predict how actual Xbox Next will differ from leaked specs

[ERP]

The cost issue as it relates to Xbox isn't really to do with cost at launch but how the manufacturing cost drops over 2 or 3 years.

The things that most hurt Xbox cost at the end of it's life cycle are physical chip count, the HD and the RAM chips (believe it or not).

If your looking for where MS will cut corners that would be a good place to start.

Personally I think MS learned a lot about the market with Xbox 1, it will be interesting to see how they choose to compete with Xbox 2.

 

[Wunderchu]

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

I agree ... they need to have a larger hard drive because of consumer perception.. even if Xbox Next doesn't need a hard drive larger than 20 GB , a 20 GB hard drive will seem downright puny by 2005/2006 standards .. ppl might glance at the spec sheet and say "20 GB , what a pathetically small hard drive", (even if they don't really know exactly what the hard drive will be used for) ..... heck , the iPod was available with a 40 GB hard drive for more than a year now..

......................... unless of course Xbox Next uses something entirely different from a conventional hard drive.. ( http://www.xboxnextgen.com/forums/showthread.php?s=9e77e1b5b95ec86dcb23bb6ace3c229a&threadid=433 )

The cost issue as it relates to Xbox isn't really to do with cost at launch but how the manufacturing cost drops over 2 or 3 years.

The things that most hurt Xbox cost at the end of it's life cycle are physical chip count, the HD and the RAM chips (believe it or not).

If your looking for where MS will cut corners that would be a good place to start.

Personally I think MS learned a lot about the market with Xbox 1, it will be interesting to see how they choose to compete with Xbox 2.

yup .. as jvd alluded to, the GPU cost was also hurting at the beginning and middle of the Xbox's life cycle ... but for Xbox Next they will be only paying royalty fees as well as pure manufacturing costs which means they will be paying much less for the GPU for each box, than they had to pay with the original Xbox ..... and if these latest rumors (see link above) come to fruition, the cost of the hard drive at the end of Xenon's life cycle will likely not be an issue too..

 

[Acert93]

Per the HDD, I am not sure if X2 will have one or not. But 512MB flash disks can be found for $30 or less on sale, so maybe something will happen there?

What I can say is that a 120GB 10K-RPM drive with 8MB of cache wont be in there. That is way too expensive. What is the facination with these 10k and 15k drives JVD? I have a $180 WD SATA Raptor 74GB (10K RPM) and a $60 (was $110 2 years ago) Maxtor 80GB DiamondMax w/ 8MB of cache. While the Raptor is quicker, it does not justify the extra $100 for most users, especially for a console. I think if MS could find cheap 20GB drives they would be more than fine. Allow a HDD version and/or replacable HDD for people who want TIVO. But not everyone wants this, heck, I do not even own a TV.

Per the discussion of MS not wanting to lose money... while I would not doubt that their goal is to become more profitable, I do not think MS has the mindset that they can just throw whatever they want into the market and float. Sony is taking MS/Nintendo seriously, and Nintendo has no plans of leaving the home console business. I think MS is forward looking. Xbox was their first stab at the market... they have learned some lessons and making changes to become more competitive. It is pretty clear MS has already made the first step toward halting the Xbox losses. Gone are the expensive nVidia GPU and the Intel CPU; instead MS has a better royalty/"fab their own chip" deal with ATI and a CPU designed more closely to their needs. Sprinkle in XNA and what it will mean for developers, including MS, and I can see MS losing less more money per console. To throw hypothetical numbers around, if Xbox cost $500 at release, a comparative X2 may only cost $400 based on these moves alone.

Maybe I give MS more credit than others, but I think MS also realizes that market presence is more vital than saving $50 on the console. With a bigger install base means more games sold, and with more sales means more royalties and profits. And whoever stated MS is looking at the longterm with the convergance of the PC with the living room I think is seeing MS vision very well. Whether this will happen or not is not really the point, this is what both Sony and MS are fighting for.

If we do not find out specifics about X2 at CES, I would expect full blown specs at E3 in May if they expect to have this thing on the market this fall. All I know is I am considering an Xbox2, and as such I want it to last 4-6 years. If it ships with 256MB of RAM I will be dissapointed. So I am hoping for lots of RAM. Everyone can use more RAM

 

[Inane_Dork]

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.

It doesn't really matter what the cost to MS is if no one will buy it. I agree MS could withstand charging more and then scaling down. Free money is pretty easy to withstand.

 

[Megadrive1988]

if Xbox Next has only 256 MB memory, i dont expect it to last more than 4 years. it would be like if Xbox had 32 MB of memory.

I was really hoping for 1 GB of memory for all consoles. 512 MB would have been just decent. 256 MB would be skimping and the reported 128 MB external memory for PS3 would be just ridiculasly bad. 512 MB would be a happy medium between 1 GB and 256 MB.

 

[eastcore]

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 you're crazy.

But no harm intended.

 

[eastcore]

if Xbox Next has only 256 MB memory, i dont expect it to last more than 4 years. it would be like if Xbox had 32 MB of memory.

I was really hoping for 1 GB of memory for all consoles. 512 MB would have been just decent. 256 MB would be skimping and the reported 128 MB external memory for PS3 is just ridiculasly bad.

MegaDrive 1988 - I respect that name. My all time favorite console I think.


Look, the X2 will blow us all away - I'd ask you all to trust me but you just don't know me.

You guys are underestimating those specs as they currently stand. Consider what has been capable on the XBox - and then look at those specs.

Take a step back, and look at the bigger picture - look at the specs as a whole, there is more there than you might first imagine.

Did none of you find Riddick to be impressive? Perhaps you never played Kingdom under Fire? What about Panzer Dragoon Orta?

This system will push more poly's and more textures than a lot of you guys seem to understand.

Have you not seen the Unreal 3 engine? That is what X2 games will normally look like - yes, with 256 MB of RAM, it will do that - easily.

 

[Megadrive1988]

hi Eastcore.

well, it would be nice to be completely blown away by Xbox Next after expecting only a modestly impressive upgrade. there's no doubt that I'll be first in line to get the new machine when it comes out. I respect Microsoft's decision to dump Intel and Nvidia in favor of IBM and ATI. I think the Xbox Next is going to be what the Xbox should have been. yes I was impressed with Panzer Dragoon Orta very much so. and im impressed with LIVE. I cannot wait to see what developers can do with a system that has way more CPU power and a GPU thats 2-3 times better overall than anything on the desktop today.

 

[rabidrabbit]

The Unreal 3 being the standard for next gen (xbox) console games.
I'm not too impressed.
They look so this gen
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/TerrainShot.jpg

Please note, that I am not judging the Unreal 3 by pictures like below, as that is just a pre-rendered concept image, and has little to do with actual gameplay graphics:
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_soldier.jpg

Edit: Images linked to url by request, thanks cthellis42.

 

[Wunderchu]

if Xbox Next has only 256 MB memory, i dont expect it to last more than 4 years. it would be like if Xbox had 32 MB of memory.

I was really hoping for 1 GB of memory for all consoles. 512 MB would have been just decent. 256 MB would be skimping and the reported 128 MB external memory for PS3 is just ridiculasly bad.

MegaDrive 1988 - I respect that name. My all time favorite console I think.


Look, the X2 will blow us all away - I'd ask you all to trust me but you just don't know me.

You guys are underestimating those specs as they currently stand. Consider what has been capable on the XBox - and then look at those specs.

Take a step back, and look at the bigger picture - look at the specs as a whole, there is more there than you might first imagine.

Did none of you find Riddick to be impressive? Perhaps you never played Kingdom under Fire? What about Panzer Dragoon Orta?

This system will push more poly's and more textures than a lot of you guys seem to understand.

Have you not seen the Unreal 3 engine? That is what X2 games will normally look like - yes, with 256 MB of RAM, it will do that - easily.

I like your optimism, eastcore .. I am usually more optimistic myself ........... however, what curbs my optimism in this situation, is that Tim Sweeney himself stated the following:

If you only have a 256 meg video card you will be running the game one step down, whereas if you have a video card with a gig of memory then you'll be able to see the game at full detail.

