Robbie Bach says this generation will last longer

[wco81]

So MS must be happy with the way things are going this generation. But he also said he thinks Sony and Nintendo will stretch things out.

Also said the graphics are so good, there's no hurry to move on.

Of course, Tom Kalinske, when he was CEO of Sega, said something similar about the Genesis, that there was no hurry to go to 32-bit.

Then they came out with 32X and then the Saturn, both of which bombed. But at the time he said it, Genesis was doing well.

 

[Sound_Card]

I'm confused. Are you suggesting the same will happen to MS for what ever reason?

 

[wco81]

No.

But the claim that the performance of the current generation is so good is reminiscent of Kalinske's claims about how good the Genesis graphics were.

 

[zed]

When youre trying to sell your current product you dont want to put off buyers by talking about an up and coming improved product

 

[BoardBonobo]

And Sony said this is a ten year game. So what's the news?

 

[Rangers]

Link for OP

http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_11417526?nclick_check=1

I think MS is serious about this and it's clearly the right strategy.

Now what year they're targeting, I dont know.

But Xbox lasted 4 years, so if it's 2011 which is the earliest I expect, that would be 6 years for 360.

360 price is also still very high. Again I bring up Xbox 1, debuted Fall 01 at 299, quickly slashed to 199 in March of 02, five months into it's life, amidst dying sales.

Contrast that with 360, which 3 years in only has gotten to 199/299/399 price. Still pretty high, though people tend to focus on that Arcade unit, remember that it isn't supposed to be the "default" SKU, that would be the 299 pro. Or if we were to guess an "average" selling price...theres no data I know of breaking down 360 sales by sku, but if we take vgchartz to mean anything, current sales are around 50% Arcade and 50% (Pro+Elite). I'd guess the majority of those second are Pro obviously. So the average selling price of 360 is something slightly north of $250, maybe $260 I'd guess.

The only thing I'm not sure of with this life cycle is it seems Halo 4 is targeted at next gen. I wonder how long MS will extend 360 without another proper Halo title. They seem boxed into a corner there. IMO they should have targeted Halo 4 for late in 360s life cycle (though I cant say 100% they havent, IIRC a Halo for next gen was confirmed in the works a while bacjk)

 

[Rangers]

And Sony said this is a ten year game. So what's the news?

Microsoft isn't Sony?

 

[assen]

The only thing I'm not sure of with this life cycle is it seems Halo 4 is targeted at next gen. I wonder how long MS will extend 360 without another proper Halo title. They seem boxed into a corner there. IMO they should have targeted Halo 4 for late in 360s life cycle (though I cant say 100% they havent, IIRC a Halo for next gen was confirmed in the works a while bacjk)

No, it's all been "rumor and speculation" (to use their phrasing).

Some people seem to think Gearbox is doing a Halo title, some people think the new internal MS studio Spawnpoint is doing a Halo title, both have been rumored at one point or another to be launch titles for the next Xbox; nothing is confirmed yet. If both rumors are true, I would guess the Gearbox one is for 360, and the internal team is probing the waters for a launch title.

 

[eastmen]

MS can surely launch a console and keep this gen going for awhile. If they do get the 360 down to $100 by the launch of a new console I see no reason why they can't co exist with the core gamer moving on to the xbox next at $400 and the casuals embracing the xbox 360 at $100. Assuming sony keeps the ps3 going past 2011 without a replacement it would mean the 360 could continue to get ports from it or exclusives. Just look at how well the ps2 is doing and thats what 8 years old ?

 

[RudeCurve]

Wouldn't it be amazing if MS managed to shrink the X360 down to the size of a Wii with an external HDD module that you stack on top or to the side?

 

[dobwal]

MS would be better off playing off the success of the 360 and release a console at the end of 2010 versus trying to stretch the success of the 360 by releasing the next console in 2011 or later.

The headstart worked wonders for MS and delaying the successor of the 360 would give Sony and Nintendo the opportunity to easily release at the start of a generation instead of one year behind.

The 360 did well against a $600 PS3 that showed up a year later but a price competitive PS4 launched at the start of a generation may be a whole different beast. MS may find itself in a situation similar to the xbox1, if its not careful and should not give up any advantages that its has gained with this generation.

 

[wco81]

The 360 did well against a $600 PS3 that showed up a year later but a price competitive PS4 launched at the start of a generation may be a whole different beast. MS may find itself in a situation similar to the xbox1, if its not careful and should not give up any advantages that its has gained with this generation.

I hope the console companies are spurred to release sooner than later by the fears of being late out of the gate, like Sony was this generation.

Gaming is fine so far but if they can pack more silicon, storage and RAM for about the same BOM as what Sony is spending now, why wouldn't a gamer want a more capable piece of hardware now than later?

At least those of us already with current gen consoles, there's nothing to be gained with a PS3 Slim or whatever. I'd rather spend $400 on a next-gen console (even $500) than $200 on a PS3 or X360 cost-reduced in the next year or two.

 

[liolio]

MS would be better off playing off the success of the 360 and release a console at the end of 2010 versus trying to stretch the success of the 360 by releasing the next console in 2011 or later.

The headstart worked wonders for MS and delaying the successor of the 360 would give Sony and Nintendo the opportunity to easily release at the start of a generation instead of one year behind.

The 360 did well against a $600 PS3 that showed up a year later but a price competitive PS4 launched at the start of a generation may be a whole different beast. MS may find itself in a situation similar to the xbox1, if its not careful and should not give up any advantages that its has gained with this generation.

