XBOX Next Gen Rumor and Speculation Thread - Reveal May 21st

[I OU a Beatn]

Yeah unless I read that huge block quote wrong he seems to be referring to a "720" gaming console and a "mini"/entertainment only unit. I've read several other rumors/reports that MS long ago went away from that idea. Who knows time will tell. I've seen/read NOTHING that would force me to switch from a PS4 to a 720.

I'm only getting one and unless the cable thing is basically free/cheap full blown cable t.v. to beat my current provider I'm not interested in some sort of "add on" to my current T.V. DVR setup.

He mentioned the Apple TV competitor device, but from what he said, that has nothing to do with the Xbox console itself. I've read another rumor that said the mini-box somehow hooked into the actual 720, and it provided backwards compatibility that way. In this article, he states there's supposedly a 360 chip built inside the main device that will allow 100% backwards compatibility.

I don't think that's a feature that's necessarily there to get people to switch consoles. Backwards compatibility with the prior console is a feature meant to keep the customers you already have. I have close to 100 360 games sitting here, so there's no doubt having backwards compatibility would automatically get me to buy the Next Xbox on launch day. It would also lead to higher day one sales as people would be willing to ditch their 360, keep the games, and then upgrade to the 720. Keep your games, play on a new console.

For the record, I'm not interested in any of their TV service offerings. I buy a console for the games and the online features involved with games. The system that has the best games, best user interface, and the best online features gets my money. I'll probably end up with both eventually, but those 3 things are what determines which one I buy first. This cable TV, music, Kinect/Move, and all that other garbage doesn't interest me at all.

[morsdraconis]

How is paying for Live for features you can't get anywhere else insane? I guess I could believe that if it was a lot more expensive, but $40 or $50 a year... that's a truly minimum fee to pay for a service that you enjoy and use every day.

...and while I'll personally buy the thing outright if I decide to get one, I can see why people would elect to spend $600 over a period of 2 years rather than dropping $500 all at once. It's not something I would do, but there's a benefit to it.

Personally, I've been hoarding Amazon credit for the past year, so I'm really hoping I'll be able to buy both and not spend a cent of my actual money. If they're both going to be priced around $400, I should be close by the time they release.

Nearly 50% of the people that buy Live use it for Netflix than any other way of watching Netflix. It's insanity to me to pay $50 as well as another $10 for Netflix streaming.

[I OU a Beatn]

Yes, but I have to assume that they don't pay for Live just to watch Netflix. Who would be that stupid? I pay for Live and I watch Netflix, but I don't even consider Netflix being part of the subscription. I consider my $40 a year to go to the ability to cross game chat and use parties.

But, if anyone out there pays $40 or $50 a year for Live JUST to watch Netflix, then I'll agree with you, that's insane. There's multiple other options out there that allow you to stream Netflix for no additional cost, so again, it would be highly stupid of someone to pay for Live just to use Netflix. I just hope there's no one out there that dumb.

[morsdraconis]

Yes, but I have to assume that they don't pay for Live just to watch Netflix. Who would be that stupid? I pay for Live and I watch Netflix, but I don't even consider Netflix being part of the subscription. I consider my $40 a year to go to the ability to cross game chat and use parties.

I have several friends that do that for their parents because it's easier than doing it through their computer.

[I OU a Beatn]

I have several friends that do that for their parents because it's easier than doing it through their computer.

Well, that's just ridiculous. Again, $40 or $50 a year really isn't that much, but if you're not using the online features for Xbox, I don't see the point. Especially you can just pay the standard Netflix fee and then get something like a Roku and watch it at no additional charge.

[CLW]

This is why "Always Online" is a bad idea:

[JBHuskers]

You get what you paid for

[CLW]

You get what you paid for

I'm really hoping they do go with Always Online and I really do hope COD (or some other HUGE title) cannot handle the server load just to see the mobs of angry 12 year olds screaming profanities and crying on the Youtubes.

[I OU a Beatn]

I'm really hoping they do go with Always Online and I really do hope COD (or some other HUGE title) cannot handle the server load just to see the mobs of angry 12 year olds screaming profanities and crying on the Youtubes.

In the case of a title as massive as Call of Duty, if it's always online on the next Xbox, it's 100% guaranteed it'll be online required for the PS4 as well. Let's not forget that Sony didn't say "there is no online requirement," but rather, said it was up to the publisher of each title to decide if that will be a requirement. I'd imagine the next Xbox will be set up the same way. On multiplatform titles, if it requires online access on one system, it'll require it on the other, too.

But as for your scenario, it's bound to happen. It doesn't even have to have an online requirement. At least once a month something goes wrong with the "servers" on Call of Duty and people are losing their minds.