(source: http://www.beyondunreal.com/content/articles/95_1.php )

and

It doesn't exactly take a leap of faith to see scenarios in 2005-2006 where a single game level or visible scene will require >2GB RAM at full detail.

(source: http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/sweeneyue3/index.php?p=3 )

........


... Now.. granted, a console like Xenon doesn't have to worry about running a bloated OS , or system APPs, or utilities like virus scanners and firewalls in the background........ but there is no way that 256 MB of unified RAM is going to allow Unreal Engine 3 to run at anything more than at drastically reduced detail levels if Mr. Sweeney is talking about >2 GB of system RAM and 1 GB of video RAM (for a total of >3 GB of RAM) hinted at to be able to run the engine at maximum detail levels .........

Now, I don't expect Xenon to be able to run Unreal Engine 3 based games at absolutely max detail levels, but the delta between 256 MB RAM and >3 GB RAM is huge.. with 256 MB RAM I just don't see Xenon being able to run Unreal Engine 3 at anywhere near the detail levels that it is capable of running at ...










(I first discovered that BeyondUnreal interview from this thread: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12514 )

 

[cthellis42]

Rabid, can you stick that big pic in a link or shrink it so it doesn't break the horizontal so much?


(Edit: No sweat. The 2nd pic was fine, though. The first one was simply too enormous and made it so I could only see half the text my full-screen browser window. That's big! )

 

[function]

if Xbox Next has only 256 MB memory, i dont expect it to last more than 4 years. it would be like if Xbox had 32 MB of memory.

I was really hoping for 1 GB of memory for all consoles. 512 MB would have been just decent. 256 MB would be skimping and the reported 128 MB external memory for PS3 would be just ridiculasly bad. 512 MB would be a happy medium between 1 GB and 256 MB.

256MB would be skimping compared to what? The PC? What makes you think the PC is the ideal basis for judging how the elements of a $300 console should be balanced? And what would you want them to to sacrifce for your 1 Gigabyte (or maybe even 512MBs) of fast ram? Half the processing power and any chance at long term profitability?

I don't know how to balance a console design, but I'm sure it takes more than simply looking at the figures associated with expensive PC compnents, extrapolating, adding a bit and then forking out as much money as that ends up costing.

Given that ERP has said:

The things that most hurt Xbox cost at the end of it's life cycle are physical chip count, the HD and the RAM chips (believe it or not).

...it's not hard to see that multiple (physical) chip GPUs and CPUs, a fast PC HDD, and lots of fast RAM are a bad idea in terms of bringing your costs down quickly. You can't have everything in cheap system that's designed to get even cheaper, fast. If you want Unreal Engine 3 games with the least possible restrictions, it just may be that in 2006 you have to buy a $600 graphics card and plug it into a $1000 PC [edit](which still might not have as much processing power as Xenon!)[/edit], rather than doing it at Microsoft's expense.

 

[jvd]

okay


first off when i said 500$ i'm talking about cost to ms .

Just because they are selling it for 300$ doesn't mean it will cost 300$ . Ms can make an xenon for 100$ and sell it for 300 if they want too. But these systems are not like a pc , ms , sony , nintendo make money on the royaltys from games and thus can looose money on the system. That and the fact that these systems need to hold up graphicly for 3-4 years


Imagine if you will a xenon with a hd-dvd drive and a 120 gig hardrive in it off the bat for 300$

You will have a tivo / hd-dvd player on the market in 2005 for 300$ . It is a wet dream of mine , but i think everyone will agree on just those two issues alone it be a good buy . Now a 120 gig isn't ultra high end tivos anymore but are still up there..The reason for such a drive is simple. IN 3 or 4 years time they aren't going to be making 40 , 50 or 80 gig hardrives anymore. Look at what happened to the 8 gig drives that they were using . Hell even 20 gig hardrives are almost impossible to find


Las point is if you want to see what the xbox 2 will display then go to ign and download an unreal 3 engine video

http://insider.ign.com/videos/articles/515/515963p1.html

the city detial is amazing .

 

[Brimstone]

The PS2 showed you don't have to lower the price to have great sales at the $300 dollar price point. If things go well for Xenon, it should be sometime in 2007 that it drops below the $299 retail price. I could see Microsoft getting away with a $350 price tag at launch, with a $50 price drop for X-mas 2006 and 2007. I'm not sure they will do that but, the xtra $50 would allow for more RAM at launch which would help its perception long term.

I really like the rumor of the harddrive doubling as a MP3 player. Maybe they'll have two versions of harddrives available. One just for Xenon storage, and a second more expensive compact (think portable like iPOD) version that plays MP3's and links with the Xenon for game storage. I would certainly shell out the extra money for the iPOD syle harddrive.

 

[Wunderchu]

okay


first off when i said 500$ i'm talking about cost to ms .

Just because they are selling it for 300$ doesn't mean it will cost 300$ . Ms can make an xenon for 100$ and sell it for 300 if they want too. But these systems are not like a pc , ms , sony , nintendo make money on the royaltys from games and thus can looose money on the system. That and the fact that these systems need to hold up graphicly for 3-4 years

I agree

in 2008, Xbox 2 must still be able to output relatively good looking graphics [much as games like Halo 2 and Dead or Alive Ultimate (which still look good, even though the Xbox was released in 2001), today]

 

[Junekwan]

Well,
Assume process can advance constantly....
PS2/XBOX =>250nm/180nm
PS3/XBOX2 =>90nm/65nm
PS4/XBOX3 =>32nm/20nm
PS5/XBOX4 =>10nm!?(obviously impossible,considering tunnel effect...)

so...
PS3/XBOX2 or PS4/XBOX3 is the final game console of IC world.


My dream of FF7AD-level 3D game breaks.

 

[Guden Oden]

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

Perhaps, in some peoples' eyes - namely those that can afford to spend $350 on a console, which is certainly a (much) lower number than those who can afford to spend $250 or less.

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?

Because you really DON'T want to load 256MBs worth (or god forbid even worth of data from an optical drive that's going to have 120+ms access time...

Edit: Also, as harddrives scale down very poorly with reduction in capacity there's no point in going with a 20GB drive to save cost. The mechanics of a 20GB 3.5" drive is going to cost just as much as a 180+GB drive, and that's a major part of the cost since harddrives are mechanical components.

You go and snoop around until you find a brand-new 60GB drive. You'll probably find you can buy at least 120GB for the same price or marginally more.

 

[jvd]

just did a quick search on hardrives.

new egg has 1 20 gig listed at 59$
1 60 gig drive listed at 59$
lowest price 80gig is 55$
lowest price 120 is 75$

What that tells us is that the 20 gig drive and most likely the 60 gig drive are already out of production .

Buying a 8 meg 7200rpm drive 120 gig today in quanitys of 1 i can pick it up for 77$ . I'm sure in the millions it will drop down to the sub 40$ range and in 2 or 3 years before they phase out 120 gig drives all together they will be 10$ to include .



I could actually see microsoft produce its own hd-dvd pvr set up .

Sell the xenon at 300$ , 120 gig hardrive standard gaming system.

a 500$ set up box with mabye a 300 gig hardrive and so on and so on .

Hardrive size shouldn't matter as long as they never sell one with a hardrive smaller than the original or slower than the original.

They could make some segway into the digital recorder market , hd -dvd market and other ares .

Mabye the 500$ version could have a writable hd-dvd drive. I know many people who would pay 500-600$ for that in 2005 .


I would love to see sony in 2006 with this too . Though knowing sony they wont put in a hardrive.

 

[cthellis42]

Indeed. Once you've got any HD you've got most of the capacities covered, except the extreme high end I suppose. Which is why I expect the baseline of no console to come with one.

I do expect them to be optional, though--either by expansion or by a separate bundle. Certainly on the X2 and PS3... probably also in N5 in some form, but I can never tell with Nintendo.

And while extra bundling opens up the options, I certainly don't expect to see 10k RPM drives of any major storage capacity. They'll either up the RPM or up the capacity a lot, or possibly go the other route by making the HD its own separate device as well. (Though I tend to think that's a "down the line" idea rather than anything we'd see at launch.)

 

[Riddlewire]

I think you're crazy.

But no harm intended.

That's not very constructive.
Care to elaborate on the points you find to be most "crazy"?