Nextbox rumors..

It's kind of stunning that the PS2 went on to sell another nearly 50 million globally since the Xbox 360 launched. Excluding multiplayer, it almost makes me wonder why Sony bothered with the PS3 at all.

Off topic, I guess, but all this next gen murmuring is making me nostalgic for the old Sony Haterade thread.

Hating them is not as fun as it used to be. They're like Biff at the end of Back to the Future. You can enjoy some small amount of schadenfreude, but mostly you just feel sorry for them and wish they would make some good choices.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

It's kind of stunning that the PS2 went on to sell another nearly 50 million globally since the Xbox 360 launched. Excluding multiplayer, it almost makes me wonder why Sony bothered with the PS3 at all.

North Korea has it worse than I thought.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
ChrisLTD wrote:

And frankly, it's holding back gaming as a whole when games need to be designed to work across systems, some antiquated, some not.

Have you not just defined the problem with PC gaming in a nutshell there? The problem with "PC gaming" is it is, in fact, multiple systems, with a wide variety of hardware.

Thank you for saying this. Seriously, thank you. I buy computers for work and a little play. Linux boxes in the past with onboard video cards and lots of memory for running IDEs, etc. and now Macs. I don't think it can be emphasized enough that for the majority of Earthlings gaming will be done on some piece of cheap hardware they bought, often for another purpose. Smartphones, tablets, handhelds, lightweight computers for Facebook and Farmville, XBoxen with 4GB of storage, etc. I've literally watched people bring in original 360s and pay $70 to have them repaired at my local game store instead of shelling out the $200 or whatever for the entry level 360. There are people for home that $130 REALLY matters. They're not going to be upgrading a PC every couple of years so gaming isn't "held back". Also, Skyrim and The Witcher 2 and Dark Souls look gorgeous on my TV.

Also, it goes without saying, but this thread is filled with...

IMAGE(http://resource.mmgn.com/Gallery/normal/7PLLYLB8.jpg)

DSGamer wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
ChrisLTD wrote:

And frankly, it's holding back gaming as a whole when games need to be designed to work across systems, some antiquated, some not.

Have you not just defined the problem with PC gaming in a nutshell there? The problem with "PC gaming" is it is, in fact, multiple systems, with a wide variety of hardware.

Thank you for saying this. Seriously, thank you. I buy computers for work and a little play. Linux boxes in the past with onboard video cards and lots of memory for running IDEs, etc. and now Macs. I don't think it can be emphasized enough that for the majority of Earthlings gaming will be done on some piece of cheap hardware they bought, often for another purpose. Smartphones, tablets, handhelds, lightweight computers for Facebook and Farmville, XBoxen with 4GB of storage, etc. I've literally watched people bring in original 360s and pay $70 to have them repaired at my local game store instead of shelling out the $200 or whatever for the entry level 360. There are people for home that $130 REALLY matters. They're not going to be upgrading a PC every couple of years so gaming isn't "held back". Also, Skyrim and The Witcher 2 and Dark Souls look gorgeous on my TV.

Isn't this just a round-about way of saying that varying minimum specs is a good thing? Just as you can apply that to the PC side, you can also apply it to the console side by not depreciating your previous-gen console as soon as the new one comes out, which I seem to recall MS did when the 360 came out, but Sony did keep the PS2 relevant after the PS3 released.

There are pros and cons to this approach, for some things horsepower matters, for some things it doesn't. I could make an automotive analogy here but I know better.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

That's just it; I don't think a new console is going to do it for the average joe. What the average joe wants is Netflix and Amazon instant streaming and things like that. They're not gamers, they don't care about pixel counts and as you say, not all the argument in the world is going to change it.

Even the 360 dashboard is limited, though. It's been slow for years with all the stuff they've been trying to do with it.

So no, I don't think the average Joe necessarily buys as an early adopter, ever. But you get the hardcore to upgrade next year and maybe after a price drop and the catalog builds, they come along.

I think Mannish has this right (as he has the entire thread) - MS just wants to keep the momentum they have. If they establish a big lead with the core users from the beginning, it makes it much more likely that everyone else will follow.

