The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[TheChefO]

But how are you getting $50 revenue per person per year? By "per person" do you mean per-Live member, per-Live Gold member, per-console or something else?

It's $50 avg per online live member (silver or gold) which back in 2010 stood at around 2/3rds the total userbase and in 2005, it stood at less than 1/10th. So as a percentage of userbase, it's growing.

So you want people to ditch consoles and get an Apple TV, because that does all those things, interacts with tablets+phones and is integrated to the best online media store. Cheaper too.

Oops. Yeah, I'm not thinking this plan was all that well thought out (if this is indeed the plan...)

No they won't. They will have slightly better textures and correspondingly longer load times, but they will still be sub-HD with post processing AA vaseline on top, they will still lack effects even low end PCs have.

Indeed. Certainly nothing the 60+million xb360 users would jump up and down to pay $400 for ... In fact, at that point I imagine many would say "hey doesn't that new ipad hook up to the tv?" ... "yeah, but we could just use our old one and just buy the cheap new appleTV box"

Say bye bye to the multi-billion-dollar/yr golden goose...

I hope those rumours are planted to throw the competition off.

For gaming's sake, I hope so too.

It's not just MS that would be affected or console gaming. As we saw pretty much since xb360/ps3 were launched, console spec limited the scope of PC games for the past 7 years.

In order for that baseline to be lifted, nextgen boxes need to step up in spec properly to push new PC hardware.

There is nothing stopping MS continuing selling the 360 as a media-centric box while launching a new console.

Well put. Indeed.

 

[TheChefO]

About as many as if the same console was launched at $400 last year and will be price reduced to $200 in 2013 (okay, that's some pretty aggressive price dropping ).

The equation is simple IMO.

10x transistor budget = nextgen box.

I don't think either MS or Sony will launch at $200. The 7 year old xb360 arcade STILL sells for that right now. I also don't think your above scenario would match that transistor count but would instead be a console designed to half-ass it based on weak competition and a gullible populace.

If these companies are not interested in pushing the medium forward (and profiting a healthy stack in the meantime) then they are holding it back.

The essence of a successful business should be on providing a service/product to the best of ones ability, and being compensated for it.

This has been a long generation. There is plenty of scope for a console to be launched kinda midway through the next-generation from where it would normally have started. If next-gen had started with a $400 machine in 2011, what would it's specs be? That's the machine that could be on sale in 2013/2014 for $200, and it would still be the fabulous improvement over this gen that it was in 2010, only more people can afford to buy it now. Introducing that same box at the lower pricepoint isn't the usual for consoles, which normally launch at the top of the tech tree, but the whole business is changing and it may be identified that it's better to run your business that way. This has only been possible to consider because this gen was so long and technology has consolidated into standards.

You make a compelling argument, but I still say it's rubbish. Consoles are designed to last a certain period of time, yes? That's the concept, put a machine on the shelf for 5+ years and we guarantee you software developers, that the box will be there for a set period of time for you to invest time in learning the box and for you customer to have these games available on your box.

Your proposal is cutting the ("5year")lifecycle short of the new box by two years. So the new boxes would be replaced in 3 years.

How does that make sense for software developers or consumers?

And then changed it to a brand for families. If next-gen they can change their brand to "everyone except hardcore gamers" and lose all their hardcore gamers and yet increase their sales 300% buy selling to an untouched audience, shouldn't they do that?

That's fine if they can make up the lost revenue. Thing is, hardcore gamers buy lots of games, accessories, DLC, and movies through their xbox (not through their online DVD player).

It's true Wii had their fair share of additional revenue outside of the console purchase, but that market has waned as other casual centric markets have encroached.

The casual market butts them right smack up against the family-friendly and family-focused Nintendo and their plethora of heritage brands and IP ... oh and Apple with their plethora of FREE and cheap games (parents love that).

Now take away the core market from xbox, (starting from scratch at a new gen, remember) and I'm not sure MS would fair that well. Even though their smart phone product is >= iphone, it hasn't done well against Apple so I'm not sure the above venture would.


