Report: Don't expect next-Xbox announcements this year

@MikeLee You mean your wallet's not ready yet. Well neither is mine....

@MikeLee

While a few months ago I would have been arguing differently, I think I might be part of the "not ready" crown. Not because it's too soon, really, it's not, but because if they put a new console out so next year, it will be deemed obsolete with the next wave of technology almost immediately. At CES this year we saw amazing new display tech like 4K. We're complaining now that most console games can barely only do about 720p (not counting upscaling). How furious are we going to be that the next gen consoles would probably only be able to do 1080p, 1/4 of the resolution of next gen displays?

@EGOvoruhk

There isn't going to be any console in the next gen that is going to support 4K visuals. As you said, the current gen can't even really do 1080p.

It's going to probably be a good 10 years or more before 1080p is supplanted as a standard. I just don't see consumers buying into another high resolution format so quickly when lots of people can't even tell the difference between a DVD and Blu-ray or even when they can, just don't care.

@MikeLee I was ready around the time I built this super sweet PC rig... People stop buying old Xbox's and be ready already...

@skullivan

So true. I cant count the number of HD sets i've seen in peoples homes hooked up to standard def cable/antenna and a DVD player... with composite cables to boot.

@Tommy758

you couldn't manage to scrape together $400 over the course of 2 years?

@Apex Omega

I agree. I am ready. The tech is here. Lets use it.

I don't think these people know what its like to play games like battlefield 3 and crysis at a very high res and 80 + fps.

It is absolutely beautiful!

also new tech can be more than graphics.

video sound physics better bluetooth ( controllers batteries last longer)

@Apex Omega Other than money-issues, I totally agree with you. There are plenty of games out there being reduced so the console can meet the games specs! You gave perfect examples (except for one...) of games that can't be played to their full potential because of the consoles' specs. I don't really see why you are being down voted.

@Apex Omega

I think its funny that if you mention Call of duty, or Computer gaming, you get down voted immediately.

We all know in the back of our nerd brains that PC is the superior gaming machine... I refuse to play games on mine because its for Photo Editing, and I am not about to mess up a $1300 graphics program to play Skyrim...

Every game that has come out in the last 3 years has been pushing the hardware to failure, and has to be scaled back... Think of how awesome it would be to play your FPS games running at 120 frames, rather than a paltry 55-65... you think you wouldn't see the difference, but it blurs the barrier between reality and cardboard cutouts, we call the current Generation.

@Apex Omega

You say that, but I was just last night playing Rage for the first time on the Xbox 360 (previously, I have only played this game on the PC), and was actually blown away by how close the 360 version was to the PC. Every lighting effect in place, rock solid 60fps . . . I could go on, it was amazingly close for a bit of console hardware that was conceived and designed over seven years ago.

And then I jump on my PS3, and played masterpieces like Uncharted 3, which is easily one of the best looking games all gen, PC, console or otherwise.

And looking forward with games like Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, Metro: Last Light . . .

Like it or not, there is still at least another year left in the current console generation - maybe two years. I think the bottom line is, so long as the developers are quality devs, there is no shortage of awe inspiring things they can do with the current crop of consoles. Rage in particular. After playing it on Xbox 360 after months of playing it exclusively on PC, is a testament that it is not console hardware that is holding devs back - if anything really is holding developers back.

@Apex Omega - "We all know in the back of our nerd brains that PC is the superior gaming machine"

It can be the most powerful gaming machine... I don't think any reasonable person is going to deny that.

However, extra power doesn't necessarily make it the best. For some, it absolutely does. For others, the simplicity of consoles makes them preferable (I know that Saturday night when I was having problems getting the Super MNC beta running, I was at the point that I would've paid good money to just have it on my 360).

@Tachyonic Cargo

Rage is a terrible example, the game does not look good, and isn't catered to PC's at all.
Battlefield 3 would be an example, or Witcher 2. These games are built with PC's in mind, and so have a higher top end of graphical output.

Games like Rage are catered to console and then made to work on PC. they don't go above and beyond the consoles output, I suppose there is a little there, but almost nothing (things like AA, Maybe tessellation on a handful of models.) Other games, like the aformentioned examples, add something that will actually put the mid-range or high-end PCs to work.

@Mcmax3000

That's exactly the point... No new hardware + nothing revolutionary = RAGE

Rage fits the bill perfectly for END OF CYCLE game... It looks great, its smooth, and it does absolutely nothing to push gaming forwards.

another reason is the fact that games Like Call of Duty, and MADDEN, run the EXACT same engine for the entire lifespan of the console, and get rich off of it, and we get filtered urine to re-drink... we are not in a world where we need to drink filtered urine... last I looked, we have land under our feet, and choices...

unless of course you like peeing in a bottle... then go for it.

@Draugdraugr
at the same time, games made for a console specifically can look outstanding. Uncharted is a prime example of this. So your witcher example can go both ways. That said, I recognize that PC is more powerful, but at the same time it's not really necessary for the kind of consumption console gamers require. I played Batman AA thinking "wow, this game looks" perfect and not thinking "I wish this looked better"

@(Unverified)

It doesn't go both ways, because that would imply the PC wouldn't be able to keep up with uncharted 3, and PC's are more than capable of pushing out that graphical fidelity. We'll never see it for PC of course, its a Sony exclusive.

' I played Batman AA thinking "wow, this game looks" perfect and not thinking "I wish this looked better"'

Sure, I'm not saying games don't look good, I'm saying they could be better if the bar wasn't set on 5 year old hardware, and on the occasions that it isn't, those games stand out. People said the same thing about the XBox, then the 360 came out, and now they say it about that console. Its always good enough until someone who sells people consoles tells people otherwise. 'The Samaritan' Demo really showed what current up to date systems are capable of. Samaritan ran on a 580 multi-SLI config, but Epic did say they could get it single 580. Granted its a high end card, but Proper engines can scale accordingly, and do (very few PC titles don't scale.)
If there was a new console gen next year, you'd see what's been missed out on, but MS isn't going to concern themselves with that, Xbox sales are fine. Just because you can't imagine a world with better looking graphics doesn't mean you won't appreciate them when they rear their heads, just as we do every console generation.

Also, I used battlefield 3 and Witcher 2 as examples because they are both console titles (or will be soon.) It wasn't that console games can't look good, it's that PC games have newer hardware (generally speaking) and gives a chance to show off what the next console gen will be doing, graphically/engine wise. These games can show that if the next 'step' isn't here yet, it's at least around the corner.

@Apex Omega Because people don't want to be buying a new console every 2 years possibly? How much did your gaming rig set you back? How often are you upgrading parts of it?

@Tachyonic Cargo

Of course console games run at 60fps. They're all rendered at 720p or lower and upscaled to 1080p. Console games homogenously have a case of the jaggies, which no amount of bloom can make un-ugly.

@Tachyonic Cargo You clearly haven't experienced the awful texture loading times on the PS3 with Rage, the game looks good but runs like shit.

@Tachyonic Cargo

"You say that, but I was just last night playing Rage for the first time on the Xbox 360 (previously, I have only played this game on the PC), and was actually blown away by how close the 360 version was to the PC."

It looks close because iD (as well as 95% of the game industry) used the 360 as their primary development platform and nearly every single asset in the game (be it lighting, shadows, geometry, or textures) was designed from the get-go to accommodate that platform; moving up to a significantly faster, more robust, and more powerful hardware spec isn't going to change the fundamental visual make up of the game. Designing a game to work on a 7 year old console and then porting said game to a much more robust platform with the bear minimum amount of work done to make use of that more powerful hardware isn't going to yield you anything beyond higher precision lighting effects, a large draw distance, AA, and a sharper picture.

And that's the problem. For every single person who's said, "Well, I'm not ready, I think the games look good enough", I will bring to your attention that contemporary PC hardware is fast enough to play the latest, most visually demanding games between twice to 4x the resolution of your HDTV with every image quality preset at its maximum. Such hardware is capable of running The Samaritan in real time at a v-synced 30 FPS in Full HD.

The next-generation, even though it already seems to be a let down, is definitely needed sooner than later.

@Kagiroi

Maybe because as media sites that's what they're designed to do.

@This Little Man Says His Name Is

Maybe it's just me - but isn't media supposed to be concrete, factual and existent content? You know, things that exist? I guess there's not enough of that anymore - it's easier to exist on vaporous emissions apparently - like eating air. It's that nutritious.

@Courtney I take it you don't visit Engadget.

@Faceless Troll

Not much anymore, no. Place kind of took a turn for me a few years ago, where I didn't enjoy the articles or the comments as much.

@BlazeKing

Actually Joystiq has covered this poorly. The interview says "Afterward, what will happen at E3, it's still too early to say. What's certain is that there will be nothing new in 2012. If we wanted to counter Nintendo, we would have to be in a position to release something immediately, and that is not at all the case."

That doesnt mean there won't be new ANNOUNCEMENTS, this simply means there will be no new products RELEASED in 2012. He has gone on to clarify on several other websites that he means 'released', so i'd expect E3 to be full of announcements.

@Lerkero

People get bored of today's systems and want better graphics over games.

@Lerkero It's possible people expect retaliation from Nintendo's new console. Since they're making something new, the other two companies will follow soon after.

@Lerkero

You can't really tell from the PR, because you never really know if they're trying to downplay the rumors. Right now, it's in Microsoft's best interest to play the "extending the lifespan" card to quell the rumors of a new console so they can keep the attention on the 360. I'd say there's still a chance we'll hear something at one of the shows this year.

@Art84

There's so much more to it than just better graphics. Current games are limited in size of levels, characters on screen, loading times, enemy AI, and so many other things that would be vastly improved on a new system.

Beyond that, revamped XBL and PSN networks will come with the next systems which will likely be another huge step forward as the current ones are somewhat limited by the architecture they're on. Think of how big a leap it was between XBL on the xbox and the version of Live we have now on the 360. While the leap likely won't be that great again due to diminishing returns, even if it's 70% of that leap that is quite a step in the right direction.

@Bleach313

That is pretty bad. The last time they said something like that was right before the Wii destroyed their consoles in sales for five years straight.

@A Sandwich And with a profit in hardware.

Which, you know, Sony didn't have. Not sure about Microsoft.

@Meekermoloko - The problem for Microsoft is that while such an announcement will cause some people to not buy a Wii U, it would damage 360 sales even more.

@Mcmax3000

Did the PS3 announcement damage PS2 sales? No, quite the opposite actually. The PS3 was priced far too high for most mainstream consumers to afford, and Sony didn't have those large migration numbers they were hoping for.

If an Xbox 720 is announced at E3, then Microsoft still has the option of supporting the Xbox 360 for a few more years. Sony still supported the PS1 when the PS2 was released, and they still supported the PS2 when the PS3 was released.

@Premature ejaculation man

Hey, that's YOUR tactic!

@Premature ejaculation man

sounds sexy.