Microsoft: We're Not Launching a New Xbox Yet

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]eklipz330[/nom]yes, they're gonna integrate natal into the 360 and sell it for $50 more even though the consumer doesn't need it. Oh, but to buy it seperate, you have to pay an additional $150. [/citation]Well, you pulled those facts out of your tailpipe. But even if they did sell it integrated and seperate... so what? As long as they still sell less expensive 360 models (without Natal) for those who don't care about Natal, and as long as the Natal upgrade is reasonably priced for existing 360 owners... what does it matter? They would be doing new potential buyers who want Natal a favor, without hurting anyone else. Whether or not they sell a 360 with Natal integrated, existing users still have to buy Natal seperately. That is, if they want to. MS isn't forcing anything here, and they're not forcing developers to work exclusively on Natal games.

That means we probably won't see quite as much of the make-it-motion-controlled-even-if-controller-is-strictly-better-for-this-task games like we see so much of on the Wii.

 

[demonhorde665]

MS and sony are both stupid

both are claiming there systems this cycle wil last 10+ years


I just don't see this happening , not when PC hardware is on the verge of a ray tracing break through ( with in the next 2-3 years) that would put Pc graphics "light" years ahead of these consoles (and yes that pun was intented) ther is just no way either of these consoles could be made to ahndle ray tracing at any level , so when the PC hardwaer can , you will see a massive developer swing to PC as developers want to get a start at working with ray tracing in their titles

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]Horhe[/nom]Look at the bright side: if you dont't get a bigger monitor, in 5 years your current high-end graphic card will still be high-end, because no one will make a game with uber graphics that run only on PCs.[/citation]


umm yeah sure , what rock have you been living under for the alst 20 years ??? i hope this comment of yours is sarcasm if not it's one of teh dumbest comments i ever heard. PC developers are always tryign to push graphic tech here is jsut a simdgion of game titles that were "to much" for consoles when they relased

Doom: ther were NO 3d capable consoles when this released how ever there was a "faked" 3d version on the super nintendo that used nintendo's "fx" chip that was built into the game cart, the differneces between the super nintendo's doom and the pc doom were like night and day !

Mechwarrior 3-4:
there was no chance in hell that the old play station or N64 were gona run these games when they first released (however they ran fairly well on an average GAMING computer, but of note gaming computers in 97-99 wre a good shot above the avaerage computer at the time)

doom 3 : xbox had to run this at settign some where mixed between medium and high , pcs couldnt even run it at ultra highuntil ayear after it's relase


Half life 2 : xbox ran it some where between it's two highest settings (though pc tech was up to running it at full settings at the time)


Far cry : consoles ran it between medium and high settings , again like doom it was a year before pc tech could run it at full setting at a decent frame rate


Crysis: currently consoles can't do this game at max settings the game is almost 2 years old now and only the BEEFIEST PCs can run this full settings at resolutions past 1280x1024


that ws jsut a small sampleing of where pc gmaes have topped out well above console capabilites in the past , so again i hope your coment was indeed sarcasm , if so then just ignore this post and you gave me a good laugh there , but if it wasnt sarcasm then you relaly need to look back of pc developing history

 

[shqtth]

If Microsoft did come out with a new Xbox, it would be great if Microsoft provided some way of upgrading the existing xbox with attachments etc.


There is really no need for a newer xbox, unless its cosmetic or features blueray etc.

It sucks when game producers start comming out with games to only work with the newer version. Those kind of games end up selling less copies.
Now if a newer xbox remained compatable with the existing xbox then that would be great as long as the games do.

 

[Horhe]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]umm yeah sure , what rock have you been living under for the alst 20 years ??? i hope this comment of yours is sarcasm if not it's one of teh dumbest comments i ever heard. PC developers are always tryign to push graphic tech here is jsut a simdgion of game titles that were "to much" for consoles when they relased Doom: ther were NO 3d capable consoles when this released how ever there was a "faked" 3d version on the super nintendo that used nintendo's "fx" chip that was built into the game cart, the differneces between the super nintendo's doom and the pc doom were like night and day ! Mechwarrior 3-4: there was no chance in hell that the old play station or N64 were gona run these games when they first released (however they ran fairly well on an average GAMING computer, but of note gaming computers in 97-99 wre a good shot above the avaerage computer at the time) doom 3 : xbox had to run this at settign some where mixed between medium and high , pcs couldnt even run it at ultra highuntil ayear after it's relase Half life 2 : xbox ran it some where between it's two highest settings (though pc tech was up to running it at full settings at the time) Far cry : consoles ran it between medium and high settings , again like doom it was a year before pc tech could run it at full setting at a decent frame rate Crysis: currently consoles can't do this game at max settings the game is almost 2 years old now and only the BEEFIEST PCs can run this full settings at resolutions past 1280x1024 that ws jsut a small sampleing of where pc gmaes have topped out well above console capabilites in the past , so again i hope your coment was indeed sarcasm , if so then just ignore this post and you gave me a good laugh there , but if it wasnt sarcasm then you relaly need to look back of pc developing history[/citation]

Crytek made a game only for PC with uber graphics, which didn't sell as expected, so they made CryEngine 3, which is basically CryEngine 2 with added support for consoles. Plus they said that they will never release another PC only title. Most of your examples are games from the heyday of PC games, so yeah, the game developers made games wich pushed the hardware limits. But now, when even Crytek turned to consoles, most of the developers will do the same. So my point is valid.

 

[starryman]

There's no reason for a XBOX 360 replacement when it's outselling it's main rival - PS3. Only until its sales start to dip and the PS3 makes a major move will an XBOX 720 come out. The new XBOX 720 will more than likely have a Bluray player so M$ is really waiting this one out since they will have to concede to Bluray media. OR if digital fiber and data distribution becomes truly wide-spread when they are ready to get serious, any kind of game media (Bluray, DVD, cartridge) will be history.

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]SneakySnake[/nom]I'd like to see how the ATI X1950 is going to fare in new games 5 years from now[/citation]
The same can be said for Sony. They were touting a 10 year lifespan. Too bad the Cell processor is leaps and bounds beyond the GPU, yet the GPU is what actually is responsible for all of those wonderful polygons, textures, and colors on your screen. I don't buy into either companies' claims of lifespan with their consoles!

 

[Guest]

If launched, it will be a piece of sh** like the XBOX360 launched prematurely in 2005.

 

[Shadow703793]

Understand:

1. The average "console" gamer can't tell the difference between 30fps and 120fps. (Most people should be able to find little difference at 120fps on PC on games like CSS,Doom,etc). More so, they can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080.

2. The average console gamer doesn't know what the current level of graphics are offered on a true gaming system because their PC runs on cr@ppy Integrated Graphics (GMA900 any one?).

3. Most of the console gamers (esp. the Wii crowd) like these random and pointless games. A game like "Cooking Mama: Cook Off" (I LOLed at that game, probably one of the stupidest games ever made) would NEVER sell on a PC while it sells on Wii just because there are kids/grand parents who enjoy things like that and developers are willing to cater to these people. Btw, it looks like that stupid game sold 4 mill copy's (see: http/www.gamespot.com/wii/action/cookingmamacookoff/news.html?sid=6209559&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;2 )

4. The profit margin for console is better than for a PC and thus many developers build games for console and then port to PC (Which results in cr@ppy ports like GTAIV and thus move some of the PC crowd to a console due to cost of upgrading to play a poorly ported game.

5. Most of the console gamers are stupid. These are the people who buy a midrange Dell,HP,etc with cr@ppy graphics and claim Console > PC.

 

[Abaddon]

[citation][nom]SneakySnake[/nom]Someones gonna release a new console before the 360's "lifecycle" is up. Then microsoft will be pissing themselves, seeing how much the technology has improved since the 360's release date[/citation]
Isn't that what they did when the PS3 came out? Shame about the price though.

 

[anonymousdude]

Microsoft wouldn't announce it until Sometime around E3 the year they plan to release a new console because 360 sales would slow down losing them money. THEY ARE JUST PLAIN GREEDY.

 

[Guest]

um not? you idiot. they are a business. its not greed, its called making a profit, dufus. if you hate em so much, dont buy from them. let everyone else. if m$ was truly THAT awful ppl wouldnt buy the 360. the ignorance of you ppl baffles me at time. grow the f*** up

 

[Bloodblender]

It's too bad alot of Xbox 360 and PS3 fanboys still try to convince me that console graphics are much better than PC's. I later found out that their basis for saying that was that Halo : Combat Evolved couldn't run at full settings and was incredibly laggy, even on low settings on their PC. Intel Extreme Graphics 2, anyone?

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]bloodblender[/nom]It's too bad alot of Xbox 360 and PS3 fanboys still try to convince me that console graphics are much better than PC's. I later found out that their basis for saying that was that Halo : Combat Evolved couldn't run at full settings and was incredibly laggy, even on low settings on their PC. Intel Extreme Graphics 2, anyone?[/citation]
Exactly!

