If Xbox 360 loses, "We'll play again." - Bill Gates

[mckmas8808]

I feel this is a valid point:

microsoft feels it can capture atleast 51% of home (usa) market with 360, and wish to start laying ground for new 3rd gen box. life cycle for xbox is 4 years, may be demand and short life cycles (relative) forces microsoft to make comittments now.

You don't think the Xbox 360 will have a 4 year life cycle do you?

 

[Jov]

You don't think the Xbox 360 will have a 4 year life cycle do you?

Why not if X360 plays out to be similar to X1? MS will do it again if they're in a similar position with with Xbox.

The issue is they'll end up like Sega.. pissing off a lot of their supporters.

 

[thatdude90210]

Those Walmart and Best Buy lines didn't look all that pissed off... seems like people are ready for the next gen. With the rate of development of today's tech, maybe the 5 - 6 years life cycles are just too long.

MS will probably keep shortening the life cycle until Sony can't affort to keep up.

 

[Jov]

Those Walmart and Best Buy lines didn't look all that pissed off... seems like people are ready for the next gen. With the rate of development of today's tech, maybe the 5 - 6 years life cycles are just too long.

MS will probably keep shortening the life cycle until Sony can't affort to keep up.

Compared to keeping up with the latest graphics cards, the console cycle is way too long and the cost is drop in the bucket. The difference is the shift of development as one platform to another is not as transparent.

Personally, 5-6 is is fine by me as I still have plenty of Xbox/PS2/Cube games to get into. This also allows devs to work their magic on the platform. In a 4 year cycle, good games (wrt to the platform) dont see daylight 'til its 2 or 3 yr of the console life.

If 4 yrs be the norm, then I might as well stick with my PC if that was the case.

 

[Bill]

Ms will be in deep trouble though, if their hardware is markedly weaker.

In that case, they will just lose worse and worse. Then they will have to bring out new hardware.

While Sony would have the luxury of launching later with better tech yet again.

That's why MS was dumb with Xbox1. They had more power, and they should have let this gen gone on until Sony launched PS3. This gen's dynamics only favored Xbox more and more over time.

Basically whoever is more powerful can ride the current gen as long as they want. Dont tell me with more hype and the triple A titles it was already getting Xbox1 wouldn't have kept gaining on PS2 indefinitly.

On another note, I know they're middle aged men running billion dollar companies, but I bet the high ups at MS like consoles, and stay in consoles, partly because face it, they're toys, and boys like toys.

I mean I bet this market is a helluva lot more fun than software. Because it's hardware. It's competition. It's toys. It's my toy is better than your toy. You cant get that in "Office 900082" versus..whatever.

 

[mckmas8808]

Those Walmart and Best Buy lines didn't look all that pissed off... seems like people are ready for the next gen. With the rate of development of today's tech, maybe the 5 - 6 years life cycles are just too long.

MS will probably keep shortening the life cycle until Sony can't affort to keep up.

Dude every console provider is coming out with a new console now. In 2009 that will not be the case. Please don't repeat this old tired excuse.

Thanks.:smile:

 

[Bill]

6 years is way too long.

I'm a technology guy. I'm always ready for the next gen. And I really dont "get" people who aren't.

Also, if anything, I think technology has slowed down. You used to get six months graphics card cycles. Now last gen Nvidia waited 15 months between major architectural changes (6800 Ultra was the top Nvidia card from March 2004 until June 2005). ATI attempted a half hearted refresh that cycle with X850, but you were talking 10% on the clocks. Nvidia didn't even bother. And sites rarely even do CPU reviews anymore, which used to be regular.

I suppose as multi-core picks up, that may change. Still, I suspect increasing heat and other issues will slow the pace of advancment somewhat over what it was five years ago.

 

[Phil]

6 years is way too long.

I'm a technology guy. I'm always ready for the next gen. And I really dont "get" people who aren't.

Also, if anything, I think technology has slowed down. You used to get six months graphics card cycles. Now last gen Nvidia waited 15 months between major architectural changes (6800 Ultra was the top Nvidia card from March 2004 until June 2005). ATI attempted a half hearted refresh that cycle with X850, but you were talking 10% on the clocks. Nvidia didn't even bother. And sites rarely even do CPU reviews anymore, which used to be regular.

