XBOX LOL
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
- Site Owner
- Posts: 9597
- Joined: May 16th, 2005, 15:31
- Location: Coventry, UK
- Contact:
-
- Weighted Storage Cube
- Posts: 7167
- Joined: February 26th, 2007, 17:26
- Location: Middle England, nearish Cov
Be as that may, it's not exactly like MS can't afford to lose that sort of money.
They RAKE it in.
And like the xbox and the gamecube, losses on hardware can lead to software profit which will be much greater than the inital loss.
They RAKE it in.
And like the xbox and the gamecube, losses on hardware can lead to software profit which will be much greater than the inital loss.
Last edited by buzzmong on July 20th, 2007, 14:48, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Site Owner
- Posts: 9597
- Joined: May 16th, 2005, 15:31
- Location: Coventry, UK
- Contact:
I think the Gaming Division lost $1.8bn, that includes hardware, software and XBLA. Shows how much it costs to introduce a new console, even when you've got a relatively respected one already out, albeit the least popular of the last generation.
In short, they spent $1.8bn to go from last to second place. Or they were second already, and Nintendo swapped with Sony. Depends, they're still doing crap in Japan.
In short, they spent $1.8bn to go from last to second place. Or they were second already, and Nintendo swapped with Sony. Depends, they're still doing crap in Japan.
-
- Zombie
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: February 20th, 2005, 21:31
They all loose a fortune for subsidising console cost. Especially seeing as the 360 & PS3 are bleeding edge tech.
Thing is, i still think no consoles have come close to the orig xbox. All the moddingability (yes thats a word) make it very handy, unlike these over-powered, expensive and gimmicky new ones i think.
Thing is, i still think no consoles have come close to the orig xbox. All the moddingability (yes thats a word) make it very handy, unlike these over-powered, expensive and gimmicky new ones i think.
-
- Shambler In Drag
- Posts: 787
- Joined: April 1st, 2005, 16:53
- Location: Essex, England
- Contact:
-
- Morbo
- Posts: 19676
- Joined: December 10th, 2004, 21:53
- Contact:
-
- Berk
- Posts: 10353
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 17:02
- Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Contact:
Well. considering $1.06 billion of that was just for Xbox 360 repairs...FatherJack wrote:I think the Gaming Division lost $1.8bn, that includes hardware, software and XBLA. Shows how much it costs to introduce a new console, even when you've got a relatively respected one already out, albeit the least popular of the last generation.
In short, they spent $1.8bn to go from last to second place. Or they were second already, and Nintendo swapped with Sony. Depends, they're still doing crap in Japan.
yeah.
-
- Site Owner
- Posts: 9597
- Joined: May 16th, 2005, 15:31
- Location: Coventry, UK
- Contact:
I think they tried to do a Sega, and make sure they were first. They exceeded all expectations in that regard and had a whole year's jump on the competition. Unfortunately it was a year full of disappointing games and hardware failures.deject wrote:Well. considering $1.06 billion of that was just for Xbox 360 repairs...
Console specs have never exactly struck me as "leading-edge" tech, as they're designed for a resolution way lower than PCs, with prices a sixth of high-end PCs. So, the hardware failures just perplex me - they're effectively built on old technology, so why are there all these issues?
360's competitors are now out there, and unless MS ramp up their release of decent games, they'll be back in last place, and their year of having the market of "next gen" consoles to themselves will have been completely wasted.
-
- Berk
- Posts: 10353
- Joined: December 7th, 2004, 17:02
- Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
- Contact:
Well, I wouldn't call the 360 old technology at its launch. It's CPU is completely different from any PC CPU, and its GPU was ahead of the DirectX 10 curve. Still, All the heat related issues the 360 has suffered should have been fixed before launch, let alone well before now.FatherJack wrote: I think they tried to do a Sega, and make sure they were first. They exceeded all expectations in that regard and had a whole year's jump on the competition. Unfortunately it was a year full of disappointing games and hardware failures.
Console specs have never exactly struck me as "leading-edge" tech, as they're designed for a resolution way lower than PCs, with prices a sixth of high-end PCs. So, the hardware failures just perplex me - they're effectively built on old technology, so why are there all these issues?
360's competitors are now out there, and unless MS ramp up their release of decent games, they'll be back in last place, and their year of having the market of "next gen" consoles to themselves will have been completely wasted.
-
- Morbo
- Posts: 19676
- Joined: December 10th, 2004, 21:53
- Contact:
I thought the 360's GPU was DirectX 9 based, just capable of running a highly scaled down version of DX10?deject wrote:
Well, I wouldn't call the 360 old technology at its launch. It's CPU is completely different from any PC CPU, and its GPU was ahead of the DirectX 10 curve. Still, All the heat related issues the 360 has suffered should have been fixed before launch, let alone well before now.
-
- Weighted Storage Cube
- Posts: 7167
- Joined: February 26th, 2007, 17:26
- Location: Middle England, nearish Cov
fix'd.deject wrote:It has unified shader units, which is the big thing about DX 10. It was roughly a year ahead of the commerical curve.
Most developers have been able to tinker with dx10 for a couple of years now, and to do so they need the hardware which they've had.
There's just been no dx10 commerical products till recently.
-
- Robotic Bumlord
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 0:27
- Location: Manchester, UK
-
- Robotic Bumlord
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 0:27
- Location: Manchester, UK