Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Says No New Xbox 360s In 2009

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the console-soap-operas dept.

XBox (Games) 123

OrochimaruVoldemort writes "Microsoft has said to Engadget that they do not plan on making new consoles available in 2009. This comes from the same company that said it wasn't producing a Blu-ray drive for that Xbox, so it is pure speculation. Expect to see a new console within that year. Engadget also hints: 'Microsoft representative let us know today that "While we don't normally comment on rumors like this, we can tell you that we have no plans to release a new console in 2009."' The rest of us will wait and see. For now, focus on what is available."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Make way for the console that will kill PC gaming! (3, Funny)

DanWS6 (1248650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410606)

I just wanted to get this out of the way now before rumors start flying.

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411004)

With out free on line play, being able to host your own games, LAN only play, free mods, user mod and maps, able to play 100% free games, and other stuff pc gameing will be the KING!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (4, Insightful)

Conception (212279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411246)

See, the sad thing is PC gaming isn't King, even if its better. Consoles make 2-3x as much as PC gaming does at least. There's no contest anymore. The King was crowed long ago.

3: Subscription-based games = profit! (4, Funny)

Behrooz (302401) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411652)

I hate to say this, but MMO games and the continuing subscription model limited only by server and bandwidth costs make PCs king of the profit field.

I hate to say it because I think all of the MMO games currently available are roughly comparable to being consumed by and subsequently shit out of a bear.

Eventually some visionary developer is going to get it right, though... and they're going to end up richer than God.

Re:3: Subscription-based games = profit! (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416186)

personaly seeing how much micro payments have managed to leach off of me in the past 2 years.. subscription based games are not the big money maker..

while subscriptions helps a company understand the market and have a realive budget, they turn away gamers.

one game i play http://www.airrivals.net/ [airrivals.net] the idea is simple.. free to play.. and you can access all content without paying a cent.. but there is an item shop that is a cash shop.. and it is done as micro payments.. they do quite well and it isn't uncommon to see the servers so full at times that you can't even login.

when wow and city of hero's came out and other mmo's (eve).. charge me for the game and let me play for free or give me the game and make me pay to play it.. not both.. but from what i know i have and others have sinked into certian games.. the give free play free pay for little things over time.. makes them a but load more money off the people who have any money.. and the rest that don't have money wouldn't have paid to begin with BUT add a very large userbase for the paying customers to interact with.. large scale PvP is better than small.. so get the other people in there for free to make it more enjoyable for the paying customers..

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (4, Informative)

Soulslayer (21435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411900)

Consoles, in aggregate, generate more game software sales revenue from traditional brick and mortar retail outlets than the PC. Its a bit more difficult to sort out the hardware side. NVIDIA posted a record quarter for its first quarter this year (at $1.15 billion) but that's from a variety of sources and only one of the big two name sin gaming. There is no good way to filter out PC gaming hardware vs non-gaming hardware outside of video cards so we won't try and split up the more than $100 billion a year PC system sales to compare it to the $8 billion or so in console hardware sales.

Sticking with software for a moment; if you compare US PC retail software sales vs US console software sales the PC came in third behind the PS2 and XBOX 360 last year with $900 million from brick and mortar stores (ignoring that NPD collects data from only 60-80% of the market and extrapolates the remainder). If you add back in subscription sales [next-gen.biz] the PC was actually the top (non-portable) platform last year with over $2 billion in software and subscription sales. And if you accept recent evidence that digital sales have reached parity/exceeded brick and mortar sales then the PC is in the neighborhood of $3 billion in software derived revenue per year, or in the same ballpark as the top three console platforms combined.

Of course, all of that is a lot of silly wang measuring using NPD numbers. Which really amounts to comparing one wildly inaccurate (or at the very least, incomplete) set of numbers to another. The frustrating thing is that while NPD uses a lot of hand waving when describing their data collection methods and releases very selective sub-sets of data to the public (remember, their business model revolves around selling the detailed stuff); our illustrious media accepts these numbers as immutable, indisputable, fact. They then turn around and ignore that the $18.5 billion figure includes hardware, software, and accessories sales for nine platforms (PS2, XBOX, XBOX 360, PS3, DS, Game Boy Advanced, and PSP) plus partial software sales from a tenth (the PC) and proclaim that video games outsell theatrical movies tickets by almost two to one. The general public in turn parrots this line ('cause the news is always right) and console fans trumpet the 17 to 1 ratio vs retail PC software sales as proof that the PC industry is essentially dead.

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (3, Informative)

Soulslayer (21435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411974)

Erm...the missing platforms from the list of nine would be the Wii and the GameCube.

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (2, Insightful)

kesuki (321456) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413016)

what about the wonder swan sure it never made it anywhere but japan...

and one thing i hate, is the way 'Blu-ray' adoption rates "Don't Count PS3s, because they're console sales" even though every website I googled said 'PS3 is the best Blu-ray movie player, PS3 is the Only Blu-Ray Player to support BDJava, yada yada yada..'

Why would anyone pay $400 for a Blu-ray stand alone when the PS3 is $400? and furthermore, $200 'BD-rom drives' aren't Blu-ray players even though you can buy plenty of HD movie playback software for M$ windows. $250 in 'upgrade' costs is a lot less than $400, especially if your PC is already hooked to you HDTV because you didn't want to pay $1400 for a crappy 30" PC monitor display when a 42" HDTV with PC in was $1000

anyways, consoles aren't all used to play games, and not all PCs come with a graphic card capable of playing a video game. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/card-wars/intel-graphics-business-still-champ-but-nvidia-is-showing-rockys-pluck-257035.php [gizmodo.com] at least 37% of the market have intel graphics and intel graphics don't even run 'aero' much less video games, and nvidia and AMD sell tons of graphic cards that don't play video games (any nvidia card below 'X,500' won't play modern games at any frame rate and ATI doesn't have a convenient scheme to determine which cards play games, but as intel has shown the lions share of the market is in cheap chipsets. but that's because something like 60% of the PC market is aimed at businesses most of which (graphic artists aside) want the cheapest chip available...
and then about 20% of the market are people who want 'internet capable' machines, with maybe 20% who want a multi use game capable machine, of those only 25% are serious gamers who will spend more than $200 on a graphic solution just to be able to play modern games at full frame rates (in less than HD resolution) and an even smaller set of those will buy $400+ for full HD capable graphic solutions rather than running on a PC monitor at a 'lower resolution' to get acceptable framerates...

personally, I've decided to go SLI/crossfire, and all told will spent almost 4 grand on my next gaming PC plus the TV set, and i should be able to run games for many years to come, without needing new graphic cards or a new PC... but I'm a serious gamer, and i spend thousands of hours playing games. and I expect my gaming rig to handle any game i throw at it for 4 years... if Full HD isn't the end of graphic card evolution...
(of course physics engines etc might some day go beyond a quad core CPU, and newer computer setups might save significant electric consumption)

but for at least the next 4 years I plan on being able to play anything i buy at the stores, when i build my next gaming rig.

