Will they have to force down our throats a UVRay movie format to pay for that?
Next Xbox already in planning
- Thread starter Angelcurio
- Start date
Will they have to force down our throats a UVRay movie format to pay for that?
The only reason for MS to shorten the cycle was to come out before the PS3 and build a significant user base, thus making the X360 a better target for 3rd party developers and publishers. We already see how that strategy is succeeding, as practically every 3rd party game has become a multiplatform release. Only a few publishers very closely related to Sony are holding on to key titles like MGS or FF, the rest of the PS3 exclusives are from various SCE studios.
So they only need to release a year before PS4 to repeat this and keep their advantage in the first third of the next cycle.
However, if they shorten the cycle to 4 years again, than it will cut into their profits, and by millions, if not billions of dollars. It's reasonable to assume that sony will go for 5 years again, it's also very likely that they'll actually try to expand to 6 or even 7 years. So instead of bothering with a new console, MS could just as well start to burn their money in the fireplace of Bill Gates instead...
So they only need to release a year before PS4 to repeat this and keep their advantage in the first third of the next cycle.
However, if they shorten the cycle to 4 years again, than it will cut into their profits, and by millions, if not billions of dollars. It's reasonable to assume that sony will go for 5 years again, it's also very likely that they'll actually try to expand to 6 or even 7 years. So instead of bothering with a new console, MS could just as well start to burn their money in the fireplace of Bill Gates instead...
That's all really.
deathkiller
Newcomer
How that have changed from previous gen? Almost every western 3rd party game was multiplatform.
Only japanese devs don't do multiplataform games in general and that is happening again with RE5 being the only notable exception.
MS is obtaining more/better exclusive japanese games instead of more multiplataform japanese games.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
GTA 4 on the same day as PS3 is pretty huge too.
not really its just a smarter move by the publisher
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Yeah... and fantastic for X360.
Looking at this strategy it might make sense for both parties. On one hand you have "xbox720" launching in 2010 along with "wiiHD" each going after different markets and then in 2013 PS4 comes out with significantly more power -hence justifying the systems existence next to 720. They both look to be targeting the same market but with this model of leap-frogging eachother every 3 years they could coexist and potentially both make bigger profits than trying to divide the market among themselves every 6 years. How multiplat development would go is an interesting thought, but if they can currently make the same game on ps2/xbox/gc and ps3/x360/wii then they could surely do the same game on 3 year varient hardware.
Thoughts?:smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to admit, I raised that possibility at work over a year ago ( that microsoft was trying to break step with sony). It's an enticing concept, and merits more thought than just a knee jerk "No way".
Whether it would be deemed necessary at microsoft these days is questionable. I think that for this to happen, Microsoft would have to feel that they either can't gain or don't need outright market leadership and Sony realising that they won't have the PS2 days back again. I certainly think that a continued three way battle is going to cause something (someone) to break at some point.
Definitely an issue but not necessarily a road block to this theory. You could have a case where rather than cross platform development, you had teams switching from project to project. E.g. a companies "A" team could always develop for the next launching system, developing technology and tools. Then a "B" team would use the tech and tools to develop sequels etc later-on in the consoles life.
I can also think from an economic perspective that it could work. Early adopters always getting the latest and greatest, but rather than purchasing 3 consoles in a short term it would be more affordable to spread them out over a 2-3 year period.
The mass market would then be quite clear as to the console for them (i.e. cheaper console with the larger library).
It could work with a sufficient mind shift.
Of course this requires cooperation from all involved which is unlikely.
This small but important facet I think opens another interesting point: Development cost.
If a developer can get away with having one "a team" or limited employees of this high calibre and a larger subset of general developers then this would enable them to save money over the current setup.
Currently developers must either focus on one platform at launch while learning the hardware or have enough resources to allocate teams to learn and develop for all new platforms that hit the market.
If Nintendo would have created a complex and foreign architecture in addition to the foreign and complex architectures of ps3 and x360 then developers would have to have 3 highly skilled (and highly paid) teams to learn all the new consoles at the same time.
If console releases had a staggered launch with a couple of years in between then companies could either a) save money by having only one team of the same size which focuses on tools & tech. Or b) have one team with the combined resources of the other teams which could enable them to get up to speed faster and potentially get games out the door quicker.
The other advantage for developers would be that there would not be as great a learning curve as the hardware would be much closer in ability with 3 year seperation only allowing so much innovation in the first place and the likelihood of the big 3 building on their existing architectures going forward.