I think the recipe for success is to target at the hardware at the core (they don't need ads, they seek product), and advertise to the casual.

Did I mention FREE games on IOS and how much parents love that?

That assumes a new £200 won't be any better or different to the existing ones. There are many ways to differentiate and offer a better, more compelling experience that will sell a new box to customers who currently aren't interested.

True. And none of which are prevented from being applied to the 7 year old xb360.

Uhhhh, in a hypothetical universe where changing the retail price has no effect on console sales. Here's another random-number chart to consider...

...you can't apply rational, considered thinking to statistics and data to make sensible, reliable predictions when those stats and datapoints are completely made up and based on pure guesswork.

The 10m/yr was a reasonable average to show the effect of cost reductions and msrp reductions on the bottom line and how trivial hardware profit differences are in comparison to other avenues.

 

[bkilian]

Didn't seem worth a new thread but worth posting. A little odd they didn't save this for E3.

The discussion of the 47% share figure on GAF suggests they probably mean over the last year in the USA vs ps3 and wii .

It's something I saw them doing last year too. Things like hiding cloud storage (my favorite feature from last year) in a press release instead of calling it out in the keynote.
There'll be some cool new things this year, but I suspect it will once again be media focused. (Last time they spent an inordinate amount of time on some sports app I don't care about)

Indeed. Certainly nothing the 60+million xb360 users would jump up and down to pay $400 for ... In fact, at that point I imagine many would say "hey doesn't that new ipad hook up to the tv?" ... "yeah, but we could just use our old one and just buy the cheap new appleTV box"

Say bye bye to the multi-billion-dollar/yr golden goose...

To be clear, I am not advocating or suggesting that MS or Sony will be shipping neutered next gen boxes. I was just laying forth my arguments for why I can see them not pushing the envelope the same amount they did for the 360 (which shipped with a GPU that didn't have a retail equivalent until the next year, for instance). There _will_ be things a Sony or MS successor will do that nothing else you can buy will do. Sure, an Apple TV seems nifty, but it don't play AAA games. It doesn't connect you to xbox live and all your friends, it doesn't play dvds or blu-rays.

But make no mistake about it, the XBox org is no longer just competing with Sony, now we're competing with Apple and Google, with Sony a distant third. You can bet those competitive considerations have defined the featureset in any next gen box.

 

[TheChefO]

...being able to shrink your loss making, big, noisy, bruiser of a core-gaming machine into another 360S seems risky this time round.

Interesting point on this...

How long has xb360+HDD been at $299?

Answer:

July 2008.

Coming up on 4 years.

Now with such pricing stability being proven this gen, worst case scenario for MS/Sony looking to shrink their expensive silicon is a delayed pricecut to coincide with their delayed shrink.

Hardly the end of the world.

 

[TheChefO]

To be clear, I am not advocating or suggesting that MS or Sony will be shipping neutered next gen boxes. I was just laying forth my arguments for why I can see them not pushing the envelope the same amount they did for the 360 (which shipped with a GPU that didn't have a retail equivalent until the next year, for instance)....

I can certainly understand and agree with that too.

Shipping with something like a midrange 1 year old GPU (pitcairn) and a modest upgraded CPU (hexcore xcpu) would be sufficient.

But make no mistake about it, the XBox org is no longer just competing with Sony, now we're competing with Apple and Google, with Sony a distant third. You can bet those competitive considerations have defined the featureset in any next gen box.

Completely understand and agree there with the first part. Just not sold on the last part.

By effectively going head to head with Apple and Google without bringing a substantial advantage to the forefront, that's like asking for a winphone7 repeat.

Sure winphone7 had a nicer interface, snappier response, open spec, more stable, and by all accounts, should be competing well with iPhone and android .... but it isn't.

The approach should be one of ++ (xbox720 + features to compel casuals).

Not features + xb361.5

Where there is more money to be made, more investment should be expected. Not less.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Your proposal is cutting the ("5year")lifecycle short of the new box by two years. So the new boxes would be replaced in 3 years.