What PC can't play a video game? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413342)

not all PCs come with a graphic card capable of playing a video game.

Tetris, developed by Alexey Pajitnov and originally published by samizdat, is a video game. All PCs with a CGA, EGA, VGA, or more powerful VGA-compatible video card have been able to run Vadim Gerasimov's port of Tetris to the PC [oversigma.com] , even if inside an old-PC emulator such as DOSBox.

My point is that sure, low-end PCs with an Intel GPU won't run Xbox 360- or PS3-level graphics, but they'll definitely run DS- or PSP-level graphics, and probably even Wii-level graphics. So if a game engine can scale down to the Wii, why can't it scale down to low-end PCs?

Re:What PC can't play a video game? (1)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413734)

So if a game engine can scale down to the Wii, why can't it scale down to low-end PCs?
Because the Wii is a single, unified platform. Game developers don't need to worry about anything changing when they scale it down.
 
What happens when you get a low-end PC with 8mb of integrated graphics and no sound?

Re:What PC can't play a video game? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413824)

What happens when you get a low-end PC with 8mb of integrated graphics

Tetris still runs.

Quake III Arena works in 8 MB graphics [quake3arena.com] , and that game is over eight years old. When was the configuration you speak of commonplace? And how much VRAM does a PSP have? If your engine can't scale that far, you might need separate SKUs for low-end and high-end PCs, just as games come in PS2 and PS3 editions.

and no sound?
Then the game turns on captions or whatever other scheme you've devised to make the game accessible to deaf people. Console games need captions too, just in case the TV is on mute so as not to wake the under-5 child.

Re:What PC can't play a video game? (3, Interesting)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413780)

So if a game engine can scale down to the Wii, why can't it scale down to low-end PCs?
It most certainly can. I've heard so many people say things like "Oh, the xxx engine can't do this or that fast, etc..." More often than not, it's the content, not the engine, that kills performance. At my last company, our in-house engine (which was then making Xbox, PS2, and GameCube titles) was ported to the PSP. It did a fine job, too. That same engine is being used now for all current-gen platforms (360, PS3), and they're still making PSP games with it. There's a limit though - it wouldn't be efficient to scale it down to the Nintendo DS - they have an engine for that which is optimized specifically for low-memory platforms.

It's not always an issue of just the engine, though. There are lots of issues with scaling a game. If you have an extremely CPU-intensive AI system that runs fine on the Xbox or PS3's multiple cores, how do you affect this without substantially impacting gameplay? If all your art is shader-based, and relying on shaders that simply don't exist on the Wii, then what? There's not always a practical way to scale down the number of bones a character has - that's another scaling problem for you.

At some point, it becomes easier to simply rework the game for the lower-end platform than to port the game. Likewise, the gap between the highest end PC and lowest end of the current market seems to be substantially larger than it used to be.

The game my company is currently developing requires hardware with shader 2.0 support at a minimum. All of our assets are being developed with this hardware in mind. Should we create two sets of assets, one for shader 2.0 hardware and one using simple blended textures? Lighting, another shader-dependent beast, would end up looking completely different for the two systems. While this is possible, you end up making significant compromises in the look of the game.

It's all great to say "scale it down to low-end PCs", but we're making version two of a successful online PC game. Our players will be expecting a game that looks and plays significantly better than the first version. So while we're not going to require ridiculous specs, we still have to compete with the screenshots and videos of other PC games. There's a pretty significant difference between a Tetris game and what we're producing.

Treat the PC as two platforms (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413852)

At some point, it becomes easier to simply rework the game for the lower-end platform than to port the game. Likewise, the gap between the highest end PC and lowest end of the current market seems to be substantially larger than it used to be.
Console game publishers often sell two SKUs: one for PlayStation 2 and one for PLAYSTATION 3; or one for Wii and one for Xbox 360. Obviously, the developers hand-reduce the assets for the weaker system. So why can't PC game publishers they sell one SKU "for Windows XP" and one "for Windows Vista"? It wouldn't be entirely correct, as the Vista version would probably still run on a beefy enough XP box unless it uses DX10, but consumers would at least get the hint that one is for older PCs and one for newer.

Re:What PC can't play a video game? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414294)

Any sufficiently long discussion devolves into semantics...

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (1)

sjelkjd (541324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413070)

The subscription sales include console revenue... did you RYOFA?

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (1)

Soulslayer (21435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414748)

Indeed, though console online revenue is a tiny fraction of the total subscription based revenue in the US. Basically you have Xbox Live Gold subscribers (~1 million @ $40 a year) and a small population of Final Fantasy XI (most FFXI subscribers in the US play on their PCs) and Phantasy Star Online players. On the PC, World of Warcraft alone accounts for nearly $450 million a year in subscription revenue.

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414252)

Also what about Europe? Stores here have roughly the same amount of space for PC games as they do for all consoles combined (unless you love the pain of shopping at Gamestop).

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (1)

insomaniac (469016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416766)

PC gaming seems to be a lot more popular in mainland europe than in the UK and US, I know a lot more PC gamers than console gamers and dutch gaming sites also give PC gaming a lot of coverage... So yeah I agree there.

