Next XBOX To Be Revealed May 21st

[CornerThree]

1. Set the line hard on policies when console costs are likely more than what you can sell it for, and supplies are short in hardware and new software.
2. Over the next year, see how people respond and ease up on policies that are holding back mass adoption and also enjoy the fruits of the reduced cost of components.
3. Profit.

 

[Mdog1]

Sorry double post.

 

[Mdog1]

They do lose money off console sales initially, how much I have no idea. MS will make the majority of its money through game sales, even when it's at the point they make money off the console. Now as somebody that is a core gamer (since BO2 drop i've bought AC3, FC3, NFS MW, Dead Island Riptide, and have already paid for TLOU). 6 brand new 67 dollar games with less than $200 for me to spare a month after all my expenses. If I was a MS fan i'd be outraged by almost every word out of their mouths, and there's no way that without trade in credit i'd be able to afford that many games.

I very rarely buy used as i've mentioned, but it is something i've employed in the past a few dozen times. I've bought roughly 12 new games a year for the last 6 years, which would mean roughly 72 brand new 67 dollar games or nearly 5000 dollars on games in the past 6 years. Not to mention likely 30 used games $20-$30 or $600-$900 on used games. Basically MS would be taking away my personal ability to buy at least 3 games a year with lessened trade in credit for my games, and likely all of my used games purchases. I'm a big gamer. Other than visiting this site I spend nearly all of my free time on that hobby, and a very good portion of my disposable income on it. Yes I went to Vegas, and lost about 7400 including food/hotel expenses, but I saved for months to be able to do that, and it included cutting back on all of my hobbies, including gaming.

Now on to the reason I gave that look at myself, a core gamer, we need that trade in credit from EB to buy the new games. In a perfect world MS has an amazing idea, i.e cut out the middle mans ability to profit, and push towards download only (which I would fully support if I wasn't trapped with a 500GB HD, and there was a reduction of 20% on prices). It makes perfect sense in a world that has the majority of core gamers as above average income households. I mean 1000 or more a month that can be spent in any way they want. I seriously have a hard time seeing that as reality though.

Instead, MS have seemingly made their console as a giant version of things that most people already have, except those versions don't require a subscription to use.

Let's break it down...

Cable box. Umm I already have a cable box that I pay a subscription for each month. Is tacking on another 5 buck/month really worth not using a difficult TV remote?

Apps. I already have apps on my phone, and I can use that anywhere I want to, where as i'm not going to carry around a 20 pound brick, and TV to use the One apps on the go.

NFL fantasy! Honestly the only innovative idea they've had... Oh wat I can do fantasy football on my laptop? I will say though, this one has some serious potential in the right hands/minds, but given MS's screw ups thus far into the console I can't believe they'll be the people that can make it shine.

Did I mention the cloud gaming? Cool idea, but it will only likely be able to fully utilised very late in the life cycle, and will cause 3rd party devs to, I would imagine, seriously have to change the coding around for their games to port them to PS4. Also for games like BF, and COD it would mean everyone playing would need broadband access. If they introduced it to single player only games it would severely limit the amount of people that could legitimately play them.

So my biggest complainant is basically this. How can a video gaming console be on top of the gaming industry if they are alienating a big part of their core consumer? Are the NFL junkies they pick up really going to be buying as many games as the core gamers they will lose? I can't imagine they will make much money off that particular function, and we know they won't off of the cable companies. Will the people who pick it up for movie watching on Netflix really give them as much as the core? PS4 will have Netflix too, and no XLive subscription to boot.

All of the things they have added will bring in more casual consumers for sure, but are the 200-300 dollar profits (a year from now) really make up the loss of even 5% of core gamers like myself who will spend $6000 dollars on games alone over the lifespan of the console. I have some serious doubts on that. Most core gamers will go with whichever system fits their needs best, and with all of this negative stuff about the One from graphics to used games to power to games needing to be downloaded right on to the HD I just can't see all of the true core gamers, not system fans, jumping ship.

