Next Xbox already in planning

[Megadrive1988]

I don't expect any new consoles beyond Xbox 360, Wii and PS3 this decade. earliest launch of next-Xbox: 2010, and soonest launch of PS4 and Wii2: 2011.

handhelds are another matter. we could see Xboy, Gameboy3 and PSP2 before the end of the decade.

 

[Acert93]

I don't expect any new consoles beyond Xbox 360, Wii and PS3 this decade. earliest launch of next-Xbox: 2010, and soonest launch of PS4 and Wii2: 2011.

handhelds are another matter. we could see Xboy, Gameboy3 and PSP2 before the end of the decade.

My guess: MS in 2011, Sony in 2012. 6 years each. I think there is/are some concerns not only in the rate of chip development, but also in how much cost reduction there will be after those console release. I think we are also seeing some big paradigm shifts in CPUs and eventually Memory.

 

[iNoV]

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.

I agree i mean looking at Wii i doubt many people would complain about a new console in 3 or 4 years and BC would mean there even less reason to complain. At the same time i get the feeling it wont take that long for PS3's price to reduce.

 

[Platon]

I agree i mean looking at Wii i doubt many people would complain about a new console in 3 or 4 years and BC would mean there even less reason to complain. At the same time i get the feeling it wont take that long for PS3's price to reduce.

Yes and no, most of the problems right now seem to be the blue laser diods. If they can start making them by the ton the PS3 should cost reduce soon enough, however that does not mean that Sony will reduce the price as fast. The bigger the loss they will have now in the beginning the less happy they will be to lower the price of the PS3...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes and no, most of the problems right now seem to be the blue laser diods. If they can start making them by the ton the PS3 should cost reduce soon enough.

The diode issue is affecting rate of production, and the cost of the BRD, but offer factors could be reduced independently. Cost reduction will happen with chip reductions too. In a bizarre hypothetical case, in a year's time perhaps diodes are still crazy-hard to come by and there's only 100,000 PS3's made a month, but with 65nm reductions of Cell and RSX, the price has dropped to $350 for the 20GB model.

 

[Crossbar]

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?

I'd say it was tactical FUD. I don't think there hardly were any game developers and hardly MS either judging from their comments, who believed in the Spring launch. However, it may have prevented some fans from jumping on the 360 bandwaggon as an interim solution, which they might have done if they'd known the PS3 would turn up a full year behind the 360.

On one hand I can see that Sony must be really uncomfortable with the production problems and the European delay in particular because they will lose some market shares, but on the other hand I think the real competition will kick off when the consoles have moved to 65 nm, have been cost reduced and gone in high volume productions ( > 2 million units/months) aimed at the average gamers. The absolute number sold/month at launch are few compared to the numbers after they have started mass-production, though they are not neglectable.

If Sony is seriously delayed when moving to high-volume mass-production compared to Microsoft, then I don´t think Stringer et al will be that cool any longer.

 

[TheChefO]

I'd say it was tactical FUD.

Exactly. If Sony had no concern in what/when MS released then why the need to say "Hey we'll be out a few months after. Wait for ps3 because its twice as powerful!". And this at a time when they easily owned the market with ps2. They see the writing on the wall and will not wait longer than 1 year to launch ps4 after xb720. Before launch I expect we will see the same phantom launch target FUD as well.

The reasoning for MS to launch in 2010 is to put pressure on Sony. 360 will have been on the market for 5 years and will have turned a decent profit by this time. ps3 will just be hitting the $200 pricepoint at which point I expect their strongest sales to come on the platform. By letting this scenario play out uncontested MS will be losing market share by the day as the once "super expensive" machine becomes affordable people will flock to it and they should as I imagine the game library will be quite compelling at this point. By this time the 360 sales will slow as most who wanted one will have one already. By ensuring BC with 720 they can offer the cutting edge at the top of the market >$300 and offer the 360 at the bottom <$150 in the 2010 timeframe.

but with 65nm reductions of Cell and RSX, the price has dropped to $350 for the 20GB model.

you think Sony will drop the price of ps3 by $150 next year regardless of diode issues? I fnd it hard to believe that they will not only save $150 in production costs within 1 year but that they would then pass that savings on to the consumer in such a short timeframe and still eat the same losses they face per unit at launch.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

you think Sony will drop the price of ps3 by $150 next year regardless of diode issues?

No. You missed the bit where I wrote 'In a bizarre hypothetical case'. I was just giving Platon an example to show that the price of PS3 isn't tied absolutely to the availability of blue diodes.

 

[TheChefO]

No. You missed the bit where I wrote 'In a bizarre hypothetical case'. I was just giving Platon an example to show that the price of PS3 isn't tied absolutely to the availability of blue diodes.

Odd example to site as it's unrealistic but I see your point. For the record I believe MS/Sony will drop the prices (reluctantly) $100 next year at or before Q2, assuming ps3 doesn't have diode issues of course.

 

[liolio]

My guess If MS launch a new system in 2010 then the 360 would have been a very successfull console.
So they'll have been profitable. If they are profitable they do not have interest in launching earlier than Sony they will milk the 360 as much as Sony milk the PS2.
There is one thing I'm sure IF MS do no longer lose money It will be hard for sony to compete on the hardware side of stuff.
Xbox was known to have a superior hardware than PS2, this time , MS trade this for an earlier launch, They will never let this that happen twice if they are profitable.

Anyway like others have stated will see better in early 2008 and we will know how the market is spread out between Sony MS and bigN.

 

[dobwal]

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...

Nobody knows what will happen until it happens just look at Sony's woes. However, formulating a plan that accounts for numerous contingencies in the future is not hard. Intel has plans mapped way past 2010 so MS having one that can be updated along the way isn't far fatched.

We've got the 360 just 4 years after the xbox1, I find it hard to believe that MS would find it difficult to do it again from a technical stand point. I find it puzzling, you would dismiss a strategy that MS has already used for its current product. Nevertheless, I am not stating 2009 as an ideal launch date but a probable one under certain negative circumstances.

 

[dobwal]

The diode issue is affecting rate of production, and the cost of the BRD, but offer factors could be reduced independently. Cost reduction will happen with chip reductions too. In a bizarre hypothetical case, in a year's time perhaps diodes are still crazy-hard to come by and there's only 100,000 PS3's made a month, but with 65nm reductions of Cell and RSX, the price has dropped to $350 for the 20GB model.

You fail to account for one very important variable, production volume. Generally, the more you produce the cheaper the cost per unit. If Sony can only produce 100,000 BRD a month, it will inevitably affect the cost per unit of all the components of the PS3. 100,000 BRD a month means Sony only needs 100,000 Cells, RSX, PSU and every other component a month. Sony could maintain a large inventory to keep from limiting its productions of other components but that it's self would add cost. Additional cost of moving inventory across the ocean to the US and Europe in smaller lots would also increase the cost per unit.

Under your scenario the manufacturer cost of the PS3 would end way higher then $350 and probably would still cost above current MSRP.

 

[dobwal]

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.

Use that strategy for the current scenario. Imagine Sony fore going competing against the 360 and announcing that the PS3 would launch in 2008. Would you imagine that as a negative or a positive for MS. You think that the PS2 could hold out that long even though the current market is pretty much staturated for current gen consoles? The market might not tolerate shorter console cycles but it won't tolerate longer ones either especially when the competition isn't extending its cycle.

 

[pipo]

However, formulating a plan that accounts for numerous contingencies in the future is not hard.

I think you don't really appreciate the development cycles of custom chips.

I find it puzzling, you would dismiss a strategy that MS has already used for its current product.

I don't. That strategy was: MS didn't want to launch after PS3. I think they will stick to that so a 2010 or 2011 launch will be fine if you ask me.

 

[dobwal]

I think you don't really appreciate the development cycles of custom chips.

I don't. That strategy was: MS didn't want to launch after PS3. I think they will stick to that so a 2010 or 2011 launch will be fine if you ask me.

Its not a question of appreciation as MS has already showed the ability to produce a console 4 years after its predecessor. 2009 would be a repeat of 2005. Therefore, it's not a question of a technical limitation but a financial decision based on a competitive market strategy.

Again, I am no way promoting 2009 as the ideal launch date. I am saying it's possible that under certain negative circumstances, MS might be willing to launch at an earlier date.

 

[Platon]

The diode issue is affecting rate of production, and the cost of the BRD, but offer factors could be reduced independently. Cost reduction will happen with chip reductions too. In a bizarre hypothetical case, in a year's time perhaps diodes are still crazy-hard to come by and there's only 100,000 PS3's made a month, but with 65nm reductions of Cell and RSX, the price has dropped to $350 for the 20GB model.

Sure, no doubt, I was only refering to the diodes mostly because I have the feeling that those, or at least the whole BR thing in the PS3 is what raises the price heads and shoulders above anything else. If it wasn't for the BRD the prices would be much more comparable to the 360. That is one area where Sony will be cost reducing much more than than MS. The DVD drives I don't think will become that much cheaper, silicon and stuff both consoles will have those cost reduction benefits...

 

[pipo]

Its not a question of appreciation as MS has already showed the ability to produce a console 4 years after its predecessor.

Sure. But that's what they had planned from the start.

I don't think you can plan for a 5 year cycle and decide to switch to a 4 year cycle by the end of next year.

If you re-read the thread you'll see what I mean.

 

[MasaC]

Ooh, just imagine what Sony can put in a Playstation 4 around 2012. I can imagine several evolved cell processors, maybe 4 of them @ 45nm or less at well above 4 Ghz each. Atleast 16 SPU's (perhaps 32?) per cell processor. I wouldn't even begin to imagine what kind of GPU it would have.

 

[pipo]

Ooh, just imagine what Sony can put in a Playstation 4 around 2012. I can imagine several evolved cell processors, maybe 4 of them @ 45nm or less at well above 4 Ghz each. Atleast 16 SPU's (perhaps 32?) per cell processor. I wouldn't even begin to imagine what kind of GPU it would have.

It's a bit off topic in this thread - but I would expect 32 SPU's at least...

 

[dobwal]

Sure. But that's what they had planned from the start.

I don't think you can plan for a 5 year cycle and decide to switch to a 4 year cycle by the end of next year.

If you re-read the thread you'll see what I mean.

I'm sorry I don't feel like going through 7 pages of posts. If you could kindly point me to the post or link that specifically gives a rough date on when MS started the development cycle of the new cpu.

Further research (being lazy just used wikipedia, so I might be inaccurate) seems to show that IBM didn't sign on to the 360 project until late 2003. While IBM used a design based on the PPE from Cell (Cell development started around March 2001), the design and development time for Xenon cpu looks a lot less than 5 years.

It fact it seems like development didn't start for the 360 until 2003, when the platform software development began and ATI and IBM signed on.

It seems to me when you are talking about MS's console cpu design and development you are not talking about the same level of design and development of a cpu from someone like Intel or AMD.