Smoother transitions = less time invested per new launch = less money
I think this may become reality for it seems to benefit all involved unless MS tries to pull an nVIDIA and cycle their cometition out. Whether they would/could be successful in following Nv's plan I don't know but it seems both the playstation and nintendo brands is are strong to kill and MS has too much money to run them out.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
MS wants a "3 year" life cycle.But in all honesty, just have to wait and see how they handle this. I really hope they don't rush it again and kill the 360 like they did the original. I'd hate to see the day where consoles upgrade so often, but receive so few benefits from it, that it's basically like buying a new PC every year or two.
Some people dont uderstand why the xbox was killed so early. MS said multiple times that the xbox1 was only to get market share. They got their marketshare and then killed it to make way for the x360 wich is their console wich should make them money and last for atleast 5 - 6 years. MS already said that xbox360 will last longer (if everything goes right ofcourse).
MS doesnt want a 3 or 4 year lifecycle because there is no use for that. Remember that actually building the console is only consting them money. Its only a waste of money to launch a new console after 3 years. Not to mention you wont make friends with the developers.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Microsoft told everyone before the first Xbox came out, around the time it was announced in March 2000, that the hardware would not be upgraded or replaced until 4 years after launch. exactly what happened. 2001 ====> 2005.
Xbox 360 is almost certain to have 5 years alone, before a new Xbox console comes out. 2010 should be seen as the likely, (an earliest) year for the release of the next Microsoft console....not counting an 'Xboy' handheld of course (which is supposed to still be in development and is not Zune).
There is no way Microsoft wants a 3 year life cycle. they were forced, and seemed to know beforehand they would be forced, to give the first Xbox a 4 year life. Xbox 360 will have a 5 year life, minimum.
I expect great things from the next Xbox in terms of graphics rendering bandwidth. Xbox1 was limited to a portion of its 6.4 GB/sec for graphics, but Xbox 360 has that 256 GB/sec EDRAM bandwidth. 2-4 TeraBytes/sec seems to be within reason for EDRAM for the next Xbox, and PS4 if PS4 uses EDRAM.
Nvidia themselves said that in the future, highend 3D games could require 3 TB/sec bandwidth. that could only come from EDRAM in the next 4-6 years, not from any sort of main memory bandwidth.
Xbox 360 is almost certain to have 5 years alone, before a new Xbox console comes out. 2010 should be seen as the likely, (an earliest) year for the release of the next Microsoft console....not counting an 'Xboy' handheld of course (which is supposed to still be in development and is not Zune).
There is no way Microsoft wants a 3 year life cycle. they were forced, and seemed to know beforehand they would be forced, to give the first Xbox a 4 year life. Xbox 360 will have a 5 year life, minimum.
I expect great things from the next Xbox in terms of graphics rendering bandwidth. Xbox1 was limited to a portion of its 6.4 GB/sec for graphics, but Xbox 360 has that 256 GB/sec EDRAM bandwidth. 2-4 TeraBytes/sec seems to be within reason for EDRAM for the next Xbox, and PS4 if PS4 uses EDRAM.
Nvidia themselves said that in the future, highend 3D games could require 3 TB/sec bandwidth. that could only come from EDRAM in the next 4-6 years, not from any sort of main memory bandwidth.
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Yes but what kind of gfx will that result in? If you look at gtHD for example, how much improvement can there be? sure there can be alot from a technicall point of view but in terms of what we will see it probably wont be that big of a difference of what ps3 and x360 can do. I think the next xbox and ps4 wont have such a big performance leap because of the cost of development of hardware and software.
Exactly, which won't happen, and in the end you have a DC situation. Better than N64/PS1, but behind the PS2/Xbox/GCN and people just underutilize it and skip over it. Reading all the press clippings it is a huge pain for companies to invest in new technology and like to wait as long as possible to retrain and retrofit their workflow and tools. That is one advantage of consoles over PCs. If the standard moves every 3 years why not just be a PC?
And from a publishers perspective why move to a new console that is 3 years old and Zero install base when the processing returns are minimal. e.g. IBM is aiming for 1TFLOPs in 2010. PS3 Cell is a little over 200GFLOPs now. Assuming a best case scenario, lets say in 2009 someone could release a console with 2x the performance of the PS3. 1GB memory, 2x the shader power, etc. Is that a substantial enough jump to convince consumers to uptake the platform? Will the software be convincing?
People are already complaining about the software on the market not being "next gen". If MS and Sony went alternating schedules I think the easiest conclusion is one would be vastly hurt. The other would have a large install base and 3rd and 4th generation software would be "close enough" in quality that it won't be a huge perceivable difference AND the lower cost and mass library will be too important of factors. And I don't think enthusiests would jump enough on board (Turbo, 3DO, etc). I think the reason we can see 2 or 3 companies work now is because they have different market approaches and they all start at 0 at the same time and compete "evenly" at the beginning.
