What Happened To Durango?

[TheChefO]

You need to be schooled in PR:

All of that is great ... but when the first multiplats show a notable advantage on your competitors system, and the overall design is such that there is no magic bullet to pull performance from (cell, emotion engine, etc) then that just leaves the honest truth about how your system stacks up to the competition.

In this case, I'm not picturing all roses at MS HQ... no matter how rosy the PR sounds...

 

[(((interference)))]

This is true especially if a custom design is in the cards.

I say if they were planning on roughly standard tech, why not off the shelf units with "custom glue"?

Example:

Standard 8 core jaguar cpu (two 4 core modules)
Standard cape verde
Custom northbridge connecting them, the dsp(s), and Ram

This way, the important components of the machine are quickly changeable should a performance deficit present itself...

It's not too bright to invest so much R&D & time into a custom design which aims so low as to allow a competitor to easily outperform your offering...

Because that's how consoles work? shrug

Plus they were going for an SoC this time (to help reach a much lower thermal and energy envelope than 360), so couldn't really go for this off the shelf, easily changeable build as all the different components would have to be integrated into an SoC.

 

[Bagel seed]

I say if they were planning on roughly standard tech, why not off the shelf units with "custom glue"?

Nope, neither of them are just slapping together PC parts. These are SoC designs that took a while to cook up.

You're assuming they mind being behind in power. It was alluded to by bkilian here before... execs didn't feel it mattered. Again, I expect they are aiming in an entirely different pricing structure and set top box model with subs. You'll get your 2TF Xbox in 2015-ish.

 

[TheChefO]

Because that's how consoles work

Plus they were going for an SoC this time (to help reach a much lower thermal and energy envelope than 360), so couldn't really go for this off the shelf, easily changeable build as all the different components would have to be integrated into an SoC.

Sure SOC is smart ... but what isn't smart is being outclassed by your competitor which is launching in the same time and price window (likely) and using nearly identical architecture ... just a beefier version.

The smarter thing to do would be to go with discrete units until the competition landscape is known, and shrink from there.

IMO

 

[Acert93]

All of that is great ... but when the first multiplats show a notable advantage on your competitors system, and the overall design is such that there is no magic bullet to pull performance from (cell, emotion engine, etc) then that just leaves the honest truth about how your system stacks up to the competition.

In this case, I'm not picturing all roses at MS HQ... no matter how rosy the PR sounds...

If MS was also aiming for a $225 BOM with DVR and Kinect 2,0 (think robust gesture support, including the thumb, instant-voice activated experience, and Suri like voice features) hard core gamer pixel counting may be what MS is doing all the way to the bank.

Assuming the entire systems are a wash (the extra CPU flops do squat for GPU idle time caused by the CPU, the audio chip is worthless, and the xGPU is 33% slower than the pGPU, etc) then MS gets to run Sony's 1080p30 games at 800p30.

So let's just say that is a fact.

What if Sony only has 4GB of memory they probably aren't running a full fledged DVR in the background. (Yes, having 8GB of memory has some advantages). Do you think consumers care about that?

And consumers jumped all over Kinect and the Wii before it; how about a console built completely around Kinect 2?

So, ok, worst case scenario the PS4 is running at 50% more pixels; I think MS would trade that "bullet point" for doing an about face, "But can the PS4 do full background DVR, while Skype chatting with a 3D virtual avatar thanks to Kinect 2, while playing Halo 5?" I am a core gamer and Durango is not really aligning with my uses, but if you start throwing up bullet points to consumers I think MS HQ is probably pretty happy if the leaks are true.

 

[TheChefO]

You're assuming they mind being behind in power. It was alluded to by bkilian here before... execs didn't feel it mattered.

Perhaps I'll be wrong on this ... but obviously power does matter. WiiU is making this abundantly clear ATM.

If I'm right, 2015 may be too late to drop a new apology box.

Why switch from the competition which is offering everything the core gamer wants?

 

[TheChefO]

If MS was also aiming for a $225 BOM with DVR and Kinect 2,0 (think robust gesture support, including the thumb, instant-voice activated experience, and Suri like voice features) hard core gamer pixel counting may be what MS is doing all the way to the bank.

