Microsoft: No new Xbox coming this year

Hoping to see a new Xbox sooner than the rumored late-2013 time frame? Well, sorry to disappoint. A Microsoft executive seems to have confirmed the company’s lack of plans for a new console this year.

Speaking to French newspaper Le Point this weekend, Microsoft France Marketing Director Cedrick Delmax stated the following:

The cycle of the Xbox 360 is not at all complete. The proof is that we didn’t start the year with a price-cutting mindset. . . . What’s certain is that there will be nothing new in 2012. If we had to counter Nintendo, we’d have to be able to release something immediately, and that’s not the case at all.

That ties in with a story IGN posted last week. In that report, IGN quoted unnamed sources who said the next Xbox will be out in the fall of 2013. The same sources said the console will have a GPU equivalent to today’s Radeon HD 6670—although I hope that part isn’t true. It’d be nice if the Xbox 720 (or whatever Microsoft ends up calling it) has a little more oomph.

Comments closed
    • moose17145
    • 8 years ago

    Screw ALL of these current gen and next gen consoles that all want teh intertoobz in order to function or even play half their games. I’m plugging my NES back in… there is a highly pixelated princess that needs rescuing again!

    • gmskking
    • 8 years ago

    No Xbox for me this time. My next system will be a PS4. I hate Microsoft.

      • Corrado
      • 8 years ago

      Cuz Sony is SOOOO much better. Sony is borderline MORE anti-competitive than MS is/was.

    • ShadowTiger
    • 8 years ago

    Am I the only one who has fallen in love with the name neXtbox? I swear I only clicked “add post” once!

    • ShadowTiger
    • 8 years ago

    Sorry for triple post o.O

    • ShadowTiger
    • 8 years ago

    Sorry for triple post o.O

    • Xenolith
    • 8 years ago

    I like a good stagger between consoles. The next Wii 2012. The next Xbox 2013. The next PS 2014. It’ll be good for Nintendo to be alone for awhile so it can get some traction.

    • albundy
    • 8 years ago

    awww, but i was really hoping for another rushed product that overheated and wasted hundreds of my hard earned dollars…

    • sschaem
    • 8 years ago

    edit: wrong dates

    • --k
    • 8 years ago

    They should come out with a modular box with open source minimal OS, updated the standard every 2-3 years, and provide a seal of compliance MMC-2012 etc. to indicate what hardware level is required. Then the games prices will come down a bit ($10 license fee per unit will be history). Games should all be based on DLC, and use Steam or similar DRM. So $500 box the first year, then a couple hundred every few years, but that will be subsidized with a monthly online service say $20 per month to watch video/tv/game. If this sounds familiar, it’s like a PC w/ a game industry supported compliance and certification.

      • EsotericLord
      • 8 years ago

      $20/month for video/online gaming? MS barely gets away with $5 a month as it is, and you want to quadruple it?

      Also, $500 for a console in this economy is sucicide. At this point, consoles serve as products that begin as medium-high end PCs that gradually become low end PCs at the end of their life time, with the advantage of being completely idiot proof and easy to integrate into a home theater. No tweaking settings for optimal framerate/graphics performance, no installing, no worrying about patches or hardware requirements, easy to set up, sit on the couch, and play with a group of friends.

      Consoles are fine as they are. I have a 360 with 40+ games, and a gaming PC with over 200 games on Steam. Both see heavy usage.

        • Kurotetsu
        • 8 years ago

        [quote=”EsotericLord”<]--no installing, no worrying about patches--[/quote<] Its worth pointing out that these two advantages no longer apply to current consoles. While you typically have the option of either playing directly from the disc or installing to the console's hard drive, many times NOT installing to the hard drive results in some pretty atrocious level load times (for example, Devil May Cry 4). This basically results in the game requiring an install to the hard drive. I take it you're also unaware of firmware updates being pushed to consoles on a fairly regular basis now? And how, more than once, these updates have bricked consoles? This is only going to get worse as consoles move away from physical media and onto to Steam-style online distribution. This will require all consoles to be internet connected just so you can play the game. This will give game developers the same luxury they currently enjoy on PCs, push beta-level garbage than just patch it later.

      • sonofsanta
      • 8 years ago

      Except the whole point of consoles is they are a fixed spec, and that allows for much more aggressive bare-metal coding to get much more out of the resources available. Make it modular and you lose that advantage and you just have a PC in a funny shaped box.

        • cynan
        • 8 years ago

        True. But I’m inclined to agree that a more modular console may have potential. It would be a great boon for PC game development and potentially fuel technical innovation in gaming in general, if successful. The question is whether it is feasible.

        You would still have the same degree of optimization and “bare-metal coding”, as there would still only be one set of hardware specs to work with – which is the key aspect here – it’s just that this one set of specs would be upgraded every 3 years or so, along with a new batch of games developed to the upgraded spec. Obviously, the upgraded spec would need to be backwards compatible with older games.

