The challenges, rewards, and realities of a two tier console launch

Do you mean a 'new' console every year? Dunno what to think of that in that case.

 

How would the 1X have a stronger gpu? Hopefully your not just going by raw TF figure? Not even taking into account gpu feature set. Even if it did, which I don't think would be the case, in no way would that offset the other stuff.
If anything ssd would have a bigger tangible impact than gpu, same with CPU.

Was just thinking what's the difference between X1 Sad compared to 1X considering price difference?
4GB, UHD drive, Vapour chamber, more powerful gpu.
Don't know how much ddr3 compares to gddr5 prices right now.
Considering the difference in price, hardly adds up.

 

It would be just like cell phones now. Apple releases a new iPhone every year but apps are built to accommodate a range of devices usually about 4 years old or more. I don't know if MS will ever do yearly releases, but i can see they doing an every other year pattern of releases, where we get a "slim" version in a couple years, then an X version a couple after that, followed by a larger performance and feature increase after that. So the real generation leap comes every 6 years or so.

What I think MS may do with Lockhart is build a box that will essentially replace the entire One line while hitting a price point they feel they need to hit. To equate it to cell phones again, Apple released the 5c and 5s at the same time, the 5s being the next gen part with improved performance, fingerprint scanner, larger storage, and new motion sensors. The 5c is essentially a vanilla 5, last generation's model, with some current design aesthetics, some cost reductions, and as well as the newer iOS features.

 

Give Xcloud is currently an One S and only a 720p stream I can see a next gen server blade being Lockhart bases, I would think the lower GPU clocks will help with heat and be more power efficient. 1440p is a nice stream size and compression artifacts seem to make 4k even more of a waste of GPU resources.

The talk of teaming it with Gamepass and your library to make a new subscription tier like "Xbox gamepass ultimate anywhere" makes me think they want a mass market service and not a niche one. Aiming for pristine 4k streams just seems a waste for the console and casual market.

CPU I assume will be basically identical, I cannot see any reason to cut that down. It would probably cost more to design, about the same to manufacture and be harder to develop for.

 

And apps are written to target the oldest active model, with new features and more capable machines mostly going under0utilised like PC. With a full new-gen reset, software technology takes a leap forwards, ditching old ways of doing things and embracing the new. Mesh shaders introduced next gen? Great, we'll use them. Blob shaders introduced two years later? We'll wait until there's enough people with tier-3 consoles before thinking about using them. Software will lag a good five years behind the hardware capabilities.

 

I'm in two minds about what will end up in xcloud.
If they upgrade pretty quickly then Lockhart for all the reasons you've given.
But later they leave it the more I could see it being Anaconda. Especially if they plan to use the blades for non xcloud uses, which they kind of indicated.

 

The latest report of kotaku said lockhart targets 1440p@60. Therefore this target will make visual quality close to xbox1.
And scaling back to xbox1 becomes relatively easy, or xbox1 is still the baseline in the upcoming years.

It seems that MS may not want a new generartion. What they do is only a "big update" of xbox1 family.

 

Out of interest, what is it you don't like about a 2 tiered console launch? It's really difficult to think of any other product category where you do not have a lot of options for everything you buy. From foods, to clothes, to furniture, to electronics, to transport to your home. Isn't is just a case of weighing up the options and buying what is best for you?

 

People fear the unknown. The fear that somehow it’s going to prematurely bottleneck the whole generation. The fear that everyone will cater for the shitty low spec box because everyone will buy that one instead.

while I don’t know what will happen; I do think PlayStation will be fine. Anaconda might have a smaller population though.

 

The console market is very much different from food, clothing, and furniture. Those things are items you buy, and they exist and function in their role for as long as they last. Console launches are more akin to other media formats where you might have a VHS and a Betamax competing for market share. Where the market for physical movies and movies has been limited to one dominant format, console games have had 2-3 competing platforms for recent history. It's really been 2 except for Xbox/PS2/GC, because after that Sony and Microsoft continued being direct competitors while Nintendo has done their own thing. But much like VHS vs Betamax, if one format takes out another other, and you picked the losing format, you end up having a platform that isn't supported by new content. That's not a situation you would be in if you bought a coffee table, shirt or sandwich.

With that history in mind, there are a few things I dislike about the abstract idea of a 2 tiered console launch. Keep in mind I'm not talking about things like PS3 and 360's launch where there were multiple versions of the systems that may not have identical features, but the core functionality (playing PS3 or 360 games) is identical. I'm talking about the hypothetical launch of 2 consoles, both marketed as "next gen", where one is slightly more powerful compared to the previous generation and the other is a true generational leap. Because in graphical power here, that's what we are talking about here when we compare One X to Lockhart and Anaconda.

