Kaz: The 360 Lacks Longevity

[modeps]

CVG (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=206201) has a story up about Ken Kutar... wait sorry, Kaz Hirai telling OPM that the 360 'lacks longevity' and basically that Nintendo isn't in their league so they aren't concerned about the Wii.

He told Official PlayStation Magazine: "It's difficult to talk about Nintendo because we don't look at their console as being competitors. They're a different world and we operate in our world - that's kind of the way I look at things.

"And with the Xbox - again, I can't come up with one word to fit. You need a word that describes something that lacks longevity," said Hirai.

"Last time I checked, they've never had a console that's been on the market for more than four or five years and we've committed to a ten year life cycle, so you do the math.

Ken Kutaragi v2.0?

[Vandenh]

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai."

Very likely the most idiotic thing I have *ever* read in my life. Un-fucking-believable.

[Rarely Operable Brain]

I guess they spend the other "nine-and-a-half years" trying to figure out how to fully utilize the hardware? How dare someone provide developers with a system and tools that gives them an "'easy to program for' console."

I've got a PS3 now to go along with my 360, and I don't think I've posted an anti-Sony comment in the small number of posts I've made, but that statement by Mr. Hirai is full of stupid.

[D4rkM4g3]

Hirai said that, regardless of install base, or who sold more and when, "I'd like to think that we continue official leadership in this industry."

They can think whatever they want to, but at this point they're getting trounced by the 360 and Wii. You can't lead from last place guys.

[Meusli]

OH MY GOD, what the hell is this guy on?

[Demo_Boy]

Look for Wii2 in 2009, and the 361 in late 2010/mid 2011. Both to have full back compat and graphics and inputs far more compelling than current gen.

PS3 will look completely dated.

[Apex]

Some of the most ridiculous drivel ive read in my life.

Hes right about one thing, they live in their own world.

[Steve_Erhardt]

I read inane, imbecilic bullshit-spewing PR drivel like this and it makes it really hard to warm up to my PS3 just on general principle.

But then I look at my 360, and it's habitual fucking RRoDs, and decide Sony's face-men can spew whatever unhinged-from-reality insanity they like; at least the hardware isn't taking a shit on me every year to six months. >=[

[Steel_Wind]

Whatever....

I've got a 360, I've got a PS3. (And I've got a Wii too, for that matter) I enjoy both the 360 and PS3 (Wii? Not so much).

To date, I've preferred the games on the 360, but the hardware potential of the PS3 is greater. I like the fact it's quiet and doesn't sound like a Hsarrier Jump Jet - I like the cool stuff it does with a networked PSP and I am enjoying Valkyria Chronicles and Little Big Planet.

The 360? More games, better software variety avaialble online, even at the significant cost charged. XBox Live and XNA are pretty damned cool.

That's what it's about: enjoying what the console offers, enjoying the games each offers.

This PR spin which amounts to looking for provocative and stupid thing to say so that it will attract train wreck attention. It has nothing to do with making and selling consoles, and less still with making and selling console games.

And I don't think it has a damned thing to do with what Sony actually thinks, either.

Ignore it.

[Rarely Operable Brain]

And I don't think it has a damned thing to do with what Sony actually thinks, either.

Ignore it.

It probably doesn't, however, when you put people in the position that Mr. Hirai is in - a position that often requires him to speak about not only his product, but competing products - you don't want him saying things like this because it DOES create a perception (a bad one) of the company he represents.

The past comments of Kutaragi and the present comments of Hirai really have no effect on my purchase of a PS3, or what I'll do with it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bad PR.

[Vandenh]

To date, I've preferred the games on the 360, but the hardware potential of the PS3 is greater
Just stop this bullshit. Seriously... let it go.

[JasonSuave]

I really don't understand this "hardware potential" argument. I've owned almost every video game system that's existed since 1985, and I haven't seen a system that "improves over time" in terms of the graphic quality of games. Yeah, yeah, developers can put in better textures and do some optimizations. But, seriously... the current xbox 360 games are maybe 20% better overall than the originals. It only took 1 year for GOW 1 to come out, and it looks almost identical to GOW 2. I guarantee that 7 years from now, the PS3 games will look only 20% better than they do today. It's just ridiculous to assume that developers will suddenly discover this "way to unlock" the graphics.

[modeps]

I really don't understand this "hardware potential" argument. I've owned almost every video game system that's existed since 1985, and I haven't seen a system that "improves over time" in terms of the graphic quality of games. Yeah, yeah, developers can put in better textures and do some optimizations. But, seriously... the current xbox 360 games are maybe 20% better overall than the originals. It only took 1 year for GOW 1 to come out, and it looks almost identical to GOW 2. I guarantee that 7 years from now, the PS3 games will look only 20% better than they do today. It's just ridiculous to assume that developers will suddenly discover this "way to unlock" the graphics.

You aren't looking hard enough. Gears 2 is markedly better looking than Gears 1. Take a look at the games on the PS2 also... those games were certainly better looking near the end of that generation than at the beginning.

[vivafletcher]

I really don't understand this "hardware potential" argument. I've owned almost every video game system that's existed since 1985, and I haven't seen a system that "improves over time" in terms of the graphic quality of games. Yeah, yeah, developers can put in better textures and do some optimizations. But, seriously... the current xbox 360 games are maybe 20% better overall than the originals. It only took 1 year for GOW 1 to come out, and it looks almost identical to GOW 2. I guarantee that 7 years from now, the PS3 games will look only 20% better than they do today. It's just ridiculous to assume that developers will suddenly discover this "way to unlock" the graphics.

Wow. Couldn't disagree more. From the Atari 2600 to the PS2, I think games look MUCH better over the life of the system. I expect the same with the PS3.

[kwolf]

The "hardware potential" argument falls apart when you look at the video card in the ps3. They have to say something -- it's their job.

[92miata]

i sure hope that ass-clown is getting laid off.....

[vivafletcher]

Some of the most ridiculous drivel ive read in my life.

Hes right about one thing, they live in their own world.


I think he might also be right about the 360's long-term propects. Not because the games suck, but because Microsoft has a plan for their property, and it doesn't include a lifetime of utility.

XBox owners got shut out pretty quickly once the 360 was announced. Vista purchasers are going to have to accept that they got suckered. The company moves on quickly. I'm not convinced that once the next next-gen system comes out that 360 owners will still have a steady stream of games coming their way. I think Microsoft will pressure developers to put resources into the new thing.

[teksama]

What is this power advantage Sony keeps talking about with the PS3. 360 has more horsepower and it came out a year early. Sony is so ridiculous, it doesn't matter how many DSPs you can squeeze on to one chip. The architecture is inferior to that of a CPU. Should have spent all that CELL/BLURAY money on damn games. I have 2 damn games for my PS3.

[JasonSuave]

Wow. Couldn't disagree more. From the Atari 2600 to the PS2, I think games look MUCH better over the life of the system. I expect the same with the PS3.

I think that games do look "better" over the lifecycle of a console generation, but only marginally better. GOW2 is maybe 20% better than GOW1. I mean, the frame rate stayed the same, the textures were about the same, the resolution stayed the same... yeah it "looks" better, but it's not like FarCry1 vs. Crysis.

It's like the "car analogy." If you have a 350 HP engine, you can only make the car go so much faster without putting in a new engine. A new driver or exhaust may improve the speed, but it still only has 350 HP. That's the problem with the PS3. The big chiefs at sony can say all day that "we haven't reached the potential" of the system, but until I see the results, it's just talk.

[riposte101]

i sure hope that ass-clown is getting laid off.....

You fail upwards at Sony. Just joking :p.

[Meatgortex]

I think he might also be right about the 360's long-term propects. Not because the games suck, but because Microsoft has a plan for their property, and it doesn't include a lifetime of utility.

I keep seeing versions of this thought, and it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of why MS jumped early on the 360 and immediately killed the xbox.

When the 360 was launched MS was still selling the xbox hardware at a LOSS. Yes, that's right even late in the cycle, where you typically make all your money, the hardware still cost too much to make a profit.

This is because MS didn't know what they were doing on the first console. They made poor contracts with both Nvidia, and the HDD companies. Nvidia had total control over the cost reduction of their own part and had little incentive to do much work in that area since it was such a small part of their market. HDD's don't decrease in cost over time, the get bigger but keep the same cost.

As a result MS knew that they were never going to get on the good side of the cost curve. The longer they let the xbox live the more money they were going to loose. It made sense to kill the project as soon as possible.

The 360 is built based upon the cost lessons learned from the first console, unfortunately at the cost of reliability. MS has the right to do their own cost reduction on the chips and already have for both the CPUs and GPU. MS will be making money on 360 hardware even at it's lowest, end of the cycle price point, which gives them massive incentive to keep it alive as long as possible. The same incentive Sony has to keep the PS2 going as a pure profit machine.

