Hardware And Software Industries Going To Crash.

[DemonStar55]

I've said this numerous times before

 

[Alex.]

Oh my god, tell me you're joking. The Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 alone ... have you seen what a STANDALONE Blu-Ray video player costs? Several hundred dollars.

<etc>

You have no actual proof for what you're saying there, Eric. You base your assumptions on whatever (false) figures the general public gets access to. Do you really think that Sony or Microsoft are selling you anything at a loss? No they're not, otherwise they wouldn't be the dominant mammoths of the digital industry. All the selling at a loss crap is gave out on purpose to convince you that you're actually getting your money's worth when you buy one of their obscenely overpriced products.

The big companies always have sources for dirt cheap components (via manufacturing in poor, overpopulated countries), so there's no need to cry them a river, or "stick it to them" by buying the console and no games for it, just so that they're at a loss, like some people's masterplan against Sony. They'd be at an even greater loss if you wouldn't buy the console at all.

- Alex

 

[fluffyhamster]

Old but still probably true.


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25901

 

[muphicks]

You have no actual proof for what you're saying there, Eric. You base your assumptions on whatever (false) figures the general public gets access to. Do you really think that Sony or Microsoft are selling you anything at a loss? No they're not, otherwise they wouldn't be the dominant mammoths of the digital industry. All the selling at a loss crap is gave out on purpose to convince you that you're actually getting your money's worth when you buy one of their obscenely overpriced products.

The big companies always have sources for dirt cheap components (via manufacturing in poor, overpopulated countries), so there's no need to cry them a river, or "stick it to them" by buying the console and no games for it, just so that they're at a loss, like some people's masterplan against Sony. They'd be at an even greater loss if you wouldn't buy the console at all.

- Alex

Microsoft and Sony have stated that their console sales are sold as loss leaders. Meaning they sell the console for a loss and try to make a profit via game sales and accessories such as additional controls. This was true of the PS2 and XBox and I would imagine is still true of the 360 and PS3. I remember reading that Nintendo is the only console manufacturer that actually makes a profit on hardware sales, how small that profit may or may not be, I've no idea.

Quick google turned up the following, although I'm sure with a bit more digging you'd be able to turn up sources from both Sony and MS that would confirm their loss leader model.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060915-7752.html

 

[pantera6]

i agree with games becoming well shorter, some games are crazy short. i mean i know this isnt a very significant difference, but im sure mario 64 was bigger than mario sunshine and ocarina of time was longer than wind waker.

 

[Hanz™]

No.

-- Hanz

 

[Azalin]

Its not just that the games are becoming shorter (FPS especially) its that the developers just aren't bothering to spend time coding them effficiently or anything.

Take DeadRising for example: I cannot think of one thing that it has that could not have been done on the Xbox. The Graphics are nothing that special, and the AI is pretty damn basic (how much processing power do zombies need, anyway?). So why was it on the 360?

 

[Mudi]

Nintendo? You won't even be able to watch movies with your Wii—that's what your DVD player is for, according to Nintendo.

That is what I love about Nintendo's philosophy... they don't feel the need to make their console a do-everything device, they just want to make it good at playing games. DVD players seem to cost $20 or less these days anyway :rolleyes:

 

[Epicenter]

Old but still probably true.


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25901

I imagine it is quite true. The drives are going to be expensive, the technology barely exists yet. The only reason Sony is building in blu-ray drives is to force the media down the public's throat-- after UMD's catastrophic failure they want to try and recoup their losses and put another ridiculous proprietary format they can charge huge licensing fees etc. for like Beta. Hopefully, like Beta, this format gets killed off too-- it's going to be far more expensive to make since Blu-ray media cannot be made with existing DVD fabrication means, and won't provide the ability to make one disc readable by a next-generation reader or a classic DVD reader. The higher capacity of Blu-ray does not make up for that-- it's simply unnecessary for one disc. And if a game is to use all that space, I really hope you like FMV and no gameplay.

 

[Alex.]

...

Microsoft and Sony have stated that their console sales are sold as loss leaders. Meaning they sell the console for a loss and try to make a profit via game sales and accessories such as additional controls. This was true of the PS2 and XBox and I would imagine is still true of the 360 and PS3. I remember reading that Nintendo is the only console manufacturer that actually makes a profit on hardware sales, how small that profit may or may not be, I've no idea.

Quick google turned up the following, although I'm sure with a bit more digging you'd be able to turn up sources from both Sony and MS that would confirm their loss leader model.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060915-7752.html

Listen, why do you believe whatever figures companies give out to the general public? Why would Sony for example disclose their business plan for? What would they gain from doing that? Niothing, except that's not their business plan. None of the large companies are at any kind of loss, no matter what they sell you.

- Alex

 

[Shikaku]

...

Microsoft and Sony have stated that their console sales are sold as loss leaders. Meaning they sell the console for a loss and try to make a profit via game sales and accessories such as additional controls. This was true of the PS2 and XBox and I would imagine is still true of the 360 and PS3. I remember reading that Nintendo is the only console manufacturer that actually makes a profit on hardware sales, how small that profit may or may not be, I've no idea.

