Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[SKYSONY]

So basically you're free dismissing some unsubstantiated rumours and freely believing other unsubstantiated rumours purely because of your own desire and hope that Durango will be more powerful than the PS4?

If anything at least try to conscience the fact that some rumours have been consistent between multiple sources, and whilst they may ALL indeed be total BS, there's still a much more believeable chance that the more consistent rumours seem to hold more weight.

Also, two GPUs is nonesense. They'll either go APU + GPU or CPU plus GPU. There's no business nor performance reason to go CPU plus 2xGPU. Plus, given the many reports of a 8-16 core CPU in Durango, it's more likely to be a CPU plus GPU setup. Unless those 16 cores are tiny ARM cores and inside an APU.

Regardless, I'm more inclined to suspect that MS will have the weaker box. If only slighty weaker. If anything just because of their big Kinect push and the fact that they will be not only packing Kinect into every box but archetecting the HW around Kinect and all their service features. It's clear that gaming is only a part of what MS wants to push with xbox, so sinking billions in a power struggle with Sony over who will have the greatest graphics is not something I see modern day MS doing.

I think fundamentally, regardless of silly arguments like MS has more money than Sony etc etc (it didn't help them with the first xbox did it?), I firmly believe that both platform holders will be looking towards profitability on HW within the first year. So in that sense, and given the very tight pricing margin they both have to work with (as current gen boxes are still over £150), there's physically only a certain amount that BOTH of them can pack in a box they want to sell at a reasonable mass market price. Neither MS nor Sony will be taking losses on HW on the scale of this last gen, if not because of the precedent Nintendo set with the Wii, then because times have changed and they BOTH have the likes of mobile/tablet gaming, Onlive/Gaikai etc to contend with. Meaning the risks are much greater these days.

I´m giving my opinion based on what I read. I´ve never said it´s going to have two GPUs, I´m saying that if the dev kits have two GPUs, it´s because the final GPU is not available right now. I think MS is going to have the most powerful box because that is what I´ve read from some suppossed insiders.

I haven´t said anything about the PS4 because it´s suposed to have an APU and I don´t know what to expect about it. The logical thing is to expect MS to risk more with their hard bacause its financial situation is way better and they can afford to lose money with their system. This doesn´t have to be true.

But basically you say you believe PS4 is gonna be more powerful because you don´t see MS releasing the most powerful console. Doesn´t sound quite objetive to me.

 

[lefizz]

Think what you will but Sony´s current economic situation really is quite dire, they simply cant afford to loose money on hardware or if they do it would have to be a very small hit.

MS economic position does allow them to play a longer game as in loose money for say 18-24 months on hardware. I too dont see them wanting to loose much on hardware but you have to counter that with the fact that they could if needed too.

Ms also have the issue that last time they gained a huge advantage in terms of market share and developer commitment by being basiclly a year ahead of Sony. They wont have that this cycle so they do need a USP for the device for the millions of floating consumers who would go either way.
One is power, another services both hardware and software of the platform, price and the other of course is a great range of launch titles. The issue really is that the only one that sticks over a 5 year generation is hardware, eveything else is copyable. Sony effectively stole so many ideas from MS in terms of software services in the last 7 years.

Hardware in a fixed platform over a long cycle can make a significant difference it just doesnt always work out like that. Nintendo always releases low end hardware and usually does very well but them they nominate in terms of IP and inovation.

These are just my thought but how will MS gain market share? Particularly in countries such as Spain where I live where they actually did pretty poorly compared to Sony and Nintendo coming a distant third. Many people really think MS won the last round but if you take the US and the Uk out of the equation they didn´t. So how do you convince people in such areas to ´jump in´ Power, services or innovation?

 

[Prophecy2k]

I´m giving my opinion based on what I read. I´ve never said it´s going to have two GPUs, I´m saying that if the dev kits have two GPUs, it´s because the final GPU is not available right now. I think MS is going to have the most powerful box because that is what I´ve read from some suppossed insiders.

You said a so-called russian insider said the devkit will have two AMD 8000 series GPUs, because the final silicon is not available right now. Yet by exercising a little critical thinking it becomes obvious that AMD 8000 wouldn't be available now at all either. Think about it ;-) Again "supposed insiders" being the operative word here.

I haven´t said anything about the PS4 because it´s suposed to have an APU and I don´t know what to expect about it. The logical thing is to expect MS to risk more with their hard bacause its financial situation is way better and they can afford to lose money with their system. This doesn´t have to be true.

