The X1 has lost Microsoft 400 million

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Rozalia1:

Tayh:
Now, I'm not really into consoles, but are you guys actually encouraging a situation where Sony has the monopoly on Big Console Games?
Do you not know where monopolies lead?
Surely some competition is good to keep the companies on their toes.

*Points at PS2, widely considered to be the best console of all time that obliterated all competition*
*Further points at Nintendo's handhelds as relevant examples of dominance not being the bad thing people think it always is*

Besides Nintendo will still exist, and Sony would be fools to suddenly stop pumping out exclusives or any such things they do now. They do not have a product that people can't go elsewhere for after all.

Nintendo hand helds are a REALLY bad example, with the pretty awful product quality, in terms of nearly every aspect, of the DS and 3DS. The good games came from competition between third parties.

kilenem:

Kalezian:
dont get me wrong, I like the original Xbox, I still use my 360 [because when the big guys from Microsoft say we had best keep out 360's if we want offline games, you laugh at them and call them retarded], and I still love both of them.

I wont get a Xbone ever though, too much bullshit, too much smug assholes that only deserve to never work in the industry again [Major Neilson included, that retarded son of a bitch]. My internet isn't the best, so Microsoft themselves said they dont want me as a customer, that's fine.

I'm only regretting not getting a Ps3 when I had the chance, though I might change that soon. Sadly the Ps4 doesn't exactly have that many games that interest me at the moment either.

so I guess I will stick to the last generation of consoles.

Still makes me feel good to hear that the Xbone has lost microsoft 4 Million though.

This actually makes me want to start another Forum Post could this be longest double Generation. Last generation I didn't see this many high profile releases towards the end of the Xbox, gamecube and PS2 life cycle. I can only think of Zelda, need for speed and Marvel Ultimate Alliance. The rest were just sports games.

honestly me and a couple of friends were talking after hearing that Tomb Raider 2: Rise of the Tomb Raider [which is what it will forever be known to me from now on] being an Xbone exclusive about this new generation.

In all honesty there isn't a real incentive to upgrade to the new generation unlike the Xbox/Ps2/Gamecube era. Most of the high profile games that are coming out are already available on the previous generation, and the exclusives that were hyped up to be "the reason you get these new consoles" *coughtitanfallcough* ended up being lackluster.

I mean, I will eventually get a new generation of console, there will come a day when there are no more games made for my 360 and everything new will be on the Ps4/Xbone/PC only. Right now though there are possibly only three to four games that will make me get a Ps4, however they are not released yet. which is what is keeping me from upgrading. even then there is a chance that the games will be shit and make me regret blowing money on a new console instead of getting a half-decent gaming PC.

I do find it strange though, the Ps2 was still supported well into the Ps3's life while the Xbox was nearly cut clean when the 360 was released. Yet here? a majority of the games coming out soon are remastered editions.

But that GTA V on the next gen though. might just get a good gaming PC just for that.

Ultratwinkie:

1. Custom is not the same as standard.

And Microsoft's dev costs are not standard. So you're rationalising a doublt standard.

2. A TV show and plushies don't bring in billions. Not like Microsoft or Sony do.

And now you're shifting the goalposts.

3. Cost of design must be paid nearest to the launch date as possible. You cannot pay for future manufacturing technology, which is why the ps3 was 600$ at launch and not 100$.

And? My question went to something completely different. Is this another goalpost shift?

So now with 4.7 billion in the bank, they have 1 last console in them at best. The problem here is moore's law and tech will only get more and more expensive until we use graphene. We can't expect superman to swoop in and save everyone yet.

Assuming that their costs rival Microsoft, which you cannot prove nor have any good faith basis for, and no other factors. Among other things, the estimated cost of manufacture for the Wii U is significantly less, already putting a dent in the costs necessary to run a console. I'm also missing the Moore's Law connection. Shouldn't that mean that the PS4 should cost hundreds of dollars more than the PS3 by your logic?

I agree about Superman. However, the steps you're taking to put them in dire straights might as well be "because ponies." And ponies are horrible prognosticators. We can neither save Nintendo with Superman nor condemn them with magic ponies. Which makes me wonder what your point is, since it has nothing to do with reality.

Strazdas:

Consoles are closed propriatary systems that all must be identical.

Irrelevant unless the Wii U and Xbox One are identical hardware that must meet the same standards. I mean, the issue here was the assumption that two different boxes from two different manufacturers would have similar dev costs because it is convenient to tar them with the same brush. And ponies. Because brushes and ponies.

No ponies involved.

Unless you're actually addressing my statements. I would presume that since you quoted me and even referenced a line from my post, you were. As long as that's true, "it's different" only works as long as some sort of Calvinball defense is invoked. The fact remains that Microsoft's costs are not indicative of Nintendo's costs any more than one PC build is indicative of a different build's cost. You cannot factually argue that. You cold argue the costs were the same if you had evidence, but that still wouldn't make it reasonable to assume they were the same "because consoles are uniform systems." And if there's evidence of the cost to Nintendo, rather than "some other company spent X dollars," I would entertain that as a real argument.

Vault101:

I'm not talking about $20 a CD, I'm talking about any money at all

but 20 a CD is the only thing they offer for the most part! Thats the issue here.

I'm not sure to the extent of the DRM on songs, if streaming isn't an issue there is spotify which is built like itunes where you can find practically anything and its free (the only thing is you have to listen to an add every now and again if your not subscribed)

It appears you did not read what i said:
"Can you tell me a single website that has a decent collection of music that i could legally buy and download? Oh and Itunes wont work because:
1. Itunes DRM
2. Terrible quality"

Baldr:
Let put this into perspective for some of you Nay-sayers.
Compared to the launch of the Sony Playstation 3 and the original Xbox, The Xbox One is a hit.
http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/30/sony-ps-division-has-lost-4-7-billion-since-launching-ps3/

irrelevant comparison. marked was many times smaller than it is now. that is like saying that some obscure car manufcaturer selling 500 cars is a hit because 100 years ago there were only 500 total sold.

The_Kodu:

Except even most modern consoles don't have a large amount of apps still open running in the background at the same times.

Yes console do more but most aren't doing it all at once.

Also I think console graphics have evolved beyond nearly square heads and non moving lips.

did you know that there are 16GB of hard drive reserved for OS only? did you know that out of 8GB of ram, only 5GB is available for games because OS eats the other 3? Did you know that 4 of the 16 processor cores are not available because they are reserved for OS? Did you know that unlike PC, OS for console always runs its GUI in the background, loading it with useless stuff? console OS is worse in resource management than PC OS if we take Xbox One as an example.
The fact that it cant run large amount of apps while gobbling these kind of resources can only mean incompetence in the developer. Its like consoles are finally catching up to functionality of windows 95 but using more resources than windows vista.

Yes, moving lips and round heads technology has been ported to console after games with this technology got popular on PC and people saw how cool it is. for moving lips for example you should thank HL2.

The_Kodu:

They have to develop and design them and the operating systems this isn't android on the consoles.
They have to engineer it all in and develop and sort out what processor and GPU they want in the system which are often actually custom jobs.

R&D is a cost sustained before release and should not figure out in hardware sales costs unless microsoft wants to get fined for bad accounting reports.

These latest consoles are much less costum job than you think. standard architecture, standard parts, the only costum thing is the APU.

