Next generation thoughts: Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place

The winner of this generation's war will also win next genration's. This is because backward compatibiltiy will be more important next round. Without a doubt the PS3 and the 360 were designed so that PS4 and the Xbox 720 will be easily backwards compatible.

Why is compatibility and winning this gen so important for next gen? Because this generation's games will have a longer life span. The graphics now are so good that even in 5 to 10 years from now, gamers can still play the games without being grossed out by the graphics. The next gen's graphics will not be that much better than this gen's. This is the law of diminishing return. Think VHS to DVD to Blu-ray. The graphical differences becomes less and less over time.

So the consoles with the most games, the best graphics, and the best gameplay will help its next gen version the most. Because the Xbox 360's inability to win Japan and Europe, the PS3 will have the larger install base world wide, and with it comes the most games. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the PS3's use of the Blu-ray disk instead of DVD9 will give the PS3 a big advantage as developers spend less time making game engines and more time creating bigger and better contents in their games. For this reason, Microsoft must be the first to come out with their next console or risk having their 360 looking more and more dated relative to the PS3. DVD9 and RROD are the 360's greatest weaknesses in the HD generation. Microsoft must launch the next xbox no later than 2011.

Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It must release the next xbox soon, but it won't be that much better than the PS3. Say the Xbox 720 comes out in 2010 or 2011. Chances are the console will be significantly more powerful on paper but the games won't look much better than the 4th or 5th generation PS3 games. Again this is due to the law of diminishing return. Budgets will skyrocket even more, and developers will want to spend most of their resources on the PS3, the 360, and the Wii2 (Wii2 should be about as powerful as the PS3 or the 360). Lack of developer support will slow the adoption of 720.

The smart move for Sony is to bring out the PS4 1 year after the 720, making sure that the PS4 will again be more powerful. Unlike this gen, next gen's 1 year head start will not help as much, again because this gen's graphics are already very, very good. Plus, backwards compatibility will be more important next gen. Because the PS3 will have more and better games, the PS4 will have an edge in compatibilty and power. The story of this gen repeating itself for next gen.

If the 720 is just barely better than PS3, then the other smart move for Sony is to wait till 2013 to 2015, ignoring the 720 and effectively skipping the next gen. The PS3 is that future proof. By launching the PS4 3 to 4 years after the 720, Sony can concentrate on making the biggest, best exclusives on the PS3. Then launch the PS4 with 2 or 3 sequals of those exclusives. This is the route I would take, if I were Sony.

As for the Wii, I believe Nintendo is now itching for some HD action, especially when the PS3 reaches ~$200 in price. This means Nintendo will probrably launch the Wii2 around the time of the Xbox 720's launch.

I wonder if Sony and Microsoft will adopt the Wii's control scheme for their next systems. If Microsoft's 720 uses the Wii's control scheme or something much better than the 360's controller, then Sony has 2 options:

1) They should launch the PS4 at around the same time as the 720. That PS4 must also have a much better controller...or

2) Sony can just sell the new controller as an add-on. I would just sell or bundle the add-on controller.

So my bet is that the PS3 will be at least 7 yrs old before the PS4 comes out. The PS3 is that much future-proof.

This sets a new record for most wrong in a single OP.

The winner of this generation's war will also win next genration's. This is because of backward compatibiltiy will be more important next round. Without a doubt the PS3 and the 360 was designed so that PS4 and the Xbox 720 will be easily backwards compatible.

Why is compatibility and winning this gen so important for next gen? Because this generation's games will have a longer life span. The graphics now are so good that even in 5 to 10 years from now, gamers can still play the games without be grossed out by the graphics. The next gen's graphics will not be that much better than this gen's. This is the law of diminishing return. Think VHS to DVD to Blu-ray. The graphical difference becomes less and less over time.

So the consoles with the most games, the best graphics, and the best gameplay will help its next gen version the most. Because the Xbox 360's inability to win Japan and Europe, the PS3 will have the larger install base world wide, and with it comes the most games. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the PS3's use of the Blu-ray disk instead of DVD9 will give the PS3 a big advantage as developers spend less time making game engines and more time creating bigger and better contents in their games. For this reason, Microsoft must be the first to come out with their next console or risk having their 360 looking more and more dated relative to the PS3. DVD9 and RROD are the 360's greatest weakness in the HD generation. Microsoft must launch the next xbox no later than 2011.

Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It must release the next xbox soon, but it won't be that much better than the PS3. Say the Xbox 720 comes out in 2010 or 2011. Chances are the console will be significantly more powerful on paper but the games won't look much better than the 4th or 5th generation PS3 games. Again this is due to the law of diminishing return. Budgets will skyrocket even more, and developers will want to spend most of their resources on the PS3, the 360, and the Wii2 (Wii2 should be about as powerful as the PS3 or the 360). Lack of developer support will slow the adoption of 720.

The smart move for Sony is to bring out the PS4 1 year after the 360, making sure that the PS4 will again be more powerful. Unlike this gen, next gen's 1 year head start will not help as much, again because this gen's graphics are already very, very good. Plus, backwards compatibility will be more important next gen. Because the PS3 will have more and better games, the PS4 will have an edge in compatibilty and power. The story of this gen repeating itself for next gen.

If the 720 is just barely better than PS3, then the other smart move for Sony is to wait till 2013 to 2015, ignoring the 720 and effectively skipping the next gen. The PS3 is that future proof. By launching the PS4 3 to 4 years after the 720, Sony concentrated on making the biggest, best exclusives on the PS3. Then launch the PS4 with 2 or 3 sequals of those exclusives. This is the route I would take, if I were Sony.

As for the Wii, I believe Nintendo is now itching for some HD action, especially when the PS3 reaches ~$200 in price. This means Nintendo will probrably launch the Wii2 around the time of the Xbox 720's launch.

I wonder if Sony and Microsoft will adopt the Wii's control scheme for their next systems. If Microsoft's 720 uses the Wii's control scheme or something much better than the 360's controller, then Sony has 2 options:

1) They should launch the PS4 at around the same time as the 720. That PS4 must also have a much better controller...or

2) Sony can just sell the new controller as an add-on. I would just sell or bundle the add-on controller.

Sihanouk

Foolish and nothing but.

Sony is in a harder spot than MS, by far, for next generation.

This sets a new record for most wrong in a single OP.

JiveT

He's right about the graphics though as theres isn't a hell of alot more they can do. Even if the next-gen machines are capable of supporting a game like crysis, how many developers will be able to afford to develop a game with that level of graphical fidelity?

[QUOTE="JiveT"]

This sets a new record for most wrong in a single OP.

Popadophalis

He's right about the graphics though as theres isn't a hell of alot more they can do. Even if the next-gen machines are capable of supporting a game like crysis, how many developers will be able to afford to develop a game with that level of graphical fidelity?

Also, how much better will Crysis be relative to the PS3 games in 2010? Not much, if at all.

There are a lot of things extra power can do for games in AI , animations , physics , effects , and all sorts of new techniques and tools will arise like they always have to make games look better , run better , and play better.

They can already do a lot more with graphics and if the "720" came out next week it wouldn't be slightly better than the PS3 it would completely destroy all the current systems out there. There are still massive leaps to be taken in how things are rendered in games.

They can already do a lot more with graphics and if the "720" came out next week it wouldn't be slightly better than the PS3 it would completely destroy all the current systems out there. There are still massive leaps to be taken in how things are rendered in games.

JiveT

No, very unlikely. That 720 would be too expensive. There are leaps to be taken from a technology upgrade point of view. But from a financial and human perception point of view, not much of a leap, especially in the 2-3 year time frame.

I think you guys are underestimating what can be done by 2010-12, the graphical advances this gen are all shader based but there simply isn't quite enough power for developers to go too wild with it.

We now have quadcore CPUs sold at the sweet spot on the market, by 2012 we could see 2 or 3 times the cores and god knows were the clock rates are going. Designs like the Cell's SPU array could be intergrated efficiently onto general purpose CPU for specialised tasks, its in Intel's plans for the future when the manufacturing process is small enough.

And i do not really believe all this crap about games costing too much to make now, games still cost a fraction of the price to produce than a movie and profit far more. Gears of War was made by 44 poeple if i remember correctly.

I think you guys are underestimating what can be done by 2010-12, the graphical advances this gen are all shader based but there simply isn't quite enough power for developers to go too wild with it.

We now have quadcore CPUs sold at the sweet spot on the market, by 2012 we could see 2 or 3 times the cores and god knows were the clock rates are going. Designs like the Cell's SPU array could be intergrated efficiently onto general purpose CPU for specialised tasks, its in Intel's plans for the future when the manufacturing process is small enough.

And i do not really believe all this crap about games costing too much to make now, games still cost a fraction of the price to produce than a movie and profit far more. Gears of War was made by 44 poeple if i remember correctly.

ChinoJamesKeene

thats the problem with multiple cores and the reasons, with current technology we have reached the limit of clockrate speeds which is why cpu's now have multiple cores, unless new technology is created clock speed will not go up and more cores will be added instead.

P.S: and its amazing an 360 biased thread where 360 is in the worst spot, from shianouk the guy that continuely posts biased anti 360 threads on the site.

that whole entire post felt like reading an arguement back in highschool. best guess, ps3 IS at the peak of gaming technology today, so the ps3 is here for a hella long tym (10 years?). Wii is like off somewhere doing its own thing and is well off if i may add too because of their marketing. honestly in this capitalistic society, you can pretty myuch sell anything if you're persuasive. so no matter how advance technology might get, nintendo will still be successful with its 1st party games. i really agree with the TC because of M$ decision to stick with dvd9. they shouldve step it up atleast and made it so that HD-dvd would be their standard format to give developers more "space" to be innovative and and try out new things.

so yea, odds are microsoft is gonna ditch its unit entirely before the other 2 consoles for the "next-gen" one because they didnt "futureproof" their product by sticking to older technology. just how it is.

Not so sure Nintendo itching for some HD action, they running happy to the bank and know they can sell a gamecube in new chell with a waggie controller for higher price than GC. They dont care about if we get HD or not, they only want get money.aroxx_ab

We know the Wii is more powerful than the gamecube and that the Wii controller is no gimmick (Metroid Prime 3, Zelda, Medal of Honor, No more heroes can atest to that).

Secondly, Nintendo already stated that next gen they will be HD. Miyamoto said it an interview, if I can locate it I will post it.

And you're saying Nintendo is greedy? So I guess Microsoft and Sony are gaming saints?

Not so sure Nintendo itching for some HD action, they running happy to the bank and know they can sell a gamecube in new chell with a waggie controller for higher price than GC. They dont care about if we get HD or not, they only want get money.aroxx_ab

They will want to get into HD because when the PS3 reaches $200, more and more casuals will prefer the PS3 over the Wii and its outdated graphics. Should Sony or Microsoft somehow come up with a control scheme like the Wii, Nintendo will be in a big trouble. It cannot wait for Sony or Microsoft to do that. It has to plan an HD Wii now and comeout when the PS3 or 360 reaches the casual's sweet spot price.

that whole entire post felt like reading an arguement back in highschool. best guess, ps3 IS at the peak of gaming technology today, so the ps3 is here for a hella long tym (10 years?). Wii is like off somewhere doing its own thing and is well off if i may add too because of their marketing. honestly in this capitalistic society, you can pretty myuch sell anything if you're persuasive. so no matter how advance technology might get, nintendo will still be successful with its 1st party games. i really agree with the TC because of M$ decision to stick with dvd9. they shouldve step it up atleast and made it so that HD-dvd would be their standard format to give developers more "space" to be innovative and and try out new things.

so yea, odds are microsoft is gonna ditch its unit entirely before the other 2 consoles for the "next-gen" one because they didnt "futureproof" their product by sticking to older technology. just how it is.

FreshDimSum

[QUOTE="ChinoJamesKeene"]

I think you guys are underestimating what can be done by 2010-12, the graphical advances this gen are all shader based but there simply isn't quite enough power for developers to go too wild with it.

We now have quadcore CPUs sold at the sweet spot on the market, by 2012 we could see 2 or 3 times the cores and god knows were the clock rates are going. Designs like the Cell's SPU array could be intergrated efficiently onto general purpose CPU for specialised tasks, its in Intel's plans for the future when the manufacturing process is small enough.

And i do not really believe all this crap about games costing too much to make now, games still cost a fraction of the price to produce than a movie and profit far more. Gears of War was made by 44 poeple if i remember correctly.

WilliamRLBaker

thats the problem with multiple cores and the reasons, with current technology we have reached the limit of clockrate speeds which is why cpu's now have multiple cores, unless new technology is created clock speed will not go up and more cores will be added instead.

P.S: and its amazing an 360 biased thread where 360 is in the worst spot, from shianouk the guy that continuely posts biased anti 360 threads on the site.

I do appear anti-360. That's because I like to think far into the future. I am a futurist. When I think about the 360's future, it really doesn't look good. It is becoming more and more dated relativively to the PS3. Microsoft knows this. That's why they are planning the next Xbox already. You won't see Halo4 coming on the 360. They need it for the launch of the 720. So as a gamer looking to buy the PS3 or the 360 today, in my mind the PS3 is a far better choice. Momentum is too much on the PS3's side.

A lot of people here has much hope on Gears of War 2. The problem is Gears of War 2 won't have the advantages of Gears 1. Gears 1 enjoyed the status as the top game on the 360 that can match the PS3 in terms of graphics. It also enjoyed the innovated co-op and "cover" game play. Gears of War 2 won't be as innovative gameplay wise and will have to compete against the best PS3 games what will use most of the Blu-ray's diskspace and more of the Cell's CPU. DVD9 will limit how big Gears 2 will be and how different it ill be from Gears 1. The 360's less powerful CPU will also limit the number of players in a multiplayer game. To keep up and surpass with the graphical standards of Gears 1, Gears 2 will be small game retative to the major exclusives on the PS3. So I wouldn't put too much hope on Gears of War 2.

You're assuming console generations exist only for graphical evolution.

You're right, next-generation won't be about graphics or physics or motion sensing controls, it's going to be about services.

Game consoles will more and more lose focus on games to broaden their funcionality to work as an entry point for all things digital entretaiment.

The winner of this generation's war will also win next genration's. This is because backward compatibiltiy will be more important next round. Without a doubt the PS3 and the 360 were designed so that PS4 and the Xbox 720 will be easily backwards compatible.

Why is compatibility and winning this gen so important for next gen? Because this generation's games will have a longer life span. The graphics now are so good that even in 5 to 10 years from now, gamers can still play the games without being grossed out by the graphics. The next gen's graphics will not be that much better than this gen's. This is the law of diminishing return. Think VHS to DVD to Blu-ray. The graphical differences becomes less and less over time.

So the consoles with the most games, the best graphics, and the best gameplay will help its next gen version the most. Because the Xbox 360's inability to win Japan and Europe, the PS3 will have the larger install base world wide, and with it comes the most games. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the PS3's use of the Blu-ray disk instead of DVD9 will give the PS3 a big advantage as developers spend less time making game engines and more time creating bigger and better contents in their games. For this reason, Microsoft must be the first to come out with their next console or risk having their 360 looking more and more dated relative to the PS3. DVD9 and RROD are the 360's greatest weaknesses in the HD generation. Microsoft must launch the next xbox no later than 2011.

Microsoft is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It must release the next xbox soon, but it won't be that much better than the PS3. Say the Xbox 720 comes out in 2010 or 2011. Chances are the console will be significantly more powerful on paper but the games won't look much better than the 4th or 5th generation PS3 games. Again this is due to the law of diminishing return. Budgets will skyrocket even more, and developers will want to spend most of their resources on the PS3, the 360, and the Wii2 (Wii2 should be about as powerful as the PS3 or the 360). Lack of developer support will slow the adoption of 720.

The smart move for Sony is to bring out the PS4 1 year after the 720, making sure that the PS4 will again be more powerful. Unlike this gen, next gen's 1 year head start will not help as much, again because this gen's graphics are already very, very good. Plus, backwards compatibility will be more important next gen. Because the PS3 will have more and better games, the PS4 will have an edge in compatibilty and power. The story of this gen repeating itself for next gen.

If the 720 is just barely better than PS3, then the other smart move for Sony is to wait till 2013 to 2015, ignoring the 720 and effectively skipping the next gen. The PS3 is that future proof. By launching the PS4 3 to 4 years after the 720, Sony can concentrate on making the biggest, best exclusives on the PS3. Then launch the PS4 with 2 or 3 sequals of those exclusives. This is the route I would take, if I were Sony.

As for the Wii, I believe Nintendo is now itching for some HD action, especially when the PS3 reaches ~$200 in price. This means Nintendo will probrably launch the Wii2 around the time of the Xbox 720's launch.

I wonder if Sony and Microsoft will adopt the Wii's control scheme for their next systems. If Microsoft's 720 uses the Wii's control scheme or something much better than the 360's controller, then Sony has 2 options:

1) They should launch the PS4 at around the same time as the 720. That PS4 must also have a much better controller...or

2) Sony can just sell the new controller as an add-on. I would just sell or bundle the add-on controller.

So my bet is that the PS3 will be at least 7 yrs old before the PS4 comes out. The PS3 is that much future-proof.

Sihanouk

Wow... You must have a really good crystal ball to see all that with that much detail... So can you tell me when will I die?

Seriously, this is the SAME sh**z people said last gen, "backwards compability, graphics can't get better, the new console is coming soon(when only 1 year passed since the console launched), etc etc" but with the increase of development of better technology producing a virtually open-ended world fll of graphics cards for computers, graphics are getting better and better each day, in fact teh 360 and PS3 fell short on the graphics department a month after their release and today you'll wish your console games would look that good. You seriously must be living under a rock for all this yearsto be thinking like that. And the PS3 and 360's hardware is almost the same, except the blu-ray drive.

a rock and a hard place? There was something like that in the simpsons movie...

I dont think you are right, sony releasing the ps4 a year after the next xbox would once again mean that MS gets a head start.

no one cares if the ps3 is as powerful as the next xbox, people will get the xbox because it is new, which is what people want.

plus games wil once again look much better, maybe like pc games now, maybe photiorealistic. Or it may be that like with painting once it gets photorealistic devs will try to make it more un realistic. (just a guess)

Plus AI will get better.

Not so sure Nintendo itching for some HD action, they running happy to the bank and know they can sell a gamecube in new chell with a waggie controller for higher price than GC. They dont care about if we get HD or not, they only want get money.aroxx_ab

I thought nintendo already stated that their next console will have HD graphics?

[QUOTE="FreshDimSum"]

that whole entire post felt like reading an arguement back in highschool. best guess, ps3 IS at the peak of gaming technology today, so the ps3 is here for a hella long tym (10 years?). Wii is like off somewhere doing its own thing and is well off if i may add too because of their marketing. honestly in this capitalistic society, you can pretty myuch sell anything if you're persuasive. so no matter how advance technology might get, nintendo will still be successful with its 1st party games. i really agree with the TC because of M$ decision to stick with dvd9. they shouldve step it up atleast and made it so that HD-dvd would be their standard format to give developers more "space" to be innovative and and try out new things.

so yea, odds are microsoft is gonna ditch its unit entirely before the other 2 consoles for the "next-gen" one because they didnt "futureproof" their product by sticking to older technology. just how it is.

Sihanouk

[QUOTE="ChinoJamesKeene"]

I think you guys are underestimating what can be done by 2010-12, the graphical advances this gen are all shader based but there simply isn't quite enough power for developers to go too wild with it.

We now have quadcore CPUs sold at the sweet spot on the market, by 2012 we could see 2 or 3 times the cores and god knows were the clock rates are going. Designs like the Cell's SPU array could be intergrated efficiently onto general purpose CPU for specialised tasks, its in Intel's plans for the future when the manufacturing process is small enough.

And i do not really believe all this crap about games costing too much to make now, games still cost a fraction of the price to produce than a movie and profit far more. Gears of War was made by 44 poeple if i remember correctly.

WilliamRLBaker

thats the problem with multiple cores and the reasons, with current technology we have reached the limit of clockrate speeds which is why cpu's now have multiple cores, unless new technology is created clock speed will not go up and more cores will be added instead.

P.S: and its amazing an 360 biased thread where 360 is in the worst spot, from shianouk the guy that continuely posts biased anti 360 threads on the site.

I do appear anti-360. That's because I like to think far into the future. I am a futurist. When I think about the 360's future, it really doesn't look good. It is becoming more and more dated relativively to the PS3. Microsoft knows this. That's why they are planning the next Xbox already. You won't see Halo4 coming on the 360. They need it for the launch of the 720. So as a gamer looking to buy the PS3 or the 360 today, in my mind the PS3 is a far better choice. Momentum is too much on the PS3's side.

A lot of people here has much hope on Gears of War 2. The problem is Gears of War 2 won't have the advantages of Gears 1. Gears 1 enjoyed the status as the top game on the 360 that can match the PS3 in terms of graphics. It also enjoyed the innovated co-op and "cover" game play. Gears of War 2 won't be as innovative gameplay wise and will have to compete against the best PS3 games what will use most of the Blu-ray's diskspace and more of the Cell's CPU. DVD9 will limit how big Gears 2 will be and how different it ill be from Gears 1. The 360's less powerful CPU will also limit the number of players in a multiplayer game. To keep up and surpass with the graphical standards of Gears 1, Gears 2 will be small game retative to the major exclusives on the PS3. So I wouldn't put too much hope on Gears of War 2.

face it shianouk you have given no more reasons then any other unreasonable cow on this site, you've given no proof whatsoever to what is all opinion comming from a confirmed cow, you dont care about future proof you care about the system war, and you care about fanboyism, you dont like the 360 because its not the ps3.

I dont believe i've yet to see a ps3 game to match gears of war besides mgs4 uncharted just doesn't cut it when its obvious they replaced good AI with brain dead AI that hides behind 1 inch pipe railing while being shot, or runs towards you while you pop a cap in them so to say, its green leaves look plastic as hell as well as many other textures in the game look plastic as hell *just like PDZ*

[QUOTE="JiveT"]

This sets a new record for most wrong in a single OP.

Popadophalis

He's right about the graphics though as theres isn't a hell of alot more they can do. Even if the next-gen machines are capable of supporting a game like crysis, how many developers will be able to afford to develop a game with that level of graphical fidelity?

i dunno...i remember thinking that GFX would never surpass what square did with FFVII.

The OP is right. You can't go around releasing console after console. Microsoft can do one of two things:

1) Keep the 360 alive for as long as the PS3 stays popular, this will be 2011 and/or beyond. By doing this, by then the PS3 will have found its stride, its power will have been unlocked, its PS2 fans will have returned by the dozens of millions and devs will be fighting for a spot on it. Blu-Ray will be next to essential for the latest GTA's etc. Next to this, the 360 will look like a corpse, nobody will want to try developing for a console with no BD-Rom and no HDD as standard, especially when its locked in third place.

2) Release the successor to the 360. This is another bad move, as I said - you just can't release console after console. Releasing another console is basic admission that your previous effort simply *Couldn't get the job done*. It is NOT a good thing, it is NOT a show of strength, it is merely proving that Microsoft were forced to go back to the drawing board in the war against the PS3. Sega released consoles too often, look what happened there. Only a minority of 10-20 Million will buy the console each time, whereas with the PS3, the numbers will just rise and rise. Developers will go to the most stable system.

And no, these are not 'opinions', these are harsh facts. If they are 'opinions', then return with your own 'facts' to disprove what I have just said.

Not one of you has countered the OP.

The OP is right. You can't go around releasing console after console. Microsoft can do one of two things:

1) Keep the 360 alive for as long as the PS3 stays popular, this will be 2011 and/or beyond. By doing this, by then the PS3 will have found its stride, its power will have been unlocked, its PS2 fans will have returned by the dozens of millions and devs will be fighting for a spot on it. Blu-Ray will be next to essential for the latest GTA's etc. Next to this, the 360 will look like a corpse, nobody will want to try developing for a console with no BD-Rom and no HDD as standard, especially when its locked in third place.

2) Release the successor to the 360. This is another bad move, as I said - you just can't release console after console. Releasing another console is basic admission that your previous effort simply *Couldn't get the job done*. It is NOT a good thing, it is NOT a show of strength, it is merely proving that Microsoft were forced to go back to the drawing board in the war against the PS3. Sega released consoles too often, look what happened there. Only a minority of 10-20 Million will buy the console each time, whereas with the PS3, the numbers will just rise and rise. Developers will go to the most stable system.

And no, these are not 'opinions', these are harsh facts. If they are 'opinions', then return with your own 'facts' to disprove what I have just said.

Not one of you has countered the OP.

roadkill88

Opinions, and wrong ones at that, from your very first line....

[QUOTE="roadkill88"]

The OP is right. You can't go around releasing console after console. Microsoft can do one of two things:

1) Keep the 360 alive for as long as the PS3 stays popular, this will be 2011 and/or beyond. By doing this, by then the PS3 will have found its stride, its power will have been unlocked, its PS2 fans will have returned by the dozens of millions and devs will be fighting for a spot on it. Blu-Ray will be next to essential for the latest GTA's etc. Next to this, the 360 will look like a corpse, nobody will want to try developing for a console with no BD-Rom and no HDD as standard, especially when its locked in third place.

2) Release the successor to the 360. This is another bad move, as I said - you just can't release console after console. Releasing another console is basic admission that your previous effort simply *Couldn't get the job done*. It is NOT a good thing, it is NOT a show of strength, it is merely proving that Microsoft were forced to go back to the drawing board in the war against the PS3. Sega released consoles too often, look what happened there. Only a minority of 10-20 Million will buy the console each time, whereas with the PS3, the numbers will just rise and rise. Developers will go to the most stable system.

And no, these are not 'opinions', these are harsh facts. If they are 'opinions', then return with your own 'facts' to disprove what I have just said.

Not one of you has countered the OP.

gensigns

Opinions, and wrong ones at that, from your very first line....

Yet somehow you can't even begin to Counter them.

The OP is right. You can't go around releasing console after console. (Nintendo has released a new console every 4-6 years since 1984) Microsoft can do one of two things:

1) Keep the 360 alive for as long as the PS3 stays popular, this will be 2011 and/or beyond. By doing this, by then the PS3 will have found its stride, its power will have been unlocked, its PS2 fans will have returned by the dozens of millions and devs will be fighting for a spot on it. (Sorry, all PS2 fans are all now playing wii) Blu-Ray will be next to essential for the latest GTA's etc. Next to this, the 360 will look like a corpse, nobody will want to try developing for a console with no BD-Rom and no HDD as standard, especially when its locked in third place.

2) Release the successor to the 360. This is another bad move, as I said - you just can't release console after console. (again, of course you can, all video game manufacturers do this. stagnation=failure) Releasing another console is basic admission that your previous effort simply *Couldn't get the job done*. It is NOT a good thing, it is NOT a show of strength, it is merely proving that Microsoft were forced to go back to the drawing board in the war against the PS3. (you have no clue about sales or economics - all companies and products do this - why do you think vehicles get released every year) Sega released consoles too often, look what happened there. Only a minority of 10-20 Million will buy the console each time, whereas with the PS3, the numbers will just rise and rise. Developers will go to the most stable system. (of course sales go up each generation, not down. This applies to all systems)

And no, these are not 'opinions', these are harsh facts. If they are 'opinions', then return with your own 'facts' to disprove what I have just said.

Not one of you has countered the OP.

roadkill88

This sets a new record for most wrong in a single OP.

JiveT

It's called wishful thinking. He did it, but tried to justify it in terms of an "analysis."

Failed.

Sony already stated that there will be no more BC in any future Playstation product.

/Thread.

[QUOTE="JiveT"]

This sets a new record for most wrong in a single OP.

Popadophalis

He's right about the graphics though as theres isn't a hell of alot more they can do. Even if the next-gen machines are capable of supporting a game like crysis, how many developers will be able to afford to develop a game with that level of graphical fidelity?

plenty.

[QUOTE="Popadophalis"][QUOTE="JiveT"]

This sets a new record for most wrong in a single OP.

Sihanouk

He's right about the graphics though as theres isn't a hell of alot more they can do. Even if the next-gen machines are capable of supporting a game like crysis, how many developers will be able to afford to develop a game with that level of graphical fidelity?

Also, how much better will Crysis be relative to the PS3 games in 2010? Not much, if at all.

where did you purchase your time machine...i'd like to pick one up.

woo woogensigns