        Feasibility really depends on whether there are enough “enthusiast” consolers who would find it worth the cost to have more current hardware specs. I think this ultimately depends on developers ability to keep ramping up hardware demand in new games to entice customers, which would be quite a departure from the current console model where developers seem quite happy with maintaining the status quo for as long as possible.

        To make this work practically, you would need to design the motherboard so that you could slide out a large portion of it (containing the CPU/GPU and ram) and all buses and power circuitry could be connected with a single plug (which is automatically connected/disconnected when you slide it in/out), perhaps adding a bit to the costs of the initial console. Obviously, the upgrade modules would heed to conform to the same power/thermal envelope and therefore these upgrades might only really make sense if they conformed to die shrinks in the CPU/GPU. At this point it is uncertain if die shrinks iwill still occur frequently enough to make something like this worthwhile.

        Upgrade costs would need to be high, probably $400 or more as the components you would be replacing make up the majority of the console cost and would be replaced with fairly cutting-edge parts (otherwise, this wouldn’t make sense). I’m not sure that a having a high monthly service plan is a good way to go about absorbing these charges, but hey, it works for cell phone providers (people justifying $700 smartphones because they don’t pay for them outright up front), so perhaps all we need is some new console market visionary to get the ball rolling.

        Apart from the cost that would have to be passed on to the customer, a console that is upgraded every so often would also require much more continuous “learning” on behalf of game developer. It seems to take many years before developers really get the most out of a platform, as exhibited with the current consoles. If the upgrades came too frequently, the platform would become discontinued before this happened and developers would be chasing their tails. Console makers would also face the headache of demand for more rigorous planning and product testing with each new upgrade in order to avoid issues like the Red Ring of Death being introduced at each upgrade.

        Perhaps the largest reason why this wouldn’t work is the current business model for consoles which mandates that most of the revenue be generated from game sales. By introducing a (essentially) new console every couple of years you are artificially restricting the number of game units you can sell for each. (And this is probably why the current console life cycles are dragging out so much).

        So, while the concept is intriguing, unless the consumer is willing to swallow a fairly high subscription or one time upgrade fee, there is probably little chance of this actually working.

          • --k
          • 8 years ago

          The current model of waiting ~7 years between console releases is ridiculous. CPU/GPU doubles (very roughly) in performance every 2 years. We are playing on systems that are logarithmically 1/16 the capability of a modern gaming PC. I’m proposing in effect to spread out the cost of buying a whole new console over the length of ownership. So instead of paying a lump sum of $800 (400+replacement or 2) every 7 years, we would get a more incremental updates. Writing to the metal is a lost art, where only AAA developers have the time and skillset necessary to invest into writing optimized code. PS3 was designed in that it took years to get up to speed, while X360 was able to put to full use in about 2 years. The choice to release consoles so long after they are long in the tooth is a strictly business decision, not based on any technological or creative merit.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          Why do you even need a console or a special box to do this? You could just make an open standard, a couple cookies after someone tests their computer, and a little label on game websites to show compliance and performance level of their pc?

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      lol, wtf…

      So basically all you’re doing is certifying a computer? How is this different then the hodge podge of computers that are in place now? It’s not like x86 processors refuse to run similar content or Nvidia or AMD graphics cards don’t run the same games.

      All they really need is a easy to use checker for video games to check what your hardware level is at and what is required and recommended. System requirements lab does most of the work already… hell they already have their own website.

      [url<]http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/intro.aspx[/url<] This isn't very visible to users though. There really should be a sticker and a database where your hardware is stored. When you visit a video game website it will give you a little box off to the side which shows your level of being able to run it. Like red, yellow, green is a good set of indicators. Red obviously you can't, yellow is minimum, and green is recommended specs. You could throw in some bare minimum level that they actually have to meet in order for minimum and recommended specs to work. For instance lists the settings and the average framerate for such settings. It really makes you wonder why something like this isn't already in place. Of course this is trying to work with the current system, make computers less scary to the average joe, and totally isn't a way to rape peoples pocket books. Obviously this wouldn't work in favor of consoles.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    by the end of 2013 that gpu will be atleast 3 gens behind… wow!

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    I still don’t believe they’d peg it for 6670 level performance if the release date is end of 2013 (not that there is any weight to the rumour of this being the correct timing beyond people quoting each other endlessly on the interwebs trying to make it so).

    The whole point of a new console gen is to meet parity with whatever that days sweet spot PC specs would be about. This means that devs would already have the hardware and tools necessary to take advantage of those specs, and the translation of whatever is developed across the whole range of MS platforms can happen easier. If they’re just going to shoot for bottom of the barrel then they might as well just release a $500 mATX PC/nettop and slap an XBOX sticker on it with an OEM copy of windows 8 and call it done.

      • Geistbar
      • 8 years ago

      One of the bigger problems they’ve faced with the current generation of consoles is the ballooning development budgets. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if many developers requested that they keep the performance improvement less staggering than possible.

      As well, price is a significant factor at play. Designing and fabing a more advanced and larger chip will cost a lot of money. Microsoft and Sony lost a lot of money on each console sale for a while, and although they made that money back in licensing fees on the games, that’s still a limiting factor for their sales. Why not make money on both the games and the hardware, right from the start (or at least sooner after the start). Also worth mentioning is that Microsoft’s biggest problem with this generation, the red ring of death, would have been avoidable if the console generated less heat. Using a 6670 level card will allow it to be smaller, lower clocked, and easier to transition to newer processes. Those all help keep power consumption in check.

      • Corrado
      • 8 years ago

      The way the GPU and CPU interact in a console, the GPU just needs to be able to funnel what the CPU sends it @ 1080P. The geometry and physics as far as I’m aware, is still completely CPU based. If they can triple the CPU power and roughly triple the GPU power, all while keeping resolution @ 1080P, what do you think is gonna happen?

      I mean, we CONSTANTLY see people say if you’re not gaming on a monitor over 1080P, you don’t need to spend more than $120-130 on a GPU. And its true. I have a 460GTX and it was $130 after rebate about a year ago. It still runs all new games at 1080P with AA on. What else do you need for the console to do? Now, the 6670 can do 1920×1200 with 4xaa and all settings maxed out in Modern Warfare 2 @ 55FPS. MAYBE another 2-3 by dropping to 1080P, so ~ 60FPS. Thats all it needs to do and thats current 6670. If they are able to shrink and jump the clocks, as well as being a console it will run slightly better than on a PC, we could estimate it could run modern warfare 2 @ ~75-80fps? Thats MORE than enough. You have realistically 20-40FPS to play with in making things look nicer as well, and you can always turn down some of the settings like AA and AF a bit to get even MORE performance out of it.

      In the end, will it be a 6670? No. It will be 6670 BASED and likely perform much better while still being VERY inexpensive for MS to implement from a money and a power/thermal perspective.

        • yogibbear
        • 8 years ago

        I’m not a graphics whore and I understand the advantage coding for a console with a fixed specification has over performance outcomes vs. a PC (and the host of limitations having an OS, DirectX and hundreds of drivers working together etc. makes) buttttttt………….

        1. MW2’s engine isn’t exactly something I would consider as cutting edge and certainly not what consumers will expect to be the games they play on a “new” fandangled console.
        2. A 6850 can be snagged today for $120 and provides a significant boost over a 6670
        3. In 2 years time an even better card would be available at the $110-130 price point
        4. In 2 years time, game engines available will be taking advantage of the extra horsepower available from the 89xx and 7xx GPUs
        5. I’m sure there will be a boatload of new tech available (e.g. 4k tvs, widely accessible 3D TVs, 120HZ as the norm etc.) well before the next 10 yr cycle would be up and it would be unusual if there was not a console ready to take advantage of at least some of these.

        I guess my real reason for not liking the 6670 selection is it sets the benchmark for new engine performance. i.e. Unreal Engine 4.0 and whatever else major licensed engines that come out will all aim for that as the bare minimum requirement which IMHO is setting the bar too low and will mean that in 2020 we’ll be just as stagnated as we are today with our UE3 “shiny” overload.

        Of course I should wait till MS actually announce anything before getting to stuck into thinking about the implications of all this, but I’d really love to hear a non-paid for independent opinion from some actual game developers.

          • Corrado
          • 8 years ago

          I agree with you that looking at it from a spec perspective is fairly disappointing, but I think we’ll be surprised. I mean, hell, look at Infinity Blade running on a 3GS or Infinity Blade 2 on a 4S/iPad2. That’s REALLY impressive for what its running on. But I still think theres not a TON of noticeable improvement in fidelity that a faster GPU would really help with. We need larger textures for sure, but a faster GPU won’t help much with that. We need more ‘interaction’ which would certainly help but we don’t know if they’re planning an separate dedicated physics processor. We don’t know the speed of the CPU. I think its just like looking at 1 number and saying ‘wow thats gonna be terrible’.

          Like if a car manufacturer leaked and said ‘We’re building our new sports car around a 400hp engine’ and people freaked out. Nevermind that the thing weighs 2300lbs, has amazing handling and a nice plush interior while getting 30mpg, its ‘only’ 400hp when the last model made 300hp.

          Its not apples to apples of course, but just focusing in on 1 spec is losing focus on the whole thing. The Wii showed you can look like vomit and still sell consoles. Hell the new WiiU is supposed only be ‘slightly’ better looking than the 360/PS3 and I’m sure that’ll sell a bajillion units.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This