Latest Xbox 3 rumors

[ilwrath]

Windows 8 does some things well and needs improvements in other areas. It's fairly different and not quite intutive.

Not quite intuitive. That is my nomination for understatement of the year.

But seriously, you're right. It does do some things very well. If anything, my criticism would be that Microsoft didn't go far enough with Metro. Especially for a more traditional desktop/laptop use. Why the heck does it have that legacy desktop at all, let alone why does it become the default environment once you launch even a Metro-aware app? Launch Office 2013 from Metro. No problem. It opens the legacy desktop and then opens Office. Ok, not so bad... But when you close Office, you're still on the desktop, with no obvious way to get anywhere. Now, once you learn that you have to close the empty desktop or click the bottom left corner, it isn't SO bad, but it's still a disjointed step that shouldn't be there.

And the settings.... Why do I now have three places to set up different parts of the computer, with varying amounts of crossover between them? The settings charm on the Start tiles has different options from the settings charm on the legacy desktop, which has different options from the old settings menu. Gah! Condense this crap!

Though I find using Windows RT and 8 for a while then going back to the iPad that the iPad doesn't quite make sense either. For example, I keep pulling down to close the app, which doesn't work. With the Surface RT it is nice to have a cut down Office version and not trying to make some other app (typically I use Docs To Go) do it's duty. Printing is a headache on the iPad, I don't even bother any more. Whereas, SurfaceRT there's 1 printer I found didn't work out of the box, others seem plug right into USB and work. Oh and there's the USB and HDMI dongles that cost extra nad I have to carry around with me. Pain! Apple should at least use a common standard.

Oh, I agree completely. While the iPad is excellent for media consumption... It is a god-awful terrible device to try to do anything actually useful with.

 

[Glaucus]

I guess I'm just not a fan of metro. At first I thought it looked cool on phones. But now I don't like it anywhere.

 

[Glaucus]

I have no idea how one prints on an iPad, or how one even sets up a printer. For Android, I had to install a print app by Samsung. It automatically found my Samsung networked laser printer. Then I just select the Samsung Printer from the "Send To" widget. In Android 3+ there's a standard Send To gadget on the Action bar most apps can easily tie into. But there is some voodoo going on as I'm not sure how the document gets converted into something the Printer app understands. Does it just pass along a bitmap of the document and let the app deal with it? Not sure, can't say I've looked at the dev docs either.

Although I think Google provides a cloud print option as well. That's kinda neat too and would be a great alternative if you didn't have a dedicated app for your printer.

 

[Glaucus]

I thought this would be a little appropriate in this thread:

 

[ilwrath]

I thought this would be a little appropriate in this thread:

Yup. A classic, there.
I like me some Sim Racers, and when I make a new design from scratch, I always hide something fun in it. I had a car with a bumper sticker on the back "If you can read this, you're losing." (I think I also have "I ran over your honor roll student" somewhere....)

 

[faethor]

WiiU Jan - 50K units. Worst console sales since 2005

Is this a WiiU problem? Or is it a market problem? It'll be interesting to see what the PS4 brings on 2/20/13. Could this early announcement tank the WiiU sales for the year? I'd be sad to see Nintendo go the way of Atari. It looks like the WiiU was a rush job to jump on the next gen and gamer's aren't finding it attractive.

 

[Glaucus]

Hard to say. The market Nintendo dominated might have been eaten up in large part by the mobile market.

Xbox and the PlayStation franchises are heavy hitters. Or at least they're expected to be, although I'm not sure what we can expect from this next gen. Will it make our jaws drop to the floor. Unlikely. I expect we'll see 1080P games standard, but is that enough? Maybe UltraHD would make our jaws drop, but most people have serious doubts that the hardware would be able to pull that off well (or at all).

More likely than not, they'll make the next gen consoles "better" by intentionally limiting the current generation. Expect no more features added via firmware updates, from now on it'll be just security and bug patches.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Hard to say. The market Nintendo dominated might have been eaten up in large part by the mobile market.

Game consoles are luxuries and most games are boring. There was a fairly big uptake in the recent past but who really needs a new game console while the old one works and who really needs new games that won't run on the old console while the old console still works and really why spend the money when food prices are going up and we really need to get our credit card balances down?

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hard to say. The market Nintendo dominated might have been eaten up in large part by the mobile market.

Xbox and the PlayStation franchises are heavy hitters. Or at least they're expected to be, although I'm not sure what we can expect from this next gen. Will it make our jaws drop to the floor. Unlikely. I expect we'll see 1080P games standard, but is that enough? Maybe UltraHD would make our jaws drop, but most people have serious doubts that the hardware would be able to pull that off well (or at all).

