By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

pokoko said:
Of course, if Pachter is right, the next gen consoles could have a much longer life-cycle than normal, as they wouldn't see same-brand replacements. Not that I expect that, however.

Slower hardware progress does imply longer lifecycle, because it will be longer before the possible enhancements of a new console would be worth the generation transition.

What about the PS3's future, though? Will they go back to their plans when projected costs are less? While I personally think they shouldn't cut current gen console prices until after next gen consoles launch, they can't leave the PS3 at that price forever. I have no idea what plans Microsoft has for the 360.

Strategically, Sony will not want a $99 PS3 undercutting a $400 PS4, even if it was economical to do so. The former's game library, established online, continued third party releases, and good-enough graphics would keep it too competitive to be worth it.

I don't know when a 22nm shrink would be viable, but it will remain a large investment ($100m+) for at least 2-3 years. Sony would have to positively decide to do it. I don't think it makes sense to do.

I suppose my normal strategy of "wait a year for the redesign and price" is out the window, then? That's a shame. Still, with both Sony and Microsoft as customers, won't this be a high level priority for AMD?

I believe Sony and MS will own their designs themselves and just pay AMD royalties. AMD is in a terrible financial position, shedding employees, and has no incentive to be doing any design work to help out Sony/MS unless paid additional hundreds of millions of dollars.

AMD don't do manufacturing any more, they sold that off a few years ago. After paying for the shrink design work, MS/Sony would need to pay billions of dollars to accelerate the node timetable at TSMC, GF or Samsung.