10 Years worth of 360?

S

snookie_wookums

CAGiversary!
Just a general question here: how much more life do you all think the XBox 360 has within this generation? Especially given the economic apocalypse going on all around us, I have no desire to spend any more money and face losing out on all my back catalog, especially when the games look good enough right now. Is the XBox 360 the PS2 of its generation?
 
I think it has at least 3 years left in it. Developers are really starting to wrap their hands around the console and can bust out great games (that somehow fit on DVD) within reasonable timeframes so why move on things are just finally starting to get good?
 
I have no idea how much longer any of the current consoles will last, but I hope it's a really long time. I really have no desire to spend ridiculous amounts of cash on new consoles when the current consoles are perfectly fine.
 
[quote name='snookie_wookums']Just a general question here: how much more life do you all think the XBox 360 has within this generation? Especially given the economic apocalypse going on all around us, I have no desire to spend any more money and face losing out on all my back catalog, especially when the games look good enough right now. Is the XBox 360 the PS2 of its generation?[/quote]

Hah yeah right. Nothing is going to be the next PS2, and with how graphics are, are people going to spend a big wad just for new graphics? We're at a point where we're realistic enough to last at least another five years.
 
I hope so. I still have not tapped the true potential of my 360 yet. I don't have a HD tv, and something with even better graphics will not show up on my tv as great anyway.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd love to see the next generation of consoles release in 2014 at the earliest.

And yes, I do think it will take that long for us to get to the point where we'll have tech good enough to warrant a hardware refresh.

Realistically, we're looking at 2011/12 for the next cycle.
 
I Just hope that we see another new engine on the 360. I'm tired of looking at 90% of the stuff being pumped out on the UT3 engine. It's a nice engine, but it's only really suitable for Epics games as other companies tend to not know how to use em barring a few exceptions.
 
Graphics still seem to be getting better game to game, though at a slower pace, and there are 30 million units world wide with maybe 40 million by years end, which is much larger than the original xbox. There is another 4 years at least on the Xbox 360.
 
[quote name='foxdvd']Graphics still seem to be getting better game to game, though at a slower pace, and there are 30 million units world wide with maybe 40 million by years end, which is much larger than the original xbox. There is another 4 years at least on the Xbox 360.[/quote]

I honestly think it's time to jump to the Crytek engine, the RAGE engine or companies need to make their own engines from scratch as the UT3 engine's improvements are starting to not become noticeable and the characters are still as plastic as even, barring Unreal Tournament 3 where they're zoomed away pretty far and move too fast anyways to notice. I hope the RAGE engine gets passed the touch.

And four years? You're optimistic aren't you? I'd say two years. Three tops before Microsoft drops support for the 360 entirely. Though if the graphics next gen aren't leaps and bounds, I do see them staying here for a while.
 
[quote name='Paco']I Just hope that we see another new engine on the 360. I'm tired of looking at 90% of the stuff being pumped out on the UT3 engine. It's a nice engine, but it's only really suitable for Epics games as other companies tend to not know how to use em barring a few exceptions.[/QUOTE]

Fatal Inertia uses the Unreal Engine and its a combat racing game.
 
[quote name='freshzen']Fatal Inertia uses the Unreal Engine and its a combat racing game.[/quote]

That game is also rather mediocre too. Super Acrobatic Robot cars or whatever on PSN also uses the unreal engine. I'm not saying that the engine is bad, just overused, and pretty bad in some instances on top of that.
 
Microsoft does have enough ownership over the graphics tech in the 360 to be able to include BC in a future XBox, but given how bloody the battle has been in this generation, I just don't see them laying down the supplement to make a new console anywhere near affordable.

So that means they keep soldiering on with the existing 360s, but maybe do a hardware refresh to eliminate more of the RRODs than ever. To me, this would be the only reasonable thing to do, especially since the PS3 has Sony so tied up over itself that there's no real need to jump another generation.

Even if it's in 2014, I think a new XBox console would be a terrible mistake when MS should be focusing on the software instead. This leads to the next question, tho: whither Nintendo? They've got enough cash right now to launch a new console any time they please, but if they repeat the N64 debacle, it'd be really pretty ironic, especially since they're in essentially the same position now as they were back in the days of the SuperNES.
 
I'm waiting for MS to announce a 'slim' version of the 360 this year at E3. They were recently quoted as saying something along the lines of "This years' E3 will be 'transformational' for the Xbox 360". Transformational ;)
 
[quote name='snookie_wookums'] Is the XBox 360 the PS2 of its generation?[/quote]

As far as distribution, user base, and used game prices (cheapest) - yes.

Don't think it will last as long as the PS2 though.
 
WhOa whoa... did you really just ask that?! Considering it can't even make it a year after release why the hell are you asking if it will last 10?! I'd say if you're on your 10 xbox then sure... I suppose 10.
 
I would rather wait an extra two years for more affordable technology and more stable technology then deal with more rushed consoles with laughable tech problems.
 
Its not up to them. When Sony or Nintendo jumps the gun, they will have to respond with whatever they've been working on. Or if they fear an impending competitor's launch, they may decide to preempt them.
 
IMO there won't be another next gen console from Sony or M$ soon. We might hear about a new one from Nintendo but the possibility is very slim. As many have stated developers are finally getting into fully using the potential of the system, why would they want console makers to release new one with different coding structure and they have to relearn everything again? Sure the xbox 360 power has been fully put in use but the PS3 potentials haven't been fully exerted yet. If M$ was to release a new console so soon they will just actually admit defeat. From what I think M$ will either release a portable handheld gaming device (The new zune) or a newer improved version of xbox 360 (Slim?HD-DVD player built in?) to keep people interested in them as Nintendo just released the DSi and rumor of Sony PSP 2. The 360 and the PS3 will last at least another 3-5 years. I do not want to have an opinion on the Nintendo Wii >.> That system disappointed me.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Its not up to them. When Sony or Nintendo jumps the gun, they will have to respond with whatever they've been working on. Or if they fear an impending competitor's launch, they may decide to preempt them.[/QUOTE]

Of course its up to them then right? Why couldnt they be the first to announce/release a new system like they did with the 360?
 
I agree with the fact that there will most likely be no new console release from MS in the near future as the posters above have stated: developers are starting to unlock the full potential of the system. Also, I'm sure MS knows what happens when a console is rushed out onto market, namely the RROD problem. But the 360 pretty much had to be released early since the Xbox 1 was pretty much bleeding money. So with their current situation with the console I think MS will be able to take their time to make sure their next-gen system won't have any of the major problems of this generation.
 
MS doesn't care if the developers are just now unlocking the 360's full potential. I mean look how nice Xbox games were looking. The original Xbox had a 4 -5 year life. The 360 will probably be replaced in 2010. That will give the 360 a 5 - 6 year life. Let's be honest, you can get a $600 pc that kick both the 360 and PS3 in the ass in the graphic's department.

And there is a need for something bigger than DVD's for games. I've seen PC games with multiple DVDs now, so I can see MS going with Blu-Ray discs for their next console. They won't make the Sega mistake by using their own disc format (or HD DVD) for a console system. Too many things are happening in technology not to have a new system released in the next 18 - 24 months.
 
The Xbox 360 was released in 2005. 5-6 years between console launches is pretty normal. I know the economy is bad, but it really hasn't cut into video game sales yet.

Also, I remember these same arguments were made the last generation. People thought the Xbox looked good enough to go another few years. The thing with graphics is that they fall off quickly. What looks good now won't look as good 2-3 years from now, it's the nature of the beast.

I really think the launch time will be 2010-2011 for the new consoles. I think this 4th quarter will drive a lot. If one system gets absoluely crushed, they'll rush another console out next year. If it's pretty even between Sony/MS, then they'll both probably wait another year (I believe at this point, Nintendo is way off by itself in its intended market, in it's game release schedule, etc that they may not follow the trend. They'll release another console once they think the Wii has run its course).
 
[quote name='freshzen']I'd expect a new Xbox in 2011.[/QUOTE]

That would mean an announcement of some kind at this year's E3. I don't see that happening. 2011 at the soonest, and that would mean an announcement at next year's E3.

DLC is really the wildcard here. I think downloadable games and content are changing console life cycles and prolonging the inevitable by a year or two.

[quote name='SynGamer']I'm waiting for MS to announce a 'slim' version of the 360 this year at E3. They were recently quoted as saying something along the lines of "This years' E3 will be 'transformational' for the Xbox 360". Transformational ;)[/QUOTE]

I don't see a slim or redesign of any kind in the 360's future. After nearly 4 years, MS is finally wringing their hands clean of the RROD. Tampering with the system's architecture will only be playing with fire.

[quote name='Paco'] We're at a point where we're realistic enough to last at least another five years.[/QUOTE]

Except that argument was made 5 years ago prior to this gen.

Finally, with Sony struggling with the PS3, MS is holding all the cards right now. MS will declare when next gen starts. Sony won't rush out a PS4, MS will lead the charge.
 
I've thought both because of how much publishers whine about game costs, and because the Playstation/Xbox are competing with a last gen system that's actually outselling them, it may be quite a while.

This is actually the first time where I haven't felt a super-pressing need to get better hardware, as I'm still pretty impressed by what these systems do. And clearly we've barely begun to tap what they can do in terms of storytelling at least.

Not that I wouldn't jump on a new system though! (At least as long as it was disc based and you still got to own the games.)

Microsoft needs to get their act together with the current or future Xboxes though. The current one is still way too loud even with games installed to disk. I don't care about it being thinner, but I'd like an integrated PSU, and silent operation. I *WILL* buy a new one if they do those! (I'd also like an integrated Blu Ray drive...)
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']WhOa whoa... did you really just ask that?! Considering it can't even make it a year after release why the hell are you asking if it will last 10?! I'd say if you're on your 10 xbox then sure... I suppose 10.[/quote]

I don't believe what he was asking is if the Xbox360 you own will last 10 years without getting an RROD or any other issue. Obviously, accidents can happen to any of the consoles.

What he was asking, was if we think it will continue to be supported as long as the PS2, and I would say yes, it probably will last about 10 years.
 
[quote name='Corvin']DLC is really the wildcard here. I think downloadable games and content are changing console life cycles and prolonging the inevitable by a year or two.[/QUOTE]Hmm, that is a really good point. This is the first generation in which DLC is a real factor, bringing a whole new set of revenue streams into play. Dropping "support" for a console carries a whole new set of ramifications now, and you can bet that the game publishers will want to block that from happening as long as they can.
 
[quote name='Corvin']

DLC is really the wildcard here. I think downloadable games and content are changing console life cycles and prolonging the inevitable by a year or two.
[/quote]

I came in here to say that. :)
 
[quote name='Sparta Omni']Definitely not 10 years. MS is way too greedy for that. I believe 2012 the next one will hit.[/quote]
lets hope mankind is alive to see the day a super gaming machine comes out!XD
 
If Sony sticks with their 10 year plan for PS3 (and I hope they do) then MS would probably go beyond the standard 5 year cycle. There was still plenty of life left in the Xbox when the 360 launched. Yes, they gained the largest percentage of market share but at the cost of $1B. Hopefully they'll have some patience this gen and let the 360 go at least 8 years. One thing is for certain, the days of $300 console launches are done (excluding Nintendo). I don't see Nintendo releasing a new console in at least the next 4 years. They're not traveling on the same road as Sony and MS, plus the Wii has yet to see a price drop and has been profitable from day one.

Ultimately, I don't think there will be a new console launch until at least 2013.
 
[quote name='Corvin']That would mean an announcement of some kind at this year's E3. I don't see that happening. 2011 at the soonest, and that would mean an announcement at next year's E3.

DLC is really the wildcard here. I think downloadable games and content are changing console life cycles and prolonging the inevitable by a year or two.



I don't see a slim or redesign of any kind in the 360's future. After nearly 4 years, MS is finally wringing their hands clean of the RROD. Tampering with the system's architecture will only be playing with fire.



Except that argument was made 5 years ago prior to this gen.

Finally, with Sony struggling with the PS3, MS is holding all the cards right now. MS will declare when next gen starts. Sony won't rush out a PS4, MS will lead the charge.[/quote]

I'm sorry but no.

Consoles last gen were not capable of decent PC ports. Consoles this generation are. And most people are still using SDTVs so when they finally step up, there will be a hesitation moment in "How much more realistic do we need?" We can already see veins, individual hair, detailed facial expressions, blood and sweat all individualized. What exactly is the next HUGE jump going to be? If anything the next huge jump is most likely going to be putting attention into PHYSICS or AI. That's the next huge jump at least in my eyes since todays eye candy is already hyper realistic, yet the physics or enemy intel is far below. Also factor in DLC, Friends on the consoles with online services, the economy, the SATURN factor, and ever increasing size of development. There's way too much for anyone to jump the gun right now in a few years to be honest.

And I honestly believe that Sony is in a better position to jump start next gen then microsoft. The cell is highly scalable which is something most chips in the past were. For PS4 they'll just say 24-32 Spus instead of 8 and 3-4 CPUS instead of 1. Put in a new GPU and that's it. New console. Though I think Microsoft is going to also go with a highly scalable cpu for the next console also. But I seriously doubt that the next gen will be completely radical new hardware, like this gen, but just more cores on what's already done and possibly a new GPU.
 
Until MS or Sony develop technology that does more than just improve on graphics, I don't see any rush for a new system. MS is just now making a return on the actual hardware while Sony is starting to cut down on their losses. Several game developers are struggling to make a profit even with their multimillion seller games.

So the last thing they'd want to do is invest more money on new technology when even fewer consumers will have the appetite to buy a new machine as the 360 and PS3 should meet their current gaming/entertainment needs.
 
[quote name='Paco']I'm sorry but no.

Consoles last gen were not capable of decent PC ports. Consoles this generation are.[/quote]

Not really any more than they were last time. The difference is this gen there are far fewer exclusives, so much more stuff is at that base level. Looking at the hardware though, if anything I think the current gen systems were left in the dust faster than the Xbox 1 and Gamecube were.

And most people are still using SDTVs so when they finally step up, there will be a hesitation moment in "How much more realistic do we need?" We can already see veins, individual hair, detailed facial expressions, blood and sweat all individualized. What exactly is the next HUGE jump going to be? If anything the next huge jump is most likely going to be putting attention into PHYSICS or AI. That's the next huge jump at least in my eyes since todays eye candy is already hyper realistic, yet the physics or enemy intel is far below.
Click to expand...

I really disagree with about all of that. For one, even if most people are running the current gen systems on SDTVs (which I find hard to believe), they shoudln't be. IMO they're not usable that way, and certainly shouldn't be used like that.

Beyond that, today's graphics are far from "hyper realistic". Not much more to say about that. I'm still very happy with them, but they can't do very realistic yet at all, and we'll keep seeing huge jumps in graphics, if generations are allowed to continue as they have been.

But every generation has always brought a lot more new innovations besides just better graphics (which would be great in and of itself), and the next one wouldn't be any less true.

The cell is highly scalable which is something most chips in the past were. For PS4 they'll just say 24-32 Spus instead of 8 and 3-4 CPUS instead of 1. Put in a new GPU and that's it. New console. Though I think Microsoft is going to also go with a highly scalable cpu for the next console also. But I seriously doubt that the next gen will be completely radical new hardware, like this gen, but just more cores on what's already done and possibly a new GPU.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but probably Sony's days of releasing weird hardware are over, for better or worse (I kind of enjoy not knowing what to expect next!) There's a chance a Larabee derivative might end up as the CPU/GPU for a next gen system-Intel's probably pushing heavily for that, or some other x86 derivative.
 
how about a hardware refresh that will include 3-4 gigs of RAM (shit is cheap now compared to 2005), updated graphics chip, 16GB SSD, and new games will be programmed to be scalable to work on the original 360s and the 360 2.0 or whatever.

they could hold off until the 360 is even more profitable, and instead of doing another price drop release the refresh, or replace the Elite with the refresh at the Elite's current price point. that way it could be like a half-gen bump, or a backdoor to a new generation to sell to the hardcore while keeping all the games available to both core and casual.

haven't really given it much thought, just came to me while reading this thread, thought I'd throw it out there.
 
[quote name='Paco']I'm sorry but no.

Consoles last gen were not capable of decent PC ports. Consoles this generation are. And most people are still using SDTVs so when they finally step up, there will be a hesitation moment in "How much more realistic do we need?" We can already see veins, individual hair, detailed facial expressions, blood and sweat all individualized. What exactly is the next HUGE jump going to be? If anything the next huge jump is most likely going to be putting attention into PHYSICS or AI. That's the next huge jump at least in my eyes since todays eye candy is already hyper realistic, yet the physics or enemy intel is far below. Also factor in DLC, Friends on the consoles with online services, the economy, the SATURN factor, and ever increasing size of development. There's way too much for anyone to jump the gun right now in a few years to be honest.
[/QUOTE]

:lol: What do you mean "no"?

Your post could have been lifted straight out of 2003.
 
[quote name='Paco']? If anything the next huge jump is most likely going to be putting attention into PHYSICS or AI. That's the next huge jump at least in my eyes since todays eye candy is already hyper realistic, yet the physics or enemy intel is far below. [/QUOTE]

This is a really good point. Usually the AI difficulty doesnt really get smarter, just more accurate with their shooting, or for fighting games, they just get cheaper moves, what would not score as a hit on the easier versions would hit me on the harder versions.

For almost ALL strategy games I have ever played, the AI is retarded. They will usually just send their men to me and i just wait for them to move near me and then surround them.

I dont know how AI can ever be brought up to the level of that of a live opponent. And at least the xbox live seems to be a good option to getting really good AI in a game.
 
I think Microsoft will pull a PSTwo with a new smaller, cheaper, and more stable version of the same console. Perhaps it will have Wi-Fi built in as well.
 
[quote name='Wolfpup']Not really any more than they were last time. The difference is this gen there are far fewer exclusives, so much more stuff is at that base level. Looking at the hardware though, if anything I think the current gen systems were left in the dust faster than the Xbox 1 and Gamecube were.



I really disagree with about all of that. For one, even if most people are running the current gen systems on SDTVs (which I find hard to believe), they shoudln't be. IMO they're not usable that way, and certainly shouldn't be used like that.

Beyond that, today's graphics are far from "hyper realistic". Not much more to say about that. I'm still very happy with them, but they can't do very realistic yet at all, and we'll keep seeing huge jumps in graphics, if generations are allowed to continue as they have been.

But every generation has always brought a lot more new innovations besides just better graphics (which would be great in and of itself), and the next one wouldn't be any less true.



Maybe, but probably Sony's days of releasing weird hardware are over, for better or worse (I kind of enjoy not knowing what to expect next!) There's a chance a Larabee derivative might end up as the CPU/GPU for a next gen system-Intel's probably pushing heavily for that, or some other x86 derivative.[/quote]

Granted there was more PC exclusives last gen, but have you seen the specs of the past machines? I don't even think the PS2 or Gamecube were able to do specific shaders though they did some imitation to get like effects. The Xbox did have shaders so it got a far bigger chunk of pc games like Doom 3, Half Life 2 and many other PC only games. You're on to something with the base level stuff though as consoles now essentially have PC GPUs and they just base it off of that with more optimizations. Though I wouldn't say base level quite YET. Aren't most PC games still around a Geforce 5 level for bare minimums? Or a significantly older ATI for bare minimums? I'd say right now consoles are getting mid tier PC level stuff as they get the benefits of optimization.