Nothing will ever top the PS3 hacking meltdown a few years ago, though. Watching people bitch and complain about that was one of the funniest things I've ever read on the internet. Of course, if I didn't have a 360 to play at the time, I probably wouldn't have found it as funny.

[bdoughty]

You get what you paid for

It was a complete mess. I loved the first one but two days in I could not connect with the server. I finally got to play once and then removed it from my hard drive.

[cdj]

Speculation abounds about the name of Microsoft’s next-generation Xbox, set to be revealed on May 21st. Will it be called Xbox 720? How about its codename, Durango? Will it be called just Xbox? Or how about Xbox Infinity?

According to sources speaking with The International Business Times, it’s the latter moniker – Xbox Infinity – that’s the name of Microsoft’s third console. “Sources related to development of the new Xbox have confirmed to IBTimes UK that the console… will be called Infinity,” the article states.

The article also states that developers have next Xbox development kits, a given considering the console is likely to launch in fewer than six months.

While this information is still unconfirmed by Microsoft – it’s unlikely we’ll have any solid confirmation before the 21st – rumors have long swirled that the next Xbox may be called Loop, or perhaps even Fusion. It may even be called Xbox 8, likely in reference to the Windows 8 operating system.

Courtesy: IGN

[morsdraconis]

Xbox Infinity?

[JBHuskers]

Xbox Infinity?

And beyond!

[I OU a Beatn]

Better than Fusion, but still shitty. Why not just name it Xbox?

[JBHuskers]

XBOX Lunch

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[GatorfanStovy]

Just name xbox 720 already and be done. It is that hard Microsoft ?

[bdoughty]

Just name xbox 720 already and be done. It is that hard Microsoft ?

Always thought calling it the 720 would be kind of odd. Would you expect them to call the system after that the Xbox 1440 and so on? Sony has it right just giving it the next number, MS just wants to be the hipster doofus and try to give it some catchy name. All of which are better than naming your system the WiiU.

[GatorfanStovy]

Always thought calling it the 720 would be kind of odd. Would you expect them to call the system after that the Xbox 1440 and so on? Sony has it right just giving it the next number, MS just wants to be the hipster doofus and try to give it some catchy name. All of which are better than naming your system the WiiU.

no not odd just logical imo. keep the numbers going . no need for a fancy name. true gaming fans won't care.

[CLW]

Listened to the IGN Playstation Podcast last night and they all seemed to think that Microsoft has something "BIG!" in store for the 720. Their thoughts/theories/speculation included:

• HEAVILY subsidized price point - i.e. like a cell phone - pay $200 for the console but require a monthly contract for service ($15-$20/mo) with a 2 year agreement
• Some sort of "new" earth shattering/ground breaking way incorporating all forms of entertainment into a single box - DVR; Cable; Windows 8/PC; phone calls; etc.....
• Incorporating Kinect 2.0 into above making everything voice controlled enabled
• That crazy thing I've seen elsewhere that MS is working on that turns your entire wall in front of you into the screen.

Any thoughts/predictions?

For me none of the above matters its all about games to me. I don't "get" why it's great to go all entertainment where right now I simply can switch from my gaming console to cable dvr by a simple press of one button on a remote.

I predict that MS will also not require Always Online (they might let developers do it) but after the heat/back lash they faced I don't think MS is stupid enough to go that route.

I suppose the ONLY thing that might make me pause is if MS got some HUGE coup for exclusives (Say EA will ONLY produce games on the 720) and Sony had no immediate plans to replace that niche in the market with either another 3rd party studio or their own studio. (honestly I'd love to see if Sony could make a football game since San Diego has practically nailed baseball).

[morsdraconis]

HEAVILY subsidized price point - i.e. like a cell phone - pay $200 for the console but require a monthly contract for service ($15-$20/mo) with a 2 year agreement

It's almost guaranteed that that is going to happen. EVERYTHING anyone inside as seen is it's going to equal out to ~$600 over the 2 year period for the console and Xbox Live subscription on their base setup (~$250 for the console and $15 a month basically).

Some sort of "new" earth shattering/ground breaking way incorporating all forms of entertainment into a single box - DVR; Cable; Windows 8/PC; phone calls; etc....

I just simply don't see that happening. So many things that they'd have to get subsidies for. That's a SIGNIFICANT amount of money that Microsoft would have to shell out in the front of the console (combined with the INCREDIBLY large cost of the system initially).

Incorporating Kinect 2.0 into above making everything voice controlled enabled

Seems likely that they could possibly go the Wii route and make it a pivotal input device for the system, but I don't think they'll be that stupid. The backlash would be ginormous from the hardcore gaming community.

That crazy thing I've seen elsewhere that MS is working on that turns your entire wall in front of you into the screen.

That's just dumb. No one wants to play like that.