I know you completely disagree with me here, but I feel like this statement is very much up for debate. In my opinion, neither the Wii nor the 360 execute their game plans effectively this gen. Both have things they can learn from the other, and the best decision for console companies would be to compromise somewhere in the middle and have the next line of consoles be simply adequately powerful rather than pushing the boundaries of hardware like they did with this gen.
I agree, all three can learn a thing or two from each other.
I say this because the 360, overall, did not turn out as well as it could have. The reason this gen has gone on for so long is not because the hardware was made to last. Hell no. There are people complaining daily about how the current gen is woefully outdated. There is literally nothing MS or Sony could have done this gen to maintain console spec competitiveness for 7 years, and there's no way they can do that next gen. It's impossible. This gen is more than long in the tooth. The current HD twins are built on ancient hardware, and in the long run, it cost both manufacturers more money than was necessary. The reason this gen has lasted as long as it has is precisely because it failed early on.
When I say competitive, I mean competitive with the direct competition (e.i. the Wii-U and PS4). IMO the PC will never be in direct competition with consoles, much like handhelds are not in direct competition with consoles.
The first half of this gen was a miserable affair for both MS and Sony. They were getting their asses handed to them. It just plain sucked. And yes, the fact that they had powerful hardware allowed them to make this gen a slow burn and eventually everything hit its stride, but that's an absolutely terrible business strategy. Digging a huge hole in the beginning in hopes of digging your way out later makes no sense. I'm inclined to think MS probably agrees. Did they plan to play second fiddle to the Wii for the first 4-5 years on the market? Hell no. Again, that makes no sense. What logic is there behind MS going gangbuster next gen if it's going to force them to price high ($400) and lose money at the same time? Because they want the hardware to last another 7 years? The hardware is going to barely last 5 no matter what, and then it's going to be pitifully underpowered all over again.
No one launches their console hoping to play 2nd fiddle, that goes without saying. However even if MS launched with more moderate hardware, at a cheaper price, it still would have lost out to the Wii. If you think Nintendo earned success this gen just because it was cheaper, then you really don't understand why the mass market found it so appealing.
To me, it makes much more financial sense for consoles to last a max of about 5-6 years rather than 7-8 like it has this gen. Make money from the very beginning, build modestly, and make money again sooner rather than later. Apple and other cell phone providers understand this strategy very well. From a consumer standpoint, of course I'd want MS to create a beast of a console and subsidize the shit out of it to make it affordable. But that's not going to happen. MS isn't going to make a $500 BOM console and then price it at $250. At best, they'll make a $500 BOM console and price it at $400. In such a scenario, everyone loses. Consumers have to pay more. MS loses a ton of money from the very beginning. Developers have to deal with a slow adoption rate. Yes, the consumer that could afford it would get a really sweet console, but it's terrible idea financially for MS. They could make so much more money by trying to build a modest console and sell it closer to cost. If anything, the Wii shows that this is very much a viable option!! The wii died for various reasons, but saying it was simply because it wasn't powerful enough is so disingenuous. It died because 3rd parties didn't support it, and yes it didn't get any support because it wasn't powerful enough for ports, but that itself is a more complicated issue than just saying less power = less 3rd party titles. Imagine if nintendo had gone ahead and made the thing moderately powered but priced the same. The ports would have come. The games would have been there. The lesson MS should learn from nintendo is that there are better ways to make money than bleeding yourself for the first few years on the market.
I had a huge response to this part typed out but figured it didn't convey my point well enough. I'll just say this:
-Having a longer generation has it's own benefits, possibly more than a shorter generation. Regardless of what you think is best, this gen has changed things permanently, next gen will be as long if not longer. They have to prepare their hardware for that as best they can.
-You can not compare what Apple or the cell phone providers to the console business. (Even though cell phones are similar in subsidizing hardware and make up profit over the course of a 2 year contract)
-The 360 has had healthy adoption rate throughout the course of it's life cycle IIRC, regardless of it's launch price
-I never said the Wii died early
only because it was underpowered.
Really it all comes down to this, if either MS or Sony go the Wii route next gen, the other will likely earn more sales from the hardcore/early adopter demographic. It looks like both will launch late 2013, so whichever one offers the best performance for the price will probably be the one to sell better. If both launched at $400 but the PS4 was noticeably faster, I'd pick up that system and wait until the next Halo/Gears/etc. launches before I pick up a xbox.
I said this before, but MS and Sony don't want to give buyers a reason to wait. Being noticeably underpowered at launch is a good enough reason for people to consider the competition (assuming prices are comparable).
Good God guys.
I don't get some of you. You're looking at something so much more powerful than the systems out right now as to be comedic, and you're still unimpressed. I mean this rumor doesn't even mention RAM types or amounts. Just going by the GPU this thing would be as much a leap over the WiiU as the WiiU is over the 360.
Honestly... what do you expect? Consoles are rarely at the cutting edge. Gaming PC's were being built with double the RAM of the 360 in its launch year, not including RAM on the GPU's. But they almost always use much faster RAM than PC's. A tradeoff.
Mainly because it's damn near impossible to put some of this tech into cases as "small" as an OG 360.
Even without checking his post history, I'm going to guess he's a PC elitist, thus his opinion concerning consoles can be ignored.
