Xbox Next - MS keeping cost down their highest priority?

[Jov]

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,9091735^15866^^nbv^,00.html

What I found interesting:

Earlier this year, Microsoft began feeding games developers with details of Xbox Next in the hope of getting them started on developing games for the new platform, as well as eliciting feedback on its ideas.

The picture that has emerged is surprising. It seems Microsoft is more concerned with keeping the cost of the console low, rather than breaking new technological barriers.

Hows does this sit with some of the believers of MS using ATI's R5x0 or R6xx in Xbox Next?

Now don't start telling me MS will have it both ways and also release the console in 2005 (be it near the end of 2005 or not).

 

[Deadmeat]

..

This much is already known, Xbots refused to face the reality, however.

MS is not interested in delivering the PSX3 beating performance with Xbox Next; it wants to be out first, first to hit $199, then $149 without losing lots of money. MS's calculating that larger software supply + aggressive pricing will win over gamers...

 

[akira888]

The information posted here indicates ATI will be paid per game title sold rather than through a lump sum or a per-chip royalty. Even if the Xbox2 hardware is less expensive to produce than the PS3 hardware ATI has been on such a roll for so long (Consider the improvement from Rage Fury->Radeon->8500->9700) that it's conceivable that Xbox2 will be quite competitive to PS3.

 

[Bohdy]

It definitely seems that way, but I think that many current Xbox fans are going to be shocked by this new direction Microsoft is heading. It does seem to be in stark contrast to the current Xbox model and its draw.

"The biggest and the best" has always been Microsofts motto this gen.

 

[zurich]

Re: ..

This much is already known, Xbots refused to face the reality, however.

MS is not interested in delivering the PSX3 beating performance with Xbox Next; it wants to be out first, first to hit $199, then $149 without losing lots of money. MS's calculating that larger software supply + aggressive pricing will win over gamers...

Look how well that worked for Nintendo, heh.

 

[London Geezer]

Re: ..

This much is already known, Xbots refused to face the reality, however.

MS is not interested in delivering the PSX3 beating performance with Xbox Next; it wants to be out first, first to hit $199, then $149 without losing lots of money. MS's calculating that larger software supply + aggressive pricing will win over gamers...

Look how well that worked for Nintendo, heh.

Guess, in this case it's "look how well that worked for Sega, heh", since MS is heading toward a DC approach (release first, focus on software etc)... Now we just have to see whether the software will be good enough to handle Sony's hype, advantage in power, name recognition, and anything that got Sony where they are nowadays. It will be very interesting, and also very very exciting if they DO get to No 1 by the end of next generation...
I don't like leaders that are leaders for too long, Sony's now like mum, they're there, they're not going anywhere... But mums can get boring after a while... Not saying Sony are boring, the opposite. Not sure what i'm saying actually...
Time to go home...

 

[Teasy]

Look how well that worked for Nintendo, heh.

I suppose you would think that Nintendo were doing better if they had lost 2 billion dollars and where 3rd (dead last) in the console race?

P.S. I'm really not trying to take a shot at MS here. I just think some people need a reality check.

 

[jvd]

Well since when does cost and performance go hand in hand .


When does making a cheaper system have anythign to do with cost at launch.

Your assuming to much.

Ms may not want to waste money and thus have gone with a quicker scale tech (scaling in cost )

So that 3 years after launch they aren't still loosing money on the system.

They can still choose to loose money on the system at launch .

They can still have great tech that goes up against the ps3 .

I mean sega had great tech that went up well against the ps2. Its just that sega pulled the plug to quickly.

The dreamcast also cost much less than the ps2.

Not to mention the amount of money ms is already saving over sony in terms of designing and building fabs that ms never has to worry about making up .

 

[Deadmeat]

...

The DC lost because Sega had no cash, not because it sucked. DC ranks first as the most balanced and elegant console design of all time, a beautiful child whose life was cut short because it had a poor parent who couldn't pay the bill.

