Advertisement
EA: We'll see Xbox 560 before 720 News
Xbox
Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
News
by
Robert Purchese
EA's chief thinker Rich Hilleman reckons Microsoft and Sony "nearly expired" making PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and that we'll see incremental updates long before a true next generation rolls around.
"I expected we'll see a PlayStation 3.5 before we see a PlayStation 4 and an Xbox 560 before we see an Xbox 720," Hilleman told VentureBeat.
His words are arguably reflected in Sony's move to make a PS3 Slim and Microsoft's decision to do Project Natal, which was conceived to effectively relaunch the Xbox 360 sometime next autumn.
How long until we see a true next generation is unclear, although Sony's oft-touted Ten Year Plan suggests we have a while to go.
Advertisement
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
cianchristopher
28/08/09 @ 10:59
-6
I want an Xbox 453, followed by an PS3.255648. Then maybe Wii-Poo!
|
|
+4
What are his definitions of 3.5? I don't think either company will give either machine a horsepower increase prior to the next proper version. It wouldn't make sense. People won't pay a fortune for a minor upgrade, and devs aren't going to make games for the extra power if most people can't buy it. I'm sure we'll see reshapes and add-ons, but no change to the main tech-specs until 720 and PS4.
|
|
IneptPercy
28/08/09 @ 11:02
+5
This could be interesting as a PC gamer, usually just as affordable PC's get the edge on the consoles the consoles comeback with new models and PC plays catch up again (PC's is usually ahead but not always affordable).
It would seem that the margins PC have over the currrent consoles will only grow and at this rate there will be massively ahead by the next generation of consoles. They could just add waggle to current consoles and overclock them a bit... |
|
sarcasmoidosis
28/08/09 @ 11:06
+2
"What are his definitions of 3.5?"
Minor tweaks on the same architecture. It's not as expensive as making a new model and it can bring on the big bucks from the guys that don't already own a console. |
|
cianchristopher
28/08/09 @ 11:07
+4
If the next Xbox is called a 720, well that just makes no f**king sense whatsoever! I mean, I get the 360 thing (in that Xbox 2 would suffer next to Playstation 3 and 360 degrees means it covers (what exactly? The entire circle? Pie? Burger?)) but 720 is, I dunno, so bad its good?
|
|
bunglebonce
28/08/09 @ 11:12
+11
720 would be confused with 720p, which would be a branding faux-pas similar to Xbox 2. It'll have another abstract name for the next iteration.
|
|
BadBoyBonner
28/08/09 @ 11:24
+5
I fail to realise why some people think developing console games to run on two fixed spec systems would be so difficult - when lets be honest probably the only thing that will change will be the graphics (maybe a few bits of physics) - I guess over half of the developers out there have spent most of their career creating games for PC - it would be a cake walk to them, not some seemingly unmanageable budget and technical drain.
The Xbox and PS increments will happen, as in 5 to 6 years time the mind boggles at what the difference in performance would be. You can already build a PC for less than the price of a PS3 that wipes the floor with it - and that will only get worse as IneptPercy has already pointed out. |
|
Ace_McCloud
28/08/09 @ 11:24
+7
"Xbox 540, shirley?"
Maybe they're planning to crooked grind a rail? ... and don't call me shirley.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 28/08/09 @ 12:25
|
|
muscleblade
28/08/09 @ 11:24
+2
"I pray to god it doesnt get called the xbox 560/720. "
No need to pray. Its a media name and everybody know what they mean by it. MS would never call their next console that. |
|
+1
What would the next gen of consoles DO, exactly? Do we need a next gen any time soon, for reasons of resolution, sound quality and new game related technologies? Would be an interesting featur from the Digital Foundy guys - what are the actual limitations of the current generation?
I mean - TV screens are currently maxed out at the 1080 resolution. In the right hands, current tech seems capable of delivering full HD titles as 30 and even 60 FPS - what more do we need? What elses is on the horizon? Will we get AI stuff that needs spesicalized hardware, or more calculations going on as the result of increased physics calculation - what's in stor, really? What will the next generation have to handle, and when will that be needed? My bet is that the current gen is plenty good for at least another 5 years, maybe even longer. |
|
+2
The big question with the next generation console is if either Sony or Microsoft are going to make their next console an upgraded version of their current console. Either generation before has switched CPU types and often radically changes the Game OS. But maybe for the next gen at least one of them will simply get a better CPU, GPU and add more memory and do a GameOS refresh be done with it. Would give them free 100% BC too.
The historic reason for not doing it, being that game devs would be very tempted to just keep supporting the older platform as that would hit owners of both the new and old console, is still there of course, but the cost of new games and maybe having the competitor 'force' a generation shift could still make it a tempting option. |
|
-3
PS3.5 and X560 are pretty misleading terms. Sony and MS won't be upgrading the core of their machines (motherboard, cpu). Updating them is something else, but the machine still stays a 360 or ps3.
@JahB I really couldn't give a rats ass if a game runs on 720p@60fps, 1080p@60 fps or 649p@40fps. Sure, there is room for improvement but this does not warrant a new gen. A new gen is only justifiable if the total power of the system at least doubles. @BadBoyBonner No
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 28/08/09 @ 12:45
|
|
midnight_walker
28/08/09 @ 11:45
+8
You can already build a PC for less than the price of a PS3 that wipes the floor with it
If you can build me a PC for under £125 that can do GT5 level details at 1920x1080 I will eat my hat. If you can find me a PS3 for under £125, I'll share it! |
|
chessboxer
28/08/09 @ 12:03
-4
You can already build a PC for less than the price of a PS3 that wipes the floor with it
With a Blu-ray drive to watch films as well? The cheapest Blu-ray ROM I can find costs £79.99. That leaves £170 to build the PC and include an OS. |
|
0
While the pricing of a PC that can do everything a PS3 can for less money is rather an exaggeration, BD-ROM drives are at the fifty quid level rather than £80.
My retail boxed Sony BD-ROM drive only cost me £55 a while back.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 28/08/09 @ 13:13
|
|
-5
@badboyrunner
No, just no. New specs would require a new architecture and most devs are not used to that. Console specs are linked closer to the OS than Mac OS's. We are talking the difference in creating games to run on Linux, Unix, Windows and MAC not the difference in creating games to run on a Gefore 9600 and a GTX290 @Chessboxer You aren't looking hard enough http://www.ebuyer.com/search?store=2&cat... The first one is 4x Blu-Ray ROM with a DVD-RW for £55 so its faster than the one in the PS3 and more functional. |
|
-1
@badboyrunner
No, just no. New specs would require a new architecture and most devs are not used to that. Console specs are linked closer to the OS than Mac OS's are to their system specs. We are talking the difference in creating games to run on Linux, Unix, Windows and MAC not the difference in creating games to run on a Gefore 9600 and a GTX290 @Chessboxer You aren't looking hard enough http://www.ebuyer.com/search?store=2&cat... The first one is 4x Blu-Ray ROM with a DVD-RW for £55 so its faster than the one in the PS3 and more functional. |
|
+3
@oef
I really couldn't give a rats ass if a game runs on 720p@60fps, 1080p@60 fps or 649p@40fps. Sure, there is room for improvement but this does not warrant a new gen. A new gen is only justifiable if the total power of the system at least doubles. from that attitude i take it that you're using an SD TV or you're blind. if you play on a HDTV (32inch and up) you start to see major differences between these resolutions and framerates (there's a world of diff between 30 and 60 fps), so i do care. i'd like to see a new generation of consoles where 1080p60fps is standard, so if MS/Sony would bring out a new console in 2 years that does that, i'd buy one in a heartbeat.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 28/08/09 @ 13:38
|
|
Mentalist(air)
28/08/09 @ 12:50
+1
It'll be the Xbox 1080. No doubt.
Duuur-nur-nur-nur nur-nur-nur-nur-nuur TEN-AY-DUH Duuur-nur-nur-nur nur-nur-nur-nur-nuur TEN-AY-DUH... Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ12rCD-Dkk
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 28/08/09 @ 13:52
|
|
Marshall2008
28/08/09 @ 12:58
0
@JahB
Well, considering the sales performance of the Wii you are not going to see a new console from Sony or Microsoft other than hardware revisions for a few years. Neither Sony or Microsoft are going to spend money on launching a new console. Instead they are trying to broaden the install base of their current systems by adding new user interfaces such as the PS3 'orb' motion controller and the Natal interface on the 360. If, these new interfaces fail to grow the install base then, and only then, will Microsoft and Sony release new platforms. Even then the new platforms will be more evolutionary than revolutionary. |
|
0
Tried out BF1943 on my console last night and it's evident that the is not current generation on par with the average gaming PC anymore. But I don't want them to start crapping out new versions with better performance yet. There are still a some years in the existing generation.
I also don't understand why anybody would want half a generation, that'll just segment all the users. Stoo: Something with an actual performance increase?
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 28/08/09 @ 14:09
|
|
ManicDrunkMonk
28/08/09 @ 13:11
+2
I don't mind a wait, a lot of the best console games come out at the end of a cycle due to developers being used to the hardware and less worried about being judged on how much of a jump in graphics they can achieve.
Also means I have to spend less money. |
|
StooMonster
28/08/09 @ 13:19
0
Something with an actual performance increase?
Like Sega with the 32X for the MegaDrive/Genesis? Or the Neptune which was like MegaDrive 1.5 with the 32X hardware built in. Personally I don't see that happening, it would split the userbase. If I was a developer would I code for massmarket and all historic units, or do something just for newer hardware with performance increase? |
|
Bremenacht
28/08/09 @ 13:28
0
I think we'll hear more industry types coming out and saying stuff like this - almost encouraging the platform owners not to make the next generational leap too soon. Similar arguments (and comments) here and here.
I'd welcome it. I've got too many unplayed games on 360 and Wii, and I've not even touched a PS3 yet. I'd like to catch up before I'm compelled to move on again. |
|
Bremenacht
28/08/09 @ 13:31
0
I don't mind a wait, a lot of the best console games come out at the end of a cycle due to developers being used to the hardware and less worried about being judged on how much of a jump in graphics they can achieve.
Absolutely. Publishers might also be more inclined to invest more or take more risks if they know they'll be able to make money or re-coup losses over the remaining lifetime of a console. |
|
ChoedanKal
28/08/09 @ 13:38
0
Lets go back to calling them 256bit consoles!
When I was little every kid would argue that their 16bit Mega Drive was stronger than the other kids 16bit SNES. Last generation was 128bit. I believe it was the last generation people in the industry and gamers actually talked about their game machines having this and that amount of bits. I miss it... I know it is not possible to compare the machines in the same way anymore. It would be hard to argue that the Wii(cube) is 256bit.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 28/08/09 @ 14:44
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