Assuming the entire systems are a wash (the extra CPU flops do squat for GPU idle time caused by the CPU, the audio chip is worthless, and the xGPU is 33% slower than the pGPU, etc) then MS gets to run Sony's 1080p30 games at 800p30.

So let's just say that is a fact.

What if Sony only has 4GB of memory they probably aren't running a full fledged DVR in the background. (Yes, having 8GB of memory has some advantages). Do you think consumers care about that?

And consumers jumped all over Kinect and the Wii before it; how about a console built completely around Kinect 2?

So, ok, worst case scenario the PS4 is running at 50% more pixels; I think MS would trade that "bullet point" for doing an about face, "But can the PS4 do full background DVR, while Skype chatting with a 3D virtual avatar thanks to Kinect 2, while playing Halo 5?" I am a core gamer and Durango is not really aligning with my uses, but if you start throwing up bullet points to consumers I think MS HQ is probably pretty happy if the leaks are true.

I'm not seeing anything in the spec sheet of the competition which is showing an advantage that durango can do which the competition CAN'T do.

Sure, it might not do everything the same, but 512mb is a lot of ram for periphery. Smart phones get by with less and offer more.

Maybe not dvr in the background 100% of the time, but I'm not sure that's a bullet point which will move boxes.

Put it this way, I think the majority would rather see the periphery at 60% quality and the core gameplay at 100% quality vs the other way around.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Why switch from the competition which is offering everything the core gamer wants?

When neither company has made a significant profit this generation off of the "core gamers," would it be wise to base your entire console around those same "core gamers?"

For both Sony and MS, the "core gamer" is only one part of the overall market that they wish to appeal to. People are going to have to come to terms with that. The "core gamer" while important, is not going to be what makes either company a healthy profit.

Hence, both companies are allocating less to the hardware BOM than they have in the past. Both companies are also targeting casual gamers. Both companies "might" also be trying to appeal to non-gamers with the non-gaming features. Either to get them to buy a console or to buy another device which contains the non-gaming features without the game related stuff.

For either company to succeed, they cannot just focus on the "core gamer."

And here I disagree with Shifty. I believe Durango will be the Xbox gaming console for the next 5+ years. What will likely happen is that in 1-2 years Microsoft will release the Xbox branded set top box without the "beefy" gaming hardware at a much lower cost than the gaming Xbox, say 100 USD or thereabouts. That box will feature everything that Xbox gaming console has, except the ability to play AAA games.

IMO, that's a more likely situation than one where they attempt to sell a more powerful gaming console every 2 years.

Regards,
SB

 

[(((interference)))]

Sure SOC is smart ... but what isn't smart is being outclassed by your competitor which is launching in the same time and price window (likely) and using nearly identical architecture ... just a beefier version.

The smarter thing to do would be to go with discrete units until the competition landscape is known, and shrink from there.

IMO

I think the fault with your reasoning is you are assuming MS is interested in having the most powerful console this time around, I get the distinct impression that they're not - they went down the power route last time and that didn't make them the best selling console. They know the money is in having a console with widespread, cross-demographic appeal, capable of new and exciting experiences not possible on current consoles, PC or other devices, as well as playing all the latest and greatest games - all while being reasonably priced.

They look to succeed on all these fronts with Durango. How many of the millions of people buying these consoles are going to even notice that games run 10-20% better on PS4 let alone care.

 

[Bagel seed]

Perhaps I'll be wrong on this ... but obviously power does matter. WiiU is making this abundantly clear ATM.

If I'm right, 2015 may be too late to drop a new apology box.

Why switch from the competition which is offering everything the core gamer wants?

Yup, I don't think the strategy will work that well either. Power is important especially when both will be coming out at nearly the same time. Obviously they're hoping to get by with a bare minimum, get people on long term subs, and lead you with the carrot via upgradeable boxes. They're banking on the possibility that people may not notice or care in the first year or two. But this whole thing already been discussed ad infinitum in that other thread already.

 

[Acert93]

Let's do some hardcore math:

1920*1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

33% of 2073600 = 1,368,576 pixels

1535*864 = 1,327,104 (1535 is 80% of 1920; 864 is 80% of 1080).

33% of the horizontal resolution of 1920*1080 ~ 1280*1080 (1,382,400).

33% of the vertical resolution of 1920*1080 ~ 1920*720 (1,382,400 pixels).

To summarize:

1080p = 2,073,600 pixels
33% of 1080p = 1,368,576 pixels

33% of 1080p could result in a number of combinations that can be easily scaled:

1535*864 = 1,327,104
1280*1080 = 1,382,400
1920*720 = 1,382,400 pixels

Question: How many of the 150M consumers that bought a PS3/Xbox 360 will be able to notice the difference between 1080p and one of the above resolutions and care over and above all other console features, exclusives, MSRP, etc?

 

[TheChefO]

When neither company has made a significant profit this generation off of the "core gamers," would it be wise to base your entire console around those same "core gamers?"

For both Sony and MS, the "core gamer" is only one part of the overall market that they wish to appeal to. People are going to have to come to terms with that. The "core gamer" while important, is not going to be what makes either company a healthy profit.

Hence, both companies are allocating less to the hardware BOM than they have in the past. Both companies are also targeting casual gamers. Both companies "might" also be trying to appeal to non-gamers with the non-gaming features. Either to get them to buy a console or to buy another device which contains the non-gaming features without the game related stuff.

For either company to succeed, they cannot just focus on the "core gamer."

Regards,
SB

It's a logical and valid argument, but I disagree 100%.

ps360 sold roughly 100million units. Smart phones, pcs and tabs sell many times this, thus there is an untapped market which wasn't interested in what ps360 had to offer. Was it that it didn't have enough apps? Not enough facebook integration? No. I'd argue that the untapped market didn't see anything on the boxes which interested them (ie games) enough to purchase.

Two ways to then expand this market:

1) make it cheaper for game developers to experiment with content and develop more variety which may lure in the untapped demographic

2) make the hardware more capable to deliver compelling experiences which can draw in the fence sitters

IMO, these are one in the same. Better hardware means less time from devs having to find every nook and cranny of performance to get the box up to speed. It also means a more compelling experience for the consumer.

Cheaping out on the hardware only serves to blur the performance line of console and mobile even sooner down the road.

I'd also beg to differ on neither company making any money off the core gamer. MS is making over a Billion Dollars annually on xblg alone. Casuals typically aren't the type to pony up for a monthly multiplayer gaming fee. This profit doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of potential ad revenue in the future though, but as is, $1B+/yr is pretty good money.

 

[Acert93]

I don't know if the Xbox 3's CPUs have double-wide vector units over Orbis, if it really has a 100GFLOPs equivalent audio chip, or even 2x the memory, but I have to laugh at all the comments that those aren't important as well as already concluding that the GPU is significantly slower.

We need some architectural details; for some reason I don't seem people fretting over the fact it seems the Orbis CPUs are the primary memory client, a shared memory controller, and due to memory selection Orbis GPU latency is rumored to be very high.

As for the importance of Kinect 2 (sorry, consumers will love wake on voice, instant user recognition, robust gestures, etc), Skype in every box, and features like integrated DVR and a complete "media box" I will say I will agree to disagree. I think the Wii (with motion, accessible gaming--and 480p Netflix!) and Kinect (gaga for whizbang technology) show consumers can march to a different beat. Especially if that beat has $299 pricing or Cell phone like contracts.

Hard core gamers puke hearing that but I think MS's strategy was to stay close to high end on gaming (the fact they didn't cheap on CPU made it easier to scale resolution and keep visual feature/framerate parity) while stretching their legs in the consumer/media space. The Xbox 3 is going to live and die by how great Kinect 2 is and how well all their technology like Skype integrate seamlessly into the user Interface.

 

[TheChefO]

Let's do some hardcore math:

1920*1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

33% of 2073600 = 1,368,576 pixels

1535*864 = 1,327,104 (1535 is 80% of 1920; 864 is 80% of 1080).

33% of the horizontal resolution of 1920*1080 ~ 1280*1080 (1,382,400).

33% of the vertical resolution of 1920*1080 ~ 1920*720 (1,382,400 pixels).

To summarize:

1080p = 2,073,600 pixels
33% of 1080p = 1,368,576 pixels

33% of 1080p could result in a number of combinations that can be easily scaled:

1535*864 = 1,327,104
1280*1080 = 1,382,400
1920*720 = 1,382,400 pixels

Question: How many of the 150M consumers that bought a PS3/Xbox 360 will be able to notice the difference between 1080p and one of the above resolutions and care over and above all other console features, exclusives, MSRP, etc?

