News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[Rangers]

Why should it cost the same as PS4 when it has the same size SOC but uses much cheaper RAM?

That's kind of my point. The strength is it can be cheaper than PS4. The weakness is it's not (seemingly) as powerful.

MS has the worst of all worlds currently. Except they have Kinect of course, but that has proven to not be enough draw to overcome the price.

Your own post is silly, if they can get down to $400 with Kinect, then they can get significantly cheaper than $400 without it.

Mind you, I think it's 50-50 whether they indeed keep Kinect and shoot for 399. That's a strategy decision.

 

[eastmen]

If Kinect is that important they might eat money to get it to $400 with the Kinect. $400 with the Kinect would just be a waste at this point imo. I'm hoping I'm right and we see a big splash of Kinect games at e3

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

if it was $400 with no Kinect then whats the point ? Its a weaker ps4.

They really need to get down to $400 with Kinect.

Games. If Microsoft brings tons of exclusives, they will move the console, even if it's a weaker ps4 at the same price or slightly cheaper

people don't want Kinect. It doesn't matter if they just lower the price. People don't want to pay for Kinect. At all.

Only 1/3 of the 360 user base bought into Kinect....why assume all of the suddenly that 100% of the userbase wants Kinect?

It's one of those really frustrating issues I have with the previous management as a consumer....I seriously have no idea how they thought it was the right business move.

Two skus. One with Kinect for $449, one without Kinect for $349-399. Then sell Kinect at solo at retail for $99-124.99. Couple that with a constant flow of quality exclusives, they will move consoles easily.

 

[bkilian]

The mistake was thinking that people needed +3GB of ram for "apps", because apps are all the rage now. At the architecture panel they said that they wanted the xbox to be capable of supporting future trends, and apps were one of those.

That thinking forced them to have 8GB of memory, which forced them to chose ddr3 because of uncertainty of module size and price, and not gddr which they had used in their last generation in the xbox360.

That choice for ddr3 forced them to have a large on die cache, which took away from a larger more powerful gpu.

There was this idea that being able to support the next huge emerging trend would be a finacial win for them, we will have to see how that pans out.

So far it not panned out and its just the great selection of software esclusives and not the wonderful environent that supports apps that is getting people to buy.

Nope. For one, it was DDR3 before it was 8GB. The 3GB reservation was decided on _after_ they moved to 8GB. It was 1GB (or, technically, 1.5GB including the host OS) before that. And the on-die cache was in the plan from the very beginning, it was not forced by any other choices.

I can't say I agree with all the design decisions that were made, but your supposed reasonings for them are incorrect. More accurately, it was almost the exact opposite. The ESRAM allowed them to consider RAM choices that wouldn't have been feasible otherwise, which allowed them to increase the amount of RAM the box offered when it was determined that the previous reservation was going to be tighter than they'd hoped.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Nope. For one, it was DDR3 before it was 8GB. The 3GB reservation was decided on _after_ they moved to 8GB. It was 1GB (or, technically, 1.5GB including the host OS) before that. And the on-die cache was in the plan from the very beginning, it was not forced by any other choices.

Very interesting. I really wish Microsoft become as open as their competitor who've been really transparent about the development of their platform and their design choices they disregarded (1000Gb/sec EDRAM solution) and why (pain in the arse for developers). Knowing how something came to be really makes you appreciate it more.

And it's really easy for armchair engineers to say they'd have done this or that but unless you know where the design team were at any point, and their budget and immediate and long terms goals at those points, you just can't understand this stuff.

 

[3dilettante]

After the DF interview with the Xbox One architects, I am not certain which one has been more forthcoming overall, although I can't remember which tidbit came out officially given the long exposure of docs from Vgleaks, presentations, and dev slides.

The Xbox One system had a presence at Hot Chips and a full designer interview in response to feature criticism.
In some aspects, the other side was quite measured in what was disclosed, and the results show that their choices were pretty well-aimed.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

After the DF interview with the Xbox One architects, I am not certain which one has been more forthcoming overall, although I can't remember which tidbit came out officially given the long exposure of docs from Vgleaks, presentations, and dev slides.

I missed this, is it floating around somewhere? Cerny did a 50 minute spot at Gamelabs in June last year detailing the whole process from the other side's perspective. When they did things, who was doing what and where, why they did things, including reflection on PS/PS2/PS3 and how the process differed to Kutaragi's approach, their design goals, their engagement with developers, design choices that were options but that were discounted (see above). Frankly, I am surprised he was permitted to be so candid.

If Microsoft have done something similar I'd love to watch it.

 

[3dilettante]

I'm referring to the details and design decisions discussed in the DF interview, as well as the Hot Chips presentation Microsoft had.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

Microsoft's general argument with regard to the design is somewhat simpler because they didn't need to do an about-face like Sony and give a thousand apologies for inflicting Cell on their developer base.

While it does make for a nice narrative, technical details as basic as CPU clock, OS reserved memory, GPU reserve, reserved cores, and the virtual memory setup were not something Sony really touched on or refused to answer, while Microsoft's architects did discuss those elements and their thinking behind those choices.
Whether all gamers care about it or not, Microsoft also presented quite a bit of info on Kinect 2.0.

 

[Cyan]

After the DF interview with the Xbox One architects, I am not certain which one has been more forthcoming overall, although I can't remember which tidbit came out officially given the long exposure of docs from Vgleaks, presentations, and dev slides.

The Xbox One system had a presence at Hot Chips and a full designer interview in response to feature criticism.
In some aspects, the other side was quite measured in what was disclosed, and the results show that their choices were pretty well-aimed.

