Next Xbox already in planning
- Thread starter Angelcurio
- Start date
As for CPU, as I wrote in the other thread about MS entering chip design I expect (or want) a CPU that can natively execute .NET IL assembly. It's interesting if Microsoft can use a game console as an experimental playground for computer architecture of future PCs since the PC space is too stagnant to even move to 64-bit, though Talisman failed. For RAM I want transactional memory for better synchronization with which Intel is playing lately in their Tera-Scale Computing. Anyway they have to complete it in 5 years, so they have to make backup plans in preparation for future contingencies.
If it's a native .NET CPU you can write in C++/CLI though how it can handle raw memory and pointers is unknown...
Also backward compatibility is important, it'll be interesting how they will do that with eDRAM in the GPU.
archangelmorph
Veteran
It really was a tongue and cheek remark. In that vein: A. To win again!
People say some very interesting things on this forum..
All this talk about "winning".. The console market is not a competition mate!
Did it ever occur to some of us that some of these games hardware companies are not playing the market like they play a game of monopoly where the only satisfaction comes from running ones opposition into the ground, but they are doing what they do to (first and formost) ensure that they can maintain a healthly and consistent stream of revenue in such a wildly volatile market..
If all three players in the games industry can balance so that they all maintain customer loyalty (never losing there install base but constantly feeding it with new hw every generation) and all will make some healthly profit from it i'd imagine that no company would care what the other did and they'd all be best-friends and play-nice..
Ok I know its not that easy and it probably wouldn't happen like that but my point is, Sony & MS are only competing because:
A - Sony considers MS a threat to the domineering install base it amassed through two generations of the PS brand..
&
B - MS lost a sh** load of money with Xbox and now they realise that in order to turn a profit in an industry dominated by the PS brand, they have no choice but to fight it..
I can bet that if (God forbid) the Wii outsells the PS3 & Xbox360 this gen (if the DS's performance in the handheld space is anything to go by it could very well happen..) MS will forsake any further rumblings against the PS brand (forsaking any intention to "run them out of the market") and opt to go after the Wii's much more lucrative and wider market because..
"That's where the bulk of the money is.."
I thought we all knew we were talking about business here..?
Progress is progressing
Now, don't shoot me - I'm new..
For a veteran(?) PC gamer like me, an upgrade of the hardware every 3 years or so is not a completely bad thing, especially if you get the upgrade for less than 500€. Upgrades bring new tech to the gamers desktop at a faster pace. Having said that, I do acknowledge the fact that one cannot compare PC tech to console tech just like that - PC hardware upgrades in the past have mostly had to do with additional Ghz or graphics hardware, and the programming methods/API's don't radically change. To be honest, I don't need a really powerful PC to read my e-mails or write my documents - mostly the power is needed for games, and the PC architecture has it's limitations, so a fresh console that is backwards combatible for less than 500€ every 3 years would be a welcome offering, and I could keep my 2.533 Ghz pentium humming in the bedroom corner for as long as it hums.
I just can't get my head around the controller - I'd really prefer the keyboard and a mouse for controlling FPS games (the controller is just fine for just about anything else) simply for the range of motion and accompanying accuracy as opposed to what one gets with the analog stick in a controller. I guess the controller discussion is a dangerous subject, so I wont get into that more, but I do hope the next gen of consoles would offer that choice for the gamer (perhaps a SW upgrade for PS3 games?).
One more thought: As beyond3d forums seem to be full of very intelligent people (with some apparent exceptions) who know alot about console/processor/GPU hardware and software, why not playfully use those assets to define a dream machine, which would offer power that would be easy to harness in games, say with a todays BOM limit of 10000euros. I'd like to see what the genious' here would come up with (but spilling the ideas in public would flush the genious label perhaps...) ...oh well...
Now, don't shoot me - I'm new..
For a veteran(?) PC gamer like me, an upgrade of the hardware every 3 years or so is not a completely bad thing, especially if you get the upgrade for less than 500€. Upgrades bring new tech to the gamers desktop at a faster pace. Having said that, I do acknowledge the fact that one cannot compare PC tech to console tech just like that - PC hardware upgrades in the past have mostly had to do with additional Ghz or graphics hardware, and the programming methods/API's don't radically change. To be honest, I don't need a really powerful PC to read my e-mails or write my documents - mostly the power is needed for games, and the PC architecture has it's limitations, so a fresh console that is backwards combatible for less than 500€ every 3 years would be a welcome offering, and I could keep my 2.533 Ghz pentium humming in the bedroom corner for as long as it hums.
