Xbox One Could Be Microsoft's Last Console

[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.

 

[Agayek]

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

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.

You realize this is irrelevant to my point right? You are responding to my point that "games require hardware to operate" with a rant about how single format is a superior model.

This is not how a debate works. Address the damn point at least.

As I've already said, from a consumer perspective, a standardized platform on which to play games across all manufacturers would be superior. I agree with you on that. Nothing I've said has had anything to do with that. I've been bringing up the point that there's no business incentive to do so, and you continually refuse to address that single point.

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.

You want to know what changes from the current model? It removes the ability for Sony's console to perform noticeably differently from Microsoft's (or whoever else's). Literally every console will perform exactly the same way in every situation. Meaning there is no difference between any two consoles, save whatever features they add that will, by sheer virtue of the physical impossibility of not being so, have absolutely nothing to do with actually playing games.

Also, I should point out that the various things you are supporting (different chipsets, etc) is one of the things you prohibited earlier. If the hardware changes, at all, it introduces complexity and different behaviors between systems, which will incentivize developers specializing in a specific system (read: exactly what we have now).

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.

Yes. They shifted their advertising away from emphasizing all the non-game features.

What happens when they don't have anything but non-game features to advertise?

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.

This is slightly better than your original proposal, but, as I said, it's just the PC development problem in a different skin. Developers would pick a target platform, ensure the software works there, then do just enough to make it functional on the others. The most dedicated dev houses would go the extra mile and ensure it works on every platform (because it's a much easier task here than on PC), but most would be content with good enough.

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.

YOU CAN'T USE THE DVD PLAYER MARKET AS A MODEL FOR THE GAME CONSOLE MARKET.

As I explained earlier, they are fundamentally different. Superficially, from a consumer perspective, they appear quite similar (put disk in, enjoy media), but they are quite fundamentally different. Game consoles require their hardware to operate, while DVD players can function with just about any hardware. A standardized codec is much, much, much, much, much less complex to handle than a video game. DVDs contain mpeg/whatever-codec files that are essentially a long string of images. There is very little processing involved and absolutely no rendering. All you need to do for your DVD player to meet the standard is to read a codec and display the images involved.

A game console has to accept and execute very specific sets of hardware instructions that simply cannot be easily changed between systems. There's simply too much low-level coding required for acceptable performance in high-fidelity games to make a system-agnostic platform (like, say, Java) the standard. The vast majority of games are written in C++, and the ones with the fancy graphics and shit, the ones that actually make use of all that fancy hardware, need to be written in C++ in order to function to an acceptable degree. Minecraft is about as visually complex as a higher-level-language game can get and still perform at a reasonable level.

What that means is that the specific hardware used is very, very important to whether or not a game functions correctly with minimal issues. That's why PC games are so much more likely to have strange bugs or be unplayable or have driver issues. The game expects a certain set of hardware functions to be available (or certain amounts of memory or whatever), and if they return strange values or simply aren't available, the game cannot function properly.

That's where the beauty of consoles come in. They introduce a simple, standardized set of hardware for games to run on (just like you want).

The problem is that if you try to make every console use the same standard, then there's nothing left to differentiate one console from the next within the realm of being able to play games.

It?s called competition whatever sells, sells.

Yes. And when the customer can't tell the difference between your product and your competitors, there's no incentive for the customer to buy your product save for brand recognition. What that means is that you need to differentiate your product, or you need to be the market leader.

Thus, we'll have the market leader's console, which plays games, and everyone else's, which is a cable/internet/whatever box that just happens to also play games, or everyone else will go out of business and you'll have one choice.

Neither of those are terribly good futures.

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.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. No.

They already manufacture consoles in bulk, and the fixed cost per unit is still stupidly high for the first few years of release. It doesn't matter how many you can mass produce if it still costs you $350-400 just to buy the parts for a single unit.

The variable cost per unit would go down, absolutely, but seeing as consoles are already being mass produced, it won't be by nearly as much as you seem to think.

Prices would stay about the same. They might drop a bit, but that would be more from the increased competition (since the schematics and standard would have to be public) than any reduction in the cost of production.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

BLah blah blah excuse excuse excuse THE SKY IS FALLING.

Nope completely disagree.

NEXT!

 

[Gunner 51]

Given how Microsoft's new console has been a completely unmitigated disaster so far, I won't be shocked if they threw in the towel when it comes to gaming. But given how they started to listen and are working on placating gamers with their U-turns: this is a step in the right direction.

I think I understand what Microsoft are doing by chasing the casual gamer, but they fail to understand that most gamers the world over do not have the same level of disposable income as their American cousins and don't wish to pay 500 quid on a console and another sum of money on a subscription just to play the thing.

As far as I know, most people don't want all this motion control in their consoles as they view it to be little more than an overpriced boondoggle. (Love that word!)

Furthermore, Microsoft's other error is to be too cosy with large developers with their overkill DRM. People don't want to be treated like they are pirates or that they have to be tied down. While I shall acknowledge that Microsoft figured this out and removed most of the DRM - the damage to their reputation had been done.

But after all this, I won't write them off just yet. I'll certainly grant Microsoft that they've made a great big balls-up this far, but they have proven that they CAN bounce back after making a mess.

 

[Agayek]

BLah blah blah excuse excuse excuse THE SKY IS FALLING.

Nope completely disagree.

NEXT!

That's fine, but you still haven't addressed the point. Just answer the one question:

What reason do the console manufacturers have to implement such a system?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

BLah blah blah excuse excuse excuse THE SKY IS FALLING.

Nope completely disagree.

NEXT!

That's fine, but you still haven't addressed the point. Just answer the one question:

What reason do the console manufacturers have to implement such a system?

Ah sorry I am irritated and frustrated at things right now. No need to take out here.

Still the reiteration was getting to be a bit much.

To make it cheaper to get all the good games, right now you have 3 systems all with good titles most of which are console specific.

Remove all exclusivity and I do not mind the console war format.

 

[Agayek]

Ah sorry I am irritated and frustrated at things right now. No need to take out here.

Still the reiteration was getting to be a bit much.

To make it cheaper to get all the good games, right now you have 3 systems all with good titles most of which are console specific.

Remove all exclusivity and I do not mind the console war format.

You're missing my point.

I agree with you that a single, standardized form is the best possible outcome for the consumer. I have never said otherwise.

But there's no reason for any of the manufacturers to do so.

"Hey, we could charge less money for our product!" is not an incentive for a company to do something.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Ah sorry I am irritated and frustrated at things right now. No need to take out here.

Still the reiteration was getting to be a bit much.

To make it cheaper to get all the good games, right now you have 3 systems all with good titles most of which are console specific.

Remove all exclusivity and I do not mind the console war format.

You're missing my point.

I agree with you that a single, standardized form is the best possible outcome for the consumer. I have never said otherwise.

But there's no reason for any of the manufacturers to do so.

"Hey, we could charge less money for our product!" is not an incentive for a company to do something.

Hey I do not see any *runs into a tree* ...... LOL

The trouble is you need to put ALOT of money up front. Its far more easy to license it out or just sell software. You might not have as much profit but you do not have the overhead the console war format has to hit a point where its not cost effective anymore and we are closer to it by the generation.

One problem is they will not work together to lower their costs another is they are making just enough to make it to a new generation so we've not had a shake up that would force them to change any.

But ya your right.

They wont change they will just go under.

 

[William Ossiss]

Good the sooner we get to a universal gaming hardware environment the better....

Yeah! Cause monopolies always work out in the end right guys?

If you got all the companies working together to make just one console (Nintendo excluded, because they will never join in) we could, as a gaming whole, have some very interesting prospects on our hands. Micro$oft and $ony will be fighting for our purchases on the games that they make. It would create a few new jobs in the market; specifically the one where M$ hires people to work with other hired people from $ony to make the console. Then it becomes an arms race to see who can make what game that will top the charts, with the winner rubbing it in the face of the loser. As a society, gaming culture would benefit and prosper as a whole.

Of course, this is wishful thinking. We have as much of a chance of that happening as we do the people of the world uniting under the Earth flag.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

Im not denying that such optino would be more economical thatn current situation. but would it actually be better? money is not everything.
Also your "advancing hardware with similar notions" is basically PC hardware save for a few architectural jumps like the i-3/5/7 processors beings differently designed thus much more powerful. Also with PC you would write games for software and not hardware, thus circumwenting the whole problem. with consoles you have to write for specific hardware since there is no suport drivers. writing for hwardware may allow you to do more with it, but also removes pretty much any compatability.
Win 8 DRM is overrated since it isnt there. Microsoft took it out at users outrage in last months before release. It was suppsoed to be even worse than what Xbox was originally announced. Want to intall program and microsfot doesnt approve? tough.
its alterable, sure, but you needm uch mroe knowledge for that with win 8 since it is locked up system.
--------
I know 360 had profits for couple years. however if you take the period since 360 launch till now, its still in a heavy loss. and original xbox was loss during its whole run. the whole xbox project form launch till now is around 10b dollars in minus still though.
but yes sony did made a loss with PS3, but thats after a very sucesfull console and only 1 cycle, while mycrosfot seems to be going into 3rd cycle for loss. after all judging by preorders un US sony wins by 50% in software and 67% in top 5 software. and thats loosing on your own turf, imagine coutnries where Xbox doesnt launch.

 

[gorfias]

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 Escapist reported a marketer last generation saying, no matter who wins this (7th) generation, there will not be another. And now, since the Wii U, there has in fact been an 8th.

The question is, can they improve graphics enough to get people on board for another generation? Hard to tell. PS3 is 7 year old tech. My PC has an HD7970. After the Humble Origin Bundle, I now have Battlefield 3 on both systems. You have to be pretty discerning to pick up a difference. (I watched a youtube comparison. The commentator picked up on things like the texture of some barbed wire. Terrific.)

I have heard that console tech has held back what they can develop for PC, that PS4 will be like a rising tide, bringing everyone up. I look forward to having my eyes knocked out. But if it doesn't happen, why should there be a 9th (or even 8th) gen? I'm pretty happy with what I have.

And the 360, from what I've read was making money. They should stick with a winner.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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.

Im not denying that such optino would be more economical thatn current situation. but would it actually be better? money is not everything.
Also your "advancing hardware with similar notions" is basically PC hardware save for a few architectural jumps like the i-3/5/7 processors beings differently designed thus much more powerful. Also with PC you would write games for software and not hardware, thus circumwenting the whole problem. with consoles you have to write for specific hardware since there is no suport drivers. writing for hwardware may allow you to do more with it, but also removes pretty much any compatability.
Win 8 DRM is overrated since it isnt there. Microsoft took it out at users outrage in last months before release. It was suppsoed to be even worse than what Xbox was originally announced. Want to intall program and microsfot doesnt approve? tough.
its alterable, sure, but you needm uch mroe knowledge for that with win 8 since it is locked up system.
--------
I know 360 had profits for couple years. however if you take the period since 360 launch till now, its still in a heavy loss. and original xbox was loss during its whole run. the whole xbox project form launch till now is around 10b dollars in minus still though.
but yes sony did made a loss with PS3, but thats after a very sucesfull console and only 1 cycle, while mycrosfot seems to be going into 3rd cycle for loss. after all judging by preorders un US sony wins by 50% in software and 67% in top 5 software. and thats loosing on your own turf, imagine coutnries where Xbox doesnt launch.

I think it offers more good than bad but its more wishful thinking. I could see MS doing the OS/software dev kits, Sony would do the hardware and Nintendo could do the peripherals. But there again they wont work together because there is no need as of yet.

I dunno about the Xbox because they had to build a console empire and build their own net services so that would create a scenario where you will take forever to get a profit from it.

Now the 360 was a joke, bad hardware design creating the whole RROD fiasco that's all on them because someone just had to launch it when it was not ready. MS has a bad time with thinking their crap don't stink.

The PS3 could have went much more smoothly, if they went with a X86 architecture they would have spent half as much up front(includes not making the CELL processor mind you) and probably make a profit off it sooner not to mention the programming issues at the start. Now the texture issues I dunno if they went cheap on the ramm the X86 architecture would not help with the bottle necking.

As for the Xbone and PS4 we got 2 systems that are close in spec with the PS4 having a bit more raw power that should translate into real world numbers this time around. I love the fact they went with 8GB even if the OS takes up 30-50% of it its a start that they see their damn weak spot. Tho With the quality of games I am pretty much out of next gen gaming, I'm putting 600 into my PC and not worry about anything for 5 years. Between 3DS,PS2 and WII emulation and a decent PC gaming rig I will have enough to play.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Xbox One will be MS last console, when Hell freezes over or thaws out. They've invested too much into gaining a valuable foothold in the console business to back out. Many devs and pubs also have invested in their 360 a lot. They've also helped raise Sony indirectly to improve and do better so competition is indeed a good (just a shame Nintendo haven't listened and learned this fact and look where they are now).

This coming next gen is going to be a special one. Don't forget, 360 was a little under PS3's spec but gained from being easier to program for. With both PS4 and Xbox One now easy to program for, gamers can focus on the cool games again, and hopefully more gamers will buy both PS4 and 360 so we can eliminate silly fanboyistic brand loyalty.

Some might poo poo MS, but they've done more positive things for gaming this gen than not. This was once Nintendo's stable, but they only care about themselves and their money bin these days, not really what gamers want or need. Without MS, it'd be a Sony show again, which wouldn't be nearly as fun as the industry status we currently have.

Also, stuff like what happened at E3 2013 was the stuff of gaming legends, as we all love a good smack down contest for our gaming money. Roll on E3 2014 and may both PS4 and Xbox One do well.

 

[Brotha Desmond]

I know the perfect way for Microsoft to turn a profit with the One. Every 50 or so boxes are set to die after the first month, and each system will come with a 29 day warranty. People will just go out and buy a new Xbox one, just like they did with the 360. Even people did use the warranty services, a lot of people also just went out and bought new boxes; which contributed to sales.

 

[K12]

To sum up:

Well if you don't play the game the way that I want then I'm going to take my ball and go home!