The gaming market includes the PC market and Intel/AMD between them own 95%+ of that. Besides IBM is simply supplying CPUs to three competing game console manufacturers, and gaming is difficult to lock into any architecture, unlike the PC because gaming code is rewritten for each console. The early 8bit consoles (Sega/Nintendo) were dominated by the MOS Technology 6502 family of CPUs, but that didn't stop Sega master system switching to the 8 bit Zilog Z80A while Nintendo NES switched to the 8/16 bit 65c816 from MOS Technology. IBM may be supplying all three console manufacturers, but it doesn't have a lock on the market like the ix86 family does on the Windows PC market.
Toshiba Cell Based Console?
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
The gaming market includes the PC market and Intel/AMD between them own 95%+ of that. Besides IBM is simply supplying CPUs to three competing game console manufacturers, and gaming is difficult to lock into any architecture, unlike the PC because gaming code is rewritten for each console. The early 8bit consoles (Sega/Nintendo) were dominated by the MOS Technology 6502 family of CPUs, but that didn't stop Sega master system switching to the 8 bit Zilog Z80A while Nintendo NES switched to the 8/16 bit 65c816 from MOS Technology. IBM may be supplying all three console manufacturers, but it doesn't have a lock on the market like the ix86 family does on the Windows PC market.
99% probability they will extend the Cell processor, it was their plan from the very beginning, and the reason why they invested so heavily in it. Of course all this could mean nothing in 5 years time, but anyway, the plan is to use the R&D for the Cell project and work from that. Which means they will spend a LOT less for PS4 than they did for PS3. Point being, the massive investment wasn't really "for PS3", but "for Cell", which is planned to be used for a lot more than PS3.
But hey, you never know... Wouldn't be surprised if Sony falls in love with "something else" in the next 3 or 4 years and change their strategy completely. They sure as hell can't keep investing so much money for one single processor every 4 or 5 years. Way too risky.
crazygambit
Regular
I think it's pretty much a given that they at least want to go that direction. I guess it will depend on how successful the Cell is in other markets. But I think the original investment envisioned just putting more Cells in PS4 rather than desinging a new chip. Otherwise, why bother to make it so modular?
I would have thought the same as this. Surely Sony would have protected it's back, at least for 5 possibly 10 years..
I think it's somewhat funny that only one of the examples in the OP include an HD DVD drive while the others include DVD-9. Surely Toshiba, the developer of HD DVD, wouldn't put anything less than HD DVD in if they ever did develop a game console?
Which stupid company would put an old gen drive in a next gen system?
Oh, wait....
Which stupid company would put an old gen drive in a next gen system?
Oh, wait....
I don't know how far this goes, but early on, a Sony rep was asked (could be Kuturagi) about the possibility of MS or anyone else buying Cell to use in a future console. he replied by saying no other game centric system will have access to Cell.
I don't know if that was in the agreements that the game domain of Cell is to be exclusively to Sony or whether he was unreasonable.
I don't know if that was in the agreements that the game domain of Cell is to be exclusively to Sony or whether he was unreasonable.
Wow,i agree with you on everything.I also don't like the tech in these new consoles(512 Mb ram???) and i wouldn't mind paying 400 euros(or $$ if you are american) for a new console every 4-5 years.I can't understand the people who wish for the hardware companies to release consoles every 6-7 years.Oh and PC gaming is not the solution for me for a number of reasons.
I would too. the question is, would the mass market be okay with paying that much?
I agree with those people. the reason for many wanting that is that they want to see their purchased hardware getting back its money's worth by allowing devs enough time to fully exploit the system.
for those like me who love the tech side of the consoles as much as the games, they would want to feel there system's are obsolete before jumping to a new platform. they also want to feel a leap with the next installments instead of a simple upgrade.
I believe that one new console every 4-5 years is the model that Ms is going to follow.
IMO this is the most healthy business model on the presumption that Devs will continue making games for the previous model for the next 2 years so that gamers who already own it and don't wish to buy the new one will still enjoy new stuff for their consoles.
