I tend to agree with this, but on the other hand, I wouldn't downplay the graphic superiority (or better, lacking parity) either.
I don't downplay it but I consider it relatively to the price and what the system offers.
If we go back to 2006 and analyze X360 and PS3, I think some of the success of the X360 can be attributed to mistakes Sony made. PS3 launched very late, very expensive. At the same time though, many believed that the PS3 would be technically better/stronger and after the success of the PS2, a lot of existing consumers gave Sony the benefit of doubt. What probably also helped the PS3 was its included Bluray drive in a time when HD / HDready were the next big thing, not to mention online multiplayer for free. X360 shipped without Bluray and without HDMI initially and MP behind a Live subscription. In the end, I think for many the high price of the PS3 was "justified", even if history tought us that the two consoles were quite close - X360 being generally stronger in multiplatform games, but PS3 offering some very nice graphics thanks to strong 1st parties. Also, IMO, despite the mistakes Sony made, the PlayStation brand can still be attributed as very strong which I think results in that we effectively have parity with the X360 and PS3 neck at neck in worldwide sales.
The playstation is quite strong but Sony also did somethings right, like free online and pushing AAA ovni type of games which are creating a nice halo around the brand.
I still wonder about the lasting impact of the paywall set on online gaming be it for Sony or MSFT whatever their respective successes are.
Now fast forward to today and we have the Xbox One that is
- more expensive
- technically in practically all multiplatform games so far
- there's view that the One is very NA focused (the TV stuff) and offers some features at the expense of gaming features
I agree, it is a severe issue and not one with an easy turn around, I think lots of people do not see the value in MSFT proposal. MSFT can lower the system price, but it is not easily sold to investors.
Perhaps Microsoft overestimated their brandname and success with the X360 into thinking they could do the same as Sony, yet launch at the same time. If X360 had launched earlier, it may have came very differently - or later, with a significantly better speced (and focused) machine. This is the first time in history that both Microsoft and Sony have launched at the same time and in this situation, I think consumers (especially given both consoles are not backwards compatible) will be more critical which console they buy.
I think the project got completely out of hand, too many goals, what did they want?
Impose Kinect and mimic the Wii success among casual?
Intercept the TV the TV so the Xbox is always on?
Having a system that runs the same apps as their mobile platform helping in return with the adoption of the aforementioned OS?
Obvious grow their share of the console markets and actually extend the reach of console in the demographic?
Killing 2 birds with one stone is quite a miracle already...
Somebody did not set the priorities for the project properly. If you have too many priorities it means that you have none or did not chose them well.
Looking at MSFT, the money they invest in mobile OS, I would think that one would for example blend the last two priorities. There are Set top box, their target is bigger than the console though they have a tough time gaining adoption, that market needs a spark.
To extend the market there is also indeed casuals, what are casual playing? Wii games? Kinect or move games? Mostly not they play mini games, social games, etc. Where are those available? Browser or Mobile OS. So back to priority number one, you want a gaming STB with an OS that has a greater reach the STB market on its own. As a side you need more open policies casuals won't pay a fee only to be able to play facebook games and you need to allow for cross platform gameplay.
To extend their reach they could also aim at kids, kids love the wii but also plenty of mobile and social games. Parents like to buy cheap toys for their kids, and cheap if not free games are great fro them.
As a side note, why 8GB of RAM?
Now intercepting the TV. Well that one is easy. it sounds like a good idea but it is not. One want to grow its market shares and actually extend the market, is intercepting TV doable in plenty of different territories? Simple answer.... a GIGANTIC NO
It can be nice but it is a corner case...
Moving to Kinect. Kinect provides neat functionality though it still costs deerly it seems. Pretty much it may target are casuals, kids, etc. Do they like to spend big time for occasional entertainment? Another big NO.
Kinect should never have been a priority till the price of tech is affordable enough.
Then you have securing your core market and possibly growing it. It conflicts with priority number 1 which should have been presenting a gaming enable STB to the masses, leveraging gaming and the xbox brand and a positive feedback on MSFT (costly...) mobile operations. To achieve priority one you need a lower price, which mean conservative specs (more so than the XB1), that hurt your core market. That is the hardest part.
That is why I thought an open (no too the point of SteamOS or Android) platform was the way to go as cores would have buy an higher end rendition of the STB.
The big issue here is that there are not enough compelling parts (/SoC) if at all. Looking at Nvidia's plans as well as AMD's one there should be compelling SoC to fit the low end in the upcomgin years but for now.
For higher end, the highest performing SoC are not enough, even backed with GDDR5 Kaveri would fall short. Big issue in means pretty much like for Steam machine rely on discrete CPU and GPU, which costs more than custom solutions., consume more power, extremely diverse environment, etc.
Having to support both ARm and X86 presents a huge challenge, you could have games that runs on both most likely you will incur a perf penalty on both. I also means using both RT and vanilla windows 8 in some form.
Quite a headache, and extremely risky from a business pov the low end version would not have been ready for launch depending on the success of the higher end versions they may never have proven attractive to IHV, etc. That path presents many many issues.
At this point in time I think that it was impossible to conciliate those 2 objectives in any elegant and workable manner.
The low approach would have promise BC, and performances refresh in the future, the traditional approach meant that MSFT has to give up on some of the prioritary goals.
I tend to favor low end approach on average but it would have been a really tough sell, BC could have eased the deal a tad but it was not possible. The tech to support support the open platform model is not here yet and it has to be ARM there are too few actors in the X86 realm.
MSFT guys might have gotten there and faster then me... they vouched for the traditional console but at the same they gave up on none of their priorities and it shows: multiple OS through a virtual machine so at some point the system can run any mobile apps. We don't know if the virtual machine are portable, I would bet it is not the dedicated hardware might prevent them doing so /etc /durango as we know it.
It might have been a nightmare at MSFT headquarter. Though they have to be well aware about where the market is heading, the ARM based open platform type of approach is to be available within years to their real competitors (Google and Apple). Was waiting an option? I don't think so neither they did it seems. Did they prepare so their products will be flexible enough to cover all basis? No.
So? Well I was wrong I realize as I write this that the open platform model was not ready for prime. They should have prepared for it. How? Software, their forte.
They bind them-selves to X86 and that is big mistake. Develop plenty of specialized hardware? That was a mistake, it is not portable.
Even if no other hardware would have been available for may 1 or 2 years, the platform needed to be opened, an OS and the matching API, one with lower CPU performance overhead.
They could have done them-selves a favor and make the API available on both Windows RT/xbox and vanilla Windows, so an already open platform can more success try to make it into the living room too. That would also mean having their exclusive available on both PC and Xbox environment. Potent GPU with sane performance availability is only to get better, though it is not that true when it comes to the CPU. Intel can get there, AMD can't. Including in the vanilla Windows realm MSFT has to make so there is healthy competition.
So yes a lower end system running windows RT and a cross-platform API. It is risky but launching a less potent system which environment still need to be refined at pretty high price is every bit as much.
Enabling lower power X86 to run games may have allowed MSFT to promote Steam OS like type of machines. They don't need to do it at the exact same time the Xbox would have been released.
It would have been a great announcement imo. A unified API between Xbox and PC. Both environments are open, forward compatible, they runs the same metro apps.
No more shrink or being stuck on the wrong side of the technological evolution, when compliant solutions appear MSFT would have "simply" validate them.
MSFT could have stopped hindering PC gaming, if they wanted to hurt Steam they could have released Xbox exclusives only through the windows store.
MSFT could have bet both on ARM and X86, they let RT as an orphan and doubled down on the X86.
They have an issue they have to relearn who they are, what they do well.
Somebody on this board once said that the though that MSFT was an universally hated company thanks to its monopolistic back ground, etc. Their OS was buggy, etc.
Their image is not pristine, but they are doing lots of things right, even though not always from their own will, they usually provide excellent costumer support, my wife contacted them once as a free hotmail user, their service has proven awesome, it is a free service.
I worked a couples of month for an ISP, lots of people still runs XP, support is just ending, it is true with most of their product, when you buy anything MSFT you buy something that lasts (a couples of cluster fuck aside...). They don't really showcase that costumers that think it is a given but some start to complain with the subpart practices on that front in the Android realm.
Their main products (in the personal realm Windows) offers fantastic value. Costumers are clueless, it is not advertisement with people flapping a surface that will make the point...
It was a good time to accelerate the convergence between ARM and X86, the living room leveraging gaming was a good place to start. Focusing at gaming the message could have been quite powerful, the difference between console and PC gaming is defunct, Windows(s) provide gaming everywhere.
To get more the price of those windows 8 Stb more attractive, MSFt could have gave Windows to IHV and having the live subscription fee to cover for the expense of Windows. In the long run it is a good bet. As they do now giving up games or apps would not hurt adoption of the model.
For the ARM based device, they could have continued on what they did with the 360, sell the system either full price or at an heavy discount with a subscription.
I stop here, started this yesterday and finished today... it shows the post is not well structured, and indigestible already.
