85 responses so far ↓

• 1 lolMaster324 // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm

  ?? I don’t get it what’s the problem the xbox will soon be to old to be a next-gen console and will have to have another. Sorry if got the wrong end of the stick but i had an original xbox and I felt is was about time when the 360 came out when it did.

• 2 Lukas Heinzel // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  I totally agree with you,Lomo.

  I buyed the 360 in 2007 because i earned through a coincidence 310€ and then got the 360 for 235€.And that is how much i will pay for a new console so if they do this again with 600€ or something like that….i have to wait.And i still have fun with my 360 so why do need a new 360?

• 3 Lukas Heinzel // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  Lomo????Sory for that

• 4 jjmac383 // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  I totally agree, MSFT I’m not going to buy the next xbox if you do this again because you’ll probably do it again and again and again… Hello Sony will you take my money?

• 5 DJ // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  Wow, usually I see this sort of stuff coming from the other direction. MS was smart to get their console out first this time and I don’t think 2011 is too early as long as they have a couple of years of backward compatability and support the 360 titles.

• 6 dark // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  I agree with you , hardware now are expensive and good games take time to develop, so If this continue ,how many good game we will get for every new console we buy

• 7 D mightty oak 3 // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  This can’t be true,I mean come on we are at the stage where grapics arn’t going to get much better so we might as well concentrate on producing good,creative and compelling games rather than trying to slightly out do the last gen.I knew microsoft loved money but come on and the current xbox has so much more left in it.New consoles means higher dev costs and theirfore prevents infant companys from getting up and running.Which means all we would be getting is the same old crap we have now.I hope to god that microsoft don’t go trough with this for the sake of getting a stupid head start

• 8 Orakga // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  If you were not an early adopter for the previous-gen systems, what makes you care so much about when the next-gen system comes out?

  Let me put it into perspective.

  - The 360 came out in 2005, but you waited until 2007 to buy one for yourself
  - If the 720(?) comes out in 2010, you probably won’t buy it until 2012
  - That gives you 5 full years with the 360

  So, as long as Microsoft doesn’t abandon the 360 completely (like they did last time), I don’t see a problem with releasing a new console as early as 2010.

  Besides, consoles always get more software in the first 2-3 years. If you are the type to wait till the system drops to $200 before getting your own, then you will miss out on the bulk of good titles. There’s no way to avoid that. Early adopters know this, and that’s why they pay the premium to make sure they can make the most out of the 2-3 year “prime” of each console.

  Also, I think the 10-year lifecycle touted by the PS3 needs to be taken with a grain a salt. You have to realize that they don’t mean that the PS4 won’t be out until 2016. They’ll probably release the new one by 2012 or 2013.

• 9 Antihero20 // Jun 17, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  Even if the next Xbox came in 2015 I will not buy it, seriously its the worst experience i’ve ever had with a console, its so unreliable even to this day, If anything the 360 only ended up hurting the future Xbox, I think i’ll stick with sony from now on

  Sony FTW!!

  BTW no fan boy here i own both the 360 and PS3, all from a consumer point of view

• 10 J // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:09 pm

  I also think MS should be the second-mover in the next-gen. This allows MS to:

  1) increase ecnomies of scale and reach an affordable price point. Ramping up production for a longer time enables EOS.
  2) conduct more internal R&D for the best parts, hardware, & features
  3) allow them to mire in profitability as long as possible to absorb the costs of entering the next generation.
  4) collect feedback from engineers, developers, reviewers, & gamers on what they want from a system and attempt to implement the most popular recommendations.
  5) give MS more time to improve brand equity within the industry. The RROD caused massive damage in other areas like Europe & Asia.

  I will not follow MS next-gen if they arrive first because I have buyers remorse from purchasing a 360 in Oct 2007. I will wait longer the next time and make my valuation then. If the 360 has the legs at the end of its cycle like the PS2 has, it may be 2014 before I convert. Microsoft must wait.

• 11 bigcheda // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:09 pm

  Orkaga: but that is the problem - based on Msoft’s track record they probably wont support it to force you to buy the next product in line. It happened to the Xbox and its going to happen the Windows XP very soon so who says its not going to happen to the 360?

• 12 John L // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  Absolutely will be first in line to buy it… I own both ps3 and xbox360 (2 actually)… the xbox 360 gets way more play time than the ps3 - had to buy second just so I could play when my kids were…

  and I will be there for the ps4 too, though 10 years just sounds plain stupid…

• 13 J // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:13 pm

  Lono-

  Sorry about losing focus there. Hey, I love your article man. Keep those controversial topics coming man. Love the show.

• 14 Don // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  a 10 year life cycle for the PS3 really means that Sony will support it for around 10 years. There is nothing that will stop them from realeasing PS4 say during the PS3 7th year. In fact, I think this is exactly what they will do. Microsoft this time will do the same. They will keep the support for 360 long after the 720 is released. MS obviously want to be first again, but they will not release a new system more than 16 months before Sony. The reason is simple, they want to keep the technical specification close to what Sony will do.

• 15 Aquanox // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  What’s the point of this article?

  First, do you really believe Sony will give the Playstation 3, 10 years of competitive lifespan? That’s pure dust in the air, to be later debunked by themselves when a PS3 is released somewhere no later than 2013 (2012 being the highest possibility)

  Secondly, If Microsoft releases a next Xbox in 2011, the console would have a 6 years of lifespan, which is perfectly fine for a console. Each generation has historically lasted 5 or 6 years and technology evolves faster these days. It’s a good thing they aren’t releasing it earlier than that.

  Lastly, the first Xbox was dropped because it was an old frankenstein that served as an experiment in the industry. Microsoft representatives have mentioned repeatedly that they will NOT do this with the Xbox 360, which means that even if a new console is released later in its lifespan, they won’t just drop the support for the console. They weren’t in the possition to do it with the Xbox but they aren’t only in the position but in the financial and business obligation to do so with the new console or it’d be a financial and commercial disaster.

  I’d recommend to do a bit more research before writing an article of this nature.

  Thank you for your attention.

  Aquanox.

• 16 Orakga // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  bigcheda: Yes, I fear that they might do that again. But we can still hope that they learn from their mistakes, right? =)

  Even the comments posted here have pointed out numerous areas where Microsoft has to improve. People at MS would have to be morons not to take heed and work on those issues.

  So the big question is: “ARE people at MS morons?” Only time will tell.

• 17 Craig // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  Sorry bud, but don’t pick and choose your quotes. Kim Shane is also quoted as saying they plan on supporting the 360 for at least 7 years, which gives you an almost 2 years tail.

  The Xbox 1 was dropped quickly for a very good reason - even after 4 years MS were still making something like an $80 loss per unit. The 360 was just cheaper to produce and reduce.

• 18 Bleh // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  This is kinda dumb. Are you really expecting a 10 year cycle for all consoles? I personally think that is pretty stupid. With the rate of advancements in semiconductor technology, do you really want be forced to buy a 10 year old piece of hardware? I sure as hell don’t. That would be like going to the store and buying a computer and them telling you have to get a pentium 2 because intel is on a 10 year plan.

  Six years sounds perfectly reasonable. And just because the next xbox is coming out, doesn’t mean they will abandon this one like they did with the original xbox. The 360 has be ALOT more successful with the 360 than the original xbox and Microsoft as even stated that they intend to support the 360 for quite some time. They are even planning on releasing an upgraded new ’slim’ 360. Something they never did with the original xbox. I think this time around, microsoft will have a strategy much more inline with what sony is doing this time with the ps2 due to the success of the 360.

• 19 Mike // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  FLAME, why don’t you?

• 20 Farko // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  I agree fully. my main issues with this are:

  1. I just think its way to soon, the ps2 lasted a long time, and it didnt have any problem keeping up, especially in its later years with god of war and MGS3.

  2. when one next gen console comes out, it forces the others to rush out half-finished.

  3. consoles have got to the point now when we dont really need to update the hardware anymore, we have everything we need and with updates constantly adding new features and programs, do we really need to buy anything else for any other reason than upgraded graphics?

  4. MS didnt really give the 360 a chance to evolve, the ps2 came out with some amazing technical shows near the end of its long lasting lifestyle, why not give developers the same chance with the current gen?

• 21 Lono // Jun 17, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  @Aquanox… You’re so-called facts are just your opinion. Sony has said they want a 10 year life span, Microsoft DID drop the Xbox, regardless of your explanation, or OPINION, and I’m speaking as someone who wasn’t an early adopter that doesn’t want to re-buy a console in three years….

  Any way you slice it, we just have a difference of opinion. Before you tell someone to do more research, maybe you should look up what opinion means in the dictionary.

  Thank you for your attention to THAT.

• 22 D mighty oak 3 // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:09 pm

  The current gen is about as good as its going to get,i mean what else could you want from a console.Give them a chance the Wii channels are improving psn is coming along great and xbox live is top notch.

• 23 D mighty oak 3 // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  The more new consoles the more money it costs to devlope games and the fewer good games their will be.

• 24 Still Garbage // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:15 pm

  Lono, if you don’t want to “re-buy” a console in three years (poor word choice, by the way, since you’d be buying a different product) then I have a totally crazy idea: don’t.

  I sympathize with you. There are lots of things I don’t want to have to upgrade. My car is one example: I want my car to be on a 10-year plan, despite the fact that after about five years it has so many miles on it that it will barely run.

  I want my groceries to be on a 10-year plan. It pisses me off that my bread gets stale after only a week or two, even if I don’t use it. I didn’t do an early adoption on Mrs. Baird’s and as a result I am going to have to “re-buy” bread sooner than those who bought it when it first came off the truck. I’m not doing that, and wheat-producers everywhere can kiss my ass if they expect me to do so.

  Seriously, you probably paid less for your console if you weren’t an early adopter, and as someone pointed out earlier you’re unlikely to be an early adopter of the next system, which means you’ll probably pay less for that too. Paying less for a product that’s older (like a car) means no one is ripping you off.

  As an aside, I don’t feel like it’s very fair of you to respond to “the research guy” by saying it’s just your opinion. Just because it’s your opinion doesn’t mean that you can just say whatever you want: for opinions to be valid, they must be supported by facts. That’d be like if I said “I think Jessica Alba really wants to have sex with me. I haven’t actually bothered to ask her, or even talk to her, but that doesn’t make any difference since it’s just my opinion.”

• 25 T360UK ZICO // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  Well IMO your off your rocker.
  Slating Microsofts technological advancement of the humble gaming console in the name of nostalgia and consumer loyalty is a totally indefensible argument.

  It’s kind of like sayinf ,Yeah I’ts ok we will keep sending Apollo missions to the moon and learn nothing new.

  This is the modern world and progress is a monster you cannot stop.
  Fine…..stay in the dark ages If you like.
  But for me if and when Microsoft realease the 720 or whatever they are going to call it i’ll be there with bells on!

• 26 Lono // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  @Still Garbage: I won’t buy the next console… that was the point of my article… I won’t be buying it.

• 27 Lono // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:41 pm

  @Still Garbage: This article is my opinion based on some simple facts. Bach’s interview, Microsoft’s past deeds, Sony’s statements and my own console buying propensity. What facts did I get wrong?

• 28 smellmyface // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  Ultimate Flamage.

• 29 hawk979 usa // Jun 17, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  I said that same thing when I picked up my nintendo 64. I thought for sure that was the last system I was going to have to buy, since then I’ve been through a PS1,PS2, xbox(original) and one red ringed 360. Right now I like what LIVE/360 has to offer… I’m ready for a system that can run Crysis and I’m not buying a PS3.

• 30 fact for you // Jun 17, 2008 at 4:34 pm

  Want to know why 360 was having hardware failures? Heres a quote from another article (one that has a lot more facts)

  “The Xbox 360 recall a year ago happened because “Microsoft wanted to avoid an ASIC vendor,” said Lewis. Microsoft designed the graphic chip on its own, cut a traditional ASIC vendor out of the process and went straight to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., he explained.