I've said I wouldn't buy an Xbox even if it was better than PS4 because I assumed relative parity, and I love the controller. Sine, i've been informed PS controllers are made for box, so that pretty much changed my mind. There is no parity, unless cloud gaming seriously turns out to make games 10x better, which I just can't see being the case.

 

[gourimoko]

The Xbox One will not likely be sold at a loss. You are correct that most consoles, when developed and released, are meant to be sold somewhat below the break-even point. The PS2, PS3, Dreamcast, GameCube, and the even the 360. But the original Xbox was sold at a profit after the second fiscal year, and the Xbox One will likely be sold at a profit from day one considering it's using off-the-shelf components that are literally several years old.

The PS4 will likely be sold at or very near the break-even point for a year or two, similarly to the original Xbox.

 

[N7RobBob]

They do lose money off console sales initially, how much I have no idea. MS will make the majority of its money through game sales, even when it's at the point they make money off the console. Now as somebody that is a core gamer (since BO2 drop i've bought AC3, FC3, NFS MW, Dead Island Riptide, and have already paid for TLOU). 6 brand new 67 dollar games with less than $200 for me to spare a month after all my expenses. If I was a MS fan i'd be outraged by almost every word out of their mouths, and there's no way that without trade in credit i'd be able to afford that many games. You've definitely hit the head here. Retailers usually only have a 1-3% margin on the new games. Also got to keep in mind that Microsoft is known to dole out extra money for exclusives, DLC(timed or whole dlc), Games, and now features with things such as the NFL/fantasy portion costing them around $500 million

I very rarely buy used as i've mentioned, but it is something i've employed in the past a few dozen times. I've bought roughly 12 new games a year for the last 6 years, which would mean roughly 72 brand new 67 dollar games or nearly 5000 dollars on games in the past 6 years. Not to mention likely 30 used games $20-$30 or $600-$900 on used games. Basically MS would be taking away my personal ability to buy at least 3 games a year with lessened trade in credit for my games, and likely all of my used games purchases. I'm a big gamer. Other than visiting this site I spend nearly all of my free time on that hobby, and a very good portion of my disposable income on it. Yes I went to Vegas, and lost about 7400 including food/hotel expenses, but I saved for months to be able to do that, and it included cutting back on all of my hobbies, including gaming.
The Used game market is now the evil portion that is denying developers and publishers money, just like big renting retailers were before it. They tend to neglect that TRADES give the consumer more money to buy new games. Exactly as you stated. I have friend who can afford 5 or 6 games a year with being able to trade back the ones they are done with. If they don't have this option or get less back for their games, this will ultimately lead to only buying 2 or 3 games. Developers and Publishers would then get even less money.

Now on to the reason I gave that look at myself, a core gamer, we need that trade in credit from EB to buy the new games. In a perfect world MS has an amazing idea, i.e cut out the middle mans ability to profit, and push towards download only (which I would fully support if I wasn't trapped with a 500GB HD, and there was a reduction of 20% on prices). It makes perfect sense in a world that has the majority of core gamers as above average income households. I mean 1000 or more a month that can be spent in any way they want. I seriously have a hard time seeing that as reality though. Yes, in a perfect world consoles would be digital downloads with open markets, just like PC gaming is with all the store fronts for consumers to find games they want at competitive prices. Unfortunately EB/Gamestop exist because people use the convenience compared to ebay/craigslist. It also sounds like Gamestop will take a hit in profitability, but seems that they are working to be one of the Verified Retail Re-sellers. CEO Tony Bartel himself has come out and said that transition for the company will be fluid between 360/ps3 to Xbone/ps4.

Instead, MS have seemingly made their console as a giant version of things that most people already have, except those versions don't require a subscription to use.

Let's break it down...

Cable box. Umm I already have a cable box that I pay a subscription for each month. Is tacking on another 5 buck/month really worth not using a difficult TV remote?

Apps. I already have apps on my phone, and I can use that anywhere I want to, where as i'm not going to carry around a 20 pound brick, and TV to use the One apps on the go.

NFL fantasy! Honestly the only innovative idea they've had... Oh wat I can do fantasy football on my laptop? I will say though, this one has some serious potential in the right hands/minds, but given MS's screw ups thus far into the console I can't believe they'll be the people that can make it shine.