If Joe Average is happy with his 360 and Netflix, MS wins. If the hardcore crowd is ready to upgrade and they buy Xbox III, MS wins. They just want an Xbox in every living room; it doesn't necessarily matter which in the short run. Get people into the ecosystem and keep them happy. I'm in the iOS ecosystem, which is the most-supported ecosystem, and I don't ever see myself leaving. That's what MS wants to be for the living room.

The only way they lose (and I think it's generally agreed that they have the momentum right now) is if they fall behind. Xbox III needs to prevent that. I hope they don't go as low-power as the rumors have indicated.

Here's the catch though. If they bet big like Sony did, then they can kill the momentum fiscally by destroying profits at the expense of getting to market, again, like Sony with PS3. Nintendo's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do NOT need to be first to market in order to get out there and make money. What matters to the people who matter(who is emphatically not us) is being there at the right time, with the right hardware.

To those people, the 360 is exactly the right thing. MS bet on 360 being a long tail(2015) system. The amount of support their showing it this late in the system(Kinect, dashboard updates, new XBL features) is a big pointer towards that, and not a new system. Do they probably have one in the works? Yea, they probably do. Are they in a hurry to rush it to market? I doubt it, because I don't know that they want another 360 red ring launch debacle.

The other thing that I think he's dead wrong on, as Jonman pointed out is that new hardware only makes sense if you want bigger graphics or more with your games, be that players in online, or AI, or whatever. Core market console-only gamers don't care about that. Systems on the market right now are more than adequate. Again, the good analogy here is PS2 to PS3; The PS3 is absolutely the superior system, but the PS2 outsold it the first TWO years it was on the market, 6 years into it's shelf life and since then, it's sold another 40 million systems. Think about that; in the last 5 years, the PS2!!! has sold nearly two thirds of the number or systems that Microsoft has sold 360s.

I'll be honest. I'm as ready for a new console as anyone around here is. I love my Xbox(now that I've given in to the horde and bought one), but from MS's perspective, it makes zero sense to even start thinking about a launch until 2015 or so. And they've been saying that for 3 years now.

Scratched wrote:

Isn't this just a round-about way of saying that varying minimum specs is a good thing? Just as you can apply that to the PC side, you can also apply it to the console side by not depreciating your previous-gen console as soon as the new one comes out, which I seem to recall MS did when the 360 came out, but Sony did keep the PS2 relevant after the PS3 released.

I think the original XBox sales were pretty much in the gutter by the time that happened so it might've gone differently if the XBox was actually competitive with the PS2. It also helps if you have a good plan for backwards compatibility, which I don't think was possible with the XBox->360 because they changed GPU vendors. Sony was able to keep PS2 games coming out because of companies like Atlus and for a while those games were playable on all PS3s.

There are pros and cons to this approach, for some things horsepower matters, for some things it doesn't.

Exactly. I don't think there's that much "Master Race" stuff going on, aside from comparing specs for mid-range computers, smart phones, and tablets against the 360. I mean we haven't even gotten remotely close to something like KBAM > controller debating.

Getting a new console generation will help raise the bar on PC games because that means the companies that don't go the extra mile won't just migrate the art assets over without doing any additional work to add higher resolution textures like Bethesda or BioWare do. A new console generation means they'll be producing higher resolution art (presumably for 1080p instead of 720p) which means the average multiplatform game will look nicer on the PC out of the box than they do now. A new console generation also means that we'll, hopefully, have consoles with significantly more RAM in them. That translates into things like deeper AI trees, larger groups of enemies, larger levels, faster load times, etc. I'm pretty sure more RAM is the biggest item on developer's wishlists right now, and that's the one upgrade which benefits everyone across the board.

DSGamer wrote:

I don't think it can be emphasized enough that for the majority of Earthlings gaming will be done on some piece of cheap hardware they bought, often for another purpose. Smartphones, tablets, handhelds, lightweight computers for Facebook and Farmville

Ok. So what happens when Intel or AMD roll out a system-on-a-chip in a couple years that has a GPU on par with the ones from two or three years ago? Exclusive software aside, are people still going to get a $200 console if they have something equally as powerful, if not more, in the little $400 box they use for email and that facey-space thing. What happens if the Call of Duty people realize they don't need a special box to get their man-shoot on?

I've literally watched people bring in original 360s and pay $70 to have them repaired at my local game store instead of shelling out the $200 or whatever for the entry level 360.

You're right about saving $130, but what reason is there to "upgrade" an original 360? Less prone to RROD? I'd be surprised if most of the public knew there was a manufacturing defect in the 360 that caused them to RROD, and instead were just as happy to have it repaired like they would a VCR.

shoptroll wrote:

Exactly. I don't think there's that much "Master Race" stuff going on

I always shake my head whenever the PCGMR image comes up. As far as I can tell when it was first used it had absolutely nothing to do with hardware e-penis contests or platform superiority, and if anything was kind of mocking PC gaming when viewed in it's proper context. The other thing is that with the whole gaming hardware spectrum, or even just the spectrum of PC hardware, it's irrelevant, as game producers generally like to sell to as wide an segment of the spectrum as possible, just that PC can allow a higher ceiling and developers have the option to take advantage of that higher ceiling. However I can only really think of one game series (ArmA) that really needs it.

Rant over.

AnimeJ wrote:

I'll be honest. I'm as ready for a new console as anyone around here is. I love my Xbox(now that I've given in to the horde and bought one), but from MS's perspective, it makes zero sense to even start thinking about a launch until 2015 or so. And they've been saying that for 3 years now.

No, they've been saying they plan to support the 360 to 2015. That does not preclude another Xbox console also being on the market.

And as to why MS would update now? As I mentioned above, the total market is declining for console revenue, even though MS might be holding strong on hardware. Software is declining quite noticeably.

DSGamer, I don't think people are saying that only PC games are worthy a la the master race. What we are saying is the current gen hardware are quite a ways back now from even low class gaming hardware on a PC, to the point where it's holding back future game design. There's a big distinction there from looking down on console gamers to wishing they'd catch up on hardware a bit. I suspect most of us who are saying that PCs are way ahead at this point also own and use a current gen console. I can personally say I have fun with my 360 and have greatly enjoyed it. It's just time for what's next.

Scratched wrote:

The other thing is that with the whole gaming hardware spectrum, or even just the spectrum of PC hardware, it's irrelevant, as game producers generally like to sell to as wide an segment of the spectrum as possible

Agreed. 3.5 million copies of Diablo 3 in 24 hours can't be wrong, and that is a game that scales very nicely across configurations. Actually, anything by Maxis or Blizzard tends to target the low-end of the pool and scales up from there.

MannishBoy wrote:

DSGamer, I don't think people are saying that only PC games are worthy a la the master race. What we are saying is the current gen hardware are quite a ways back now from even low class gaming hardware on a PC, to the point where it's holding back future game design. There's a big distinction there from looking down on console gamers to wishing they'd catch up on hardware a bit. I suspect most of us who are saying that PCs are way ahead at this point also own and use a current gen console. I can personally say I have fun with my 360 and have greatly enjoyed it. It's just time for what's next.

Very nicely put, and my thoughts exactly. Yes, for the majority of games coming out right now that are simply retreading existing gaming territory, the 360 is more than adequate. And I still play the hell out of my 360 now, which I purchased about 6 or 8 months after the system first launched. It's been my favorite console overall since the SNES; that's some sincerely high praise.

However, as I tried to explain a page or two ago, giving examples, there are gaming experiences that simply can't be done properly on the current limitations of console hardware. This doesn't mean that developers need to crank up the budgets to ridiculous heights in some graphical arms race; it just means that we need better console hardware in order to allow for more freedom on the parts of developers (as was mentioned upthread, the single biggest upgrade would be an increase in RAM).

Farscry wrote:

This doesn't mean that developers need to crank up the budgets to ridiculous heights in some graphical arms race

Going along with this, I don't think we're going to see as big a bump in GPU power in the next generation. Once they have a solution that can provide 60fps on 1080p in the majority of situations they really don't need much more GPU. There's also going to be an upper limit on texture size. Since most people are playing on a couch several feet away from their TV instead of inches away from a monitor you can get away with fuzzier textures and none to small amounts of anti-aliasing. For example, Super Mario Galaxy 2 looks great on a 40" TV as long as you're not looking too close at the screen, and that's running at 480p.

