The console manufacturer would have less time to lower its cost. When a new console is launched the old would still be expensive and with such a remarkable difference compared to the newer console that sales would hurt a lot.
Not allways true. While they have less time it doesn't mean it can't be done. Ms has removed alot of stuff from the xbox 360 that cause the xbox 1 to scale in price so slowly .
We really don't know how much the xbox 360 costs to make , but if it does cost 375$ as one anylist said its already 50$ less than the xbox 1 to make . The xbox 360 should also see more price cuts due to 1) 80nm 2) edram/logic + logic as a single die no longer 2 dies in the chip 3) 65nms 4) 45 nm
At 45nm they may even be able to do a single chip for the cpu gpu/edram . The hardrive is no longer part of the equation and wont be a fixed cost included in it .
So realisticly 4 years into the xbox 's life its at 150$ . The xbox 360 is starting at a cheaper price so realisticly it cna be 100$ in 4 years .
If the console with the 4 year cycle was released with less cutting edge technology (compared to todays releases) and thus cost less that would fit into the cycle better as it wouldnt cost as much to upgrade for customers. It wouldnt have to have the most expensive tech either because it doesnt have to be around for that long. And with shorter cycles the likelyhood of being able to reuse old tech would increase (eg same processor(s) with bumped speed). With similar tech being used developers would have an easier time to move onto a new platform.
Why ? Why can't ms release a console that is cutting edge in 4 years ? What prevents them. They were able to release a cutting edge xbox 360 this year with only a 4 year gap .
It would still need to go against a ps4 which could likely be 2 years newer and will still need enough grpahical powe to not be completely left behind for the 2 years it has to live with sonys offering .
As for reusing old tech , they don't have to , they can simply base it on the current tech. I see no reason why they can't use a similar xbox 360 cpu with more cores and clocked higher and a new direct x ati part .
Also with bc support planed from the start a hardcore user can move to the new platform and still enjoy the newest xbox 360 releases .
It isnt like all devs take 4 years to develop a game. If info on the new console was disclosed earlier good middle-ware could appear earlier, games could begin to develop earlier and devs would just have to adopt to the shorter cycle. Thus allowing them to reuse tech atleast once during the life of the console.
mabye , with more middleware dev times can go down . Its really art work that will be the most costly .
If console cycles were 100 years long the development cycles would increase too, because it is possible to develop for a longer period of time, because it is one way to differentiate ones games from other devs and because it would be necessary to compete with others. It would of course be supported by the ever growing install base.
People will tire of the graphics and new companys will enter the market .
Since it is 5 AM Ill just say the following and hope that everything in this post makes sense. With longer cycles everyone makes more money and if shorter cycles means they make less money that must come from more competition. Thus shorter cycles (up to a point) is a good thing.
I believe ideal console life is 4-5 years . Both from a tech pov and a buyers pov .
400$ every 4-5 years isn't bad at all . It equates to 100$-75$ a year fpr the early adopter .
This quote got me going 