You would use two 1GB chips if you needed the bandwidth increase. In mobile or portable, you're talking about LPDDR or WideIO, though.
PS5 and next Xbox launch speculation - Post E3 2018
- Thread starter Phoenix Splash
- Start date
https://twitter.com/KOMACHI_ENSAKA/status/1081174660136353792
12 Core AM4 desktop cpu, so we are one step closer to AdoredTv leaks.
12 Core AM4 desktop cpu, so we are one step closer to AdoredTv leaks.
Oh sure, I assumed it would apply across all RAM types. Thanks.
Amazing recap and analysis anexanhume! I also loved your speculation on technologies to look for beyond PS5 and Xbox4. Do you think Optical/Photonic computing chips will be consumer ready within the next 10 years? The potential behind optical computing chips and optical memory seem to blow away anything possible with traditional transistors.
Come again? Strictly speaking about load times and general responsiveness they've always been far superior to disc- and harddrive-based consoles, lastgen was flat out torture and this gen is almost as bad when I compare my (SSD-equipped) PS4 Pro to my PC (went 100% SSD there too including NVMe for OS and some games). That thing feels so fast that it can easily compete with the best smartphones when starting apps/software and in games I get nervous seeing a loading screen for longer than like 5s. Even PS4's suspend-feature can't make up the insane difference since the time wasted elsewhere adds up fast, same on X1X which is faster but still not good enough imo, nextgen reallyreallyreally needs to improve in that regard, I'd put it right beside 60fps on my 'has to have' list.
Last edited:
It does. HBM (and any stacked memory) is a little different though because you can think of stacked die as clamshelled with each other, though you need multiples of 2 (4 thereafter) to make a full "channel" for HBM.
Optical transceivers are great because they remove the issue of resistivity out of the equation, but the technology is still very much in its infancy if we're talking about integrating it with existing designs. I don't think it's a next ten years technology unfortunately.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_laser
Yea consensus seems that everyone wants a new thread but 'when' is interesting too. But before or after CES? Doesn't really matter to me.
At least there's more to add to the OP like anexanhume's post.
Just making it more complex, I guess. I'll be fascinated to see the future of stacked memory. Like, how long before we get an 'LPHBM' for mobiles, or if all memory ends up using stacking later down the road.
What you're describing is called WideIO. It just hasn't really seen a consumer facing use case yet that I know of.
I agree that they keynote is a perfect starting point for a new thread. That gives us 4 days.
Shame. Would be nice to see a future version of it on the Switch 2 or something.
It's still quite expensive like its sibling HBM. Even Apple doesn't use it for the iPad Pro, instead opting for 128-bit LPDDR4x, and that drives way more pixels than a Switch.
Or Sony wants to make a noise in March/September - and thebE3 June timeframe isn't convenient?
Yeah, as expected. I was hoping it might be more viable by 2022/2023 when the Switch 2 will probably arrive, but even that will probably use LPDDR5x or something. I just really feel like it should match or slightly beat the PS4, but it's a long way off yet.
MS isn't going to be factoring Google and Amazon into their strategy for launching xCloud because currently both are a none entity in the console gaming market.
Any plays Google, Amazon, Samsung, Apple, Tencent or any other current non-console gaming company would want to make to enter the gaming market would be telegraphed long before and require at least a half decade of losses and building mindshare for said new entrant before they could even hope to compete with any of the current three (or four if you include Steam) main players.
I just don't see those companies being a something MS considers in their plans outside of their ambitions beyond the console gaming market, which AAA game streaming as a technology isn't really targeted at.
It depends very much on the PC you're using. The average person's PC is not the SSD-equipped gaming rig you're using. Which is the demographic cross-section my post was refering to.
Until Windows 10 and SSDs for example, boot times on a windows machine were freakin painful.
Or maybe it wasn't 'just fine' - maybe in retrospect they felt it better to go a different route.
I don't think it'd hurt if we consider that Sony may be done with E3. Like there's no point looking back and saying "well they did this and this in 2013" and expecting the same things to happen today. 2013 was a different period where Sony skipping events was completely unheard of.
1. You are making the assumption that for Google or Amazon to come into gaming they would need to have a console out. They do not.
I would even argue that Apple or Samsung if they so wished could simply restrict gaming to phone and PC ecosystems. There are 2 billion gamers out there according to Microsoft, less than 10% of them are on current generation consoles or slightly above that. You could for all intents and purposes skip consoles and still make money off the PC and mobile market.
2. In business you not only worry about the best version that you could be, but whether or not another company as big/bigger than you are is looking to encroach into a market that you are a player in. What does that mean for your business or what effect could that have for your business going forward.
Google and Amazon do not need a console to get into gaming, and they already have an infrastructure that could support cloud gaming if that is something that they wanted to get into. Content creation would not be that big an issue given the profits that they are making without having to do console R&D, invest in costly hardware etc.
It is easily forgotten that Sony got into consoles because Nintendo messed them up, and Microsoft got into gaming because they thought that Sony was going to dominate the living room. Different businesses have different ideas and agendas as to why they get into a particular market segment. Microsoft is more aware of what Amazon is doing or Google because of the overlap in what key segments of their business is. The competition with Amazon is mainly cloud compute and Alexa being better than Cortana. Google has browser, cloud, an Android platform that killed Windows Phone, ad revenue and Google home.
Google just had a trial for Project Stream that worked extremely well. Microsoft would be silly not to consider that or that it has had a trial before they can get a product to market.
I said it earlier, and I will repeat it, all these companies are not looking at streaming if they do not think that it is a viable product going forward. Gaming is also the only medium where streaming is not as common place as in music, movies, TV. It is more likely to go that route sooner or later and considering how much better phones and tablets are getting, why not consider those?
I'm not sold on either option, but from the day they announced skipping E3 I've considered the possibility of that being their plan going forward. It's a ridiculously expensive event where you're guaranteed to have to share headlines with your competition. It doesn't seem like too crazy of an idea for the big three to just leave it behind eventually.
It doesn't hurt that Nintendo successfully announced and launched a new piece of hardware outside of E3 to great success.
Wasn't the 2013 e3 considered weaker and weird because everyone knew next gen was around the corner? Sony's thinking may have been, instead of having a weak E3 where the narrative is Sony lost and MS won....just don't play the game (E3), and take the anominity for a short term hit to have a big blowout PlayStation meeting for ps5 where people will completely forget about E3. Hell, a retroactive E3 win is even possible. Think about It, Sony has an awesome ps meeting with games and hardware and suddenly it becomes, "yeah MS won, but Sony wasn't really there" so it kind of "taints" the win or MS
Thing is even on the PC front streaming games has amounted to nothing. The thing I see is maybe google/smart tv's and AMazon fires hooked to tv's or integrated into the living room would offer streaming. Through an app on certain devices that can handle said game streams. Amazon has a platform through digital delivery called Prime which would make a case for offering game streaming through already sub'd customers. But even then Prime is small compared to the likes of Netflix.
And the thing you keep omitting from your giant rants, is who's content is going to be available on the said service? Amazon would have to make deals with third party unless they have some kind of Fortnite/Minecraft game in the works that's going to be some kind of phenomenon. Streaming will be an option, but at this stage will not be the focus. And if MS is so focused on streaming/services, then their game projects will be lacking if they are skewed to being developed to support those said services.
So far traditional gaming hasn't slowed, if anything it's increased and been ramping up this gen. More consoles have been sold in less time. That's not a decline in traditional. Streaming won't replace traditional for a long time. ANd there's tons of proof from multiple dead companies among others that were bought that streaming is small to non-existent to the grand scheme of things.
That's because they released PS4 in the Fall. The plans may not be the same this time around and timing may not work out.
SO expect something in February-March this year to make some announcements, then have a PSX type of event in late fall for spring 2020 launch. Simple.
You mean like how google just let 150k people test their game streaming subscription service...?
'letting people use it for free to stress test and bug fix' is more than telegraphed in my eyes. It's happening alongside a cheap chromecast revision.
Why skip an event where your product can be overshadowed or lost in the noise of the event. No detailed interviews as the interviewer is jumping from developer to developer trying to get as much covered in a short space of time.
Or they hold their own event, be able to distribute the information more effectively give a more relaxed less rushed interviews and have the mainstream press invited.
Also E3 is changing this year. Its becoming more like Gamescom that the trades how it used to be.
I mean, how exactly did having an E3 2013 hurt them that year? They released a new console in fall and E3 provided a ton of news and promotion. The PS4 went on to sell out. And yeah, there is a point to it when it proved to work.
If there was any reception like that, it was from the forum crowd and they can't be taken seriously for the most part.
Besides, Sony skipping E3 this year implies a big blowout in 2020 anyway. They are stockpiling now.
Right, I think PS5 launches fall 2020. So, it lines up the same. PS Meeting early 2020 -> E3 2020 -> fall launch.
It doesn't have to be either/or though. They can do both. A new console launch is a massive effort. When trying to get as much information and attention on that product, why would you have less events? It won't be overshadowed whatsoever. It is the successor to the most successful console this gen.
1. Third parties will put their games on any platform where they think it will sell. The more the merrier. Look no further than EA that has managed to have Frostbite integration on Switch the moment they saw its momentum was not stopping.
2. We will eventually get to a place where people can play console quality games on Phone on Tablet. Google already proved that they could do that on weak PC's. The only thing that they had to worry about is lag and they had Project Stream working well going by impressions of those who tried it. Nvidia, Sony, Microsoft, Google are all not investing on this (streaming) if they do not think that it is going to be a viable option going forward.
3. The console market is not better than where it was last generation with the Wii, 360 and PS3. The Wii U flopped and Nintendo got rid of it, the Xbox One if it does 60 million by 2020 will have 75% of the 360's market share. Only Sony are doing better than they did that generation and in their home market of Japan, they are selling at a slower rate. I would argue that if Microsoft had not shat the bed at launch they would have sold better and PS4 sales might have well slowed.
The one thing that has been done better/mastered than last generation is how games are better monetized right now that has seen revenues go up, and well, the reselling of previous generation games as remasters.
4. Console and PC gaming used to have all the numbers. Mobile is now bigger than both. This is not to say that they will get all users on mobile streaming games, and there is nothing that shows that streaming will take off in the next two or even three years. What they are looking to do is to bring as many people as possible in at a low cost that justifies the investment. Microsoft would readily sell 10 million consoles next generation if they were to have ten times as many subscribers on PC and mobile. The money is in the service.
But it worked not because it was E3 specifically, it worked because, well, it was an event where they announced games and pricing for PS4. That's it.
They don't need E3 to announce that kind of stuff.
I'm not saying it hurt them, just that they might have thought that the hassle of sticking to E3 restrictions might not be helpful this time round.
I mean E3 has always been a weird outdated thing for the last 8 years atleast. I could easily just see Sony doing their blowout conference whenever they feel like it and a more intimate fan thing with psx during the year. Then have your games at Gamescom and whatnot.
Eh, it being fine then doesn't mean they have to do that same thing now. Let's consider a few things:
-Sony likes the exclusiveness of having their own reveal event such as the PS meeting. They like having the spotlight and having their own event means they don't have to share it.
-They like the spectacle of E3 press conferences and the way it hypes up the player base and potential buyers.
-You say what they did in 2013 worked fine, but the majority of people in gaming forums are saying that Sony won at that time only because "MS dropped the ball." (And I think there's a small amount of truth to that. I think they announced the PS meeting out of nowhere to catch MS off guard (specially their marketing arm), they stuck the sword on the ground pointing up and just let MS ungracefully fall on it themselves. I don't think that'll work this time around, MS is much more prepared.)
- A while back, Someone high up from PS (House?) said that many people didn't like how they revealed the console but didn't show the hardware, I think they're going to avoid doing that again.
-That year's E3 was mostly just a rehash of the PS meeting. The feeling of dissatisfaction thats going around online concerning their conferences lately, I don't think they want to do that again.
-Kodera's comments of 'crouching before jumping.
Let's combine these things and Sony's plans become a bit more clear. IMO, they want an E3 sized event, at the time of their own choosing, where they can show fresh and exciting games, from first, second and third parties, coming in the next gen launch window and beyond. They want to be the center of attention. They want to show off the console specs and the console itself at this event/conference. They probably even want it to be like PSX and have the console itself on the show floor, for the press and PS fans, with demos of launch games. They want to have a launch date ready for this event, and they want to have clear on concise plans ready to be shown.
Idk about you guys, but an event like that would blow my mind.
Ps. I don't think Sony is leaving E3 entirely, they'll be back next year... it just doesn't fit into their next gen reveal plans this year.
Great write up Anexanhume.
Are we getting GDDR6 chips with double the density of GDDR5? It doesn't seem to be in any Nvidia products.
Are we getting GDDR6 chips with double the density of GDDR5? It doesn't seem to be in any Nvidia products.
Sure, but I feel being there will be more helpful overall regardless of whatever personal events they have on their own.
We can respectfully agree to disagree though. I see what you're saying but I just feel differently.