I'm surprised I have to explain this one to you - forwards compatibility. The next machine is 3 years later and provides an upgrade path. We're looking at ditching the fixed hardware and moving onto software platforms, even streaming gaming. 5 years after next-gen, 2018, is possibly the last hardware gen, if not the next one.

How does that make sense for software developers or consumers?

That's fine if they can make up the lost revenue. Thing is, hardcore gamers buy lots of games, accessories, DLC, and movies through their xbox (not through their online DVD player).

It's not like a somewhat lower spec'd machine means the core gamers ditch XB3 completely, not unless PS4 is a monster. If both machines are similarly spec'd, the only other place for gamers to go is PC. Maybe the loss from XB360 to XB3 would be 10-20% of gamers who want the very best. If MS can significantly grow the rest of their userbase, it's no great loss. It's all a matter of degrees.

The casual market butts them right smack up against the family-friendly and family-focused Nintendo and their plethora of heritage brands and IP ... oh and Apple with their plethora of FREE and cheap games (parents love that).

Now take away the core market from xbox, (starting from scratch at a new gen, remember)

It doesn't have to be a choice between hardcore and casuals. The majority of console gamers are neither. The majority buy consoles when they are cheap and old tech, to play some gamers. This is the core of the console business. Onto that core you can lead with some hardcore gamers in the first years, and hang some casuals off the end, or even branch out into a very casual market. But the core don't disappear just because the machine isn' the most powerful ever, or because it can run Kinect games.

True. And none of which are prevented from being applied to the 7 year old xb360.

Perhaps, although technology should be able to get more performance for $200.

The 10m/yr was a reasonable average to show the effect of cost reductions and msrp reductions on the bottom line and how trivial hardware profit differences are in comparison to other avenues.

Okay, but I hope you agree that install base is everything, and if low-priced hardware can outsell high-performance hardware (factoring in the issue of long-term price reductions, which is a doozy), then low price is the choice to make. That's an if on whichi you always side with "it's not gonna happen" and which I just recognise exists without trying to guess whci way it'll go.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sure winphone7 had a nicer interface, snappier response, open spec, more stable, and by all accounts, should be competing well with iPhone and android .... but it isn't.

iPhone is entrenched thanks to first-launch advantage of a stellar product (like PS1, only moreso), and unlike consoles, there's no end several years on and a restart from scratch. No matter what MS offers, the question consumers ask is, "why shouldn't I get an iPhone?" and as long it gets so much right, they have little reason to consider alternatives. Consdiering Android has the alternative option sewn up, room for a third OS is extremely limited.

At the moment the next-gen console race seems to have two contenders, so MS want to secure that before Apple and friends start messing it about.

 

[TheChefO]

I'm surprised I have to explain this one to you - forwards compatibility. The next machine is 3 years later and provides an upgrade path. We're looking at ditching the fixed hardware and moving onto software platforms, even streaming gaming. 5 years after next-gen, 2018, is possibly the last hardware gen, if not the next one.

How does that make sense for software developers or consumers?

You make a compelling case here and frankly, I could see some success if MS/Sony went with a lower tiered approach ($200 BOM, $200 MSRP)

But it would not stir the imagination of the public as new consoles typically do.

I firmly believe that the top priority as a hardware maker in this day and age is to create desire. Marketing can surely help in some regards, but you can only shine up a turd so much.

Remember, pricepoint isn't the roadblock it once was in years past ... the market today for disposable income is far more accepting of $500+ devices/toys, mostly thanks to Apple.

It's not like a somewhat lower spec'd machine means the core gamers ditch XB3 completely, not unless PS4 is a monster. If both machines are similarly spec'd, the only other place for gamers to go is PC. Maybe the loss from XB360 to XB3 would be 10-20% of gamers who want the very best. If MS can significantly grow the rest of their userbase, it's no great loss. It's all a matter of degrees.

And this point on collusion (Sony or MS wouldn't release a woefully underpowered competing machine without knowing what the other would do)...

If gamers aren't interested, they aren't interested. Bottom line, the games industry is not a necessity.
Some might say, "I think for the money, I'll go with Sony this time. They have franchises I'd like to play that I missed out on, and the online is free".
Some might go PC (raises hand) which opens a Pandora's box of unpaid games ...
Some might say "eh, I'll keep my old box ... " - With a three year window and underpowered hardware, the likelihood of new games not supporting the old consoles is slim.

Worst case scenario, they say "screw it, the experiences are the same as what I've seen over the past 7 years, the graphics look roughly the same, I think I'll go ipad, with cheap games ..."

Point is, there are other options ...and not all of them end up putting money in MS' pocket.

It doesn't have to be a choice between hardcore and casuals. The majority of console gamers are neither. The majority buy consoles when they are cheap and old tech, to play some gamers. This is the core of the console business. Onto that core you can lead with some hardcore gamers in the first years, and hang some casuals off the end, or even branch out into a very casual market. But the core don't disappear just because the machine isn' the most powerful ever, or because it can run Kinect games.

True, but they do disappear when they are no longer interested in the offering.

In MS' case, they are enjoying a highly profitable venture. They have convinced tens of millions of gamers that their online service is worth a regular yearly fee... even with ads now. Also convinced them to use their box for their media consumption.

All of which took place because they initially inspired those users to buy the box in the first place with teasers of Gears of War and thoughts of what else is possible if Gears can look that good.

As I said, there are other options ... and that is one heck of a golden goose to risk gambling away ...

Perhaps, although technology should be able to get more performance for $200.

Indeed.

But at this point, xb360a's BOM has to be somewhere near the $100 mark. You want mass adoption? Drop the xb360a's MSRP to $100 (no monthly fee/contract) and add whatever bells and whistles you want to xblg and watch the money roll in.

The best weapon in MS' arsenal to target the mass casual audience is the xb360a.

If all they care about is movies, music, online features, social, and a bit of gaming ... that's xb360a. And no matter how cheap the xb720 hardware design is, none of it will match the xb360a's value offering.

Okay, but I hope you agree that install base is everything, and if low-priced hardware can outsell high-performance hardware (factoring in the issue of long-term price reductions, which is a doozy), then low price is the choice to make. That's an if on whichi you always side with "it's not gonna happen" and which I just recognise exists without trying to guess whci way it'll go.

I do agree it is everything.

However, I propose that a multi-generational approach can capture far more than a muddled middle-ground one size fits all. It's why despite all of Apple's hype, android still sells more. Targetting different market segments for their needs.

xb360 for the low end/casuals
xb720 for the high end

The high end of yesterday becomes today's casual.

When yesterday's casual (6770) becomes today's high end, is when gamers start to feel played/abused/used/tricked and at that point, I'm not sure how many would be willing to pony up the $50/yr anymore. I'm not sure how many would stay an audience for MS to stream ads to. I'm not sure how many would buy games from their marketplace. And I'm not sure how many would use those former advantages as a reason to buy into an MS ecosystem for other devices...

I don't know how many, but I do know that it's less than now.

New customers that might be interested in MS console offerings? If they weren't interested in lower priced consoles which do all the periphery (outside of games) that the new ones do, I'm not seeing how they will be inspired to buy the more expensive model which offers roughly the same experiences and only marginally better games...

 

[TheChefO]

...At the moment the next-gen console race seems to have two contenders, so MS want to secure that before Apple and friends start messing it about.

Right.

And I agree that this concept is a smart one (they're a bit late).

However, if competing with Apple and friends is a serious consideration, the smart thing to do is make this proposition as nasty as possible and hope their share holders aren't happy to go along for the ride.

EX:

Sony saw MS entering their ring with an expensive to produce hi-powered console (necessary as the hype prior to ps2 was on full). So after the MS console was on market for 6 months, price drop $100. Further pricing pressure throughout the rest of the gen forced MS to lose ~$4 Billion in the process.

Unfortunately for Sony, MS stuck it out as Sony threatened MS' core business.

Apple on the other hand may not be willing to lose Billions of dollars to win a market (livingroom) that they are already dabbling in (iPad).

One way to ensure that, don't make the proposition of a console an easy one, nor profitable from the outset.

By making xb720 profitable from day one, the ability to compete with this offering by building an above spec console and selling it for a premium (or parity) against the market leader(s) is now left wide open for Apple and friends to take advantage of.

Sell a $400-500 BOM box for $100 loss (or break even) and the proposition becomes a lot more risky for Apple. How do they compete with this? The low end is covered with entrenched consoles (xb360/ps3) and huge libraries, and the high end is covered with xb720/ps4.

They could try uber high-end $700 console, but this won't get them far.

Best case scenario for them would be to try and compete head to head with similar BOM at similar price (~$500). With this disadvantages of dev/pub support, IP, new demographic (gamers don't buy Apple, people that happen to game on a device they already own, buy apple), no online community.

And this, with added pressure from shareholders wondering why their new venture is making billions as all their others have ...

Meanwhile, MS/Sony are happily not making a dime off of hardware while raking in Billions from their platforms in games and services.

 

[steviep]

You can create a compelling new experience to sell to consumers without a massive superbox. In fact, that's what the most successful ventures of this generation have done (across all of the consoles).

What I'm saying is the people salivating over Gears of War probably aren't the ones sliding through the Metro Interface with Kinect looking for the latest Desperate Housewives streamer.

 

[TheChefO]

...the ones sliding through the Metro Interface with Kinect looking for the latest Desperate Housewives streamer.

Agreed.

And those people are served well with xb360a ... and will continue to be served well by this same architecture with new bells and whistles added via xbl...

That doesn't erase the fact that there are still those which are looking for and expecting a generational leap from the new box.

And the new box, years from now, will become the casual box for which the new new metro and even more desperate housewives will be enjoyed by casuals.

 

[function]

Self contradiction here ??

The 360 with four times the ram will rock the world, but the old hardware won't do at all ??

All the features you list requires an upgraded HDMI implementation and some software, nothing else. There is nothing the 360 CPU+GPU can't handle there.

Cheers

I don't know why you'd intentionally misrepresent the points I made (despite clearly defined examples) by creating grossly distorted caricatures of them and then attempting to pit them against each other. Strawman vs strawman is intellectually dishonest and after 10 years reading this forum I honestly expected better from you of just about anyone of the forum.

I never said that an Xbox with four times the ram would "rock the world", I said that I would be able to see the difference in quadrupled textures resolutions, and that it's a big difference. And it fucking is! I also said that quadrupling ram would allow larger areas to be stored in memory with currently desired levels of detail. You didn't attempt to argue with any of these points - you simply skipped them and called them ambiguously "rocking the world" and then proceeded to compare them with none-game functionality (wtf?) that is dependant on new hardware.

And no, you're wrong, an "upgraded HDMI implementation and some software, nothing else" can not duplicate the abilities of better Kinect camera with higher resolution 3D camera and optical camera, and it can not magically boost the USB ports on the 360 up to USB3 levels so they can take 1920 * 1080 * 60fps input.

And even if it could (and it can't), and all that was required was a redesign of of the combined HANA / southbridge chip (it somehow reprogrammed the existing Kinect sensor and the USB ports), why the hell would someone want to buy another Xbox 360 when the Xbox 3 was out? And why would MS want to replace the 360 - now a deprecated value focused gaming and media system - with a more expensive depreciated and value focused gaming and media system. That would be stupid - they should be trying to move customers on to the new system on which they need to build up a user base, and which will secure them customers for longer and generate more revenue.

And finally, the contradiction you tried to create of "four times the ram will rock the world" vs "old hardware won't do at all" falsely contents that if someone appreciates the benefits of more memory they will be somehow unable to notice the befits of a higher than 640 x 480 webcam or unable to understand that Kinect 2 is able to read their face or track their fingers. That is entirely illogical.

 

[function]

Why on earth would you even consider this as a "next gen" system? You're seriously arguing they should just quadruple the RAM and call it a new console?

A next generation system is one that replaces the old generation. It's like the last generation system, only it's the next one.

Maybe you've heard of the Wii.

Somehow, you think that someone saying they could notice and appreciate the difference in what four times the RAM could offer is the same as actually arguing that console vendors should just increase the ram by four times and call it a day. I'm sorry, but I can't help you with this problem.

So, do you think the same for all 3 next gen consoles or just xbox?

Maybe you could point out to me where the other 2 next gen systems have a similar jump?

What's risky is making a low power machine that people dont want. You need the core gamers as your base.

What's risky is making a system that people don't want. If about half of your revenue is coming from none gaming activities, and you know from market research that lots of none core-gamers are spending money on your system, you have additional concerns to whether core gamers will want your system. It feels like I'm stating the obvious, but apparently I'm not.

What that chart shows is that 360, which did what you dont want hardware wise, has been a pretty hefty success. They'll likely be looking to ape that next gen. The only way you get high sales in year 5, 6, 7, is with a machine with hardware that stands the test of time.

"What you don't want". What I want is irrelevant. My point has been that what the 360 did may not be do-able next gen. Your counter point is that the 360 did what the 360 did.

Your counter point does not actually address my point. Because my point is that what the 360 did this gen may not be do-able next gen, while your counter point is "look what the 360 did last gen".

360S was nothing special, all consoles make a slim version later on. It's just the natural way of things.

My point is that what the 360 did this gen may not be do-able next gen. So what the 360 did - that you say all consoles did (no, they didn't actually) - may not be do-able in the next gen.

At this point someone will chip in with a comment about how "are you saying that there will never be a node shrink again lol rofflecakes". No, there will be future shrinks, but unless they allow for the same patterns and timetables and cost reductions that they did this gen, they won't actually allow for the same patterns and timetables and cost reductions that they did this gen.

Therefore, it may not be possible to do next gen what the 360 did this gen, because it will only be possible to do things differently.

 

[TheChefO]

I don't know why you'd intentionally misrepresent the points I made (despite clearly defined examples) by creating grossly distorted caricatures of them and then attempting to pit them against each other. Strawman vs strawman is intellectually dishonest and after 10 years reading this forum I honestly expected better from you of just about anyone of the forum.

I never said that an Xbox with four times the ram would "rock the world", I said that I would be able to see the difference in quadrupled textures resolutions, and that it's a big difference. And it fucking is! I also said that quadrupling ram would allow larger areas to be stored in memory with currently desired levels of detail. You didn't attempt to argue with any of these points - you simply skipped them and called them ambiguously "rocking the world" and then proceeded to compare them with none-game functionality (wtf?) that is dependant on new hardware.

And no, you're wrong, an "upgraded HDMI implementation and some software, nothing else" can not duplicate the abilities of better Kinect camera with higher resolution 3D camera and optical camera, and it can not magically boost the USB ports on the 360 up to USB3 levels so they can take 1920 * 1080 * 60fps input. It is staggering to have you suggest this is the case.

And even if it could (and it can't), and all that was required was a redesign of of the combined HANA / southbridge chip (it somehow reprogrammed the existing Kinect sensor and the USB ports), why the hell would someone want to buy another Xbox 360 when the Xbox 3 was out? And why would MS want to replace the 360 - now a deprecated value focused gaming and media system - with a more expensive depreciated and value focused gaming and media system. That would be stupid - they should be trying to move customers on to the new system on which they need to build up a user base, and which will secure them customers for longer and generate more revenue.

And finally, the contradiction you tried to create of "four times the ram will rock the world" vs "old hardware won't do at all" falsely contents that if someone appreciates the benefits of more memory they will be somehow unable to notice the befits of a higher than 640 x 480 webcam or unable to understand that Kinect 2 is able to read their face or track their fingers. That is entirely illogical, and the argument isn't sustainable in even a disingenuous troll sized post.

For some reason, of all the post's I've encountered here in recent years yours has the honour (?) of bugging me more than any other.

While true that an xb360 currently has a limitation of usb2 for bandwidth of any proposed kinect2, the architecture could surely support a retrofitted motherboard with support for usb3 or firewire.

At this point someone will chip in with a comment about how "are you saying that there will never be a node shrink again lol rofflecakes". No, there will be future shrinks, but unless they allow for the same patterns and timetables and cost reductions that they did this gen, they won't actually allow for the same patterns and timetables and cost reductions that they did this gen.

