No matter what anyone wants to say about the Xbox, the bottom line is that Microsoft gave up on the Xbox after only 4 years. That’s nothing in gaming years. Microsoft simply took their ball and went home, leaving fans that paid hard-earned money stranded at the carnival without a ride home. Fortunately for Microsoft, Xbox fans, in general, are a loyal lot.
Well, if Bobby Bach is to be believed, Microsoft is getting ready to do it all over again. If that’s the case, count me out.
Robert Bach, the President of the Entertainment and Devices division of Microsoft gave an interview to Venturebeat.com recently and many gaming sites picked up on one tidbit in the interview:
Microsoft wants to be the first one out of the gate with the NEXT, next-gen console. Specifically, he said, “If you take the question of whether it was the right thing to try to be first, the answer to that is definitely yes. It has given us a leg up in a number of places that are super important. It has given us a leg up with game developers. It has given us a leg up from an economics perspective. It helped us expand Xbox Live quickly. At a strategy level, if you asked if we wanted to be first again, I would say yes.”
While this factoid, in and of itself, isn’t a big deal, when you couple it with what we know about Microsoft and their gaming hardware cycles, you’ll realize that that release date is fast approaching.
If 2010 or 2011 really is their window for releasing the next Xbox, I don’t think I’ll be one of those early adopters. You’d think, by now, that Microsoft would have learned their lesson about being “first” and “quickest” to the market. Their haste to get to the starting line first resulted in a loss of over a billion dollars and a loss of unquantifiable consumer confidence, no matter what the PR spin on the Red Ring of Death fiasco is this week.
I don’t want another new console to shell out $600 bucks for. Sony has repeatedly said that they plan on having a 10 year life cycle for the PS3 and I applaud them for that. Will Sony ever realize the potential of the PS3? Who knows, but at least one company is sticking to its guns and isn’t out searching for the next big thing.
Sure, if the next, next-gen Xbox is launched in 2011 it will be six years from the 360’s launch, but what about people that aren’t early adopters? There’s a lot of us out there that didn’t buy an Xbox 360 until 2006, or 2007, or even more of us out there that still haven’t purchased the console yet. What about us, Microsoft?
Microsoft, don’t run out on us, like you did to the original Xbox guys. In your rush to be first, you may end up leaving the rest of us behind… Permanently.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
?? 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.
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?
Lomo????Sory for that
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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…
Lono-
Sorry about losing focus there. Hey, I love your article man. Keep those controversial topics coming man. Love the show.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FLAME, why don’t you?
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?
@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.
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.
The more new consoles the more money it costs to devlope games and the fewer good games their will be.
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.”
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!
@Still Garbage: I won’t buy the next console… that was the point of my article… I won’t be buying it.
@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?
Ultimate Flamage.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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….
“you sir are and ignorant bafoon”
Best. Post. Ever.
^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…
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
@ 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
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?
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……
I just realized…. the sooner they release the next box, the sooner the price is reasonable….
Bring on the 720!!!!!
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.
“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.
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…………….
new console attached to the Large Hadron Collider XBOX ∞