Xbox Next - MS keeping cost down their highest priority?

[Jov]

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 .

Is this a contradiction to how much Sony is currently saving by reducing their chips and utilizing these results in other Sony products, thus further savings?

 

[Lazy8s]

Because the payoff for a manufacturer in releasing a console is often the profit they start making several years in to its life cycle (assuming the platform reaches critical mass), conclusions can’t be drawn as to the effectiveness of a Dreamcast-like strategy since its cycle was aborted early due to a lack of funding. Dreamcast sold at a rate similar to what GC and Xbox would later achieve and had the advantage and momentum of a head start. SEGA would’ve been depending on first-party software sales - which were already at an impressive average of over 200k units per release in the US - and their upcoming hardware cost reductions like the falloff to clearance prices for SDRAM and the DC-on-a-chip technology they had developed (and were even licensing out to other vendors like Pace for their set-top box.)

Once a console’s established itself within a generation, it’ll continue to sell on the strength of its momentum, its library, and the consumer base - it doesn’t need to keep up in graphics. And like the PS2 struggles with Xbox ports such as Wreckless or Splinter Cell, there’d be nothing unexpected in how the DC would’ve compared unfavorably in multiplatform ports from the PS2 (though, one of the only examples of a title developed multiplatform between the two systems before DC support was dropped, Soul Reaver 2, was looking better on the DC interestingly.)

Still, the Dreamcast manages to be comparable to the PS2, its nearest surviving competitor. With less texture breakdown from alaising through better filtering (the DC even proving it can handle anisotropic in-game within the two short years of limited development it saw) and a more robust calculation for rendered texels when mip-mapping, DC’s texturing is sharper and of greater integrity. And it presents this in a more solidly-composed image, reducing depth error for objects in distant view with higher average Z-precision as well as having more display memory for the texture/image buffer so that buffer height, full-res updates and compatibility with a whole range of non-interlaced monitors needn’t be sacrificed in some top-end games. From these strengths of fidelity and solidity, custom titles for SEGA’s system could’ve held their own, allowing for graphical styles of greater definition further along the lines that Sonic Adventure 2, Samba de Amigo, and Jet Set Radio headed. The PS2 would've definitely been showing more complexity and sustaining around twice the geometry rate, though (however, the effect of which seems to be noticeably diminishing in the face of good artwork as, for example, models with several times the polygon count of Gran Turismo cars don’t look much better.)

 

[Brimstone]

Until Microsoft sets a firm release date, only then will the Xbox 2 strategy become crystal clear. They were probably worried about being late again, so they pushed hard to be able to launch in 2005 if necessary. Now that it looks as if Sony will wait until 2006, Microsoft will reevaluate its console technology roadmap.

 

[nobie]

DC was in a hopeless position, their aren't enough game players to support four different platforms on the market.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

DC was in a hopeless position, their aren't enough game players to support four different platforms on the market.

They just had a worthless management and a +1billion dollar debt, whicj normally would kill a company of that size... There is place for four players on the market, the total potential user base is big enough for it.

 

[Guden Oden]

Lazy,

You look back through history with somewhat more than rose-colored glasses. Your love for a piece of plastic effectively makes you totally blind I have to say. It's nice to be a fan of a piece of hardware, just as it's nice to be a fan of a rock group or a football team (and with that I mean the REAL kind of football which is appreciated by a major part of the Earth's population and is actually played with one's feet).

You however seem to have crossed the line over into fanatic, which is uncool. You speak of momentum and advantage of a head start, what ADVANTAGE? That's a ludicrous thing to say, despite the head-start, Sega was steamrolled almost into oblivion by the late-starter. Does that speak of momentum? Hm? Jesus.

You repeatedly say DC is comparable to PS2 again and again when clearly that is not the case and never has been. Yeah, it has a few advantages here and there (primarily regarding texturing), but that is absolutely not enough to bring it up to a comparable level. It headstarted because it's based on simpler and less powerful technology, and that's it.

