The more news and rumors I hear about Microsoft's successor to the 360, the so called Durango, the more confused I become. The latest discussion over the past week or so is about something called XBox TV. Essentially it’s supposed to be a set top box that supports “core components of Windows 8 and support casual gaming titles rather than full Xbox games”, and it will be a separate SKU from the main more powerful gaming system. Basically it’ll be nettop media box with some gaming capability, and Microsoft may eventually licence the hardware to various TV manufacturers so they can create smart TVs with all of it built in.

One can infer that the main Durango system will be able to play anything that runs on the XBox TV box but not vice versa. Of course this raises a whole bunch of questions like: How stripped down will this XBox TV thing be? Assuming it won’t be able to play full Durango games, will it be able to at least play 360 games? Will it be able to work with Kinect (my guess is yes)? What will the price of the main Durango system? Will it be much more expensive, like $500 or $600 range? This guy seems to think so.

I’ve argued a bunch that I don’t believe either company will release systems that are priced much above $400 because I believed that the Wii was a harsh lesson to both Microsoft and Sony on pricing. But I never considered that Microsoft might respond by bifurcating their hardware offerings with a hardcore system and a casual (budget) system that can’t play all the stuff that runs on the hardcore console. It strikes me as a very risky maneuver from a business standpoint. From a marketing standpoint they’ll have to be very clear to consumers that the Xbox TV unit won’t be able to play many of the games that the Durango will be able to play.

So what do you think? Do you think it’s a horrible idea for Microsoft to release two different systems at the same time? Or is it a stroke of genius, allowing them to cater to two different demographics more efficiently?

If I disregard everything I want as a gamer and a tech-geek for a moment, I think it makes complete sense. In all respects and all points of view - both from a direct marketing standpoint purely when thinking about price. As well as a PR standpoint.

Games crash confirmed

It's also confusing to speculate how the 360 will fit into all this. I'm wondering if this XBox TV unit may end up being basically 360 hardware with a few tweaks running a modified version of Windows 8.

Sounds like an incredibly genius idea to me. Create a set top box with a blu-ray player, that also has the ability to play this gens games. Then sell it for $140 bucks, and take over the "device that is in every living room ala Dvd players" market. Then get a few tv companies on board to create a built in veriant of said system. Parents want to buy Movie players, kids want gaming consoles. So meet in the middle for a really cheap price? Could work. or it coud fail horribly. 

Stand alone Blu-ray players hurt PS3 sales? MS wants to offer an option that gives you both without giving you the full box?  

Note that "Xbox" is now branding for a bunch of Microsoft shit like Xbox Music.

This ain't the successor to 360 and don't be surprised if you have to wait a long while to see one at all.

New Xbox you say ? YES! Buying it day one ! Will it have Halo 5 and Gears Of War 4 ? Yes you say.....Then YES! YES! Money is no object, I`d even spend over 3 grand just to play Halo 5 and Gears of War 4.

Micro$oft wins again, its simple....Halo, Gears, Forza....yup Micro$oft wins again everytime with those exclusives.

FoxScope wrote:

New Xbox you say ? YES! Buying it day one ! Will it have Halo 5 and Gears Of War 4 ? Yes you say.....Then YES! YES! Money is no object, I`d even spend over 3 grand just to play Halo 5 and Gears of War 4.

Micro$oft wins again, its simple....Halo, Gears, Forza....yup Micro$oft wins again everytime with those exclusives.

Don't forget the marquee power of Rare and the sequel to Bajo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts

Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the WiiU is the most advanced console of Gen8?

Funny that it was Phil Harrison who said Xbox is not just competing with other platform holders now, but set top boxes as well.  It is a small world in corporate video game land.  I think the Xbox TV as a product in relation to the 720/Durango makes perfect sense.  What I find desturbing about Microsoft's "TV" strategy overall is the discordance its introduced into their Windows platform.  On some level I'd like to think they would just design a version of Windows that is destinguished by its ability to communicate with cable signals and run a great tv interface via HDMI.  The home media PC is ultimately always going to be a better solution for consumers than these specially made "App" devices.  But of course Microsoft wants the money from "Gold" Memberships, and would rather force PC developers to pay Xbox lisencing fees.  I do wonder if this will undermine their market strength overall in the long run though.

McMarbles wrote:Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the WiiU is the most advanced console of Gen8?

 It's not even more advanced than an Xbox 360. Next gen systems are going to blow it out of the water in terms of power.

UltramanJ wrote:

McMarbles wrote:Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the WiiU is the most advanced console of Gen8?

 It's not even more advanced than an Xbox 360. Next gen systems are going to blow it out of the water in terms of power.

Except it is, and we've known that its more powerful for months. Ps4 and Canyonero will likely be more powerful but that's really no reason to embarrass yourself with statements you know aren't true.

Personally i'm into video games. If more power means being bombarded with casual bullshit for an entire gen again, I'm not in any rush. I understand the "HD GRAFIX" guys have very little concern for gameplay, i'm honestly not sure why they don't just watch a movie.

Personally, I'd find it puzzling to see Microsoft and Sony opt for massive leaps in power for their next consoles after watching Nintendo completely pants them in profit margins for 5 years with a weaksauce console.

Shareholder outrage at Nintendo's success is the only explanation I can think of for things like Kinect and Move. I can only imagine how they'd react to another bout of 599 USD and $70+ games due to higher production costs.

I suppose there's the subscription model that Microsoft's trying out with XBL and the 360, though. I've never been too keen on online features myself, but I can see why a $99 next-gen console would be attractive, even if it meant signing a long-term contract for crap I didn't really want.

If it were up to me, the 360 and PS3 would just get 5 more years, regardless. Let Crytek and Epic jerk themselves off to higher and higher polygon counts and dynamic texturing and lighting and worry about DRM on the PC, and let consoles be consoles.

Coarse_Limely wrote:

Personally, I'd find it puzzling to see Microsoft and Sony opt for massive leaps in power for their next consoles after watching Nintendo completely pants them in profit margins for 5 years with a weaksauce console.

Shareholder outrage at Nintendo's success is the only explanation I can think of for things like Kinect and Move. I can only imagine how they'd react to another bout of 599 USD and $70+ games due to higher production costs.

I suppose there's the subscription model that Microsoft's trying out with XBL and the 360, though. I've never been too keen on online features myself, but I can see why a $99 next-gen console would be attractive, even if it meant signing a long-term contract for crap I didn't really want.

If it were up to me, the 360 and PS3 would just get 5 more years, regardless. Let Crytek and Epic jerk themselves off to higher and higher polygon counts and dynamic texturing and lighting and worry about DRM on the PC, and let consoles be consoles.

Yea, like many I believe it will be a pretty modest upgrade. I just hope devs learn to opt for better optimization and a framerate I can deal with over bloom, particles and crisco this gen. That shit was getting annoying.

Yes Rare blow goats now, agreed. Doesn`t matter, with Halo and Gears and Forza, M$ have the best shooters and racing game exclusives.

" Let Crytek and Epic jerk themselves off to higher and higher polygon counts and dynamic texturing and lighting"

Damn right they will ! And I`ll be pre ordering EVERY time theres a new Crysis, or Gears Of War.

FoxScope wrote:

Yes Rare blow goats now, agreed. Doesn`t matter, with Halo and Gears and Forza, M$ have the best shooters and racing game exclusives.

Kinect Sports is likely worth a lot more to Microsoft than Forza.

Halo's obviously their biggest asset they'll keep running with.  I think Epic will do something new before a next-gen Gears, but in the absence of any megatons it'll likely be exclusive.

tyfighter80 wrote:

UltramanJ wrote:

McMarbles wrote:Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the WiiU is the most advanced console of Gen8?

 It's not even more advanced than an Xbox 360. Next gen systems are going to blow it out of the water in terms of power.

Except it is, and we've known that its more powerful for months. Ps4 and Canyonero will likely be more powerful but that's really no reason to embarrass yourself with statements you know aren't true.

Personally i'm into video games. If more power means being bombarded with casual bullshit for an entire gen again, I'm not in any rush. I understand the "HD GRAFIX" guys have very little concern for gameplay, i'm honestly not sure why they don't just watch a movie.

We actually have not know outside of that graphics demo with the cherry blossoms and Reggie Phil's word on a cable news show that Call of Duty looks far superior on the WiiU.  Here's an analysis though:

"The original Wii’s PowerPC-based Broadway CPU was clocked at 729MHz, and the GPU at 243MHz. Like with the Wii U, Nintendo didn’t release these numbers themselves. So, the Wii U’s CPU clock speed increased by less than double, whereas the GPU increased by a little more than double "

"While the Wii U’s CPU clocks in at 1.24GHz and only has one hardware thread per core, he says the console’s power, if used efficiently, could be better than the number suggests. He likened the situation to Intel’s Pentium 4, a powerful though inefficiently designed CPU, which was later phased out with the more efficient Core processors."

-link  

Sounds like its margainally more powerful that the 360/PS3 if at all.  The WiiU certainly has a lot more RAM than either of those consoles---which makes a big material difference in what designers can do with games.  However, A. we don't know how much RAM the OS uses.  I have heard the OS on the WiiU is incredibly slow.  Maybe Nintendo is still figuring that out themselves.  And B. The huge part of the dual screen is running real time graphics on it and your HDTV simultaineously---which eats up RAM without demanding better fidelity.  

Also of course as you refer to, the degree to which the graphics actually get used depends on developers.  Many Wii games actually looked a lot worse than many Gamecube games, despite the Wii's ducktape advantage---because the casual audience doesn't care about quality, they just want to waggle their toy wands.

METAgamer468 wrote:

tyfighter80 wrote:

UltramanJ wrote:

McMarbles wrote:Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the WiiU is the most advanced console of Gen8?

 It's not even more advanced than an Xbox 360. Next gen systems are going to blow it out of the water in terms of power.

Except it is, and we've known that its more powerful for months. Ps4 and Canyonero will likely be more powerful but that's really no reason to embarrass yourself with statements you know aren't true.

Personally i'm into video games. If more power means being bombarded with casual bullshit for an entire gen again, I'm not in any rush. I understand the "HD GRAFIX" guys have very little concern for gameplay, i'm honestly not sure why they don't just watch a movie.

We actually have not know outside of that graphics demo with the cherry blossoms and Reggie Phil's word on a cable news show that Call of Duty looks far superior on the WiiU.  Here's an analysis though:

"The original Wii’s PowerPC-based Broadway CPU was clocked at 729MHz, and the GPU at 243MHz. Like with the Wii U, Nintendo didn’t release these numbers themselves. So, the Wii U’s CPU clock speed increased by less than double, whereas the GPU increased by a little more than double "

"While the Wii U’s CPU clocks in at 1.24GHz and only has one hardware thread per core, he says the console’s power, if used efficiently, could be better than the number suggests. He likened the situation to Intel’s Pentium 4, a powerful though inefficiently designed CPU, which was later phased out with the more efficient Core processors."

-link  

Sounds like its margainally more powerful that the 360/PS3 if at all.  The WiiU certainly has a lot more RAM than either of those consoles---which makes a big material difference in what designers can do with games.  However, A. we don't know how much RAM the OS uses.  I have heard the OS on the WiiU is incredibly slow.  Maybe Nintendo is still figuring that out themselves.  And B. The huge part of the dual screen is running real time graphics on it and your HDTV simultaineously---which eats up RAM without demanding better fidelity.  

Also of course as you refer to, the degree to which the graphics actually get used depends on developers.  Many Wii games actually looked a lot worse than many Gamecube games, despite the Wii's ducktape advantage---because the casual audience doesn't care about quality, they just want to waggle their toy wands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm definitely looking forward to a teardown from a more trustworthy source than some hacker, but I think we can reasonably conclude that the Wii U is more powerful than the 360 despite the unknown CPU specs. I never said it had twice the power, I said it was more powerful. As with last gen, more power will be unlocked for devs when they have a firm hold on the OS and what it needs.

Ram was the biggest bottleneck of last gen by a large margin. I don't think that should be underestimated. People expecting launch games to look better than games with 7 years of hardware know how were setting themselves up for disappointment. Or trolling. Probably trolling.

We already do know that that half of the system's RAM goes towards the OS.  Perhaps Nintendo can cut down on that in the future.  It's kind of crazy as it stands.

Games that are more GPU dependant will likely run better on the system.  Case in point is Trine 2:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-trine-2-face-off

Article basically goes on to say that the 360 and PS3 version are upscaled to 720p, whereas the Wii U verison runs it at that natively with higher resolution textures and all the added visual effects in the PC verison.  It's still only 30 FPS sadly, and has some brightness issues (that are reportedly being patched), but otherwise a pretty good indication that Wii U games can look better.

As for the second screen, Shin'en doesn't think it's as big of an issue as you're making it:
"Nintendo took care that other components like the Wii U GamePad screen streaming, or the built-in camera don’t put a burden on the CPU or GPU."

They also claim there's workarounds to making GPU and CPU play better with each other and reduce RAM latency, which runs contrary to some of the hacker's tests.  Then again, these are the guys that managed to do this with the Wii in 40MB.  Meaning they're used to being crazy efficient with Nintendo hardware.  Just because they're wizards at it doesn't mean others will be, especially not the devs attempting quick and dirty ports.

So yeah, it's pretty clear by now that the WiiU isn't going to be some kind of humongous next gen leap (not being able to run Trine 2 full quality in 1080p speaks to that).  But just how much actually can do will probably have to wait for some bigger exclusives, plus another year or so of familiarity with the hardware for the ports.

crispy4001 wrote:

We already do know that that half of the system's RAM goes towards the OS.  Perhaps Nintendo can cut down on that in the future.  It's kind of crazy as it stands.

Thats what i'm thinking, no way they keep an entire gig. They are just taking it slow and feeling it out like many of last gens launches. Though even a solid 1 gig is a bit better than PS3/360.

Bottom line, it's close enough to port over games made for the 360. Because most games are developed with the 360 in mind and if the developers have time they'll cram that mess into a PS3 and if it's broken... fuck it, just ship it.

Unless the WiiU hits critical mass it's gonna be the same deal cept it'll be easier to port over to Nintendo console.

Maybe the WiiU will get the back wash from Xbox TV next go around.  I can picture the commercials now of people playing Xbox TV games with their Surface tablets.

I would laugh so hard if MS actually kept persuing the tablet thing. I mean fine if they just want ipad ports that can be played on the TV, but I doubt any gaming companies are going to support it, since it makes no financial sense to do so.

I'm sure Gameloft will be there day one though.

Here's my predictions. XBox TV will be basically 360 hardware inside, repackaged efficiently with the CPU+GPU shruck down to a 28nm process with a large hardrive. I think there may be a couple SKU's of it, one with a blu-ray drive and a biggish harddrive priced at $199, and one with no optical drive and a small flash drive priced at $99 (this will be the version that will one day be built into TVs)

Meanwhile the Durango system will have a beefy quadcore POWER7+ CPU, DX11 capable AMD GPU, and 8 gigs of RAM. It will come packed in with a new version of Kinect, a large harddrive, and possibly a Blu-Ray drive. It will also function with the upcoming XBox game tablet as a controller (and may even come with one packed in). It will launch at $499 in late November.

So here's the thing regarding Microsoft's next gen console. If it's just a really powerful piece of hardware it'll be expensive and arguably useless. Because people need a reason to buy a new console and buying something expensive just because it generates better graphics is a terrible pitch. It'll work for that group of rich technophiles but otherwise it won't catch on. Not to say graphics were never the "IT" selling point for consoles, because the 16 bit generation was defined by how much more awesome the graphics were, but it's usually more important features.

The 8-bit generation came about after the video game crash so that was the Japanese entering into a vacuum.

The graphics selling point worked for the 16 bit consoles because... frankly everything before it were either simplistic, vague impressions, or just flat out ugly. And when things are ugly it's easier to sell graphics. With the 16 bit systems anything that didn't involve polygons could look amazing. This argument to escape ugly games can be made about the success of the Playstation 2 as well cause the 32 bit consoles generated truck loads of blotchy ass 3D vomit.

But even with those ugly ass games the Playstation's and Saturn's selling point were two things. 1. a good reason for the hardware upgrade, 3D gameplay and 2. (which I think was the more marketable feature) the data storage, The Compact fucking Disc. When that Final Fantasy VII tv spot came on they didn't show those blocky ass in game graphics, they showed pre-rendered FMVs. Movie cut-scenes, real music, and voice acting. The N64 was all about that first point but they obviously chose the wrong data storage format.

The Playstation 2 offered an obvious graphical upgrade but what made it sell was the fact it was a DVD player. It's a good reason to buy a PS2. I need a DVD player and I like games, duh.

Which comes to this generation of consoles. It started off slllloooooowwwwwww. Because it was too damn expensive for features that most people didn't have. That being high speed internet and HDTVs. It finally caught on but considering Sony's position in the market before they evidently fucked up on the way here. But in their defense at least these features were worth having... eventually.

There is nothing right now comparable to high definition televisions and online gaming so all you're offering is just better looking games. Unfortunately, games in this generation are not that ugly. It's like releasing the 32x... no.

So what Microsoft needs to do is to pull a Nintendo and offer an affordable product with a unique experience. Which would be a console slightly more powerful than the WiiU with Kinect.... and a cheap windows 8 tablet. They would have to take a loss here but that's gonna happen regardless.

tyfighter80 wrote:

UltramanJ wrote:

McMarbles wrote:Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the WiiU is the most advanced console of Gen8?

 It's not even more advanced than an Xbox 360. Next gen systems are going to blow it out of the water in terms of power.

Except it is, and we've known that its more powerful for months. Ps4 and Canyonero will likely be more powerful but that's really no reason to embarrass yourself with statements you know aren't true.

Personally i'm into video games. If more power means being bombarded with casual bullshit for an entire gen again, I'm not in any rush. I understand the "HD GRAFIX" guys have very little concern for gameplay, i'm honestly not sure why they don't just watch a movie.

HD graphics say nothing to the quality of games, one way or the other.  There's plenty of shitty games released on low tech systems just as there are pretty HD games that are soulless tech demos.  I'm not buying that as the technology gets better, games get worse if thats where you're headed.  Also, I think the term "casual games" is fairly obsolete in 2012.  Don't say it, it means nothing.

Can you expand on why you think the term is obsolete?

"crispy4001 wrote:FoxScope wrote: Yes Rare blow goats now, agreed. Doesn`t matter, with Halo and Gears and Forza, M$ have the best shooters and racing game exclusives.Kinect Sports is likely worth a lot more to Microsoft than Forza.Halo's obviously their biggest asset they'll keep running with.  I think Epic will do something new before a next-gen Gears, but in the absence of any megatons it'll likely be exclusive."

Yes, Epic may come up with another IP, but they wont bail on Gears, its a cash cow and M$ will pay through the teeth to keep it exclusive. They must have learnt their lesson with Bulletstorm and its lacklustre sales, Unreal Tournament this gen sold fuck all compared to Gears. They`l keep making Gears games. They`l use Gears as their Unreal 4 engine show case as well. Epic want to not only compete with crytech and Naughty Dog, amongst others, but they want to sell Unreal Engine 4 and they`l use Gears Of War 4 to do it.

 I`d bet my pubic hair that the serious gamer xbox is going to be VERY powerfull in comparison to the current 360. This is Micro$oft we`re talking about, one of the leaders of technology pushing. Just think.....Halo 5.....Gears Of War 4....Forza 5.......the graphics....THEGRAPHICS!

Videogaming has evolved to the point where you can't simply pigeonhole people into one of two categories.  Some people would describe casual games as anything from Bejeweled on an iphone to Halo 4 and everthing in between.  So when you prescribe to term "casual gamer" to someone, who exactly are you referring to?  Looking as his comment "if more power means being bombarded with casual bullshit for an entire gen again, I'm not in any rush", you can infer he thinks the Call of Duty/Halo/Madden set to be casual gamers.  And this is a problem because people confuse casual with mainstream.  Those games are certainly mainstream, and just as certainly not casual.  From the controls to the manner in which people play those games, there's nothing casual about them.  

I think mostly its a defense mechanism to distance themselves from the dudebro culture that has invaded videogames.  Thats understandable to an extent, but it was something that was inevitable as videogames became less niche and more mainstream entertainment.