Print 90 comment(s) - last by talonvor.. on Sep 10 at 4:24 AM

Microsoft's Yusuf Mehdi  (Source:
The Xbox 360 will also get another three years of support

A Microsoft executive said that each sale of the upcoming Xbox One console will break-even or be sold at profit from its launch date.

According to Microsoft's Yusuf Mehdi, the company plans to make money on selling games for the console and the Xbox Live subscription (which, he noted, has grown to 48 million members now). 

"The strategy will continue which is that we're looking to be break even or low margin at worst on [Xbox One]," said Mehdi. "And then make money selling additional games, the Xbox Live service and other capabilities on top. And as we can cost-reduce our box as we've done with 360, we'll do that to continue to price reduce and get even more competitive with our offering."

Mehdi, who spoke at the Citi Global Technology Conference this week, also said that Microsoft plans to support the Xbox 360 for another three years. The company plans to release over another 100 games for the console. 

"You've seen us over the years constantly be focused on profitability and improving year over year," said Mehdi. "There are different points in the cycle when you invest in new hardware. If you look at 360, that platform lasted for seven to eight years and it's going to go for another three years. It's incredibly profitable now in the tail. 

"Some of these things take some time in the launch year in which you invest, and then they they play out over time. We're going to continue to invest in Xbox 360, and the two devices can work in concert. So it's not like the day we ship Xbox One your 360 won't work. We'll continue to support it."

Microsoft recently announced that the Xbox One will officially launch November 22 in 13 markets, including Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, UK, and USA. It will make its way to other markets in 2014.

Source: Games Industry International

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Well DUH
By retrospooty on 9/6/2013 12:25:58 PM , Rating: 3
"Mid-range gaming GPU"

The GPU is mid, but the combined RAM (VRAM and system RAM) is DDR3, RAM that would be used in a PC... It is low end for a video card, so yes, its a low end. PS4 has a much better solution using high speed GDDR5 for all ram, system and video.

RE: Well DUH
By Mint on 9/6/2013 1:01:08 PM , Rating: 1
32MB SRAM isn't free or pointless. It will have a big impact on bandwidth because it can offload all framebuffer bandwidth, which has always been the biggest consumer of bandwidth. That's how 360 outperformed PS3 for so many major titles.

The only reason we don't see embedded memory on PC GPUs is that gamers play at high resolution and AMD/NVidia don't want to risk having a bad result in a top game not optimized for a very unique architecture. MS is in a very different position with 99% of its market having no more than 1080p, having tools to work with eDRAM for 360, and having devs optimize for its platform. Note that Sony's most successful consoles used eDRAM also.

The biggest impact will be with GPGPU on workloads that need high BW on large datasets. That's been a complete non factor so far, so only time will tell if that'll mean anything.

Otherwise, XBox One has WAY more effective bandwidth than a similar GPU on the PC, so your assertion is dead wrong.

RE: Well DUH
By OnyxNite on 9/6/2013 1:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
The thing with eDRAM in the past is that it was much faster than other types of RAM. In this case while it is almost twice as fast as the XBone's system RAM it is still slower than the PS4's RAM.

XBone's DDR3 RAM: 68.3 GB/sec
XBone's eSRAM: 102 GB/sec
PS4's GDDR5 RAM: 176 GB/sec

The Xbone's DDR3 and eSRAM bandwidth ADDED TOGETHER doesn't even equal the PS4's.

RE: Well DUH
By inighthawki on 9/6/2013 2:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
But it's really close, and the DDR3 and ESRAM will have much lower latency, which means that you could theoretically end up with better memory performance from far less stalling on the processors.

My favorite part is how everyone is comparing numbers like it means sh*t until someone actually reviews the console to see the real difference.

RE: Well DUH
By Mint on 9/9/2013 10:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
Those are old numbers. When doing doing reading and writing together - e.g. alpha blending, which is the most BW heavy operation a GPU does - it's much faster than 102 GB/s:

RE: Well DUH
By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/2013 2:35:51 PM , Rating: 3
Anandtech says you're full of it, so I'll take their word and analysis over whatever you're making up. No offense.

RE: Well DUH
By inighthawki on 9/6/2013 2:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Which article are you referring to, just out of curiosity?

RE: Well DUH
RE: Well DUH
By Mint on 9/9/2013 10:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
That was published a month before the most recent info on the ESRAM came out.

RE: Well DUH
By Mint on 9/9/2013 11:15:22 AM , Rating: 2

204 GB/s peak ESRAM BW, from a MS presentation in Aug 2013. Anand's info is from a VGLeaks report in May.

RE: Well DUH
By troysavary on 9/6/2013 1:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Have you read anything on the co-processors on the chip? MS did a lot of their own R&D on this chip. It isn't a case of buying a midrange AMD APU, slapping it in a case and calling it a day.

