Enjoying your new console? Well, Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter thinks it’ll soon be obsolete, and he thinks that Xbox maker Microsoft knows it.
Still think many of us will play on consoles or console-like boxes for years.
Pachter is the king of talking out of his ass.
Actually, he isn't alone. I watched industry analysts go on and on the other day about how this was the first sign of Xbox being spun off. When you think about it, since Minecraft isn't going exclusive, that now makes MS a third party software developer. I think that is what they should go for. They never get hardware right, but they do good at software. If I were CEO, and I think Nadella agrees with me here, I'd cut away all of the money hole hardware divisions (Xbox loses billions), and go into being a videogame software publisher. I'd start buying up studios and making console, PC, and phone games to go along with my windows OS. Then I'd start trying to partner with those who do get hardware right to get my OS on their system/console, such as offering Nintendo a online/cloud solution that is ready to go out of the box so they could compete with Sony better.
“I think consoles are going away, because you used to need a console because you could not connect a microprocessor to your TV screen,” Pachter said. “Now, if you have a Chromecast stick or a Roku box, you can. So why do we buy consoles? I mean, your phone will be powerful enough to power any game in two more generations. And, so, why buy a console? I think Microsoft actually knows that.” IMO, I think Roku box and Chromecast will eventually go away with the arrival of Smart TVs with built-in apps. Why buy something to waste an HDMI when you could get it from your TV. And Roku box and Chromecast are getting replaced by consoles. (Mainly the PS3 and Xbox One) Because 1- you have physical disc support, 2- it plays games 3- You don't need to buy another device for it. 4- Higher Internal Memory that can manage your Data. IMO, those Media Players are the first ones to go away for all the above reasons. Consoles were the best for those without a Smart TV, but with the arrival of newer TVs with 3D and 4k, Smart TVs are a standard and anyone who buys a new TV will likely get them built-in, which is probably the reason why the PS4 didn't went all-out as a media player.
Xbox spin-off. My concern is; who gets Microsoft Game Studios? Xbox or Microsoft. If it's Xbox, then the console will be fine. But if it's Microsoft, then who will make exclusive games for the console? Will Microsoft be a Third-Party company and release their games on all platform and maximize their revenue? What about the Xbox One? Yeah, money-wise being a third-party publisher makes sense, just ask Sega. I think they should give them to Xbox, focus on Windows and software and leave gaming and the studios to Xbox. But, you know, that's IMO.
Probably talking about a new brand for when Sony sells off the PlayStation brand to avoid bankruptcy. Some people are so hateful towards Xbox they wouldn't buy the new mega gaming system if it had Xbox in the title. Could also mean we may not see next gen consoles at all, this may indeed be the last iteration of the gaming console as we know it. Possibly cloud computing like we see in PSNow is going to be the standard and they already realize it.
The question is, will we have a box after this console generation? MS has been making moves on all fronts to be everywhere. Look at MS Office! Maybe "next generation", Xbox will not just be a console, but an all around gaming platform everywhere. It will be Xbox on your Android, on your iPhone, on your iPad, and on your Playstation.
Yeah pachter is pretty much always wrong. OR he says the obvious.
Well...who else could contend for king of talking out of HIS ass? o.O lol
@fr0sty Interesting. But why would you go with Nintendo who will struggle to gather the attention your games need, when you can get a better exposition from Sony side ?
"Pachter is the king of talking out of his ass." Er no he isn't. This guy is: http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Although Pachter does get it wrong most times I do absolutely agree that this move by Microsoft is one where they are thinking about their long term future. A future where they are purely software developers again. Windows OS and Office are their core business and is what generates their profits. But with Surface and Windows Phone and even Xbox these are beneficial because to MS because they maintain the Windows customer base however they have yet to generate net profit. So a company like Microsoft or Google or Facebook is always trying to stay ahead of the curve so they can continue to survive whichever way the market goes. I don't see home consoles in a rush to disappear but who knows? At the start of last-gen there were no smartphones no tablets. Now you have pockets size iPads that can run some pretty powerful games. Game streaming now seems like it might be a viable product. Maybe these are the future, maybe they are dead-ends. But Microsoft has to plan for all eventualities. And if (hypothetically speaking) Xbox was to be no more, Microsoft would have still have some killer games like Halo and Minecraft to share with the world.
Go home Pachter, you're drunk
@Ultimatemaster chromecast came out after smart TV, ps3 and 360 and their doing well because why upgrade to a smart tv when you can get chromecast for $35 and have access to all the apps you would need. smart TV or a game console will cost you $200+ until we reach a point where every tv made and sold is a smart tv, and smart tv is the standard in the majority of households products like chromecast and roku won't be going anywhere
Come on, Peter Molyneux clearly takes that title
Yeah but eventualy streaming/digital will come out on top. It happend with music and its happening with film. I don't see how it's not gonna happen with games. And the transition will not take dacades. It will only take years.
All but one of my PS4 games are digital. I like the convenience and lack of clutter from game boxes.
@Ultr Music and movies aren't that big when it comes to file size. Games on the other hand are huge, thousand times larger than an Mp3 music file, and some 20-50 times that of most movies. Not to mention that they take longer to complete as well, where a movie goes for 2 hours. Just imagine 10 million people streaming COD on release day, for 5-10 hours straight. The infrastructure simply isn't there yet.
Microsoft is already testing a service that will allow people to play Xbox games directly via their PC's web browser. http://www.theguardian.com/... Pretty crazy if you ask me, but considering how fast internet speeds are getting these days, i think it will work. My current connection from Time Warner is 200/20. And it doesn't slow down during the evening hours either. http://www.speedtest.net/my...
You can still buy music and videos on physical diac so no. Digital will increase in popularity.
@Cupid_Viper Video games are not 20-50 times the size of most movies, a blu-ray quality movie is over 5gb, video games are not 100gb, never mind 250gb. It's already starting with digital downloads, look at things like Steam, Origin, PS store and Microsofts version they are taking off like wildfire, and as the internet gets better for more people, which it exponentially gets better, it's only going to grow more. Where I live my internet connection is 50mb up and 50mb down, so it just makes sense for me to download games, its just easier. And for your example of 10 million people streaming COD on release day doesn't really apply because you have Destiny that was one of the largest digitally downloaded games, and with features like downloading them early it makes it easier, and there wasn't any problems.
If the TWC-Comcast merger happens, it will be a long time until internet speeds match consumer demands for mass digital content. Not to mention the whole internet fast lane bull that would drive cost of content up. If those two things happen, we (at least in the US) will be buying physical copies for a few decades still.
@Andrew, it isn't all that crazy, Sony does the same thing with PSNow already. However, net speeds still aren't quite up to par. Bandwidth is great, but pings haven't improved as much over the last decade, and that is what really counts when gaming in the cloud like that. How fast your button presses can get back to the server, and how fast that server can get the in-game response to that button press back to you. Most internet connections these days put all their focus in how much data they can send at once, not how fast that data can get to where it is going.
Patcher is so full of it. But like I've been saying for the longest, it makes no sense for MS to go head to head with Sony in the console race, because they almost always on the losing side (the 360 lost in overall sales, but it was a win for MS and marketing share. However, the XBO ruined that). Go to a lane that you can dominate, and for MS that's PC gaming. The Xbox brand with still be around, because it's too popular, and by far one of MS biggest pop-culture product, and so instead of a traditional console MS, can build a PConsole like a Steam Machine with complete off the shelf parts (saving millions on R&D, design, and console manufacturing) and simply get a solid CPU + GPU combo preloaded with an Xbox OS, running Windows in the background. Not only does that sell a PConsole it also sells a Windows computer which is the ultimate goal. It can also be the specs for which the majority of PC games are to be scaled from, considering it will be a standardized hardware, at a reasonable price, and have enough sales to justify it as the target platform. This is how you create a space you can dominate, and Nintendo needs to do the same thing, but making a Handheld-console hybrid since that's where most of their gaming audience is.
and just leave Sony to have a monopoly on home console gaming? I am sure that will generate tons of creativity and competitive pricing right? With only one maker on the market? ... I'll take it the way it is currently thanks. Competition drives Creativity.
I'd agree with you if MS was good for the industry but most of what they have accomplished only hurt the gaming industry more than anything. Paying for online is still one of the worst things they have done, and they almost got away with DRM on physical discs and making people pay to watch movies in their own living room on a per person basis. MS only look out for number one and I agree we need healthy competition but they aren't it.
@ Neonridr What does Sony being the only console have to do with developers creativity? Games will still be competing for our money. They will still have to make good games so people will buy their games versus the competition. The PS2 pretty much had a monopoly on gaming and that didn't stop developers from making a variety of awesome games. Some of my favorite games are from the PS1/PS2 era where Sony utterly dominated.