I just can't get my head around the controller - I'd really prefer the keyboard and a mouse for controlling FPS games (the controller is just fine for just about anything else) simply for the range of motion and accompanying accuracy as opposed to what one gets with the analog stick in a controller. I guess the controller discussion is a dangerous subject, so I wont get into that more, but I do hope the next gen of consoles would offer that choice for the gamer (perhaps a SW upgrade for PS3 games?).
One more thought: As beyond3d forums seem to be full of very intelligent people (with some apparent exceptions) who know alot about console/processor/GPU hardware and software, why not playfully use those assets to define a dream machine, which would offer power that would be easy to harness in games, say with a todays BOM limit of 10000euros. I'd like to see what the genious' here would come up with (but spilling the ideas in public would flush the genious label perhaps...)
...oh well...In the PC world this is OK and I update my PC conf every 6 months, and it's possible because of the almost complete backward compatibility thanks to the thick OS and drivers.
People say some very interesting things on this forum..
All this talk about "winning".. The console market is not a competition mate!
Did it ever occur to some of us that some of these games hardware companies are not playing the market like they play a game of monopoly where the only satisfaction comes from running ones opposition into the ground, but they are doing what they do to (first and formost) ensure that they can maintain a healthly and consistent stream of revenue in such a wildly volatile market..
If all three players in the games industry can balance so that they all maintain customer loyalty (never losing there install base but constantly feeding it with new hw every generation) and all will make some healthly profit from it i'd imagine that no company would care what the other did and they'd all be best-friends and play-nice..
Ok I know its not that easy and it probably wouldn't happen like that but my point is, Sony & MS are only competing because:
A - Sony considers MS a threat to the domineering install base it amassed through two generations of the PS brand..
&
B - MS lost a sh** load of money with Xbox and now they realise that in order to turn a profit in an industry dominated by the PS brand, they have no choice but to fight it..
I can bet that if (God forbid) the Wii outsells the PS3 & Xbox360 this gen (if the DS's performance in the handheld space is anything to go by it could very well happen..) MS will forsake any further rumblings against the PS brand (forsaking any intention to "run them out of the market") and opt to go after the Wii's much more lucrative and wider market because..
"That's where the bulk of the money is.."
I thought we all knew we were talking about business here..?
Good points regarding the "profit first" mindset.
The problem with the games console market and this mindset is there is a lot tied to "the console of tomorrow". It isn't just a battle for a bit of profit from some games as downloadable movies, music and potentially streaming tv are all at stake here. That is a huge market and a business could reasonably say "I'll take my chunk and you take yours" but consumers don't want compromise. People want one solution and not "well I can't watch show X because that show only streams on X hardware and I have Y hardware". Same goes for the movies.
People generally want either one easy solution or a choice where this content isn't excluded from their choice of hardware.
In the games realm the importance of userbase and trends isn't important so everyone knows who to root for but more from the standpoint of developers to know where they have a good chance to make profit as well as the console maker. If games went to all consoles equally then this peaceful coexistance may be possible but with developers choosing more and more carefully which console(s) will get which games based on probable profitability the battle for console supremacy becomes more and more important this gen.
One side note - From what I recall the reason MS got into the console biz in the first place is Sony was threatening to enter and dominate the pc space which would hurt MS profits and so their entry was merely a reactionary measure to guard current and future company profit/growth. Not to mention MS generally hasn't accepted the whole "sharing" concept when it comes to markets they are in.
To those that think Sony will/would release ps4 in 2012 I have a question for you. If 360 launched last year in November with the same software library and continued on the same current path that it has currently been on but Sony announced they would not have a ps3 out until 2007 how many of you (who are currently holding out for ps3) would reconsider a 360 purchase? Now before you give your answer consider the probability that 360 will have a price drop by mid next year.
There is no way Sony will let MS hold the market for 2 years. Nintendo will likely also be ready for their Wii "refresh" by the 2010/11 timframe which would leave Sony the sole player out of the market until 2012. If they quickly dominate this gen then this whole post and thought process goes out the window as Sony will have clearly established that they own the market and can dictate to the market what they want to do and when they want to do it but if it is anywhere near as competitive as I and many analysts think it will be then the 2012 timframe is out the window as it does nothing for MS to wait after 2010 to release their console and if ps3 is as close in sales as most think they will be they won't be able to sit idle while MS owns the market for 2 years.
archangelmorph
Veteran
One side note - From what I recall the reason MS got into the console biz in the first place is Sony was threatening to enter and dominate the pc space which would hurt MS profits and so their entry was merely a reactionary measure to guard current and future company profit/growth. Not to mention MS generally hasn't accepted the whole "sharing" concept when it comes to markets they are in.
Really? can someone confirm this because it sounds a bit far fetched.. MS have been competing with the like of Apple in its core market for a loooong time and hasn't worried too much about it so I hardly think MS would have considered Sony's jump into the PC space a big deal to them.. Plus it would take an outright miracle for Sony to "enter & dominate" the PC space since they don't have the experience, or the expertise to put something together to truely be of any major threat..
BTW I take it by PC space we were talking about OSes because if we were talking about HW, Sony already have the Vaio line and it doesn't do anything to MS except promote its business (IIRC Vaios ship with microsoft windows as standard correct?)
From what I remember MS got into the games business becuase they realised it was a computer market that was growing, had alot of untapped potential and wasn't already bringing them royalties or some other form of revenue.. I distinctly remember reading an article in Edge magazine before the first Xbox was announced about how Bill Gates told the rest of the board of directors that he wants to see them squeeze some new found coins out of the potential money monster that is the games industry as we know it today.. I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with Sony but I guess I could be mistaken..
*shrug*
I remember something about a battle for the living room.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
You can't draw parallers between handhelds and home consoles like that. It's a whole another market. I can see Wii selling very well in Japan, it even has a change to outsell Sony there, but it won't do as well outside of Japan.
archangelmorph
Veteran
I understand I guess but it was merely trying to elaborate on what I can see Nintendo's target market is and how there efforts seem to be paying off..
I don't know about the rest of the world but in the UK all the DS ads seem to indicate very strongly that its not a handheld games console for kids or hardcore gamers.. The ads frequently depict women, young girls, businessmen and other professionals playing with the handheld (basically everyone you'd have never imagined would be interested in playing video games) and as a result they seem to be doing very well introducing such people to the gaming scene..
Many of my friends (predominantly the female ones) whom usually scoffed at games and regularly complained about there boyfriends spending more time with there playstations than with them, have gone out and bought a DS for one reason or another..
It looks to me like nintendo are on a mission to draw non-gamers into the gaming scene with there products and it seems to be going well.. So if they can do it in the handheld space, it's possible that they can do it in the console one too..
Nelg was making a joke.People say some very interesting things on this forum..
All this talk about "winning".. The console market is not a competition mate!
I was wondering how much more obvious I was going to have to make it.
On a serious note, I was surprised that no one made comment on the IDG (by proxy) report that I linked to. MS holding a lead i till 2010, is an interesting scenario as it may start to encroach into the next generation mindset.
This report and the probability that the market will follow this model (fairly closely in my mind) is what drives my opinion that MS will release their new console in 2010. Backwards compatibility by building on the existing architecture of the 360 should help them transition in the same manor Sony has done with ps1-2-3 and I imagine Sony will do the same (build on/extend ps3 arc) with ps4.
Agreed - I think IF they market the Wii correctly they can do very well for themselves this gen. 1st screw-up on their end though is the name of the box in my opinion. A "DS" isn't offensive or questionable to anyone but a "Wii" is umm ... a different story.
This expanded market though is completely seperate in my mind as things like "brain age" and "nintendogs" are a completely different form of interactive entertainment and I wouldn't count them as videogames in the traditional sense. Not that they have no value or shouldn't be considered as they are selling extremely well and are expanding the market but these same people who are new to gaming and interested in these things and buy them may never buy another "videogame" or "vg-system" again.
It's uncharted territory and I'm glad Nintendo is pushing the envelope in that direction but I wouldn't bank on success (lead) in the home console arena with this concept as the driving force.
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I remember I believe it was before ps2 launched that Kutaragi stated he wanted to "challenge" MS/Intel for the pc space.
Well even I got, and considering how much humour I've been missing of late on these boards, it must'a been damned obvious!I was wondering how much more obvious I was going to have to make it.
Though sometimes people just operate on different wavelengths.
... the Brit wavelength for humour being the right one, obviously.
That would be very unlikely. Moving the complexity of native instruction decode even marginally above RISC has proven incredibly painful.
There have been attempts at processors that could run Java bytecode, but they found that a number of troublesome instructions were too difficult to handle. I think a few projects settled on the accelleration of a few choice byte code instructions, but nothing like natively running the intermediate format.
I'll have to look and see what the trouble spots were, but it may be safe to say that anything that needs to be JIT compiled as .NET IL is will not be friendly to silicon decoders.
At a CPU level, it's almost all pointers and raw memory. Complex instructions and operational semantics cripple hardware performance.
I don't really see the need for MS to get into chip design but I could see MS buying a fab or two. Licensing technologies is a lot cheaper then getting someone else to manufacture that same technologies. MS owning its own fab would do alot to reduce the cost of future consoles then having someone else manufacture MS designed chips.
The over whelming reason why you see fabless companies is cost. I seriously doubt ATI (before merger) and Nvidia would have been fabless if they had the long pockets of MS. MS could easily invest in a couple of fabs while putting only a small dent into their wallet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
