Support NeoGAF

[quetz67]

The console arena is far more fickle than you think. Anything is possible. You seem too keen on thinking Sony is some unstoppable company. And MS is in a much better position this time around. They've got a name backing, they've got a console that will scale better price wise over time, and they've got much much better developer support. As well as an established online infrastructure. That as well as Sony no longer having a 20million user install base when it was introduced. You seem to think this gen will be a reflection of last gen. We'll see. .

If MS is so much better positioned this time, so why does 360 sell exactly the same numbers xbox 1 did? What is to be seen? The sudden increase in hardware sales as soon as the (this time probably two strong) contenders are on the market?

I dont understand Microsoft's strategy. To be profitable sometimes in the (far) future, they either have to increase market share a lot or produce profitable hardware from the beginning like Nintendo does. It is to late to be profitable this gen, so their main concern has to be to get as many machines out as possible. The shell out insane amounts of money to buy exclusives, but they are afraid to drop the price (as that would mean they admit another generation is a huge loss).

They rather pile million consoles somewhere instead of having them in customers homes and have those customers buy games. The more hardware is out the more games are sold the more happy software developers will develop games for 360 (exclusively) without the need of huge moneyhats.

 

[D3VI0US]

MS will cut the gen short again if they don't gain enough ground in the market, they'll probably manage the transition better though. Still cutting it short also cuts profits short where Sony with it's global business will ride a nice wave of success partly due to Blu Ray. It's a combination that will be more appealing down the line especially as HDTV's become cheaper. I mean given the price I'm sure we won't see PS2 style uptake numbers but even if MS hits 10 million first Sony will be right on their heels and closing the price gap as aggressively as they can to protect ground. These two are out for blood and no one has the clear advantage especially concerning exclusives. Oblivion on PS3 anyone? Smackdown 360 exclusive? Tables are turning, allegiances are shifting, but really all 3 players can carve out sustainable chunks of the market. Gloom and doom my ass, it's all about the extents of the powershift, anyone can come out on top, except Nintendo.

 

[Shogmaster]

So how long until they start making money on the original Xbox?

MS fvcked up on the XBox by not owning the tech nor fabbing the chips themselves (but that's what they needed to do to bring the Xbox to market in the short time period that they had before PS2 got to entrenched). This was the big contention between MS and nVidia that made for all that arbitration bruhaha and eventual falling out, if you remember. This is why MS cut off XBox lifecycle short since there was no way to salvage any chance of profit from the hardware.

That's funny, Sony and Nintendo didn't seem to have much problem making money coming off the release of their cutting edge hardware.

PS1, N64, PS2, GC all lost money for their respective owners until a process shrink too place. Wii is probably the only exemption to this since the chips inside is far from cutting edge when launched.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

If MS is so much better positioned this time, so why does 360 sell exactly the same numbers xbox 1 did?

Xbox had Halo at launch. Xbox 360 has yet to see an Halo-class platform pusher. And, without it, they're still making the same numbers. When GOW or Halo 3 will hit, you'll see the real boost.

 

[psy18]

PS1, N64, PS2, GC all lost money for their respective owners until a process shrink too place. Wii is probably the only exemption to this since the chips inside is far from cutting edge when launched.

Are you sure? Because Nintendo's number are all black, and they hate losing money.:lol
Sony has one number that's red in black (2001).

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Are you sure? Because Nintendo's number are all black, and they hate losing money.:lol

Are Nintendo numbers relative to the entire company or only home consoles market? Maybe they're in black because of handelds?

 

[D3VI0US]

If MS is so much better positioned this time, so why does 360 sell exactly the same numbers xbox 1 did? What is to be seen? The sudden increase in hardware sales as soon as the (this time probably two strong) contenders are on the market?

I dont understand Microsoft's strategy. To be profitable sometimes in the (far) future, they either have to increase market share a lot or produce profitable hardware from the beginning like Nintendo does. It is to late to be profitable this gen, so their main concern has to be to get as many machines out as possible. The shell out insane amounts of money to buy exclusives, but they are afraid to drop the price (as that would mean they admit another generation is a huge loss).

They rather pile million consoles somewhere instead of having them in customers homes and have those customers buy games. The more hardware is out the more games are sold the more happy software developers will develop games for 360 (exclusively) without the need of huge moneyhats.

Dude your post is a big bowl of wrong. First off MS is better positioned cause the 360 is tracking pretty much on par with Xbox. Thing is there really aren't any AAA games out there, lots of solid titles but Halo 3 isn't out yet. Not to mention the increased costs of next gen gaming will hurt the competition as well.