On the other hand some are suggesting MS will release in 2009 which is crazy. They won't make a profit for this gen cycle if they do that. Period. And with technology hitting certain boundaries and certain techniques demonstrating diminishing returns I think 4 years is nuts. The Xbox 360 wasn't designed to be a 4 and out system. I absolutely would not be surprised if MS shipped in 2011. As I see it if MS wants to continue the technological curve that has been successful in the console space they need to be looking at 32nm and be looking for ways to significantly improve performance over current hardware. Performance isn't everything, but if you come in with a half hearted effort consumers will see it and the competition will easily jump all over them. With 2011 that means Sony can either match 2011 or wait a year and go 2012, depending on how their financials and roadmap are.
If I had more time I would say more, but I don't :smile: I do want to hear those who keep suggesting the 2009 strategy to speak up though. I need some teeball practice!
Pc developers are used to constantly improving hardware. It's just a matter of applying that workflow tothe console space. From a consumer point of view it is similar to pc, but cheaper and without the headaches
not to mention that the system would still have games made for the system for 6 years and developers could rely on that customer base being there to buy their games. To those that want the absolute best they would buy the newest (more expensive) one. The less powerful (half) alternative would still be available on the shelf for much less money.Financially it makes sense for developers because they would simply be spreading their development resources over a longer period of time instead of investing heavily all at once they would invest half every 3 years.
not to mention the first to utilize new hardware well usually sells very well too. That's an incentive I'm sure they recognize.I dissagree on ms profits. I think they will be profitable with XBOX business this year. How Zune plays into their profitability is another story but the xbox business itself should prove to be very profitable very soon.
I don't think they will launch in 2009 but I would understand if they decided to. My bet is on 2010
Try again!
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6154809.html
They originally thought they would have a fiscal profit in FY 2007 (ending June 30th, 2007) but then had to alter that to FY 2008. And the 2008 is only a fiscal year profit, not a profit for the generation.
I repeat, MS doesn't expect to even making a fiscal profit until 2008, let alone a profit this generation (i.e. balance out the negatives with the positives). And MS has a LOT of debt from this generation to counterbalance to break even.
It is absolutely certain MS will post a loss for FY 2007. So by summer 2007 MS will have lost about 2B since the summer before Halo 2 shipped (this is why MS 'only' lost $485M in FY 2005).
As for Zune, it is a low overhead device (they make profit on the device and it is designed/manufactured by Toshiba to start with). Even Robbie Bach has said that Zune losses for the Entertainment divisions would not be dramatically negative. It is palpably obvious that the Xbox is the driving force for losses in the Gaming division seeing as they lost $1.26B in FY 2006 without Zune.
Anyhow, ignoring FY 2005 losses, starting in FY 2006 (when the Xbox 360 launched) MS is already in the hole $1.26B from FY 2006 in addition to millions more from FY2007. We don't know how much it is, but MS has already warned investors there would be a loss. Considering (a) the 65nm process shrink is behind schedule and (b) MS had to delay a lot of software this year, that in turn impacts profit (Too Human, Mass Effect, Forza Motorsport 2, and so on) it is not unlikely that MS will have a significant loss in FY2007.
And even if it is meager, $1.26B of debt entering FY2008 is huge. Think about that for a moment, if MS wants to break even by FY 2010 (June, 2010) they need to earn:
FY 2008 $420M
FY 2009 $420M
FY 2010 $420M
MS has never earned a fiscal year profit from the Xbox division. And to break even with the Xbox 360 generation they need to do that not once, not twice, but three times--and earn $420M in profits each time.
To put this into perspective you need only look at Sony's FY2003 and FY2004 profits.
FY 2004 $1.54B (2004 CY consoles: 81M units)
FY 2003 $833M (2003 CY consoles: 69M units)
MS isn't nearly on pace for those sort of console install bases numbers -- or exclusive support in Japan and Europe -- that Sony had with the PS2. Similarly MS will be facing much harsher competition from Wii and the PS3 than the PS2 ever did with the Xbox or GCN.
Personally I think the Xbox 360 can break even for this generation. But it will take the entire lifecycle of the device to do so.
They surely won't profitable this year with the Xbox 360, and won't break even as a division for the generation cycle until after 2009.
So launch early just neuters sales and reinforces the image that MS cannot create a stable, profitble business -- and more importantly -- isn't allowing cash strapped publishers (EA, Ubi, Activision, Tecmo, Capcom, etc) cash out on their investment in the platform. If MS is always deep sixing their platform with the "next, biggest, bestest thing" before people can make a sizable profit to fund the next transition they will begin avoiding the platform. Sega is an expert at this (ask Peter Moore) and Nintendo, in their own way, has created an equally hostile environment to publishers in the past. Ultimately money speaks, and investor pressure, publisher pressure, and demand from consumers for a quality product that is significant better, and more valuable in end product, than what they have speaks.
I know you don't PC game, so let me tell you how the workflow goes: They don't do it!
DX9 was released in Fall of 2002; first meaningful DX9 game was FarCry in Spring of 2004 and after that Half-Life 2 in Fall of 2004. Oblivion, Winter 2006, was the first game to require DX9 and have a featureset built around the DX9 API.
Having a stable, constant platform to expose and exploit has its benefits. When you get "faster" hardware around the corner every 2-3 years the motivation to exploit the hardware dwindles. Case in point, dev cycles are now 2-4 years. You are going to get 1-and-Done game development on a platform. The value of the platform goes down because its longtern return faulters.
From a consumer point of view it is similar to pc, but cheaper and without the headaches
Similar to the PC market... which is... dieing in most regards in terms of traditional games. One huge reason is the upgrade cycle. Perfect Example is you buy Battlefield 1 in 2003 and it plays great on your new Ti 4200! Battlefield 2 comes out in 2005 -- 3 years later -- and the stupid game won't even run on your Ti 4200 at all.
People have a reasonable expectation that their console will last them 4-6 years worth of gaming. PC gamers have the expectation that their $400 video card will play games at high levels for 2 years and then need to get a MB, CPU, Memory, and GPU upgrade to play the next big game. Telling console gamers every 3 years, "If you want to play Halo 4 you have to get an Xbox 2.5" will kill the casual, mainstream audiance. Your other posts indicate you understand the force of the casual market (the PS2 sales are proof of such), so transititioning the PC oriented model makes no sense. It will even burn a majority of enthusiests because they invest knowing they have years of gaming ahead. When you tell them, "In 2-3 years your investment is obsolete" and that the library will be cut by a new console + all the really great games will be out on this much better console... spells DC to me.
That is a major assumption. And I would argue wrong. Where are you going to create this install base from? And why will consumers stay? Or why would consumers jump to the other console? Basically it would come down to the console who released first, 2-3 years ahead of the other, getting the bargin market and undercutting prices.
So flip the question on you: Should Sony release the PS4 in 2010 and MS wait until 2013 for the Xbox 3?
Obviously not.
Sony would have 40M-70M units sold (ala PS2) because of defacto exclusives and controlling the entire market. Every developer and publisher would be geared to support their platform and software. Chicken-Egg. Customers bring Publisher Support; Publisher Support bring Customers.
The Xbox 3 would be a 3DO or Dreamcast. Major publisher support would not follow because the PS4 would have a HUGE market. Performance would be irrelevant, especially when PS4 games are pushing Cell2 to the max and developers are just barely utizing the Xbox 3 (see: Xbox 1 launch, PS2 launch software). And even worse the PS4 would be (a) MUCH cheaper and (b) have a MASSIVE lineup of budget titles.
You still think MS should launch in 2013 and cooperate with Sony and allow them to go in the 2010 slot?
If so, how is MS going to make a profit when others in that position (Sega et al) were not?
And in 2005 with the Xbox 360 we saw that that was less than 3M total consumers worldwide. Best is always a balance of performance, software, and value. A couple million kids buying $600 new console won't sway much support when you have a 3 year old platform getting 3rd gen games that are awesome and the system has 1,000+ games and the new one has 20 launch games and 17 or ports.
And all Sony would have to do in such a situation and say, "We will be launching in 18 months [Japan] our PS5 with full backwards compatibility and it will be 2x faster than the Xbox 3".
Game Over.
Ps- Thanks for letting me tee off!
And I didn't even need to mention Apple!Acert, that's probably far more text on the subject than I am normally willing to read (cause I find this an interesting idea, not an obsession however to answer a couple of points:
Didn't sony say that this genertion? How's it working for them?
Lumping consumers into one large group with single purchasing intentions is a bit simplistic. Early adopters will always buy a console when they first come out. Mass market will always buy once a price point is achieved. How is that any different? Of course brand loyalty will play a part, but that's hardly a mass market tendancy.
Anyway, as I said it's not going to happen, but I certainly can see conditions where it could work.
however to answer a couple of points:Didn't sony say that this genertion? How's it working for them?
Lumping consumers into one large group with single purchasing intentions is a bit simplistic. Early adopters will always buy a console when they first come out. Mass market will always buy once a price point is achieved. How is that any different? Of course brand loyalty will play a part, but that's hardly a mass market tendancy.
Anyway, as I said it's not going to happen, but I certainly can see conditions where it could work.
My response isn't necessarily to the general idea, just the suggested implimentation/fallout others play out.
As for this point, I think it is different, namely because right now we are talking about a PS3 that is launched 6 years after the PS2 (not 3) that is marginally, if at all, better than the Xbox 360 (instead of 4x; assuming 2 process node drops, not including any technique or frequency bumps). That said, I think Sony waiting a year was a big mistake and I actually think their strategy is going to lose them millions of sales off of their PS2 sales rate. Obviously conjecture on my part, but I don't see the PS3 as proof that this strategy works. I actually think when MS makes their first price move if Sony cannot roughly match it they are in trouble of bringing publisher support to rough parity which could have dramatic impact on their install base this generation. Cheap, well supported platforms sell.
The closest historical parallel I can think of is the Dreamcast which launched about 3 years after the Sega Saturn in many territories.
But I have not grouped all consumers. I looked at a couple scenarios, specifically with early adopters. In the last year we saw how large the "innovator" market it for the "biggest and best" and it wasn't large at all. MS reach supply/demand parity at about 2M sales. And if you believe all the reports (ones that my own experiences validate, although admittadly limited) the PS3 has also reached supply/demand parity. The masses of enthusiests who buy the biggest and best, just to have it, regardless of cost and software isn't in the tens of millions.
The trick is getting enough innovators/enthusiests as well as repeat customers/fans to get on early, provide a couple compelling pieces of software to draw some sales to the point where your software begins generating strong enough software (support) to generate customers, which feeds the cycle by generating more support.
But I don't see how that is possible if you enter a generation 3 years in and your competitor has 40-70M units and has 3rd generation software. Looking at the meager jump in most Xbox 360 and PS3 software over the Xbox1/PS2, and then thinking about "What if these consoles were launched in 2003 with 2003 class hardware instead?" and I think it paints a poor picture: Publishers won't want to transition because their investment in the older hardware is finally paying off and they have a huge install base and would prefer to wait another 2-3 years, gamers would not see a significant difference on screen, and the hardware itself wouldn't be significantly better. And ultimately you would be seeing a lot of ports versus titles that have been fine tuned for the older platform. The library disparity would be huge and the sales momentum, as well as large budget and bargin bin titles, would be a lopsided affair.
The reason I think "generations" work at all is because technology advances enough to offer new experiences that the older hardware cannot. Technology reaches a transition point where it makes sense to jump in. Consumers see the general progress in technology and begin to long for better hardware. But even then the transition is slow. 3rd party publishers are slow to move over and sales start off real slow due to the small libraries and high costs.
Without these factors I don't think consumers would jump to new consoles at all. For a platform to succeed they need more than a couple million enthusiests and another couple million hardcore fans.
Anyhow, just my opinion. In the longrun though I see some problems even with the normal cycle. The stakes are rising every time, we are seeing certain diminishing returns but are still quite away from techniques like Raytracing and GI (which could simplify things), and software is seeing more delays, larger budgets, larger art teams, but more difficulty in programming models. We are also seeing the consoles become more platforms for things outside traditional gaming and becoming major driving forces for media formats and display technologies as well as connectivity and interactivity. And as fast as technology in some areas is moving, other areas that could be very beneficial (like large solid state storage, memory bandwidth, broadband bandwidth / penetration / delivery) lag behind. If Sony/MS told us they were not releasing until 2012/2013 and they were not going to be very aggressive with the hardware due to certain scaling issues (both performance returns as well as troubles as we near 16nm) it wouldn't surprise me. The traditional driving forces for CMOS seem to be hitting some walls, but other technologies, mainly services, are growing extremely fast. These may be the driving forces and focuses of the new consoles. But who knows... probably you do as I assume you have a line to the Sony Batcave
Bach also specifically implied that Zune was why home and entertainment profitibility was pushed back to 08 from 07.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/11/an_interview_wi_1.html
It is a very good interview so you should give it a read Acert if you haven't already.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I disagree - there is an absolutely tremendous amount of improvement that one could notice with continuing improvement to realtime graphics. that does not guarantee that Xbox720 and PS4 will have it, there's a limit to what silicon can do. but if the hardware is there, development can make such leaps happen.
I believe that if hardware keeps improving, there is as much improvement to go from now (Xbox360, PS3) as there was from i.e. the SuperFX chip in SNES StarFox to the present console generation, if not more.
Similar threads
