Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Halo in September, New Xbox in 2012?

Posted by Zonk on from the shelf-life-of-a-console dept.

EGM sat down for a long talk with Microsoft's Shane Kim, Corporate Vice President. Among other things they discuss the unbuyability of the Bioware company (they asked and were rebuffed), plans for the next next-gen game console (already in the works, possibly coming in 2012), and the timing for the release of Halo 3. "We returned to discussing Microsoft's first party portfolio for 2007. With Grand Theft Auto IV due in mid-October, Microsoft has to figure out when Halo 3 and Project Gotham Racing 4 fit into the release calendar. Kim confirmed that PGR4 was due this fall, though did not specify a date. Why not? Well, because Microsoft won't ship a game in October to compete with GTA IV, and with Lost Odyssey coming in December, that means Halo 3 and Project Gotham Racing 4 have to fight over September and November. With the success Halo 2 enjoyed at retail, would Microsoft even entertain shipping the game outside of the oft-expected November timeframe?"

49 comments

  1. 360 longevity by Applekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    2012 for the next XBox iteration? That means the 360 would have a life of at least 7 years. Much better than the previous XBox incantation (4 years), the Gamecube (5 years), and even the PS2 (6 years).

    Obviously that's a long way in the future so I take that with huge chunks of salt, but I would definitely appreciate a slowing down of next gen arms race propagation.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:360 longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd be mad to wait till 2012. If they released xbox 3 in 2009 they could have a system that strongly out-techs the PS3, and because superior tech is the prime reason for buying a PS3 it would cut it off before it gets any userbase.

      The PS2 spanked the 360 because it was established, and cheaper.
      The PS3 isn't, and won't be for some time, if MS can get a console out that is price competitive and more powerful they'd "win" the console war.

    2. Re:360 longevity by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree that 2012 might be a little long, but anything shorter than 5-6 years is going to leave a bad taste in the mouthes of your fan base. Look at how the MS was criticized for abandoning the Xbox after only four years. People need to feel that they've gotten their moneys worth out of a console if you want them to purchase the next iteration.

    3. Re:360 longevity by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Obviously that's a long way in the future so I take that with huge chunks of salt, but I would definitely appreciate a slowing down of next gen arms race propagation."

      I believe it because this is the first time in... forever, that consoles are actually much faster than modern PCs.

      The Xbox360 came out May 2005 with 3 processors each clocked at 3.2 ghz. Even today, almost 2 years later, you won't find any personal computers with three 3+ ghz processors, and remember all of these are dedicated to processing games, so even when we do have three and four core 3ghz processors in our PCs it's unlikely they'll even approach what the Xbox360 is capable of. The Xbox360 graphics GPU is based on the next generation ATI R600, still unavailable in PCs but should be released sometime in 2007.

      It will be many years before PC hardware will match what is currently available in a ~$400 Xbox360. Makes me wish I could run Windows on it ;)

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:360 longevity by HappySqurriel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the most part companies do not have control over when they release a console ...

      As sales drop to an unacceptable rate third party publishers remove support for a platform and the console is (essentially) dead. You're (typically) given 18 to 24 months notice (because you find out pretty early that EA isn't planning on starting development on new games for your patform long before they release their last game) so you end up having the necessary time to release another system before it becomes obvious that the platform is dead.

      Hypothetically speaking, if the Wii or PS3 were to push XBox 360 sales to under 5 Million consoles per year (worldwide) you would see a new XBox 360 long before 2012

    5. Re:360 longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consoles and PCs are different beasts, with different performance requirements. Even the PS3 would be an absolutely terrible PC -- it just doesn't have the RAM.

      A Ferrari goes really fast, but don't try to hook up a semi-trailer.

    6. Re:360 longevity by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OTOH, the graphics capabilities and performance of a dual-core (not to mention quad core) pc with an 8800gtx are way beyond what either the xbox360 or the ps3 can do already. Processor clocks are not all that matters to real performance.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:360 longevity by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Obviously that's a long way in the future so I take that with huge chunks of salt, but I would definitely appreciate a slowing down of next gen arms race propagation.

      I agree that not only do the consumers probably want to see the console arms race toned down a bit, but the console makers do as well. The longer a console is on the market, the more money they make.

      The exception to this rule, I believe, is Nintendo. I don't think there's any way the Wii can survive for 5 years given the hardware capabilities of the 360 and PS3. Putting out a console w/out hi-def is fine in 2006 and even 2007 because hi-def TV market penetration is still pretty low, but I think that in the next couple of years the Wii is going to go from economical and fun alternative to simply not powerful enough to be taken seriously.