MS will be profitable this gen, they may not lead the market but since they built their hardware smarter this time around they'll make some bucks especially with addition revenue streams like Live and it's online consumer whore wares. They charge for buddy icons for ****s sake, and people buy them. We're all doomed.

 

[Shogmaster]

Are you sure? Because Nintendo's number are all black, and they hate losing money.:lol
Sony has one number that's red in black (2001).

Nintendo's numbers are offset by their portables, and look at Sony's 2001 numbers. It's because they shifted the losses from PS2 dev and losses into that one years numbers probably.

 

[quetz67]

Dude your post is a big bowl of wrong. First off MS is better positioned cause the 360 is tracking pretty much on par with Xbox. Thing is there really aren't any AAA games out there, lots of solid titles but Halo 3 isn't out yet. Not to mention the increased costs of next gen gaming will hurt the competition as well.

MS will be profitable this gen, they may not lead the market but since they built their hardware smarter this time around they'll make some bucks especially with addition revenue streams like Live and it's online consumer whore wares. They charge for buddy icons for ****s sake, and people buy them. We're all doomed.

I thought this was about MS losing more money with 360 than expected?!? So the hardware probably isnt built that smart. Add overproduction and defective units and you know why they are again losing a lot of money.

OK, so Halo 3 is the saviour now. Makes sense...or...maybe all the people who think Halo 3 is a must have did already buy a 360 anyway? Dont get me wrong, Halo 3 sure will move some hardware (like Blue Dragon will), but will it move that many million units to make a difference? IMO MS needs to double their market share to be a real contender and if they push back the 'huge sales spike because of (insert stuff like 'end of shortages, GOW, price drop, Halo 3' or other here.)' year after year it might be quite difficult to reach that target.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

*reads a whole bunch of retardedness in the thread*

X360 is selling very ****ing well for its price. And with MS in full control over costs, they can and will drop the price when absolutely critical to their strategy. The first cut should hit by March. And, as with all systems, the sales will increase as time goes on, provided that MS continue to support the system with software and marketing. As the system becomes less expensive, the sales will increase.

MS has more reasons to greatly extend the life of the X360 because they actually own the hardware and can take all of the profits, unlike the original system. The longer they support their own hardware, the more sales they directly benefit from because they are no longer tied to a graphics/audio part manufacturer and CPU manufacturer that takes massive, almost immutable cuts out of their revenue. In less than three years' time, the system cost will be significantly less than what they sell it for. Why would they just abandon a product that nets them 100% profit? The original XBOX was never able to offer them what the new system does and will do by middle of generation.

If you think that Sony isn't going to see losses close to double what MS' gaming division is seeing right now, I think you're in for a rude awakening. In fact, I think that Sony will see closer to triple the amount of losses you're seeing now for MS' side over the next two years.

 

[travisbickle]

And with MS in full control over costs

It say in the first page of text, Steve Balmer quoted “…The cost of producing Xbox 360 consoles was higher than expected...", I don't think they are that much in control of production costs if you include the defective units and necessary actions made to rectify them.

If you think that Sony isn't going to see losses close to double what MS' gaming division is seeing right now, I think you're in for a rude awakening. In fact, I think that Sony will see closer to triple the amount of losses you're seeing now for MS' side over the next two years.

What!! How much was the R&D for the PS3? Is the R&D even included in these statistics? If it's just the manufacturing costs, do you think Sony are losing three times the amount of money on unit production to Microsoft?

 

[Merovingian]

It say in the first page of text, Steve Balmer quoted “…The cost of producing Xbox 360 consoles was higher than expected...", I don't think they are that much in control of production costs if you include the defective units and necessary actions made to rectify them.





What!! How much was the R&D for the PS3? Is the R&D even included in these statistics? If it's just the manufacturing costs, do you think Sony are losing three times the amount of money on unit production to Microsoft?

No, its loosing a bit more, not a whole lot more, but a bit more. So Sony will loose even more money than MS, and as was said before, its not like Sony is in MS's shape.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

OK, so Halo 3 is the saviour now. Makes sense...or...maybe all the people who think Halo 3 is a must have did already buy a 360 anyway?

Yeah, exactly like people was sayin about Halo 2: "everyone who wants Halo has already bought Xbox, it won't help sales". Then the game came, and Xbox won Christmas.

