Develop source: New Xbox console on desks at EA

[kagemaru]

Why is $500 alot for a next gen xbox. The xbox 360 released nov 2005 for $300/$400 and today its selling for $200/$300/$400

It's highly likely that the 360 (and ps3) will not be the same price in two years as they are today. So the price hike will look even bigger and thus less attractive.

After seeing how the ps3 performed it's first year, I doubt MS or Sony would be dumb enough to launch a console above $400, regardless of what tech or features are offered.

PS3 was around that price though and didn't completely bomb.

It didn't completely bomb because of how strong the Playstation brand name was and still is in some ways. It can even be argued that the PS brand took a hit this gen partially due to the high initial price.

I doubt MS or Ninty would have done as well in a similar situation.

You get alot now for what your paying . $500 for 7-8 years of a console in which it has hulu , netflix , cutting edge graphics , streaming from your pc and tons of other things .

I also wouldn't be surprsied if xbox live moves towards windows phone 7 during the next gen (or what windows phone turns into

All the extra bells and whistles in the PS3 didn't save it from performing rather poorly while it's price was high, it's doubtful that things would change in the future.

The average consumer doesn't really pay attention to everything they get in the box if the initial shock of the price is too great.

Those people are very ignorant or typical dumb lazy mass consumerists or both.

I'm neither ignorant nor lazy and I prefer gaming on a console, so no I really don't think this is the case. Some would say people that make generalized blanket statements are rather ignorant though.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Those people are very ignorant or typical dumb lazy mass consumerists or both.

grow up.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Those people are very ignorant or typical dumb lazy mass consumerists or both.

Gosh, who can argue with such well-informed and far-sighted opinions? Not that a compliment from an ignorant, dumb and lazy mass-consumerist like me is going to count for much.

But seriously, if that's the entirety of your contribution to a console gamers forum, you'd be better off going elsewhere rather than just carpet-bombing insults that show a complete ignorance of the range of choices and criteria people have when buying their entertainments.

And at this juncture, with the usual glance at the thread title to see what we're supposed to be talking about, may I remind people to aim their opinions in this thread on what MS are doing with their new console. If you feel consoles are for morons, please go away (before being forcibly removed).

 

[eastmen]

It's highly likely that the 360 (and ps3) will not be the same price in two years as they are today. So the price hike will look even bigger and thus less attractive.

After seeing how the ps3 performed it's first year, I doubt MS or Sony would be dumb enough to launch a console above $400, regardless of what tech or features are offered.

True , but 2 years from now will be 2013 and the xbox 360 was released in 2005. Even if the xbox 360 is down to an average of $250 bucks before the reveal of the xbox next double the price for a what 8 year newer system will seem like a bargin. The xbox next assuming ms keeps their stratigy of cutting edge graphics will blow away what this gen systems are doing

As for the ps3 , the ps3 had alot of problems aside from its price. its graphics were worse in alot of ways than the already on the market , cheaper and larger library of games found on the 360. It also lacked anything resembling a usable online experiance.

The xbox 360 was cheaper and out classed the ps3 in every way. The only benfit to the ps3 was the bluray drive but for alot of consumers it was not a benfit at the time and could have been a hugem iss fire if hd dvd won

It didn't completely bomb because of how strong the Playstation brand name was and still is in some ways. It can even be argued that the PS brand took a hit this gen partially due to the high initial price.

I doubt MS or Ninty would have done as well in a similar situation.

a next gen xbox with a cod looking as good or better than the recent epic demo of next gen would move alot of boxes. The leap in visuals from cod this gen to cod next gen will be stagering.

All the extra bells and whistles in the PS3 didn't save it from performing rather poorly while it's price was high, it's doubtful that things would change in the future.

The average consumer doesn't really pay attention to everything they get in the box if the initial shock of the price is too great.

The ps3 lagged in what mattered compared ot the competition. Xbox made online play mandatory and sony with the ps3 launch didn't bother to show up. I think its that simple

 

[kagemaru]

The ps3 lagged in what mattered compared ot the competition. Xbox made online play mandatory and sony with the ps3 launch didn't bother to show up. I think its that simple

We'll have to agree to disagree then. You think launching a $500-$600 console would be received well if the tech jump is noticeable. However I still hold the opinion that most people will not even care to know the content or features when they see the price. Outside of the early adopters, I see most people opting for something else (or sticking with their current system) and just waiting until the price is closer to what they deem appropriate.

