Next Xbox for debut at E3 2012? [Archive]

Rangers

15-Jun-2011, 02:15

Anybody ever heard of videogamer.com? Are they credible?

Anyway, seems pretty unlikely, though the specifics of the rumor are very, specific. We know Halo 4 is on X360 in 2012, so why would they pimp a new console in 2012?

Also why bring out a new console when the old one is still growing, profitable, etc? Why cut that off prematurely?

Specifications for the new machine have not been finalised, but Crytek is using Microsoft's DirectX 11 as the current basis for next-generation development. Tessellation, multithreaded rendering, and compute shaders are the three headlining features for DirectX 11.

Direct X doesn't have any relevance in console development, but noobs wouldn't know that, proof of fakery?

Besides a few unlikely things such as 2012 reveal, the article is actually believable in the sense that, Crytek is likely working on vague next gen stuff, in preparation if nothing else. And the part that the specs arent final rings true rather than rumor whoring.

AlStrong

15-Jun-2011, 02:30

Direct X doesn't have any relevance in console development, but noobs wouldn't know that, proof of fakery?

hm :?:

Rangers

15-Jun-2011, 02:51

Arent you guys always saying, the current console being DX9 doesnt have any meaning as there's no Dx spec in consoles?

I guess if you were just using generic PC hardware to approximate next gen, of course you'd be using DX11.

Brad Grenz

15-Jun-2011, 02:53

I actually think it's fairly likely MS will at least tease the next generation hardware at the 2012 E3 to undercut WiiU's launch. Will that will be a full product announcement? Maybe not.

(((interference)))

15-Jun-2011, 03:26

I actually think it's fairly likely MS will at least tease the next generation hardware at the 2012 E3 to undercut WiiU's launch. Will that will be a full product announcement? Maybe not.

Yes, exactly - just like the Wii U reveal this E3 despite the console coming out next year.

As for the Halo 4 point - it could well be a simultaneous release on 360 and XB3 like Call of Duty 2 was.

obonicus

15-Jun-2011, 03:27

Bigger question is: in 51 weeks will anyone remember this rumor?

liolio

15-Jun-2011, 09:04

My pov is that no matter the leak is true or fake, it still makes a lot of sense;

Obonicus: Hell no! We have way more important things to think about :lol:

Shifty Geezer

15-Jun-2011, 09:55

Arent you guys always saying, the current console being DX9 doesnt have any meaning as there's no Dx spec in consoles?The DX level gives a feature set of the graphics hardware. It may not limit the capabilities of the entire platform (such as Cell working to do DX11 class geometry shading and tessellation beyond the GPU's DX9 spec) but it does tell us what the GPU is capable of, or maybe system although I doubt CryTek view these boxes as anything other than GPUs with some necessary extras. They are suggesting Wuu will have DX11 features. This contrasts with the flat water of the bird demo which showed nothing of the sort. I'm still thinking the hardware is more advanced and that demo was just poor.

pc999

15-Jun-2011, 10:18

pc999

15-Jun-2011, 10:21

The DX level gives a feature set of the graphics hardware. It may not limit the capabilities of the entire platform (such as Cell working to do DX11 class geometry shading and tessellation beyond the GPU's DX9 spec) but it does tell us what the GPU is capable of, or maybe system although I doubt CryTek view these boxes as anything other than GPUs with some necessary extras. They are suggesting Wuu will have DX11 features. This contrasts with the flat water of the bird demo which showed nothing of the sort. I'm still thinking the hardware is more advanced and that demo was just poor.

Where did crytek suggested that? I missed that one:sad::lol:

Tesselation is a cool feature, and one of the very few that is noticeable, personally the only one that make any impact in the Samaritan´s Epic demo, when he changes his faces.

dragonelite

15-Jun-2011, 10:54

So it is save to say crytek got their 8gig of ram?
:wink:

Shifty Geezer

15-Jun-2011, 12:05

Where did crytek suggested that? I missed that one:sad::lol:Sorry, meant XB3. Been too much Wuu talk of late!

mrcorbo

15-Jun-2011, 13:22

BUT WHAT IF Sony decide that they are not going to release a PS4 so soon:?:

Would MS almost alone be able to do a nextgen? with even higher production costs? would third party invest in a single console? would next XB have lots of exclusives if 3ºpartys do invest in it?
...:?:

Given that many 3º partys dont seem to be to appreciative of the idea will be interesting to watch.

It worked for them in 2005. And PC releases could leverage the improved assets as well. I also figure that Epic, Crytek and DICE at least would be all over a next gen console.

Trejser

15-Jun-2011, 13:34

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28615688&postcount=507

Debunked guys

Quote:
Christopher Seavor
uk.kotaku.com/5812016/timesp… Bullshit.

Chris would know, FRD is mostly ex-Rare after all and Xbox 720 he'd certainly know about that since he left Rare late last year.

liolio

15-Jun-2011, 13:45

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28615688&postcount=507
What does it say? (inaccessible for me).

Prophecy2k

15-Jun-2011, 13:51

It doesn't really sound like there's much to this rumour.

It's pretty clear that Crytek doesn't have devkits yet, the bit about using DX11 as a spec is ambiguous and they even said that the console HW specs haven't been nailed down yet.

Then the bit about MS revealing at E3 2012 is speculation from the Crytek dev (provided you believe the rumour). So it's not much to go on yet and certainly nothing to get excited about.

When, by the end of the year, we start hearing rumours from anonymous developers that their devkits have arrived, and we start seeing dodgy shakey cam photos and video on Youtube, THEN we can all get EXCITE!

Until then keep on trucking Crytek and keep on finding out more clever ways to leak us info. (use of questionable unnamed website = plausable deniability? :twisted:)

Prophecy2k

15-Jun-2011, 13:54

What does it say? (inaccessible for me).

Some Ex-Rare Free Radical guy has debunked the Timesplitters 4 rumour.

...Bullsh!t

borowki

15-Jun-2011, 17:37

The chance of Microsoft launching a new console next year is somewhere between zero and nada. The company can said on many occasions that they expect a ten year cycle this time. We are not going to see the successor to the XB360 until 2015 at the earliest. There is no point in launching a new console that'd land you on the wrong side of the uncanny valley. Creepiness doesn't sell.

What do I expect at the 2012 E3 is a Microsoft handheld.

hoho

15-Jun-2011, 18:06

What do I expect at the 2012 E3 is a Microsoft handheld.My bet is on standardized minimum HW levels and inputs for WP8 that devs can target. I don't think they'll try to come out with a separate gaming-oriented thingy except perhaps just another phone that has somewhat better input mechanisms for gaming a'la xperia play.

AlphaWolf

15-Jun-2011, 18:11

Rangers

15-Jun-2011, 18:22

pc999

15-Jun-2011, 19:58

Related?

Headed by former Activision and Atari executive David Grijns, it'll focus on the development of "large-scale, online-enabled original IP for next-generation consoles, handhelds and PC".

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/307439/news/just-cause-dev-opens-us-studio-for-next-gen-console-development/

Or could it be Wii U (the game only being released in 2014), if it is good for handhelds and PC it engine can be scalable...?

Cornsnake

15-Jun-2011, 20:11

Did we ever stop calling the current gen, the PS3, 360 and Wii, next gen consoles?

BoardBonobo

15-Jun-2011, 21:33

Some Ex-Rare Free Radical guy has debunked the Timesplitters 4 rumour.

Noooooooooooooo :cry:

liolio

15-Jun-2011, 21:38

No time splitters, I don't know this serie anyway. They can tell what they want nobody can tell that MS won't make an announcement in 51 weeks as Obonicus says.
For me 2013 for launch sounds nice, if they are to wait for 22nm lithographies we may wait longer than 2014.
2013 for mature 32 nm process as well as fewer production constrains. It sounds just nice.

pc999

15-Jun-2011, 22:43

Seems like MS will be alone next gen if it is soon (before 2016) at least it is how I read it.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/307428/news/ps3-will-last-a-minimum-of-10-years-sony/

"I've always said [PS3's life-cycle will be] ten-plus years and the only question mark is how long the 'plus' is," House said, adding that "ten years I think is the minimum."

Microsoft has recently been rumoured to be prepping plans for its next-generation console already - and last night it was reported the Xbox firm could show its hand as early as next year's E3. On whether it's the right time for Microsoft to succeed its console, the SCEE boss replied, "I think that's a question for Microsoft to address rather than us."

Gerry

15-Jun-2011, 22:55

Seems like MS will be alone next gen if it is soon (before 2016) at least it is how I read it.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/307428/news/ps3-will-last-a-minimum-of-10-years-sony/

How many times does it need to be said? A 10 year life cycle for a current product does not mean that a new model isn't launched within that time frame. The PS2 has had a 10 year+ life cycle.

borowki

16-Jun-2011, 00:23

My bet is on standardized minimum HW levels and inputs for WP8 that devs can target. I don't think they'll try to come out with a separate gaming-oriented thingy except perhaps just another phone that has somewhat better input mechanisms for gaming a'la xperia play.

With the apparent demise of the Zune, Microsoft has a big gap in their content distribution strategy. Smart phone doesn't really cover the market segment. They need to entice teenagers and young adults.

AlphaWolf

16-Jun-2011, 01:03

Megadrive1988

16-Jun-2011, 02:07

hoho

16-Jun-2011, 08:38

liolio

16-Jun-2011, 09:19

I fully expect Xbox3 to launch in the fall of 2013.
That's 8 years, I agree it's time.
In 2012 Ms will announce windows8, it's the perfect time come with a unified strategy among the platforms there are aiming at (console / pc / mobile devices).
A proper synergy between those element may be the element that will enable their growth on the mobile market. If that fails... well anything will (ie it's to late to change consumer perception about their brand on this market).

Johnny_Physics

16-Jun-2011, 13:34

With the apparent demise of the Zune, Microsoft has a big gap in their content distribution strategy. Smart phone doesn't really cover the market segment. They need to entice teenagers and young adults.

Getting into the handheld-race at this point would be foolish and I don't see Microsoft being interested in going down that path or supporting a handheld platform that is separate from their smartphone business.

Trejser

16-Jun-2011, 15:22

I fully expect Xbox3 to launch in the fall of 2013.

This, or 2014. No way it's going to happen in 2012.

borowki

16-Jun-2011, 16:07

Why exactly wouldn't a smartphone fill that gap?

Well, smart phones are pretty expensive. Here in Europe, a decent model runs upward of a thousand bucks untethered. The target audience we're talking about are largely young people without regular employment.

hoho

16-Jun-2011, 16:35

I know the prices in EU as I live here as well :)
Pricing depends what kind of phone you want. A decent one you can get for not much more than a console. You can easily get pretty high-end one for the price of half-decent smartphone+handheld console+music player.

Also, getting an untethered one isn't all that important imho and if you allow yourself to be shackled to your provider the prices will be MUCH lower.

Tap In

16-Jun-2011, 18:55

I fully expect Xbox3 to launch in the fall of 2013.

Yep. wouldn't put it past them to tease it in 2012 E3 though and then come full blown in 2013 E3 with release to follow in November.

dobwal

16-Jun-2011, 19:54

I can personally see a launch in late 2012. That time represents a 7 year gap between launches. I see no reason for MS to risk launching last and possible getting off on the wrong foot next gen trying to milk an extra year out of the 360, which will still have to deal with a next gen console in the Wii-U. If a next gen console is going to cannibalize sales of your current gen product, it might as well be your's and not just your competitor's.

