-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Techspot 'Xbox One's struggles are traceable to one bad decision'
- Thread starter jelly
- Start date
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
Yep , had they(Microsoft) gone all out on the hardware I'd own one and several games by now.........frankly I'm disappointed with both systems but the hardware decisions by Microsoft completely turned me off to console games this gen.
Wake me next gen and maybe I'll hop back on board or whenever WiiU is down to 129$ with a free game I'll bite.
Wake me next gen and maybe I'll hop back on board or whenever WiiU is down to 129$ with a free game I'll bite.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
My short list of the causes of the Xbox One's "struggles":
1) They made a system that's perceived to be USA-centric.
2) When announcing the console to a crowd of video gamers, they talked about everything except video games.
3) They made a big deal about being able to do a wide range of things with the console that you can already do on literally every consumer electronics device sold since 2012. (Oh wow, another device that can use Skype!)
4) DRM and always on. And then talking about it (and getting their media contacts to talk about it) as if it's the best thing ever and totally needed for the industry when it was just a pile of consumer-unfriendly bullshit.
5) Mandatory Kinect.
6) Constant 180s and backtracking and the general marketing nightmare of constantly changing the script of what the console will and won't do. This served to do nothing except confuse anyone who is trying to learn more about the product.
7) The name. Not only is "One" an incredibly boring and vague name, it also digs a hole for successors of the product (do they call the next one the Xbox Two, or the Xbox One-2?). But not only that, calling an electronics product "One" is normally an act of admitting that your previous output has failed and this is your attempt at "rebooting" or "reinventing" it. Microsoft didn't need to do that, and they could have picked a more imaginative name that carried the strong position they had with the Xbox 360.
8) The console itself is a bulky mess that looks boring.
9) I guess the technical specs would come here.
1) They made a system that's perceived to be USA-centric.
2) When announcing the console to a crowd of video gamers, they talked about everything except video games.
3) They made a big deal about being able to do a wide range of things with the console that you can already do on literally every consumer electronics device sold since 2012. (Oh wow, another device that can use Skype!)
4) DRM and always on. And then talking about it (and getting their media contacts to talk about it) as if it's the best thing ever and totally needed for the industry when it was just a pile of consumer-unfriendly bullshit.
5) Mandatory Kinect.
6) Constant 180s and backtracking and the general marketing nightmare of constantly changing the script of what the console will and won't do. This served to do nothing except confuse anyone who is trying to learn more about the product.
7) The name. Not only is "One" an incredibly boring and vague name, it also digs a hole for successors of the product (do they call the next one the Xbox Two, or the Xbox One-2?). But not only that, calling an electronics product "One" is normally an act of admitting that your previous output has failed and this is your attempt at "rebooting" or "reinventing" it. Microsoft didn't need to do that, and they could have picked a more imaginative name that carried the strong position they had with the Xbox 360.
8) The console itself is a bulky mess that looks boring.
9) I guess the technical specs would come here.
Can't say as I have, no.
No, lol.
Because it has the Kinect sensor which is incredible technology for the money, the resolution difference is non-existent on many games and unnoticeable to most people and you know you're getting a robust online component rather than a underfunded piece of shit... see DriveClub vs. Forza Horizon 2.
Lol this got me
Completely retarded article. I understand that the power difference is supposedly huge, but in practice so far there's nothing that PS4 can do that Xbone can't but at a lower resolution. And honestly, while added clarity is a plus, there isn't a super huge difference between 1080p and 900p. There are much bigger problems with the PS4 such as incompetent sony's feedback and communication with customers, slow updates to the OS, weak game lineup and terrible online service.
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
If by closing the gap you mean slowing down how much it grows, then you'd still be just as wrong as you are right now.
I can't comment on the customer feedback and OS updates, but I just don't get this. Most of the games are multiplatform, barring a few exclusives. Why do you people still say such stupid things?
You may be right if what this analyst said is true.
That said I did a ton of napkin math to figure out if the system was successful. A lot of assumptions are made but I did source as many of the values I could find. This is apparently how I procrastinate. TL;DR Microsoft sold a shitload of consoles, made a profit on most of them and some numbers are really hard to find. Live is also a huge money maker (shocker).
I'm having trouble finding numbers. What I know is there were 46 million live subs as of april 2013 (source). Being extremely generous lets assume everyone got them at $30 which is about $1.38 billion. I have no idea how much it costs to keep the network running but that is a ton of money.
The RROD fiasco cost about 1 billion, one time. The live subs tend to go up not down year over year (this may be different now that Netflix and all don't require it, no numbers though) effectively wiping it out. I also don't know how much MS makes off ad space in the 360 guide so I won't include that but it should be noted.
Then we add in console sales, again assuming worst case scenario. At launch the Xbox 360 with harddrive cost $~552 (source) to make and they were selling it for $399 losing $~153 on each sale. A year later they were either selling at cost, or at a slight profit depending on shipping and taxes (source). According to wiki as of June 2014 84 million xbox 360 consoles have been sold, we'll subtract 10 million from that that were sold through may 2008 (source) assuming 1/2 were at a $153 loss and half as cost neutral. Meaning they lost ~$765 million at launch plus $1 billion from RROD.
So from Live subs we have a minimum of $1.38 billion of Live revenue minus Live cost (no clue and can't find any numbers), then $1.77 billion in costs to make and fix the launch 360s. Plus the Kinect which sold at least 24 Million (source) at a $~40 profit per unit ($~56 BOM (source). MS spent around $500Million marketing the thing (source) which evens out to a positive $460 million (960m profit from units sold - 500m marketing).
So Live and Kinect alone make up for the launch issues (selling at a loss and RROD). Then there's the 74 million Xbox 360's MS sold at a profit plus licensing fees for making games.
You must not have read it. It says the GPU is different because of the memory. MS had to put the ESRAM on the APU die so they had to cut out GPU parts.
The average person doesn't look at and doesn't care for reveals eithers. That's even more niche than price/power considerations.
FairXchange
Member
8gb GDDR5 in an Xbox One would still fall short without a superior GPU.
Edit: I got it, the size of the esram takes away from the available pace for the gpu on the board.
Edit: I got it, the size of the esram takes away from the available pace for the gpu on the board.
The problem MS faces is that they never had strong mindshare/marketshare outside of the US and UK. Like ever. Without completely dominating in the US and the UK, they will struggle to keep up with the Playstation brand that has pretty much dominated in worldwide mindshare/marketshare for 17+ years. The 360 did so well because the PS3 struggled more than usual compared to prior iterations of the Playstation brand in those 2 major markets.
Now that the XBO doesn't really have that dominant position in those two major markets, it will struggle worldwide.
However, I do think that the price drop, bundling, MCC, Gears, etc WILL help the XBO get a bit of a better sales throughput in those two major markets. It's just that they will never achieve anything like the 360 numbers this gen because the PS4 will be much stronger in US and UK than PS3 was.
Now that the XBO doesn't really have that dominant position in those two major markets, it will struggle worldwide.
However, I do think that the price drop, bundling, MCC, Gears, etc WILL help the XBO get a bit of a better sales throughput in those two major markets. It's just that they will never achieve anything like the 360 numbers this gen because the PS4 will be much stronger in US and UK than PS3 was.
The power/resolution/fps difference does present a marketing obstacle and slight quality disadvantage but power and graphics alone have never won a console gen and it was not the reason this time.
Even if the x1 was the same power as the PS4 the PS4 would still have the lead but maybe a bit smaller one.
I think these decisions cost MS the sales PS4 has over them
Both MS and Sony are big companies, there is a board and different opinions are battling it out. The X1's initial strategy would be down to a few people who pushed it (don matrick probably mainly). At sony there would of also been people there wanting to include the camera, try and be more casual, have DRM, have a less powerful system, its just fortunate for sony the right people won and unfortunate for MS that the people that did win were wrong.
In an alternate dimension where matrick and the DRM/TV/Kinect posse didnt get there way or wernt with MS at all, and someone like Phil Spencer or J allard or whoever championed the ''gaming comes first on a gaming system'' I think the situation would be different.
Just imagine if this happened instead
If that happened the sales situation and brand perception would be different.
Even if the x1 was the same power as the PS4 the PS4 would still have the lead but maybe a bit smaller one.
I think these decisions cost MS the sales PS4 has over them
- Having TV and non gaming features at the forefront of the launch event
- It was a stupid decision to not have the consoles main purpose (games) at the forefront
- Having the DRM and 24hr online check ins in place - the market does not want it and they were sketchy on the details while leaks were running wild
- bundling Kinect and putting themselves at a major price disadvantages.
Both MS and Sony are big companies, there is a board and different opinions are battling it out. The X1's initial strategy would be down to a few people who pushed it (don matrick probably mainly). At sony there would of also been people there wanting to include the camera, try and be more casual, have DRM, have a less powerful system, its just fortunate for sony the right people won and unfortunate for MS that the people that did win were wrong.
