predict how actual Xbox Next will differ from leaked specs

[wco81]

Do most people even expect there will be a hard drive built-in?

What about that removeable flash/iPod thing?

 

[jvd]

who is crazy ?

Ms can launch a 500$ system at launch and have it quickly scale down in price.

I believe you just answered your own question.

Heh ,

SEga launched a 200$ system with a built in modem in 1998 and it scaled down to 100$ in 1999 and they weren't loosing money on it .

Nintendo launched the gamecube at 200$ and its been down at 100$ for a year now and they aren't loosing money selling the system.


Sony made the ps2 at a cost of a reported 400-450$ a unit and it now sells at 150$ for a profit .


I don't see why ms can't do it

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Relating price to hardware costs seems a pretty mute point though. MS have been happy to run at an insane loss on XB. Both MS and Sony have their sights set on an (as yet unproven) future revenue stream that makes earnings from software sales look like pocket change, and both are staking huge amounts of money (Sony's investment, MS's XB losses) to penetrate that living-room position.

The cost of XBN will be $300 if MS see that as the way to gain market dominance, which is what they're talking about. A high price point will severely set back their quick take-up strategy. If they are going to convince the millions of existing PS2 owners to buy XBN in the 6-12 months before PS3 comes out, they'll have to offer something that appears substantially enough of an improvement that people want it (powerful hardware) at a price that won't turn them off.

They have no choice but to sell again at a substantial loss, though taking more care to reduce losses than the rushed XB design, if they are to gain headway, so expecting stupour-power hardware at stupour-low prices is not unreasonable.

 

[AzBat]

Anybody that expects MS to sell a console over $300 here in the US at launch is insane, crazy, or whatver.

who is crazy ?

Ms can launch a 500$ system at launch and have it quickly scale down in price.


Even if u get 30$ for the gpu at 90nm at 80nm it should drop a bit , 65nm it should drop more , 45nm will drop even more . That should all happen in the first 3 years of the console life

The 512 bit buss wont go down with price , but its a way to keep extremely low quanity high speed ram out of the system. Instead of 1000mhz ram they can get away with 500mhz ram which is already being used in the mid end cards from ati and nvidia. That 500mhz gddr ram would be cheap adn on its way to being dirt cheap by 2005.

120 gig sta 10krpm 8 meg cache drive is going for about 120 now , I'm sure if ms bought them in bulk in the millions they'd get them for under 100$ most likely around 50ish with the price constantly droping .


So yea ms wants to save some cash , but they want to save it in the long run not up front. The problem with the xbox is that they were buying the nv2a at a fixed cost through out its life

I totally undestand that and I never tried dismissing it either. In fact, that's the whole reasoning behind my comments. MS are going for a device where they don't loose money. Your ideas for components will not let them attain that goal. So I'm telling you again, BE REALISTIC. Even though I'm an Xbox fan, I don't have my head in the clouds.

Do most people even expect there will be a hard drive built-in?

What about that removeable flash/iPod thing?

I'm not expecting a hard drive built-in. I do however believe they will offer some kind of alternative like you mentioned. I don't see a requirement for a hard drive, especially if backward compatibility is not included.

Sony made the ps2 at a cost of a reported 400-450$ a unit and it now sells at 150$ for a profit .

But they didn't sell it for that. Sony sold at the standard intro price of $300. So did MS and I don't see any reason why either company will change that.

I don't see why ms can't do it

Me neither, but that doesn't necessarily mean MS should totally desregard simple economics and put everything but the kitchen sink in it.

Again, I ask you to think a little harder about it.

...cause I'm goin insane... Insane in the membrane... Insanse in the brain!

heh that always pops into my head when I see the word insane.

So do I! lol

Tommy McClain

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I'm expecting:

500 PPS w/ non-trivial shaders
4-8 Gpixel fillrate, perhaps a larger texel rate
256 MB GDDR3 Ram for 25GB/s system bw
no hard-drive

I'm HOPING they go with 512MB of GDDR3 though, but certainly not counting on it.

That system is enough for consumers for the next 4-5 years IMO.

 

[Tysan]

Ok Im only going to say that people are way too optimistic with Xenon hardware.

MS needs a very cost effective hardware because they need.-

1.- A very good price point at launch to get as much user base as posible before Ps3 & Revolution launch.

2.- They need to start loosing money on hardware to start a profitable bussines model.