 

[glorfendel]

[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]Understand:1. The average "console" gamer can't tell the difference between 30fps and 120fps. (Most people should be able to find little difference at 120fps on PC on games like CSS,Doom,etc). More so, they can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080.[/citation]

Um actually they probably have a better idea then the "pc gamer" the best LCD displays top out at 75 to 85 Hz the best TVs are all at 120. Also consistency is vastly more important then max sir the human eye can’t tell what speed an image is being refreshed at above 60 but it can tell when there is a notable value change above or below 60. console gamers for the most part are also very limited buy the equipment and connection mediums in which they use even to this day 80% + of everything you and I see daily is between 24 and 30 Hz. as for the 720p vs 1080 you are 100% right most only know what the box tells them and that is most of a time a lie the most you can ever say about a xbox or ps3 is that if its set up for hd hooked up for it you are geting 576p witch is the lowest common denominator world wide for where hd starts.

as for the rest of you and your its underpowered arguments think of it this way there is no overhead on a console it plays games that it does not have to run windows or osx or Linux 100% of its power goes to doing what it’s made for games. That alone adds 2 to 3 years to its performance comparison. Also consistent hardware they know that the video card will do this the CPU that and don’t have to leave room for the 1billion configs out there that adds allot of time to.


10 years is bull when the Xbox and the ps3 get to 10 years old the huge driving factors in software will destroy them both.
1 huge amounts of ram 2 multi threading 3 64 bit software these things will force the next console revolution not graphics cards or CPU speeds. developers are little children that like to play in the mud and eat glue they hate having to do a clean job new tech does not make them produce better software new tech that lets them make sloppier software does. Page’s law sirs

 

[descendency]

Whenever they do come out with a new console, they need to blatantly rip off Nintendo's Wii Remote (minus the stupid cord) for the games that will require buttons (like shooters) or mind interfaces (which I think are buggy at best).

Sony's technology clearly showed more immediate potential and capability to do things seemlessly. It will likely be a bigger hit among developers immediately.

Either way, MS needs some kind of interface that will allow you to play games like shooters and RTSs.

 

[Shadow703793]

Also consistency is vastly more important then max sir the human eye can’t tell what speed an image is being refreshed at above 60 but it can tell

True, but you CAN still see a difference between 120fps and 60fps. Mainly when 120fps dips down.

 

[anonymousdude]

@secretsexyninja

You do know that most profit is not made off of the console itself, but rather software sales. Even if a new console was announced sales would slow down for the 360 much like the ps2, but people will still buy games. It wouldn't matter any way as M$ and Nintendo stopped supporting their last gen consoles pretty quickly.

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]Understand:1. The average "console" gamer can't tell the difference between 30fps and 120fps. (Most people should be able to find little difference at 120fps on PC on games like CSS,Doom,etc). More so, they can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080.2. The average console gamer doesn't know what the current level of graphics are offered on a true gaming system because their PC runs on cr@ppy Integrated Graphics (GMA900 any one?).3. Most of the console gamers (esp. the Wii crowd) like these random and pointless games. A game like "Cooking Mama: Cook Off" (I LOLed at that game, probably one of the stupidest games ever made) would NEVER sell on a PC while it sells on Wii just because there are kids/grand parents who enjoy things like that and developers are willing to cater to these people. Btw, it looks like that stupid game sold 4 mill copy's (see: http/www.gamespot.com/wii/action [...] es;title;2 )4. The profit margin for console is better than for a PC and thus many developers build games for console and then port to PC (Which results in cr@ppy ports like GTAIV and thus move some of the PC crowd to a console due to cost of upgrading to play a poorly ported game.5. Most of the console gamers are stupid. These are the people who buy a midrange Dell,HP,etc with cr@ppy graphics and claim Console > PC.[/citation]


Hmmm...

1. Some games can be run at 15fps. Some games require 30+fps. I know myself I can't really tell the difference however with 30+fps. From my understanding, the human eye can only notice up to 60fps. The only games I care to have over 15fps are shooters. Also, the 720p vs 1080p... It depends on the game. For a stragety game or anything with a intensive UI, bigger is better. There are some situation were you just want a bigger workspace. However, it's not always needed. Also for some people, they prefer a bigger screen with a smaller res (Such as one of my brothers, due to his poor eyesight. My own eyesight is far from perfect, so I don't need anything excessive.). In most games, I find no need for 800x600 or above.

2. I'm used to crappy graphics. Pumping up to max reveals limited returns. When I'm playing a game, I don't fucking even care if there's shadows. I play most games to play, not to look around.

3. Guess what likely is the majority of PC games sold? Games like bejeweled and the such I imagine. Crappy looking little games that are no different.

4. Of course the profit margin is higher. With a console, you only have to specialize it to one configuration. With a PC game, you have to configure it to just about any damned thing possible if you don't want your company flamed, which would take a lot of time and money.

5. Ha... One of my buds has a decent gaming config on his PC, and yet he still prefers to use his consoles. Easier, more comfortable etc. I don't agree to his choice, but regardless, it's still his choice.


You don't have to be a rude ass to the world around you. You should also find a little more depth to your topics.