That's great but there are repercussions involved here by coming up 33% short (if that's the real world deficit).

As is, people pay a premium for xblg because it is the best service running on the best platform for multiplat games (for the most part).

Now, if the best platform is no longer under the xblg umbrella, why pay the premium for a subpar experience?

 

[TheChefO]

I don't know if the Xbox 3's CPUs have double-wide vector units over Orbis, if it really has a 100GFLOPs equivalent audio chip, or even 2x the memory, but I have to laugh at all the comments that those aren't important as well as already concluding that the GPU is significantly slower.

We need some architectural details; for some reason I don't seem people fretting over the fact it seems the Orbis CPUs are the primary memory client, a shared memory controller, and due to memory selection Orbis GPU latency is rumored to be very high.

As for the importance of Kinect 2 (sorry, consumers will love wake on voice, instant user recognition, robust gestures, etc), Skype in every box, and features like integrated DVR and a complete "media box" I will say I will agree to disagree. I think the Wii (with motion, accessible gaming--and 480p Netflix!) and Kinect (gaga for whizbang technology) show consumers can march to a different beat. Especially if that beat has $299 pricing or Cell phone like contracts.

Hard core gamers puke hearing that but I think MS's strategy was to stay close to high end on gaming (the fact they didn't cheap on CPU made it easier to scale resolution and keep visual feature/framerate parity) while stretching their legs in the consumer/media space. The Xbox 3 is going to live and die by how great Kinect 2 is and how well all their technology like Skype integrate seamlessly into the user Interface.

I'm not disagreeing on the periphery being important, but I'm also not seeing anything in the spec which makes it impossible for the competition to mimic nearly every feature mentioned in close enough proximity to make it irrelevant.

At which point, it comes down to the games.

 

[(((interference)))]

That's great but there are repercussions involved here by coming up 33% short (if that's the real world deficit).

As is, people pay a premium for xblg because it is the best service running on the best platform for multiplat games (for the most part).

Now, if the best platform is no longer under the xblg umbrella, why pay the premium for a subpar experience?

It's not a 33% deficit, as ERP has explained it's only a 33% deficit in ALU limited scenarios, which is some % of the total rendering time. Half the amount of ROPS are probably more of an issue with running at the same res/framerates as PS4 than the ALU deficit.

And we don't know how much ground techniques utilising the low latency ESRAM may be able to claw back, or using the 1.5 GB extra memory for precomputed stuff.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'd also beg to differ on neither company making any money off the core gamer. MS is making over a Billion Dollars annually on xblg alone. Casuals typically aren't the type to pony up for a monthly multiplayer gaming fee. This profit doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of potential ad revenue in the future though, but as is, $1B+/yr is pretty good money.

Yes, the last 2 years have been particularly good for MS. Hmmm, what came out about ~2 years ago? Oh yeah, that Kinect thing and whole embrace the casual gamer thing. It's quite likely that Microsoft has recouped their initial investment into console gaming finally and that it's all cash positive now. But it took quite a while to get there and could have gone south easily if the console business hadn't been relatively immune to the world's economic recession.

How about Sony? Almost purely focused on the "core gamer" with a bit of reach to casual that didn't quite pay out or wasn't pursued fully. How about their situation? PS3 is unlikely to ever recoup the initial investment into the PS3. Cell was basically a loss. But at least BluRay turned out well, albeit probably not as well as they projected (BRD adoption being slower and lower than DVD adoption was).

Hence, you see Sony at least rumored to be looking into charging a fee for more of the online features that are currently free on PS3. Hence you see that the rumored VGleaks info has a camera as standard as well as Move or perhaps just a modified DS3 with Move type motion tracking.

IE - both companies are very hard after the casuals, because they both realize that the traditional "core gamer" isn't going to translate into a large ROI. That doesn't mean the "core gamer" isn't important. It just means they aren't the only important ones.

Casual gamers and living room media consumers offer a potentially larger and more lucrative revenue stream for both companies.

I'm willing to bet that both are definitely focused on "core gamer" + "casual gamer." And one is likely very strongly focused on the living room experience (set top box with apps) with the other potentially just as focused on that.

Regards,
SB

 

[TheChefO]

...both companies are very hard after the casuals, because they both realize that the traditional "core gamer" isn't going to translate into a large ROI. That doesn't mean the "core gamer" isn't important. It just means they aren't the only important ones.

I don't disagree.

Having said that, the way to expand the market beyond the "core" imo isn't more of the same (app this that or the other) which could be acquired elsewhere in mobile land or on existing boxes.

Greater compute enables a more compelling experience. Either prettier pixels which more closely resemble a believable world, better ai which does the same, better physics which does the same, more interactivity which does the same, or all of the above.

Slap hd kinect2.0 on top and that requires yet more processing power.

Ditto illumiroom.

The more believable the interactive experience, the better chance to sell outside of the "core" market.

As for Sony losses this gen, there are many factors, silicon budget isn't one. In fact, imagine if they had a half breed console somewhere between xb360 and wii. Imagine how well that would have worked for them ...

But hey, they wouldn't have had to spend so much on chips right?

 

[TheChefO]

It's not a 33% deficit, as ERP has explained it's only a 33% deficit in ALU limited scenarios, which is some % of the total rendering time. Half the amount of ROPS are probably more of an issue with running at the same res/framerates as PS4 than the ALU deficit.

And we don't know how much ground techniques utilising the low latency ESRAM may be able to claw back, or using the 1.5 GB extra memory for precomputed stuff.

True we don't know exactly what that performance deficit is going to look like, but we do know that there is likely to be one. It's just a matter of exactly how bad.

My point in the post above is that if the platform is not the premium experience of the generation, why pay a premium price (xblg)?

I'd say the likely scenario is that Sony will end up charging for MP roughly the same what MS charges, but will see a significant uptick in userbase as the experience will be superior, and thus, it has value and is worth the premium.

 

[Silenti]

You need to be schooled in PR:

[/I]"

Anything which follows, I am working with the assumption that the VG Leaks info is accurate enough that we are missing nothing major. "You" in the following does not refer to a specific poster but to one of the big 3. I feel I had to put that in since a pronoun got me into trouble about 7 years ago or so.

Problem #1 - We all speak bullshit. Anyone over 10 and probably under 60 does as well. Plenty of MS's big PR Reveals were painful.
Problem #2 - We are not talking about a minor deficit with the "more powerful" machine being difficult to use to the point that it goes unused or only shows up in AAA first party titles 5 years after release.

From other above posts - the concept of "We gamers have to accept.." that Sony, and MS especially, are targeting more of a casual audience while trying to appease the "core". I don't appease well. From all that I have seen I am far, far from happy with their "compromises". Judging by the reactions on B3D, Neogaf, etc, etc. the net effect has been denial and bargaining. Does anyone think that customers will not walk away if they feel they are being let down by a product?

The only saving grace I can see so far is price. IF Durango is cheap, and by cheap I mean 300$ for a basic model with a mid sized hdd, then I will probably bite. If it is not, ala the rumored Sony price points of 400 and 500$, then MS and Sony can both take a flying leap. I have skipped console generations before, I will again. If I don't see the value, and so far I do not.

Kinect 2.0/ integration with tablets, and phones, voice commands, apps, etc ad naseum - that's all well and nice, but I wouldn't sacrifice much of anything in terms of GPU/CPU/RAM etc, for any of it. Guess what happens when the focus shifts from "games" to "integration", I walk. So will a lot of others. Sony was damaged by the 600$. Atari died. Sega died. You can break the goodwill / benefit of the doubt your history has earned you to date.

I don't pay for Live Gold because it doesn't have value to me. Sticking a pay service like Netflix (which I have) behind a pay wall just annoys me, it doesn't mean I will pay for Gold. Sticking features of games which are not about multiplayer behind the paywall doesn't mean I'm going to pay for it. Take Forza 3. I wanted to see other peoples paint schemes and show mine. I then found out I could not, that it was a Gold only service. Guess what happened? I stopped playing Forza 3, purchased no DLC and haven't purchased a Forza game since.

If you anger/annoy/disappoint the core crowd enough, guess what happens to your sales after the first couple of months? See the WiiU for details. No used games, underpowered or late, high price, always on, Kinect required, subscription virtually required. It is entirely possibly to hit a tipping point with customers and fail spectacularly.