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413276)

For the casual to hardcore gamer though, console gaming usually is better. With a console you usually have around 5-8 years of which the platform will have new games released for it unless that platform is a total failure (Such as the Virtual Boy). With a PC you have to keep upgrading. A game released 3 years from now won't run as well as a game made today on today's hardware, however with a console usually a game released at the end of life will run just as well or even better then a game made on the console's launch date. Also, with PC gaming you have the problem of Windows (unless you feel like hacking WINE to make the newest games work, there isn't many native Linux games, though gaming is improving on Linux) which, Vista uses up much, much, much, much, much more resources then XP to run at the same level. So your XP system which ran 1 Gig of RAM, decent video card, high-end P4 could run many games decently, an "upgrade" to Vista would most likely require an extra 2 gigs of RAM, twice the CPU power and most likely a new video card to get the exact same level of performance. Console gaming usually doesn't have that problem, though some hardware gets redesigned (Game Boy to Game Boy Pocket, the fat PS1 to the slim PS1, PSP to PSP Slim and Lite, GBA to GBA SP) games will run at the same level on both of them. PC gaming is great if you have $1000 to waste on upgrades and a new computer, console gaming is great if you have say $500 to buy a bunch of games and a system. For most people console gaming wins.

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414156)

Is that each console or all consoles in total? Because there are 3 consoles...

Re:Make way for the console that will kill PC gami (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417110)

See, the sad thing is PC gaming isn't King, even if its better.

It's not better, it's different. PC gaming offers the widest range of titles and peripherals and, for people for whom gaming is the focus of their life and thus they can afford such things, the most detailed gaming experience (best graphics, best sound, blah blah blah.) Console gaming offers a relatively hassle-free experience. Each has its own appeal.

I do both, and I feel I say from experience that each has its place. Don't forget handheld gaming (arguably, the oldest kind of self-entertainment) :) e.g. playing tetris on the GB SP while taking a dump, or playing solitaire on the cellphone while waiting for your number to be called, etc. There's tons of gaming to be done out there. It's an exciting time to be a nerd.

If this is true... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23410638)

They could be planning a new console this year!

Of course they don't have plans. (4, Insightful)

Methlin (604355) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410694)

If they said they did it would hurt sales of the current revision. Now if Nintendo or Sony were going to release a Wii2 or PS4 in the next year you'd have the standard MS vaporware announcement while they scramble to actually put a product together.

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (3, Insightful)

DanWS6 (1248650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410704)

With as well as the Wii is selling right now I don't think Nintendo would want to announce a Wii2 for a while.

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (3, Interesting)

KingArthur10 (679328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410960)

Yes, what they will do is wait for the market to become saturated with Wiis. Then they will start selling different colors. Colors will correspond to different bundled games. After a while, they'll release a Wii.1 version with expanded internal Solid State memory, possibly more RAM (to enable larger texture files), and the elimination of the Gamecube slots to make it slimmer. It's possible you'll be able to purchase a USB accessory to connect Gamecube devices to.

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (1)

GerbilSoft (761537) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411308)

"It's possible you'll be able to purchase a USB accessory to connect Gamecube devices to."

Nintendo can't even emulate N64 memory cards. What makes you think they'll be able to emulate GameCube memory cards and controllers over USB? (Also the fact that the Wii doesn't support use of e.g. the Classic Controller in GC mode.)

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412056)

I'm with you on the colors and the expanded internal storage memory, but Nintendo has never modified their hardware while keeping the same system/name.

The only thing that was extremely close in terms of hardware (old system + new features) was the Gameboy Color, and even that had a different name. Unless you also count the Gamecube and the Wii, in which case there's also a lot of hardware differences along with the new name.

More RAM to enable larger texture files? I don't think so.

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23413488)

Expansion pack.
N64

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416134)

That's true, I forgot about that one (that's one of the two Nintendo systems I never owned, along with the Virtual Boy).

Maybe they did learn from that mistake, though. They haven't done any system hardware expansion since then.

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23414810)

Game Boy Advance SP

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416114)

Game Boy Advance SP (and even Game Boy micro) are all Game Boy Advance systems, hardware-wise they're all identical and you can take a GBA game and run it on any of these 3 systems.

Of course there's a difference in LCD quality, system size, etc. But from the games point of view, it's all the same system.

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (1)

Nocterro (648910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416284)

More RAM to enable larger texture files? I don't think so.
Come on, surely you remember the Expansion Pack released for the N64? Shipped with Donkey Kong 64 IIRC.

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23416340)

Expansion Pak For Nintendo 64
# Cartridge is inserted into Nintendo 64 console; doubles original 4MB of memory, for a total of 8MB
# Increases screen resolution from 320 x 240 pixels up to 640 x 480 pixels, for a much finer, crisper

I don't think they'd do something like that again for the Wii, but you never know...

Re:Of course they don't have plans. (1)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410932)

Yeah they might make a Wii 2, but only four of them will be produced, one for Nintendo HQ and three for the ebay market.

No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (5, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410710)

I read the title to mean that MS would stop making 360s.

What the article said is that there isn't going to be a slim version of the 360 or a 360 with a Blu-Ray drive.

Quite a big difference, I think.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (2, Funny)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410858)

It's almost as though Microsoft is actively trying to fail.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (4, Informative)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411402)

How so? They've already got at least 3 versions of the console. How is it that further confusing the market is their only possible means of success?

This may shock you, but the most popular and financially successful non-portable console of this generation has a grand total of *one* version.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (0)

Dharh (520643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412074)

That console is also small and cheep. XBOX 360 and PS3 are neither of those. Not to mention the 360's high risk of the RROD. I've already made my decision not to buy the 360 until it gets a hardware refresh. I have to imagine I am not alone. The PS3 is going to pass the 360 unless MS does something about it.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23412968)

It has had a hardware refresh. They use different components than the ones that were failing, manufactured by different people. That is not a reason to release a new brand. A new boxed version of XBox 360, the "now not broken kind!" is not going to appear on the store shelves.

You'd be silly to think that Microsoft hasn't refreshed the hardware. Afterall, when an XBox 360 is replaced, the warranty starts over. If the new versions continued to have the same failure rate as the old versions then Microsoft would be on the hook to replace them forever, which is not a smart business move.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

Dharh (520643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414584)

As far as I know the 65nm 360s still suffer from RROD and it is not apparent when you buy a 360 that you are in fact getting the 65nm one vs the old one. The conference call the MS game division had today I think said they were still loosing money on hardware. So on one hand I understand why taking even more of a loss to drop the price and develop a new less broken _smaller_ console is perhaps not fiscally responsible, it still is a barrier now for those of us who want reliable cheep hardware.

Also, MS may have refreshed the hardware, and I know they have refreshed the inards, the basic design has not been refreshed enough. And it is not apparent to the general consumer, which is why when you do something to fix long standing issues in your hardware you tell the bloody world at the top of your lungs about it.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

suraklin (28841) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414702)

At GDC08 this year MSFT announced that the 65nm xboxes are leading to a lower RROD failure rate. As far as being able to tell if the 360 is the new hardware or not it is pretty simple. All of the new non elite 360s with an HDMI port are using the 65nm chips

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

suraklin (28841) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414662)

Not to mention the 360's high risk of the RROD. I've already made my decision not to buy the 360 until it gets a hardware refresh.

Unless I am mistaken, late in 2007 the 360s were switched to a smaller fab process and the cooling solution was revamped when they added the HDMI port to the $350 SKU. so the risk of RROD should be greatly reduced

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

ClarifyAmbiguity (683603) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416634)

Same here - it just seems the risk factor is still there, and I've never had to mail a console (been playing since NES) in for repair. I'm not interested in starting. Having multiple models is more offputting than it should be. I have that feeling that the new, really cool model would come out just as I get the old one.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410976)

File this one under "Ways in which pedantry and literalism have damaged your brain".

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23411240)

Do you really believe he has a file with a name like that?

Basil E. Frankweiler (2, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413364)

Do you really believe he has a file with a name like ["Ways in which pedantry and literalism have damaged your brain"]?
Ask Basil E. Frankweiler [wikipedia.org] what's under her "pedantry" file.

Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23411020)

The latest comments from Microsoft in the most recent conference call confirmed that they still were losing money on the 360 hardware and that there was no ETA on when they would finally cross the break even point. The huge amount of money they charge for online and other services are what is keeping the division out of the red.

Console hardware has been to straight disasters in a row for Microsoft with the entire endeavor racking up over 7 billion in losses. Over the past year Microsoft has been slowly migrating Xbox services on to Vista. The most likely scenario for Microsoft is they let the 360 run its corse with its only real viable market being the US over the next year or two and then move on to focusing on Vista exclusive gaming and forget about console hardware. The vast majority of Microsoft 360 developers are US PC x86 directx focused and most of them would rather have Microsoft resuscitate the dying PC gaming market than being forced to work on console hardware.

Microsoft is almost certainly done wasting time and effort on console hardware that they don't have the means to compete effectively with other companies. Continued efforts to try to get the fundamental design defects in the 360 is all Microsoft will spend resources on before the leave the console market.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (3, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411118)

Are you trying to make it sound like MS hemoraging money is a bad thing?

If they keep trying to break in to the Japanese dominated console market and keep failing, losing tons of money, all I can say is "Good for them".

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (3, Interesting)

TeraCo (410407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412110)

Are you retarded? Why would they dump the 'difficult and risky to chip' xbox360 market for the 'I can pirate games with 30 seconds on a search engine' vista market?

If they abandon the console market, it will be because they're leaving the games industry all together.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (1)

revengebomber (1080189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414360)

You (and most people) forget, with an xbox 360 and an afternoon, I can pirate _every_ game. At once.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (1)

TeraCo (410407) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414958)

You're in the vast minority there, as opposed to being in the vast majority of PC users. If nothing else, most people won't chip their xboxes because they don't want to void the warranty on a few hundred dollars worth of gear.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412312)

Are you serious? I don't think you've been paying attention. Right now, according to Joystiq, the Xbox 360 has sold 19 million worldwide. It has 12 million worldwide subscriptions to Xbox Live. It was the first console in the current generation of consoles to sell 10 million in the U.S., compared to 8.8 Wii's and 4.1 PS3's. In another article (one I'm too lazy to find) the 360 was posting the highest attach rate. Microsoft's game division is finally in the black with its quarter-to-quarter earnings, and you're saying that they'll just pack up their bags and leave? I'm no MS fanboy or anything, but that doesn't make any sense. And your reasoning is that their still losing money for each console sold when it is clear their obviously making up for that loss with software, subscriptions, and subscription services? I mean, that just doesn't make sense. I can only think of two reasons for why you would come up with such an illogical declaration. Either you are a fanboy of another company, or you're Kenneth Lay.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (-1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412514)

It was the first console in the current generation of consoles to sell 10 million in the U.S., compared to 8.8 Wii's and 4.1 PS3's.

Wait, let me get this straight. The XBox 360 had a full year head start on the other two consoles, and yet you're crowing about a mere 1.2 million difference between the Wii and 360? I have nothing against the 360, but you need to get some serious perspective.

Let's take a look at some current numbers [vgchartz.com] , shall we?

Wii: 25.79M
360: 18.89M
PS3: 12.60M

The fact that the Wii has a third more consoles than the 360 isn't surprising. What IS surprising is that the 360 is starting to lose its lead against the PS3. With a 4.2 million console difference, the race is awfully darn close. (For comparison, the original XBox sold 24 million consoles compared to Sony's 120+ million.)

As I said, I have nothing against the 360. I can honestly say that it has a lot of great features and is possibly the most balanced machine of the current generation. (Hardcore? We got that. Casual? We got that too. Downloadable movies and TV? Check. Leader in online support? Check.) That being said, it is under brutal attack from the competition. Microsoft is going to need to step up their game if they don't want to fall behind. Because I can tell you this: Both Nintendo and Sony are working double-time on the same goal.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412642)

Right. Numbers are great. But I'm not saying anything about Microsoft's position relative to the other companies (Well, maybe I did with that "first to 10 mill" statement). What I am saying is that there is simply no reason to believe that Microsoft is going to leave the console market when, at the very least they're doing okay, and at the most they're doing really well. Microsoft doesn't have to be first to stay in the market. Pepsi has been second to Coke since forever.

I'm simply saying that there is really no reason to believe that Microsoft is about to leave the console gaming market. Quite to the contrary, it looks like they'll be around for awhile. The "their still losing money on console sales" argument doesn't mean anything when they're in the black.

The truth is, there's no reason to believe that any of the three companies will have to bail out anytime soon. It seems everyone is still stuck believing that the gaming market is a two-party competition. The fact that all three of the companies seem to be doing quite well leads me to believe that the two party days of console competition are over (well, as long as the market stays as strong as it is).

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414000)

I can agree with that. :-)

The biggest challenge facing Microsoft is that they really have no concept of originality. The Microsoft Way(TM) is to steamroll the competition and replace it with mediocrity. While competition exists, they can at least do the same thing the competition is doing (and sometimes do it better because of their larger development budget!). Once that competition disappears, Microsoft just sits on its laurels, releasing random features as new versions. If Microsoft ever manages to "win" the market, it will be a sad day for gaming.

Similarly, Sony has a huge problem with arrogance. They regularly mistreat and abuse their customers, then are surprised when they don't take kindly to it. (You mean a PSP wasn't all you wanted for Christmas? Huh.) However, Sony does usually get their act together given enough time. And I think that's what we're seeing with the PS3 now. They've reigned in all the talking idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H heads, and have focused on delivering a good experience to their fan-base. That makes them extremely dangerous in the market.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has always been good about jinking just before the competition catches up. They kind of missed the boat with the GameCube, but they are otherwise always one step ahead of the market. That sort of risk-taking ensures they'll stay in business no matter what happens in the market.

Long story short? None of the console makers are going anywhere. A three-way race can only be good for the market, though with one caveat: I am SO TIRED of multi-console ports. The vast majority of Wii releases takes this to a new plateau with PS2 conversions + waggle. I mean, how much more terrible can you get?

Here's a hint for the industry: If your game is so generic that it can be ported to any system, it's so generic that it's not any fun. If you want to make the big bucks, make games that play to a console's strengths.

And that's all I gots ta' say about that. :-P

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414694)

In the previous generation there was not enough difference between the consoles that platform exclusivity really made a difference beyond graphics.

If that's true, they're f**king incompetent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23412452)

I admired Microsoft's architecture of the Xbox 360. With the 3 processors, one for the main game thread, the other for rendering and stuff and the third one for L2 processor compression/decompression. The use of SMT to alleviate the cheap, high latency memory, the 10 MB of edram for cheap 2x, possibly even 4x MSAA or alternatively use for GPGPU tasks. With two core chips, commodity parts and third world factories, the 360 was designed for high power at low price.

Maybe if they weren't such cheap bastards and did not skimp on proper cooling, the 360 would have a much lower failure rate.

Re:Xbox 360 Hardware Still Isn't Profitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23412538)

The vast majority of Microsoft 360 developers are US PC x86 directx focused and most of them would rather have Microsoft resuscitate the dying PC gaming market than being forced to work on console hardware.
Unreal Tournament 3's console centric interface suggests otherwise. The piracy ridden, highly variable, price gouged by intel PC platform is a second gaming platform these days.

Four-player games? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413048)

The vast majority of Microsoft 360 developers are US PC x86 directx focused and most of them would rather have Microsoft resuscitate the dying PC gaming market than being forced to work on console hardware.
Some game designs put three or more players' characters on the same screen. Examples include Bomberman, Gauntlet, and NBA Jam. A lot of people have friends over who do not own their own computer, so it's not cost-efficient to have a separate computer and monitor for each player. If there's no third Xbox, then for which platform are DirectX developers going to develop such four-player games?

Re:Four-player games? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414708)

They could try being less narrow-minded and start making games for non-DirectX platforms instead? Over-specialization is suicide.

Re:Four-player games? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415976)

They could try being less narrow-minded and start making games for non-DirectX platforms instead?

There are two platforms that can use DirectX: Windows-based home theater PCs (GL/DX) and Xbox 360 (DX). And there are three consoles that don't support DirectX: Wii (GX, similar to OpenGL), PLAYSTATION 3 (OpenGL ES), and Mac mini (OpenGL).

Larger developers could easily transition their future products to Wii or PS3. But smaller developers have flocked toward Windows for its openness toward smaller developers, and mid-size developers have been able to sell their works on Xbox Live Marketplace. But without the DirectX platforms, the only console maker of the three with a clear route to market suited toward smaller developers is Apple, and the Mac mini is well underpowered for the price.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23411066)

I agree the title is bad, that's what I read this as at first. I thought this was going to be some messed up scheme that they thought would help, but would get people pissed at them instead. Anyway, a new xbox360 would be making a new physical device. A new *game system* would be what is meant here.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

PopeGumby (1125507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411228)

I read it that way too, and the reason we read it that way is because that's what it says. It says there will be no new 360s in 2009. We're not being pedantic, thats a straight forward interpretation of what is written.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411734)

We're not being pedantic, thats a straight forward interpretation of what is written.

Yes, that's a straightforward interpretation. Another straightforward interpretation is that there'd be no new types of 360s (360s could possibly refer to either individual machines, or classes of machines, much like "I didn't see any new birds" could refer to individuals, or species). And since a sentence having multiple straight forward interpretations is completely bog-standard in English -- it can take a great deal of effort to write in such a way that there isn't multiple possible meanings -- most people are very used to holding these multiple definitions in their head, and selecting the most likely one based on context and experience. Or all of them, which is how puns work.

So of the two meanings, which is more likely? MS isn't going to manufacture any xbox hardware of any kind in 2009? Or they are not going to release a new design for their hardware in 2009?

Maybe pedantry isn't the right word. What is the right word for assuming there to be only one possible correct interpretation of a sentence?

Though to be fair, adding the word "types" or "kinds" would have certainly made the meaning more clear. I'm all for that.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (4, Informative)

PopeGumby (1125507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411954)

Yes, that's a straightforward interpretation. Actually, sorry, I'll take back what I said, saying that there will be no new 360s in 2009 isnt really an interpretation at all, it's just what's written.

Realising that its referring to types or models is an interpretation, extrapolating meaning from missing words and from the text of the summary.

Obviously it didnt take me very long to realise my mistake, but the fact is I saw the headline, and was momentarily taken aback by the decision not to produce any new 360s at all next year.

The plural also didnt help. If the headline read "No New Xbox 360 In 2009" it would be much more obvious, but having it as a plural further confuses.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412054)

Realising that its referring to types or models is an interpretation, extrapolating meaning from missing words and from the text of the summary.

Not really. Like I said, "360s" could refer to classes of machine or individual machines, just like "birds" can refer to individual birds or species of birds. No extra word is necessary strictly speaking.