That's not logical reasoning. It's illogical reasoning to expect BOTH company to go utterly gungho and sink billions into HW losses for the sake of appeasing the hardcore. MS especially wont because they see gaming as only a small part of what their xbox platform is about.

But basically you say you believe PS4 is gonna be more powerful because you don´t see MS releasing the most powerful console. Doesn´t sound quite objetive to me.

Reading comprehension fail. Alright i'll simply it for you.

BOTH Sony AND MS are NOT going to take exhorbitant losses on HW for the sake of 1up'ping each other on graphics. That's NOT going to win either of them the console war next-gen.

THUS,

BOTH Sony AND MS are going to design consoles around a similar pricepoint, thus sillicon budget and TDP.

You got it now?

So my own personal suspicion is that MS will want to push Kinect more than Sony will (as Sony don't have an effective Kinect-like device to drive the platform, so they will concentrate on first party exclusive software). So I suspect that MS will want to pack in Kinect 2.0 with every unit, and thus will add to the cost of the console. They might absorb that cost themselves, sure, they can afford to. But will they? History tells me they won't. So I reckon MS will put in perhaps a slightly less capable GPU, and use cheaper DDR3/4 ram so that they can pack in a Kinect in every Durango box.

Again this jives with rumoured specs for durango that are widely known, which again may be BS. So in the end who knows.

Ultimately, if MS doesn't pack in Kinect then I would expect both boxes to be as near as dammit of equal capability, merely for them both targetting the same price point.

That wasn't so hard to understand was it?

 

[Arwin]

I really don't actually. I believe Sony will put its emphasis on its first party gaming software and improved PSN as it's differentiator. If they do do an updated Move controller they wont pack it in with every box. They might offer a bundled SKU, but they won't put nearly as much emphasis on it as MS will with Kinect.

At best I expect Sony to pack in a microphone, either in the console itself, or tethered to the unit, for voice commands.

I'm not ready to believe that just yet. I think they'll want to try to reclaim the position they had in the casual space, and are not happy that first Nintendo and then Microsoft beat them in that market. While I think they want to be competitive with an improved PSN, I don't believe they feel confident they could easily beat Microsoft in that area. And while their strongest point is first party software at the moment, it hasn't help them reclaim this generation, partly thanks to Microsoft's success with Kinect. They know that motion controls and 3D, another technology they are invested in, are linked together (as they already demonstrated several times, and as Microsoft has shown to know as well), and they know control innovations are as important as anything else. They know that if they want to sell media, they'll need to do more than just offer a dual-shock controller. They won't be the only one left behind in that area, that's far too big a risk to take, just with the hope that they'll manage to capture the 'hardcore' console audience and make enough money there.

They could in theory go for a two step approach, making motion controls as optional as the harddrive was in the 360, just for getting the price as low as possible, but I don't see that working.

 

[SKYSONY]

You said a so-called russian insider said the devkit will have two AMD 8000 series GPUs, because the final silicon is not available right now. Yet by exercising a little critical thinking it becomes obvious that AMD 8000 wouldn't be available now at all either. Think about it ;-) Again "supposed insiders" being the operative word here.



That's not logical reasoning. It's illogical reasoning to expect BOTH company to go utterly gungho and sink billions into HW losses for the sake of appeasing the hardcore. MS especially wont because they see gaming as only a small part of what their xbox platform is about.



Reading comprehension fail. Alright i'll simply it for you.

BOTH Sony AND MS are NOT going to take exhorbitant losses on HW for the sake of 1up'ping each other on graphics. That's NOT going to win either of them the console war next-gen.

THUS,

BOTH Sony AND MS are going to design consoles around a similar pricepoint, thus sillicon budget and TDP.

You got it now?

So my own personal suspicion is that MS will want to push Kinect more than Sony will (as Sony don't have an effective Kinect-like device to drive the platform, so they will concentrate on first party exclusive software). So I suspect that MS will want to pack in Kinect 2.0 with every unit, and thus will add to the cost of the console. They might absorb that cost themselves, sure, they can afford to. But will they? History tells me they won't. So I reckon MS will put in perhaps a slightly less capable GPU, and use cheaper DDR3/4 ram so that they can pack in a Kinect in every Durango box.

Again this jives with rumoured specs for durango that are widely known, which again may be BS. So in the end who knows.