Did I mention the cloud gaming? Cool idea, but it will only likely be able to fully utilised very late in the life cycle, and will cause 3rd party devs to, I would imagine, seriously have to change the coding around for their games to port them to PS4. Also for games like BF, and COD it would mean everyone playing would need broadband access. If they introduced it to single player only games it would severely limit the amount of people that could legitimately play them.

So my biggest complainant is basically this. How can a video gaming console be on top of the gaming industry if they are alienating a big part of their core consumer? Are the NFL junkies they pick up really going to be buying as many games as the core gamers they will lose? I can't imagine they will make much money off that particular function, and we know they won't off of the cable companies. Will the people who pick it up for movie watching on Netflix really give them as much as the core? PS4 will have Netflix too, and no XLive subscription to boot.

All of the things they have added will bring in more casual consumers for sure, but are the 200-300 dollar profits (a year from now) really make up the loss of even 5% of core gamers like myself who will spend $6000 dollars on games alone over the lifespan of the console. I have some serious doubts on that. Most core gamers will go with whichever system fits their needs best, and with all of this negative stuff about the One from graphics to used games to power to games needing to be downloaded right on to the HD I just can't see all of the true core gamers, not system fans, jumping ship.

I've said I wouldn't buy an Xbox even if it was better than PS4 because I assumed relative parity, and I love the controller. Sine, i've been informed PS controllers are made for box, so that pretty much changed my mind. There is no parity, unless cloud gaming seriously turns out to make games 10x better, which I just can't see being the case.

Consoles have always been gear toward convenience and it seems as they are adding more and more features which is making them more complicated. I totally agree with you on the fact that all the features they've been touting outside of the cloud, we already have devices that help us with all that. It's a slippery slope for both Microsoft and Sony this generation, lose out on the core gamers and the casuals won't sustain you. Just look at the Wii to Wii U transition. Those core gamers will move more to PC gaming if they want to keep their hobby alive.

 

[N7RobBob]

The Xbox One will not likely be sold at a loss. You are correct that most consoles, when developed and released, are meant to be sold somewhat below the break-even point. The PS2, PS3, Dreamcast, GameCube, and the even the 360. But the original Xbox was sold at a profit after the second fiscal year, and the Xbox One will likely be sold at a profit from day one considering it's using off-the-shelf components that are literally several years old.

The PS4 will likely be sold at or very near the break-even point for a year or two, similarly to the original Xbox.

PS3, XB360, and WII U all sold at a loss...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-PlayStation-3-and-Wii-U-Are-Sold-at-a-Loss-Says-Industry-Veteran-319390.shtml

Article clearly states that they sell at loss hoping to make back money in licensing fees. I highly doubt that with all the new technology that both Microsoft and Sony will be able to not sell at a loss and keep the systems affordable to amount to a high installed user base.

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

I've got to say, just about the only thing that is remotely attractive to me about this system so far is the NFL stuff. It's sad that the only part of a gaming system that sounds intriguing has nothing to do with gaming.

I live with my two friends and we run a fantasy league. I like the idea of plugging in my fantasy team and getting live updates while I watch football on Sundays.

 

[Mdog1]

Consoles have always been gear toward convenience and it seems as they are adding more and more features which is making them more complicated. I totally agree with you on the fact that all the features they've been touting outside of the cloud, we already have devices that help us with all that. It's a slippery slope for both Microsoft and Sony this generation, lose out on the core gamers and the casuals won't sustain you. Just look at the Wii to Wii U transition. Those core gamers will move more to PC gaming if they want to keep their hobby alive.

To start, i'm sorry about the format that is about to follow. I'm on my PS3, and there's no option to wrap "" around your post that was within mine.

It wouldn't be so poor of an idea cable box wise if it actually improve upon the experience of watching a show. It seems its function is mostly going to be "XBox TV" as opposed to using your tv remote. Again my point about that is simply do you really think 5 bucks/month is reasonable to pay for that? I certainly don't, and I doubt most do.

