerated the perception of Xbox's decreasing value as a console. The author highlights the two-fold competitive threat PC poses to consoles: similar software libraries and the shared core enthusiast gamer demographic, who tend to prioritize PC gaming. The text argues that Microsoft's Day 1 Everywhere policy, allowing PC access to exclusive titles, may have contributed to Xbox's decline, even though gamers transitioning to PC still remain within Microsoft's ecosystem. The suggestion is made to transform Xbox into a PC gaming-centric hardware brand to maintain control and association with Windows, potentially countering the growing influence of platforms like Steam OS and Linux."

My take after reading that summary is: if MS can't compete with Sony they sure can't compete with Valve. They should just admit they are terrible at this, become a regular third party publisher and focus on the looming collapse of the monstrosity they've built with MS Studios + Bethesda + Activision + Blizzard.

 

[Killer_Sakoman]

The text discusses the decline of Xbox's market share and suggests that the PC Day 1 initiative, along with other strategies, has accelerated the perception of Xbox's decreasing value as a console. The author highlights the two-fold competitive threat PC poses to consoles: similar software libraries and the shared core enthusiast gamer demographic, who tend to prioritize PC gaming. The text argues that Microsoft's Day 1 Everywhere policy, allowing PC access to exclusive titles, may have contributed to Xbox's decline, even though gamers transitioning to PC still remain within Microsoft's ecosystem. The suggestion is made to transform Xbox into a PC gaming-centric hardware brand to maintain control and association with Windows, potentially countering the growing influence of platforms like Steam OS and Linux.

Thanks for the summary and I was right to blindly agree with everything written in the book.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

"The text discusses the decline of Xbox's market share and suggests that the PC Day 1 initiative, along with other strategies, has accelerated the perception of Xbox's decreasing value as a console. The author highlights the two-fold competitive threat PC poses to consoles: similar software libraries and the shared core enthusiast gamer demographic, who tend to prioritize PC gaming. The text argues that Microsoft's Day 1 Everywhere policy, allowing PC access to exclusive titles, may have contributed to Xbox's decline, even though gamers transitioning to PC still remain within Microsoft's ecosystem. The suggestion is made to transform Xbox into a PC gaming-centric hardware brand to maintain control and association with Windows, potentially countering the growing influence of platforms like Steam OS and Linux."

My take after reading that summary is: if MS can't compete with Sony they sure can't compete with Valve. They should just admit they are terrible at this, become a regular third party publisher and focus on the looming collapse of the monstrosity they've built with MS Studios + Bethesda + Activision + Blizzard.

Now that's what I call a TL;DR

Wait...was that an AI analysis? Oh my god!

 

[Nhomnhom]

Now that's what I call a TL;DR

AI making wall of text users readable.

 

[Gamernyc78]

 

[anonpuffs]

I disagree that chiplet packaging is a significant advantage for console-level APUs. The main advantage of chiplets and MCM die structure is the ability to scale compute beyond the reticle size limit or perhaps to reduce the wastage of wasted large dies within the reticle limit when taking into account wafer area and defect rate, given advanced nodes cost much more than older nodes. But the trade-off is that you introduce latency and significant energy usage increase compared to monolithic dies due to having to have much more i/o interfaces between the die chiplets - and console APUs are not big enough to require the scaling that benefits from MCM. However...what is interesting is that you could add in different asics designed around, say, AI-enhanced temporal upscaling, frame interpolation, raytracing/bvh traversal, etc. out onto a separate die .

 

[historia]

I disagree that chiplet packaging is a significant advantage for console-level APUs. The main advantage of chiplets and MCM die structure is the ability to scale compute beyond the reticle size limit or perhaps to reduce the wastage of wasted large dies within the reticle limit when taking into account wafer area and defect rate, given advanced nodes cost much more than older nodes. But the trade-off is that you introduce latency and significant energy usage increase compared to monolithic dies due to having to have much more i/o interfaces between the die chiplets - and console APUs are not big enough to require the scaling that benefits from MCM. However...what is interesting is that you could add in different asics designed around, say, AI-enhanced temporal upscaling, frame interpolation, raytracing/bvh traversal, etc. out onto a separate die .

yea the whole chiplet is stupid for consoles. Since PS5 Pro is expected to ship more than 20 million units.

It works for costs compared to monolithic for small GPU manufacturing because they only manufacture a small amount of chip on some fabs. Don't see they save any cost for console hardwares

Also Navi 31 MCM design has terrible L2 cache distribution so the performance is worse than 6950XT on games dependence on big bandwidth because they are always starved on caches.

 

[Nhomnhom]

Looked up when PS4 Pro was revealed and it was September 2016 with a November 2016 release date. We are unlikely to get a big event anytime soon then.

 

[Alabtrosmyster]

I wonder if some of Xbox studios have kits for it? Phil could show his gamers creds with a full specs leak directly on twitter... Or at least confirm a leak.

 

[KiryuRealty]

I wonder if some of Xbox studios have kits for it? Phil could show his gamers creds with a full specs leak directly on twitter... Or at least confirm a leak.

When we all leak, we all win!