I am guessing one or two of them has something to do with Kinect, 1 probably is XBLA of some sort, and maybe the last one is an hardcore game...a shooter which shouldnt surprise anyone.

Personally, I think Kinect will, in the end, be more focused towards being some kind of super consumer entertainment device, and won't so much be forced down our throats for gaming at every possible turn. I also think in the instances where they do want Kinect to focus somewhat prominently in specific games, which on some level I guess they have to since Kinect is being packed in with every console, that they'll want to do something more creative with it, to avoid it seeming like some cheap gimmick. There's a lot of amazing things that they should be able do with a much more advanced Kinect and it seems likely that any memory associated with Kinect functionality will be partitioned off and entirely separate from system memory dedicated to games, so Kinect, right out of the gate, shouldn't be the kind of drag on more hardcore games as was a large part of the concern with the Xbox 360, should a dev decide to take advantage of Kinect for their games.

Regardless, I can't wait for the new consoles to hit :)

I really dislike Kinect in ways... basically beta hardware that MS had us pay to test. I hope it pays off this next time. But all said and done. My daughter loves titles like Kinect sports and Kinect Party, and has really gotten a lot of play time out it. When you look at biggest demo for Kinect, some titles are decent. Lots of shovelware for kinect. I hope with a much bigger camera resoution next time and more accurate motion tracking and less lag, they'll have a more polished exprience. Again why MS hasn't gobbled up this company is beyond me. With Windows 8 and its touch screen interface, without having a touch screen, they could have definitely used something like this tech, and Kinect is totally outclassed by it with Leap Motions acccuracy and fluidity. With leap motion, you could use it to make windows 8 system screen to offer a "touch' interface. And I'm guessing the dashboard could use more accuracy and less lag. And the voice command on Kinect are pathetic, and its search parameters. Pathetic really. I mess with Kinect occasionally and immediately think... Beta tester. For all the hype and promises of Kinect... it failed in many repsects... c'mon a 640x480 camera for an HD piece of hardware... really? Nice way to cheap out. I bought my Kinect from Hastings, and got it for $50, which is still too much, IMO. But my daughter really loves some of the games, 7 y.o. Remember when MS made a half hearted feeble attempt to roll out Xbox LIVE Arcade towards the end of the original Xbox's life? They got it mostly right on 360, I hope the same is true for Kinect on this new Xbox. I'm tired of paying to be a beta tester.

New Kinect supposedly has a 1080p camera, tracks individual fingers, can handle up to 4 people at once, and can even capture finger movements when people have their hands behind their backs. It's generally much more intelligent at figuring out the layout of a person's surroundings.

Yea, the first Kinect definitely didn't live up to expectations, but it has been surprisingly successful regardless. I think that success, for anyone hoping to see Kinect become better and finally live up to its potential, may have been the best thing that could have happened to Kinect, because now Microsoft knows they have a potential winner on their hands and will try everything they possibly can to get the most out of it. They have to be aware, and I think they are, that they didn't come anywhere close to living up to the potential possible with Kinect.

And the manner in which they launched it limited its potential as well. If they want Kinect to meet its full potential, everybody that owns a new xbox needs to have one. Even if there were Kinect killer apps, it still wouldn't have taken off the way it should have.

Unless it has a rear camera, which would require even MORE space, how in the fuck does it know what your individual fingers are doing behind your own back? LMAO

This was posted last year about Unreal Engine 4... Basically they'll have to make compromises with Unreal Engine 4, on next gen consoles, as opposed to PCs.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-v...

This is from last year, but I don't think anything has changed. I think we'll see Unreal Engine 4 games on the new machines, but not as Epic intended them to be. Probably baked lighting, at least until developers get used to the engine.

Trust me, it can detect what you do behind your back with your fingers.

I highly doubt there will be many drastic UE4 compromises on next gen machines. They were running that on a PC where there is a lot of overhead that is associated with the needs of a full blown personal computer. They only need that much to account for the fact that they can't get in there and optimize and design to the same degree of efficiency as what they will be able to do on the PS4 and next xbox. 16GB will be completely unnecessary for the ps4 and new xbox to handle UE4 impressively, and a gpu with as much horsepower as the gtx 680 will be unnecessary as well.

These two consoles, with time, I guarantee will be seen to have matched or exceeded what's possible with a GTX 680 running on a PC. I'd bet anything on that. That might seem like a lofty statement now, but both the 360 and PS3 proved this to be true.


Recommended requirements for the first Gears of War and Mass Effect 2 on the pc included Intel Core 2 duo processors and 2GB of ram. That's a hell of a lot more ram than either the 360 or ps3, and most core 2 duos run circles around the 360 and ps3 processors. And there are always compromises on PC, they just don't tend to show up the way they do on consoles. A compromise on PC is when you know you're forced to go out and upgrade your computer for hundreds of dollars in order to play a new game comfortably. PC developers a lot of times just make a game and then leave the consumer to figure it out and build themselves a computer that can run it. You can't afford to have consumers just figure it out on consoles, which is why there is inevitably a more tailored experience. And with each new set of consoles, it will become tougher and tougher to say you absolutely need that extra resolution bump, or that extra bit of lighting or AF, or that added feature that is running on the pc version.

Think about it, it basically took the ps3 and 360 to show us what a PC 7800GTX and a r600 class gpu were truly capable of. Pretty ancient pc gpus at this point, but they were a ton more capable in the 360 and PS3 than they ever displayed themselves as being on the pc.Really? Pretty hard to tell with all the bitching you've been doing :P Kinect does have impressive core gaming potential, but Microsoft failed to capitalize on it, and it isn't hard to see why. I hope you tell us how much of a failure Kinect will be. We didn't hear enough about that when Kinect 1.0 launched. Kinect is a significant cause for the boost 360 sales received, making it easily and consistently the best selling console in the USA month after month after month. Kinect, for all intents and purposes, was a success almost in spite of Microsoft's weak efforts. A better commitment to it, and one where it's packed into every machine will likely help them better take advantage of its potential. They knew enough not to go out there like Sony did and practically rip off the wii mote, and that much they should get credit for. :)

Have you seen the rumored specs? Do you have basic computer knowledge? The obvious answer to those two questions is a resounding yes, is it not?

Let's assume that those rumored specs are all 100% accurate, with nothing else out there that we don't know, and no changes planned. The PS4 and new xbox, as represented from those specs, represent significant jumps over the 360 and ps3. Is it as big a jump as some maybe wanted? Who cares, it's what we have, but, as represented, are big jumps by any fair assessment. What makes them an even bigger jump, however, is the less than sexy fact that people don't seem to be focusing on outside of the raw numbers, which rarely, if ever tells the full story, are the vast improvement in efficiencies and the fact that devs are more prepared.

Beyond more powerful graphics hardware, or better processors, the most often requested enhancement that I've seen from some very highly credible developers (not a big fan of all of them, however) is that they wanted much more ram, and if they got a huge boost in ram, that it would go a much longer ways towards giving people the kinds of improvements that they wanted to see in their games than even a simple graphics boost would. Both of these consoles, in their own way, gives developers exactly that. These machines have the ability to do all the things we would have liked to see done this gen, but knew was simply too much to ask of these consoles. What more can we ask for, unless we want these things to cost north of $800? I don't have to go very far to convince myself, Grift. It's common sense the jump these consoles represent. Hell, even the creator of FXAA, which currently works for Nvidia says with certainty that games such as the next God of war or Uncharted should look superior to Crysis 3. If that isn't enough of a jump for consoles, I don't know what is.

And the mistake you're making is assuming that Microsoft, just as is the case with Sony, can't appeal to other audiences, while at the exact same time doing right by hardcore gamers. Who says they can't do both? Why do you think they shouldn't even try? Does it honestly need to be one or the other?

You also ever consider that Sony simply just has more talented first parties, and what you are noticing from Microsoft isn't actually a neglect of their first parties? Sony has been running their first party efforts for quite a bit longer than Microsoft has. They've got a better handle on this thing, and it's no surprise that some advantages should be observed.

As such, doesn't it make some sense to some extent for Microsoft to pull back a bit and try to save some heavy hitting games or new ip for their next generation console? As you can clearly see, the current Xbox 360 doesn't need them to be in very strong position, and Microsoft likely wants to load up their new console with as much amazing and unique content as possible, and, again, I really do question the validity of Microsoft neglecting their first parties. Can Microsoft's first party efforts seem all too predictable?

Halo
Forza
Gears
Fable

rinse, repeat.

Sure, they can, but are they really neglecting their first parties, or do people simply not like the kinds of games Microsoft's first and second party efforts produce as much as they like Sony or Nintendo's?

Let's look at the games. I know you don't like a chunk of these, but I'm making a point here.Let's glance at Sony, and people can fill in the blanks for me.Too lazy to really list anymore, but I didn't count games that have been announced, but seem to be in development limbo, such as Last Guardian. I don't even know when that thing is going to be released. Now, in fairness, I know I missed a TON, but I think Microsoft also gets a bit of a bum rep when it concerns first party titles. Is it that they are truly neglecting their first party, or is it just that people simply prefer Sony's first party efforts more? If there is a key differentiator that I would point out, it's that sony tends to have more third party action/adventure games, and maybe people prefer those kinds of games more than they do the stuff that's on the 360? I don't know. Still, if you go on numbers at a glance, it might be very, very misleading that Sony has somehow gone out and done more with their first parties. People may simply just like Sony's first parties more, particularly naughty dog, and automatically place them above Microsoft? Take, for instance, the fact that Polyphony was missing in action most of this gen. Microsoft also helped basically fund some early games on the 360, such as lost planet and dead rising. I mean, I don't know, I think it's just a matter of taste. People just like Sony's first party efforts better, as I don't see much first party neglect on Microsoft's side. Do you get the sense that Microsoft had a few studios basically go dark, working on next gen projects earlier than some wanted? Yea, I guess you could say that, but I sometimes feel things are blown out of proportion. They even have what seems to be a next gen exclusive on the first game in bungie's new franchise, Destiny. Couldn't that be a big deal? Yea, not first party, but Microsoft isn't exactly terribly positioned to have some amazing core experiences on their new console. Also, something else I've noticed is that whenever Sony buys or starts a studio, everybody gets all excited and immediately seems to crown that team a top tier team, but the moment Microsoft does the same, it's "Oh, must be a Kinect studio." "Lawl." "Oh, more shooters, yay." The first Killzone game sucked on the PS2, and yet the moment sony buys them, people go nuts, as if they just snapped up one of the best in the business. Oh well, enough venting. :)

Um, we could as they ditch kinect, both the hardware and RnD would drop $200 from that budget whcih massively closes the gap to being an acceptable cost. Even that $200 or whatever going towards better hardware than what they wanna give us would make a HUGE difference.

Ninty only just makes a profit selling 7YO hardware for £300 and it doesnt even have a hard drive all because the controller costs as much as the console to make and took most of the RnD budget.

Well, we'll just have to monitor and see how they do things. I'm just not totally in favor of condemning certain moves before we see how they intend on executing them. How Microsoft plans on implementing Kinect next gen could be very terrible and be to the detriment of a fantastic core gaming experience, or it could actually not end up affecting the core experience at all, and instead turn out to be a fantastic added value to the next gen Xbox experience as a whole. And something we have to keep in mind is that we have absolutely no solid evidence that Microsoft is somehow giving us a weaker system as a result of Kinect. Should we see next gen xbox games and they look amazing, will we be angry about how much more amazing we feel they could have looked if Kinect weren't apart of the next console? People shouldn't forget that Sony is also doing Playstation Move, but for some reason gets next to no criticism for doing that.

In terms of that list you're making, I think it's fair to point out that PS3's quality exclusives came out a lot later in it's life cycle than the 360.

They may have the same amount or be comparable, but how long did PS3 owners have to wait around

I'm interested to see if in this latest generation Sony continues the trend of having the worst launch line up of all 3 consoles

The difference is PS move doesnt require a massive amount of resources to function, it's just interpolating co-ordinates in a 3d space. Kinect does all sorts of image processing, recognition and mapping, it is massively more processor and memory intensive. I also don't imagine sony are throwing more money at it after it has become nothing but a niche to begin with.

The trend of worst launch linup?

They've all been good imo. 360's was good too...

PS2 - timesplitters and ssx
PS3 - motorstorm, resistance
Vita - wipeout, uncharted
360 - condemned, COD2

Plus more for each of course, but i dont recall anything being horrendous. i supose genji, but then 360 had perfect dark zero and kameo which where pretty damn bad. I dunno, every console has launched with enough to get me to buy it day one except for nintendo. Bought them later, still no reason to buy the wii-u.

Well, I think current gen Kinect required 32MB of ram, and Microsoft confirmed that they had managed to get Kinect CPU cycle demands down to the single digits.

New Xbox is said to have 8GB of ram and this is what is said about the new cpu inside the next xbox and ps4 compared to what is inside the ps3 or 360. So, even if the new Kinect is more demanding than the current one, there's still plenty of power in the new xbox to handle the demands.

http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1701736&postcou...http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1701452&postcou...

Yes, I absolutely do, but keep in mind that the Xbox 360 and PS3 cpus were nowhere remotely close to that level of CPU, and yet they still managed to produce some pretty unbelievable games. Hell, the CPU inside my computer right now absolutely obliterates that, as does probably the CPU running inside most people's computers on this very forum. With that said, for that kind of power to be inside console cpus is a pretty big deal. Just as is the case with gpus when placed in a closed box environment, the same also holds true for processors in closed box environments. We've yet to see what a 3+ GHZ Core 2 Quad class cpu can truly do. We'll find out when console level optimizations enter the picture.

I mean, I'd love to get nothing less than a Core i5 2500k in next gen machines, but that's just not practical for a number of reasons.

If the leaks are true, and nothing has changed since this information first came to light, then this is more or less the next xbox's gpu, give or take a few differences here and there.

AMD Radeon HD 7770GHZ Edition

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/70...

Instead of 1000MHZ xbox would have 800MHZ
Instead of 10 compute units, the xbox would have 12
leak seems to imply the ROPs haven't changed, so 16 ROPs
Instead of a 128-bit memory interface, I think the leak suggests the Xbox has upped it to a 256-bit memory interface, so that means it should definitely be a more efficient GPU.
Instead of 72GB/ memory bandwidth, the xbox apparently has 68GB/s through the DDR3, but then the GPU also seems to have a direct path to the ESRAM, which offers up to 102GB/s

They are both more or less rated at 1.2TFLOPS

A fairly capable gpu as is from how it performs in reviews, but then when you toss in the advantages of being in a closed box environment, being able to take advantage of the larger ESRAM bandwidth, the larger memory interface, on top of 2 more compute units, this does seem like it would make a pretty solid choice for a console GPU. And then, assuming this leak is even remotely accurate, I still don't really know what purpose the move engines might serve, or whatever else is being done to help overall performance.

All that said, if this is indeed accurate, and the PS4's gpu leak is accurate, then the PS4 is, for lack of a better term, going to utterly demolish the next xbox on a pure graphical performance level.

PS4 GPU would be either a slightly weaker Radeon HD 7870 GHZ edition or a slightly stronger Radeon HD 7850. However, if that business about the extra 4 CUs on the PS4 being mostly for compute is accurate, thus making them somehow weaker for rendering, then that would make the PS4 gpu more like a weaker 7850. However, really looking at the similarities, you could probably get away with saying that both the new xbox and ps4 are using the Radeon 7850 as a start off point, only it just seems like Sony weakened that GPU less than Microsoft did, and if that truly was the case, then the PS4 being slightly more powerful thing really could be true. Of course this is all assuming that the two cpus on both consoles truly are practically identical in every way possible. Who knows what changes might have been done to them by both Sony and MS. However, based on leaks, you'd be forgiven for saying the PS4 could probably be slightly more powerful, but then I don't exactly see that 8GB worth of ram on the 360 as all that insignificant either. I've always been a pretty big fan of the more ram, the better. Can't wait to see the games.

Cause all of us agree that durango looks like a turd, except optimus who has hope beyond hope that every leak is massively wayward even though they have been spot on for the WiiU and mostly confirmed by what reputable sources are saying.

It's funny what the devs are saying and how many people are hoping against it etc. When they say they are largely the same or the ps4 is slightly ahead you gotta have some worry, they are paid not to undermine either console and to temper their words to not hurt their relationship with MS. It was the same with the PS3, they said they were largely the same just the PS3 was more difficult to develop for which later evoled into some scathing comments about bad documentation and bottlenecks.

I'm expecting a kinectbox and nothing more, it will play gimped versions of next gen games but as the core market leaves for the sony machine the xbox is left treading water and the dev support will dry up. IF the rumours are massively wayward and parity is closer then I still expect MS to lose marketshare just because of their paywalls and that 3rd party games will run better / look better on the PS4.
MS could have destroyed sony going into next gen with very little effort in much the same way sony could have destroyed MS going into this gen. Everyone was placing bets on the PS3 being this powerhouse and if it had been MS would have been dead in the water, instead they came out with this ass backwards mess of a machine with crap documentation and opened the door, as I said before I think they learnt their lesson and I think MS have fallen into the same pit. MS have become obsessed with "expanding the market" but by trying to do that they instead anger what market they "had" and they shrink their own share.
It's naive and stupid to bank on your own marketshare never shrinking regardless what you do, apple are in the same position, complacency, shorter product lifespans, smaller upgrades, overpriced, closed platforms and their marketshare is cumbling in face of competition that are hungrier and far more innovative and who know what their customers demand.

I cant wait to see how this all plays out.

All these flops are giving me a headache!, just show me the games so i can see what i'm working with, ala the 360/ps3.