I don't like the market confusion that a 2 tier console might cause. I thing you have a bit of a puzzle to solve by marketing 2 products with different performance profiles to a public that mostly still doesn't understand what 4k even means. I also think that the 2 tier pricing might be confusing to people.

I also don't like the possibility that the weaker console holds back the stronger one. If the rumors of Lockhart having a substantially weaker CPU are true, this would be the case, unless it's simply a repackaged One X and is treated as such. If games perform worse on Anaconda than they do on PS5 simply because the hardware cannot be leveraged properly to maintain Lockhart compatibility, that could be a problem.

Mostly I don't like the idea of Microsoft being beaten in the market so badly that they might withdraw from the console space. I think competition between platforms in the console space has lead to some great innovations, especially in controller design and what amounts to the social networking features one XBL and PSN. Achievements, trophies, friends lists... Steam copied most of these ideas and it's even trickled back to PC games. The entire industry is better for it. So at the end of the day I don't like the idea of Microsoft (or Sony) having a confusing launch with games that don't perform well against their competition that leaves the market with a single format monopoly. Well, I mean, I guess we would still have Stadia.

You mention options in your question. I'd agree that I like having options to weigh. But I'm scared giving people too many options day 1 might result in one company leaving the market and then we have less options after that.

 

Hypothetical? We already have that with the XB1/S and X1X which worked out fine.

So why should that be suddenly different for the next consoles from MS?

 

Those consoles didn't launch at the same time.

 

4 Pro and one x only give a resolution upgrade also.

 

I don't see how that matters.

 

Like this Scarlet1080p vs. Scarlett4k is suppose to. What do you expect more here?

 

b-BuT dYnAmIc ReSoLuTiOn...

 

You probably want to review this thread then.

 

Thanks for responding. I also do not like the idea of a low-configuration console holding back others but as I've posted a few times, I think there is a piece of the puzzle missing vis-à-vis Lockhart. It wouldn't serve Microsoft's interests for a cheap configuration to hamper their premium product. PlayStation's exclusives, presumably unhampered, would likely be leaps and bounds technically in size and scope ahead of Xbox. That's not good for Microsoft.

I don't think there would be a decision paralysis confusing people presented with two Xbox and two PlayStation options. Right now there are three hardware options for Xbox One (S, X and SAD) and two for PlayStation (PS4 and Pro). Every CE device, whether entertainment-focussed or not, comes in a plethora of options and configurations and consumers cope just fine. And the people who buy at launch tend to be the enthusiasts who know exactly what they want and know what they are getting into.

While I'm sure there are folks who buy products blind (i.e. without researching), I reckon the majority do weigh up their options before making a decision. That doesn't necessarily mean having the kind of knowledge to understand the number of ghz or number of compute units, but in broad terms, what differentiates two platforms and configurations in terms of key features. This does 1080p/60, this does 4k/60. Simples. If the customer isn't knowing this stuff, other compromised like reduced draw distance and shadow quality probably isn't a concern.

I also think an argument could be made that offering a genuinely powerful console at launch, for more money, could lure some gamers for whom performance is important from PC. Former Head of PlayStation Andrew House explained PS4 Pro was about preventing the loss of PlayStation customers to PC over the generation as console tech struggled with ever-demanding games but bowing in with a more expensive option (but still cheaper than PC unless you're upgrading a few components) may draw new customers in.

Competition is hugely important, it would be awful if Microsoft withdraw leaving just Sony and Nintendo. The market has proven itself big enough for three companies to prosper and sell tens of millions of consoles and it is why the Stadia-hate perplexes me. When has more competition ever been bad? Never, unless it's unfair competition.

 

Often, such as 8 bit home computer era causing a hugely fractured market, and the 90s PC competition seeing many PC brands die out because the business was unsustainable. Too much competition sees profits margins driven down, corner-cutting on quality to keep costs minimal, and companies die taking their employees with them, like biological competition for resources. A market/ecosystem can only sustain so many active participants and more than that is destructive. Survival of the fittest whittles them down to a few effective, efficient players. With any new market/environment/opportunity, you get an influx of new, competing entities which battle it out until a few survive and thrive.

 

Some games offer increased frame rates and/or visuals - at least on Pro, I'm sure it's the same with X.

True, but in both of the cases you cited, the market was an unhealthily over-saturated nascent market. 8-bit consoles (and 8-bit computers) was a market desperately exploding outwards trying to meet interest in genuinely new technology and trying to determine how much competition that market - because nobody knew how big the market really was. The same was true for the PC market in the 90s and early 2000s - while PCs themselves were established tech, a technologically-accessibly free market for PC builders/resellers was a new market.

Mature product markets, like the console market, will reach a natural equilibrium. That said, new competition to challenge existing manufacturers is essential for innovation and and progression, as is outright market disruption.