This conversation actually started in the PS3 thread from Post #1582 to #1647 (pages 64-66):

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...&page=64&pp=25
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...&page=65&pp=25
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...&page=66&pp=25

I even made a joke about it in the GT5 thread.


In a nutshell (read the other thread though, there's many good points about both sides of the argument):

Being that MS is ahead of Sony in the console wars some of us think that it may be a good opportunity for MS to push the next gen console market a little ahead of schedule to really put a crushing blow to Sony's dominance in the gaming console industry. Doesn't mean they will, but they have the option to because they are ahead of the game.

Other's don't think that's a good idea because it may upset owners of these expensive consoles if a newer console were to come out earlier than they feel is appropriate. Their reasons are having to buy new games, accessories, etc all over again isn't worth it or cost effective.

Be sure to read the comments starting in the PS3 thread through to page

What do you guys think? Do you think MS pushing ahead and delivering that crushing blow is a good or bad thing and why?

Also I'm gonna add a poll to ask when you think the next gen xbox would come out....

I still have hopes that it will be end of 2008.

 

If Kojima et al makes game for this machine, I'll be in line 2-nights prior to launch.

 

Only 2-nights. You gotta commit a little more than that.

 

I'm going to be conservative and say second half of 2009, unfortunately.

 

Boooooo traitor!

 

I don't want to believe it, but I have to because...

1.) I don't think Microsoft will drop word of a new system before Halo 3's release.
2.) Knowing that, I don't think they'll drop word until after Christmas 2007.
3.) Once they drop word Microsoft likes to hype for at least a year.
4.) I don't think they'll drop it in early 2009, hoping for typical holiday hijinx.

That puts us into October/November 2009, unfortunately.

The kink really is Halo 3. I can't believe it won't be out until Nov 07. That's retarded. From the screens it really doesn't look like THAT much of an improvement over Halo 2 to justify a 3 year lapse between releases.

Plus with Halo 3 out Nov 2007, a Nov 2009 release of 720 would allow for the possibility of Halo 4 at launch.

 

I'd vote for Fall of 2010. I'd prefer to get the successor earlier, but the way this console cycle is going, I don't think they are in a big rush to move ahead with another console. I feel they are going to milk the 360 until it stops making money as the console itself is profitable unlike the original Xbox. Also, the Wii is not a competitor in a technical sense, so MS could always compete with the Wii by releasing an alternate motion controller for the 360. They compete with Sony on a technical level, but I don't think we will see the PS4 until 2010 or 2011.

After Halo3 releases next year, I'll probably get into PC gaming until the next gen comes about as I like to stay up to date on the graphics curve.

 

The problem isn't the PS4, it's the potential of the PS3 to eclipse the 360's technical prowess as developers become more savvy in it's ways.

 

It couldn't be said any better. There is always a team somewhere in MS, or Sony working on the next console. But why would you replace something if it isn't broken. We've already seen significant change between launch of the 360 and now. With the comparison being Perfect Dark as the original killer app, and this year with Gears. Those 2 aren't even in the same category. Until developers can prove to us that the 360 is obselete to the PS3 don't count on a next gen console.

 

My vote is solely based on hopes that they crush Sony. I'm not a fan of their propietary they try to pawn off on consumers and I would love to see them fail.

A realistic vote as you made is more on par with what they will do. I didn't take Halo 3 into consideration at all. And to have Halo 3 out for at least 2 years prior to the next gen makes more sense.

But deep down I am still hoping they crush Sony.

 

That would have been true if Sony delivered on their original promises about performance of the PS3, but what we received technically has been below what is available and in some ways, the 360 is technically more powerful than the PS3.

The Cell processor theoretically is faster than Waternoose (the 360 CPU), with 1 PPE and 8 SPU's, but in order to increase yields, 1 SPE was disabled leaving 7. In addition, the PS3 OS uses a dedicated SPU, leaving 6. Finally, another SPU is dedicated to GPU/CPU streaming leaving 5 for games to use. The 360 CPU has 6 parallel threads and 3 full general purpose CPU's and a large amount of cache versus the PS3's single CPU and more limited CPU cache. Developers have stated over and over again that the 360 CPU is significantly easier to exploit and that fact will keep games very close. This is the one area where the PS3 can potentally show a difference, but it will be extremely limited due to less available SPU's for games.

Lastly, the RSX GPU in the PS3 has been downgraded as well. It originally was supposed to be 550mhz, but it was recently downgraded to 500mhz to improve yields and reduce heat. The Xenos GPU in the 360 has always been a superior GPU to the RSX with it's Unified Shaders, advanced DX-10 features and the 10mb or EDRAM. The 360 can add 2 or 4x FSAA plus HDR at the same time which is impossible for the PS3 due to the extremely fast EDRAM.

The final area where the 360 is stronger is overall memory. The 360 has 512mb of unified memory which can fully be used by the GPU or CPU when needed, while the PS3 has 2 banks of 256mb of memory. 256 for the CPU and 256 for the GPU. This can be overcome as the GPU can use the CPU's bank of memory, but it requires a fast bus, and this is another area which was cut down from original specs making it slow for the GPU to use the CPU's memory bank. Also, the PS3 OS reserves 96mb of system memory versus 20 or os MB for the 360.

Games like Oblivion and Rainbow Six Vegas were supposed to launch with PS3, but the developers have stated they are having difficulty getting the games to work on the PS3 due to memory issues and the games were delayed into 2007. They are going to have to downgrade some textures due to less accessible memory.

Why is it that every game released for both the 360 and PS3 look significantly better for the 360? Yes, it will take developers a while to fully exploit the PS3, but these developers have had PS3 dev kits since last year, so that argument doesn't hold a ton of water. Games for each system will improve, but I don't believe PS3 games will look any better.

Look at this comparison from Gamespot of 3rd party titles:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/616...mballs;title;2

 

Had no idea the PS3 was so crippled.

One more reason you'd be an idiot to buy one.

Sony should be put out of its misery.

 

I voted second half of 2009 as well. But like Soopa said, I think they'll start hyping it about 8-12 months earlier...

Far enough away that it doesn't piss people off for coming out too soon, yet soon enough to potentially crush Sony...

 

Second half of 2010

 

Has there been any word AT ALL out of sony's camp in regards to a next gen console?

 

^ Not that I have heard. They're still trying to get the PS3 right

 

I know... But there were rumors back when the 360 was launching that the 360 was just a stepping stone until they release the "real" next gen console. I was wondering if Sony was doing the same thing. But this was also before we knew that the PS3 was going to be delayed a year.

I think Sony is really hurting. The PSP sales are being overtaken by DS (read it somewhere yesterday) The PS3 is not being as successful as they had hoped. But then again, the 360 launch was slow. So I think things could get pretty interesting here in the next 6 months to a year.

 

there's been tons and tons of rumours flying about PS4.

alot of people think Sony will ready it by 2010, Sony has already been on a patent filing spree. The latest, today, is for a full body motion sensor system.

obviously there will be no official word until the PS3 is either completely dead in the water (will never happen) or they're 8-12 months out from releasing it.

if the PS3 doesn't gain traction though, you can be sure they'll move on to the next system. it's either that or drop the playstation brand altogether... which i dont see happening.

 

Rumours are circulating that suggest Microsoft is already working on a successor to the Xbox 360 . The tongue wagging started when eagle-eyed lookouts spotted a Microsoft patent application for a new, powerful gaming 'hub'.

The application ( US Patent Office number 0070087830 ) suggests that Microsoft is designing a 'multi-component gaming system' to act as the core hub of a network of game enabled devices. This means you'll potentially be able to link up your Windows Mobile phone, Zune MP3 Player, and your Windows Vista computer to the new console. All of them will be able to share the same platform.

It's very unlikely that this patent is referring to an update to the existing Xbox 360 console. More probable is that this is the first sign of Microsoft designing a new games console to fit solidly at the centre of the mystical digital home.

http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertain...leid=848334433

 

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12043/...-in-the-Works/

 

How long before the "igameconsole"

 

anyone hear a release date yet?

 

is that really the name?

 

Gee that's original.

 

As far as I know Microsoft has not released any information on their next Gen system. The "code" name for is was the Xbox 720, however, nothing else has really been released. Back in 2007 there was some talk, then again in 2009... but in this economy I would not hold your breath for any next-gen systems from any company.

These corporations lose a ton of money on the game systems themselves... and in this market they are not in a position to put millions into R&D only to lose money on hardware. That may have worked in 2005, but not today. We're at least a couple years off from next-gen systems...

 

good.

i can't be spending any money on another console and games.

 

Dec 21, 2012

 

And that's the other reason you won't see a release anytime soon. Not only will they lose money on all hardware sales, but they will not be able to sell a significant number in this economy anyway.

They make their profit on volume plus on accessories, software, and networks (like XBOX Live) sales. If people do not have money for a next-gen system, they certainly won't have money for all new games, accessories, and network time...

 

im not ready for next gens anyway.

i think they should keep 360's and PS3's around for at least 2-3 more years..

 

IMO Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should focus efforts on what they can do with their consoles NOW, and try to squeeze as much life out of the current consoles as possible.

 

I still have like 15 games I need to beat from THIS generation. It's always harder to go back and replay older gen games in my opinion.

 

yea i have a backlog of about 6 games or so.

 

4?

 

 

Mine too!

 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/25/27...ed-game-system

 

Merged.

 

Looks like M$ is taking a page out of the old Sony playbook.

It's like it's 2005 all over again.

Xbox 720: Now with built in DRM rootkit (thank you Sony BMG Extended Copy Protection)

 

This would probably put Gamestop out of business. I'm pretty sure they make more on their used games than the new ones. Plus it's a nice carrot to tell kids to bring in their used games to get a few bucks off the purchase of a new one.

 

^^ It will turn the whole industry on its head.

The blow-back from this might be huge.

M$ better be careful.