Next Xbox to be revealed on May 21

The next Xbox will be revealed on May 21st, Microsoft has announced.

81

The next Xbox will be revealed on May 21st, Microsoft has announced.

According to an invite received by Shacknews (above), "Don Mattrick and the Xbox team" will present a "special unveiling" on Microsoft's Redmond campus at 10AM PT (click to see your local time). Major Nelson promises a "live global stream that will be available on Xbox.com, Xbox LIVE and broadcast on Spike TV if you are in the US or Canada."

The date aligns with a rumored leak, which makes us wonder: how many of these next Xbox rumors are true?

The next Xbox is rumored to switch to an x86 architecture powered by AMD, not unlike PlayStation 4. Early rumors suggested that the next Xbox will use slower memory, and will be very slightly outpaced by Sony's next-gen hardware. The new system will also use updated controllers.

Microsoft has gone on record to say that their next system will be more entertainment focused, with the company placing a large emphasis on non-gaming content. Controversially, early reports suggest that not only will the next Xbox include (and require) an updated Kinect peripheral, but it will also require an always-on internet connection. The last point is perhaps the most sensitive issue amongst gamers, and gamers will be hungry to get Microsoft's official stance during their May event.

Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    April 24, 2013 10:09 AM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Next Xbox to be revealed on May 21.

    The next Xbox will be revealed on May 21st, Microsoft has announced.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 10:12 AM

      I thought that was a given already? Or do they mean they will have an actual console to show.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 10:33 AM

        Haha, I don't know what I expected.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 12:07 PM

        Ha ha. So true. First thing since Windows 95 that Microsoft has put out I am excited for.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 10:15 AM

      I hope Xbox 3 will be at least as powerful and technically smart as the PS4. That means good times for us PC gamers.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 10:30 AM

        I have a feeling PS4 will have the edge. MS will mainly concentrate on having more media integration to bring in families. For gaming I think they will worry more about appealing to the frat crowd they have now, while PS4 will want all the indies on there. But who knows. I'd be surprised if MS can sell me, but I don't doubt MS' ability to throw tons at money at something and get ahead.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 11:30 AM

          There was a pretty uniform consensus from developers (especially Indie developers) at GDC that Sony has been incredibly open and easy to work with so far, the opposite was said about Ms.

          Which leads me to believe you're probably right, concentrating on media stuff and blockbuster AAA titles that appeal to the mainstream. Which is fine for some people but totally not what floats my boat these days.

          Hope i'm wrong though.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 12:03 PM

            I don't get that impression at all. We don't know what the new development programs from MS will be. Also, it sounds like the PS4 isn't going to be as open as people think. IT may be easier to get dev hardware, but that doesn't mean a guarantee to make it onto PSN.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 12:37 PM

              I'm not talking about tools or how open hardware might potentially be. But just referring to a lot of commentary coming out of the indie community. Even before discussion of the next gen consoles heated up a lot of smaller developers were happy to point out their problems with MS, i think sony has been happy to swoop in and make the most of that.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 2:27 PM

                Meh, they are big companies. I've heard horror stories and great stories from both camps.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 12:31 PM

            apparently xbox will have a big presence at build this year and it is all but confirmed will be running some form of Windows 8. That to me tells me that there will be some kind of app store on the platform similar to windows 8. If the next xbox has an app store with 30% cuts and $99 per year dev fee like most other digital stores then that will be a huge boost for independent gaming.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 11:38 AM

          Until today I was thinking the PS4 would have the edge as well... but if the most recent rumors about the next Xbox are true... it's going to be closer than I thought. They make it sound like the Durango will basically have a 360 on a chip included in the system and that the OS and background functioning of the system will all happen on that included 360 which basically leaves all the hardware in the Durango available JUST for games. That makes it very interesting... that could help them out quite a bit.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 12:40 PM

            It still comes down to cost though doesn't it? If you're spending money per unit on including the 360 chip thats the same money that would go towards beefier hardware in the first place no?