While the 360 is strong in the US, it has noticeable weaker demand outside its home country. A later launching XB3 may have no trouble competing late out the gate in the US. But it might find itself struggling more against competitors in Europe and Asia than it did during the current gen.

Arwin

16-Jun-2011, 22:10

I fully expect Xbox3 to launch in the fall of 2013.

My instinct says this too, though who knows. Much depends on how they will perceive the Wii U.

borowki

17-Jun-2011, 00:10

Also, getting an untethered one isn't all that important imho and if you allow yourself to be shackled to your provider the prices will be MUCH lower.

I don't know how it works where you are. Here, getting a contract (that enables you to get the phone) requires proof of income.

ninzel

17-Jun-2011, 00:56

EARLY 2014.

AlphaWolf

17-Jun-2011, 01:26

I don't know how it works where you are. Here, getting a contract (that enables you to get the phone) requires proof of income.

parents....

AzBat

17-Jun-2011, 03:37

Yep. wouldn't put it past them to tease it in 2012 E3 though and then come full blown in 2013 E3 with release to follow in November.

+1 there's completely no need to announce in a year advance about a new system. Still can't fathom why Nintendo did that. Some companies don't even pre-announce their new products at all. People nowadays expect a new product to be available pretty soon after it's announced.

Tommy McClain

RudeCurve

17-Jun-2011, 05:39

liolio

17-Jun-2011, 07:25

RudeCurve

17-Jun-2011, 08:02

Nah...cloud based computing and thin clients has never caught on and I don't see it changing anytime soon. People want to own the software they don't want to rent on a monthly basis. Renting works for movies but it hasn't worked for OS and PC software. If renting software was viable you'd see many companies do it already.

I think most would just rather buy Windows XB downloaded from marketplace or bought from retail and install onto Xbox 720 HDD. Many people already have a PC but most don't have it hooked up to their TV so Xbox720 with PC functionality is much more attractive as a 2nd PC. Also many existing and future Xbox owners don't want to pay for Live Gold so they stick with Silver which is free. People already have existing Windows software which they own so it's more attractive to install that onto Xbox. Besides MS doesn't make all the software in the world so how would I run something like Photoshop using MS's cloud based rental scheme? I doubt they'll create an online software rental store like Netflix to use Xbox as thin clients.

Platon

17-Jun-2011, 08:40

The next Xbox will have dual boot option...

You'll be able to do a normal "GM" boot as well as a new "PC" boot mode.

In PC mode you'll be able to use as a desktop computer running Windows XB..(special version of Windows compiled for Xbox CPU processor). In PC mode you'll be able to use both USB/wireless mouse and keyboard.

That would be quite cool and I would not mind it, especially if the go for 4-8 GB of RAM. But for this to happen they would have to sell the console with a profit or at least at cost. They whole principle of selling the console at a loss and making it up with games and stuff would not work if you would have, maybe even majority of, byers getting it for the PC capabilities only...

RudeCurve

17-Jun-2011, 08:44

That would be quite cool and I would not mind it, especially if the go for 4-8 GB of RAM. But for this to happen they would have to sell the console with a profit or at least at cost. They whole principle of selling the console at a loss and making it up with games and stuff would not work if you would have, maybe even majority of, byers getting it for the PC capabilities only...

Well if you want to use Xbox as a PC only you'd still have to buy the Windows OS.:smile:

But it doesn't really make much sense to buy Xbox for PC use only because you could get a much faster PC with bigger HDD, more memory for the same price...so the majority of sales will likely be for game use first and PC uses second.

Shifty Geezer

17-Jun-2011, 09:39

It doesn't make much sense to have the box as a full PC. The functions you'd want for your living room are things like browsing and simple apps, and not full productivity software. Something like windows 8 but limited to specific apps and not allowing full PC function would add value to the system without inviting buyers of lossy hardware for its PC capabilities.

Also this is the next-gen hardware thread. ;)

hoho

17-Jun-2011, 09:41

Something like windows 8 but limited to specific apps and not allowing full PC function would add value to the system without inviting buyers of lossy hardware for its PC capabilities.I'd bet on windows phone ported to tablets/xb similarly to android and meego. Quite definitely it won't be full-blown Windows on there.

RudeCurve

17-Jun-2011, 09:46

Tablets will be running Win8 not WP7...

BTW many people bought PS3 for watching BR movies so I don't see why it'd be any different as Xbox being used as a PC.

tongue_of_colicab

17-Jun-2011, 09:47

In that case the tablet/stripped down version of windows 8 would make a lot more sense than trying to bodge wp7 into doing something it wasn't designed to do.

MfA

17-Jun-2011, 09:53

The next Xbox will have dual boot option...
On modern processors with virtualization there is no reason to dual boot, switching personalities will be more like hibernation/resume ... and if it has a fast SSD probably pretty fast too. In dashboard mode you'd probably simply keep the Windows personality active since there is plenty of memory available, so you could switch instantly.

That said, Windows is a neglected piece of shit with lots of feature omissions they didn't think important to their business customers (how can a modern OS not have a capability security model? Adobe programmers are monkeys flinging shit at walls, but it's Microsoft which has allowed their shit to leave such a mess). They'd have to fucking finally start paying some attention to home consumers again in their OS division before exposing it to the XBOX crowd.

rekator

17-Jun-2011, 10:06

I don4t believe that you will have dual boot but MS could enable some windows functionnality if you pay for a live gold++ account. Something like accessing a unified desktop on all you MS devices backed up on the cloud as well as having access to a significant remote storage and some cloud based office applications and a browser. I can t see MS making a dent in their windows/office revenue. On the other end offering a pretty much complete HTPC is possible the xbox, windows8 media center, highest live subscription may be the "same".

You're right most PC users used it for web or some occasionally "basic office" work so a cloud service is the right thing to offer, and interactions with others devices, but no limit with M$ devices, need to catch many users and it's easy to have a iOs or Androîd app to link with M$ Cloud service. You can have also some photo and video basic editing via Kinect, can be an app on the xbox (like in Blade Runner! :) ). But yes in this case the level of sells of PC can decrease quickly… Not good for M$… but wait PC sells already decline! So M$ need to change their horse! Here we go!

Shifty Geezer

17-Jun-2011, 10:14

BTW many people bought PS3 for watching BR movies so I don't see why it'd be any different as Xbox being used as a PC.BR movies is something you'd want to do sat back in your armchair on the big screen. The main need for a full PC is for more work-related tasks, often being sat closer to the screen where you get a fuller view - not everyone can afford or fit a 60+" screen to occupy the same field of view at a 6 foot viewing distance. ;) Sitting upright at a desk is also a better position for many. For many tasks a full PC just isn't needed, and can be provided as apps. Chuck in an HTML5 browser and everyone can use the lifestyle functions they'd want (Facebook, YouTube, email, browsing, etc.) without needing full Windows BC to run legacy PC software that isn't a good fit for the living room.

RudeCurve

17-Jun-2011, 11:56

Whether you'd use it for full blown apps or not is up to you, this has no baring on whether or not Windows X should be installed on Xbox. Don't need full blown apps then don't install them.:wink:

Better to have the option than not especially if it doesn't cost much to add. It's a tangible bonus that the competition does not have and cannot get.

This will be attractive for students who could use their Xbox as a PC for schoolwork. Students don't have big TVs so it would work great as a PC replacement.

Don't forget that you could also take advantage of the Xbox's hardware and play PC games too.

As for cloud computing that's just a buzzword that has proven to be a flop in realworld usage.

MfA

17-Jun-2011, 12:17

Of course it would have to be ARM or x86 then ... unless Microsoft wants to maintain three ports ... and I don't think they do.

liolio

17-Jun-2011, 12:26

Of course it would have to be ARM or x86 then ... unless Microsoft wants to maintain three ports ... and I don't think they do.
Well ARM seems to be pretty receptive to AMD presentations. Don't even some AMD exec spoke about hte odds of AMD doing ARM cores during the summit?
I really expect something from IBM but I'm not adverse to surprises. For costs reason I would discard x86 though.

Brad Grenz

17-Jun-2011, 12:30

The real problem is, if it's a real version of Windows, what stops developers from releasing their games as "Xbox in PC mode" mode games and avoiding paying licensing fees? And if it's so locked down that's not possible, the utility of a Windows desktop plummets dramatically. MS would is much happier selling Windows licenses at a big profit. What motivation is there to start giving Windows away with their own subsidized hardware? There just isn't a profit motive behind such a move. You'd end up in nightmare scenarios where big institutions start buying up all your consoles to be used as PCs instead of spending way more on Dells or Macs. MS would be taking a huge loss on sales that will never generate revenue from game sales. Never gonna happen.

RudeCurve

17-Jun-2011, 12:35

They wouldn't give away Windows, they'd be selling it to be installed on Xbox if one chooses to do so. It's just another option for consumers. As for big instituions buying Xboxes as PCs...you could already buy cheap PCs for $300-$400 this includes, netbooks, desktops and notebooks not to mention there are hundreds of millions of old PCs running older versions of Windows that cost about $100. Keep in mind Xboxes won't be upgradeable like PCs so you're stuck with one configuration which means it wouldn't be an ideal solution to everybody.

Shifty Geezer

17-Jun-2011, 12:47

An optional purchase is different and makes sense, like Linux on PS3. A closed hardware PC is a very good idea. However it'd possibly mean some legacy considerations for the hardware, such as going with x86. Some Power core wouldn't be an option. Would the IHVs be happy with this?

MS would have to effectively be designing a closed-hardware PC that happens to run in a lite mode for gaming, rather than design a console and put an OS on it. Then, as Brad says, there's the issue of people not buying licensed games which means the platform wouldn't make the money it could. and also it'd be a HUGE target for hackers. A single computer design, used by tens of millions of people, where you could exploit the hardware at its lowest level and still be able to depend on compatibility, like the PS3 USB timing trick.

borowki

17-Jun-2011, 17:45

What motivation is there to start giving Windows away with their own subsidized hardware? There just isn't a profit motive behind such a move. You'd end up in nightmare scenarios where big institutions start buying up all your consoles to be used as PCs instead of spending way more on Dells or Macs.

And then the European Commission will come along and slap a giant fine on the company for anti-competitive behavior.

bomlat

18-Jun-2011, 01:20

I don't think it is worth too much time to discuss.
The first function that gone from the PS3 was the "dual boot" , due to the security problems and the lack of usage.
What can be different at this time?
Unless the MS roll out a 180 degree turnaround,and make a competitive cloud based service (no chance) the new function will be completely irrelevant.

Common, we are talking about a company,which only competitive advantage is the wind/office IP. They providing enough money for the expensive carpet bombing (zune,xbox) which making at the end of the day 0 money to the shareholders.

Who could be interested in this service? An engineering student will need a computer with the capability to run special design software- so any closed eco gaming machine will be out of question.

AlphaWolf

18-Jun-2011, 01:38

Common, we are talking about a company,which only competitive advantage is the wind/office IP. They providing enough money for the expensive carpet bombing (zune,xbox) which making at the end of the day 0 money to the shareholders.

try to tone the rhetoric down a bit, your hate is showing.

