• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why doesn't AMD get into the console business

S

sb.0326

Junior Member
You can toss Intel in their if you like but it makes more sense for AMD since they have ATI. Though Intel does have the cash on hand. But seriously.. Everyone talks about how consoles just don't need to be as powerful as a PC cause they can just focus on one thing.

Why not? Have AMD have one of their friends create a custom mini-itx chipset and go at it? From the perspective that most people care about(how a game looks) whatever they offer is gonna be at the very least on par with others if not much much better. They've already started releasing their own RAM..

They'd need an OS.. Guess could liscense from MS or maybe buy WebOS or something.. Hell.. Google still wants to get it's OS off the ground..

I know it'll never happen. Too expensive and complicated(for all parties involved) but I can dream right?
 
Both Wiii and xbox 360 use AMD graphics.
Currently intel has 0 content on leading 3 consoles.

Microsoft is only company that could afford to get in console business, and they had a lot of cash top burn
 
It would probabbly bankrupt them. Entering the console market requires a lot of money. Money for manufacturing, R&D, Developer relations, Advertisements, etc..
 
If they failed to get hardware contracts from microsoft or sony for their upcoming consoles, they might want to have their own x86 console a la original xbox, but I don't think they have the money for it.
 
Intel was in the console business last generation. The original Xbox used a Pentium III. Though it was more a case of Microsoft wanting to use off-the-shelf parts for it so PC games could easily be ported.

x86 has been around for a long time but console manufacturers have always preferred RISC chips.
 
Technically they are, going to a full top-down AMD Console would be a huge risk not worth taking IMO. They certainly have the Hardware that could do it, especially with the upcoming Trinity APU, but a Console is far more than just Hardware. The Software is actually more important than the Hardware and is where a Console Succeeds or Fails.
 
mmntech said:
Though it was more a case of Microsoft wanting to use off-the-shelf parts for it so PC games could easily be ported.
Click to expand...

+1

MS wanted a fast way in and using existing technology is the easy way it. Down side is that you are paying all those licencing fees and have to deal with higher power usage. Issues that do not go away as mass production / product life evolve.

As to AMD getting in to the market, it is not worth. Starting a new console without game companies to back you is a recepy to fail. Add in the issue that no console maker will want to change their hardware design mid product life as it distracts from the main advantage of a console (ie: being the same hardware all it's life).
 
The closest we'll get to an AMD console is thir Vision branded PCs. Systems marketed towards gaming. They were smart to acquire ATI in that regard.
 
Going into consoles would be catastrophic for just about anybody at this point. The money has just evaporated. Big developers are taking big losses while smaller ones are going under left and right. More and more people are turning to simple games on their iphones and ipads while the big 3 try to make a living with an increasingly smaller slice of the pie. It's just so damn saturated with fierce competition screaming for the smaller dollar people have that the smart money lies else where.

Microsoft has practically limitless resources and spent a massive fortune breaking into the industry with Xbox. A decade later, their gaming division still has not made enough profit off of the 360 to recoup the staggering investments made in creating, advertising and supporting the Xbox1. Will they gleam some kind of profit at some point? Hopefully. Enough to make all the work and sending some of their best minds to the gaming division worth it? eh. Hard to say. And this is a company with cash to burn. AMD does not. AMD has gotten about as far into consoles as they feasibly can. Building GPU's for the other guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To me, it would be smarter to make a gaming PC that has specific AMD hardware/software on it. Kind of like an AMD game store for Windows 8 to go along with the Microsoft App Store. These computers would have easily upgradeable (for the normal person) graphics cards and such and a clear indication of what games they can and cannot play based on the hardware. When you download a game the most optimal settings for graphics performance/image quality are automatically downloaded for your hardware, etc.

Very consoleish with less resource allocation.
 
EightySix Four said:
To me, it would be smarter to make a gaming PC that has specific AMD hardware/software on it. Kind of like an AMD game store for Windows 8 to go along with the Microsoft App Store. These computers would have easily upgradeable (for the normal person) graphics cards and such and a clear indication of what games they can and cannot play based on the hardware. When you download a game the most optimal settings for graphics performance/image quality are automatically downloaded for your hardware, etc.

Very consoleish with less resource allocation.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be worth it. The PC gaming community is already small and getting smaller, and the percentage of those people that would be interested in a pre built like that vs. building their own is likely a fraction of that.

And doesn't nVidia or AMD do this already? Detect the .exe running and load a profile with optimized game settings?
 
I think Valve/Steam is in a better position to successfully get into the console business than AMD/Intel and even then I think it's a bad idea. The platform is more important than the hardware. The most powerful system built by AMD won't amount to much if they're not backed by the studios[no games] and in order to do that you'd have to have just the right amount of DRM to appease them while not pissing off the customers at the same time. Only Steam has somewhat achieved that and if they could apply the same distribution method and pricing scheme into a console, they stand a good chance of hitting it big. Plus it helps that they already have lots of studios on their side and a lot of the doubts and issues with current consoles is a non issue with them such as the used game market.
 
Last edited:
I think you guys are thinking too short-term anyways. I suspect that the next round of consoles will be the last of what we traditionally considered a console. You have to think that by the time the next XBox launches this year or next, by the end of it's life-cycle, it should be 2017-2018. If we're not doing everything in the cloud and just displaying a video stream on the users end of the device by then, I'll eat something nasty. I don't know what it is, but I will.
 
If we're not doing everything in the cloud and just displaying a video stream on the users end of the device by then, I'll eat something nasty.
Click to expand...

You must have shockingly low standards for gameplay. I don't see us surpassing the speed of light anytime soon, so latency is going to make cloud gaming really crappy, probably forever(control latency, network latency, computation latency, compression latency, network latency, display latency- you get to see your frame). A half second constant delay might cut it for TBS or people with extremely low standards, not with the mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top