Well nobody wants to make hardware anymore. Most U.S. companies have gotten out of it.
@Neonridr What part of PConsole doesn't have console in it? It's not in anyway a monopoly, because Nintendo and MS are still there, it just puts 3 very different and diverse gaming platforms into the market for each to succeed, and allows first party developer to focus their entire might on one platform (nothing new to Xbox) which would benefit Nintendo and Sony greatly. What part of this current generation is a competition? It's nearly a monopoly for Sony as it is. Look at the handhelds how is that a competition? It's a basically a monopoly and what lack creativity, high pricing, or lack of quality has the 3DS suffered? None. The only people worried about competition and creativity are those without any kind of vision. If MS pushes the PC market, that means its PConsole gets those same PC games which instantly opens up their platform to a library of games and potential gamers that they never had. If it runs on PC it runs on their PConsole, no need to do any kind of coding, because getting a locked and consistent framerate. That alone dispels any stupidity of fear in lack of competition and creativity. Competition drives many markets hard, but it's not the same for technology, because if you aren't moving forward with or without competition then you're inviting a competitor to take you place. Technology moves forwards regardless, and innovation and creativity are going to happen due to the sheer number of people involved in gaming even outside of making consoles / games. Oculus is an example of that, it got to where it was on crowd funding alone, and now it's a multi-million dollar investment.
@ABizzel1 Totally agree with you. I've had the same idea for years. Microsoft has a vested interest in Windows PC gaming and they also have a fairly successful console brand in Xbox. They should work to combine those two things instead of having their attention and resources split between the two. If they built a standardized Xbox-branded Windows PC they could kill two birds with one stone. This would provide a standardized target for developers to shoot for, while custom built PCs could still scale up or down from there. Since this Xbox-branded device would literally be a PC it would have a large library of PC games to draw from. And PC gaming would benefit, of course, because all the first party exclusives would come to the platform. Custom-built PCs and the Xbox-branded PC would all play the same games. The combined strength of the Xbox platform and the PC platform could much more easily take on Sony and their Playstation brand. This would actually strengthen the competition between them while also allowing each platform to be more distinct. Overall I think this would be a good thing for gaming.
@Starchild OMG, someone who understands. If these people get out of their bubble, and think logically it simply makes so much sense. THe thing is most of the people on n4g are ignorant when it come to PC gaming, so they don't understand all the benefits this has for MS and the Xbox brand. Literally thousands of games will be open to the platform if it's a PConsole. The thing I don't see happening is MS using Steam, but even then they can just move XBL over to PC, and have their own service power the Xbox PConsole, and still have success, and still be able to optimize PC and it's own PConsole. When I say PC console most people think of this which is just too much for the technologically challenged http://images.bit-tech.net/... But in reality it's more like this, and exactly the same as your current plug and play console, just using off the shelf PC parts. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.... The only real problem I see is that it might force MS to go with Intel and NVIDIA since together they own the vast majority of PC market share. This means that in comparison to a PS5 that goes with AMD, there's a good chance the PS5 could be more powerful again at the same price. Choosing between Intel + NVIDIA, vs. AMD is going to be the toughest choice for MS, and unfortunately I think the choice should be Intel + NVIDIA. However, I think both manufactures would be willing to make a deal with MS since NVIDIA is trying to change the way PCs are built with it's NVIDIA Link, Unified Memory, and Stacked RAM and a PConsole that will be owned by millions is the best way to ship that and hope for a worldwide change. Intel is less of a major need, but I doubt NVIDIA would want to allow MS to use an AMD CPU with their stuff. I see these consoles coming in 2020 (2018 Nintendo), and if they stick to my plan then specs should look something like this. XB PConsole CPU: I7 4790k (should still be more than enough, and cheap by then) GPU: NVIDIA Volta 1st gen hybrid GPU 10 TFLOPS (custom 2018 GPU) RAM: 32GB (16GB DDR4, 8GB - 16GB GDDR6 / eDRAM) SSD: 500GB $500 2020 Their PConsole will always have a 6 year lifecycle (aka 2 - 3 PC hardware generations), and they can drop the price $100 every 2 years. 2020: $500 2022: $400 2024: $300 2026: $200 / new PConsole $500 It just makes sense.
just because the ps4 is outselling it, it is still selling good so i cant see them getting rid of it unless there spending to much on advertising to sell the console than there making profit