An Nvidia console seems a no brainer to me. Who else could Console?

[eastmen]

THe problem I would see is content. Sure Nvidia can put in a beefy arm processor and a 1060 or what have you into a box and have the hardware side done. But what games are going to be on it ? People complain about MS's lack of exclusives but it would leagues ahead of whatever Nvidia can muster. They would either have to buy up exclusives or start their own game companies . I don't see either of those being a win for nvidia just a financial burden.
Now what I could see is happening is Nvidia being the tech behind another group releasing hardware. Say Apple or Google. Nvidia can either license a full soc to them like they did to Nintendo or they can liscense a gpu design. Say apple using their own cpu and pairing it with an nvidia gpu. But I don't see it happening. Apple is making more than enough on games through the app store and the vast majority of those games wont translate to home consoles. I also don't see google.

The company I see trying would be Amazon. They have a few studios now and have lumberyard. They also have their fire tv line up. So I could see them making a higher end fire tv . Right now they have the stick at 40 and tv at 70. So perhaps come in at $150 with their controller included. Get a newer edition of Tegra than what is in the switch and run their custom fire os ( an offshoot of android). If they come in more powerfull than the switch they can get a lot of ports from that system.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Such a machine likely wouldn't compete with XB and PS though as it'd be woefully underpowered versus what these customers are wanting. A new 'console' is IMO something in the $300+ range with desktop level parts. Otherwise it's just a mobile device with TV out.

 

[zed]

What margins?

Sorry, Profit margins. ( I was going off wiki, which saiz apple = ~27% for 2017, though I do see for apple's latest quarter it was like nvidia 38%)

Are you trying to tell me that those $1000 iPhones give a profit marging below 38%?

No idea seems unlikely, but then again the % profit from the iPhones us going to be less than their 2nd biggest segment 'services i.e. app store' so who knows

 

[eastmen]

Such a machine likely wouldn't compete with XB and PS though as it'd be woefully underpowered versus what these customers are wanting. A new 'console' is IMO something in the $300+ range with desktop level parts. Otherwise it's just a mobile device with TV out.

so is that what a switch is ?

The benefit of the scheme would be pricing. You get better than Switch in your house for half the cost . 2 years later they can release a new one with more performance and the original can move down into their fire tv @80 instead of $150 and so on. Sure your not on the cutting edge but do the vast majority of gamers care ? I would wager by looking at the switch that no … no they don't. Couple that with being able to tell them they can get fifa or madden or even cod on their tv with a $150 box and they would buy it up. Right now amazon sells a ton of fire tvs at $80 with just android level games

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, but then you're not so much talking about a new console player as a TV box encroachment of the console space. That's a job that can also be served by smart TVs. It's a function already provided by tablets with TV out like the Shield Tablet. Are we going to call the Shield Tablet a console? Are nVidia already in the console space? My Amazon FireTV plays games (terribly) - are we to say Amazon are already a console company?

The consoles have always had 'high end' performance at a high entry price. Switch fits into that model as a handheld with a TV connection. On the bottom end, there are devices that play games that aren't consoles and we've never considered those manufacturers as part of the console market.

 

[Nesh]

I can see Nvidia providing PCs in small form factor with Plug and Play Steam OS at best. Which is not really a new console. That might work.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

so is that what a switch is ?

Nintendo can get away with that for a variety of reasons.

• It's a portable and a home console. If it was just a home console, it would likely not do nearly as well.
• It has Nintendo exclusives to get it off the ground. Out of all the console makers, Nintendo (IMO) is the only remaining console maker who has exclusives that shift massive amounts of consoles. Sony has good exclusives but they don't shift console hardware to nearly the same degree as Nintendo exclusives.

If it's a home console only it stands no chance against either Sony or Microsoft.

If it's a hybrid, it stands no chance against Nintendo.

And that doesn't even address the biggest problem. How do you convince developers to make games (ports or otherwise) for your console if you don't have a massive user base? Especially when you need developers to make games for your console to have anything other than a small niche user base? Chicken and egg problem.

Microsoft was the last company that was able to break into the console space because of one key thing. They were able to leverage PC exclusive developers by offering them an easy way to get their PC games onto consoles. Then they threw a bunch of money at 3rd party developers to get them to release games on the Xbox.

