Xbox One Could Be Microsoft's Last Console

[Lightknight]

Mmmmm the thing is , the gaming industry won't get any benefit this, I'm hoping to see nintendo throw the towel since the crappy n64 now that would help the industry and our pockets, why ? I won't have to buy any of those the crappy Nintendo consoles with crappy gadgets to play: Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Smash brothers/ ect...

But if Microsoft retires... meh it won't matter much, the sony monopoly already happened , remember ps2? that was almost a monopoly so yeah this really won't affect me if actually happens

What's funny is that as much as the ps1 and ps2 were monopolies, Sony continued to bring an a-game. So the lead just kept getting further ahead.

 

[TomWiley]

This was a rather uncertain article. It's basically saying "Microsoft maybe won't make another console, but they maybe will".

Are we so desperate for those sweet Xbox One news hits that we have to resort to "Some analyst somewhere said that maybe"?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I've been saying this for a while. Coming in last for console sales in 2 generations in a row can't be good for investors. Neither is making very little profit of the 360 after losing billions on the original Xbox.

???? The 360 is not last in console sales. That title belongs to the PS3. Also, as this forum gets flooded with the Playstation fanboys that will obviously be all about some xbox end of times story, I have news for you. If the xbox is gone, then either the Playstation will ALREADY be gone, or it will also be on the way out the door, and I dont think you want that either.

*EDIT* Actually, it appears that the PS3 has outsold the 360 worldwide now, so I am mistaken about that. I'm man enough to admit when I err. However, it does appear the the 360 still kills it with software sales, ie games. Multiplatform games tend to sell better on the xbox, in other words.

But my point is still... neither side should want to see the other go "out of business". Trust me, you will not "win". A monopoly is going to hit you hard in the wallet, and even harder in the quality department.

No one wants to see a console stop being made, but with the way MS has been for its entire run in the console race has done poorly overall. Losing 4 billion on the original Xbox was a massive loss. And making very little money off of the 360, even with more software sales than the PS3.

Sony's Gamine division is reporting profits this year of $ 458 million:[link]http://www.gamechup.com/sony-fy12-results-ps3ps2-ships-16-5-million-company-makes-profit-after-for-years/[/link]

Microsoft's Entertainment and Device Division is actually losing money to the tune of $258 million:[link]http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/SegmentResults/EntertainmentAndDevicesDivision/FY12/Q3/performance.aspx[/link]

And with the Xbox One's release being very limited compared to the PS4, expect to see that trend continue for the Xbox brand for a while.

These forums aren't getting flooded with Sony fanboys. Sony gets a good bashing here on the Escapist. The only praise they've gotten was for not being marketing morons with the PS4. Other than that people were not even impressed with the Vita price drop that was announced.

Microsoft is just in for a major uphill fight. That's not fanboys saying that, those are what the facts are presenting.

 

[Griffolion]

Is there a reason I'm supposed to care about analysts?

You're spot on, there's no reason. They just spout alarmist, sensationalist crap for the sake of link bait. I see more accurate predictions of the fate of large corporations on YouTube comments...

The same analysts were convinced Microsoft were going to sell their console business on by now.

Let's just move on, shall we? Xbox remains a very profitable division for MS, despite their recent debacle.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Also, Steam's library lack titles from Japanese developers and Japanese developers develop games in a completely different way than Western devs do. Japanese games are built on the console for the console. Western games are built on the PC then put onto the console. The Steam Box will be at a major disadvantage by not having those titles as well as not having any exclusive games that wouldn't be on the PC anyways.

I seriously doubt that would be a major disadvantage at this point.
Japanese games don't carry nearly the same clout they did 10 years ago, as their relevancy has eroded away with Japan's waning interest in western gaming markets and increased focus on their domestic market (thank the recession for slashing the value of western currencies, and with it, Japan's export yields).

Sony may act as the best "bridge" for western markets; lightyears ahead of Nintendo, but it was Nintendo who made the biggest pile of money last generation, not Sony. While I don't see Nintendo repeating their accidental success with the WiiU, the success of the Wii and why it succeeded financially says an awful lot about the reduced relevance of Japanese games to mainstream western gaming.

More bluntly: Shitty, cheap Wii gimmick games made Nintendo more money than Sony's (generally) higher quality ports.

