News - Microsoft confirms no Xbox 720 at this year's E3 or any-time soon

[HEXUS]

Xbox 360 is selling well and will be this year's focus.

Read more.

[shaithis]

Another year of sub-standard console ports then

[crossy]

If the '360 is "riding high" in the sales figures then I can appreciate Microsoft's point - launching the replacement this year would seem a little premature. Not that I'm in any particular hurry to replace my '360 and presumably games developers are going to need some time to get any launch titles for the new console honed and polished - don't really want any barely-warmed over versions of '360 titles for launch day.

This year, we will build on that Xbox 360 momentum. With "Halo 4," "Forza Horizon," "Fable: The Journey," and other great Kinect games on the way

Kinect is good (I bought one at launch) but because it uses way too much space, mine's been relegated to "family party entertainment" - I got three titles at launch and aren't really intending to buy any more for it.

Another year of sub-standard console ports then

Not convinced that a '720 announcement would have stopped this happening, but agree that this is probably what's going to happen. Along with: this year's Call Of Duty title; whatever yearly "updates" of NFL, FIFA, (insert other pointless sport-related EA title) from EA; flood of barely different "London Olympics" themed tat.

[cheesemp]

I've actually switched 90% of my gaming back to the PC as I'm so disappointed in my xbox. Its not just the poor graphics or the kinect not working (I wish I could use my kinect without rearrange the front room of my average size three bed but honest answer is I can't and its ended up unplugged and covered in dust. When I did rearrange the front room the detection was poor.) its the cost of live. I'd just rather pay a little more upfront for the PC and know I don't have a recurring monthly fee.

[edvinasm]

I've actually switched 90% of my gaming back to the PC as I'm so disappointed in my xbox. Its not just the poor graphics or the kinect not working (I wish I could use my kinect without rearrange the front room of my average size three bed but honest answer is I can't and its ended up unplugged and covered in dust. When I did rearrange the front room the detection was poor.) its the cost of live. I'd just rather pay a little more upfront for the PC and know I don't have a recurring monthly fee.

Agreed. Game and Live costs are too much, especially when mid range PC with XBox or better graphics can be had for around 500 (US/EUR). 720 won't show on the market until ATI 8 and NVidia 7 series are out. Consoles used to come out with same GPU and PC and did quite well. However, now PCs are better coded and more stable. Less and less reasons to buy console. Heck, you can cramp decent PC with ASUS Maximus Gene in a small form factor and it'll use less power than XBox and generate less noise (if done properly) + warranty on PC components are usually 2-3 years.

[Scribe]

I've actually switched 90% of my gaming back to the PC as I'm so disappointed in my xbox. Its not just the poor graphics or the kinect not working (I wish I could use my kinect without rearrange the front room of my average size three bed but honest answer is I can't and its ended up unplugged and covered in dust. When I did rearrange the front room the detection was poor.) its the cost of live. I'd just rather pay a little more upfront for the PC and know I don't have a recurring monthly fee.

Ditto, actually, I purchased a release day Xbox 360 but sold it when the Playstation 3 came out, during that one year period it broke two times and suffered from overheating related crashes. I still use my PlayStation 3 but only tend to purchase exclusive titles or games with a strong story element, it's paid its living working as a great media player however.

Everything else is on the PC for me, Crysis 2 in 3D on a 50" Plasma with ultra-settings vs console quality is something pretty amazing. 3D at 60fps on televisions is 720p and frankly consoles don't have the anti-aliasing performance to make it look good.

I don't want Microsoft or Sony to rush the new consoles and they should wait until the tech that they want is there. If they're going AMD I'd like to see some heterogeneous components to simplify and maximise game design, if they end up going NVIDIA then they should wait for Kepler as oppose to leaping ahead.

[Terbinator]

So maybe not at E3, but "not any time soon" - nope. Turn10 are the latest to be looking for DX11 experience and some of the people who've recently left Lionhead are also stating DX11 experience on their LinkedIn's etc.

[shaithis]

3D at 60fps on televisions is 720p

Use 1080p side-by-side instead of 720p frame-packed. PQ is massively better.

[watercooled]

I think everyone is missing a rather important point:

The announcement doesn't, of course, mean that any of the rumours relating to specifications and release dates are incorrect, only that the successors to our current-gen consoles are likely to be revealed closer to their respective release dates, which is suggested to be the first-half of next year.

Announcing a new console while sales are high is counterproductive, not to mention they'll want the new exclusives to sell well and encourage more people to buy a 360. Read up on the Osborne Effect.

Don't forget that the Wii U with its more advanced hardware will likely put pressure on Sony/Microsoft and I doubt either of them would be happy with Nintendo absorbing some of their user base.

[crossy]

I've actually switched 90% of my gaming back to the PC as I'm so disappointed in my xbox. Its not just the poor graphics or the kinect not working (I wish I could use my kinect without rearrange the front room of my average size three bed but honest answer is I can't and its ended up unplugged and covered in dust. When I did rearrange the front room the detection was poor.) its the cost of live. I'd just rather pay a little more upfront for the PC and know I don't have a recurring monthly fee.

+1 on the disappointment with Kinect - although I've had no real problems with vision detection, but I think my unit needs a hearing aid. No, my problem - like yours - is that unless you've got a front room that looks like a small scout hall, then you're out of luck. Certainly zero chance of using it in the average UK bedroom (where I'd suggest most XBox lurk)

As to the cost of Live - I'm going to disagree. We pay less than the price of NetFlix for a year to get four XBL Gold memberships, (£66 last year). Okay, I wouldn't object to it being cheaper, but I'm content to pay.

As to moving console->PC I've had mixed experiences - I used to game a lot with the PC, but got more and more annoyed by the delays due to AV updates, Windows updates, etc. Compared to the XBox where you're at the game start screen within about 60 seconds of hitting the power button. BF3 convinced me to give it another go, and SR3 looks 10x better on a PC to the XBox version. So at present I still do the majority of my gaming on my XBox (because I'm not patient) but the PC use is increasing. I'm hoping that Windows8 will also continue to focus on getting a fast boot time.

[eatonm62]

I am a new PC owner who spent 2k just before xmas on a sli 570 based system and can honestly say i will never go back to consoles as the graphics on my system just blow me away !
However, i fully understand why so many gamers stick to console based systems and it mainly down to the cost of buying a high spec PC .

On another note it dose look like more game developers are making more of an effort with PC releases and this should get much better in a year or so with the next gen of consoles using DX11 .

[Primey0]

Ever since I started pc gaming I never looked back to console gaming. But I see the appeal of console gaming. I just wish the consoles were powerful so we pc gamers don't get crappy ports.

[crossy]

I am a new PC owner who spent 2k just before xmas on a sli 570 based system ... [snipped] ... However, i fully understand why so many gamers stick to console based systems and it mainly down to the cost of buying a high spec PC .

Errr not necessarily the case. Without being rude, your "top end" 570 based system is now "last years model" because the 680 is out, and presumably the 670 and 660 cards can't be that far behind. However, I'm not saying that it's useless - heck I've got a single 460 and I'm fine playing the current crop of console ports ( ) - so your SLi setup will probably be pretty sweet.

PC's fine, but your console: boots faster; needs less maintenance; costs less than your dual-570 kit; and is easy to relocate if you want to LAN party.

I play console pretty much for convenience's sake - faster boot and no messing around setting up controllers - and it's only special games that get treated to a PC version. My experience though is never go from PC version to console of the same title - as you'll always be disappointed with the "cartoon" looks of the graphics. BF3 is especially bad for this - it looks lush on a PC, but "meh" on the console.

[watercooled]

There's nothing wrong with not using 'teh latezt' hardware, a 570 is more that capable of running modern games unless you have a massive resolution or multi-monitor setup, and will be for years. People often give the need to upgrade as a negative for PC gaming, but it's really not as simple as that. A good card from 360/PS3 release dates will still run most new games, just not at max settings. And that's where the myth comes from, the need to run maxed out, but they seem to ignore the fact that consoles run games at nowhere near 'max' settings, and run at far less than 720p and 60fps for most games (pick ONE if you're lucky). Sure, the consoles are quite different to PCs and you can eek quite a bit more performance out of them with code optimisations but like you say, compare console graphics to even medium PC graphics settings now...

And about boot time, I'd have to time it to be sure, but I can be in a game menu in about the same amount of time on my PC as a 360 (both from off), and I spend far less time in loading screens than on console. If you put your PC in standby or use that fast boot technology or whatever it's called by various MFRs (basically reboots then stanbys) the gap widens.

[crossy]

And about boot time, I'd have to time it to be sure, but I can be in a game menu in about the same amount of time on my PC as a 360 (both from off), and I spend far less time in loading screens than on console. If you put your PC in standby or use that fast boot technology or whatever it's called by various MFRs (basically reboots then stanbys) the gap widens.

I broadly agree with what you're saying - I've zero doubts that in the hands of an expert (such as your good self of course) that a Windows7-based gaming box can show a clean pair of heels to any PS3/XBox in the boot-to-play timings.

Unfortunately, that means tweaking and honing - something I guess that most folks either aren't competent to do, or "can't be bothered", (guilty as charged on the latter). Windows7 itself impressed me with it's lightning fast boot when I first installed it. Alas the imposition of stuff like AV scanners and then all boot-loading updaters that software vendors like to "bless" us with have slowed things down very noticeably. I really need to get in there with the old machete and clear some s**t out - then perhaps my Win7 installation would be as quick as the Linux box that I use day-to-day.

Given the lack of such tweaking I still think that a console is a more "appropriate" choice for your typical (teenage?) gamer. One thing that could tip the balance though is if Windows8 was to introduce some form of package manager based standard updater - so Windows Update could check not only for Windows updates, but also for Photoshop, CoD, etc.

[watercooled]

Can't find the original discussion of 720 hardware (BD thread maybe?) anyway, a friend just linked this: http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/02/xbox...ired/#comments