However, it's not the fact that Halo 3 is teh saviour, but simply that Xbox 360 is doing the same Xbox numbers *without* an absolute killer app like Xbox had at launch. So, things can only get better, when the real killer apps will arrive (GOW first, H3 then).

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It say in the first page of text, Steve Balmer quoted “…The cost of producing Xbox 360 consoles was higher than expected...", I don't think they are that much in control of production costs if you include the defective units and necessary actions made to rectify them.

Just because the costs are higher than expected doesn't mean they're not in control of the costs in the long term. Of course they're going to be seeing massive losses at first. It's how this industry almost always does this shit. Lose a lot at first, make it all back plus a lot more as costs come down. Defect rates and returns aren't catastropic. If we were talking about a mass recall, then there'd be reason to worry.

What!! How much was the R&D for the PS3? Is the R&D even included in these statistics? If it's just the manufacturing costs, do you think Sony are losing three times the amount of money on unit production to Microsoft?

You're crazy if you don't think the PS3 is going to come close to that amount of loss considering all of the parts and the fact that they're well behind their earlier production forecasts. Sony's held up on Blu-Ray drives and will be until they sort out the production of them. And because it's a part that's specific to the new blue-laser drives, that means their production of dedicated Blu-Ray players are also affected and have to share with their PS3 units the parts that do make it out okay. Sony's rolling out two major products that are tied together on some fundamental level...a part that is causing a lot of delays for both lines.
Then you've got the massive cost of goods and losses they'll be taking on the PS3 itself along with, IMO, slower sales because of the exorbitant pricing of both the dedicated Blu-Ray players and of the PS3 itself.

Yeah, I truly think Sony's going to be seeing closer to 3 billion (US) in losses over the next two years.

 

[quetz67]

Yeah, exactly like people was sayin about Halo 2: "everyone who wants Halo has already bought Xbox, it won't help sales". Then the game came, and Xbox won Christmas.

even if xbox 'won' that christmas, it didnt change much. that christmas didnt help xbox much to put a noticeable dent into Sonys market share (and thats what I was talking about)

However, it's not the fact that Halo 3 is teh saviour, but simply that Xbox 360 is doing the same Xbox numbers *without* an absolute killer app like Xbox had at launch. So, things can only get better, when the real killer apps will arrive (GOW first, H3 then).

and for the no halo at launch, MS had one of the most hyped companies in gaming history develop one of the most hyped games in history for launch and it didnt help. halo 3 sure will be big, but then there is probably just one Halo this gen.

and who says things can only get better? xbox 360 sales can continue to be sluggish and they can slow down even more before halo 3 comes, which then probably is just good for one big christmas. I dont say it will happen, but I dont know why slow sales are guarantee for things getting better.

 

[DCharlie]

MS had one of the most hyped companies in gaming history develop one of the most hyped games in history for launch and it didnt help

go on, i'll bite... which game was this?

*gets ready with gasp mask*

 

[MightyHedgehog]

and who says things can only get better? xbox 360 sales can continue to be sluggish and they can slow down even more before halo 3 comes, which then probably is just good for one big christmas. I dont say it will happen, but I dont know why slow sales are guarantee for things getting better.

Just like, who says PS3 will sell for shit after this initial holiday season, thanks to the pricing, right? Who says that Sony's even guaranteed first or even second place by end of gen, right?

 

[Mojovonio]

go on, i'll bite... which game was this?

*gets ready with gasp mask*

PD:0!

oh, and i'm sooo glad i started this thread. Mission Accomplished.

 

[Yoboman]

This thread is a truly painful read.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

and for the no halo at launch, MS had one of the most hyped companies in gaming history develop one of the most hyped games in history for launch and it didnt help.

This is absolutely irrelevant. If I ask any of my non-gamer friends what's Rare and what's Perfect Dark, they wouldn't absolutely know it. It isn't KA material, it's simply gaming-geeks material. But I ensure you, many people know what Halo is even without possessing an Xbox.

xbox 360 sales can continue to be sluggish and they can slow down even more before halo 3 comes

You'd like it, uh :lol

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

GAF in general is a truly painful read.

I agree.

 

[DCharlie]

PD:0!

oh yeah, i forgot about a) the game b) it being totally in the same realm of Halo in terms of hype!

 

[_Alkaline_]

This thread is a truly painful read.

The goggles do nothing!

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

oh yeah, i forgot about a) the game b) it being totally in the same realm of Halo in terms of hype!