(thankfully, that success wasn't foolproof; when the Wii fell, it fell HARD. Check out Nintendo's losses from currency exchange and overproduction. Over production of, yup, Wii-crap and 3DS units.)

Summarily: I think you overestimate the value of Japanese games to the global market.

Apart from that, I don't see a "Steambox" filling any void left by Microsoft, since it would still have to reconcile the problems that M$'s initial Xbone offer had while competing with Steam.

I think you underestimate how many Japanese games sell on Sony's consoles. I'm not talking about just Final Fantasy and the like here. I'm talking about the large collection of franchises that are on their 5th installment and still selling well. Persona. Disgeaea, The Tales Of series, Star Ocean, and a plethora of other JRPGs and more Japanese styled games. They sell best on Sony's consoles. Remember when a bunch of JRPGs were 360 exclusives to drum up Japanese sales for the 360? Remember how they all sold like crap globally? The majority of those games were then ported to the PS3 and sold a lot better worldwide. The Playstation Brand brought JRPGs and Japanese style games like Disgeaea and Resident Evil, and Devil May Cry outside Japan and they have sold well since.

To say that Japanese games don't have the kind of pull that they used to is kind of ridiculous. They're just not as unique anymore because we're so used to them. But they don't sell well on Microsoft consoles due to that audience preferring North American games. They also don't sell well on Nintendo consoles due to Nintendo's fear of localization and failure to advertise anything not first party past E3.

 

[Fox12]

The console would have to be a catastrophic failure for them to leave. It usually takes several failed generations in a row before a game developer abandons the console war altogether. They were highly successful last generation, and they'll probably be modestly successful this generation. This is just wishful thinking.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Remember when a bunch of JRPGs were 360 exclusives to drum up Japanese sales for the 360? Remember how they all sold like crap globally? The majority of those games were then ported to the PS3 and sold a lot better worldwide.

You do realize that you're making my point for me here, right?

Let me explain.

We know the 360 failed in Japan, while the PS4 and Wii boomed.

Sony and Nintendo are beloved names in Japan. Microsoft, much less so.

Xbox is the only major console brand that isn't Japanese-domestic, and Japan has a VERY conservative culture when it comes to business (some call them downright xenophobic; I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt). It was VERY easy to see that even with domestic games on it, Japan rejected the 360 despite all other qualities being the same.

So, if the discriminator between good and poor GLOBAL sales for Japan's exports are Japan's contributions to that total, then that means Japan is the market that's buying the lion's share of those games.

Which logically means that those games aren't as important to the rest of the market.

To say that Japanese games don't have the kind of pull that they used to is kind of ridiculous.

*shrugs*
Truth can be stranger than fiction. I find it ridiculous what I have to do to find a decent mech game these days.

They're just not as unique anymore because we're so used to them. But they don't sell well on Microsoft consoles due to that audience preferring North American games. They also don't sell well on Nintendo consoles due to Nintendo's fear of localization and failure to advertise anything not first party past E3.

Two points of interest:
1) It's not just that western markets are "used" to them. It's also that those kinds of games aren't the "in thing" anymore. By your logic, western markets should be "used to" shooters by now, and yet Call of Derpy makes every other game's sales look pathetic in comparison every Christmas like clockwork.
(it's not just CoD4.x, Halo was doing the same before that.)

2) Assuming Japanese games have the same pull with western markets, why isn't Nintendo competing with Sony and trying to get more third party titles? They're a publisher AND they own the system so why capitalize on that? Isn't that their entire business model?

In any case, Nintendo's aversion allows for Sony to pick up the slack, and this polarized relationship with them and Japanese 3rd Party Exports suggests that Sony is only filling the void because there isn't enough global demand to justify both companies doing so.

They definitely seem to compete domestically, but much less so globally. And despite Sony's advantage in those export's, it's Nintendo who still has the advantage and Sony who is still playing catch up.

Not only that, but as Sony proved at E3, they're definitely still competing with Microsoft.

Interpret that as you wish.

 

[Lightknight]

Is there a reason I'm supposed to care about analysts?

You're spot on, there's no reason. They just spout alarmist, sensationalist crap for the sake of link bait. I see more accurate predictions of the fate of large corporations on YouTube comments...

The same analysts were convinced Microsoft were going to sell their console business on by now.

Let's just move on, shall we? Xbox remains a very profitable division for MS, despite their recent debacle.

