MS FAQ : Xbox Next Vs CELL....

[PC-Engine]

MS will launch earlier than PS3, but not so early that there will be a hardware performance disadvantage like what DC was relative to PS2 so hardware superiority won't make much difference. I have a feeling MS will do very well with Xbox 2. I don't think SONY will get 70% of the market this time around. Nintendo also said it won't be late in releasing it's next generation console this time too. SONY's marketshare will probably shrink to 40% while MS and N will have 30% each. No headstart + difficult to program = big disadvantage for PS3.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Last gen Sony had zero brand with their Playstation, started from scratch, and had zero experience in the console industry in general. How did the last gen ended again?

You mean, against that increadibly developer unfriendly sega system, and the "lets piss of developers" N64 system?

 

[PC-Engine]

Joe, "that increadibly developer unfriendly sega system" was also $400 at launch.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, "that increadibly developer unfriendly sega system" was also $400 at launch.

Yup. Basically, it seems that everyone except Sony did what they could to lose market share in the PS1 era.

 

[Farid]

You mean, against that increadibly developer unfriendly sega system, and the "lets piss of developers" N64 system?

Yup. Basically, it seems that everyone except Sony did what they could to lose market share in the PS1 era.

sorry but what's kind of connections do you see between " developers friendly/unfriendly" dev kits/systems and marketshare?

(This is not a cynical question , i just want you to explain why you think those both are "connected" in your opinion)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

sorry but what's kind of connections do you see between " developers friendly/unfriendly" dev kits/systems and marketshare?

(This is not a cynical question , i just want you to explain why you think those both are "connected" in your opinion)

It's additional cost for the developers / publishers. All else being equal, higher costs translates into higher risks of investment. So, fewer titles get brought to market for the "difficult" console, or titles are brought to the alternative platform with either greater speed, and/or greater quality.

The more high quality titles you have for the console, the greater chance of the result being greater market share.

 

[Vince]

Yup. Basically, it seems that everyone except Sony did what they could to lose market share in the PS1 era.

I love this thinking concering how Sony rose to dominance; and it's just not you. Keep this in mind when you're trying to explain the situation to me in 2007/2008.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I love this thinking concering how Sony rose to dominance; and it's just not you. Keep this in mind when you're trying to explain the situation to me in 2007/2008.

Vince, I'm not saying that Sony didn't do things right. They did. But the competitor's f*uck-ups certainly didn't hurt.

 

[Geeforcer]

This generation MS had both the superior hardware AND development environment, while Sony had its brand.

And MS had zero brand, and was starting from scratch, and had zero experience in the console industry in general.

This is not the case with next-gen.

So MS games brand recognition but loses hardware superiority. Considering that the two were tied (Xbox was marketed as the most powerful system) I say it's a wash at best. Concerning experience, everyone gains experience. I am sure Sony has learned a thing or two from establishing and maintaining its dominance in the last generation.

 

[Vince]

Vince, I'm not saying that Sony didn't do things right. They did. But the competitor's f*uck-ups certainly didn't hurt.

I'm not trying to disagree with you just for the sake of it, but your thinking is disjointed. Everything XNS brings to the table, XBox1 already contained over PS2 in embryonic form - and it's highly likely that the differential between Microsoft's and Sony's toolsets will be greater between PS2/XBox

Obviously, respond with what I'm seeing wrong or differently, but hear me out. I see IBM's presence on the PS3/Cell project as being fundimantal - look at who was involved, where, with what investment and research and it's obvious - and it's already known that STI has shown early work of the Eclipse IDE used in conjunction with the Cell processor as far back as Summer 2002.

PS2 has reductionist toolsets to an extreme, it's highly improbably that PS3 will be in an analogous position. Add to this the architectural symmetry and improvements in microarchitecture over the EE and the situation looks to be much better - its very unlikely to be worse.

Yet, XBox1's PC-esque development architecture and "mature toolset" did absolutly nothing for the platform in the grand scheme of things. It's a total nonstarter issue, it didn't work for Dreamcast, nor XBox over PS2, nor the Cube over XBox. The argument itself is fallicious and the economics lead to truth.

Think what you want, but your argument isn't going to stand. What Developer on here actually thinks he can tell his boss or a publisher to go F*themselves, they want to work on XBox instead of PS2 because it's easier? I bet they'd find the door quickly.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So MS games brand recognition but loses hardware superiority.

Possibly loses hardware superiority. MS also possibly moves development costs down a notch in their favor. It's also possible that MS gains a launch timing advantage.

I am sure Sony has learned a thing or two from establishing and maintaining its dominance in the last generation.

What Sony has to be careful of, is "learning" that they are infallible, or that devs will flock to them "no matter what" the dev environment is like.

 

[Geeforcer]

MS also possibly moves development costs down a notch in their favor. It's also possible that MS gains a launch timing advantage.

It's possible some already tried a very similar approach (ease of development, earlier launch) in light of hardware inferiority. Sega, possibly, which I shall note had a far bigger name recondition then MS has at this juncture. It possibly didn’t do so well.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm not trying to disagree with you just for the sake of it, but your thinking is disjointed. Everything XNS brings to the table, XBox1 already contained over PS2 in embryonic form - and it's highly likely that the differential between Microsoft's and Sony's toolsets will be greater between PS2/XBox

Well, I just have to disagree then. I mean, with Sony going more and more "radical" with the hardware, and MS going more and more "broad" (and having more mature the dev tools to start with), I don't see anything but the differential between toolsets being greater. I really don't.

The only question in my mind, is how great the difference will be, and what kind of impact it will have. Which of course, is all guess work and there's 1000 other things that impact console succes...

Yet, XBox1's PC-esque development architecture and "mature toolset" did absolutly nothing for the platform in the grand scheme of things.

I'd have to disagree. I'd bet that without the PC-esque dev architecture, there's little chance X-Box would be as successful as it is.

Think what you want, but your argument isn't going to stand. What Developer on here actually thinks he can tell his boss or a publisher to go F*themselves, they want to work on XBox instead of PS2 because it's easier? I bet they'd find the door quickly.

The problem is, Vince, when the publisher asks the dev house "why the f*ck you can't get the damn game finished alread....you're over budget and late," and the dev responds "it's the console's hardware / dev environment..."

Publishers understand money and risk Vince. If it becomes clear that a PS3 title costs X % more than X-Box2 titles to develop, that will factor into decisions.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's possible some already tried a very similar approach (ease of development, earlier launch) in light of hardware inferiority. Sega, possibly, which I shall note had a far bigger name recondition then MS has at this juncture. It possibly didn’t do so well.

Sure...console timing is tricky. Too early and you don't have enough "horsepower". Too late, and you fall behind on developer and title support.

 

[Vince]

Well, I just have to disagree then. I mean, with Sony going more and more "radical" with the hardware, and MS going more and more "broad" (and having more mature the dev tools to start with), I don't see anything but the differential between toolsets being greater. I really don't.

I intended the differential between the relative competance/maturity in toolsets, not the actual compatability between them. This going back to my comment about finding the area of equilibrium and that even if MS does everything it can, Sony's moves alone may have enough weight to counteract everything MS did. I figured this was understood. As for the actual architectural differences underlying the tools, it's utterly irrelevent when you're atg an abstract level. What are you trying to say?

I'd have to disagree. I'd bet that without the PC-esque dev architecture, there's little chance X-Box would be as successful as it is.

Sucessfull? What level did Dreamcast reach? Or Nintendo64 or Saturn? The XBox is hardly sucessful, especially as opposed to Sony's first attempt at the market which netted, um, 100M shipped.

The problem is, Vince, when the publisher asks the dev house "why the f*ck you can't get the damn game finished alread....you're over budget and late," and the dev responds "it's the console's hardware / dev environment..."

Publishers understand money and risk Vince. If it becomes clear that a PS3 title costs X % more than X-Box2 titles to develop, that will factor into decisions.

HA!... rude awakening time. Whatever Joe, this isn't worth it. Just as with out last debate over the consoles, time will show. All I know is that for such an "impossible" architecture to develope for, PS2 has more games, more developers and is kicking the living shit out of the superior technology and PC-esque development enviroment of the XBox.

And what's going to change next time? Well, PS3 will likely have a much better toolset relative to PS2, it will likely be marginally more powerful than XBox2 (perhaps more than marginal), it has the PlayStation/Sony name and the PlayStation legacy behind it. And Microsoft will basically become a PC in the livingroom - why would one doubt MS's chances?

 

[Megadrive1988]

I don't think SONY will get 70% of the market this time around. Nintendo also said it won't be late in releasing it's next generation console this time too. SONY's marketshare will probably shrink to 40% while MS and N will have 30% each.

I'm thinking, at best, Sony's marketshare will shrink to 50% while Nintendo and MS will share the other 50%. Again, at best.

even that would be concidered "a turn around" in the industry.

 

[marconelly!]

You mean, against that increadibly developer unfriendly sega system, and the "lets piss of developers" N64 system?

Well, if this isn't the clear case of "excuses, excuses..."

While we are coming up with excuses, did someone mention how PS2 apparently initially was terrible to develop for, so by that logic, it was bound to be doomed?

The situation is: Sony faced-off two biggest gaming names and beat them fair and square in the very first round, with a significant margin at that. Microsoft is facing off two biggest gaming names of today (one of which initially made a big mistake of not providing friendly toolkits)... and is in third place worldwide, trying to smack talk everyone.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Hey! There's one more very big advantage launching earlier than the competitor.

Let's assume the xbox next launches Q1 2005, and PS3 at the end of 2006 (in NA, just to simplify things).

In 2005 the current consoles are still selling well, so the xbnext is not an immediate success, but mostly bought by hardcore gamers that bought their previous console around 2002.

xbnext costs $350 at launch, the current consoles are then around $100. Mainstream (parents) still mostly buy the cheaper, though older consoles.

Come year 2006 holiday season. There will be new competitor(s) for xbox next (PS3 and N5).
They cost $350.
xbox next price will have dropped to $229.

PS3 and N5 will have a limited software library at launch.

xbox next will have Halo2 (it was a launch title), DOA: SeXt (A Double Dragon type of game with MMORPG elements, up to six players can play via Live), PGR3, Amped 3 and many quality PC titles (you'll be able to play PC games on xbnext, but not vice versa).

xbox next will have a good chance of selling well on that holiday period.
And it will continue to be cheaper for a year or two.

 

[Lazy8s]

Marketing is the most critical factor to a console's success. Killer-application games contribute to and support this... games like Halo, Grand Theft Auto.

 

[archie4oz]

Like MS bundling a free hooker with every devkit to improve performance of development teams or something
(Ok, so that was actually Archie's idea, but I like it too, sue me )

Great! Now everybody will think I'm some sort of depraved, perverted geek like that other dev who spends all his time compressing girlie pics...

Anyways...

So in summary, all the PR nonsense aside, this is the first step towards creating a hw abstracted platform, which among other things, is set to eventually end the clear separation between console/PC as well.

Yeah my first thought was MS Renderware, but this is more like .NET for gaming...

You mean, companies like EA or Square that likely bitch and moan internally every day because they have to have 100 people on a product, instead of half as much?

These companies wouldn't be interested in cutting development resources significantly?

Sure but you can't create content out of thin air... You *do* need people. At Square, we had an army of people because it takes an army of people to produce the content. XNA wouldn't have really cut a lot of costs for us because the people who would most benefit from it represented a rather small portion of the team (which in turn represented a smaller portion of the necessary salaries). Basically rather than brewing your own glue, or using somebody else's, you'd be using MS glue...

And MS had zero brand, and was starting from scratch, and had zero experience in the console industry in general.

And if you wanna go back to the previous generation, Sony had zero brand, started from scratch, and not only had zero experience in the console industry, but also had pretty much zero experience with videogames period (at least MS had it's PC backround working for it)...

The general attitude from the industry in MS's case was "It's about freakin' time" whereas with Sony it was "Why in the hell do you wanna do this?"

You mean, against that increadibly developer unfriendly sega system, and the "lets piss of developers" N64 system?

That "incredibly developer unfriendly" Sega system outsold the much more developer friendly DC... and the "let's piss off the developers" N64 shipped more worldwide than the GCN & Xbox combined...

Anyways, I'm more interested in what effect this will have on commercial PC games rather than the XBX2/PS3 pissing match...

Marketing is the most critical factor to a console's success. Killer-application games contribute to and support this... games like Halo, Grand Theft Auto

Erm... I think you got those backwards... In fact I'd place marketting down around #3 or #4... Important? Very. *MOST* critical? No..

Come year 2006 holiday season. There will be new competitor(s) for xbox next (PS3 and N5).
They cost $350.
xbox next price will have dropped to $229.

The only problem with that is that it requires all those conditions to even occur... And even if they do occur, there's no guarantee that the public will still go for it... Case point, the DC... It was always cheaper than the PS2, *and* for all intensive purposes it had a better launch and existing library (if you don't include Playstation titles) than the PS2. Hell the DC reached $49 before the PSOne even got to $99!