Next Xbox already in planning

[Bobbler]

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.

That'd be such a money sink... for a company who's not going to be making that many chips in a given year. State of the art fabs are friggin expensive (they'd need one for it to be of much use for them). Just because MS has money, it doesn't mean they are inclined to spend it in places that won't get them the biggest ROI -- paying someone to fab their chips is likely still going to be far cheaper than building a fab, running it, and keeping it up to date. If their only use for a fab is for consoles and maybe a few other small things they are going to be wasting quite a bit -- they just don't have the volume need to justify such a thing.

Even if they are getting into chip design for the 720 or whatever they call it, I don't see any reason to believe they'd be, overall, better off (from their perspective) if they built a fab.

 

[dobwal]

That'd be such a money sink... for a company who's not going to be making that many chips in a given year. State of the art fabs are friggin expensive (they'd need one for it to be of much use for them). Just because MS has money, it doesn't mean they are inclined to spend it in places that won't get them the biggest ROI -- paying someone to fab their chips is likely still going to be far cheaper than building a fab, running it, and keeping it up to date. If their only use for a fab is for consoles and maybe a few other small things they are going to be wasting quite a bit -- they just don't have the volume need to justify such a thing.

Even if they are getting into chip design for the 720 or whatever they call it, I don't see any reason to believe they'd be, overall, better off (from their perspective) if they built a fab.

I concede to your point, the 360 cpu, 360 gpu, zune and the potential handheld probably do not represent enough chips to warrant fab investment. However, Sony and Nintendo are able to manufacture alot of their own components and if MS wants to compete, investing into its own manufacturing capability is a must.

 

[Cobra101]

XBox 3 no latter than X-Mas 2009.

MS is hell bent on beating Sony to market everytime and has already shown disregard to current XBox 1 owners so they are not afraid to screw them over again.

 

[Acert93]

XBox 3 no latter than X-Mas 2009.

MS is hell bent on beating Sony to market everytime and has already shown disregard to current XBox 1 owners so they are not afraid to screw them over again.

You do release that Christmas 2009 is only 3 years for the PS3 -- and 2.5 in Europe. MS doesn't even need to bother with 2009 as there is no way that Sony will be releasing a new console in 2009 or 2010 (4 years). If you look at the analyst projections for PS3 sales/install base and price reductions it is the 2009/2010 timeframe when the PS3 turns the corner -- as well as MS!

If Sony were to go a 5 years, that would put them at 2011 and MS could go 2010; more likely I see Sony hanging on until 2012 for a number of reasons and MS most likely obliging with 2011. Who knows, maybe both will co-launch in 2011. But it could be a disaster for MS if they launched too early, did not get enough return (i.e. deminishing graphical/gameplay results), and Sony came in with a console on a smaller process and 2x + faster in reality and MUCH more mature software.

Going early has advantages BUT it is not an absolutely fool proof tactic.

 

[one]

I don't really see the need for MS to get into chip design but I could see MS buying a fab or two.

I don't see relevance to my post in your reply?

However, Sony and Nintendo are able to manufacture alot of their own components and if MS wants to compete, investing into its own manufacturing capability is a must.

Nintendo doesn't own a fab.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Going early has advantages BUT it is not an absolutely fool proof tactic.

Anything less than 5 years is likely to really annoy the developers I imagine. As developing games becomes more expensive, the switch to new platforms with even more expensive content to create is a tough one to make. When all the console companies move 'together' you have cross-platform sales to provide better revenue. If one company produces a console 2-3 years before the others, they're going it alone.

We've had a fair number of comments about this generation switch where publishers would like to spend more time profiting from the past years' investments into last gen. I can't recall any publishers saying 'yeah, we love new tech and the quicker it comes around the better'! Six years seems about right at the moment for new hardware to supercede old. The only way I see the software side of that changing they're stance is if the development tools are that advanced that they the costs of switching to a smaller install base are nullified. If for example XB4000 was code-compatible with XB360 and the same engines and development process could run on it and just be expanded, it wouldn't present a steep entry cost.

To date, there's never been any console like that though (except Wii, but that's more by being reliant on former tech and a different take on the market) and I can't see any particular reason to think MS would pursue the same tech direction as XB360.

 

[^M^]

Do you people assume that Microsoft has already a launch date in mind ?
I see this more as Competitive Intelligence than development.

 

[dobwal]

Do you people assume that Microsoft has already a launch date in mind ?
I see this more as Competitive Intelligence than development.

I could see MS coming up with contingent launch dates depending on success or failure of the 360. However, I think its too early for a concrete date since all business plans require flexibility when talking 4-6 years into the future.