Ultratwinkie:
prebuild money pit stories

I have different experience with prebuilds. im know as "that computer guy" for my extended family, so whenever somone wants to buy a computer im the one they turn to. so ive seen quite a few prebuilds, both from myself when i was young and my family that wanted to "just buy a computer".
the first prebuild was a Pentium 1. After it was retired without failure it sat for a long time till after 15 or so years i decided to give it away to recycling, but i wanted to see if it still works. it did. wasnt much use anymore though so i still gave it away. not a single failure and 4 members of my family had used it after i moved on to a newer one (were poor, ok).
Second prebuild was run by Athlon Xp 1700+
It had GPU heating issues. the issues went mostly unnoticed untill i literally burned the 440mx that sat there playing san andreas. with smoke and everything. replaced with 7300 and didnt have problems there since. the original hard drive gave up, after 8 years of service, but i couldnt ask for more out of how much i task my hard drives and by that time 60gb hard drive wasnt a big loss. I did frankenstein that computer with ram. by the end it ran 4 different frequency DDR sticks with different size. totalled at 868 Mb of RAM. worked flawlessly :P My dad still uses that computer which is now 11 years old. The heating issues were solved simply - removing the sidepanel and exposing inner parts to air. no more overheating.
A mode modern prebuilts were the ones i got for my cousins (ill ignore laptops for adults because laptops are laptops). I dont remmeber the specs now, but after many years of service they still all work fine. so no problems with those there. i even postured about buying one of them off my cousin when she moved to laptop because "PC is too big" but decided against it was it was getting quite dated by then.
Then there was one recent prebuilt thats been working fantastically. it performed like costum build and had no cooling problems despite using stock coolers. the only problem was that prebuilt came with too short monitor cable so i had to replace that for a longer one for the setup needed. Of course that is is still less than a year old but no problems can be observed yet.

So as you see i had quite a pleasant exprience with prebuids and i think for a first time PC gamer its a very possible choice. Not all of them are good, obviuosly, but not all of them are terrible either.

joest01:

I'm not cutting anything, you are. if their balance sheet puts these Ferraris at 10bn then thats what it is. That money shifts does not make it disappear. Part of the drop might even be down to them holding some of their own stock.

Still not a good development for them but lets not take bits and pieces and interpret them out of context.

But surely a lot better situation than Sony is in, trust me, I bought some of their stock back when they owned the living room. Good thing I diversify because I would be a very poor man now.

there is difference level of liquidity in assets, and ferarris would be very low liquidity and would not count to operating cash regardless of the sum in the assets sheet (not that it always refpect reality either, especially in short term assets part where most of it is mainly investories and in production, whose price is unstable and are often hard to liquidate at that price.

So no, for the purpose of "how much nintendo has cash" you should only look at cash, not assets.

I do agree that financial-wise they are much better off than Sony, but sony bleeds in places that arent gaming meanwhile Nintendo has ONLY gaming.

Zachary Amaranth:

Strazdas:

Consoles are closed propriatary systems that all must be identical.

Irrelevant unless the Wii U and Xbox One are identical hardware that must meet the same standards. I mean, the issue here was the assumption that two different boxes from two different manufacturers would have similar dev costs because it is convenient to tar them with the same brush. And ponies. Because brushes and ponies.

I explained how console building costs are different from PC building costs, without invoking ponies. I was not comparin WiiU to Xbox. Nor was i talking about SonyPonies.

Zachary Amaranth:

Ultratwinkie:

1. Custom is not the same as standard.

And Microsoft's dev costs are not standard. So you're rationalising a doublt standard.

2. A TV show and plushies don't bring in billions. Not like Microsoft or Sony do.

And now you're shifting the goalposts.

3. Cost of design must be paid nearest to the launch date as possible. You cannot pay for future manufacturing technology, which is why the ps3 was 600$ at launch and not 100$.

And? My question went to something completely different. Is this another goalpost shift?

So now with 4.7 billion in the bank, they have 1 last console in them at best. The problem here is moore's law and tech will only get more and more expensive until we use graphene. We can't expect superman to swoop in and save everyone yet.

Assuming that their costs rival Microsoft, which you cannot prove nor have any good faith basis for, and no other factors. Among other things, the estimated cost of manufacture for the Wii U is significantly less, already putting a dent in the costs necessary to run a console. I'm also missing the Moore's Law connection. Shouldn't that mean that the PS4 should cost hundreds of dollars more than the PS3 by your logic?

I agree about Superman. However, the steps you're taking to put them in dire straights might as well be "because ponies." And ponies are horrible prognosticators. We can neither save Nintendo with Superman nor condemn them with magic ponies. Which makes me wonder what your point is, since it has nothing to do with reality.

Strazdas:

Consoles are closed propriatary systems that all must be identical.

Irrelevant unless the Wii U and Xbox One are identical hardware that must meet the same standards. I mean, the issue here was the assumption that two different boxes from two different manufacturers would have similar dev costs because it is convenient to tar them with the same brush. And ponies. Because brushes and ponies.

No ponies involved.

Unless you're actually addressing my statements. I would presume that since you quoted me and even referenced a line from my post, you were. As long as that's true, "it's different" only works as long as some sort of Calvinball defense is invoked. The fact remains that Microsoft's costs are not indicative of Nintendo's costs any more than one PC build is indicative of a different build's cost. You cannot factually argue that. You cold argue the costs were the same if you had evidence, but that still wouldn't make it reasonable to assume they were the same "because consoles are uniform systems." And if there's evidence of the cost to Nintendo, rather than "some other company spent X dollars," I would entertain that as a real argument.

Their GPU is weaker than a 5 year old card. Its almost as old as the entire last gen. Power has nothing to do with cost. Not to mention that AMD was the only ones who could do it cheap because they were desperate.

Nvidia didn't bother, they would have lost money.

Power =/= cost. Custom = cost. AMD sold old outdated tech and it costs microsoft 1 billion. For what amounts to a jalopy.

And the WII U is custom. A tablet ain't standard, and neither is its hardware.

Moore's law means that costs go up every generation to design technology. The fact that they could only afford AMD shows that Moore's law still exists. if it didn't, Nvidia would rule consoles again.

And there's this:

The wii U is done. Its maintenance from here on out. However, when the next gen comes in the costs will hit them hard with only 4.7 billion. And the Wii U can be a very expensive flop if left for too long. Billions are gained and lost easily in the console market.

If one console flops, you run the risk of it being the end of the line. Years down the line Nintendo might not even be able to afford to design a new console. Especially if Nvidia locks down hardware and AMD abandons graphics cards like they are planning to.

costs will go up, Nintendo cannot afford a single flop. The Wii U being a flop and rising costs could cripple Nintendo's ability to make a new console. They could end up exactly like SEGA.

TV shows and plushies are not an actual income. An actual income is a career, not jerking it in a cup for the sperm bank. TV shows and plushies are jerking it in a cup for the sperm bank. Its extra cash, not the main cash flow.

Ultratwinkie:

blah blah blah

Wow, you are making a lot of assumptions. If you ask me the next gaming revolution will come from somebody with a garage and a good idea not 4,7 bn in the bank.

And the WiiU may be done, not sure how you know that, but it is the only one of the three new consoles that interests me (bayonetta, w101, devils 3rd, rumors of another metroid prime...). If N didnt have a nasty habit of region locking their consoles (and I had my friendslist, trophies etc on PS3) that decision would be much easier yet.

Fact remains that the likelyhood of MSFT pulling out because they really do have more important battles to fight, or Sony being bought out and sold in pieces are arguably much higher than N going bust in the short term.

Also, who cares. I could live with any of them. Well if the xbone makes it easy to mute the beer guzzling headsetted dudebros, otherwise I might just decide to work in the back yard instead ;)

joest01:

Ultratwinkie:

blah blah blah

Wow, you are making a lot of assumptions. If you ask me the next gaming revolution will come from somebody with a garage and a good idea not 4,7 bn in the bank.

And the WiiU may be done, not sure how you know that, but it is the only one of the three new consoles that interests me (bayonetta, w101, devils 3rd, rumors of another metroid prime...). If N didnt have a nasty habit of region locking their consoles (and I had my friendslist, trophies etc on PS3) that decision would be much easier yet.

Fact remains that the likelyhood of MSFT pulling out because they really do have more important battles to fight, or Sony being bought out and sold in pieces are arguably much higher than N going bust in the short term.

Also, who cares. I could live with any of them. Well if the xbone makes it easy to mute the beer guzzling headsetted dudebros, otherwise I might just decide to work in the back yard instead ;)

Consoles are made by AMD and Nvidia. One of them is pulling out of gaming hardware and near bankruptcy, and the other will take you for a ride because you have no choice.

The next gaming idea won't be a console. Hardware monopolies will make sure of that. Unless you have a smash hit like the wii to bankroll your designs, the monopoly won't care. A single flop could derail Nintendo's entire momentum and throw them off course.

Nintendo's 4.7 billion is tiny to its competitors and Nvidia. Nintendo doesn't actually make its console, thats up for the hardware manufacturers. Nintendo could end up like SEGA, Atari, and all the other console companies that came before it. They'd be stuck making games for other platforms.

Make no mistake, all of them are in trouble. I already predicted that this generation would leave the industry in a bind because no matter what choice they make, they can't climb out of the pit the 7th gen dug.

Ultratwinkie:
Consoles are made by AMD and Nvidia. One of them is pulling out of gaming hardware and near bankruptcy, and the other will take you for a ride because you have no choice.

The next gaming idea won't be a console. Hardware monopolies will make sure of that. Unless you have a smash hit like the wii to bankroll your designs, the monopoly won't care. A single flop could derail Nintendo's entire momentum and throw them off course.

Nintendo's 4.7 billion is tiny to its competitors and Nvidia. Nintendo doesn't actually make its console, thats up for the hardware manufacturers. Nintendo could end up like SEGA, Atari, and all the other console companies that came before it. They'd be stuck making games for other platforms.

Make no mistake, all of them are in trouble. I already predicted that this generation would leave the industry in a bind because no matter what choice they make, they can't climb out of the pit the 7th gen dug.

You ever realised how every single generation since the days of the PS1 everyone has always gone on about the death of Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't need to have the reserves Nvidia, Microsoft or whatever do and you know it. The Wii didn't require them to ejaculate horrendous funds everywhere.

You know I'll hold you to that. If Nintendo (as they are most likely) have one of their gimmicks take off in a big way in the future I can only hope you'll save me the trouble and be a big enough man to just own up to your mistake.

Yeah we heard you, you'll be predicting the same thing next generation, and the next. I remember the "fact" this generation was supposed to bomb immediately and it didn't so a lot of people around here already got a strike on their credibility to predict the future (yourself included).

Rozalia1:

Ultratwinkie:
Consoles are made by AMD and Nvidia. One of them is pulling out of gaming hardware and near bankruptcy, and the other will take you for a ride because you have no choice.

The next gaming idea won't be a console. Hardware monopolies will make sure of that. Unless you have a smash hit like the wii to bankroll your designs, the monopoly won't care. A single flop could derail Nintendo's entire momentum and throw them off course.

Nintendo's 4.7 billion is tiny to its competitors and Nvidia. Nintendo doesn't actually make its console, thats up for the hardware manufacturers. Nintendo could end up like SEGA, Atari, and all the other console companies that came before it. They'd be stuck making games for other platforms.

Make no mistake, all of them are in trouble. I already predicted that this generation would leave the industry in a bind because no matter what choice they make, they can't climb out of the pit the 7th gen dug.

You ever realised how every single generation since the days of the PS1 everyone has always gone on about the death of Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't need to have the reserves Nvidia, Microsoft or whatever do and you know it. The Wii didn't require them to ejaculate horrendous funds everywhere.

You know I'll hold you to that. If Nintendo (as they are most likely) have one of their gimmicks take off in a big way in the future I can only hope you'll save me the trouble and be a big enough man to just own up to your mistake.

Yeah we heard you, you'll be predicting the same thing next generation, and the next. I remember the "fact" this generation was supposed to bomb immediately and it didn't so a lot of people around here already got a strike on their credibility to predict the future (yourself included).

The market was different. Back then, hardware wasn't locked down. So consoles are in trouble because they actually helped a monopoly take over and now they are bitten in the ass. Only now did the market realize that monopolies are bad.

Before this, people said it would die because the games are much better.

So lets look the market:

- Publishers are either bankrupt, MIA, or sequel factories. The monopolies they hold, which consoles helped establish, made it impossible to negotiate. As it is, Ubisoft refuses to support Wii U, and so does EA. A console relies on the big 3, and a console without games won't survive.

Even then, publishers are so few the games that consoles get are a trickle. Thats why the ps4 is touting indies or else console gamers won't get an actual library for a long time.

- Hardware monopoly has appeared, which they helped create in the 7th gen. Microsoft spent 1 billion for a weak gimmick console with AMD, the cheapest option using the cheapest parts they had. Now that AMD is on its way out, imagine how much Nvidia will charge come 9th gen. AMD's contract can't save them, and they are already abandoning gaming hardware for processors.

A hardware monopoly will kill consoles. Regardless of who it is.

- Then you have Japan itself. Japan enjoys consoles, and that's why Nintendo and Sony make them. Not because of anyone else. Westerners just make it profitable, but the main purpose is to endear itself to Japan. That's why Nintendo doesn't let games leave Japan. But its that lack of foresight that hinders them in a time when western devs are so few and far between.

You're stuck relying on the western cartel to get games, because they killed off everyone else. You can't ask a Japanese company to think outside Japan, because its unthinkable for them. The western side of the market is fucked, and that's where they get their profits.

Everything is so centralized that even one problem is disastrous. The entire market is in trouble because it thought monopolies made up of investors who don't understand games and greedy factory owners are a good idea.

We can't resurrect the dead publishers, and AMD is too far gone. The damage is done.

Ultratwinkie:
The market was different. Back then, hardware wasn't locked down. So consoles are in trouble because they actually helped a monopoly take over and now they are bitten in the ass. Only now did the market realize that monopolies are bad.

Before this, people said it would die because the games are much better.

So lets look the market:

- Publishers are either bankrupt, MIA, or sequel factories. The monopolies they hold, which consoles helped establish, made it impossible to negotiate. As it is, Ubisoft refuses to support Wii U, and so does EA. A console relies on the big 3, and a console without games won't survive.

Even then, publishers are so few the games that consoles get are a trickle. Thats why the ps4 is touting indies or else console gamers won't get an actual library for a long time.

- Hardware monopoly has appeared, which they helped create in the 7th gen. Microsoft spent 1 billion for a weak gimmick console with AMD, the cheapest option using the cheapest parts they had. Now that AMD is on its way out, imagine how much Nvidia will charge come 9th gen. AMD's contract can't save them, and they are already abandoning gaming hardware for processors.

