*spin-off* Importance of graphics in the purchase decision process

[Gubbi]

Relying solely on the gimmick end as Wii did relegated it to a dust collector for most people and many would argue Kinect is on the same path.

Kinect is much more versatile. Voice commands and head tracking seems to be more and more standard fare in games that don't directly use Kinect as controller input.

I'm sure that Microsoft's goal is to ultimately include it in every bundle. They need to drive down price further for that to happen though.

Cheers

 

[Brad Grenz]

The problem with such an arrangement is that it ignores the software sales of Wii and Kinect vs traditional HD games.

While those sales do lead directly to royalty cuts for the software at hand, the other big thing such an approach would cut is actual time that people turn on the device and use it.

Relying solely on the gimmick end as Wii did relegated it to a dust collector for most people and many would argue Kinect is on the same path.

So if that (kinect2.0) is the angle that they are hoping will lure in the masses, I believe they will be sorely mistaken and not only sales of games will take a hit. Sales of movies, games, tv-shows, music, XBL subs, and potential ad revenue ALL would take a hit from going the wii route.

Especially if there is an alternate which DOESN'T go the Wii route.

But again, it all depends on what their corp goals are ... a slightly improved xb360+ bundled with kinect2.0 at $300 by the end of the year will sell. It will generate a significant userbase rather quickly. And then as soon as someone comes out with a real nextgen machine, it will be Dreamcasted. MS doesn't have the brand strength yet to pull off something as bold as this approach. Graphics matter, and especially when one's brand has been built on the premise.

Right, those are the pitfalls. I never said it was a good idea, but there's always been this sense that what MS really wanted out of Xbox was to gain a foothold in the living room. I just don't think most of us were expecting them to be shod of the core market so quickly after parlaying their interest into mainstream success.

As I've said before, the real wake up call will come when all those Gold subscriptions evaporate. That was an easy billion dollars a year, but those Kinect gamers aren't going to pay every year for multiplayer, and there are too many, cheaper ways to get Netflix and Hulu+ on your TV now that the casual audience isn't going to pay just for that. They certainly don't care about cloud saves. That's a huge revenue stream that will simply disappear if the core market walks away because the value adds just aren't that valuable anymore. In fact, for the casual market putting media services behind a pay wall will become a competitive disadvantage. "Don't by that one. Can you believe they want you to pay an extra $60 a year just to use Netflix? Get a WiiU, Netflix isn't any extra on that."

 

[specwarGP2]

They arent paying for the an expected "performance advantage" anymore, because people got used to the notion that they are pretty close in performance.

I dont think its an expected performance andvantage when games like uncharted and killzone make a strong argument that PS3 has the best looking games.

And getting back to my original point... as you mentioned people paid for an expected performance advantage... They will surely pay for a real one that you can see from day one in every single game. MS is going to get screwed by the early adopters because they will just wait if PS3 is significantly faster.

 

[function]

I plugged a Kinect into my 360.

Weirdly, it could still play Halo.

A question: In what way is using a new graphics and CPU architecture "doing a Wii"? The WiiU is using a new graphics and CPU architecture and people keep hyping up how awesome it will be. The Xbox 3 is rumoured to be faster than than WiiU, but it's doing a Wii. I don't get it.

Is "doing a Wii" code for drawing less power than your predecessor?

 

[Gubbi]

"Don't by that one. Can you believe they want you to pay an extra $60 a year just to use Netflix?

$60 / year is $5 / month, way below the payment pain threshold for most households.

And... You're assuming Microsoft are morons.

You need a gold account to access NetFlix, but only a silver account to access Zune Video. I see this as MS trying to push their own media delivery service as much as they can. Only MS know what the splits are between silver/Zune and gold/NetFlix, but if it was costing them money/users, they would open access to NetFlix for silver accounts immediately.

Cheers

 

[Deleted member 13524]

A question: In what way is using a new graphics and CPU architecture "doing a Wii"?

Is "doing a Wii" code for drawing less power than your predecessor?

No, it's applying a relatively small update to the predecessor, CPU+GPU wise.
If the Xbox360 SuperSlim or X360+ or whatever is actually bringing a HD6670-like GPU, while focusing on a "non-essential gimmick" (kinect), that's pretty much the same as "doing a Wii".

The WiiU is using a new graphics and CPU architecture and people keep hyping up how awesome it will be. The Xbox 3 is rumoured to be faster than than WiiU, but it's doing a Wii. I don't get it.

I'm pretty sure the hype around the Wii U isn't related to its graphics capabilities, but rather the tablet controller and the gameplay possibilities it makes possible.

 

[function]

No, it's applying a relatively small update to the predecessor, CPU+GPU wise.
If the Xbox360 SuperSlim or X360+ or whatever is actually bringing a HD6670-like GPU, while focusing on a "non-essential gimmick" (kinect), that's pretty much the same as "doing a Wii".

