The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[wco81]

TVs come with cameras these days? Sigh. Another beautiful theory killed by ugly facts.

Some TVs have optional web cams, as well as optional Wifi modules. Best Buy even advertises them but I really don't get why people would want to use Skype in the living room more than on their computers or now, tablets.

Even though Skype is not a killer app. if MS pushes it, it might alienate wireless carriers whose cooperation they need to push Windows mobile devices.

 

[TheChefO]

...if MS pushes it, it might alienate wireless carriers whose cooperation they need to push Windows mobile devices.

Ms hasn't exactly been embraced by the mobile phone carriers. Win8 and win8 phones will be selling on the back of the ecosystem. Not from any favors from carriers.

I fully expect Skype integration for xb720 as well as a plethora of other software/app features. They are (relatively) cheap to implement and provide a good bang/buck for consumers. But I'm not seeing where their inclusion somehow offsets the need for improved hardware, nor excuses it.

Those things are bonus features to help spur the adoption of the ecosystem everywhere. They aren't core features to move new hardware.

 

[Davros]

Epic Games: Next-Gen console specs are not powerful enough

http://www.examiner.com/article/epic-games-next-gen-console-specs-are-not-powerful-enough

Today myself and other devout followers of the teachings of the Gaming Gods performed the time honored holy ceremony of "The Laughing"

 

[joker454]

Assuming it's not just Epic sabre ratling again leaves us with the following posits:

1) Console gamers find Nvidia 580 level of hardware to offer "meh" improvement in visuals.
2) Epics next gen vision needs NVidia 680 level of hardware.
3) Epic was not satisfied with next gen level of hardware shown, implying not up to 680 level.

If the above is true, then I feel really bad for the core gamers waiting all these years for consoles to up the visual standard.

 

[babybumb]

Actually the main reason it lasted so long was because it could. All 3 parties had tenable positions. If for example, it's clear Wii U is going to flame out very fast, and within 2-3 years Nintendo is forced to release a new console (possibly even one more powerful than XB3/PS4), that could cut the cycle shorter than this time.

At this point the business plan for Wii U looks shaky as hell. Basically Iwata banking his seat on 1st party games and a tablet for casuals to sell this thing. 2013 is going to be really rough in sales if competition has $100 cheaper prices and more releases. Wii U needs to have a huuge base before PS4/720 to be taken seriously by publishers.

 

[Acert93]

Assuming it's not just Epic sabre ratling again leaves us with the following posits:

1) Console gamers find Nvidia 580 level of hardware to offer "meh" improvement in visuals.
2) Epics next gen vision needs NVidia 680 level of hardware.
3) Epic was not satisfied with next gen level of hardware shown, implying not up to 680 level.

If the above is true, then I feel really bad for the core gamers waiting all these years for consoles to up the visual standard.

If the rumored specs are true we are not looking at GF 580 level GPUs but crappy Radeon 6670 level performance. That is a MASSIVE gap.

 

[McHuj]

http://www.examiner.com/article/epic-games-next-gen-console-specs-are-not-powerful-enough

Maybe my reading comprehension isn't what it used to be, but I don't get how he deduced that conclusion from that single quote (which wasn't a quote but a paraphrasing). That's how rumors get started. [Not saying that couldn't be true]

 

[dagamer]

Everyone remember that $99 Xbox 360 from a few weeks ago? At this point, it doesn't really make sense for most people since a) it costs more than buying a console outright and b) the console is 7 years old, if you wanted one, you probably bought it already and c) it was only available at retail Microsoft stores

HOWEVER...

I think that it was a dry run for subsidizing the next Xbox. Think about it. Current console is still somewhat expensive at $199 for the base SKU totally stripped down and that's after 7 years. The current 360 launched when the original Xbox was already $149 and that was after 4 years. Without a doubt, the next Xbox is going to be expensive, regardless of the silicon packed into it.

While they could indeed go the PS3 route and charge a ton of money while loosing a lot more (sell a $600 system that cost $849 to make), a subsidy via a subscription would be a great way to a) offset initial costs for early buyers b) jump start the next console generation in this crappy economy and c) allow for more expensive parts while hiding the true price of the console. Sell a $500 console for $200 initially and you're all set (plus hook them onto the benefits of Xbox Live so they will pay for it when the subscription ends). The smartphone market perfected it making a $649 iPhone seem affordable, so why not do the same with expensive consoles? It's GENIUS.

And if you don't like subscriptions, you can pay the full $499!

