Microsoft: Xbox 360 'about halfway' through generation
The current console generation isn't slowing down. At least, according to an Xbox VP, which claimed the 360 is "about halfway through" the current generation.
It looks like Microsoft is taking a page out of Sony's "ten year" marketing handbook. Xbox VP Chris Lewis told MCV (via CVG) that he sees the Xbox 360 "about halfway through" the current console life cycle. Given the incredible momentum Microsoft has seen for the platform, it's no wonder the exec would be keen on saying that.
"Xbox is defying the normal curve you might expect," Lewis noted. "There's no doubt that Kinect put a huge shot of adrenaline into the business."
Last we heard, Kinect has already sold over ten million units, and Microsoft has been capitalizing on its mainstream appeal by making the system focused more on "entertainment," than simply gaming.
Although the platform is six years old, it has no signs of slowing down. While Nintendo is preparing the Wii U for release next year, it seems Microsoft is comfortable in continuing this generation for a long time to come.
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, Microsoft: Xbox 360 'about halfway' through generation.
The current console generation isn't slowing down. At least, according to an Xbox VP, which claimed the 360 is "about halfway through" the current generation.-
I know a lot of people hate hearing stuff like this but I love it. Maybe it will cause big publishers to experiment more with games instead of focusing on graphics like they do at the beginning of a console's lifespan. Plus it might get a couple of people to switch over to pc gaming.
-
Yup I agree. This has traditionally been around the best time for each console cycle where developers have established engines and tools on the platform and they can concentrate resources on content rather than R&D and engine development. It results in games rather than a bunch of technology demos.
-
-
Fuck... the Wii U2 will be right around the corner by the time we get an Xbox 720 then.
-
-
Yeah, but that's the complete opposite strategy of what MS pulled with the Xbox/360 transition.
-
The Xbox didn't really have much going for it towards the end and MS needed people to buy the 360. The 360 has a lot of momentum right now and the sales are increasing. They might hold off on a console for a long time just to erk all the money they can out of the 360, but I think having the 360 as the PS2-2 and the next Xbox as the main products is what's going to be up.
-
I hope so, that kind of stagnation would blow so hard.
-
-
-
-
They had to drop the Xbox. The costs of components were actually going up over time rather than down since most of it was OTS.
MSFT had to add in a bigger HDD to cut costs but it was still formatted to the same size due to OS limits.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Xp was bomb
-
You mean PS2. Windows XP was released on October 25, 2001, and the PS2 was released in the USA one day later. They both lasted until around 2009.
-
I never put those two together- very cool.
-
Xbox 360: the PS2 of consoles...erm
:P
-
-
-
This breaks my heart personally :( [skewed hardcore PC gamer]
I know for most console dudes its real good news, for your investment and no need to buy new stuff, but you surely are getting curious about the bling on the PC... right?
So its been --> November 22, 2005 that's 6 years so your telling me the next console comes out in 2017 nahhh REALLY? Really? The thought at what CPU and GPU will be at that as well as APIs blows my freaking MIND.
Crysis 2 DX11 on Monday OMG, I can hardly contain my self. Man I really wish my consoles already had a refresh, it must be the PC dude inside of me taking over. I mean I would settle for some magic spell that would at least boost all PS3 and 360 games to be stock at 1920x1080 native, that would be so hot and make me so happy.
I wonder what the majority of you want that just rock the console, I know what us hybrid dudes want, more freaking power bro. I think at least, shit what do I know maybe we will start seeing hardcore quality games, who knows?-
Honestly, I would be fine with consoles being around longer IF they were actually rendering all their games not only in HD but at 1080p. As it as, when I go from playing the PC to my 360 it's so painfully obvious which games are rendering at low resolutions. Hell, I'd be happy if games could just output on 720p while having a low internal latency and maintaining Gears of War 3 like fidelity. But they can't. The hardware just can't support that. Memory limitations alone prevent it. Going to have a phone able to compete graphics/gameplay wise with consoles in 2012. How sad would it be in 2013 if the console wars will not only lose to PC but to phones? My ps3 is more powerful than your 360...ya well my phone slaps your ps3 like a $2 ho!
-
I think its more, the graphics on consoles look "good enough" to most people. You never really know as back in PS1 days, seeing FF7 it blew your mind and it couldn't get better and was definitely "good enough". Maybe they will shoot themselves in the foot by sitting and waiting. Or maybe they will keep a long standing ground with kinect gamers as its not likely they want to upgrade anytime soon.
-
they look good enough to a lot of longtime gamers too
-
[deleted]
-
I think the 'good enough' attitude exists primarily because they don't really have any experience with what's better. Increased resolution alone make CoD noticeably better than their console versions(comparing the two on a 42" pany plasma is night and day). When I'm playing BC2 on my PC I routinely just go 'wow, that's detailed and it's not necessary for it to be that detailed, but it is and it's gorgeous'. Then I go back to my 360 and I can get past the bad AA, the artifacts, but it's the resolution...the way objects are 'fuzzier' just makes the immersion nowhere near the PC counterpart. How can console graphics truly be good enough when a lot of games aren't even in HD let alone 1080p? I think most of everyone saying it's good enough have little experience with what's better. You hdtv may run at 1080p but your console games aren't and it's easy to see the difference between those two resolutions on a PC. I don't think it's accurate to say it's 'good enough' when what the truth is is that it's good enough b/c it's all you know.
-
-
-
Yah especially if the WiiU starts selling like crazy and that is suppose to have a leg up on the 360/PS3.
-
-
-
Given how long the PS2 and Wii remained viable this gen, it's not a shock. The audience isn't ready for expensive new hardware yet and most publishers aren't really dying for an upgrade either.
-
God damn it.
-
If Sony and Microsoft can look at Unreal Engine 3 and Frostbite 2 and still be this smug about their future, then they can pay the natural consequences. That, quite frankly, is fine with me. I will enjoy the time PC gets some preferential treatment for as long as they prefer to be blind.
-
[deleted]
-
When they start seeing games that look next-gen in that they look like they're ps4/xbox3 games and the next ps/xbox is still 2-3yrs from release they'll start to care and probably care enough to purchase a capable PC. Or are you going to tell me the people that notice how 'pretty' Gears3 is wouldn't care about a game that looks as good as The Samaritan demo? I don't think console players are that apathetic about graphics not mattering. BF3 is merely the tip of the Iceberg. One of the reasons it's not even more beautiful is that gpus got stuck on 40nm longer than everyone wanted. If we had had 32nm gpu's for the 500/6000 series BF3 would no doubt be more detailed. After 22nm drops there'll be large leaps in performance that devs who dev 'PC first' will be able to 'depend' on for high-end settings.
-
no they won't all my console buddies have no desire to even do PC gaming... hell even when I showed my friend Crysis on my PC maxed out, he was in complete denial saying the PS3 still looks better.
A lot of people don't even see PC or Windows as a gaming platform, computers to them are a place to do work or check email, facebook, ect...-
Most of my friends used to be big into PC gaming have shifted to consoles just because they can get 90% of the experience with a small investment. Once you've got the house, family, etc., it's hard to justify the expensive PC setup. You already have the TV, just get an XBox with Netflix and other useful features, and hey it plays most of the latest games too.
-
I won't pretend that PC gaming is something for everyone. It takes a certain disposition to want to do it this way. The incentive to seriously consider PC gaming however hasn't been all that high the last few years. In the past there were games like HL2 and Max Payne to stand out as something you 'wanted' to play on PC b/c they were fun and they looked heads and shoulders above anything on a console. There haven't been games this gen like that for the PC yet. BF3 seems like it'll be the first to do this to a degree. If HL3 released in 2012-2013 then we could see the affect that kind of title would have on console players that feel their consoles gives them all they need.
-
-
As beautiful as Crysis still is the engine does have it's age and it's nowhere near in comparison to The Samaritan demo. I have a hard time believing your buddy would see it the same way looking at a game like that demo seeing as how it was borderline CG in appearance. I'd be willing to bet they'd be in disbelief or consider it totally out of their reach to get a machine capable or running it. 600/7000 series isn't too far away and we'll prob have 700/8000 b4 the next consoles. Soon running a game like The Samaritan will be feasible on a single gpu system.
