What Will the Xbox Two Be Like and When Will We See It?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
I know what you must be thinking: The next Xbox? We haven’t even explored the parameters of the Xbox One yet. There are two sides to a device; one is the view from the consumer side and the other is from the developers’. Consumers are just settling in with Xbox One, while the developers are already planning out the next model sometime in the not-so-distant future.

So what can we learn from all this about the Next Xbox? Yes, the new one, because there will, inexorably, be another console. It's certainly some ways off yet, but will it be another eight year wait? There are differing opinions on that.
Click to expand...
 
I think consoles should move to a model where every 2-3 years a new model is out
and all games are compatible with the newer models least 3-4 gens ahead
(like ps1 game will work on ps4 , ps2 on on a ps5 etc.)

or perhaps making stronger versions of each console gen that will play the same games but with better graphic settings. (although that one can backlash and bring in alot of hate)
 
what it will be like? in eight years or so that new xbox will be released and inside will be a middle class pc from 2015. it will finally do 1080p at 60fps and can play 4k blurays. the kinect 3.0 will be able to actually understand simple commands, but still have no decent games. it will be digital only with a 1tb drive and 250 gb games because uncompressed 31.7 surround sound 4tw. and it will be even bigger than gabe newell.

in other words: consoles will be even more mediocre than now.
 
T_A said:
I think consoles should move to a model where every 2-3 years a new model is out
and all games are compatible with the newer models least 3-4 gens ahead
(like ps1 game will work on ps4 , ps2 on on a ps5 etc.)

or perhaps making stronger versions of each console gen that will play the same games but with better graphic settings. (although that one can backlash and bring in alot of hate)
Click to expand...
You just described the PC. More specifically what SteamBox is going to be doing.

LJkmLNM.jpg
 
It will be half the gfx performance of a mid to low range gaming PC at launch and will cost too much.
It will be outdated before even 1/2 of its life is through, probably 1/4.
It will have unnecessary restrictions tying you in to use things you dont need or want that will require a storm of protest to force a change.
There will be tight media control and poor design that will restrict its use despite having features that could be useful.
It will allow covert monitoring of your home and network, even after they promise they have disabled that 'feature'.

:p
 
T_A said:
I think consoles should move to a model where every 2-3 years a new model is out
and all games are compatible with the newer models least 3-4 gens ahead
(like ps1 game will work on ps4 , ps2 on on a ps5 etc.)

or perhaps making stronger versions of each console gen that will play the same games but with better graphic settings. (although that one can backlash and bring in alot of hate)
Click to expand...

The problem is the cost of making it support older games. That added a few hundred to the cost of the PS3 which is why they had to pull it to bring the cost down. Consoles are different than PCs in that you know EXACTLY what the hardware is. There is no generic coding for a game to work with unlimited combinations. Instead you know that you have CPU X, with Y amount of RAM and GPU Z. Therefore you can code the game to work perfectly on that hardware and get much better performance that you would on a computer with that exact same hardware configuration. When a new system comes out you are going to break that as now you have a game that isn't coded to work on this new hardware. Orginal Xbox to Xbox 360 they had to code patches to take the commands for one brand of GPU and convert them into commands to work on a different brand GPU. Sony tried to do with having 3 versions of hardware inside of one unit. For what you said there to work, they would all have to be like Nintendo and never change CPU or GPU venders or lines.
 
Nenu said:
It will be half the gfx performance of a mid to low range gaming PC at launch and will cost too much.
2) It will be outdated before even 1/2 of its life is through, probably 1/4.
3) It will have unnecessary restrictions tying you in to use things you dont need or want that will require a storm of protest to force a change.
4) There will be tight media control and poor design that will restrict its use despite having features that could be useful.
5) It will allow covert monitoring of your home and network, even after they promise they have disabled that 'feature'.

:p
Click to expand...