  But in the end, by going cheap–hoping to save tens of millions of dollars in ASIC design costs, Microsoft ended up paying more than $1 billion for its Xbox 360 recall.

  To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.) ”

  360 had hardware failures, not because they ‘rushed it out’ but because they got cheap about it and went with some taiwanese manufacturer instead of one of the traditional GPU makers. Also.. 6 years isn’t considered ‘rushing it out’ by most peoples definitions

• 31 Jawaguy // Jun 17, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  At first I thought it was Fictional Friday…then I remembered it’s Tuesday. I just got a Xbox earlier this year, I don’t want to replace it so quickly! And, the controller better not be like that then if/when I get it. How will people do a combo of one of the top 4 letter buttons, and the bottom 4 without dropping the controler on their foot?! Do I hear a boycott for a later release date, and less radicale controllers?

• 32 Makidian // Jun 17, 2008 at 5:09 pm

  He’s right, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see the nextbox be unveiledat E3 next year and released the next(2009-2010) with Sony and Nintendo going with release in 2012. Like it or not Microsofts sales are slowing fast and they can only do a few well placed price cuts before it doesn’t even matter and then announcing their next system. When they do that(regardless of how long you’ve had your console) people will want it, at least a few million. They will abandon the 360 just like they did the original especially due to the plague of problems associated with the 360, easier to dump and run than support a sytem on life support.

  The PS2 is still going pretty strong and has about 18 months left before it’s completely abandoned. You can bet that Sony won’t let Ken K’s. mistakes follow them to the PS4 either, so even if the 360 makes it to market first, it may not matter. Kaz has a good thing going regardless of what people read on the internet day to day, there are things going on behind the scenes ensuring that mistakes are only made once.

  The question that needs to be asked is this, whenever you bought your system would you be ready to buy the next so soon? If the PS4 was released in 2010, I wouldn’t be ready to adopt, neither would most people but that’s probably along the lines of what Microsoft has planned

• 33 Kaworus_lover // Jun 17, 2008 at 5:19 pm

  Please stop calling it Next-Generation console. The 360 is a current Generation console. The PS3 is a current generation console. The Wii is a current generation console. We have moved on from the last generation which included The Gamecube, Playstation 2, and the X-Box. Please move on.

• 34 witty comment // Jun 17, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  I really have to disagree here. Not only on the cut-and-run strategy, but your belief for it being so.

  We don’t know about their gaming cycles. We know about their gaming cycle; non-plural. If on the next-generation of consoles that will be the make 360 is or break, and if the 360 is good enough, which at this point it is, and I believe as long as they continue a steady stream of sales year-to-year, continued support will be a steady source of revenue for Microsoft, as it was the PS2 for Sony. Even Nintendo continued support on the GameCube, and that was considered a failure by many a fan and analyst alike. I believe the only reason Microsoft did that with the original XBox is because it had no way to compete. It was late to market and couldn’t gainmuch of the PS2’s share at that point.

  Even with their software OS’s, if that type of thing was typical with Microsoft then as soon as Vista came out XP would have been dumped hard.

  Just my 2 cents.

• 35 The Anti-Fanboy // Jun 17, 2008 at 5:55 pm

  Screw Microsoft. I bought a Xbox as a late adopter and was left twisting in the wind after they dropped their support. I was willing to buy the 360, but after I heard about the RROD and ‘disc-read error’ issue and was completely appauled. I have no choice but to turn to PS3, in a time were they have yet to prove their worth.

• 36 Darius // Jun 17, 2008 at 6:06 pm

  If Microsoft bring out an other console then, they should at least.

  1. Make sure it has less than 1% Failure rate

  2. Bring there best model out first, people who where loyal and bought there original might be pissed that an even better one has come out. Praise sony that they released there best one here 1st the 60GB model, which I’m the proud owner of. I think Best Model out first then bring out different ones. I don’t own an X-box , but if they are going to do the above then I will consider saving to buy this console. Also they should have all the accessories ready to go rather than buying separate WiFi or HD Drive, which failed. No stingy costs get rid of the monthly cost of Xbox Live, or a one off payment.

• 37 MonkeeSage // Jun 17, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  Perspective:
  Nintendo and Sega 3rd / 4th generation consoles

  ——–

  Nintendo:

  # Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)
  - Released: 1983 / 5
  - Supported through: 1994 / 5
  - Titles: Over 650 officially licensed NTSC / PAL titles (not including unlicensed title, and the hundreds of JAP titles from the Famicom that were never localized)
  - Units sold: +/- 60 million worldwide

  # Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES)
  - Released: 1990 / 2
  - Supported through: 2000
  - Titles: Over 700 officially licensed NTSC / PAL titles (not including the hundreds of never-to-be-localized JAP titles from the Super Famicom).
  - Units sold: +/- 50 million wordwide

  ——–

  Sega:

  # Sega Master System (SMS)
  - Released: 1986 / 7
  - Supported through: 1991
  - Titles: Over 350 officially licensed titles worlwide
  - Units sold: +/- 13 million worldwide

  # Sega Mega Drive (SMD) / Genesis
  - Released: 1988 / 9
  - Supported through: 2002
  - Titles: Over 600 officially licensed titles worlwide
  - Units sold: +/- 29 million worldwide

  # Sega CD
  - Released: 1991 / 3
  - Supported through: 1996 / 7
  - Titles: +/- 150 officially licensed titles worldwide
  - Units sold: +/- 6 million worldwide

  # Sega 32x
  - Released: 1994 / 5
  - Supported through: 1996 / 7
  - Titles: +/- 50 officially licensed titles worldwide
  - Units sold: +/- 200 thousand worldwide

  ——–

  Analysis:

  The success of Nintendo and their consoles, appears to rely on two key factors:

  1.) Commitment to long-term support (which Nintendo had, and Sega apparently didn’t), which allowed for building the brand through mascots. Yes, Sega had Sonic, but when you bought a Genesis in ‘95, you would just be pissed off to no end to find out two years later that the best sonic game ever made was for Sega CD — and “add-on” that cost as much as the original system! On the other hand, you played mario 1, 2 and 3 on the same NES. Or if you bought the SNES version of mario 3, then you played all-stars and yoshi’s island on the same system. The commitment to long-term support made game developers want to build mega-franchises on the system, because they knew their latest, greatest game in the franchise wouldn’t be obsolute by the next fiscal year or two. Just like John-Deere stands behind all their products (except the Manuer Spreader), Nintendo was in it for the long-run.

  2.) Turning out a crap-load of games that were *fun* to play. Yes, SMS and Genesis had their share of fun games, and Genesis even approached the amount of titles for the SNES. But the crap-to-fun ratio for the Sega consoles was a lot higher (just my opinion). And when you got the 32x / CD, the ratio just skyrocketed and the SNES clearly came out on top. In total, Nintendos two consoles sold over a 100 million units and had over 1500 games; Segas four consoles sold a combined 50 million and had around 1000 games. That’s 50 million units and 500 games difference. Yowza! The killer-app ratio is similar. Nintendo had Mario, Zelda, the FF series to name a few. Sega had Sonic, and, well…Sonic. Sure you had Fantasy Star, Beyond Oasis and Crusader of Centy (Soliel), but Zelda and FF are ga-zillion-dollar franchises even to this day (see point 1).

  Factors that didn’t contribute:

  1.) Nintendo was never the most advanced in terms of hardware. They were adaquate, don’t get me wrong. But they were never the greatest. “So you have a mega-killer-explodes-your-cranium 32bit system, huh? Well, have fun with that, we’ll be playing Link to the Past if you need us.”

  2.) Turning out new systems every few years. Even though Sega cranked out new systems before the hype on their old systems had died down, they still didn’t take the cake. Nintendo relied on their commitment to long-term support, and in turn, great developer base, and in turn great titles that build the brand, to dominate the market. And it worked.

  ——–

  Conclusion:

  Perhaps the current generation of consoles *could* stand to learn a thing or two from the early Nintendo consoles.

  ——–

  Rejoinder 1:

  I haven’t mentioned contributing factors such as marketing strategies / demographics targeting, and buisness dealings. I was only interested in discussing the issues raised by the blog post. Other factos obviously contributed to the relative success and failure of the above consoles. I’ve also left out the various hand-helds and their respective histories.

  Rejoinder 2:

  This is only meant to discuss the 3rd / 4th generation of consoles. A lot has happened since then, and the above comments don’t apply to every Nintendo or Sega console. Take it for what it is, and ignore it if you think I’m an idiot.

• 38 Eddiemilz // Jun 17, 2008 at 6:59 pm

  i agree, but can clearly see the other side of the argument. 6 years is a good life span for a console, and if you got the console recently you will have got it a lot cheaper - though, that isn’t an excuse to give up on products early so they can get the next one out!

  looking at it from Microsoft’s point of view, no one can deny that the constant delays on the ps3 with the 360 out much earlier didn’t give them an advantage, eh?

• 39 Trekster_gamer // Jun 17, 2008 at 6:59 pm

  Lono, you sir are and ignorant bafoon! If you went with Sonys train of thought we would only have

  Gamecube, Dreamcast and original XBOX.

  And Voodoo/geforce mx200 video cards!

  You fool there is no way in hell a console can stay relevant and up to date if it is over even 6 years old.
  $ 600.00 ??? You must be talking PS3 as well.

  Dude you need to drop off the radar and stay off the radar as you make no sense.

  Maybe you should go fire up your original Gameboy and stay out of the mainstream….

• 40 Still Garbage // Jun 17, 2008 at 7:09 pm

  “you sir are and ignorant bafoon”

  Best. Post. Ever.

• 41 Lono // Jun 17, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  ^Agreed! It’s like when someone insults you, but while they do it, there is a big piece of food stuck in their teeth or on their face….

  ROFL.

  Thank you trekster gamer… you sure did show me…

• 42 Michael // Jun 17, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  I think it doesnt really matter if they release it early or not the only ppl thatll buy it are idiots that love being shafted if your dumb enough to still trust microshaft you better get a doc appointment to have your brain scanned cos its not working anymore the console sucks i was dumb enough to buy 2 more after the first died and now i have nothing cos they have died to i think my next buy is gona be a ps3 from a company that knows what the word quality actually means , so basically if you buy anything xbox related your a tool that should be put away for a long time

• 43 Juvenileimp // Jun 17, 2008 at 7:49 pm

  @ michael you say your gonna get a ps3 because sony knows quality but arnt u forgetting about sony haveing to recall batteries in laptops because they explode. Or how about the the misalligned laser in the ps2. I think its safe to say the Sony dosent know much about quality either

• 44 Orakga // Jun 17, 2008 at 7:50 pm

  Okay, I’m a little confused Lono.

  So, your issue with MS is NOT that they are going to go first in the next-gen battle (i.e. 720 vs PS4). But rather, you are worried that your recently-purchased gaming system will not receive new games once the 720 is released, right?

  Assuming I understood you correctly, here is what I have to say:

  1) If MS indeed discontinues 360 support in 2010 that would be the final nail in the coffin for them from a brand management perspective. They shouldn’t do it, and I don’t think they will.

  2) Even if they did continue support for 360, keep in mind that the 360 will stop receiving the BIG titles as soon as the 720 is out. You may still get those games like “Guitar Hero”, but anything that’s made for the FPS/gamer crowd will NOT benefit the 360.

  But that is fair, right?

• 45 paulmess7 // Jun 17, 2008 at 7:58 pm

  As long as the games are backwards compatible, and you can still play with friends on the 360, I don’t think it’s a problem… If they do that…… which they won’t……

• 46 paulmess7 // Jun 17, 2008 at 8:17 pm

  I just realized…. the sooner they release the next box, the sooner the price is reasonable….

  Bring on the 720!!!!!

• 47 Microsoft Fool // Jun 17, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  I own a PS3. I own a 360. I would have NEVER bought a PS3 if the 360 had not died on me three times (on my fourth now). And yet I continue to buy games for my 360 and even recently purchased a brand new “falcon” Elite (which produces about 1/3 the heat of the old Elite, thankfully). My point is that we are so loyal to our 360’s that Microsoft can do just about anything (even an alleged 40% failure rate?!) and we continue to stick with them.

  Now imagine what Microsoft can produce after learning some hard lessons with the 360! Personally, I cannot wait until the 720 comes out.

  And don’t forget, you all keep comparing console sales. That is only part of the equation. The 360 games outsell their PS3 counterparts by a HUGE margin. Which benefits Microsoft (in royalty payments) as well as developers.

  Go to VGchartz.com and click on Games, then check out the sales figures for 360 games and then for PS3 games. It is like night and day. The 360 has 41 games that have sold 1 million copies. The PS3 has merely 14.

• 48 MonkeeSage // Jun 17, 2008 at 8:54 pm

  “My point is that we are so loyal. . . that Microsoft can do just about anything. . .”

  Not to be too much of an OSI / FOSS / FLOSS fanboy , but the same thing goes for the desktop and server market.

• 49 piam45 // Jun 17, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  360 must have u lot brain washed its like u r a filthy cult group, mormons, jehovas witnesses all rolled into 1(DONT ANWSER THE DOOR ITS THE XBOTS!!!) its like u have turned your back on the industry, i will never own a xbox but i hav owned nearly every console dating back 2 the nes ( BEING THE FIRST) and xbox live is crap i mean online gamin is ok i think sony r bang on wiv what they done makin it free 2 have a go if u want not pay £40 a year and only a handful of games r any good online……10 year life span justifies 4 earlier adopters aswell as late buyers………oh yeah MGS4 as i blow the smoke from my fingers…………….

• 50 Kuts // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:05 pm

  new console attached to the Large Hadron Collider XBOX ∞

• 51 Meresin // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:37 pm

  I do believe that a high-end individual at Microsoft (I think it was Kim…Don’t know their names, don’t really care) stated that they were aiming to have a tail on this generation, so it won’t end as abruptly as the first generation.

  *stares off into space* FOXDIE! Sorry, saying “generation” is giving me MGS4 flashbacks…

  Back on topic…So, nanomachines…

  Err.

  Expect to see games continue to be released for the 360 even after they move on to the new hotness. Just don’t expect to see the latest and greatest. It’ll be like PS2 games are today…They still trickle out, long after the PS3 hit the market.

• 52 GOKUNY // Jun 17, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  WAY TOO EARLY, just because they almost ran out of exclusive games…??? seems to me that just want to have a new version on Halo with super ultra graphics, they want to do with the console the same that they have done with the PC, at that step who knows if you will start buying upgrades for your console (NO WAY), the main reason for me to have a console is that I get the graphics that I will be able to have on a really expensive PC, not only that but the games as well. MS should try to develop more and better games instead of wanting to have what at the end will become “another brick in the wall”

• 53 Fabian // Jun 18, 2008 at 12:27 am

  Pathetic text.

  I don´t like to spend more than 5 years with a console… I really get tired of the experience.

  2011 is a GREAT release date.

• 54 Peguinfury // Jun 18, 2008 at 12:31 am

  Guys, what Sony meant by a ten year life span is thats how long they’ll support it, not thats how long till they realese a new playstation. Sony supported the PS1 till 2004, back then you could buy one new at walmart for $50. They’ll support PS2 till 2010 even though they already realesed PS3, and will support PS3 till 2016, realeseing PS4 in 2011. Sony can support more than one console at a time, even if they focus on one more than the other.

• 55 Agnostic // Jun 18, 2008 at 1:46 am

  @Lono: Kaz, is that you?

• 56 ROB // Jun 18, 2008 at 2:31 am

  This is just another rubbish editorial without any concrete basis. Microsoft have no intention of leaving xbox 360 customers after a new console is out, they will use the same routine as Sony does with the Playstation 3.

  The only thing you have to worry about is if your launch xbox 360 RROD’s in the years past the next gen console launch.

  Another BS article just to get people to your site, get some real facts or don’t waste your words.

• 57 Lono // Jun 18, 2008 at 2:44 am

  You’re right BOB. Your opinion is soo much more valid than mine or anyone else’s on this site… Especially with all of those AWESOME facts you brought to the table to back up your opinion.

  I guess it’s just another BS comment to get people to read your commentary, you should get some real facts or don’t waste your words.

• 58 Tim Hanlon // Jun 18, 2008 at 2:57 am

  Hi Lono,

  I have just posted an article in response to yours:

  http://www.thegamergene.com/xbox-720/xbox-720-in-2011-count-me-in/

  Cheers,
  Tim Hanlon

• 59 Ranzkin // Jun 18, 2008 at 3:53 am

  At least give us a decent webbrowser for Xbox Live. Chances are that we just end up copying the Wii browser, and that’s no good…

  Sounds like another useless gimmick to most…

  Not to me.

• 60 SirInkalot // Jun 18, 2008 at 4:11 am

  We have some epic-win on our hands boys.

• 61 Hooded // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:03 am

  Lano have you even thought it through? Or are you just blabbering your mouth off?

  Microsofts 3 red lights wasn’t because they were first. It was because they didnt spend much time on testing it.

  So if they start now (Which your moaning about) Then they will have plenty of time and test it fully this time. Then it should be fine for releasing first.

  Sometimes I kind alose faith in SG, Seems like they post controversial stories just for the hits rather than taking care of there current members.

• 62 Carbonated Toast // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:21 am

  Lono is bring sarcastic,its all just a joke calm down it is called sarcastic gamer after all.

• 63 sid // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:26 am

  4 years is not nothing in gaming terms.

  4 years is a lifetime in gaming terms.

  And I fail to see how the declared intention to be first translates to your deadline of 2010/2011.

  If Sony are sticking with PS3 till 2016, micorsoft can wait till 2014 and still have a 2 year head start.

• 64 XBOXMASTER // Jun 18, 2008 at 6:59 am

  a lifespan of 6 years (2005-2011) is more than enough. actually it’s way too long imo. technology is moving much faster than that.

  anyway, whoever comes out first with the next gen is gonna be the winner, once again. and we all (except those few fony fanboys in denial) know that it won’t be fony.

• 65 heavenlyyeti // Jun 18, 2008 at 8:50 am

  calm down, everyone. Lono’s opinions are something you get used to after awhile.
  it’s what makes us love him so much!

• 66 Robert Aitchison // Jun 18, 2008 at 9:41 am

  It would be stupid for Microsoft to wait much past 2011 for the 360s replacement. They came out early with the 360, this allowed them to establish a stable enough foothold to allow them to no only survive but prosper in spite of the hardware problems they had up until the past year or so.

  They had to make compromises, most notably the lack of an HD disc format, you will see more and more 2 disc games and eventually it will get annoying.

  Coming out first again in the next cycle, while making sure they don’t repeat the reliability problems the 360 had, will allow them to dominate the next generation.

• 67 J // Jun 18, 2008 at 11:44 am

  @Robert Aitchison
  I agree. Remember FFXII had multiple discs (4, I think) and Sony’s system didn’t suffer from criticism because the quality games available on the system compensated for that.

• 68 thunderball65 // Jun 18, 2008 at 11:58 am

  if you are so angry with the concept of ending of a life cycle, why did you buy a ps3 when you can still be playing your ps2?

  that is 6 years of using my 360. (Nov 2005 - Nov 2011) by november 2011 I will be ready for a new console. With new technology and new features. The concept of 10 year life span is a great idea, but even today, looking at my original xbox and ps2, i have no intrest in playing a ps2 or original xbox game. I will be looking forward to new great games in the next console. Even if MS was still supporting the original xbox, i would be buying games for my 360.

• 69 DWK // Jun 18, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Jesus, it’s hot in here…

  Lono, the article makes sense…

  Bottom Line (this is for all of you who don’t want to read the rest so you can go back and play CoD4)
  The man finds it bad if M-soft ditches the most-supported console in just six years.

  Back in the day, when them TVs was black and white, you had the 8-bits. Those little boxes were around for for a good 11+ years. Progressively, console lifespans (Their support) has gotten smaller and smaller, because as the tech gets more innovative, the systems get outdated. That’s the law of technological progression. In fact, the previous generation (excluding the Sega Abortion) was supported for about six years. But recently, t3h int3rwebz has become an integral part of the current video game console experience. Keep in mind the Abortion had multiplayer, but it was limited to a lovely dial-up modem. Then, out of nowhere “POW” it’s Xbox Live, the saving grace of the Microsoft Meltdown. That opened the shiny, solid-gold door to online gaming. Then developers and manufacturers and publishers and the like got smart and releases console software and firmware, plus game patches, thus, intheory, etending the life of a console by adapting to current technology. Not by the nuts and bolts on the inside, but what pops up on your TV, and what makes the console more functional with (the limitations of) the hardware.
  Face it, we’re like the beta testers of the future of gaming.
  That would make for a good article…
  Dousing Flames,
  DWK

  P.S. Lono, great job on grabbing more page views on the site. You’re our hero. They really fell for this one.

• 70 Still Garbage // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  Lono isn’t being sarcastic. He wouldn’t keep responding so harshly to those disagreeing with him if he was.

  I’m really sorry everyone who bought their 360 late in the cycle (as I did) feel like they’ll be getting ripped off when MS releases a new console and stops 360 support but honestly, where does it end? Right now PS2s are only $100 at Wal-Mart. Can I buy that and fully expect that I’m going to get five years of use out of it?

  What about when the “720″ comes out? The 360 will undoubtedly go on sale, and what if someone buys one then. Should that person expect to get more than five years out of that console? If I buy a 360 tomorrow, I’m not getting as much use out of it compared to someone who bought on launch day. That’s the price you buy when you don’t buy at launch. I really don’t get what the big deal is here - how can someone be shocked that the lifespan of their console is lower if they choose to buy it later? That’s the way life works.

• 71 Lono // Jun 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  @ Still Garbage: I only respond harshly to those commenters that attempt to insult me while arguing. Feel free to make a great fact based or opinion based argument, but keep it civil…

  I like these discussions, that’s what this website is for. I’ll keep it simple… you don’t insult me, and I won’t insult you… Easy? Right?

• 72 FlintSteelton // Jun 18, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  I’m not really opposed to it… but that’s probably because I’m also a PC gamer with a hunger for power. I upgrade whenever a leap in technology happens which happens between 1 and 2 years.

  PCs are already more powerful than consoles (yes, much more expensive as well) and I’d love to see where they’re at three years from now. Too bad Vista pounds hardware like a leather drum.

  So I’m not opposed to an XBox 720 in 3 years, but I can definitely see how some console gamers would find it unacceptable.

• 73 Farko // Jun 18, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  @ DWK: you made some very good very good points there.

  firstly, this article did get pretty steaming fast. its just one persons point of view, its not like he’s trying to force his views on anyone.

  secondly, very good point about software updates. consoles have gotten to the point where we can enhance our consoles via updates, without the need to go out and buy a new one altogether.

  just think about the 360/PS3/PSP, think about what there could do when they were released compared to what they can do now, the psp didnt even have a browser, and now the PS3 is getting in game XMB.

  our consoles have gotten to the point where they can be upgraded do do close to anything, the only real reason to get a new console would be for hardware and graphics upgrades, and when you think about it, do we really need to upgrade those (bioshock, gears of war, MGS)

  also you should take into consideration that 360 is still young, we havent really seen what developers can get out of it

  its not impossible. when the PS2 was belived to be at its peak, developers managed to keep bettering its games neer the end of its life, and the same could apply for the 360.

• 74 fgfggg // Jun 19, 2008 at 2:17 am

  if you are so angry with the concept of ending of a life cycle, why did you buy a ps3 when you can still be playing your ps2?

  that is 6 years of using my 360. (Nov 2005 - Nov 2011) by november 2011 I will be ready for a new console. With new technology and new features. The concept of 10 year life span is a great idea, but even today, looking at my original xbox and ps2, i have no intrest in playing a ps2 or original xbox game. I will be looking forward to new great games in the next console. Even if MS was still supporting the original xbox, i would be buying games for my 360.
  69 DWK // Jun 18, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Jesus, it’s hot in here…

  Lono, the article makes sense…

  Bottom Line (this is for all of you who don’t want to read the rest so you can go back and play CoD4)
  The man finds it bad if M-soft ditches the most-supported console in just six years.

  Back in the day, when them TVs was black and white, you had the 8-bits. Those little boxes were around for for a good 11+ years. Progressively, console lifespans (Their support) has gotten smaller and smaller, because as the tech gets more innovative, the systems get outdated. That’s the law of technological progression. In fact, the previous generation (excluding the Sega Abortion) was supported for about six years. But recently, t3h int3rwebz has become an integral part of the current video game console experience. Keep in mind the Abortion had multiplayer, but it was limited to a lovely dial-up modem. Then, out of nowhere “POW” it’s Xbox Live, the saving grace of the Microsoft Meltdown. That opened the shiny, solid-gold door to online gaming. Then developers and manufacturers and publishers and the like got smart and releases console software and firmware, plus game patches, thus, intheory, etending the life of a console by adapting to current technology. Not by the nuts and bolts on the inside, but what pops up on your TV, and what makes the console more functional with (the limitations of) the hardware.
  Face it, we’re like the beta testers of the future of gaming.
  That would make for a good article…
  Dousing Flames,
  DWK

  P.S. Lono, great job on grabbing more page views on the site. You’re our hero. They really fell for this one.
  70 Still Garbage // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  Lono isn’t being sarcastic. He wouldn’t keep responding so harshly to those disagreeing with him if he was.

  I’m really sorry everyone who bought their 360 late in the cycle (as I did) feel like they’ll be getting ripped off when MS releases a new console and stops 360 support but honestly, where does it end? Right now PS2s are only $100 at Wal-Mart. Can I buy that and fully expect that I’m going to get five years of use out of it?

  What about when the “720? comes out? The 360 will undoubtedly go on sale, and what if someone buys one then. Should that person expect to get more than five years out of that console? If I buy a 360 tomorrow, I’m not getting as much use out of it compared to someone who bought on launch day. That’s the price you buy when you don’t buy at launch. I really don’t get what the big deal is here - how can someone be shocked that the lifespan of their console is lower if they choose to buy it later? That’s the way life works.
  71 Lono // Jun 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  @ Still Garbage: I only respond harshly to those commenters that attempt to insult me while arguing. Feel free to make a great fact based or opinion based argument, but keep it civil…

  I like these discussions, that’s what this website is for. I’ll keep it simple… you don’t insult me, and I won’t insult you… Easy? Right?
  72 FlintSteelton // Jun 18, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  I’m not really opposed to it… but that’s probably because I’m also a PC gamer with a hunger for power. I upgrade whenever a leap in technology happens which happens between 1 and 2 years.

  PCs are already more powerful than consoles (yes, much more expensive as well) and I’d love to see where they’re at three years from now. Too bad Vista pounds hardware like a leather drum.

  So I’m not opposed to an XBox 720 in 3 years, but I can definitely see how some console gamers would find it unacceptable.
  73 Farko // Jun 18, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  @ DWK: you made some very good very good points there.

  firstly, this article did get pretty steaming fast. its just one persons point of view, its not like he’s trying to force his views on anyone.

  secondly, very good point about software updates. consoles have gotten to the point where we can enhance our consoles via updates, without the need to go out and buy a new one altogether.

  just think about the 360/PS3/PSP, think about what there could do when they were released compared to what they can do now, the psp didnt even have a browser, and now the PS3 is getting in game XMB.

  our consoles have gotten to the point where they can be upgraded do do close to anything, the only real reason to get a new console would be for hardware and graphics upgrades, and when you think about it, do we really need to upgrade those (bioshock, gears of war, MGS)

  also you should take into consideration that 360 is still young, we havent really seen what developers can get out of it

  its not impossible. when the PS2 was belived to be at its peak, developers managed to keep bettering its games neer the end of its life, and the same could apply for the 360.

• 75 moosehound // Jun 19, 2008 at 7:14 am

  Holy balls I have posted my comment 3 times and it still fails to come out … grrrr I bet this son bitch comes out A-OK..

  moose

• 76 moosehound // Jun 19, 2008 at 7:20 am

  OK lets try it in small parts :-

  Hey Lono - I think you need to plaster - IT’S JUST MY FRICKIN OPINION DUDE !! - on the front and end of each post you make :O)

  MS arrived LATE to the console wars, sony and nintendo had been fighting it out with Sony wining over the big N. Then along come M$ with the XBox and tries it’s luck. With mixed success.

  So, if like me, you picked up a XBox when it hit the £100 mark as a spare - and just for the GFX on Escape From Butcher Bay - you had ayear or so of new titles before M$ threw sand in your face and took it’s ball home. Now I don;t mind this so much as I use my original XBox as a media extender BUT if I had sunk the cash in for a machine that dies 12 - 18 months later I would be PISSED.

  What your forgetting guys is that MS wanted to be first this gen and they succeeded. With that comes a price (ask Sega about the Saturn and Dreamcast or Atari about the Jaguar.. or Commodore about the CD32 - LOL!!). That price is that you risk rushing the builds (HELLO RROD!!) and you risk no one picking up your console. MS lucked out and people clamored for a “next-gen” experience. The problem is that Sony (and Nintendo) took that time to develop their next move (all be it in different directions). Now Nintendo took a new path so we will leave them out of this, but Sony took the time to cram a SHED LOAD of new tech into their console - yeah you paid for it but it was/is worth it.

• 77 moosehound // Jun 19, 2008 at 7:22 am

  <<>>

  The other problem you get from being first is that your system (unless your very lucky) will start to age and look sub-par in comparison to the newer system - so what choice do you have? Well you can take the Nintendo/Sony (stick with it, push the console as far as poss and make some great titles) route or the Sega route (Rush build what you think is the next BIG THING and ditch the old console) - and I just hope MS don’t go this route again.

  For all their lead and new found standing in the gaming / developer community MS kinda screwed the pooch as far as longevity goes. And as we all know R & D and manufacture of any new console is NOT cheap.

  Yes, we need evolution. Yes we need to push these things BUT we don;t need to do it all at once. The comment by Trekster Gamer calling Lono a fool (apart from being rude and childish - you can give an opinion without being derivative) states :
  “[we would be left with] Gamecube, Dreamcast and original XBOX.
  And Voodoo/geforce mx200 video cards! “

• 78 moosehound // Jun 19, 2008 at 7:26 am

  Now, no one says you can;t have evolution but FooMe I don’t want to buy my Geforce 2 MX200 today at £200 and then in a years time be forced to buy the next one after they announce they are no longer writing drivers for the MX200 and my games won’t play - I don’t have that kinda cash to piss down the drain my friends - and I work in IT !! ;O) (also the PC gaming market is very much different to the console one when it comes to hardware)

  Ah crap I have rambled… my point being - don;t be a mug. Both the 360 and the PS3 have YEARS left in them - sure the X360 will not be able to compete with the power/gfx that the PS3 is outputting in 2 years time - but it was never designed too!

• 79 moosehound // Jun 19, 2008 at 7:50 am

  I give up - now I can;t post the end of my er.. post… maybe I will try later or maybe all 10 of them will appear at once… soz

  moose

• 80 koves17 // Jun 19, 2008 at 8:39 am

  2011 when the 360 was released in late 2005 is reasonable, however, in my OPINION, the “720″ will be no more then a Blu-Ray drive(taking into consideration that digital media hasn’t completely taken over) internal wi-fi, full HD version of the 360 with slightly better graphics and more emphasis on being the center of your home entertainment system (Media Center anyone?) and btw, I don’t feel sorry for anyone who is a late adopter of the 360 or any console for that matter, it just means that you have a more robust back catalogue that is way cheaper than when they were released.

• 81 RedSmurf // Jun 24, 2008 at 3:13 am

  Ok first off its 2011/2012 not 2010 also that will make it a 7 year life span which from what I know is normal for a console life span look at the N64 was 1996-2001 and GameCube to Nintendo WII was 2001-2006 so its not that crazy that there making a new one. also PlayStation to the
  Ps2 was only 6 years so its not like the Xbox to the Xbox 360.

  and you know that you don’t have to buy everything that comes out.

  They have said they have been all ready thinking of what there going to use for the next cpu for the next Xbox before they even shipped the 360.

  and you can not listen to what Sony says do you really think there going to say a year after the realize of the Ps3 “ya expect to see the ps 4 in 2010″ Absolutely not! why would anyone buy into something that will only last 4 years with a $600 price tag. so of course they will say 10 years you won’t know till 2016…

  Sure there could still have problems when the 720 is realized I hope not tho. but I don’t find it that strange that there realizing on in 2011 or 2012. I think its cool, it gives video game developers more chance to bring out more amazing games and have more hardware to play with. I like that new consoles come out ever 6 or so years it makes the gaming industry work harder to produce better looking and more groundbreaking stuff think if we only had one console and it was the super Nintendo we would have no 3D graphics so who knows what could come up.

  Just so no one screams fan boy or anything I like all the consoles but the Nintendo Wii so non-hardcore gamer for me to many mini games. With out competition there would be no advances.

• 82 Alter Ego // Jun 30, 2008 at 10:25 am

  I personally believe a new gen would be great. this would mean smoother graphics, larger play environments, and vastly larger multi-player scenarios among other things. 2010 is’t to soon. Look how quick sony did away with the PS1 for the PS2. As for the ones that say the 360 is cheaply made, I tboned a car at 60 mph with my 360 in the truck two nights ago and it still works fine. If you would like pics of my truck e-mail me.

• 83 T // Aug 1, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  Uh…guess what? The 360 is backwards compatible….with almost 500 games. PS3=0 unless you were lucky enough to buy one of the first ones out.

  And if the game you want to play can’t be played on your 360, then break out the old school xbox…dust it off…and play away. It’s not like the console stops working because you bought a new one.

• 84 wargamer247 // Aug 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  Well, my take on it is this. Xbox came out with their system while the P3 was tripping on setting the price at a stupid high level for consoles (at that time). Don’t forget how everyone was getting on them for that. Turns out they had a very good system for the price! The Wii is basically the NEXT genre in gaming. MS had some problems this time yes..but they have always put out good-fun products. They realized “WHOA..we are behind these other consoles” and are trying to catch up now. I believe in second chances. If my next Xbox ends up getting the Ring of Death, I might stop getting them and Just do PC gaming. I love Xbox and I HATE P3’s little kid controllers. They cramp your hands up! Let’s see what they do this time and then make a decision. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

• 85 wargamer247 // Aug 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  Also—for the price you paid for a P3, Even with the Ring of Death, if you paid for the warranty or even sent it back for repairs, you still came out cheaper than 600 bucks. Your system was fixed, and you were up and running again in no time. I know NO ONE wants that hassle. But you think MS is gonna make the SAME mistakes again? I wouldn’t. Not after all the flack they are catching and especially when the Wii and P3 are VERY GOOD systems to contend with. I don’t think we will be seeing the Ring of Death (which is really the only problem) or any HD problems the next time around. When it comes out! IM BUYING IT. With the warranty this time. It’s ALWAYS better to get the warranty on anything you buy. But if I have the same issue, back to PC gaming full time. Watch, they are gonna fix the bug, kill the ring, and we are gonna have fun either way. XBOX RULES!!! Just not this time. P3 players…..Thanks for letting MS know where it needs to be to compete. You guys have an AWESOME system too. But if we BOTH aren’t careful….THE Wii IS GONNA SNEAK UP AND GET US ALL!! THAT SYSTEM ROCKS!!! Especially Zelda! THAT IS THE REAL NEXT GEN! AND IT WAS ONLY $250. If we could, we’d get all three systems. So instead of fighting each other, FUN RIVALRY as it is…. lets gang up on and try to become more like the the Wii while staying true to our roots. Imagine a fused system like ours AND can do what the Wii does also. THAT WOULD ROOOOOCK!!!! Remember
  “The enemy of my enemy is my friend!”

Leave a Comment