Rumor: Xbox successor codename is "Ten". Expected release Holiday 2012.
- Thread starter bgassassin
- Start date
Anyone considering any of the three console manufacturers fucked by this news is kidding themselves. Whole damn thing is up for grabs once a new gen starts. I would prefer to be in MS or Nintendo's shoes at the moment, however. Sony needs to release something brilliant.
Summary: Nintendo is not fucked. MS is not fucked. Sony is not fucked, though they're in a slightly disadvantaged position.
Let the games begin.
Summary: Nintendo is not fucked. MS is not fucked. Sony is not fucked, though they're in a slightly disadvantaged position.
Let the games begin.
I've been assuming that they were gonna release the new machine in 2012 for a while. Lately though, I've been thinking that it's not gonna happen unless we see a price reduction on the 360 of some kind this year. Say $50 now and $50 if/when they release the successor next fall.
Given that it's early November now, I'm thinking that's increasingly unlikely to happen this year. So we'll see what happens. A CES announcement is still a possibility though.
Given that it's early November now, I'm thinking that's increasingly unlikely to happen this year. So we'll see what happens. A CES announcement is still a possibility though.
bgassassin said:
What are you talking about specifically. Is there only 1 memory chip allowed on a design? 4 GB is so fucking tiny by today's standards. I already get that it's not a RAM DIMM. I want details as to why it's impossible for there to be 4 GB because I hear this a lot on GAF. If a 2005 design could do 512 MB, why can't a 2011 design to 4 GB? Are you basing the design limitations of today on 6+ year old proprietary designs?
Piercedveil
Member
Mungular said:
10...80P?
Chiaroscuro
Member
Mungular said:
X in roman numerals...
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
Dammit, beaten like a redheaded stepchild riding a rented mule.Medalion said:
Vinci said:
Yes, exactly, but the way he intended it (i.e. Microsoft slaying Nintendo) was beyond ridiculous. At least Nintendo slaying Microsoft (game division) could have some bearing in reality, but it's still not going to happen. Nintendo isn't going to "steal" Live die-hards from Microsoft. It's up to Microsoft to lose them (e.g. raise the price a ton, cut/stop adding features, etc.), but they (hopefully) are too smart to do anything like that. Keeping Live as the standard-bearer for what online gaming service should be is good, if it keeps improving over time.
opticalmace
Member
10! = 3628800.Mungular said:
Xbox 3628800, has a nice ring to it.
H_Prestige
Banned
Is MS slaying Nintendo any more ridiculous than Sony slaying Nintendo for two gens in a row?
Elginer
Member
I really don't see 2012 being release, I can see a mid-2013. Even then I'm in no rush to jump in and I know more that 6-8 friends that aren't either. The economy is shit and it's hard enough finding the funds to play so many great games. Next year is full of some awesome games like Dragon's Dogma, MGS Rising, BioShock Infinite, FFXIII-2 and more. We're already hearing of some titles like the new Rainbow Six being a 2013 game for PS3 and 360. I don't see support really drying up for titles anytime soon on these consoles at least.
I know that developers are getting their ducks in a row tech wise for 2013 and beyond for the next gen and I'm cool with that, but really in no rush to jump in. I know I'm not the only one and even if 2013 sees a new Xbox or whatever, I've learned not to be there day 1 for any new hardware after being on Xbox number 7. Which is some bullshit.
I know that developers are getting their ducks in a row tech wise for 2013 and beyond for the next gen and I'm cool with that, but really in no rush to jump in. I know I'm not the only one and even if 2013 sees a new Xbox or whatever, I've learned not to be there day 1 for any new hardware after being on Xbox number 7. Which is some bullshit.
I don't get why there's a prerequisite for a console to launch that everyone is ready to buy it. When consoles launch they sell, what...4-5 million the first year? Out of 60+ million in it's total lifetime?
If you're not ready, that's fine. You can buy it the next year.
If you're not ready, that's fine. You can buy it the next year.
Last Hearth
Member
How can you launch a console without games?
And can you develop AAA games nowadays without at least a 2 year cycle?
Who's been secretly working on these launch games for at least a year?
Or are they just going to launch with Halo 4? Good luck with that.
And can you develop AAA games nowadays without at least a 2 year cycle?
Who's been secretly working on these launch games for at least a year?
Or are they just going to launch with Halo 4? Good luck with that.
Karak
Member
Chiaroscuro said:
Nah some PC devs don't do console releases for big games or any game and they are not all small or indie. So again what's holding them back. I don't get it really.
If a company is releasing and has the ability to release a PC only game...how is that arbitrarily holding them back? I of course understand that many do console games. But not all, and 100% not all indie.
Direct X? Is that where you think the holdup is? Because just speaking to devs, reading their interviews, they don't think they are held back if they aren't doing a console but ya...we are not seeing many of those games that make you go...THAT can only be done on PC.
And I think I want to clarify. I don't just mean a slightly bigger game, or resolution bump. I mean whats holding them back from just unbelievable jumps? It can't be consoles, it has to be something else. Parity perhaps.
Poimandres
Member
H_Prestige said:
Apart from the Japan issue, there's nothing stopping a MS console from devouring a Nintendo console. A new generation is a new battle.
Hari Seldon
Member
If they are releasing next holiday, then I expect some massive tie in with Windows 8. Perhaps it will even run Windows 8.
Poimandres
Member
Raide said:
They'd have to do something drastic like lock down a mainline Final Fantasy title as an exclusive. Even then, it would only get them so far...
Parmenides
Banned
-It is better to listen to this guys and ignore rumors.specialguy said:
THQ: The arrival of PS4 and Xbox 720 within three years? It would be horrible (Jan 19, 2011)
Take - Two:We still have plenty of room to push the limits of creativity in the current console generation (June 3, 2011)
Avalanche Studios: New hardware in 2014 (June 20,2011)
GameStop: Xbox 720 and PS4 not out until 2014 (July 15,2011)
Epic: no "huge hurry" for next gen, we're still getting great value out of the consoles we have today (July 20, 2011)
Skyrim boss: No PS4, Xbox 720 before 2014 (3 Aug, 2011)
EA: What would PlayStation 4 even do? (Aug 31, 2011)
Irrational Games:There's A 'Ton of Juice Left' In Current Consoles (November 7, 2011)
-They talk loud and clear when it's due:
THQ hints at imminent Wii 2 reveal (Feb 17, 2011)
EA Hints at Wii 2, Says Wii is Now 'Legacy Platform' (March 15, 2011)
ThisWreckage
Banned
If this is true, Sony would be wise to launch the PS4 much, much later down the road. I'm talking 2015 or so.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if we consider the facts and latest rumors;
1. Microsoft's gaming division has recently turned a profit and is not too keen on bleeding large sums of money again with their next console.
2. They just had a taste of non-gamer success with Kinect.
3. The next Xbox is rumored to be smaller and more Apple-like, which doesn't leave much space for heat dissipation. The power draw will probably be much lower as well.
4. Components that would produce a huge leap from the current generation are expensive, power-hungry and generate a lot of heat. Major advances to resolve these issues will not make it in time or be affordable enough for a late 2012 release.
5. Nintendo is now willing to sell at a loss to reconnect with the "core" gamers and is up-speccing the Wii U as we speak.
Seems like this Nextbox may not be that big of an upgrade over the 360 from a purely technical standpoint and that the Wii U might be much closer to it in power than we think.
1. Microsoft's gaming division has recently turned a profit and is not too keen on bleeding large sums of money again with their next console.
2. They just had a taste of non-gamer success with Kinect.
3. The next Xbox is rumored to be smaller and more Apple-like, which doesn't leave much space for heat dissipation. The power draw will probably be much lower as well.
4. Components that would produce a huge leap from the current generation are expensive, power-hungry and generate a lot of heat. Major advances to resolve these issues will not make it in time or be affordable enough for a late 2012 release.
5. Nintendo is now willing to sell at a loss to reconnect with the "core" gamers and is up-speccing the Wii U as we speak.
Seems like this Nextbox may not be that big of an upgrade over the 360 from a purely technical standpoint and that the Wii U might be much closer to it in power than we think.
CreateNowSleepLater
Member
How long has Halo 4 been in dev? In theory this could have been the plan all along. They could do this a number of different ways. They could say something creative like the vision for the next Halo installation became impossible to accomplish on the current gen hardware.
They could also just make the new hardware total BC, then it wouldnt matter. Im sure you could spice it up for the tech nerds that the frame rate and resolution would be better on the "X" and nobody would care.
Who cares about GTA V, that thing could get delayed 10 time and also be moved to the "x" system. They dont even have a release date yet.
They play their cards right they could have GTA, Halo 4, COD etc all as launch games.
They could also just make the new hardware total BC, then it wouldnt matter. Im sure you could spice it up for the tech nerds that the frame rate and resolution would be better on the "X" and nobody would care.
Who cares about GTA V, that thing could get delayed 10 time and also be moved to the "x" system. They dont even have a release date yet.
They play their cards right they could have GTA, Halo 4, COD etc all as launch games.
Wolfgang Jr
Banned
x10 - Xbox 3600.
In all seriousness; it wont matter at all how much more 'powerful' this is compared to the Wii U, the Wii U will still sell like hotcakes - time and time again Nintendo have looked like they've died in the ass, but they always come good.
In all seriousness; it wont matter at all how much more 'powerful' this is compared to the Wii U, the Wii U will still sell like hotcakes - time and time again Nintendo have looked like they've died in the ass, but they always come good.
Proelite
Member
Snakeyes said:
It won't be doable enough for a 2013 release either. 20nm is 2014 and beyond.
Price won't be a factor in determining power. You can get the next AMD high end cards for $200, which translates into $100 for a console manufacturer. Unfortunately it'll have a 150W TDP.
Cheesemeister
Member
Reversed said:
アリが十。
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Parmenides said:
I would love to not see another console gen until 2014. I dont have the purchasing power I once had.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Nope. They will wait and see how the Wii U performs. Its definitely a 2013/14 launch, though. Announcement next year? Sure. Release? Don't think so. They have to be crazy to kill the Xbox 360's momentum like this. I'm pretty sure they don't want to give a 1-2 year advantage to Nintendo, but considering Halo 4 comes out next year for the 360, this news is highly 'unlikely'.
You're going to see a lot of improvement even if the next-gen consoles aren't that powerful, and don't contain the tech we see on the current PCs right now. Considering they'll be aiming for a 10 year plan; they'll definitely go with something that can withstand the test of time.Snakeyes said:
bgassassin
Member
Parmenides said:
Yeah, let's listen to opinions which are pretty much as good as rumors.
teh_pwn said:
GDDR5's current density is 2Gbits per chip. It would take 16 chips to reach 4GB.
Error Macro
Member
Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
Same here, and millions of other people are in the same boat. Assuming the economy is still in the crapper by the end of next year (and that's a very safe assumption) I seriously doubt people are going to be psyched on spending $400+ for a slight upgrade in graphics.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
That puts me at ease, thanks.Parmenides said:
bgassassin
Member
teh_pwn said:
Them being "small" has little to do with it. First you're still paying for 16 chips. GDDR5 costs more than DDR3. Second you have to compensate for the amount of space those 16 chips would take up. They aren't small enough to put most of them on an MCM like with the PS3 which only had four. At the same time those cards that have 2GB tend to have to put the memory on both sides of the card due to the amount of space available on them. Third is the heat generated from those 16 chips. It runs hotter than DDR3. These are factors people talking about 4GB or 8GB don't even think about because they only seem to focus on DDR3 ram sticks.