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 1:19 PM

              Maybe... but this also allows for flawless backwards compatibility and it has other advantages. Since the 360 chip is completely separate and uses it's own bus etc, it literally has NO effect on the Durango performance (at least the way they describe it now). I think that having the OS completely seperate is going to save more performance on the Durango side than slightly more power just on the Durango side would. It's kind of like you could get more power out of two medium power PC's than one single VERY fast PC. At least that's how I'm imagining it. It's actually a very smart way to get backward compatibility working while also improving the power of the system. (This also means that the 360 and Durango could potentially have a very similar OS and dashboard... they'd be running on the same hardware).

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 2:20 PM

                Actually, it all depends on the software implementation. Server hosting on a single machine isn't actually a single entity. Typically on a 16/24-core processor, we'd separate every core/thread into a virtual machine and run the host applications within the VM. The top level machine was exclusively to host Virtual Machines and nothing else. a 16/24-core processor would cost less than 16 full servers of 16th power.

                The same can be applied to autosport. The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Supersports is ACTUALLY powered by Audi's V8 engine. Bugatti straps TWO V8s together and put 4 superchargers in the bay for about 1,100HP. Koenigsegg, on the other hand, has a single V8 with two superchargers in the bay that also outputs 1,000HP on their Agera R model. In this case, tuning is equatable to software.

                Just give Microsoft some time and they can probably work out firmware kinks. If the next Xbox works as you say, then if Microsoft ever needs to squeeze more power out, they could activate the legacy chip for an extra 'boost', kinda like how newer Graphics cards works. If the card can take more energy , it would increase the TDP by a few watts to clock the chip up.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 2:46 PM

                  Hah, I think you are diving a bit too deep into my PC analogy than I intended. I was just using it as a simple example, virtualization on massive servers kind of goes beyond the scope of what I was talking about. I'm thinking more on the consumer level gaming PC range (closer to what the 360 and Durango actually will be).

                  Think of it this way... if you were a hardware engineer and you took a 5 year old PC with an decent Core 2 Duo level processor and a 8800GT card... then you had a nice modern day i5 with a gefore 670 in it. You did some magic and were able to create a bus between those two PC's and you used the old PC simply to run windows and a custom front end. But as soon as you booted up a game, it passed it over to the i5 with the 670 which was solely dedicated to playing the game (and didn't have to run the OS). If you had a way of doing that, it might end up being faster than if you upgraded the i5 to a faster i7 and put a 680 or something in there.... simply because you don't have the overhead of the OS taking up cycles.

                  BUT... the big question for me here is if the 360 on a chip also includes it's own set of 512MB (or more) ram which was in the 360. If it does and it isn't even touching the 5GB of ram in the Durango, that would definitely be an advantage. And could push the Durango ahead. The problem there is that rumors say the new OS takes up 3GB or something which is more than the old 360 has... so... yeah. Still a lot of questions here.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 3:07 PM

                    Ooops... meant to say "8GB of ram in the Durango"

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 12:01 PM

          No reason you can't have a powerful machine and media integration.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 10:53 AM

        Either way it's going to be close but from what we've heard I think the PS4 will out do the nextbox, even if only a tiny bit.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 12:31 PM

          Bear in mind that you've heard absolutely nothing official from MS yet.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 12:37 PM

            Yeah, but I'm basing this on rumors I heard concerning both prior to the PS4 launch event. If the amount that turns out to be true from those shows up as true in Durango it's looking good for Sony this gen. Of course all the Durango rumors could be completely off the mark but that's generally not the case.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 12:44 PM

              Whatever non-official rumors you hear will be half the story at best though.

              Even if the raw data you've heard is true, you won't know the underlying reason for it. Everyone though the broadband requirement on xbox 1 was stupid too, but it turns out it was absolutely the right tradeoff because it enabled so much stuff that you couldn't have done on a modem connection.

              So even if what you've heard is true, unless it came from an official source you shouldn't really listen to it because you won't know the reasons.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 1:02 PM

                As I said, it could all be bullshit, but it likely isn't all bullshit, and while there are probably some very good reasons for why certain potentially unpopular decisions were made, there is going to be some backlash (if only minor) before and probably at launch, should they be true.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 1:05 PM

                If thats the case then why are you posting in a thread that is pretty much dedicated to speculating about the next xbox?

                Its fun discussing and speculating about this stuff. Anyone who marches in and ruins the fun by reminding us that no body can be sure is a giant bore. Hell, we wont know anything for sure until the boxes are sitting underneath our tvs. Even the official line from MS & Sony at their conferences should be mistrusted. If you take what they say seriously, you're just as deluded as everyone else debating in this thread.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 1:56 PM

                  I'm saying that making any kind of decision about which console to buy before you've even heard a single official word about one of them is stupid. Feel free to speculate all you want, just don't think you have all the facts.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 2:09 PM

                    Again i doubt very few people here have placed pre-orders. They're just discussing which direction they're leaning based on what rumours are flying around. We dont need to be constantly reminded in every thread what a rumour is.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 8:40 PM

        If it DOESNT have as much ram as the PS4, we ALL lose. console gamers and PC gamers.

        • reply
          April 30, 2013 2:53 AM

          I don't lose anything as a PC gamer. I'd like to think that game devs can understand that PCs usually have better, faster, and more memory altogether and that they're more than capable of designing for it. The ones that don't or ignore the specific nature of the PC will fail and sell nothing. Good riddance to them, I might add.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 10:22 AM

      Oh, if it requires an internet connection to play games then PS4 is gonna be my choice. I really hope always online is false...

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 10:24 AM

        I predict that this reveal will not confirm or deny this feature.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 10:29 AM

          I predict you are correct, sadly. I feel like that's something that will come at maybe E3, and it's going to be subtle. Something like "All of this and more in the new title "______" on your connected Xbox _____." Someone may ask after the presentation if all games will required this connected status, and they'll say yes.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 12:05 PM

            They're going to say it's not "always on" because it will probably just be periodic "phone home" like SimCity 5, so they'll be able to get out on a loophole.

            But yea, expect a lot of stuff about "social features", in-game sharing, etc etc...

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 7:32 PM

              They have a vision for the next Xbox to be an MMO.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 10:49 AM

          Agreed.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 11:24 AM

          Normally, I would agree, but because of all the negative feedback on these rumors, I'll bet they address it specifically to clear the air and remove any question.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 11:28 AM

            I gotta agree with this too.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 11:41 AM

            Or they could just spin it and not directly address it. Truthfully tell you minimal things, but leave key, larger impact, details out.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 12:04 PM

              They could be like Sony and say "The PS4 will allow for used games*"

              And then totally shift the blame when used games get locked out.

              *unless the developer or publisher has chosen to enable the "fuck used games" feature

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 10:49 AM

        I have a feeling that was late concept stuff and i bet they pushed the date back to re focus and i would also bet it would not be always on at least for the main model.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 12:05 PM

        Take this for what it's worth:

        http://pastebin.com/avbwJc17

        • reply
          April 25, 2013 10:01 AM

          That's pretty interesting stuff, especially the 360 SOC idea. I guess we'll find out in a month.

          I'm still leaning towards a PS4, if only for the backwards compatibility for exclusive ps3 games. I've never owned a ps3, but i'd like to try the uncharted series, journey, and especially the upcoming Last of Us games. And also I'd like to get Netflix without requiring my gold subscriptions (not big into online multiplayer). I'm pretty sure my 360 will still be able play most new games for the next few years. Maybe I'll get the next xbox in 2016 when they stop making games for it. I'm mostly a PC gamer, so I'm almost more interested in these as a media device.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 12:37 PM

        If that's even true, the tradeoff would basically be at least:

        * Run any game you've installed. Always online.
        * Rummage around finding the right disc before you can play anything.

        Chances are the benefits of having always-on includes a whole bunch more than just not having to have the disc in the drive, but even at the bare minimum I'd take the always-online tradeoff.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 12:42 PM

          Yes but I don't think you understand just how much people who prefer consoles do it for the used game factor. They have an entire economy in their head. They figure a $60 game is only a $30 risk because if they hate it they can sell it back. With always online and no used game sales (I'm assuming they'll be one and the same) that $60 game is now a $60 risk. That $60 game now costs $60 to outlay instead of $40 because they can sell back another game for $20 or what not.

          PC gaming was less of a leap because for PC gamers, the disc was this formality to get the game to your hard drive, and having the disc in the drive just to prove you still had it was a pain, so the advantage you speak of really was an advantage. PC gamers were already somewhat used to the no used games thing because most retailers didn't ever carry them due to piracy concerns. Used game discs is just part of console culture. Look at how many people are saying they'd rather get a PS4 - a console we know fuckall about and doesn't even have a physical form factor yet - simply because of the always online/no used games thing.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 12:47 PM

            The used games factor is a non-argument.

            PCs don't have used games, so instead of having to go and by a scratched up disc somewhere to get games for cheap, you get Steam sales instead. That can't happen on consoles today because the "value segment" of the market is completely owned by used games. Sales don't make sense because Gamestop will just undercut you by a few bucks no matter what.

            There's no way publishers will just turn down money by not catering to the value segment. If used games are truly going away, new games will absolutely drop in price quicker, and you'll see more sales etc. Anything else would be publishers basically turning down money just to fuck with you, and that's not what companies do, no matter how evil you think they are.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 12:56 PM

              Which then leads eventually back into my theory that Nobody Fucking Likes: if you cut out physical sales of discs then who is going to carry the consoles?

              I know that's something different, but if you cut out GameStop of used game sales then you basically doom them. They can't operate their type of store (large chain of small stores) in the face of Walmart. How many times do you see someone bitch that they can't get a game Day 1 at GameStop new because they didn't preorder but then they walk down to Walmart and there's a whole palette of them for sale? GameStop only survives because of the huge margins on used games. Cut that out and I don't think there's enough "I only have cash" gamers to keep them afloat.

              Next step would be to remove the physical drive once you have everyone online. But then who is going to sell a console? Walmart doesn't make any money when you buy a console (margins are tight because they make it up in software sales) so you either have to raise the price of a console, or Walmart kicks it out of the store. And if a console costs as much as the PC it's aping, why not just buy the PC? Especially if Steam's BPM makes the advantages of a console moot.

              I'm getting off topic but I think that always-online and no-used-games is going to fuck up everything in the console space. Which makes me wonder why they'd do it. Either they know something I don't or they're about to make a huge mistake.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 1:53 PM

                Who's going to carry the consoles? How about everyone? Where do you buy microwaves? The idea that retailers will just revolt and refuse to carry something that makes them money because they're not making as much money as before doesn't track. Companies don't willingly lose money just to e dicks.

                Also, what if you still had a physical discs, but they would just become dumb installation media. I.e. the license comes from the server, the disc is just a shortcut to downloading all that data. You could even buy the license from the retailer (QR codes or whatever), so they would still get a (small) cut. You'd just eliminate used sales and piracy.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 2:21 PM

                  Well, a few things.

                  Companies will absolutely refuse to carry an item if it stops making them as much money. Walmart puts the screws to people all the damn time. They drop your product if you don't give it to them for a lower price after a few years (which is why Gillette slaps another blade on the razor every few years - now it's not the same product). A few years back they demanded lower prices from the record industry or else they'd stop carrying music. The record industry capitulated because Walmart is 20% of their sales, period. Walmart would just put more T-shirts and DVD's in the small room-sized segment of every store is CD's anymore.

                  Walmart doesn't make money off of console sales these days anyway (or very much anyway) so you would either need to convince them to sell this low-margin item while at the same time removing the high-margin items, or you'd need to make the console a high-margin item. If you make the consoles high-margin people will stop buying them because fuck you might as well buy a PC or heck an iPad for that price. And if you don't then Walmart will just kick you out and sell more CD's and iPads in your place. They don't need you nearly as much as you need them.

                  So yes I believe that Walmart would kick them out of the stores if they get cut out of the sweetest pie.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 6:24 PM

                    Walmart sells tons of things at low margins because it brings people to the store. Sometimes they even sell shit at a loss. They make that back from all the other crap you buy while already you're there.

                    The idea that one of the two real consoles around wouldn't find any stores to sell it is completely ridiculous.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 12:49 PM

            Also, the ratio of times where I"ve misplaced a game disc when I wanted it, versus the number of times my internet connection has gone down for any substantial period of time when I've wanted to play is way higher than 1.0. So at least for me, the always online thing would actually improve "up time" for my games.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 12:58 PM

              I agree with you but - you're a gamer with an online-connected console to a (probably) fast and reliable Internet connection. Do you know how many console gamers live in bumfuck nowhere and aspire to a dial-up connection? Do you know why console games have to ship with any firmware updates needed on the disc? Consoles for a long time now have had to operate on the assumption that they won't necessarily be online. I think requiring they be online is going to cut out too many gamers.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 1:55 PM

                Same argument could've been made for Xbox 1 and its broadband requirement for Live.

                The overlap of people who would by a consumer device that's largely about online services anyway (multiplayer, media streaming, etc.), and people who have awful internet connections, is probably quite low, and it will get even lower once the actual consumer devices start requiring better connections.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 2:22 PM

                  You have to admit there's a fundamental difference between Xbox 1's optional online component which a large % of the audience never used (and same for 360), and having it be online all the time for everyone mandatory, right?

                  You need to keep reminding yourself that you and I are not the average market for consoles.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 6:26 PM

                    Yes, the requiring broadband was a WAY bigger restriction. Basically everyone who would buy a console would have internet connection. You're not shutting anyone out from anything.

                    Xbox 1 shut out like >50% of the population from multiplayer games.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 1:03 PM

              Until it's not you and it's Microsoft's service that is down, or congested.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 1:44 PM

                This. I'm really not confident that if it requires everyone be on XBL in some fashion that MS could handle that 24/7. Suddenly if they have maintenance or otherwise unplanned outage, I'm just screwed out of playing a single player game? No thx.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 1:58 PM

                  Well if they were doing something like that, I'd sure as hell hope the licensing server or whatever was separate from their other services so it didn't go down due to other kinds of load.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 1:58 PM

            Bang on man, bang on.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 2:29 PM

            This a wonderful analysis. I just wish more persons such as yourself who have thoughts such as yours would realize that these very cogent notions are the very reason that there is no way in hell that the Nextbox will be always online, nor will it eliminate any used games from the library.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 2:34 PM

              I agree and I think that they won't do always online.

              But we are talking about the same company who decided that the user interface from their unpopular cell phone platform was a great idea for a desktop operating system.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 6:28 PM

              I just explained why it's wrong. The PC market is a 100% proof of this - no used sales, and yet they A) Sell games just fine, B) Sell PCs just fine, C) Cater to the value segment through sales and faster price drops.

              The idea that the console market is run by some completely different set of people who don't understand this, and would just go "Uh, why are we making less money? Why aren't value-oriented people buying stuff? Oh well, I guess there's NOTHING WE CAN DO" and then just live with making less money.

              No. It's the same people. The same publishers. They know full well how to make money off of value-oriented customers without used sales. They've been doing it for decades.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 6:36 PM

                Thing is, I can buy PC games and pretty much always play them - even if my system dies, I can buy another one - any time. They are always being produced. I can emulate or in the case of like .01% of old incompatible games - just buy an old machine for 40$

                This won't be the case for consoles and so people are much, much more wary.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 9:50 PM

                  You can generally buy a console for like twenty years after they release.

                  I doubt that very many people at all are worried about playing their games 20 years from now. We can sort of look at what's happened with 80s games. Typically they get some simple "HD retro ports", which ends up being a better experience most fo the time (because they integrate with modern services, e.g. Xbox live, achievements, etc., on top of what made them great to start with). How many people really want to play their old NES games these days? I really don't think that's the reason people are upset.

                  The reason people get upset, is because they don't think about what this would actually mean. They think that because used games is the only way to buy cheap games now, eliminating used games must mean that prices go up. They don't think about what eliminating used games would actually mean beyond the immediate effect of not being able to sell/buy used games. This is obviously flawed.

                  1) The "value segment" will still exist even when used games can't cater to them. And publishers will still cater to them. Again, the PC market gives you a hint of what they may do (faster price drops, sales). I don't know about you, but I'd rather buy cheaper new games, than have to go through this awful bartering system with Gamestop et al.
                  2) In pretty much any market, improving efficiency of a transaction will lower prices for the individual customer (total spending still grows, but you have more people doing the spendign). Getting rid of unecessary middlemen is one way of improving efficiency. Reducing theft overhead (piracy) is another. Using cheaper distribution is yet another (digital). All these things will lead to greater efficiency which tends to push prices down.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 8:15 PM

                Only reason prices drop so fast on pc is the competition in the market between the digital distributers. There is none of that on consoles really because you are locked to what ever console you own market.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 9:52 PM

                  There are about as many serious digital distributers on the PC as there are console manufacturers. Plus, the PC market isn't going away, so all that competition would affect the consoles too.

                  • reply
                    April 25, 2013 1:23 AM

                    No once you buy a 360 you have zero competition from psn's market. You clearly don't understand.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 6:25 PM

        I have a feeling MS will come in with the hubris Sony had last time, except now its possible to do some pretty heinous connected-platform shit if you believe you're the de-facto leader.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 10:28 AM

      So is this the new XBox that finally stops people from watching x264 and xvid?

      Who really wanted those features anyway?

      Only criminals that's who.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 1:57 PM

        im pretty sure "criminals" didnt want those features.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 2:01 PM

        wut? what are you talking about?

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 2:11 PM

        You come back after 8 months to post this shit? Just stay away for good next time.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 11:21 AM

      And I'm all tingly in the midsection.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 11:34 AM

      Always online would ruin GameStop. People here must like GameStop.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 12:29 PM

      I'll get it when they get rid of always connected to internet, which should be soon after dismal sales figures after release. Vote with dollars and win.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 12:29 PM

        Or, maybe they don't have that at all.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 12:48 PM

        Then you'll be getting it at launch.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 12:54 PM

        There's been absolutely no confirmation that it does or doesn't have a mandatory connection feature. It's all just rumors. How about waiting until they actually announce the console and it's features to get all up in arms?

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 6:06 PM

          obviously they put the rumors out to test us. So I'm letting them know up front. So what if I'm wrong, what do you care?

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 8:33 PM

            What in the fuck are you fucking babbling about.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 8:35 PM

            They are monitoring all of the posts on the Shack. ALL of them.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 8:39 PM

              OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE TESTING US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 12:29 PM

      If either of them can offer free offline play I'll pick it up otherwise no console for me.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 12:37 PM

      I'm going to miss all the hilarious rumor threads and the fights they instigated :(

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 1:24 PM

        We've got a new console war just around the corner, you won't have to wait long

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 12:43 PM

      Mexbox, now with more chipotle

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 3:13 PM

      After this, the official announcement of the Steam box and release date/pricing...

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 3:28 PM

      Sure took them awhile to respond to Sony. Interested to see how they present this.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 3:43 PM

        I doubt Sony's announcement had anything to do with their timing. They'll have their schedule and they'll be working towards it. If you start reacting to what your opposition are doing you start making mistakes which can end up being more costly than just sticking with your own plan.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 3:46 PM

        They've got their own timeline. Having done really well this gen at establishing an install base, they have the luxury of sitting back a little bit. Letting Sony show their hand first is a viable strategy.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 5:02 PM

          Sitting back? After the Orth thing, they were probably panicking, working at ways to get back control of their timeline. Therefore, they announced the date of the announcement.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 5:33 PM

            Yeah Right.

            They had this planned all along. This way they roll right into E3 with more momentum from their announcement then Sony does by announcing earlier. They announce the 360 right before E3 and this is the same. If the Orth thing was that much of an issue something would have been done way sooner.

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 5:50 PM

          How many RRoD's does it take to piss off the average gamer?

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 8:29 PM

            About eight.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 8:30 PM

            Based on the posts on this website that I've seen? About 400.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 8:47 PM

            MS went crazy with the free replacement Xboxes and are still selling a lot of consoles. I think they will be fine.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 6:27 PM

      Youd think theyd start pre-orders NOW for the gung ho folks and get an idea of how many they'll need up front so the people who are thinking about one and want one at the last minute can at least try to find one.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 7:22 PM

      Hopefully they add an option to pay even more money for animated ads, the current xbox is just so dead with the static ads everywhere. I would totally pay more money on top the xbox live subscription. Its so good. The price of netflix to access a network that offers only advertisements oh god what I've always wanted. Its too bad I have to always be online to experience the ads, I would totally download and play ads offline. I love paying for nothing. Microsoft is the best.

      • reply
        April 24, 2013 8:43 PM

        You're so silly!

        • reply
          April 24, 2013 8:48 PM

          He's not the only one angry about the ads.

          • reply
            April 24, 2013 9:01 PM

            Obviously, but to describe XBL as "paying for nothing" is pretty ridiculous.

            I spend 99% of my time on my Xbox playing games. I notice the ads but they haven't affected the value I am getting out of console.

            • reply
              April 24, 2013 9:10 PM

              Meanwhile: PC and PS3 owners don't have to pay an additional fee to play online multiplayer games.

              • reply
                April 24, 2013 9:25 PM

                Are we really still having this argument, at the very end of this generation? This makes me sad.

                The 360 has had a rock solid MP experience for a long time, way before Sony got their act together with PSN. I have found it is worth the money. Evidently you do not share this view. Differing opinions are the best!

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 9:46 PM

                  The fact that you, from the start, have to pay extra just to play games online on the 360 is enough. "Rock solid" or not, it's still free elsewhere and that is the point.

                  PSN has always been free, not sure where you're trying to dig up some "got their act together" line from, but it doesn't apply when talking about playing games online.

                  It's a money grab from MS.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 10:03 PM

                    Obviously you have a very strong opinion on this and free MP is very important to you. It's pretty awesome that you have the PC and PS3 options!

                    I have played online with my PS3 as well and have found XBL to be better in most respects. Faster, more stable, better party and chat systems. The fact is I want to play games (including console exclusives) on a decent network where my friends are. I also prefer the couch/TV so I have chosen to do most of my gaming on consoles.

                    You can say it's a money grab, but it is still a service that costs money to run. If they didn't put money into it, it would suck. If it sucked, I wouldn't pay for it and would go elsewhere.

                    • reply
                      April 24, 2013 10:18 PM

                      You really just don't get it, do you? You truly are just missing the point every single time. You know what? I suddenly have a great understanding of the oblivious and blindly happy market Microsoft has managed to sucker in.

                      • reply
                        April 24, 2013 10:34 PM

                        Good god man. I'm trying to have a friendly discussion, but your self-righteousness has really blindsided me.

                        To you, the point is multiplayer should be free always and forever. You are willing to spend significant cash on a gaming PC, and free MP comes along with that. Fucking awesome!

                        You can continue insult me if it makes you feel good inside, but for me the point is that I get an experience on Xbox that I can't get anywhere else. I want to be able to play Halo, Red Dead, Gears, and all other games that I like online while sitting on my couch on a system that costs less than $300. I have accepted that there is an additional service required to do that.

                        Why does this make you so angry? Seriously dude, talk to me. I'm an intelligent guy, you don't need to go all PC Master Race and talk down to me.

                        • reply
                          April 24, 2013 11:02 PM

                          I'm not going all "PC Master Race" when I own a 360 as well and unfortunately have to pay for Live, a pointless gateway cost that gives me the same experience I get on my PC for free, only with a different group of games. This kind of stupidity would be as if Steam or Origin had a fee associated with them on top of paying for the games themselves.

                          I'd ask you why you cannot grasp that simple concept but you haven't been able to grasp it from the start. I'm done, I don't even care anymore.

                          • reply
                            April 24, 2013 11:20 PM

                            Oh I grasp the concept just fine. I have just assessed the value I get and decided that I am willing to pay it. As have you, apparently? I'm just not as mad about it as you are, though I have not made an investment in a gaming PC as you have. I can see how your daily experience with the more open PC would make you more frustrated with the XBL experience.

                        • reply
                          April 30, 2013 2:58 AM

                          Well the one big flaw is assuming that a 360 actually costs you less than $300. There are a TON of hidden costs associated with the 360 that put it's real price a lot higher than sub-$300.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 10:06 PM

                    So free is always better, even if it's not as good? Some people don't mind paying for better quality!

                    • reply
                      April 24, 2013 10:16 PM

                      What constitutes "better quality?" Because I certainly have a fantastic experience playing online multiplayer games on my PC.

                      This isn't about opinion, what so ever. This is a simple statement that there is no good reason why Microsoft charges for online multiplayer rights when nobody else does.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 10:31 PM

                    PSN was also fairly terrible for quite a while, while XBL wasn't.

                    I had no issues at all paying for XBL because the service itself was much much better. Did it suck having it required for all online play? Yeah a bit.

                    PSN being free is great, and nowadays it works quite well. It took quite a while to get there and still doesn't offer the same quality of experience that XBL does.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 10:23 PM

                  We are, because MS's service slowly degraded to shit and Sony's slow increased to quite damned good. The tables have completely turned - and now paints Sony in a much more positive light.

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 10:29 PM

                    Luckily Sony will charge for online play for the PS4, so we can hopefully put this sad argument to bed.

                    • reply
                      April 24, 2013 10:40 PM

                      I genuinely suspect you're correct. Although I still feel ads all over my UI is bull-fucking-shit.

                      • reply
                        April 24, 2013 10:43 PM

                        I agree, especially when it's on a paid service. It's Sony with their free PSN that I expect a shitload of ads from, not MS whom you're paying $80 a year for the same service at this point. I won't be getting XBL on the next xbox if they don't get their shit together, there's just no compelling reason for it anymore.

                        • reply
                          April 24, 2013 10:45 PM

                          I haven't even used this version of the dash and I hate it, I used the one before and it sucked and I hear it's only worse - Giant Bomb really ripped into it a while back.
                          Thank fuck the PS3 UI has remained fucking awesome.

                      • reply
                        April 24, 2013 10:48 PM

                        We can all agree that ads suck balls

                  • reply
                    April 24, 2013 10:33 PM

                    Sony really has gotten much much better. I really hope they keep it up with this next generation.

                • reply
                  April 24, 2013 11:43 PM

                  I don't mind paying for online play, but for access to video services? That's retarded. I can access my Netflix account for free from my PC, my phone, my PS3 - but on Xbox I need an additional subscription?

                  The same five or six video services are available on PS3 and Xbox here, but you need to pay a premium to access them on the latter. That's really, really dumb.

              • reply
                April 30, 2013 2:58 AM

                Exactly.

    • reply
      April 24, 2013 7:23 PM

      This E3 is going to totally rock.

    • reply
      April 25, 2013 2:54 AM

      Why buy an already-outdated console rather than a PC?

      • reply
        April 25, 2013 4:15 PM

        Large HD TV to play games on, no extensive patching or tweaking of graphics, no bloat from an everyday PC OS as everything is concentrated towards gaming only, looks just as good as the PC counterpart using the hardware to its fullest potential.

        • reply
          April 25, 2013 5:24 PM

          I agree consoles are great for casual gaming.

        • reply
          April 30, 2013 3:05 AM

          So many of these points are no longer accurate or are just flat-out outdated, though.

          1. Using a larger LCD or LED monitor and sitting closer is virtually the same effect as sitting 10-feet from your couch with a 46" HDTV except that the resolutions are usually better with the LCD/LED monitor. I can't count how many times I struggled to read text or see specific interface details with a PS3 game on our nice SONY LCD HDTV versus how much easier it was to see that similar thing on my PC monitor.

          2. I'm not sure what you meant by no extensive patching of graphics unless perhaps you meant updating graphic drivers, which at this point is extremely pain-free and as simple as updating an App on your smarthphone, which most non-technical people seem quite able to do every day.

          3. While there's certainly less "bloat" (whatever that's supposed to reference) with a multi-purpose OS, it's hardly something that has ruined gaming on the PC. My 64-bit version of Win7 seems to manage all my games swimmingly.

          4. Where you fail is in the claim that current gen hardware looks "just as good as the PCs do using hardware to their potential." Wrong. Laughably wrong. Consoles can't even anti-alias properly. I can't count how many times I had to actually scootch the couch back when playing a PS3 game because it looked so much crappier if I wasn't far enough away from it to hide the fugliness. No, it's pretty obvious that there's a sizable graphics gap at this point. That'll change with the launch of the PS4 and 360 Nextbox but even that small lead will dwindle quickly with new PC hardware launches.

          So no, there's hardly the supposed benefits that used to be there, anymore. Plus, these days it doesn't have to be an all or nothing contest, really. Own both, play both. It's great. :)

Hello, Meet Lola