A hardware monopoly will kill consoles. Regardless of who it is.

- Then you have Japan itself. Japan enjoys consoles, and that's why Nintendo and Sony make them. Not because of anyone else. Westerners just make it profitable, but the main purpose is to endear itself to Japan. That's why Nintendo doesn't let games leave Japan. But its that lack of foresight that hinders them in a time when western devs are so few and far between.

You're stuck relying on the western cartel to get games, because they killed off everyone else. You can't ask a Japanese company to think outside Japan, because its unthinkable for them. The western side of the market is fucked, and that's where they get their profits.

Everything is so centralized that even one problem is disastrous. The entire market is in trouble because it thought monopolies made up of investors who don't understand games and greedy factory owners are a good idea.

We can't resurrect the dead publishers, and AMD is too far gone. The damage is done.

Few managers have clients so high up the card like Nintendo do. Notice how you'll see some people say they play on the PC and they think the Wii U is the only console worth getting?

I've seen this publisher stuff a lot ever since Jim started the whole hullabaloo, however none of that is the fault of the big three as its circumstances out of their hand. Sony and Nintendo are both safe if EA/Ubisoft/whatever somehow collapse tomorrow.

I've read the doom and gloom which is as ever common on the internet. It isn't a sure fire thing, I remember people 2 years ago saying Sony would be out of business by now and its not been the case. People will make doom predictions forever until the day it actually happens and than they'll claim some great insight, nothing new.

Like it killed the PS2? You're going to have to do better than that to make me take that point seriously. So the mark driven "wars" end, could it really be a WWE WCW situation? I suppose but I don't think the console market and the pro wrestling market are that comparable. Is your point that the customers of the "losers" will just disappear from the equation? Perhaps for some but most will just be absorbed by the monopoly owner.
Besides your scenario doesn't take into account that if Sony is left holding a monopoly and is the sole console manufacturer than they may well land all of Nintendo's clients as exclusives...and that Stable my friend is the most powerful in the business.

Gust a small Japanese company has brought to the west (well really Nippon Ichi but point stands) in the last generation 7 PS3 games, and 7 Vita ports in their atelier series alone.
Nintendo doesn't bring many things over because they pragmatic in those decisions, but we've started seeing some visual novel games of all things come to the west so I don't think they'll start bringing in less (talking of Japan), but more.

Relying on a western cartel? I don't think you are aware that there are Japanese publishing companies out there who can successfully bring over even the most niche of Japanese games over no problem. Pretty sure I own more Japanese games from last gen than western and the amount I own is around 200 or so.

Ultratwinkie:
Oh wait, I forgot. You're wrong. I am right. Deal with it, liar.

Consoles rely on physical media, and only publishers can do that. No publishers, no media, no consoles. If they actually had a decent online component, they might have had a chance but they seem fit to charge for the privilege.

The ps2 had a market full of developers and publishers. The market of devs and publishers now is only a fraction of that. The middle devs were all hired by AAA studios, which then went bunk and now they are low budget indies.

The PS2 won because it actually had a diverse market with diverse support. That diversity doesn't exist anymore.

and a hardware monopoly, owned by the richest people around, will take everyone to the cleaners and bend them over a barrel. Reputation and history doesn't mean shit to Nvidia. They were the ones who milked the 7th gen dry and strong armed everyone.

And Nvidia gains more from killing consoles than helping them. Now that the damage is done, and AMD gave up to work only on processors, its over. Even if a new competitor shows up, it would take many years for them to get to the level of Nvidia hardware. It would take them years to get to AMD's level.

So even if sony wanted to make a console, Nvidia would make them pay a heavy price for it. It doesn't matter if you have a historical stable if you're being charged multi billion dollars for a concept.

and how many of those Japanese games actually appear on walmart shelves without resorting to special imports like many gamers I know? How often do Japanese games not made by Nintendo or Sony directly dominate western sales charts? The answer is not many because developers only want to appeal to other Japanese gamers which is a vastly different culture and demands than western gamers. Not everyone is as big Japanese fan as you. Not everyone likes Japanese games either, just like Japanese gamers don't always like Western games.

Just like eastern PC gamers and western PC gamers have different tastes.

Regardless, a lack of diversity is killing the market. You can't rely on one side or the other exclusively, and the western market is so crippled that its a one sided market. Without the western market support, a console can't succeed.

If we didn't go down the route of "bigger and more expensive is better" we would still have our PS2 market. Nvidia wouldn't have gotten the contract for the 7th gen. The big 3 wouldn't be in the positions they are in now.

Your heelwork is so poor its getting on insulting. You going to tell me my hometown sucks next, quit with the childish remarks please.

... Publishers eh. So they don't need to exist but it all comes down if they don't exist. Conflicting signals there especially with the move to digital meaning your physical media focus is odd.

... No diverse market? Take the Blinkers off buddy you know there is more out there.

... Yeah people said Microsoft would crush everyone too.

... So Nvidia will kill one of their own customers (if we go by this scenario that only Nvidia exists) in the hope that everyone will move to PC and buy some pricey cards? What if Sony go down the stream route?

I actually picked up the first atelier (on PS3) at a store shelf oddly enough but regardless its completely irrelevant. Little things called online retailers making getting the game little trouble at a good price, and secondly they are on a digital storefront that can't run out of copies (well...). Those games clearly make enough in the west if they've brought over 14 games in the last gen, and they ain't they only ones coming over. I see plenty of titles even I have no idea what they are and have to go look up so there is an effort to get games over here.

There you go again with the lack of diversity bunkum, you who has talked about the importance of the smaller studios all those times. I'm not going to lecture you on that subject because I know in your heart of hearts you know this already, you see what you want to see not what is actually reality. There is a wealth of games out there, go play them instead of thinking that everything is same giant AAA shooter mud whirlpool. The PS3 had even less last generation and what a fine machine it is today, perhaps not to you as we have different tastes but the PS3 is quite heavenly to me...only the PS2 had a larger abundance of pure gold.

Rozalia1:

Ultratwinkie:
Oh wait, I forgot. You're wrong. I am right. Deal with it, liar.

Consoles rely on physical media, and only publishers can do that. No publishers, no media, no consoles. If they actually had a decent online component, they might have had a chance but they seem fit to charge for the privilege.

The ps2 had a market full of developers and publishers. The market of devs and publishers now is only a fraction of that. The middle devs were all hired by AAA studios, which then went bunk and now they are low budget indies.

The PS2 won because it actually had a diverse market with diverse support. That diversity doesn't exist anymore.

and a hardware monopoly, owned by the richest people around, will take everyone to the cleaners and bend them over a barrel. Reputation and history doesn't mean shit to Nvidia. They were the ones who milked the 7th gen dry and strong armed everyone.

And Nvidia gains more from killing consoles than helping them. Now that the damage is done, and AMD gave up to work only on processors, its over. Even if a new competitor shows up, it would take many years for them to get to the level of Nvidia hardware. It would take them years to get to AMD's level.

