Xenon info?

[wco81]

Gamespot has a piece on how new optical disc technology may affect next gen gaming consoles.

Regardless of what format Microsoft chooses, game developers will have to make good use of the extra storage space if either standard is to succeed. Julien Merseron, worldwide technical director for Ubisoft, said that a developer could use the extra space for everything from more-detailed textures and sound files to faster-loading redundant data. "It is not really the additional space that will lead to new gameplay experiences," Merseron said, "but [it] will allow us to add more details and objects into the levels, and that can lead to a better immersion." Merseron added that, while he "would tend to think that HD-DVD has a brighter future," both standards are equally viable from a technical and business standpoint.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/11/16/news_6113321.html

Lot of other good points about how Blu-Ray or HD-DVD may be helped by new consoles and vice versa, including the prospect of the PS3 helping to drive down BR costs, especially the production of the blue-laser diodes.

 

[Qroach]

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.

Just because it didn't happen this generation, doesn't mean MS can't woo some market share away from sony next generation.

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.

What with you lately? You've kinda had a bug up your behind regarding MS for a while now. What happened? did they cancel a game you were working on? I may disagree with your opinion on thier chances next gen, but it's pretty clear that you certainly do't like them lately.

I welcome the fact they entered this market, even if only to provide another platform for developers to make a dollar on. from a development point of view, I just can't understand the negativity towards them.

 

[pahcman]

MS hasn't managed to steal away any of Sony's mainline exclusive titles,

For a first timer, i say Xbox managed to steal enough, moreso than GC and DC could. Whats now is no way set in stone for the future too.

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.

Nonsense.

Same with Qoach question, whats with your unwarranted negativity towards MS? You seem to take shots at them when possible.

 

[Vince]

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.

Nonsense

How is this nonsense? Microsoft is playing the only card it has in the console arena, market cannibalization of it's DX platform that currently exists on the PC.

When Microsofts talks about XNA and sharing between the PC and XBox, that's a direct shot at the PC vendors, such as Dell and HP. The PC market, viewed holistically as a set, isn't really in demand for added computing power in a PC. The major sources of sales looking forward, outside of cyclic corperate turn-over, is going to be the high-preformance platform, which in all probably has a high degree of overlap with the gaming subset of the marketplace.

So when you make it easier for a developer to make a game that runs, flawlessly and without hassle, on a $299 box instead of a $1200 PC, you're going to piss off the people who sell the $1200 box's. Commonality is market cannibalization, there's no logical way to say it's not. And the more Microsoft pushes the featureset, the more it shoots across the bow at the vendors.

Not that Microsoft is going to do better next round anyways, but think as you like. I do find it funny how when Sony takes over the marketplace in a nothing less than a route the first time, that same standard never applies to Microsoft, whose supporters use an appologist argument more akin to, let them throw a few piles of shit on the wall, one will stick.

 

[Qroach]

When Microsofts talks about XNA and sharing between the PC and XBox, that's a direct shot at the PC vendors, such as Dell and HP.

A shot? if anything this is an attempt to bring more software to the PC side and also an attempt to garner more support for DX 10 and longhorn which is a new platform in it self (with high end graphics hardware as the requirement). How is that a shot at PC vendors is beyond me, unless you want to find something negative about the situation.

So when you make it easier for a developer to make a game that runs, flawlessly and without hassle, on a $299 box instead of a $1200 PC,

See that's where you argument falls apart. It works both ways. They are also making it easier to run console made games on the PC. Which is part for the reason for the PC controller standard. they aren't saying it's ONLY easier to develop for a console. They are saying it's easier to develop for BOTH at the same time. Anything you can use to make your job easier when porting to a different platform is worth it's weigt in gold. The less time spent on a port, the more it's worth to the developer. Perhaps you aren't the right person to argue abotu this with as you perspective will be totally differtn than mine. Also why don't you let tuttle argue his point?

Not that Microsoft is going to do better next round anyways, but think as you like. I do find it funny how when Sony takes over the marketplace in a nothing less than a route the first time, that same standard never applies to Microsoft, whose supporters use an appologist argument more akin to, let them throw a few piles of shit on the wall, one will stick.

What a bullshit argument Vince. Sony had a two year headstart with a TON of developer support. It didn't matter about specs or how powerfull the hardware was in the end, it came down to developer support and software (which is the reason the dreamcast didn't survive). I find it's funny that now MS is taking a different approach, to both hardware design and getting developer support, you're basically arguing that it's not the way to do it and it won't have any impact on sony in the next round. Well "Think as you like"...

 

[pahcman]

Important question, How much do you know of XNA and how much do you know of how MS intends to use XNA?

Now for some rant imo,

I dont think a multi-million coporation like MS is dumb enough to shoot themselves on own foot.

A lot of games are already multi platform on PC now. And guess what, they run best on PC. As you say, console goes for 299, PC goes for 1200, console are stagnant, PC improve, console are simple game boxes, PC have variety of uses.

If you look at Dell HP lineup, how many of those are high powered gaming PC?

PC gamers will upgrade when they get to see the next Doom or HL that are design and plays best on the latest hardware. 1-2 years down the road, PC will run better games while console get lesser versions.

As a dedicated 299 game box, consoles have already sold as much or more units than PC iirc, but that dont stop PC from coexisting and i dont see how Xenon will conflict with the next Dell HP PC.

People have been predicting doom to PC but every time PC just comes back stronger and meaner.

I do expect MS to do better next time. Want a friendly wager again?
Also the standard never apply to MS because the market condition is not even the same in first place.

 

[Vince]

A shot? if anything this is an attempt to bring more software to the PC side and also an attempt to garner more support for DX 10 and longhorn which is a new platform in it self (with high end graphics hardware as the requirement). How is that a shot at PC vendors is beyond me, unless you want to find something negative about the situation.

So, you're saying the flow is reversed? That it is, in fact, the XBox with the larger developer pool and the PC which is going to get the influx of titles from commonality?

Sorry, we're just going to disagree here bud. I think many would.

See that's where you argument falls apart. It works both ways. They are also making it easier to run console made games on the PC. Which is part for the reason for the PC controller standard. they aren't saying it's ONLY easier to develop for a console. They are saying it's easier to develop for BOTH at the same time. Anything you can use to make your job easier when porting to a different platform is worth it's weigt in gold. The less time spent on a port, the more it's worth to the developer. Perhaps you aren't the right person to argue abotu this with as you perspective will be totally differtn than mine. Also why don't you let tuttle argue his point?

How many games go from Console to PC? What is the net revenue gained relative to the inverse. What structural, fixed, costs must be added due to the open-ended design of the PC? I don't see this proposition as favorable.

And I don't agree that commonality is worth "gold" -- it's only works if you're losing and by bridging the two pools, you can gain by the equilibrium you're inviting to happen. Sony has a PlayStation format library just a bit bigger than what we're dealing with on the PC or XBox.

What a bullshit argument Vince. Sony had a two year headstart with a TON of developer support. It didn't matter about specs or how powerfull the hardware was in the end, it came down to developer support and software (which is the reason the dreamcast didn't survive).

Ok, so let me get this right. The PlayStation kicked ass because it had a "TON of developer support," but then why didn't a prediction I heard from an IBM employee in Yorktown (around ~1H2001) -- that the XBox would run over the PS2 for it's easier development enviiroment and "TON of developer support" from Microsoft. The PS2, by most admissions, is a beast.

Consistency counts. And, IMHO, I'd recommend you - personally - ditch the Microsoft supported argument of the "two year headstart." That one'll bite some folks in the butt.

I find it's funny that now MS is taking a different approach, to both hardware design and getting developer support, you're basically arguing that it's not the way to do it and it won't have any impact on sony in the next round. Well "Think as you like"...

Different approach to hardware design? How is it any different than last time other than them controlling the designs on a legal basis? Is there some engineering synergy between IBM, MS, and ATI that's been masked from everyone? Or are IBM's or ATI's solutions not both derivatives of projects that were already in development... just like last time?

EDIT: To my old friend: PC death via console argument doesn't work on an per annual basis, you need to measure it in terms of some arbitrary quantized (for lack of a better word) units dictated by generations. And in that case, the PlayStation Format alone has made significant inroads. Looking forward, I see the trend continuing.. personally, I think the PC as we know it today is a dead-end in the long-run considering a persons lifestyle, but that's talking in longterms.

 

[Tuttle]

Here is what I see with MS's current situation with regards to the next xbox:

* I'm not sure it is obvious that MS grabbed market-share from Sony this generation. Or at least a significant part of the xbox installed base are people who would have bought a PS2.

* I think there is hard-cap on the number of people who are who realistically potential xbox buyers with their current and know future lineup of developers, maybe around 20 million players.

* I find it hard to believe that there are tens of millions of players out there who didn't buy the first xbox who will buy the next xbox if the current lineup of developers stays roughly the same. I haven't seen anything that indicates MS has secured any new exclusive developers from the PS2 pool.

* MS sees their revenues and growth slowing. See this weeks 30 billion dollar dividend and various statements from MS execs over the past year or so. Linux, OpenOffice, and so on are putting the main sources of income for MS under pressure.

* MS is in the process of trying to move all of their products from a purchase model to a subscription based model of payment. They are having more and more trouble getting people to upgrade to their newest software.

* The subscription model will give MS a guaranteed and consistent source of revenue from all of their products. Upgrading will no longer be an option. MS essentially becomes like a utility provider where consumers simply send their check every month.

* They would like to transition consumers off of their current legacy x86 boxes to a machine built by MS. Filled with DRM like any other console ensuring things like Linux can't be installed and that software can't be run without sending your check into MS.

* Anyone who's done both windows and console games knows what massive hassle it is testing and the supporting windows games is. I can't believe the XNA stuff will lead many or any console developers to the windows market. XNA is the lifeline to all the current windows developers to migrate to MS's new hardware and leave behind all the hassles of the current windows game market.

If you think that is anti-MS, so be it. I don't think MS has any realistic chance of securing a larger installed base than they currently have, at least from the current PS2/Nintendo installed base. Nothing so far has change the 'facts on the ground.' Perhaps MS has some secret deals with one or more big name developers that is still under wraps, but it is getting pretty late in the game not to have heard something.

 

[Inane_Dork]

MS will be out of the Xbox production business soon enough, but it won't be due to failure. MS will merge Windows/PC with Xbox. MS does not want to be in the hardware market, I don't think. They're trying to get the debate framed as a software war where they know they can (A) make a profit and (B) use Windows to crush opposition. XNA is the first step towards that.

 

[Sonic]

Wow chap, I coudl actually read that post and understand it. You've come a long way.

Now Tuttle, I never once mentioned that Microsoft is grabbing markertshare from Sony. If that is what you interpreted me as saying then I apologize and should make it a little clearer. I see Sony as being able to massively increase its userbase for PS3 as the gaming industry continues to grow. This means by at least 20 million units if not 30 million or 40 million. The reason why I think Xenon will do much better than Xbox is for a couple reasons. It wil be the first one out so it will have time to gain a solid userbase so that devs will want to develop for it. This will bring in more gamers. Another reason is that I have seen nothing from Nintendo that indicates that they are serious about the console sector and that they are just happy with their profit making titles.

PS3 wil get botloads more sales around the world I am sure. The brandname and games will make sure of that. I am just saying that it is lkely that both Xenon and PS3will have larger userbases over their predecessors. I am nto saying that Xenon will eat into PS3's marketshare.

 

[Tuttle]

Now Tuttle, I never once mentioned that Microsoft is grabbing markertshare from Sony.

Sorry if I implied you did. I wasn't directing my post at anyone. Just a brain dump.

 

[Sonic]

I was commenting when you quoted me in an earlier post. But you do bring up very good points in the post above also. MS may be trying to take Xenon into a different direction.

 

[Dave Glue]

MS will be out of the Xbox production business soon enough, but it won't be due to failure. MS will merge Windows/PC with Xbox. MS does not want to be in the hardware market, I don't think. They're trying to get the debate framed as a software war where they know they can (A) make a profit and (B) use Windows to crush opposition. XNA is the first step towards that.

Very likely, although I'm not sure how "smooth" the transition will be. It's pretty much a guarantee the PC will see a lot more console ports with the next gen.

Can't recall who it was (J Allard?), but in an interview I read a while back about XNA, he talked about the problem with having 3 different console platforms, and basically how ridiculous it is that consumers have to choose their software at least partly based on what machine they have. The ideal situation is like DVD's - you pick your DVD player based on its features, but you know that it will play nearly all DVD's out there. That is what they want, although he admitted it certainly wouldn't occur with the next generation.

MS has demonstrated time and time again that they definitely do not want to be in the hardware business (see their extremely brief foray into the wireless adapter/router business, even though they were good implementations and generally recieved well). I doubt their Xbox experience has done anything but cement that opinion.

 

[Tuttle]

I don't think it is a question of want for MS, but need. Computer prices are plummeting. The price of Microsoft's OS is becoming more and more of an issue for computer sellers. A few weeks ago the topic of Walmart's computers came up somewhere else ono the Net. It was either two or three of Walmart's top five selling computers didn't come with a MS OS installed. All of the machines were in the two to five hundred dollar range and it was about ~100 dollars more expensive to have a MS OS instead of Linux.

I don't think MS has any choice over the next few years of trying to migrate consumers to hardware that can only run their own OS.

 

[Qroach]

So, you're saying the flow is reversed? That it is, in fact, the XBox with the larger developer pool and the PC which is going to get the influx of titles from commonality?

Not exactly, but something along those lines. I'm saying that you'll see more PC ports of console games with the common tool set and vice versa.

we're just going to disagree here bud. I think many would.

I think many would also disagree with you. Fine by me.

How many games go from Console to PC? What is the net revenue gained relative to the inverse. What structural, fixed, costs must be added due to the open-ended design of the PC? I don't see this proposition as favorable.

You just proved my point. This is exactly why MS wants to have a common development system to remove the numerous technical problems related to "porting". The easier the port, the less it costs.

And I don't agree that commonality is worth "gold" -- it's only works if you're losing and by bridging the two pools, you can gain by the equilibrium you're inviting to happen. Sony has a PlayStation format library just a bit bigger than what we're dealing with on the PC or XBox.

like i said I didn't want to get into this as I think you'd look at it from the wrong perspective IMO. This is something that should be attractive to publishers and developers. publishers can have more sku's to release on the market, with less time between versions. Developers can easily add a PC version along with the console versions to increase their profit margin. It's about making money and being attactive to the people in the business that want to make money. It has nothing to do with "if your loosing" at all.

Ok, so let me get this right. The PlayStation kicked ass because it had a "TON of developer support," but then why didn't a prediction I heard from an IBM employee in Yorktown (around ~1H2001) -- that the XBox would run over the PS2 for it's easier development enviiroment and "TON of developer support" from Microsoft. The PS2, by most admissions, is a beast.

First of all what the heck does some IBM employee know? in an odd way they just proved what I was saying, it's not about the hardware it's about the software. MS did NOT have full support of the development community, they entered the market when a LARGE portion of it was already taken by the PS2 with it's numerous games and full stable of developers.

Consistency counts. And, IMHO, I'd recommend you - personally - ditch the Microsoft supported argument of the "two year headstart." That one'll bite some folks in the butt.

One again pure nonesense IMO. I'd be willing to wager money that MS will do better next gen. They couldn't do any worse then they already have IMO. It's all about having the software people want, and if MS can get those hold out developers to support the system, it will do wonders to how they are percieved. In the end, the average consumer doesn't care what platform they play on, they just want the platform that has the games they like. There's of course fanboys that will stick with something just because of a brand name, but the number of those people is far smaller then you may think.

I'd recommend you stop being the ultimate cheerleader for whomever it is you decide to like each year. Be it 3dfx vrs Nvidia, Nvidia vrs ATI, Sony vrs MS, or whomever. You take a stance so firmly that I think you don't consider things from different points of view. There's two sides to ANY console generation, the developer/publisher side, and the retail/consumer side. It all starts somewhere, but I'll leave you to guess where that is.

Different approach to hardware design? How is it any different than last time other than them controlling the designs on a legal basis? Is there some engineering synergy between IBM, MS, and ATI that's been masked from everyone? Or are IBM's or ATI's solutions not both derivatives of projects that were already in development... just like last time?

Different from the standpoint of licensing technology and not purchasing the chips directly. Controlling the fabrication of those chips directly which in turn leads to controlling costs, while eliminating a number of the problem they had with the current generation of hardware (ie. cut out the middle man and make better use of the money spent). If you don't consider that a different approach, then I don't see a point in arguing with you any further.

 

[Tuttle]

"It's all about having the software people want, and if MS can get those hold out developers to support the system, it will do wonders to how they are percieved."

But there is absolutely no sign that MS has secured any new developers, at least significant ones, for the next xbox. And it is only a year away from hitting the market.

 

[Dave Glue]

I don't think MS has any choice over the next few years of trying to migrate consumers to hardware that can only run their own OS.

Sure has worked wonders for Apple, hasn't it?

MS has gotten to where it is today largely due to an open hardware market. They move to proprietary hardware, and Linux eats their lunch.

 

[wco81]

Isn't that Palladium or whatever they're calling it now, the hardware which will only run signed code, isn't that not suppose to run Linux or any open source software?

So maybe there is something to wanting a secure platform for their software.

These suspicions about MS wanting a box which will run subscription software has been around since the first year of the Xbox. Remember someone put out mockups of a box which would only have network connections but no drives?

 

[PC-Engine]

The current sugestions are the home writers will launch next year at 500$ for hd-dvd-r

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$...

The majority of the increased cost for HD DVD is the blue laser diode which will be in short supply. Everything else is not that much more expensive than a regular DVD drive. The pickup will cost more because it will have to read CD, DVD, and HD DVD, I'd say about 3X more at most because it's slighty more complicated having to read three formats and also it doesn't enjoy massive economies of scale like current DVD pickups. The codecs will cost more too maybe 2X as much. So overall you're looking at maybe 2-3X the cost of a DVD reader ($150), less any markup they want to add to recoup R&D costs etc.

 

[Tuttle]

I don't think MS has any choice over the next few years of trying to migrate consumers to hardware that can only run their own OS.

Sure has worked wonders for Apple, hasn't it?

MS has gotten to where it is today largely due to an open hardware market. They move to proprietary hardware, and Linux eats their lunch.

Considering Apple is a ten billion dollar a year in revenue company, yeah, it seems to be working quite well for Apple.

Linux is going to eat MS's lunch if they don't. What may have been good for MS in the past isn't necessarily good for them today or in the future. I think MS is screwed either way.

If MS just keeps going along the same path they currently are on, the average pc keeps getting cheaper and windows keeps getting more expensive relative to the overall price. The incentive for more and more computer vendors to drop windows for Linux grows. I think OEMs would love to drop windows at the first chance they can since it gains them nothing other than driving the price of their products up.

If MS tries to migrate people to their own hardware filled with DRM, users may balk at it unless there is some incentive like marketing it as something more secure than their old x86 pcs.