Xbox One

Would the giant improvement be Microsoft actually using a laptop-style optical drive like everyone else in the console business?

^ Nice try, but NGP doesn't support multiplayer from a single device and doesn't support A/V output.

edited 7th Mar '11 7:30:42 PM by TheGinkei

I do have to ask why anyone would want an Xbox 3. It will just be a PC with outdated hardware, bad customer service and awkward controls.

edited 7th Mar '11 7:31:50 PM by deuxhero

And isn't that the same with PlayStation 3?

The PS 3 doesn't run almost every 360 "exclusive".

^x2 To be fair, PS3s don't YLOD as often as XBox 360s RROD, so you probably won't need to put up with customer service as much. You are correct in your analysis of everything else, though.

(*waits impatiently for multiplayer porta-home-console*)

edited 7th Mar '11 7:37:57 PM by TheGinkei

^^^^ You're supposed to put [[troll

and then your trolling

and then ]]

edited 7th Mar '11 7:53:06 PM by IndigoDingo

Hmm... I can think of a few places where graphics could get better, such as reflecting colour and having texture be a part of the object. Also allowing smaller, more intricate details would be welcome, I'd imagine.

Though, like others said, allowing more sprawling worlds is also a plus.

Meh, I'm not interested unless it has a quantum computer in it. And I'm a bit skeptical about one being built so fast, so eh.

edited 7th Mar '11 7:56:06 PM by Zersk

Increased world sizes are unlikely. Consoles never have sufficient RAM.

The extra hires by Microsoft are actually for the purpose of designing an X Box Portable.

{Personal insults deleted. — Madrugada}

^ Wouldn't that take the place of Windows Phone 7? Or did that make so little impact I'm the only one who remembers it?

edited 8th Mar '11 11:01:41 AM by Madrugada

Wonder who they'll go with for the hardware. 360 was IBM and ATI, but since ATI has merged with AMD they'd probably have to be a package deal this time. Meanwhile Nvdia is making ARM based processors and Intel recently worked out a deal with Nvidia so they could use their some of their intellectual property (presumably for So C graphics). And Microsoft themselves is going to be making a version of Windows 8 for ARM processors as well as x86. There's even rumors about Intel producing their own ARM processors. It's really confusing.

edited 7th Mar '11 8:43:49 PM by Nonapod

Any new console needs RAM more than it does a better GPU/CPU

I haven't heard of any games (bar Dwarf Fortress's odd preformance issues) that can't be done because of modern CPU/GPU limitations, but I've heard tons (Deus Ex) that can't be done on a console because of RAM limitations.

edited 8th Mar '11 11:16:32 AM by deuxhero

1. Deus Ex was done on the Ps2.

2. Deus Ex is a drop in the bucket compared to Just Cause 2.

3. Deus Ex was made in 2000, which you'll notice, is a different number to 2011

edited 8th Mar '11 12:04:52 PM by IndigoDingo

That's not entirely true, there are plenty of graphical things that could be done with more raw GPU horsepower. Graphical fidelity could always be boosted more (more polygons) along with better particle and lighting effects. Of course the ultimate quantum leap would be rendering with real time ray tracing. That's when you start to approach Pixar levels of graphical fidelity, and that requires some serious graphical horsepower and probably massive amounts of RAM as well. Of course that's still quite a ways off and I'm sure a lot of people might question whether or not video games really need that level of fidelity.

edited 8th Mar '11 12:31:16 PM by Nonapod

Hey, maybe they'll manage to attract some interesting exclusives this time around. Third time's the charm, right?

Raytracing would be nice, nonpolygonal geometry would be better. Polygons suck at organic shapes, liquids, foliage, and geometry destruction. That said, raytracing would take a HUGE burden off the lighting and shadowing system.

Really though, the combination of a crippled economy and little tangible progress on the PC front tells me that it's unlikely anyone'll unveil a set top platform soon. I think this is a precautionary measure, so they have something in place when somebody other than them decides to launch the next real generation.

@deuxhero: DF is pre-alpha-quality software, look at a dev build of practically anything and you'll find similar. All it would take is one 0.0.1 version dedicated completely to performance tuning to hammer it into vaguely normal condition.

@Indigo Dingo: He's referring to two things, when DX1 was ported to the PS2 all of its levels were chopped up into little pieces with silly walls inserted to hide this fact, and when DX2 was developed with the original xbox in mind causing all its levels to be smaller than in the first game both on the xbox and PC. Keep in mind the PS2 version was much prettier than the PC one (as the PS2's specs are largely superior to the even older PCs DX was designed for) but it had to run in 32MB of memory rather than 160.

edited 8th Mar '11 12:47:16 PM by EricDVH

Also keep in mind what I said about Just Cause 2, and the current year. "Previously, consoles have not had enough RAM to function in the same way with direct ports from the PC" is not trolling. "Consoles never have sufficient RAM" most definitely is. Its irrelevant, its simplistic to the point of lying, and its flat out wrong.

@Indigo Dingo

EXACTLY. The PS 2 port of Deus Ex proves consoles don't have the ability to do it (huge slices of areas are cut out).

And the current gen consoles don't exactly have the needed ram either, if the tiny areas are anything to go by.

@Eric DVH

Possibly, but DF (bar diabling fog in an large world like Minecraft or Morrowind) is the only game I can recall being slow because of having to calculate a lot (hence why avoiding an economey and killing small animals helps preformance), rather than purely bad programing.

edited 8th Mar '11 2:49:44 PM by deuxhero

Oh for the love of Mike, can we go back to MS and next-gen speculation? This PC vs. Console phase is very aggravating.

It is about NG consoles. It's about the flaws of the current ones and what would be needed to make the next gen ones better.

But consoles will just wind up becoming outdated a year or two after their release, even if they use top-of-the line parts. Why make such a fuss over something that obviously can't change in the long run based upon the very nature of a set-top console (seeing as consoles ATM cannot be easily modified like PCs)?

edited 8th Mar '11 2:56:58 PM by TheGinkei

Why exactly would there need to be a next-gen? They seem to have gone as far as they really need to for the most part, any upgrades in the next Xbox probably wouldn't be anything noticeable.

^ Because companies like Microsoft like money, so they need to find some way to make us unsatisfied with our present consoles.

Deuxhero: For the last fucking time. Just. Cause. 2. You. Are. Wrong.

Does that actually work? Because I made the conscious decision that the current gen was probably gonna be my stopping point...

edited 8th Mar '11 2:59:57 PM by NULLcHiLD27