If you aren't "interpreting" things people say or write, then you are probably getting the wrong meaning much of the time. For example if you heard someone say "I didn't see any new birds", and you took that to mean they didn't see any individual bird that they hadn't seen before, you would almost certainly be incorrect. I think "literalism" is a better word for this than pedantry. It is rarely a helpful way to read or listen.

Obviously it didnt take me very long to realise my mistake, but the fact is I saw the headline, and was momentarily taken aback by the decision not to produce any new 360s at all next year.

I saw the headline, had both meanings pop into my head at basically the same time, and immediately rejected the obviously wrong one without much of a conscious thought. And I'm not saying I'm smart or abnormal. I'm saying that some people seem to have a tendency towards literalism and pedantry in non-technical writing where it is usually inappropriate.

The plural also didnt help. If the headline read "No New Xbox 360 In 2009" it would be much more obvious, but having it as a plural further confuses.

Yeah, I agree with that.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

intrico (100334) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411650)

I agree that the title is very misleading. The wording of this title "Microsoft Says No New Xbox 360s In 2009" implies that they are ceasing manufacturing/shipping of the current XBOX 360 model in 2009. It really needs to be edited for clarity.

Re:No new *kinds* of 360s in 2009 (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413248)

they said nothing about this fall... perhaps it will be out sooner! Or they'll just keep the box the same size to not split the accessory market.

Seriously? (3, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410792)

Microsoft not having any plans on May 14th 2008 to release a new X360 model before December 31, 2009 is front page news worthy?

LOLmsft (0)

OMNIpotusCOM (1230884) | more than 6 years ago | (#23410934)

Orly?
Ya rly!

Sneeky msft iz beeng sneeky

So this means... (0)

Chunky Kibbles (530549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411030)

No:
  • XBox 360 that isn't fatter than a very fat thing
  • XBox 360 that won't sound like a jet engine taking off under my TV
  • XBox 360 that doesn't double as a space heater


Of course, I don't really care. Already have a 360 and if [when] it goes up in flames [literally] I'm unlikely to buy a replacement. Personally my biggest issue with it is the noise. The fans are loud enough to genuinely detract from the game playing experience while I'm trying to listen to in-game voices.

Gary (-;

well duh (2, Funny)

hurfy (735314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411072)

They are too busy fixing the ones they already built.......

I'll believe it when i see it....oh wait..i mean don't see it

Well (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411134)

What about the Xbox 720?

Or maybe the XBox 4D? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411882)

I wonder what the next name will be. I doubt they'll just double 360, that's kind of lame. No doubt, in the great tradition of Microsoft products, they will choose a succession of names where you could absolutely, positively not tell the order of release of the products from the name. Without knowing computer history, please put the following products in order of release:

Windows Vista, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows 98, Windows 3.1;
Visual Studio 2003, Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio.Net

(Of course, I expect most people on /. would know the correct order, but the point is, Microsoft is legendary for using inconsistent, meaningless names.)

So, in that spirit, we could have names like XBox Pro, XBox Gold, XBox Platinum, XBox Horizon, XBox 400, XBox 4000, Super XBox, XBox Supra, YBox, XBox 128 (I think that would be particularly unlikely, though, because it would appear to be a 'downgrade' from XBox 360). The possibilities for stupid names are endless.

Re:Or maybe the XBox 4D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23412082)

If they follow their naming conventions for other products, it will either be XBox 20xx, XBox 3, or something like XBox XX. The last one does sound rather sexual, though...

Re:Or maybe the XBox 4D? (3, Insightful)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413166)

They:
1. Release XBox360 slim (or with blu-ray...) then
2. Release XBox 4 and 'legitimately' call it '4'

The whole 360 thing was to have a number starting with 3 to compete with Sony.

O, RLY? (0, Redundant)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411140)

Nintendo denied the existence of the new slimmer DS the day before the release. They'd be stupid if they didn't. And by those standards, Microsoft's denial is quite a weak one. They have "no plans" (those could change) to release "a new console" (it wouldn't be a new console, just a redesign of an old one).

So my opinion is that those rumors sound quite plausible but if you decide to hold off on a console purchase in May 2008 because there might be a revision in mid to late 2009 you were just looking for excuses not to buy it anyway =)

So all still in 2008 then? (1)

loony (37622) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411188)

Sounds like Microsoft will release a new xbox 360 in 2008 then. That way their statment holds true...

Peter.

The Overwhelming Response? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411232)

A great big THANKYOU!

From all the "Red Circle Of Death"-experienced gamers everywhere!

I keed, I keed!

Cheers!

Strat

Re:The Overwhelming Response? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23416210)

From all the "Red Circle Of Death"-experienced gamers everywhere!
Yes, from both of us.

Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1, Insightful)

GrpA (691294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411370)

I'd guess that the recent games like Asassin's Creed and other console-first, PC later games are starting to show up the consoles and while it's not having a lot of effect yet, it's starting to, and people are waiting for the PC release before buying, because they know that unless the conversion is a dud, the PC version is always going to be better and higher resolution...

But as I said, it's only a small number of people looking that way at present, because the difference is slight at the moment.

I'd guess they're looking ahead to late 2009 where the next gen of PC video cards will make things possible in games that simply can't be repeated on consoles, and at higher resolutions too.

Then the X360 and PS3 and both going to start looking like an oversized DS..

I'd be suprised if some in Microsoft aren't wondering what they're going to do as that starts to happen... Create a new higher level X360 maybe or maybe even some are suggesting they build a whole new console that's X360 compatible.

But that's just conjecture based on them saying they're not making a new one... Because if they did, everyone would be waiting to buy it instead and the existing stocks would go the way of the Osborne PC.

GrpA.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (4, Insightful)

desenz (687520) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411724)

I think you guessed poorly. As someone in retail electronics, the vast majority of people have no idea what resolution means. Couple that with the higher and higher demands on performance PC hardware, and its an expensive proposition. Joe Majority is not going back to PC gaming, ever. And the majority is all that really matters here.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1)

GrpA (691294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412610)

I'm always suprised when I hear comments like this... Especially as I didn't suggest anything extreme such as "PC games were going to overtake consoles", but take a look at what the game designers are saying about Console Vs PC on google (takes a little searching).

