Has Sony and Microsft swallowed Nintendo's "power doesn't matter" philosophy?
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
It's certainly a restrained upgrade over current gen, especially considering that current gen has been record-long. While Sony and MS haven't swallowed Nintendo philosophy wholesale, they've certainly allowed themselves to be influenced by it in a rather obvious manner...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It has nothing to do with power doesn't matter.
It has everything to do with not launching a console that is designed to lose money on the hardware into a global economy that is still extremely fragile and still hasn't recovered in any significant way.
I'm sure that part of why both companies have tried to extend this generation is that they were hoping that the world economy would recover before they launched their next gen console. But considering it hasn't and there is no signs that it will in the next 5-10 years...
Well, the reality of the situation guides their product developement. It's better to play it safe and still be in business to launch another console in 5-8 years then it is to take a risk that you won't be able to launch another console in 5-8 years.
If PS3, for example, hadn't recovered from its disasterous first year, we'd likely have seen Sony drop out of the console business. And the Sony back in 2005/2006 was in significantly better financial shape than the Sony of 2012/2013.
Regards,
SB
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I think you could say that, or you could also say that MS and Sony have learned alot from their RROD and PS3 fiscal black hole days that they realise that going a tad more conservative will be better for their profitability in the long run. The more money they piss away upfront, to subsidise consoles that will only break back into positive in the third and fourth years, the more vulnerable it makes them to swinging shifts in the market caused by extraneous factors; like the growth of mobile gaming, smart TVs, cloud games etc. (also heaven forbid another player decides to step into the console gaming industry, one with deep pockets and ultra profitable existing businesses. One's like Samsung for example).
Regardless both Durango and PS4 are considerably more powerful than the WiiU, and the huge gulf in ram alone will cause a repeat of this gen, whereby 3rd parties will have to invest unjustifiably considerable resources developing a WiiU port of any MP game. However unlike the Wii, its successor clearly isn't inspiring faith in 3rd Parties as its sales have only gone to prove how foolish a gamble Nintendo played with their shitty hardware avec new screen gimmick.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
To be honest, this is wishful thinking at best. Sony would have simply cost reduced their box to a point of profitability and then reduced their software investment, provided the console wasn't selling very well (however would still be selling), and would have focussed their efforts on preparing for the next round. At worst they might have ceased console production for a while, and focussed on MP development, but even then it would have been highly unlikely. Your view isn't really rooted in reality.
No. You are mistaken their efforts to make their systems more suitable for multi-platform development and easier to develop and cost-reduce with something else entirely. Most of the specs of the systems are in line with the type of generational jump we would have expected (8x last gen for most stuff), where the longer generation compensated for the previous generation's launch hardware being over-ambitious (PS3 build costs were something like $850 or more at launch, which is crazy and also launched at too high a price). Being able to launch at a lower price should mean that both companies can get more hardware out to customers faster, and the easier development should mean games will be more likely to be released earlier in the console's lifecycle as well.
We'll see how it turns out in practce, but it's definitely nothing like the Wii. The only part that could be like the Wii is if both consoles do indeed launch with motion sensing tech standard in the box and in the OS.
We'll see how it turns out in practce, but it's definitely nothing like the Wii. The only part that could be like the Wii is if both consoles do indeed launch with motion sensing tech standard in the box and in the OS.
The Wii was an overclocked GCN (GameCube Nintendo which no one should confuse with AMD's Graphics Core Next) whereas Durango, which looks to be the weaker of the 2 in terms of paper specs:
Raw Peak Flops (GPU): ~6x
Embedded Memory: ~3x size
System Memory Footprint: 16x
System Memory Bandwidth: 3x
Architecturally GCN >>> Xenos in terms of utilization. Same goes with the CPU cores as the Jaguar CPUs IPC is a lot higher than Xenon cores. Sure frequency is down but having an OOOe processor should help. Having 8 real cores instead of 3 with 2 threads each probably won't hurt, either.