Therefore, it may not be possible to do next gen what the 360 did this gen, because it will only be possible to do things differently.

I'd say the safe bet then is to sell at or near cost. When cost reductions present themselves, pass them onto the customer and reap the rewards of an expanding userbase.

 

[Rangers]

Maybe you could point out to me where the other 2 next gen systems have a similar jump?

I think I'm starting to get confused here. Huh? Are you talking about PS3 and Wii, or PS4 and Wii U?

What's risky is making a system that people don't want. If about half of your revenue is coming from none gaming activities, and you know from market research that lots of none core-gamers are spending money on your system, you have additional concerns to whether core gamers will want your system. It feels like I'm stating the obvious, but apparently I'm not.

Where is a link that half of revenue is from non gaming activities? Or the non-core gamer research? Most non core gamers would probably be buying for Kinect. I dont think anybody is buying an Xbox for 199 to pay 50 a year to use as a netflix/movie streaming box when every crappy DVD player for $30 has that built in free. They are buying for games, pure and simple, the other stuff is great, but you need to be bought for gaming or there are much cheaper alternatives. For that matter, why would anybody choose a 360 for media use when much if is walled off behind a 59.99 per year Live Gold fee, where PS3 has no yearly fee for that same content?

"What you don't want". What I want is irrelevant. My point has been that what the 360 did may not be do-able next gen. Your counter point is that the 360 did what the 360 did.

You're arguing as far as I can tell for a low spec system, that a high spec system is doomed, and I'm showing the high spec system last time around did pretty well for itself. This goes against your argument.

Your counter point does not actually address my point. Because my point is that what the 360 did this gen may not be do-able next gen, while your counter point is "look what the 360 did last gen".

" May not be". Of course, it's just our opinions. But I'm right and you are wrong The last console could have cost $1k and sold 500 million units, and you could still come in and say "look, the next console needs to be $1 or it's dead because of x y and z". The point is whats the arguments for that, and I dont find yours compelling.

At this point someone will chip in with a comment about how "are you saying that there will never be a node shrink again lol rofflecakes". No, there will be future shrinks, but unless they allow for the same patterns and timetables and cost reductions that they did this gen, they won't actually allow for the same patterns and timetables and cost reductions that they did this gen.

wat

Therefore, it may not be possible to do next gen what the 360 did this gen, because it will only be possible to do things differently.

Low spec core console is a very very bad idea. It can work, but only if the competition is equal or worse. Even then nowdays I think iPad/smartphones might be a threat as the cycle wears on if you go too low.

I still wish to know if you specifically think PS4 and Wii U should also be low spec.

It seems to me if you're serious, your first argument should be that Live needs to be free. $60 a year to access the media functions is a way bigger deal than your whacked out it needs to be low end crap so people will want it more anti-sensible stuff. For 5 years that's $300, that dwarfs whatever hardware differences you're trivializing over.

 

[TheChefO]

Where is a link that half of revenue is from non gaming activities? Or the non-core gamer research? Most non core gamers would probably be buying for Kinect.

He may be thinking of the Bloomberg article I linked to where it said half of the money MS gets from live comes from xblg fees, and the other half is from all the other services.

I dont think anybody is buying an Xbox for 199 to pay 50 a year to use as a netflix/movie streaming box when every crappy DVD player for $30 has that built in free...why would anybody choose a 360 for media use when much if is walled off behind a 59.99 per year Live Gold fee, where PS3 has no yearly fee for that same content?

Both good points which illustrate the importance of providing premium gaming experiences as the first priority. Just because it can ALSO do these other things doesn't mean everyone wants a $30 DVD player for $400+. Some logic needs to be applied here WRT order of operations ... lol

1) sell game system to hardcore
2) social effect of positive reviews on game experiences to hardcore's friends spurring friend sales
3) sales of xblg become necessary to share these experiences online
4) which leads to movie sales etc.

Nobody goes to the store and says, "Hey wheres that new xb720? I can't wait to start streaming 1080p movies on that shinny new $400 bad boy!!! The ol' xb360 just wasn't cutting it for the newer movies"

Seriously people need to use their heads here a bit.

You know what most people do on their smart phones? Talk and text! So I guess we should go ahead and neuter that iPhone5 spec and save Apple a ton in R&D because the chipset needed to talk and text is <$1!

" May not be". Of course, it's just our opinions. But I'm right and you are wrong The last console could have cost $1k and sold 500 million units, and you could still come in and say "look, the next console needs to be $1 or it's dead because of x y and z". The point is whats the arguments for that, and I dont find yours compelling.

The argument of caution for future node shrinks is valid, but that doesn't mean one should approach it as if a node shrink will never happen again.

Simply producing nextgen boxes at 28nm to meet a reasonable BOM and selling at or near this BOM with the expectation that it will eventually be reduced and allow for lower MSRP is the way to go.

Not "We'd better start our BOM at $200 cause we may never get a shrink again and this is the pricepoint we need to eventually be at, so let's start there!"

Low spec core console is a very very bad idea. It can work, but only if the competition is equal or worse. Even then nowdays I think iPad/smartphones might be a threat as the cycle wears on if you go too low.

Indeed. If they go too low, interest will wane and push customers elsewhere...

Although I wouldn't worry about competition from ipad or smartphones ... you're forgetting that node shrinks are impossibly difficult and prohibitive to the point where one should not expect it... So that leaves more powerful ipads offf the drawing board as their powerdraw is limited by batter power.

No new nodes, no more power increases for ipad/iphone.

 

[Gubbi]

I don't know why you'd intentionally misrepresent the points I made (despite clearly defined examples) by creating grossly distorted caricatures of them and then attempting to pit them against each other.

I don't think I misrepresented anything, you wrote:

You could quadruple the texture resolution (with room to spare) and that would stand out a frikkin mile.

And just repeated the same:

I said that I would be able to see the difference in quadrupled textures resolutions, and that it's a big difference. And it fucking is! I also said that quadrupling ram would allow larger areas to be stored in memory with currently desired levels of detail.

Hence my "rock the world" comment.

Wrt.

You didn't attempt to argue with any of these points

No, because your post was a response to my post, saying:

No they won't. They will have slightly better textures and correspondingly longer load times, but they will still be sub-HD with post processing AA vaseline on top, they will still lack effects even low end PCs have.

Bottomline, just quadrupling memory isn't going to be enough

And no, you're wrong, an "upgraded HDMI implementation and some software, nothing else" can not duplicate the abilities of better Kinect camera with higher resolution 3D camera and optical camera, and it can not magically boost the USB ports on the 360 up to USB3 levels so they can take 1920 * 1080 * 60fps input.

Ok, so it requires an upgraded HDMI interface, one USB3 interface and some software.

.....why the hell would someone want to buy another Xbox 360 when the Xbox 3 was out?

For the same reason people bought PS2s after the PS3 launched: Price and a huge catalogue of discounted games.

Cheers

 

[bkilian]

While true that an xb360 currently has a limitation of usb2 for bandwidth of any proposed kinect2, the architecture could surely support a retrofitted motherboard with support for usb3 or firewire..

I wouldn't bet on it. Just the switch to a single chip for CPU and GPU took a large engineering effort due to the reduced latency causing problems in games. Retrofitting for usb3 might not be worth the effort.

 

[ERP]

I wouldn't bet on it. Just the switch to a single chip for CPU and GPU took a large engineering effort due to the reduced latency causing problems in games. Retrofitting for usb3 might not be worth the effort.

I know there were a number of seemingly trivial cost saving hardware changes that could not be made because seemingly trivial timing changes broke existing titles.

 

[bkilian]

I know there were a number of seemingly trivial cost saving hardware changes that could not be made because seemingly trivial timing changes broke existing titles.

We had a bug where a single line change in the code that didn't change the logic at all caused unacceptable performance in a completely different component. All a timing change. Our tolerances are very tight. For testing the "XAM" (the always running guide stuff that has the memory and cpu carveout), we often have to disable some components to be able to fit our tests in.