No new Xbox until 2015

Other Games
1

techradar.com/news/gaming/co … 015-697742

[quote]What you?ve seen is with this new sleek design and Kinect for Xbox 360 we?ve got at least another five years of this generation where we continue to offer great experiences for people.

We continue to attach more games than competitive platforms and we have the healthiest ecosystem with 25 million people connected through Xbox Live. So we are uniquely placed to continue to do really, really well in this business and enjoy ongoing momentum.[/quote]

It will be interesting to see if the other companies follow suit. I think Nintendo might release their next system (with HD graphics) earlier, but who knows?

2

Awesome news, since I’m new to the Xbox party.

It would be neat if Microsoft could add a “RAM booster” accessory of some sort, since that’s apparently the console’s only real flaw. And since the Saturn and N64 had things like that, I assume it’s possible?

Still, I can’t help but think the Kinect will not be as successful as Microsoft seems to think it will.

3

Personally, I’m not at all interested in buying a new system. I’m perfectly content with the three current gen consoles. Plus, with all the focus on DLC and Digital Distribution, I want these boxes to remain here as long as possible. If any new consoles don’t allow me to take all that stuff with me, I don’t see myself migrating to any new platforms anyway.

4

[quote=“Solo”]http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/xbox-360-lifecycle-to-run-to-2015-697742

[quote]What you?ve seen is with this new sleek design and Kinect for Xbox 360 we?ve got at least another five years of this generation where we continue to offer great experiences for people.

We continue to attach more games than competitive platforms and we have the healthiest ecosystem with 25 million people connected through Xbox Live. So we are uniquely placed to continue to do really, really well in this business and enjoy ongoing momentum.[/quote]

It will be interesting to see if the other companies follow suit. I think Nintendo might release their next system (with HD graphics) earlier, but who knows?[/quote]

I think that’s all PR rubbish . We’ll see a follow up to the 360 by 2012 or at the latest 2013 imo

5

If new consoles don’t come soon it’s because they think people won’t pay for them, and developers/publishers are also not keen on them given raising development costs and lowered sales. Not because Kinect has any hope of becoming such a success that it can stall the generation. But hey, the later the better in my opinion, it seems this generation took a while to kickstart and start getting killer apps and what not.

6

Kinect will flop on its arse . For sure with the current sate of the worlds economy it would be madness to launch a new console for the next gen systems .

But in 2 to 3 years time, it will be different and the 360 and PS3 tech really start to hold back developers , more so with each console very poor and small RAM limits . They’ll be desperate for better hardware in 2 to 3 years time, and so with Retail, and quite a lot of gamers

7

A RAM booster would actually be a horrible thing =\ Every game from that point on would need to be made to be able to accommodate both those with and without the booster, increasing development costs in an already cost-prohibitive development world. Nintendo was able to pull it off with their usual 1st party voodoo magic, but back then, dev costs were also significantly lower (by a factor of 10x).

The longer console life will allow 1st and 3rd parties a longer time to recoup on R&D and dev costs, so it will be a good thing. I just hope that the console don’t get too long in the tooth, causing people to move onto whatever the newest, hottest “thing” is.

8

[quote]Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject:
A RAM booster would actually be a horrible thing =\ Every game from that point on would need to be made to be able to accommodate both those with and without the booster, increasing development costs in an already cost-prohibitive development world. Nintendo was able to pull it off with their usual 1st party voodoo magic, but back then, dev costs were also significantly lower (by a factor of 10x[/quote]

How much does licensing free and the endless red tape that 3rd parties have to put with for console development contribute ?.
I’m only asking, because I see Direct X 11 PC games that need ridiculous amounts of RAM and Power to run on the the PC , costing around half the retail price of console games brand new .

9

I can’t give exact dollar amounts for 1st party licensing, but both console and PC development have their ups and downs - it just happens to be that console development has won out for many reasons.

With PC development, you have much more freedom and a wide open market. Problem is that, well, you have much more freedom and it’s a wide open market. The consumers are scattered all over the place and most people don’t actually know what they can or can’t play on their PC. Also, to play the latest and greatest games, it generally costs a lot of money to ensure that your computer is kept up to date. It also means that there are too many options (in terms of where to get content) on PC, so most people are paralyzed and go to the most highly advertised places like Pogo, etc.

With consoles, you have a much more focused market - everyone on a console is an “intender,” meaning that they purchase the console with the intent of buying games. It’s a focused demographic that is much easier to reach. In addition, the static platform means that your development effort is much easier, since you don’t need to worry about scalability and testing on endless permutations of hardware configurations. Also, if you have a AAA title, you will likely also benefit from cooperative marketing campaigns (i.e. $$$). But, it also means that you are beholden to the 1st party standards (which are good for consumers - they guarantee at least some consistency in interface and relatively low bug counts).

I’m interested to see where OnLive takes us. A couple of coworkers got into the early launch and were showing it to me. It’s not perfect by any means, but everyone should be paying very close attention to what they are doing. It feels, in a way, like the launch of Xbox Live. It didn’t do a whole lot at first, but once they figured out what they wanted to do with it, it became industry standard, to a degree. OnLive feels like that to the nth degree. If they can iron out the kinks (business model/consistent pricing structure, improved texture compression, interface, etc), it will be an amazing thing.

10

Yeah, it will be shame if Xbox Live Arcade titles don’t work on the next Xbox. But a large part of the games industry seems built around customers repurchasing the same games with additional features every few years, so I’m not optimistic.

I think that will depend where the money is. Casual gaming is huge business (Google recently invested millions in the Farmville developer), whereas expensive gaming hardware puts companies like Microsoft at a loss in that area. Sony have stated in the past that they designed the PS3 to last a ten year cycle.

Steam has sort of solved the problem of finding content, at least for core gamers. There’s still a lot of options other than Steam, but Valve’s service has become the defacto standard for purchasing PC games digitally. The Steam store lists the recommended specs for all games, many of which have demos so you can try before you buy to ensure compatibility.

I’m not really disagreeing your point… it’s still confusing for people who don’t know about Steam. But for developers looking for a solid way of distributing PC games, Steam seems like a solid bet.

I’m interested in where this could go as well. I think Internet connections will need to get a lot more stable for it to really take off, although that may be less of a problem in some countries.

11

Casual gaming is nothing new (SEGA used them to full effect with Sonic and the Mega Drive) , and yes while its Huge, they’re in a lot of cases the last to buy the Hardware .

Corps like MS and SONY said the PS2 and X-Box was made with a 10 year life cycle, but they still launched new Hardware long before that . Sure they may well support and keep on manufacture of the Hardware for over 10 years. But Seven years in, quite a lot of developers , retail and gamers will be ready for new hardware.

I just asked, because I see all console to PC ports being far cheaper, even though they’re using more impressive graphics and more memory. And games like Crisis that were developed for the PC and using insane spec, still only costing ?24 bard new, while console games cost double that

12

This was sort of my point. Why would Microsoft want users to buy new hardware, unless they’re going to make a profit from it? Better to capitalize on existing hardware by selling causal games that run on it. Software is where the money is, right?

By the way, when I said causal gaming I was referring to games like Wii Tennis. Sonic can be considered non-causal in some respects (e.g. challenging yourself to get all the emeralds), whereas Wii Tennis is built around motion controls for some fun sessions, but with very little depth. If there were more games like the Megadrive Sonic games coming out I’d welcome that form of causal gaming with open arms.

13

Its because the non casual gamer are the ones that go out and buy the games week in, week out , they;re the ones that really spend the money . Casual will only buy a handful of games each year .
Now in 2 to 3 years times, the more dedicated X-Box gamer will be looking for and ready for a follow up machine, so will developers . While MS can still sell the 360 to the casuals.

14

[quote=“Solo”]But for developers looking for a solid way of distributing PC games, Steam seems like a solid bet.
[/quote]

Indeed. This is exactly why Steam has been as successful as it is. Most brick and mortar stores have all but given up on PC games, so they don’t care about digital distribution, so Valve was smart and swooped in and set up a whole new ecosystem. It’s one of the few places where PC games are still successful and a lot of that, imo, is due to the flexibility publishers have in pricing.

That being said, on the complete opposite side, the iTunes Apps store is too free with its pricing, which has caused a race for the bottom due to the nature of the customers that frequent the store. They aren’t “educated” in terms of game or app quality and simply get what is most popular/convenient/cheapest. In addition, you have a lot of smallish publishers that have very little business acumen who have very little sense of how to build a sustainable market and instead, try to sell as many copies of their one app as possible (often by making it as cheap as possible).

But this also goes to show that yes, casual games are a big business, but they are in a very different market than core games. Not saying that they have no influence on each other, but the types of people who are buying casual games are looking simply for a quick distraction in the vein of Solitaire. Core consumers look to gaming as their primary or secondary hobby and are looking for premium content. (Again, there is a lot of overlap as well, as core gamers often look to casual games for their portable devices and whatnot as well… and that has the potential to lessen the number of dollars spent on core games, but how big that influence will be is yet to be seen.)

15

Since Apple is primarily a hardware company, I don’t suppose it matters much to them as to the price of the software. So long as the App Store is helping sell more iPhones, their goal is accomplished.

I actually have a few issues with Apple’s controlled approach to iOS (not Mac OS though, which is awesome in most respects) as the App Store is not always friendly towards developers. Apple’s recent ban of third party development tools for iOS apps is just one example.

That said, portable gaming on the DS and PSP is generally quite expensive, so as a consumer I welcome other options.

Causal gamers do play a lot though (even if they don’t buy many titles), which is a huge potential market. Consider Facebook games for example, the games themselves are free but supported with in game advertising. If play time can be turned into a revenue stream (like what Blizzard has done with WoW) there’s a lot of potential for money to be made with minimal development costs.

I see your point, I just wonder if there will be a large enough push for a new console (from both consumers and developers). The graphics on the 360 and PS3 are already quite nice, and even that latest PC games aren’t too much better looking at this stage, at least not in a way that will change how the game plays (e.g. Crysis 2). Hardcore gamers will upgrade their PC anyway, but will the difference matter for console gamers?

16

That’s not really great to a developer spending over $30 million on a game. The more dedicated gamer will go to the shops and buy a game (brand new) . That’s what makes developers money at the end of the day . It 's what helped the X-Box get decent support imo (even with lowish sales)
The X-Box had a lot of the more CORE gamer, ready to spend on games when they shipped.

I’m more than happy with my 360 and PS3 at the mo. But in 3 years time, it will really be old tech , and limits of Direct X9 and just tiny 512 MB of Ram were start to limit new game development .
And please lets not start to compare the PC gamer to the console gamer. They’re different , always has been, always will be. That’s why there’s a Huge market for both

17

[quote=“Team Andromeda”]That’s not really great to a developer spending over $30 million on a game. The more dedicated gamer will go to the shops and buy a game (brand new) . That’s what makes developers money at the end of the day . It 's what helped the X-Box get decent support imo (even with lowish sales)
The X-Box had a lot of the more CORE gamer, ready to spend on games when they shipped. [/quote]

There’s a lot of causal gamers, so even if they’re spending less each on games, there’s plenty of potential customers (of cheaper games). It remains to be seen how profitable causal games can be in comparison to the more serious games. With the success of the Wii, causal games on Facebook, etc, I can see why companies are putting so much emphasis on causal gaming (as opposed to expensive hardware).

18

[quote=“Solo”]

[quote=“Team Andromeda”]That’s not really great to a developer spending over $30 million on a game. The more dedicated gamer will go to the shops and buy a game (brand new) . That’s what makes developers money at the end of the day . It 's what helped the X-Box get decent support imo (even with lowish sales)
The X-Box had a lot of the more CORE gamer, ready to spend on games when they shipped. [/quote]

There’s a lot of causal gamers, so even if they’re spending less each on games, there’s plenty of potential customers (of cheaper games). It remains to be seen how profitable causal games can be in comparison to the more serious games. With the success of the Wii, causal games on Facebook, etc, I can see why companies are putting so much emphasis on causal gaming (as opposed to expensive hardware).[/quote]

Casual gaming on the Wii, Is great for NCL but a complete nightmare for most 3rd party developers . That’s why more 3rd parties back the 360 or PS3, and far more so, for the major productions . MS and SONY can milk the casuals for years to come on the 360 and PS3 (just like SONY is doing with the PS2) , bit the more dictated gamer , will be looking for a new console in a few years time

At the end of the day Retail and Hardware corps need the dedicated gamer. They are the ones that more often that not, that will buy new Hardware, and buy games new , at full price each month

You’ll be kidding your self , if MS or SONY aren’t working on very expensive hardware follow ups , right now
Most Corps through out the years have tried to appeal to the causals , after selling huge amounts for Hardware to the more dictated gamer (you’ve then got to appeal to the floating gamer , for even more sales of hardware) . How much did SEGA its self waste on items like the 32X, Activator, Mega CD, 3D Glasses all in an effort to appeal to more potential gamers and pre-long the system life span

They’ll always come a time for new upgrades and boost for power . Just like the I-Phone , and I bet in 2 to 3 years into the Future , The current I-Pad will look old spec, to the one Apple would have out by then

19

Too much speculation passed as fact here, that is all :wink:

20

[quote=“Team Andromeda”]Casual gaming on the Wii, Is great for NCL but a complete nightmare for most 3rd party developers . That’s why more 3rd parties back the 360 or PS3, and far more so, for the major productions . MS and SONY can milk the casuals for years to come on the 360 and PS3 (just like SONY is doing with the PS2) , bit the more dictated gamer , will be looking for a new console in a few years time

At the end of the day Retail and Hardware corps need the dedicated gamer. They are the ones that more often that not, that will buy new Hardware, and buy games new , at full price each month[/quote]

I’m not so much saying that they’ll stop making games for the dedicated gamer altogether, just that these games won’t require new hardware for a while (if indeed the next Xbox is another five years away). If Sony and Microsoft both decide to wait until 2015 to release their new systems, there will be no competition forcing the other to release a newer system earlier. As you mentioned before, the PC is a different market, so increasing power of PC hardware is unlikely to force an earlier release of the PS4/Xbox3.

That’s a good point. I think the difference here is that Apple is mainly a hardware company, while Microsoft is a software company (primarily).