With regards to the NFL i'm interested. It could end up being a real game changer for fantasy imo. Imagine watching live the games with the people in your fantasy pool, and hearing all their reactions, talking sports like we do here in real time with 25 people or more. I think it could be really, really cool. If they expanded it to the other major sports as well it'd be very interesting.

I don't doubt that if Sony follows suit on a lot of these issues that people who can afford it will move to PC, and I don't blame them. That said unlike Wii U MS and Sony have great games. It seems Wii U relies on Mario, and Zelda to carry their systems, but as a HUGE fan of the N64 Zelda's I hated GC Zelda, and haven't played since. I still about every 2 years go back and smash Zelda for a week. Casuals can't carry a brand period, but in gaming it's even harder. They have no loyalty to the brand (fanboys), and aren't dedicated to the money making products like cores are. They'll drift along and watch Netflix, maybe use the apps, but are they going to spend a 1000 bucks a year on things that actually makes the devs money? If not then why develop a great product for MS when getting a PS4 exclusive could net them twice the profit. If you lose the core, then you will lose the devs. If you lose the devs you don't lose the generation, you lose the war.

Yes, in a perfect world consoles would be digital downloads with open markets, just like PC gaming is with all the store fronts for consumers to find games they want at competitive prices. Unfortunately EB/Gamestop exist because people use the convenience compared to ebay/craigslist. It also sounds like Gamestop will take a hit in profitability, but seems that they are working to be one of the Verified Retail Re-sellers. CEO Tony Bartel himself has come out and said that transition for the company will be fluid between 360/ps3 to Xbone/ps4.

Oh there doesn't have to be multiple places to go to DL the games. Just the PS store, and Xbox equivalent. This is more like a buy it here, or don't, and don't play it. Completely removes the need for EB because they don't creat physical discs. Eliminate the trade in/used market completely. Gives them more profit, and gives us a discount. Perfect world. Reality the HD would fill up every 2 years for me at 500GB, and cost me far more than it currently does.

The Used game market is now the evil portion that is denying developers and publishers money, just like big renting retailers were before it. They tend to neglect that TRADES give the consumer more money to buy new games. Exactly as you stated. I have friend who can afford 5 or 6 games a year with being able to trade back the ones they are done with. If they don't have this option or get less back for their games, this will ultimately lead to only buying 2 or 3 games. Developers and Publishers would then get even less money.

Yeah this is the big oversight with trying to eliminate used, and force new with no price drop. Gaming is already super expensive. 800 bucks a year for me is extreme to spend on games. Not to mention the 500 or so for the console itself, and that's before DLC. I'd have to drop to closer to 600 a year on games.

Another giant oversight is playing a friends/used game is a gateway to being a lifelong consumer of a series. That is why i'm into Uncharted, GOWar, and COD Zombies. Not to mention why I bought Skyrim, and TLOU (again goes back to Uncharted). No used games and I likely skip Uncharted, and TLOU altogether, and possibly GOWar too.

Currently I save 2 games at a time, and take them to EB when they have a get 25 each off X game. I still spend 20 bucks on that game, and still have to buy another at 70 to get that next 1 for 20. Basically what i'm saying is it costs me 140 for the first 2, 90 for every pair there on out. That's if I take all the games to trade, which I don't. Instead of me spending 800 bucks a year, I actually spend 600. Since that's 12 games using this method I get a nice 200 dollar break, and the devs actually get more money from me since I can afford 3-4 more games a year.

Shame to see that system go. I have enough at this point that I can buy, depending on PS4 launch price, 4 games. Since i'm not sure there will be any i'm absolutely sold on, i'd like to trade them out. WD's looks good, but i'm not sure, and I like the concept of the Thief game, and whatever the zombie game that i'm drawing a blank on. If I can do the same i've been doing I can take the chance on them with little risk, if not , then I really can't. I'd hate to miss out on another potential Uncharted because I don't want to risk blowing my load prematurely.

You've definitely hit the head here. Retailers usually only have a 1-3% margin on the new games. Also got to keep in mind that Microsoft is known to dole out extra money for exclusives, DLC(timed or whole dlc), Games, and now features with things such as the NFL/fantasy portion costing them around $500 million

PS does the same. The only one who loses is the gamers. Especially for games like COD Zombies where Easter Eggs are a large part of the game. Exclusive DLC also just screws the gamers too. They're usually minimal, like a couple bonus quests, or exclusive weapons.

One last thing. Can't wait until E3 in about 12 hours. Hopefully MS can shut down all these rediculous things, so gamers finally win...

Not much faith though.

 

[gourimoko]

PS3, XB360, and WII U all sold at a loss...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-PlayStation-3-and-Wii-U-Are-Sold-at-a-Loss-Says-Industry-Veteran-319390.shtml

Article clearly states that they sell at loss hoping to make back money in licensing fees. I highly doubt that with all the new technology that both Microsoft and Sony will be able to not sell at a loss and keep the systems affordable to amount to a high installed user base.

You didn't read what I wrote, at all.

I said: "You are correct that most consoles, when developed and released, are meant to be sold somewhat below the break-even point. The PS2, PS3, Dreamcast, GameCube, and the even the 360."

That is an entirely true statement.

You're statement that: "PS3, XB360, and WII U all sold at a loss." Is not contradictory to mine, nor is it entirely true.

The Xbox 360 became profitable in 2007, only 1 full year after release (end of 2005). Microsoft's shareholder reports as well as their public statements prior to 2007 state that the improved manufacturing process (which happens periodically with almost all dies) has greatly lowered costs. This was by manufacturing design, and announced only 1 month after the console was released:

Microsoft predicts Xbox 360 to become profitable in fiscal year 2007; Microsoft has taken the bold step of announcing that the Xbox 360 will become profitable in the company's 2007 financial year, which begins in July 2006.

They made that statement December 28th, 2005, only 1 month after the consoles North American launch, and less than 3 weeks after the worldwide launch in Europe and Japan. The 360 was never designed to be sold at a loss. Never.

The PS3 was completely different. It followed the traditional approach of innovation and pushing the limits with research and development, packing in the most possible into a single console and attempting to rival all gaming platforms including the PC - which it did. However, the company knew that as the manufacturing process for their platform became more efficient and less costly, they could cut costs dramatically. As the cost of bluray media devices decreased with increased demand, those costs would also diminish. The PS3 became profitable in 2010.

"This year is the first time that we are able to cover the cost of the PlayStation 3," says Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida. "We aren't making huge money from hardware, but we aren't bleeding like we used to." -Sony of America, June 6, 2010

The article you cited is the opinion of one "industry expert," and flies in the face of the shareholders reports and announcements from two publicly owned companies who would face stiff legal action if they publicly lied about their hardware being profitable or not. He also seems to state that the "720" and the PS4 will be huge flops. I think he's completely wrong.

For everything that's wrong with the Xbox One, it will sell in huge quantities. PC gaming is NOT coming back, not in the foreseeable future. The PS4 will also be just as big of a success. Console gaming is huge and there is no reason to predict a contraction at this point.

Now, regarding my point of the Xbox One selling for a profit almost out of the gate, ask yourself this - if the 360 was profitable in 1 year using non-standard components, why wouldn't the Xbox One be profitable sooner (if not immediately) if sold for the same price point (or higher) yet using off-the-shelf x86 components that are cheap, plentiful, not tied to console demand, and are old?

What makes you think the Xbox One would be less profitable than the 360? It's the entire reason both Microsoft and Sony chose to go with x86 components, for profitability. But once again, Microsoft has decided to go with middle-tier (even low-tier) hardware to maximize profitability.

 

[Mdog1]

The Xbox One will not likely be sold at a loss. You are correct that most consoles, when developed and released, are meant to be sold somewhat below the break-even point. The PS2, PS3, Dreamcast, GameCube, and the even the 360. But the original Xbox was sold at a profit after the second fiscal year, and the Xbox One will likely be sold at a profit from day one considering it's using off-the-shelf components that are literally several years old.

The PS4 will likely be sold at or very near the break-even point for a year or two, similarly to the original Xbox.

The basic differences are the operating systems, ram, and some other stuf I don't understand right? I'm tired, that sounds dumb, but what I mean is other than the GDDR3 vs. GDDR5 isn't the hardware pretty much comparable between the 2? Obviously I know the software is vastly different though.

One more question Gour, I can't remember the exact accronym for it. I think it's DRM or DVM. It's the thing that, as far as I understand blocks the second hand games from being used. Is it software as in update-able in the future, or is it hardware as in permanent? MS has it built in to their system, Sony doesn't from the sounds of it. How much does that factor in to the price, as in is it expensive?

Not for Gour, but I saw the most ironic MS commercial earlier. It was about their tablet, and the ending said "Less talking, more doing." I got a real kick out of that, since their entire reveal was about talking to the Xbox lol.

 

[gourimoko]

The basic differences are the operating systems, ram, and some other stuf I don't understand right? I'm tired, that sounds dumb, but what I mean is other than the GDDR3 vs. GDDR5 isn't the hardware pretty much comparable between the 2? Obviously I know the software is vastly different though.

The similarities between both systems is that they will both use a binary compatible x86-64 octo-core processor manufactured by AMD. The Xbox One will use a SoC approach that incorporates the AMD/ATI mobile graphics system into a CPU/GPU combo similarly to how the Intel i-series chips since Sandy have incorporated the Intel HD graphics system. The PS4 will use a discrete GPU. This difference is massive. The Xbox One will be cheaper to produce, consume less energy, produce less heat, and likely have fewer errors - while the PS4 will have much greater graphics capability.

The differences are, as you stated, different operating systems, graphics APIs (an advantage still for the Xbox One as it uses the now standard DirectX), and RAM (a major difference regarding gaming-specific performance). When you say "GDDR3 vs GDDR5" you're conflating GDDR with DDR. The Xbox One does not use GDDR ram, not 3 or 5; it uses standard desktop DDR3 RAM which is not designed for, nor suitable for, high-end graphics applications. The PS4 uses GDDR5.

Now to answer your question "isn't the hardware fairly similar?" Well, similarity is relative. The two are more similar than the previous generation yes, but they are as similar as a $300 economy-grade PC from Walmart and an $800 gaming PC. Those two systems, while similar in many ways, are different enough that they have completely different functions. One is good for applications, and one is good at applications and gaming.

What Microsoft is trying to do is focus more on applications and less on gaming while reducing costs and increasing profits. Sony is trying to reduce costs and increase cross-over appeal for developers by pursuing an x86 platform (making exclusive titles far less appealing for either system).

One more question Gour, I can't remember the exact accronym for it. I think it's DRM or DVM. It's the thing that, as far as I understand blocks the second hand games from being used.

DRM. Digital Rights Management.

Is it software as in update-able in the future, or is it hardware as in permanent? MS has it built in to their system, Sony doesn't from the sounds of it. How much does that factor in to the price, as in is it expensive?

DRM is mostly software-driven in these latest consoles, not a blend of both as it was in the previous generation. The only hardware I expect on either console will be a TPM chip (Trusted Platform Module) that will drive the EFI (extended firmware interface) ensuring that only signed code is launched by the boot-loader. However, both Microsoft and Sony know that TPM is not secure and within weeks it will be cracked - this is a certainty.

Microsoft's approach is to make any hacked Xbox only playable offline, and to force hacked Xboxes to incorporate significant patches (that may be very difficult to implement) in order to function. Sony hasn't discussed any substantial DRM approach that could work on an x86 platform. Many think they may say "fuck it" and go without significant changes to DRM as it is solely to outsell Microsoft. They run a significant risk of creating an open platform, however, so some DRM may be necessary.

So to answer this question can either change their DRM? Yes. Both can implement different DRM systems by patching their operating system. They can also flash the TPM if needed - it's all software once you hit the x86 platform as there is no built-in functionality for DRM and it's highly doubtful AMD would add instructions to the platform as it would entirely eliminate the cost benefit of using x86.

One of the very interesting things about these consoles is that I expect them to be fully emulated within several years. There's no reason QEMU couldn't function as an Xbox One or PS4 and with VGA passthrough, one could probably start experimenting with emulation right away.