Xbox 2 to be revealed on May 12th...

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yeah Xenon would've been a great name. I'd like my Xbox360 to be constantly spinning in place now, though.

[BUTT 0]

Nintendo should name their next console after a character from Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills.

[Scroby 0]

I wouldn't say the offical color is white just yet. I remember hearing something that MS was thinking of releasing differant colored systems.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Nintendo should name their next console after a character from Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills.

Well..I like the name "Revolution" but Im betting it wont be the official name of the next console.

 

anyway..

 

Credit to Joystiq again:

 

Goldman Sachs has shown their hand, and declared the Xbox 360 a future success. They think it will arrive as early as October, run for under $300, and sell 3 million units by the end of the year.

 

Too bad that MS probably wont even have 1 million units at launch to cause artificial hype for it. It might go for $299, but that will be without a hard drive.

 

Personally, I dont have all the hate for the XBox 360 as I did the original, mainly because its too easy. Microsoft has proved how stupid they are when it comes to gaming consoles, and the 360 will be proof. Not making the 360 backwards compatible, while at the same time (supposedly) still releasing new X Box games for 2 more years won't give people any reason to plunk down over $300 for it when they can still get new games for their old X Box. That pretty much defeats the purpose of jumping the gun on Sony and releasing the system this year. Also, not keeping the hard drive and making it an add on just screams "lets milk them for more money". And add ons to consoles are pretty much always failures, they should have taken notes from Sega.

[Ripper 0]

I'm pretty sure 360 is the real name. The logo is probably just a circle with Xbox 360 in the middle.

 

I guess the idea behind the name is that you can play people all over the world or something. Supposedly the reason for 360 instead of 2 is that MS was afraid people would think PS3 is superior because 3 is more than 2.

 

As long as it has some good games and a controller that isn't fat I'll buy it.

Don't you just love the intricate petty bullshit that goes on around console launch times?

Marketing wise though, that is actually true.

[AndrewTS 0]

"Marketing wise though, that is actually true."

 

I agree. Plenty of people are very stupid.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

So $300 without a HD? Yeah no. I'll just wait until this comes out and buy an X-Box (1) once the price on that drops. I've been meaning to pick up an X-box for a while but couldn't justify the purchase since I already have a PS2. If the price drops with the release of the 360 then I will most likely get one.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Let's wait and see until this is all true to make sure. There's no word on the backwards compatibility issue yet, either..

[Rendclaw 0]

Never mind the majority of reports on the PS3 is that its almost twice as powerful as the 360... speculation, bullshit and marketing strategies abounds, but hasn't it always been this way for new gaming consoles??

 

As always, I will wait for a year for the price to come down if its too prohibitive, and by then the better games start coming out. I have said it before, but the rush for a new console is a shining example just how much of the majority of gamers are like crack-addicted sheep.

 

We all know MS is damned stupid, but they just cannot raise the level of idiocy to the heights that it would take to not make the 360 backwards compatible. I just cannot believe they would be that stupid. They should take a clue from Sega and Nintendo on that score.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Let's wait and see until this is all true to make sure. There's no word on the backwards compatibility issue yet, either..

I imagine it could be backwards compatible if you buy the hard drive add on, but straight out of the box, from everything I understand, it cant be because of the lack of the hard drive.

 

I was also thinking..the base unit without a HD better be relatively small, or else the thing wil be HUGE with the HD add on.

 

I honestly want Nintendo to put a Hard Drive in their next console, if for nothing more than game saves because I think I've spent a good $100 on memory cards for my Gamecube, although now my 59 and 2 251's are empty cause I got the 1019 model.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

I thought the backwards compatibilty was dead because of the need for specific components in the X-box that will not be in the new X-Box.

[Secret Agent 0]

Backwards compability doesn't seem like too much of a big deal to me. How many of you actually play PS1 games on a PS2 outside of maybe a Final Fantasy 7-9?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I thought the backwards compatibilty was dead because of the need for specific components in the X-box that will not be in the new X-Box.

one of which is..the hard drive.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Backwards compability doesn't seem like too much of a big deal to me. How many of you actually play PS1 games on a PS2 outside of maybe a Final Fantasy 7-9?

I still regularly play about 10-12 PS games, with Strider 2 and Final Fantasy Tactics being the main ones.

 

I was referring more to some of the off the rack chips and processors, rather than the hard drive...

[Mole 0]

The Killers will be performing, so I'm going to watch no matter what.

[AndrewTS 0]

Backwards compability doesn't seem like too much of a big deal to me. How many of you actually play PS1 games on a PS2 outside of maybe a Final Fantasy 7-9?

Me, and I sure as hell don't play FF 7-9 on it either.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

Backward compatibilty is overrated, anyway.

 

Nevermind the fact it's going to have an entire different graphics chipset..but that doesn't matter, does it?

 

If they keep cranking out good games, I'll get one. And if somehow, the Japanese developers would remove their heads from their asses, and produce games for it.. that'd be great, too.

[Ripper 0]

Never mind the majority of reports on the PS3 is that its almost twice as powerful as the 360... speculation, bullshit and marketing strategies abounds, but hasn't it always been this way for new gaming consoles??

I really doubt that. I mean, Sony has dominated the console game while using inferior technology. I don't see why they would considerable raise the production cost making the technologically best system, when it is obvious that its not necessary for them to dominate. Thats just bad business.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'll miss that black/neon green color scheme.

[AndrewTS 0]

Backward compatibilty is overrated, anyway.

 

Nevermind the fact it's going to have an entire different graphics chipset..but that doesn't matter, does it?

If a company can do it without large sacrifices, it can be helpful for getting people to switch early on.

 

It was a factor in helping people adopt early to the PS2. It's an angle to get parents to upgrade, knowing little Johnny can still play his old games. It made the PS1 a viable console for a bit longer. Sony was able to sell more PS1 games (and we know games are usually much more profitable than the hardware). It's win-win for the hardware manufacturer and consumer.

 

For the PS2, it was easily to implement. For the new X-Box, I'm not too sure. The core of the system is supposed to be vastly different.

 

Considering the Cube is relatively cheap to manufacture (while they're not making as much on games, Nintendo's making more profits per unit of hardware than Sony or MS, I believe), and Nintendo being big on b-c anyway (the GBAs), it's a no brainer than if it is feasible to include it in the Revolution, why not?

 

It's curious that Sony is ready to push the PS3 out sooner. I'm really surprised, since I figure Sony could easily wait and see, bide their time, and release theirs later and take advantage of any mistakes MS makes.

 

Now, it seems almost as if they're scared.

 

I guess Sony figures they're not going to gain any advantage by waiting, since, yes--if the PS3 weren't nearly as powerful as the 360, it still will sell better, likely. Perhaps MS is trying to see if they can trick Sony into splitting its focus on supporting the PSP and PS3. But anything forcing Sony into a disadvantageous position at this point is good.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Sorry for anybody who thought that we would get anything other than smoke blown up our asses for Revolution:

 

... and then there were two. Citing fears that Sony and Microsoft might copy some of the revolutionary ideas, Nintendo head honcho Satoru Iwata decided to withdraw previous statements and has now decided to not show the new Nintendo Revolution at E3 next month. Instead, visitors will have to be content with rolling demos of titles in development, a better look at the Nintendo online service, new Pokemon titles, and a new playable version of the latest Zelda title.

 

http://worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=24...order=0&thold=0

[Guest Vitamin X]

Nintendo better have something really grand up their sleeve for Revolution.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I really dont buy "Oooh..we dont want Sony/MS to steal our "Revoluionary" ideas" because at this point Sony and MS should be well past the point of development where they can go around changing things around. I think Nintendo doesn't want to show their console off at the same show that the other two are debuting. The Revolution would obviously get run over by the media hype of the other two at the same show. The Revolution needs its own day...