After this upcoming generation there probably won't be a need for a huge leap in GPU power until 4K TVs roll out. However, on the PC side we're currently at 1920x1080/1920x1200 although Nvidia and AMD are both pushing multi-monitor setups now, and Apple is rumored to be rolling out Retina displays for their Macbooks which will probably force the monitor manufacturers like LG and Dell to do the same. So GPUs on the PC side will continue to be more powerful.

shoptroll wrote:
Farscry wrote:

This doesn't mean that developers need to crank up the budgets to ridiculous heights in some graphical arms race

Going along with this, I don't think we're going to see as big a bump in GPU power in the next generation. Once they have a solution that can provide 60fps on 1080p in the majority of situations they really don't need much more GPU. There's also going to be an upper limit on texture size. Since most people are playing on a couch several feet away from their TV instead of inches away from a monitor you can get away with fuzzier textures and none to small amounts of anti-aliasing. For example, Super Mario Galaxy 2 looks great on a 40" TV as long as you're not looking too close at the screen, and that's running at 480p.

After this upcoming generation there probably won't be a need for a huge leap in GPU power until 4K TVs roll out. However, on the PC side we're currently at 1920x1080/1920x1200 although Nvidia and AMD are both pushing multi-monitor setups now, and Apple is rumored to be rolling out Retina displays for their Macbooks which will probably force the monitor manufacturers like LG and Dell to do the same. So GPUs on the PC side will continue to be more powerful.

GPU is really turning into general computing power, though. They just excel at doing a lot of basic tasks in a hurry. So physics stuff, maybe AI, etc might all make use of increased GPU power.

Not to mention that 10 years out, we might be looking at either 3D where they have to render two game scenes at 60Hz , or even 4K TVs making in roads.

Statements like "this is all they'll ever need in power" in the tech world generally turn out to be false. There's always more stuff

MannishBoy wrote:

GPU is really turning into general computing power, though. They just excel at doing a lot of basic tasks in a hurry. So physics stuff, maybe AI, etc might all make use of increased GPU power.

Good point. Nvidia would probably love to have a PhysX enabled console since that tech hasn't really caught on in the PC space. Having that available for all games might actually push the API out of "eye candy" mode. However, not 100% sure GPUs are that useful with AI calculations, but I don't know how much work has been done with AI on a GPU.

Statements like "this is all they'll ever need in power" in the tech world generally turn out to be false. There's always more stuff :)

Also good point, although I was just thinking from a graphics perspective.

One thing I think's pretty interesting for the next generation is Microsoft's plans to release a subscription-based Xbox; you pay a little to get the box, and then a monthly fee. That's a very smart way to get customers into your stable with a very low entry fee, and I do think the 360 will have longer legs because of that. MS will both sell the Xbox4EVAH and do a subscription model for it, plus continue to support the 360 for quite a while. With all the "lighter" titles on XBLA, the focus on Kinect things, plus the 360's aspect as a media hub, I think you'll see it continuing to be supported for years; there are now lots of revenue streams available to Microsoft outside of just selling new generation consoles and games. We'll still get a new console within a couple years, but I don't see the 360 being sunsetted for quite a while.

shoptroll wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

GPU is really turning into general computing power, though. They just excel at doing a lot of basic tasks in a hurry. So physics stuff, maybe AI, etc might all make use of increased GPU power.

Good point. Nvidia would probably love to have a PhysX enabled console since that tech hasn't really caught on in the PC space. Having that available for all games might actually push the API out of "eye candy" mode. However, not 100% sure GPUs are that useful with AI calculations, but I don't know how much work has been done with AI on a GPU.

Statements like "this is all they'll ever need in power" in the tech world generally turn out to be false. There's always more stuff :)

Also good point, although I was just thinking from a graphics perspective.

With this, I think a good comparison is the beginning of the current-gen and the acceptance of multi-CPU. Before that point the way everyone programmed was for 1 CPU and 1 GPU, now it's almost accepted you need to design for, or at the very least be friendly to multi CPU/GPU, you have to make that development investment and tackle the problems to get the performance headroom to do new things.

With CPU/GPU getting closer and going towards huge parallelism (either for general computation or for specific types of processing), I can see something similar, and just like with multi-CPU some developers will gnash their teeth over it.

Scratched wrote:

Just as you can apply that to the PC side, you can also apply it to the console side by not depreciating your previous-gen console as soon as the new one comes out, which I seem to recall MS did when the 360 came out, but Sony did keep the PS2 relevant after the PS3 released.

How did that work out for Sony?

I do think the switch over to the 360 was more abrupt than necessary, but a clean break is much better for a company.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

One thing I think's pretty interesting for the next generation is Microsoft's plans to release a subscription-based Xbox; you pay a little to get the box, and then a monthly fee. That's a very smart way to get customers into your stable with a very low entry fee, and I do think the 360 will have longer legs because of that. MS will both sell the Xbox4EVAH and do a subscription model for it, plus continue to support the 360 for quite a while.

So how's that much different than the 360 plan of offsetting the console hardware subsidy with Gold subscriptions, controllers, $10 "HD Tax", and over-priced DLC? Just a contractual agreement to lock yourself into their ecosystem for 2-3 years?

With all the "lighter" titles on XBLA, the focus on Kinect things, plus the 360's aspect as a media hub, I think you'll see it continuing to be supported for years; there are now lots of revenue streams available to Microsoft outside of just selling new generation consoles and games. We'll still get a new console within a couple years, but I don't see the 360 being sunsetted for quite a while.

No doubt. Nintendo and Sony both keep their older systems around for quite a while as a low cost/impulse buy alternative to the new shiny, no reason why MS shouldn't do the same.

Jayhawker wrote:

How did that work out for Sony?

Sony gutted the PS2 BC as a way to save $20. But now they're making money on the HD Collections....

Jayhawker wrote:
Scratched wrote:

Just as you can apply that to the PC side, you can also apply it to the console side by not depreciating your previous-gen console as soon as the new one comes out, which I seem to recall MS did when the 360 came out, but Sony did keep the PS2 relevant after the PS3 released.

How did that work out for Sony?

Well, they made a lot of money on the PS2s. As mentioned above, they sold a ton of them at their lower price level post PS3 release. The question is how many of those sales were lost sales on the PS3. With the crazy high price of the PS3 at launch, I don't think there was a lot of cross shopping the two consoles.

Something else worth noting is that Kinect is currently throttled by the limitations of the 360's hardware. From what I understand, there is some significant functionality that can't currently be enabled on 360 because of insufficient CPU horsepower and available USB bandwidth. I think Kinect will be quite a bit more interesting with Microsoft's next console.

Ok, let's cut to more speculation and start talking about Building a better NextBox™

If they announced a NextBox™ at E3 this year, what should the following console-focused parts be?

  • CPU
  • GPU
  • RAM
  • Media Drive type
  • Low-end space available or HDD for everyone? Size and speed?
  • Kinect upgrades?
  • System color
  • Software upgrades?
  • Realistic price for the components
  • Launch date
  • What consumers should expect to pay
  • How you think it would sell to the masses
trueheart78 wrote:

Ok, let's cut to more speculation and start talking about Building a better NextBox™

If they announced a NextBox™ at E3 this year, what should the following console-focused parts be?

  • CPU
  • GPU
  • RAM
  • Media Drive type
  • Low-end space available or HDD for everyone? Size and speed?
  • Kinect upgrades?
  • System color
  • Software upgrades?
  • Realistic price for the components
  • Launch date
  • What consumers should expect to pay
  • How you think it would sell to the masses

I think interaction is something missing from that. Nintendo realised at least one generation ago that focusing on specs is a meaningless exercise. Theoretical power doesn't translate to real world use and results as we saw between the PS3 and 360. I think any next generation device needs to focus on interaction: specifically how "clever" or "smart" the console is.

That covers:

  • Usability
  • Realistic opponents
  • Connectivity to other devices and services

That's what is prime "current" thinking and I think that is what will appeal to most consumers and marketing teams. It's also what will separate a new console generation from the current one.

The thing is, when I put together "interface" and "Microsoft" I start thinking of metro and the current xbox dashboard, and make an unhappy face.

I don't know if they could manage it, but the NextBox should absolutely be built with a BluRay drive. Even if games wind up with a lot of sales via digital distro, if MS wants to keep the XBox brand as a media center going forward, it needs to play BluRay movies.

Scratched wrote:

The thing is, when I put together "interface" and "Microsoft" I start thinking of metro and the current xbox dashboard, and make an unhappy face.

I was actually excited about the Metro interface coming to the 360 because it absolutely kicks ass as a phone interface in WP7. Sadly, the one doesn't really translate to the other very well, and I found the Metro interface on 360 a little clunky. (Although to be fair, I didn't find it any clunkier than the NXE or blades menus before it.)

Farscry wrote:

I don't know if they could manage it, but the NextBox should absolutely be built with a BluRay drive. Even if games wind up with a lot of sales via digital distro, if MS wants to keep the XBox brand as a media center going forward, it needs to play BluRay movies.

I'm a consumer of media.. granted I have access to high speed internet but I've used the Blu-Ray in my PS3 exactly 4 times since I bought it.

MannishBoy wrote:

What we are saying is the current gen hardware are quite a ways back now from even low class gaming hardware on a PC, to the point where it's holding back future game design. There's a big distinction there from looking down on console gamers to wishing they'd catch up on hardware a bit. I suspect most of us who are saying that PCs are way ahead at this point also own and use a current gen console. I can personally say I have fun with my 360 and have greatly enjoyed it. It's just time for what's next.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how people saying 'It would be nice for consoles to be more powerful' can be construed as a PC Game Master Race thing. If anything it's the opposite.

This thread is evidence that GWJ is a console leaning forum, it's only in the last couple of years that it's leaned PC-wards because the 360 is falling behind.

Anyway:

trueheart78 wrote:

Ok, let's cut to more speculation and start talking about Building a better NextBox™

If they announced a NextBox™ at E3 this year, what should the following console-focused parts be?

[*]CPU
3 gHz quad. Not strictly necessary, but the current is a triple core, so I don't see a regression here.
[*]GPU
Geforce 660 or equivalent
[*]RAM
4 gigs
[*]Media Drive type
Blu-ray. Has to be for the reasons Farscry brings up
[*]Low-end space available or HDD for everyone? Size and speed?
Hard drives for all, 50-500 gigs depending on model. 5400 rpm
[*]Kinect upgrades?
Kinect integrated
[*]System color
I liked the white of the first 360, but more likely black.
[*]Software upgrades?
A lot of integrated apps for connectivity, social networking and the like. I haven't used a 360 since the blades, but I'm sure MS will refine the Metro UI going forwards.
[*]Realistic price for the components
I couldn't begin to speculate.
[*]Launch date
Holiday 2013
[*]What consumers should expect to pay
$400-$500
[*]How you think it would sell to the masses
Very well to the early adopters, but steadily as 'Xbox' becomes more of a general use label than a gaming label for the general public.

Farscry wrote:

I don't know if they could manage it, but the NextBox should absolutely be built with a BluRay drive. Even if games wind up with a lot of sales via digital distro, if MS wants to keep the XBox brand as a media center going forward, it needs to play BluRay movies.

Blu ray players are pretty cheap now but isn't everything going digitial? I think getting Amazon's video app is far more important than blu ray.

Ulairi wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I don't know if they could manage it, but the NextBox should absolutely be built with a BluRay drive. Even if games wind up with a lot of sales via digital distro, if MS wants to keep the XBox brand as a media center going forward, it needs to play BluRay movies.

Blu ray players are pretty cheap now but isn't everything going digitial? I think getting Amazon's video app is far more important than blu ray.

Dear sweet Cthulu I hope not.

Broadband infrastructure globally is behind most of the US, and I understand from some forum members here that rural and small town internet in the US isn't all that great either.

I just don't think the infrastructure is there yet. Tech journalists who talk up a digital future live in areas that support the idea.

I do think they need more data on a disc than DVD allows with the expected higher quality assets that would come with next gen. Whether that means going to solid state cartridges/SD cards for distribution (doubtful), Blu-ray, HD-DVD, or some other higher storage optical disc, this still is the generation where they have to at least support some kind of physical distribution, and I think that has to be something better than DVD.