wco81 said:
Easy tiger, all i was saying is that resolution is not the first priority. Since LOTR (or whatever else) looks real enough even at 480i.
Xenon info?
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
- Status
Easy tiger, all i was saying is that resolution is not the first priority. Since LOTR (or whatever else) looks real enough even at 480i.
wco81 said:
Well, past the HDTV standards, i think their main priority is to fill the screen with meaningful stuff. You can be seeing a screen at 499000x288890 pixels, but if the contents, both artistic and technologic, are crap, it will look like crap. Just sharper. So you REALLY see it's crap.
wco81 said:
By setting a minimum resolution target surely they're simply saying that a game should be able to run at full speed at this target resolution. I'd say they simply don't want the situation where a game is 30fps at 480i, but chugs along at 720p. I don't think it tells us anything about their priorities, except that they want to target HDTV owners.
If I owned a HDTV set, I simply wouldn't buy a next-gen console that wasn't an ideal match for it.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
If these specs are true, then as long as they boost the memory to 512MB Xenon will be plenty powerful. I'd also like to see them double the main memory bandwidth, but it's probably not completely necessary.
I think that MS has rightly determined a few things:
1) That code complexity and art assets will be the true bottlenecks next generation. Not hardware.
2) That HD-DVD/Blu-Ray support is too costly, given that only a small percentage of gamers will have HDTV and that developers will have a difficult time filling more than 6 GB of disc space.
The reason they will support HDTV, but not playback is pretty simple - cost. Video enthusiasts will want 720p games, but will probably be willing to buy a dedicated player for HD movies, which likely won't really take off until about 2007-2008.
The system will be cheap to manufacture, because I think that MS has also realized with this generation that it is going to take a few generations for them to establish the Xbox brand as well as Sony has the Playstation. They want to successively eat into more and more PS marketshare without losing money.
That way instead 80 million vs. 20 million, they might be able to get that to 60 million vs. 40 million next time around without losing money. Then they can go for Sony's juggular in round three.
That's why I think Sony is making an error with PS3 - they are too hardware driven. Blu-Ray equipped trillion flop consoles are going to cost a fortune to make and developers aren't going to be able to take full advantage of it for years. By then MS will have taken another 15% of the market from Sony.
Of course, this is all dependent on how good the games are. I imagine that 1st generation Xenon games will go for 3 threads (audio, 2 other threads) and expand in later years to use all 6 threads, so there will still be room to grow with Xenon.
I think that MS has rightly determined a few things:
1) That code complexity and art assets will be the true bottlenecks next generation. Not hardware.
2) That HD-DVD/Blu-Ray support is too costly, given that only a small percentage of gamers will have HDTV and that developers will have a difficult time filling more than 6 GB of disc space.
The reason they will support HDTV, but not playback is pretty simple - cost. Video enthusiasts will want 720p games, but will probably be willing to buy a dedicated player for HD movies, which likely won't really take off until about 2007-2008.
The system will be cheap to manufacture, because I think that MS has also realized with this generation that it is going to take a few generations for them to establish the Xbox brand as well as Sony has the Playstation. They want to successively eat into more and more PS marketshare without losing money.
That way instead 80 million vs. 20 million, they might be able to get that to 60 million vs. 40 million next time around without losing money. Then they can go for Sony's juggular in round three.
That's why I think Sony is making an error with PS3 - they are too hardware driven. Blu-Ray equipped trillion flop consoles are going to cost a fortune to make and developers aren't going to be able to take full advantage of it for years. By then MS will have taken another 15% of the market from Sony.
Of course, this is all dependent on how good the games are. I imagine that 1st generation Xenon games will go for 3 threads (audio, 2 other threads) and expand in later years to use all 6 threads, so there will still be room to grow with Xenon.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I agree with this statement.
even though we have games that run at higher resolution, high framerates with more texture mapping, we have not reached even PS1 prerendered CG level yet. the amount of geometry, lighting and animation needs to be bumped up by 10x or more from current consoles.
it is true that CG in films or all-CG films at 480i totally decimate the best realtime graphics on consoles or PC. we have orders of magnitude of improvement in realtime graphics to go. at least to the Xbox4/PS5 generation before graphics improvement becomes irrelalvant.
I figure that 1st gen Xenon games will look like Unreal Engine 3 @ 60fps and then improve from there.
I'd also hope that Xenon gets 512 MB main memory @ 50-60 GB/sec bandwidth and 32 MB eDRAM on R500. and also 2-3 MB of L2 cache for the triple core CPU instead of just 1 MB.
Sony's console is going to have alot of eDRAM and on-chip local storage / cache
Are you sure people are going to be willing to spend extra to buy a dedicated player? First BR or HD-DVD players should run around $1000. Wouldn't a $300 game console which has BR playback have a leg up in the market against a $300 console which only has DVD?
If PS3 has BR while Xenon only has DVD, it might make it hard for MS to gain share, in other words. Even people without HDTV displays (which is a rapidly shrinking number in the US) would see the value in getting a piece of hardware at the same price which is capable of doing more in the future. Most people will eventually replace their TVs and as HDTVs come down in price, those TV replacements will most likely be HDTVs in the next 5 years and beyond. Forecasts call for 60 million HDTVs in the installed base by 2008.
Now, if not including a blue-laser drive means Xenon could be priced a lot less, then it might help Xenon gain share. If they debut Xenon at $200 instead of $300, then it makes sense to minimize costs as much as possible and exclude BR or HD-DVD.
But a lot of people will pay $100 extra for the HDTV-movie playback. Even some who don't have HDTV displays yet but anticipate they will buy one in a few years.
Plus MS risks Xenon being viewed as becoming obsolete in a couple of years without HDTV support. In fact, it would be something of a contradiction to support 720p or better for games but only 480p for movies?
Not to mention the fact that both BR and HD-DVD will support newer surround-sound technologies like DTS-HD and DD Plus.
1k ? for what ?
The current sugestions are the home writers will launch next year at 500$ for hd-dvd-r
With play only cheaper than that
Even when dvd first launched u could get a dvd player for under 500. We got ours the month after dvd players hit hte market. It was a sony player with a built in 5.1 decoder and it only cost 300$
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Your points are valid wco81, but including BR/HD-DVD is probably a $150 expense in 2005, $100 in 2006, and only $50 in 2007. MS can simply include it when it becomes cost-effective (as a new model of Xenon) and when the winner of the format wars emerges.
This is the best of both worlds IMO. Let Sony make a $450 console in 2006 and sell it for $300, while MS will have probably lowered their costs to $300 by then and sell for $300 (or maybe even $250). Then they can add the HD-DVD/BR drive in 2007 and sell that model for $250 and lower the standard unit to $200. Or some other price-wise combination.
The bottom line is that BR/HD-DVD is not really a consumer level product in 2005 and is barely feasible in 2006. Add in the risk of choosing the right standard, the fact that it simply isn't necessary for 90% of current gamers, and the fact that there won't be significant content until 2007, and you quickly come to the conclusion that it just isn't worth the extra $125 to include it instead of a 12x DVD drive.
The difference with DVD last generation is that it was a consumer level technology at the beginning of the last hardware cycle. It was about 2 years further along the market curve than BR/HD-DVD is right now.
This is the best of both worlds IMO. Let Sony make a $450 console in 2006 and sell it for $300, while MS will have probably lowered their costs to $300 by then and sell for $300 (or maybe even $250). Then they can add the HD-DVD/BR drive in 2007 and sell that model for $250 and lower the standard unit to $200. Or some other price-wise combination.
The bottom line is that BR/HD-DVD is not really a consumer level product in 2005 and is barely feasible in 2006. Add in the risk of choosing the right standard, the fact that it simply isn't necessary for 90% of current gamers, and the fact that there won't be significant content until 2007, and you quickly come to the conclusion that it just isn't worth the extra $125 to include it instead of a 12x DVD drive.
The difference with DVD last generation is that it was a consumer level technology at the beginning of the last hardware cycle. It was about 2 years further along the market curve than BR/HD-DVD is right now.
If they do, it'd be a nice surprise but I kinda doubt that.
DVD writers didn't drop below 1000$ for a pretty long time after they first came out(it took a good 4 years for -R drives), and that was for PC internal drives, not home units which always add an extra premium to the price.
Actually I have a better comparison (DVD-R drive started of at freaking 17000$ so that one is kinda pointless anyway). DVD-Ram PC drives came out just under 1000$ - home recorders a year later still started at 4000$...
For NEC and Toshiba, it would be worth the risk to sell HD-DVD at a substantial loss to Microsoft, in order to seed a foundation for the market. Lossing ten's of millions of dollars that would be made up for later in royalties by being the next media standard.
dvdr isn't a very good example. This tech came a few years after dvd players came out. When they were selling the set top boxes for use on tvs to record dvds , I already had my 4x dvd r for 200$ . This was the same when I had my 4x2x6 cdr writer at 300$ and they were selling the set top version for use with a stero system and not a pc for over a thousand.
Hd-dvd and blueray will be fighting to replace the vhs . Not the dvd. Low price and large sales of the recordable players is whats going to decided the future.
Not true - first DVD players came out in Japan end of 96. First DVD-R unit came out a bit less then a year later. Granted it was insanely expensive - but the tech was there.
DVD-RAM was another year later - it was only DVD+ that was really late to the game.
Home recorder units indeed took a bit longer, they first started appearing around 99 for both Ram and -RW.
That doesn't make much sense to me - not when there's the home-theater market to target first, especially with the advances in video quality offered by HD formats.
I'd like to be wrong (because frankly I'll want a recorder drive myself), but I doubt that very much. I can see cheap players happening relatively quickly (there'll be the PS3 and all - so this will be much faster price dropping then with DVD), but I figure we'll have to wait awhile for recorders to go down in price.
BTW, if they do develop the technology to do cinema-quality CG in real-time, it would probably be implemented in something other than a $300 game console.
I would think digital content creators like Pixar would be using such tech first, in million-dollar hardware.
So we will have an inkling that it's coming to consoles years before they can reduce the costs down to fit such technology in consumer products.
I would think digital content creators like Pixar would be using such tech first, in million-dollar hardware.
So we will have an inkling that it's coming to consoles years before they can reduce the costs down to fit such technology in consumer products.
Spidermate
Regular
Johnny Awesome said:
This theory is so flawed that it's amazing. I'm not saying that Microsoft hasn't chosen a good path, but if you think 6 GBs will be enough for next-gen, then you are seriously insane. A few titles of this generation has already surpass the 8 GB mark. There is no doubt that next-gen titles will become even greater in capacity.
Also, one would not need an HDTV to experience Blu Ray or HD-DVD quality because the format works in various ways beyond what we are using now; sound being one of them, storage being another, and features being the very last. There will also be a significant increase visually to that of component cables even on a standard television set.
You are also mistaking Sony's position in the competition to Microsoft. Sony are one of the main members of the Blu Ray format. Therefore, it becomes cheaper for them to use than it would for Microsoft. I don't understand how some people have trouble understanding this.
As for Cell, it is designed to prevent bottlenecks. Only time will determine how this achichitecture may actually perform, but as of now, it seems to be challenging your claim.
Again, you seem to be focused on one thing. Sony is not Microsoft, and Microsft is not Sony. Their cost to built hardware is a lot cheaper than what it would cost for Microsoft to license it from another company. Rather they stick with the stand DVD format or upgrade to a different generation, licenses will be involved, and that's where their limits lie.
I don't care how easy Microsoft may make it seem, Sony are just as dominate as they are, and the both seems to be learning a great deal from their pass mistakes. So, don't assume that Sony is just going to fall right on over all because you lack full detail on what their plans are behind closed doors.
I'm sure it's intended to do many things, but I always understood that Cell's main design was to prevent the bottleneck of single CPU, single core chip power. I never understood it to be mainly focused on solving a particular software problem (like 3D rendering, for instance). Maybe I'm mistaken, though.Spidermate said:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I didn't say Sony was going to fall. I just predicted a loss of marketshare. I don't know how you misunderstood my meaning. I'm not saying the sky is falling for Sony.
On your other points:
IMO it's not likely there will be many games which require more than a couple of DVD discs with 6GB each on them. Very unlikely in fact. It's too expensive for all that art content.
It's also hard to say whether MS buying IPs and outsourcing the manufacturing is going to be less or more expensive than Sony's multi-billion dollar investment in fabs. Regardless, Sony will lose a lot of these potential cost advantages if MS only has to supply DVD and not BR like PS3.
Besides, I think that games and marketing are almost the whole deal anyway. Any decent console with the new Madden and other EA license games, Halo 3, and few surprises is going to do just fine. By the time GT5, MGS4, and FFXIII are out Xenon will be in its third holiday season and MS will be breaking even on hardware. It's going to be interesting.
On your other points:
IMO it's not likely there will be many games which require more than a couple of DVD discs with 6GB each on them. Very unlikely in fact. It's too expensive for all that art content.
It's also hard to say whether MS buying IPs and outsourcing the manufacturing is going to be less or more expensive than Sony's multi-billion dollar investment in fabs. Regardless, Sony will lose a lot of these potential cost advantages if MS only has to supply DVD and not BR like PS3.
Besides, I think that games and marketing are almost the whole deal anyway. Any decent console with the new Madden and other EA license games, Halo 3, and few surprises is going to do just fine. By the time GT5, MGS4, and FFXIII are out Xenon will be in its third holiday season and MS will be breaking even on hardware. It's going to be interesting.
There should only be one version of Xenon and it should come with a hard drive. If there are two versions then both should come with a hard drive and the upscale model can just serve as a multi-purpose device such as DVR and other nice things like that. MS doesn't want to segment the market to the point where consumers get lost and don't know which version of the console to buy. Many of them would end up going for a competitor's console.
The thing better have 512 MB of memory as I cannot fathom developers getting stuck with such a paltry amount that is 256 MB. Low amounts of memory just makes things harder on devs. I'm sure Fafalada can back that one up!
R500 should be a beast and I fully expect it to do shaders with ease and actually take advantageof them on a large scale.
PS3 sales WILL NOT be hurt by Xenon in any single way and that is likely. The videogame industry is still growing and I wouldn't be surprised if Sony was able to get 50 million PS3's out there a lot faster than it did for PS2's. At the same time I fully expect MS to gain 50% more console owners by the end of Xenon's life compared to the end of Xbox's life. While Sony could go ahead and get a third or more poeple to get PS3's it is still a nice increase for MS.
I am not too interested in the R500 as that is likely to be a beast. I am interested in the CPU(s) going into Xenon and how it will work. What it will actually turn out to be has me intrigued the most. I'm not so sure if a multithreaded tri-core CPU is practical. If it ends up oin the Xenon then I think the chip would also be inside the N Revolution and be dubbed the Triforce CPU.
The thing better have 512 MB of memory as I cannot fathom developers getting stuck with such a paltry amount that is 256 MB. Low amounts of memory just makes things harder on devs. I'm sure Fafalada can back that one up!
R500 should be a beast and I fully expect it to do shaders with ease and actually take advantageof them on a large scale.
PS3 sales WILL NOT be hurt by Xenon in any single way and that is likely. The videogame industry is still growing and I wouldn't be surprised if Sony was able to get 50 million PS3's out there a lot faster than it did for PS2's. At the same time I fully expect MS to gain 50% more console owners by the end of Xenon's life compared to the end of Xbox's life. While Sony could go ahead and get a third or more poeple to get PS3's it is still a nice increase for MS.
I am not too interested in the R500 as that is likely to be a beast. I am interested in the CPU(s) going into Xenon and how it will work. What it will actually turn out to be has me intrigued the most. I'm not so sure if a multithreaded tri-core CPU is practical. If it ends up oin the Xenon then I think the chip would also be inside the N Revolution and be dubbed the Triforce CPU.
Sonic said:
And why exactly would that happen? MS hasn't managed to steal away any of Sony's mainline exclusive titles, the ones that made the 75-80 million console buyers go out and buy PS2s.
It sounds as if MS is heading more towards going head to head with Dell and the other x86 box companies than competing with Sony and Nintendo.
- Status
