Microsoft Says No New Xbox 360s In 2009 123
OrochimaruVoldemort writes "Microsoft has said to Engadget that they do not plan on making new consoles available in 2009. This comes from the same company that said it wasn't producing a Blu-ray drive for that Xbox, so it is pure speculation. Expect to see a new console within that year. Engadget also hints: 'Microsoft representative let us know today that "While we don't normally comment on rumors like this, we can tell you that we have no plans to release a new console in 2009."' The rest of us will wait and see. For now, focus on what is available."
Make way for the console that will kill PC gaming! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (Score:2)
Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (Score:5, Insightful)
3: Subscription-based games = profit! (Score:5, Funny)
I hate to say it because I think all of the MMO games currently available are roughly comparable to being consumed by and subsequently shit out of a bear.
Eventually some visionary developer is going to get it right, though... and they're going to end up richer than God.
Re: (Score:2)
while subscriptions helps a company understand the market and have a realive budget, they turn away gamers.
one game i play http://www.airrivals.net/ [airrivals.net] the idea is simple.. free to play.. and you can access all content without paying a cent.. but there is an item shop that is a cash shop.. and it is done as micro payments.. they do quite well and it isn't uncommo
The Cure for the MMO (Score:2)
I'm working on a space game where everything is playable by the users, or designable by the users, scriptable by the users, or it evolves on it's own in the background using genetic algorithms. There is no dev-generated "content." There is "mining" and "farming" but this will be done by people who choose to
Re: (Score:2)
You're one of the few. I'm pretty sure Blizzards' 100 billion subscribers think that at least 1 company got it right...
Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (Score:5, Informative)
Sticking with software for a moment; if you compare US PC retail software sales vs US console software sales the PC came in third behind the PS2 and XBOX 360 last year with $900 million from brick and mortar stores (ignoring that NPD collects data from only 60-80% of the market and extrapolates the remainder). If you add back in subscription sales [next-gen.biz] the PC was actually the top (non-portable) platform last year with over $2 billion in software and subscription sales. And if you accept recent evidence that digital sales have reached parity/exceeded brick and mortar sales then the PC is in the neighborhood of $3 billion in software derived revenue per year, or in the same ballpark as the top three console platforms combined.
Of course, all of that is a lot of silly wang measuring using NPD numbers. Which really amounts to comparing one wildly inaccurate (or at the very least, incomplete) set of numbers to another. The frustrating thing is that while NPD uses a lot of hand waving when describing their data collection methods and releases very selective sub-sets of data to the public (remember, their business model revolves around selling the detailed stuff); our illustrious media accepts these numbers as immutable, indisputable, fact. They then turn around and ignore that the $18.5 billion figure includes hardware, software, and accessories sales for nine platforms (PS2, XBOX, XBOX 360, PS3, DS, Game Boy Advanced, and PSP) plus partial software sales from a tenth (the PC) and proclaim that video games outsell theatrical movies tickets by almost two to one. The general public in turn parrots this line ('cause the news is always right) and console fans trumpet the 17 to 1 ratio vs retail PC software sales as proof that the PC industry is essentially dead.
Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and one thing i hate, is the way 'Blu-ray' adoption rates "Don't Count PS3s, because they're console sales" even though every website I googled said 'PS3 is the best Blu-ray movie player, PS3 is the Only Blu-Ray Player to support BDJava, yada yada yada..'
Why would anyone pay $400 for a Blu-ray stand alone when the PS3 is $400? and furthermore, $200 'BD-rom drives' aren't Blu-ray players even though you can buy plenty of HD movie playback
What PC can't play a video game? (Score:3, Insightful)
not all PCs come with a graphic card capable of playing a video game.
Tetris, developed by Alexey Pajitnov and originally published by samizdat, is a video game. All PCs with a CGA, EGA, VGA, or more powerful VGA-compatible video card have been able to run Vadim Gerasimov's port of Tetris to the PC [oversigma.com], even if inside an old-PC emulator such as DOSBox.
My point is that sure, low-end PCs with an Intel GPU won't run Xbox 360- or PS3-level graphics, but they'll definitely run DS- or PSP-level graphics, and probably even Wii-level graphics. So if a game engine can scale down to
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when you get a low-end PC with 8mb of integrated graphics and no sound?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when you get a low-end PC with 8mb of integrated graphics
Tetris still runs.
Quake III Arena works in 8 MB graphics [quake3arena.com], and that game is over eight years old. When was the configuration you speak of commonplace? And how much VRAM does a PSP have? If your engine can't scale that far, you might need separate SKUs for low-end and high-end PCs, just as games come in PS2 and PS3 editions.
and no sound?
Then the game turns on captions or whatever other scheme you've devised to make the game accessible to deaf people. Console games need captions too, just in case the TV is on mut
Re:What PC can't play a video game? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not always an issue of just the engine, though. There are lots of issues with scaling a game. If you have an extremely CPU-intensive AI system that runs fine on the Xbox or PS3's multiple cores, how do you affect this without substantially impacting gameplay? If all your art is shader-based, and relying on shaders that simply don't exist on the Wii, then what? There's not always a practical way to scale down the number of bones a character has - that's another scaling problem for you.
At some point, it becomes easier to simply rework the game for the lower-end platform than to port the game. Likewise, the gap between the highest end PC and lowest end of the current market seems to be substantially larger than it used to be.
The game my company is currently developing requires hardware with shader 2.0 support at a minimum. All of our assets are being developed with this hardware in mind. Should we create two sets of assets, one for shader 2.0 hardware and one using simple blended textures? Lighting, another shader-dependent beast, would end up looking completely different for the two systems. While this is possible, you end up making significant compromises in the look of the game.
It's all great to say "scale it down to low-end PCs", but we're making version two of a successful online PC game. Our players will be expecting a game that looks and plays significantly better than the first version. So while we're not going to require ridiculous specs, we still have to compete with the screenshots and videos of other PC games. There's a pretty significant difference between a Tetris game and what we're producing.
Treat the PC as two platforms (Score:2)
At some point, it becomes easier to simply rework the game for the lower-end platform than to port the game. Likewise, the gap between the highest end PC and lowest end of the current market seems to be substantially larger than it used to be.
Console game publishers often sell two SKUs: one for PlayStation 2 and one for PLAYSTATION 3; or one for Wii and one for Xbox 360. Obviously, the developers hand-reduce the assets for the weaker system. So why can't PC game publishers they sell one SKU "for Windows XP" and one "for Windows Vista"? It wouldn't be entirely correct, as the Vista version would probably still run on a beefy enough XP box unless it uses DX10, but consumers would at least get the hint that one is for older PCs and one for newer.
Re: (Score:2)
So why can't PC game publishers they sell one SKU "for Windows XP" and one "for Windows Vista"? It wouldn't be entirely correct...
And there's the rub. It might create more confusion than is really solves. And developers / publishers are likely not in a hurry to further fragment an already fragile (and potentially confusing) market. While Vista (with it's gaming score) might help to alleviate some confusion about performance requirements, it will likely take a while before that OS is ubiquitous enough to make this a reliable benchmarking tool.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that publishers have determined that there's
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
market share, how many people are there with a PC with a low end graphic card, that still want to play 'modern' video games? not very many, most of those people don't have incomes either, eg: kids. they can beg their parents for this that or the other, but i know a lot of adults who intentionally buy a PC with a featureless graphic card, just so that they can keep their kids from playing pc games on it, and tell them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'steam' seems to have about the same minimum footprint as java would (400 mhz, at least 64MB ram, win2k, xp or vista), except requiring from 1 GB to 'up to 60 GB'(one slashdot reader said his purchased game folder went t
Re: (Score:2)
64 MB
http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=about [steampowered.com]
256MB
http://www.steampowered.com/steamtour/6.php [steampowered.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, the sad thing is PC gaming isn't King, even if its better.
It's not better, it's different. PC gaming offers the widest range of titles and peripherals and, for people for whom gaming is the focus of their life and thus they can afford such things, the most detailed gaming experience (best graphics, best sound, blah blah blah.) Console gaming offers a relatively hassle-free experience. Each has its own appeal.
I do both, and I feel I say from experience that each has its place. Don't forget handheld gaming (arguably, the oldest kind of self-entertainment) :) e.g.
Of course they don't have plans. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course they don't have plans. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo can't even emulate N64 memory cards. What makes you think they'll be able to emulate GameCube memory cards and controllers over USB? (Also the fact that the Wii doesn't support use of e.g. the Classic Controller in GC mode.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that was extremely close in terms of hardware (old system + new features) was the Gameboy Color, and even that had a different name. Unless you also count the Gamecube and the Wii, in which case there's also a lot of hardware differences along with the new name.
More RAM to enable larger texture files? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's a difference in LCD quality, system size, etc. But from the games point of view, it's all the same system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they did learn from that mistake, though. They haven't done any system hardware expansion since then.
Re: (Score:2)
No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (Score:5, Informative)
What the article said is that there isn't going to be a slim version of the 360 or a 360 with a Blu-Ray drive.
Quite a big difference, I think.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's almost as though Microsoft is actively trying to fail.
Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (Score:5, Informative)
How so? They've already got at least 3 versions of the console. How is it that further confusing the market is their only possible means of success?
