Is Microsoft going to a 4 year product cycle with their consoles for the long term, or at least another generation or two? What are some of the consequences if this is in fact the case?
These are my observations, biased and speculative in some ways as they are, I shall try to separate the fact from speculation. Though I believe much of anything here will be mostly speculation for the time being. I have not dug up links to all the information I will post here. My assumption is that the readers here have come across much of the same information from the threads present. If anything I present as fact is disputed I will attempt to find a link if no one else posts it first.
We know Microsoft wanted out of the current Xbox to start their next generation as soon as possible. They were unable to scale their costs down and the Xbox remained expensive to produce. Is the 4 year cycle solely a product of this or is it a long term trend? Personally, I am certainly ready for a new console after 4 years.
Originally, I thought Sony was aiming for the PS3 release in Q4 2006 into 2007. A number of posters here, myself included, there is a statement from Katuragi backing this up, thought Sony was aiming for a multi-cell approach with no dedicated GPU. I believe the statement from Ken went along the lines of "it was not as efficient, per transistor, as a dedicated GPU." That may or may not be the real world case, i do not have the technical expertise to make a determination, even after reading the forums, however it may not have been the only reason. My speculation, along with that of others, ran to Sony having their timeline pushed up by MS's early release (what Nintendo board meetings thought of this is probably not printable given their public statements) and forcing them to either leave the field to MS for too long while perfecting an entirely Cell based PS3 or turning to a major player (Nvidia in this case) to create a GPU. The evidence out there can be interpreted in any number of ways. From Nvidia's early involvement meaning they were going to design a GPU from the beginning to they were only going to be involved in software help for programming a Cell based PS3 for graphics. With some of the demo's running entirely on Cell and not using a GPU at all, there would seem to be some evidence for Nvidia's entry as a GPU provider coming late. (I am fully aware there are other explanations for this - including Sony simply wanting to show off the power of Cell.)
The above, to me, interpreted in the light of Sony being time crunched for a GPU solution, is just one consequence of a 4 year product cycle. What other possible consequences would going to a 4 year product cycle have? ( I realize that is a big if at this point.)
Will Microsoft be able to manufacture enough consoles, at a price the compnay and the consumers can afford, in a 4 year time span? Enough to take over the lead, if not now, eventually, or enough to be competitive?
IF Cell proves more difficult to make use of, to get those higher theoretical peaks running in a game environment, how long will this be? If it takes 2-3 years to start looking better than the 360, and MS goes to a 4 year product cycle, what does this do to Sony's sales? At 2 years after North American release (I'm assuming a fall 2006 release for the PS3) the 360 would have been out for 3 years, be well into producing some of its finest looking games, and talk will start of the summers E3 for the next gerneration Xbox. By the time of E3 2008, and certainly E3 2009, Sony could be looking at displaying its greatest titles, with the attendant technical marvels, and find itself facing Xbox 3 demos.
These are just posited thoughts. I am NOT making grand statements or predictions. How long before developers really start to take advantage of the PS3 vs. the 360? Will it come in time? Will any of this really matter in sales terms? These are only questions to which I am looking for some thoughtful replys.
These are my observations, biased and speculative in some ways as they are, I shall try to separate the fact from speculation. Though I believe much of anything here will be mostly speculation for the time being. I have not dug up links to all the information I will post here. My assumption is that the readers here have come across much of the same information from the threads present. If anything I present as fact is disputed I will attempt to find a link if no one else posts it first.
We know Microsoft wanted out of the current Xbox to start their next generation as soon as possible. They were unable to scale their costs down and the Xbox remained expensive to produce. Is the 4 year cycle solely a product of this or is it a long term trend? Personally, I am certainly ready for a new console after 4 years.
Originally, I thought Sony was aiming for the PS3 release in Q4 2006 into 2007. A number of posters here, myself included, there is a statement from Katuragi backing this up, thought Sony was aiming for a multi-cell approach with no dedicated GPU. I believe the statement from Ken went along the lines of "it was not as efficient, per transistor, as a dedicated GPU." That may or may not be the real world case, i do not have the technical expertise to make a determination, even after reading the forums, however it may not have been the only reason. My speculation, along with that of others, ran to Sony having their timeline pushed up by MS's early release (what Nintendo board meetings thought of this is probably not printable given their public statements) and forcing them to either leave the field to MS for too long while perfecting an entirely Cell based PS3 or turning to a major player (Nvidia in this case) to create a GPU. The evidence out there can be interpreted in any number of ways. From Nvidia's early involvement meaning they were going to design a GPU from the beginning to they were only going to be involved in software help for programming a Cell based PS3 for graphics. With some of the demo's running entirely on Cell and not using a GPU at all, there would seem to be some evidence for Nvidia's entry as a GPU provider coming late. (I am fully aware there are other explanations for this - including Sony simply wanting to show off the power of Cell.)
The above, to me, interpreted in the light of Sony being time crunched for a GPU solution, is just one consequence of a 4 year product cycle. What other possible consequences would going to a 4 year product cycle have? ( I realize that is a big if at this point.)
Will Microsoft be able to manufacture enough consoles, at a price the compnay and the consumers can afford, in a 4 year time span? Enough to take over the lead, if not now, eventually, or enough to be competitive?
IF Cell proves more difficult to make use of, to get those higher theoretical peaks running in a game environment, how long will this be? If it takes 2-3 years to start looking better than the 360, and MS goes to a 4 year product cycle, what does this do to Sony's sales? At 2 years after North American release (I'm assuming a fall 2006 release for the PS3) the 360 would have been out for 3 years, be well into producing some of its finest looking games, and talk will start of the summers E3 for the next gerneration Xbox. By the time of E3 2008, and certainly E3 2009, Sony could be looking at displaying its greatest titles, with the attendant technical marvels, and find itself facing Xbox 3 demos.
These are just posited thoughts. I am NOT making grand statements or predictions. How long before developers really start to take advantage of the PS3 vs. the 360? Will it come in time? Will any of this really matter in sales terms? These are only questions to which I am looking for some thoughtful replys.
