Report: Xbox 720 Will Be Smaller, Cheaper Than Xbox 360

[Grooveriding]

Why can't they develop an upgradeable console ? It would make them more money and selfishly, not leave us with foul console ports on the PC.

Really, just the GPU needs to be open to upgrades. RAM would cause too many issues for developers trying to make the game playable across different console configurations. Give the console some generous RAM right out the gate, 4GB, heck maybe even 2GB would be enough, considering there is no Windows overhead. Also a half decent CPU.

Then allow the GPU to receive upgrades. Game developers could make their games much like they do for PCs; with options to use improved graphical settings. Make these settings completely hard-locked to the GPU hardware in your machine.

You have a standard box, you can use medium, have upgrade #1, you can choose medium or high, have upgrade #2, you can choose medium, high and ultra.

Have the GPU as a slide box that slips in a port. They could charge a ludicrous price with a nice markup on the upgrade kits. Kids would ask their parents for the shiny new console year one at Christmas, next Christmas ask for the shiny new GPU upgrade their friends have, so on and so forth.

 

[Rage187]

Have the GPU as a slide box that slips in a port. They could charge a ludicrous price with a nice markup on the upgrade kits. Kids would ask their parents for the shiny new console year one at Christmas, next Christmas ask for the shiny new GPU upgrade their friends have, so on and so forth.

you mean, put the graphics chip in a removable cartridge ?

Sounds like the Super FX chip:

The Super FX chip is a 16bit supplemental RISC CPU developed by Argonaut Games that was included in certain game cartridges to perform functions that the main CPU could not feasibly do.[2] It was typically programmed to act as a graphics accelerator chip that would draw polygons to a frame buffer in the RAM that sat adjacent to it.

 

[lamedude]

Why can't they develop an upgradeable console ? It would make them more money and selfishly, not leave us with foul console ports on the PC.

See Sega 32x. In a few years also see circle pad pro.

 

[Looney]

Upgrade-able consoles is idiotic. It would cost Microsoft and us more. They always sell the consoles at a loss initially, and after a couple of years when tech prices fall, then they break even, sell it at a profit, or reduce the prices of the console. Look at how much they charge for stupid things like WIFI adapter, upgrade-able CPUs and GPUs in proprietary packaging would cost more than a brand new console itself.

A console every 5-10 years is not exactly a big investment.

 

[Sonikku]

I don't see why going the smaller, cheaper route is such a shocker for so many people. Microsoft like any business is a company trying to make a profit. Making a system very very powerful has been long thought to be an essential path to the most profit, at the time the 360 came out almost EVERYBODY thought the wii was going to be a catastrophic failure. Yet, consumers gobbled them up like crazy despite it's low specs and Nintendo turning a profit on each unit right out of the gate.

Now, if you're trying to maximize profit, which path seems more profitable? Making a very high end machine that requires you to take a loss for years and even more years after breaking even to make up the difference before a scant couple of years of profit are to be had OR make a smaller, cheaper machine that makes a profit or breaks even right out the gate like Nintendo demonstrated was viable this generation? Historically, the most powerful hardware has pretty much never been first in console and portable sales every generation.

Personally, I'd prefer Microsoft making a system so powerful with the latest parts that they're taking a loss on each until to sell it to me at a lower price point. That behooves me as the consumer. But right now, people are voting with their wallets and so far the yays have it for smaller, cheaper hardware. Just saying, the idea really doesn't seem that far fetched to me that they'd consider this route.

 

[Locut0s]

I don't see why going the smaller, cheaper route is such a shocker for so many people. Microsoft like any business is a company trying to make a profit. Making a system very very powerful has been long thought to be an essential path to the most profit, at the time the 360 came out almost EVERYBODY thought the wii was going to be a catastrophic failure. Yet, consumers gobbled them up like crazy despite it's low specs and Nintendo turning a profit on each unit right out of the gate.

Now, if you're trying to maximize profit, which path seems more profitable? Making a very high end machine that requires you to take a loss for years and even more years after breaking even to make up the difference before a scant couple of years of profit are to be had OR make a smaller, cheaper machine that makes a profit or breaks even right out the gate like Nintendo demonstrated was viable this generation? Historically, the most powerful hardware has pretty much never been first in console and portable sales every generation.

Personally, I'd prefer Microsoft making a system so powerful with the latest parts that they're taking a loss on each until to sell it to me at a lower price point. That behooves me as the consumer. But right now, people are voting with their wallets and so far the yays have it for smaller, cheaper hardware. Just saying, the idea really doesn't seem that far fetched to me that they'd consider this route.

This

 

[Doppel]

I like the 360 but I also let xbl expire. I sometimes want to use it but not enough for its yearly cost and thus for me the console is not capable of online games, though I do get demos once in a blue moon and the very occasional movie purchase.

Why is everuone here assuming that smaller and cheaper than the Xbox 360 means not a significant upgrade?!??

insanity is why. No way in hell it won't be MUCH faster than a 360.

And no it won't be a phone platform or streaming games with a cloud based processor, this is silly talk.