Xerxes Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I have my doubts, we might start to hear about their upcoming models but I'm sure the cost of this generation will push back a normal console cycle. Although, I badly want new consoles - We need 720p / 60FPS MINIMUM standards. Thing is the next gen was suppose to of started already but due to the GFC MS/Sony decided it was a bad time and pushed it back a few years. While it's all speculative right now and both MS and Sony are very tight lipped about it (with good reason) all the rumors are pointing to the next gen starting around ~2012. MS's announcement the 360 has "5 years left in it" and Sony's much touted "10 year lifecycle" for the PS3 have no baring on when the next gen will start, these time frames are merely how long both parties will support their respective [current] products (much like how till recently Sony supported both the PS2 and PS3) so current owners can rest assured that when the next gen starts, MS/Sony won't abandon them from word go. Naturally none of what I said is based on fact, all rumors at this point but we do know both MS and Sony are hard at work on their successors (hopefully MS have learnt from all their mistakes with the 360 and don't make them again). Well that is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted June 29, 2010 Author Veteran Share Posted June 29, 2010 Xbox 3D :p Sadly I can actually see that happening :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 i hope they start developing the systems two years from now.. not releasing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stezo2k Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 I concur with the "3D is stupid, overhyped, overrated and a money grab" movement. couldn't agree more, it's so over-rated. i find it very disorientating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodan Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 I doubt we won't be seeing a new generation until at least 2015. The PS3, 360 and Wii still have A LOT of life left in them,. And I doubt most people are willingly to go out right away and pick up a brand new next generation console. Also, people need to stop freaking calling it the Xbox 720. The name is just stupid, and it makes no sense. The Xbox 360 was named as such because: 1) It sounds better then just "Xbox 2" 2) Microsoft wanted all aspects of your entertainment needs to revolve around the console, hence 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Thing is the next gen was suppose to of started already but due to the GFC MS/Sony decided it was a bad time and pushed it back a few years. While it's all speculative right now and both MS and Sony are very tight lipped about it (with good reason) all the rumors are pointing to the next gen starting around ~2012. MS's announcement the 360 has "5 years left in it" and Sony's much touted "10 year lifecycle" for the PS3 have no baring on when the next gen will start, these time frames are merely how long both parties will support their respective [current] products (much like how till recently Sony supported both the PS2 and PS3) so current owners can rest assured that when the next gen starts, MS/Sony won't abandon them from word go. Naturally none of what I said is based on fact, all rumors at this point but we do know both MS and Sony are hard at work on their successors (hopefully MS have learnt from all their mistakes with the 360 and don't make them again). Well that is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt. Disagreed. Neither Microsoft or Sony is going to want to support a product that is effectively going to be as good as dead when they launch new consoles. No company wants to have to continue to support aging products, they just do it for customer satisfaction and retention -- that's the plain and simple truth. The lifecycles that Microsoft and Sony have been touting are because that's legitimately how long they want each console to last. If you'll read interviews and statements about their plans for the lives of the 360 and PS3, you'll see they say talk about the lifecycles of previous consoles being so low -- and when they refer to those life cycles, they refer to the length of time until the company released its next console... not until the company stopped supporting the console. Sony and Microsoft both want to stretch the current generation out because of how much each has invested in it. Sony only recently started making a profit on the PS3, and Microsoft had to invest a lot of money due to the 360's reliability problems. While I'm absolutely positive that both are working on successors to the current generation, I really don't think we're going to see the next generation for at least two years (if not longer) -- not "get out hands on", but see. It's going to be a good while before Sony and Microsoft release new consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motoko. Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 As much as I appreciate updated graphics technologies I'd like the next iteration of consoles to be reliable. Here's a kick for an Xbox codename: "Xbox R3" Sounds pro and simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motoko. Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Disagreed. I agree with you on Microsoft and Sony, since they're a corporation with many avenues with other products and services. The reason I believe Nintendo can do it so well is because they are only a software/hardware company much like Sega was; that's where the money is. The Wii's virtual console sales are pretty good if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodan Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Disagreed. Neither Microsoft or Sony is going to want to support a product that is effectively going to be as good as dead when they launch new consoles. Errr. >.> Sony still makes, sells and supports the PS2... And it isn't dead by ANY means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted June 30, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2010 Errr. >.> Sony still makes, sells and supports the PS2... And it isn't dead by ANY means. They're forced to in a sense, since they need some money coming in to make up for the loss from the PS3. MS could drop the Xbox1 so fast because of all the money it makes in other things. And before people bring up the "Sony makes other things too!" Sony Corp and SCE are, afaik, two seperate companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Laidher Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 The PS3 is only just now starting to build momentum so i don't think Sony will announce anything new for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas-c Veteran Posted June 30, 2010 Veteran Share Posted June 30, 2010 I don't see any of them being replaced any time soon. They are only just "getting there" as platforms and certainly the PS3 has alot of un-used power in it. It's about the quality of the games on these platforms now. Not the platforms themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 They're forced to in a sense, since they need some money coming in to make up for the loss from the PS3. MS could drop the Xbox1 so fast because of all the money it makes in other things. And before people bring up the "Sony makes other things too!" Sony Corp and SCE are, afaik, two seperate companies. Sony would go into selling nappies if they thought they could make a profit out of 'em. They don't care how old the PS2 is, as long as it is making a profit and people are still willing to buy it, the're happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yardmanflex Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Microsoft and blu ray just does not go well....bc bulray uses java for it interactive features... so i don't expect to see bluray in anything Microsoft does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 I doubt they will drop the Xbox name, you don't just throw away a name that is so deeply rooted, no way. I am uncertain about the 720 part however, I believe it was said years ago they wouldn't be calling it that for sure. I could easily see the rumors being true and they drop the XBox name, and focus on Live, something like Microsoft Live Media Center. Sony's the only company that ran with the name of the console over the manufacturer, and we can all assume they will continue with PS4. But MS may want to continue to focus on the integration of Live with Phones, Zune, PC, and probably TVs, in addition to the console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 They're forced to in a sense, since they need some money coming in to make up for the loss from the PS3. MS could drop the Xbox1 so fast because of all the money it makes in other things. And before people bring up the "Sony makes other things too!" Sony Corp and SCE are, afaik, two seperate companies. Sony sold the PS1 for 10 years, even long after the PS2 came out -- same this gen, and will be the same next gen. MS dropped the XBox because it was still losing money thanks to bad deals with companies like nVidia. And SCE is a division of Sony Corp. much like Microsoft's Entertainment Division (MGS, Xbox, Zune, GFW, XNA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoadorable Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 makes sense, we figured it would be 2012, didn't we? and it's going to be more of an online model than before or right now, digital distribution and streaming will over take physical media, with the hardware used more as a booster than as the primary playback and rendering platform. all good, we're in for some amazing new games over the next decade. as for MS, from what i know and from what my gut feelings tell me they're willing to take a loss on the Xbox brand so long as it enables a variety of technologies to expand and keeps the MSFT moniker more out there than would have been the case without it. another to remember is that MS as a commercial and technological collective doesn't really see a difference between the Xbox and Windows gaming, to them it's one and the same, so don't be surprised if more convergence takes place. again, this isn't a bad thing - especially if you're like me and just found yourself falling in love with PC gaming again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Disagreed. Neither Microsoft or Sony is going to want to support a product that is effectively going to be as good as dead when they launch new consoles. No company wants to have to continue to support aging products, they just do it for customer satisfaction and retention -- that's the plain and simple truth. The lifecycles that Microsoft and Sony have been touting are because that's legitimately how long they want each console to last. If you'll read interviews and statements about their plans for the lives of the 360 and PS3, you'll see they say talk about the lifecycles of previous consoles being so low -- and when they refer to those life cycles, they refer to the length of time until the company released its next console... not until the company stopped supporting the console. Sony and Microsoft both want to stretch the current generation out because of how much each has invested in it. Sony only recently started making a profit on the PS3, and Microsoft had to invest a lot of money due to the 360's reliability problems. While I'm absolutely positive that both are working on successors to the current generation, I really don't think we're going to see the next generation for at least two years (if not longer) -- not "get out hands on", but see. It's going to be a good while before Sony and Microsoft release new consoles. I agree with your last statement, but the first part is wrong. Sony supported the PS1 for 10 years (technically almost 12 years), then stopped manufacturing, even though the PS2 had been out and dominant, and the PS3 had already even been announced. That's what Sony means by "10-year lifdecycle". The PS1 outsold the PS2 for the first year or so, and same with the PS2 outselling the PS3 (and 360 as well) for a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoadorable Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 yeah on this one i have to agree with soniq, the new 2012 consoles won't right away eliminate the current ones we have. it will be a two-three year phase out, the PS2 is still selling because a lot of people and a lot of markets can't afford the newer machines. plus it still plays a mean game and has a strong back catalogue of titles to choose from. ditto for the 360 2-3 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted June 30, 2010 Author Veteran Share Posted June 30, 2010 makes sense, we figured it would be 2012, didn't we? and it's going to be more of an online model than before or right now, digital distribution and streaming will over take physical media, with the hardware used more as a booster than as the primary playback and rendering platform. all good, we're in for some amazing new games over the next decade. as for MS, from what i know and from what my gut feelings tell me they're willing to take a loss on the Xbox brand so long as it enables a variety of technologies to expand and keeps the MSFT moniker more out there than would have been the case without it. another to remember is that MS as a commercial and technological collective doesn't really see a difference between the Xbox and Windows gaming, to them it's one and the same, so don't be surprised if more convergence takes place. again, this isn't a bad thing - especially if you're like me and just found yourself falling in love with PC gaming again! Well Win7 already closed that gap and there is news today of Windows 8 doing more of the same. No doubt the XBL platform is making bigger steps on top the PC. If MS don't like having MMO's on their console side they could partner with the PC side instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skulltrail Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 I wish people would stop calling the next version the "Xbox 720". It's just so ridiculous. +1 Besides, didn't I read somewhere that Microsoft's retiring the Xbox name and using something different for the next console? I hope so. Xbox 360 was a bad name anyways. Should of been YBox. Then the future one, ZBox. :laugh: [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 at least we would get DX11 lvl games current console are limiting us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Errr. >.> Sony still makes, sells and supports the PS2... And it isn't dead by ANY means. You clearly didn't even read my entire post. You realize that by taking the statement out of context you completely missed the following sentences that explained that statement, correct? Furthermore, the difference with the console you're describing is the fact that the Playstation 2 has, if I recall correctly, basically made a bunch of money since day one. Supporting the PS3 after they've only recently started making money off of it is FAR more costly that supporting the PS2. I agree with your last statement, but the first part is wrong. Sony supported the PS1 for 10 years (technically almost 12 years), then stopped manufacturing, even though the PS2 had been out and dominant, and the PS3 had already even been announced. That's what Sony means by "10-year lifdecycle". The PS1 outsold the PS2 for the first year or so, and same with the PS2 outselling the PS3 (and 360 as well) for a couple of years. I really don't think that's anywhere near what Sony meant by a 10-year lifecycle, given that they've (and Microsoft's) specifically stated that they believe this generation would be longer than previous generations. They're not saying "oh, this generation is going to be the same length as previous generations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotdot Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Wasnt there a global ecomonic meltdown recently? Weve only just started to see growth and its slow in most industrys nevermind governments and there debts, which will effect business and there research / development / output cycles. Then theres the consumer market itself and the publics trust in exspenditure all of which has been badly damaged with us now diggin our way out, tho goverments are now looking to lower deficits and this means VAT increases and the whole "Greece" thing no doubt happening globaly too. All of which is gonna come into play and in many ways is still just the the tip of the iceberg stages. Really really dont see new consoles for some time. Re-models and ofc 3D / Motion sensing iss where were at whilst we go thru a no doubt "half generation" until we reach the true next gen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodan Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Furthermore, the difference with the console you're describing is the fact that the Playstation 2 has, if I recall correctly, basically made a bunch of money since day one. Supporting the PS3 after they've only recently started making money off of it is FAR more costly that supporting the PS2. If anything, continuing to sell and support the PS2 *Especially with brand new games* LONG AFTER the PS3 has been out, most likely has harmed the PS3 more then if they dropped all PS2 support after the PS3 release. Taking us hardcores out the equation... Why should the normal consumer or casual gamer consider buying a PS3 when the PS2 has the following advantages: Is MUCH cheaper. (PS3 launch: PS2s were about $150 vs the PS3's $600. Now: $120 vs $300) Has a GREAT library of games Is still receiving support in the form of warranties, still being produced AND new games are being released Games are much cheaper in comparison, even new titles PS3 lacks BC (Not counting some of the older models) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts