The Xbox 720

[Frostwhisper21]

So now Microsoft will be releasing consoles like they release their OS- every other one sucks.

I should go preorder my Xbox 1080 now.


No offense to console lovers but the reason I enjoy them is because while the quality is usually slightly inferior (well, for sure when PC gaming was a big thing a few years ago, I suppose) I don't have to worry about any problems in playing the game-they're simple to use. Even when I had a computer that could play Crysis just fine on max settings (when this used to be the benchmark, heh) i still had crashes more often than on consoles...

In addition, this seems expensive. And like work. I don't think any of us even like putting in the 20 digit online codes/dlc codes, let alone modding.

Finally, the 360 has what, one or two worthy console-exclusive properties (per person-i'll account for taste)? I can live without them if it means avoiding the hassle of PC gaming again. Yes it was a hassle for me, I don't like work mixing with my hobbies.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

I'm on the fence with this. It would stop the need to revamp the hardware entirely when it get's to old to develop anything worthwhile on (where we are now)

but

As soon as you add upgradable hardware to the mix, you throw all of that out of the window, and there goes most of your 'stability'.

This. It kind of defeats the purpose of a console in the first place.


Rock - PC/Console gamers - Hard place

 

[omicron1]

"One can keep a PC for massively multiplayer online role playing games and real-time strategy games, i.e. the experiences that demand a keyboard and mouse setup for governing complicated control schemes, and run everything else on a console for ease and convenience."

...OR one can keep a console for the rare good exclusive title and a PC for everything else. Y'know, unless you hate lower prices, modding, better graphics, pinpoint precision, and the ability to bust out a controller when you really need one...

More on topic: I'd almost expect something like this to happen - have a "core" of the console that fits in the "base" and provides the ability to upgrade the power of the system in an all-in-one package for lower prices (say, $150-$200) over time (Every two years, to prevent buyer's fatigue). Offer your users assurance that the next core will run all previous cores' games, and allow developers to cater to either the current core, the next core, or multiples by way of auto-detecting detail settings. A linear progression with just one set path to follow would remove the problem of system variance while maintaining the "upgrade quality over time" core concept.

What wouldn't work at all is your plan of basically turning the console into a PC. After all, if you're just buying jacked-up-price components to stick in your closed system, you might as well be trying to upgrade an iMac.


So this is what I say: If a system can promise me full utility - for both games and other purposes (development, random programs, indie software) without Microsoft or Sony coming and demanding the lion's share of every pie, that system holds potential. This is the true power of the PC: Anyone can make a game and sell it, or give it away. Anyone can make a tool, and change the function of the system itself. Consoles simply cannot compete, and no amount of upgradable components or Windows compatibility (Why do I suspect that this "compatibility" will only go one way?) will change that.

 

[Jdrm03]

Firstly, I've been playing on consoles since the Atari 2600 also. This generation is done hardware wise...When you have to sacrifice one party of a game in order to get something done, the hardware is maxed out.....seems like resolution has been the sacrifice in a lot of games this gen.

Next, while I understand Pachters point of view, in the end he is a financial analyst....He is just looking at the money MIcrosoft is making, not the people that are buying 360's almost 7 years into this generation...The people buying 360's now, are NOT going to be in line on launch day of a new console. I know it, you know it, any gamer knows. A console that is going to cost 400+ is not going to attract the casual crowd, unless of course Microsoft goes the Wii route this gen only taking a 1/4 to a half step forward and basically become Nintendo. This is very reasible with there focus being mostly on becoming Nintendo for about 3-4 years now.

Finally, upgradeable consoles would not work. It defeats the purpose of a console firstly because parts will be expensive because they will be custom made...it's not like anybody is using off the shelf parts we can buy off newegg....Secondly, how much of a market do you think there is for upgradeable parts? Only the core gamers that make up each console will be a few million to 10 million max...Finally, and upgradeable console defeats one of the strengths that consoles have. A unified closed platform....developers don't have to develop a game to work infinite combinations of computer components....It would be an unnecessary cost for the development industry. A closed platform is why games like Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 still kind of hold up compared to PC games.

 

[Metal Brother]

Matt Ployhar is a Senior Product Planner at Intel, and President of the PC Game Alliance. "I don't think it's impossible," he said, but besides added cost, there's the question of whether developers would embrace the idea of a game console with variable configurations. "One of the key reasons they like consoles is [they] provide a stable, known design target they can fine tune for." Console modularity could also complicate the test/validation/certification process.

IMHO, this is the key advantage of the console over PC gaming, both for developers and players. Modularity certainly has benefits, but can you imagine having to check to see if *your* Xbox could play that new XBox game? Can you imagine a developer trying to learn what percentage of the install base for their console platform will be able to play his game?

Color me skeptical.

 

[BrotherRool]

I don't want this. The reason I have a PS3, is that I'm comfortable that all the games for the next half a decade will be playable by me at no extra cost and running as the designers intended them to.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

This just sparked an idea. I can play a game that runs on both the Xbox 720, PC, and Windows 8 Tablets using the same disc/program as well as share save data and DLC between them. Consoles are quite easy to have split screen on and tablets for some quick sessions on the go since batteries usually get in the way.

Now with a modular based console, it might be wise to have said upgrades to be sold in packs so one game requires more memory while another requires little. Probaly mark it on the box as Grade # or something.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

I don't think the whole "upgradeable consoles" thing will take off.

The N64 had some success with its RAM upgrade, but I think that was the last we'll ever see of such a practice.

But it's all they have left.
Screen based technology is about to peak, selling a new console after this peak will be impossible. "We already have the best you can get, why buy a new platform?"

OT: I think that xbox 720 (The name) is retarded. Microsoft is usually somewhat intellegent in naming things.
Windows 1-3
Windows 95, 98
Windows ME (Trollface)
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7

So Xbox
Xbox 360 (Paradox enough)
And now 720? Who the hell is the "Creative mind" behind that.
If this console is going to be upgradable, I better never have to buy a console again. Call it Xbox Omega or something with a ring to it. too many numbers.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I don't think that modular consoles with multiple viable configurations would benefit the console market, but one could make the consoles modular with a preplanned upgrade path for the future. Make it cheap(in comparison to the PC), uncommon(4 years apart sounds okay), and mandatory(kind of... I'll explain that one in a minute). The idea here wouldn't be to give people more options, because that would confuse some people, make stability questionable, and not really serve any real purpose. The idea is to plan an upgrade path that would allow expand a console's longevity and keep up with new technologies, albeit at a rate more in keeping with a "typical" PC gamer than an early adopter.

The thing is, not all games need to have advanced graphical capabilities. Not all studios even have the budget to take advantage of it. But the big AAA releases would benefit from having improved capabilities down the road, and so I would propose that, when such an upgrade becomes available, a label for games that require said upgrade be made. Black label, Elite, Seal of the Murderhobo, I don't know... pick one. It would be a prominent mark on the game that would allow people to distinguish games that require the upgrade. Alternatively, developers could make the games with multiple configurations, but now we're talking disk space and more development costs, so I'm not sure which way would be better.

More or less, I'm advocating the N64 method taken to its modern equivalent.

 

[him over there]

Don't most people get consoles because they want to avoid this? you made your console into an incredibly brand controlled pc. Most people I know who choose console over pc do so out of sheer user friendlyness. Which is better furthered now that consoles offer things like dvd, netflix and browsing. Of course it would make sense to make it ready for a preplanned upgrade substituting for a new generation making upgrading graphics easy and user friendly but still keeping the platform unified.

 

[ranger19]

Yeah, as much as module based consoles might sound good from certain perspectives, I generally agree with the posters here that they would bring more damage than good. I mean, once you start further splitting your userbase (it was already a problem this gen whether some 360 users had hard drives or not), devs start getting annoyed. And if you want to do the different specs thing, you might as well go to the computer - because otherwise you get..

an incredibly brand controlled pc.

And that's the other main problem I fear. Memory cards were awful things back in the day. Now imagine to keep up with the best graphics, you have to upgrade potentially as often as once a year?

No thanks. As tempting as a console-based simplicity with pc-like upgrading might sound, Steam is good enough at that on PC. Leave my consoles be.

 

[brainslurper]

That is absolutely not going to work. The single benefit of consoles is that they are always going to be able to run games made for them, and fragmentation would completely ruin that.

 

[CapitalistPig]

BAHAHAHA. This on the heels of the last article that said Sony and Microsoft were gettin out of the game. Called it. Love it.

On the note of the consoles i think its pretty smart for the hardware developers. First this gives gamers a chance to change some aspects they dont like (low memory small HD.) Then for the developers they get to made tons of money because gamers are not going to buy the lower end systems. Good move for them lets see if it pans out.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

The authors opinion is obviously invalid and should be considered a joke.
He/she thinks that FPS games are better on consoles... seriously?

Console FPS games have aim assistance to help the game being playable at all.
There is no competitive gaming on consoles in FPS games.

Consoles are only good for fighting games and Zelda.
The rest is better of on the PC.

And congrats on reinventing the PC. Who knows, maybe people will notice it this time.
The last time PC's were invented, no on noticed them and the technology died.

 

[CapitalistPig]

This just sparked an idea. I can play a game that runs on both the Xbox 720, PC, and Windows 8 Tablets using the same disc/program as well as share save data and DLC between them. Consoles are quite easy to have split screen on and tablets for some quick sessions on the go since batteries usually get in the way.

Now with a modular based console, it might be wise to have said upgrades to be sold in packs so one game requires more memory while another requires little. Probaly mark it on the box as Grade # or something.

I like it! And they could come in plans. Like prepay for a new game and get a % off the upgrade needed to play it. Its a fair shot anyway. I always felt i would probably have played fallout New Vegas on the Xbox if I hadn't played it on my LAPTOP (second generation out of date too) with 6 second loading screens while my friend waited at least 30 seconds each for the Xbox equivalent. While that seems rather trivial at first think about how much game play time that adds up to when you open 1000 doors. Not to mention graphically you couldn't even compare PC to Xbox or PS3. 1 Gig of memory would have fixed that problem (speed that is, not graphics.)

Not to mention modders will have field day with this. Hell it might even find them a legal home in the console space. Can't void the warranty if Microsoft is calling you asking how you overclocked the CPU 6X.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Am I the only one surprised at the fact that they're going to release a new Xbox?

It honestly feels like the console hasn't been extended to its limit yet. Of course, this is also probably just me wanting to hope that I don't have to buy another damn game console.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Can you imagine what developers could do with that kind of power, they could start over charging for the superior versions, DRM, and just simply leaving inferior model 720's in the cold by not developing for them.

So we take a game console, and we allow people to upgrade individual components like CPU, GPU, and the like.

I think he meant an all-in-one system, because the 360 has it's guts rolled together.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

What I like about consoles like my 360 is that if I want to play a new game all I have to do is go to the store and look for the version of the game for the X-Box 360. I take it home pop it in and I'm ready to play.

Games for the PC are a pain in the ass. You just about have to write down everything about your computer and take it with you and even then it's not easy to know if your video card will be good enough to play the game. Or if you only meet the minimum requirements will the game play properly or like crap.

Sorry but I like spending my money on games instead of having to upgrade the system every time some new game comes out. Sure there are some things the PC does better, but it's got to be a game I can't live without to deal with the hassle of upgrading just to play. So I'd rather stick with something I know will play the game I just purchased.

 

[Draconalis]

So Xbox
Xbox 360 (Paradox enough)
And now 720? Who the hell is the "Creative mind" behind that.

360 + 360 = 720

 

[veloper]

Stability is a non-issue.
An upgradeable xbox, running windows wouldn't be a PC(multiple hardware vendors) but more like a homecomputer (think ST and amiga).

Complexity doesn't have to be a problem.
The 360 doesn't need a faster CPU and GPU so much as more memory. Detailed textures will go a long way to improve visuals.
Adding more memory could be a simple procedure. There is even some prior art in console land for this. It's also the simplest upgrade for a PC.
If you're going to replace CPU+GPU+RAM though, you might aswell take a new box entirely.

Market penetration on the old model doesn't have to be a problem.
It's not a true homecomputer yet and the difference is that M$ has full control over which games they allow on the box. M$ could simply demand for all future games to be optimised for both the slower model and the faster model.
The biggest hurdle then is that the faster model may not be perceived to make much of a difference and people will stick with the old and so developers will too concentrate on the old set, continuing the cycle and turning the modular design into a flop.