[RUMOR] A beefed-up 360 released with Natal?

Duoae wrote:

What do you think you'll get from increased hardware? Honestly, if there's a new generation around the corner we're just going to sink back into the same old genres and half finished games that we saw at release. We're just starting to see more creative and more 'feature complete' endeavours being the norm on the 360... you want to lose all that?

Hey man, your straw is showing. Funny how PCs deal with a constant, steady trickle of technology upgrade. I fail to see how a generational upgrade for the Xbox is going to cause developers to release CoD5 or GoW3, oh wait, that's derivative stuff that'll we'll see on the 360 anyway. This is Microsoft, catering to developers is the thing they're good at. They could easily just expand on the SDK for the 360 to implement higher functionality making for a very easy skill ramp up for programmers.

My point is that by 2015 the 360 is going to look like a PS2 in comparison to what my PC will be doing.

LiquidMantis wrote:
Duoae wrote:

What do you think you'll get from increased hardware? Honestly, if there's a new generation around the corner we're just going to sink back into the same old genres and half finished games that we saw at release. We're just starting to see more creative and more 'feature complete' endeavours being the norm on the 360... you want to lose all that?

Hey man, your straw is showing.

Haha, i wasn't being antagonistic but i love how you've shot right out the gate like i was trying to call you out or something. I fail to see how any of what i said could be considered a straw man.

Funny how PCs deal with a constant, steady trickle of technology upgrade.

And yet they DON'T or at least don't any more. I think you'll find that the majority of development (from the big publishers) is focused on the consoles more than it is on PC and the successful PC games do not stick to the front of the technological curve - it's a fallacy. We've had, what, Crysis in the last few years. Tell me, leaving aside poorly optimised console ports, which games (and also the successful ones) have really pushed gaming hardware on the PC?

I fail to see how a generational upgrade for the Xbox is going to cause developers to release CoD5 or GoW3, oh wait, that's derivative stuff that'll we'll see on the 360 anyway. This is Microsoft, catering to developers is the thing they're good at. They could easily just expand on the SDK for the 360 to implement higher functionality making for a very easy skill ramp up for programmers.

Putting words into my mouth: I never said any of that. I'm talking about games that don't take advantage of the console's power upon release... games that are basic compared to what comes out later on in a console's life cycle, both in content and looks. I never mentioned sequels or whatever, obviously you're just pulling these things out of wherever you think i'm trying to bring my argument from. You're going to tell me that launch year (and maybe in year two as well) on the 360 we saw games that were really much better than the best on xbox and PS2?

My point is that by 2015 the 360 is going to look like a PS2 in comparison to what my PC will be doing.

I highly doubt that. Seriously, apart from the spiralling costs involved with improved graphics what else is there to improve? Physics? Well, we have the ability but there's rarely much point/use in having huge amounts of physics past what we can already achieve on 360 (look at Red Faction Guerilla) and PC. Sound? Well, we already have 5.1 surround sound support. Controls? This is where Nintendo, Sony and MS are headed with their non-controller controls. What else? Tell me - what are you expecting? Rather than just attacking me... i just want to know. It costs between 10-30+ million to make a game this generation because of the graphics (not because what we're seeing is necessarily more than we had in the older generations)... putting in more graphics hardware and demanding more (from the consumer side) because it's there to be taken advantage of is going to bankrupt most of the industry that try and release those games. Everyone else who doesn't do that would, as you say, look like the old generation of games and so won't sell because the majority of the audience is so focused on graphics they can't see past them.

Developers are responsible for poor games, not hardware. The hardware is merely providing the potential and it has to not be the limiting factor in order to give developers complete freedom. While PC games don't cater to the niche bleeding edge, they generally scale well to it. Consoles are different in that they encompass the entire platform scale.