The Wii was a 50% jump in power over a predecessor which was comprehensively outclassed by the first Xbox in the same year; the current rumour-of-the-day is positioning the Xbox 3 as being several hundred percent faster than a machine which had a bleeding edge GPU (which is still to be outclassed in a console). And the Wiimote was absolutely essential in the Wii being a success.

Calling Xbox 3 a "Wii" in a derogatory sense seems overly emotional and reactionary.

I'm pretty sure the hype around the Wii U isn't related to its graphics capabilities, but rather the tablet controller and the gameplay possibilities it makes possible.

I've seen hyping up over the WiiU bird/garden/fish demo, and continued confidence that there can be 6950m contained inside the little box.

Kinect is attracting an awful lot of hate from some awfully unimaginative "hardcore gamers".

 

[Scott_Arm]

Is there really any chance that these consoles will feature the GPU used in $500+ video cards?

If they go with a cheap GPU, maybe they'll try to launch in the $250-300 price range. Even these low-spec rumours for Xbox would be a large increase over what we have now. Maybe they go for a cheaper console with a 5 year cycle instead of a 7 year cycle. Who knows.

Would be interesting if Sony and MS launched at the same time, one with a $300 console and the other a $500 console. Then I guess we'd really get to see what people care about.

 

[specwarGP2]

Well ipads are $500 and those things are flyiing off the shelves. The most popular iphone 4S sold is the the most expensive 64GB model.

If Sony positions the PS3 as a premium product with performance to match I dont think $500 would be hurt it at launch.

 

[Rodéric]

Well ipads are $500 and those things are flyiing off the shelves. The most popular iphone 4S sold is the the most expensive 64GB model.

If Sony positions the PS3 as a premium product with performance to match I dont think $500 would be hurt it at launch.

They don't provide the same services.
Even if you consider games, prices are quite different between iDevices & home consoles...

Really Apple to Orange comparison.

 

[Scott_Arm]

They don't provide the same services.
Even if you consider games, prices are quite different between iDevices & home consoles...

Really Apple to Orange comparison.

And it's pretty obvious because the 360 and PS3 have never sold anywhere near as fast as those devices, even when they've been priced significantly cheaper.

I think this discussion is sort of useless without some parameters. Would a PS4 that's twice as powerful as an Xbox720 be more desirable to consumers? It's hard to really know, because that's never really the way the console industry has worked, and it's unlikely to be true this gen. Two consoles releasing at the same time are likely to have similar BOM costs, and since they buy CPUs and GPUs from the same small pool of vendors, they're likely to end up with different but roughly equal consoles if they target the same launch price. Every gen it seems like there are differences between the main competitors, but they are still normally relatively the same in terms of performance, maybe being slightly better at different things.

This discussion really only makes sense if you include price in the conversation. Sure console X being twice as powerful as console Y will probably sell more, but if console X sells at half the price is that still true? Especially if console X is still significantly more powerful than last gen. I think the Wii comparison is unfair, because the Wii was a very modest bump over the gamecube. Even these rumoured specs for the xbox720 would be a very large jump over the 360.

I tend to not follow BOM discussions, but I'd be curious to know if the top-end GPUs from Nvidia, AMD would even fit into a reasonably priced BOM, under the performance characteristics of a 200W system with adequate cooling and noise levels. Seems there are a lot of people expecting top-end parts, but I have a feeling that will not be true of either console.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Well ipads are $500 and those things are flyiing off the shelves. The most popular iphone 4S sold is the the most expensive 64GB model.

If Sony positions the PS3 as a premium product with performance to match I dont think $500 would be hurt it at launch.

In pure "how much of my disposable income would i be willing to spend on a next-gen console" terms, i'm in the rather minor category of those who would shell out as much as £500 ($750 - although given how we brits get shafted it'd be closer to $500-$600).

I also understand that i'm in the minority though, and with things like iPads there are $350 versions etc which i'm such make up the lions share (or at least a big chunk) gamewise.

Plus, an iPad is seen these days as a sort of multifunctional sexy PC. A console is still seen by the mainstream masses as a single purpose dedicated device, regardless of how many other services/applications it offers. Consoles aren't bought primarily as multimedia devices (which is sad because they are probably the best MM devices available outside a PC/Mac/Tablet).

As much as i know Sony won't go balls to the walls, nor MS. If any of them surprise me and do so, i'll buy their box and i'll do it at a high price. (Hell yeah i'll take one for the team)

 

[joker454]

As I've said before, the real wake up call will come when all those Gold subscriptions evaporate. That was an easy billion dollars a year, but those Kinect gamers aren't going to pay every year for multiplayer, and there are too many, cheaper ways to get Netflix and Hulu+ on your TV now that the casual audience isn't going to pay just for that. They certainly don't care about cloud saves.

It's been shown that people will pay more for a qualtiy experience, and there is nothing at the level of XBlive hence why people still pay for it in droves even in 2012. Casuals do care about cloud saves, they are very aware of cloud as both a method of backing up their data and a way to have their data automatically shared across multiple devices. Next console gen will see much more of that as the console, phone, tablet and pc will be interoperable and cloud functionaltiy will get more elaborate.

