Printable View
Leaked Microsoft document details $299 Xbox 720 in 2013, Kinect glasses, OnLive acquisition
I question the 2013 release date (albeit, I know Alpha kits are out for the next system)
Some of the specs detailed in this don't add up to what I know of the system (in fact, some the specs are under). I think this is a controlled "leak", to see how the public reacts to what they actually do have planned.
Just to note, the document is from 2010 and likely wasn't officialy prepared by an integral Durango team but a general proposition of ideas by employees in some area.
Old document is old.
I saw early yesterday morning, but didn't bother posting because that document is lol old.
"news" to me, VB, and gamedev.net
It was definitely news, but with a document that old, how much of it can we expect to have remained unchanged at this point in time besides price?
I LOL'ed. Seriously... OnLive is a joke, at least on the average connections in its target markets.Quote:
Microsoft labeled the game-streaming company as a threat with the potential to “up-end the console-gaming market by making expensive consoles and PCs unnecessary for AAA gaming.” Microsoft may choose to neutralize them by absorbing this already established company rather than creating a cloud-streaming service from scratch.
especially with the current state of Americas internet infrastructure
Don't do it Microsoft! You have to ship awesome operating systems every other generation!
If the whole rendering on the cloud thing is true, Microsoft just fucked over Latin America.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbiter901
Its a bit difficult to keep up with some other countries when you have a single country with the 3rd largest land mass in the world. Europe and Japan may have a stronger net infrastructure than the US, but that is because of the massive disparity in land mass, with the entire US as a country being similar size to that of Europe the continent :P
one hundred percent certain the "cloud" thing will not happen, at least not for many years.
I've always hoped that the controller will reintroduce the black and white buttons while keeping the shoulder ones. There are too many times I've been playing a console game and thought "If only I had one more button some function could be done better." Things like screenshots could be possible with just one or two more buttons. If all we end up getting is the same controller and system just with beefier specs, then I'll probably pass, at least until price drops.
Also, it better have a sufficiently large hard drive standard on all models. Having to optimize games to run on a 360 without the hard drive causes annoying limitations. Though some devs have found a smart loophole around this requirement, by having the game run in an "incomplete" mode (i.e. worse visuals) when there is no hard drive.
Also rumour of moar advertisement!
Sorry, not buying anything that shoves ads down my throat.
Console SKUs with no HDDs are (well, will) be a thing of the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot
I, for one, am excited for Durango. HaloWars 2 needs to be made for it. Oh, and the PC obviously.
When regarded on its own merits, Halo Wars wasn't a bad game given the limitations of a controller for RTS. But when it comes to strategy, so far making the same game for both PC and consoles means one version has to suffer. In the case of Supreme Commander 1 it was the console version that suffered greatly, in the case of the sequel it was the PC version that suffered. Best to make different RTS's for the different systems, or just stick to one. It's not like with platformers or FPS's which are more or less interchangeable between the two control schemes. And the FOV along with distance from the screen makes even more of a difference with this type of game than with any shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
So yeah, if Halo wars 2 is coming to the Xbox 720, then good for them, I'm sure that community will have fun, but bringing it to the PC as well is not the best idea unless a separate game is made. Sid Meier's Civilization has been pretty successful with making separate exclusive games for PC and console, so that strategy could work here.
But that cost more money! The horror!
Microsoft will try to make us conform to Durango. They will continue to try to starve us out of PC games.
:like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
:lmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I'd rather Halo Wars stay on the console because, frankly, consoles need more RTS games and Halo Wars is one that actually works well. It's MEANT for the console as well meaning that one of its biggest principles is being a console RTS that works. I would also prefer to keep a lot of the SCII community out of it as they'd fuck it up for sure (SCII and Halo Wars are soooo different once you look past the Cobra and Siege Tank being exact clones).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot
And Korn, I think we're all excited for the NextBox, it's just we're wondering if it'll be actually worth getting for a while considering how the Xbox 360 had only a handful of decent games until 2007.