RE: Well DUH
By retrospooty on 9/6/2013 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I know. In the end the memory bandwidth is still the bottleneck. eSram will help, but not enough for huge high res textures (which is the major weakpoint of PS3 and XB360 today) , so in the end we well see games made with lower res textures than they should have been had MS chosen a decent speed for their memory. Benchmarking wont even tell us because the higher res textures wont be there to turn on and off, they will just not exist. Make sense?

RE: Well DUH
By inighthawki on 9/6/2013 3:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
In which case benchmarking will tell us precisiely the data we want, because if it is true that the RAM in the xbox one is a huge bottleneck, we will see the same framerate at lower quality, hence worse.

RE: Well DUH
By retrospooty on 9/6/2013 3:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
No we wont, the texture of X size wont be used because it wasn't fast enough, so they use textures < X. USing system RAM for VRAM IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. stop arguing for MS bad choices.

RE: Well DUH
By Reclaimer77 on 9/6/2013 3:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Golly you mean there's a reason why every video card on Earth uses super-fast specialized RAM????

RE: Well DUH
By retrospooty on 9/6/2013 4:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
yeah I think all the video card manufacturers just might be on to something.

RE: Well DUH
By inighthawki on 9/6/2013 4:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are misreading my post. It is not defending Microsoft's decision for slower ram at all. I'm just super confused why you think this wouldn't show in benchmarks. You do not need both consoles to use the same size textures to benchmark. You compare performance relative to the texture quality used. If the PS4 and Xbox one both achieve 60fps but the Xbox one uses half resolution textures, then the benchmark shows that the PS4 has better performance. It's that simple.

Stop letting the bias cloud your reading ability and actually read what I wrote, not what you think I was going to say.

RE: Well DUH
By retrospooty on 9/6/2013 5:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant there, is that the reduced texture size that will be in use in games is what will be used to benchmark... Yes, that reduced size may score a bit better on the PS4 and that would show us the PS4 is faster, but the issue isnt that the PS4 got 55 fps and the XBO got 52... The issue is that we wont know how it would look and run with the higher textures if they used faster VRAM because developers will dumb down the textures to match the hardware, and PS4 will get the same dumbed down textures. So we all lose.

RE: Well DUH
By retrospooty on 9/6/2013 5:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
Meant to add... The choice by MS to use standard system DDR3 ram for VRAM instead of faster GDDR (something that mid range cards have been using for a decade at least) was purely a cost cutting choice. That $500 console probably saved some miniscule amount per unit like a few dollars and it will hold back image quality or the nest 7+ years.

RE: Well DUH
By inighthawki on 9/6/2013 6:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's ridiculously easy to keep high res versions of all the textures and scale them down for a particular release. That's why there are plenty of cross platform (console->PC) games where the PC offers high res textures. If the PS4 can support higher res textures, nothing is holding them back. Game developers don't apply a "least common denominator" strategy for something as simple as texture resolution.

RE: Well DUH
By retrospooty on 9/6/2013 6:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, yes they do. You're right they don't have to but that does seem to be the way to do it. Its been mentioned several times by several developers they will just go to the spec of the LCD. no matter how you slice it in 2013 using system RAM for video RAM sucks.

RE: Well DUH
By inighthawki on 9/6/2013 9:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
no matter how you slice it in 2013 using system RAM for video RAM sucks

I agree it does suck that they didn't go for GDDR5, but in the fairness of the situation, I'll wait for reviews to determine if it makes a real impact. The ESRAM and lower latency might be enough to make the difference negligible.

But it's not always the case about high res textures. It depends on the studio and the game. A lot of studios create and then store super high res versions of their textures, then it's just a matter of building the release of the game with the LOD they want. If all is done right, the entire process should be 100% automated.

RE: Well DUH
By Mint on 9/9/2013 11:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
In the end the memory bandwidth is still the bottleneck. eSram will help, but not enough for huge high res textures (which is the major weakpoint of PS3 and XB360 today)
No it isn't. Who told you that? This is the second time you repeated this falsehood.

PS3 and XB360 are not limited by memory bandwidth for textures. It's limited by memory SIZE. 512MB is not enough to keep a lot of high res textures in RAM and available for rendering.

Texture pop-in is caused by optical disk or HDD bandwidth.

Texture bandwidth is quite small per clock cycle. Only uncompressed textures (or dynamical drawn reflection maps) will need high bandwidth.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki