AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation.... - Page 133  

post #3961 of 7006
1/8/13 at 9:08am
I don't see any way they release the new xbox for less than $400. Especially considering how far into this generation they have been able to sell $360s above $200.

$400 will seem reasonable to most people. I suspect it will be $450-$499. They may sell them for $100 less with some sort of xbox live agreement. In fact, I would not be surprised if they had an option for you to pay $600 up front and get Free xbox Live for the life of the system.

AVS Top Picks

post #3962 of 7006
1/8/13 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus View Post

I don't see any way they release the new xbox for less than $400. Especially considering how far into this generation they have been able to sell $360s above $200.
$400 will seem reasonable to most people. I suspect it will be $450-$499. They may sell them for $100 less with some sort of xbox live agreement. In fact, I would not be surprised if they had an option for you to pay $600 up front and get Free xbox Live for the life of the system.

No way they let go of that cash cow (Live) that easily. Even an extra $150 is only 3 yrs of Live. They will want the new Xbox to last a lot longer than that.
post #3963 of 7006
1/8/13 at 10:15am
Thread Starter 
I think $399.99 is the magical price. If that first number starts with a 4 or higher, it will be a VERY long transition from 360 to the Next box. Hasn't the PS3 proven this ?
post #3964 of 7006
1/8/13 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

I think $399.99 is the magical price. If that first number starts with a 4 or higher, it will be a VERY long transition from 360 to the Next box. Hasn't the PS3 proven this ?

The ps3 also had the disadvantage of coming out a year later than the 360, and being terribly difficult to program for. I don't think you can lay its slow early uptake entirely on the price....the software lineup was slow to catch up, PSN was a few years behind XBL, and third party games simply didnt play and look as good as the 360....and still kind of dont.
post #3965 of 7006
1/8/13 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

I think $399.99 is the magical price. If that first number starts with a 4 or higher, it will be a VERY long transition from 360 to the Next box. Hasn't the PS3 proven this ?

The PS3 was competing with the Wii60. It had several problems. 1st is that, nothing about it made it appear to be any better than a 360 (Gears of War was making headlines and creating 360 hype at the time), so those looking for that type of experience had a much cheaper alternative at the time. 2nd is that the Wii was released in the same launch window so the PS3 did not have the holiday thunder all to itself.

So, unless you were a Sony Fanboy or in need of a Blu-Ray player, there just was not that much reason for you pay $600 for a console. Particularly, when you could buy 2 (Wii60) for the price of 1.

I do agree. $399 is where you want to be, but if $450 is what it takes to get me an 8 core CPU, 8 GB of Ram and a nice sized hard drive, I'm all in.
post #3966 of 7006
1/8/13 at 1:02pm
Third party games don't look as good on the PS3 as they do on the 360? Since when? Ha. I'm pretty sure people at the PS3 forum would beg to differ.

I found the PS3 to be slower to catch on as well. I had a 360 long before I even cared for buying the PS3. Sure, the Blu-Ray player was nice, but what else would I use it for? Metal Gear Solid 4...That was it. That was the only reason I bought a PS3 to begin with. Simply because I grew up a fan of the series and wanted to know what MGS4 was all about.

I haven't bought a PS3 game in well over a year now. I still buy for 360, but just can't seem to find anything I want to play on the PS3.
post #3967 of 7006
1/8/13 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

Third party games don't look as good on the PS3 as they do on the 360? Since when? Ha. I'm pretty sure people at the PS3 forum would beg to differ.
I found the PS3 to be slower to catch on as well. I had a 360 long before I even cared for buying the PS3. Sure, the Blu-Ray player was nice, but what else would I use it for? Metal Gear Solid 4...That was it. That was the only reason I bought a PS3 to begin with. Simply because I grew up a fan of the series and wanted to know what MGS4 was all about.
I haven't bought a PS3 game in well over a year now. I still buy for 360, but just can't seem to find anything I want to play on the PS3.

Since forever. They might beg to differ but they'd be demonstrably wrong. It used to be really bad, especially with unreal engine games. The gap has been closed considerably, to the point where its very minor graphical differences and a slight frame rate edge in favor of 360. Eurogamer does pretty intensive analyses of most high profile games and 9/10 times it swings slightly in favor of 360. In fact, the only game I can ever recall performing better on the PS3 is Castlevania:LoS.

I don't want to overstate it, the differences tend to be very slight nowadays...but they've been persistently there since the PS3 came out. No one that has only a PS3 is missing anything, but it still has me choosing to buy the 360 version because of it.
post #3968 of 7006
1/8/13 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Since forever. They might beg to differ but they'd be demonstrably wrong. It used to be really bad, especially with unreal engine games. The gap has been closed considerably, to the point where its very minor graphical differences and a slight frame rate edge in favor of 360. Eurogamer does pretty intensive analyses of most high profile games and 9/10 times it swings slightly in favor of 360. In fact, the only game I can ever recall performing better on the PS3 is Castlevania:LoS.
I don't want to overstate it, the differences tend to be very slight nowadays...but they've been persistently there since the PS3 came out. No one that has only a PS3 is missing anything, but it still has me choosing to buy the 360 version because of it.
It's far from demonstrable IMO. The differences in multiplatform games are often so slight as to be non-extant. It's simply not an issue anymore other than the occasional outlier. And it comes out in the PS3's favor as often as the 360's. We're far from the early days of this generation.

In any event, both consoles are looking long in the tooth and having bigger problems with newer games. Arguing over which version is better these days is just fighting over scraps.
Edited by confidenceman - 1/8/13 at 2:58pm
post #3969 of 7006
1/8/13 at 2:55pm
alright, all this 360 v ps3 talk is silly and shouldn't be in this thread.

I was content to staying out of it, but confendenceman is throwing out a statement that has little to back it up. name some PS3 versions that are better than the 360 version in the past 2-3 years. lots of games can be listed for the 360 version. not many for the PS3 version.

and I don't mean games with added content because they were released late and had stuff added to make up for the lateness, like Mass Effect.
post #3970 of 7006
1/8/13 at 3:25pm
It's not fanboy nonsense, its in context of why the PS3 didn't catch on and what that means for the next gen going forward.

Having the best version of a multiplatform game matters when people make buying decisions, even if the differences are slight. The PS3 simply didn't justify its premium price in terms of being the best platform for third party games.
post #3971 of 7006
1/8/13 at 4:13pm
World-wide the PS3 basically battled the 360 to a draw. Wiki has the PS3 at 70.2 million units and the 360 at 70.0 as of 9/30/12.

Wii at 97.2 /troll
post #3972 of 7006
1/8/13 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

World-wide the PS3 basically battled the 360 to a draw. Wiki has the PS3 at 70.2 million units and the 360 at 70.0 as of 9/30/12.
Wii at 97.2 /troll

Given how unreliable the 360 was at first, the active installbase of the PS3 might even be a little bit ahead. If the cell wasnt such a disaster, and the multiplatform games all did look and play significantly better....I think they'd easily have peeled away 10-20 mil from the 360.
post #3973 of 7006
1/8/13 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

alright, all this 360 v ps3 talk is silly and shouldn't be in this thread.
I was content to staying out of it, but confendenceman is throwing out a statement that has little to back it up. name some PS3 versions that are better than the 360 version in the past 2-3 years. lots of games can be listed for the 360 version. not many for the PS3 version.
and I don't mean games with added content because they were released late and had stuff added to make up for the lateness, like Mass Effect.
I could rattle off a good handful off the top of my head, but I won't since it's totally not the place for such nonsense, as you say. If you play more than Western-developed FPS and TPS games, you'd know better.

The takeaway is that both consoles suck at the moment (tech-wise), and few developers are willing to work within the dated constraints of "ancient" hardware. Just look at how awfully the biggest new titles run right now on the consoles. It's not pretty. The best games right now are those that don't aim high (small games and indies). There are other reasons small games are really great right now, but again, this isn't really the place for that discussion.
post #3974 of 7006
1/8/13 at 5:23pm
for that kind of statement, you kind of have to back it up. no one's asking for an essay. heck, you can probably fit 10 games in a tweet-sized message.
post #3975 of 7006
1/8/13 at 5:27pm
FFXIII, Vanquish, and Dark Souls, for starters. Typically, non-Unreal engine games made in Japan tend to run better on PS3 (Bayonetta being the big exception). Like I said, I could go on, but it's not the place for it. If you're really interested, read Digital Foundry's comparison pieces.
post #3976 of 7006
1/8/13 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

World-wide the PS3 basically battled the 360 to a draw. Wiki has the PS3 at 70.2 million units and the 360 at 70.0 as of 9/30/12.
Wii at 97.2 /troll

Beat me to it. Then there's the fact, as the link in the previous page says, they both put them selves in the hole doing it.

Only console war winners this gen were fan-boys and their egos. In reality however, the competition really gave gamers some really good games and support. I've played more AAA (great) sleeper hits that pretty much bombed then at any time before, and still have a huge backlog of games ATM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

I could rattle off a good handful off the top of my head, but I won't since it's totally not the place for such nonsense, as you say. If you play more than Western-developed FPS and TPS games, you'd know better.
The takeaway is that both consoles suck at the moment (tech-wise), and few developers are willing to work within the dated constraints of "ancient" hardware. Just look at how awfully the biggest new titles run right now on the consoles. It's not pretty. The best games right now are those that don't aim high (small games and indies). There are other reasons small games are really great right now, but again, this isn't really the place for that discussion.

First it's it too damn complicated, why should we have to learn about parallel processing on coding in threads? Now it's the tech sucks! These Devs sure are a bitch bunch, eh?

Still, the rumors are getting louder that we shouldn't expect much in the way of trans-generational leap this time around. Which makes sense. COD isn't a 3 billion dollar franchise because it pushed consoles to the limit, nor is kinect most likely the 360's biggest success story (profit wise) because some tech geek got excited about how it handles shaders and radiosity.
post #3977 of 7006
1/8/13 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

Still, the rumors are getting louder that we shouldn't expect much in the way of trans-generational leap this time around.
That won't stop people in the industry (and irrational fanboys) from claiming otherwise. Expect lots of arbitrary numbers and the typical "X console is a waste of everyone's time" comments.

I'm sticking to current consoles and PC for a while and letting the dust settle before diving in again. If console manufacturers can justify the added expense, I'm game. Too many subscriptions, high game prices, high digital prices, too many barriers to innovation, etc. Otherwise, I'll stick to the alternatives.
post #3978 of 7006
1/8/13 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

FFXIII, Vanquish, and Dark Souls, for starters. Typically, non-Unreal engine games made in Japan tend to run better on PS3 (Bayonetta being the big exception). Like I said, I could go on, but it's not the place for it. If you're really interested, read Digital Foundry's comparison pieces.

Yes, I read all of Digital Foundry and Lens of Truth. That's why I was curious which games you were referring to.
post #3979 of 7006
1/8/13 at 10:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

Yes, I read all of Digital Foundry and Lens of Truth. That's why I was curious which games you were referring to.

Funny he brought up Digital Foundry, who are always pro 360 in close matchups. (Vanquish barely got the win according to them, Dark Souls was a trade off)

These days most games come down to the PS3 version having always on V-Sync at the cost of framerate vs the 360 version (which usually uses adaptive V-Sync)
post #3980 of 7006
1/9/13 at 5:40am
I just find it funny how anyone can be a fan-boy for anything, consoles especialy. It's as if people are proud of a product they simply "bought". They had nothing to do with the design and development of the actual product, yet they fight so hard keep it on a pedestal. It's quite silly actually. Fan-boys for anything are simply hurting themselves. I'll never understand how someone can be so attached to a product that they refuse to buy the competition's. They miss out on about 30%(assuming a random percentage) of what technologies have to offer at a given time.

Go to an Xbox forum and watch as posters boast about the success of the 360 over the PS3, as if it's devastating. Go to a Playstation forum and watch the posters boast about the PS3 in the same way. Truth is, success wise the two consoles are pretty evenly matched. Third party games will always "look and feel" better on the system it was originally designed for.

If a game is designed for the 360, then it will have very slight advantages over the ported PS3 version. And vice versa.
post #3981 of 7006
1/9/13 at 5:40am
I would say the Rumors are getting louder that we will have a better console than expected. The latest being the Chinese forum rumor which had Neogaf all lit up yesterday, that seems to add to the speculation that the Xbox will have 8 cores (possibly dual threaded) and 8GB Ram. 8GB Ram may not mean as much from a current PC perspective but going from 512MB to 8GB on consoles has to be considered huge even if it's DDR3.
post #3982 of 7006
1/9/13 at 6:14am
I don't care about the amount of RAM. No matter how much they put in, it won't be enough after a while. Remember, MS was considering 256 megs for the 360. Now, 512 seems just as puny.

Plus, I am sure a large chunk of whatever they put in will be allocated to the OS and background services. Right now, I think the 360 OS is running in 32 megs. Imagine what they can put in with 1-2 gigs.
post #3983 of 7006
1/9/13 at 6:48am
And if they're going to go with that much ram, they need a 8-16GB solid state buffer behind it....a HDD is way too slow to fill 8GB up with data.

Imagine though....next gen elder scrolls with zero load times. That amount of ram would be huge for open world games.
post #3984 of 7006
1/9/13 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

I don't care about the amount of RAM. No matter how much they put in, it won't be enough after a while. Remember, MS was considering 256 megs for the 360. Now, 512 seems just as puny.
Plus, I am sure a large chunk of whatever they put in will be allocated to the OS and background services. Right now, I think the 360 OS is running in 32 megs. Imagine what they can put in with 1-2 gigs.

I think RAM is probably the most important component. When PS360 final specs were first being discussed, I felt like the RAM was going to be the thing that held both consoles back and I think that has been the case. Even more so for the PS3 with it's split pool. Had the current consoles gone with 1GB, we might be talking about 2015 or 2016 for new machines. However, in a closed system, I think we would be very impressed with what can be done with 8GB (Particularly, in light of what was accomplished on PS360 with 512MB), even if 2GB is reserved for the OS. At the very least, it makes way for full usage of all the hi res assets that were created for PC ports in this current gen. This should cause the launch titles (COD/Battlefield) to be much prettier than if they were forced to start from scratch.
post #3985 of 7006
1/9/13 at 8:45am
More RAM does not make a game look better though. It is more important to have high bandwidth than gobs of slow RAM. You can stream assets, so 1-2GB of RAM for video is plenty. Now if the OS takes half your pool, you need a lot, but if you can minimize the OS (512MB?) then a 4GB of high bandwidth shared system seems like a cost effective target. If you go with cheaper slower DDR3 and eDRAM then you can have a 'bigger' 360 model, but then you shift the conversation to how much eDRAM is enough? They fought their 10MB limit all generation long with the 360. You could also do a 4GB DDR3 + 2-4GB GDDR split memory system which would look more like a modern PC or a PS3, but this has issues.

I expect the next Xbox to go for the 8GB DDR3 + 32MB eDRAM . They will use a bunch of the RAM for the OS and media features like DVR and maybe run a Win 8 kernel.

I expect the PS4 to go for a shared 4GB GDDR5 pool and two GPU setup (one in the APU, one dedicated) with a simpler BSD or Linux kernel with less features.

They will probably both be $399 for the base model.
post #3986 of 7006
1/9/13 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louquid View Post

I just find it funny how anyone can be a fan-boy for anything, consoles especialy. It's as if people are proud of a product they simply "bought". They had nothing to do with the design and development of the actual product, yet they fight so hard keep it on a pedestal. It's quite silly actually. Fan-boys for anything are simply hurting themselves. I'll never understand how someone can be so attached to a product that they refuse to buy the competition's. They miss out on about 30%(assuming a random percentage) of what technologies have to offer at a given time.
Go to an Xbox forum and watch as posters boast about the success of the 360 over the PS3, as if it's devastating. Go to a Playstation forum and watch the posters boast about the PS3 in the same way. Truth is, success wise the two consoles are pretty evenly matched. Third party games will always "look and feel" better on the system it was originally designed for.
If a game is designed for the 360, then it will have very slight advantages over the ported PS3 version. And vice versa.

User reported. You need to check this rational mindset. Infractions are coming....
post #3987 of 7006
1/9/13 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

I'm sticking to current consoles and PC for a while and letting the dust settle before diving in again. If console manufacturers can justify the added expense, I'm game. Too many subscriptions, high game prices, high digital prices, too many barriers to innovation, etc. Otherwise, I'll stick to the alternatives.
Same same.
post #3988 of 7006
1/9/13 at 9:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus View Post

I think RAM is probably the most important component. When PS360 final specs were first being discussed, I felt like the RAM was going to be the thing that held both consoles back and I think that has been the case. Even more so for the PS3 with it's split pool. Had the current consoles gone with 1GB, we might be talking about 2015 or 2016 for new machines. However, in a closed system, I think we would be very impressed with what can be done with 8GB (Particularly, in light of what was accomplished on PS360 with 512MB), even if 2GB is reserved for the OS. At the very least, it makes way for full usage of all the hi res assets that were created for PC ports in this current gen. This should cause the launch titles (COD/Battlefield) to be much prettier than if they were forced to start from scratch.


First of all, I don't think that increasing the RAM would lengthen the generation. There are business reasons here why we are moving on. These are old systems, taste change and MS and Sony have limited abilities to match it. That would happen even with more RAM.

I remember Epic saying off the cuff that MS increasing RAM from 256 to 512 cost them 100 million dollars. By now, it's probably more. Obviously from a gamer POV, we all want the most. It's not going to happen for other reasons.
post #3989 of 7006
1/9/13 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

First of all, I don't think that increasing the RAM would lengthen the generation. There are business reasons here why we are moving on. These are old systems, taste change and MS and Sony have limited abilities to match it. That would happen even with more RAM.
I remember Epic saying off the cuff that MS increasing RAM from 256 to 512 cost them 100 million dollars. By now, it's probably more. Obviously from a gamer POV, we all want the most. It's not going to happen for other reasons.

And not having that 512mb would have resulted in such a clearly inferior system compared to the PS3, that they might have comparatively lost out on billions of revenue. The cost benefit analysis isn't so simple when the industry is so competitive.

Remember, these 360 and the PS3 being ultimately specced so close is really an anomaly in this industry. Usually the consoles have quite a bit of distance between them.

It's conceivable that these consoles come out mere days from each other. No one is going to have a time advantage, and with 80% of games being multiplatform, the software is going to look very similar as well. And especially if their architectures are nearly identical as rumors (x86/AMD) - raw hardware power is going to be one of the main differentiating factors. They have every incentive to out-spec the other guy.
post #3990 of 7006
1/9/13 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

User reported. You need to check this rational mindset. Infractions are coming....

Dangit, I did it again..sorry.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
This thread is locked  

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation....