Are we really saying that a major point of the success of the Wii and PS2 was their physical size? Yeah, if you reach the size of a mid-tower that would probably have people a bit put off, but the 360 at least (haven't spent enough time around the PS3) isn't large enough to bother. Power draw? Does anyone, even techies, ever really look at the power draw? Unless it pops the breaker when you plug it in, no one cares. You want to say powerful (for the timeframe) = high heat/ lower reliability = expensive -> fair enough. Physical size though, really?
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
You are confusing correlation with causation. Slims are also generally cheaper - that is why they sell better. Or in the case of the Slim 360, it has built in WiFi. That will influence sales much more than the physical size of the console.
To a certain extent, but consider again that the Xbox is bigger than the Xbox 360...
I am anxiously awaiting some real info on the next consoles, to see if MS/Sony really will the Wii route as so many in this thread seem to think they will, and surrender the hardcore gaming market to the PC.
Last edited by a moderator:
Aesthetics influence people. See: black "elite" consoles, silver trims, blue power lights, electro-static buttons, faceplates (lol) and size.
Even if you don't care about how big or ugly something is (hello Xbox) the people who's equipment you're piling up to make way for your console might.
And hot consoles with multiple vents to block (including on the PSU that would normally be quite safe on the thick-with-dust floor behind the telly) aren't as user friendly. And definitely aren't as kid friendly. Or as tv cabinet friendly.
And fan noise. The noise of launch 360s' fans was horrendous. My falcon is much quieter but still annoying with it's fans, especially if I'm watching movies (where the low pitch howling sound from the DVD drive can also be annoying).
I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of 360 owners who will upgrade working fats to slims.
Even if you don't care about how big or ugly something is (hello Xbox) the people who's equipment you're piling up to make way for your console might.
And hot consoles with multiple vents to block (including on the PSU that would normally be quite safe on the thick-with-dust floor behind the telly) aren't as user friendly. And definitely aren't as kid friendly. Or as tv cabinet friendly.
And fan noise. The noise of launch 360s' fans was horrendous. My falcon is much quieter but still annoying with it's fans, especially if I'm watching movies (where the low pitch howling sound from the DVD drive can also be annoying).
I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of 360 owners who will upgrade working fats to slims.
When PS2 slim launched, it cost the same AFAIK, and I know PS2 owners who bought replacements because they were cooler, and people for whom the new form factor was a tipping point. Aesthetics count for a lot for most humans, hence a willingness to pay well over the odds for a particular design or look.
Yes that is true. However surely they would have had to have sorted out the costs / payments behind the scenes to the satisfaction of the parts and equipment makers in order to express publicly their desire to shift to 450mm wafers?
So I take it the yield per wafer would be expected to drop over the first few years, am I right?
They also could have bought it because of aging consoles and its not like the ps2 was some great system , the hardware in it was generaly just as bad as the xbox 360.
I know I upgrade to my 360 launch day premium for a 360 slim cause my old system was almost 5 years old and I was able to make the upgrade for $50 bucks and go from a 20 gig drive up to a 120 gig drive with that price diffrence.
So perhaps the fact that gamestop has generaly done very good deals for the new systems is the real tipping point
These people had already bought PS2s, so obviously size wasn't a deterrent for them. It's not like they said on PS2 launch "that looks cool, and I could afford it, but I'll hold off because it's too big". Never ever have I heard of anybody doing that.
Potentially this could have happpened. A year or so ago when the big fab owners put 450mm on their roadmaps, the response was pretty negative.
If you mean yield per wafer as in the % of a wafer's total candidates that can be sold, I'd say yes, but hopefully not too much of a drop.
If you mean absolute number of working chips per wafer, a drop in that number from 300mm would be disastrous, since the per-wafer costs and equipment are higher.
Variability would probably be worse, since there is much more distance from the theoretically optimal center and the edge.
AMD or rather GlobalFoundries and many other smaller manufacturers were not eager to go to 300mm. AMD's less than impressive 65nm process was probably hurt by the transition to 300mm, allegedly due to variability.
I didn't even buy a PS2 till the slims came out.
I knew they were going to given the PSone, so I waited.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Perhaps we should ask ourselves if PS2 would have sold as well as it did if it had been restricted to tech that could fit into the PSTwo form factor, in 2000.
Ofcourse looks matter, go smaller if you can given the same performance, but do they outweigh the actual capabilities of the device? If 360 had launched at Wii size and performance levels (all else being same, ie traditional controller) would it have sold better? I know i would have passed.
Whether people want a smaller form factor but with sacriffice to performance is totaly different to asking if a smaller form factor is prefered given identicle performance.
Ofcourse looks matter, go smaller if you can given the same performance, but do they outweigh the actual capabilities of the device? If 360 had launched at Wii size and performance levels (all else being same, ie traditional controller) would it have sold better? I know i would have passed.
Whether people want a smaller form factor but with sacriffice to performance is totaly different to asking if a smaller form factor is prefered given identicle performance.
Last edited by a moderator:
You missed the other half. There were people who were eyeing a PS2 with a view to buy who kept putting it off, who then made the purchase when the slim came out. It was the form factor that pushed them over the edge. It's not a simple case of a conscious thought, "I'm not buying that as its too big," but a subconcious level of appreciation and desire, with lots of factors in play. Having a cool, sleek, quiet little box helps that versus a giant, noisy monster. If Wii launched exactly as is but in a box like the original XBox, it wouldn't have sold as well because that side of the overall package, the aesthetics, would have been devalued. This is why companies invest serious money in design and don't just stick their working electronics in any old box - they know ugly boxes will reduce interest in their product and hence lower sales.
I for one certainly dont think MS will go the wii route. Sony might go for a half way solution?
Even if MS do go for a more slim size launch console and target my more conservative TDP and chip size estimates than this gen... on 22nm or even 28 they will still have a MEGA console.
PS: No company makes a console big for the sake of it. It is simply because the components are big and run hot. Big consoles are not consumer friendly, either from its appearance or its price. Theres just no other way to see it. Anyway, ive hammered that point enough now and think its best to leave it there
agreed
Blazkowicz
Legend
brain_stew
Regular
This last bunch of consoles were already way too big, hot, expensive and unreliable, we're not going to get a design next generation that increases any of those factors so TDPs are going down, not up.
No way will Microsoft want to make that $1 billion mistake again and no way will Sony want to produce a console again that had to be sold at $600 initially and still lose them mone, especially after the Wii has shown a small and low power console is a big selling point even at the expense of fancy graphics.
I'd be very surprised if we get TDPs higher than ~125w. Very surprised.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
I dont dissagree but to be fair that $1 billion mistake by MS could have been eradicated even at the same TDP with better design and manufacturing, and in sonys case the exotic components like bluray were what pushed them over the 399 mark not just the TDP of the console.
I personally think we will see a similar approach this time as the 360 took (minus the design issues). It was cheep enough and performed well IMO.
If Sony releases a 125W PS4, and MS throws out a 180W Nextbox, the MS console should be significantly more powerful. This ought to be a bigger selling point than "the PS4 is smaller". At least to the customers that come into my store I know this would be the case.
Also, using the 360 as an example of how hot machines can't work is kinda presumptive. The 360 was a horrible piece of engineering and there's no reason a system with that TDP has to have such high failure rates.
I know aesthetics play a role. And it is certainly possible to make a beautiful and powerful (and not too loud) machine.
Ahh, well I guess there does seem to need some behind the scenes massaging and more lucrative profits. However surely with a spate of capital upgrades, the equipment makers ought to come out on top?
Did AMD only just transition to 300mm? Wow, I didn't know that! Anyway with oil money behind them, GF ought to be able to make that transition at the same time if they feel it is viable.
Anyway with greater variability that would mean greater incentive for more smaller chips vs fewer larger chips in terms of getting acceptable yields? So perhaps depending on the size of the chips we might see consoles with a few smaller chips rather than any attempt to amalgamate them into the one or two dice at launch.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