<edit>And Xbox360 is in the black by any reasonable accounting I've seen and they will have paid for the original xbox fairly soon.

RudeCurve

18-Jun-2011, 02:58

What can be different at this time?

The difference is hundreds of millions of computers run Windows not Linux.

An engineering student will need a computer with the capability to run special design software- so any closed eco gaming machine will be out of question.

If it runs Windows and you can install Windows software onto it then it becomes a functional PC that can be used by hundreds of millions of people including students. If your software requires specific hardware support then you're better off getting a normal PC that has that hardware. For the rest of the world a Xbox 720 with Windows support would function perfectly fine as a PC.

Shifty Geezer

18-Jun-2011, 09:17

I don't think it is worth too much time to discuss.
The first function that gone from the PS3 was the "dual boot" , due to the security problems and the lack of usage.
What can be different at this time?How's about actual working, functional software in a computer everyone's used to? Linux was a hack job and unsupported on PS3. Windows on a console would have all the support of Windows. It's run all the existing Windows software everyone already uses. It'd be an extra cheap computer as well as a great gaming machine for considerable added value, same as PS3 could have been but wasn't because Sony didn't follow it through.

fehu

18-Jun-2011, 10:05

why put a full windows 8 when all the app are becoming virtualized in some way?
you can simply modify visual studio so that an app built in html5 or in .net can work with xbox maybe using kinect instead of the mouse, then simply add the right hub on the xbox marketplace

the metro will be so pervasive that they can even simulate the same interface bundling only some key program like ie10

RudeCurve

18-Jun-2011, 11:50

all the app are becoming virtualized in some way?

All apps are virtualized? Google spreadsheet is "all apps"?:lol:

fehu

18-Jun-2011, 12:01

All apps are virtualized? Google spreadsheet is "all apps"?:lol:

for windows 8 microsoft is promoting a programming method that is platform agnostic, so that some app will run indifferently on arm and x86
next step is port the infrastructure to the xbox to allow some of them (functionally selected) to be sold on the marketplace

pc999

18-Jun-2011, 12:41

The way I see it MS can put a windows on XB and:

1) increase the price of XB to not lose any money and have problems being competitive;

2) cannibalize its windows pc sales and lose money in the windows division.

Putting Linux on a console is cheap, and these days (unlike 2006) a good Linux distro is very easy to use, fully functional and can do what 90% of what people need a PC too from internet, multimedia, to office (that cover the most uses of a PC for most people) and even some multimedia editing/creation.

So if anyone want to put a bigger OS in a console I would bet on Sony first and Nintendo second, if they try they can do a good job IMO and replace the PC.

I actually think that if PS3 had more RAM and some resources in that division they could have had a hell of a console/pc replacement for everything.

To bad I never tried Ardour on a Cell CPU:sad:...

RudeCurve

18-Jun-2011, 13:47

The way I see it MS can put a windows on XB and:

1) increase the price of XB to not lose any money and have problems being competitive;

2) cannibalize its windows pc sales and lose money in the windows division....

Huh?

1) Why do they need to increase the price of the hardware when the software is sold separately for profit?

2) How will they lose money in the Windows division when they're selling the Windows software for Xbox?

:???:

Trejser

18-Jun-2011, 18:20

http://www.gameblurb.net/news/crytek-were-not-working-on-a-next-gen-xbox-at-the-moment/

pc999

18-Jun-2011, 20:17

Huh?

1) Why do they need to increase the price of the hardware when the software is sold separately for profit?

2) How will they lose money in the Windows division when they're selling the Windows software for Xbox?

:???:

If they sell the windows (in XB) they need to increase the price, if they offer the windows they loss money ib the windows divisions (because they will not be paid and some will not need/buy a pc/media pc, not buying windows again).

zed

18-Jun-2011, 21:37

we had this discussion years ago here.
Its not going to happen windows is MS's major cash cow,
theyre not going to start giving it away free or for very little money, I suppose they could include an extremely gimped version of win7/8 but the real version, no

RudeCurve

18-Jun-2011, 22:34

If they sell the windows (in XB) they need to increase the price, if they offer the windows they loss money ib the windows divisions (because they will not be paid and some will not need/buy a pc/media pc, not buying windows again).

Again Huh???? The idea is they will sell a version of Windows for Xbox as a SEPARATE piece of software just like they sell games. There is no need to increase the price of the Xbox hardware. They will not bundle Windows with a Xbox and have a separate higher priced SKU...there is no need to. You just buy the software and install it yourself just like you install games on the HDD.

Windows division does not lose money...windows division makes money whether they're selling copies/licenses of Windows for PC hardware or Xbox hardware...makes no difference.

Platon

18-Jun-2011, 22:46

Again Huh???? The idea is they will sell a version of Windows for Xbox as a SEPARATE piece of software just like they sell games. There is no need to increase the price of the Xbox hardware. They will not bundle Windows with a Xbox and have a separate higher priced SKU...there is no need to. You just buy the software and install it yourself just like you install games on the HDD.

Windows division does not lose money...windows division makes money whether they're selling copies/licenses of Windows for PC hardware or Xbox hardware...makes no difference.

That could make hmmm... more sense. It was not clear from the first post that you would have to buy the WinOS, But still, as others have pointed out there are a few arguments of why MS might not go this route even if it would make sense...

Entropy

18-Jun-2011, 23:11

That could make hmmm... more sense. It was not clear from the first post that you would have to buy the WinOS, But still, as others have pointed out there are a few arguments of why MS might not go this route even if it would make sense...

The number of copies of Windows sold in retail approaches the rounding error of the total Windows market. It is pretty much all preinstalled. Windows sold for the XBox as any other retail copy of windows simply wouldn't sell, (just like any other retail copy of windows).

AlphaWolf

18-Jun-2011, 23:15

The number of copies of Windows sold in retail approaches the rounding error of the total Windows market. It is pretty much all preinstalled. Windows sold for the XBox as any other retail copy of windows simply wouldn't sell, (just like any other retail copy of windows).

Not that I agree with the idea or anything, but there's no reason there wouldn't or couldn't be a bundled SKU.

pc999

19-Jun-2011, 01:48

Again Huh???? The idea is they will sell a version of Windows for Xbox as a SEPARATE piece of software just like they sell games. There is no need to increase the price of the Xbox hardware. They will not bundle Windows with a Xbox and have a separate higher priced SKU...there is no need to. You just buy the software and install it yourself just like you install games on the HDD.

Windows division does not lose money...windows division makes money whether they're selling copies/licenses of Windows for PC hardware or Xbox hardware...makes no difference.

That wasnt clear in the first post.

Anyway it would be quite expensive software (much more than the pre instaled) to follow the same bussiness plan and how many people would like to do that, it is even more work than in a new PC?

It would hardly have any significant user base, IMO, and probably very little supported, a basic services interface like Live Dashboard is a much better idea IMO.

It would also be interesting to see the reaction of PC manufacturers, could they start to feel pressure and offer cheaper arm based linux/android/webos based PCs:?:

RudeCurve

19-Jun-2011, 03:03

If you look at the current PC market there is a ton of PC parts for upgraders and DIY PC builders. If you build a PC you have to buy the WinOS it doesn't come for free, this has always been the case. It's only "free" if you buy a complete PC with WinOS preinstalled.

Personally I would love the option to install Windows on my 250GB X360 Slim. It means I would be able to do a lot more with the Xbox without having to fire up my existing PC everytime I need to do something PC related. Often times after playing games on Xbox I would want to surf the internet or check email etc.

Technically they could add more services to Dashboard but it's just better to not have to depend on new Dashboard updates in the hope that it would provide some extra functionality that I could already get from running Windows on Xbox.

AlphaWolf

19-Jun-2011, 03:43

If you look at the current PC market there is a ton of PC parts for upgraders and DIY PC builders. If you build a PC you have to buy the WinOS it doesn't come for free, this has always been the case. It's only "free" if you buy a complete PC with WinOS preinstalled.

Personally I would love the option to install Windows on my 250GB X360 Slim. It means I would be able to do a lot more with the Xbox without having to fire up my existing PC everytime I need to do something PC related. Often times after playing games on Xbox I would want to surf the internet or check email etc.

It's about value. Would this add value to the platform for a significant number of users at a low enough cost? Probably not.

Technically they could add more services to Dashboard but it's just better to not have to depend on new Dashboard updates in the hope that it would provide some extra functionality that I could already get from running Windows on Xbox.

Better for you maybe, for MS not so much.

pc999

19-Jun-2011, 03:49

If you look at the current PC market there is a ton of PC parts for upgraders and DIY PC builders. If you build a PC you have to buy the WinOS it doesn't come for free, this has always been the case. It's only "free" if you buy a complete PC with WinOS preinstalled.

That doesnt sound like the averange PC user, less even the averange console user...

Personally I would love the option to install Windows on my 250GB X360 Slim. It means I would be able to do a lot more with the Xbox without having to fire up my existing PC everytime I need to do something PC related. Often times after playing games on Xbox I would want to surf the internet or check email etc.

It seems that you can do that on Wii U, but that one doomed, right ;) .

Technically they could add more services to Dashboard but it's just better to not have to depend on new Dashboard updates in the hope that it would provide some extra functionality that I could already get from running Windows on Xbox.

To me it sounds that it can be like headaches they dont need to have, I only see them doing windows in any form for XB if the others have something similar (eg linux) and it is very popular.

RudeCurve

19-Jun-2011, 04:00

That doesnt sound like the averange PC user, less even the averange console user...

Are you having trouble with logic?

The average PC user knows how to install software. The average Xbox user knows how to install games. Games = software....ABC 123....yes/no? You don't need to be a DIY PC builder to be able to install games onto the HDD in Xbox.

It seems that you can do that on Wii U, but that one doomed, right ;) .

You can't run WinOS on WiiU.:wink:

The internet browsing experience on Wii is HORRIBLE, typing with the Wiimote? :lol: The Wii is BROKEN...and will never be a PC replacement...

To me it sounds that it can be like headaches they dont need to have, I only see them doing windows in any form for XB if the others have something similar (eg linux) and it is very popular.

If it benefits them and also gives consumers a better ownership experience and doesn't cost too much they will do it. MS doesn't have to wait until sombody does it, they could be a leader instead of a follower. What's easier than putting your own software on your own hardware?

pc999

19-Jun-2011, 04:38

Are you having trouble with logic?

The average PC user knows how to install software. The average Xbox user knows how to install games. Games = software....ABC 123....yes/no? You don't need to be a DIY PC builder to be able to install games onto the HDD in Xbox.

Funny, I think the averange PC user cant do much beside type something in google and save its own office document/pictures, after that they spend a lot of time to do whatever it is.

You can't run WinOS on WiiU.:wink:

Thank God for that :grin:

The internet browsing experience on Wii is HORRIBLE, typing with the Wiimote? :lol: The Wii is BROKEN...and will never be a PC replacement...

I am talking about Wii U, just for you to recall.

Anyway you can type on a Wii U controler...

If it benefits them and also gives consumers a better ownership experience and doesn't cost too much they will do it. MS doesn't have to wait until sombody does it, they could be a leader instead of a follower. What's easier than putting your own software on your own hardware?

Sure they could, but there is plenty, aforementioned reasons why they could choose not to do it.