400euros every 4-5 years is nothing especially if you compare it with 2.000 every 2 years who will need a pc gamer.
IMO this is the most healthy business model on the presumption that Devs will continue making games for the previous model for the next 2 years so that gamers who already own it and don't wish to buy the new one will still enjoy new stuff for their consoles.
400euros every 4-5 years is nothing especially if you compare it with 2.000 every 2 years who will need a pc gamer.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I dont think so. You want your hardware out there as long as possible because releasing a new platform will only cost you money. Its also better for devs. New consoles always come with a new architecture forcing devs to rebuild everything they have done for the last gen console wich will also cost them alot of money. And also most consumers want consoles to last as long as possible because most people start buying consoles after they are on the market for 2 or 3 years (when they become cheap). Consumers would be pissed if they saw a new and better system only 1 or 2 years after they bought a system. Sure, there might still be coming games out for the older platform but most shops will convert their space for the new platform and most devs will also start working on the new platform.
I thought people at beyond 3d knew better than saying that a you have to buy a new pc for 2,000 every 2 years in order to play games..
For $1000 bucks you can easly build a pc that will run any game out there at good settings. If you countinously upgrade, you can keep playing every game out there without paying 2k every 2 years.
500 a year would easly keep you PC in the High end area, being able to play all the new games pretty much maxed. You can go as low as 500 every 2 years and still keep up.
So $1000 initial cost, $500 every year for 4 years...that's $2000. Count me out. That's an Xbox 360 premium, 5 years of Live, 3 extra wireless controllers, and 20 brand new games.
If a console owner wants to play games with good settings , he wont spend a cent and he will stay with his console.
Now if someone decide in early 2007 to build a gaming PC from the scratch, he will have to pay approximately :
DUAL CORE CPU : 350 EUROS
DX10 CARD : 600 EUROS
MOTHER BOARD : 150 EUROS
2GB DDR2 : 250 EUROS
H.D 320 GB : 120 EUROS
SOUND.AUDIGY4 : 70 EUROS
POWER SUPPLY : 130 EUROS
MOUSE LOGIT.G5 : 60 EUROS
NEW PC CASE : 100 EUROS
VISTA(HOME B.) : 170 EUROS
TOTAL: 2.000* EUROS
*plus: some time in the next 2 years 200-300 EUROS for a PC BlueRay or HD-DVD player.
First of all, you did not mention good settings before. And further, that rig that you showed right there, it wont run games at "good" settings, it will run everything more or less maxed until atleast mid 2008 maybe as far as 2009. (The 8800GTX runs Crysis maxed with all DX10 settings on at 30+ fps at high resolutions). If you need the very best graphics all the time then yes.. it will cost you. But if you only need to play games to medium\high settings (note : high is not the same as highest), you do not need a system remotely close to that.
Further, alot of the prices your putting up in your cute little is is total BS prices. You do not need to pay 100 euros for casing, you can get a proper one for $50. You do not need 320GB of harddrive space to run new games. You do not need a 70 euro sound car. You can find a adequate mobo for $80.. You can find good enough power supply's for $70...
And nobody will release a Bluray\HDDVD only game within the next 2 years for the PC, not unless the price of nextgen media drives go down by alot...
It true, a reasonable PC for games should be around 1000 Eur, not 2000, but it's still more than PS3 or 360 - plus you will have to do some upgrades in the future, if only 150Eur/year, it's still money that you spend.
For me, console gaming is the choice - not because of anything technical - it's just that I hate playing at my desk, I rather sit in my armchair in front of a big TV. Then, it's also the nice feeling of popping the disk and starting to play - I really hate the tweakings of the games on PC - but I can understand that for some this is actually the best part.
To stay on topic - I dont think it's very likely that Toshiba would enters the console market. It's far too complicated these days. It's not the same picture as in early 90, when Sony did. What would they bring to the table in order to make a competitive product?
Similar threads