 

[Davros]

iirc the unreal engine 4 video they put out was running on 3x580's
cant see how a console would match that

 

[dagamer]

iirc the unreal engine 4 video they put out was running on 3x580's
cant see how a console would match that

1) You're talking about the Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan demo from last year, not UE4.
2) That demo was unoptimized, which is why it ran on 3 GTX 580s in SLI.
3) They've since said that demo runs on a single GTX 680 when properly optimized.
4) There are no public videos of Unreal Engine 4 in action, only screenshots from the Wired article.

and anticipating a future point

5) You cannot directly compare the GPU in a console with that in a PC, since console games are far more optimized and don't have an OS and it's 3D API (DirectX, OpenGL) to deal with.

 

[RudeCurve]

Samaritan was UE 3.9

A GTX 680 with 2GB of RAM is $500

Now add CPU, Blu-ray drive, HDD, motherboard, power supply, case, controllers etc and you're looking at a total cost of $800. I don't see SONY or MS coming out with a $800 console unless it also functioned as a PC...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

5) You cannot directly compare the GPU in a console with that in a PC, since console games are far more optimized and don't have an OS and it's 3D API (DirectX, OpenGL) to deal with.

That may change if the software becomes portable across devices. I don't expect that to be the case with console specific titles, but don't be too surprised to find an API separating the code from the hardware so it can be run on other deivces.

 

[McHuj]

Samaritan was UE 3.9

A GTX 680 with 2GB of RAM is $500

Now add CPU, Blu-ray drive, HDD, motherboard, power supply, case, controllers etc and you're looking at a total cost of $800. I don't see SONY or MS coming out with a $800 console unless it also functioned as a PC...

That's not what a GTX680 actually costs though. And it's not what it would cost Sony or MS if they bought the IP. With such limited supply and being the current performance king, wouldn't surprise me if the margins on the Kepler silicon were over a 100%.

 

[RudeCurve]

That's not what a GTX680 actually costs though. And it's not what it would cost Sony or MS if they bought the IP. With such limited supply and being the current performance king, wouldn't surprise me if the margins on the Kepler silicon were over a 100%.

Of course that's not how much it costs, but going from $800 to what $400? I think not.

 

[Rangers]

It's probably not even close to what it costs though. 680 isn't a big chip. Most tear downs estimate chips at ~$100. The board cost of a 680 might be higher but it includes RAM etc.

680 is not THAT hugely much bigger than RSX started out.

 

[XpiderMX]

Of course that's not how much it costs, but going from $800 to what $400? I think not.

Xbox 360 was $299/$399 at 2005...

 

[TheChefO]

...While they could indeed go the PS3 route and charge a ton of money while loosing a lot more ...

People need to come to grips with the reality of the initial ps3 pricepoint vs xb360.

The big reason the BOM was significantly more than xb360 was the BRD drive which was completely new at the time. There are other peripheral reasons that increased the price, but the big driver for a $600 loss leading ps3 wasn't because of the GPU/CPU budget.


Keep in mind, the CPU and GPU budgets for both PS3 and xb360 were roughly the same.

Also keep in mind the cheapest xb360 (xb360 core/arcade) was $300.

Yes, this cheap model was sold at a loss, but nobody in their right mind thinks that the xb360 arcade cost MS $800 to produce.

Most likely the BOM for xb360 arcade was in the $400-450 range.

I see nothing prohibitive for MS/Sony to dedicate this same silicon budget for xb720/ps4.

If MS/Sony want to use a subscription model, they could throw in the motion controls with an initial price of $200, but with that it would have to be a disabled console while not net connected, otherwise some people will be quick to signup and disconnect their box (aka $500-600 xb720 for $200).

 

[steviep]

1) You're talking about the Unreal Engine 3 Samaritan demo from last year, not UE4.
2) That demo was unoptimized, which is why it ran on 3 GTX 580s in SLI.
3) They've since said that demo runs on a single GTX 680 when properly optimized.

Know what that "optimization" was?
A massive drop in IQ.

720p, shader-based AA (puke) and on and on. And it still needed a single 680, which is more hardware power than what's in the consoles.

5) You cannot directly compare the GPU in a console with that in a PC, since console games are far more optimized and don't have an OS and it's 3D API (DirectX, OpenGL) to deal with.

You realize there are APIs on the consoles, too?

 

[pjbliverpool]

680 is not THAT hugely much bigger than RSX started out.

Yeah it's around 20% bigger. Still draws about 3x the power though which is the main reason it's unlikely to end up in a console.

 

[RudeCurve]

Xbox 360 was $299/$399 at 2005...

Thanks for proving my point.