[Guest Vitamin X]

Erm, Microsoft isn't debuting the new Xbox at E3...

[Art Sandusky 0]

Nintendo better have something really grand up their sleeve for Revolution.

I expect something that'll be genius but a financial flop. I mean, your average 13-24 year old video game player doesn't give a crap about being revolutionary, they just want to have stuff look cool and be easy to use, so they can see the flashy stuff and gore with little effort. Nintendo will pull the first part off, but probably not the second.

[AndrewTS 0]

Microsoft is making some headway with Japanese developers. They're getting some multi-console stuff on X-Box, and sooner or later others will have to take notice.

 

At least Sony's been relatively benevolent during their undisputed reign of consoles. We all know about what bastards Nintendo was during the 8-bit days, and Microsoft has its share of EEVIL tendencies.

 

I'd like to see all three of them in close competition, but one could hardly ask for a better year than last year for games (even though a lot of them were sequels).

 

Katamari Damacy making it out here is pretty shocking, too.

 

Nothing's wrong with Nintendo as it is that marketing and some good new relations with 3rd parties can't fix. It's a shame the GC didn't get more support, since it's much more powerful than the PS2 and more affordable than X-Box. Nintendo's probably going to need to make the Revolution "do more" in order to keep pace. Although with the DS and rumored new Game Boy, I hope they aren't going to overextend themselves.

 

At this point, I'm wondering if the new Game Boy is actually happening, or if it isn't something leaked by Nintendo for some reason.

 

I'll likely get a Revolution, because there's Game Cube titles I'm interested in picking up, and a few good Rev launch titles may make me switch over.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

At this point, I'm wondering if the new Game Boy is actually happening, or if it isn't something leaked by Nintendo for some reason.

They've been talking about the DS as a "third pillar" (IOW, new product line) some time ago. Shortly after they officially announced the thing, they quickly went into interviews and mentioned that it's not the heir to the Game Boy throne but should be seen as a completely different product that in no way will compete with Game Boy.

 

Of course, they also spout that the DS isn't meant to compete with the PSP, but launched it way too early just to make sure that their presence was out there.

 

If they think they can really sell the public on two portable Nintendos without one cannibalizing the sales of the other, they're nuts.

[edotherocket 0]

The latest word on Xbox 360 is that - as previously reported - there will be different versions of the machine available at launch.

 

As well as the standard console, an additional $100 will bag you a hard drive (which is said to fit into a port near the top of the machine), WebTV and, intriguingly, backwards compatibility - meaning that the basic Xbox 360 won't be able to play current-gen Xbox games.

 

It's being reported that graphics company nVidia still owns patents on some of the original Xbox components, meaning that Microsoft has to pay royalties in order to implement backwards compatibility in Xbox 360.

 

The $100 add-on is, in part, supposedly designed to offset the additional costs of allowing Xbox 360s to play Xbox titles.

 

As for the WebTV element, this will provide internet and email access via your TV, as well as streamed music and video channels.

 

Source: Gamesradar.com

 

 

Man, launching two different versions is such a bad idea...

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I also read that its possible that the majority of the consoles available for launch will be the ones loaded with everything. I dont understand why they would go to all the trouble of making a crippled version of the next X Box without a HD/backwards compatibility and only try sell so few of them.

 

Oh, and the Web TV thing = more monthly costs, or a useless feature. There really wouldn't be much of a reason to add that to the console since everyone will probably already have internet access and most people will have computers. Surfing the net on a tv is a crappy experience anyway unless you have a tv that can do the resolution right. Even then you need a wireless keyboard/mouse to do it any justice.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I don't mind it, especially for the streaming music and video. Sounds like good stuff to me, and I'll pay the little bit extra for the hard drive and backwards compatibility. I won't be getting this system till way after launch anyways... unless they've got some real good titles lined up.