This may shock you, but the most popular and financially successful non-portable console of this generation has a grand total of *one* version.
Re: (Score:2)
What the article said is that there isn't going to be a slim version of the 360 or a 360 with a Blu-Ray drive.
Quite a big difference, I think.
How so? They've already got at least 3 versions of the console. How is it that further confusing the market is their only possible means of success?
I think you misunderstood the OP's point. He wasn't passing judgement on whether or not a new version was viable, rather in their mind the title of the
Re: (Score:2)
You skipped a post in your quote.
I was replying to:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I am mistaken, late in 2007 the 360s were switched to a smaller fab process and the cooling solution was revamped when they added the HDMI port to the $350 SKU. so the risk of RROD should be greatly reduced
Re: (Score:1)
Also, MS ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Basil E. Frankweiler (Score:3, Funny)
Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (Score:1, Interesting)
Console hardware has been to straight disasters in a row for Microsoft with the entire endeavor racking up over 7 billion in losses. Over the past year Microsoft has been slowly migr
Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (Score:4, Insightful)
If they keep trying to break in to the Japanese dominated console market and keep failing, losing tons of money, all I can say is "Good for them".
Is national pride really so passe in the U.S.? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... how is that bad? The free market has no room for patriotism. Companies should have to compete for my loyalty. I won't by American because we have unions that create shoddy workmanship. It's getting worse every day with the government feeding you the line tha
Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (Score:4, Interesting)
If they abandon the console market, it will be because they're leaving the games industry all together.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm simply saying that there is
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest challenge facing Microsoft is that they really have no concept of originality. The Microsoft Way(TM) is to steamroll the competition and replace it with mediocrity. While competition exists, they can at least do the same thing the competition is doing (and sometimes do it better because of their larger development budget!). Once that competition disappears, Microsoft just sits on its laurels, releasing random features as new versions. If Microsoft ever manages to "win"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Four-player games? (Score:2)
The vast majority of Microsoft 360 developers are US PC x86 directx focused and most of them would rather have Microsoft resuscitate the dying PC gaming market than being forced to work on console hardware.
Some game designs put three or more players' characters on the same screen. Examples include Bomberman, Gauntlet, and NBA Jam. A lot of people have friends over who do not own their own computer, so it's not cost-efficient to have a separate computer and monitor for each player. If there's no third Xbox, then for which platform are DirectX developers going to develop such four-player games?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They could try being less narrow-minded and start making games for non-DirectX platforms instead?
There are two platforms that can use DirectX: Windows-based home theater PCs (GL/DX) and Xbox 360 (DX). And there are three consoles that don't support DirectX: Wii (GX, similar to OpenGL), PLAYSTATION 3 (OpenGL ES), and Mac mini (OpenGL).
Larger developers could easily transition their future products to Wii or PS3. But smaller developers have flocked toward Windows for its openness toward smaller developers, and mid-size developers have been able to sell their works on Xbox Live Marketplace. But with
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, that's a straightforward interpretation. Another straightforward interpretation is that there'd be no new types of 360s (360s could possibly refer to either individual machines, or classes of machines, much like "I didn't see any new birds" could refer to individuals, or species). And since a sentence having multiple straight forward interpretations is completely bog-standard in English -- it can take a great deal of effort to write in such a way that there isn't multiple possible meanings -- most people are very used to holding these multiple definitions in their head, and selecting the most likely one based on context and experience. Or all of them, which is how puns work.
So of the two meanings, which is more likely? MS isn't going to manufacture any xbox hardware of any kind in 2009? Or they are not going to release a new design for their hardware in 2009?
Maybe pedantry isn't the right word. What is the right word for assuming there to be only one possible correct interpretation of a sentence?
Though to be fair, adding the word "types" or "kinds" would have certainly made the meaning more clear. I'm all for that.
Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (Score:4, Informative)
Realising that its referring to types or models is an interpretation, extrapolating meaning from missing words and from the text of the summary.
Obviously it didnt take me very long to realise my mistake, but the fact is I saw the headline, and was momentarily taken aback by the decision not to produce any new 360s at all next year.
The plural also didnt help. If the headline read "No New Xbox 360 In 2009" it would be much more obvious, but having it as a plural further confuses.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Like I said, "360s" could refer to classes of machine or individual machines, just like "birds" can refer to individual birds or species of birds. No extra word is necessary strictly speaking.
If you aren't "interpreting" things people say or write, then you are probably getting the wrong meaning much of the time. For example if you heard someone say "I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
LOLmsft (Score:1)
Ya rly!