You seem to overestimate how many people know or care about the differences in game performance or specs of these systems.

 

[mrcorbo]

$399 Max. Anything higher is a non-starter IMO. It would be nice if they design a system that that they can manufacture in adequate numbers and with adequate reliability this time around as well.

 

[mrcorbo]

OK I suppose (far better than $30billion for yahoo or whatever it was) though I have a feeling MS dont know what to do about apple/google etc and are panicking a bit, thus resorting to their tried and true tactic of buying other companies, personally I'ld like to see them take more chance and innovate inhouse, just following their old modus operandi isnt the best method to growth

Looking at MS's recent record revenues in addition to the buying sprees that both Apple and Google have been on I have to wonder how you can come to that conclusion from any angle.

You DO know that Google bought Android, right? Clearly this was the wrong decision and they should have innovated in-house like MS did with Windows Mobile....

 

[eastmen]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. You think launching a $500-$600 console would be received well if the tech jump is noticeable. However I still hold the opinion that most people will not even care to know the content or features when they see the price. Outside of the early adopters, I see most people opting for something else (or sticking with their current system) and just waiting until the price is closer to what they deem appropriate.

You seem to overestimate how many people know or care about the differences in game performance or specs of these systems.

no you need to hit everything right . MS has everything right already , they are leading in online , extended services and even the hardware is nicer and sleaker . They will only carry this into next gen. Sony was behind with the ps2 and didn't catch up enough with the ps3 and to spit in fans faces were more expensive

 

[swaaye]

Sony was behind with the PS2? That's news to me.

Maybe the hardware wasn't as neat as Xbox, but PS2 annihilated everyone else (going back to Dreamcast!) and had games being made well into the lives of PS3, Wii and 360. Lesson to be learned here? Get lots of third parties making awesome games for your system. Secondarily, graphics don't make a console. Hell some DC games looked just as good as the early PS2 stuff.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I don't see where the Wii was a success, not in terms of anything that MS wants to do.

Wow..
You think that coming up with a "gimmick" that opens the gaming market to a whole new and untapped audience, and sells as many consoles at a profit as the two other competitors combined sell at a loss in the first 3 years is easier than building a high-specced console and a good online ecossystem?!

Don't think even for a second that Microsoft (or Sony, for that matter) wouldn't wish to switch places with Nintendo during this generation.

Sure, the Wii was short-lived, but it was also designed as such. That's why they're launching a new console in 2012. Its successor isn't Plan B, it's Plan A.

What Microsoft wants to do is make money. The Wii has already made more money than the X360 will ever do.

 

[kagemaru]

no you need to hit everything right . MS has everything right already , they are leading in online , extended services and even the hardware is nicer and sleaker . They will only carry this into next gen. Sony was behind with the ps2 and didn't catch up enough with the ps3 and to spit in fans faces were more expensive

All this does is prove that the features or tech in the box don't matter. Even though the xbox was more feature filled, the ps2 still greatly outsold it. I disagree, but you think Sony didn't catch up enough with the ps3. That hasn't stopped Sony from selling as good or better than the 360.

 

[Nesh]

no you need to hit everything right . MS has everything right already , they are leading in online , extended services and even the hardware is nicer and sleaker . They will only carry this into next gen. Sony was behind with the ps2 and didn't catch up enough with the ps3 and to spit in fans faces were more expensive

It is not about getting it right. Its about getting it right from the beginning and thats what MS did. But in terms of services I dont get anything extra from my 360 than what I get from my PS3. The only thing missing in PS3 in terms of online services is cross game chat. In terms of hardware design (not referring to internal design) Sony was always better than MS, and only recently with the 360 slim they are close to Sony's design.

Any additional features that MS decides to throw in the 360 works well from the start and has the nice "well rounded" looking package. In terms of functionality it doesnt do anything the competition doesnt do.

The problem with Sony is that when they add something they start with the basics and later they develop on it to improve it. There isnt a well designed plan from the get go. Thats not always good though as the consumer has also mediocre experiences from the product's lifecycle even though the end result may be superb whereas the 360 consumer has only good and reliable experiences in the same things that at the end are equally good on both in maturity. That lag between quality parity doesnt do good to a product in the eyes of the consumer

The big highlight here is that hardware performance isnt what defines the consoles of this generation and beyond but the software implementation and design because thats where the consumer experiences the product. Sony was great at the former. MS is a giant in software with a huge experience in UI and it excels at getting things work great from the get go and at targeting directly what the mass consumer needs and wants to see. They know how to highlight a feature to the user in order to try it without hassles like installations, bunch of menus, loading times and what not. It is software design that does and will do the difference. That in terms of usability and "looks".

Sony brought a bunch of great software applications too that dont even exist in the 360 but the consumer ignores because the way they are presented isnt noticeable or it isnt something that the consumer feels that he needs probably because Sony didnt find the right way.

 

[deathindustrial]

It is not about getting it right. Its about getting it right from the beginning and thats what MS did.

I recently inherited a hand me down 360 but have yet to experience Live. Outside of Live, my personal opinion with the 360 OS layout is that it surprisingly sub-par to the XMB. Figuring out something as simple as how to log out from one account and into another was totally non-obvious and areas such as network setup have a pretty seriously borked menu structure flow (menu flow is not consistent, it is easy to end up somewhere and not be able to get back due to the way the menu states are handled).

Having seen the XMB on the PS3 get progressively more cluttered I always assumed that the 360 menu system must be better . Now having experienced both I realize that the 360 GUI suffers from the same sort of design issues that Windows does (inconsistent, conflicting design paradigms).

So I would take exception to MS getting it right from the get go. It sounds like with Live they have done things right / better but the base 360 GUI itself does not match up. That may be due to Sony's device oriented background over MS's software focussed one.

Neither are amazing or anything but the XMB does less wrong.

IMHO of course.

Cheers

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Wow..
You think that coming up with a "gimmick" that opens the gaming market to a whole new and untapped audience, and sells as many consoles at a profit as the two other competitors combined sell at a loss in the first 3 years is easier than building a high-specced console and a good online ecossystem?!

Where did I say it was easier? In fact, I implied that it was far more difficult as I stated I find it highly unlikely that Nintendo is going to be able to repeat that strategy.

Don't think even for a second that Microsoft (or Sony, for that matter) wouldn't wish to switch places with Nintendo during this generation.

I'm positive Sony would, I'm positive Microsoft would not.

Sure, the Wii was short-lived, but it was also designed as such. That's why they're launching a new console in 2012. Its successor isn't Plan B, it's Plan A.

What Microsoft wants to do is make money. The Wii has already made more money than the X360 will ever do.

I'm going to say... No. I'm also going to put forth the theory that you have no idea why MS purchased Skype, do you?

 

[Nesh]

I recently inherited a hand me down 360 but have yet to experience Live. Outside of Live, my personal opinion with the 360 OS layout is that it surprisingly sub-par to the XMB. Figuring out something as simple as how to log out from one account and into another was totally non-obvious and areas such as network setup have a pretty seriously borked menu structure flow (menu flow is not consistent, it is easy to end up somewhere and not be able to get back due to the way the menu states are handled).

Having seen the XMB on the PS3 get progressively more cluttered I always assumed that the 360 menu system must be better . Now having experienced both I realize that the 360 GUI suffers from the same sort of design issues that Windows does (inconsistent, conflicting design paradigms).

So I would take exception to MS getting it right from the get go. It sounds like with Live they have done things right / better but the base 360 GUI itself does not match up. That may be due to Sony's device oriented background over MS's software focussed one.

Neither are amazing or anything but the XMB does less wrong.

IMHO of course.

Cheers

I personally prefer the XMB over the 360's menu too as I find it faster and more intuitive to go where I want to. The only problem with the XMB and some of its applications is that they feel so separate from each other.
Accessing some applications such as photo editing/album apps, PS Life, Home etc slow down how fast you go from XMB to [insert app} and vise versa. They have their own and completely different environment, loading times, hiccups, crushes etc. Not all of them feel part of the XMB. Trying to access the XMB while being in some of these programs sometimes create slowdown too.
In addition while you access the XMB in game, depending on what the PS3 is doing, the XMB may be too slow, it may not load if the game is loading, or it may take too much time to load.

Inside the NXE everything that you can access is part of the NXE environment and you can go from one feature to another without any hiccups. Pressing the main X button to open the dashboard, will almost always have consistent speed regardless of what your 360 is doing (like loading or playing a game)

Probably the SPUs arent that great in handling OS's so reserving an SPU for the whole OS in the PS3 isnt as flexible as reseving one PPU core for the OS in the 360, while leaving the other PPU's for other tasks.
Then again the PS3 is trying to open the main XMB if you press the PS button, whereas the 360 opens a simple dashboard menu so the latter may need less resources
Someone can clarify on this

Just out of curiosity when the PS3 is trying to access a non-game app (excluding Home) in the XMB does it still run it in the same SPU that the OS is running or is it loading it up on separate SPU's just like it does with games?

 

[poopypoo]

For the record, I think the x360 dashboard is pretty good. It's quick n responsive and easy enough on the eyes. Could be better though:

1) many options buried in annoying places. File under "too streamlined for idiot users"

2) annoying organization of top level menus is far too advertising/microsoft-centric. I get that they want to sell stuff, but it feels like, just from the top there are four menus I never want to look at again, and throwing in 2nd-level menu options, there must be 20.

3) graphic design just ok. Why no proper skins? Your UI is functional but... meh. You are meh.

4) whither the simple search everything option?

 

[swaaye]

I think I like UnleashX better than what 360 does. Much more straightforward really. Nice and skinnable too. There is even a 360 clone skin. And nevermind the amazing XBMC dash.

Obviously kinda lacking all that Live stuff though (I have never even used Live).

I remember reading that Bill Gates was shown all of these modded dashboards and he said "how can we leverage this community". Obviously nothing ever happened there. I'm not sure how they could go that route though. A truly open console? Banish the thought! (well there IS the HTPC, I suppose!)

720p looks pretty nice huh? (sorry bout the glow blur of camera)

 

[mrcorbo]

I recently inherited a hand me down 360 but have yet to experience Live. Outside of Live, my personal opinion with the 360 OS layout is that it surprisingly sub-par to the XMB. Figuring out something as simple as how to log out from one account and into another was totally non-obvious and areas such as network setup have a pretty seriously borked menu structure flow (menu flow is not consistent, it is easy to end up somewhere and not be able to get back due to the way the menu states are handled).

Having seen the XMB on the PS3 get progressively more cluttered I always assumed that the 360 menu system must be better . Now having experienced both I realize that the 360 GUI suffers from the same sort of design issues that Windows does (inconsistent, conflicting design paradigms).

So I would take exception to MS getting it right from the get go. It sounds like with Live they have done things right / better but the base 360 GUI itself does not match up. That may be due to Sony's device oriented background over MS's software focussed one.

Neither are amazing or anything but the XMB does less wrong.

IMHO of course.

Cheers

One's experience is probably colored by which UI one was exposed to and became accustomed to first. Compared to the 360 dashboard, I find the XMB to be fairly irritating to use, actually. It feels very sluggish to me.

 

[eastmen]

It is not about getting it right. Its about getting it right from the beginning and thats what MS did. But in terms of services I dont get anything extra from my 360 than what I get from my PS3. The only thing missing in PS3 in terms of online services is cross game chat. In terms of hardware design (not referring to internal design) Sony was always better than MS, and only recently with the 360 slim they are close to Sony's design.

Goes to check psn... doesn't exist.... doesn't understand your comment.


Ms has everything right and sony still has everything wrong. There service is getting close to a month of down time

 

[temesgen]

Goes to check psn... doesn't exist.... doesn't understand your comment.


Ms has everything right and sony still has everything wrong. There service is getting close to a month of down time

of topic rant:

It's clear you don't like Sony, or atleast you don't respect their achievements this generation I say this because I have read your comments over the years and its clear what you think about MS (not a bad thing in itself but in the case of Sony it keeps you from giving credit where its do on some things). I say your not objective because you have admited that you don't think Sony innovated this generation (I remember a post by you to that effect a while ago).

Its perfectly fine to prefer one service over the other but at some point your comments sound more like cheerleading than anything rational which we can discuss. PSN is down and there are some major security issues but lets not forget Sony is dealing with the blowback of GEOHOT and all his friends in the hacker community.

Would MS being fairing any better if a talented segment of the hacker community was angry with MS and wanted to shut down Live? You can say whatever you want but Live has been down several times this generation and now PSN is dealing with an organized attack on their business. Could Sony have dealt with GEOHOT better? Perhaps but I don't see where attacking PSN does anything to advance the discussion on your part.

back on topic

I prefer Sony's OS layout over Xbox too but I think there are some areas where the simplicity of MS approach is superior to Sony's as the options in the XMB can be overwhelming (and poorly documented) for some. MS has done a fantastic job creating an online community for gamers and they have also added services like ESPN3 which add a lot of value for what you pay. With that said PSN does what you need a online service to do namely connect with friends and compete with each other. PSN has improved since it was launched and while there are some glaring omissions overall most of us who use the service are satisfied with the functionality.