Even then, their first console generated massive losses, but they managed to get their foot in the door and convince developers that the console was legit and got enough of a user base combined with massive USD investment into developers to get the X360 off the ground running. Sony being late with the PS3 then helped catapult them into a position that console developers couldn't ignore.

Add to that, their expertise with OS development meant they could make an extremely capable and efficient console OS (from all reports it was leaner and more efficient than the PS3 OS with more features to boot). That was key in making the hardware as competitive as possible.

What can NV do? They have a fraction of the operating income that MS does. Their forte is hardware, not software. What developers can they leverage to try to get a large enough library to grow their user base? Are both MS and Sony going to falter (as Sony did with the PS3) at the same time to give them an opening? If going mobile console, can they do anything against Nintendo (Sony tried and basically failed outside of Japan)?

Shield (handheld) and Shield console (TV) were both just proofs of concept mostly to advertise their hardware to OEM hardware makers to attempt to gain some design wins when they failed to gain significant design wins when the hardware was released.

In other words, NV has shown absolutely no interest in making a real effort to establish themselves as a console player. Their continued R&D also shows nothing in that direction (it's shifting more and more towards automotive and AI while keeping gaming and professional GPUs going).

Unless something extremely drastic happens they aren't going to risk shareholder goodwill by chasing low margin console hardware designs. The Switch gets a pass because the hardware it uses was already a sunk cost for the company and it brought visibility to that hardware product line.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Shield (handheld) and Shield console (TV) were both just proofs of concept mostly to advertise their hardware to OEM hardware makers to attempt to gain some design wins when they failed to gain significant design wins when the hardware was released.

Although with one notable exception which is that they've kept the software up to date. Where other manufacturers ditch their Android progression early on, nVidia have kept up with Android on Tegra. Very, very commendable. Better even than Google! And they keep plugging their Shield service, so they are committed to...something. It's not abandonware.

 

[sebbbi]

Microsoft was the last company that was able to break into the console space because of one key thing. They were able to leverage PC exclusive developers by offering them an easy way to get their PC games onto consoles. Then they threw a bunch of money at 3rd party developers to get them to release games on the Xbox.

Even then, their first console generated massive losses, but they managed to get their foot in the door and convince developers that the console was legit and got enough of a user base combined with massive USD investment into developers to get the X360 off the ground running. Sony being late with the PS3 then helped catapult them into a position that console developers couldn't ignore.

Original Xbox also had one key thing that nobody had. Xbox Live: Online community, gamertags/pics, voice chat, multiplayer, leaderboards, gamerscore, achievements. This was a brand new world for console gamers. In comparison, PS2 had an online accessory that was sold separately, but only a few MMO games used it.

I remember how heavily online focused games such as Halo and DOA Ultimate felt completely different than existing PS2 console games. Tekken required you to have friends visit your house, while you could play DOA Ultimate online against top tier players at any time of day.

 

[AlNom]

Tekken required you to have friends visit your house, while you could play DOA Ultimate online against top tier players at any time of day.

But it's always better when you can beat your friends while giving them the crappy 3rd party 2nd controller.

 

[eastmen]

Nintendo can get away with that for a variety of reasons.

• It's a portable and a home console. If it was just a home console, it would likely not do nearly as well.
• It has Nintendo exclusives to get it off the ground. Out of all the console makers, Nintendo (IMO) is the only remaining console maker who has exclusives that shift massive amounts of consoles. Sony has good exclusives but they don't shift console hardware to nearly the same degree as Nintendo exclusives.

If it's a home console only it stands no chance against either Sony or Microsoft.

If it's a hybrid, it stands no chance against Nintendo.

And that doesn't even address the biggest problem. How do you convince developers to make games (ports or otherwise) for your console if you don't have a massive user base? Especially when you need developers to make games for your console to have anything other than a small niche user base? Chicken and egg problem.

Microsoft was the last company that was able to break into the console space because of one key thing. They were able to leverage PC exclusive developers by offering them an easy way to get their PC games onto consoles. Then they threw a bunch of money at 3rd party developers to get them to release games on the Xbox.

Even then, their first console generated massive losses, but they managed to get their foot in the door and convince developers that the console was legit and got enough of a user base combined with massive USD investment into developers to get the X360 off the ground running. Sony being late with the PS3 then helped catapult them into a position that console developers couldn't ignore.