I don't get why some think MS won't be going high end to be at least as powerful as the PS4 next gen (other than web rumors).

Because people are believing that article which says the Xbox Next will have a 6670 in it. Why they are believing it is anyones guess.

 

[liolio]

It's more a matter of discussing it than believing it. It's neither an official or unofficial statements, nobody here I think is taking it as such.

By the way GPU is only a part of the graphics, this is related to graphics still (this product at least is not running on the GPU):

Basically we're discussing a rumor because I guess people are already more than bored to wait for a refresh or they are simply bored all together, no need to go into not that nice assumptions to explain this behavior.

Anyway GPU raw throughput is only part of the picture, especially with quality quality scaling thrown into the picture. Dismissing the rumor (rumors in fact as there are other hints for not that overwhelming system) on the gpu power is not really fair, physics is somehow a graphical effect as well as cloth animation, animation, etc.
There is also RAM, standard or not HDD, all impacts strongly what you can see on screen, but you know that better than me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Because people are believing that article which says the Xbox Next will have a 6670 in it. Why they are believing it is anyones guess.

Some guy in the internet said it, so it must be true.

 

[patsu]

Well... it's also possible that the rumor is true, but the final Xbox 720 will have 2 GPUs. ^_^

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

If the graphics are in the same ballpark, like the usual XB and PS2 versions of the same game, the extra cost of XB's power wasn't enough to draw people away. Thus a console designer doesn't need to aim for the very best possible at any cost, but the right amount to look good to Joe Gamer while fitting in with the corporate business strategy. If your rival is losing billions including a 4 Oompaloompa GPU, if a 2 Oompaloompa GPU won't look massively different it could well be worth the savings, especially if you can then offer a price advatange to your console.

I agree. We have, also, seen this with the PS3 and 360 respectively (except through exclusives). The additional graphics and gameplay features the PS3 offers just haven't been enough, so far, this gen to take the the sales title in the U.S. (or worldwide).

For console gamers who haven't seen the best on PC, a console upgrade to something midrange is still going to look fabulous to them versus the current low-IQ offerings on PS360.

I must admit that even with my high end gaming laptop (6970 and 2820qm), the very best graphics offered on my PC does not seem far from the very best I've seen on the PS3.

 

[joker454]

I must admit that even with my high end gaming laptop (6970 and 2820qm), the very best graphics offered on my PC does not seem far from the very best I've seen on the PS3.

That just means that stuff like 60fps, 8xmsaa+, 1920x1080, better shadows, longer draw distance, better ssao, physx effects, tesselation,less aggresive lod, etc, are either not important to you or you just don't notice them. To me I can see them easily from 20 feet away with one eye while someone is punching me in the head, but that's me. I'm sure many others are in the same boat as you where they just can't spot the differences much anymore, just like some see dvd and bluray as being identical. Hence why I think we're getting to the point of diminishing returns graphically.

 

[aselto]

I've been a gamer since early 90s and I have to say I've liked all the generations so far, though I always had a combination of PC+console, with majority of gaming time on PC. If I had to pinpoint one generation, the current one would be my favorite.

I think one mistake that cannot be repeated by Sony/MS/Nintendo is to launch a console that is not desired by the mass market and holds little value over the previous generation systems. PS3 and 360 had extreeeemely slow launches because your average PS2 owner didn't care that much about the graphics improvements or new online services or multimedia capabilities, not enough to justify rather high price points or rather poor games selection. Wii offered something that was immediately attractive to many people who had PS2s and to many who did not have one in their household, making it very successful right off the bat. Wii also made in its lifetime way more money for Nintendo than PS2 ever did for Sony.

So I expect Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony to design their next platforms around the same principles as Wii was, at the same time trying to avoid pitfalls that caused the system's premature death. There will be graphical improvements (within constraints of being affordable for the consumer and profitable for the manufacturer at the same time), but the main selling point will probably be some gimmick that the management of those companies will think will be easily recognizable and desirable by the mainstream audience. Personally I don't think WiiU's controller is one though, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Tap In]

Well... it's also possible that the rumor is true, but the final Xbox 720 will have 2 GPUs. ^_^

that was my thought as well



I think a much more disturbing rumor form this 720 business is this..

is there a thread for this yet?

This would be devestating to an entire sub-industry

But that disc detail could be far less impactful to the next generation of game consoles than the assertion I've heard from one reliable industry source that Microsoft intends to incorporate some sort of anti-used game system as part of their so-called Xbox 720.
It's not clear if that means that the system wouldn't play used games or how such a set-up would work. Obvious approaches—I'm theorizing here—like linking a copy of a game to a specific Xbox Live account could seemingly be foiled by used-game owners who would keep their system offline. My source wasn't sure how Microsoft intended to implement any anti-used game system in the new machine.

A push in any way by Microsoft against used games would likely be cheered from publishers sick of seeing retailers like GameStop crow about their revenues from the sale of used games. But it could potentially anger consumers who rely on buying cheaply-sold used games or even pass games to relatives or friends.