More likely than not, they'll make the next gen consoles "better" by intentionally limiting the current generation. Expect no more features added via firmware updates, from now on it'll be just security and bug patches.

They have to compete with PC's nowadays so they have to come up with something really powerfull.

 

[Glaucus]

@Fluffy, Gamers will just eat less.

 

[faethor]

Xbox and the PlayStation franchises are heavy hitters. Or at least they're expected to be, although I'm not sure what we can expect from this next gen. Will it make our jaws drop to the floor. Unlikely. I expect we'll see 1080P games standard, but is that enough? Maybe UltraHD would make our jaws drop, but most people have serious doubts that the hardware would be able to pull that off well (or at all).

3D TVs failed. Maybe UltraHD will succeed. However, it's way to early. The current estimate is 2017-2018 when UltraHD hits mainstream pricing. By then the PS5 will be a thought. So even if the current consoles can do better than HD, but not as good as UltraHD, I think they'd be fine.

Game consoles are luxuries and most games are boring. There was a fairly big uptake in the recent past but who really needs a new game console while the old one works and who really needs new games that won't run on the old console while the old console still works and really why spend the money when food prices are going up and we really need to get our credit card balances down?

This is ever the eternal question. Why go new when what you have will do? I think we'll see the typical enthusiasts go for the new consoles then after a year or two the average gamer will make the switch.

They have to compete with PC's nowadays so they have to come up with something really powerfull.

Consoles are on your TV. They are limited in resolution to what a TV can do - 1080p at 60fps. The new consoles won't have to be more powerful than a PC. Which in turn will likely make them less expensive and easier for people to afford. Additionally, current consoles handle basic common internet functions such as email and webbrowsing. I suspect next gen will do that stuff even better.

Overall what I expect next gen is a better inclusion of gaming on diverse platforms. Buy a PS4 game and have it run on your Sony VITA, Sony Phone, or PC. The use of Cloud Gaming would aid that - making your device more of a display than a true processing powerhouse.

Don't forget that H.265 video compression was finalized. It has the potential to half one's bandwidth needs for video. Because images are compressed about 42% and provide the same quality compared to H.264 (used in Blu-Ray). The player end, needs to have better decompression power than H.264 requires. H.265 is also the standard for streaming UltraHD (4K and 8K Tvs). 2014 is supposed to bring out the H.265 chips. So, I think we'll see consoles launching Xmas 2013 set with more than sufficient processing power to handle those streams. Could it be the purple Microsoft custom accelerators relate to the new HVEC (H.265) Standard?

Which brings up - Blu-Ray -any H.265 breaks existing Blu-Ray we'd need another standard or an update of Blu-Rays to that Standard. Sony's PS1 made CD gaming viable, PS2 -DVD, PS3 - Blu-Ray ... perhaps the PS4 will announce the 4K Blu-Ray 'standard' ?

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Consoles are on your TV. They are limited in resolution to what a TV can do - 1080p at 60fps. The new consoles won't have to be more powerful than a PC. Which in turn will likely make them less expensive and easier for people to afford. Additionally, current consoles handle basic common internet functions such as email and webbrowsing. I suspect next gen will do that stuff even better.

With HDMI, attaching PC's to your tv's is just as easy. Big Picture mode shows that Steam wants to make the PC more game console-like, or, rather, you can choose whether you want it to function like a game console or not. 2, 3 years ago I was seriously contemplating to buy a mini laptop and a ps3 or xbox 360; but plain desktop pc's just have more possibilities. So I bought a pc and upgraded it a year later to a real gaming powerhouse.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

3D TVs failed. Maybe UltraHD will succeed. However, it's way to early. The current estimate is 2017-2018 when UltraHD hits mainstream pricing. By then the PS5 will be a thought. So even if the current consoles can do better than HD, but not as good as UltraHD, I think they'd be fine.

I don't think resolutions beyond 1080p will be a selling point for upcoming consoles. Most tv's aren't that big to make it worthwile. I think they rather push on the polygon count and other graphic effects, and perhaps more realistic physics.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

3D TVs failed. Maybe UltraHD will succeed. However, it's way to early.

3D TV that's not actually 3D was a pre-dead idea and I have no idea how much money got sunk into that boon-doggle but did anyone think it was really going to work out? As for UltraHD it's up against installed infrastructure. I went HD on my main TV about 3 years ago (liquidation sale) and a lot of the content I watch (when I watch ... if I watch) is not even HD yet.

Consoles are on your TV. They are limited in resolution to what a TV can do - 1080p at 60fps.

Forget about consoles. When you phone has HDMI and we get our bluetooth controllers who needs a console or a BluRay player?