If the market is dominated in 5-6 years by MS, I see Sony launching a new console sooner than usual and MS follow suit so as too not give Sony an advantage of an early launch. I doubt Sony would release a new console after just 3 years so at the least we wouldn't see a new console from MS until 2010-2011.

If the opposite is true, whether it be Sony or Nintendo, I see a return of the previous strategy of releasing earlier then the competition and resetting the market in terms of next gen, which could be 2009-2010.

 

[zRifle1z]

Please remember the only stupid question is the one not asked

With the "modular" design of the 360, what is the possibility of extending the consoles life by adding a new hard drive with an additional CPU or GPU (or both) built in?

 

[one]

I think a few projects settled on the accelleration of a few choice byte code instructions, but nothing like natively running the intermediate format.

Yeah, an accelerator co-processor is more possible, AMD is pushing it for their Torrenza technology that includes Java accelerator. But it's also true that they can't put a specialized co-processor which can't be fully exploited for a game on a game console due to the cost reason. Therefore Cell SPE is OK while this VM accelerator is out.

But what if CPU in the traditional sense, "general-purpose CPU", became trivial in the context of the game console? They can put a (more-CPU-like) GPU, a physics accelerator, an AI accelerator, a network accelerator, and on and on. If a game console became a complex of special-purpose chips, the CPU could be relatively weaker... like the Cell PPE.

 

[pc999]

Yeah, an accelerator co-processor is more possible, AMD is pushing it for their Torrenza technology that includes Java accelerator. But it's also true that they can't put a specialized co-processor which can't be fully exploited for a game on a game console due to the cost reason. Therefore Cell SPE is OK while this VM accelerator is out.

But what if CPU in the traditional sense, "general-purpose CPU", became trivial in the context of the game console? They can put a (more-CPU-like) GPU, a physics accelerator, an AI accelerator, a network accelerator, and on and on. If a game console became a complex of special-purpose chips, the CPU could be relatively weaker... like the Cell PPE.

That from a cost/prformance POV would probably be great (ie, how many times todays CPU would need to improve to give what a integrated chip like AIseek (they say 100X faster in "low level AI"), or the same with a PPU), but how would it be from a dev POV? Would it be easier/harder than a (eg) massive Cell/Xenon/Core 2 like CPU (assuming decent APIs), or would that present (more?) limitations to game design, or would be easier/harder to make games diferents from each other...?

 

[pipo]

If the opposite is true, whether it be Sony or Nintendo, I see a return of the previous strategy of releasing earlier then the competition and resetting the market in terms of next gen, which could be 2009-2010.

IMHO 2009 is out of the question for Sony or Nintendo. That's 3 years from now. It ain't gonna happen.

 

[Crossbar]

With the "modular" design of the 360, what is the possibility of extending the consoles life by adding a new hard drive with an additional CPU or GPU (or both) built in?

Very very close to zero I think.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Especially since it isn't needed. See Gears of War for details.

 

[TheChefO]

Going early has advantages BUT it is not an absolutely fool proof tactic.

True - But going 2 years late with a competitor as strong as MS isn't exactly a brilliant idea on their end either. If MS launches in 2010 Sony could either:
A) launch a year later and concede the year sales to MS (again) and be content with 5 years instead of 6 which obviously they don't want to do as it is one less year of profit for them on the ps3 project or
B) launch 2 years later and concede 2 years to a competitor who is gathering steam in developers support and consumer support as well. I figure that's worth hmm 20 million units?

Sony has a strong brand but the consumer base does not stay stagnant. Nintendo has proven this fact. If they wait two years and launch in 2012 they will still be in the game but I imagine their position would be similar to xbox1 support. They'd get ports of the major hits but certainly not the target platform for developers. Again they would have a superior machine spec (xbox) and they will get consumer support because of it but as last gen proved that only gets you so far.

People would still recognize and respect the "playstation" brand however I don't think this necessarily translates into sales. Just as a lot of people still call the xbox "nintendo" or "playstation". The brand becomes an abstract idea for videogames.

 

[Powderkeg]

True - But going 2 years late with a competitor as strong as MS isn't exactly a brilliant idea on their end either. If MS launches in 2010 Sony could either:
A) launch a year later and concede the year sales to MS (again) and be content with 5 years instead of 6 which obviously they don't want to do as it is one less year of profit for them on the ps3 project or
B) launch 2 years later and concede 2 years to a competitor who is gathering steam in developers support and consumer support as well. I figure that's worth hmm 20 million units?

You forgot C) Wait until 2013 and launch a year before MS's next system, causing MS to have an entire generation of systems wasted in a market that wasn't ready to follow their lead. This also allows Sony to make the most of technology advances and profits generated from the PS3 while MS ensures they won't have a profitable system for 3-4 generations. Not to mention forcing developers to choose between the established PS3 userbase that will be around for another 3-4 years or the next Xbox which would be right back to zero users.