So even if sony wanted to make a console, Nvidia would make them pay a heavy price for it. It doesn't matter if you have a historical stable if you're being charged multi billion dollars for a concept.

and how many of those Japanese games actually appear on walmart shelves without resorting to special imports like many gamers I know? How often do Japanese games not made by Nintendo or Sony directly dominate western sales charts? The answer is not many because developers only want to appeal to other Japanese gamers which is a vastly different culture and demands than western gamers. Not everyone is as big Japanese fan as you. Not everyone likes Japanese games either, just like Japanese gamers don't always like Western games.

Just like eastern PC gamers and western PC gamers have different tastes.

Regardless, a lack of diversity is killing the market. You can't rely on one side or the other exclusively, and the western market is so crippled that its a one sided market. Without the western market support, a console can't succeed.

If we didn't go down the route of "bigger and more expensive is better" we would still have our PS2 market. Nvidia wouldn't have gotten the contract for the 7th gen. The big 3 wouldn't be in the positions they are in now.

Your heelwork is so poor its getting on insulting. You going to tell me my hometown sucks next, quit with the childish remarks please.

... Publishers eh. So they don't need to exist but it all comes down if they don't exist. Conflicting signals there especially with the move to digital meaning your physical media focus is odd.

... No diverse market? Take the Blinkers off buddy you know there is more out there.

... Yeah people said Microsoft would crush everyone too.

... So Nvidia will kill one of their own customers (if we go by this scenario that only Nvidia exists) in the hope that everyone will move to PC and buy some pricey cards? What if Sony go down the stream route?

I actually picked up the first atelier (on PS3) at a store shelf oddly enough but regardless its completely irrelevant. Little things called online retailers making getting the game little trouble at a good price, and secondly they are on a digital storefront that can't run out of copies (well...). Those games clearly make enough in the west if they've brought over 14 games in the last gen, and they ain't they only ones coming over. I see plenty of titles even I have no idea what they are and have to go look up so there is an effort to get games over here.

There you go again with the lack of diversity bunkum, you who has talked about the importance of the smaller studios all those times. I'm not going to lecture you on that subject because I know in your heart of hearts you know this already, you see what you want to see not what is actually reality. There is a wealth of games out there, go play them instead of thinking that everything is same giant AAA shooter mud whirlpool. The PS3 had even less last generation and what a fine machine it is today, perhaps not to you as we have different tastes but the PS3 is quite heavenly to me...only the PS2 had a larger abundance of pure gold.

Hey I did tell you i'd hold it over your head until the end of time. i forgot to gloat.

So now I will gloat again: I won. Now and forever. 1,000,000 years of winning.

Publishers back then were numerous. They are very rare now. So rare that they can't support consoles on their own anymore. Digital allowed indies to actually sell their games without publishers, but the consoles still hold onto physical for dear life.

Since publishers have becoming obsolete on PC, there is no way for a publisher to grow really huge. The big 3 are the last of their kind.

Even Ubisoft admitted they can't keep it up for much longer. Games are becoming too expensive to make and AAA are becoming dinosaurs.

Consoles still rely on physical media even though the market that supported it is long gone. When it comes to online, its a joke.

Nvidia would kill its own competitors. They already are making record profits even with consoles existing, they were fucking ecstatic. Sony cannot "stream" games because that requires hardware that nvidia provided. Not to mention streaming games over the internet is a pipe dream that Sony pointed out in every instance when xbox said streaming was the future. They can't make gaming hardware, because that is highly expensive and anything they do make can't compete with established experience. Sony can't afford to spend that much against Nvidia who has locked won gaming with gameworks. No developer will abandon the tools Nvidia provides for Sony's new turd.

Nvidia already has lots of money. It turned down consoles because the money they get wouldn't even cover the operational costs.

Sony cannot compete with nvidia. It can't even compete against AMD. Thats why they bought AMD parts for the ps4, and nvidia for the ps3.

And don't say 'there is a wealth out there" when its tied to physical. Its pulling teeth, and tied to location. Not everyone stocks Japanese games, I know that from personal experience. In fact, the gamestops in my area refuse to stock Japanese games, and every other store was the same. There is no store competition in my area.

Not everyone has the same stores you have. Here is the best selling games of 2013, notice the lack of foreign titles. Even EA's digital PC games made that list. It really is the swirling AAA vortex on console because Japanese games don't have the same penetration. For the regular console gamer, AAA is all there is.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/

When it comes to digital, there is no competition. Online for consoles is a joke, right behind a paywall now to boot. They don't want digital because then that hurts the only publishers left who can make the big spectacle games that sell consoles in the first place. On digital distribution, you have diversity from indies to AAA, and the highest sellers page on steam shows that.

And the ps3 ran for 7 years. The ps2 didn't. The ps3 has less in 7 years than the short lived ps2, and you just admitted it. Consoles back then had shorter life cycles before their replacement comes up. That's worse.

Centralization is what has been hurting the industry. Its no coincidence.

Ultratwinkie:
Hey I did tell you i'd hold it over your head until the end of time. i forgot to gloat.

So now I will gloat again: I won. Now and forever. 1,000,000 years of winning.

Publishers back then were numerous. They are very rare now. So rare that they can't support consoles on their own anymore. Digital allowed indies to actually sell their games without publishers, but the consoles still hold onto physical for dear life.

Since publishers have becoming obsolete on PC, there is no way for a publisher to grow really huge. The big 3 are the last of their kind.

Even Ubisoft admitted they can't keep it up for much longer. Games are becoming too expensive to make and AAA are becoming dinosaurs.

Consoles still rely on physical media even though the market that supported it is long gone. When it comes to online, its a joke.

Nvidia would kill its own competitors. They already are making record profits even with consoles existing, they were fucking ecstatic. Sony cannot "stream" games because that requires hardware that nvidia provided. Not to mention streaming games over the internet is a pipe dream that Sony pointed out in every instance when xbox said streaming was the future. They can't make gaming hardware, because that is highly expensive and anything they do make can't compete with established experience. Sony can't afford to spend that much against Nvidia who has locked won gaming with gameworks. No developer will abandon the tools Nvidia provides for Sony's new turd.

Nvidia already has lots of money. It turned down consoles because the money they get wouldn't even cover the operational costs.

Sony cannot compete with nvidia. It can't even compete against AMD. Thats why they bought AMD parts for the ps4, and nvidia for the ps3.

And don't say 'there is a wealth out there" when its tied to physical. Its pulling teeth, and tied to location. Not everyone stocks Japanese games, I know that from personal experience. In fact, the gamestops in my area refuse to stock Japanese games, and every other store was the same. There is no store competition in my area.

Not everyone has the same stores you have. Here is the best selling games of 2013, notice the lack of foreign titles. Even EA's digital PC games made that list. It really is the swirling AAA vortex on console because Japanese games don't have the same penetration. For the regular console gamer, AAA is all there is.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/

When it comes to digital, there is no competition. Online for consoles is a joke, right behind a paywall now to boot. They don't want digital because then that hurts the only publishers left who can make the big spectacle games that sell consoles in the first place. On digital distribution, you have diversity from indies to AAA, and the highest sellers page on steam shows that.

And the ps3 ran for 7 years. The ps2 didn't. The ps3 has less in 7 years than the short lived ps2, and you just admitted it. Consoles back then had shorter life cycles before their replacement comes up. That's worse.

Centralization is what has been hurting the industry. Its no coincidence.

What? That I made a mistake I corrected sooner than a minute later? Big whoop you've made absolute statements where you posted every single game that made use of shrubbery (apparently only half a dozen games in existence do), you also stated there were no lip movements before half life series, and all those other ridiculous errors that you refused to correct when pressed. You got a pebble, I got a boulder so I'm not the least bit concerned.
Not that'd pick on you here by throwing that boulder as that would be mean, and you don't really think I'd fall for such cheap heelwork do you? You aren't even in my top 1000 forum performers mate, 4/10.

You say that yet they keep getting made, and their games sell really well with yearly sequels constantly planned. You have to separate fantasy from reality if you wish to find to find the truth.

Always with this insistence on physical media. Oh boy if digital only consoles happen it will be a riot to see you set yourself alight attacking them after saying such things.

Own competitors? What because of that shield thing? Not really direct competition.
If Nvidia does attain this glorious monopoly you think they will (Nvidia Monopoly = good, Sony Monopoly = bad what are the odds) than what point is there in eliminating a company that will pay for your product at a markup?
You really think Nvidia is going to kill consoles, double the price of cards, and than just roll in the dosh as everyone dashes to buy from them?

Sony already do game streaming Lanny Poffo.

Its apparent you mark out for Nvidia but you really believe that promo they cut? Its scripted not actually real you know that right? They don't go against the script based on emotion, they are businessmen.

Microsoft, to send that argument you presented in the previous post too straight to hell once again, and yes they bought parts yes...that doesn't mean they are directly competing with each other. Sony competing with Foxconn too while we're at it?

You are familiar with what a digital store is right? And that such stores can stock "niche" titles no problem right?

They outright refuse to stock Japanese games? So they have none of the Marios and the like? So they only stock the Xbone because surely they'd not stock Japanese hardware too? I'd get that Gamestop done for racism if they are purposely not stocking Japanese games because they are from Japan.

Some Japanese/owned by Japanese games on there but its not really as huge a point as you think. You attract 300,000 Persona fans here, 300,000 tales fans there, 200,000 X right there, and the 400,000 Y back there and it starts adding up nicely.

You've been reading the news room this last year right? Sony doesn't want diversity or digital so much that they've been courting all those indies for digital releases on their platform...wait that can't be.

PS3 is still going, oh and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfvZTCE3M8g

Rozalia1:

Ultratwinkie:
Hey I did tell you i'd hold it over your head until the end of time. i forgot to gloat.

So now I will gloat again: I won. Now and forever. 1,000,000 years of winning.

Publishers back then were numerous. They are very rare now. So rare that they can't support consoles on their own anymore. Digital allowed indies to actually sell their games without publishers, but the consoles still hold onto physical for dear life.

Since publishers have becoming obsolete on PC, there is no way for a publisher to grow really huge. The big 3 are the last of their kind.

Even Ubisoft admitted they can't keep it up for much longer. Games are becoming too expensive to make and AAA are becoming dinosaurs.

Consoles still rely on physical media even though the market that supported it is long gone. When it comes to online, its a joke.

Nvidia would kill its own competitors. They already are making record profits even with consoles existing, they were fucking ecstatic. Sony cannot "stream" games because that requires hardware that nvidia provided. Not to mention streaming games over the internet is a pipe dream that Sony pointed out in every instance when xbox said streaming was the future. They can't make gaming hardware, because that is highly expensive and anything they do make can't compete with established experience. Sony can't afford to spend that much against Nvidia who has locked won gaming with gameworks. No developer will abandon the tools Nvidia provides for Sony's new turd.

Nvidia already has lots of money. It turned down consoles because the money they get wouldn't even cover the operational costs.

Sony cannot compete with nvidia. It can't even compete against AMD. Thats why they bought AMD parts for the ps4, and nvidia for the ps3.

And don't say 'there is a wealth out there" when its tied to physical. Its pulling teeth, and tied to location. Not everyone stocks Japanese games, I know that from personal experience. In fact, the gamestops in my area refuse to stock Japanese games, and every other store was the same. There is no store competition in my area.

Not everyone has the same stores you have. Here is the best selling games of 2013, notice the lack of foreign titles. Even EA's digital PC games made that list. It really is the swirling AAA vortex on console because Japanese games don't have the same penetration. For the regular console gamer, AAA is all there is.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/

When it comes to digital, there is no competition. Online for consoles is a joke, right behind a paywall now to boot. They don't want digital because then that hurts the only publishers left who can make the big spectacle games that sell consoles in the first place. On digital distribution, you have diversity from indies to AAA, and the highest sellers page on steam shows that.

And the ps3 ran for 7 years. The ps2 didn't. The ps3 has less in 7 years than the short lived ps2, and you just admitted it. Consoles back then had shorter life cycles before their replacement comes up. That's worse.

Centralization is what has been hurting the industry. Its no coincidence.

What? That I made a mistake I corrected sooner than a minute later? Big whoop you've made absolute statements where you posted every single game that made use of shrubbery (apparently only half a dozen games in existence do), you also stated there were no lip movements before half life series, and all those other ridiculous errors that you refused to correct when pressed. You got a pebble, I got a boulder so I'm not the least bit concerned.
Not that'd pick on you here by throwing that boulder as that would be mean, and you don't really think I'd fall for such cheap heelwork do you? You aren't even in my top 1000 forum performers mate, 4/10.

You say that yet they keep getting made, and their games sell really well with yearly sequels constantly planned. You have to separate fantasy from reality if you wish to find to find the truth.

Always with this insistence on physical media. Oh boy if digital only consoles happen it will be a riot to see you set yourself alight attacking them after saying such things.

Own competitors? What because of that shield thing? Not really direct competition.
If Nvidia does attain this glorious monopoly you think they will (Nvidia Monopoly = good, Sony Monopoly = bad what are the odds) than what point is there in eliminating a company that will pay for your product at a markup?
You really think Nvidia is going to kill consoles, double the price of cards, and than just roll in the dosh as everyone dashes to buy from them?

Sony already do game streaming Lanny Poffo.

Its apparent you mark out for Nvidia but you really believe that promo they cut? Its scripted not actually real you know that right? They don't go against the script based on emotion, they are businessmen.

Microsoft, to send that argument you presented in the previous post too straight to hell once again, and yes they bought parts yes...that doesn't mean they are directly competing with each other. Sony competing with Foxconn too while we're at it?

You are familiar with what a digital store is right? And that such stores can stock "niche" titles no problem right?

They outright refuse to stock Japanese games? So they have none of the Marios and the like? So they only stock the Xbone because surely they'd not stock Japanese hardware too? I'd get that Gamestop done for racism if they are purposely not stocking Japanese games because they are from Japan.

Some Japanese/owned by Japanese games on there but its not really as huge a point as you think. You attract 300,000 Persona fans here, 300,000 tales fans there, 200,000 X right there, and the 400,000 Y back there and it starts adding up nicely.

You've been reading the news room this last year right? Sony doesn't want diversity or digital so much that they've been courting all those indies for digital releases on their platform...wait that can't be.

PS3 is still going, oh and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfvZTCE3M8g

I never said anything about a sony monopoly. I said consoles were fucked because of the 7th gen poisoning the culture.

Oh and sounds like somebody's maaaaaad. Also you "fixed" that post days later after I called you on it. Also i don't really care what you think, I said so before. Not everything revolves around what you like or what you want. The world doesn't have to bend over backwards because you believe something.

AMD is losing market share to Nvidia due to anti competitive and illegal practices done by Nvidia and intel trying to kill AMD. By the time it went to court, the damage had been done even its settlement couldn't fix.

