Nextbox rumors..

Scratched wrote:
Some (US) statistics to chew over for what people use their console for, and the difference between 2011/2012:
http://nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/20...

Something that I find telling is that on the PS3 and Wii, people play a lot more offline games than online games. And on the 360, with its tens of millions of XBL subscribers, people play just as many offline games as they do online games.

I just hope they make them quiet. I have a newer Xbox and PS3 and they both still make too much noise. Unless I am watching a DVD or Bluray (or have headphones on), I just use my Roku.

Maybe they will use liquid cooling systems in the new consoles. That would be awesome.

Do they make cooling liquids that are non-reactive to electricity, meaning, is their a liquid out there that will not cause an electrical fire if it leaks onto the circuit board?

Scratched wrote:
Some (US) statistics to chew over for what people use their console for, and the difference between 2011/2012:
http://nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/20...

According to that (and even though I am an offline guy, I know that Neilson aren't very accurate anymore due to their catchment style... though, maybe they never were!) online-only and digital downloads really haven't that much of a place in the next gen compared to physical media. They're basically equal!

Ignoring that 360 comes to 101% for 2011!

Most importantly, offline gaming accounts for 50%+ for all three consoles... with 360 the least at 49.something%...
[edit]
Ignore the post edit - i can't count :p

heavyfeul wrote:
Do they make cooling liquids that are non-reactive to electricity, meaning, is their a liquid out there that will not cause an electrical fire if it leaks onto the circuit board?

Yes. But I don't see Microsoft using liquid cooling for the Durango. I haven't had a liquid cooling system in a couple years but when I did, you had to change out the coolant in it somewhat regularly. I don't see the general public being ok with that.

Liquid cooling isnt inherently cooler or quieter than traditional air cooling. You still have a radiator that needs cool air and/or heat transfer . The main advantage is once you get a large enough radiator and I dont see a modern console being that large to accommodate that

Liquid cooling is not fundamentally better than an air cooler. What actually cools the console is transferring heat to the air, and that's always done through a radiator. A liquid cooler lets you take heat away from the CPU easily, but you still have to dump it. Liquid moves the problem, rather than solving it; only a radiator actually solves it.

It's been popular because liquid can let you use a huge radiator, outside the case; the amount of cooling you can do is no longer limited by the case design. If you want to use a car radiator, you can do that. (and some have!)

But if you're staying inside the console, an air cooler with a direct radiator is almost always going to be better. Space you save by omitting the water cooler is space you can use for more radiative fins.

I still take the stance of "don't believe it until I see it," but Kotaku's alleged sources are claiming that the new Xbox will require an internet connection to launch games.

http://kotaku.com/the-next-xbox-will...

"If there isn't a connection, no games or apps can be started," the source continued. "If the connection is interrupted then after a period of time--currently three minutes, if I remember correctly--the game/app is suspended and the network troubleshooter started."

It worked so well for SimCity, what could ever go wrong!

I could see maybe requiring internet connection for startup but I can't imagine them going with a system that suspends the game when connections are lost. Too many people have flaky internet, it would be a PR nightmare.

In regards to requiring an online connection to play offline games, I'm in the, "They can't be that crazy." camp.

But with so many rumors of this nature surfacing it's hard to deny that where there's smoke there might be fire.

I've been a dyed in the wool Xbox fan since the launch of the first console and was locked into buying Xbox 3 on Day One sight unseen. But if this rumor of always online is true, I'll at best be sitting on the sidelines during the launch window and at worst taking a pass completely.

Also the fact that Sony seems really hungry right now doesn’t help matters much for MS either.

Given that somewhere between 30 and 40% of xboxes sold have never been connected to the Internet, I would be extremely surprised if MS took that drastic a step.

MeatMan wrote:
I still take the stance of "don't believe it until I see it," but Kotaku's alleged sources are claiming that the new Xbox will require an internet connection to launch games.

They were beating this drum two months ago too

Demyx wrote:
It worked so well for SimCity, what could ever go wrong!

Don't forget Ubisoft. Granted it's a "to launch" games requirement, but that still limits the usability of the device.

