Microsoft: No New Xbox in 2012

[Bvenged]

Though nothing new this year? Nothing at all? No new games, or items, or gizmos? WHAT ARE THEY THINKING! /taking quote out of context

Taking quote in context:
Just because they aren't "releasing" the new console this year, which I had 1+1'd, doesn't mean they aren't spending 90% of their time developing the new console behind closed doors. It also doesn't mean we won't be seeing it at e3. That would surely cause quite an excitable stir.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Good, I'm happy with my Xbox and can wait for something new for a long time yet.

 

[bobmus]

And a million wallets cried out in joy! Hurrah, my old Elite can still play the latest games this year!!

 

[viranimus]

Wait.. im curious.. Did anyone actually think the 360 progenitor would be released by the end of 2012?


[Yaaa, i finally got to use that for my own purposes!}

In all seriousness. If the new xbox console were to be released by the end of this year, we would have heard its announcement last year. Also given the problems with the launch incarnations of the 360. I think Microsoft is going to not try to repeat the mistake of making the announcement in may and releasing the console on november allowing for proper R&D time. So realistically I figure they would announce it some time this spring/summer (likely around E3)and may actually release late summer to mid fall of 2013, or they may actually wait for release as late as 2014, but that date will be determined more by Sony than it will be by microsoft as the longer sonys next gen is behind MS the more time they will utilize to work out bugs before release.

 

[sabercrusader]

I'm happy it's not coming out this year. But notice how he didn't say anything about no announcement at E3? Yeah, I'm guessing an announcement about the next at either E3 this year or next. With the next Xbox coming out next year or the year after, depending on announce date. I'm not going to hurry out and buy a new Xbox, but the 360 is starting to hit it's limit I believe, it's been 6 full years, and the seventh isn't far.

 

[esperandote]

Maybe is the language barrier but when, ever, someone said that there was a new xbox going to be released this year? The only thing I read about was that a new xbox was going to be announced.

French guy just word-played you into making the announcement a surprise again, maybe.

 

[Doneeee]

You know what? I'm happy at this announcement. I think the current gen still has the potential to pump out some great things and it would be a shame to thrust into the new gen just now.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

50% in France?! Then that must be true for like ... EVERYWHERE!

 

[brainslurper]

So, does this mean we can also dismiss that rumour that the new 360 will attack the used game market? Because I was pretty sick of the folks who instantly screamed "MICROSOFT ARE SHAFTING US!" from the get-go.

[sup]Also, this might just be me being ignorant but... how would a 360 have Blu-Ray? Surely Sony owns that. Maybe I'm wrong there, though.[/sup]

I am not sure that sony actually owns the blu ray technology, but they were the first one to push it in their systems while microsoft was pushing the failed HDDVD. Kind of like how apple is pushing thunderbolt, which is intels tech, while everyone else is pushing inferior usb 3.0

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Call me a Luddite, but I still don't understand why we need a new console generation.

Well accept maybe Sony, what with the development issues imposed by the PS3. But that's old hat.

 

[Treblaine]

I think a more pertinent question: what could you possibly want in a New Xbox Iteration?

I mean, the Xbox 360 controller hardly pushed the boundaries, it is essentially a Playstation 1 Dual Shock controller from 1998 just a bit of re-jiggered ergonomics, wireless and with trigger shoulder buttons. The only real improvement over that (other than FPS-freek peripherals) is a mouse + keyboard setup but:
1) you don't need a new console for that, just a firmware update
2) console gamers don't care for that, they are totally fine with thumbstick aiming.

And what is REALLY holding their big sellers back? COD is hitting 60fps consistently which is the maximum framerate of most HD Screens (refresh at 60Hz) and it does that with a low native resolution around 1040x600 pixel, but are people REALLY demanding full 1080p? You can only actually appreciate that detail by sitting either very close to your screen or by having a HUMONGOUS SCREEN (where either way each pixel is apparently larger).

So really I don't see the room for improvement.

PC games have been luring console gamers with WAY better graphics for so long now and console gamers simply are not bighting, I don't think there even is a real demand for more potent hardware.

I think any new Xbox is a LONG way off. I would be surprised to go all through 2013 with no new Xbox either.

I always laugh when I read this argument.

"Console gamers dont want or need way better graphics. Thats why developers are constantly increasing the size of weapon models and just generally getting up to all kinds of trickery so they can squeeze a minimal bit of power out of the strained console to make room for better graphics. Because console gamers dont want better looking games."

Yeah, no, thats bullshit.

OT: Well fuck that. Its about time they role out the new consoles.

Call of Duty series' graphics have stagnated since Modern Warfare 2 and it has only sold LARGER numbers and the biggest selling game on both PS3 and 360 isn't close to the best in graphics. MW3 in was looks worse than MW2 yet it's sold in only 11 weeks 23 million copies on consoles alone.

I've tried to convince so many console gamers to PC gaming with the lure of DX11 graphics and they don't give a crap, they say it's close enough to the DX9-like Xbox 360 standard that they don't see it worth neither the time, money nor effort. There is tepid to no-buzz about the Wii-U being more powerful, people are most concerned about the controller and Nintendo's practices in general. Look at the interviews with Reggie, they press him more on how the online network will be than how powerful it will be.

Minecraft has been the runaway hit with some of the most basic graphics of any game released in the past 20 years. TF2 is the most lucrative and well known multiplayer PC game and it has very abstract non-realism graphics. The most popular multiplayer game on Steam is still Counterstrike.

Games like Bodycount that have gorgeous graphics fail miserably as they completely failed to deliver on gameplay. Final Fantasy 13, again going for gorgeous cutting-edge graphics but it gets panned and ignored for bad pacing, the graphics couldn't save it (though brand loyalty could preserve it). Similar extent with id software's RAGE. Graphics can't sell a game any more, it has to be gameplay.

Publishers tend to aim for best graphics because that is a tangible goal, it's easy to put your work side by side with the competition and say "yep, we're doing good here" in terms of graphical fidelity. But saying you have better gameplay, well that is far more subjective and until you have everything in place you don't know if you are going at all in the right direction. It's also so risky. Uncharted, wonderful graphics yet Uncharted 3 has only sold around 3 million units compared to about 5 million of Gears of War 3.

Look, I'm not saying Xbox 360 will be the last console ever released to the public. I'm just saying there won't be a new one until there is a significantly large demand for better graphics.

Now Microsoft/Sony COULD release a new 1080p console but if there is low demand for it and few buy it then they will lose a lot of money building chipsets earlier when they are more expensive only for boxes to sit on shelves depreciating. A new console they have to go all in and set it off the a swinging start, they must very quickly get over the hump of having a small install-base that limits multiplayer, and marketability by third parties.

 

[Treblaine]

I think we should be beyond discs

Unfortunately the people running the communications infrastructure in many countries don't believe that or they'd do something about the subpar, expensive services they offer.

High bandwidth internet solutions are simply not an option for many people.

Well, I think the prevalence of torrenting and unauthorised streaming of video suggest most people can.

They are already being served ads... why can't the ACTUAL content holders put their stuff online rather than Megaupload or its inevitable successor? And plenty of legitimate services like BBC iPlayer and Netflix.

Even with an average download speed of about 6 megabits/second (US average), that's 2.7GB an hour. You can download a HD movie way quicker than you can order it in the mail or fetch it from the shops unless you happen to live very close to a rental store.

Remember, 1080p is usually overkill, you need a HUGE television to actually resolve that detail (by analogy, imagine you had a tiny palm sized screen ou either need to press your face very close or settle for not seeing the detail that 1920x1080 pixels offer).

One thing I'll say is that Blu-ray isn't an economical option with the prices their discs sell for. There should be some sort of middle ground for say 720p films as many people only have 720p televisions or computer monitors.