 

[Riddlewire]

I think Microsoft got their first taste of the 'console wars' with the Xbox and they didn't like it. I suspect that many of the higher-ups in Microsoft (and practically everybody outside the Xbox division) wishes the company had just gotten into the games development side of the business instead. After all, MS is a software company. Developing software is what they're comfortable with and what their business is set up to do. They could've just increased the size of their game studios and competed with the likes of EA, Ubi Soft, Activision, and Infogrames. The expenditure to build up their gaming division would've been miniscule, and without hardware of their own to worry about, they could've made the ever-(un)popular "Mulitplatform" games that tend to be quite profitable these days as long as the publisher can afford the large development costs. I believe that Microsoft has no desire to repeat their experience with the first Xbox, and, as such, they would like to redefine their position in the console market. That's why we always hear about the 'digital lifestyle' and 'media integration'. MS thinks that fighting against Sony and Nintendo with just a gaming console is an unwinnable war. They'd like to carve out a new niche with a machine that serves many roles, but isn't beholen to any of them. An XboxPC that could serve as the hub for this mythical digital lifestyle would fit that bill rather well. For such a thing to be successful, however, consumers would have to actually want such a device. Microsoft thinks they do. I think they don't. I believe Xenon (in whatever form it takes) will be an underpowered gaming device with multiple peripheral connectivity that nobody wants. The rumors of multiple versions of the device also sound plausible. Microsoft might want to attempt the market stratification that works fairly well for ATI and Nvidia by releasing a cheap barebones version of their Xenon console for a budget price (and at a heavy loss) alongside a fully featured XenonPC for a mid-PC level price (with a premium built in to cover the loss on the base version). I really think this is a losing strategy, since PC buyers would prefer to not be locked into proprietary hardware and console gamers like the cheap cost of entry to their hobby. That would leave the stripped down version as the only real seller for MS. But this version, although a good price for gamers, would not be warmly greeted by a console public that expects dramatic increases in graphical splendor each generation. Not only would MS be losing money on such a console, they would also not be able to sell a significant number of them before Sony entered the market with their PS3.
In summary, I think Microsoft has made all the wrong moves in preparation for the next generation. By not focusing solely on the desires of their target audience, they are setting themselves up for a massive failure that will seriously hurt the company and most likely drive them out of the console business completely.

 

[Qroach]

You are making a lot of assumptions there...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's why we always hear about the 'digital lifestyle' and 'media integration'. MS thinks that fighting against Sony and Nintendo with just a gaming console is an unwinnable war. They'd like to carve out a new niche with a machine that serves many roles, but isn't beholen to any of them. An XboxPC that could serve as the hub for this mythical digital lifestyle would fit that bill rather well.

Not quite true based on many articles and such I've read. Sony and MS are both pursuing this digital convergence. They see a future where all media and entertainments passes through a central hub and whoever runs that hub gets a slice per download. That's revenue with every music download, every film download, every game download, etc.

MS wanted to stick to software, and seeing that consoles were making better living-room penetration than PCs, plus hearing Sony's promises for PS2 suggesting this was to be Sony's convergence platform, wanted to get involved on the software front. They approached Sony to get their OS on PS2 and were declined, and also approached Nintendo. Seeing as neither company would accept an MS OS, MS saw the only solution to entering this convergence market through the console pathway as releasing their own console. Hence the generic PC based architecture, high costs and insane losses. But they taking on the chin at the present for the Promised Land, Holy Grail, Eldorado, or whatever you want to call it. They're also moving out of hardware as Allard has said, seeing as future 'XBoxes' being hardware standards for other manufacturers to create to, while MS provides the software infrastructure; it's ideal solution.

Convergence didn't happen with this generation, but there are moves towards it as lifestyle PCs gain popularity. The bandwidth isn't there to facilitate the dream at the mo' but as Sony (Kutaragi IIRC) have said, they're looking at high-bandwidth networks for their future techs.

Whether convergence will happen, it's not a case of if as when, whether in 5 years of 15 or 25. But it will happen as it offers the best commercial options for the entertainment and telecoms providers so they'll make it happen.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I was going to reply to Riddlewire...but Shifty Geezer did it for me.

 

[Inane_Dork]

Heh ,

SEga launched a 200$ system with a built in modem in 1998 and it scaled down to 100$ in 1999 and they weren't loosing money on it .

Nintendo launched the gamecube at 200$ and its been down at 100$ for a year now and they aren't loosing money selling the system.


Sony made the ps2 at a cost of a reported 400-450$ a unit and it now sells at 150$ for a profit .


I don't see why ms can't do it

You don't get it. Debuting a console at $500 is suicide. It puts a bad aftertaste in everyone's mouths, even if you can scale it back to $300 in a year.

 

[arhra]

You don't get it. Debuting a console at $500 is suicide. It puts a bad aftertaste in everyone's mouths, even if you can scale it back to $300 in a year.

I think jvd was talking about the cost to MS, not the cost to the consumer.

 

[pc999]

probably if MS lost the same money per console in next gen but sell 3X times more , they could sell up to 3X more games, so they would make a huge profit in games , and later they could reduce costs anyway, I dont know any investiment for 5 years that real make (direct) profit in the first 6 months.So I dont know why they cant sell at a loss in begining ( or if the profit from games is big enough, by a long time , would not be the "ideal" but may be enough).

