Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Xbox 720 to use PowerPC CPU

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Amari24
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisKamanowns View Post
    Are we going to be paying 80-100 bucks per game now? -__-
    The last company to try that failed miserably. There's no way you'll be able to market $100 games.

    Originally posted by Hoserman117 View Post
    Just because it's 6-10x more powerful doesn't mean the graphics are 6-10x more powerful, that isn't really how graphics work, they don't scale up directly with the consoles power.

    I'm sure it'll still look great, if you simply look at the graphical leap that has occurred on the 360 just from the time it was released it's extremely impressive.
    However, there was a report just recently from NaughtyDog (makers of Uncharted) that they're currently working on a game that has 1 million polygons. That right there shows that the next consoles will have very noticeable leaps in visuals. They didn't say if this game is Uncharted 4, a PS4 exclusive, or something else,.

    Just so you can put that in perspective. Kratos in God of War 3 was only 20K polygons. Sev in Killzone 3 was only 16k.
    Last edited by Amari24; 01-29-2012, 08:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amari24
    replied
    Originally posted by theMileHighGuy View Post
    It's the next gen, I expected it to be breathtaking new technology. Something I would want to pay $500 for. Not 2011's cutting edge. Hell, it won't even have an SSD hard drive. Why would either console choose NOT to go for the next big graphical leap?? First one to photorealism wins.
    Yeah, true. But I think the same people who are saying "don't release new consoles! This gen still has a lot of life left!" Probably don't care if the graphics aren't that much of a graphical leap. These current consoles are showing their age. And if people are still denying the need for new consoles then maybe graphics aren't all that important to them.

    As long as the graphics are around or better than what you see in Crysis, BF3, or hell maybe even the Samaritan tech demo, that's all I really need. If I wanted more than that I'd start gaming on a PC.

    Leave a comment:


  • InsaneBlaze23
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisKamanowns View Post
    Are we going to be paying 80-100 bucks per game now? -__-
    Doubt it, the gaming companies would lose a lot of money if they make up the game prices right now. They probably when the consoles after the next ones, but for the next gen they wont. Just doesn't make since.


    Also we have to remember this is all still a rumor, nothing has been confirmed by Microsoft.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisKamanowns
    replied
    Are we going to be paying 80-100 bucks per game now? -__-

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoserman117
    replied
    Just because it's 6-10x more powerful doesn't mean the graphics are 6-10x more powerful, that isn't really how graphics work, they don't scale up directly with the consoles power.

    Also, it's not like a 22nm processor is something completely different to work with as opposed to a 32nm like "The Cell" was. Tech wise it is very similar, not in terms of how it is built, but in terms of how you design for it, it's quite similar to the 32nm. 22nm just means they can fit more memory cells onto the chip than the 32nm processor.

    I'm sure it'll still look great, if you simply look at the graphical leap that has occurred on the 360 just from the time it was released it's extremely impressive.

    Leave a comment:


  • theMileHighGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Amari24 View Post
    What kind of leap are you expecting, though? The ATI 7000 series still blows away current console visuals. I don't think they need to go overboard here in the graphics department. Just make it so that you aren't bottlenecked by other limitations like 512MB RAM. We'll be getting around Crysis (max) graphics which should be sufficient enough for a console. Besides, that's basically the best thing out now.

    Who knows what else will be coming out over another year or so that Microsoft will use. I also think using a 32nm processor is just playing it safe on Microsoft's part. Look at how smart Sony thought they were using 'The Cell'. Needless to say, it backfired on them because the PS3 is still difficult for developers to program for. That's why most multiplats are better on the 360 by far.

    And there's no way Microsoft would block used games on their next system. That's basically suicide. Microsoft has done some dumb things over the years, but they aren't that dumb.

    Also, don't get your hopes up on Sony. One of the top guys already said not to expect a big graphical leap from the PS3 to PS4...

    It's the next gen, I expected it to be breathtaking new technology. Something I would want to pay $500 for. Not 2011's cutting edge. Hell, it won't even have an SSD hard drive. Why would either console choose NOT to go for the next big graphical leap?? First one to photorealism wins.
    Last edited by theMileHighGuy; 01-28-2012, 07:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • InsaneBlaze23
    replied
    Originally posted by Amari24 View Post
    What kind of leap are you expecting, though? The ATI 7000 series still blows away current console visuals. I don't think they need to go overboard here in the graphics department. Just make it so that you aren't bottlenecked by other limitations like 512MB RAM. We'll be getting around Crysis (max) graphics which should be sufficient enough for a console. Besides, that's basically the best thing out now.

    Who knows what else will be coming out over another year or so that Microsoft will use. I also think using a 32nm processor is just playing it safe on Microsoft's part. Look at how smart Sony thought they were using 'The Cell'. Needless to say, it backfired on them because the PS3 is still difficult for developers to program for. That's why most multiplats are better on the 360 by far.

    And there's no way Microsoft would block used games on their next system. That's basically suicide. Microsoft has done some dumb things over the years, but they aren't that dumb.

    Also, don't get your hopes up on Sony. One of the top guys already said not to expect a big graphical leap from the PS3 to PS4...
    I completely agree with you on this.

    I do wanna say one thing, Microsoft is playing it smart and not trying to make the same mistake Sony made when the PS3 first came out. In that's make the console un-affordable. So they don't wanna make to big of a leap that would cause them to make the Next box cost to much for the common gamer.

    The graphics are suppose to be 6-10x better than any games graphics out now on consoles, that's enough for me. It's suppose to have Blu-ray, that's enough for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amari24
    replied
    Originally posted by Puddleglum View Post
    I completely agree that the 7000 is not enough, ESPECIALLY if it's not even that and is in the 6600 range. These things (the 7000 series) were designed what, 3-4 years ago before they went through testing and production? M$ should be planning for the future, but I've never seen them do that with any regularity so... *shrug*



    The simple fact that that is one of if not THE biggest selling point for a PS3 is pathetic.



    I think that is what consoles are going for and it's a worthy goal. Right now if you don't have a TV that can stream wirelessly and want Netflix streaming or Hulu you need a Roku or a Boxee Box etc. Consoles now can take marketshare from those set top streaming boxes and if they put in enough bells, whistles and content a Roku owner like me will make a switch. I worry that M$ will want too much of the "streaming" pie and will under estimate the fish that are already in that pond.



    It may just be a lesson M$ took from Sony trying to jam every new tech they could get away with onto the PS3, then again you could say that the Blu-Ray player saved that console. Besides, I always considered the ridiculous starting prices for this current generation of consoles as the consumer simply paying part of the new systems' production cost (along with that $10 bump in game prices). Can you imagine if M$ sticks to certain tried and true techs but still keeps performance in focus to release a $299 system? Heck I might even get one.



    I was floored people even bought the PS3 when it first came out...I also remember walking into Costco the first January after it came out and seeing pallet upon pallet upon pallet of unsold PS3's.



    At first I was livid when I heard this, I felt the console industry would be screwing itself and the PC community as every company that cross platforms (which are pretty much all of them these days) would be forced to design for massively distant system specifications making the product worse for everyone.

    Then again consoles can get by with less computing power, they don't have anti-virus programs or other bloatware that comes with most software/preripherals for PC's these days. Between that and the fact that developers know exactly what the tech specs of the consoles are and so can optimize for them.

    I think another thing to think about would be the resources required to make games these days. All big titles are made by teams of 100+ people, and as the technology gets better I don't think it's too far off to make the assumption that the time required to create the games increases as well.

    Two things, if M$ installs some kind of anti-used game feature I believe Piracy will explode on consoles. The new consoles also better be packing some serious ram like 6-10 GB's.

    It has been very interesting to read all of the posts in this thread, it's always nice to know I am not alone in some of these opinions.
    Two things, if M$ installs some kind of anti-used game feature I believe Piracy will explode on consoles. The new consoles also better be packing some serious ram like 6-10 GB's.
    I think 6-10 GB's of RAM is a little overboard, though. I mean the best looking games on PC in 2012 only use around 2GB's. I would say at least 4GB of RAM should be enough. The cardinal rule for a while has been that anything over 6GB of RAM is a bit too much for nothing.

    I think another thing to think about would be the resources required to make games these days. All big titles are made by teams of 100+ people, and as the technology gets better I don't think it's too far off to make the assumption that the time required to create the games increases as well.
    I think more importantly, games will be more EXPENSIVE to develop. The smaller companies who don't have the biggest budget could possibly go out of business, or get owned by a bigger corporation.

    It may just be a lesson M$ took from Sony trying to jam every new tech they could get away with onto the PS3, then again you could say that the Blu-Ray player saved that console. Besides, I always considered the ridiculous starting prices for this current generation of consoles as the consumer simply paying part of the new systems' production cost (along with that $10 bump in game prices). Can you imagine if M$ sticks to certain tried and true techs but still keeps performance in focus to release a $299 system? Heck I might even get one.
    That would be nice for the consumer, but Microsoft is much smarter than that. There's no way they'll stick a price tag over $500 ala Sony with the PS3. But they aren't going to launch it for $300 when they know they can make a profit starting at $400 before shaving the price. There's a reason why we call them "M$". If there's anyone who needs to launch a $300 system it has to be Nintendo. They've been on thin ice lately, and really, they've been setting themselves up for fail by saying the Wii U is going to win back hardcore gamers. I guess a step in the right direction is that they plan on changing the name from 'Wii U' to something else. I think Nintendo Revolution would work since that's what the Wii was going to originally be called.
    Last edited by Amari24; 01-28-2012, 12:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amari24
    replied
    Originally posted by theMileHighGuy View Post
    Soooo not a big enough jump. ATI's 7000 series??? That's the best thing out right now. 32nm processor is going to be a mistake too.

    Sony is going to crush this machine, especially if they wait to usual Sony-year so they can copy cat things from Nintendo and out-power the xbox.

    Also been reading several reports like this one http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/0...20-used-games/ which is really crappy stuff. If Xbox goes through with it, every other console will have to or no one will make games with them.
    What kind of leap are you expecting, though? The ATI 7000 series still blows away current console visuals. I don't think they need to go overboard here in the graphics department. Just make it so that you aren't bottlenecked by other limitations like 512MB RAM. We'll be getting around Crysis (max) graphics which should be sufficient enough for a console. Besides, that's basically the best thing out now.

    Who knows what else will be coming out over another year or so that Microsoft will use. I also think using a 32nm processor is just playing it safe on Microsoft's part. Look at how smart Sony thought they were using 'The Cell'. Needless to say, it backfired on them because the PS3 is still difficult for developers to program for. That's why most multiplats are better on the 360 by far.

    And there's no way Microsoft would block used games on their next system. That's basically suicide. Microsoft has done some dumb things over the years, but they aren't that dumb.

    Also, don't get your hopes up on Sony. One of the top guys already said not to expect a big graphical leap from the PS3 to PS4...
    Last edited by Amari24; 01-28-2012, 11:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puddleglum
    replied
    Originally posted by theMileHighGuy View Post
    Soooo not a big enough jump. ATI's 7000 series??? That's the best thing out right now. 32nm processor is going to be a mistake too.
    I completely agree that the 7000 is not enough, ESPECIALLY if it's not even that and is in the 6600 range. These things (the 7000 series) were designed what, 3-4 years ago before they went through testing and production? M$ should be planning for the future, but I've never seen them do that with any regularity so... *shrug*

    Originally posted by Jay3 View Post
    Blu-ray in XBox would be awesome. Blu-ray is the only reason I got a PS3 instead of XBox 360.
    The simple fact that that is one of if not THE biggest selling point for a PS3 is pathetic.

    Originally posted by Jay3 View Post
    I keep hearing the next Xbox will be a bold leap in functionality in an attempt to be a unified set-top box. Functions like DVR, video streaming, etc. Expand the ecosystem from the huge base of XBox Live accounts to be getting all kinds of content.
    I think that is what consoles are going for and it's a worthy goal. Right now if you don't have a TV that can stream wirelessly and want Netflix streaming or Hulu you need a Roku or a Boxee Box etc. Consoles now can take marketshare from those set top streaming boxes and if they put in enough bells, whistles and content a Roku owner like me will make a switch. I worry that M$ will want too much of the "streaming" pie and will under estimate the fish that are already in that pond.

    Originally posted by Hoserman117 View Post
    Hm. Kinda bums me out that they'd still be using a 32nm processor. Those have been commercially mass produced for over 2 years, and has been available for about 6 years.
    It may just be a lesson M$ took from Sony trying to jam every new tech they could get away with onto the PS3, then again you could say that the Blu-Ray player saved that console. Besides, I always considered the ridiculous starting prices for this current generation of consoles as the consumer simply paying part of the new systems' production cost (along with that $10 bump in game prices). Can you imagine if M$ sticks to certain tried and true techs but still keeps performance in focus to release a $299 system? Heck I might even get one.

    Originally posted by Hoserman117 View Post
    I don't think the cost will be too obscene. Around $400. With the casual gaming market becoming such a huge thing it'd be really dumb for companies to price themselves out of those people by going to $600 like the PS3.
    I was floored people even bought the PS3 when it first came out...I also remember walking into Costco the first January after it came out and seeing pallet upon pallet upon pallet of unsold PS3's.

    Originally posted by Hoserman117 View Post
    Besides, this tech is still kinda old. There are CPU's on the market right now that I can go out and buy that would be much more powerful. I know it says "6 times more powerful than the original Xbox", but it is quite honestly a miracle what they manage to get out of the 360, it's hardware specs are absolute crap compared to modern gaming PC's.
    At first I was livid when I heard this, I felt the console industry would be screwing itself and the PC community as every company that cross platforms (which are pretty much all of them these days) would be forced to design for massively distant system specifications making the product worse for everyone.

    Then again consoles can get by with less computing power, they don't have anti-virus programs or other bloatware that comes with most software/preripherals for PC's these days. Between that and the fact that developers know exactly what the tech specs of the consoles are and so can optimize for them.

    I think another thing to think about would be the resources required to make games these days. All big titles are made by teams of 100+ people, and as the technology gets better I don't think it's too far off to make the assumption that the time required to create the games increases as well.

    Two things, if M$ installs some kind of anti-used game feature I believe Piracy will explode on consoles. The new consoles also better be packing some serious ram like 6-10 GB's.

    It has been very interesting to read all of the posts in this thread, it's always nice to know I am not alone in some of these opinions.
    Last edited by Puddleglum; 01-28-2012, 11:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • theMileHighGuy
    replied
    Soooo not a big enough jump. ATI's 7000 series??? That's the best thing out right now. 32nm processor is going to be a mistake too.

    Sony is going to crush this machine, especially if they wait to usual Sony-year so they can copy cat things from Nintendo and out-power the xbox.

    Also been reading several reports like this one http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/0...20-used-games/ which is really crappy stuff. If Xbox goes through with it, every other console will have to or no one will make games with them.
    Last edited by theMileHighGuy; 01-28-2012, 10:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amari24
    replied
    Originally posted by Jay3 View Post
    Blu-ray in XBox would be awesome. Blu-ray is the only reason I got a PS3 instead of XBox 360. I had an XBox instead of PS2.

    My thinking is Nintendo and "one of either Sony or XBox." There's no reason to have both XBox and Sony, so you make the decision based on (1) which one has the exclusive titles you have to have; and (2) considerations like blu-ray, etc.

    Nintendo is great for its exclusive titles, family games, and houseguests/parties. The other two are great for pretty much the same things.
    I'm planning on getting both the PS4 and 720. Both systems will have worthwhile exclusive titles, and I have friends and family who game on both the 360 and PS3.

    With Kinect selling 20 million units alone, it's save to say the 360 is now becoming that family/party system. And if the 720 has built in Kinect 2.0-- then Nintendo is already losing a big chunk of their demographic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jay3
    replied
    Blu-ray in XBox would be awesome. Blu-ray is the only reason I got a PS3 instead of XBox 360. I had an XBox instead of PS2.

    My thinking is Nintendo and "one of either Sony or XBox." There's no reason to have both XBox and Sony, so you make the decision based on (1) which one has the exclusive titles you have to have; and (2) considerations like blu-ray, etc.

    Nintendo is great for its exclusive titles, family games, and houseguests/parties. The other two are great for pretty much the same things.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoserman117
    replied
    Originally posted by DenverBlood View Post
    Doesn't every kid want a 3DS?


    All my below 10 neices and nephews have one but none of them have a PSvita.
    I'm sure all the kids want a 3DS, but sales indicate that not very many people are actually buying it. It isn't doing very well, and the games on it right now are lacking to say the least. It came out with only it's 3D gimmick and remakes of a bunch of old classic games to push units. People aren't really falling for that right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Amari24
    replied
    Also, a recent report says the 720 will be using Blu Ray.

    According to "games industry sources" speaking with Kotaku, the Next Xbox will use Blu-ray as its disc technology, an upgrade from the DVD drive the Xbox 360 currently sports. Sony's PlayStation 3 supports Blu-Ray, and it has since it was first launched in 2006. Blu-ray disc capacity is significantly greater than that of DVD. Additionally, a "reliable industry source" tells Kotaku that Microsoft's Next Xbox may incorporate a system that blocks gamers from playing used titles. Further details concerning the implementation of such a system were not offered. Further, a source familiar with Microsoft's plans told the blog that the company will ship the Next Xbox with an updated version of the full-body gesture-recognition technology Kinect. According to Kotaku's source, this new iteration of the Kinect will contain an onboard processor for greater motion detection, a feature that was supposedly considered for the first Kinect.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X