RudeCurve

19-Jun-2011, 04:49

If you don't know how to put a disc into a drive and follow the onscreen instructions then you are beyond stupid and likely cannot even operate a game console given that a game console requires said operation...:lol:

Thank God for that :grin:

If the Wii U could run Windows for free I'm sure Nintendo would LOVE to have that capability....:wink:

pc999

19-Jun-2011, 05:05

If you don't know how to put a disc into a drive and follow the onscreen instructions then you are beyond stupid and likely cannot even operate a game console given that a game console requires said operation...:lol:

Usually they just have difficult when the on screen instruction disappear, and they do, soon, or when there is incompatibility problems, or driver problems, or any of the to often problems
that usually appears, plus the where is question, how do you do question, plus the...question

If the Wii U could run Windows for free I'm sure Nintendo would LOVE to have that capability....:wink:

Even I would love that :wink:, but I have my doubts that MS would like it:wink:...

RudeCurve

19-Jun-2011, 05:33

Usually they just have difficult when the on screen instruction disappear, and they do, soon, or when there is incompatibility problems, or driver problems, or any of the to often problems
that usually appears, plus the where is question, how do you do question, plus the...question...

Well the Xbox is closed hardware so there shouldn't be any driver problems if MS offers a specific version of Windows for Xbox.

It's about value. Would this add value to the platform for a significant number of users at a low enough cost? Probably not. .

Does a $60 game add value?

Does a $150 Kinect add value?

Does a $100 WinOS add value?

I think they all add value.

Why build another PC when I already have a Xbox that can potentially run Windows?

betan

19-Jun-2011, 08:51

Microsoft, as the prominent PC-OS maker, cannot make a hardware platform and sell it's own OS as the single optional OS. It will probably be a problem in US, definitely be a problem in EU, thanks to antitrust laws.

Plus, to be honest, I see little value in a non-backward compatible Windows OS that requires 20+GB installation.

AlphaWolf

19-Jun-2011, 09:18

Well the Xbox is closed hardware so there shouldn't be any driver problems if MS offers a specific version of Windows for Xbox.

It's not a problem until they change something, but they will change things over the course of time. It's not just a matter of getting windows to run on the box, they have to keep it running if they offer it.

Does a $60 game add value?

Does a $150 Kinect add value?

Millions of people buy the box for these things.

Does a $100 WinOS add value?

Not to the majority of the people buying a console because they wanted to avoid having to deal with WinOS.

I think they all add value.

Why build another PC when I already have a Xbox that can potentially run Windows?

I think it has been firmly established that you're not representative of the majority or even a large minority. The upside to offering windows on the box seems pretty small, especially when your primary argument is that it lets you avoid building another PC. MS still makes money on windows if you do build that PC.

RudeCurve

19-Jun-2011, 09:53

It's not a problem until they change something, but they will change things over the course of time. It's not just a matter of getting windows to run on the box, they have to keep it running if they offer it.

PC hardware change over time too, but Windows still runs on them. Windows XP still runs on current hardware and that OS was released 10 years ago.

Millions of people buy the box for these things.

And millions of people buy hardware just to be able to to run Windows apps.

Not to the majority of the people buying a console because they wanted to avoid having to deal with WinOS.

There's nothing to deal with. It's an optional component that allows an Xbox to function as a PC nothing more nothing less. If you don't need or want the Xbox to functiona as a PC then you don't buy the Windows software.

I think it has been firmly established that you're not representative of the majority or even a large minority. The upside to offering windows on the box seems pretty small, especially when your primary argument is that it lets you avoid building another PC. MS still makes money on windows if you do build that PC.

Why does it have to be a majority? Also that wasn't my primary argument. My primary argument is millions of people want PCs that run Windows. If they don't already have a PC but have or plan to buy an Xbox they could have both in one box without having to spend twice the money. MS still makes money but the consumers prefer to save money and not have to buy another piece of hardware that's already included in a game console.

liolio

19-Jun-2011, 10:54

Honestly windows 7 on 360 would be awful, winphone 7 is another matter but is it worse the development effort? I've doubts it would comes too late into the 360 life.

Shifty Geezer

19-Jun-2011, 11:55

Honestly windows 7 on 360 would be awful.1) Why? 2) We're talking about next XB here, which could be designed with an eye on allowing people to spend $50 to install Windows and get a cheap yet capable PC as added value. If I'm going to buy a console anyway, and could also do with a new more powerful PC, that option would be tremendous value for me.

MarkoIt

19-Jun-2011, 12:03

On the next Xbox there will be a lite version of Windows 8. Metro UI, with app support from the app store. But i don't expect Office or for example, photoshop to run on it. It fall in the middle between the tablet version and the phone version.

AlphaWolf

19-Jun-2011, 12:18

PC hardware change over time too, but Windows still runs on them. Windows XP still runs on current hardware and that OS was released 10 years ago
Not without significant resources on the part of MS.
And millions of people buy hardware just to be able to to run Windows apps.
yes and they will continue to do so
There's nothing to deal with. It's an optional component that allows an Xbox to function as a PC nothing more nothing less. If you don't need or want the Xbox to functiona as a PC then you don't buy the Windows software.
the point being the vast majority of people don't want it. they buy a console because they want a console experience. if they wanted to have a pc hooked to their tv, they can already do that.
Why does it have to be a majority? Also that wasn't my primary argument. My primary argument is millions of people want PCs that run Windows. If they don't already have a PC but have or plan to buy an Xbox they could have both in one box without having to spend twice the money. MS still makes money but the consumers prefer to save money and not have to buy another piece of hardware that's already included in a game console.the numbers need to be high enough to expend resources. so ms expends extra effort to make the same or less money, thats a terribly compelling argument for them. im sure they'll get right on it

Platon

19-Jun-2011, 12:25

Honestly windows 7 on 360 would be awful, winphone 7 is another matter but is it worse the development effort? I've doubts it would comes too late into the 360 life.

That is the thing that I makes a bi more sense. Have the next xbox act maybe a bit like a phone/tablet but instead of touch screen you have the kinect...

liolio

19-Jun-2011, 12:54

1) Why? 2) We're talking about next XB here, which could be designed with an eye on allowing people to spend $50 to install Windows and get a cheap yet capable PC as added value. If I'm going to buy a console anyway, and could also do with a new more powerful PC, that option would be tremendous value for me.
Hum I thought that in his post Rudecurve was speaking of the actual 360 ;)
So the reason behind my statement was lack of RAM (512 MB is clearly not enough).

tuna

19-Jun-2011, 13:51

Personally I would love the option to install Windows on my 250GB X360 Slim. It means I would be able to do a lot more with the Xbox without having to fire up my existing PC everytime I need to do something PC related. Often times after playing games on Xbox I would want to surf the internet or check email etc.

If you want to write emails comfortably, you will need a keyboard. For surfing, get a tablet. Much easier to read than a big screen far away.

Shifty Geezer

19-Jun-2011, 16:52

Not without significant resources on the part of MS.That's not a big issue supporting a closed-hardware platform.

the point being the vast majority of people don't want it. they buy a console because they want a console experience. if they wanted to have a pc hooked to their tv, they can already do that.That doesn't really make sense. People want to play games, and people want a computer. They're not deliberately wanting two different boxes and will avoid any combination device. Traditionally there has been need to have a division between the two, because the computer platform didn't provide a particularly good games platform. But one box that does it all will have appeal. There'll be some who play games only and won't need to buy the OS; those who'll focus on the games but use the computing aspect occasionally and value the convenience; those who switch between the two regularly, such as students; those who'd value a cheap yet capable computer with excellent support (because it's closed hardware with fixed resources, so much easier to support device drivers) and squeeze in a bit of gaming; and those who'd use it just as a computer, making MS the cost of an OS license which is no worse than they get from anyone buying a laptop, while also installing another box in a home that may one day be used to buy software or content.

the numbers need to be high enough to expend resources. so ms expends extra effort to make the same or less money, thats a terribly compelling argument for them.MS are writing the OS anyway for x86 and ARM, and DX11 GPUs. If they design their system around such a box, supporting the OS will be negligible cost. They'll also give customers a better Windows experience, because those customer will have less OS and application issues.

im sure they'll get right on itWhat's with all the narky comments from everyone these days? Why does a differing opinion warrant sarcasm or insult? Okay, RudeCurve invites that given his bad attitude, but the board as a whole should be above that so it's clear who's trouble and we can ditch them.

Shifty Geezer

19-Jun-2011, 16:54

For surfing, get a tablet. Much easier to read than a big screen far away.Much more expensive too. If the cost to surf the web in the living room after gaming is one console+one tablet, versus one console and a browser or OS software purchase, the latter is way more cost effective. Of course a browser doesn't need a full OS, but it definitely has value, as evidenced by the many complaints from PS3 users about how rubbish its browser is!

pc999

19-Jun-2011, 18:12

I am not so sure if people want a PC, they need a PC, want just very few IMO.

What they want is a gigant mp3 player for they music/movies/pic associated with social networks, google and youtube.

Anyone that can covers this will be fine for 50%+ of the persons IMO.

ninzel

19-Jun-2011, 18:39

Just came into this discussion late but have you guys talked about the security issues with offering an WinOS in the NextBox.

Shifty Geezer

19-Jun-2011, 19:28

I have mentioned that as a reason against. It'd provide a great attack vector to undermine the console-side security to play pirated games.

Tchock

19-Jun-2011, 19:41

Err...why would a near-full-blown copy of Windows be needed when Win 8 apps are going to be predominantly HTML5+JS or Silverlight (which is on the 360 powering some stuff already)?

Xbox app store and added functionality in bite-sized purchases, definitely. Windows? Hell no. Windows to a large extent still implies content consumption + creation, whilst Xbox is sorely consumption only, but is darn focused and has its ecosystems centered around it.

What I *can* see though, is NextBox and Windows 8 sharing more accessible games- coded through C++ or Silverlight (now supporting XNA overlays), whose interface paradigms can be translated to joypad/Kinect, and those games/apps sold through the store.

p/s: the value-add argument is dung if it can't do it well (aka PS3 Web browser). People have other devices, likely smartphones or laptops, if they can afford to get a PS3- and they'll browse on those devices instead. Nobody tweets/Facebooks on the 360- it's slow, cumbersome, and is pretty useless (and not fixed- just a tech demo to show how apps might work!); same for the browser- something that can aggravate users even easier if it's clunky.

AlphaWolf

19-Jun-2011, 20:16

That's not a big issue supporting a closed-hardware platform.

How big? How much resources is it worth them spending on a net 0 profit proposition?

That doesn't really make sense. People want to play games, and people want a computer. They're not deliberately wanting two different boxes and will avoid any combination device. Traditionally there has been need to have a division between the two, because the computer platform didn't provide a particularly good games platform. But one box that does it all will have appeal. There'll be some who play games only and won't need to buy the OS; those who'll focus on the games but use the computing aspect occasionally and value the convenience; those who switch between the two regularly, such as students; those who'd value a cheap yet capable computer with excellent support (because it's closed hardware with fixed resources, so much easier to support device drivers) and squeeze in a bit of gaming; and those who'd use it just as a computer, making MS the cost of an OS license which is no worse than they get from anyone buying a laptop, while also installing another box in a home that may one day be used to buy software or content.

