720 Rumoured Specs....

Riesen_Meal

http://kotaku.com/5982986/we-know-all-about-the-next-xbox-from-someone-who-says-theyve-got-one

Not really digging the mandatory Kinect part....

:-(

I will still wait until I see it with my own eyes, I may go back PC gaming sooner than I thought!

Richard Dower

^ lol...just came to post the same article :-)

I find it interesting both Sony and MS are bundling these cameras as standard, but imo I think we'll have two retail packages. Basic and premium, with the latter incl. the camera.

Not long to go until the Sony unveil...wonder how long MS will take?

hightower1

Worrying comments from Microsoft here:http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/11/microsoft-xbox-360-premium-content-plans-entertainment/[/COLOR]

Yusuf Mehdi, senior vice president of Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Business, just sat down alongside Nancy Tellem, Corporate Vice President at Microsoft LA Studios, to kick off this year's rendition of D:Dive Into Media here in Dana Point, Calif. The first session of the evening is being piloted by AllThingsD's Peter Kafka, and naturally, the topic of conversation is Xbox. For starters, Mehdi affirmed that Microsoft is witnessing an unmistakable transition of the Xbox 360 "from a gaming console to an entertainment console." At present, the install base is up to 76 million (up from around 70 million at the close of September 2012), with US-based users using the console for some 87 hours per month

In fact, he stated that 18 billion (yeah, with a "B") hours of entertainment have been consumed on Xbox, and while Netflix is obviously the driving force, it might not be that way for much longer. He was quick to claim that Sony's PlayStation 3 "isn't as good of an entertainment console" -- something he feels that "everybody knows" -- and insinuated that the next-generation Xbox will stick to "big and premium." In other words, don't expect Microsoft to kick out a $50 Roku-style content box. Mehdi wants to ensure that the future of Xbox enables voice control, interactivity, and "other stuff that's big and beautiful."

Kicking the conversation over to Tellem, she affirmed that Microsoft is going to invest in premium content -- and in fact, said that she "hopes" for some of it to actually hit end users this year. Not surprisingly, folks are going to be asked to pay for it, but she wasn't willing to talk specifics. Of course, existing Xbox Live users are technically already paying, so it's possible that this new wave of content will be bundled into that monthly cost. When asked if Microsoft was planning to fund its own shows (much like Amazon and Netflix are doing), she seemed open to the idea, but also noted that Microsoft will absolutely partner with existing studios and content creators in order to give them yet another outlet (read: not pay-TV) to get people hooked.

Finally, she noted that there's "more latitude" in what kinds of material they can produce given that console distribution isn't as regulated as traditional broadcast. And, while a good deal of it will aim to satisfy the 18-24 male demographic, we're told that womenfolk and families will be looked after, too. Oh, and as for these Microsoft-funded shows hitting other distribution outlets? According to Tellem, that's unlikely -- at least at first -- but a sizable enough check from the likes of Hulu, Amazon, Sony, etc. could very well change that. In response to a question from TechCrunch's Ryan Lawler, Tellem noted that Microsoft's desire to churn out original, interactive entertainment is a way to both "move consoles, create new relationships with consumers and to expand [Microsoft's] audience," and from a higher level, to create the next generation of TV and "have it be a hit."

So MS definitly sees the xbox as an entertainment console moving forward rather than a games console. My on personal opinion of MS and their treatment of the xbox over the last few years is that they certainly see it as an enertainment device and XBL as an entertanment service at the cost of great 1st party gaming content and services. Too much effort being detracted away from the consoles core function in order to make it an entertainment portal -read between the lines as "better revnue generating stream" -

TBH I have more than enough ways to get enertainment services these days be it through my TV provider, web, smartphone, smart tv, VOD.... but I only have one true games console and THAT is the strength xbox needs to be promoting but instead they are detracting from that core strength by divertng talent, time and funding away from attaracting 3rd party xbox exclusives, 1st party content and innovative core games centric experiences for chasing the bigger payday in casual titles and "entertainment" experiences.

As a core gamer its looking a lot like "jack of all trades but master of none" and I'll be paying close attention to what Sony has to say come Feb 20th.

I'm in the market for a games focused games console with a games foused company to back this up and whomever supplies that focus will be getting my cash.

Captain Chaos

Richard Dower wrote: »

Not long to go until the Sony unveil...wonder how long MS will take?

I reckon MS will wait for CES, doubt they could hold off till E3 once Sony show off the PS4 in a little over a weeks time.

If the whole thing about Kinect is true then I'm not buying MS's next gen console.

I don't think the PS4 is shipping with a camera eye toy thing.

calex71

For the love of ..... if I wanted a family orientated gimmick I'd get a wii.

How many great AAA Kinect games where the pre-orders even matched a B grade non-kinect title have there been ??????? Building it in isn't going to make it any more useful or make the games any better.

What annoys me most is if they do go that route, it will add to the cost of the xbox, a very unnecessary cost given it's something I will have no interest in or use for.

@hightower1 that post is very hard to read when using a dark theme on boards like I am

wnolan1992

calex71 wrote: »

For the love of ..... if I wanted a family orientated gimmick I'd get a wii.

How many great AAA Kinect games where the pre-orders even matched a B grade non-kinect title have there been ??????? Building it in isn't going to make it any more useful or make the games any better.

What annoys me most is if they do go that route, it will add to the cost of the xbox, a very unnecessary cost given it's something I will have no interest in or use for.

@hightower1 that post is very hard to read when using a dark theme on boards like I am

I dunno, I think building in a Kinect is kind of a cool idea. There have been games this generation that have utilised Kinect very well (Mass Effect, Dead Space, FIFA, even the upcoming Splinter Cell has cool elements involving it that are optional and don't detract from the overall game) and if done right it can add a nice feature to a game.

As long as the features don't force you to use Kinect, I think it's a positive. The fact that developers will know that everyone who has the 720 has a Kinect will mean they'll be more likely to come up with something that integrates it into the game. I'm not saying I'd use them, but as long as they're optional then I don't see the harm in including the Kinect in the console.

hightower1

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I dunno, I think building in a Kinect is kind of a cool idea. There have been games this generation that have utilised Kinect very well (Mass Effect, Dead Space, FIFA, even the upcoming Splinter Cell has cool elements involving it that are optional and don't detract from the overall game) and if done right it can add a nice feature to a game.

As long as the features don't force you to use Kinect, I think it's a positive. The fact that developers will know that everyone who has the 720 has a Kinect will mean they'll be more likely to come up with something that integrates it into the game. I'm not saying I'd use them, but as long as they're optional then I don't see the harm in including the Kinect in the console.

I bought Kinect day 1 as I wrongly thought it was a great concept and wanted to show suppot for innovation.... I have used kinect seriously and long term for a total .... 0 games. Its a gimmick and thats from a day 1 adopter.

Kinect as a fndimental part of the console embodies exactly what MS is doing wrong with their entire xbox stratgy in addressing core gamers.

I would much rather see ether the hardware price lower by removing Kinect OR hardware price remain level by removing kinect and adding better hardware specs such as memory to allow for more intelligent AI as example.

Thats not to say they are cutting corners with hardware but they are diverting overall rescources away from the core gaming experience that would be otherwise used to further that, instead we end up with lost potential and Kinect built in.

Les face it.... Kinect does not work. Anyone who has used it for any serious length of time can tell you the concept is meh (once you realise the effort needed is more than a controller you kinda dont wanna use it as much as ... a controller ) and the tech is too slow, too crude, requires too many things from the gamer like space etc. If they couldnt get the first version to work and couldnt think of anything attractive to gamers to do with it (both in house or attract 3rd party) then what possible reason do gamers have to belive that beefing it up will solve this?

A flawed item is not made less flawed by adding more power and is certainly not made less flawed by shoe horning it into a proven and competent one.

Captain Chaos

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I dunno, I think building in a Kinect is kind of a cool idea. There have been games this generation that have utilised Kinect very well (Mass Effect, Dead Space, FIFA, even the upcoming Splinter Cell has cool elements involving it that are optional and don't detract from the overall game) and if done right it can add a nice feature to a game.
.

The thing is those features in that list of games don't need Kinect to work. A standard head set with a mic can do those. I can think of 3 Xbox 1 games that used voice commands with the standard Live head set. Two were Rainbow 6 titles and one was a third person squad shooter.

They don't need a device like Kinect to have those features at all.

maximoose

Captain Chaos wrote: »

. I can think of 3 Xbox 1 games that used voice commands with the standard Live head set. Two were Rainbow 6 titles and one was a third person squad shooter.

Ah, many happy days spent shouting "OPEN, FLASH AND CLEAR" at the telly

I think that was the game that made me fall in love with XBL

MiCr0

one advantage on these being aimed at mass market is that they'll have to keep the cost low

Akrasia

Here's my 2 pence

1. It's far better to bundle the technology with the console than to go creating a 'two tier' console system where you are limited from playing certain games or using certain features just because you haven't got the peripheral required to play them.

That's fine on a PC where people have grown to expect constant upgrading and a non level playing field
The whole point of a console is that you should be able to buy the box, and buy the game and play it instantly against anyone else who has the same box and game.

2. When features are standard on the console, developers will be more motivated to use them and the more developers there are working on a platform, the better the quality of the output (there are synergie's where improvements in a game by one development team will inspire others to match and improve)

3. I love the idea of super gadgets that can do anything. I love my smart phone that is also a flashlight and a magnifying glass and a ruler and the whole internet all at once. I love the idea of the Xbox being an entertainment device because I know that if I buy this machine, It will be supported for at least the next decade with the latest and best advances in software and entertainment technology.
4. Having the multi-purpose capability on the xbox does not prevent it from also hosting hardcore serious games as long as there is a demand for these games they wil be developed for it.
Microsoft know that they will need to make a machine with specs capable of at the very least matching Sony's next gen console in order to retain their market share for the next gen market. It's still a games console.

5. I think there is still enormous potential in what a kinetic 2.0 style device can achieve. There are applications that we haven't even considered yet that could make the xbox an essential device not just for gaming, but web browsing, for design, content creation, medical diagnosis, education, sports training etc etc

hightower1

For me these days "better with Kinect" means I'll dust off Kinect and get all hopefull that "better with Kinect" is actually true.... thus far, thats a big fat no.

Mass effects voice commands were in accurate and poorly implimented, for example mid fight with kinect you can tell an ally perform a set task or power in reatime as opposed to using a bumper the open a radial wheel while stopping the gameplay, selecting the function then continuing.

Flaws with that are I actually preferred to stop the gameplay, review the enemies, review the tools at hand and order multiple actions at once then carry on the fight. It gave me time to choose the right commands and not just the ones I could remember and also multiple ones at once. Something Kinect couldnt do. It was also far far far more natural to use a button rather than a voice due to repetition. Far less energy and effort needed to hit a bumper.


Forzas showcase mode used it also and it was a glorified car model in a white box room! Again.... it was just far more convenient to use buttons rather than arm movements.

Kinect makes repeated actions less streamlined and requires more effort while not being as accurate as the method it attempts to replace.... I just cant fathom how they can look at that and still decide its a good thing to not only continue with but in fact make a fundimental part of the hardware?!!! :eek:

hightower1

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's my 2 pence

1. It's far better to bundle the technology with the console than to go creating a 'two tier' console system where you are limited from playing certain games or using certain features just because you haven't got the peripheral required to play them.

That's fine on a PC where people have grown to expect constant upgrading and a non level playing field
The whole point of a console is that you should be able to buy the box, and buy the game and play it instantly against anyone else who has the same box and game.

2. When features are standard on the console, developers will be more motivated to use them and the more developers there are working on a platform, the better the quality of the output (there are synergie's where improvements in a game by one development team will inspire others to match and improve)

3. I love the idea of super gadgets that can do anything. I love my smart phone that is also a flashlight and a magnifying glass and a ruler and the whole internet all at once. I love the idea of the Xbox being an entertainment device because I know that if I buy this machine, It will be supported for at least the next decade with the latest and best advances in software and entertainment technology.
4. Having the multi-purpose capability on the xbox does not prevent it from also hosting hardcore serious games as long as there is a demand for these games they wil be developed for it.
Microsoft know that they will need to make a machine with specs capable of at the very least matching Sony's next gen console in order to retain their market share for the next gen market. It's still a games console.

5. I think there is still enormous potential in what a kinetic 2.0 style device can achieve. There are applications that we haven't even considered yet that could make the xbox an essential device not just for gaming, but web browsing, for design, content creation, medical diagnosis, education, sports training etc etc

There was a great article on Lifehacker recently about smartphones and what they are generally NOT good at. Your example of multifunction gadgets is a very interesting one in comparison to how consoles are trying the same route.

http://lifehacker.com/5980738/top-10-things-your-smartphone-sucks-at-and-how-to-fix-them

The article basically explains that while a modern smartphone is good at being a camera, its good at being a browser and good at misc things ..... they all generally suck more these days than dumb phones in the core requirements for a phone like... making calls, durability etc.

The comparison can be made that as manufacturers seek larger profits they exapnd their focus to include things like app markets which while they provide a nice revenue stream for the manufacturer and an added feature for the consumer this classicly comes at the cost of compramising the core values of the base product as focus is now removed from the core function. The artical explains show this rings true to smartphones like you mentioned but IMO the same concept rings true for console manufacturers where their focus is pulled away from the core concept to include additional features which over time detract from the core in order to generate more money.

Fingleberries

Integrating Kinect, while superfluous, at least ensures that there is no fragmentation in the platform and developers can plan for users will have it (rather than wondering 'if' they will have it).

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/report-next-xbox-to-require-kinect-connection-game-installs/

I don't like the look of the Game Installs rumour that is doing the rounds now either. If the device ships with a 500GB HDD (some of which will likely be for the OS, which looks not to be as compact as the 360 OS) and the games come on 50GB BluRay discs, then you can have less than 10 games installed on the system at any one time.

Again - speculation until before E3 when MS lift the curtain and reveal their hand.

Myrddin

Fingleberries wrote: »

I don't like the look of the Game Installs rumour that is doing the rounds now either. If the device ships with a 500GB HDD (some of which will likely be for the OS, which looks not to be as compact as the 360 OS) and the games come on 50GB BluRay discs, then you can have less than 10 games installed on the system at any one time.

Not necessarily, the games don't normally take up the full size of the media & only do so through padding. Naughty Bear for example, is a 700MB game on a 9GB disc. Installs don't transfer the padding over to hdd, so if past trends continue...an install on the next Xbox won't take up 50GB {unless the game itself takes up 50GB}

Fingleberries

EnterNow wrote: »

Not necessarily, the games don't normally take up the full size of the media & only do so through padding. Naughty Bear for example, is a 700MB game on a 9GB disc. Installs don't transfer the padding over to hdd, so if past trends continue...an install on the next Xbox won't take up 50GB {unless the game itself takes up 50GB}

Fair point, I should rephrase that to users could potentially be limited to space for 10 games.

Riesen_Meal

I have a Kinect in the house myself and I only ever played that weird child of eden game, I think personally it is a bit of a gimmick but if the technology is tightened up a fair bit it may work well for certain sections of ¨traditional games¨

I tried the voice on Skyrim and it was not all that good from my experience...

Whilst the specs of the machine certainly sound impressive, not quite as impressive as I had hoped being honest - I still have to bear in mind that it is a console and not a pc I suppose, and hopefully will not be priced extortionately....

I think exclusives for both the Sony and MS platform may sway me to buy both machines eventually - I may hold fire on the next xbox this time around and not be a stung day one adopter like I was wth the old machine....

readyletsgo

So what do you all think of PS4 so far?
I kinda like the new DualShock4, looks bigger.

I do love my 360, but if all this Kinnect stuff is going to happen, i dont think I will be too interested anymore, will have to wait and see.

Will Microsoft do a Xbox 'Direct' before E3?

Captain Chaos

readyletsgo wrote: »

So what do you all think of PS4 so far?
I kinda like the new DualShock4, looks bigger.

I do love my 360, but if all this Kinnect stuff is going to happen, i dont think I will be too interested anymore, will have to wait and see.

Will Microsoft do a Xbox 'Direct' before E3?

Microsoft will announce the next Xbox in April. They would be mad to wait for E3 after looking at what Sony have with the PS4. Fun times ahead.

readyletsgo

Think it was said already but will MS get rid of the yearly charge? I feel its ridiculous to be charging to play online when you had to pay for the system itself at the time $300, then your internet provider every month and then another, albeit, small monthly or yearly payment, and in this country, with some people still having to use dial up or who have broadband but it drops out so much, not worth paying to just play a game online in my eyes. But still love my 360.

Do PS have a yearly charge?

Never had a PS3, always have a Ninty console (Wii, 3DS & WiiU) and this gen I had the 360 too.

But I do like the sound of the PS4 so far so.....

Captain Chaos

readyletsgo wrote: »

Do PS have a yearly charge?

But I do like the sound of the PS4 so far so.....

PSN is free. They did bring out a PSN+ service almost 2 years ago that is €50 per year. The amount of free games they give with that is great and are free for as long as you are a paid member. They have given Deus Ex, Sleeping Dogs for free for example. Next month they are giving Mass Effect 3 and the Metal Gear Solid HD collection for free too.

For the PS4 they have a PS World service. They didn't say if it will be free anymore or how much they will charge.

MS would want to stop messing around with Kinect and get back in the game. Sony have the big guns out for the PS4.

readyletsgo

Free games???? MG and ME? eh, sign me up! lol

Was playing with the idea of getting a PS3 a while back, very big back cat to go through. Must look into it again seeing as the backwards compatibility sounds a bit sketchy on the PS4 so far.

I'm getting very side tracked here now, sorry.

hightower1

I'm pretty impressed so far with Sony. The PS4 looks good but Sony really seems focused on the games and strong ties with developers rather than what I have seen out of Microsoft in the last 3 years.

They had 30 mins of "share" ****e and 10 mins of "move" ****e but the rest was showing technical muscle, first party games and 3rd party games. About 1/4 crap and 3/4s gaming goodness. As someone who wants games and only games that really impressed me.

I hope MS take heed and follow suit but I'm not gonna hold out hope. Based on the last few MS shows we have had 3/4s media / motion / social crap and 1/4 games.

COYVB

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Microsoft will announce the next Xbox in April. They would be mad to wait for E3 after looking at what Sony have with the PS4. Fun times ahead.

Might possibly be mid-late March from what I'm hearing. Nothing concrete though

corcaigh07

MS really have a massive chance to destroy the PS4 early doors. All they have to do is at least match the PS4 specs, promise that Xbox Live profiles and content carry over which Playstation look dodgy on and Backwards compatibility, real Backwards compatibility, not the emulated mess that the 360 has for the original xbox.

Do that and most Xbox 360 owners will at least seriously consider upgrading at some stage. PSN starting from scratch along with memories of bad security, too many slow updates, 3rd party ports usually better on Xbox, is really going to alienate a lot of potential buyers IF MS do this properly from the start.

Hell, if MS can just make a knockout 1 hour unveiling show rather than the bloated boring PS4 show, it's going to help a lot for early sales, preorders etc.

COYVB

would people ever give up with the backwards compatibility crap. it hamstrings the potential of any system to make hardware concessions in order to run older games. just keep your bloody xbox 360 for your xbox 360 games and worry about using your next gen console for next gen games

Varik

corcaigh07 wrote: »

All they have to do is at least match the PS4 specs, promise that Xbox Live profiles and content carry over which Playstation look dodgy on and Backwards compatibility, real Backwards compatibility, not the emulated mess that the 360 has for the original xbox.

If they need to do full hardware backwards compatibility then they won't do it, and if there's a choice between software emulation and hardware they'll choose emulation. It would greatly add to the cost and if they match the PS4 in hardware then they'll have to sell at a large loss per console to ensure they don't end up at a disadvantageous price point.

Considering how the profiles are now gone beyond the 360 to PC it's almost certain to happen, having the content play would be tricky if it doesn't have full BC with only some content being able to be run either natively or with emulation.

corcaigh07

I can understand the arguments against Backwards Compatibility but I want to keep the content I own digitally, hopefully at least the digital content carries over. I'm sure people with more XBLA content than me agrees.

If they go with emulated BC, I hope that they can integrate it a bit better than the 360 has for the Xbox. I still want to be able to stay on LIVE, chat on LIVE, earn achievements, play those games online etc.

COYVB

corcaigh07 wrote: »

I want to keep the content I own digitally, hopefully at least the digital content carries over. I'm sure people with more XBLA content than me agrees.

Nobody is taking it away from you. You bought it for Xbox 360, it'll still be available on Xbox 360. The next Xbox is a different console. Want to play Xbox 360 games? Play them on the Xbox 360

corcaigh07

Everything digital should carry over ala Wii to Wii U or DS to 3DS.

If MS ignore the good will they have built up with Xbox LIVE, I'm more likely to buy a PS4 or convert to PC. Simple as that for me and much of the market.

COYVB

corcaigh07 wrote: »

Everything digital should carry over ala Wii to Wii U or DS to 3DS.

If MS ignore the good will they have built up with Xbox LIVE, I'm more likely to buy a PS4 or convert to PC. Simple as that for me and much of the market.

Why should it carry over? Are you happy enough to buy a console that's hamstrung by the need to be backwards compatible? Because I'm certainly not.

I have an Xbox 360 and a PS3. If I want to play games for those systems, I'll play them on those systems, just like if I want to play games on SNES or MegaDrive I'll use those systems.

There's a trade off here, you get backwards compatibility, or you get new technology that's free of the shackles to run 7 year old games. That's the bottom line. Which do you want?

Oafley Jones

COYVB wrote: »

Why should it carry over? Are you happy enough to buy a console that's hamstrung by the need to be backwards compatible? Because I'm certainly not.

I have an Xbox 360 and a PS3. If I want to play games for those systems, I'll play them on those systems, just like if I want to play games on SNES or MegaDrive I'll use those systems.

There's a trade off here, you get backwards compatibility, or you get new technology that's free of the shackles to run 7 year old games. That's the bottom line. Which do you want?

Or you could just include a SOC that's basically the last device, such as sony did with the very first PS3s. Cost is the thing though, I'm sure both companies are far more price sensitive now.

COYVB

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Or you could just include a SOC that's basically the last device, such as sony did with the very first PS3s. Cost is the thing though, I'm sure both companies are far more price sensitive now.

It's added cost and it's making concessions. Neither of which are reasonable to be demanding from a hardware manufacturer.

Why is this a big thing anyway? Are people going to throw away their old 360s? It's not like they'll get more than a few quid trading them in or selling them at this stage, so I'd imagine the vast majority will be keeping them. That's why this whole BC thing baffles me so much

andymurphy93

COYVB wrote: »

It's added cost and it's making concessions. Neither of which are reasonable to be demanding from a hardware manufacturer.

Why is this a big thing anyway? Are people going to throw away their old 360s? It's not like they'll get more than a few quid trading them in or selling them at this stage, so I'd imagine the vast majority will be keeping them. That's why this whole BC thing baffles me so much

il be trading in my xbox for money towards a new console
probably only get 40quid for it at most but hay a little is alot in my book

Royal Irish

andymurphy93 wrote: »

il be trading in my xbox for money towards a new console
probably only get 40quid for it at most but hay a little is alot in my book

You'd be better off just putting away 91 cent every week between now and christmas so you will have your 40 quid towards a new xbox720.

COYVB

andymurphy93 wrote: »

il be trading in my xbox for money towards a new console
probably only get 40quid for it at most but hay a little is alot in my book

40 quid and no Xbox 360 games or save the 40 quid yourself and retain that functionality

corcaigh07

COYVB wrote: »

Why should it carry over? Are you happy enough to buy a console that's hamstrung by the need to be backwards compatible? Because I'm certainly not.

I have an Xbox 360 and a PS3. If I want to play games for those systems, I'll play them on those systems, just like if I want to play games on SNES or MegaDrive I'll use those systems.

There's a trade off here, you get backwards compatibility, or you get new technology that's free of the shackles to run 7 year old games. That's the bottom line. Which do you want?

shackles, lol, it's not like BC will hinder the console, it can be an additional feature. The only way it can hinder the new console is cost and we all know that if it doesn't make financial sense, it will be dropped.

I would prefer BC and more so, my digital content I've purchased already on LIVE, to carry over to a new console. If they do that, I'm more likely to continue my loyalty to Xbox and LIVE.

If they don't, I'm more likely to leave to Playstation or PC.

That's my bottom line.

COYVB

BC WILL hinder the console, that's the point. people seem to think it's something that they just enable by default or something

Kylo Ren

I can see why physical discs might pose a problem but surely the digital content could be transferred over?

It'd be nice to be able to play Minecraft, San Andreas etc on the new one.

Red Crow

I have no interest in BC. If I want to play Super Mario World ill take down the SNES. If I want to play Crash 1 ill take down the PS1, if I want to play Manhunt or GTA III ill take down the ps2 and similarly if I want to play Bioshock ill take down the 360.

San Andreas looked horrible on the 360 anyway.

Myrddin

Same here, absolutely no interest in backwards compatibility. If you wanna play 360 games, use your 360. Software BC/emulation is horrible anyway...& hardware BC as we seen with the NTSC PS3's, is expensive.

Varik

A game being bought on digitally does not make it any different to the retail disc version, if one can't run then they both can't run.

If there's no BC then MS could port or remake some content and have some means for users to upgrade either for free or at a cost (as they know who owns what) but just being digital does not mean it will run without a lot of work.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

A game being bought on digitally does not make it any different to the retail disc version, if one can't run then they both can't run.

If there's no BC then MS could port or remake some content and have some means for users to upgrade either for free or at a cost (as they know who owns what) but just being digital does not mean it will run without a lot of work.

Is this generation the first 'big' jump, where the old console could have a lot of digital content on it thas possibly unuseable on the successor console?

Tinie

I don't care for BC either tbh. I will just buy another new Xbox in a year or 2 when they are cheap, just so I can replay my big collection of xbox games in the future should I want too.

COYVB

EnterNow wrote: »

Is this generation the first 'big' jump, where the old console could have a lot of digital content on it thas possibly unuseable on the successor console?

it's the first generation where a console could hvae a lot of digital content full stop really

GTR63

Tinie wrote: »

I don't care for BC either tbh. I will just buy another new Xbox in a year or 2 when they are cheap, just so I can replay my big collection of xbox games in the future should I want too.

Its just a pity that in 10 years time when I want to replay Mass Effect 1 yet again the odds on an Xbox 360 working are far,far lower than that of a Snes or a Megadrive.

Tinie

GTR63 wrote: »

Its just a pity that in 10 years time when I want to replay Mass Effect 1 yet again the odds on an Xbox 360 working are far,far lower than that of a Snes or a Megadrive.

Well thats why im going to buy a brand new one, and keep my old many year old used one also, but never unbox the new one, unless the old one breaks. I'm sure they will be going for €99-150 new in a year or two.

But yeah, hopefully the 720 has better quality build and not as prone to failure as the 360 was. Microsoft will surely have learned their lesson from the RROD.

I hope the leave out the red lights after the xbox 360 3 red lights fiasco.

corcaigh07

COYVB wrote: »

BC WILL hinder the console, that's the point. people seem to think it's something that they just enable by default or something

how exactly did BC hinder the PS2 or DS, both of which were wildly successful? If MS can pull it off with minimal cost to the new machine, it will to be their benefit to do so sales-wise.

Do I have to pull up some of the comments from the PS4 thread? While excited about the new machine, some people are disappointed that their PSN content won't be carrying over. Go on, look.

COYVB

corcaigh07 wrote: »

how exactly did BC hinder the PS2 or DS, both of which were wildly successful? If MS can pull it off with minimal cost to the new machine, it will to be their benefit to do so sales-wise.

Do I have to pull up some of the comments from the PS4 thread? While excited about the new machine, some people are disappointed that their PSN content won't be carrying over. Go on, look.

It hindered what they could do in terms of new hardware. If you want to make a system backwards compatible via hardware, you have to make serious, serious concessions in what you are able to do on that front. What's the point in that? That essentially puts BC as the focal point of the system, rather than something that should only be added if it's not going to impact anything.

Going from Cell to the new system for the PS4 meant that BC wasn't an option. The same is likely with the hardware move on the next Xbox. Would you rather they put in the same architecture, but just bumped up specs, potentially restricting the shelf life of the system?

I'm well aware that people are disappointed, but they're ignorant to the fact of why it's not being done. They're assuming it's that Sony just doesn't want to do it, as opposed to the fact that Sony wants to deliver the best possible system, future proofed and ready to last as long as possible

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.