What I was saying is that the PC architecture is still so far ahead of console that next-gen games will only play on PC. (And by Next-Gen, I mean games designed for the technology designed over the past two years).

The PC is already and likely permanently dominant in the area of MMORPGs and FPS games. There is little point even questioning it, and conversely, games intended for console frequently don't make it to the PC. It's not that you can't play them - they just weren't designed for keyboard and mouse (and few people actually keep an X-box or PS2 like pad for their PC ).

You can build a PC that outperforms a X360 now for well under $400 - even in Australia! (Core-2 Duo, X1950, 2G Ram, etc). I'm not including the monitor in that price, because you don't need a monitor now - Just plug it into your high res LCD, and then you can build in a DVR and whatever else too.

And a high end machine barely touches the thousand dollar mark.

Trying to argue that price alone is going to make the difference would make the PS2 the best proposition ( Still a strong seller, I beleive).

As a retail seller, you would know that the market is fickle...

All it takes is a few killer games that run on PC only that the consoles simply can't be made to run, then the new gen of game players is going to start wanting PCs, diluting the X360 *and* PS3 marketplace...

And that's going to start happening in 2009.

So if you want to see where this is going, compare PCs that can run anything you can do on a console (assuming it's not an exclusive title) to older PS2 and Xbox's and you will see why the console's need to keep up also -

Joe Majority may never understand it - I still don't understand why my kids want a PS3, when the X360 seems more their style (and they all have reasonably high end PCs) - But I'm pretty sure it has something to do with which games they want to play that are only available on that console.

It's a long cycle based on technology growth, and this time, the cheaper PC high-end stuff is slewing the market for an early return to PC being in front.

Maybe I am wrong and you are correct about the guess, but the next twelve months will be interesting to watch... :)

GrpA

But why not plug gamepads into a PC? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413176)

conversely, games intended for console frequently don't make it to the PC. It's not that you can't play them - they just weren't designed for keyboard and mouse (and few people actually keep an X-box or PS2 like pad for their PC ).
I have six console-style gamepads that I can plug into my PC's USB ports (one PC-native, and adapters for three PS2, one N64, and one GameCube). Obviously, I'm an outlier, but why don't more people plug one or two gamepads into a PC?

So if you want to see where this is going, compare PCs that can run anything you can do on a console (assuming it's not an exclusive title) to older PS2 and Xbox's and you will see why the console's need to keep up also
A lot of console titles aren't "exclusive" in the sense of being exclusive to one console, but they never show up on Windows or Mac OS X despite being released on all three consoles and even one or both handhelds. Why is this the case?

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#23414332)

The PC is already and likely permanently dominant in the area of MMORPGs and FPS games. There is little point even questioning it

I don't think I'd be so quick to say that.

I mean, is the same FPS game released on the PC and a console going to always look and play better on the console? Absolutely.

But where will it sell more copies? It's starting to be the console by far.

Those kinds of market forces have to start distorting the status quo there, assuming you don't think they are already.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (2)

drsquare (530038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415334)

What I was saying is that the PC architecture is still so far ahead of console that next-gen games will only play on PC. (And by Next-Gen, I mean games designed for the technology designed over the past two years).
So what you mean is that games designed for the latest expensive PC graphics cards will only play on the latest expensive PC graphics cards? The problem is, most people have no interest in those cards, as well as all the other costs with gaming (more RAM, better processors, Windows Vista). Most people don't upgrade their PC every two years, it's more like every five, by which time there'll be a new generation of consoles anyway.

The PC is already and likely permanently dominant in the area of MMORPGs and FPS games.
I'll give you MMO, but ever since Halo, the FPS has been as big on consoles as PCs, if not bigger. PC gamers don't even have machines capable of running the latest FPses like Crysis, whilst Call of Duty 4 is selling millions on consoles.

You can build a PC that outperforms a X360 now for well under $400 - even in Australia!
Where exactly? Windows Vista alone would take up a huge chunk of that budget, never mind the case, motherboard, processor, RAM, cooling system, hard disk, DVD drive, controllers, wireless, PSU, keyboard, mouse, and all the cables and adapters needed to hook your graphics card up to the TV.

All it takes is a few killer games that run on PC only that the consoles simply can't be made to run, then the new gen of game players is going to start wanting PCs, diluting the X360 *and* PS3 marketplace...
If a game comes out with such high requirements that it couldn't run on the PS3, that in all likelihood it won't run on most PCs either, so what's the point?

The fact that yourself, as well as all your kids all have high-end gaming PCs suggests you're far richer than most gamers, and your opinions are probably completely out of touch with reality.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413132)

As someone in retail electronics, the vast majority of people have no idea what resolution means.
For most people, consoles are SDTV (or EDTV at best), and PCs are HDTV. The vast majority of monitors paired with new computers that I saw in Circuit City this week are 1280x720 or bigger, while plenty of TVs are stuck at what is effectively 320x480.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416798)

I don't know, out of the 90ish people on my friends list on Xbox live, I only know of one person running their 360 on a SDTV.

If you've got $400 to blow on a console, you've probably managed your wealth well enough to already have an HDTV and surround system.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (5, Insightful)

Chad Birch (1222564) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412248)

I think you've got this entirely backwards. It's PC gaming that's in trouble, not the consoles. Average people have little to no interest in constantly upgrading their PCs just so the newest game will run, worrying about driver problems, patches, the current rash of DRM on PC games, etc. With an Xbox360 or PS3, they just come home with the game, put the disc in, and it starts. They didn't even have to look on the back of the box before they bought it to see if they needed to spend $200 on a new video card first. The reason it takes games like Assassin's Creed so long to come out for PC is because the PC version is almost an afterthought now, it's hardly even considered a major platform. Grand Theft Auto IV is probably the "biggest" game of the year, and last I saw it didn't even have a PC version planned. If you're a PC-exclusive gamer now, you're going to get left behind on a lot of the big games, and I only see this trend continuing in the future.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23413008)

Like every other GTA game before it (Gta3 onwards);

Gta4 will be released on PC atleast 6 months after its console debut.

Look up wiki; (I actually checked the dates recently).

Gta3, was 6 months later to PC
Vice city? 6 months.
San Andreas? 6 months.