It makes perfect sense. If you want a PC, buy one. MS already has the solution in place right now, buy a windows PC, get a free console. No need for them to port their OS to the xbox, and worry about the security holes it could potentially open up, and no need to worry about infringing on their own live platform.

MS are writing the OS anyway for x86 and ARM, and DX11 GPUs. If they design their system around such a box, supporting the OS will be negligible cost. They'll also give customers a better Windows experience, because those customer will have less OS and application issues.

You're (and RudeCurve) seriously glossing over the issues they would face.

AlphaWolf

19-Jun-2011, 20:20

What I *can* see though, is NextBox and Windows 8 sharing more accessible games- coded through C++ or Silverlight (now supporting XNA overlays), whose interface paradigms can be translated to joypad/Kinect, and those games/apps sold through the store.

this makes a lot more sense than a full windows install that almost no one would use

Shifty Geezer

19-Jun-2011, 21:55

p/s: the value-add argument is dung if it can't do it well (aka PS3 Web browser).Which is an argument in favour of full Windows support which can do everything well. No issues with missing codecs or lousy browsers etc. ;)

How big? How much resources is it worth them spending on a net 0 profit proposition?Where do you get the 0 profit notion from? They'll get $50 or whatever from every purchaser.

It makes perfect sense. If you want a PC, buy one. MS already has the solution in place right now, buy a windows PC, get a free console.Are you seriously quoting a current, limited, short term deal as a long-term option? You're saying next gen MS are going to offer everyone a free $300 XB3 when they buy a new $700 PC? Even then that's not as cost effective as buying a $300 console and buying a $50 OS to stick on it. Why does a PC have to be a discrete box from a console when the hardware is the same in both? You are away that into the 90s there were many computers used as PCs and for gaming, right?

No need for them to port their OS to the xbox, and worry about the security holes it could potentially open up, and no need to worry about infringing on their own live platform.Okay, explain to me how these two scenarios are different for MS's financials:

1) Bobby buys a $600 PC with a $50 OEM OS license going to MS and never buys an XB3 game
2) Bobby buys a $300 console, then a $50 OS license and never buys an XB3 game

You're (and RudeCurve) seriously glossing over the issues they would face.Hmm, you'll have to explain to me how putting PC components already supported by Windows into a box and sticking an XBox badge on the front is going to throw up a load of complex issues in getting Windows to run.

this makes a lot more sense than a full windows install that almost no one would useI agree, and said as much here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1560963&postcount=51), and have said as much in the HTML5 thread. That doesn't change the value of a full PC OS on a console. It's still a valid option and most of the complaints with it don't seem well founded to me. Security is a major one, as I've already said. The complexity of implementing it on a new platform designed to run Windows, the financial costs, and the possible cannibalising of console function, are all unnecessary concerns - there impact is no different than the impact of Windows PCs.

Squilliam

19-Jun-2011, 22:14

What if the Xbox next acts like a 'cloud processor' only locally for Windows Tablets and desktops and in addition to this also acts as a hub for storage?

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 01:06

Where do you get the 0 profit notion from? They'll get $50 or whatever from every purchaser.

Except they lose the windows machine sale from the person that wants that functionality. Net 0.

Are you seriously quoting a current, limited, short term deal as a long-term option? You're saying next gen MS are going to offer everyone a free $300 XB3 when they buy a new $700 PC? Even then that's not as cost effective as buying a $300 console and buying a $50 OS to stick on it. Why does a PC have to be a discrete box from a console when the hardware is the same in both? You are away that into the 90s there were many computers used as PCs and for gaming, right?

It makes as much sense as offering windows on the xbox.

Okay, explain to me how these two scenarios are different for MS's financials:

1) Bobby buys a $600 PC with a $50 OEM OS license going to MS and never buys an XB3 game
2) Bobby buys a $300 console, then a $50 OS license and never buys an XB3 game

Explain to me how those become the only options. It would prevent them from offering the next console as a loss leader, the last thing you want is to sell a loss leader to people who don't want game on it.

Hmm, you'll have to explain to me how putting PC components already supported by Windows into a box and sticking an XBox badge on the front is going to throw up a load of complex issues in getting Windows to run.

It doesn't need to be a load of complex issues, it can be a few minor issues, it still requires additional support for the few people who actually want this functionality. And it opens up security issues and additional support issues. If you offer it, you need to support it.

I agree, and said as much here (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1560963&postcount=51), and have said as much in the HTML5 thread. That doesn't change the value of a full PC OS on a console. It's still a valid option and most of the complaints with it don't seem well founded to me. Security is a major one, as I've already said. The complexity of implementing it on a new platform designed to run Windows, the financial costs, and the possible cannibalising of console function, are all unnecessary concerns - there impact is no different than the impact of Windows PCs.

It's ok value for the few people who actually want to have a PC hooked up to their TV and don't want to pay for it (you're still probably going to need a keyboard and mouse and perhaps additional USB ports for them and maybe a network printer before its actually replacing a PC). For everyone else including Microsoft, not so much.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 02:41

Except they lose the windows machine sale from the person that wants that functionality. Net 0.

MS doesn't sell computers....IHV do...MS only sells the WinOS license. It's the IHV that loses a sale not MS.

Explain to me how those become the only options. It would prevent them from offering the next console as a loss leader, the last thing you want is to sell a loss leader to people who don't want game on it.

But didn't many early PS3 adopters buy that console just to use as a BR player? How's this different?

It's ok value for the few people who actually want to have a PC hooked up to their TV and don't want to pay for it (you're still probably going to need a keyboard and mouse and perhaps additional USB ports for them and maybe a network printer before its actually replacing a PC). For everyone else including Microsoft, not so much.

Keyboards and mice are cheap you make it sound like it's a huge obstacle, why are you so concerned about what people need to buy in addition to the Xbox to build a "workstation"? Look at all the PC devices on the market today, do people have to use their little netbooks as full blown PCs doing 3D computer modeling and computational fluid dynamics? Whatever they use XboxPC for is up to them.

Also why do you keep saying that most people don't hook up their PCs to TVs? What does that have to do with anything? Here are the 3 scenarios:

1. Joe buys Xbox and WinOS to use as computer only and never uses it for games. It's hooked up to monitor or TV.
2. Joe buys Xbox and WinOS to use as computer and game console. It's hooked up to monitor or TV.
3. Joe buys Xbox only to use as game console. It's hooked up to monitor or TV.

This isn't the friggen 90s...

pc999

20-Jun-2011, 02:57

MS doesn't sell computers....IHV do...MS only sells the WinOS license. It's the IHV that loses a sale not MS.

How healthy would that be for MS, if IHV start to fell the pressure they may start to sell Linux/Androind/WebOS/... PCs.

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 03:09

MS doesn't sell computers....IHV do...MS only sells the WinOS license. It's the IHV that loses a sale not MS.

yes, what's your point? I said, net 0. MS sells the license either way.

But didn't many early PS3 adopters buy that console just to use as a BR player? How's this different?

Sony wanted/needed to push blu-ray adoption.

Keyboards and mice are cheap you make it sound like it's a huge obstacle, why are you so concerned about what people need to buy in addition to the Xbox to build a "workstation"? Look at all the PC devices on the market today, do people have to use their little netbooks as full blown PCs doing 3D computer modeling and computational fluid dynamics? Whatever they use XboxPC for is up to them.

It's not a huge obstacle, just another obstacle. Why does me pointing out flaws in your plan become "I'm so concerned". I could care less if MS does it or not, it won't affect me in the least (unless it opens a security flaw), I have several PCs that I could hook up to my TV if I wanted, I just limited use for it and those uses have declined as MS expands xbl services. (even if I wanted to hook up a mouse and keyboard to my xbox I'd need 30 ft cables, or I'd have to run them through the middle of the room, it's actually easier to hook up a laptop as it's only one cable and it brings the mouse and kb functionality with it, although I'm sure you'll point out there's kb's you can buy with a track pad or whatever...).

Step out of the forum world and into the real world where most people wouldn't use this feature (for a number of reasons, including living rooms being less than conducive to mouse and keyboard, and windows text being hard to read on an HD display at 10 feet). Mobile style apps make more sense in the living room environment, simplified controls, and larger text. It also allows MS to expand Live functionality, bringing more value to the platform in that way makes a lot more sense.

Also why do you keep saying that most people don't hook up their PCs to TVs? What does that have to do with anything? Here are the 3 scenarios:

1. Joe buys Xbox and WinOS to use as computer only and never uses it for games. It's hooked up to monitor or TV.
2. Joe buys Xbox and WinOS to use as computer and game console. It's hooked up to monitor or TV.
3. Joe buys Xbox only to use as game console. It's hooked up to monitor or TV.

This isn't the friggen 90s...

I keep saying it, because it's true. Most people don't use a PC on their TV, because they don't want or need most of that functionality on their TV. It's important to the discussion when your whole point is turning the box into a PC. Even people I know who use HTPCs don't use the computing ability, they are just using the home theater/DVR aspect. These are features that are already available or coming to xbl. The date has changed little in this regard.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 03:18

I keep saying it, because it's true.

Yes it's true but it has nothing to do with the 3 scenarios possible so it's irrelevent. You're stuck in the old way of doing/seeing things. You need to look at it from the person who WILL be buying WinOS for Xbox. These people will either hook up the Xbox to a TV or a "monitor". A TV is just a montior with a tuner...makes no difference. You need to look outside the box.

There is a growing number of people who do not want a separate device for every little thing. Just becuase YOU have a workstation with a desk and "computer monitor" doesn't mean everyone in the world see's that as attractive or convenient. There is a huge market for convergence devices. Look at the smart phone and how many things you could do with it. Ten years ago there were people just like you who said they don't have a use for a camera in a phone because they have a much better standalone camera....ok. Seen statistics for camera usage lately?

To be honest I am seeing XB3 as the first of future PCs where you use your hands and Kinect as the "invisible touch interface". It's going to be a change in paradigm for th whole PC market.

Xbox3 + WinOS + Kinect interface = New type of PC

Add in facial and voice recognition and you the future of PCs.

MS could even license out the design to IHVs to lower cost of production and boosting economies of scale. This will even be beyond what Apple has on their roadmap.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 03:22

How healthy would that be for MS, if IHV start to fell the pressure they may start to sell Linux/Androind/WebOS/... PCs.

If you look at how IHV work, they don't make that much money on selling hardware because all the hardware is made by some other company anyway.

Take for example a DULL or HP PC, everything inside the box is made by some other company. IHVs are just system integrators. As for the other OS's I think that's just a natural evolution. IHVs will put whatever OS in their systems that people want the most. If people want Mac OS then the market will move in that direction.

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 03:23

To be honest I am seeing XB3 as the first of future PCs where you use your hands and Kinect as the "invisible touch interface". It's going to be a change in paradigm for th whole PC market.

Xbox3 + WinOS + Kinect interface = New type of PC

MS could even license out the design to IHVs to lower cost of production and boosting economies of scale. This will even be beyond what Apple has on their roadmap.

Maybe if they get the resolution up to where you can type on a virtual keyboard at a reasonable pace, that's a bit out of the scope of kinect at this point.

Licensing anything out is beyond anything Apple has on their roadmap.

pc999

20-Jun-2011, 03:39

Maybe if they get the resolution up to where you can type on a virtual keyboard at a reasonable pace, that's a bit out of the scope of kinect at this point.