 

[Glaucus]

I think it's too bad 3D has "failed". But I'm not sure it's game over for 3D. It depends what you expect I guess. All the old movies and shows are not gonna be upconverted to 3D like all the old movies were up-converted to HD. However, going forward, 3D may still be relevant. Especially in gaming. With modern hardware, two players can experience 3D, and each player can view a totally different screen from the same TV. You'd need a 240hz display or greater, but that's very possible today. This would be great for head to head games where you can once again play against someone next to you but not have to deal with split screens and even have "secret" information displayed on the screen and not worry about your opponent knowing your secrets.

The real problem with 3D TVs is the cost of the glasses. TVs that are 120Hz or more don't need much extra for that 3D feature (although 240hz is even better). Eventually the 3D content will arrive. Samsung just released a really clever 2D/3D lens for my camera that not only makes it possible to take 3D photos and videos, but to do so at a excellent level of quality (other implementations used dual lenses which meant higher cost and smaller aperture, but Samsung seems to have got it right - all early reviews indicate it's an exceptional lens). Once people start producing their own content, the technology will likely become more popular.

UltraHD is likely to impress as well, but it has some other issues it needs to address. That's one heck of a lot of bits to push. But also, HD camcorders have just recently become mainstream and yet it's still a very demanding task for a PC to do any real time editing on 1080P60. I can't imagine what crazy hardware you'd need to process UltraHD. So even if UltraHD TVs came out tomorrow, we'd have little in terms of devices capable of supporting them and we'd have just as little content and no options for content creation. Only real chance for it are the consoles (or HTPCs), and once again, I don't think they'll be able to manage it either.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I think it's too bad 3D has "failed". But I'm not sure it's game over for 3D. It depends what you expect I guess. All the old movies and shows are not gonna be upconverted to 3D like all the old movies were up-converted to HD.

It's not the first outing for 3D. It keeps coming back but never sticks. It's gimmicky and it doesn't make crappy movies better.

The real problem with 3D TVs is the cost of the glasses.

The problem is that there are glasses. And it's not 3D. And 3D content just isn't that compelling over 2D. I suppose if it's all you can get and there's no 2D left ... I just don't hear anybody talking about 3D and nobody seems to be too stoked about the 3D capable displays. Maybe it's just because I'm old but I just can't be arsed.

 

[Glaucus]

It's not the first outing for 3D. It keeps coming back but never sticks. It's gimmicky and it doesn't make crappy movies better.

No, but this is so far the best implementation. The blue/red glasses were crap in comparison to active shutters.

Overall, I think the glasses are the biggest issue for 3D adoption. I personally don't mind them. I saw U2 3D at the Imax, it was awesome. I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater and was impressed with the immersive aspect. But the problem with 3D is that they want to charge a premium at the theater, and most people will just make do with 2D and save some extra cash for the popcorn. If 3D is a failure, their marketing and business plan may also be part of the problem. They also screwed up the glasses by not coming up with a standard and by not charging an arm and a leg for them. Cheap standardized glasses from the beginning might have saved 3DTV. Now it's an uphill battle.

But ya, I think 3D has a stigma. When I went to see The Hobbit I got veteod for 3D. My sis remembered the old days of 3D and said she didn't like it. So we saw it in 2D much to my protest. Of course, she then had the nerve to tell me that she went to see it again with a friend in 3D and was totally amazed as to how awesome it was.

Btw, the other reason I wanted to see the Hobbit in 3D was because the 3D version is shown in 48 frames per second. Action movies suck at 24fps, it's amazing that standard has lived this long. Even 48fps is too slow in my opinion, but I would have liked to experience that in it's full glory.

 

[ilwrath]

Is this a WiiU problem? Or is it a market problem? It'll be interesting to see what the PS4 brings on 2/20/13. Could this early announcement tank the WiiU sales for the year?

Well, it's tough to say if the problem is the WiiU or the market. It may be a combination of both for Nintendo. Overall sales of a bunch of consumer devices are way down right now. According to Bloomberg, WalMart is calling the year a disaster, with YTD February numbers being their worst in the past seven years.

But, my own gaming gut says it's a WiiU problem, most likely.... Because:

It looks like the WiiU was a rush job to jump on the next gen and gamer's aren't finding it attractive.

Exactly. And, it's not necessarily that gamers won't come around to the idea of the WiiU. But it's an oddball assortment of hardware, and no real software to speak of. It really only has one title from the big-mega franchise names that sell Nintendo (Super Mario Brothers U), and one mid-level franchise title (Pikmin 3). Launching without ANY titles from the Mario Kart, Mario Party, Smash Brothers, Zelda, and Metroid heavy hitters? Yeah, pretty much your entire market is going to say "Wait and see..."