Technological advancements I'd like? How about a system that can steadily maintain 120 fps at 1080p and without screen tearing? Or maybe working with and pushing the emerging 3D technology? Even 5.1 audio is just the basic standard at this point with 7.1 and as far as the ludicrous 9.1 out. Releasing the 360 Camera 1.5 doesn't magically give you another four years. It's providing a gimmick, just look at the number complaints of Wii games that provide merely tacked on waggle controls but would play better with standard buttons.

Attacking you? Now who is putting words in who's mouth? You're awfully defensive about this so I'm not going to continue.

[Edit] Reading my initial reply after the coffee has kicked in, I can definitely see how that could be read as somewhat inflammatory. I apologize, that wasn't my intent. The strawman comment was more tongue-in-cheek than accusatory. Here, have some retro-actively applied smilies. :p

kuddles wrote:

I could see them rebooting the 360 when Natal comes out, but it'll be essentially the same system. Those technical specs are ridiculous for so many reasons. For starters, if they wanted to keep the "bill of materials" low, they sure as hell wouldn't start throwing an SSD into every single one of them.

Any opinion here is speculation and made of dreams, but I'm with kuddles. I can totally see a reboot, there's no reason not to (and it adds to the value of purchasing the Natal) but splitting the player base with a full new system would be odd. One of the reasons they're kicking the PS3 while it's down is because of their catalog (and their community, of course-- but this is dictated partially by the content). Pulling the tablecloth off the table would seem an odd move at this point.

MS should launch a new console in 2010. And then sit back and watch how the PS3's "10 year plan" unfolds.

LiquidMantis wrote:

[Edit] Reading my initial reply after the coffee has kicked in, I can definitely see how that could be read as somewhat inflammatory. I apologize, that wasn't my intent. The strawman comment was more tongue-in-cheek than accusatory. Here, have some retro-actively applied smilies. :p :D

Ah, sorry for that. I just really hate all the discussions where people bring out 'strawman' et al when there's a distinct lack of those things. Makes me angry.
*adds apologising smilies in response to apologising smilies post*

:heart:

Developers are responsible for poor games, not hardware. The hardware is merely providing the potential and it has to not be the limiting factor in order to give developers complete freedom. While PC games don't cater to the niche bleeding edge, they generally scale well to it. Consoles are different in that they encompass the entire platform scale.

I agree, i just disagree with the lack of potential we have left in the current technology and also the ability of the industry to be able to bankroll those leaps with the current install (or it would be lack of install) base and market for games.

Technological advancements I'd like? How about a system that can steadily maintain 120 fps at 1080p and without screen tearing?

Well, i don't really see the point of 120 fps. Why is this needed? 60 fps (matching the traditional 60Hz) seems to be fine. It's not like in the old Quake days when upping the FPS to past 100 allowed an actual increase in user performance due to a quirk of the engine. We generally can't perceive the difference... not to mention that the only reason HDTVs are upping their refresh rate from 60 to 120 is because of the 24 fps of movies/tv.... the improvement doesn't apply to games console output because they can scale it to be any multiple they want... as long as the game output is a subdivision of the refresh rate then it'll look pretty smooth, though i'll agree that they'll look better at 60 rather than 30 FPS.

Or maybe working with and pushing the emerging 3D technology? Even 5.1 audio is just the basic standard at this point with 7.1 and as far as the ludicrous 9.1 out. Releasing the 360 Camera 1.5 doesn't magically give you another four years. It's providing a gimmick, just look at the number complaints of Wii games that provide merely tacked on waggle controls but would play better with standard buttons.

As for the rest of it... i'm not sure how the minute difference of post-5.1 speaker solutions will really add to a game environment. The camera will/might give a new lease of life to the system because they can now release games that otherwise were impossible. 3D technology? I'm not sure what you mean by this but i'm guessing 3D displays because the camera/motion controls are exactly 3D technology and, really the current/nascent 3D displays don't really add anything that isn't possible with a 2D display.... you're going to have a 3D display of a 3D rendering? I can see how it works with 2D imagery like we get on traditional media and improves that but.... games?

Maybe i'm just really short-sighted and cynical but i just see all of those features as being as much gimmicks as anything else.

trip1eX wrote:

MS should launch a new console in 2010. And then sit back and watch how the PS3's "10 year plan" unfolds.

Haha! Cruel but fun

I think MS has something o an obligation to make the X360 last as long as they can.

1) The XBox 1 had a very short life cycle. For comparison, new PS2 games are STILL coming out.

2) Most of us have already bought at least 2 X360s.

Duoae wrote:

Well, i don't really see the point of 120 fps. Why is this needed?

My point in 120 FPS was to give a 100% safety buffer so with the inevitable frame rate dips when someone really pushes the envelope, e.g. stacking 5000 cars, tanks, cruiseships, oil tankers in Crackdown 4 and detonating the pile with a suitcase nuke it should be able to render the particulate explosion and still hold 60 FPS.

*sigh*

I'm going to go enjoy my 360 while it's still current gen.

trip1eX wrote:

MS should launch a new console in 2010. And then sit back and watch how the PS3's "10 year plan" unfolds.

Well if they release a new console in 2010, I hope it fails

if they release an update for the 360 with natal than that's fine but a whole new console in 2010 is at least 2 years to soon for anyone of the console makers.

I wouldn't put too much stock into a new, or even tweaked, 360 anytime soon. Microsoft as already said that they believe the 360 will be here to stay until 2015 thanks to the introduction of Natal.

This is what Shane Kim said:

'We firmly believe that the Xbox 360 has a life cycle through 2015 (10 years after the launch).

Consider for a moment that the PS2's lifecycle is still going and it's still selling well, despite the release of the PS3.

Kim is just saying that Microsoft is committed to making and selling 360s through 2015.

I don't want to see another 360 for a while. Firstly, I don't like to pull out "in this economy" but yeah, in this economy, asking people to shell out another pile of money for a new luxury device is a recipe for failure. One can debate whether the economy will have sufficiently recovered in the next year or 2 but I really don't believe it will. Secondly, many developers and publishers are losing their shirts already due to the cost of development on the current-gen hardware. Upping the ante once again when they're only starting to figure out fiscal balance in this generation is a slap in the face to the industry and I don't think they'll take kindly to it. This generation needs to be longer than the last because its the only way many of these companies are going to recoup their investments in it. Extending its life with things like Natal, SMC and whatnot are a good way to do that while still giving developers a means to innovate if they so choose. And truly, other than yet more shiny things, what possible benefit can another generational shift bring gamers? Do games not look pretty good already?

To all the people saying it's too soon, don't forget the rumor is about Christmas 2010, not 2009. That's about a year and a half away.

There's is plenty of room for improvement on the graphics side alone. I'm not even talking about Pixar-like graphics here, but just about steady 60fps 1080p, no screen-tearing, longer draw distances, no objects pop-up, no texture load in, higher resolution textures, more texture variety, no objects/bodies magically disappearing, better animations, no clipping, better lighting... Bored yet?

I'm not sure I'd even say we've reached the so-called "uncanny valley" yet.

Lothar wrote:

if they release an update for the 360 with natal than that's fine

Well, bogus-blog specs not withstanding, that's what the rumor is about.

Mr.Green wrote:

There's is plenty of room for improvement on the graphics side alone. I'm not even talking about Pixar-like graphics here, but just about steady 60fps 1080p, no screen-tearing, longer draw distances, no objects pop-up, no texture load in, higher resolution textures, more texture variety, no objects/bodies magically disappearing, better animations, no clipping, better lighting... Bored yet? :D

That's right, dammit. You naysayers: CONFORM.

Mr.Green wrote:

To all the people saying it's too soon, don't forget the rumor is about Christmas 2010, not 2009. That's about a year and a half away.

There's is plenty of room for improvement on the graphics side alone. I'm not even talking about Pixar-like graphics here, but just about steady 60fps 1080p, no screen-tearing, longer draw distances, no objects pop-up, no texture load in, higher resolution textures, more texture variety, no objects/bodies magically disappearing, better animations, no clipping, better lighting... Bored yet?

