Really its easy? I think not. The dynamics of the console gaming industry have changed a lot since you would automatically expect the very best hardware in a new console. In this case, it is very much a mystery, the tactics of Sony and Microsoft in building their new machine and business model.

As for everyone talking about this purported 16 core CPU which is a rumour right now still, raw numbers don't mean a whole lot. Even if such a CPU exists (there is no 16 core POWERPC on the market or roadmaps for this year, the massively expensive $5000+ systems with 8 core versions for servers are the current top dogs) we can not be sure of its exact configuration.

For example the triple core in 360's architecture is actually very small and pretty weak, comparative to even x86 dual cores of the mid 00's. Having that extra core and more threads, higher clockspeed- doesn't make the 360's CPU remotely as fast as a vastly more sophisticated out of order Intel Core 2 duo for example.

More cores do not automatically = lots more power. It is more like the size and sophistication and efficiency of a chip that are better guides for CPU performance. Anybody that has seen the market today sees how Intel's quads can and do beat up the 8 cores of AMD's bulldozer.

Of course ALL of it together matters, but the chip that matters MOST, the chip that determines the rough maximal graphical performance of a games console is always its GPU.

You can have as many CPU cores and as much RAM and memory bandwidth as you fancy, but if you fit the machine with a weak GPU, it'll be evident.

and despite all that you just posted there, look at history for a moment and see how each of the most powerful consoles were similar to a powerful pc at first or just behind it. almost everytime, thinking this will be different doesnt make sense. both sony and ms need to have powerful consoles since that is whats expected. add in the fact that each company needs components that wont drive the cost too high and all were going to end up with is a few custom chips that are decently powerful and can be effectively cost reduced in a short period of time.

the features of each console will define this next gen not power becuase pcs are clearly moving far beyond what consoles will/can be capable of while still selling at an affordable price

All i am saying Captain Qwark is that we cannot be certain, while you are saying yes, this is a fact and this is exactly what is going to happen and both machines are going to be powerhouses.

History does not back you up, history shows if anything that consoles can throw you a curveball. Recent history is more important than anything else, that too might indicate either console may not be as fast you you might expect.

The fact most of the rumours up to this point actually support the idea of less than cutting edge machines should tell you enough about the current attitude- that it is no longer ASSUMED they will be powerhouses. You are assuming.

For the past few years questions have been posed about the business models of the console industry. Sustainability. Features over raw power. Online over single player. Times have changed dramatically in just a decade, rendering historical arguments mostly obsolete anyway.

After all the industry is about making yourself money- NOT about simply 'beating' your competition in pure sales or building the fastest machine. Making money is the real aim of the game, don't forget that for a second.

Sony should have now well learned that going mad, throwing billions at designing hardware, chucking everything into your machine so it costs a bomb....that is not a guarantee of making lots of money.

It could go either way. I just believe that at least one of these machines may be surprising hardware wise for you.

dust 514 developer already metioned voice chat for that game there alot of things 360 cant do like surf the web or even do steriostopic 3d to name a few standred dvd is not a hd format .

16 times = 8 GB. I am doubtful they will load up that much RAM next gen, but can't say its impossible yet. They do want these systems to last 12+ years if PS2 life is any indication of what PS3/X360 and consoles beyond that are to live up to.

I'm guessing 4GB of RAM, with a universal 64-bit addressing space. This would be a shared pool between GPU and CPU, making things FAR more efficient than even the best modern gaming PCs on that end.

Remember, RAM requirements are not the same for dedicated gaming consoles as they are for gaming on PC. PCs have various other elements to worry about that require more RAM. The solution above also vastly improves the relationship between CPU and GPU, as they no longer need to pass and translate adresses and data between each other's RAM pools, they now share one pool and speak the same language when adressing things.

Cost will be under $600 bucks as always for production. Likely 400/500 for purchase. Sony messed up by choosing Blu-Ray it was the only factor in blasting thru the the roof with production costs.

@DeadlyFire: I think Bluray was one of Sony's better investments in awhile and they should start to see even more returns on their investment when it becomes public knowledge that both WiiU and Xbox720 both use a variant of Bluray. Their biggest mistakes with ps3 were trying to reinvent the wheel by manufacturing their own CPU and not including enough ram in the system from the begginning.

Its not only about MS, but MS sure is the core focus of the article.

anyways I agree with him.
And I know that both ps4 and xbox3 will be mid end powered at the very least, and PS4 is the one most likely to be high end and to be the most powerful, seeing that they focuses on the core gamers and games moreso than the other ones. The push of games, and the power of the Vita testifies that the Ps4 indeed should be very powerful and a core experience centered machine that most likely will again be the prefered Home entertainment systems because PS3 is a excellent entertainment system and becuse Sony is big on tech, movies, pictures, music etc.

Xbox3 Imo should be powerful too but Ms might cut it a bit shorter to focus on casual and social experiences and services like they do today: Kinect, facebook, youtube etc.

We will have to wait and see though, Ill cross my fingers for Consoles with a lot of brute power, and games that matches that power offering not only better graphics but mind blowing AI and physics as well. The more power a console have the longer it will be relevant technically and that is a good thing IMO.

These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse

Contractual agreements are not the same as “gentlemen” agreements. If you think that they work with their distributors a month before production then their entire business model is trash. They work with companies like nvidia constantly for building the graphics cards they need. They work with companies that build motherboards years in advance. This is what proper business planning does.

They are not buying components on a whim like a consumer. So again, considering the ram isn’t a singular module and is integrated into the motherboard I highly doubt they wouldn’t have a final schematic that they are supposed to be building around.

If they are delaying production another 3 years then it’s obvious again this is an after though project and is just trying to be responsive to their bad execution they had the last 14 years.

It also isn’t far fetched to use their failure to produce first party titles the last 7 years including the highly anticipated games I mentioned all being cancelled. That they would continue to you know… lie

Yeah with FSR 5 they should be able to offer a much cheaper version of Helix.

Series S is what has killed Xbox Series so... Will they dare?

The factors are largely external. Covid and Russia-Ukraine war causing inflation led to the first price increase in 2022.

Then we get Trump's tariffs increasing hardware prices, AI boom causing a RAM crisis, war on Iran causing a worldwide fuel crisis which impacts the cost of everything.

Gaming doesn't exist in a vacuum. The last few years have been a shitshow and lot of it was definitely avoidable.

LucasRuinedChildhood,

For sure. No disagreement on the external factors doing a lot of this. Where I have to gently push back however is on two fronts:

1. The pandemic definitely caused some issues: asynchronous development was a big issue and really complicated timelines and affected game quality. At the same time, when it comes to price hikes, it's really difficult to know what was genuine necessity and what was taking consumers for a ride. The pandemic brought about "stag-flation" which was increasing prices and stagnant wages, which was a problem caused by supply chain constraints. There was also "Greed-flation", where companies that were slightly affected or had no issues took advantage of the situation and squeezed everyone citing supply chain issues when there were none.

2. It's definitely true that the tariffs, AI boom, and RAM crisis were all things enabled by tech broligarchs throwing money at this caricature of a world leader, one of them being Satya Nadella. I don't think Sony and Nintendo have contributed much to this problem if at all, but Microsoft's Nadella I feel was instrumental in causing every one of those issues. Microsoft as a company contributed to both candidates (though they gave Harris 4x as much if I recall), but Nadella was all in on letting AI run wild. He paid for unregulated AI, and got a war that's not a war (even though Trump called it that at least five times on television) that screwed up helium access. So for me, I feel that one of the players in the gaming industry is a key architect of these issues, and for that reason I struggle a bit to think of it as "external".