Quick google turned up the following, although I'm sure with a bit more digging you'd be able to turn up sources from both Sony and MS that would confirm their loss leader model.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060915-7752.html

Listen, why do you believe whatever figures companies give out to the general public? Why would Sony for example disclose their business plan for? What would they gain from doing that? Niothing, except that's not their business plan. None of the large companies are at any kind of loss, no matter what they sell you.

- Alex

False advertising is a crime.

 

[sam fisher]

The hardware industry has set itself up for failure. Why? Because there is going to come a day very soon when they will no longer be able to cram a few more mhz or gb of ram into a certain amount of space. Then they will either have to switch to a new hardware form factor, or cut back on production dramaticly. But because of the pace that they've been setting, they will not be able to do so without a crash.

Not quite true, I have seen at least 3 form factor changes and the hardware industry didn't bat an eye lid, it's just called progress. The industry has always been a fast evolving monster, and will continue to be just that.

I agree though that it's possible for us to reach the limit in certain areas, such as the speed of our present technology of CPUs. But the nature of technology means that it evolves, lets take the systems storage for example. We presently use Hard drives, optical media and solid state memory in our "modern" computers. And I agree that there is a limitation on how much we can eventually do with this, but then a new innovation in technology comes a long and all the above is redundant.
Am I mad, nope! Here's why: There is a technology being developed at the moment which is holographic memory. It will eventually replace all our storage and internal ram in a machine, and being a hologram the capacity is limitless. It's access time is is as fast as you will ever get being that it is light based, and as soon as you turn the machine on it will be ready to use, as there's no boot time as ram and HDD etc are now a single unit. Oh and how safe is your data? Well you can't smash it, as if you snap a hologram in half you get two identical copies .

Okay not all the above analogy is 100% true, but you get what I mean. I have learnt that you cannot base your future views on technology based on what we presently have.

Actually, the storage spce is NOT unlimited as light has a fuckass huge wave length. Now, some sort of molecular matrice formed of small molecules, that would work better. Also, the minute metal hole punchey thing will work long before holographic storage, and be just as efficient.

 

[Azalin]

But how long is it going to be before the general public gets their hands on it, and when we do, how high is the cost going to be? A loooooong time and astronomical, thats the answer. Just think, we have 1TB internal harddrives available on the market, but the last time i checked they were close to $1500 and its damn hard to get your computer to recognize all of that space (hell, my computer didnt want to notice mt 250GB before i fiddled with the partitions). Hell, we have 6TB external harddrives, but they go for $1000 per TB, so no average person is going to buy something like that!

Our hardware has upgraded itself, but it hasn't had any major, earthshattering changes in a very long time. Something like a new storage format, or a new type of cpu (not based on pins) would be earthshattering, and completely unaffordable by the general public for quite a few years.

 

[sam fisher]

What are you on about? Our current CPU's are based on silicon transistor technology <_<

DNA computers will be next, then quantum computers.

 

[Azalin]

Methinks DNA won't get very popular. Too many close-minded people will all go "eww, my computer ALIVE".

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

The hardware industry has set itself up for failure. Why? Because there is going to come a day very soon when they will no longer be able to cram a few more mhz or gb of ram into a certain amount of space. Then they will either have to switch to a new hardware form factor, or cut back on production dramaticly. But because of the pace that they've been setting, they will not be able to do so without a crash.

Not quite true, I have seen at least 3 form factor changes and the hardware industry didn't bat an eye lid, it's just called progress. The industry has always been a fast evolving monster, and will continue to be just that.

I agree though that it's possible for us to reach the limit in certain areas, such as the speed of our present technology of CPUs. But the nature of technology means that it evolves, lets take the systems storage for example. We presently use Hard drives, optical media and solid state memory in our "modern" computers. And I agree that there is a limitation on how much we can eventually do with this, but then a new innovation in technology comes a long and all the above is redundant.
Am I mad, nope! Here's why: There is a technology being developed at the moment which is holographic memory. It will eventually replace all our storage and internal ram in a machine, and being a hologram the capacity is limitless. It's access time is is as fast as you will ever get being that it is light based, and as soon as you turn the machine on it will be ready to use, as there's no boot time as ram and HDD etc are now a single unit. Oh and how safe is your data? Well you can't smash it, as if you snap a hologram in half you get two identical copies .

Okay not all the above analogy is 100% true, but you get what I mean. I have learnt that you cannot base your future views on technology based on what we presently have.

Actually, the storage spce is NOT unlimited as light has a fuckass huge wave length. Now, some sort of molecular matrice formed of small molecules, that would work better. Also, the minute metal hole punchey thing will work long before holographic storage, and be just as efficient.

Sam I know hon, please note the "Okay not all the above analogy is 100% true" comment!!!

 

[sam fisher]

BUT BUT THE MICROMETERS!