      The point of the Wii, I think, was to grab market share using the innovative Wii-mote and for that they needed a release to coincide with the other consoles and a price to beat them. But to really start making headway they need to be in the some graphics league. Not the best, but in the same league.

      The advantage is that the Wii is relatively cheap, and I'm betting that the public would be far more forgiving of a new Nintendo console in, say 2010, than another MS or Sony offering.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    8. Re:360 longevity by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't think Nintendo has ruled this out, in fact, I think it's exactly what they intend to do. Currently, Sony and MS are having to sell at a loss because the expectations of a console (sans overall creative vision) are higher than what they can make a profit on. Nintendo is stepping back, making a cheaper, more efficient console for the short term. Come 2009-10, MS or Sony will have so much invested in the 360 and PS3, that they won't be able to release a new console. But Nintendo will be easily able to come out with a new console that will out perform both of the others, and will be far cheaper to manufacture. Nintendo will then be half a generation staggerd from MS and Sony, meaning that half of the time, Nintendo will be the leader, and the other half of the time Sony and MS will have to duke it out for that status. If they are able to pull it off and keep it up, they are almost guarenteed stable market leadership, exceeding 60%, by 2015 or so.

      Nintendo has done well to separate itself from Sony and MS. The more they can do that, the more it'll become a choice between Nintendo, and one of the others.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    9. Re:360 longevity by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      I think this might be the plan, or something similar. I don't think Sony can afford another short generation. They're banking on the PS3 lasting a long time. Because of this I can see one of two things happening:

      1) Microsoft releases a new console about 4-5 years after the 360 release, pushing the generation again. Nintendo is in a good position to react to this quickly and keep up with MS.
      2) Nintendo pushes the generation with a new console that takes their new interface, and adds some serious horsepower. Think of the Wii as a proof of concept. Now they know the Wiimote is a hit, and can dump some money into a true 'next-gen' console.

      Either way, Sony could be in a tight spot if their competitors push out new consoles well before Sony is ready for them.

    10. Re:360 longevity by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      Think of the Wii as a proof of concept. Now they know the Wiimote is a hit, and can dump some money into a true 'next-gen' console.

      That's exactly how I think of the Wii (which I own). It's basically the GC with just a bit of extra horsepower (but not really enough to call it next gen) and the wiimote input system. It's a stop-gap measure in terms of finance and R&D in that it allows Nintendo to avoid going head-to-head vs. Sony/MS in terms of processing power and at the same time proof-of-concept for a new way to play video games. I think the Wii is really just a launch pad for a new direction for Nintendo, and I'm excited to see what they can do if they combine ease-of-use, affordability, innovation and some more serious horsepower.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    11. Re:360 longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next Xbox will probably have wiimote style controllers though... maybe even improving on the capabilities with better position sensing, microphone, more buttons or something. Nintendo could do similar stuff of course, but if they want to one step ahead they'll have to pull of another innovation.

    12. Re:360 longevity by @madeus · · Score: 2, Informative

      While, at over a year old, my AMD FX based PC doesn't quite have the raw CPU power to match a 360 it's got far more RAM, all the games can use the HD for caching (not something 360 games to, because it was an option at launch and so they can't depend on it being there) and two graphics cards each with as much memory as the 360 has in total (as a result the quality it can render graphics at is far improved - every title runs with FSAA and AF at 1920x1200).

      The X-Box has an advantage in that developers are able to build specifically for the hardware, and the games only have to look good at the comparatively modest resolution of 720p (much less than I make my PC do), but current gaming PC systems outshine the 360 already. Case in point: the current AMD FX CPU's are already quad core and the motherboards are dual CPU. I guess you've not been keeping up!

      The 360 is great value for money, but it's not more powerful than a new decent PC by a long shot (ditto for the PS3).

      I find the lack of FSAA in many 360 titles is already all too noticeable on a large display (as is the upscaling on a few titles) - same deal on the PS3. Games (like GRAW2) are getting better at hiding this (doing at least some FSAA) but not up to the 8x and 16x quality you see on an Nvidia 7XXX/8XXX SLI system .

    13. Re:360 longevity by adam31 · · Score: 1
      even the PS2 (6 years)

      The PS2 is still alive, with sony publishing first party games, and outselling the Xbox 360 (as of January 2007). It was launched in Japan in 1999, so it's creeping up on 8 years.

      2012 for the next Xbox will mean Microsoft has done a good job. The thing is, at this point system power is not a selling point compared with system functionality. Console manufacturers have a distinct advantage in extending system lifetime because of the online upgradability built-in. Eventually they will need new GPUs but not before they've exhausted adding a lot of functionality on top of the current tech. It's way cheaper and more appealing than a whole new hardware launch nightmare.

    14. Re:360 longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 360 came out in late November or early December, depending on where you are. Not May.

    15. Re:360 longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, A firmware update to the Xbox 360 some months ago makes it able to output at 1080p. The games themselves can choose to only output 720p and rely on the scaler, I suppose, but there isn't an inherent advantage to your PC (unless you run at trans-1080p resolutions with a 30" monitor or something).

      I agree with the rest there.

    16. Re:360 longevity by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I would like to comment that I agree with this guy and that this would be a SMART move by Microsoft, because they pissed a HELL of a lot of people off with the 4 year lifespan _and_ complete abandonment of the Xbox 1 like a red headed step child.

      Seriously, 7 years would go a long way to making consumers feel comfortable with buying the new model - if they can get that kind of value for money.
      (plus, normally the old model lasts at least a year after the new one is out)

    17. Re:360 longevity by theStorminMormon · · Score: 1

      but if they want to one step ahead they'll have to pull of another innovation.

      No, I don't think it quite works that way. Anyone who does Wiimote-like stuff from now on will be an "also-ran" and will have to overcome the first-to-market advantage of the Wii. As long as the capitalize on the Wii controllers, they will own that marketspace and it will be very hard to come and take it from them.

      That's the brilliance of their strategy. Pushing pixels is a # game. No company can get a lock on that advantage: all yo have to do is get better benchmarks and you take it from them. But creating a totally new way to play games is not the kind of thing you can just copy. The association is: fun, intuitive game play = Nintendo. Having secured that, it will be a lot cheaper to re-enter the pixel count wars, and anyone that tries to take the fun, intuitive game play from Nintendo will have an uphill battle of it.

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    18. Re:360 longevity by @madeus · · Score: 1

      The games themselves can choose to only output 720p and rely on the scaler, I suppose, but there isn't an inherent advantage to your PC (unless you run at trans-1080p resolutions with a 30" monitor or something).

      I know about the update (released just before the PS3 launch) to allow the 360 to output at 1080p, however I don't know of a single title that is rendered at anything close to 1920x1080.

      The games are rendered at 720p (or lower) and upscaled. That's the same as me running them at that resoultion on my PC and selecting "Nvida scaling" to make the image fit the display, basically it's totally pointless for games on the 360, certainly at the moment.

      Any game on 360, like Battlefield for example, looks the same at 1080p as it does at 720p. However when I run BF on my PC at 1920x1200 on my PC it's *really* better than running the same at a 1280x720, because it's not just upscaling he world, it's actually rendering it at the higher resolution, so the edges are sharper and there is more detail visible on textures. I find few games playable at that resolution without SLI though, as it's so more of the hardware.

      I like that Microsoft did it, but it's feature that's strictly there for bragging rights. I think that neither the PS3 or the 360 will use it for anything beyond maybe a couple of gimmicky apps and video playback as I suspect neither will be able to render existing action packed games at that sort of resolution (and, argubably, neither really need to of course - 720p with some FSAA is just fine when it's sitting a meter or two away from you, even on a really big TV).

    19. Re:360 longevity by aikouka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, I don't mean to sound rude, but anyone who bases the overall speed of a processor on the "megahertz" needs to re-evaluate the inner-workings of processors and what exactly differentiates the PowerPC-based Xenon processor from your run-of-the-mill desktop x86-64 variety.

      There was actually a good article on Anandtech at one point about how these next-gen processors are not good for gaming compared to your typical desktop dual-core CPU. I mean, you could go on how Cell's SPE's have no branch prediction, which hampers their logical processing (i.e. not as great for features such as AI). PowerPC processors are also in-order execution, which is somewhat wasteful in some situations.

      Here's a wikipedia article on in-order and out-of-order execution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_executio n

  2. Why not release both? by iainl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Umm, I don't get it. What's so bad about those of us who like racing games being allowed to buy a hot new title at the same time as the people who are into FPSes? If Sony only released 12 games a year they wouldn't ship the number of PS2s they have.

    Besides, if I remember rightly, Halo 2's release date was shared with a Rainbow 6, a Splinter Cell and a Call Of Duty all within a week or two of each other, and that didn't seem to come out too badly.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    1. Re:Why not release both? by MooseMuffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it has more to do with marketing than actually cannibalizing sales. They would like to be able to say they have a big name title coming out this month, and a big name title coming out next month, and so on. Releasing them all in September (for example) would be great for that month, but what new stuff will they have to talk about for the rest of the holiday season?

  3. Release Dates by Maximegalon · · Score: 1

    If MSFT was smart, they would try to get the next XBOX out in 5 to 6 years. Get a new system that blows the PS3 away technically, and make money on 2 consoles at the same time like Sony does with the PS2 and PS3. They can do it, if they make writing a game for each similar enough. They hyped Halo3 to death. It's going to be out Holiday '07 for the prime spending season. To say otherwise is just to make it appear it's not delayed.

    1. Re:Release Dates by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft isn't making money on the 360, it's selling at a loss (just like the xbox 1):
      http://www.xbox-scene.com/xbox1data/sep/EEFkZEZVFA VeytDAqV.php

      If they have a long lifespan for the console, that loss might eventually become a profit. If they develop a replacement console sooner, that not only adds a schwack of R&D costs but it reduces the amount of profit they could get from this generation.

      The exact same thing goes for sony; the ps3 is a loss leader, but they are probably making money from the ps2 due to its popularity and long life.

    2. Re:Release Dates by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 1

      make money on 2 consoles at the same time like Sony does with the PS2 and PS3. Sony does not make money on the PS3.
    3. Re:Release Dates by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      That's two-year-old data, and there's no question that MS took a hammering on the the 360 when it was first released. I *think* the GP was talking about how things are now, though: iSuppli has published an estimate -- sorry, can't find the link -- indicating the MS makes money on the premium system now, and breaks even on the cheap one.

    4. Re:Release Dates by fistfullast33l · · Score: 1

      Sony does not make money on the PS3.

      Maybe not the console, but they make money on the games licensing. And they're making a killing on the PS2 right now - both the console and the games.

    5. Re:Release Dates by Maximegalon · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you, my point exactly. Here is the link you mention: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?st ory=11833

      Also, the above story is three months old, so MSFT is likely to have their 65nm chip done. Odds are the physical hardware costs are less than the MSRP at this point. Not bad at all for a powerful console 1.5 years old.

      If they keep their market share in this race, and are first to market with the next generation, Sony will be in a world of hurt.

    6. Re:Release Dates by Floritard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jesus we're already talking about the next-next-gen? The term next-gen hasn't even cooled off yet. How much more clearly do you need to see Sam Fisher's buldging coin-purse, normal-mapped and specularly highlighted through his tight-fitting spy outfit? Games have been driven by graphics for years now but that trend is tapering off. What we need is innovation in gameplay (AI in particular and physics as well). I love ragdoll physics and was always anticipating it, now how about giving players total muscular control and completely phasing out key-framed anims altogether like euphoria is doing? How about procedurally generating not just content, but new experiences and new stories? You're not going to get that with a new version of DirectX or by adding another processor. That is time spent on R&D for software and theory. The graphics theory has been worked out for years, so when new graphics power comes out we're all to ready to throw it into use. More and prettier polygons. But how relevent is that anymore? OTOH where are we with AI? AI doesn't scale like graphics. Most companies still don't even know what to do with a multi-core processor yet. Stop releasing new consoles and make better games. People are eventually just going to get tired of the whole industry.

      I remember hearing EA and Rockstar say they had already mastered the then current gen tech of PS2/Xbox. Really guys? Great then you can just churn out top-notch games! The NES had a life-span of 12 years for chrissake. If you're going to make the same damn games anyway, just stay on the console you've mastered. I could have played 5 GTA San Andreases to be honest. I could have played 5 God of Wars (though I'm not interested in paying an expensive upgrade cost to play those same old experiences in shiny "new" games). Those were games made by companies at the top of their game. Now we're stuck waiting for these assholes to figure out their new toys all over again, all the while bitching about how much it costs them to make all the friggin' content for their new games.

      And when they do get their tools in order will we be getting games with new gameplay? Hell no. We'll get Halo 3, a prettier Halo 2 (the sequel jumping across console gens is particularly indicative of a stagnation in true innovation). We'll get Gears of War, something I honestly could have mistaken for an unreal3 engine tech demo. The monsters will still run around acting dumber than ants (I mean that literally, I would love to see the emergent intelligence such as that of an ant hive in a game). The players will still have the same rigid disconnect with these pretty virtual worlds that could only come from the same boring analog control system. I still haven't found a reason to buy a new system, though I'm still leaning towards the graphically weaker but considerably innovative Wii (if I could ever track one down!). I've played Halo before. Twice. I imagine the third will play much like the first two. I'd like to play it, but I'm not spending $600 for the pleasure of that retread. Console gaming is supposed to be cheaper than PC gaming. It is beginning to outpace the cost of upgrading my PC. Wtf? Microsoft or any other company that really wanted to wouldn't have to release a new console in 10 years if it decided to reach for players hearts and minds (through games not market-speak) instead of just their eyeballs (and wallets). The damn fools at MS screwed up this whole generation in the first place with the premature ejaculate that is the 360. They may be in the lead right now, but you tell me, is this iteration of the console wars nearly as exciting as any of the previous? The Genesis (hell even the SegaCD), the SNES, the N64, the Dreamcast/PS2. Those were exciting times. Sony, MS have really scewed things up with this hardware smorgasbord. Show me the games.

  4. 360 isn't looking terrible by ShadowsHawk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't own a 360, but they actually seem to be learning from their past mistakes. For now, I'll stick with my PC, Wii and DS:Lite, but kudos to Microsoft. It's nice to see a company plan a steady flow of games. I just wish that Nintendo would get its butt in gear and release some decent single player Wii games.

    1. Re:360 isn't looking terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, I use a XBox 360 as a Media Center extender and let me tell you, it doesn't play nice in the entertainment center. Close the glass door and the thing wants to go critical. They should market it as a supplemental heater for your house. Between the XBox and the MediaPC I am probably paying $40 a month in electrical costs just to watch TV during the winter months.

    2. Re:360 isn't looking terrible by blackmonday · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've never been a huge Microsoft fan, but the Xbox 360 is a home-run. Great online integration, great controllers, connect360 on the mac and I get my iTunes library streaming through! Plus direct iPod support, I can just plug it in to the USB port and play my MP3s. Good stuff. I wish everything MS made was as good as the Xbox!

    3. Re:360 isn't looking terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wish everything MS made was as good as the Xbox!"

      It is. This just goes to show you how damn hard it is to make an OS that supports everything.

    4. Re:360 isn't looking terrible by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      This generation of consoles have been really great for consumers. 360 is huge improvement over the regular xbox. I love the new controllers and the dashboard. Wii even though not a big hardware change over the gamecube, has a lot better functionality and innovative controllers. Not to mention warioware is one of the best party games since mario party on the N64. Don't know anything about ps3 since i don't own one.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    5. Re:360 isn't looking terrible by Frenchy_2001 · · Score: 1

      The x360 is a good product for the consummer and sells reasonnably well (10M+ so far if you can trust nexgenwars.com). but it's a financial pit for MS.

      So far, their gaming division has only had 1 or 2 positive quarters in its history. Sure, the product is fine and the consummer enjoy it, but the only reason they can sell it is because of windows and office. They are losing money on the hardware (R&D cost not ofset and even bill of material pretty much at cost) and not selling enough software to make up for it.

      Their only redeming quality is that they stole market share from Sony and hurt it too. Nintendo, clamored by the crowds to be the loser of the last 2 generations is still making money. They made money of the gamecube and they are making a ton of money of the wii.

      So, depending how you judge the products in a console war, the winner can be very different...

  5. As a Bioware Fan by bad_fx · · Score: 1

    Let me just say: Thank Fuck for that. Though, I dunno if it matters too much. After the pleasure of NWN1 on Linux and Mac, they seem pretty focused on windows only stuff now. And indeed the title they're plugging the most at the moment is an XBox only affair. :-/

    1. Re:As a Bioware Fan by Lobo42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If past experience shows us anything, it's that Bioware's "Xbox only" titles are in fact, not Xbox-only. Mass Effect, like Jade Empire and KOTOR before it, will almost assuredly be ported to the PC eventually. (Give it a year or two.)

      Plus, Bioware still has Dragon Age in development for PC, as well as some other projects. Fear not.

      Though it does seem that Mac/Linux support is probably out of the question...

    2. Re:As a Bioware Fan by EggyToast · · Score: 1

      I'm also pleased to hear that Bioware will remain independent, even if they do end up just releasing on one console. I wonder if they're going Xbox only due to its (supposedly) similarity to programming for Windows, with fewer "targets" to hit regarding compatibility & support.

      I also wonder if games like Jade Empire ended up making far more money than they estimated it would if it was released just for Windows (as a single player RPG wouldn't go anywhere on PC), and they figured to go where the money is.

      I like their products, but I'm not at all surprised that they're showing more interest in consoles since their product doesn't live or die by online play.

    3. Re:As a Bioware Fan by bad_fx · · Score: 1

      True that, I'm thoroughly enjoying Jade Empire and sincerely hope Mass Effect is not an Xbox only title forever. But Jade Empire took pretty much a full 2 years to get to the PC. (KOTOR was only 6 months or so IIRC.) At that rate Mass Effect will probably be something like 3 years. :p

    4. Re:As a Bioware Fan by Lobo42 · · Score: 1

      KOTOR was less than a single month, I believe, because it was announced as a PC/Xbox title - not an exclusive. Jade Empire took longer because it was intended as an exclusive from the beginning. (At least, as a "timed exclusive.") So my guess would be Mass Effect shouldn't take too much longer than Jade Empire to see a PC release. Plus, as I said, there are more PC projects from Bioware coming...soon. ;)

  6. Spoilers by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
    My predictions:
    • Xbox 360 bundle with Halo 3 in December...
    • With $50 cut in price
    • 4 player co-op
    • We see Master Chief's face

    Actually even just one of those coming true would be pretty sweet. Except for maybe the last...

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Spoilers by Necroman · · Score: 1

      Remember boys and girls, don't direct link images to sites that don't allow it.

      --
      Its not what it is, its something else.
    2. Re:Spoilers by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'll check the link next time, and FWIW, it was an Alfred E Newman pic.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:Spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure Master Chief is an oracle with an android body attached.

    4. Re:Spoilers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we all know that they aren't great about their dates since halo 3 was supposed to be out by LAST christmas.

      on a side note, if you bought crackdown or got in on the secret action you get the halo3 multiplayer beta "spring 2007" so if it takes them another 1/2 to 3/4 of a year to finish the storyline I'll be slightly dissapointed..... that I have to rip the game out of some kids cold, dead, Christmas jeered hands!

  7. Zephyr??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I assume then, the Zephyr project is cancelled, and we won't see a new Xbox in a month or 2....

  8. You answered yourself by MMaestro · · Score: 1
    Microsoft could "win" the console war simply through long term attrition. As you pointed out, Microsoft only redeeming quality is that 'they stole market share from Sony and hurt it too.' R&D costs for the Xbox 360? PENNIES! Just imagine how much was spent on Vista alone. Manufacturing costs? The Xbox was obviously a loss in that sector but for the 360, they more or less have it at break-even at this point (1 year to improve manufacturing techniques, no price drop, having "core" and "premium" models). Compare this with Sony.

    Sony is up against an opponent with a 1 year start and needs to play catch-up FAST or get stabbed in the back by third-party developers (first GTA, then Assassin's Creed and recently Mercenaries 2 all jumped ship/turned cross-platform). Since the PS2 was THE dominant system last generation, they have no place to go but down and they need to do damage control FAST since they've delayed the PS3 launch for almost 6 months (it was originally supposed to launch Spring 2006, destroying the 360's lead down to a short 3 or so months.) R&D costs? Big enough to warrant complaints from stockholders. The fact that the Cell chip was built from the ground up with IBM no doubt burned some serious cash. Manufacturing costs? Sony isn't even willing to talk about those and people have estimated them to be anywhere from $700 to $1100 each unit, not a vote of confidence there.

    Nintendo meanwhile is riding a bicycle and pedaling as fast (manufacturing bottlenecks) as they can to make up for Microsoft's 1 year advantage leaving Sony in the dust.

  9. Erm... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    For some reason i wasnt logged in and operas autofill changed my subject.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  10. Close, but... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    I heard june, but it may be later, possibly coinsciding with the Halo 3 release, but look for a $25-75 drop on both the core and premium, as well as the release of a third version for $475 ($25 less than the now on hold 20gb PS3) with the HD-DVD drive built in as well as an HDMI out. It will also include a larger hard drive (estimates range from 60-120GB)and possibly have the wireless adapter built in. Basically a big fuck you to sony.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."