Ultimately, if MS doesn't pack in Kinect then I would expect both boxes to be as near as dammit of equal capability, merely for them both targetting the same price point.

That wasn't so hard to understand was it?

Thank you for your lessons. It´s nice to know this forum is not exception and you can find people who think they can give you lessons because they are so ahead of you.

 

[Prophecy2k]

MS economic position does allow them to play a longer game as in loose money for say 18-24 months on hardware. I too dont see them wanting to loose much on hardware but you have to counter that with the fact that they could if needed too.

This is true, but one has to ask why would they? Why loose money on HW for two years when you don't need too?

It could also go both ways. If they do decide to loose money on HW for two years, accepting that it's becoming much more difficult and expensive to cost reduce their silicon, that would give Sony two whole years of undercutting them on price with a sizeable first party exclusive developer base. Sony would have more flexibility for price drops and MS may very well price themselves out of the market.

It just doesn't make any business sense for either of them to loss lead so aggressively.

 

[onQ]

Maybe because Sony are extremely weak right now and giving them a good kicking in the console space over the next few years could finish them or at least effectively kill off any chances of a PS5.

The chance to finish off a long term competitor would be very tempting for an aggressive company like MS.

Sony just spent a billion dollars on stacking CMOS sensors for cameras who's to say they won't invest in PS4 the CTO said that the chip for the PS4 was a billion dollar investment I'm not sure if it was a Sony investment alone or if the billion dollar investment was a joint investment from Sony, AMD & others. & chances are it will be used in more than the PS4.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Thank you for your lessons. It´s nice to know this forum is not exception and you can find people who think they can give you lessons because they are so ahead of you.

You're welcome

 

[Prophecy2k]

Sony just spent a billion dollars on stacking CMOS sensors for cameras who's to say they won't invest in PS4 the CTO said that the chip for the PS4 was a billion dollar investment I'm not sure if it was a Sony investment alone or if the billion dollar investment was a joint investment from Sony, AMD & others. & chances are it will be used in more than the PS4.

I don't think you can take company CTO statements as indicative of anything until the platforms have been officially unveiled and announced.

Untill then everything is in flux and subject to change. They might have been thinking along those lines back in 2010 or 2011, but now they're thinking something else.

Ultimately, it's better to take a wait and see approach. As of now i'm not convinced by most of these rumours.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony just spent a billion dollars on stacking CMOS sensors for cameras who's to say they won't invest in PS4.

Their CMOS sensors have a massive market, both with Sony's growing imaging business and the market for mobile parts where Sony's tech offers a competitive advantage. PS4 development on the other hand is limited solely to PS4. Sony were willing to invest heavily in Cell because they believed (or Kutaragi did) that the tech would be used in lots of other devices, but that didn't happen. When you know your hardware market is only worth a couple of billion tops for its entire life, it's a pretty rash investment to sink a billion bucks into it where you know you won't get hardware returns and whatever money you get will come from software and services against mature competition.

 

[SKYSONY]

Sony just spent a billion dollars on stacking CMOS sensors for cameras who's to say they won't invest in PS4 the CTO said that the chip for the PS4 was a billion dollar investment I'm not sure if it was a Sony investment alone or if the billion dollar investment was a joint investment from Sony, AMD & others. & chances are it will be used in more than the PS4.

I think the billion dollars might entail more than just the hardware tech. I don´t think anyone is thinking Sony is going the Nintendo route with PS4. As I said, the PS Vita is a quite powerful machine, eventhough it might not be as cutting edge as PS3 when it was introduced. I think they won´t go crazy with the price this time, as they did with the PS3, but I expect them to launch the best hard the can for around 400€.

 

[lefizz]

This is true, but one has to ask why would they? Why loose money on HW for two years when you don't need too?

It could also go both ways. If they do decide to loose money on HW for two years, accepting that it's becoming much more difficult and expensive to cost reduce their silicon, that would give Sony two whole years of undercutting them on price with a sizeable first party exclusive developer base. Sony would have more flexibility for price drops and MS may very well price themselves out of the market.

It just doesn't make any business sense for either of them to loss lead so aggressively.

OK my way of thinking of it is this. MS dont enter a market invest/loose billion in it to sit back with a 30-40% share of the market.

MS main sources of income over its history (windows/home/server/office) are all under very real threat from various sides (smart phones tablets and opensource/cloud services).

