Nextbox rumors..

ccesarano wrote:

Has Sega announced a new Seaman game for Kinect yet? That seems like an obvious franchise.

I think that franchise is dead in the water....

Spoiler:

Don't hate me!

I think it might have some spunk in it yet.

DudleySmith wrote:

I think it might have some spunk in it yet.

Gross.

Sony Has New Console In The Works, AMD Building Graphics

I wonder if backwards compatibility will be similar to xbox/xbox360 and PS2/PS3, or if Sony had some foresight if it's important.

Scratched wrote:

if Sony had some foresight if it's important.

You're talking about the company that shelved backwards compatibility to save costs in the Slim. I wouldn't trust them to retain backwards compatibility at this point. It'll also depend on the CPU architecture, which will probably be another IBM fab given their history and the current industry trend of IBM/AMD.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect any backward compatibility either, particularly if the architecture is different again.

I hope at the very least, MS & Sony go on a route similar to GOG and Nintendo, and sell backlog/old games as downloads.

WipEout wrote:

I hope at the very least, MS & Sony go on a route similar to GOG and Nintendo, and sell backlog/old games as downloads.

There's PSOne classics and the Xbox downloadable games stuff.

Ah, see, I don't have a PS3, so I wasn't aware of the PSOne classics. I never heard/read anyone mention those. But the XBox downloadables tend to be more recent 360 games, save for Psychonauts. Or maybe the library of Xbox games was just sh*t to begin with so I've put them out of mind.

The more I think about it, the more I recall that there are other companies selling older 16- and 32-bit games-- Konami has Symphony of the Night on XBLA, Sega's got their Genesis collection and more recently, Sonic CD (the best Sonic game EVAR, btw). I guess I'd just like to see Sony and Microsoft market those aspects of "backward compatibility"/playable backlog more. I'd imagine if they brought that up, they'd receive fewer complaints about the lack of backward compatibility.

EDIT TO ADD: The problem then becomes, however, the cost and ROI on converting those game codes and contents to a downloadable format that's playable on their new consoles.

But the XBox downloadables tend to be more recent 360 games, save for Psychonauts. Or maybe the library of Xbox games was just sh*t to begin with so I've put them out of mind.

They do sell original Xbox titles. I got Fable that way.

WipEout wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I recall that there are other companies selling older 16- and 32-bit games-- Konami has Symphony of the Night on XBLA, Sega's got their Genesis collection and more recently, Sonic CD (the best Sonic game EVAR, btw). I guess I'd just like to see Sony and Microsoft market those aspects of "backward compatibility"/playable backlog more. I'd imagine if they brought that up, they'd receive fewer complaints about the lack of backward compatibility.

The recent HD Collections for the PS3 are basically what you're talking about for the PS3.

WipEout wrote:

Ah, see, I don't have a PS3, so I wasn't aware of the PSOne classics. I never heard/read anyone mention those. But the XBox downloadables tend to be more recent 360 games, save for Psychonauts. Or maybe the library of Xbox games was just sh*t to begin with so I've put them out of mind.

There are 33 games in the Xbox Originals marketplace, the last of which was made available for download in 2009, which is a fraction of the 200+ backwards compatible games, which itself is an even smaller fraction of the Xbox 180 library, and a poor representation of its best games.

The problem with the XBox Originals was that there just weren't many. The system can't properly emulate KOTOR or KOTOR 2. So what you're left with is Psychonauts, Fable, Halo 1 & 2 and a handful of other games worth the money. Jet Set Radio Future isn't even on there and it's one of the better games on the XBox, IMO.

Here's what I don't get, honestly. Why doesn't Microsoft mine some of this back catalog of the XBox and games made for PC for HD remakes? I'd happily pay to play an HD version of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. that didn't require I have a gaming PC. Surely they could convince the owners of that property to take some money to sign off on an HD remake. Or games like Jet Set Radio Future or KOTOR: I'd love to have proper 720p versions of those games.

I'm a huge proponent of BC if the architecture allows it. BC from GBA to DS or PSP to Vita is a no-brainer in my book. But once you're talking about complete architectural changes like they went through going from an Intel chip to a PowerPC chip I'd be happier if they just picked a select few popular games and did HD remakes.

DSGamer wrote:

I'd happily pay to play an HD version of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. that didn't require I have a gaming PC.

STALKER is probably a bad example. They can't port it to any console without a full rewrite because as it is right now the engine would run out of memory before it starts loading any graphics, it's that complex (or not very efficiently coded?). There's a lot going on in a STALKER game that's not on camera, the A-Life world simulation, etc. In my view it's a pretty good example of what console limits mean to games, and what they restrict.

shoptroll wrote:
Scratched wrote:

if Sony had some foresight if it's important.

You're talking about the company that shelved backwards compatibility to save costs in the Slim. I wouldn't trust them to retain backwards compatibility at this point. It'll also depend on the CPU architecture, which will probably be another IBM fab given their history and the current industry trend of IBM/AMD.

I'm not convinced it was entirely a cost-saving measure. They've put a few PS2 games up on the store and I can only assume more will come. I always saw it as a move to ensure success when they have a fully digital library up. Like with the Xbox, it also helps them control the experience as they can only release the games they know will perform well under emulation.

Gravey wrote:

There are 33 games in the Xbox Originals marketplace, the last of which was made available for download in 2009, which is a fraction of the 200+ backwards compatible games, which itself is an even smaller fraction of the Xbox 180 library, and a poor representation of its best games.

That's a good point. They could certainly do with more.

I think Dreaded Gazebo's analysis above is spot on. I think one of the reasons they removed backwards compatibility is to ensure sales of digital PS2 games, not to mention all the new HD versions they're rolling out. Why let people play the huge libraries of PS2 games they already have when you can sell them new versions?

Gravey wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Ah, see, I don't have a PS3, so I wasn't aware of the PSOne classics. I never heard/read anyone mention those. But the XBox downloadables tend to be more recent 360 games, save for Psychonauts. Or maybe the library of Xbox games was just sh*t to begin with so I've put them out of mind.

There are 33 games in the Xbox Originals marketplace, the last of which was made available for download in 2009, which is a fraction of the 200+ backwards compatible games, which itself is an even smaller fraction of the Xbox 180 library, and a poor representation of its best games.

I have to believe they sold so horribly, it no longer made sense to continue adding them.

Jayhawker wrote:
Gravey wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Ah, see, I don't have a PS3, so I wasn't aware of the PSOne classics. I never heard/read anyone mention those. But the XBox downloadables tend to be more recent 360 games, save for Psychonauts. Or maybe the library of Xbox games was just sh*t to begin with so I've put them out of mind.

There are 33 games in the Xbox Originals marketplace, the last of which was made available for download in 2009, which is a fraction of the 200+ backwards compatible games, which itself is an even smaller fraction of the Xbox 180 library, and a poor representation of its best games.

I have to believe they sold so horribly, it no longer made sense to continue adding them.

Jayhawker is correct. Sales of Xbox Originals were pretty poor. The software emulation also seems to have been pretty tricky to implement, or else whoever was in charge of doing it was pretty lazy, because of the four or five different Xbox games I tried to play on my 360, every single one had some kind of game-breaking emulation bug. Those things combined probably convinced Microsoft not to bother.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

every single one had some kind of game-breaking emulation bug.

Oh, so it wasn't only me? Fable crashed during the ending cutscene, and when I loaded up the game again I was back at my last save. Never did get to play any post-game content.

Jayhawker wrote:
Gravey wrote:
WipEout wrote:

Ah, see, I don't have a PS3, so I wasn't aware of the PSOne classics. I never heard/read anyone mention those. But the XBox downloadables tend to be more recent 360 games, save for Psychonauts. Or maybe the library of Xbox games was just sh*t to begin with so I've put them out of mind.

There are 33 games in the Xbox Originals marketplace, the last of which was made available for download in 2009, which is a fraction of the 200+ backwards compatible games, which itself is an even smaller fraction of the Xbox 180 library, and a poor representation of its best games.

I have to believe they sold so horribly, it no longer made sense to continue adding them.

Yeah, I understand that, but I'll continue to lament it. I'm steadfastly idealistic about video game preservation.

FWIW, I bought Max Payne 2 off XBO and played it to completion without a problem, and I still play my Burnout 3 and Rallisport Challenge discs problem-free. Thief 3 has the light-sources-visible-through-walls problem, but otherwise it was fine too.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/29/xb...

This is the kind of news that really puts a damper on any idea of a next gen console out of Microsoft

I don't follow.

The 360 is doing well, but it is continually leveraging its multimedia capabilities more and more to drive sales. In order to maintain that marketshare, which will allow it to keep selling stuff over its marketplace, it really needs to update system.

It's why Apple keeps making new iPhones. Someone will take Microsoft's share of the market if they don't improve on the the 360. And it's not like they are dominating the market.

TheGameguru wrote:

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/29/xb...

This is the kind of news that really puts a damper on any idea of a next gen console out of Microsoft

I think there's enough job postings, leaks, and announced products mentioning next gen consoles for MS not to release something next year. Even the Skype job postings for Xbox mention next gen.

They'd easily be able to continue making 360s at a lower price for awhile, though.

TheGameguru wrote:

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/29/xb...

This is the kind of news that really puts a damper on any idea of a next gen console out of Microsoft

That pretty much says there's no current pressure on MS to kick it out the door until they want to. Hopefully they read the same thing.

I feel like the Xbox 360 is where the PS2 was last generation, only the GameCube and Xbox were lacking a lot of the third party games the PS2 had. Right now, the Playstation and Xbox libraries are nearly identical with the exception of first party titles and a select few third party exclusives.

Right now, Playstation just has more to offer in terms of games as they've got more brands. I think we've seen the last of Halo being as big a system seller and that Microsoft needs to remember that you need apps AND games in order to succeed.

ccesarano wrote:

Right now, Playstation just has more to offer in terms of games as they've got more brands. I think we've seen the last of Halo being as big a system seller and that Microsoft needs to remember that you need apps AND games in order to succeed.

I can't really think of any PS3 exclusives that are really system sellers on a large scale, though. Their strong-ish exclusives all don't really sell in huge numbers. I think we're past the point where stuff like GT, Killzone, LBP, Uncharted, etc will sell a console. On the other hand, somehow the Kinect does. Not sure how, as software sales don't look too strong from the top 10 lists.

I do think the 360 has a lot of Arcade exclusives, but I wouldn't think they're system sellers, either. I think what sells 360s is momentum and overall ecosystem. I think the value of the ecosystem (with it's apps) can be seen on the international level, where they sell less. They've got a lot less functionality in apps outside of the US, and I think that puts the PS3 in a much more competitive position. Worldwide installed base is pretty close because of this.

Jayhawker wrote:

I don't follow.

The 360 is doing well, but it is continually leveraging its multimedia capabilities more and more to drive sales. In order to maintain that marketshare, which will allow it to keep selling stuff over its marketplace, it really needs to update system.

It's why Apple keeps making new iPhones. Someone will take Microsoft's share of the market if they don't improve on the the 360. And it's not like they are dominating the market.

To me, the big difference between Apple's i-devices and the 360 is that Apple's in a place where they really need to churn hardware sales; I don't know that MS necessarily has to do that in order to continue building revenue. The 360's in a pretty good spot, and while I don't doubt they can improve on the system hardware wise, I'm genuinely not convinced that there isn't a substantial amount of performance left in the 360 as it stands now.

Until we hit a point where the 360 is pushing its' limits similar to PS2 last gen, I don't know that there's any real incentive for MS to really pour money into R&D for a new system.

AnimeJ wrote:

Until we hit a point where the 360 is pushing its' limits similar to PS2 last gen, I don't know that there's any real incentive for MS to really pour money into R&D for a new system.

Have you seen games like BF3 on PC vs 360? Not to mention the fact that due to memory constraints they just can't put the same number of players into a 360 game they can into a PC game.

Playing on both 360 and PC is a bit of an eye opener.

AnimeJ wrote:

Until we hit a point where the 360 is pushing its' limits similar to PS2 last gen, I don't know that there's any real incentive for MS to really pour money into R&D for a new system.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo started pouring money into R&D into new systems the second their current systems were out the door.

AnimeJ wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

It's why Apple keeps making new iPhones. Someone will take Microsoft's share of the market if they don't improve on the the 360. And it's not like they are dominating the market.

To me, the big difference between Apple's i-devices and the 360 is that Apple's in a place where they really need to churn hardware sales; I don't know that MS necessarily has to do that in order to continue building revenue.

iTunes/App store - The way I see it it's their equivalent to the XBL store (or to a lesser extent the XBL subscription). I'm sure they would 'survive' with a few years of 'flop' hardware.