I'm not sure I'd even say we've reached the so-called "uncanny valley" yet.

Lothar wrote:

if they release an update for the 360 with natal than that's fine

Well, bogus-blog specs not withstanding, that's what the rumor is about.

I know and that's understandable because I think they will do that but Triplex was saying that they should release the successor of the 360 next year which I still think is too soon.

LiquidMantis wrote:
Mr.Green wrote:

There's is plenty of room for improvement on the graphics side alone. I'm not even talking about Pixar-like graphics here, but just about steady 60fps 1080p, no screen-tearing, longer draw distances, no objects pop-up, no texture load in, higher resolution textures, more texture variety, no objects/bodies magically disappearing, better animations, no clipping, better lighting... Bored yet? :D

That's right, dammit. You naysayers: CONFORM.

Yeah, but isn't this same thing said every generation, in some form or another?

People in a current gen get the mindset that by next generation, developers will have enough new tech to finally slay those age-old bugaboos like poor framerate, pop-in, etc.

The repeating problem is that instead of polishing up baseline graphic sets already established (current-gen graphics), the developers instead shoot for the next level in graphics using those next-gen hardware resources. So technically they're giving us "bigger, better and more bad-ass" presentations, but they're constantly overshooting the hardware specs and repeatedly falling into the same traps (framerate, texture loading) due to overtaxing the platform.

Aaron D. wrote:

but they're constantly overshooting the hardware specs and repeatedly falling into the same traps (framerate, texture loading) due to overtaxing the platform.

That's exactly what proves that we can benefit from more powerful hardware.

Duoae wrote:

Well, i don't really see the point of 120 fps. Why is this needed? 60 fps (matching the traditional 60Hz) seems to be fine. It's not like in the old Quake days when upping the FPS to past 100 allowed an actual increase in user performance due to a quirk of the engine. We generally can't perceive the difference... not to mention that the only reason HDTVs are upping their refresh rate from 60 to 120 is because of the 24 fps of movies/tv.... the improvement doesn't apply to games console output because they can scale it to be any multiple they want... as long as the game output is a subdivision of the refresh rate then it'll look pretty smooth, though i'll agree that they'll look better at 60 rather than 30 FPS.

If any of this had anything to do with how many games people bought, then maybe it'd be Microsoft's strategy. But it doesn't. Graphics are as important to game sales as a fart in the wind is to global warming. It has been proven time and time and time again that the best selling games and consoles are not the ones that are the most graphically advanced.

And this is why Microsoft would have to be absolutely brain dead to pull this. It makes no sense. It would give them only a momentary marketplace advantage in hardware and game sales during the much-hyped launch of the console, but then it would be back to business as usual, and Microsoft would yet again be losing huge sums of money on each console. Plus, they don't even need the advantage. So why would they spend large sums of money pursuing a goal that they do not need to meet?

The only thing I could see Microsoft attempting to do here is put Sony out of the business for good. If Microsoft does this, Sony needs to make an improvement to the PS3 or else its basically lights out. So strategically, perhaps Microsoft wants to spend a couple more billion to kick Sony while its down. But even that is pretty likely because Microsoft needs to start, you know, making profits from its game business, and this move would just put what is starting to look like a huge breadwinner back into the red ink. And that's why the rumor is probably full of sh*t. It would require Microsoft to make an huge capital investment at the exact time I'd expect them to instead be sitting back and reaping the rewards of their work.

Mr.Green wrote:

There's is plenty of room for improvement on the graphics side alone. I'm not even talking about Pixar-like graphics here, but just about steady 60fps 1080p, no screen-tearing, longer draw distances, no objects pop-up, no texture load in, higher resolution textures, more texture variety, no objects/bodies magically disappearing, better animations, no clipping, better lighting... Bored yet? :D

I don't think anyone is arguing that point. Games like GTA IV and Crysis have only begun to truly push graphical fidelity, physics and A.I. and current technology is already creaking under their weight. The point is that it's not something most people are clamoring for and therefore isn't a reasonable business decision. That's what people mean by too soon.