I'd be sad to see Nintendo go the way of Atari.

Well, as far as I know, Nintendo is not in a bad position. They have lived through bigger flops than this... They didn't spend the mega-bucks developing the system that Microsoft and Sony spend. They sell them at near cost, instead of well below. And they may, yet, salvage the console, after some quality games get out there. The WiiU doesn't appear to follow the runaway success of the Wii... But it still looks better than the start the Gamecube and N64 got. (shrug) It's a black eye, maybe even a little swelling, but far from a deathblow for Nintendo.

 

[faethor]

With HDMI, attaching PC's to your tv's is just as easy.

Having an HTPC hooked up exactly that way I know what you mean. However, having 1080p at 60fps doesn't need a whole lot of GPU computational power. Also, in the last few years we've see gaming companies build better core recognition and quadcore gaming outdoes dual core. 3-4 years ago they were about equal because the games didn't recognize them. Something mid-grade CPU / mid-grade GPU will do just fine for your TV set. And it looks to be where Sony and Microsoft are heading.

Today which system PC or Xbox or PS is somewhat based on friends. I have friends with all of them, so I do too. That way I can game with whomever. What I expect is using a more commodity PC base will enable Microsoft and Sony to expand their gaming ecosystems to the PC, as well as other form factors, in the next generation. I'd love to buy a PC and hook into the Playstation network to game with my friends who choose to use their PS4 or phone.

TVs that are 120Hz or more don't need much extra for that 3D feature (although 240hz is even better).

Careful with what 'even better' means. Most TVs take in 30Hz or 60Hz. Even if you have a 240Hz player the TV itself is often limited to a 60Hz input. What 120Hz TVs do is render a frame between the 2 60Hz frames. This reduces blurriness but does create something that isn't truly there. 240Hz depends on which manufacturer you're talking about. Samsung follows the 120Hz model of rendering frames. You get 3 rendered frames between the 2 real frames. About 92%+ of people can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz in that manner. Other 240Hz, Toshiba and LG, strobe their LED lights faster. Think 2 blinks of each frame including 2 blinks of 1 artifical frame. The effect is mostly worthless, I bet 99.9% of people can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz in that manner. So yeah 240Hz is 'even better' but it's indistinguishable to most people and unlikely worth any extra cash in buying a new set. So if prices are the same go 240Hz. If you go 120Hz you're not really losing anything.

Well, as far as I know, Nintendo is not in a bad position. They have lived through bigger flops than this... They didn't spend the mega-bucks developing the system that Microsoft and Sony spend. They sell them at near cost, instead of well below. And they may, yet, salvage the console, after some quality games get out there. The WiiU doesn't appear to follow the runaway success of the Wii... But it still looks better than the start the Gamecube and N64 got. (shrug) It's a black eye, maybe even a little swelling, but far from a deathblow for Nintendo.

Nintendo has seen it's first full year lost ever. The 3DS launched at a profit but low sales forced price cuts and Nintendo is selling below costs. WiiU supposedly lauched below cost. Nintendo predicted to be positive in 2013 but after the first 6 months of it's fiscal year were losses predicted at 70% cut in profit. Analysts think that positive in 2013 is unlikely. If they see competition with new consoles in 2014 I think bets on Nintendo aren't safe. Also remember Sony and Microsoft have product diversity to their advantage. If they want to take losses on gaming they could, in theory, sustain their business with profits from other products. Though this is more a Microsoft advantage than a Sony one.

 

[Glaucus]

Careful with what 'even better' means. Most TVs take in 30Hz or 60Hz. Even if you have a 240Hz player the TV itself is often limited to a 60Hz input. What 120Hz TVs do is render a frame between the 2 60Hz frames. This reduces blurriness but does create something that isn't truly there. 240Hz depends on which manufacturer you're talking about. Samsung follows the 120Hz model of rendering frames. You get 3 rendered frames between the 2 real frames. About 92%+ of people can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz in that manner. Other 240Hz, Toshiba and LG, strobe their LED lights faster. Think 2 blinks of each frame including 2 blinks of 1 artifical frame. The effect is mostly worthless, I bet 99.9% of people can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz in that manner. So yeah 240Hz is 'even better' but it's indistinguishable to most people and unlikely worth any extra cash in buying a new set. So if prices are the same go 240Hz. If you go 120Hz you're not really losing anything.

I was speaking in the context of 3D. In a 120hz system, each eye sees 60Hz. But as you said, 60Hz tends to blur lots, so a 240Hz 3D system would allow each eye to see 120Hz.

Btw, I tend to prefer plasma displays. Not sure if they even make those in 3D.