Should Xbox Next be the next DC while PSX3 is 100X worse reincarnation of PSX2, then it wouldn't fail because the parent has unlimited cash this time....

 

[wazoo]

Segafans should have a reality check too.

:?

 

[Teasy]

I'm not so sure about that. I think DC was an excellent system. It had lots of very high quality games and brilliant hardware. If Sega had the money to back it then I'm sure it would have continued along quite nicely instead of dying like it did.

 

[kyleb]

Re: ...

The DC lost because Sega had no cash, not because it sucked.

best i can tell, dreamcast lost becuase it's copy protection sucked.

 

[wazoo]

I'm not so sure about that. I think DC was an excellent system. It had lots of very high quality games and brilliant hardware. If Sega had the money to back it then I'm sure it would have continued along quite nicely instead of dying like it did.

as a Dc owner, I would say no. The hardware was not that good (except texture quality, and I've seen at-least-as-good on the ps2, the weakest of the three) and publishers left the boat before its death.

 

[jvd]

wazzoo the dc lasted about 2 years . Compare the first 2 years of dc games and the first 2 years of playstation games. The compare very nicely. If developers spent another 4 years making games for the dc you would see a ton of great looking games that like the ps2 would compare well with xbox games.

 

[Teasy]

Wazoo

You can't judge DC's hardware by comparing some of its games to the best looking games on a console released 2 years later that's had 5 years of programming put into it so far (PS2). If you have a technical argument for why you didn't rate DC's hardware highly then that's another story. Do you have such an argument?

The DC hardware was excellent, it was cheap, very efficient and fast for its time.

 

[Jabjabs]

I think MS will be trying to get resonably close to PS3 performance intially throuhg good software dev tools rather than brute force like power, software has no extra cost on the end hardware price remember.

As for the DC, it is the best console of all time. As has been said many times already here, an elegant yet simple machine that was powerful and worked, it was also the last great console in that developers where willing to try new things unlike today.

 

[London Geezer]

Not to mention the amount of money ms is already saving over sony in terms of designing and building fabs that ms never has to worry about making up .

Heh, thats the difference between "short-term" and "long-term"...
Sure, in the short-term Sony's investment is immense, however in the long term this investment will allow them to save moeny, since they have complete control over the manufacturing of the platform.
In the meantime, MS's initial investment might be much lower than Sony (and that's to be seen anyway), since they are once again buying "modified shelf parts" from other companies. However, the money they have to pay for each system will probably not change much during the platform's life, just look at the way Sony turned PS2 profitable compared to how much money MS is losing (has lost) on Xboxes. Unless the Xbox2 is profitable, or at least "not too lossy" at launch (look at Niontendo with the GC), MS will keep losing money on it for a long time. Sony can just keep on shrinking the chips and modify the PS3 to make it cheaper whenever they are in the position to do so.

Or that's the way i look at it...

 

[wazoo]

wazzoo the dc lasted about 2 years . Compare the first 2 years of dc games and the first 2 years of playstation games.

That is why I did not buy a ps2 in the first 2 years.

The compare very nicely. If developers spent another 4 years making games for the dc you would see a ton of great looking games that like the ps2 would compare well with xbox games.

I do not think so. We can debate a lot about the "what if" of the DC. I own more than 30 games on the DC, so I think I've a clear picture of what it has really achieved. We'll never know what it could have achieved, of course.

Anyway, IMHO, I think the ps2 compare much better to the xbox than the Dc would have to the ps2. I do not think the Dc would have handled the current multiplatform games (which look the same on all 3 platforms more or less).

Anyway, I did not said the DC games were bad. Samba de Amigo is still my favorite games this gen

 

[PC-Engine]

MS is licensing IP from ATI so they'll also be able to move to smaller die shrinks...

 

[Jov]

Re: ..

MS's calculating that larger software supply + aggressive pricing will win over gamers...

Do you really think MS will have the library to win the next round, especially without backward compatibility?

As mentioned already, it’s like doing a Sega with DC, but this time with about 1/3 of quality titles (I am being generous here).