Yes, what you say is what actually happened, the info is there for the world to see -VGLeaks documents aside-. So DSoup, check the interviews and stuff like that and you will notice that people have some extra knowledge on the Xbox One than any other console out there, regardless of their preferences.

On another note, the rumoured new Augmented Reality glasses could be called Kinect Shades.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/...ly-working-on-kinect-shades-for-xbox-one.aspx

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Thanks, I must have missed that during all the pre-launch craziness. I'm less interesting in things like a clock speed because the answer is always be yield/heat/power/cost but when/how/why of big picture stuff is interesting to me. It would be great to know why Microsoft felt the TV integration was so important in an age of cable cutting and when they engaged developers, what dev feedback was, how that feedback fed into the design of the console. The stuff that defined what Xbox One ultimately came to be.

Mind you the article somewhat contradicts bkillian's statement above.

Were you always targeting 8GB right from the beginning?

Yeah I think that was a pretty early decision we made when we were looking at the kind of experiences that we wanted to run concurrently with the title. And how much memory we would need there. That would have been a really early decision for us.

Obviously people's recollection's will differ, particularly from years ago and of course at the very start there probably was no definite RAM target. The article does go into a great amount of detail about the system but it's like they skipped the first chapter of the Xbox One story about how they decided that a TV/App/Game/Always On box was what they wanted.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

On another note, the rumoured new Augmented Reality glasses could be called Kinect Shades.

The thing about stories posted today, you don't know whether to believe them or not ;-)

"KinectShades"? Hmmm..

 

[dobwal]

Thanks, I must have missed that during all the pre-launch craziness. I'm less interesting in things like a clock speed because the answer is always be yield/heat/power/cost but when/how/why of big picture stuff is interesting to me. It would be great to know why Microsoft felt the TV integration was so important in an age of cable cutting and when they engaged developers, what dev feedback was, how that feedback fed into the design of the console. The stuff that defined what Xbox One ultimately came to be.

Mind you the article somewhat contradicts bkillian's statement above.





Obviously people's recollection's will differ, particularly from years ago and of course at the very start there probably was no definite RAM target. The article does go into a great amount of detail about the system but it's like they skipped the first chapter of the Xbox One story about how they decided that a TV/App/Game/Always On box was what they wanted.

How does that contradict bkillian's statement? bkillian said that esram came before 8GBs not that 8 GB was some late design decision. It was just later than eSRAM and DDR3.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

bkillian said that esram came before 8GBs not that 8 GB was some late design decision. It was just later than eSRAM and DDR3.

Nothing to do with ESRAM.

Nope. For one, it was DDR3 before it was 8GB. The 3GB reservation was decided on _after_ they moved to 8GB.

Which to me implies there was another RAM target prior to 8Gb, but the fellow says 8Gb was the early target. Like I said above, these events were probably years ago and perhaps recollected differently by different people.

 

[dobwal]

Nothing to do with ESRAM.

My bad

Which to me implies there was another RAM target prior to 8Gb, but the fellow says 8Gb was the early target. Like I said above, these events were probably years ago and perhaps recollected differently by different people.

Yeah, recollections of the same event can differ depending on the person. But bkilian gives an explicit order of events. While Goosen statement is vague, lacks context and requires you to infer that it contradicts bkilian's recollection. Guess who I am going with?

 

[function]

Nothing to do with ESRAM.


Which to me implies there was another RAM target prior to 8Gb, but the fellow says 8Gb was the early target. Like I said above, these events were probably years ago and perhaps recollected differently by different people.

You're looking for a contradiction that doesn't need to exist.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Only 1/3 of the 360 user base bought into Kinect....why assume all of the suddenly that 100% of the userbase wants Kinect?

1/3 is a huge ratio given the disparity in timing of releases of the console and Kinect. You have to factor in how many of the initial user base were still using the console, how many of the original console sales volumes where replacement or additional units, etc. I had purchased 3 XBOX 360's over the course of its life and one Kinect.

The fact that Kinect achieved the record of the fastest selling consumer device really doesn't equate to "nobody wants Kinect".

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You're looking for a contradiction that doesn't need to exist.

I don't understand.

 

[BoardBonobo]

The fact that Kinect achieved the record of the fastest selling consumer device really doesn't equate to "nobody wants Kinect".

That was more down to ms selling the idea that kinnect was the second coming in gaming. And then delivered practically zero of its promises. I bet that if it was launched as a separate unit today it would gain nowhere near the same amount of traction.

Sent from my Xperia Z using Forum Runner

 

[Brad Grenz]

That was more down to ms selling the idea that kinnect was the second coming in gaming. And then delivered practically zero of its promises. I bet that if it was launched as a separate unit today it would gain nowhere near the same amount of traction.

Obviously. The sales trajectory of Kinect was basically a 45 degree angle straight into the dirt following its launch. Smart marketing convinced a lot of people to buy pet rocks once, too. Kinect failed to deliver on the promises Microsoft made and its downward sales trends are a pretty clear indication of that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The fact that Kinect achieved the record of the fastest selling consumer device really doesn't equate to "nobody wants Kinect".

Well, being particular, that title shows people did want Kinect back then. Whether they still do or not can't be strongly supported by response to the original, new experience. It could be that, "people used to want Kinect, but now nobody wants Kinect," much like interest in Wii was incredibly high yet came to a stop. Or it could be, "people wanted Kinect when it launched, and want it as much/even more now." The only way to really argue that one way or the other would be current sales, methinks. Probably would need a Kinectless SKU to compare to.