There's no comparison between DC titles and PS2 titles, just by looking at them it's easy to see PS2 is the overall more powerful piece of kit. Doesn't mean DC games are crap or not fun to play, I know people still play Atari VCS games too for example. Doesn't mean they don't understand that more recent hardware is more powerful; something you constantly refuse to do.

Arguing about greater Z-precision and other such ludicrous statements is pointless when even a game like Jak2 (which has a far greater draw distance than any console title I can think of) has no Z-precision errors whatsoever. Try heading up into the level where you collect the three artifacts and stand at the top, you see the entire layout of the city as well as the level itself down below. Z-errors? None.

I particulary enjoy the nonsense you spout in the final paragraph of how well the DC would have done in comparison to PS2 - your arch-nemesis - had it not died prematurely (which it did, by the way). This is all just made up in your mind. It's indeed nothing but wishful thinking, DC in the guise of a white knight on a steed, running in to rescue you from the evil Sony hordes...

Get real dude and stop dreaming!

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Retailers will only support 3 consoles. They would prefer to only support 2.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Retailers will only support 3 consoles. They would prefer to only support 2.

Some only support two, since GameCube doesn't offer a big profit margin on especially hardware sales.

 

[Teasy]

Some only support two, since GameCube doesn't offer a big profit margin on especially hardware sales.

Yeah and some only support two since XBox is dead in Japan

 

[darkblu]

Guden,

You look back through history with somewhat more than rose-colored glasses. Your love for a piece of plastic effectively makes you totally blind I have to say.

your urge to say that will remain a mistery, i guess. in exactly what way somebody (that includes Lazy) pointing out the advanced sides of DC's design makes that person 'totally blind' in your perception?

It's nice to be a fan of a piece of hardware, just as it's nice to be a fan of a rock group or a football team (and with that I mean the REAL kind of football which is appreciated by a major part of the Earth's population and is actually played with one's feet).

your wisdom is cherishable.

You however seem to have crossed the line over into fanatic, which is uncool. You speak of momentum and advantage of a head start, what ADVANTAGE? That's a ludicrous thing to say, despite the head-start, Sega was steamrolled almost into oblivion by the late-starter. Does that speak of momentum? Hm? Jesus.

reality check: DC is presently far from being in oblivion (check the big console traders' sites - new titles are still being published as we speak)
as about the dc's positioning on the market at the time - yes, the dc had the advantages Lazy talked about, what makes you so incapable to comprehend (even the most avid ps2 supportes can see that, why can't you)?

You repeatedly say DC is comparable to PS2 again and again when clearly that is not the case and never has been. Yeah, it has a few advantages here and there (primarily regarding texturing), but that is absolutely not enough to bring it up to a comparable level. It headstarted because it's based on simpler and less powerful technology, and that's it.

you may want to check the reviews of LeMans24h for the DC and the PS2, there's a unanimous position on the matter the DC version is the better of thw two. but silly me, you may want actually to bing up an example to support your stance (i.e. a title available on both platforms, where the PS2 version shines through over the DC, hands down).

There's no comparison between DC titles and PS2 titles, just by looking at them it's easy to see PS2 is the overall more powerful piece of kit.

speaking of fanboism

Doesn't mean DC games are crap or not fun to play, I know people still play Atari VCS games too for example. Doesn't mean they don't understand that more recent hardware is more powerful; something you constantly refuse to do.

1) fun factor is uncalled for in this discussion
2) i don't remember hearing anybody claiming the PS2 was not the more powerful. you are imagining things.

Arguing about greater Z-precision and other such ludicrous statements is pointless when even a game like Jak2 (which has a far greater draw distance than any console title I can think of) has no Z-precision errors whatsoever. Try heading up into the level where you collect the three artifacts and stand at the top, you see the entire layout of the city as well as the level itself down below. Z-errors? None.

do we really need to talk about the z-precision advantages of a deferred renderer over an IMR over and over and over again until you understand it? there was no game on the DC which exibited z-precision errors, none (i.e. it's none vs. jak& dexter)

I particulary enjoy the nonsense you spout in the final paragraph of how well the DC would have done in comparison to PS2 - your arch-nemesis - had it not died prematurely (which it did, by the way). This is all just made up in your mind. It's indeed nothing but wishful thinking, DC in the guise of a white knight on a steed, running in to rescue you from the evil Sony hordes...

Get real dude and stop dreaming!

come again, what was the point of your post?

 

[freq]

Lazy, there's definitely some optical tints going on there. Don't get me wrong, I love the Dreamcast, I still use mine on a daily basis, but it just ain't that powerful. I mean, it was for it's time, and since it was such a simple machine it reached it's development peak quite quickly, and yes, it did have nice texturing, but compared to even the PS2 it's just plain gutless. Look at the emulation scene; they're still trying to get a 100% speed emulator for a SNES to work on it. (95% yes, but that's not 100.) It had some nice looking games, but you compare those to today's offerings on the PS2 and they aren't even close. And I think to expect the same kind of leaps in quality as we see on the PS2, on the Dreamcast, is a little bit optimistic, considering the ease of the learning curve on the system. I think Shenmue, like early MGS for the PS2, was a good example of the limits of the Dreamcast; and the fact that the average modern PS2 game exceeds those graphics is a good indicator of the relative speed of the two systems.

The Dreamcast is an awesome system, but let's not muddy it with false claims of stellar untapped performance; there were none. 7-8 years out, hobbyists are still trying to find those, and they just ain't there. But it was a good, solid piece of HW with some sweet games that you still can't find on any other system.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

The DC is only 5.5 years old. And as far as hobbyists versus Naka-san and Suzuki-san? LOL is all I have to say on that one.

 

[Teasy]

Johnny Awesome

The DC is only 5.5 years old. And as far as hobbyists versus Naka-san and Suzuki-san? LOL is all I have to say on that one.

Agreed, some of the things being said of DC in this thread are laughable. Apparently some people feel they are qualified to state unequivocally that DC had reached its peak with games like Shenmue only 2 years into its life. DC might have been easy to develop games for when compared to PS2, but it seems highly unlikely that it was that easy. Especially given the fact that it was a deferred renderer. GC and XBox are at least as easy to develop on if not easier. But neither of those have hit there peak yet AFAICS. Its likely that with further time from the best developers DC could have produced much better visuals. Technically its best games wouldn't have kept up with PS2's best games. But then PS2's best don't keep up with GC/XBox's best either technically. The question is would DC's best games have looked good enough to make them comparable to PS2's best games? In the eye's of the normal gamer I think they would have.

Guden Oden

You however seem to have crossed the line over into fanatic, which is uncool. You speak of momentum and advantage of a head start, what ADVANTAGE? That's a ludicrous thing to say, despite the head-start, Sega was steamrolled almost into oblivion by the late-starter. Does that speak of momentum? Hm? Jesus.

He's talking about an advantage vs GC/XBox! He said DC sold similarly to GC and XBox and had the advantage (over those two consoles) of a head start over PS2 rather then releasing 2 years after it.

Your totally overeacting to his post and your comments are completely uncalled for IMO.

 

[wazoo]

you may want to check the reviews of LeMans24h for the DC and the PS2, there's a unanimous position on the matter the DC version is the better of thw two. but silly me, you may want actually to bing up an example to support your stance (i.e. a title available on both platforms, where the PS2 version shines through over the DC, hands down).

and pretty much all games ported from the 3DO to the ps1 in 95 were worse than the original version. So what ?? The 3do is on the same ground as the ps1 ?? the same comments apply for the ps1 vs the N64 to a lesser extent.

 

[wazoo]

He's talking about an advantage vs GC/XBox! He said DC sold similarly to GC and XBox and had the advantage (over those two consoles) of a head start over PS2 rather then releasing 2 years after it.

Most of the sales of the Dc went during 2 phases :
1/ the early adopters, the DC has fantastic early adoption
2/ sales at discount prices after its death

inbetween, sales were totally flat and yield to a desastrous christmas 2K, after a disastrous year 2K, that was the reason, you can not compare it with Xbox/GX were sales are not dropping (even if they are not so high).

DC would have not survived anyway, because it would not have been supported by the big publishers like EA. Add the fact that many early DC adopters are most likely techgeeks (reflected by the death of N64 sales after Dc launch, those guyas are flying from the most powedrful to the next most powerful). To sump up, the DC would not have kept the userbase to survive.

 

[Lazy8s]

Graphical designs which stylistically work off the DC's strengths, like those that the aforementioned Sonic Adventure 2 and Samba de Amigo started to better employ, would've allowed its games to remain competitively distinguished from the PS2. Metal Gear Solid 2 and Zone of the Enders 2 did this well for the PS2 with particle usage and cinematic effects.

Comparisons of "overall" performance are subject to a person's taste in how the balance of graphical elements appeals to them.

 

[jvd]

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 .

Is this a contradiction to how much Sony is currently saving by reducing their chips and utilizing these results in other Sony products, thus further savings?

They will save money buy making their own chips. By reducing chip costs .

They still have to spend billions making the fabs to make their own chips and to keeping the foundrys up and running along with the money needed to upgrade them .

Also as of now sony is not using the cell chips in other sony products. The only announced future product with cell inside of it is the ps3.

Till then sony is not saving money on other sony products using the chip. And the cell chip is only being used in the ps3. So saying they can further save money on something they might do doesn't make sense . As you can claim ms is going to use the ati chip in other things thus saving more money.

I can say it even if it wont happen.

Lets face it .

Sony has spent billions on cell.

The factorys to make cell cost money. The development of cell costs money. Making each cell chip costs money.

Ms is only giving ati a piece of the software sales of the ati chips and is only spending a small amount on making the actual chips .

I don't see how anyone can say sony is saving money compared to ms .

 

[jvd]

He's talking about an advantage vs GC/XBox! He said DC sold similarly to GC and XBox and had the advantage (over those two consoles) of a head start over PS2 rather then releasing 2 years after it.

Most of the sales of the Dc went during 2 phases :
1/ the early adopters, the DC has fantastic early adoption
2/ sales at discount prices after its death

inbetween, sales were totally flat and yield to a desastrous christmas 2K, after a disastrous year 2K, that was the reason, you can not compare it with Xbox/GX were sales are not dropping (even if they are not so high).

DC would have not survived anyway, because it would not have been supported by the big publishers like EA. Add the fact that many early DC adopters are most likely techgeeks (reflected by the death of N64 sales after Dc launch, those guyas are flying from the most powedrful to the next most powerful). To sump up, the DC would not have kept the userbase to survive.

Of course you forget that sega was breaking even at selling the dc for 100$ . A few months later they oculd have had the dreamcast at 75$ to go up again the xbox and gc coming out . That and the fact that it was already at over 10 million sold.



As for the ps2 being more powerfull sure .

But then again 32 voodoo 2s in sli mode would be more powerfull than a geforce 2 . But i'd rather have games built for the geforce 2 than the 32 voodoo 2s .

 

[Vince]

As for the ps2 being more powerfull sure .

But then again 32 voodoo 2s in sli mode would be more powerfull than a geforce 2 . But i'd rather have games built for the geforce 2 than the 32 voodoo 2s .

What the hell is this suppose to mean?

 

[wazoo]

Of course you forget that sega was breaking even at selling the dc for 100$ .

They did made a lot of sacrifices on the price and sales did not go up. Then they stopped. In fact, they already decided it was over before the ps2 launch even if they only said it 3month later. Add the fact that they were almost bankrupt in 2k (the federal bank of Japan even did a inspection to know if they had to kill Sega).

Even if they did break even, something I do not trust, it was far from being enough to survive.

That and the fact that it was already at over 10 million sold.

No, it was not, closer to 9M worldwide in March 2K1

5M in US
1.5M in Japan
2M in Europe