Link
Some choice parts
The price drop is long overdue. The Playstation 4 is outselling the Xbox One by a significant margin -- Ars Technica estimates by at least 40% -- and the entire gap can be traced to one crucial decision. That's how thin the line is between success and failure in the console market. You can have a fantastic brand, recruit third party support, obtain exclusives, introduce innovations, ensure wide distribution, spend a lot of money on marketing... and still fail because of one bad decision.
That's not to say Microsoft hasn't made their fair few, but can you guess which bad decision I'm referring to? It wasn't bundling the Kinect, though that was rough because of the $100 price premium. It wasn't the DRM policies, or the always online requirement either. I think Microsoft was able to reverse those out early enough.
It was Microsoft's decision to go with 8GB of 2133MHz DDR3 RAM and 32MB of eSRAM memory for the Xbox One, while Sony opted to go with 8GB of 5500MHz GDDR5 RAM for the Playstation 4. This was terrible judgment on Microsoft's part, and if they lose the console war they can point to that decision as the cause.
The game's publisher sees that the Playstation 4 version sold better and concludes they should put more resources behind the winning platform. Those resources translate to better games which gives consumers even more reason to choose Sony. Microsoft itself earns less revenue to make up for its loss leader, the console itself.
It's a death cycle that Microsoft is in danger of falling into.
Those who follow the console market will point out that weaker machines haven't always lost. Indeed, the Sega Genesis held up admirably against the Super Nintendo, as did the Xbox 360 against the Playstation 3. There's one key difference however. Those weaker machines also cost less to make and thus were sold at cheaper prices. Gamers don't mind weaker machines as long as they are cheaper as well.
Fortunately for Sony, DDR5 supply didn't turn out to be a bottleneck. In fact, Sony was able to launch in many more countries with more consoles ready for sale than Microsoft. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it also meant it had a console that appeared weaker graphically -- a sin for hardcore gamers who are the first to buy new, expensive consoles.
Can you imagine if Microsoft had just opted for DDR5 memory? The Xbox One and the Playstation 4 would have the same exact hardware. There would be no resolutiongate and it wouldn't have been so easy for hardcore gamers to choose which to support. It would be a race to secure the better exclusives, provide a better network environment, and so on. Sure, Microsoft would have still made their earlier snafus, but those were all reversible. A bad hardware decision is not.
More at the link. Does go over what we've read before but a decent summary and conclusion.
Some choice parts
The price drop is long overdue. The Playstation 4 is outselling the Xbox One by a significant margin -- Ars Technica estimates by at least 40% -- and the entire gap can be traced to one crucial decision. That's how thin the line is between success and failure in the console market. You can have a fantastic brand, recruit third party support, obtain exclusives, introduce innovations, ensure wide distribution, spend a lot of money on marketing... and still fail because of one bad decision.
That's not to say Microsoft hasn't made their fair few, but can you guess which bad decision I'm referring to? It wasn't bundling the Kinect, though that was rough because of the $100 price premium. It wasn't the DRM policies, or the always online requirement either. I think Microsoft was able to reverse those out early enough.
It was Microsoft's decision to go with 8GB of 2133MHz DDR3 RAM and 32MB of eSRAM memory for the Xbox One, while Sony opted to go with 8GB of 5500MHz GDDR5 RAM for the Playstation 4. This was terrible judgment on Microsoft's part, and if they lose the console war they can point to that decision as the cause.
The game's publisher sees that the Playstation 4 version sold better and concludes they should put more resources behind the winning platform. Those resources translate to better games which gives consumers even more reason to choose Sony. Microsoft itself earns less revenue to make up for its loss leader, the console itself.
It's a death cycle that Microsoft is in danger of falling into.
Those who follow the console market will point out that weaker machines haven't always lost. Indeed, the Sega Genesis held up admirably against the Super Nintendo, as did the Xbox 360 against the Playstation 3. There's one key difference however. Those weaker machines also cost less to make and thus were sold at cheaper prices. Gamers don't mind weaker machines as long as they are cheaper as well.
Fortunately for Sony, DDR5 supply didn't turn out to be a bottleneck. In fact, Sony was able to launch in many more countries with more consoles ready for sale than Microsoft. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it also meant it had a console that appeared weaker graphically -- a sin for hardcore gamers who are the first to buy new, expensive consoles.
Can you imagine if Microsoft had just opted for DDR5 memory? The Xbox One and the Playstation 4 would have the same exact hardware. There would be no resolutiongate and it wouldn't have been so easy for hardcore gamers to choose which to support. It would be a race to secure the better exclusives, provide a better network environment, and so on. Sure, Microsoft would have still made their earlier snafus, but those were all reversible. A bad hardware decision is not.
More at the link. Does go over what we've read before but a decent summary and conclusion.