 

[Megadrive1988]

I think Microsoft got their first taste of the 'console wars' with the Xbox and they didn't like it. I suspect that many of the higher-ups in Microsoft (and practically everybody outside the Xbox division) wishes the company had just gotten into the games development side of the business instead. After all, MS is a software company. Developing software is what they're comfortable with and what their business is set up to do. They could've just increased the size of their game studios and competed with the likes of EA, Ubi Soft, Activision, and Infogrames. The expenditure to build up their gaming division would've been miniscule, and without hardware of their own to worry about, they could've made the ever-(un)popular "Mulitplatform" games that tend to be quite profitable these days as long as the publisher can afford the large development costs. I believe that Microsoft has no desire to repeat their experience with the first Xbox, and, as such, they would like to redefine their position in the console market. That's why we always hear about the 'digital lifestyle' and 'media integration'. MS thinks that fighting against Sony and Nintendo with just a gaming console is an unwinnable war. They'd like to carve out a new niche with a machine that serves many roles, but isn't beholen to any of them. An XboxPC that could serve as the hub for this mythical digital lifestyle would fit that bill rather well. For such a thing to be successful, however, consumers would have to actually want such a device. Microsoft thinks they do. I think they don't. I believe Xenon (in whatever form it takes) will be an underpowered gaming device with multiple peripheral connectivity that nobody wants. The rumors of multiple versions of the device also sound plausible. Microsoft might want to attempt the market stratification that works fairly well for ATI and Nvidia by releasing a cheap barebones version of their Xenon console for a budget price (and at a heavy loss) alongside a fully featured XenonPC for a mid-PC level price (with a premium built in to cover the loss on the base version). I really think this is a losing strategy, since PC buyers would prefer to not be locked into proprietary hardware and console gamers like the cheap cost of entry to their hobby. That would leave the stripped down version as the only real seller for MS. But this version, although a good price for gamers, would not be warmly greeted by a console public that expects dramatic increases in graphical splendor each generation. Not only would MS be losing money on such a console, they would also not be able to sell a significant number of them before Sony entered the market with their PS3.
In summary, I think Microsoft has made all the wrong moves in preparation for the next generation. By not focusing solely on the desires of their target audience, they are setting themselves up for a massive failure that will seriously hurt the company and most likely drive them out of the console business completely.

I think your view of Xbox and the coming Xbox Next is overly pessimistic.

It seems to me that Microsoft is making a leaner faster more efficient console in Xbox Next. I don't think it's going to be seriously underpowered compared to the other two major consoles (Rev and PS3). not like Dreamcast was underpowered compared to PS2-GCN-Xbox.

It takes money to make money. Xbox laid the foundation for Microsoft to drive deeper into the console industry. Microsoft has the opening to take 1/3 of the console market with the new Xbox.

 

[wco81]

Didn't MS offer to allow other hardware vendors to build the Xboxes and they declined?

Obviously a sucker bet unless you get those software licensing revenues.

 

[Riddlewire]

You are making a lot of assumptions there...

Yes. Since, as of this date, we still don't the specifics of the Xenon hardware, I felt that it was a reasonable endeavor. After all, assumptions are what this thread is about. I just happened to make more than most.

Seeing as neither company would accept an MS OS, MS saw the only solution to entering this convergence market through the console pathway as releasing their own console.

Well, they were mistaken. They were too impatient. A better plan would've been to expand their game development efforts, including the development of multiplatform middleware. The situation EA currently finds itself in would have been a much better target for Microsoft than to just jump into the unknown waters of the hardware side of the business.

They're also moving out of hardware as Allard has said, seeing as future 'XBoxes' being hardware standards for other manufacturers to create to, while MS provides the software infrastructure; it's ideal solution.

Hasn't this been attempted before? Who is going to manufacture these machines? And what is in it for them? This might very well be Microsoft's plan, but IMO, it's a pipe dream. I also am not sold on the idea of long term (15-20 year) business plans. It works in other industries, but at the leading edge of technology there are too many shifting factors involved, with the peculiarities of consumer desire being the most unpredictable.

I don't have any special insight into the console industry. I don't even have any 'contacts' like several members of this forum do. I'm just a gamer who tries to be as observant as possible. My initial comments were a sort of parting shot before we (hopefully) find out the full details of Microsoft's next generation plans this week. Once that happens, I'll start all over with a new set of assumptions.

 

[Polarbear53]

I could see a selling price of $350 being reasonable in my eyes if it has the higher specs.

And why would it need a 120gig hard drive? I could see like a 20 or somthing like that for a page file and stuff, but why 120gig?

 

[one]

Didn't MS offer to allow other hardware vendors to build the Xboxes and they declined?

MS licenses all hardware R&D results to hardware manufacturers and they compete each other to death and MS don't have to worry about overstock. That's an ideal case for MS, but actually hardware manufacturers don't have incentive to join in this deadly cycle reminiscent of some world where MS is currently the undisputed king... For the PC you can sell a $300 CPU with a good profit but for a game console you can't.

 

[Wunderchu]

You don't get it. Debuting a console at $500 is suicide. It puts a bad aftertaste in everyone's mouths, even if you can scale it back to $300 in a year.

I think jvd was talking about the cost to MS, not the cost to the consumer.

I think so too

 

[AlNom]

And why would it need a 120gig hard drive? I could see like a 20 or somthing like that for a page file and stuff, but why 120gig?

Probably not necessarily 120gigs, but which HDD manufacturer really wants to shift manufacturing to over 4 year old hardware types?

Aren't some xbox's now using these larger hard drives but are set to 8GB?


May as well use the extra space