I suppose as multi-core picks up, that may change. Still, I suspect increasing heat and other issues will slow the pace of advancment somewhat over what it was five years ago.

Shortening the cycle will only give developers less time to reach the potential of the system, resulting in expensive hardware that never really gets maxed out. This would neither benefit the consumer, the hardware vendor nor the developers/publishers. Or do you prefer to buy PC GPUs in 6 months intervals that never reach their potential YOU payed for? I'd rather buy something today knowing it's going to be effectively used 4-6 years down the line, enabling developers to make use of libraries they developed, experience they gained resulting in new gameplay elements and innovation. At the same time, they can make money on the products which will enable them to invest into newer consoles once the cycle restarts.

 

[Jov]

6 years is way too long.

I'm a technology guy. I'm always ready for the next gen. And I really dont "get" people who aren't.

Also, if anything, I think technology has slowed down. You used to get six months graphics card cycles. Now last gen Nvidia waited 15 months between major architectural changes (6800 Ultra was the top Nvidia card from March 2004 until June 2005). ATI attempted a half hearted refresh that cycle with X850, but you were talking 10% on the clocks. Nvidia didn't even bother. And sites rarely even do CPU reviews anymore, which used to be regular.

I suppose as multi-core picks up, that may change. Still, I suspect increasing heat and other issues will slow the pace of advancment somewhat over what it was five years ago.

Bill.. I am all for new tech and toys, but there should be a balance. Fine 6 yrs is too long for your liking, but are saying you don't play any of the latest games on the PS2 (assuming u have one) just because the console is that old?

I have no issue forking out $500-650 AU$ for a X360 when it is release in Australia, but at the moment I am not impressed with its line up and dont feel the need to pick one up until there are games I see as 'must have'. This is very similar to what happened with the Xbox and only in the last couple of years IMO there were 'must have' titles.

It might just be me, but I don't sense the excitement and buzz like when the PS2 was about to launch. That or MSG4 has set a precedence and or expectation.

 

[ims]

Wow looking at all these posts maybe the console forums should be re-named " PS3 forums " ...

 

[dodo3]

try to outpower MS again with an advanced next-gen CELL processor

Oh wow. The Cell chip will be very cheap if they got it down to that size. But would it be cheaper in 45nm process?

 

[dodo3]

- wrong
- not proven
- wrong

According to some developers it is not as hard as they thought it would have been to develop on the Cell proc.

Power is not a concern to me.

Yes the PlayStation 3 will be more anticipated than PlayStation 2. Why? The brand name is more recognized than it ever was.

 

[fulcizombie]

Everything is happening to Microsoft SHRINK their market share.

-PS3 is as easy as X360 to program for (while Xbox1 was way ahead of PS2 in this point);
-PS3 is WAY more powerfull than X360 (more than XBOX is more powerfull than PS2);
-PS3 is today more expected and more well known than PS2 in 1999;
- The top3 games from these 18 X360 games do not look or fell any better than 2004 PC games, so gamers could NOT see next gen in these 18 titles... they now KNOW Next Gen is yet to come in 2006.

-No
-No.You could see the xbox'superiority in raw numbers(ram,GPU e.t.c) while you can't when comparing the numbers between the 360 and the ps3 which is to be expected since there was an 18 month difference between the ps2 launch(in its home territory.March2000) and the xbox launch(in its home territory November 2001).Now we are talking about a few months difference(PS3 is supposed to launch in Japan this spring).
-No.It's quite evident that the xbox360 can certainly hold its own when it comes to marketing/hype and financial resourses compared to the ps3.

Except that the casulas that bring the $$$ dont have a gaming pc and for many of them the transition is from the ps2 to the xbox360.Let's wait and see how the ACTUAL LAUNCH PS3 games will look before making more comments,

And i agree,next gen will come in 2006 with games like Gears of war and mass effect.

 

[Xeno]

Oh so MS outselling Sony 2 months of the year (and Sony outselling MS the other 10) suddenly means, in your own words, "Also Xbox won 2004 in the largest videogame market" ?
Funny enough it was only when Halo 2 came out and PS2 had no big games coming out in that period except maybe MGS3, and the momentum lasted 2 months. Hardly anything to write home about.

You just had to forget about GTA SA..