Perhaps the best line of thinking yet.

Analysts have to come to crazy conclusions to make waves and get noticed. They're often little more than yellow journalistic prophets who aren't around when they're proven wrong. Headlines now to get noticed, stay quite later unless you end up being right. The analyst who then responds about how stupid they are is the one who is now latching onto their stunt analysis. It's a nice symbiotic relationship.

This is like when research professors discover something "new" in a firmly established area. They're people who make a living off of making new discoveries and if there isn't something to be found they'll make shit up.

 

[Agayek]

There are 2 problems with the PC a high customizable OS which can become unstable, many different types of hardware and various issues with different builds and drivers. You boil all that down to one setup with its own security system.The games are almost identical to the PC but will not work on a PC,ect,ect.

This doesn't work as a business model. What you're basically proposing is that there should be one console, with one set of hardware and software that everyone will use.

Or in other words, you want a single closed system that every console manufacturer will just slap their name on.

I shouldn't have to tell you just how retarded that is. There is literally zero business potential there, with absolutely no room to compete. Literally the only thing the manufacturers could do to stand out from their competitors is aesthetic design and controller shapes. Everything else would have to be exactly the same as every other console.

No one would want to enter that market, because as soon as a market leader is established, there is absolutely no way at all for anyone to displace them.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

There are 2 problems with the PC a high customizable OS which can become unstable, many different types of hardware and various issues with different builds and drivers. You boil all that down to one setup with its own security system.The games are almost identical to the PC but will not work on a PC,ect,ect.

This doesn't work as a business model. What you're basically proposing is that there should be one console, with one set of hardware and software that everyone will use.

Or in other words, you want a single closed system that every console manufacturer will just slap their name on.

I shouldn't have to tell you just how retarded that is. There is literally zero business potential there, with absolutely no room to compete. Literally the only thing the manufacturers could do to stand out from their competitors is aesthetic design and controller shapes. Everything else would have to be exactly the same as every other console.

No one would want to enter that market, because as soon as a market leader is established, there is absolutely no way at all for anyone to displace them.

Hardly it works fine for video media so why not games? The multi console format war BS costs us more in the long run than a console hardware forum would.

 

[Agayek]

Hardly it works fine for video media so why not games? The multi console format war BS costs us more in the long run than a console hardware forum would.

Because DVD/whatever players are stupid simple. All they really are is a disk reader and a codec player strapped to a super-basic computer. The background computer itself is completely irrelevant to its function, and as such they can all use vastly different hardware and software in order to provide different experiences to the user (ie, slightly higher resolution, faster loading times, DVR functionality, etc)

Video game systems are vastly more complicated, and as such this doesn't apply. The background hardware and software is integral to its functionality. The game has to be created, processed, and rendered in real-time, and it uses the console's underlying system in order to do so. It interfaces (technically, but not really, in-)directly with the console's hardware and uses that to perform its function.

The system you are proposing (same OS, drivers, etc across manufacturers) inherently makes it impossible for the underlying hardware to change. Every single console would, by the very nature of what you are proposing, require the exact same hardware, no matter who made it.

What this means is that there's very, very little room for competition. Every console would have the same hardware and the same base software, meaning the various manufacturers could only differentiate themselves from their competitors by a) aesthetic design of the console/controller or b) adding additional, irrelevant features to the console's behavior.

I shouldn't have to point out how utterly irrelevant and meaningless both of those are, nor how a focus on B is inherently toxic to the industry (no, seriously. Pretty much every console would go like the Xbox One launch, where they spend all their time talking about how awesome it is for watching TV or whatever, with maybe a token nod toward the fact that it plays games occasionally).

The only other alternative is to allow differing hardware, which means allowing different software and that means consoles would either go right back to what we currently have or become pre-built PCs.

 

[Winnosh]

This is hilarious We constantly get people talking about Nintendo stepping down and stopping making consoles, when in fact they're making the most off of their consoles, and by far the least likely system to do so.

So we get Microsoft stepping down, not any time soon though. And then hopefully Rare can go home to Nintendo.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

What's funny is that as much as the ps1 and ps2 were monopolies, Sony continued to bring an a-game. So the lead just kept getting further ahead.

And then the PS3 happened. People said the same thing about Nintendo. They dominated the market for years and then came the GameCube. Nintendo's ego was so big at the time that they thought that they didn't have to really support it because all the developers would inherently flock to the system since it was Nintendo. That obviously didn't work out for them.

I know the PS4 hype is pretty big around here but let's not abandon our business sense just because we don't like the other company. No company at the moment has the resources or a game plan to take MS's place if they did exit.(And it's definitely not Valve for those of you bringing it up!)A Sony monopoly would be assured.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Hardly it works fine for video media so why not games? The multi console format war BS costs us more in the long run than a console hardware forum would.

Because DVD/whatever players are stupid simple. All they really are is a disk reader and a codec player strapped to a super-basic computer. The background computer itself is completely irrelevant to its function, and as such they can all use vastly different hardware and software in order to provide different experiences to the user (ie, slightly higher resolution, faster loading times, DVR functionality, etc)

Video game systems are vastly more complicated, and as such this doesn't apply. The background hardware and software is integral to its functionality. The game has to be created, processed, and rendered in real-time, and it uses the console's underlying system in order to do so. It interfaces (technically, but not really, in-)directly with the console's hardware and uses that to perform its function.

The system you are proposing (same OS, drivers, etc across manufacturers) inherently makes it impossible for the underlying hardware to change. Every single console would, by the very nature of what you are proposing, require the exact same hardware, no matter who made it.

What this means is that there's very, very little room for competition. Every console would have the same hardware and the same base software, meaning the various manufacturers could only differentiate themselves from their competitors by a) aesthetic design of the console/controller or b) adding additional, irrelevant features to the console's behavior.

I shouldn't have to point out how utterly irrelevant and meaningless both of those are, nor how a focus on B is inherently toxic to the industry (no, seriously. Pretty much every console would go like the Xbox One launch, where they spend all their time talking about how awesome it is for watching TV or whatever, with maybe a token nod toward the fact that it plays games occasionally).

The only other alternative is to allow differing hardware, which means allowing different software and that means consoles would either go right back to what we currently have or become pre-built PCs.

And a 500$ PC is not? And thats consumer price not a more compact customized rig like the 360 or PS3 so their price would be cheaper to produce it. With one or 2 sets of hardware to build for you wind up with prices going down quickly making 100$ units possible in just 3 years. At the end of the day the consumer wins because we do not have to buy 3 consoles for a hand full of exclusive games that are not barely worth the price.

And as for the fallacy of competition. The PS3 did not wind up having better games than the 360, why? Almost everyone made games for the 360 because it was easier to make games for(easier to optimize textures,ect) meaning any extra stuff a system has that deviates from the norm will not be utilized worth a damn, see the WII, WIIU PS3 and PC even. Alot of things are not used simply because its not the normal easier path most devs use and it wont change with the PS4/Xbone either.

 

[Agayek]

And a 500$ PC is not? And thats consumer price not a more compact customized rig like the 360 or PS3 so their price would be cheaper to produce it. With one or 2 sets of hardware to build for you wind up with prices going down quickly making 100$ units possible in just 3 years. At the end of the day the consumer wins because we do not have to buy 3 consoles for a hand full of exclusive games that are not barely worth the price.

First off, nothing in this post addresses anything I've said. You're saying that a standardized hardware model for all consoles would be a good thing, but you haven't said why. You're correct that a thriving, standardized console market would be better for the consumer, I've never said otherwise, but you're apparently willfully blind to all the problems such a system would create. As soon as one company establishes market dominance, either all the others would be driven out of business or they'd go the route of the Xbox One and making everything other than games their priority, because with standardized hardware, literally the only way to differentiate themselves from their competitors would be to start tacking on random extra features that have nothing to do with gaming.

Every box would, by necessity, be exactly the same, and so what incentive does the customer have to choose Microsoft's version of the box over Sony's, for example? Answer: none. Which means that as soon as one company captures the majority of the market, they'll have a stranglehold that never ends. That kind of scenario does not attract people to the market, and all the competition would vanish, thus driving the price up and fucking over the consumer even harder.

Or alternatively, every company would start shilling their boxes as cable/internet/whatever boxes... that also happen to play games. This kind of approach would be incredibly toxic to gaming as a whole, mostly by burdening the console with and forcing its hardware to handle all the extra features no one asked for or wants but need to exist in order for that box to be different from the next one over.

