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

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft: The 360 will be selling for a looooong, long time.

ssj12 on 19 June 2008
SpookyXJ said:
ssj12 said:
starcraft said:
ssj12 said:
So they finally decided that releasing a console every 4 years would be a stupid idea. Looks like Sony was correct on the expenses that it would cost. Nintendo of course sided with Sony a while ago agreeing with Sony completely. Seems M$ wont willingly admit Sony is correct though.

Still sounds like they might release the next console in 2010 while the others release their consoles 2012 or 2013.

Finally decided?  They did it once when Nvidia forced them into a corner. 

Sony is "correct on the expenses it would cost?"  Financially speaking, Sony's gaming division is the Microsoft E & D division of last generation.  Have they completely eradicated all PSX and PS2 profits yet?  They must be getting close.

Nintendo is the only company thats had a near to flawless economic model this generation.  Sony's business model this generation isn't a target anyone is trying to hit.

 

 

me and Naz had a discussion on this like a week ago. Now a days a minor increase in performace costs a massive amount of money so without profit of some form from a previous expense its pointless. Sony will wait till they earn profit off the PS3 that releasing the PS4 is financially fessible. This is the brilliance behind Sony's 10 year plan. The PS1 was the profit behind the PS2, the PS2 the profit behind the PS3, the PS3 will be for the PS4, and so on.

You might not want to admit this but the PS3 should be really close to being profitable for Sony. With all the internal hardware shrinkages they are cutting costs every way the can. It would be shocking if they dont make a profit by next fiscal.

Nintendo's main reason why they make a profit out of the box is because they buy hardware from other companies, IBM (not 100% sure) and ATI for the GC and Wii. And they never go for the high end products but rather the cheaper hardware available. They also sell their consoles for a profit out of the gate. The Wii probably costs them about $170 if not less by now to manufacture so they are making a huge profit margin because they like to play it safe with their hardware. The Wii could have been another GC this generation and Nintendo would still have been king of profit.

This is the part I find extremly amusing about this generation. All 3 manufacturers go to IBM with a roadmap for what they want devloped as far as a CPU goes for their console. They all end up getting either a close to off the shelf PPC chip(wii) Or a highly modified PPC chip design (MS&Sony). If Sony would have gone ATI instead of Nvida for a GPU all the consoles Chips would have been developed entirely by the same companys.

So I guess its fair to say Apple is the True winner of the Console "War".Were all playing MAC's shame on us.

 

 

 

Actually M$ went to Intel then AMD then IBM.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
SpookyXJ on 19 June 2008

Dont see where that matters they all ended up at IBM.



ssj12 on 19 June 2008
SpookyXJ said:
Dont see where that matters they all ended up at IBM.

 

True, still it is funny that IBM gave each company a different processor. Sony's the strongest, Nintendo's the weakest.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
thekitchensink on 19 June 2008
ssj12 said:
SpookyXJ said:
Dont see where that matters they all ended up at IBM.

 

True, still it is funny that IBM gave each company a different processor. Sony's the strongest, Nintendo's the weakest.

 

 Well, the power has more to do with what each company asked for than 'what IBM gave them.'



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."
SpookyXJ on 20 June 2008

I think they pretty much all ended up with what they speced for. I really wish Sony would have gone ATI though. I've got it in for Nvida. Intel too. I like the underdogs they keep the buisnesss competetive and prices reasonable. Looks like ATI's finally turning the corner so the merger was not all bad. I wish AMD would figure out a way to follow suit.



Around the Network
baph72 on 20 June 2008

     Since Gears of War is to the 360 what Halo was to the first XBOX, then expect the next XBOX to be released at such a time that Gears III can be its big launch title much as Halo 3 was for the original 360.  And yes, I know Halo 3 wasn't available on launch day -- it actually didn't appear for close to two years later; however, it was the most hyped title for the 360.  Gears III will be much the same thing for the next MS console.