1) Given
2) So it will be like a PC
3) So it will be like a PC
4) So it will be like a PC
5) So it will be like a PC

So you just made a case for Consoles remaining exactly like a PC except you are trading the ability to upgrade for something that simply works. In other words..it will continue filling a niche.
 
It would be like a PC if you could upgrade it to keep up.
So its not like a PC.
 
Exavior said:
The problem is the cost of making it support older games. That added a few hundred to the cost of the PS3 which is why they had to pull it to bring the cost down. Consoles are different than PCs in that you know EXACTLY what the hardware is. There is no generic coding for a game to work with unlimited combinations. Instead you know that you have CPU X, with Y amount of RAM and GPU Z. Therefore you can code the game to work perfectly on that hardware and get much better performance that you would on a computer with that exact same hardware configuration. When a new system comes out you are going to break that as now you have a game that isn't coded to work on this new hardware. Orginal Xbox to Xbox 360 they had to code patches to take the commands for one brand of GPU and convert them into commands to work on a different brand GPU. Sony tried to do with having 3 versions of hardware inside of one unit. For what you said there to work, they would all have to be like Nintendo and never change CPU or GPU venders or lines.
Click to expand...

I think Dying Light is a good example. Look how dying light runs on PC compared to the console. So someones $1200 PC runs Dying Light as good as its ran on a $400 console. Doesnt seem like a bad trade off. While 60 FPS looks nice, 30FPS is very very playable on your TV through a console. 30 FPS through a monitor on the PC is pretty shitty.... in my honest opinion. I prefer PC all the way, always have. But its a little unfounded now when people say how a new console is only like a low end gaming PC. And yes I get that the game may not be optimized very well for PC. If it was made for PC it would be a different story. But you can expect shit like that to be gone. There wont be as many games coming out that are PC exclusive anymore.
 
Exavior said:
The problem is the cost of making it support older games. That added a few hundred to the cost of the PS3 which is why they had to pull it to bring the cost down. Consoles are different than PCs in that you know EXACTLY what the hardware is. There is no generic coding for a game to work with unlimited combinations. Instead you know that you have CPU X, with Y amount of RAM and GPU Z. Therefore you can code the game to work perfectly on that hardware and get much better performance that you would on a computer with that exact same hardware configuration.
Click to expand...
Proven to be patently false, time and time again, and developers aren't coding for unlimited combinations on PC nor is coding for consoles historically easier (the opposite is the case).

They are coding in your language of choice, and simple graphics scaling features (many of which are automatic) ensure the game is running at appropriate graphics settings for an acceptable framerate. The current generation consoles are in fact just underpowered small PCs for the most part, specifically because developers complained how hugely complicated it was to try and code games for them, particularly the Playstation 3: http://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/programming-the-cell-processor/197801624
The Sony console is "difficult to program for." And the "software that exploits the Cell's potential requires a development effort significantly greater than traditional platforms."
Click to expand...

Coding for consoles is in fact inherently more complicated due to legacy issues, as coding your game to work on an XBox 360, XBox One, PS3, and PS4 means you're basically developing four independent games, or else you lose a significant portion of the market. The XBox One in particularly is a massive resource hog, simultaneously running three operating systems with major memory overhead. On top of that, Microsoft and Sony in particular are INTENTIONALLY making it difficult to code for their consoles.
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?"
--Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment
Click to expand...
Let me repeat that, the Sony CEO has specifically said that not only is their console difficult to code for, but that its INTENTIONALLY made so.

Ever wonder why there are so many more Indie games for the PC than consoles, if consoles are so much simpler to code on? The answer is that they aren't, and its easier to design games for Windows, which is why that small-game segment is absolutely dominated by the PC platform.