Also, what does the price of PCs have to do with anything? For that matter, what does the cost of the console have to do with anything, even if you are laughably wrong about how dramatically the prices will lower (hint: console manufacturers already operate at a loss for the first 2-3 years of the console's lifecycle. Standardizing the hardware isn't going to change that by much, if at all, and so the price isn't going to change)?

 

[Lightknight]

What's funny is that as much as the ps1 and ps2 were monopolies, Sony continued to bring an a-game. So the lead just kept getting further ahead.

And then the PS3 happened. People said the same thing about Nintendo. They dominated the market for years and then came the GameCube. Nintendo's ego was so big at the time that they thought that they didn't have to really support it because all the developers would inherently flock to the system since it was Nintendo. That obviously didn't work out for them.

I know the PS4 hype is pretty big around here but let's not abandon our business sense just because we don't like the other company. No company at the moment has the resources or a game plan to take MS's place if they did exit.(And it's definitely not Valve for those of you bringing it up!)A Sony monopoly would be assured.

As I stated earlier, MS getting out of the business doesn't mean it ceases to exist. They'd merely sell this division and likely remain part owners. This analyst is likely full of crap too. As long as it continues to make money I don't think they'd sell unless a serious deal came around.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

First off, nothing in this post addresses anything I've said.

Because I don't feel like retorting to a bunch of complicated excuses that on further examination fall apart?

But alright I will bite.
=============

Because DVD/whatever players are stupid simple. All they really are is a disk reader and a codec player strapped to a super-basic computer. The background computer itself is completely irrelevant to its function, and as such they can all use vastly different hardware and software in order to provide different experiences to the user (ie, slightly higher resolution, faster loading times, DVR functionality, etc)

It?s not THAT complicated, you make X and sell software to it. You're over thinking things.

Video game systems are vastly more complicated, and as such this doesn't apply. The background hardware and software is integral to its functionality. The game has to be created, processed, and rendered in real-time, and it uses the console's underlying system in order to do so. It interfaces (technically, but not really, in-)directly with the console's hardware and uses that to perform its function.

SO? You are still looking at a base price range and new formats every 5-10 years. With a single format you wind up with wider usage of the console due there only being one unit made by a ton of competitors and price drops more so than what you see with the flawed console war model. Don't want a bum unit don't buy the sanyo. Don?t want a console get a PC, don?t want a PC get an apple or android device. There are more platforms for gaming than consoles.

The system you are proposing (same OS, drivers, etc across manufacturers) inherently makes it impossible for the underlying hardware to change. Every single console would, by the very nature of what you are proposing, require the exact same hardware, no matter who made it.
What this means is that there's very, very little room for competition. Every console would have the same hardware and the same base software, meaning the various manufacturers could only differentiate themselves from their competitors by a) aesthetic design of the console/controller or b) adding additional, irrelevant features to the console's behavior.

And this changes how from the current model? You?re making mountains out of mole hills.
The base hardware is the same but cabinet design,heat sinks,fans, power distribution,chip placement,ect,ect,ect. About the only thing set in stone are what chips to use, with some software effort you can even allow for new faster chipsets to be used in lue of the old. Same instruction set just faster processing of it. It?s not that complicated.

I shouldn't have to point out how utterly irrelevant and meaningless both of those are, nor how a focus on B is inherently toxic to the industry (no, seriously. Pretty much every console would go like the Xbox One launch, where they spend all their time talking about how awesome it is for watching TV or whatever, with maybe a token nod toward the fact that it plays games occasionally).

No you shouldn?t you are doing it wrong.
It?s no more toxin than the current situation IMO.
And an amazing thing happened people complained and most issues went away. The launch issues are mainly supply issues coming about from competition and MS pushing for a Xmas release. If you had one system you?d have a worldwide launch in most major markets at once.

The only other alternative is to allow differing hardware, which means allowing different software and that means consoles would either go right back to what we currently have or become pre-built PCs.

I?m leaning more to this but it creates some issues, you?d have 3 variants lite, premium and elite. Then the vendors make them using those titles it offers more competition and locks in the quasi PC software to 3 main variations the games just have a couple things different than a PC game a security system, limit driver data and automated optimization to lite, premium and elite(and yes I know I am using 360 SKU trems it?s just an example). It might be better than using more specialized hardware/drivers.

