Halo in September, New Xbox in 2012?

EGM sat down for a long talk with Microsoft's Shane Kim, Corporate Vice President. Among other things they discuss the unbuyability of the Bioware company (they asked and were rebuffed), plans for the next next-gen game console (already in the works, possibly coming in 2012), and the timing for the release of Halo 3. "We returned to discussing Microsoft's first party portfolio for 2007. With Grand Theft Auto IV due in mid-October, Microsoft has to figure out when Halo 3 and Project Gotham Racing 4 fit into the release calendar. Kim confirmed that PGR4 was due this fall, though did not specify a date. Why not? Well, because Microsoft won't ship a game in October to compete with GTA IV, and with Lost Odyssey coming in December, that means Halo 3 and Project Gotham Racing 4 have to fight over September and November. With the success Halo 2 enjoyed at retail, would Microsoft even entertain shipping the game outside of the oft-expected November timeframe?"

360 longevity

[Applekid]

2012 for the next XBox iteration? That means the 360 would have a life of at least 7 years. Much better than the previous XBox incantation (4 years), the Gamecube (5 years), and even the PS2 (6 years).

Obviously that's a long way in the future so I take that with huge chunks of salt, but I would definitely appreciate a slowing down of next gen arms race propagation.

Why not release both?

[iainl]

Umm, I don't get it. What's so bad about those of us who like racing games being allowed to buy a hot new title at the same time as the people who are into FPSes? If Sony only released 12 games a year they wouldn't ship the number of PS2s they have.

Besides, if I remember rightly, Halo 2's release date was shared with a Rainbow 6, a Splinter Cell and a Call Of Duty all within a week or two of each other, and that didn't seem to come out too badly.

Re:Why not release both?

[MooseMuffin]

I think it has more to do with marketing than actually cannibalizing sales. They would like to be able to say they have a big name title coming out this month, and a big name title coming out next month, and so on. Releasing them all in September (for example) would be great for that month, but what new stuff will they have to talk about for the rest of the holiday season?

Re:Release Dates

[Doctor Crumb]

Microsoft isn't making money on the 360, it's selling at a loss (just like the xbox 1):
http://www.xbox-scene.com/xbox1data/sep/EEFkZEZVFA VeytDAqV.php [xbox-scene.com]

If they have a long lifespan for the console, that loss might eventually become a profit. If they develop a replacement console sooner, that not only adds a schwack of R&D costs but it reduces the amount of profit they could get from this generation.

The exact same thing goes for sony; the ps3 is a loss leader, but they are probably making money from the ps2 due to its popularity and long life.

Re:360 longevity

[Surt]

OTOH, the graphics capabilities and performance of a dual-core (not to mention quad core) pc with an 8800gtx are way beyond what either the xbox360 or the ps3 can do already. Processor clocks are not all that matters to real performance.

Re:Release Dates

[Floritard]

Jesus we're already talking about the next-next-gen? The term next-gen hasn't even cooled off yet. How much more clearly do you need to see Sam Fisher's buldging coin-purse, normal-mapped and specularly highlighted through his tight-fitting spy outfit? Games have been driven by graphics for years now but that trend is tapering off. What we need is innovation in gameplay (AI in particular and physics as well). I love ragdoll physics and was always anticipating it, now how about giving players total muscular control and completely phasing out key-framed anims altogether like euphoria is doing? How about procedurally generating not just content, but new experiences and new stories? You're not going to get that with a new version of DirectX or by adding another processor. That is time spent on R&D for software and theory. The graphics theory has been worked out for years, so when new graphics power comes out we're all to ready to throw it into use. More and prettier polygons. But how relevent is that anymore? OTOH where are we with AI? AI doesn't scale like graphics. Most companies still don't even know what to do with a multi-core processor yet. Stop releasing new consoles and make better games. People are eventually just going to get tired of the whole industry.

I remember hearing EA and Rockstar say they had already mastered the then current gen tech of PS2/Xbox. Really guys? Great then you can just churn out top-notch games! The NES had a life-span of 12 years for chrissake. If you're going to make the same damn games anyway, just stay on the console you've mastered. I could have played 5 GTA San Andreases to be honest. I could have played 5 God of Wars (though I'm not interested in paying an expensive upgrade cost to play those same old experiences in shiny "new" games). Those were games made by companies at the top of their game. Now we're stuck waiting for these assholes to figure out their new toys all over again, all the while bitching about how much it costs them to make all the friggin' content for their new games.

And when they do get their tools in order will we be getting games with new gameplay? Hell no. We'll get Halo 3, a prettier Halo 2 (the sequel jumping across console gens is particularly indicative of a stagnation in true innovation). We'll get Gears of War, something I honestly could have mistaken for an unreal3 engine tech demo. The monsters will still run around acting dumber than ants (I mean that literally, I would love to see the emergent intelligence such as that of an ant hive in a game). The players will still have the same rigid disconnect with these pretty virtual worlds that could only come from the same boring analog control system. I still haven't found a reason to buy a new system, though I'm still leaning towards the graphically weaker but considerably innovative Wii (if I could ever track one down!). I've played Halo before. Twice. I imagine the third will play much like the first two. I'd like to play it, but I'm not spending $600 for the pleasure of that retread. Console gaming is supposed to be cheaper than PC gaming. It is beginning to outpace the cost of upgrading my PC. Wtf? Microsoft or any other company that really wanted to wouldn't have to release a new console in 10 years if it decided to reach for players hearts and minds (through games not market-speak) instead of just their eyeballs (and wallets). The damn fools at MS screwed up this whole generation in the first place with the premature ejaculate that is the 360. They may be in the lead right now, but you tell me, is this iteration of the console wars nearly as exciting as any of the previous? The Genesis (hell even the SegaCD), the SNES, the N64, the Dreamcast/PS2. Those were exciting times. Sony, MS have really scewed things up with this hardware smorgasbord. Show me the games.

Re:360 longevity

[aikouka]

Honestly, I don't mean to sound rude, but anyone who bases the overall speed of a processor on the "megahertz" needs to re-evaluate the inner-workings of processors and what exactly differentiates the PowerPC-based Xenon processor from your run-of-the-mill desktop x86-64 variety.

There was actually a good article on Anandtech at one point about how these next-gen processors are not good for gaming compared to your typical desktop dual-core CPU. I mean, you could go on how Cell's SPE's have no branch prediction, which hampers their logical processing (i.e. not as great for features such as AI). PowerPC processors are also in-order execution, which is somewhat wasteful in some situations.

Here's a wikipedia article on in-order and out-of-order execution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_executio n [wikipedia.org]