Consoles have historically been underpowered small proprietary platforms running lower than standard resolutions and graphical fidelity that exist because Microsoft for example doesn't get a single penny when a game releases for Windows, but for XBox they can sell you the hardware, the proprietary accessories, get a 30% cut of sales revenue, sell access to the internet to play online, and so forth. GREAT for Microsoft, but shitty for consumers, but unfortunately some of the sheep simply suck at math and understanding life-cycle costs versus initial costs (this is how HP can almost give you a printer, and then overcharge you for ink, or why poor people stay poor by paying twice as much for something but in low monthly installments so it SEEMS less).

http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2014/2/8e8bb962-dfd9-4476-8141-7e524804d415.jpg
 
IMO, one of the major reason why current gen consoles are lacking in performance to drive better graphical quality is due to the more cost effective approach of using an APU that was derived from PC's APU which are not meant for performance-oriented system. When you try to cramp both CPU and GPU onto the same chip, obviously you'll have to make sacrifices.

Maybe in 10 years time, APU will be powerful enough to drive high end graphics. But then again, there will be new challenges to be met in 10 years time, such as rendering at 4k res or maybe even higher. And I think more efficient approach, like what we saw in Maxwell's architecture which was aimed towards efficiency, or new API such as what DX12 and glNext aims to achieve, will be more important as we can no longer rely on waiting for transistors to get smaller alone.
 
Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should just give up. Stop wasting my fucking time.
 
T_A said:
I think consoles should move to a model where every 2-3 years a new model is out
and all games are compatible with the newer models least 3-4 gens ahead
(like ps1 game will work on ps4 , ps2 on on a ps5 etc.)

or perhaps making stronger versions of each console gen that will play the same games but with better graphic settings. (although that one can backlash and bring in alot of hate)
Click to expand...

Nice thought except it doesn't work at all the ENTIRE point of a console is to sell someone a piece of shit for 8 years strait. That is how they make money when the console hardware is only worth $50 bucks and they are still selling it for $200 on top of all the games and accessories. If at any point you start refreshing every couple years then the price of consoles has to go up so they can get their profit right away and then it becomes no more attractive to investors than any other PC.
 
Converge said:
I think Dying Light is a good example. Look how dying light runs on PC compared to the console. So someones $1200 PC runs Dying Light as good as its ran on a $400 console. Doesnt seem like a bad trade off. While 60 FPS looks nice, 30FPS is very very playable on your TV through a console. 30 FPS through a monitor on the PC is pretty shitty.... in my honest opinion. I prefer PC all the way, always have. But its a little unfounded now when people say how a new console is only like a low end gaming PC. And yes I get that the game may not be optimized very well for PC. If it was made for PC it would be a different story. But you can expect shit like that to be gone. There wont be as many games coming out that are PC exclusive anymore.
Click to expand...

$1200 is not enough. you should have compared a 12k dollar pc to a 400 dollar console. why an arbitrary number such as 1200? a much cheaper pc can handle dying light. also, it's not an apples to apples comparison unless you assume comparable settings which also leads to a much cheaper system. and usually, people consider buying a monitor as part of the cost for a pc. in that case it would be fair to add the cost of the TV to that of the console. nah, "the tv is already there" doesnt count. you could connect the pc to the tv as well. i hope you didn't include a monitor in that amount.
 
Ashbringer said:
You just described the PC. More specifically what SteamBox is going to be doing.

LJkmLNM.jpg
Click to expand...

Steam machines are dead. It was a bluff by Valve to Microsoft to counter Win 8 and the Win Store. I have been working on this concept ever since they announced it, Steam Machines are not going to happen in any meaningful way, and this is come from someone who has been building HTPCs since 2000.
 
Spire3660 said:
Steam machines are dead. It was a bluff by Valve to Microsoft to counter Win 8 and the Win Store. I have been working on this concept ever since they announced it, Steam Machines are not going to happen in any meaningful way, and this is come from someone who has been building HTPCs since 2000.
Click to expand...
Then why are they doing this?

http://www.vg247.com/2015/01/08/steam-machines-not-dead-but-front-and-centre-at-gdc-says-valve/

If Valve wanted it to stay dead, seems like they have plenty of experience with Half Life of just going quiet and giving no more updates.
 