Then Nvidia came along with Gameworks, which embedded their place in gaming by seeping into every engine out there. So now gamers and devs can't say no to Nvidia unless they want their precious tools to go away. Nvidia's tools are too useful to abandon.

Nvidia's history is full of it trying to kill competitors and lock down markets, even if they pose no actual danger. Nvidia refused to make consoles and insulted them every step of the way.

Its no secret that Nvidia hates consoles, and now that AMD isn't in a position to do anything, no one can stop them.

And they don't have anyone to blame but themselves. They fell for Nvidia's marketing that more money means more power in the 7th gen. They bankrolled Nvidia's rise and its anti competitive practices. They brought it on themselves.

Sony has streaming on the ps4, but what will they stream on? Magic? They need hardware to stream with. Hardware owned by Nvidia and AMD to put on its servers. They can't make hardware themselves. Not to mention that streaming is a dead end business in any area with bad internet: which is most of America.

Digital stores on console are hindered by the constant fees that they require. Not that they can't stock niche titles. Thats why all the devs ran from indie on console to steam, because all steam asks is 100$ for greenlight.

Sony is begging for indies because they know where the wind is blowing. They know that 3 publishers isn't enough. It won't help the Ps4 though because Sony would need to pay each indie dev to finish the game. Indies are still too small to think about multiplatform most of the time.

Again if this was the 90s market small indies wouldn't be a problem.

And by Japanese games I mean anything that is seen as masculine. So if you have a game with a boy who is girly, you are going to have a bitch time of finding it. Good luck asking the cashier if its a man, because he'll call it "fag shit" (cuz this is in a ghetto). But if you have a vaguely hot chick, you will find it easily. I had to go out of my area just to find Kingdom hearts. In fact, all my obscure console games came from a store (that isn't gamestop) in a richer area.

And the ps3 outdated in an era where less devs are able to make console games. Which has been my point all along.

I don't see it not being profitable in the end. This is M$. Like with the Tomb Raider goings on right now, they'll dig their claws into the market one demographic at a time until they crawl to the top. At which point Sony will need to do the same, but they have far less experience and avenues then Microsoft when it comes to playing dirty. Maybe that's fine, maybe they have their dignity.
Oh wait a minute... The Amazing Spider-Man...

Ultratwinkie:

And the ps3 ran for 7 years. The ps2 didn't. The ps3 has less in 7 years than the short lived ps2, and you just admitted it. Consoles back then had shorter life cycles before their replacement comes up. That's worse.

Short lived PS2!? The damn thing was produced for 13 years! One of the longest production runs for a console! Sure, the PS3 came out after the PS2 was out for only six years, but it kept being produced for 7 more years and it continued to get games the whole time, though the last couple of years were pretty barren. Lines like this one right here make me think everything you ever say is nothing but bullshit.

Strazdas:

The_Kodu:

They have to develop and design them and the operating systems this isn't android on the consoles.
They have to engineer it all in and develop and sort out what processor and GPU they want in the system which are often actually custom jobs.

R&D is a cost sustained before release and should not figure out in hardware sales costs unless microsoft wants to get fined for bad accounting reports.

Except they need to get that money back somehow. At present they're selling hardware at a fair loss per unit so they have high R&D costs and then don't make money off the hardware.

I know it's a cliche statement by "They're a business, they have to make money somehow"

Strazdas:

These latest consoles are much less costum job than you think. standard architecture, standard parts, the only costum thing is the APU.

That's kind of the thing that custom APU has to be developed and the arrangement of the parts has to be made.

Strazdas:

The_Kodu:

Except even most modern consoles don't have a large amount of apps still open running in the background at the same times.

Yes console do more but most aren't doing it all at once.

Also I think console graphics have evolved beyond nearly square heads and non moving lips.

did you know that there are 16GB of hard drive reserved for OS only? did you know that out of 8GB of ram, only 5GB is available for games because OS eats the other 3? Did you know that 4 of the 16 processor cores are not available because they are reserved for OS? Did you know that unlike PC, OS for console always runs its GUI in the background, loading it with useless stuff? console OS is worse in resource management than PC OS if we take Xbox One as an example.
The fact that it cant run large amount of apps while gobbling these kind of resources can only mean incompetence in the developer. Its like consoles are finally catching up to functionality of windows 95 but using more resources than windows vista.

Yes, moving lips and round heads technology has been ported to console after games with this technology got popular on PC and people saw how cool it is. for moving lips for example you should thank HL2.

And Windows 8 eats 2GB of Ram easily itself and most likely unlike PCs part of the reserved OS HD space is actually virtual Ram essentially.

Consoles Run games and are designed that way. Because of the more fixed architecture developers can optimize their games far better for the systems.

To use the Xbox 1 as an example it has a 4 core with 1.75 GHz power yet it's running games better than than gaming computers with those kind of specs because it can dedicate the power to gaming and is designed for gaming.

Yes most of the apps will run badly because consoles weren't initially designed for them and it depends how well the apps are optimized.

Can a windows 95 computer play games better than an Xbox one ?

then I think the reason is pretty clear games consoles are designed to play games.

It's only more recent high end tablets which have actually been able to play game that are close to maybe early last gen and they're what $1,000 for them now.

Quite frankly, I'd love to see MS leave the console scene. Preferably riding on a huge, flaming wreck. The market void will be picked up by somebody... maybe Apple (though that sounds like a bleak prospect), maybe by the likes of Samsung or LG who, while not really having any prior gaming chops, would have the resource base to produce a great console, maybe based on the exploding power of mobile chipsets, or maybe by some fresh new company who could bring new life to the sick, aging console market (and perhaps to gaming as a whole).

But it's not really consoles that interest me, it's the PC market that would benefit most from MS's console division going down. Because ever since MS joined the console market, they have been actively gimping PC gaming. There's much more profit from consoles, where they cash in from both HW sales and take a piece of every game sold for your platform.

Games for windows live (thankfully now defunct), directx, moving towards a closed, apple-like OS... All could be improved if PCs don't directly compete with their platform.

Though it's more likely that alternatives like SteamOS could resolve the MS conflict by eliminating Windows from the equation before MS' console division goes under.

VladG:
Quite frankly, I'd love to see MS leave the console scene. Preferably riding on a huge, flaming wreck. The market void will be picked up by somebody... maybe Apple (though that sounds like a bleak prospect), maybe by the likes of Samsung or LG who, while not really having any prior gaming chops, would have the resource base to produce a great console, maybe based on the exploding power of mobile chipsets, or maybe by some fresh new company who could bring new life to the sick, aging console market (and perhaps to gaming as a whole).

But it's not really consoles that interest me, it's the PC market that would benefit most from MS's console division going down. Because ever since MS joined the console market, they have been actively gimping PC gaming. There's much more profit from consoles, where they cash in from both HW sales and take a piece of every game sold for your platform.

Games for windows live (thankfully now defunct), directx, moving towards a closed, apple-like OS... All could be improved if PCs don't directly compete with their platform.

Though it's more likely that alternatives like SteamOS could resolve the MS conflict by eliminating Windows from the equation before MS' console division goes under.

it sounds more like you want things to go the way you want them to (the small minority too) because you just happen to dislike something other people (millions) like, sounds selfish in a way because you'd also be eliminating the market the people currently reside in for your own benefit, that's not really a nice thing to wish upon others tbh.

I mean it's like those who think linux is the future and should be the only OS, not everyone wants that and sod off isn't an excuse, the market exists because people want something different.

besides I'm a Windows users and like windows but dislike Apple's OS and I tried Linux but in the end it wasn't for me so that leaves me with windows, wanting to kill windows so I'm left with nothing is akin to telling me to fuck off, please don't be that way.

Shadow-Phoenix:

VladG:
Quite frankly, I'd love to see MS leave the console scene. Preferably riding on a huge, flaming wreck. The market void will be picked up by somebody... maybe Apple (though that sounds like a bleak prospect), maybe by the likes of Samsung or LG who, while not really having any prior gaming chops, would have the resource base to produce a great console, maybe based on the exploding power of mobile chipsets, or maybe by some fresh new company who could bring new life to the sick, aging console market (and perhaps to gaming as a whole).

But it's not really consoles that interest me, it's the PC market that would benefit most from MS's console division going down. Because ever since MS joined the console market, they have been actively gimping PC gaming. There's much more profit from consoles, where they cash in from both HW sales and take a piece of every game sold for your platform.

Games for windows live (thankfully now defunct), directx, moving towards a closed, apple-like OS... All could be improved if PCs don't directly compete with their platform.

Though it's more likely that alternatives like SteamOS could resolve the MS conflict by eliminating Windows from the equation before MS' console division goes under.

it sounds more like you want things to go the way you want them to (the small minority too) because you just happen to dislike something other people (millions) like, sounds selfish in a way because you'd also be eliminating the market the people currently reside in for your own benefit, that's not really a nice thing to wish upon others tbh.

I mean it's like those who think linux is the future and should be the only OS, not everyone wants that and sod off isn't an excuse, the market exists because people want something different.

besides I'm a Windows users and like windows but dislike Apple's OS and I tried Linux but in the end it wasn't for me so that leaves me with windows, wanting to kill windows so I'm left with nothing is akin to telling me to fuck off, please don't be that way.

You might want to read my post before actually replying to it. I don't want to kill Windows, quite the contrary. I want Microsoft's CONSOLE division to go down, which in turn will BOOST Windows as a gaming OS since there's no internal competition.

Also selfish? What? It's not like I actually have any control over what happens to MS because of their repeated failures, both in terms of hardware design, and especially in terms of understanding their audience and marketing their product.

And MS's console division going down is a good thing for PC gaming as a whole. Last time I checked, there were a bunch more PC gamers than console gamers, and that was only counting active Steam users.

Ultratwinkie:

Power =/= cost. Custom = cost.

Then why bring Moore's Law into it in the first place?

You basically ignored everything I said and shifted the goalpost on virtually every concept. Just admit you have no reason to infer cost on Nintendo's end.

The_Kodu:

Except they need to get that money back somehow. At present they're selling hardware at a fair loss per unit so they have high R&D costs and then don't make money off the hardware.

I know it's a cliche statement by "They're a business, they have to make money somehow"

Of course they do. BUt that cost was created before the console launch (before its even mass manufactured actually) and thus would not show up on this years financial accounts, meaning that the 400 million loss is not including research and developement. It cant cover these costs back if it cant cover its operating costs to begin with.

Yes, business need to make money somehow, however some business fail to make money, and if they fail long enough they go bancrupt. In fact, over 90% of new business go bancrupt within a year. this is normal in capitalist society. Its just that we got used to "too big to fail" idea that we think something like Microsoft is unfallable.

That's kind of the thing that custom APU has to be developed and the arrangement of the parts has to be made.

Yes, the APU is costum and we know MS paid 1 billion for its design (supposedly split costs with AMD, rumor has it MS paid the whole price because AMD would not take unprofitable deals, the profit is so low as it is that Nvidia flat out refused to work for so little).

The manufacturing and assembly though isnt that hard afterwards. APU isnt something unique (Like PS3 cell processor) and was in fact used in mobile devices for a while. The rest is standard x86 architecture so nothing unique or costly about that.

And Windows 8 eats 2GB of Ram easily itself and most likely unlike PCs part of the reserved OS HD space is actually virtual Ram essentially.

I cant claim about windows 8 so much, but windows 7 uses less than 1 GB of ram and in fact will lower its consumtion if you run out of space. you CAN game modern games on a 1GB system with windows 7, and while not ideally, they are playable. Actually real life tests show that beying 4 gb there really is no noticable improvement even in RAM demanding games like Skyrim or Crysis.

Page file virtual ram exists, however this has pretty much gone into disuse as the RAM amount on PCs became enough to fit stuff in it wholly. The Xbox Hard drive reservation is not page file though, its for OS and OS "updates" essentially stuffing space before its needed.

SO in this case consoles are not better but in fact worse at giving all resources to the game.

Consoles Run games and are designed that way. Because of the more fixed architecture developers can optimize their games far better for the systems.

the x86 architecture that the new consoles use were used in PCs for DECADES. and while there is alternative architecture design, its really only used for servers or the kind of build it yourself enthusiasts and most people never even saw one.

It has nothing to do with optimization other than any optimization done for console based on architecture now would be automatically applicable on PC as well. What you are more likely refering to is fixed power, which means one can develop knowing exaclty how much processing power the computer will have, ect. this is good when you need to make limits for the game, however is unnecessary as coding is done to high level APIs (think directx, openGL) now, and they dont change depending on power and simple graphic settings will solve the scale problem.

To use the Xbox 1 as an example it has a 4 core with 1.75 GHz power yet it's running games better than than gaming computers with those kind of specs because it can dedicate the power to gaming and is designed for gaming.

Xbox 1 has an underpowered mobile CPU with 16 cores. 4 of these cores are reserved for OS, the game can use 12 cores. Now, the cores are virtual, and like you said there are only 4 physical cores, but same is true for modern CPUs in PCs.

A gaming computer with such processor would run the game at same, even better level. BUt its really irrelevant as CPUs are only secondary in performance after GPUs. You really dont need a powerful CPU to run games.

As far as GPUs go, the Xbox 1 seems to be underpoerforming. In thoery it has specs similar to high end GPU, but in practice we see it performing worse even to the cheaper model of same generation. Speculation exists that this handicap is introduced by OS eating performance power and/or kinect.

SO no, consoles in fact perform worse than same spec PCs.

Can a windows 95 computer play games better than an Xbox one ?

then I think the reason is pretty clear games consoles are designed to play games.

It's only more recent high end tablets which have actually been able to play game that are close to maybe early last gen and they're what $1,000 for them now.

If hardware manufacturers made drivers that work on windows 95 we could test that, but since windows 95 is not used by pretty much anyone no point in making drivers, so we cant test it. we can test it on modern windows though, and it does play it better.

Game consoles should be designed to play games. as it is, modern ones are not.

Im talking about GPU power, not the game choices on tablets. Tegra K1 and its sucessors outperform these previuos gen consoles grpahically. the reason you will hardly see better graphics though is resolution. these devices run 1080p almost exclusively - something current consoles fail at.

Shadow-Phoenix:

I mean it's like those who think linux is the future and should be the only OS, not everyone wants that and sod off isn't an excuse, the market exists because people want something different.

Thats ironic, considering Linux is actually hundreds (lets ignore obscure forks because honestly who uses them) of OSes that all manage to work with same files/programs. there are linuxes that look identical to windows, there are ones you wont even recognize. it can never be the "only" OS as linux isnt one OS to begin with.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked