Xenon Project

[zidane1strife]

Do you think "Xenon" will have 256mb 512mb or 1024mb of ram(I'm assuming a UMA here)

I vote 512.

1-3GBs... let's face it nintendo set a precedent...(ram combos are good on spec cheats, and they'll likely be used by all 3 next gen.)

 

[ninelven]

edited

 

[Nexiss]

Do you think "Xenon" will have 256mb 512mb or 1024mb of ram(I'm assuming a UMA here)

I vote 512.

1-3GBs... let's face it nintendo set a precedent...(ram combos are good on spec cheats, and they'll likely be used by all 3 next gen.)

I agree, or at least thats the way I think it should be. Although I think you are probably pushing it, I expect a GB at most.

 

[AzBat]

Let's say Microsoft never produced the Xbox and that left just Sony and Nintendo, then how do you think things would have turned out for the console business?

Pretty much the same. A little more stable, less uncertainty, less shovelware, more marketshare for Nintendo. It would be slightly better but ultimately M$ hasn't had much of an impact on the market as a whole. That might change the next gen.

Wow, you got my point by admitting that Microsoft might have an effect on the next-gen. If Microsoft never got into to the business Sony would pretty much own the whole console business after PS2's life span. Nintendo had no chance of stopping PS2(even if Microsoft didn't make the Xbox), and they have no ambition to stop PS3.

I think Sony's market share numbers show its more than capable of taking control.

The console industry is vastly different from the music and movie industry. Sony's success in establishing PlayStation as the de facto development platform doesn't say much about their ability to amass support for a broader standard. See Betamax, MiniDisc, Memory Stick (and soon UMD) for that.

Consoles are closed boxes that are replaced every fifth year or so. That kind of product can't be made by an organization. It has been tried before with failure as the result. With the speed at which computer technology is developing and the money it takes to do R&D you need to have someone who is responsible for making all the decisions and investing the money it takes. This is what consumers want and it is what developers and publishers want.

Media formats however are not subject to such rapid development because the average consumer, and this includes those who are not interested in games, doesn't want to replace his or her VCR, CD player, DVD player etc. every five years - including the library they've acquired in the mean time. Moreover music and movie content doesn't constantly require more processing power because it isn't generated in realtime. You don't introduce a new standard until there are significant gains to be made, the whole production pipeline is ready for the changes and there is equipment capable of taking advantage of the new technology. As such, the creation of media formats is suitable for an organisation where a wide range of interest groups can have a say. In fact, an open format is much more likely to succeed.

There is no way any music or movie company will give up control and support a proprietary Sony standard that would in all likelihood cost them money and make Sony more.

Umm. I'm not going to argue with you about media formats because like you said it has little to do with consoles. Remember your the one that brought up formats. I just said that Sony's track record with regard to formats shouldn't have much effect on them taking over the living room. In other words, IMO you don't need to control the format in order to control distribution or the content.

Microsoft doesn't have near as much of their hand in the media content side.

They want to however. The one who controls the media has the power

I agree that Microsoft wants to, but they have a LONG ways to go to even catch up with Sony. This strengthens my argument that Sony is more in a position to control the living room than Microsoft.

Media formats is only a part of what you need to get control of the living room.

Of course. Ultimately its the content that drives the business but if you have that support and control the media format, then you have awesome power.

By that definition and your above comments, Microsoft or Sony will never control the living room because they will never get control over the media formats. Like I said above you don't need control of the media format to control the living room. If you disagree with that, then so be it. I'm not going to continue arguing with you over it.

There's no need to add the quality issue to the debate.

As a consumer, as a user, I care about quality. I know a lot of people don't but I do.

Duh, I care about quality too, but it has no place in this discussion on whether or not Microsoft competing is good or bad. Quality is subjective. You may consider the quality of Xbox and it's games to be bad quality, but to somebody else it may be considered good. "Another man's trash is another man's treasure." In the end the market itself will determine if Microsoft's product is worthy or not.

We're talking about competition here and how it keeps the big guys in check.

Right now they are more out of control than anything.

Umm, I made that comment to get it through your head that there was no need to bring quality into the discussion. You then side-track the issue to point out they're not keeping each other in check? That's just insane.

The consoles are not always about hardware technology.

M$ had to buy the games as well. They were equipped to supply software for a PC but not a console.

Microsoft might have only had PC game experience, but that they did have some experience in console software with the Dreamcast OS. So they were equipped to provide some of the console software. As for Sony, didn't they have to buy games too? Remember Psygnosis? When you really get down to it, both Microsoft and Sony had to buy software and hardware from other companies to get into the console business.

BTW, Sony was a new comer to the console industry too and they had to buy some technology as well.

Some yes, Not an entire system like M$.

Ah, so you agree that Microsoft was not the only company that had to buy technology? You made the comment as if Sony had all the technology to get into the console business, which you now agree that's not the case.

If Sony had no competition, they would be free to charge whatever they wanted.

Certainly, and to some extend they still do. But even without M$ in the market Sony would still have competition in the shape of Nintendo. A company that actually runs a viable business.

Yes, Nintendo is a viable game competitor, but this whole argument started with the notion that Sony was going for the living room and Microsoft is really the only competition Sony has to get in the way of the goal. Nintendo has no intentions of going for the living room.

So far Microsoft is not doing too bad despite your belief they're just "also-rans".

They are 3-4 billion in the hole and #3 worldwide and you think they're not doing too bad? The power of PR!

Yeah, considering they started a complete console business from the ground up. The only consumer electronics experience they had was with WebTV(a product they bought). And at the same time going toe-to-toe with Nintendo in the US and Europe. And add to the fact they're planning on a sequel. The only other newcomer to get this far was Sony. Pretty good if you ask me.

Tommy McClain