the 360 is or isn't maxed out?

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

-GhostMLD-

who said ms had to follow this standard they can't think out the box.

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

jessie5788

who said ms had to follow this standard they can't think out the box.

xbox had a 4 year cycle.

Id say doing a 5 year cycle is thinking out of the box, the XBOX that is (pun).

None of them are.

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

-GhostMLD-

NES: July 15, 1983

SNES: November 21, 1991

N64: June 23, 1996

GC: September 14, 2001

OR

PS1: December 3rd, 1994

PS2: March 4, 2000

lolwut?

It's Xbox that is forcing this industry standard, not the past.

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

jessie5788

who said ms had to follow this standard they can't think out the box.

The problem with following a different timeline is you have competition. If you release to too late, the next generation begins without you and you're left with a late start.

None of them are.

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

thrones

NES: July 15, 1983

SNES: November 21, 1991

N64: June 23, 1996

GC: September 14, 2001

OR

PS1: December 3rd, 1994

PS2: March 4, 2000

lolwut?

It's Xbox that is forcing this industry standard, not the past.

the majority of industry experts say the AVERAGE cycle is 5 years. That is what I was going on.

[QUOTE="thrones"]

None of them are.

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

-GhostMLD-

NES: July 15, 1983

SNES: November 21, 1991

N64: June 23, 1996

GC: September 14, 2001

OR

PS1: December 3rd, 1994

PS2: March 4, 2000

lolwut?

It's Xbox that is forcing this industry standard, not the past.

the majority of industry experts say the AVERAGE cycle is 5 years. That is what I was going on.

It sometimes varies by a year (PS2, XBOX), but companies in the currently very competitive console market tend to stick to a 5 year cycle.

The 360 has been maxed out already by many developers. Games like Mass Effect, Gears of War (1 and 2), Call of Duty 4 and GTA IV are the best graphics you'll see on a 360. Even still, some of those said games have framerate problems as well.-Jiggles-

Sorry, I don't believe the 360 is maxed out. I just think developers haven't figured out every graphical trick in the book yet. Super Nintendo was supposedly maxed out...and then came Donkey Kong Country. In 2000, developers would have laughed if someone said that God of War 2 on PS2 was possible.

your argument is based on a rumor...killtactics

yeah but lets say the rumor is true or has some truth to it. and i'm wondering why lems are saying one thing while saying another.

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

blackice1983

Ah, the logical arguement, always present.

And why is MGS4 576p exactly, when MGO is 655p. Both have the exact same source, and the 576p is based off early trailers :|

[QUOTE="killtactics"]your argument is based on a rumor...jessie5788

yeah but lets say the rumor is true or has some truth to it. and i'm wondering why lems are saying one thing while saying another.

I would believe that rumor. It follows the typical life cycle. It should surprise no one as it's entirely plausible.

[QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

thrones

Ah, the logical arguement, always present.

And why is MGS4 576p exactly, when MGO is 655p. Both have the exact same source, and the 576p is based off early trailers :|

if thats the case i expect it to look worse then seeing how the game looks worse everytime i see it

all the systems are maxed out already

Wii-SMG

360-Gears

PS3- MGS 4

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

blackice1983

Now this right here is even funnier....

" For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud. "

[QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

sakura_Ex

Now this right here is even funnier http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p5.html

what am i looking for

[QUOTE="sakura_Ex"][QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

blackice1983

Now this right here is even funnier http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/869/869381p5.html

what am i looking for

At the bottom, read it you silly Sheep.

None of them are.

[QUOTE="-GhostMLD-"]

why replace it in 2010???

Its called the 5-year industry standard. New consoles are generally released in a 5 year cycle.

Did u live in a cave since the NES days cause thats what has been going on for all this time.

thrones

NES: July 15, 1983

SNES: November 21, 1991

N64: June 23, 1996

GC: September 14, 2001

OR

PS1: December 3rd, 1994

PS2: March 4, 2000

lolwut?

It's Xbox that is forcing this industry standard, not the past.

