PS5 and next Xbox launch speculation - Post E3 2018

When will the first 'next gen' console arrive?

  • H2 2019

    Votes: 438 14.0%
  • H1 2020

    Votes: 415 13.3%
  • H2 2020

    Votes: 2,025 64.9%
  • H1 2021

    Votes: 99 3.2%
  • H2 2021

    Votes: 144 4.6%

  • Total voters
    3,121
It is all about not being left behind and not allowing Google to get any ground. If Google can pull off streaming, they would have a huge advantage with an initial foothold, offering it through GoogleChrome the most popular bowser(PC and Android) in the world gives them a huge potential market. When you use Google it encourages you to download Chrome, imagine them also encouraging GoogleCloudGaming subscription.
MS and Sony do have their advanatges due to already having studios, close ties with third parties, strong hardware bussiness but they can’t stay still.
The biggest problem i see with streaming is business model.How is it going to work for 3rd parties? Does anybody seriously believe Take2 gonna let you stream RDR2 or Activision CoD without buying game first?

Or people expect only with some Google subscription day 1 for new AAA game?!? No way.

EA already announced their own streaming service to play their games,so it’s gonna be just like all those launchers for PC games...massive fragmentation
 
Google moving into the space complicates things further, doubly so for MS, because Google has the kind of infrastructure and know how to make streaming happen in a way that Sony just can't.
 
Google moving into the space complicates things further, doubly so for MS, because Google has the kind of infrastructure and know how to make streaming happen in a way that Sony just can't.
Hopefully it means both MS and Sony will double down on a powerful traditional consoles next gen. If MS's on focus on streaming would be too substantial,this could end up being their next 'Kinect',and not in a good way.
 
Google moving into the space complicates things further, doubly so for MS, because Google has the kind of infrastructure and know how to make streaming happen in a way that Sony just can't.
They are an issue for everyone. Sony have seen a slow down in sales in Japan while mobile solutions have done better than they ever have.

This is why you see Sony venturing into streaming in the PC space, allowing local downloads and all. It is all about adapting.

Microsoft has been planning for this all along. Phil Spencer has said that their idea is to have games on consoles, PC and phones. Game Pass is the huge bet that will drive people coming for more and with a cheaper streaming box they can sell more than just the traditional high end consoles. This is why you see them investing big on first party.

I imagine that Google would want a low cost solution to all of this either through a streaming device or just through the browser as they are currently trying to accomplish with Assassins Creed. With Android and Chrome, they have a big base that they can market to.

Best thing Sony could do is partner with Amazon, and even that is a problem if Amazon has their own intentions to get into gaming.
 
The streaming initiative for MS makes a lot of sense with the company's overall rebranding as a "services" company. The Xbox Play Anywhere initiative along, coupled with game pass and game streaming, will provide a larger avenue for people to get tied into MS's services.
 
The biggest problem i see with streaming is business model.How is it going to work for 3rd parties? Does anybody seriously believe Take2 gonna let you stream RDR2 or Activision CoD without buying game first?

Or people expect only with some Google subscription day 1 for new AAA game?!? No way.

EA already announced their own streaming service to play their games,so it’s gonna be just like all those launchers for PC games...massive fragmentation
A lot will depend on where Game Pass and Playstation Now perform. Microsoft is already betting big on Game Pass and it seems like it is working out for them seeing that their executives have said that it has led to better game sales. EA copied that with Access Origins and Sony has just allowed for local downloads on Playstation Now.

I personally think that third party publishers, especially the big ones have a lot of adapting to do with how gaming is going. I am one of those people that is leaning towards just sticking to Game Pass content and the odd third party title especially if it is at a discounted price.
 
Thats what I think.
The real fight will be MS streaming vs Google streaming.
If Sony and Nintendo will be late on high quality streaming they can sell their hardware and games (if they don't pull ps3 first years or wiiu) on the name alone. They may loose some market to streaming but they will be fine. MS and Google don't have such brand power in gaming space. So they gonna fight for that brand recognition, market share and etc

Will Google make a special streaming box? Or will it be just for the PC?
Will MS release their app on other devices?