If there is any lesson to be taken from this current gen, it's that arrived too soon. The PS2 continued to do much better then everyone expected, the Wii blew everything away, as did the DS. Both the 360 and PS3 had their share of hardware issues to get to market on time. The 360 slowly creaked to second place with a year-long head start, putting Microsoft's game division into the black in 2007, six years after they entered it. Meanwhile, the PS3 is still struggling in the market, with everyone insisting that it needs a price cut if it's to make any real traction, despite the fact that at it's current price point Sony is losing millions of dollars a year, which it isn't making back on licensing sales. Selling your console at a loss has never been looking like a less feasible option then it has this generation. Game studios are now putting exponentially more time in money into their releases then they previously did, to the point where one flop can bankrupt them completely.

So yeah, a new Xbox could definitely provide much more power. But the market doesn't want it. The new trend is iteration and software updates. Releasing a technologically superior console, even in 2010, would be suicidal. The market had to be forced, kicking and screaming and with plenty of delays, just to make digital signals standard in every home. Getting them to upgrade their system to a new console, after the last one just barely could be counted on surpassing the PS2 a year ago in sales, sounds like a fool's errand.

A brand new console would probably be suicide, but the more I think of it the more I think that updated SKUs are inevitable. Apple is about to release its third iPhone model right? Nintendo just released an updated DS, Sony will do it with the PSP, companies release new TV models, media-players, AV receivers and whatnot every single year to take as much money as they can from the enthusiasts.

The 360 already has the Elite and Arcade editions. I would be very surprised if they wouldn't update those or even come up with new ones. Bring out a new Elite with a bigger/faster hard-drive, native 1080p and maybe a little more RAM and huge geeks like me will buy that in a hurry. That doesn't splinter or alienate the user base, that doesn't cost too much to put on the market. Everybody wins.

There won't be a new "generation" before 2015, they've already said that. But you can bet your shorts that there will be incremental upgrades. They would be stupid not to do it.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I think MS has something o an obligation to make the X360 last as long as they can.

1) The XBox 1 had a very short life cycle. For comparison, new PS2 games are STILL coming out.

2) Most of us have already bought at least 2 X360s. :P

I don't know about these points, but it did make me think about something else. By coming out with a new console the 360 player base will be split, which is something I did consider. But what I didn't really think about was the effect this will have Sony. This could, it seems, be the opportunity it's been looking for. If the 360 and the PS3 launched at the same time, it's tough to imagine that 360 would be as far ahead as they are now. If Microsoft comes out with a completely new hardware it seems like this is the kind of fight that Sony will actually have a slight headstart with.

Mr.Green wrote:

To all the people saying it's too soon, don't forget the rumor is about Christmas 2010, not 2009. That's about a year and a half away.

There's is plenty of room for improvement on the graphics side alone. I'm not even talking about Pixar-like graphics here, but just about steady 60fps 1080p, no screen-tearing, longer draw distances, no objects pop-up, no texture load in, higher resolution textures, more texture variety, no objects/bodies magically disappearing, better animations, no clipping, better lighting... Bored yet?

I'm not sure I'd even say we've reached the so-called "uncanny valley" yet.

Lothar wrote:

if they release an update for the 360 with natal than that's fine

Well, bogus-blog specs not withstanding, that's what the rumor is about.

While I agree that the next Xbox 720 will be a significant upgrade for the points made above.. we still have a nice long way to go to improve consoles in terms of raw power. I'm pretty excited about the next round of consoles.. from a GPU perspective they should be incredibly impressive and the standard platform nature of consoles will really allow developers to push some amazing looking games.

But I disagree on the timing.. we are fine with the current gen for the immediate future.. I dont believe it will be as long as they are saying though.. I could see the 720 hitting at Xmas 2012 or 2013.. no way will they wait unti 2015.. thats way to long.

Not buying another HDTV just for 1080p, so 2015 sounds about right to me.