Well, PD:0 didn't "help" 360, why would Halo 3 do it? No way, after all everyone who wants Halo already owns a 360

 

[Illuminati]

MS has more reasons to greatly extend the life of the X360 because they actually own the hardware and can take all of the profits, unlike the original system. The longer they support their own hardware, the more sales they directly benefit from because they are no longer tied to a graphics/audio part manufacturer and CPU manufacturer that takes massive, almost immutable cuts out of their revenue.

What? IBM, ATI, etc. are not going to see any money? They are giving MS free hardware to put in their consoles?

 

[DCharlie]

Well, PD:0 didn't "help" 360, why would Halo 3 do it? No way, after all everyone who wants Halo already owns a 360

yeah, i'm guessing everyone who wants to play FFXIII or MGS4 will own a PS3 at launch date too :/

 

[MightyHedgehog]

What? IBM, ATI, etc. are not going to see any money from this?

Of course, they are. But MS owns the hardware and can shop it around to whoever they like to get a better deal on manufacturing. Those guys were paid a ****ton of money to design and support the hardware, but they aren't locked in as being responsible for manufacturing and then charging MS for the parts. That's the big difference here.

 

[Pug]

With the Xbox MS was tied in big time to Nvidia. Thet could not manufacture the gpu themselves. This time they can, they are just paying a fixed fee to ATI for each one. If they can prodcue them cheaper they save money. They couldn't do this with Nvidia

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

What? IBM, ATI, etc. are not going to see any money from this?

AFAIK, they got their moneys for designing the hardware, but it's all property of Microsoft so there isn't any fee on each cpu/gpu produced, and MS can have them produced by anyone. With the first Xbox nVidia was MS' supplier, so they had to pay them every single chip, without the choice to go elsewere with cheaper prices.

Edit: Pug-beaten, better explanation in less words :lol

 

[Illuminati]

AFAIK, they got their moneys for designing the hardware, but it's all property of Microsoft so there isn't any fee on each cpu/gpu produced, and MS can have them produced by anyone. With the first Xbox nVidia was MS' supplier, so they had to pay them every single chip, without the choice to go elsewere with cheaper prices.

I've never heard of something like this before. Aren't the graphics chips and processors designed based off proprietary technology? I don't see how MS can pick up and go with the processor chip and graphics card designs to another manufacturer.

 

[Mojovonio]

oh yeah, i forgot about a) the game b) it being totally in the same realm of Halo in terms of hype!

I never said I agreed, but that's my guess of what he was talking about.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I've never heard of something like this before.

There's always a first time However read Pug and Mighty explanations, they're better than mine

I don't see how MS can pick up and go with the processor chip and graphics card designs to another manufacturer.

Well, this is what they're doing.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

What gives you the impression that MS owns the designs for the graphics chip and processor that ATI and IBM produced? I doubt MS can just take the designs to other manufacturers to produce the graphics and processor chips.

It's public knowledge. Investors of all companies involved have the information, as well. The whole point of MS approaching ATI, IBM, and SIS was so that they could negotiate the full ownership over the hardware design...a specific implementation for the X360. This way MS can pay royalties to them for each part manufactured, as well as the upfront design and support costs, while they can go and find anyone who can manufacture it for less. As part of the deal, all of the companies involved are also part of the process shrink to 65nm that will start manufacturing before middle of next year or so....making it even cheaper to produce for MS, thus saving them money. The cut that the design partners get is fixed, I believe.

As Pug and Spider put it already, X360 is not even close to being the same situation that the original system was in. MS absolutely made sure they had control -- the same kind of control that Ninty and Sony have over their hardware -- over the costs over the lifetime of the system so they could actually be profitable with the system in a few years' time.

 

[Shogmaster]

I've never heard of something like this before. Aren't the graphics chips and processors designed based off proprietary technology? I don't see how MS can pick up and go with the processor chip and graphics card designs to another manufacturer.

All NV2A (XBox GPU) was, was a GeForce 3 with an extra vertex shader, which is what basically the GeForce 4 turned out be. IIRC, launch of XBox was about 4 months before launch of GeForce 4. And as for the CPU, it was just a Mobile Pentium 3 with half the L2 cache missing.

So XBox turned out to be one of the most off-the shelf console in recent history, and as such, prospects of making profit from the hardware in the long term was quite fuxxored from the get go....

 

[Illuminati]

It's public knowledge. Investors of all companies involved have the information, as well. The whole point of MS approaching ATI, IBM, and SIS was so that they could negotiate the full ownership over the hardware design...a specific implementation for the X360. This way MS can pay royalties to them for each part manufactured, as well as the upfront design and support costs, while they can go and find anyone who can manufacture it for less. As part of the deal, all of the companies involved are also part of the process shrink to 65nm that will start manufacturing before middle of next year or so....making it even cheaper to produce for MS, thus saving them money. The cut that the design partners get is fixed, I believe.

