Xbox 720 / NeXtBox / Durango / Infinity

[SuperLink]

It's a bit different from having to pay for freakin' everything but the Pizza Hut app.

Xbox "pay for Netflix-ception" Live

[Emmett L. Brown]

As someone who doesn't play multiplayer I've never felt like I've missed out on anything by not having XBox Live Gold. Still, some of the praise for Playstation Network falls flat when Sony decided to put a digital brick wall between the PS3 PSN and the PS4 PSN so if you want to play a digital release on both, then you've got to buy it twice.

 

Point goes to the Wii U for letting you take all the stuff you've already paid for and keep playing it on your shiny new console. I really wish that could be a standard feature on all the new consoles, but I'm in the crazy minority who'll gladly sacrifice shinier graphics for old features.

 

I'm just glad I don't own any PS3 games. I only bought it as a Blue-Ray player I could download old games onto. Good thing the PS4 news came early enough to warn me not to buy anymore PS3 downloads.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Point goes to the Wii U for letting you take all the stuff you've already paid for and keep playing it on your shiny new console.

 

Until you console breaks down and the account that all that stuff is tied to is lost and cannot be transfered to a second account.

[SuperLink]

Until you console breaks down and the account that all that stuff is tied to is lost and cannot be transfered to a second account.

Not that this is the thread for it, but 9/10 times account data can be kept so long as you send the system if for repairs, I've heard of many people repairing their systems and only very very few of people actually losing their data. (for example I didn't lose mine when my system broke)

 

Either way, I still wouldn't say the WiiU lets you keep stuff you've already bought considering you have to buy it again on WiIU eShop even if you own it on 3DS or Wii. Actually it kinda seems like the only 8th gen system that'll allow that is the 720, I'm pretty confident all XBLA exclusive games will transfer over fine just like they did from the original Xbox.

[KHCast]

@Hogather Doesn't excuse that you have To basically buy games twice for the ps3/4. For Nintendo It's still a step up from that even if the WiiU would break.(notice the word WOULD)

Edited May 5, 2013 by Roxas

[Sami]

I'm willing to forgive Sony for the lack of backwards compatibility on the basis that it's literally impossible for them to do it traditionally. The PS3's architecture is too jarring and complex to simply advance forward like Nintendo did with the Wii, and so the only way for them to allow it would be for the PS4 to harbor PS3 parts, jacking up the price for an unnecessary feature.

 

The Wii's hardware is so outdated and weak that any mid-range PC would be able to emulate it moderately well; honestly, I'd be insulted if Nintendo didn't do it, because the PS4 would be able to emulate Wii games just fine. Look at Dolphin, for instance. 

 

That being said, Sony seems to be working around that limitation with Gaikai, so that's definitely interesting. Had the PS4 been built with hardware compatibility in mind, the system would have suffered for it. I'll happily take a shiny new PS4 living up to its full potential over two PS3's duct-taped together.

 

*cough*

[Conando]

You act as if two PS3s duct taped together wouldn't actually match what the PS4's graphics capabilities are. It wouldn't have as much RAM, though yeah. I assume we're being Mr. Literal here, since the Wii wasn't straight 2 Gamecubes stuck together.

[Sami]

You act as if two PS3s duct taped together wouldn't actually match what the PS4's graphics capabilities are. It wouldn't have as much RAM, though yeah. I assume we're being Mr. Literal here, since the Wii wasn't straight 2 Gamecubes stuck together.

 

Considering what Mark Cerny's said about the project, it's actually very much possible that no, they wouldn't match. I love my PS3, but the thing's a fucking mess to developers. They eventually got used to it, but the amount of hoops they had to jump through to get things running properly on the PS3 were rather unnecessary. Just compare third party games to their 360 counterparts. The PS3 can do brilliant things, but it really isn't easy to develop for.

 

Compare that to what Cerny's saying about the PS4 (which people on GAF say sounds accurate judging from the specs) and how the main goal of the system architecture is to make development easy, and you can see why they chose not to try and advance the Cell as a result.

 

Again, the PS4 would have suffered from forcing it to run on PS3-esque architecture, which is exactly what happened with the Wii.

[Tornado]

As far as a lot of Wii developers were concerned, the Wii wasn't even that powerful.

And the PS3 is so massively bottlenecked by the gpu that two of them wouldn't outpower the PS4. Probably not even the Wii U.

[Conando]

That's kind of hilarious and depressing at the same time when I hear the facts. Why did they build the thing so damn weird? I mean, the CPU is one thing (like what Nintendo did with the Gamecube's Gekko CPU), but the GPU too? Good lord. I'm assuming that, in Microsoft's case it's the Xenon? Or do it have some really weird GPU bottleneck too?

Edited May 6, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Sami]

That's kind of hilarious and depressing at the same time when I hear the facts. Why did they build the thing so damn weird? I mean, the CPU is one thing (like what Nintendo did with the Gamecube's Gekko CPU), but the GPU too? Good lord. I'm assuming that, in Microsoft's case it's the Xenon? Or do it have some really weird GPU bottleneck too?

 

Because Sony was arrogant as shit after the PS2. 

 

Thankfully, they've learned from their mistakes. God bless Mark Cerny.

 

[goku262002]

That being said, Sony seems to be working around that limitation with Gaikai, so that's definitely interesting. Had the PS4 been built with hardware compatibility in mind, the system would have suffered for it. I'll happily take a shiny new PS4 living up to its full potential over two PS3's duct-taped together.

 

*cough*

Why this idiot Gaikai route though? the tech needed for it still doesn't work well. why not try this route MS seems to be going with the additional attachment that acts as the BC part of the console when needed?

I don't mind this tbh, I like this idea of this Mini being the component needed for 360 games to work on the Next Xbox. I'll quote myself before as to why:

 

 

But then theres cases like mine Suzy, I've have my old white brick since 2007 its been loyal but lately its been showing its age and even though I've up-kept it for 6 years I've already spent $120.00 having the drive fixed twice. its not worth the investment to put any more maintenance into it, its old its done its job entertaining me for all this time.

I'll most likely retire it once I get the new xbox, the mini is an option to me since my old 360 needs a good rest.

Hell wished the PS3 did this with PS2 games, would've given me reason to get a PS3.

Edited May 6, 2013 by goku262002

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Why this idiot Gaikai route though? the tech needed for it still doesn't work well. why not try this route MS seems to be going with the additional attachment that acts as the BC part of the console when needed?

 

How do you know it doesn't work well? Are you Sony or Gaikai? In fact, have you tried out Gaikai before it was bought by Sony? The tech works well, it just depends on how fast your internet connection is. And I'm sure they have found ways ever since.

[Detective Shadzter]

 

Hell wished the PS3 did this with PS2 games, would've given me reason to get a PS3.

I would never base my decision on buying a next-gen console on whether or not I can play my last-gen games on it. I know BC is convenient and it means you can trade in your old console to get money off, but still. I buy a new console so I can play all of the new games, not my old ones. That's just me, though. 

[Carbo]

Gaikai is not a valid excuse or replacement for proper BC or game transfers because you're effectively butchering a majority of a user base who can't rely on a constant cloud to play games. Unless you're Korean or on the East Coast don't expect a reliable service for your games because half of it has to do with your latency. Unless the entire service is subscription based and every game on there is free, which I have my doubts about, you're essentially playing a game with dubious DRM.

Is a BC addition for a console a proper solution like Xbox is doing it? Hell if I know. Leaving behind obtuse architecture instead of building upon it and generally simplifying it sets some major drawbacks since it means the consoles in their entirety have to start from square one, which is a massive problem for the console industry. Devaluing the Wii U's inclusion of it based off of "Wii was easy to emulate" is ignoring the fact that it's a desirable feature period, and that it influences purchase decisions from the get go considering people still actively buy current gen consoles well after next gen ones, as well as whether or not an upgrade is deemed worthy. Conversely for the U, products being tied to a console is a glaring issue, especially in an Apple dominated market. But Apple also made compatibility a bigger deal, and unless your console is bricked and there being a 5% chance that support will completely screw you over, the U also has that down pat.

A majority of people will not care for whatever tech is in the console and how it's used, let alone how it even makes sense. The functionality and content is what matters. That might be a problem for all the consoles, for one reason or another.

 

Because Sony was arrogant as shit after the PS2. 

 

Thankfully, they've learned from their mistakes. God bless Mark Cerny.

I can't help but feel that Cerny's influence is going to be a detriment to the costs and financials involved with the PS4. The entire mentality so far with the console seems like it's been designed by any random member on a hardcore forum, and in essence there are a plethora of reasons as to why this kind of idea hasn't been pursued before. It being marketed as a console "for gamers" seems like the complete opposite of what each brand was evolving for in this particular day and age wanting to capture an audience that isn't niche (hell, Sony were the ones who were proud in using the "it only does everything" slogan on every occasion). In wholesale, a majority of it's parts are pretty expensive to mass produce as well, and even the most enthused wouldn't expect the parts involved simply on the basis that it'd skyrocket costs. It's a dreamy console but I'm honestly concerned that so many design choices in it aren't going to matter to anyone but hardcore gamers, and all that's needed is for it to not be priced above $449 for it to go on a loss for quite some time and spell a massive issue if it doesn't take off. Which it may or may not depending on how it's games can hold it up, none of which announced so far have proven to be supermassive sellers or even console sellers for that matter.

[Candescence]

Firstly? Cloud gaming is bullshit. It's not going to be reliable tecnology in any country that doesn't practically had mandatory reliable connections for everything (especially not in the US). For all intents and purposes, it's essentially DRM in disguise.

 

Also, you can't emulate a goddamn Wii even on PS4-level specs reliably. I have a rather good PC with a very good graphics card (even if the processor is a bit old, but it's way ahead of the 360/PS3) that can play the latest games at high settings with excellent performance, but it goddamn chugs Gamecube and Wii games in Dolphin like crazy, even after playing with the settings a lot. Software emulation is very difficult.

 

As well, I'll echo Carbo's sentiments on Cerny's influence being potentially extremely dangerous for the PS4's financial sustainability. The 8GB GDDR5 RAM alone will likely raise the price by $100 at least - this is stuff we're only seeing in the Nvidia Titan graphics card, the most powerful singular graphics card on the market, with 6GB, and that costs a goddamn $1000. I really wouldn't be surprised if we end up with yet another $599 US dollars debacle. Anything less than $500 would probably be one hell of a loss per system sold.

 

Funny, Sony's biggest successes were the weakest of their respective generations, tapping into a mainstream market that the Wii also managed to take a hold of. Historically, when it comes to the 3D consoles, outside of the Sega systems, the winners were always the weakest systems, and history is repeating itself yet again with the 3DS Vs. the Vita, the latter of which is crashing, burning and continuing to burn like a house on fire covered in gasoline.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Shirou Emiya

[Kareemadeem]

^{Rumored release of Xbox 720 delayed}

KARACHI: The highly anticipated May 21^st event, where the successor to the Xbox 360 will be unveiled on stage, the latest rumor has reportedly emerged about the release date of the Xbox 720 console to be slated for sometime in 2014.

Surprisingly, the reason for the delay is reported due to an exclusive agreement Sony has with the Blu-Ray disc format. Even though Microsoft chose to use DVD discs for the Xbox 360 whereas the PS3 already operates on Blu-Ray, it has been reported that a Blu-Ray format will be used for the new Xbox as well.

Since Sony utilized the Blu-Ray format first, it is reported that Microsoft will have to wait until 2014 to release their Xbox with Blu-Ray support. It seems that the hype of the presumed release of Microsoft’s next-generation Xbox will remain just hype, with Sony being the one to release the only console later this year.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

Looks like Sony may just get an edge above Xbox after all

[-blank-]

Looks like Sony may just get an edge above Xbox after all

 

They were going to get an edge above them anyway if the always-online rumor turns out to be true.

[Emmett L. Brown]

I would never base my decision on buying a next-gen console on whether or not I can play my last-gen games on it. I know BC is convenient and it means you can trade in your old console to get money off, but still. I buy a new console so I can play all of the new games, not my old ones. That's just me, though. 

It's a mentality I've never understood. If you own a number of games that are a lot of fun to play, then at what point are you going to say "Well, I've played these games enough. Time to put them away and never play them again."

 

Or maybe you just don't mind going behind the TV to fiddle about with wires and rearrange your TV shelf every time you want to play a game from the previous console generation. Disconnecting your PS4, making sure not to pull the wires too hard, sorting out which adapter goes to what, putting it aside, then getting your PS3 out of your closet, attaching it, trying to figure out where you left the adapter for that one, wondering why the controller is so sticky all of a sudden...

 

...and then doing the entire process in reverse when you want to play a PS4 game.

[Jacky]

 Microsoft: Next Xbox will work even when your Internet doesn’t

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/microsoft-next-xbox-will-work-even-when-your-internet-doesnt/

 

 

Should single-player games, Blu-ray playback, and live TV viewing be possible on a gaming console with no Internet connection? Most gamers would say "yes," but they have been worried that Microsoft feels differently; the next generation Xbox has been consistently rumored to require a permanent network connection.
It won't.
According to an internal Microsoft e-mail sent to all full-time employees working on the next Xbox, "Durango [the codename for the next Xbox] is designed to deliver the future of entertainment while engineered to be tolerant of today's Internet." It continues, "There are a number of scenarios that our users expect to work without an Internet connection, and those should 'just work' regardless of their current connection status. Those include, but are not limited to: playing a Blu-ray disc, watching live TV, and yes playing a single player game."
How far this offline support will extend still isn't clear. It could take the form of a fully offline mode akin to that on the Xbox 360 (insert optical disc, install game, play, all without an Internet connection) or it could be more like Steam (install and activate online but enable subsequent offline play once this has been done).
While one could argue that "installing a game" is one of the "scenarios" that gamers "expect to work" when offline, a more Steam-like approach would be consistent with rumors that the next Xbox will use its Internet connection to block installation of secondhand games.
Still, though the next Xbox won't make everybody happy, it looks like fears that the console will be useless when your broadband goes down have been overblown.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Black Mamba

[Tornado]

How do you know it doesn't work well? Are you Sony or Gaikai? In fact, have you tried out Gaikai before it was bought by Sony? The tech works well, it just depends on how fast your internet connection is. And I'm sure they have found ways ever since.

 

Because even if the tech did work as well as actual BC (which is pretty near impossible), it still isn't Sony actually offering BC. Especially if they force it on PSX games as well, because you can emulate that on a shoebox; and every implementation of PSX games Sony has offered for the past 7 years has been purely software and everyone who cares knows it.

 

In wholesale, a majority of it's parts are pretty expensive to mass produce as well, and even the most enthused wouldn't expect the parts involved simply on the basis that it'd skyrocket costs. It's a dreamy console but I'm honestly concerned that so many design choices in it aren't going to matter to anyone but hardcore gamers, and all that's needed is for it to not be priced above $449 for it to go on a loss for quite some time and spell a massive issue if it doesn't take off. Which it may or may not depending on how it's games can hold it up, none of which announced so far have proven to be supermassive sellers or even console sellers for that matter.

As well, I'll echo Carbo's sentiments on Cerny's influence being potentially extremely dangerous for the PS4's financial sustainability. The 8GB GDDR5 RAM alone will likely raise the price by $100 at least - this is stuff we're only seeing in the Nvidia Titan graphics card, the most powerful singular graphics card on the market, with 6GB, and that costs a goddamn $1000. I really wouldn't be surprised if we end up with yet another $599 US dollars debacle. Anything less than $500 would probably be one hell of a loss per system sold.

 

As opposed to the half a billion Sony spent just having CELL developed for the PS3 (not even including the astronomical production costs it had when the PS3 initially came out with it) even though from the start it was obviously going to be obnoxious to program for (hence why the GPU bottleneck the PS3 has exists in the first place); or the $300-400 per-system loss Sony was also making on the system when it launched on top of that?

 

 

Because compared to that throwing a bunch of money at someone else to utilize currently existing technology in a far simpler package seems like a no brainer. And the Titan comparison is meaningless to the discussion, frankly. Titan doesn't cost that much because it has 6GB of DDR5 in it. It costs that much largely because nVidia can charge that much and they know people will buy it.

 

That's kind of hilarious and depressing at the same time when I hear the facts. Why did they build the thing so damn weird? I mean, the CPU is one thing (like what Nintendo did with the Gamecube's Gekko CPU), but the GPU too? Good lord. I'm assuming that, in Microsoft's case it's the Xenon? Or do it have some really weird GPU bottleneck too?

The GPU wasn't originally supposed to be there. It was a relatively late addition in the system's design when it became clear that just making developers do everything with CELL wasn't going to work in the slightest (also when the 360 designed with a fairly CELL-like CPU but also a fairly powerful GPU); as a peace offering so developers would actually make things for the PS3 at all. As a result, the GPU is pretty much an off the shelf mid-range nVidia part from late 2005; compared to the 360's upper-mid range ATi part from late 2005 that included a couple of features that didn't become vogue until 2006 (like the built-in AA support). That's also why the GPU and CPU don't even share memory between them like on the 360; and probably why the system RAM ended up dropping from the 512 it originally was designed for down to 256.

[Dr. Homem]

You know, while I was a little skeptical like all of us, deep down I never really expected the always-online rumors to be true. Microsoft's administration isn't perfect (no company is), and Adam Orth is the perfect example of how a top level employee can screw a business plan easily. But one thing I've learned about Microsoft is that they don't fuck around. They know full well that it would be commercial suicide, and not just among the hardcore audience.

 

(The more cynically inclined might say that Microsoft used these rumors to see how the reactions would be - I won't attempt to fight such accusations since we can't actually know for sure, but in any case, it'd be an intelligent decision to check the opinions of your audience).

 

But the point is that, in sum, it's pretty clear that this entire thing has just been miscommunication, and proof of that they don't have a recent history of intrusive DRM - none of their 1st party games even have online passes, even though companies like EA and Ubisoft have been doing it. The important thing to understand on this case is that Microsoft is making hardware and not software. Consoles are mostly designed so that they can sell it at market penetration price, and an implementation of always-online DRM goes against that philosophy. It wouldn't benefit them at all, in fact it would alienate a good part of their consumers.

[Carbo]

As opposed to the half a billion Sony spent just having CELL developed for the PS3 (not even including the astronomical production costs it had when the PS3 initially came out with it) even though from the start it was obviously going to be obnoxious to program for (hence why the GPU bottleneck the PS3 has exists in the first place); or the $300-400 per-system loss Sony was also making on the system when it launched on top of that?

I wasn't necessarily arguing that case in proportion to the PS3, which to be fair was developed at a time when Sony had a lot more of a war chest to play liberties with. Considering how badly the PS3 set them back though, the PS4 strikes me as an investment too risky and viewed through a one-way looking glass. It's entirely designed on one presumption, which is that focus on the hardcore audience can sustain the model. While I don't necessarily believe that it'll do as bad as the PS3 did in terms of numbers (it really won't be able to survive if it did that badly again), the fragmented base begs the question how much appeal a console like that will hold up. The wholesale rests on roughly $400, so it's most likely going to be a tad above that to minimize the losses as much as possible. I'm just concerned how long the thing needs to survive with good sales before those exotic components get shot down in prices enough to justify the manufacturing costs.

[Urban Flow]

You know, while I was a little skeptical like all of us, deep down I never really expected the always-online rumors to be true. Microsoft's administration isn't perfect (no company is), and Adam Orth is the perfect example of how a top level employee can screw a business plan easily. But one thing I've learned about Microsoft is that they don't fuck around. They know full well that it would be commercial suicide, and not just among the hardcore audience.

 

(The more cynically inclined might say that Microsoft used these rumors to see how the reactions would be - I won't attempt to fight such accusations since we can't actually know for sure, but in any case, it'd be an intelligent decision to check the opinions of your audience).

 

But the point is that, in sum, it's pretty clear that this entire thing has just been miscommunication, and proof of that they don't have a recent history of intrusive DRM - none of their 1st party games even have online passes, even though companies like EA and Ubisoft have been doing it. The important thing to understand on this case is that Microsoft is making hardware and not software. Consoles are mostly designed so that they can sell it at market penetration price, and an implementation of always-online DRM goes against that philosophy. It wouldn't benefit them at all, in fact it would alienate a good part of their consumers.

Agreed. I knew that it was not gonna be always online. I just knew it. This is also why I don't take little rumors on the precious internet as fact.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Urban Flow