Add to that, their expertise with OS development meant they could make an extremely capable and efficient console OS (from all reports it was leaner and more efficient than the PS3 OS with more features to boot). That was key in making the hardware as competitive as possible.

What can NV do? They have a fraction of the operating income that MS does. Their forte is hardware, not software. What developers can they leverage to try to get a large enough library to grow their user base? Are both MS and Sony going to falter (as Sony did with the PS3) at the same time to give them an opening? If going mobile console, can they do anything against Nintendo (Sony tried and basically failed outside of Japan)?

Shield (handheld) and Shield console (TV) were both just proofs of concept mostly to advertise their hardware to OEM hardware makers to attempt to gain some design wins when they failed to gain significant design wins when the hardware was released.

In other words, NV has shown absolutely no interest in making a real effort to establish themselves as a console player. Their continued R&D also shows nothing in that direction (it's shifting more and more towards automotive and AI while keeping gaming and professional GPUs going).

Unless something extremely drastic happens they aren't going to risk shareholder goodwill by chasing low margin console hardware designs. The Switch gets a pass because the hardware it uses was already a sunk cost for the company and it brought visibility to that hardware product line.

Regards,
SB

In my example the amazon system would come in at half the price of the switch and be more powerful . The fire line up sells very high numbers and there are already games made for fire os that spans the full fire line up of media sticks and tablets and already has a large game line up of free plus pay for games . You would introduce a high end $150 edition of the fire tv hardware that will sell quite well as does the rest of the fire tv line up. Developers are already targeting a SOC Tegra in the switch , so moving that over a new gen tegra soc that's more powerful would not be that expensive. As for getting people in the door they can use their own development teams to create exclusive higher budget titles.

 

[Rangers]

THe problem I would see is content. Sure Nvidia can put in a beefy arm processor and a 1060 or what have you into a box and have the hardware side done. But what games are going to be on it ? People complain about MS's lack of exclusives but it would leagues ahead of whatever Nvidia can muster. They would either have to buy up exclusives or start their own game companies . I don't see either of those being a win for nvidia just a financial burden.

If they stuck something out there for $300, with lets say greater than Vanilla PS4 specs (lets say 3 TF), and they didn't have one single exclusive, but they did have the latest Ubi/Acti/EA/TAke Two ports (which at this point would be so easy to port they might as well), dont you think some people would buy it? Some people would buy it for curiosity alone! Some people would buy it just because they like Nvidia (quite a few judging by Shield Tv "success".

Key to this whole thing is to get away from the idea a console needs to be some immense, costly production that in turn needs to sell huge amounts to succeed. I dont think any of that is true for some sort of Nvidia box. Just put something out there. They already do with Shield Tv. Just beef it up.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If they stuck something out there for $300, with lets say greater than Vanilla PS4 specs (lets say 3 TF), and they didn't have one single exclusive, but they did have the latest Ubi/Acti/EA/TAke Two ports (which at this point would be so easy to port they might as well), dont you think some people would buy it? Some people would buy it for curiosity alone! Some people would buy it just because they like Nvidia (quite a few judging by Shield Tv "success".

Key to this whole thing is to get away from the idea a console needs to be some immense, costly production that in turn needs to sell huge amounts to succeed. I dont think any of that is true for some sort of Nvidia box. Just put something out there. They already do with Shield Tv. Just beef it up.

How are they going to convince 3rd parties to invest in ports for the system?

With both shield gaming attempts they were unable to convince any 3rd parties to seriously invest in ports for the system. So, they ended up having port a few games themselves. Only thing is, since NV weren't interested in investing a LOT of money, they only ported a few older titles. Again, just proof of concept.

What can we learn? 3rd parties aren't interested in porting titles to unproven platforms without a HUGE money investment from the maker of the new platform. NV just are not interested in doing that. And without doing that, there's no 3rd party publisher that is going to invest in porting AAA games or even AA games to the platform.

NV aren't going to sink multiple billions of USD in the hopes of breaking into a low margin market. Especially when those biliions of USD likely would only give them a very small chance of success. And even if they succeeded they'd have to be willing to take losses for multiple years as they continually invest in getting developers to port games to the system until the platform grew enough that you wouldn't have to pay publishers and larger developers to port their games.

Console gaming has one of the highest costs of entry with one of the lowest ROIs of any market on the planet. If you aren't already an established player, you need some paradigm changing effect or feature to even get your foot in the door.

Microsoft barely succeeded even with a whole litany of things going for them. Exclusive PC developers moving to Xbox. Revolutionary changes to the OS and how games were played (internet multiplayer and social communities). Sony faltering with the execution of the PS3 (had it launched on time at a competitive price, it would likely have slaughtered the X360).

What has NV got to offer that is different from the existing players? What can they do that is significantly better than the existing players? What hook do they have to attract gamers? Publishers? Nothing that I can see.

Microsoft made it with a combination of skill (OS, working with internet backbone operators to change how packets were delivered), investment (billions), timing (Nintendo weren't particularly competitive) and luck (Sony screwing up the PS3 launch and execution).

Right now, Sony and Nintendo are executing exceptionally and Microsoft after stumbling at launch is executing almost on the same level.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

IKey to this whole thing is to get away from the idea a console needs to be some immense, costly production that in turn needs to sell huge amounts to succeed. I dont think any of that is true for some sort of Nvidia box. Just put something out there.

Like Ouya?

 

[mrcorbo]

If they stuck something out there for $300, with lets say greater than Vanilla PS4 specs (lets say 3 TF), and they didn't have one single exclusive, but they did have the latest Ubi/Acti/EA/TAke Two ports (which at this point would be so easy to port they might as well), dont you think some people would buy it? Some people would buy it for curiosity alone! Some people would buy it just because they like Nvidia (quite a few judging by Shield Tv "success".

Key to this whole thing is to get away from the idea a console needs to be some immense, costly production that in turn needs to sell huge amounts to succeed. I dont think any of that is true for some sort of Nvidia box. Just put something out there. They already do with Shield Tv. Just beef it up.

The economics dictate that in order for Nvidia to keep their per-unit costs low they have to make a *lot* of them. That means they have to commit to purchasing a lot of components and secure manufacturing capacity, packaging, and distribution. This would all cost a lot of money. *Some* people purchasing it wouldn't be enough to justify the commitment of resources required to launch it at a price point where even some people would consider buying it.

 

[JPT]

Microsoft made it with a combination of skill (OS, working with internet backbone operators to change how packets were delivered), investment (billions), timing (Nintendo weren't particularly competitive) and luck (Sony screwing up the PS3 launch and execution).

Hmmmm? Now I am curious, what did they do?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Hmmmm? Now I am curious, what did they do?

It was near the start of the original Xbox life. They got together and worked with internet backbone providers and hardware providers to improve how packets were delivered. Prior to that gaming over the internet (well internet traffic in general) could be rather erratic. I wish I still had the link to the article. It was posted on this forum somewhere. 2-3 years ago? It was fascinating.

Regards,
SB

 

[JPT]

It was near the start of the original Xbox life. They got together and worked with internet backbone providers and hardware providers to improve how packets were delivered. Prior to that gaming over the internet (well internet traffic in general) could be rather erratic. I wish I still had the link to the article. It was posted on this forum somewhere. 2-3 years ago? It was fascinating.

Regards,
SB

I'm sorry, but that sounds very far fetched to me.

1. Online gaming goes back further than Xbox. I remember Quake and the QuakeWorld release which was at the end of 1996 (according to Wikipedia) and I do belive that is still the foundation how people do online stuff today, with the client side prediction. I have been gaming on dial-up, ISDN, DSL, Cable and Fiber since mid 90s.
2. We are talking UDP packets and those have been around since 1980

So if you can find that article I would love to read it

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'm sorry, but that sounds very far fetched to me.

1. Online gaming goes back further than Xbox. I remember Quake and the QuakeWorld release which was at the end of 1996 (according to Wikipedia) and I do belive that is still the foundation how people do online stuff today, with the client side prediction. I have been gaming on dial-up, ISDN, DSL, Cable and Fiber since mid 90s.
2. We are talking UDP packets and those have been around since 1980

So if you can find that article I would love to read it

Sure, the packets are basically still the same, but how those packets are routed as well as packet coherency changed.

Regards,
SB

 

[AlNom]

Anyone remember Kali (95) for WarCraft II, MW2, C&C... ?


I'm not old, just a bit netty.