[JasonSuave]

To help add to my argument, here are what I consider games that have a 100% improvement in graphics:

Halo 2 --> Halo 3
Farcry1 --> Crysis
Super Mario World --> Mario 64
Original Wipeout --> Wipeout HD

For all those games, you had a significant increase in texture quality, frame rate, and resolution. So, yes, if those games are 100% improvements, I don't think any console can ever reach 100% improvement, which is how I reach the 20% number.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

Well, he may get what he hopes for; a shorter 360 life than for the PS3. But is that a good thing?

An Xbox 720 that is redesigned to:
* end the hardware issues,
* updates the RAM and memory bandwidth
* is backward compatible
* still comes in lower cost for one SKU version of it (the Arcade version),
* solid state drives (even small ones) to eliminate sound issues

Something like that might not be that win Kaz hopes for. That technology isn't far away either, certainly within a year or two that might become the norm.

It might make the PS3 look huge, clunky, hard to program, and expensive for older tech. That would not be good for PS3.

Most gamers seem to think that the next generation will have Bluray, whereas I think it won't. Seems to me people will want an even smaller Wii, sort of a cross between their DS and their Wii. Certainly, the Wii generation doesn't seem to have a strong hankering for Bluray and it's hard to say what the future requirements will be for it when multi terrabyte solid state drives are coming up soon, and 64GB ones later this year. It might become more like the old days of games on a cartridge, but the cartridges have massive amounts of space, are more resistant to abuse and no scratching issues, and are silent compared to Bluray and DVD.

As far as "hard to code"; I look at it as efficiency to the end product. The more easy it is to create a high quality product the more likely that path is taken. Getting that ultimate quality response out of anything is very costly, the last 10% of effective use is much harder than the first 80% or so, in my experience. It isn't cost effective, and it's a gamble to see if you actually sell enough units to make up the extras.

In the past developers had no choice with PS2; there wasn't another alternative. These days the code often needs to run on multiple systems and that extra mile to get perfection on one system suddenly has a ton of side effects.

Most likely dev's will look at how much bang they get (and have gotten) for each extra buck. If Sony makes that equation too "manly", then they might find only a select few men actually show up, and everyone else plays the less expensive solution.

What's even more funny is that I think there is a great chance that MS will release a new Xbox within a couple of years, I don't think Nintendo will. The reason is this: "WHY?!?!?!". It sells tons, and is still climbing in monthly and annual sales. Most likely they have 4 more good years left in that system, and they only really need consider a slim version or something that refreshes the basic idea.

The days of making products hard to work with seem so long ago to me.

[ElektroDragon]

Installable games already solved the noise issue.

As for what the Sony guy said... wow. You guys think *I* spew out idiotic drivel? I've been completely vindicated.

[lockwoodx]

http://www.the-minusworld.com/wp-admin/images/July08/WorldLawKazHirai/kazhirai.jpg

[Switcher]

You'd think, when Sony is clearly hurt, bleeding and cowering in a corner...they'd actually be a bit humbled...but of course, no.

[Demo_Boy]

The 360 doesn't lack longevity the same way a Yugo doesn't lack longevity.

It is not the most elegant, full featured or reliable hardware, but it serves the needs of its user at a great price point, and for that reason alone will survive quite a while.

[cjrizzo]

All in all, take these systems for what they are. Mr. Hirai can say everything he wants to about the PS3 (the analogy of it's a marathon, not a sprint applies to Sony's viewpoints w/r/t longevity). The bottom line is that sales will not grow until the price point is about $100 lower, more developers can develop games without significant cost to learn and optimize the tools, and blu-ray really takes hold (which I think will not happen - DVD and downloads are killing blu-ray's potential). Why do I bring up these points? Because people don't care what a system's potential is 10 years from now - nobody walks in spending $399-$499 saying "can't wait to see what games they will make 8 years from now". Gaming is, and will always be a 'what have you done for me lately' proposition. We see this every time a big game comes out that spurs system sales.

Only the NES and PS2 have held to the reality of the 10-year cycle - without the latest and greatest technology. You can have the technologically best system on the market, but if nobody wants to design games for it, who cares? That is the position Sony is in in today's gaming world. This, Sony's arrogance and the lack of true exclusives, have shut Sony out of the position they once held. They will need to adapt or they can never become a #1 again.

[bto]

Owning both consoles, I can add myself to others here: Hirai's comments are full of fail. Seriously, WTF

[kwolf]

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.
Now that's some serious spin.

[Vandenh]

Vista purchasers are going to have to accept that they got suckered. The company moves on quickly.

They still support XP and they supported Windows 95/98 for 8 years. Vista will still be supported 5 years from now. Some of you people are full of shit. Like a broken record.

Yes the original XBox was dropped... it was bleeding money due to some bad contracts with nVidia and the HDD. The 360 has none of those problems and every console sold makes money.

[Vandenh]

To help add to my argument, here are what I consider games that have a 100% improvement in graphics:

Halo 2 --> Halo 3
Farcry1 --> Crysis
Super Mario World --> Mario 64
Original Wipeout --> Wipeout HD

For all those games, you had a significant increase in texture quality, frame rate, and resolution. So, yes, if those games are 100% improvements, I don't think any console can ever reach 100% improvement, which is how I reach the 20% number.


Dude.. those games are not even on the same console.

[MightyDog]

given how many 360's are breaking down...I might agree with him ;)

[nathansmart]

wait a second, what about the gamecube? You can't tell me Resident Evil 4 doesn't look unbelievable compared to the first games that came out on the system.

[The Ligand]

Dude.. those games are not even on the same console.

Dude.. that was his point. You ought to try reading someone's entire post before you respond to what you *think* was said.

[grognard66]

I thought Sony may have finally started learning from some of their mistakes, but this makes it clear at least Hirai has not. The man is clearly delusional. There has never been, and will never be, a 10-year console cycle. Technology does not stand still because it is in Sony's best interest for it to do so.

Think about how dated PS1 games look today if you want a barometer for how this generations games will look if these consoles actually stay around for 10 years. PC technology has already shot past this generations consoles (they always do after about a year) and console gamers will look mournfully at what PC games are able to do until their numbers hit critical mass (when PC game sales start rivaling console sales) and the next console round starts all over again.

If anything, this is just spin from Hirai because he knows Sony can't afford to develop another console, so they're stuck with this one until their fortunes turn. Given a 4+ year console development cycle that means Sony probably can't afford to release a console when the next gen actually arrives (from MS and Nintendo) or this may end up being the last console Sony releases and they'll just ride it out as long as they can.

[TeeCakes]

They can think whatever they want to, but at this point they're getting trounced by the 360 and Wii. You can't lead from last place guys.

1-- You didn't really say anything to counter his '360 lack longevity' comment-- probably because you can't.

2-- Even if they were getting trounced, it doesn't mean people will stomach the Wii's graphical/online limitations for 10 full years. PS3 has more longevity, again, is Kaz's argument.

3-- According to these guys (http://www.vgchartz.com/), the one-year extra that 360 has over PS3 is the only thing keeping it ahead in hardware sales. Rounding up, 360=28M units, PS3=20M, worldwide. In other words, PS3's been selling 10M per year (2 years on the market as of Nov '08) while 360's coming in at just over 9M per year (3 years as of Nov '08).

4-- 'Last place' is only decided after this hardware cycle ends.

I really don't understand this "hardware potential" argument. I've owned almost every video game system that's existed since 1985, and I haven't seen a system that "improves over time" in terms of the graphic quality of games. Yeah, yeah, developers can put in better textures and do some optimizations. But, seriously... the current xbox 360 games are maybe 20% better overall than the originals. It only took 1 year for GOW 1 to come out, and it looks almost identical to GOW 2. I guarantee that 7 years from now, the PS3 games will look only 20% better than they do today. It's just ridiculous to assume that developers will suddenly discover this "way to unlock" the graphics.

Wow. Super Mario World<Donkey Kong Country waaaaay back on the SNES. Get with the program, Rico Suave.

LOL@the other usual blind SONY hate in this thread.

[Meatgortex]

http://freespace.virgin.net/sanjeev.sarpal/images/intro.1.jpg

This is not meant in terms of numbers, or who's got the biggest install base, or who's selling most in any particular week or month, but I'd like to think that we continue official leadership in this industry

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

1-- You didn't really say anything to counter his '360 lack longevity' comment-- probably because you can't.

2-- Even if they were getting trounced, it doesn't mean people will stomach the Wii's graphical/online limitations for 10 full years. PS3 has more longevity, again, is Kaz's argument.

3-- According to these guys (http://www.vgchartz.com/), the one-year extra that 360 has over PS3 is the only thing keeping it ahead in hardware sales. Rounding up, 360=28M units, PS3=20M, worldwide. In other words, PS3's been selling 10M per year (2 years on the market as of Nov '08) while 360's coming in at just over 9M per year (3 years as of Nov '08).

4-- 'Last place' is only decided after this hardware cycle ends.



Wow. Super Mario World<Donkey Kong Country waaaaay back on the SNES. Get with the program, Rico Suave.

LOL@the other usual blind SONY hate in this thread.1 - What's funny is that Sony is fucksored either way MS goes. If the 360 Arcade becomes a sub $100 console in 6 years, would the PS3 ever compete on that ground? If MS revamps the 360 it would far exceed anything the PS3 does, since they are almost identical in what they can achieve. Certainly nothing that has been shown in the last 3 Christmas seasons can say otherwise.

2 - People can stomach an awful lot if the price is right, or they see the value. In 10 years people may or may not be demanding Wii Fit in HiDef. :p

3 - According to them, Microsoft didn't surpass the PS3 sales by over a million just last month, which sorta changes all the numbers. Those numbers you use are always as old as they are inaccurate, but I trust you won't ever see that.

4 - Last place can easily be decided each month or year. Last month, for example, the PS3 won 3rd place and had to work darn hard to keep that. :D

Plus, Sony is probably as committed to a 10 year lifespan as they are to backward compatibility. But why mention something MS does well and Sony does in a not-at-all sort of way. Really, MS looks a lot more committed to the original Xbox support via BC than Sony does for the PS2.

What Sony needs to really worry about is whether the 2009 software top 10 stat's show any titles at all from Sony, because they seemed to be outgunned last year.

[ResistanceAddict]

Just stop this bullshit. Seriously... let it go.

That's not bullshit, sir. Blu-Ray alone and the graphics proves that (not to mention the durability). This isn't anything that's not common knowledge by now.

[vallor]

I think the best examples of companies that learn better over the course of a console are the Square folks. Final Fantasy continually topped itself graphically over the course of the PS/2.

Not saying that this is ideal or this guy isn't a meat-head, but it takes time to "grind" up your "programming skillz levels" to really take advantage of the hardware. Of course this is also true for the 360 and the Wii. People will get smarter and more efficient as they learn leassons and that will reflect well for titles released later in the lifecycle.

I would suggest that there are diminishing returns. Once it becomes more profitable to program for another console (next gen possibly) it is probably better to focus on learning how to maximize that hardware. There isn't a lot of innovation in programming for the PS/2.

[SalaciousPuck]

I keep seeing versions of this thought, and it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of why MS jumped early on the 360 and immediately killed the xbox.

When the 360 was launched MS was still selling the xbox hardware at a LOSS. Yes, that's right even late in the cycle, where you typically make all your money, the hardware still cost too much to make a profit.

This is because MS didn't know what they were doing on the first console. They made poor contracts with both Nvidia, and the HDD companies. Nvidia had total control over the cost reduction of their own part and had little incentive to do much work in that area since it was such a small part of their market. HDD's don't decrease in cost over time, the get bigger but keep the same cost.

As a result MS knew that they were never going to get on the good side of the cost curve. The longer they let the xbox live the more money they were going to loose. It made sense to kill the project as soon as possible.

The 360 is built based upon the cost lessons learned from the first console, unfortunately at the cost of reliability. MS has the right to do their own cost reduction on the chips and already have for both the CPUs and GPU. MS will be making money on 360 hardware even at it's lowest, end of the cycle price point, which gives them massive incentive to keep it alive as long as possible. The same incentive Sony has to keep the PS2 going as a pure profit machine.

Exactly.

The one thing I'd add is that while Microsoft specifically designed the 360 to make a profit at the low end.....the same CANNOT be said for the PS3.

The PS3 is wedded to a HD and BD and a fairly expensive chipset to top it off. It's unlikely to ever hit sub-$200 pricing (with a profit) and while they may plan for a 10 year cycle, it's not going to happen from a retailing standpoint given the system's sales. Can you see stores stocking a 7 year old system that costs > $200 and has a limited selection of games? It's not going to happen.

[vivafletcher]

They still support XP and they supported Windows 95/98 for 8 years. Vista will still be supported 5 years from now. Some of you people are full of shit. Like a broken record.

Yes the original XBox was dropped... it was bleeding money due to some bad contracts with nVidia and the HDD. The 360 has none of those problems and every console sold makes money.

Make whatever excuses you want, but Windows 7 is already being rushed. "Supported" in Microsoft terms is acknowledging it exists while moving on to something else. Vista buyers got suckered. Hope you weren't one of them but if you were, good luck.

You can also hope beyond hope that the 360 will continue to be supported, but the truth is it's not all that well supported now unless you count a steady supply of coffin bags and new errors that pop up and aren't covered by the extended (by necessity) warranty. When Microsoft wants developer interest pulled away form the old thing, it will be. That's the company history, unless you have some new killer XP app you're rocking on your PC that you'd like to tell us about.

[blackzc]

Leaving some secrets in the hardware isn't a bad thing. It leaves a bit of mystery in the system and it does give it longevity. DK country?? Diddy Kong Racing?

I just dont think sony is in the position to do it right now. But when they put the PS3 together PS2 was on top and im sure they thought it would stay that way. He was just talking inside baseball. But at the end of the day the PS3 will have better looking games, the 360 is tapped at this point yeah?

And vivafletcher...who says purchasers?:p

[saran_js]

Make whatever excuses you want, but Windows 7 is already being rushed. "Supported" in Microsoft terms is acknowledging it exists while moving on to something else. Vista buyers got suckered. Hope you weren't one of them but if you were, good luck.

You can also hope beyond hope that the 360 will continue to be supported, but the truth is it's not all that well supported now unless you count a steady supply of coffin bags and new errors that pop up and aren't covered by the extended (by necessity) warranty. When Microsoft wants developer interest pulled away form the old thing, it will be. That's the company history, unless you have some new killer XP app you're rocking on your PC that you'd like to tell us about.

This looks to be so right. Who in their right mind is going to believe that Microsoft will be supporting the x360 once their new system goes for sale ? This system is a ticking timebomb, and once they have a system to replace it, they will go full over and totally forget the x360. In that time, will there be games made for the x360 ? Me thinks not.

It doesn't look like Microsoft is following their N-1 support plan as they do their OS.

[saran_js]

Leaving some secrets in the hardware isn't a bad thing. It leaves a bit of mystery in the system and it does give it longevity. DK country?? Diddy Kong Racing?

I just dont think sony is in the position to do it right now. But when they put the PS3 together PS2 was on top and im sure they thought it would stay that way. He was just talking inside baseball. But at the end of the day the PS3 will have better looking games, the 360 is tapped at this point yeah?

And vivafletcher...who says purchasers?:p

I think coming from the perspective of a japanese car upgrade would have made more sense.
Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 and Stage 4 upgrades of their games.
Over time, more and more power is derived from the system, thus giving it more life over a period of time.

Whereas, you get right up to Stage 3 and 4 with the Xbox360. This gives it a shorter lifespan.

[ResistanceAddict]

This looks to be so right. Who in their right mind is going to believe that Microsoft will be supporting the x360 once their new system goes for sale ? This system is a ticking timebomb, and once they have a system to replace it, they will go full over and totally forget the x360. In that time, will there be games made for the x360 ? Me thinks not.

It doesn't look like Microsoft is following their N-1 support plan as they do their OS.

Imagine the chaotic OUTRAGE if their next system turned out to not be backwards compatible?

[Fartacus]

That's not bullshit, sir. Blu-Ray alone and the graphics proves that (not to mention the durability). This isn't anything that's not common knowledge by now.

The graphics proves that? What are you smoking? Take ANY multi-platform title and the graphics on 360 are better than on PS3. GOW2 looks better than anything on PS3.

The Xenos GPU on the 360 is a generation ahead of the RSX GPU on the PS3. Xenos is faster, more full-featured, and more flexible than RSX. On top of that, the communication path between the GPU and CPU is far superior on 360.

The so called "common knowledge" is actually "common misinformation". Ask any unbiased console game developer and they will tell you the same.

[Duskfire]

Imagine the chaotic OUTRAGE if their next system turned out to not be backwards compatible?

Considering how many people are annoyed at the lack of backwards compatibility on the PS3 (later versions anyhow), I can't see any console whatsoever in the future not allowing this.

[AversionFX]

I love these forums almost exclusively for the comedy gold provided by console fanboys.

No, MY console of choice has a bigger dick! AND it makes waffles, you ignorant fuck! My shit smells better than your shit!

[Froggy]

I love these forums almost exclusively for the comedy gold provided by console fanboys.

No, MY console of choice has a bigger dick! AND it makes waffles, you ignorant fuck! My shit smells better than your shit!

Ha! Yes, thank you. It's like people think they need to choose one and marry it. Secret: Every console has something that's seriously awesome about it AND every console has something that seriously sucks balls about it. So buy em all or shut your pie holes.

[the soUL TRAder]

I disagree, I recently plyed Left4Dead for 8hours straight on my 360 ;).