I have a hard time believing Microsoft would do this. But they would deserve the full-on haterade thread (probably not named as such) they would get for trying to do this. I don't think the current infrastructure can support constant connection as a prerequisite for ownership.

I wouldn't be surprised that the dev boxes do this. I'd be extremely surprised if the retail boxes do.

Even with more homes being connected now, I think Microsoft will get a rude awakening if they require that. Between the amount of places that still can't get high-speed, how unreliable it is for many and bandwidth caps, I can't imagine they'd do that. If they require it and Sony doesn't, they won't get my business and I bet a lot of others will steer clear too. Like Sony in this generation, I think Microsoft may overestimate just how much brand loyalty customers have to Xbox, especially now.

The ONLY way I can see this rumor being true is for digital-only games, similar to how Steam functions. Although this system will have an optical drive, given the length of time console generations last, I guarantee Microsoft is planning on pivoting away from physical media over the next generation. They can't do that at launch, but I'd be willing to bet by the end of the next console cycle most of us are downloading all of our games.

Steam does it (mostly) well, so it is possible. I agree though that this is potentially a pr disaster. Heck, it's got me leaning toward the PS4 and I don't even know details yet.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
Even with more homes being connected now, I think Microsoft will get a rude awakening if they require that. Between the amount of places that still can't get high-speed, how unreliable it is for many and bandwidth caps, I can't imagine they'd do that. If they require it and Sony doesn't, they won't get my business and I bet a lot of others will steer clear too. Like Sony in this generation, I think Microsoft may overestimate just how much brand loyalty customers have to Xbox, especially now.

Exactly! Not to mention how strong Sony's presence has been in the last half of the PS3's life. Not to mention the fact of their support of the indie scene. I recently purchased a PS3 after owning an 360 since 07'ish and I must say with the exclusives and PSN+ sales, I think I may enjoy my PS3 more. If these rumors are indeed true, then that's the nail in the coffin for me.

PaladinTom wrote:
The ONLY way I can see this rumor being true is for digital-only games, similar to how Steam functions. Although this system will have an optical drive, given the length of time console generations last, I guarantee Microsoft is planning on pivoting away from physical media over the next generation. They can't do that at launch, but I'd be willing to bet by the end of the next console cycle most of us are downloading all of our games.

That writing's definitely on the wall. I'd be surprised if the majority of games weren't still getting a physical release by the end of this next generation, but it's telling that the Wii U, 3DS, PSP, and Vita already offer day-and-date download versions of most every game, and the PS4 is poised to do the same. Oddly, it's the 360 that lags significantly behind in offering downloadable versions of games.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Oddly, it's the 360 that lags significantly behind in offering downloadable versions of games.

I think the main issue is that the lack of a HDD for all versions of the hardware makes it hard for them to want to invest resources into ubiquitous downloadable titles for the system.

shoptroll wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
Oddly, it's the 360 that lags significantly behind in offering downloadable versions of games.

I think the main issue is that the lack of a HDD for all versions of the hardware makes it hard for them to want to invest resources into ubiquitous downloadable titles for the system.

The official explanation handed out recently was that they were afraid of upsetting retailers.

I'm starting to believe the online requirement. Journalists on podcasts are starting to talk about it like it's fact rather than speculation, and while I don't like Kotaku's approach to journalism, they have not been wrong about much regarding these new consoles.

Theres "connected" that will provide the console XYZ functionality, and then there is "offline" that will do XY but not Z. I'm 100% certain Microsoft will include in the "offline" capability of the nexbox the ability to play games.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
Oddly, it's the 360 that lags significantly behind in offering downloadable versions of games.

I think the main issue is that the lack of a HDD for all versions of the hardware makes it hard for them to want to invest resources into ubiquitous downloadable titles for the system.

The official explanation handed out recently was that they were afraid of upsetting retailers.

Nintendo said the same and the world hasn't ended since they started offering retail games in the eShop on Day 1.

shoptroll wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
shoptroll wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
Oddly, it's the 360 that lags significantly behind in offering downloadable versions of games.

I think the main issue is that the lack of a HDD for all versions of the hardware makes it hard for them to want to invest resources into ubiquitous downloadable titles for the system.

The official explanation handed out recently was that they were afraid of upsetting retailers.

Nintendo said the same and the world hasn't ended since they started offering retail games in the eShop on Day 1.

In fact, the world has gotten a lot better. The launch of Fire Emblem was a mess on the retail side but smooth as butter via the eShop. Although I can't imagine retailers were too happy about that one, there's been no public indication that it's affected their relationship with Nintendo.

Blind_Evil wrote:
I'm starting to believe the online requirement. Journalists on podcasts are starting to talk about it like it's fact rather than speculation, and while I don't like Kotaku's approach to journalism, they have not been wrong about much regarding these new consoles.

Wait! What?

Blind_Evil wrote:
I'm starting to believe the online requirement. Journalists on podcasts are starting to talk about it like it's fact rather than speculation, and while I don't like Kotaku's approach to journalism, they have not been wrong about much regarding these new consoles.

omg

Conspiracy theory: Microsoft is intentionally letting these rumors get out there so they can gauge public reaction.

The Conformist wrote:
Exactly! Not to mention how strong Sony's presence has been in the last half of the PS3's life. Not to mention the fact of their support of the indie scene.

I've been watching this closely as well.

Xbox has been my gaming platform of choice for over 10 years now, as it was the perfect landing spot for a lapsed PC gamer. Buzz over Sony aggressively courting indie developers (read up on Jonathan Blow's The Witness), building a PS4 system architecture that has developers of all breeds completely jazzed about, a system unveiling with messaging that the new console is aimed squarely at core gamers first and foremost, and PS+ vs Live...added together makes Microsoft's next move with Xbox 3 a pretty big hurdle to compete with.

Of course all these Xbox 3 rumors are nothing but hearsay until the facts are ultimately revealed. But MS's silence coupled with said rumors smells of complacency and arrogance (much like Sony leading into the current gen).

I really want to give MS my money on a shiny new console this fall, but my loyalty is not completely blind. I'll back Sony in a second if it looks like their mission statement is aligned with the gaming experience and environment I'm looking for.

If rumors as mentioned above, coupled with the dissatisfaction devs have voiced working with MS, is enough to give pause to a MS fanboy like me, I can’t imagine how quickly they could lose on-the-fencers if they’re not careful. MS are treading on some seriously dangerous ground here.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
Even with more homes being connected now, I think Microsoft will get a rude awakening if they require that. Between the amount of places that still can't get high-speed, how unreliable it is for many and bandwidth caps, I can't imagine they'd do that. If they require it and Sony doesn't, they won't get my business and I bet a lot of others will steer clear too. Like Sony in this generation, I think Microsoft may overestimate just how much brand loyalty customers have to Xbox, especially now.

Two years ago I was at a beach in Brač, Croatia and had a pretty funny exchange. I was renting a locker at the beach to change, etc. The kid (20 something) running the stand was playing a PS2 and FIFA. We chatted a bit about football, favorite teams, who he followed, etc. That's one less XBox sold down the road to people like that. Not just people in America, but gamers in foreign countries, often at locations that don't have always-on broadband.

Jayhawker wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:
I'm starting to believe the online requirement. Journalists on podcasts are starting to talk about it like it's fact rather than speculation, and while I don't like Kotaku's approach to journalism, they have not been wrong about much regarding these new consoles.

Wait! What?

Nothing specific, there's just a vocal intonation that differs slightly when someone is talking about something they solidly believe in vs. speculation.

GameGuru, use your words.

Aaron D. wrote:
But MS's silence coupled with said rumors smells of complacency and arrogance (much like Sony leading into the current gen).

I really want to give MS my money on a shiny new console this fall, but my loyalty is not completely blind. I'll back Sony in a second if it looks like their mission statement is aligned with the gaming experience and environment I'm looking for.

If rumors as mentioned above, coupled with the dissatisfaction devs have voiced working with MS, is enough to give pause to a MS fanboy like me, I can’t imagine how quickly they could lose on the fencers if they’re not careful. MS are treading on some seriously dangerous ground here.

This pretty much where I fall. Microsoft's silence is the real red flag, even if Demyx is right that they are just gauging consumer reaction, as well as how the "gaming journalists" will respond. Since Microsoft has not even officially revealed anything, let alone take my money, I'm pretty comfortable waiting to see what really happens.