Megalith said:
Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should just give up. Stop wasting my fucking time.
Click to expand...

Well at least one of them needs to give up. The console market just isn't big enough for three players. Since no generation of Xbox has won, abandoning the market would be the smart thing for Microsoft to do. They should concentrate on making PC gaming the best before they lose the desktop market to.
 
According to a Microsoft exec that left the company the Xbone will be MS's last console and it was decided even before the Xbone launched.
 
I foresee backwards compatibility in future consoles being easier than the past. Up until the PS4/X1, they were using fairly esoteric designs. The current gen is basically PC hardware, so it shouldn't be too hard to get it to work.

iOS stuff generally stays compatible from one generation to the next, and Nintendo hasn't done a huge architecture overhaul since the Gamecube, so later consoles haven't had too much work necessary to be backwards compatible. With Wii U -> Gamecube, it's been proven that it's possible via a hack, so it was Nintendo's decision rather than a change in hardware that made it not be officially supported.

PS3/360 compatibility may be difficult, but I'm actually quite disappointed in Sony for not making PS1/PS2 games work on the PS4 via emulation. It's definitely powerful enough.

...And I do admit that the backwards compatibility thing is pushing me even further into a PC bias. I still own the Wii U and X1, but they see little use.
 
temujin987 said:
what it will be like? in eight years or so that new xbox will be released and inside will be a middle class pc from 2015. it will finally do 1080p at 60fps and can play 4k blurays. the kinect 3.0 will be able to actually understand simple commands, but still have no decent games. it will be digital only with a 1tb drive and 250 gb games because uncompressed 31.7 surround sound 4tw. and it will be even bigger than gabe newell.

in other words: consoles will be even more mediocre than now.
Click to expand...

This. I don't understand the point of a console. Why buy one? So I can play my PC games with crappier graphics?
 
HockeyJon said:
This. I don't understand the point of a console. Why buy one? So I can play my PC games with crappier graphics?
Click to expand...

Because some (most) people don't care about quality in graphics or frame rates.
Also, consoles (for the initial cost) are far cheaper than a gaming PC.*

*Even the road to ruin has its toll. ;)
 
HockeyJon said:
This. I don't understand the point of a console. Why buy one? So I can play my PC games with crappier graphics?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who don't want to mess with a PC or understand, graphic cards, processors etc.
They just want to buy a box and connect it to their TV and start playing.

Consoles are also simpler for kids (who generally don't care much about stuff like frame rates or resolution), and are also more oriented for family style and party style games. That's the main reason we got a Wii when the kids where younger.
 
It's quite obvious that Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo understand their target demographic, and they cater to it. They're not interested in the "Enthusiast PC Gamer" demographic, and are happy to leave it alone.

It's not that they're not aware of the limitations of the consoles, it's the fact that they understand their core demographic and what it takes to please them. Plain and simple, cut and dry, it doesn't get any more simple than that.

Yes, consoles will probably always be behind high-end PCs from now on, but I doubt that they really care. They care about moving units and making money, and catering to the expensive taste and high demands of enthusiast PC gamers doesn't do that.

That's just the way it is, and the way it will be for the foreseeable future.
 
Spire3660 said:
Steam machines are dead. It was a bluff by Valve to Microsoft to counter Win 8 and the Win Store. I have been working on this concept ever since they announced it, Steam Machines are not going to happen in any meaningful way, and this is come from someone who has been building HTPCs since 2000.
Click to expand...
A pre-built turn key gaming system marketed and released by Valve running a lean image of Windows 10 booting straight into Steam Big Picture would be great though.
 
Ducman69 said:
Proven to be patently false, time and time again, and developers aren't coding for unlimited combinations on PC nor is coding for consoles historically easier (the opposite is the case).

They are coding in your language of choice, and simple graphics scaling features (many of which are automatic) ensure the game is running at appropriate graphics settings for an acceptable framerate. The current generation consoles are in fact just underpowered small PCs for the most part, specifically because developers complained how hugely complicated it was to try and code games for them, particularly the Playstation 3: http://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/programming-the-cell-processor/197801624


Coding for consoles is in fact inherently more complicated due to legacy issues, as coding your game to work on an XBox 360, XBox One, PS3, and PS4 means you're basically developing four independent games, or else you lose a significant portion of the market. The XBox One in particularly is a massive resource hog, simultaneously running three operating systems with major memory overhead. On top of that, Microsoft and Sony in particular are INTENTIONALLY making it difficult to code for their consoles.

Let me repeat that, the Sony CEO has specifically said that not only is their console difficult to code for, but that its INTENTIONALLY made so.

Ever wonder why there are so many more Indie games for the PC than consoles, if consoles are so much simpler to code on? The answer is that they aren't, and its easier to design games for Windows, which is why that small-game segment is absolutely dominated by the PC platform.

Consoles have historically been underpowered small proprietary platforms running lower than standard resolutions and graphical fidelity that exist because Microsoft for example doesn't get a single penny when a game releases for Windows, but for XBox they can sell you the hardware, the proprietary accessories, get a 30% cut of sales revenue, sell access to the internet to play online, and so forth. GREAT for Microsoft, but shitty for consumers, but unfortunately some of the sheep simply suck at math and understanding life-cycle costs versus initial costs (this is how HP can almost give you a printer, and then overcharge you for ink, or why poor people stay poor by paying twice as much for something but in low monthly installments so it SEEMS less).

http://hexus.net/media/uploaded/2014/2/8e8bb962-dfd9-4476-8141-7e524804d415.jpg
Click to expand...

At least have the balls to give context to the Kaz quote especially the date... That line of think is LONG gone with the Cerny approach. It bit them in the ass and they adjusted accordingly.
 
I just wish they would have dropped the kinect and put that extra $100 toward the cpu/gpu, would have been happier.
 
crusty_juggler said:
Because 95% of the population doesn't know how to install, troubleshoot and configure a PC operating system.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much why Steam machines or some gaming-oriented HTPC equivalent needs to be on the market, to get the best of both worlds. Have a custom frontend leading to Steam big picture mode or something so that you literally never have to touch a mouse and keyboard to get to your games. Then you'd have all the convenience of the console without the lock-in + higher prices for your games.
 
temujin987 said:
what it will be like? in eight years or so that new xbox will be released and inside will be a middle class pc from 2015. it will finally do 1080p at 60fps and can play 4k blurays. the kinect 3.0 will be able to actually understand simple commands, but still have no decent games. it will be digital only with a 1tb drive and 250 gb games because uncompressed 31.7 surround sound 4tw. and it will be even bigger than gabe newell.

in other words: consoles will be even more mediocre than now.
Click to expand...

:D This really needs to change. Or at least be an option for PC gamers.
 
tetris42 said:
This is pretty much why Steam machines or some gaming-oriented HTPC equivalent needs to be on the market, to get the best of both worlds. Have a custom frontend leading to Steam big picture mode or something so that you literally never have to touch a mouse and keyboard to get to your games. Then you'd have all the convenience of the console without the lock-in + higher prices for your games.
Click to expand...
I'm not of the belief that a Linux-based gaming console solves the computer illiteracy problem.

Yes, I understand that basic 2D Indie games and Source Engine titles are fairly easy to get running under Linux. But no console gamer gives a damn about World of Goo and TF2.

Now, if a manufacturer could sell a Windows-based console that performs better than or equal to a PS4 or Xbone, at the same $400 price range, then sure. However, the manufacture of such a console would unarguably be selling them at a huge loss. And what would be the motivation for doing so? To push people into Valve's ecosystem?
 
crusty_juggler said:
I'm not of the belief that a Linux-based gaming console solves the computer illiteracy problem.

Yes, I understand that basic 2D Indie games and Source Engine titles are fairly easy to get running under Linux. But no console gamer gives a damn about World of Goo and TF2.

Now, if a manufacturer could sell a Windows-based console that performs better than or equal to a PS4 or Xbone, at the same $400 price range, then sure. However, the manufacture of such a console would unarguably be selling them at a huge loss. And what would be the motivation for doing so? To push people into Valve's ecosystem?
Click to expand...
I wasn't insisting on Linux in my post, what I mean is the concept of a gaming HTPC streamlined enough for any gamer is a market waiting to happen. Valve just seems to be going for it first. You're not going to get a gaming PC with Windows as powerful for $400, that's a given. But what you can get is one a little less powerful for $400 or one more powerful than a console for $600, then you get access to WAY more games, save a lot more money in the long haul due to games that are cheaper almost across the board (getting ridiculously low during sales), and don't have to pay a subscription fee for online play. If any manufacturers step up to make these, it takes away almost all the benefits of the console (except exclusives of course, but those don't really help gamers anyway).
 
tetris42 said:
Then why are they doing this?

http://www.vg247.com/2015/01/08/steam-machines-not-dead-but-front-and-centre-at-gdc-says-valve/

If Valve wanted it to stay dead, seems like they have plenty of experience with Half Life of just going quiet and giving no more updates.
Click to expand...
It's just the Microsoft employee's getting their 2 cents in. Valve is going to do a huge presentation of SteamBox and OpenGL-Next. It's about as dead as PC gaming is.

tetris42 said:
Maybe that's how much console users think you need to match console performance, not realizing the number is closer to $600.
Click to expand...
It's much cheaper than that. I could match it for $400 using a G3258 with a 750 Ti. Minus the OS of course but you would use Linux for that. And yes it's gotten that good.
Red Falcon said:
Because some (most) people don't care about quality in graphics or frame rates.
Also, consoles (for the initial cost) are far cheaper than a gaming PC.*

*Even the road to ruin has its toll. ;)
Click to expand...
Initially no, a PC is cheaper. Lets compare the $350 Xbox One to the $500 Alienware Alpha. Both come with a controller and both have no games. But since the Alienware Alpha is a fully working PC it isn't a door stop. The Xbox One might as well be a box with blinking lights without a game.

On the Alpha you can download hit games for free like TF2, DOTA2, LOL, and HearthStone. Best of all you don't even need to pay for Xbox Live to play them online. It's still free on PC. You can buy two games for the Xbox One and 1-3 months of Xbox Live to play them online, which would equal the cost of the Alpha.

It's not an Apples to Apples comparison cause if you wanted to play FarCry 4 for example the initial cost on PC would be higher. But since games are cheaper on PC and no monthly fee to play online then it would take a few months to break even between the two. But if you wanted a machine to just play any games then PC would be cheaper initially.

TheOneKnownAsMe said:
Yes, consoles will probably always be behind high-end PCs from now on, but I doubt that they really care. They care about moving units and making money, and catering to the expensive taste and high demands of enthusiast PC gamers doesn't do that.
Click to expand...
Consoles have always been behind ANY PC historically. The exception was the 360 and PS3. Why you think I was able to play Sega Genesis games on a Pentium 90 or PSX games on a Pentium MMX 166? Cause consoles have historically been a fraction of the performance of a fully working PC. They've also been a fraction of the cost, so it makes sense. I mean PCs cost $2k back then.

But the problem today is that the PC is so cheap that buying a console makes no sense. Especially cause consoles have a walled garden that dictates to you how much to spend on a game. Oh look FarCry 4, game of the year edition, 10/10, it's like Skyrim but with guns! $60 please and not a penny less. Oh and don't forget to buy FarCry 4 Goldfinger edition for $100.

PC gamers are harder to please because we don't buy into that bullshit.
That's just the way it is, and the way it will be for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
I see game consoles going the way of the dodo within the year. Why the hell else would Microsoft create Xbox Two? Xbox One is barely a year old and already a two? And you know a lot of people predicted the death of the game console.

crusty_juggler said:
Because 95% of the population doesn't know how to install, troubleshoot and configure a PC operating system.
Click to expand...
I present to you SteamBox. The console like PC without the stupid for the stupid.

468px-Steam_machine_and_controller.jpg

crusty_juggler said:
I'm not of the belief that a Linux-based gaming console solves the computer illiteracy problem.
Click to expand...
It does because you're not suppose to know it runs Linux on a SteamBox. Just like you don't know the OS that runs on 360 or that PS4 runs a form of BSD. It's a dumb box meant for dumb dumbs. Valve doesn't expect you to get up and learn Linux to play games. You're not meant to look behind the curtain. Ignore the OS behind the curtain. You've been doing it this whole time with Xbox and PS.
Now, if a manufacturer could sell a Windows-based console that performs better than or equal to a PS4 or Xbone, at the same $400 price range, then sure. However, the manufacture of such a console would unarguably be selling them at a huge loss.
Click to expand...
Unless they removed Windows and used Linux instead. Then it wouldn't be at a loss.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD Athlon X4 760K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($77.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus A88XM-A Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard ($57.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill NS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($60.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Deskstar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($50.00 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($114.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Thermaltake VL80001W2Z ATX Mid Tower Case ($19.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $401.91
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-16 12:31 EST-0500

Also I could build a PC for $400 and stick Linux on it that would destroy the PS4 and Xbone. Why wouldn't PC builders be able to do the same and make a profit? After all I'm just picking retail parts, not stuff ordered in bulk.
And what would be the motivation for doing so? To push people into Valve's ecosystem?
Click to expand...
To sell PC hardware for money? Money is a good thing right?
 
You know, you don't read very well, do you? Most of the people in this thread have pointed out that ease of use is the main selling point of consoles, then you go ahead and recommend that people install Linux as a way to get into PC gaming? A bit out of touch, I would say. People have a hard time installing games on a PC, let alone dealing with WINE and whatever other weird issues you see with Linux gaming. Sorry, but no.

I love Linux, I use it all of the time, but you're out of touch if you believe that it's a turn-key, reliable, boot-it-up-and-go solution for gaming for the masses. At least not yet it's not. Maybe Valve will change that with Steamboxes. Maybe. Maybe it's great for you, but you fall into that "Enthusiast PC Gamer" crowd. As I mentioned earlier, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo don't give a shit about us.

Also, consoles will take longer than a year to die. Sorry, you're just plain delusional if you think that's the case. Maybe they will die off, but within a year? That would be interesting, and I would gladly eat my words if that ends up happening. Microsoft is looking to the future Xbox because that's where time always marches: forward, onward, into forever. What, a business can't look forward to the future, plan for it, and develop a plan for competing in the future? Not a very good businessman, are you?
 
crusty_juggler said:
I'm not of the belief that a Linux-based gaming console solves the computer illiteracy problem.

Yes, I understand that basic 2D Indie games and Source Engine titles are fairly easy to get running under Linux. But no console gamer gives a damn about World of Goo and TF2.

Now, if a manufacturer could sell a Windows-based console that performs better than or equal to a PS4 or Xbone, at the same $400 price range, then sure. However, the manufacture of such a console would unarguably be selling them at a huge loss. And what would be the motivation for doing so? To push people into Valve's ecosystem?
Click to expand...

I am a console gamer and i care about world of goo. Sure sounds like you have no idea what your talking about.
 
DPI said:
According to a Microsoft exec that left the company the Xbone will be MS's last console and it was decided even before the Xbone launched.
Click to expand...
That rumor surfaces every generation. The Xbox isn't going anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top