The Battle for Middle Earth II was a success on both PC and XBOX, so why limit Halo Wars to XBullshit again? If they create two different games for each platform (like buckshot said), then that will work. Why are you so afraid of SCII players fucking up another RTS game? How would they even manage that? Do you mean during development?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkHalo003
SCII players can be just as bad as the MLG is to the rest of the Halo franchiseQuote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Yes AND they are 50% QQ, 25% casual (myself right now), and 25% are legitimately decent. At least the only whining Halo Wars fans had were that the game didn't have enough features or depth and that rushing was a major pain in the ass. SCII players (at least on the Battle.net forums) whine about EVERYTHING because they lost a game as a result of that feature of the game. Not saying Halo Wars didn't have those, but not only were those complaints usually either justified or too rage-bidden to be taken seriously, they were consistently addressed by Robot whether via patching or on the forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
TLDR;
50% of SCII players are too tenacious and unreasonable for the good of the game. They can also be extraordinarily ignorant as a result of their "race" pride. Simply put I'd rather know it's on a platform it could be conceivably nice on than worrying if it'll be as shitty a port as H2V was for you guys.
If Halo Wars 2 could be a double-hit on the PC and Xbox, then I'm all for it. However, if it ends up being fucked because of the cross-platofrming, then I'd rather have it on Xbox since that was its original purpose as a console RTS anyways.
I only want it on PC for modding, guys. Kinda hard to get modding communities going and staying afloat for these pesky consoles...
Tell that to ironforge&grenadiac :v:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
Since when has a Microsoft Game Developer let the opinions of others heavily influence their games? Sure MLG had an effect on Halo, but it wasn't that significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
Was the MLG's idea for reticle bloom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
the DMR was the love child between Bungie and the MLG, they wanted a BR with practically zero bullet spread.
wondering if there's going to be any chance of backwards compatibility with 360 accessories (especially controllers).
The PS3 actually supported PS2 gamepads (with adapters) and even a few generic PC usb gamepads (logitechs I believe) that weren't actually intended for use with the PS3. It even supported generic USB headsets and Bluetooth headsets.
But given current trends, it's most likely they'll make another proprietary wireless connection for the controller, with no built in battery (extra for a rechargeable pack), and block compatibility with 360 gamepads
You'd be VERY surprised then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Which was reversed when they realized that MLG is full of shit. And in any case, not everyone in MLG is as fanatical as the ones who play Halo.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
We need tanks we can kill with pistols by shooting into the cockpit.
No, in SCII you have the Koreans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Kind of defeats the prowess of the Tank concept though huh? Oh and the point of a Rocket Launcher/Splazer/whatever-the-fuck-343i-makes-next-that-kills-armor.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkHalcyon
Why would they get crazy over Halo Wars if they are content with SCII?Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
Well, there were way too many anti-armour weapons in Reach. Coupled with the fact that you can chip away armour with small-arms, it made vehicles a precarious choice of offense at best.
At least the tank in Halo 1 could be a threat for longer than 15 seconds.
I want more buttons on the Durango controller.
E: ninja'd.
lmao no it couldn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
quit getting mad at video gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by DarkHalo003
gameplay was fun until people like you showed up.
Clearly, you've never played with me at the controls. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
my argument is this.
shoot a rocket at a tank in h1. then in reach. then shoot the passenger in the tank with a sniper clip in h1. then in reach. then ping the passenger with the pistol in h1. then the dmr in reach.
what separated h1's tank from reach's is the fact that the blast radius was far more lethal and overpowering. and it was more fit to camp BG hills with. the fucking thing had no defense whatsoever.. which was the case for most of halo 1's weapons and vehicles.
and you seem to like to brag about being pretty good at the game. wanna go brah? wanna go?
http://images.dailyfill.com/72f342e2...24/o/crowe.jpg
I'm not mad at any video games. That was completely satirical and light-hearted. A pistol, the starting weapon of the game, took down a massive tank. Laugh will ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeph
Uh yes it could. The H1 tank was fast enough to actually take cover, and could hit people effectively from insanely far away. Yes it was fragile, but that's the whole point. It's a glass cannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
Have you ever driven the tank all the way to the edge of the water on Death Island and turned it backwards so you can't get sniped? Or the back of the bases on Blood Gulch?
Yeah Pooky and I have sat with 2 tanks flipped, on the back of blue base, decimating anyone that decided to ignore their intelligence and try to steal our flag.
What Pooky said. If you take your tank to a stand-up fight, you're doomed in any of the games. Fight smarter, not harder.
:)
P.S. I would never ever use a tank in a one-on-one fight.
^ No intelligent person would. A tank versus a spartan is a disaster waiting to happen, if you don't know where the spartan is.
and the tank in reach had buffed defense and decreased firepower. it was still formidable and required better aim and less reliance splash damage. last I checked, tank shells aren't miniature nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooky
back when I was 12 maybe, before I realized how boring and cheap it is sitting around waiting for people to walk into my crosshairs! camping the hills in bg with a tank is a much more effective method of exploiting the tankQuote:
Originally Posted by Pooky
>tank on BG is crazy strong
you do realize the scorpion was removed from matchmaking on hemmorhage in reach because it was ridiculously overpowered, correct? I literally watched a friend get a killtastrophy and go nuts over the mike. let me see if I can't find that game
Guise...this thread are about Xbawks 360x2.
Who wants mouse and keyboard support?
yep
http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Reach/GameStats.aspx?gameid=170882782&player=t3h m00kz
an inconceivable in a tank.
cute way to avoid someone who has a valid argument, btw! it's just like an non-religious person trying to debate logic with a southern baptist.
As long as they can turn off aim assist with a mouse, and allow keybinding...otherwise, I might stick to the controller. It makes it easier to lounge on a couch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Just having it would allow for cross-platform play. Aim assist should be off with or without a controller; I can't tell you how many times I get killed by the game due to aim assist.
The tank in H1 uses HE shells iirc, so yeah they basically are.Quote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
Well you were saying that the tank wasn't effective when it pretty clearly is ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
So basically it can survive for more than 15 seconds? Then I guess the argument is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
okay. My blatant sarcasm and exaggerations seem to be being taken rather literally.
My argument is the reach tank is not as much of a piece of shit as people think, and the h1 tank isn't some kind of super godly vehicle that was significantly superior and unstoppable.
I don't think anyone ever said it was unstoppable. It is significantly superior though. The Reach tank suffers critical existence failure the moment any anti vehicle weapon comes within a mile of it. That's saying nothing of Evade + ridiculous boarding radius.Quote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
The only reason it was successful on Hemorrhage is because Hemorrhage is even more open than Blood Gulch was and lends itself to tank sniping. It still perishes the second someone points a Plasma Launcher in its general direction. The tank on Boneyard was a complete joke.
Not to mention any half-wit can pick up the Sniper Rifle and peg away at it until it detonates into a ball of burning failure.
Trying to to the annual vidoc achievement in Halo 3 was a BITCH because of auto aim, boosting in a ghost and a flood spore walks by throwing me into a pit of a fire and 3 others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
But sadly I know it won't happen. Not when they can charge $60 per controller (without even including a battery). Forget about "advantages" and "comfort" and whatnots, in the end MS just loves to nickel and dime us on accessories. It took them forever to include a write ability for standard USB drives and external HDDs, and even then they artificially limit the usage of external USB devices when it comes to storage.
I do wish they would make a rule for devs to allow those stupid intro logos to be skippable when the game is installed to the HDD. Sadly even on the PC natively skippable intro vids are dying out as 90% of the time I have to manually delete the files or add launch parameters.
The tank was still very vulnerable if it was turned around. It has a lot of fire power but can be easily taken down most of the time if your not just running straight at it.
Of course it was vulnerable. That's what made it work. If you were getting hit too hard you could usually escape and recover your health. You just had to actually play smart with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Higuy
Microsoft at least makes keyboards and mice, and theirs are some of the safest options; I'd actually rather go with theirs unless getting high-end Logitech gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot
At the very very least, like you said, they need to add more buttons to the controller. And none of this touch bullshit!
This, although it's usually expensive stuff. Logitech is alright, but their stuff isn't really that great until you reach higher price-points. The mouse I'm using now has a malfunctioning middle button that won't click half of the time and I swear sometimes the left-clicks don't register at all. I got this thing a few months ago too. My HP mouse was SOOOOO much better, will it Rest In Peace. :allears:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I'm still running a Razer Diamondback Plasma Limited Edition. The scrolling doesn't work very well anymore, but apart from that it's still fantastic. I suspect I could take it apart and clean it to get scrolling back, but I need a white-glowing mouse now to colour-coordinate with my keyboard (Logitech Slim Illuminated). So tired of blue LEDs...
Bottom line, tough, is consoles need more controls so that you actually can make some complex games on them.
I definitely agree to this. Although we don't want the control to be too complex, otherwise you'll be hitting the wrong buttons out of sheer panic moments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I just saw Deus Ex: Human Revolution playing on an Xbox 360 and found another example of how the gamepad's limited button selection bottlenecks the controls. So it's not just limited to strategy games.
On the PC, you can map 10 inventory items to fast-deploy via the number keys. On the 360 you have to basically pause the game and use a rotary selector with the analog stick, which is slower and more inconvenient, and also kinda breaks the immersion. This is quite unlike most multiplatform shooters where the number of PC keys used is basically identical to the number of buttons/axes used on a controller, except that maybe Use and Reload get separate bindings.
Right now, as much as people like to bash it, the Wii U gamepad actually appears to be a semi-solution to this problem. The touch screen is basically adding a hell of a lot of buttons you don't find on standard controllers.
Yes, because they've done SOOOOO much work for 360 modding.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
wow, thats a really good point. i never thought of how a touch screen built into the controller might ACTUALLY be beneficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Buckshot
Would be so much better, for consumers and devs alike, to allow console games to communicate with other devices (PCs, tablets, smartphones) to provide extra game data or input. Mini-maps, inventory screens, etc. This means they can use their already-owned devices (eg, an iPad) and devs can get some extra revenue from a .99$ app on the AppStore (or free, if they're not greedy or in actual need of that additional income, like maybe an indie studio would be). Oh, and less goddamn proprietary hardware would have to be made. Better for MS.
Controllers aren't the only answer to input on consoles.
definitely, I remember these concepts being explored with GBA-Gamecube connectivity and some cool things came out of it (i.e. using the GBA as an OPSAT in splinter cell) but it sadly didn't take off. Then there was supposed to be PS3-PSP connectivity, but other than unlocking bonus features in some games there was no real use of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
Would be awesome to have an app on my phone to integrate with say GTA and perform the in-game phone functions for example.
I think some games do have app integration, like Halo Waypoint for instance, but it's mostly a gimmick.
come to think of it, app integration should come to all systems, really. I'd love to transfer OPSAT controls in splinter cell to my smartphone, and now that phones have decent graphics chips and strong wifi they can do a hell of a lot more than what the GBA-GC connectivity could achieve. And for open-world games having the map on the phone would be sick!
haha have you played a Nintendo DS before? The touch screen really shone on that thing. My favorite application was how in FPS's I could move the stylus on the touchscreen to aim, which was actually better than an analog stick. In a lot of other games like Bleach the touschscreen was just divided into "buttons" to compensate for the relatively few physical buttons, for example spirit cards and special attacks would be activated just by tapping the touchscreen. Come to think of it, I wonder how much use the touch screen has seen on the PS Vita...Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut
Doesn't mean it's accurate. It was something internal to MS. They would have done the same if it was a roadmap for Excel. That doc was a thing where marketing gets involved and says that things are a good idea because they're hip and tight like a tiger. Take a look at what's happened since it was released internally. XBL has jumped to a streaming entertainment hub. Kinect has taken a backseat from the next new thing in gameplay to a microphone to control NXE (Rise is possibly having gameplay problems as well). The new glass/slate thing is also going to act as a remote control for crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbiter901
The most interesting thing was the price point, but as history has shown, MS/Sony are only willing to take soo much of a loss when selling hardware. As for the hardware, it's good but it's not anything that has developers scrambling to make use of.
No console is ever going to be powerful enough for it to be a huge draw to developers, because high end hardware and low cost to consumers just don't mix :P Its completely ridiculous that people even expect that to happen in a console xPQuote:
Originally Posted by Zeph
If they actually do call it the Xbox 720, they deserve to fail.
Why would they call it that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Well, why did they call Xbox 2 the Xbox 360? Because it made them appear more advanced. 360 > 3 and 720 > 4. I understand that at the time the 360 was released, they would only be on the second generation; similar applies. I actually would rather them straight-up call it Xbox Next, since it has a nice ring to it. If they call it MetroBox, I'm switching to Sony if I ever buy another console.
Xbox Next? Doesn't sound very good at all...especially the double 'x' makes it sound bad.
Xbox 360 was pretty nice...360...a revolution. I don't mind 720...Durango sounds like an ape.
Might just be my English-native ears, but I thought it had a nice ring. Xbox 720 is just as bad as "Halo 4" and implies a revolution again. I'll be [pleasantly] surprised if they actually do something revolutionary this next go around, but the changes seen on the Xbox 360 versus the Xbox were pretty revolutionary for the home video-game console space.
X-like-a-Box
It's funny because you think "power" alone is what makes or breaks a console, especially when it comes to developersQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehob
XBOX 360 sounded cool. XBOX 720 sounds like too much (mainly because we already have 360 in our heads).Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Quit consoles and we don't have to worry about naming them.
I said that power alone was never going to be enough of a draw to developers to any console. Not that power is the deciding factor :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
The main reason for the name 360 was because numerically Xbox 2 sounded inferior to PS3.
Mind equates to blown.Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/tech...un-amok-860751
Ha. Infinity. If this ends up so, I wonder if it's just sheer coincidence that 343 named the new supa-dupa UNSC ship Infinity as well. After all, after Halo4 ends Infinity will be back in the air/space.Quote:
Word on the street today is that the next Xbox will be called Xbox 8 -- or perhaps more likely: Xbox Infinity.
Whoa, that's neat.
Xbox ∞
Xbox "Sideways 8" to coincide with Windows 8
Genius! Microsoft strikes again!
I don't see it being Infinity unless it has the durability of a Nokia phone and the Software that's upgraded indefinitely forever....becaue c'mon it can't be infinity if it ends at some point.
Windows 3.1 -> 95 -> 3.51 -> 4.0 -> 98 > 2000 -> XP -> 2003 -> vista -> 2008 -> 7
Xbox -> Xbox 360 -> Xbox 8
Microsoft once again showing the world that they don't know how to count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myself
.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackalStomper
Xbox 8 will hold Microsoft ahead of Sony for a few generations then. Xbox Infinity will be insurmountable for Sony to overcome.
Dammit Microsoft and your thinking ahead!
If they call it infinity, it'll seem impressive at launch, yet... the downfall with be INCREDIBLE :downs:
Until they come out with the Xbox ∞²
Introducing the new Xbox/0 (over Zero)
Aww, fu- :v:
for some reason i initially read that as co2, but then i thought it made too much sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by ODX
A few sources within microsoft have said they're hoping this new console to be their last, they'll just update it through software rather than doing better hardware in later consoles.
Might actually be the last fling with games consoles for both sony and microsoft, who knows?
At first first I thought that sounded crazy, but really ho much more horsepower do these consoles need? We're already at nearly photo realistic graphics and a near limitless amount of objects on screen, if this generation of consoles can hold their ground for 7-8 years, what will the next generation bring?
We are nowhere near photo-realistic graphics on consoles dude...
Ugh.... sorry but I almost face palmed at this. I'm sure others here can point out the specifics better than I can, but the current generation consoles' graphics are utter shit compared to current gen PC. But still, I guess it is possible for Microsoft to write off future consoles after the next one. This would effectively stonewall any future graphical advancements, since the major research and development branches of nVidia and AMD would likely go out of business. If all game developers were told that the current generation of consoles is to be the last in terms of hardware, then they would only develop within that hardware's limitations from that point on. Effectively, all games would be able to run on the crappy console hardware, and eventually all games would hit the same limit to their graphics. Demand for superior video cards on PC would drastically drop if none of the games coming out ever required them. Sure there would still be some PC exclusive titles, but we all know where that market is headed... Besides, I thought making new consoles would create profit? Forcing consumers to dish out $400+ on a new console to be able to keep up with the latest games seems like a pretty solid business strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterz1337
TL;DR, if xbox 720 is going to be Microsoft's last console, it would be an utter nightmare. Think about how CoD has used the same engine for the past decade. Now imagine if every game studio did that too.
Except, even today, the 360 is constantly being pushed to its limits. Where COD developers just crap out a game without really advancing the underlying tech (protip: there's more to tech than hardware).Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaron
Except they lose a huge amount of money every time a console comes out. Consoles are always sold at a loss, the idea is to make the money back selling games.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaron
You must forgive masterz, he's a Mac user and knows not what gaming on a machine that's actually capable feels like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Unlimited objects and photo realistic graphics don't go together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterz1337
The only games that come close to photo realistic graphics are racing games. They always have been and always will. Is it because their devs have some magic code that makes everything pretty? No, its because its a very closed environment. 99% of racing games force you in a certain direction, with no deviations, ala a track. Racing games are classed as not being overly complex, yes Forza has some amazing stats and tyre degragation etc etc, but in the grand scheme of things, they arent complex.
That allows devs to use the 'spare' hardware power to pump out the gfx, because they know exactly the sort of situation the game is in, so they can optimize it fully.
I personally think the guys at Euclideon have got the right idea.
Instead of making massively high poly models and massively high resolution bitmaps, a system which optimizes for the actual resolution shown on screen should in theory be far more efficient than the wasted detail not shown from the current method used in games.
This is so mean. :lmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by =sw=warlord
Sorry Masterz.