In an alternate dimension where matrick and the DRM/TV/Kinect posse didnt get there way or wernt with MS at all, and someone like Phil Spencer or J allard or whoever championed the ''gaming comes first on a gaming system'' I think the situation would be different.
Just imagine if this happened instead
- At the X1 launch event they talk about the console hardware specs and there Superior xbox live service
- They talk about the 4 stages of esram adoption
- They show impressive demos of cloud powered games
- They share there vision on how Xbox one games will evolve and the launch games are just the start,better SDK's tiled resources, DX12, esram evolution and cloud.
- Yeah the PS4 might still be better but it would create hype and confidence that its a competent gaming machine capable of delivering a decent next gen bump that will get better and better
- They realize the PS4 is going to be more powerful So they sell kinect separately and sell the console for $349 with a free game
If that happened the sales situation and brand perception would be different.
Framing the differences between Xbox One and PS4 as being similar to Genesis vs SNES or even 360 vs PS3 is pretty disingenuous. While they might not have been more powerful when viewed as a whole, the 360 has certain concrete hardware advantages over the PS3 and the Genesis has significant hardware advantages over the SNES.
That's not really the case with the Xbox One. Scenarios where Xbox One's ESRAM setup winds up superior are certainly less significant, assuming they even exist at all.
That's not really the case with the Xbox One. Scenarios where Xbox One's ESRAM setup winds up superior are certainly less significant, assuming they even exist at all.
Not to mention, all those things were going down right around the Snowden/NSA stuff was coming out.
Ah so you like building backdoors for NSA snooping and want to package a mandatory camera yeah ahahah ok.
I believe no one knew what the other was developing at the time.
Also to be fair => both build in cheap mediocre GPU´s at the time.
It just happened that Sony was willing to pay a little bit more and so got the faster GPU compared to MS.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
I love this gif
Pretty sure the real reason the camera was cut was because Sony was aiming for a $399 price point. With 4GB GDDR5 and the bundled camera, they were still going to hit that target. Once they got lucky and it was feasible to go with 8GB GDDR5, the camera came out of the box.
Yes MS had both pad publicity they did "intentionally" and "unintentionally"
You have also to point out that last generation MS had really ALL the advantages on its hand and still only come out about 1:1 wourldwide
(One year priour launch, much better online service [from the start], cheaper price, ...).
This generation they have none of those combined with their bad PR => this will take time ...
Not really. You can remove a Kinect as they've already proven. You can't remove a poor RAM decision. That shit haunts you for the entire 5+ year console generation.
Yeah, and presumably MS would still have had the faster CPU, not that it would have made any difference. The machines would have been practically identical.
But my question is, why did MS think there would be GDDR5 supply problems? There was talk of GDDR5 problems in late 2013, but that was after MS made the call to go DDR3. Maybe something like Eplida's bankruptcy spooked them?
Xbox uses a lower spec gpu and RAM. Go look at the difference between a 7770 and a 7870 and tell us they are the same.
You don't understand what I said. Read TFA.
I'll quote TFA:
Putting eSRAM on-die meant MS had to cut out GPU parts.
I'm pretty sure it was price and god awful PR around the box that did more damage than any hardware difference could. When you go around trying to push the thing and none of the people can even keep their messages straight about the product on top of dismissing people's concerns about DRM while giving your competitor an easy way to offer a more appealing alternative. Yeah, of course Sony could move more boxes.
Delusibeta
Banned
Honestly? The Xbox One was the worst reveal and launch of a new product since New Coke. Microsoft spent the entirety of 2013 doing basically everything they possibly could to ruin their PR. From the horrible reveal to Adam Orth's resignation tweets to the DRM which completely torpedoed what would have been a mediocre E3 to resolution gate, everything that could go wrong with the launch of Microsoft's new console did go wrong. As a result, they've lost the console war in the short to medium term. Short of a PS3 esque revival of sales, they're going to be totally left behind by the PS4,which is not a good place for a console to be.
rokkerkory
Member
The biggest decision that hurt the x1 was the all in one machine philosophy. Where it should have been the games machine first philosophy.
The weaker gpu and ram situations were all secondary. Sony took a huge gamble on gdr being available in big quanties and it paus off. MS knew the tech roadmap and could gave put the $ from kinect BOM towards a better gpu.
X1 could have been the much more powerful machine. But nopes thanks to a fundamentally flawed philosophy frim get-go.
The weaker gpu and ram situations were all secondary. Sony took a huge gamble on gdr being available in big quanties and it paus off. MS knew the tech roadmap and could gave put the $ from kinect BOM towards a better gpu.
X1 could have been the much more powerful machine. But nopes thanks to a fundamentally flawed philosophy frim get-go.
2018, I would imagine.
You talk like sony is one person, my point was there would of been some people at sony wanting things like DRM and camera included.
In consumer electronics its very rare the WHOLE company agrees on everything, Its usual the vision with the strongest will that will win out.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
Kinect was the biggest mistake.
Yeah, no. The specs are so close on the machines that average consumer could hardly tell the difference. We can talk about 900p vs 1080p all day long, but the fact remains that the PS4 just has a more promising line-up of exclusive games and deals than the Xbox One. And it was originally priced cheaper. It's really as simple as that. Specs don't matter when they are that close together. The last two console generations proved this with the 360/PS3 and the PS2/XBOX.
EDIT: Also, you really cannot understate their 2013 E3 reveal and how i didn't go over well. That hurt them at launch, at the very least, and left a very sour taste in consumer's mouths.
EDIT: Also, you really cannot understate their 2013 E3 reveal and how i didn't go over well. That hurt them at launch, at the very least, and left a very sour taste in consumer's mouths.
I don't know. Sony got bit in the ass HARD for PS3 pricing. I would think a reasonable console price point would have been priority one, no matter what they tried to bundle in.
I know many are already annoyed by the quick price-drop; huge insult to early adopters of the console.
The only way I could see them getting away with it is if it was fully BC with XBO games so that XBO owners wouldn't lose out if they upgraded. But they certainly would not want a short generation where none of their games will be playable on the new system.
...Scatter...
Banned
BTW - Fifa is the same on both systems with extra content for the XBO. Bad example.
...Scatter...
Banned
Pretty sure the ESRAM prob killed any chance of backward compatibility. Shame.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Ok, I needed a good laugh.
Bolts-n-Rays1109
Banned
The inferior specs of the XB1 is not the main reason the PS4 is outselling the XB1. It certainly is a reason, but the main reason is the absolute clusterfuck reveal and mixed messaging. Might be the worst reveal for an electronic device in history. The XB1 reveal will probably be in college textbooks one day being used as an example on how not to market a product.
I think hes alluding to more that the Kinect had to be included in the package cost so MS might have cut costs elsewhere to manage that - RAM being a prime example
MS wanted multi-tasking, that needs quantity of RAM - that made the decision easy - DDR3 was the only solution as you just werent going to get 8Gb GDDR5. When the larger GDDR5 chips became available MS were too far down the DDR3 route, while all Sony had to do was improve the quantity as they were already going with GDDR5
ps3ud0 8)
The other aspect that people forget is that Playstation dominating is not a fluke when you look at Playstation's history. Playstation 3 NOT completely dominating was the fluke. Last gen was Playstation brand's only weak generation, and it still ended up with 80+ million in sales.
Now people are shocked that MS's "PR clusterfuck" console isn't dominating or even keeping pace. Is it really so shocking when you look at the last 4 generations of sales?
MS is back to being hungry MS. They're making strong moves, releasing quality exclusives, and seemingly doing all the right things that hungry MS has been known for. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the Playstation brand is something that is expected to be crushed by another game console. PS3 was a fluke of bad sales and price was the number one reason.
Is the XBO really "struggling"? Are their current XBO sales numbers really so far off the mark from expectations based on the 360? Or is it more that the PS4 is looking more like PS2 and it has everyone losing their shit?
Now people are shocked that MS's "PR clusterfuck" console isn't dominating or even keeping pace. Is it really so shocking when you look at the last 4 generations of sales?
MS is back to being hungry MS. They're making strong moves, releasing quality exclusives, and seemingly doing all the right things that hungry MS has been known for. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the Playstation brand is something that is expected to be crushed by another game console. PS3 was a fluke of bad sales and price was the number one reason.
Is the XBO really "struggling"? Are their current XBO sales numbers really so far off the mark from expectations based on the 360? Or is it more that the PS4 is looking more like PS2 and it has everyone losing their shit?
AuthenticM
Member
My thoughts exactly. The DRM fiasco is what hurt the Xbox. Even mainstream media were on it, and Jimmy Fallon took a jab at Microsoft on that subject to his audience's applause.