It would be a $60 BOM reduction at current G7 prices, plus you get a yield boost for the SoC by being able to harvest MC defects.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
viveks86
Member
Bruh, why you do this? Don't give them ideas
i don't agree. extra ssd can be easily bought. and HDD transfer is still an option.
For 128-bit they would have to rearchitect the APU, no? That means delay for no apparent upgrade.
You're okay with 24GB but not with 20GB? I say 20GB is the easiest and most practical cut down using 2GB modules instead of 3GB.
I'd prefer a lesser RAM than lesser bandwidth. PS6 will have 1080p-1440p native res reconstructed to 4k. That would save a lot of RAM.
RTX 5080 with 16GB of VRAM is capable of path tracing with the help of DLSS4.
Bruh, why you do this? Don't give them ideas
asdasdasdbb
Member
I don't think that's enough to be worth it. Plus (as mentioned) it'd hurt the memory bandwidth which is already an issue as it is.
In 2027, 2 GB chips shouldn't be that much cheaper than 3 GB.
Or don't release anything while memory prices are beyond all logic and carry on with current gen products.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
I mean glorious leader God Emperor Xi is preparing to blockade or invade Taiwan over next few years.
That is going to make Iran war seem like a joke.
Bojji
Member
PlayStation 67
kevboard
Member
Let me first quote this though I know it's not for me. Just keep this in mind.
That's a bad strategy. Sony should heavily promote PS6 immediately with the goal of gaining a lot of players in its first two years.
Plus there's no guarantee that RAM prices will go down as it was before. (See quote above)
You and I know this is a bad gamble.
I don't agree. Sony and next-gen can afford a 20GB RAM in the wake of AI reconstruction techniques.
I don't agree. They should launch at a cheaper price but quickly have a Pro version in 2030 with 30GB RAM and beefier APU at a higher price. win-win
I would prefer a hundred dollar more $599 PS6 that is 4x more capable than the handheld.
(I have nothing against the handheld, I would love to get one as a complement to the PS6)
Ok then, how about 4GB chips?
Ancient PS5 is 1TB and PS5 Pro is 2TB.
According to this estimate to which Kepler agreed, 30GB RAM alone is $300 and 1TB SSD is $142.
PS6 APU is only $110.
I propose to cut down on memory because it's the most expensive parts. They could probably save $100 for a 20GB RAM and $70 for a 500GB SSD. The current estimate cost for PS6 is $743. 743 minus 170 is 573.
At $573, Sony could sell a PS6 for $499 subsidized. With the 1TB version, the estimate would be $643, Sony can sell it for $599 subsidized.
They would lose less money with 1TB, so that would be the abundant sku and the 500GB only sold for marketing purposes. Just so they can say PS6 is available for $499.
Okay probably the subsidy is a bit steep.
PS6 500GB - $549
PS6 1TB - $ 649
At that price, Sony would only subsidize $24 for the 500GB and sell the 1TB at no profit.
The main point is to cut down on the most expensive prices which is memory to reduce the price. When memory pricess start to normalize, PS6 can probably sell for $399 in the future. But if memory prices is here to stay, at least the PS6 will not be very expensive that will keep it from selling in critical mass.
PS6 Pro can be 30GB with more powerful APU at $999 and it wouldn't matter. The Pro does not need to sell 100M.
You guys realize there's costs beyond just the raw parts right?
You gotta ship these things, retailers get a cut, etc.
PS5 PRO is NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
PS6 will not be less than $800 unless something drastically changes in the world.
asdasdasdbb
Member
4 GB would work but you'd have to delay to 2028.
That for me is the better strategy. Q2 2028 possible?
128-bit just requires disabling one memory controller
PS5 Pro has 2TB of SSD and it's sold at a profit.
Sony never care for Pro to sell 100 million.
MCH2024
Member
I repeat my call. What one believes they need and what one deserves are different things.
When storage prices are this high the problem is the 200GB Games, not the 500GB SSDs.
That's a very stupid way to cut back. 20GB at full bandwidth is way better. Your PS6 would suck ass just to squeeze in an extra 4GB.
Nerf it to 15GB+2GB DDR or 20GB something. That's what it deserves.
Agreed on 20GB Point. But remember the rationale behind Cerny Commodity Bozo Maxing strategy. It's an Anti-PC positioning.
If PS6 is just 20GB, it's basically an RTX 4070 Ti SUPER that's 4 years late lol. He needs the memory for differentiation since AMD cannot out design Nvidia. (Thus IP can't be the differentiating factor).
Last edited:
MCH2024
Member
Ultra Ultra Ultra Premium memory. These are ICs that will go into Rubin CPX and RTX PRO. You don't want to use them in a mainstream console. The pricing will be terrible for a decent while.
Remember PS5 was 14Gbps.
Last edited:
MCH2024
Member
this one is being owned by the 2TB SSD lol.
Also remember that PS6 APU TDP is 160W. they are cutting massively on cooling and such. the 3.0 GHz shit MLID is selling is ehem, bullshit. (same for 2.0 GHz PS5 being presented as 2.23 GHz)
viveks86
Member
Wouldn't that affect the performance characteristics of the console though? The Raster/RT/PT/ML throughput would all have been planned around available VRAM bandwidth. It would end up being an unbalanced, heavily bottlenecked machine in a generation where bandwidth will already be scarce, right?
Man, I really hope none of this happens. Neither capacity nor bandwidth. If they really want me to get on OnlyFans to afford the damn thing, I'll do it!
Last edited:
20GB + 2GB for OS. Hoping Sony planned for the DDR bus before the tape out.
It used to work. But this time Sony has to find another anti-pc marketing strategy. Price is more important anti-pc strategy.
That's a bit of a conundrum for Cerny.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Again, if the strategy from now on is full cross-gen support, then rapidly growing the PS6 user base does not matter. Sony wouldn't care any more than they do if more people buy a PS5 than they buy a PS5pro. Coming in at a higher price doesn't mean you won't sell; it just means your sales rate will be slower than if your price were lower.
You keep insisting on this, gaining players like its life or death... have you already forgotten what happened this gen? We have full PS4 support well into the 4th year of the PS5. When you have a PS6H that is weaker or on par with the PS5, that should tell you everything you need to know about Sony's strategy going forward. Like you talk like ther isn't going to be an entry level "PS6" with the handheld. As far as sony is convcerned, the handheld and the home console will be in the same family of products.
Which is exactly why it makes no sense for them to wait or delay.
Its not a gamble, that's the point. They come in with a $750-$800 PS6, and a $499 PS6H, likely making a profit of $50 on the handheld and losing about $50 on the home console. If prices don't drop, they are insulated. The whole point the PS6H exists, beisdes wanting a handheld, is to have an entry level PS6 console that comes in at that sub $499 price point.
No they cannot... have you looked at benchmarks of any game using AI reconstruction/framegen tech? RAM usage doesn't go down, they go up. You simply cannot go from one gen to the next and bump memory up by only 4GB compared to the previous gen. That will just be a flat out dumb thing for sony to do. Why do you think series S games look like crap?
Thats a dumb thin to do, there is nothing win win about that because you are tieing the entire generation of your product to that 20GB specification. At that point it wouldnt matter if you release a pro console with 40GB even... games are made and designed for the 20GB console.
The handheld... WILL be a PS6. Not a chnace sony tries supporting two entirely seperate libraries.
It's not about you or any of us here who will pay $1000 for next-gen PS6. It's about selling 100M or at least close to it.
For that higher bandwidth 30GB PS6, they can always offer PS6 Pro down the road. They can afford the Pro to sell for $1000.
Investor9872
Member
Which means he does know. Thanks for the confirmation.
viveks86
Member
A $100-150 difference does not determine if it will sell 100M or not. Because with this last minute change, that's all you are going to get. A bottlenecked console that is $100-150 dollars cheaper that needs to keep up with tech for 7 years. These are short term solutions that have long term negative impact.
I think they should get creative on the business side instead of the technical side. Like adding another tier in PS+ for those that need a subsidized upfront payment, or incentivizing a premium upgrade for a cheaper console etc.
And if all that means a slow start, then so be it. They will play the long game.
Last edited:
asdasdasdbb
Member
I think they are just going to have to roll with 30 GB and make a true Series S die down the line.
That's xbox one strategy. And there's no guarantee that BoM will be lower in its 3rd year. It's a bad gamble.
You're tying an entire generation and the next to a low raster, low bandwidth, low power mini device.
Sure. We agree on that.
That's not a dumb thing to do. You already too keen to tie the next generation to a 15 watt APU, you cannot criticize a 20GB PS6 now. RTX 5080 16GB RAM can do proper path tracing with DLSS4.
Series S looks like crap because it's close to the power of PS handheld.
I'm not the one trying it to a 15 watt console.
Whether 20 or 30 wouldn't matter for PS6. They can always render native resolution an acceptable level to fit 20GB and reconstruct to 4K.
The Pro version with 30GB just means higher native resolution to fill that RAM (and/or higher FPS), and gain slightly cleaner image.
Sure. But a proper PS6 has to be affordable and not priced $800. The point.
I don't necessarily agree. I think the reality is that the PS6 will be positioned as an enthusiast device. You want to play the games but don't want to spend $800 for it? They have a console for you, it's the PS5 or PS5 Pro. Those will get all the same games.
Sony has three main groups that they're trying to appeal to imo, two of them already exist:
1) The enthusiasts. This is like 15-25% of their userbase and a small portion of the money Sony makes. The people who show up for the high fidelity, cutting edge (in terms of console) experience. They're here to play the big budget Sony games and some 3rd parties (depending on if they own a PC or not).
2) The normies. These represent the majority of the userbase and the VAST MAJORITY of the actual profit. They want NBA2K, FIFA, GTA, Call of Duty, etc. They buy these games and a lot of them pay a shit ton for microtransactions. This is where Sony makes the most money, they pay nothing to develop these games and get a cut of every sale and related mtx. They sell these users the online and accessories.
Now the reality is that the normies aren't going to have any motivation to upgrade. The games they play will probably see no real benefit moving to the PS6. Some of them will still get one, but many (most?) won't and Sony probably doesn't care because they're still spending a shitton of money in the ecosystem.
The other reality is that the enthusiasts will buy the shit regardless because they're watching DF videos counting pixels and they don't give a shit how much it will cost.
The third group is a new group and it's Japan. This is the reason they made the handheld and they're probably much more concerned about keeping that at a consumer friendly price than they are the console. Presumably they'll do something like Nintendo to combat the weak yen + they don't need to pay tariffs on these. They may take a slight loss cause cause this is about customer acquisition.
viveks86
Member
Agreed, except I think PS5 pro sales will be discontinued once PS6 is out. Otherwise, it will cannibalize PS6 sales while still being priced within range, due to component costs not coming down enough.
Last edited:
I don't agree. That's an xbox one strategy. I don't want Sony to think the same.
Here's a better business model: stop selling last-gen console when new gen starts (at least for this generation of high memory prices).
PS5 is currently $599 (sold at a profit). Once PS6 release, stop selling PS5. Sell PS6 for a bit of a loss for $599. 20GB RAM, 1TB SSD.
Any soul interested in Playstation is immediately brought into next-gen.
If RAM shaves some of its cost a bit, Sony can continue selling it at that price without forever selling it at a loss. If it remains the same or even increase in price, Sony can raise the price eventually. I don't think they will want to perpetually sell PS6 at a loss. At that point, Sony will thank PS6 does not have 30GB of RAM.
nial
Member
To add to this, they are forecasting a hit on profitability due to increasing next generation expenses in FY 2026. In April 2019, similarly, they were expecting the exact same thing for FY 2019.
FY 2018 earnings, page 12:
FY 2025 earnings, page 13:
Last edited:
Prodyhig
Member
Sony PlayStation's business isn't about selling you a PlayStation 6; it's about keeping you within its ecosystem.
If you're on a PlayStation 4 and still paying for PSN Plus and spending money, they don't care.
When the PlayStation 6 is released, we'll have PlayStation 4, 5, and 6 coexisting.
It doesn't matter if they stop selling PS5s though, 100m people will already have one. The games still come out on PS5, they have no motivation to buy one. The amount of people looking at buying a PS6 that aren't already in the ecosystem is negligible.
$599 is also never happening in this market.
Last edited:
PS6 APU is already too conservative. It's estimated to be $110 cost. That's not where you're getting cost savings from. It's from the memory.
You're thinking of it the other way around. Release the conservative sku now, and release a more expensive Pro later.
nial
Member
That's not exactly true.
That's fine and worked when last gen BoM eventually decreased to pennies. And the new gen is much more expensive to make.
I was trying to propose a relatively conservative upgrade to PS6, that maintaining the PS5 wouldn't be as wise as before.
PS6 APU is conservative. It's 160w TDP. It's only the memory chips that's keeping it expensive.
Any gain for PS6 would be down to the new architecture, ML, and path tracing. And all are included in the new small 160w APU. Keeping the 20GB RAM will make it just a bit pricier that a 16GB PS5. That's not how it used to be in the past generations.
Prodyhig
Member
I don't know what situation we'll be in by 2028 (which is my hypothetical launch date).
But I think we'll still be struggling in terms of components because AI will continue to grow progressively and require even more hardware.
Therefore, Sony will choose a price that won't be $499 for the PlayStation 6, and we'll have a more "expensive" console.
But just because it's expensive doesn't mean Sony is making more money on each unit.
That's why I still think that keeping customers within their ecosystems is more profitable for them.
asdasdasdbb
Member
It would make sense.to release both at the same time.
supersale88
Member
I agree it is a great system. It is my main, but I don't think it got it's killer exclusive yet(aside from Astrobot). Do you think they should rush ps6 to the market?
asdasdasdbb
Member
7 years isn't rushing.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
No. But they wouldn't have done the tariffs though.
nial
Member
Third-party publishers, perhaps (multiplatform is essentially by the purpose of maximizing profit and they're required to pay platform fees), but I don't see why Sony cannot.
For the start yes. But I think in the next 5 years the prices for memory will Fall significantly, so later on they can price cut heavily.
Devs would much prefer 24GB with bit a lower performance.
That got moved to HBM or cancelled, can't remember cuz NVIDIA changes their roadmap every other week
Bigger + slower is/was always better compared to smaller + faster. The same with d***. Ask the ladies...