Well I think that MS has had already plenty of time to think about what their next system will looks like. It will be even truer by2010/11.
I don't think that Ms will be stupid enough to got caugh it pant down
They may already have a good idea about what their next system will be, depending on the 360 economic and competitors behaviours, they will or will not launch physical implementation/protoypes/etc by the end of 2009/early 2010.
I think that their expectations/PR are that they will be able to delay not delay if the situation calls for another move.

 

[Nano]

MS would be better off playing off the success of the 360 and release a console at the end of 2010 versus trying to stretch the success of the 360 by releasing the next console in 2011 or later.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a console any earlier than 2012

I don't think a console next year would be a good proposition at all for the consumer or developer in my opinion, it feels too rushed and costly, especially when we expect more out of current hardware in terms of software technology (and something new h/w can't bring alone), innovative gameplay.

Come to think of it, 2012 would satisfy the earlier suggestion of a 7 year life cycle.

 

[Mistagamer]

MS would be better off playing off the success of the 360 and release a console at the end of 2010 versus trying to stretch the success of the 360 by releasing the next console in 2011 or later.

The headstart worked wonders for MS and delaying the successor of the 360 would give Sony and Nintendo the opportunity to easily release at the start of a generation instead of one year behind.

The 360 did well against a $600 PS3 that showed up a year later but a price competitive PS4 launched at the start of a generation may be a whole different beast. MS may find itself in a situation similar to the xbox1, if its not careful and should not give up any advantages that its has gained with this generation.

To piggy back of what you're saying, I think MS should jump right into the next Gen to keep it's momentum going.

I think one of the possibilities they have is to build the next xbox in the mold of the 360 in a away that would allow developers the option to have scalable titles like current PC developers. However there would only be two different settings: one for 360 settings the other for the next-gen settings.

This would ensure the 360 stays alive and consumers and developers wouldn't feels strong armed into making a jump.

It's just one possibility out of the many. But MS simply can't not yield the high ground at this point. Sony is a sleeping giant and has way too much goodwill and brand strength for MS take for granted.

 

[user542745831]

Greenberg: “we’re not even thinking about the next generation at this point”

http://www.videogaming247.com/2009/01/12/greenberg-we%E2%80%99re-not-even-thinking-about-the-next-generation-at-this-point/

 

[Tap In]

http://www.videogaming247.com/2009/...king-about-the-next-generation-at-this-point/

agreed

NXE extended the 360 life cycle

I'm saying Nov 2011.... book it. :smile:

 

[tha_con]

agreed

NXE extended the 360 life cycle

I'm saying Nov 2011.... book it. :smile:

I'd even say that's too early. MS just came off of a tremendous year, but they still have a long way to go.

Both MS and Sony are going to push the 360 and PS3 extremely hard once they drop down to super affordable price points, but until then, I don't expect either to announce anything new.

In fact, I think Nintendo will announce a new Wii before MS or Sony announce new consoles.

 

[PARANOiA]

MS have the most to lose by accelerating next gen IMO.

Sony has been discussed at some length about bringing the PS4 forward by a long way and "rebooting" the Playstation brand with a fully PS3 BC machine with extended capabilities following their slower sales and drop from two consecutive generations in first to third place. Don't shoot the messenger - there's been a long thread about it already, so refute this claim in there without shitting up this thread.

Nintendo have a "need" (or do they?) to add HD capabilities to stop their system from looking like ass in a few years time. I imagine a WiiHD that's fully BC will be the first machine out the door from the big three - though it's not necessarily a "next gen" machine, more like the DSi. There will IMO also be WiiHD specific games down the track that won't work on a Wii.

MS on the other hand are making a profit for the first time in a long time on the Xbox brand. They've got great software sales and third parties love them. Cutting this gen short would kill all the hard earned rewards they've earned in the gaming market, and would be no good for anybody - gamers who have tonnes to play, third parties that are making decent cash on good games, and of course their profit line.

Any comparisons between the Xbox1 strategy and the 360 strategy to me shows a clear lack of fundamental understanding on why the 360 launched when it did, and how much of a success it's been for MS.

 

[Nano]

These are just my opinions

MS have the most to lose by accelerating next gen IMO.

Agreed. It was one thing having a 4yr life cycle for XB1, but now they have a better overall package, big developer support, more control over the hardware and a surprisingly strong market share. I think a lot of customers would be left unhappy. Furthermore, if they were to release too early (where the system wasn't adopted), they run the risk of facing competitors with better hardware and more intelligent timing.

Sony has been discussed at some length about bringing the PS4 forward by a long way and "rebooting" the Playstation brand with a fully PS3 BC machine with extended capabilities following their slower sales and drop from two consecutive generations in first to third place. Don't shoot the messenger - there's been a long thread about it already, so refute this claim in there without shitting up this thread.

Personally, I think they have all the tools to recover the brand with PS3. The hardware itself is a well rounded media system, and I would give special props to their powerful in-house games development push which really lets them show of their system's greater scope for entertainment. I don't believe the console was much of a mistake (as opposed to their strategy).

Another thing Sony have to worry about is re-couping losses by means of getting those PS3 units sold. One thing is for certain, the development of PS4 won't be so extravagant!

Nintendo have a "need" (or do they?) to add HD capabilities to stop their system from looking like ass in a few years time. I imagine a WiiHD that's fully BC will be the first machine out the door from the big three - though it's not necessarily a "next gen" machine, more like the DSi. There will IMO also be WiiHD specific games down the track that won't work on a Wii.

I think the necessity is a lot lesser than perceived...again considering how well the market is adopting the console, and there have been many doubts before about Wii in a HD market 06, 07, 08, yet it continued to defy pre-conceptions. I find it hard for me to imagine the WiiHD idea, as I would think Nintendo want to make a full blown successor for a new generation (an N6 is you like) as opposed to a quick (N5.5) reaction to the 'HD era', so to speak.

I could be wrong.