Oh man future will be interesting.
 
Thats what I think.
The real fight will be MS streaming vs Google streaming.
If Sony and Nintendo will be late on high quality streaming they can sell their hardware and games (if they don't pull ps3 first years or wiiu) on the name alone. They may loose some market to streaming but they will be fine. MS and Google don't have such brand power in gaming space. So they gonna fight for that brand recognition, market share and etc

Will Google make a special streaming box? Or will it be just for the PC?
Will MS release their app on other devices?

Oh man future will be interesting.
Streaming is the future of entertainment. With a good cloud system, it is now easier for Google and Amazon to enter the gaming market at a fraction of the cost, and they both have cloud base solutions and billions in revenue to try and power their way into the gaming market.

The current model will work because there is still a market for it, but streaming and subscription based services with an option to buy are the future.
 
Streaming is the future of entertainment. With a good cloud system, it is now easier for Google and Amazon to enter the gaming market at a fraction of the cost, and they both have cloud base solutions and billions in revenue to try and power their way into the gaming market.

The current model will work because there is still a market for it, but streaming and subscription based services with an option to buy are the future.
Streaming with a native like precision and quality is still far away. Probably at least a full gen away. But I agree that's it's probably our future. Like it or not. But it's still far away. Or MS or Google have some new tech they are not talked about yet.

But people talking about subscription always forget about 3rd party software. Do you really believe you gonna get a streaming box with one subscription that covers every game? Ain't happening. Publishers will loose to much money.
It will be a one but really expensive subscription (to compensate 3rd parties). Again can't see this happening
Or it will be a lot of subscription services for every 3rd party publisher there is.

Shit will be complicated that's for sure
 
Streaming with a native like precision and quality is still far away. Probably at least a full gen away. But I agree that's it's probably our future. Like it or not. But it's still far away. Or MS or Google have some new tech they are not talked about yet.

But people talking about subscription always forget about 3rd party software. Do you really believe you gonna get a streaming box with one subscription that covers every game? Ain't happening. Publishers will loose to much money.
It will be a one but really expensive subscription (to compensate 3rd parties). Again can't see this happening
Or it will be a lot of subscription services for every 3rd party publisher there is.

Shit will be complicated that's for sure
Third party stuff is going to be complicated. If I had to guess it will be a digital purchase linked to an account which you can then stream along with your subscription services like EA Access Origins, Xbox Game Pass.

On tech, it seems that both companies (Microsoft and Google) will process some of the game locally to avoid latency issues. It remains to be seen how well that will work.

 
Then a juicy contract with a console maker would be a good reason for them to massively invest in increased production.
Perhaps. They’d have to want to increase capacity and get a big enough contract to justify the capex. On top of that, the console manufacturer is going to expect a discounted price over the normal price. It’s a tricky situation where everything would have to work out just right.
 
Doesn't streaming require the game to be running on a machine in a server farm somewhere? Can one powerful machine stream the game to multiple people? I just don't see how this can be profitable if the company has to have millions of games going at once. The current model, assuming the hardware is sold at a small profit, puts all those costs on the consumer. This seems like something that would only be viable as a complimentary system. Thoughts?
 
Third party stuff is going to be complicated. If I had to guess it will be a digital purchase linked to an account which you can then stream along with your subscription services like EA Access Origins, Xbox Game Pass.
The thing is: gamers already have consoles or gaming PC,they will simply buy game and play it like we do now.Why the hell should i want to stream some game that i bought already?!?

Console and hardcore PC gaming market is now something like,lets say, ~150 million or so,doesn’t matter,that is pretty stable and profitable market and userbase.

I think the whole idea with streaming is that there is some huge untapped market of casuals who don’t have either console or gaming PC,who want to play all new games and they will then pay for these streaming subscriptions.I think that hypothesis is wrong and that market simply doesn’t exist.
 
Surprised anyone is putting faith in streaming.

We've been hearing about it for a decade. It will be niche for another decade.
I wonder how streaming solves the most important requirement:
A controller.

Next alternative will be a streaming box.
If a customer somehow end up buying a streaming box, what's stopping retailers to encourage them to buy a normal console instead? If the retailer succeed in selling a console, they could likely sell a game too. You sell a streaming box, you get complaints from parents when their kids blew up the bandwidth quota instead.
 
Doesn't streaming require the game to be running on a machine in a server farm somewhere? Can one powerful machine stream the game to multiple people? I just don't see how this can be profitable if the company has to have millions of games going at once. The current model, assuming the hardware is sold at a small profit, puts all those costs on the consumer. This seems like something that would only be viable as a complimentary system. Thoughts?
Streaming is mainly going to be a way of lowering the bar of entry for more casual players. If they can make some money by getting people to pay for a sub to a streaming service, game rental, etc and get them into the ecosystem before moving up to the local hardware it could expand the market beyond the current core.
 
Streaming is mainly going to be a way of lowering the bar of entry for more casual players. If they can make some money by getting people to pay for a sub to a streaming service, game rental, etc and get them into the ecosystem before moving up to the local hardware it could expand the market beyond the current core.
And that is the main problem for any of the future streaming services-more casual “players” who play time wasters on their phones are not gonna pay these subscriptions.There is a good reason almost entire mobile gaming market is F2P.
Non casual gamers already own consoles/gaming PC. So,who will be paying for streaming game subscriptions?

Theoretically,this can only work if they completely eliminate game downloads and force us to stream games instead.I don’t even want to think about that!
 
Doesn't streaming require the game to be running on a machine in a server farm somewhere? Can one powerful machine stream the game to multiple people? I just don't see how this can be profitable if the company has to have millions of games going at once. The current model, assuming the hardware is sold at a small profit, puts all those costs on the consumer. This seems like something that would only be viable as a complimentary system. Thoughts?
So lets say hypothetically you sell 20 million $99.99 Xbox Thin Clients. And three-quarters of owners paying month-to-month are up to date paying their $19.99/mo subscription at any given time during the first 12 months of ownership. And the rest of your users buy a $89.99 annual subscription. That's $3.6 billion in the first year of ownership. And your maximum concurrent users is around 3 million. That gives you $1200 per maximum concurrent user per year. And lets say without the need for individual packaging, and retail mark-up you can produce a 1U server box with two Xbox Scarlet boards in it for $700, and annual up keep/services run you $200/1u. That nets you $750 per Xbox Thin-Client sold within one-year of ownership, or 13-15 months if you throw in a 1-3 month free subscription with each box.

This is assuming you manage your servers intelligently (I.E. powering them down when they aren't in use), and like Microsoft you already own a bunch of server farms. Heck, Microsoft could probably find some way to double sell the Xbox Scarlet servers. Use them for high performance computer applications or machine learning BS.
 
Doesn't streaming require the game to be running on a machine in a server farm somewhere? Can one powerful machine stream the game to multiple people? I just don't see how this can be profitable if the company has to have millions of games going at once. The current model, assuming the hardware is sold at a small profit, puts all those costs on the consumer. This seems like something that would only be viable as a complimentary system. Thoughts?
Yes, a single physical server can serve multiple players at once. There is tech to virtualize both the CPU and GPU resources and products targeting that use case specifically. The whole streaming model works like a gym membership. You don't need to have one treadmill for each subscriber, just enough to cover the number of people who ever show up at once. Think of it almost like arcade machines, too. The hardware can be far more capable that would ever being economical to sell directly to customers because you are expecting many users to cover the cost of each individual device.
 
Yes, a single physical server can serve multiple players at once. There is tech to virtualize both the CPU and GPU resources and products targeting that use case specifically. The whole streaming model works like a gym membership. You don't need to have one treadmill for each subscriber, just enough to cover the number of people who ever show up at once. Think of it almost like arcade machines, too. The hardware can be far more capable that would ever being economical to sell directly to customers because you are expecting many users to cover the cost of each individual device.
though it makes me wounder if we will be getting sub 3ghz cpus next gen, sewrver cpus tend to be slower than desktop cpus. I am prity sure intel server cpus are less than 3 ghz a core.
 
Highly likely imo. Thermal constraints are the reason.
Not just that. Your power delivery needs skyrocket because you have to increase your voltage to hit those speeds. Power is dependent on somewhere between the square and the cube of the voltage depending on who you ask, so a 35W CPU quickly becomes a 65W CPU.
 
Not just that. Your power delivery needs skyrocket because you have to increase your voltage to hit those speeds. Power is dependent on somewhere between the square and the cube of the voltage depending on who you ask, so a 35W CPU quickly becomes a 65W CPU.
wouldnt the note shrink help though. the current apus are 16nm?
 
The thing is: gamers already have consoles or gaming PC,they will simply buy game and play it like we do now.Why the hell should i want to stream some game that i bought already?!?

Console and hardcore PC gaming market is now something like,lets say, ~150 million or so,doesn’t matter,that is pretty stable and profitable market and userbase.

I think the whole idea with streaming is that there is some huge untapped market of casuals who don’t have either console or gaming PC,who want to play all new games and they will then pay for these streaming subscriptions.I think that hypothesis is wrong and that market simply doesn’t exist.
All they are looking at is how money is spent and how much the gaming market is expanding year on year. They look at the market that exists in mobile gaming and their thinking is that if they can leverage their existing strengths in cloud tech and offer you gaming through your browser or some cheap streaming device, or find a way to bring a service through an app that their effort will be worth it in the long run.

Microsoft is still making money off Game Pass, but why stop there when they look at how many people are playing Minecraft. Why stop there when they look at how well Fortnite is doing? No good business wastes an opportunity and it is the same reason as to why you see Sony bringing streaming into PC.

Microsoft is also thinking that if they can have a streaming device that is produced at a fraction of the cost of the console, they can reach a far greater gaming user base than simply having an expensive console in a market where there are a good amount of gamers that simply buy one console and call it a day. It is a lower entry box that will entice even people that have traditionally had the Playstation console or Nintendo. To the PC market it is an opportunity to expand the service to as many gamers as possible and with the expansion of internal studios the thinking is that a steady stream of games will keep subscriptions rolling.

It is about expanding a service as much as you can and getting as many users as possible. At $10 a month, the thinking is that if they have the tech side figured out to avoid issues with latency, they can push a service all through to mobile phones. The core business is making money, but why not risk to see if even more can be made? I would guess that if the subscription service is huge we may even see these companies dropping online gaming payment system they currently employ.
 
Doesn't streaming require the game to be running on a machine in a server farm somewhere? Can one powerful machine stream the game to multiple people? I just don't see how this can be profitable if the company has to have millions of games going at once. The current model, assuming the hardware is sold at a small profit, puts all those costs on the consumer. This seems like something that would only be viable as a complimentary system. Thoughts?
It depends on the game. But you are right - for example, with PS3, Sony has one PS3 in the datacenter for one customer that wants to stream a PS3 game. For indie games, you can easily share resources of a big server to several customers but when it comes to AAA games, it's going to be hard. There is not much to share but you can install several GPUs in a server but one GPU of course cannot be shared to, let's say, stream AC Origins to multiple customers.
 
We are past the point of getting automatic frequency bumps from new nodes. Just look at how long ago we hit 3 GHz and how normal non-boost frequencies are still well below 4 GHz.
That's partly due to other aspects of the CPUs being improved, right? If the 7nm PS5 has a 3GHz Zen 2, is it possible that a 5nm or 3nm PS5 Pro could hit 4GHz?
 
It depends on the game. But you are right - for example, with PS3, Sony has one PS3 in the datacenter for one customer that wants to stream a PS3 game. For indie games, you can easily share resources of a big server to several customers but when it comes to AAA games, it's going to be hard. There is not much to share but you can install several GPUs in a server but one GPU of course cannot be shared to, let's say, stream AC Origins to multiple customers.
why not though? if we are talking about something to compete with consoles a 1080 ti can do atleast 3 instances at 30fps
 
why not though? if we are talking about something to compete with consoles a 1080 ti can do atleast 3 instances at 30fps
Because we are talking about shared resources on the GPU. Context switches and so on. You cannot devide the total compute power by three and then infer that you have that power available for three clients.
 
I don't see Google's console being anything more than a dedicated streaming device. I just don't see them entering the "high-end" console business.
I agree.

At the most, Google's hardware entry would probably be something like Microsoft's cheap Scarlet Cloud streaming device. not the traditional next gen Xbox Scarlet console, or PS5.

Edit: This is good news: DRAM Price Declines Accelerating

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1333808

Hopefully the pricing continues to accelerate downward. Next-gen consoles need to have a lot more RAM, and I truly believe 16GB will not be enough allow for a major differences in games, and to last 6+ years, at least to the middle of the next decade.
 
Last edited:
Lol I went to sleep just before the Window central news.

Back to #team2109!! :P

Fake Edit: Jez has been wrong in the past though. But it MS announces some kind of next gen machine that would be HUGE

They did that with Scorpio so yeah. Could be much more of a reveal than that was.
That was a huge mistake imo. Sales of the Xbox One slowed to a crawl for more than a year. People were holding back for the X ( and after the $499 price was disclosed most ended up buying an S anyway)
Sales are up this year but mostly because they were abyssmal for 3/4 of 2017.


I doubt they will announce something next month that doesn't come out until 2020
 
Last edited:
Sorta. I believe they have made rack units with a single mobo and the necessary hardware that resembles 8 PS3s.
Yeah so of course in terms of rack space, sure. But they could not use virtualization for PS3 streaming. Although I think a software emulator nowadays could do that quite good.
 
7nm to 3-5nm netting you +1GHz?

Not with the same power consumption. Even with the node shrink, bumping clocks that much will increase the TDP significantly.
That's a shame. I thought it might work since it would be the same as what the PS4 Pro managed percentage-wise, but I suppose those high speeds really do exponential power increases.

Bring on the 16c/32t Pro I guess!
 
The thing is: gamers already have consoles or gaming PC,they will simply buy game and play it like we do now.Why the hell should i want to stream some game that i bought already?!?

Console and hardcore PC gaming market is now something like,lets say, ~150 million or so,doesn’t matter,that is pretty stable and profitable market and userbase.

I think the whole idea with streaming is that there is some huge untapped market of casuals who don’t have either console or gaming PC,who want to play all new games and they will then pay for these streaming subscriptions.I think that hypothesis is wrong and that market simply doesn’t exist.
That's not how you grow an industry though. Major companies like Microsoft and Sony (as well as Apple, Google and Amazon who always get brought up as possible future competitors) don't get involved to be happy with the size of the industry as it is.
Lowering the barrier of entry to gaming will inevitably bring new consumers to the market. That could be more casual players as you say. It may also be hardcore players who can't afford multiple full cost consoles. If you were a PS5-owner but were really keen to play that new Halo game that is getting rave reviews then instead of spending $500 on a new Xbox console you could pay a fraction of that for a streaming box.
Also, your comments seem to assume that the only way to access the games on these would be through a subscription. I don't think that is necessarily the case. It might be, but I can't see why you couldn't just buy the new Rockstar game and stream it to your box.
 
Top