That is fair. I guess I just feel the pros outweigh those cons.
We'll see though. I wouldn't be surprised by them not doing it btw. I just think it is more likely they will do it.
Actually you're wrong. Sony and Nintendo. Currently Nintendo's momentum is at the same pace if not faster than what PS4 sold. It will be close to 60 million by 2020 if momentum continues and with PS4/Xbox on their way out more than likely will.
The key factor will be if sales for next gen Xbox/Playstation are luke warm, then I would say you have a case where streaming becomes more prominent. You are omitting also that online for tablets/phones is huge, and adds another factor to lag for playing any kind of competitive game. What we've seen from Google is mainly how their streaming works in a isolated setting with a campaign game.
Let's see how people from different regions and countries play with everyone having different speeds/access to good stable internet on top of streaming from a app.
I see digital fully replacing physical next gen at some point or surpassing it and having brand new metrics in how digital is measured/followed sales wise. There is also that which we havn't even started having a conversation on is how is revenue measured for streaming and how is it going to data wise be distributed? those also are not in place yet. Right now it would be a sub based type of thing, but with so many games having their own monotization everything will need to be funneled somehow for investors/Analysts.
Right now it's hard enough to get a solid number on paid subscribers vs trial members for services like XBlive/gamepass/psn. A lot has to happen outside of just having people stream games from their phones. The metrics will totally change to subs, and how that is measured for revenue and distributed to other companies for stock information, and fiscal reports will be tricky.
We barley have metrics that are super great for showing digital, all we currently get are retail, and then usually end of the year reports from Nintendo/Sony/Xbox on how much revenue was generated through their online stores.
Now add in streaming which if added to existing services that people are already sub'd in add's another complexity. Unless they are separate and numbers of new paid subs are public.
Which Microsoft so far has not shown to my knowledge of how many paid subscribers they have, or how much they have made off of Gamepass.
JEDEC standard for GDDR6 supports 1GB, 2GB and 4GB per a single chip. 2GB chips started being made early in 2018, and nobody is still making 4GB chips.
I think the price and lack of alternative handheld will be more of a factor than next gen consoles
I think what you're missing in your analysis is the importance of demographics. Consoles games =/= casual mobile and browser games. Likewise, the console gaming audience =/= the casual mobile gaming audience.
In previous gens with the success of platforms like the Wii, Kinect and DS, the overlap was more prominent, however, now a days it's arguably more distinct and segregated. Even on the least core-focused playform, the Switch, you see clear trends in the software being purchased that the audience is still distinctly the core gamer.
Of those 2 billion gamers worldwide you quoted, the 90% that aren't on console simply aren't interested in console games. They're literally the expanded non-gamer market that would much rather play candy crush on their iphone than Assassin's Creed on a streaming platform.
To me, honestly it seems a little disingenuous to lump them all under the same banner as "gamers" when they're clearly different markets. It's why after more than a decade since the AppStore launched, you're still not seeing games on mobile devices designed with the same themes, scope and budgets as the AAA console games industry. Mobile gamers just aren't interested in those more console game-like types of experiences.
To ignore that important context is to miss the critical differentiator which makes me believe that companies like Google and Amazon aren't going to be rushing to launch a game streaming service to compete with xCloud anytime soon.
Streaming as a technology finds its sole utility with the highest fidelity games you find on consoles. You won't see punters lining up to play the next clash of the clans via Google's streaming service. You don't need the cloud to run those kinds of games on mobile devices.
The audience who is interested in console games but doesn't want to buy a console is entirely unproven. I'm not sure there's even data sufficient to justify a billion dollar business venture targeting that specific market cross-section where it may or may not even exist.
The Switch is not on the same generation as the Playstation 4 or the Xbox One. If you are strictly comparing the last generation, it would be a comparison between the Wii, playstation 3 and Xbox 360. Nintendo is doing better than they did with the Wii U. If you were to look strictly at the last generation, then Sony is the only company that is doing better.
I have been gaming for close to three decades. I have seen the industry move from cartridge, to CD, DVD and the Blu Ray. There was a time when the hardcore even argued that paid online play would not be a mainstream thing when Xbox Live was being setup. Today everyone has a pay to play online subscription service. There was a time when a debate was had that digital distribution would never be a thing in the gaming or movie industries because there were people that loved having their collections. Those same people started downloading DLC which was digital distribution in every sense of the term.
Today, it is that streaming will not be an in thing. Sony did not buyout OnLive and Gaikai because they had some lose change to spare. Microsoft is not investing in it for the sake of it, neither is Nvidia, Google was not testing the service using a high profile game that released recently because it was a fun thing to do. There is money to be made and there is a realization that there are a lot of people that would want to own a console but cannot and streaming would be a low barrier for entry.
There will be skepticism at first because this is not a product that Microsoft has had, how it will be marketed and whether or not the market will be ready for it. Going by what Phil Spencer said, it is still some ways off mass market appeal, but that is not something that should stop them from investing in it right here and right now.
If you are looking at how a publicly traded company works, then you have it wrong in how things are analyzed. Investors do not want to know how every individual game is doing, or what each and every segment of a department is doing. That is too much information for them to be bothered especially when they are invested in other companies too. What they want to know is what is the outlook, when earnings calls are made what segments are doing better than expected and what segments are doing worse compared to the competition. What is the revenue per share and what is the dividend, how is the company doing compared to other tech stocks and how is it doing versus the stock index where it trades. This is the relevant information they want.
You have PC gaming, Xbox, Game Pass, Xbox Live, accessories, money sunk into R&D on things that sometimes do not see the light of day and money made from third parties etc. You have money that they are sinking into infrastructure, buying developers, increased employee count etc. I have seen shareholder meetings for companies less complex than Microsoft and no one wants to know the minuscule details.
One thing that has to keep in mind, is psychologically FREE and CHEAP are not the same.
Making something so cheap that it is almost free, is still something that has to be paid for. But a line is crossed when it becomes free. Something that is free, becomes an expectation. Once it is free, trying to charge for it causes backlash. Yes, Sony did this this gen, but they hid it well and MS took the hate last gen. Trying to make game streaming free and charge for it later on, is not a wise idea.
Making something so cheap that it is almost free, is still something that has to be paid for. But a line is crossed when it becomes free. Something that is free, becomes an expectation. Once it is free, trying to charge for it causes backlash. Yes, Sony did this this gen, but they hid it well and MS took the hate last gen. Trying to make game streaming free and charge for it later on, is not a wise idea.
The only reason you do not have the same games or budgets is because the infrastructure has not been there.
You would also need to look at Japan where people are gaming more and more on mobile. I know of hardcore gamers that have not bought anything on PC for some time that will play on a console should I visit but cannot justify the price of building a new PC or getting a new console.
When Phil Spencer said that there is a market of 2 billion gamers, I do not think that he meant that that is what they are looking to get. There is a huge chance that there are people who would love to get into gaming that have not had the opportunity to invest in multiple gaming consoles that could see that as an opportunity to try something on their platform. That would be a hardcore gamer.
There are those who would want to try something new at a low cost because it is what is popular i.e. appeal to the casual gamer. Now, if you were to look at consoles, the hardcore is still a minority in it. You have people like me that are in the forums, but I also know of a lot of people that get a console because they have disposable income. They play every once in a while, buy popular games and then never ever boot the system for months on end. My brother is one such party.
On the last statement, if people can stream high def movies on the go, what would make game streaming chore? Sure streaming away from home is costly if you cannot find an open network, but that is the case with everything else.
So you don't think publishers like EA, ACTIVISION, UBISOFT want to know how much their games are being accessed via a subscription. They totally want those metrics. The same would be in how MTx's will be generating revenue from those streamed games. Third party publishers want and need those numbers/metrics.
Like do you even know how this industry works? If a publisher like EA who already has a service called EA ACCESS puts Madden on xbox's streaming service, they want to know the metrics of how many people are playing their game online against other players, and how much monotiziation is functioning on those streamed titles.
if streaming is the future and not a digital download, or physical copy, there have to be other metrics in place. Youa re contradicting yourself if you think Traditional gaming will be replaced with streaming. If that is the case you are making, companies need certain things in place for metric reasons to measure player engagement, growth, sub usage, and what device they are streaming the game from through what ever app/provider.
I think you are reaching if you think the person who owns consoles, will suddenly not buy a console and game from their phone. That's the disconnect I think you are having is you think those two different demographics are the same. And they are not.
Last edited:
This!
I mentioned something similar few months ago in another thread i think,all those incoming streaming services are chasing market that simply doesn't exist.
90% of casuals who play on mobile don't spend any money,entire mobile gaming market is now fully F2P and makes money on whales.Those people will not be paying for some subscription streaming game service either.People like us already have consoles/pc and we don't need streaming service either.