Kinda seems that MS is trying to run other companies out of business this way. Let's say that the next X-box will be released in 2010. What would that mean for Sony and PS3? First, the marketing will probably be messed up, MS will sell their next console around the same price ($400-500) but with much better hardware. What kind of effect will multiplatform developers get from this - good or bad? They would have to do the same kind of optimization like games that Wii and PS3/X-box 360 share at the moment.

I really doubt that Sony would be planning to release their console in 2010, maybe in 2012 because so much money went into developing Cell and they wouldn't want to give up so soon.

[QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

sakura_Ex

Now this right here is even funnier....

" For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud. "

so a console that came out a year later and at a higher price point has a multi-plat game that looks slightly better on it. bravo cows

It doesn't matter if ANY console doesn't get maxed after just 5 years or so. There is STILL a place for newer technology to enter the market, and 5-6 years is th standard. Sorry if you don't like that Jesse, but many people don't pick up the newest model as soon as it's released, keeping to their current one for another couple of years, and you can too.

Don't like the 5 year cycle? Too bad, it doesn't revolve around your preferences.

Oh and PS2 was still released while PS1 wasn't maxed out (5 years after PS1). PS3 was released while PS2 wasn't maxed out (God of War had come out just the year before, and PS3 releasing 6 years after PS2). You think PS4 won't be out by 2011-2012 while PS3 still has so much potential to explore?

So WHY do you make it out like it's a crime for MS to release a new console 5 years after X360 when it DOES still have graphical potential? Why not cry about Sony releasing PS4 only 6 years after PS3? Double Standard much?

[QUOTE="sakura_Ex"][QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

blackice1983

Now this right here is even funnier....

" For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud. "

so a console that came out a year later and at a higher price point has a multi-plat game that looks slightly better on it. bravo cows

Now all of a sudden it's not a big deal but if the slight edge was on the 360 you would be doing a victory dance right now.

[QUOTE="blackice1983"][QUOTE="sakura_Ex"][QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

sakura_Ex

Now this right here is even funnier....

" For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud. "

so a console that came out a year later and at a higher price point has a multi-plat game that looks slightly better on it. bravo cows

Now all of a sudden it's not a big deal but if the slight edge was on the 360 you would be doing a victory dance right now.

i could care less

[QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

sakura_Ex

Now this right here is even funnier....

" For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud. "

http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/devil-may-cry-4/814902p1.html

this is even funnier 8) :P

if the 360 isn't even close to being maxed out why replace it in 2-3 years. now i said that the 360 could do more than 1 gta. i'm not talking about the exclusive content i'm talking about a full game with 100+hours. and 2 more halos etc. i said this in a previous thread and lems flamed me. but when someone said the 360 is in trouble you lems turned around and said the 360 isn't close to be maxed. so like i stated why replace it 2010. and don't say because it'll hit 5 years. this gen is not like the others not even close. no company follows some timeline.jessie5788

Because, when it's time to move on, you do... I can afford buying a console every five years and i'm really not rich, so I assume everyone can, and why not getting better hardware...

the truth is maybe ms should off mad the 360 more future proof. now i doubt nintendo or sony will follow ms in there suside. starting over every 5 years isn't cool. i feel sorry for owners who bought a console in the 3 or 4 year.jessie5788

no such thing

It doesn't matter if ANY console doesn't get maxed after just 5 years or so. There is STILL a place for newer technology to enter the market, and 5-6 years is th standard. Sorry if you don't like that Jesse, but many people don't pick up the newest model as soon as it's released, keeping to their current one for another couple of years, and you can too.

Don't like the 5 year cycle? Too bad, it doesn't revolve around your preferences.

Oh and PS2 was still released while PS1 wasn't maxed out (5 years after PS1). PS3 was released while PS2 wasn't maxed out (God of War had come out just the year before, and PS3 releasing 6 years after PS2). You think PS4 won't be out by 2011-2012 while PS3 still has so much potential to explore?

So WHY do you make it out like it's a crime for MS to release a new console 5 years after X360 when it DOES still have graphical potential? Why not cry about Sony releasing PS4 only 6 years after PS3? Double Standard much?

AdobeArtist

this isn't like buying a tv or an ipod. this is a console. something you drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars on. if this were to be the standard no one will play games and the industry will go down the drain. i know if i bought a 360 in it 4 year and find out its going to be replaced then i would sell it. no use in wasting money. you should look at the post on page one. it show that console aren't replaced in 5 years and its clear that ms is trying to make it standard.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It doesn't matter if ANY console doesn't get maxed after just 5 years or so. There is STILL a place for newer technology to enter the market, and 5-6 years is th standard. Sorry if you don't like that Jesse, but many people don't pick up the newest model as soon as it's released, keeping to their current one for another couple of years, and you can too.

Don't like the 5 year cycle? Too bad, it doesn't revolve around your preferences.

Oh and PS2 was still released while PS1 wasn't maxed out (5 years after PS1). PS3 was released while PS2 wasn't maxed out (God of War had come out just the year before, and PS3 releasing 6 years after PS2). You think PS4 won't be out by 2011-2012 while PS3 still has so much potential to explore?

So WHY do you make it out like it's a crime for MS to release a new console 5 years after X360 when it DOES still have graphical potential? Why not cry about Sony releasing PS4 only 6 years after PS3? Double Standard much?

jessie5788

this isn't like buying a tv or an ipod. this is a console. something you drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars on. if this were to be the standard no one will play games and the industry will go down the drain. i know if i bought a 360 in it 4 year and find out its going to be replaced then i would sell it. no use in wasting money. you should look at the post on page one. it show that console aren't replaced in 5 years and its clear that ms is trying to make it standard.

it would be sub-$200 by then. thinking electronics wont change and move on for the better perhaps you should stay out of the tech indusrty if things are getting to expensive for you

[QUOTE="jessie5788"]if the 360 isn't even close to being maxed out why replace it in 2-3 years. now i said that the 360 could do more than 1 gta. i'm not talking about the exclusive content i'm talking about a full game with 100+hours. and 2 more halos etc. i said this in a previous thread and lems flamed me. but when someone said the 360 is in trouble you lems turned around and said the 360 isn't close to be maxed. so like i stated why replace it 2010. and don't say because it'll hit 5 years. this gen is not like the others not even close. no company follows some timeline.usule

Because, when it's time to move on, you do... I can afford buying a console every five years and i'm really not rich, so I assume everyone can, and why not getting better hardware...

ok so you spent 400 for your console right. plus 60 per game. then 2 years from now you'll do it again. but this time it will be much higher. now what of an casual gamer who buys the 360 now. . casuals don't like wasting money and they want the best value so. if their hardware will be replaced in 2 years they'll be pretty unhappy. and may not deal with ms anymore. this isn't looking good. i'm not poor and i'm not super rich but i do like saving money and getting the best value.

[QUOTE="usule"]

[QUOTE="jessie5788"]if the 360 isn't even close to being maxed out why replace it in 2-3 years. now i said that the 360 could do more than 1 gta. i'm not talking about the exclusive content i'm talking about a full game with 100+hours. and 2 more halos etc. i said this in a previous thread and lems flamed me. but when someone said the 360 is in trouble you lems turned around and said the 360 isn't close to be maxed. so like i stated why replace it 2010. and don't say because it'll hit 5 years. this gen is not like the others not even close. no company follows some timeline.jessie5788

Because, when it's time to move on, you do... I can afford buying a console every five years and i'm really not rich, so I assume everyone can, and why not getting better hardware...

ok so you spent 400 for your console right. plus 60 per game. then 2 years from now you'll do it again. but this time it will be much higher. now what of an casual gamer who buys the 360 now. . casuals don't like wasting money and they want the best value so. if their hardware will be replaced in 2 years they'll be pretty unhappy. and may not deal with ms anymore. this isn't looking good. i'm not poor and i'm not super rich but i do like saving money and getting the best value.

What rules claims that you must grab the best thing possible hardware wise at this very second, of every second? The point being is Xbox360 for instance has plenty of games that been released that a new buyer mos tlikely NEVER played.. So they would be brand new to the person..

[QUOTE="jessie5788"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It doesn't matter if ANY console doesn't get maxed after just 5 years or so. There is STILL a place for newer technology to enter the market, and 5-6 years is th standard. Sorry if you don't like that Jesse, but many people don't pick up the newest model as soon as it's released, keeping to their current one for another couple of years, and you can too.

Don't like the 5 year cycle? Too bad, it doesn't revolve around your preferences.

Oh and PS2 was still released while PS1 wasn't maxed out (5 years after PS1). PS3 was released while PS2 wasn't maxed out (God of War had come out just the year before, and PS3 releasing 6 years after PS2). You think PS4 won't be out by 2011-2012 while PS3 still has so much potential to explore?

So WHY do you make it out like it's a crime for MS to release a new console 5 years after X360 when it DOES still have graphical potential? Why not cry about Sony releasing PS4 only 6 years after PS3? Double Standard much?

blackice1983

this isn't like buying a tv or an ipod. this is a console. something you drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars on. if this were to be the standard no one will play games and the industry will go down the drain. i know if i bought a 360 in it 4 year and find out its going to be replaced then i would sell it. no use in wasting money. you should look at the post on page one. it show that console aren't replaced in 5 years and its clear that ms is trying to make it standard.

it would be sub-$200 by then. thinking electronics wont change perhaps you should stay out of the tech indusrty if things are getting to expensiv for you

the 360 4th year is next year. and it won't be at 200. not even the arcade. maybe 250. and i never complained about the ps3 being 600. i was going to buy it for 600 until i it went down in price and i was able to get it for 350. don't get personal you don't even know me.

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="blackice1983"]

no its not but the ps3 is

576P. the ps3 is king of the hd consoles

blackice1983

Ah, the logical arguement, always present.

And why is MGS4 576p exactly, when MGO is 655p. Both have the exact same source, and the 576p is based off early trailers :|

if thats the case i expect it to look worse then seeing how the game looks worse everytime i see it

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It doesn't matter if ANY console doesn't get maxed after just 5 years or so. There is STILL a place for newer technology to enter the market, and 5-6 years is th standard. Sorry if you don't like that Jesse, but many people don't pick up the newest model as soon as it's released, keeping to their current one for another couple of years, and you can too.

Don't like the 5 year cycle? Too bad, it doesn't revolve around your preferences.

Oh and PS2 was still released while PS1 wasn't maxed out (5 years after PS1). PS3 was released while PS2 wasn't maxed out (God of War had come out just the year before, and PS3 releasing 6 years after PS2). You think PS4 won't be out by 2011-2012 while PS3 still has so much potential to explore?

So WHY do you make it out like it's a crime for MS to release a new console 5 years after X360 when it DOES still have graphical potential? Why not cry about Sony releasing PS4 only 6 years after PS3? Double Standard much?

jessie5788

this isn't like buying a tv or an ipod. this is a console. something you drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars on. if this were to be the standard no one will play games and the industry will go down the drain. i know if i bought a 360 in it 4 year and find out its going to be replaced then i would sell it. no use in wasting money. you should look at the post on page one. it show that console aren't replaced in 5 years and its clear that ms is trying to make it standard.

Well, historicaly, consoles have been released every 5 years since the NES. Look at the release dates.

NES - 1985

SNES - 1990

PS1 - 1995

Xbox - 2001, PS2 - 2000

Xbox 360 - 2005, PS3 - 2006

The industry standard has been 5 year. PS1 - PS2 was 5 years. PS2 - PS3 was 6 years. Xbox - Xbox 360 was only 4 years.

I think it's worth noting that just because a new consoles comes out, doesn't necissarily mean the old one is dead yet. It took PS1 a LONG time to die after PS2 came out. PS2s are still being sold new at major retailers. Seriously, kill it already!

So far, I think Sony is the only one to keep a console alive after the release of their previous platform but Microsoft and Nintendo will hopefuly fallow suit especialy if Microsoft wants to make the standard every 4 years.

the 360 4th year is next year. and it won't be at 200. not even the arcade. maybe 250. and i never complained about the ps3 being 600. i was going to buy it for 600 until i it went down in price and i was able to get it for 350. don't get personal you don't even know me.

jessie5788

It is still a year and a half until the 360 reaches its fourth year, therefore you have no way of knowing what price it will be. So please, stop spewing this nonsense.

Also, for the sake of this whole message board, please PLEASE read what you type....

No, the 360 is not maxed out. No console has ever been maxed this early into its lifecycle, if at all. There have been no reports of the 360 being fully tapped out and to say it is, especially since the odds are you aren't a developer and have never used an Xbox 360 development kit.

if the 360 isn't even close to being maxed out why replace it in 2-3 years. now i said that the 360 could do more than 1 gta. i'm not talking about the exclusive content i'm talking about a full game with 100+hours. and 2 more halos etc. i said this in a previous thread and lems flamed me. but when someone said the 360 is in trouble you lems turned around and said the 360 isn't close to be maxed. so like i stated why replace it 2010. and don't say because it'll hit 5 years. this gen is not like the others not even close. no company follows some timeline.jessie5788

One: if it is not maxed out now it certaily will be in 2 years

Two: even if it is not maxed out by then games will still look like crap, the Sega Staurn was probably never maxed out, should Sega still be supporting it?

Three: Five years is the industry average

Four: And probably the biggest reason, MS would dearly love to have another year head start.

[QUOTE="jessie5788"]

the 360 4th year is next year. and it won't be at 200. not even the arcade. maybe 250. and i never complained about the ps3 being 600. i was going to buy it for 600 until i it went down in price and i was able to get it for 350. don't get personal you don't even know me.

YesIKnowMyEnemy

It is still a year and a half until the 360 reaches its fourth year, therefore you have no way of knowing what price it will be. So please, stop spewing this nonsense.

Also, for the sake of this whole message board, please PLEASE read what you type....

nov05- nov06 is one

nov06-07 is two

nov 07-08 is three

nov. 08-09 is its 4th year.

what do i need to read over. the way that ms has been price cutting the it will take a while for it to be 200.

[QUOTE="jessie5788"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

It doesn't matter if ANY console doesn't get maxed after just 5 years or so. There is STILL a place for newer technology to enter the market, and 5-6 years is th standard. Sorry if you don't like that Jesse, but many people don't pick up the newest model as soon as it's released, keeping to their current one for another couple of years, and you can too.

Don't like the 5 year cycle? Too bad, it doesn't revolve around your preferences.

Oh and PS2 was still released while PS1 wasn't maxed out (5 years after PS1). PS3 was released while PS2 wasn't maxed out (God of War had come out just the year before, and PS3 releasing 6 years after PS2). You think PS4 won't be out by 2011-2012 while PS3 still has so much potential to explore?

So WHY do you make it out like it's a crime for MS to release a new console 5 years after X360 when it DOES still have graphical potential? Why not cry about Sony releasing PS4 only 6 years after PS3? Double Standard much?

trakem

this isn't like buying a tv or an ipod. this is a console. something you drop hundreds and hundreds of dollars on. if this were to be the standard no one will play games and the industry will go down the drain. i know if i bought a 360 in it 4 year and find out its going to be replaced then i would sell it. no use in wasting money. you should look at the post on page one. it show that console aren't replaced in 5 years and its clear that ms is trying to make it standard.

Well, historicaly, consoles have been released every 5 years since the NES. Look at the release dates.

NES - 1985

SNES - 1990

PS1 - 1995

Xbox - 2001, PS2 - 2000

Xbox 360 - 2005, PS3 - 2006

The industry standard has been 5 year. PS1 - PS2 was 5 years. PS2 - PS3 was 6 years. Xbox - Xbox 360 was only 4 years.

I think it's worth noting that just because a new consoles comes out, doesn't necissarily mean the old one is dead yet. It took PS1 a LONG time to die after PS2 came out. PS2s are still being sold new at major retailers. Seriously, kill it already!

So far, I think Sony is the only one to keep a console alive after the release of their previous platform but Microsoft and Nintendo will hopefuly fallow suit especialy if Microsoft wants to make the standard every 4 years.

Trakem's post is completely accurate. So now I just ask you jessie.... did you only NOW enter the gaming hobby this very year? You clearly have NO clue what you're talking about. The 5 year cycle is NOT a MS standard, it's been the INDUSTRY standard since 1985. Try to get that through your head... the 5 year cycle has been the industry standard since the rebirth of the industry in 1985, after the Crash of '83.

TVs are kept for much longer because visual standards haven't changed much in 60 years. Yes they got cripser and sharper, but for the most part have already been as realistic as you can get. Video graphics still have a ways to go to approach that level of realism, thus the continusous development in chipset technology, which is the root of that 5 year cycle. The only other reason people had to get newer TVs was for bigger screen sizes, but not required to watch their favorite TV shows, unlike consoles which require the newer models that are the only ones cpable of playing newer and better games. It's only recently with the advent of HDTVs (again, 60 years later) with higher resolutions that people choose to upgrade to see HD content. Again, most people are fine with standard definition for TV shows.

Oh and your iPod example? Are you serious??? :lol::lol::lol::lol: You think console cycles are bad, do you realize HOW often Apple releases new iterations of the iPod?? There have been like 10 models in 7 years - from simple iterations of HDD sizes, to new formats like the Mini, Nano, Video, Shuffle, to theiPhone (which IS an iPod).

"if this were to be the standard no one will play games and the industry will go down the drain." Did you learn NOTHING from what EVERYBODY has been saying already?? This HAS BEEN THE INDUSTRY STANDARD SINCE THE BEGINNING. And guess what, People STILL DO and STILL will be playing games as each new generation releases.

I will emphasise again, you have NO clue what you are talking about Jessie, and should just quite while you're ahead to save yourself from any further self-ownage.

[QUOTE="jessie5788"]if the 360 isn't even close to being maxed out why replace it in 2-3 years. now i said that the 360 could do more than 1 gta. i'm not talking about the exclusive content i'm talking about a full game with 100+hours. and 2 more halos etc. i said this in a previous thread and lems flamed me. but when someone said the 360 is in trouble you lems turned around and said the 360 isn't close to be maxed. so like i stated why replace it 2010. and don't say because it'll hit 5 years. this gen is not like the others not even close. no company follows some timeline.TOAO_Cyrus1

One: if it is not maxed out now it certaily will be in 2 years

Two: even if it is not maxed out by then games will still look like crap, the Sega Staurn was probably never maxed out, should Sega still be supporting it?

Three: Five years is the industry average

Four: And probably the biggest reason, MS would dearly love to have another year head start.

the head start didn't even matter the wii zoomed past it. the ps3 is bound to past in 2009. the point is ms can have a headstart but without world wide support its headstart won't even matter.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]

[QUOTE="jessie5788"]if the 360 isn't even close to being maxed out why replace it in 2-3 years. now i said that the 360 could do more than 1 gta. i'm not talking about the exclusive content i'm talking about a full game with 100+hours. and 2 more halos etc. i said this in a previous thread and lems flamed me. but when someone said the 360 is in trouble you lems turned around and said the 360 isn't close to be maxed. so like i stated why replace it 2010. and don't say because it'll hit 5 years. this gen is not like the others not even close. no company follows some timeline.jessie5788

One: if it is not maxed out now it certaily will be in 2 years

Two: even if it is not maxed out by then games will still look like crap, the Sega Staurn was probably never maxed out, should Sega still be supporting it?

Three: Five years is the industry average

Four: And probably the biggest reason, MS would dearly love to have another year head start.

the head start didn't even matter the wii zoomed past it. the ps3 is bound to past in 2009. the point is ms can have a headstart but without world wide support its headstart won't even matter.