I don't expect every guy with a console to change their mind but what I'm saying is that there will be quite a few people envious enough to expand their gaming habits who otherwise felt console graphics were 'good enough'.
-
-
The Samaritan demo was great looking, but personally I the longer I could wait for the next generation's hardware to evolve, the better. I want the next generation of graphics to be as huuuge a leap as possible over the 360/ps3.
-
Ya, I kind of feel the same way and admit my impatience influences my desire for new consoles. I'm just not sure MS will skip 22nm and go to 16nm as going 22nm would be a safer bet but 16nm would give the console a much longer life cycle if graphene based processors are still years away. I don't know...it's like a race with time. If MS comes out sooner on 22nm instead of waiting till 2013/2014 for 16nm they'll have an extra year b4 graphene processors are developed for commercial use. Maybe my expectation of commercial graphene processor in 7-10yrs is too optimistic though. In any case, these next console will probably be the last silicon based generation. How can you compete with a chip that can clock at 100+ghz?
-
-
-
The natural consequences being that they will continue to make profits? I am pretty sure they'll be okay with that.
-
[deleted]
-
I have a theory that Microsoft is going to do something a little different as they transition into the next generation. I think that we might see Microsoft putting their full weight behind 2 consoles at the same time.
Sounds crazy, I know. But hear me out.
Nintendo has shown their hand for their next console. We know that it will be roughly comparable to the 360 in terms of technical capabilities.
On the other hand, we know Sony will swing for the fences with their next console (they always do) and deliver a high-powered machine with lots of technological muscle.
A high tech console appeals to the hard core market. Microsoft will have no choice but to respond if Sony pushes forward into a new hardware generation.
On the other, Microsoft will still be able to sell the Kinect / 360 Arcade bundle as a direct competitor to the WiiU. The casual / Family gaming market that purchased Kinect by the millions won't be paying attention to a new state-of-the-art console. This gives Microsoft the unique opportunity of being able to market 2 different videogame consoles without getting in their own way.
Long shot? Maybe. But I still think it's possible :) -
Nothing too surprising there. Frankly, I'm glad to see them holding off on the next generation. The hardware is still passable for the overwhelming majority of gamers, and for the people who aren't satisfied with it there is still PC gaming to be enjoyed. I'd rather see developers start pushing what they can out of the existing hardware, refining gameplay in existing genres, and finding cool uses for Kinect than to have another system that will have the same old games just bumpier and shinier.
-
No Microsoft, no. The xbox is dead, it died a year ago. Don't make another one, just admit its dead.
-
[deleted]
-
-
Yea I know, its dead. All those brainless people wasting money on 5 year old tech that has no sign of upgrading.
I guess its not dead, but it should be or should at least have a newer version and not just a new plastic casing.-
Do you even understand how the console market works?
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
You should try to be a bit more creative if you're going to troll.
-
-
Ex-front pagers.
-
This is the front page
-
-
-
This is a troll, right? Please tell me this is a troll.
-
-
-
-
"There's not much a new Xbox can bring other than improved graphics"
Isn't that the point of console upgrades? -
You believe this? Let's look at history and give you a lesson. First we had Bad Company with unprecedented destruction, huge maps, and detailed graphics. Throw away the graphics and try to find any Xbox game that has maps that large and destructible. Let's just take one example from a rather old game for AI. Oblivion had a radiant AI system that was rather incredible and due to the increase in cpu capacity. Red faction...if you compare the destructibility of the ps2/xbox versions of that game to Guerrilla it's night and day in difference. Then we have smaller features such as theater modes. Fat chance getting that with a good game on a system with only one core.
So, what do we really get from new consoles? Better graphics, improved AI, larger maps, improved draw distance, useful fun 'extra' features, gameplay that was previously impossible to give gamers. We get better games and the better a game is the more fun you can have playing it.
-
-
Pfft!, No I would never buy a console again. As a die hard PC gamer, a new console would mean all the garbage that is ported over to PC would at least be slightly upgraded over the current visual garbage that is sold to console gamers at premium price. These 6-7 year old graphic dated games is like serving week old meatloaf as a min dish at a 5 star restaurant. And surprisingly you console gamers keep spending money on it.....
Seriously, 360 is at its half life? LOL you guys are gonna be buying directX 9 games for 14 years.....LOL!!!! Microsoft thanks you, very very very much.
-
Halfway? That's pretty strange, it's not exactly a "young" console at this point. It's definitely starting to show its age. I'm not eager to spend lots of money on a new console, but at the same time I'd be disappointed if they didn't have something better on the market in the next two or three years.
-
Fine by me, but I realize that I currently spend more money on games and related paraphenalia every three to six months than it costs to purchase a new console, so I can't say that I'm saving any money by not having to buy a next-box sooner. Anyway, glad to see my investment in the Xbox 360 will not be rewarded with a short-lived life-cycle like the original Xbox.
-
-
[deleted]
-
Consoles are already holding back the advancement of gaming in terms of graphics, and now this trend will continue for another 6 years!
Games that are currently being written for both PC and console are being dumbed down for PC in order to make them possible on the Xbox and PS3. This is, of course, with the exception of Battlefield 3. Consoles have very little RAM and very inferior graphics capabilities when compared to an average gaming PC, and this is only going to get worse in the next 6 years as PCs become ever more powerful.
I hope more games companies, like DICE, will start to make games first for the PC, and then port them to consoles afterwards, but I fear this wont happen often. This will leave PC gaming in pretty much the same position as it is now technology wise, even though the capability of the PC hardware will be far advanced from where it is today.
It also worries me that PC gamers will no longer need to upgrade their PCs to play the latest games because their current hardware is more than capable. This will lead to less demand for new CPUs and graphics cards etc. and could potentially see the demise of one of the big graphics hardware providers.
We need new hardware in order to keep things progressing, and I see this move by Microsoft as one that will ultimately hurt the advancement of gaming - mainly PC gaming.
Just my opinion :D -
We weren't quite there yet with the PS2 and Xbox, but with the current console generation we have reached that plateu where people are going to be satisfied with the graphics for a long time. If the studios can make as good looking as Uncharted and Modern Warfare for the next couple years, most gamers will see no reason whatsoever for new hardware.
-
I'm happy for 2-3 more years because in the past this has often been the stage in a console's life when the best, most lasting games are released. Almost all of my favourite PS2 games were released right at the end of the console's lifespan. I'd like the promise of something new past that though.
-
Awesome, so we only have to wait about 6 more years before we cast start seeing some real graphical improvements in games. Consoles have been holding back progress in this area for roughly half a decade now. Good to hear we've made it to the halfway mark.
-
Sounds good. How far are current games pushing the limit of the PS3/360 anyways? I don't even play PC games anymore. Crysis 2 looked great on the 360, probably because I didn't have a $1500 PC to compare it to.
Most gamers (console gamers) don't care, either. They don't read video game websites, they barely know pc gaming exists, and nor would they want to put in the work to play games on PC.-
Also for all the people wanting better graphics now, that puts all the demand and expense on the developers, and what's the gain? It's win-win for them to wait a few more years, generate more revenue and prepare to upgrade their hardware and invest further man hours in developing a more graphics-intensive game.
-
Consoles are being pushed to the limit and when developers aren't willing to sacrifice eye candy, they sacrifice performance instead. You may have thought Crysis 2 looked good enough on your Xbox, but I'd be surprised if it even maintained a consistent 30 fps, let alone 60 which really should be the standard. The last console game I bought was Killzone 2. It's a very nice looking game, even though it's a console exclusive, but I ended up quitting that game's multiplayer because when the action heated up, the game became a slideshow. That's unacceptable in a competitive multiplayer environment. With better hardawre that game could look as good as it does, and run smoothly at the same time, but we're stuck with hardware from 6 years ago.
For the record I'm not criticizing Microsoft and Sony for their business decisions. They'll do whatever maximizes profits and/or keeps them in line with the rest of the competition. There's no reason to move forward at the moment. Both sides are still milking the systems for all they're worth, and chumps will keep buying games for their trashy systems, no matter how bad those games run or how many concessions the developers make to be able to show off tiny but pretty screenshots.
-
-
-
