Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Pachter: Microsoft is preparing for life after Xbox

super_etecoon said:
I bet there were analysts who claimed that radio would die when tv came along, and that tv would die when the Internet came along. Oh analysts...you're nothing but forum fanboys with larger fonts for your threads.

Don't look at it like that. Look at it like this:
Tv absolutely did crush radio. Ratings are nowhere near what they used to be in its prime. However, radio evolved and has enjoyed a resurgence through new technologies and ideas. Despite this, tv killed off a lot of radio parts. Tv pretty much singlehandedly changed the way elections were ran. Tv killed off strong singers with bad presentation (unattractive, no dance moves, etc). Tv killed off radio story programs. Radio survived, but a lot of things that existed because of radio, were killed off by the evolution to tv.

What pachter is saying is inevitable. Just the idea of streaming itself is going to revolutionize the livingroom. We are just getting into the streaming era. Things are going to change, and not everyone will be happy. But it won't matter because 'the majority will be happy'.



Around the Network
theprof00 said:
Sharpryno said:

-scissor-

Erm, I never said the first part. I meant the creative aspects of the system. The cool stuff like xbox fitness and snap and stuff like that. It's all there but it doesn't seem to be pushing all that much into the market. I mean, it should, but it isn't.

Here's the thing about PC and console. Microsoft is primarily a software maker. That is their forte. They have never made money on their consoles, in fact, they are still in the red over it, and its only growing. What they DO make money on however, is software. So the really natural, absolutely simple question is, why make consoles (which are red) when they can simply put software on the systems and platforms that DO exist. The one facet of their console that inherently generates money by itself is XBL Gold. And it's what, 1b in revenue a year....for a company that does 26b in a quarter? I'd say, if you can find a way to re-monetize and make the same money another way, do it.

Do you know why pc gaming is so profitable? Easy to code, massive install base, don't have to sell consoles, cheaper to make. People like consoles because they're easy to play, are generally simple pick up and play, use a different input, and can be played from your couch. But tell me, could MS be making the same money on software if they didn't have xb1? I think the answer there is yes, and I think throwing money at a console that can't keep up, is in essence taking away from a project that COULD be the next big thing....like hololens.

The difference between ms and nintendo is that nintendo is a toy company. They always have been. They generally make money on their consoles. It is an overreach on their part that they went with extremely costly screens for both the 3ds and the wiiU. However, nintendo is very good at making money as efficiently as possible, because they are a streamlined company. This is both good and bad. For consumers, we don't get all the games we want. For nintendo, it's good, because it helps give their games those godly legs. People KNOW there isn't going to be another metroid or smash within the next 5 years, so they buy the one that's available. This helps increase sales for each game, while cutting out the production costs of having to make succesive installments.

You could disagree about nintendo if you like, but there's one thing Nintendo has done that neither sony nor ms have been able to do. And that's make profit on every console generation no matter the success of the console. Nintendo is happy where they are, and they should be. They know what they're doing, because they are focusing on what they do best. Microsoft is taking their lead and focussing on what THEY do best. Software.

In the end, I can't prove it to you. I can't prove anything they are going to do, but the moves they are making, specifically putting all xb1 games onto pc, should really be a red flag to anyone who has been involved on this site. Do you know any other company that puts their games on pc? Sony doesn't. Nintendo doesn't. Sega did.


On point! Couldn't agree more.



theprof00 said:

Erm, I never said the first part. I meant the creative aspects of the system. The cool stuff like xbox fitness and snap and stuff like that. It's all there but it doesn't seem to be pushing all that much into the market. I mean, it should, but it isn't.

Here's the thing about PC and console. Microsoft is primarily a software maker. That is their forte. They have never made money on their consoles, in fact, they are still in the red over it, and its only growing. What they DO make money on however, is software. So the really natural, absolutely simple question is, why make consoles (which are red) when they can simply put software on the systems and platforms that DO exist. The one facet of their console that inherently generates money by itself is XBL Gold. And it's what, 1b in revenue a year....for a company that does 26b in a quarter? I'd say, if you can find a way to re-monetize and make the same money another way, do it.

Do you know why pc gaming is so profitable? Easy to code, massive install base, don't have to sell consoles, cheaper to make. People like consoles because they're easy to play, are generally simple pick up and play, use a different input, and can be played from your couch. But tell me, could MS be making the same money on software if they didn't have xb1? I think the answer there is yes, and I think throwing money at a console that can't keep up, is in essence taking away from a project that COULD be the next big thing....like hololens.

The difference between ms and nintendo is that nintendo is a toy company. They always have been. They generally make money on their consoles. It is an overreach on their part that they went with extremely costly screens for both the 3ds and the wiiU. However, nintendo is very good at making money as efficiently as possible, because they are a streamlined company. This is both good and bad. For consumers, we don't get all the games we want. For nintendo, it's good, because it helps give their games those godly legs. People KNOW there isn't going to be another metroid or smash within the next 5 years, so they buy the one that's available. This helps increase sales for each game, while cutting out the production costs of having to make succesive installments.

You could disagree about nintendo if you like, but there's one thing Nintendo has done that neither sony nor ms have been able to do. And that's make profit on every console generation no matter the success of the console. Nintendo is happy where they are, and they should be. They know what they're doing, because they are focusing on what they do best. Microsoft is taking their lead and focussing on what THEY do best. Software.

In the end, I can't prove it to you. I can't prove anything they are going to do, but the moves they are making, specifically putting all xb1 games onto pc, should really be a red flag to anyone who has been involved on this site. Do you know any other company that puts their games on pc? Sony doesn't. Nintendo doesn't. Sega did.

Exactly what I am thinking as well. Very well written.



There are so many people here claiming they know what Microsoft is thinking and it's just annoying. Doom-mongers need to leave because Xbox is here to stay.



bubblegamer said:

“I think consoles are going away, because you used to need a console because you could not connect a microprocessor to your TV screen,” Pachter said. “Now, if you have a Chromecast stick or a Roku box, you can. So why do we buy consoles? I mean, your phone will be powerful enough to power any game in two more generations. And, so, why buy a console? I think Microsoft actually knows that.”


1.Consoles are going nowhere as long as the game creators make games for the consoles.
2.No, my phone wont be powerful enough to power ANY game when consoles are there.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:


Well I can play something like Real Racing 3 on my iPad for hours at a time if I want and it won't melt, lol. 

The iPhone 6 is approaching PS3/360 horsepower, the reason you don't see games that utilize that much horsepower is because developers have to make sure their games will run on the iPhone 4/5/5c etc. too, not just the 6. 

The Vita runs Killzone, and Killzone looks comparable/better than some early gen PS3/360 titles. And the Vita's chipset is ancient, it's basically an iPhone 5 chip I believe, the newer chips that Apple uses smoke the Vita processor. 


Mobile is approaching the level of horsepower displayed by 10 year old hardware. There isn't a single possibility of mobile chipsets catching up with consoles/PC power wise. It's physics. Let's look just from a GPU standpoint (you can follow the same analysis for the CPU).

A desktop decent GPU costs around US$ 300 (GTX970), is pretty big, uses 250 watts alone and generates tons of heat dissipated by a massive fan. The entire consoles costs basically the same, is pretty big, uses 150 watts and generates tons of heat dissipated by a massive fan. Its GPU packs less power than the one above. In both cases, they are done with the most recent technology. Consoles will of course get outdated, but right now PS4 and X1 back modern GPU architecture (mid end GPUs use downscaled tech from the high end ones).

Forgetting the price issue, a tablet SoC must use around 5w for everything. It can't generate a lot of heat because it doesn't have fans (or have tiny ones) and because generating heat equal using power and that will drain battery. A mobile phone will have to use even less.

Pachter says the BS he does because he doen't know physics. You can't do the same thing that a 150w machines does with 5w unless you pack a massively better technology. Mobile is coming close to PS360 because they use tech that are much newer, but they won't catch up PS4/X1 until their tech becomes way obsolete. That will create a gap of some years. We know that processing power rougly increases around 2 times each 1.5 years, so we can calculate a 6 to 7 years gap to equal GPU power. 

That's a superficial analysis because probably the CPU power on mobile increases slower because of the limitations of the ARM architecture (it is power efficient, not a powerhouse). The memory bandwidth is another are that increases slower (memory wall) and even performance oriented SoCs as the Tegra K1 don't have as much memory bandwidth as the older PS360. The future Tegra X1 is the first mobile headset that will match the 10 year old tech on these consoles.

About the Vita visuals, it must factor in the clever design of the machine. A 540p screen was used because it gives you 4 times less pixels than 1080p and almost half of a 720p frame. Vita also uses a more customized memory solution that gives it a higher bandwidth. It is closer in bandwidth to a Tegra K1, that is a much beefier SoC than the ones used even on current iDevices.



theprof00 said:
super_etecoon said:
I bet there were analysts who claimed that radio would die when tv came along, and that tv would die when the Internet came along. Oh analysts...you're nothing but forum fanboys with larger fonts for your threads.

Don't look at it like that. Look at it like this:
Tv absolutely did crush radio. Ratings are nowhere near what they used to be in its prime. However, radio evolved and has enjoyed a resurgence through new technologies and ideas. Despite this, tv killed off a lot of radio parts. Tv pretty much singlehandedly changed the way elections were ran. Tv killed off strong singers with bad presentation (unattractive, no dance moves, etc). Tv killed off radio story programs. Radio survived, but a lot of things that existed because of radio, were killed off by the evolution to tv.

What pachter is saying is inevitable. Just the idea of streaming itself is going to revolutionize the livingroom. We are just getting into the streaming era. Things are going to change, and not everyone will be happy. But it won't matter because 'the majority will be happy'.

Yeah...I see where you're coming from.  And of all the manufucturers to step away from the console business, I believe Microsoft is probably the closest.  But this guy has been making terrible predictions for quite a while now.  It makes me think that whatever he says is complete bs.  I think he has too much of a vested interest in the outcome of his predictions, both in how it relates to his job, and also probably in regards to his own personal investments.



@etecoon
I think pachter is just an idiot. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Regarding console marketplace, see, a company says, how can we make more money on console gaming.

In the past, this was about having a better performing system that then steals gamers, but it's a variety of factors really.
The right games (first party), the performance, the price. All these kinds of things are what get consumers to pick your console. Now, when it comes to making money on the console, even 3rd party games must give a share to the "console maker". So having a console that sells a lot of games, both first and third party, is great.
In time, this became so important that console makers began taking losses on their console in order to ensure that they had all the checkboxes marked. Stronger, faster, better library. This ensured a steady stream of income through consumer sales, even if they took a loss....on both console AND first party games.
Sony, on top of which, was an interesting case because they were involved with cd and dvd production. So, making consoles made even more sense because they had multiple revenue avenues. The more people with cd players, and dvd players, the more chance to make media sales. On top of which, increasing production of these parts helped lower the costs of their standalone products, chips, transistors, media, ROMs, etc.
MS has similar goals as well. Cloud, online gaming, directX. etc.

Am I alone in thinking MS doesn't NEED a console? I don't think so, and I think MS agrees.



Best news ever! It means consoles will never fade away. s2



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

It seems like a miracle is about to happen and patcher will be right for once.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994