First off, nothing in this post addresses anything I've said. You're saying that a standardized hardware model for all consoles would be a good thing, but you haven't said why. You're correct that a thriving, standardized console market would be better for the consumer, I've never said otherwise, but you're apparently willfully blind to all the problems such a system would create. As soon as one company establishes market dominance, either all the others would be driven out of business or they'd go the route of the Xbox One and making everything other than games their priority, because with standardized hardware, literally the only way to differentiate themselves from their competitors would be to start tacking on random extra features that have nothing to do with gaming.

Looking at the video hardware market you?d get half of much competitor?s viaing to find their niche, which is more than 5 plus 2 or 3 out of left field. And it?s hard to have dominance when you are just a vendor, as for those in the forum they all get a piece of licensing depending on who brought what to the table. If they fail so be it. Sustaining a dinosaur business model is more illogical.

Every box would, by necessity, be exactly the same, and so what incentive does the customer have to choose Microsoft's version of the box over Sony's, for example? Answer: none. Which means that as soon as one company captures the majority of the market, they'll have a stranglehold that never ends. That kind of scenario does not attract people to the market, and all the competition would vanish, thus driving the price up and fucking over the consumer even harder.

Not really, see above.

Or alternatively, every company would start shilling their boxes as cable/internet/whatever boxes... that also happen to play games. This kind of approach would be incredibly toxic to gaming as a whole, mostly by burdening the console with and forcing its hardware to handle all the extra features no one asked for or wants but need to exist in order for that box to be different from the next one over.

It?s called competition whatever sells, sells.

Also, what does the price of PCs have to do with anything? For that matter, what does the cost of the console have to do with anything, even if you are laughably wrong about how dramatically the prices will lower (hint: console manufacturers already operate at a loss for the first 2-3 years of the console's lifecycle. Standardizing the hardware isn't going to change that by much, if at all, and so the price isn't going to change)?

Base price of what can be built, compact customized variants should cost less due to mass production so unit prices would be a max of 300-400(selling at a profit, because you have a much larger industry building the damn thing) at first then drop 50$ a year then stabilize at half the launch price.

You?re not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[Strazdas]

snip

Not really a console is is still cheaper to sell in mass quantities and get the same software running at the same speed across all units.


PC is not all whats its cracked up to be.

Win 8 can be hacked much easier than any console.

A PC is still difficult to sell games on, you need large amounts of the same level of hardware in order to provide the same level of performance across them all. This is why I wish we'd get over the costly console war format and focus on a universal format. At least with that all I have to do is buy one console if its more cost effective than upping my Mobo/CPU/Video card.

A console was cheaper. the current new consoles coming out, you cna make PC with same hardware for less yourself. of course there is still the conviencience factor, jsut like buying prebuilt PC. that you pay extra for.
Win 8 can be hacked, and it wont let you protect yourself either. Noone should use Win 8 on PC anyway, its exclusively mobile OS that got streached to PC because... well... its microsoft.
microsfot alwys had a ot of security flaws too so beign hackable isnt something new.
The thing with PC, graphic optinos are the fore a reason. that covers most hardware differences as far as performance goes. and while PC hardware is mroe expensive from the get go (or well, not anymore with new consoles) it really pays back with cheaper games. so form economic perspective you win if your a PC gamer. and you dont need to constantly upgrade your parts. I buy new hardware (basically a overhaul of everything) every 5 years. That is almsot as long as the console cycle itself. while granted at the end of the 5 years period i cant play new games on high settings, neither can consoles.

The console would have to be a catastrophic failure for them to leave. It usually takes several failed generations in a row before a game developer abandons the console war altogether. They were highly successful last generation, and they'll probably be modestly successful this generation. This is just wishful thinking.

Im sorry what?
last two consoles microsoft had resulted in them being the least selling console with exception of the console that killed sega that sold even less. they only started making profit in the last couple years and the whole "xbox" project is still around 10 billion in the red. so far there was a huge loss from the project, and even the xbox prject alone is still a loss, though not as big one. if this console wont be a MASSIVE sucess then there is very high chance they will drop it. the idea pushers are both out of MS, and it does not make them any profit in the long run.

 

[Fox12]

snip

Not really a console is is still cheaper to sell in mass quantities and get the same software running at the same speed across all units.


PC is not all whats its cracked up to be.

Win 8 can be hacked much easier than any console.

A PC is still difficult to sell games on, you need large amounts of the same level of hardware in order to provide the same level of performance across them all. This is why I wish we'd get over the costly console war format and focus on a universal format. At least with that all I have to do is buy one console if its more cost effective than upping my Mobo/CPU/Video card.

A console was cheaper. the current new consoles coming out, you cna make PC with same hardware for less yourself. of course there is still the conviencience factor, jsut like buying prebuilt PC. that you pay extra for.
Win 8 can be hacked, and it wont let you protect yourself either. Noone should use Win 8 on PC anyway, its exclusively mobile OS that got streached to PC because... well... its microsoft.
microsfot alwys had a ot of security flaws too so beign hackable isnt something new.
The thing with PC, graphic optinos are the fore a reason. that covers most hardware differences as far as performance goes. and while PC hardware is mroe expensive from the get go (or well, not anymore with new consoles) it really pays back with cheaper games. so form economic perspective you win if your a PC gamer. and you dont need to constantly upgrade your parts. I buy new hardware (basically a overhaul of everything) every 5 years. That is almsot as long as the console cycle itself. while granted at the end of the 5 years period i cant play new games on high settings, neither can consoles.

The console would have to be a catastrophic failure for them to leave. It usually takes several failed generations in a row before a game developer abandons the console war altogether. They were highly successful last generation, and they'll probably be modestly successful this generation. This is just wishful thinking.

Im sorry what?
last two consoles microsoft had resulted in them being the least selling console with exception of the console that killed sega that sold even less. they only started making profit in the last couple years and the whole "xbox" project is still around 10 billion in the red. so far there was a huge loss from the project, and even the xbox prject alone is still a loss, though not as big one. if this console wont be a MASSIVE sucess then there is very high chance they will drop it. the idea pushers are both out of MS, and it does not make them any profit in the long run.

This is interesting. I'm curious, does this take game sales and attach rates into consideration? I know the Xbox has dominated U.S. sales, but floundered elsewhere. I was also under the impression that they sold more games per console, even if they sold less consoles over all.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

A console was cheaper. the current new consoles coming out, you cna make PC with same hardware for less yourself. of course there is still the conviencience factor, jsut like buying prebuilt PC. that you pay extra for.
Win 8 can be hacked, and it wont let you protect yourself either. Noone should use Win 8 on PC anyway, its exclusively mobile OS that got streached to PC because... well... its microsoft.
microsfot alwys had a ot of security flaws too so beign hackable isnt something new.
The thing with PC, graphic optinos are the fore a reason. that covers most hardware differences as far as performance goes. and while PC hardware is mroe expensive from the get go (or well, not anymore with new consoles) it really pays back with cheaper games. so form economic perspective you win if your a PC gamer. and you dont need to constantly upgrade your parts. I buy new hardware (basically a overhaul of everything) every 5 years. That is almsot as long as the console cycle itself. while granted at the end of the 5 years period i cant play new games on high settings, neither can consoles.

You still will have a cheaper unit price with more profit generation going with a single console model produced by various vendors.

Also you will have cheaper games, less licensing costs, less porting costs, less over head,ect,ect. Not that they would pass it on to consumers but still.

They offered some filtering and such for the PSX on the PS2 and PS3. So its possible but they do not do it because console games are built for specific hardware. If you have more mailable hardware with software built for that in mind and you keep concurrent generations of hardware within the same type of architecture just expand its capabilities each generation you could easily have passed games working on a new console unit.


The Win 8 DRM is highly over rated and the only the mobile version is "unalterable".

Im sorry what?
last two consoles microsoft had resulted in them being the least selling console with exception of the console that killed sega that sold even less. they only started making profit in the last couple years and the whole "xbox" project is still around 10 billion in the red. so far there was a huge loss from the project, and even the xbox prject alone is still a loss, though not as big one. if this console wont be a MASSIVE sucess then there is very high chance they will drop it. the idea pushers are both out of MS, and it does not make them any profit in the long run.

Just an FYI MS has been making a profit on the Xbox for its last year or so I forget but the 360 finally made a profit for MS 3 or 4 years ago and that includes anything left over from the Xbox.

The Xbox project has been out of the red for awhile now, sure they put 25+ million into it and lost 5-10 on the RROD but they've managed to still make a profit at this point and time.

And its not like Sony is making much profit off the PS3 either.