So, when it comes to Gta; it is a really bad example because that's how Rockstar do it. (probably get a bunch of extra cash for it from the console makers too for timed exclusivity - from the PC).

GTA4 is coming to PC; it just wont happen till sometime in october/november.

Thats not to say I don't agree on getting left behind as a PC gamer. But in reality - you aren't getting left behind, you are getting pushed aside. You'll get there eventually, but the console kiddies get a fast-pass to the front of the line.

PC has freeware and shareware (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413202)

If you're a PC-exclusive gamer now, you're going to get left behind on a lot of the big games
What about the little games? PCs running Windows or Mac OS X have games that are developed and self-published by microISVs [wikipedia.org] . Consoles, not nearly as many, at least until Microsoft figures out a way for all XNA Creators Club members to publish their games to the general public on Xbox Live Marketplace.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (2, Insightful)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23417142)

Don't forget how you don't have to worry about little shits running around with wall hacks, transparency exploits and other things that tend to happen in the PC gaming world within a few months of a game's release.

Oh and don't get me started on how so many PC releases are bugfests for their first few weeks or months. Nothing sucks more than downloading a demo, seeing it run so-so with promises of fixes before it goes gold, then buy the game and it not work at all without either a lot of dicking around with the drivers or waiting for a patch that fixes a compatibility issue with your particular hardware. God help you if the game vendor and the hardware folks start pointing fingers at each other instead of patching.

There's also the issue of PC games being stuck on the PC you installed it on. Your mention of DRM covers that, but you know, it's great to be able to pop out the DVD of any game I own and toss it into any friend's 360 and not have to worry about installing or affecting the 'security measures' of the product.

The list, with me, goes on to the social side of console gaming. Even with WoW being the dominant gaming force, I can't stand playing it. It's not fun to lose in PVP because someone else downloaded a script/mod that makes their character quicker at certain tasks than someone with the normal interface. I hate playing games where people are sitting around typing instead of actually playing. On the modern console, or 360 at least, every controller comes with a headset so if people are going to be talking, they'll likely be productive because they aren't keying away-- but speaking with their actual voice. They don't have to go download teamspeak, or whatever today's voice conference application is and switch back and forth between the game and the software when wanting to talk to someone else, and so on.

All this and if you go ahead and plunk down $200 for the new graphics card, there you are, sitting at the desk, using the same interface you use to browse the web, do your taxes, work, etc. It's just nice to sit on the sofa with a beer and relax to the hdtv and surround system instead of being hunched over a desk like folks already spend eight hours a day working at.

To me, technological bliss is where all computing is done on the laptop and all gaming is done on the console. Not very geek, but it interfaces with a real life a bit more than the old computer desk with a bunch of gear that heats up the room by 15 degrees and is loud enough to drown out a window fan. :)

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23412882)

Hot graphics don't make good gameplay, nor does it create market dominance. Nintendo is proving that quite handily. You might also have noticed that this year's DS has outsold the technically superior PSP.

I gave up on the PC gaming treadmill...though I am still quite happy playing 2004/2002/2000 era PC games. The graphics may be mediocre, but the gameplay is great.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413404)

What you say is correct... to a point. For me (and yes, this is anecdotal and subjective) hot graphics can really enhance gameplay. "Hot graphics" alone is not enough, however. But excellent graphics at high resolutions, coupled with good gameplay and story line, IMO, make for a killer combo.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413224)

they know that unless the conversion is a dud, the PC version is always going to be better and higher resolution...
But if you have friends over, how much do four copies of the PC version cost compared to one copy of the console version? Heck, not everybody who visits my house and wants to play video games owns a computer.

Re:Recent games are putting pressure on them... (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415248)

Of course, that's assuming that every gamer instantly upgrades to the latest graphics cards every year in order to get all the latest buzzwords.

I'd guess that most PC gamers play on a several year old machine barely capable of playing World of Warcraft and the Sims, which is all they're really interested in. Other gamers have consoles for things like fifa, COD, GTA etc.

The high-end PC market is pretty small, and most people would rather play Assassin's Creed on their new 50" HDTV than Crysis on a PC, no matter how many pixels/voxels/shaders the latest overpriced, overheated video card can generate on its tiny monitor.

Translation... (4, Informative)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 6 years ago | (#23411870)

'We don't want to say, "We're releasing a better version next year." and then have people refuse to buy the old units like they did with the HDMI thing. Especially as it would be for a full twelve months this time. That would really kill our lead against the other consoles in North America. So, uh, "We've got no plans!"'

It's almost certainly a lie. But they would be crazy to tell the truth and destroy their market until the new models did finally ship.

It's pretty much guaranteed Sony will ship new models too. Bigger hard drives, cooler processors, smaller cases, new skus with games bundled. There are always new stimuli to keep the market active. But no one in their right mind acknowledges their roadmap for the next 20 months (to the end of '09), screwing their current market with all the people who figure they'll just wait.

It's not just consoles. Canon releases a new xxxD camera every year or so, a new xxD camera every 18 months, pretty much like clockwork. And yet they refuse to announce the new model until the last possible moment, denying everything they can, so as not to trash the current prices. Look at what happened to the $3,000 Canon 5D that everyone assumed would have got a new revision in February. Even without a new rev turning up, discounting got so competetive on the assumption the old model was about to become obsolete that it now goes for a hair over $2,000. Even then, people like myself who'd still get a lot from the 5D are putting off their purchase, waiting for whatever its successor turns out to be or much lower 5D prices, rather than letting Canon shift stock now.

Re:Translation... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23413054)

I thought 5D was getting close to $2000 very early last year, not this year or late last year. I've found a thread in August 2006 about a then-price drop on that model. It's a model that I certainly wouldn't mind getting, though other priorities beckon.

Re:Translation... (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#23415052)

Slightly different. Cameras get extra MPixels and new features with each release, its not just "exactly the same camera but smaller and lighter". The whole thing about consoles is that, performance wise, they are exactly the same. If there is a new 360 then it will be the same as an existing 360 but (hopefully) thinner and quieter. No new graphix chips or blu ray discs. Having said that, each new PS3 seems to have a small bit of functionality removed, so i could be wrong.

According to past experience.. (1)

unrealmp3 (1179019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23416192)

No == Yes Yes == Maybe
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?