Sneeky msft iz beeng sneeky
well duh (Score:3, Funny)
I'll believe it when i see it....oh wait..i mean don't see it
Well (Score:2)
Or maybe the XBox 4D? (Score:2)
Windows Vista, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows 98, Windows 3.1;
Visual Studio 2003, Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio.Net
(Of course, I expect
Re:Or maybe the XBox 4D? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Release XBox360 slim (or with blu-ray...) then
2. Release XBox 4 and 'legitimately' call it '4'
The whole 360 thing was to have a number starting with 3 to compete with Sony.
O, RLY? (Score:1, Redundant)
So my opinion is that those rumors sound quite plausible but if you decide to hold off on a console purchase in May 2008 because there might be a revision in mid to late 2009 you were just looking for ex
So all still in 2008 then? (Score:2)
Peter.
The Overwhelming Response? (Score:2)
From all the "Red Circle Of Death"-experienced gamers everywhere!
I keed, I keed!
Cheers!
Strat
Recent games are putting pressure on them... (Score:1, Insightful)
But as I said, it's only a small number of people looking that way at present, because the difference is slight at the moment.
I'd guess t
Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I was saying is that the PC architecture is still so far ahead of console that next-gen games will only play on PC. (And by Next-Gen, I mean games designed for the technology designed over the past two years).
The PC is already and likely perm
But why not plug gamepads into a PC? (Score:2)
conversely, games intended for console frequently don't make it to the PC. It's not that you can't play them - they just weren't designed for keyboard and mouse (and few people actually keep an X-box or PS2 like pad for their PC ).
I have six console-style gamepads that I can plug into my PC's USB ports (one PC-native, and adapters for three PS2, one N64, and one GameCube). Obviously, I'm an outlier, but why don't more people plug one or two gamepads into a PC?
So if you want to see where this is going, compare PCs that can run anything you can do on a console (assuming it's not an exclusive title) to older PS2 and Xbox's and you will see why the console's need to keep up also
A lot of console titles aren't "exclusive" in the sense of being exclusive to one console, but they never show up on Windows or Mac OS X despite being released on all three consoles and even one or both handhelds. Why is this the case?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I'd be so quick to say that.
I mean, is the same FPS game released on the PC and a console going to always look and play better on the console? Absolutely.
But where will it sell more copies? It's starting to be the console by far.
Those kinds of market forces have to start distorting the status quo there, assuming you don't think they are already.
Re: (Score:3)
So what you mean is that games designed for the latest expensive PC graphics cards will only play on the latest expensive PC graphics cards? The problem is, most people have no interest in those cards, as well as all the other costs with gaming (more RAM, better processors, Windows Vista). Most pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got $400 to blow on a console, you've probably managed your wealth well enough to already have an HDTV and surround system.
Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (Score:5, Insightful)
PC has freeware and shareware (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh and don't get me started on how so many PC releases are bugfests for their first few weeks or months. Nothing sucks more than downloading a demo, seeing it run so-so with promises of fixes before it goes gold, then buy the game and it not work at all without either a lot of dicking around with
Re: (Score:2)
I gave up on the PC gaming treadmill...though I am still quite happy playing 2004/2002/2000 era PC games. The graphics may be mediocre, but the gameplay is great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess that most PC gamers play on a several year old machine barely capable of playing World of Warcraft and the Sims, which is all they're really interested in. Other gamers have consoles for things like fifa, COD, GTA etc.
The high-end PC market is pretty small, and most people would rather play Assassin's Creed on their new 50" HDTV than Crysis on a PC, no mat
Translation... (Score:5, Informative)
It's almost certainly a lie. But they would be crazy to tell the truth and destroy their market until the new models did finally ship.
It's pretty much guaranteed Sony will ship new models too. Bigger hard drives, cooler processors, smaller cases, new skus with games bundled. There are always new stimuli to keep the market active. But no one in their right mind acknowledges their roadmap for the next 20 months (to the end of '09), screwing their current market with all the people who figure they'll just wait.
It's not just consoles. Canon releases a new xxxD camera every year or so, a new xxD camera every 18 months, pretty much like clockwork. And yet they refuse to announce the new model until the last possible moment, denying everything they can, so as not to trash the current prices. Look at what happened to the $3,000 Canon 5D that everyone assumed would have got a new revision in February. Even without a new rev turning up, discounting got so competetive on the assumption the old model was about to become obsolete that it now goes for a hair over $2,000. Even then, people like myself who'd still get a lot from the 5D are putting off their purchase, waiting for whatever its successor turns out to be or much lower 5D prices, rather than letting Canon shift stock now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I am tempted to get one of the latest-gen consoles from time to time, mostly likely either a 360 or a Wii. Thinking that a thinner, quieter 360 was just a few months from release would make me wait, were I to decide on a 360.