In terms of silicon it does seem both, even if you average for 32nm (which in theory is 8x denser than 90nm) Durango and Orbis are investing less in silicon than the Xbox 360 and certainly less than the PS3 where Cell was like 230mm^2 and RSX was about 250mm^2 iirc.
Raw Peak Flops (GPU): ~6x
Embedded Memory: ~3x size
System Memory Footprint: 16x
System Memory Bandwidth: 3x
Architecturally GCN >>> Xenos in terms of utilization. Same goes with the CPU cores as the Jaguar CPUs IPC is a lot higher than Xenon cores. Sure frequency is down but having an OOOe processor should help. Having 8 real cores instead of 3 with 2 threads each probably won't hurt, either.
In terms of silicon it does seem both, even if you average for 32nm (which in theory is 8x denser than 90nm) Durango and Orbis are investing less in silicon than the Xbox 360 and certainly less than the PS3 where Cell was like 230mm^2 and RSX was about 250mm^2 iirc.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Were you replying to me or the OP?
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I wouldn't say they have swallowed it, but imo MS has it in the mouth and likes the taste, perhaps lured by the high C-vitamin amount.
yup it sure like like the scenario, if durango ends up weaker then ps4, i'm going ps4.
I wouldn't say that "power doesn't matter", but profitability matters far more. And when you've got smartphones and tablets flying off of shelves which game consoles didn't have to compete with in terms of money or time last generation, it is fiscally irresponsible to build a console where you're loosing $240 per unit, or trying to charge $500 for the base SKU. Granted, there aren't going to be any $125 BD drives in the BOM, but neither company can actually say that this current generation in isolation has turned an overall profit for them.
At least in the US, I think if both next-gen consoles were to act as a DVR, it completely changes the equation. Most cable DVRs suck today. If you get people to buy a $300 "light" version of your console with the promise that it will be light-years ahead of your current DVR (which isn't that big of a hurdle), it's a way to subsidize the "heavy" version without breaking the bank, but that requires the console to be profitable at a much sooner pace. The upside is that there are far more people who would buy a console because it's a DVR than there are who want a game console, but you can't rely on them buying games to make money.
At least in the US, I think if both next-gen consoles were to act as a DVR, it completely changes the equation. Most cable DVRs suck today. If you get people to buy a $300 "light" version of your console with the promise that it will be light-years ahead of your current DVR (which isn't that big of a hurdle), it's a way to subsidize the "heavy" version without breaking the bank, but that requires the console to be profitable at a much sooner pace. The upside is that there are far more people who would buy a console because it's a DVR than there are who want a game console, but you can't rely on them buying games to make money.
When all 3 of the systems premiered, who was it that became the sales success?
The Wii did, the least powerful of the 3. It created a niche based on family-friendly/living-room gaming and a unique control scheme of using motion/gestures to standout from its more powerful counterparts.
Why did Microsoft and Sony start gaining in sales long afterward?
The Wii's market became over-saturated since almost everyone bought the console, and only played a select few kind of games heavily marketed towards them. The flexibility of the MS and Sony services, and a build-up of their games library allowed them to gain enough momentum to beat the Wii at a later point.
The point I'm trying to make?
There's a whole combination of factors that made the Wii successful in the earlier years and lacking sales later on, but power wasn't the bigger issue.
PCs were always stronger than their console counterparts, the PS3/360 were stronger than the Wii. What matters is flexibility, the Wii's demographics/market wasn't flexible enough to sustain it in the long-term, and Wii itself wasn't flexible enough to market itself as anything else other than the casual-gamer console or the non-hardcore console. I guess you could say the Wii should've had better network functionality and an HDD in it to make it more flexible on the hardware side, but that's about it.
The Wii did, the least powerful of the 3. It created a niche based on family-friendly/living-room gaming and a unique control scheme of using motion/gestures to standout from its more powerful counterparts.
Why did Microsoft and Sony start gaining in sales long afterward?