See the only reason I question this is from first hand experience. My company had worked with IBM in the past a few years ago in fabbing some of the components we use in our products. Not processors like MS is doing, but similar in that fashion with micro-controllers. At that time I was on the design team and I know for a fact that we were never allowed or even given the option of taking our joint designs and bring them to another manufacturer because they contained IBM proprietary technology. However we haven't worked with them for years so I have no idea if that has changed.

 

[gutter_trash]

I almost bought a 360 last year but I resisted, I'm a consummer whore with a compulsive nature but there is one reason why I didn't buy a 360

because Xbox1's support has been cut off by MS themselves.

what does that have to do with 360?
-everything

I don't apreciate MS's ambandoning the Xbox1 and killing off the user base in the process.
(i understand it's because of the monies,, but still)

3rd parties who are still in the dev time for Xbox1 titles are still publishing for the Xbox1 because they were already in progress with their dev last yearlyer this year and last year.
So expect a dead Xbox1 on all fronts in 2007, only the few will resort to multi-porting and we know who they are (EA, UBi, ACtivision)

so, why should I invest in a next-gen console that will have a console life of 4 years? No thanks, I don't want it to happen to me again.

support the user base = user base will remember you in the next gen and buy your next gen platofrm

kill off the user base prematurely = some of the bitter users will remember you next gen and won't buy your next gen console

6 yeasr of PS2ing going into 7 proves to me how Sony supports their existing user bases. And even if 599 is alot, it's still worth 7 years of console life IMO.. not 4 years

 

[MightyHedgehog]

See the only reason I question this is from first hand experience. My company had worked with IBM in the past a few years ago in fabbing some of the components we use in our products. Not processors like MS is doing, but similar in that fashion with micro-controllers. At that time I was on the design team and I know for a fact that we were never allowed or even given the option of taking IBMs designs and bring them to another manufacturer. However we haven't worked with them for years so I have no idea if that has changed.

IBM has been actively promoting its PowerPC design services for a while now. The idea is that you get something customized to your needs and based on proven PPC architecture. They want to sell their CPUs to you and you'll own the design for its specific implementation. You won't own the PPC, but you'll own that discrete design and thus be able to fab it anywhere you please, though they would likely be a good choice, too.

 

[jarrod]

Are you sure? Because Nintendo's number are all black, and they hate losing money.:lol
Sony has one number that's red in black (2001).

GameCube took about a $20 loss initially (at $200)... which in itself is rather amazing considering it's amazing cutting edge architecture. Had Nintendo gone with their competitors strategies, and crafted a $300 loss taker, we probably would've gotten something more along the lines of the Wii chipset in 2001.

Not sure about N64 though, the unexpected $50 drop pre-launch might've put the machine under the profit margin though. NES/Famicom also took a loss at launch actually (SNES/SFC didn't though).

 

[Shogmaster]

I almost bought a 360 last year but I resisted, I'm a consummer whore with a compulsive nature but there is one reason why I didn't buy a 360

because Xbox1's support has been cut off by MS themselves.

what does that have to do with 360?
-everything

I don't apreciate MS's ambandoning the Xbox1 and killing off the user base in the process.
(i understand it's because of the monies,, but still)

3rd parties who are still in the dev time for Xbox1 titles are still publishing for the Xbox1 because they were already in progress with their dev last yearlyer this year and last year.
So expect a dead Xbox1 on all fronts in 2007, only the few will resort to multi-porting and we know who they are (EA, UBi, ACtivision)

so, why should I invest in a next-gen console that will have a console life of 4 years? No thanks, I don't want it to happen to me again.

support the user base = user base will remember you in the next gen and buy your next gen platofrm

kill off the user base prematurely = some of the bitter users will remember you next gen and won't buy your next gen console

6 yeasr of PS2ing going into 7 proves to me how Sony supports their existing user bases. And even if 599 is alot, it's still worth 7 years of console life IMO.. not 4 years

I never understood this line of thinking. It's a gaming console, not a goddamn condo.

In 4 years (nov 2001- nov 2005), I spent $300 on the hardware and at least 3 times as much on software and services (XBox Live for 3 years, and about 20 games). The "investment" on the hardware is nothing compared to what one would spend on software in those 4 years. Who cares if it's 4 years of lifecycle instead of 5 or 6 or 7? The same money you would be spending on software for a 4, 5, 6 year old hardware could be spent on new hotness instead!

I personally would be get bored to tears playing games on that old of a hardware anyways (graphics whore), and my game purchases for the XBox in the 4th year says as much.

 

[Illuminati]

IBM has been actively promoting its PowerPC design services for a while now. The idea is that you get something customized to your needs and based on proven PPC architecture. They want to sell their CPUs to you and you'll own the design for its specific implementation. You won't own the PPC, but you'll own that discrete design and thus be able to fab it anywhere you please, though they would likely be a good choice, too.

I understand that a company can customize IBM's chips, but I just find it a little odd that they would allow you to take off with chips based off their technology and have it fabbed by someone else. This is a crazy example, but I mean from the way you make it sound MS could take their custom designed processors, based off IBM technology, and go to someone like Intel and have them manufacture the chips.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I understand that a company can customize IBM's chips, but I just find it a little odd that they would allow you to take off with chips based off their technology and have it fabbed by someone else. This is a crazy example, but I mean from the way you make it sound MS could take their custom designed processors, based off IBM technology, and go to someone like Intel and have them manufacture the chips.

It is the case. However it's co-developed technology, so maybe it's the key to this thing. And obviously being called Microsoft is another factor to consider

 

[MightyHedgehog]

. . . and go to someone like Intel and have them manufacture the chips.

:lol I doubt that MS would go back to Intel or nVidia to manufacture anything of theirs again after the original XBOX. And with ATI being part of AMD, I can see the next XBOX going to them first for both CPU and GPU design. Perhaps a collaboration between IBM and AMD with ATI, as well. Pretty good match since they're all connected pretty closely now...obviously ATI and AMD being totally connected.

 

[quetz67]

This is absolutely irrelevant. If I ask any of my non-gamer friends what's Rare and what's Perfect Dark, they wouldn't absolutely know it. It isn't KA material, it's simply gaming-geeks material. But I ensure you, many people know what Halo is even without possessing an Xbox.

But the reason for PDZ being a 'failure' wasnt lack of hype but lack of quality. Halo got a hype because it was a fanstastic looking (and at least in multiplayer) great playing game. I wonder if MS has learned that it is not the IP that counts but if a game is good (we'll probably see when Too Human is out).

You'd like it, uh :lol

I am all for a one console future...and I dont care if it is Nintendo or Sony

 

[Blimblim]

I've never heard of something like this before. Aren't the graphics chips and processors designed based off proprietary technology? I don't see how MS can pick up and go with the processor chip and graphics card designs to another manufacturer.

MS owns or shares the intellectual property of every "important" components of the 360. CPU, GPU and scaler.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

I'm most interested to see what pans out between Wii, 360 and PS3 in marketshare terms, simply because i predicted ages ago that if PS3 loses significant marketshare to 360 then we might actually see the PS4 have a MS OS and DirectX 11, in exchange for their being no Xbox 720...

If MS could have got their software on the PS3, there wouldn't even be a Xbox 360.

One Console Future FTW! :lol

 

[Shig]

This is normal, Sony is expecting to loose an even bigger ammount of money....

But it's domesticated... that money won't last 2 days in the wild!

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I am all for a one console future...and I dont care if it is Nintendo or Sony

So everything but Microsoft, uh?

 

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

But the reason for PDZ being a 'failure' wasnt lack of hype but lack of quality. Halo got a hype because it was a fanstastic looking (and at least in multiplayer) great playing game. I wonder if MS has learned that it is not the IP that counts but if a game is good (we'll probably see when Too Human is out).

Too Human? Why not Gears of War, Blue Dragon, or Mass Effect? They're all coming out way before Too Human will and they're all being published by MS.

I think it's obvious why you want to focus on Too Human though. The more bad press for MS, the harder your penis gets.

 

[JoJo13]

MS owns or shares the intellectual property of every "important" components of the 360. CPU, GPU and scaler.

This is true, but this still doesn't mean they can control the cost of production. Since they own no plants and rely on others to manufacture their products, the cost of production depends on what the manufactures charges M$.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

This is true, but this still doesn't mean they can control the cost of production. Since they own no plants and rely on others to manufacture their products, the cost of production depends on what the manufactures charges M$.

Infact, we are not saying this. We're simply stating how winth the first Xbox MS was strictly binded to nVidia, while now they can give maufacturing to the cheapest producer.