They have spent so much money in the past to try and take the living room through settop boxes and other initiatives, and made little impact. Now they are in a real position of strength via the 360 and they need to capitalise on that to kill the opposition. Nintendo are tricky to deal will for MS because they way they deal with things is so alien to MS culture and approach. But Sony have through 3 console generation won by selling the idea of power and get great titles on there console. MS understands that way of doing business which is why they were so effective at attacking Sony this cycle.

With there traditional revenue streams under attack i really cannot see MS sitting back on there laurels. If they did they would almost certainly end up with less market share than this time around due to releasing within a few months of each other.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

With there traditional revenue streams under attack i really cannot see MS sitting back on there laurels. If they did they would almost certainly end up with less market share than this time around due to releasing within a few months of each other.

Based on what info? You've no ieda what the retail price of the boxes would be. Or the services. Or the marketing campaigns. So how can you know that both boxes lauching within a few months of each other will result in MS's market share decreasing?

 

[lefizz]

OK agreed, however having a years advantage was a huge advantage this time around which they wont have this cycle.

The other interesting thing was they launched early last time and launched at a very reasonable price for what you got.

 

[Ruskie]

Sony is very lucky this gen lasted 8 years since 8 years later is much easier to hit 10x performance target than it is 6 years from last gen. This way they can achieve generation leap and still sell hardware at profit.

MS is in different position, they have all the money in the world but they don't want to lose anymore billions on gaming, they want profit and they want it next gen. Because they are including Kinect 2.0 and aiming for multimedia hub they don't have much space to maneuver in terms of spending on transistors. If they are going for good CPU, than GPU will take a hit if they are thinking about being profitable day 1.

 

[ultragpu]

I smell LoosingEnds and Reach3 from System Wars in this thread, you juniors sure know how to disrupt a well constructed B3D thread don't ya?!

 

[N2O]

MS is in different position, they have all the money in the world but they don't want to lose anymore billions on gaming

not really,MS still can handle and don't mind a loss for short time(like 1~1.5year),of course they won't make a console have huge cost in early year anymore

and hey,MS entertainment & devices division lose about $229 million in last Q,even no doubt they will still profit in full Financial year

 

[ultragpu]

Sony is very lucky this gen lasted 8 years since 8 years later is much easier to hit 10x performance target than it is 6 years from last gen. This way they can achieve generation leap and still sell hardware at profit.

MS is in different position, they have all the money in the world but they don't want to lose anymore billions on gaming, they want profit and they want it next gen. Because they are including Kinect 2.0 and aiming for multimedia hub they don't have much space to maneuver in terms of spending on transistors. If they are going for good CPU, than GPU will take a hit if they are thinking about being profitable day 1.

It would be interesting to see could cheap out on hardware really provide you a stable profit in the long run especially if it's gonna last for 10 years? Something tells me MS isn't joking about cloud gaming in 2015.

 

[Ruskie]

It would be interesting to see could cheap out on hardware really provide you a stable profit in the long run especially if it's gonna last for 10 years? Something tells me MS isn't joking about cloud gaming in 2015.

It still wouldn't be cheapening out on hardware, just less transistors spent on GPU since their aim is to have strong entertainment box too, and you need stronger CPU and more RAM to do that. Than again, we still don't know for fact what they are shooting for, but if that rumor from GAF guy who has good friend working at AMD is anything to go by, than maybe MS isn't cheapening on GPU at all.

He said Sony switched to Jaguar cores, BG if I remember correctly wasn't aware of that at the time, but now seems to think thats the case. That would put some credibility to the rumor I would think.

 

[onQ]

Their CMOS sensors have a massive market, both with Sony's growing imaging business and the market for mobile parts where Sony's tech offers a competitive advantage. PS4 development on the other hand is limited solely to PS4. Sony were willing to invest heavily in Cell because they believed (or Kutaragi did) that the tech would be used in lots of other devices, but that didn't happen. When you know your hardware market is only worth a couple of billion tops for its entire life, it's a pretty rash investment to sink a billion bucks into it where you know you won't get hardware returns and whatever money you get will come from software and services against mature competition.

not necessarily, if it's a SOC it might be used in the medical field & other places. also even if it's just for the PS4 it still might be worth the investment because they will use the PS4 as a gateway to sell their services to you. so they would want it to be your choice as a console. the same reason that the Xbox is so important to MS.