The Wii's market became over-saturated since almost everyone bought the console, and only played a select few kind of games heavily marketed towards them. The flexibility of the MS and Sony services, and a build-up of their games library allowed them to gain enough momentum to beat the Wii at a later point.
The point I'm trying to make?
There's a whole combination of factors that made the Wii successful in the earlier years and lacking sales later on, but power wasn't the bigger issue.
PCs were always stronger than their console counterparts, the PS3/360 were stronger than the Wii. What matters is flexibility, the Wii's demographics/market wasn't flexible enough to sustain it in the long-term, and Wii itself wasn't flexible enough to market itself as anything else other than the casual-gamer console or the non-hardcore console. I guess you could say the Wii should've had better network functionality and an HDD in it to make it more flexible on the hardware side, but that's about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Wii was designed to peak sooner and have a shorter cycle anyway. This is one advantage of shipping a product that has lower power - you can sell it cheaper too, and reach a larger market faster. It is also currently one of the main criticisms of the Wii U - the Wii U's included tablet is a relatively expensive component, currently resulting in the console costing considerably more than most previous Nintendo consoles.
Considering the cost of the hardware and Nintendo never having to sell it at a loss, the Wii is a clear winner for last gen and will likely remain so even if PS3 and 360 would pass the Wii in the future (possible, but not that likely). It is perfectly understandable for Sony and Microsoft to want to emulate some of that success, and to understand the inherent advantages of a business model that will not set you back billions of investment should it fail to attain the expected numbers, but in fact allow you to even make a modest profit if you become 'third' in market share (compare Gamecube's relative financial succes).
Of course if you don't want to rely on power alone, you also need to have a unique selling-point, which is where stuff like motion controls, online services, 1st party ip and so on come into play.
Considering the cost of the hardware and Nintendo never having to sell it at a loss, the Wii is a clear winner for last gen and will likely remain so even if PS3 and 360 would pass the Wii in the future (possible, but not that likely). It is perfectly understandable for Sony and Microsoft to want to emulate some of that success, and to understand the inherent advantages of a business model that will not set you back billions of investment should it fail to attain the expected numbers, but in fact allow you to even make a modest profit if you become 'third' in market share (compare Gamecube's relative financial succes).
Of course if you don't want to rely on power alone, you also need to have a unique selling-point, which is where stuff like motion controls, online services, 1st party ip and so on come into play.
I don't follow your profitable logic because market size is far more important than immediate profitability for Microsoft. MS looses market size and relevance due to smartphones, pads and content services. They aren't suffering losses but their position is in danger.
In such a situation it would be really strange to choose short term profitability over endangering their market size. Endangering their console market could also directly affect the relevance of the DX11 technology which would have an impact on their OS market too.
I'd say it's more about long term profitability, but if Microsoft really wants to build a console for the MASS mass market, they can't depend on someone buying their console also buying 6-7 games over the lifetime of the system in order to actually get to the black. I mean, can you imagine if the Wii hardware lost Nintendo money for the first 3 years? Sure, they sold a lot of them, but they'd be taking heavily losses instead of massive profits and since I doubt most seniors played anything other than Wii Sports, Nintendo would have been royally screwed.
What is clear is that the overly complicated $500-600 console is dead. I expect both consoles to launch at $399 for the high-end SKU.
Was the $499/$599 console ever really alive though? Sony did it with the PS3 and i think they'll agree that was regrettable. Aside from niche consoles like the 3DO and Neo Geo, $399 was as high as they've ever really gone (not factoring for inflation).
Unfortunately for core gamers, these units will have to compete with $99 set top boxes in some way, which I do think will anchor them down in terms of what MSony can afford to stuff in the box.
Also think that noise level is probably high on the list of requirements for these machines. I know that translates directly into heat/watts/transistors but thats all leading up to the user experience of choosing between a dead silent Roku vs. the jet engine 360/PS3s of yore.