Somehow I think MS will wait until 2011 to launch, which would be a planned 1 year headstart over the PS4, and still giving MS 6 years to solidify the 360 userbase and maximize the profits generated by it. No reason to try to launch sooner than that because it opens the door to let Sony push their launch back even later and make MS look like fools for trying to have a console generation all by themselves.

 

[dobwal]

IMHO 2009 is out of the question for Sony or Nintendo. That's 3 years from now. It ain't gonna happen.

You've misread my post. If Sony and Nintendo are in the #1 position, MS might repeat an release early strategy. 2009 launch would mean a 4 year life cycle for the 360 but Sony and Nintendo would have to shorten thier cycle to three years, which they wouldn't in my opinion even 4 years is probably too early for both. A 720 replacing a 3rd-place 360 might be tempting if it allowed for a 1-2 years head start.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

You forgot C) Wait until 2013 and launch a year before MS's next system, causing MS to have an entire generation of systems wasted in a market that wasn't ready to follow their lead. This also allows Sony to make the most of technology advances and profits generated from the PS3 while MS ensures they won't have a profitable system for 3-4 generations. Not to mention forcing developers to choose between the established PS3 userbase that will be around for another 3-4 years or the next Xbox which would be right back to zero users.

Pretty ballsy strategy... it might work, but I think it would be highly dependent on what the marketscape looks like in 2009/2010. If the 360 has held strong as a worthy direct competitor to the Playstation brand, and has continued to gather strong developer support, it might be a move of suicide. MS isn't a company you want to try "trick plays" with unless you are damned sure you have them in a vunerable position.

If, however, the 360 has secured its place as a second or third household system (after everyone has bought the Playstation), and everything points to that remaining status quo, then that kind of strategy might work well.

It all depends on who has the momentum going into that timeframe. If MS has it, then launching early looks like a strong move, and one Sony has to counter as quickly and decisively as possible. If the PS3 has dominated and Sony has continued momentum, MS launching way earlier looks like a move of desparation.

Right now, I think MS has the momentum, seeing as how they have gathered marketshare that was essentially all Sony's before. We'll have to wait a couple of years to see how that marketshare swing evolves, if at all.

 

[pipo]

You've misread my post. If Sony and Nintendo are in the #1 position, MS might repeat an release early strategy. 2009 launch would mean a 4 year life cycle for the 360 but Sony and Nintendo would have to shorten thier cycle to three years, which they wouldn't in my opinion even 4 years is probably too early for both. A 720 replacing a 3rd-place 360 might be tempting if it allowed for a 1-2 years head start.

The problem is nobody (Sony/Microsoft - I don't think Nintendo cares) will be able to tell what's going to happen until at least early 2008.

And you can't just shorten the development cycle of a console by a whole year.

2010 makes sense for MS (5 year cycle), but if they feel lucky they might shoot for 2011 and (risk) a simultaneous launch with Sony. If Sony shoots for 2012 the technology gap won't be as big for MS too.

Choices, choices...

 

[TheChefO]

No reason to try to launch sooner than that because it opens the door to let Sony push their launch back even later and make MS look like fools for trying to have a console generation all by themselves.

You're assuming Nintendo will sit idle until Sony launches. For some reason I don't think Nintendo will be late. In fact I'd venture to guess that they may try a 2009 launch as they will be profitable from day one and devs can't complain as they're using GC dev kits for Wii games. So with both MS and Nintendo pushing next gen systems in the 2010 timeframe and Sony sitting on the shelf with an "old" ps3 I don't think it would be in their best interest to say "Just wait till you see what we've got coming out in 3 years! It's gonna be great!!". People are patient and loyal to an extent but at that point they will become a very niche option. And to those who think ps3 will become the defacto standard again, don't forget that it won't hit mass market pricing until 2009/2010 timeframe which would leave consumers with the option of getting an "old" ps3 in XMAS 2010 for $200 or a new Nintendo for ~$200 or a new Xbox for ~$300 (or an "old" 360 for $100). How this strategy would trend afterward in the following year without a ps4 would seem to be even worse with Sony being the odd man out of the 2010-2015 gen.

Sorry but I don't have as much confidence in this strategy for Sony as some of you guys.

edit - A side note on launch timing: If Sony were as confident as some of you believe, why would they have announced the phantom launch of "spring 2006" for ps3 hot on the heels of the unveiling of 360? Sony realizes that MS is gaining momentum in the industry and they can barely afford to give them a 1 year headstart much less 2 (or 3).