Wasn't the original Xbox more powerful than the PS2? If so, that'd mean that the 360 is the only MS console (though one could also look at this as half of all MS's consoles...) to be down on power compared to it's Sony rival. This wouldn't exactly be bucking a trend. EDIT: Oli: whilst you're right, you also have to account for the fact that a console will squeeze ALOT more performance out of a given hardware spec than an equivalent gaming PC would, due to the nature of the operating system and games being insanely optimised for it, and it not having to perform any other tasks than just playing one game at a time. I believe the 360's GPU is roughly equivalent to a 7300GT, but try getting anything close to 360 graphics out of a PC running on one of those, or even anything a few levels above tbh. Not gonna happen. Rather than simple spec compared to current PC hardware, a better approach would be to try and get some kind of comparable benchmarks to see how much a console can actually get out of the hardware it uses, compared to a PC.
5 apples vs 1 apple. The PC situation is for all apples to be equal, and therefore the person with 5 apples to be better. But say mr 1 apples makes a really, really big apple and optimises it. It may come close or even surpass the 5 apples in terms of applyness....er....ness..... but all it takes it for the 5 apples to be slightly more apply to be in total more apply than mr 1 apples. Better put, an optimised 7870 is better than an equally optimised piece of turd. But I like the apples one better
Yes, but it's also significantly more expensive. People always compare consoles to current gen, high spec PCs. Think about how much a current gen, high spec gaming PC actually costs, then compare that to a console, even at release price. Right. As has been stated numerous times in discussions like these, and even in this specific thread, they don't make much money (if any) off the hardware, so why do people always make out like they're skimping on spec to maximise profit on hardware which isn't sold as the profit maker in the first place?
Oh my god thank you for showing me this, that is ****ing awesome. I always wondered how they could pull off the floor movement thing and it's done really well here. But like you said, extremely expensive. The thing I was thinking of is pretty much the same, but alot smaller, with a panoramic view all around, (obviously games would need to be made with this feature for it to work), and instead a far more simple rotating pedal system on the floor for player movement. What you showed me is awesome but a much more dumbed down version of that would be perfect for this Livewall. [br][/br]Edited by merge: This is true. I guess I was focusing more on the 360 and not the original. As MS have put alot into the 360 and it still seemed abit lacking compared to the PS3. Plus the Xbox was a year after the PS2, maybe giving MS time to ensure the Xbox was more powerful. The same could be said for 360's, as PS3'S were released a year after, giving them access to more up to date gear (maybe).
Graphics card =/= RAM There wouldn't be much of a need for more than 4GB in it if their graphics card is not "amazing" to be honest. It just wouldn't be necessary. The xbox isn't for 3D Modeling, video editing and other memory hogging material. It would be a waste of money, and even though they don't make a direct profit off of the sales, I'm sure they would want to minimize costs. (An unnecessary $40 adds up.) The Xbox and other consoles are usually pretty dedicated to doing things in the sense that they are essentially restricted. This allows for more optimizations since one xbox is like the rest of them. Edit: If they were to introduce a huge amount of multi-tasking **** for the new xbox, thenI can honestly say that more RAM might be beneficial, but I can't imagine anything being that "heavy." I wouldn't be surprised if the new Xbox allowed for SSD support to load games, apps and what have you faster though. They're getting cheaper everyday and a 60GB SSD would vastly improve my xbox's performance.
I hope they add screen capture to the new Xbox. I would greatly appreciate it, and it would be very beneficial toward the games themselves. One of the biggest reasons that Minecraft became so popular in the first place is because it was easy to share everything about it with any other person with no restrictions, especially on making money off of it (which allowed it to be taken much more seriously much more often) and allowed a greater number of high quality videos, practically popularizing it at no cost to the developer(s).
Which will still be cheaper than a mid range gaming PC at the time of release, and is a custom designed set of hardware with a custom built OS (though, to be fair, also a piece of **** OS in UI terms if the 360 is anything to go by...). As I said before, consoles don't make MS money. They're not turning a profit on the hardware because consoles are so much cheaper than gaming PCs, and there are added overheads associated with building a box and OS from the ground up. Yet you seem to be implying that they're still somehow cheaping out on the hardware. What do you want? For them to lose even more money per unit? I'm not trying to play the sympathy card on their behalf, it's just that you seem to be implying it's a rip off in some way. Rip offs generally turn a profit rather than making a loss per unit... This is very true. It's a good point and I think it's often overlooked when people compare consoles. It's easy to get too caught up in console generations and forget that actually, even within 1 "generation," they tend to come out with 6 month-1 year gaps between manufacturers, which is obviously going to make a difference. [br][/br]Edited by merge: But since the Xbox shares all RAM between CPU and GPU, it wouldn't just be an increase in system RAM, but also in that available to the GPU. Correct me if I'm wrong (and my knowledge of this kind stuff is very limited), but wouldn't that mean that with more RAM it could handle higher quality textures/better draw distances etc?
It's easier to condemn for some with little evidence than to praise with evidence. Anyway, In my opinion the best way to look at what rumors are most likely and which are not are to look at current trends. Microsoft is obviously not doing away with the kinect technology, Nintendo proved that kind of market segment is too lucrative to do away. Cloud gaming is also a trend publishers are really trying to embrace. Cutting out the middle man of retailers and curtailing used game sales is extremely motivating. Therefore large amounts of internal storage and RAM is needed (what a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that the extra RAM helps with internal storage, something cloud storage needs). Having said that, the physical disc is still too engrained in the gaming public to do away with entirely. Games on Demand sales, Playstation Network, and Nintendo's online marketplace still make no where near as much money as retailers do with physical discs so there will still be disc drives for at least the next few console generations unless digital distribution sales gain serious traction. As far as processors and graphics cards, Microsoft will use the same kind of hardware they are putting in their future windows 8 tech being made by Asus, Dell, and Lenovo.
Yes, but there would still be a limit to when it would be beneficial and when it would be overkill. Even in PC games, you're not really required to have more than 4GB and making a console with a "decent" graphics card (admittedly optimized for the Xbox platform) would probably be overkill. RAM is great, don't get me wrong but it wouldn't make sense to invest an additional forty dollars for every console when the improvement is minimal. I would love extra RAM so that games like Skyrim can be even bigger but I don't think Microsoft will do it. In 2005, the Xbox 360 was launched and it was usually required that the PC have around 1GB of RAM for games like Guild Wars and FEAR. In the current generation, the Xbox 360 has 512MB of RAM. Assuming that Microsoft makes the required optimizations to minimize cost, I don't think it's too crazy to assume that the new Xbox 360 (if unveiled soon) will have 4GB of RAM. Of course, we are at a crossroads between new processors, gpus and other goodies, so I'd be happy if I end up being wrong. p.s. I'm not saying it's crazy to assume 8GB either but it wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft cut a few corners.
For those that keep saying that consoles are restricted spec wise on hardware to earn manufacturers more money you need to keep in mind that the PS3 is actually sold at a loss. They did this so that they can try to get a bluray player into every household. And it has more or less succedded to the point where now Microsoft, Sony's only REAL competater for consoles will now have to pay them to have one put into the xbox. It's also why HDDVD's didn't become as popular. So no consoles are not undercut on hardware and abilities in order to make more money on them. They make their money from game developers, Online accounts, DLC and so on.
Actually that is half true. The PS3 was the most expensive console to date on release and bluray players were going for double the cost as a PS3 at the time. However, since that cost was due to the emerging technology (like 3D televisions now), the PS3's price was still based on profit. Bluray components still cost a fraction of what Sony was charging the PS3 for as do the gaming hardware within it. Sony did not share the same profit strategy that microsoft did with its hardware and does not charge the same licensing fees that Microsoft does for xbox live and developing games and publishing games on its system.
People in general don't really know what they are talking about (present company excluded ) and 8GB of RAM versus 4 would actually be a sale changer for some people. It changes nothing in practise, but it just sounds good to people. Though as a matter of fact it would be more likely for msoft and sony to invest and faster RAM. 2GB of RAM at 1600mhz beats 8GB of RAM at 1333mhz, if only 2 is needed. Plus smaller amounts of RAM generally have lower latencies. Then again DDR4 is coming out soon, which would really change up RAM at much faster speeds than currently. Sometime in April I think it is coming out, but then you will have launch titles that don't take full advantage of it. Meh.
Is it really $40 extra per console in terms of cost to them? But either way, fair points. 8GB does seem a bit redundant considering the rest of the hardware trying to take advantage of it. Whilst I very much agree in principle, consoles are rarely sold on spec like that. I don't think specs have ever really been quoted to the wider market, and even those that are tossed around the geek community when hyping up new consoles are very sparse, generally just the number of cores for the CPU and stuff like that. I don't think an 8GB RAM spec would permeate far enough in to the public sphere to actually grab them any extra sales on that basis, and certainly not enough to offset the extra cost involved in adding it to every console.
Probably not. Since Microsoft would buy the RAM in large amounts, it probably wouldn't be a $40 upgrade but the bulk prices and non-bulk prices would presumably be relative. That still adds up though. So long as the Xbox remains dedicated to being a console and less of a multi-tasking mini-PC, it won't be much of a problem. On a side note, I hope that the cloud is not the main way to access and purchase games. My internet is terrible and downloading a large game isn't a viable option when you have a 25GB cap a month. (Old-ish but I can't load the speedtest page atm. lol. Please don't post any of your guys' speed tests either. I just wanted to provide a reason as to why.)
If they did, it would be market suicide. I feel you with really bad internet, and I know you and I aren't the only ones with it. They need to maintain a large market share, meaning physical discs won't go away soon. I'd assume the next generation would lean towards it, but it wouldn't phase physical copies out for many generations. It's just too risky to force people into using the internet if you can't control that everyone has the same speeds.
Ohey The next Xbox: Always online, no second-hand games, 50GB Blu-ray discs and new Kinect | News | Edge Online If half of this is true, then I'm getting the PS4 next gen.
Regardless if the next console is ****, I'm still not getting a PS4. I just don't like the games that the PS3 had to offer during it's lifespan, and if Sony is going to keep their IPs then I won't have any interest in the PS4's library either, probably.
The only thing I object to is always online, the rest is just specs. But as for this: How does that follow, exactly? I don't see why always online rules out second hand games.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. And so on. This isn't "news." Do some googling. IGN, OXM and many other companies featured a rumoured xbox article which was very publicly made up. All you have to do is say "I work for MS" and they will believe you. No source mentioned. Just "an insider." Funny that, isn't it? Why an 8 core Bulldozer? An FX 4300 is cheaper, and offers the exact same gaming performance. I don't remember hearing rumours that the nextbox is going to be used for hardcore video editing and professional rendering. Absolutely stupid, dumb, AND OBVIOUSLY MADE UP. Society is so guilliale and sheepish at times people believe something and will go out of their way in order to justify spending a large amount of money to fulfill a purpose that they have to inconvenience themselves to do. IT IS ALL. BULLSHIT.