Most people that have a 360 use it with an SDTV. I agree with you here in the WTF IS THIS and even many PS3 users use the PS3 on SDTV which is not how these consoles were meant to be played. Though true gamers are pushing everything in the high tech realm, what about the people who just want to game? HDTVs are seen as unnecessary for them so they just get the system without getting a new tv. And maybe I jumped the gun too fast. They're realistic, but not hyper realistic. The graphics are there, but without the proper physics they'll never appear realistic in all honesty. Which is why I do believe the next huge jump is going to be physics and artificial intelligence. You can tweak the detail of the guns as much as you like, but if it doesn't react real, then it's not going to suck you in. Same with boxing games where they used pre canned animations when struck.

You're right that new hardware and new power bring new innovations, but it also brings in a lot more of the same as development costs skyrocket. But PSN, Wiiware and XBLA are the new vehicles that bring experimental ideas. I'm all for stuff like FAT PRINCESS, Braid, Castle Crashers, Crash Commandos and so forth.

I know that Sony's days of making weird hardware are over, but they are going to continue to build on the cell chip as they spent billions on it and it's one of the most scalable cpus made thus far. Why spend another hardware cycle making something new when you could just add more spus and cpus to it? But I am going to miss the weird ass hardware that Kutarugi makes. Even though the man was KRAZY as shit, he did make some pretty out there designs that did have power and were really unique.
 
[quote name='Paco']Granted there was more PC exclusives last gen, but have you seen the specs of the past machines? I don't even think the PS2 or Gamecube were able to do specific shaders though they did some imitation to get like effects. The Xbox did have shaders so it got a far bigger chunk of pc games like Doom 3, Half Life 2 and many other PC only games. [/quote]

The difference is just a lack of exclusives on any systems. The current gen systems aren't any better than the last gen systems were at this point against PCs, but there aren't many PC exclusives now (and not just PC of course) so you can't really SEE the difference as drastically.

Aren't most PC games still around a Geforce 5 level for bare minimums? Or a significantly older ATI for bare minimums?
Click to expand...

It varies a lot from game to game since not everything needs the same level of power, but I think most stuff recommends a Geforce 7 or 8 series GPU now. Probably some of that too is that the consoles basically have Geforce 7 class hardware.

Most people that have a 360 use it with an SDTV. I agree with you here in the WTF IS THIS and even many PS3 users use the PS3 on SDTV which is not how these consoles were meant to be played. Though true gamers are pushing everything in the high tech realm, what about the people who just want to game? HDTVs are seen as unnecessary for them so they just get the system without getting a new tv.
Click to expand...

I've never seen any study on this though. Maybe most people really do have SDTVs with these, but maybe not. They're at best barely playable though. I'd just be getting stuff for other platforms if for some reason I didn't have a monitor/TV.

I know that Sony's days of making weird hardware are over, but they are going to continue to build on the cell chip as they spent billions on it and it's one of the most scalable cpus made thus far. Why spend another hardware cycle making something new when you could just add more spus and cpus to it?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but there's lots of rumbling that Sony is tied to it. They even sold off their part of it. Lots of rumbling that Intel is trying to sell them their stuff, and I'm sure Nvidia and AMD are as well.

But I am going to miss the weird ass hardware that Kutarugi makes. Even though the man was KRAZY as shit, he did make some pretty out there designs that did have power and were really unique.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and really the Playstation 1 and Playstation Portable are fantastic designs. The PS2 and 3 IMO less so, but they're not really out there when you compare them to what he did previously. The PS3's architecture isn't that surprising when you look at the PS2, etc. Though I think the PS2 and 3 both could have been designed more efficiently.

And of course anyone could have walked in there with a Core 2/Pentium D system and at least a Geforce 7900, and they'd instantly have better hardware...except they wouldn't own it. I kind of think the weird CPUs this time around have more to do with getting a design that Microsoft and Sony could actually own than anything else, given what happened to Microsoft with the first X-box...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top