Licensing anything out is beyond anything Apple has on their roadmap.

Voice recognition could help?

Anyway it is dangerous, each time more big companies like open source like stuff, android is the perfect example but not the only one (linux on servers or blender in studios are others), MS would need to be very careful.

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 03:52

Voice recognition could help?

Help yes, replace typing perhaps, but would you prefer it to typing for a serious application? Probably not.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 03:55

Help yes, replace typing perhaps, but would you prefer it to typing for a serious application? Probably not.

I guess wireless keyboards don't exist....sigh.

Wow so much fear of change and technological progress.

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 04:24

I guess wireless keyboards don't exist....sigh.

Wow so much fear of change and technological progress.

Hey you're the one who suggested a kinect driven OS, don't blame me.

and try wrap your head around the fact that it has nothing to do with fear of change.

If I wanted to hook a pc up to my TV I could do that right now (or 15 years ago)... Why don't most people do that? Nothing about bringing windows to the xbox platform overcomes any of the currently existing issues preventing it from happening in peoples homes right now. (issues I've mentioned before and that you've completely avoided)

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 04:37

Kinect driven OS means you use your hands to navigate ever heard of iOS?

It doesn't mean you can't use a wireless keyboard to type...think harder.

As for you hooking up YOUR PC to a TV....WTF does that have anything to do with what I proposed?

I'll repeat what I said.....it has nothing to do with the 3 scenarios possible so it's irrelevent. You're stuck in the old way of doing/seeing things. You need to look at it from the person who WILL be buying WinOS for Xbox. These people will either hook up the Xbox to a TV or a "monitor". A TV is just a montior with a tuner...makes no difference. You need to look outside the box.

There is a growing number of people who do not want a separate device for every little thing. Just becuase YOU have a workstation with a desk and "computer monitor" doesn't mean everyone in the world see's that as attractive or convenient. There is a huge market for convergence devices. Look at the smart phone and how many things you could do with it. Ten years ago there were people just like you who said they don't have a use for a camera in a phone because they have a much better standalone camera....ok. Seen statistics for camera usage lately?

Yes people today still buy separate digital cameras....so what? What does that have anything to do with smartphones having cameras that people use by the tens of millions????

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 04:51

Kinect driven OS means you use your hands to navigate ever heard of iOS?

Voice is part of the kinect package.

It doesn't mean you can't use a wireless keyboard to type...think harder.

heh so having it be kinect driven is just a gimmick, if you want to do anything productive you need another input device? Doesn't sound like much of an advancement

As for you hooking up YOUR PC to a TV....WTF does that have anything to do with what I proposed?

I'll repeat what I said.....it has nothing to do with the 3 scenarios possible so it's irrelevent. You're stuck in the old way of doing/seeing things. You need to look at it from the person who WILL be buying WinOS for Xbox. These people will either hook up the Xbox to a TV or a "monitor". A TV is just a montior with a tuner...makes no difference. You need to look outside the box.

Repeating it like a mantra doesn't make it true. There's a difference in computing on a TV in most peoples homes. They don't have an office chair and a desk in front of their HDTV.

Look outside of what box? You're not doing anything revolutionary, you're turning a console into a PC with a dual boot option.

There is a growing number of people who do not want a separate device for every little thing. Just becuase YOU have a workstation with a desk and "computer monitor" doesn't mean everyone in the world see's that as attractive or convenient. There is a huge market for convergence devices. Look at the smart phone and how many things you could do with it. Ten years ago there were people just like you who said they don't have a use for a camera in a phone because they have a much better standalone camera....ok. Seen statistics for camera usage lately?

Yes people today still buy separate digital cameras....so what? What does that have anything to do with smartphones having cameras that people use by the tens of millions????

Yes the latest number I saw for the US was that digital camera sales were down almost 2% in the US, but soaring in emerging markets. Smartphones have completely run them out of business apparently. Most people who want to take quality pictures, apparently still use a camera. And people aren't actually dropping devices, they've been increasing the number of devices they haul around, sometimes having 2 devices is actually better than one.

perhaps they should just put the xbox dashboard on a smartphone

Anyway, get back to me when you have a compelling new argument.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 05:04

Voice is part of the kinect package.

So according to you that means it's a requirement for PC operation?

heh so having it be kinect driven is just a gimmick, if you want to do anything productive you need another input device? Doesn't sound like much of an advancement

Yeah touch screens for iOS devices are gimmicks too...wish I could use my "office mouse" with my iPhone...lol.

Repeating it like a mantra doesn't make it true. There's a difference in computing on a TV in most peoples homes. They don't have an office chair and a desk in front of their HDTV.

LMAO...you've just proved my point...I'm glad an "office chair" is a requirement for PC operation. That works perfectly wit your "office desk" and "office mouse" and "office monitor"...lol.

Look outside of what box? You're not doing anything revolutionary, you're turning a console into a PC with a dual boot option.

A new form of gaming console that can also function as a full PC with touchfree navigation is not revolutionary?:lol:

Yes the latest number I saw for the US was that digital camera sales were down almost 2% in the US, but soaring in emerging markets. Smartphones have completely run them out of business apparently. Most people who want to take quality pictures, apparently still use a camera. And people aren't actually dropping devices, they've been increasing the number of devices they haul around, sometimes having 2 devices is actually better than one.

perhaps they should just put the xbox dashboard on a smartphone

Anyway, get back to me when you have a compelling new argument.

Thanks for proving my point without even realizing it....:wink:

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 05:22

So according to you that means it's a requirement for PC operation?

try to follow the thread, I wasn't the one who even brought it up.

Yeah touch screens for iOS devices are gimmicks too...wish I could use my "office mouse" with my iPhone...lol.
yea I also need to haul around a keyboard to type on my iphone.

LMAO...you've just proved my point...I'm glad an "office chair" is a requirement for PC operation. That works perfectly wit your "office desk" and "office mouse" and "office monitor"...lol.

Not having a desk in front of you, and the display being 8-12ft away does offer certain difficulties that you haven't been able to address. You really like to avoid arguments you don't have an answer for don't you.

A new form of gaming console that can also function as a full PC with touchfree navigation is not revolutionary?:lol:

No it really isn't. Especially not when dashboard navigation is already somewhat kinect enabled.

Thanks for proving my point without even realizing it....:wink:

I've proven you're unwilling to address the heart of my argument

and here's a tip, the use of emotes don't make you seem clever, quite the opposite

tuna

20-Jun-2011, 05:30

Much more expensive too. If the cost to surf the web in the living room after gaming is one console+one tablet, versus one console and a browser or OS software purchase, the latter is way more cost effective. Of course a browser doesn't need a full OS, but it definitely has value, as evidenced by the many complaints from PS3 users about how rubbish its browser is!

A shitty tablet is cheaper than current windows license + wireless keyboard. Also, it is really difficult to read text on the TV, and you are usually positioned in such a way that keyboard input is not very comfortable either.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 05:43

try to follow the thread, I wasn't the one who even brought it up.

Yeah but you assumed it would be the only way to type....your assumption backfired.

yea I also need to haul around a keyboard to type on my iphone.

Yes in YOUR bizarro world it would actually be better to haul around a keyboard, mouse, camera instead of a smartphone with touch interface.

Not having a desk in front of you, and the display being 8-12ft away does offer certain difficulties that you haven't been able to address. You really like to avoid arguments you don't have an answer for don't you.

Not bothering and not being able are two completely different things. People use a desk to put their "PC monitor" on and their "PC mouse"...and keyboard.

Now if you sit 8-12ft away then you obviously have a big TV aka "monitor" which means everything on the screen is bigger. If you have a big TV then you will likely have good resolution for PC usage. You don't need a desk if your input device is your hand. Even if you prefer to use a mouse you still wouldn't need a desk. Laser mice works on basically anything...your couch, your couch pillow, you leg...or cough even a mouse pad laid on the couch to your side. As for the keyboard...there's this thing called your lap which is where the term "laptop" came from. Now if you can type on a laptop laid on your lap then simple logic says you can type on a keyboard laid on your lap.

No it really isn't. Especially not when dashboard navigation is already somewhat kinect enabled.

Dashboard is not Windows and can't run Windows apps.

I've proven you're unwilling to address the heart of my argument

No you haven't, I prefer that you defeat your own arguements without my help.

You said that digital cameras makers are still in business....yes that's exactly my point! For most people it doesn't make sense to buy a separate camera and carry it around everywhere you go. For most people it makes sense to carry your camera phone everywhere you go. For SOME people it makes sense to have a separate device for picture taking.

PC makers will still be in business even if Xbox PC becomes popular...that's good for MS! For most people it makes sense to spend $50 or whatever to turn a XB3 into a PC instead of spending $600 for a PC that has the same functioanlity as a Xbox PC.

Look if you can't see YOURSELF with a Xbox PC then fine....it's not meant for everyone, but don't make blanket statements that most people would not find the option attractive and adding value. I think it adds tremendous value by allowing me and millions of others to save lots of money.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 06:07

A shitty tablet is cheaper than current windows license + wireless keyboard. Also, it is really difficult to read text on the TV, and you are usually positioned in such a way that keyboard input is not very comfortable either.

A shitty tablet can't run Windows or Windows apps...

It's not difficult to read text on a LCD TV if you use HDMI/DVI/VGA...

A LCD TV is just a large PC LCD with tuner...

Most medium to large LCD TVs have enough resolution for PC usage...1366x768 - 1920x1080.

AlphaWolf

20-Jun-2011, 06:27

Yeah but you assumed it would be the only way to type....your assumption backfired.

Where did I do that (I actually responded that I didn't think voice would be that good)? and how the hell it did it backfire? You bring up the idea of using kinect as windows input and then kill it by requiring a keyboard.

Yes in YOUR bizarro world it would actually be better to haul around a keyboard, mouse, camera instead of a smartphone....

The devices are a little bit different to use. iOS devices come with an onscreen keyboard and you can input data using them. Crazy, I know. Thinking you were suggesting something cool like using kinect to actually input data was way off base. I apologize.

Not bothering and not being able are two completely different things. People use a desk to put their "PC monitor" on and their "PC mouse"...

Now if you sit 8-12ft away then you obviously have a big TV aka "monitor" which means everything on the screen is bigger. If you have a big TV then you will likely have good resolution for PC usage. You don't need a desk if your input device is your hand. Even if you prefer to use a mouse you still wouldn't need a desk. Laser mice works on basically anything...your couch, your couch pillow, you leg...or cough even a mouse pad laid on the couch to your side.

Have you tried to read the text on a webpage opened on an HDTV from 12ft away? It's not easy without increasing the text size quite a few times. Using a mouse and keyboard without a desk is far from ideal (keyboard on your lap and mouse sitting beside you on the couch?). And I don't want to have a mouse and keyboard sitting around in my living room even if they are wireless, I have a keyboard and mouse in my office in front of my monitor which is beside my PC. I don't think there's a huge demand for console on TV as a PC. (how long ago did Sony disable OtherOS again?) If I want to be productive I need a mouse and keyboard, and a desk to set them on with a screen close enough that I can read a 10pt font, if I don't want to be productive I can go game on my xbox360 in the living room. Apps with a custom interface would make a lot more sense, designed for the living room experience.

Dashboard is not Windows and can't run Windows apps.

Nope it isn't, and it sure can't. It can run apps that MS wants to make available to promote the xbl experience and bring more people to that platform rather than trying to compete directly (and pissing them off to boot) with dell and hp. That might be a huge downside for those wanting to use excel on nextbox on their HDTV.

RudeCurve

20-Jun-2011, 06:36

Have you never used a laptop the way it was designed? I've used my laptop lying on the bed, sitting down on a couch, has never affected productivity or typing ability. I don't think XboxPC would be any different.

Shifty Geezer

20-Jun-2011, 08:52

Except they lose the windows machine sale from the person that wants that functionality. Net 0.Okay, fair point. No net gain vs. PC regards financials, but if the added value means more consoles sold versus the competition, MS would be gaining market share.

It makes as much sense as offering windows on the xbox.That's not a reasoned answer.

Explain to me how those become the only options. It would prevent them from offering the next console as a loss leader, the last thing you want is to sell a loss leader to people who don't want game on it.You can offer the OS option when the hardware becomes cost effective, or not launch as a loss-leader which is something we're generally talking about with the next-gen consoles, because both Sony and MS have been seriously bitten by that approach. Furthermore that's changing the argument from the one I was replying to with this example - that MS would infringe on their Live/Windows. There'd be no infringement and the Windows market would be no different if the boxes running it are badged Dell, HP, Sony or Xbox.

It doesn't need to be a load of complex issues, it can be a few minor issues, it still requires additional support for the few people who actually want this functionality. And it opens up security issues and additional support issues. If you offer it, you need to support it.Some of which are points I've raised, so I hardly think I'm glossing over them. It comes down to a cost/benefit consideration to support it. Support itself should be negligible. I've explained why, if the box is designed for the job. You've yet to explain how offering support is going to be a problem or significant cost.

It's ok value for the few people who actually want to have a PC hooked up to their TV...Your still going with this idea that people are against having a PC connected to their TV, hence they don't do it. People don't give a damn about the box. What they want are functions, which are functions appearing in smart TVs these days. A box that enables all these functions is a Good Thing. If having HTML5 apps is a good idea, as you suggest, then having Windows is an equally good idea in terms of providing extensive functionality. Now I've already agreed that a full-blown Windows is going to be overkill, but if Ms weren't going to do that, adding Windows as a purchasable feature would be better for the users than not providing anything, and it would be workable.

Entropy

20-Jun-2011, 12:53

tuna

20-Jun-2011, 13:21

A console running Windows isn't an alternative to a mobile PC (which by far is the majority sold to private individuals).
Who buys stationary computers for home use these days?
The answer to that gives an indication of the level of interest there would be in Windows for XBox.

I bought an iMac (mostly running Fedora) a couple of weeks ago. Most people have their laptops on one place most of the time, and if that is the case, the combo stationary computer + netbook/tablet is far superior.

tuna

20-Jun-2011, 13:24

A shitty tablet can't run Windows or Windows apps...

It's not difficult to read text on a LCD TV if you use HDMI/DVI/VGA...

A LCD TV is just a large PC LCD with tuner...

Most medium to large LCD TVs have enough resolution for PC usage...1366x768 - 1920x1080.

You do not want to sit in a couch and run Photoshop. It is difficult to read text if you are far away from the screen. Count the number of pixels text (or a letter) take up on a game compared to Windows and see for yourself.

goonergaz

20-Jun-2011, 15:28

Have you tried to read the text on a webpage opened on an HDTV from 12ft away? It's not easy without increasing the text size quite a few times. Using a mouse and keyboard without a desk is far from ideal (keyboard on your lap and mouse sitting beside you on the couch?). And I don't want to have a mouse and keyboard sitting around in my living room even if they are wireless, I have a keyboard and mouse in my office in front of my monitor which is beside my PC.

WRT font size - you can set a PC to have large fonts so no need to adjust it once setup (I did this years ago in the old days using my PC on a CRT via s-video...altho as pointed out, it's only ok for minimal use.

WRT Keybaord & mouse - you can get keyboards with built in trackballs.

Either way I think many are missing the point, usually (in my household anyway) both PC & consoles are being used at the same time...the only people that would benefit with an Xbox PC would be single people, TBH I'd rather MS concentrate on a games console - I don't mind it being able to do other things (like the PS3) but I'll always be buying a PC/laptop as well.

Gerry

20-Jun-2011, 16:49

I can't really see MS going anywhere near allowing Windows to be installed on a new Xbox. I do wonder whether they'll try to leverage something like Office 365 onto the system though.

hoho

20-Jun-2011, 16:53

usually (in my household anyway) both PC & consoles are being used at the same time...the only people that would benefit with an Xbox PC would be single people... and every family where you have more people than PCs so they could use different devices simultaneously.

goonergaz

20-Jun-2011, 17:37

... and every family where you have more people than PCs so they could use different devices simultaneously.

But the TV is being used for TV viewing!? It get's interrupted enough for gaming let alone for PC use...the point is you wouldn't buy a XB instead of a PC, imagine if you need to do something whilst footy is on!? At least with a dedicated box there is no issue...otherwise wouldn't more people use their TVs as PC monitors?

Shifty Geezer

20-Jun-2011, 20:18

Either way I think many are missing the point, usually (in my household anyway) both PC & consoles are being used at the same time...the only people that would benefit with an Xbox PC would be single people, TBH I'd rather MS concentrate on a games console.Except the hardware needed to make a games console is exactly the same hardware that makes up a PC, so there's no compromise. My monitor has a TV tuner, and I bought it for that purpose so I can watch TV in the same room I work in. It would be daft to buy two displays with exactly the same hardware only one limited to displaying a PC and one limited to displaying TV when both can be seemlessly integrated. There are financial reasons not include TV support in every display as that requires extra hardware, but if no extra hardware is needed to support a feature, like running Windows on a load of PC components, then there's no general reason not to support that feature. Hence we have browsers on PS3 and DS and Wii, and every-feature-under-the-sun on your mobile phone instead of people carrying around one mobile phone and one mobile computer.

But the TV is being used for TV viewing!? It get's interrupted enough for gaming let alone for PC use...the point is you wouldn't buy a XB instead of a PC, imagine if you need to do something whilst footy is on!? At least with a dedicated box there is no issue...otherwise wouldn't more people use their TVs as PC monitors?Depends where you are and what you're doing. Why are TV companies adding PC apps like Google Maps and Facebook to TVs like? Because these are functions people value. It's more convenient to switch straight from TV to YouTube than getting out another device. It's more cost effective if you already have a static PC in the study to have an integrated device in the living room than buy a netbook or tablet. The reasons for not having a PC connected to the TV as a norm are multifarious, but it's not because people don't want a PC nor PC functionality readily on hand. As mentioned previously, people do use the PS3 browser, even though it's sucky, because it is convenient, such as firing up IMDB after watching a movie, or YouTube to look up something that came up during conversation while playing some sociable game.

Now a lot of the valuable functions could be served via a more app-driven interface, and that'd be the more sensible route. However, adding full OS support would serve an even greater audience. eg. Any parent wanting to provide a kid with a games console for their entertainment and a PC for their school work would find the value of a single box very compelling.

Shifty Geezer

20-Jun-2011, 20:23

With a little Troll Reduction now in effect, hopefully this thread can return to more focussed consideration of the new boxes innards and strategies.

joker454

20-Jun-2011, 20:29

Either way I think many are missing the point, usually (in my household anyway) both PC & consoles are being used at the same time...the only people that would benefit with an Xbox PC would be single people, TBH I'd rather MS concentrate on a games console - I don't mind it being able to do other things (like the PS3) but I'll always be buying a PC/laptop as well.

I don't think an Xbox PC makes sense personally, but being able to run the Windows 8 html5+js apps on multiple platforms like Xbox, PC, phone and tablet does make total sense to me. For example, you buy a casual Win8 game on your PC on the Win8 app store (one of those new html5+js apps) and you enjoy it for a while on pc. Win8 and beyond are fully cloud enabled so your saves games are on the cloud. Wouldn't it be cool if you could then play that same game that you bought on the Win8 app store on any device you own? Like what if you felt like playing it on your tv? No problem use your Xbox console. Play it on the go? Sure use your phone. That one app you bought can now be used anywhere, and it's fully cloud aware so your save game follows you anywhere, and you are earning achivements everywhere. Don't you think that would be a very powerful feature to have?

goonergaz

20-Jun-2011, 22:04

I want to be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad idea - I'm just saying that it's not practical for the majority of households to replace PCs with an Xbox...that's all. I used to have a split-screen TV but those are becoming less common and vastly more expensive (well when I last replaced my TV 18mths ago anyway).

As I said, the main issue is TV time, maybe because there's 6 of us I see things differently...but I hardly get any time on the TV as it is without using it as a PC monitor as well!

liolio

20-Jun-2011, 22:23

Heinrich4

20-Jun-2011, 22:37

There has been a new statement (http://www.next-gen.biz/news/avalanche-pretty-sure-new-hardware-2014) that there should be (at least) a new system out by early 2014 (so launching fall 2013 is likely). A new xbox a new PS? May be both.

So they (Sony and MS) will leave nintendo 2 years or more free?

It sound like Wii U = ps2 than Dreamcast ...ps3 = 8 years age and x360, 9 years old !

liolio

20-Jun-2011, 22:49

So they (Sony and MS) will leave nintendo 2 years or more free?

It sound like Wii U = ps2 than Dreamcast ...

(ps3 = 8 years age and x360, 9 years!)
Well it says there will be a new console by early 2014, it's likely to launch fall 2013. The WiiU launchs next april so in any case it's 1 year and a half already.
I kinf of agree Sony and Ms have to be ready in case the WiiU is as successful as xbox in its early life they may fight a ~15millions instal base deficit. It all comes down to what the WiiU can achieve and the kind of hardware MS and Sony have in mind for the next products. If the difference is a mere X2 well (assuming N catch up quickly in online sevices) 1.5 year could be a lot.

Brad Grenz

21-Jun-2011, 06:49

So they (Sony and MS) will leave nintendo 2 years or more free?

It sound like Wii U = ps2 than Dreamcast ...ps3 = 8 years age and x360, 9 years old !

Maybe, if the PS2 was only as powerful as an N64 when it came out. There's plenty Sony and MS can do to spoil the WiiU launch and convince people to wait for the "real" next generation. Like showing tech demos of what their massively more powerful hardware will be capable of and cutting prices and denigrating the idea of spending $300 to play ports of games you can get on a $150 Xbox.

Heinrich4

21-Jun-2011, 11:48

Maybe, if the PS2 was only as powerful as an N64 when it came out. There's plenty Sony and MS can do to spoil the WiiU launch and convince people to wait for the "real" next generation. Like showing tech demos of what their massively more powerful hardware will be capable of and cutting prices and denigrating the idea of spending $300 to play ports of games you can get on a $150 Xbox.

Good point, because sony and ms will probably have hope to use the best graphics creating "hype" making many waiting for supposedly "more powerful consoles" ... in this case making a Wii U new Dreamcast.

Another possibility is that sony and ms may deepen "too much" concept "wii like" and aimed at reaching the audience that Nintendo seems to be giving (casual), and in this case sony and ms may be entering an even bigger trouble competing with Apple devices ...

And the next chess movement ..nintendo can make an even bigger mess reducing console life cycle for 4 years ...

dobwal

21-Jun-2011, 17:19

Good point, because sony and ms will probably hope to use the best graphics creating "hype" making many waiting for supposedly "more powerful consoles" ... in this case making a Wii U new Dreamcast.

Another possibility is that sony and ms may deepen "too much" concept "wii like" and aimed at reaching the audience that Nintendo seems to be giving (casual), and in this case sony and ms may be entering an even bigger trouble competing with Apple devices ...

And the next move of the chess nintendo can make an even bigger mess reducing console life cycle for 4 years ...

Imagine if the Wii launched first in 2005 and the 360 launched later along with the PS3? Do you think the hype of the 360's and the PS3's graphical prowess would have made the Wii less successful than the current reality.

With the Wii-U launching first, giving it a 1 year head start is hardly going to be a circumstance easily overcomed by Sony and MS. The Wii-U's predecessor sold way more than the Saturn, so this is more like the PS2 launching early than the GC or Xbox than the DC launching early than the PS2. Nintendo isn't hurting for money so MS and Sony can't depend on Nintendo pulling a Sega and discontinuing the Wii-U.

When was the last time manufacturer took the #1 console crown by launching later than current crown holder?

AlphaWolf

21-Jun-2011, 18:46

liolio

21-Jun-2011, 20:31

hoho

21-Jun-2011, 20:34

They might not be starting at 0 with a new launch but I expect the vast majority of their 80+ million users will need to be convinced again.Especially considering most of their userbase seems to be non-core that are new to gaming and probably don't care much about graphics and mostly went for the motion controls. Having even that downgraded with the new remote probably won't make them rush for the upgraded machine.

Otto Dafe

21-Jun-2011, 22:11

When was the last time manufacturer took the #1 console crown by launching later than current crown holder?

I thought it was the Wii. Or did you mean before that?

dobwal

21-Jun-2011, 22:58

I thought it was the Wii. Or did you mean before that?

I don't consider that the PS3 launched early than the Wii with only a 20 day head start in Japan, a 3 day head start in the US and over 3 months behind in the EU.

hoho

21-Jun-2011, 23:16

I don't consider that the PS3 launched early than the Wii with only a 20 day head start in Japan, a 3 day head start in the US and over 3 months behind in the EU.So to not make things uncomfortable we completely ignore XB that got released more than a year before Wii? :)

dobwal

22-Jun-2011, 00:05

Assuming that most wii owners are just waiting to upgrade to wiiu is probably a mistake. They might not be starting at 0 with a new launch but I expect the vast majority of their 80+ million users will need to be convinced again.

Every generation is different. Comparing to what has happened in the past isn't all that useful.

True, under the circumstance that people use past historical events and create very superficial beliefs around them. Like that a new optical media with heavy studio supports equals win. But when looking at historical significant facts as weighted variables in a equation that relate to sales, one can predict the future outcome more readily than using a crystal 8-ball.

Plus, looking at past history to try to predict the future is a whole lot better than incorporating one's individual preferences and expousing such beliefs as universal tenents. The most major of these false tenents is that better graphics equals more sales. I am sorry but we B3Ders aren't the biggest fan of the Wii nor are we part of the mainstream crowd, so I weigh our opinions downward when trying to look objectively at the console market and overall sales.

No one is assuming most wii owners are just waiting to upgrade to the wiiu. But past history tells us that most console owners tend to be brand loyalist and that the dominant manufacturer must make major mistakes to be alleviated of its position.

The PS3 didn't automatically garner support from the total PS2 userbase. But look at what it did to lose that support. It had to offer a new console that was 1.7X to 2X more expensive than the PS2 with limited availability for the cheaper version. It lost exclusivity of prominent third party IPs which had been major differentiators between its and its competitors libraries. Major exclusives were mostly first party IPs, which might have been enough if it weren't for the fact that its strongest IPs like GT, GOW, KZ and SOCOM took 2 years or more to show up.

Now, exactly what is it about the Wii-U that will contribute to a less than top selling console? Lack of visual prowess? The Wii got by on that by simply introducing a new gameplay mechanic. Am I now suppose to believe that the Wii-U will be hampered by lack of competiveness in terms of graphics? There are no obvious flaws that make me believe that the Wii-U will fail to recapture the crown.

One of major issue that disallow easy illumination of the potential flaws of the Nintendo strategy is the inability to compare to the other next gen consoles. Nintendo decision with the N64 can be easily seen when knowing the route Sony took with the PS1. Maybe, the Xbox3 and the PS4 will enlighten us to fatalistic flaws in Nintendo strategy. But given what we know and what we don't know, its hard for me to say that Nintendo won't take the crown this gen. Since historically its takes at least 2 generation for a manufacturer to get so full of themselves that they empty a full clip into their big toe.

dobwal

22-Jun-2011, 00:09

So to not make things uncomfortable we completely ignore XB that got released more than a year before Wii? :)

Was the Xbox the market leader the previous gen?

When was the last time manufacturer took the #1 console crown by launching later than current crown holder?

Heinrich4

22-Jun-2011, 00:15

Imagine if the Wii launched first in 2005 and the 360 launched later along with the PS3? Do you think the hype of the 360's and the PS3's graphical prowess would have made the Wii less successful than the current reality.

With the Wii-U launching first, giving it a 1 year head start is hardly going to be a circumstance easily overcomed by Sony and MS. The Wii-U's predecessor sold way more than the Saturn, so this is more like the PS2 launching early than the GC or Xbox than the DC launching early than the PS2. Nintendo isn't hurting for money so MS and Sony can't depend on Nintendo pulling a Sega and discontinuing the Wii-U.

When was the last time manufacturer took the #1 console crown by launching later than current crown holder?

SNES ? Launched in 1990 fierce competition against Megadrive/Genesis(1989) coming to first at end 1994 if not my mystake(Colecovision in 1982 against Atari 2600 VCS launched 1977).

Good point too, so it is possible .. and how we are trying to find parallels to anticipate the next moves and sincerely is an interesting exercise possibilities.

And it seems that wii U has some signs and a context similar to ps2 (from the great success of the psone with more than 90 million as of 2000) and is free for the next move, but the Wii U looks somewhat signaling search a core gamer and leaving the mass casual gamer for Apple devices ... seems an admission of failure to face this fierce competitor ... as we are speculating : perhaps even the stock market has noticed this with significant losses after announcement next console.

On the other hand ... sony and ms have indeed a very intense work to show something really significant compared to wii U (4 times or more at least) if this does not happen.. we will have a "new ps2" released one year and half to two years before ...

dobwal

22-Jun-2011, 00:50

SNES ? Launched in 1990 fierce competition against Megadrive/Genesis coming to first end 1994 if not my mystake(Colecovision in 1982 against Atari 2600 VCS launched 1977).

My recollection may be off but the MegaDrive did not outsell the SNES nor did the Colecovision outsell the Atari 2600.

One could point to the Atari 5200 (launched in 1984) and the NES which launched in japan in 1983. But the NES didn't launch outside of the Japan until 1985 and by then Atari had stop manufacturing consoles.

Maybe my question is worded confusingly. I am simply asking when was the last time a console became the dominant marketl eader when launched later than a competing console whose predessor was the market leader?

Good point too, so it is possible .. and how we are trying to find parallels to anticipate the next moves and sincerely is an interesting exercise in possibilities.

And it seems that U wii has some signs and a context similar to ps2 (from the great success of the psone with more than 90 million as of 2000) and is free for the next move, but the Wii U looks somewhat signaling search a core gamer search and leaving the mass casual gamer for Apple devices ... seems an admission of failure to face this fierce competitor ... as we are speculating : perhaps even the stock market has noticed this with significant losses after announcement next console.

No, I don't think Nintendo is giving up mass casual gamers but simply using a earlier launch and deeper incorporation of third party software in terms of marketing to pull core gamers into the fold. Since no one expects next gen from MS or Sony (outside of me) to release a console until late 2013, that gives Nintendo a year before we see anything (even demos or mockups) from the other two to persuade core gamers as well as a year before anyone else launch to continue to persuade core gamers.

Nintendo has 50% of the console market while Sony and MS has 25% apiece. Nintendo is looking for growth so its simply targeting Sony and MS marketshare which has a bigger representation of core gamers.

AlphaWolf

22-Jun-2011, 01:18

No one is assuming most wii owners are just waiting to upgrade to the wiiu. But past history tells us that most console owners tend to be brand loyalist and that the dominant manufacturer must make major mistakes to be alleviated of its position.

No, it doesn't. There's probably a subset of brand loyalists within the group, but suggest it's 'most' based on historical data is ridiculous, in fact we can see quite the opposite. Most PS2 owners have definitely not bought a PS3. I also doubt that most xbox or gc owners bought the brand sequels.

There will be people that want the mario games, and there will be people that want to stick with live or psn or whatever game, but most? Prove it.

The PS3 didn't automatically garner support from the total PS2 userbase. But look at what it did to lose that support. It had to offer a new console that was 1.7X to 2X more expensive than the PS2 with limited availability for the cheaper version. It lost exclusivity of prominent third party IPs which had been major differentiators between its and its competitors libraries. Major exclusives were mostly first party IPs, which might have been enough if it weren't for the fact that its strongest IPs like GT, GOW, KZ and SOCOM took 2 years or more to show up.

And what has kept those people from buying now that the ps3 price is lower and the games are out 5 years later?

All this has shown is that the wii and the xbox360 have been much stronger competitors than in the past. Much of the casual audience was certainly initially captured by the Wii. 5 years later, kinect and move and flagging wii sales.

Now, exactly what is it about the Wii-U that will contribute to a less than top selling console? Lack of visual prowess? The Wii got by on that by simply introducing a new gameplay mechanic. Am I now suppose to believe that the Wii-U will be hampered by lack of competiveness in terms of graphics? There are no obvious flaws that make me believe that the Wii-U will fail to recapture the crown.

People bought the Wii for a variety of reasons, is there anything specific about the WiiU that will make most them believe they need a new one? Nintendo sold people on the active standing interactive stuff, MS and Sony have both now encroached on that territory. Nintendo is hoping to get ports of ps360 games, that doesn't mean they'll get ports of next gen titles.

Nintendo has already said they are going to launch at a higher price point than they did last time. This alone could be a barrier. The new controller may not resonate with past wii users. There's a lot of questions about it. Wii sales were incredibly impressive for the first 3 years, decent into the 4th, and they have begun to flag substantially. Perhaps the audience is looking for the WiiU, but perhaps they have just moved on to Kinect or Move.

One of major issue that disallow easy illumination of the potential flaws of the Nintendo strategy is the inability to compare to the other next gen consoles. Nintendo decision with the N64 can be easily seen when knowing the route Sony took with the PS1. Maybe, the Xbox3 and the PS4 will enlighten us to fatalistic flaws in Nintendo strategy. But given what we know and what we don't know, its hard for me to say that Nintendo won't take the crown this gen. Since historically its takes at least 2 generation for a manufacturer to get so full of themselves that they empty a full clip into their big toe.

Without a compelling online experience they are already likely to miss their target of bringing back core gamers or pull the ps360 audience to their console. People aren't buying COD for the 5 hour solo campaign.

The WiiU may very well be the 'winner' in the next generation, but there's nothing in history that suggests it's immune from failure.