mrpayroll

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/523/523...html?fromint=1

Microsoft shooting for a November time frame, say sources.

June 15, 2004 - It appears that Microsoft, which launched Xbox in late 2001 after Sony's PlayStation 2 and Nintendo's GameCube consoles, will be the first company to unleash its next-generation home console. The tentatively codenamed "Xbox Next" or "Xbox 2" is set to receive a name revision before its release because Microsoft doesn't want consumers to assume it's inferior to PlayStation 3 based on end numerals, hasn't yet been given an official release date. But just because Microsoft isn't yet talking doesn't mean developers working on early "Xbox 2" development setups are so keen to keep quiet.

A major software company already prototyping software for Microsoft's "Xbox Next" told IGN today that the publisher "definitely aims to launch the console in North America for Christmas 2005." A November time frame was given. A European release will follow in 2006, said the source.

IGN contacted another software firm working currently working on "Xbox Next" software, who seconded the news. "Let's put it this way: A lot of developers crunching to get their games ready for a 2005 launch will be really pissed if Microsoft doesn't get it out by then."

Microsoft has moved quicker than Nintendo and Sony to get development studios preliminary next-generation prototyping hardware, another indication that the company hopes to get the jump on its competitors.

The "Xbox Next" will use PowerPC-based architecture similar to the chipset powering Apple's G5 computers. That being the case, Microsoft's early "Xbox Next" development kits have been little more than modified Apple G5 systems pre-packed with "Xbox 2" emulation software. "I heard [Apple CEO] Steve Jobs found it pretty ironic and funny that Microsoft has been shipping Apple systems to developers," one studio source joked to IGN on the subject.

Multiple software houses involved with "Xbox Next" development stand by rumors the console will not feature a hard drive, which would suggest that it might not be backward compatible with current Xbox software. "Microsoft needs to make money with this system and so it's going a pretty conservative route," an insider explained, adding, "but that doesn't mean the system is not powerful because it is."

Microsoft is hoping that consumers, drunk on hit Xbox games such as Halo and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, will be eager to step into the next-generation of home consoles with the successor. "It's hoping the early arrival will not hurt it, but help it," said a development source. "It doesn't want to be another Sega Dreamcast, in other words. It wants to be a Sega Genesis."

Presented with this information, a spokesperson for Microsoft said that the company "does not comment on rumors or speculation."

The downside to launching "Xbox 2" in 2005, say insiders, is that it puts Microsoft in the position of being the first next-generation console to market, which historically also means it could be the least powerful of the three from a technical standpoint. Sony's PS2 is a perfect example of such early positioning.

Preliminary tech specs for Nintendo's Revolution (of which there are some half a dozen different versions, apparently) illustrate a console that is as powerful as "Xbox Next" in most respects. In fact, IBM and ATI, the two hardware makers responsible for the guts of "Xbox Next," are developing Revolution. Given another year development time, Nintendo's console could actually ship in 2006 as the more capable of the two hardware platforms.

Meanwhile, IBM and Sony are developing Cell, a proprietary, powerful new architecture that will be used in PlayStation 3. Some developers believe that Sony could delay the arrival of its next-generation console to as late as 2007 in order to create a Trojan horse for its budding Blu-Ray DVD technology, which promises to deliver high-definition DVDs into the living rooms of consumers, replacing current DVD-players.

Sony's Blu-Ray technology has one formidable hurdle to overcome: HD-DVD. This alternative format, backed by such electronics giants as NEC and Toshiba, is positioned to give Blu-Ray a run for its money. But HD-DVD could be squashed in the same way the DVD squashed DivX if Sony were to include Blu-Ray DVD-playback in PlayStation 3, instantly turning millions of gameplayers into Blu-Ray supporters.

Doing so would also give Sony a clear selling point over Microsoft's "Xbox Next" as the only console that could play true high-definition DVD out of the box.

-- Matt Casamassina


Chris

Cusm

Sony has never had good luck when it comes to their AV (non-games) technology doing better than anyone elses, and I do not see this as the way to do it this time around.
I hope MS waits, they are already in 2nd, releasing first will not get them to #1, it will get them to 3rd as they will be the least powerful of the next generation.

jrutz

I saw this yesterday. I hate to sound like a pessimist but I don't think this will happen. 2004 will be the year Microsoft moves the most hardware in terms of Xboxes sold, and the software coming out in Q4 04 and Q1 05 will rack up huge sales numbers.

Having Xbox Next come out in Q4 05 will mean two things: one, Microsoft will have to cut the price of the original Xbox even further, possibly to $99, in order to further generate sales of the platform and most importantly justify continued third-party software development. This will create further losses on the hardware side and will only add to presumed slim-to-negative profit margins with the introduction of a new console.

Two, because more and more consumers are being introduced to the Xbox platform throughout 2004 at the $149 pricepoint, this means the same consumer base will be less inclined to spend another (anticipated) $300 on a new console the following year. This would negate any advantage Xbox Next would have by releasing a year ahead of the PS3. Personal note: I believe backwards-compatibility would change this, as consumers wouldn't consider their current Xbox platform as "obsolete" by purchasing the next generation Xbox.

If Microsoft wants an advantage over Sony, I believe the best way they could do this is to release the Xbox Next a few months ahead of the PS3, with a suite of killer software at launch (Halo 3, NCAA 200X, next installments of top software franchises), and all software XBL-compatible. Perhaps have a pre-sell campaign in Q1 2006 and release in late-Q2/early-Q3 2006, in which the retail launch would coincide with, and presumably steal market share from, Sony's and Nintendo's pre-sell campaigns.

Jeremy

Canis Firebrand

I wonder what they are going to do about storage in lieu of a hard drive. That was one of the key selling points for me to get an Xbox in the first place. Its nice not having to deal with worrying about a memory card to save a game or having to run out and get another if the one I am currently using gets full.
Not to mention that the downloaded content saves right on the hard drive, where would future content go?

Unless they are going Sony's route and making the harddrive an option purchasable later on.

jrutz

Here's your answer:

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/5484/M...its-for-Xbox-2

High-capacity flash memory.

Jeremy

CreatureX

Sony did pretty good with their CD and DVD technology. I think if Sony uses Blue-Ray with the PS3, this will help both PS3 and give Blue-Ray an advantage over HD-DVD.

This type of announcement can hurt those sales numbers at the end of the year. Some people now might decide instead of buying an Xbox in November, they can just wait for Xbox 2 to be released in less than a year. Then of course during that time frame, Sony will release their PS3 specs/demos that claim to blow away everything Xbox 2 will do.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

mrpayroll

There's been no shock announcement, no official confirmation and no
stunning leak that made the headlines - but over the past few weeks,
the industry as a whole seems to have accepted that Microsoft is
planning to try and bring the current console generation to a close
prematurely, with the launch of a next-generation console in the USA
by the end of 2005.

There are a number of reasons for Microsoft's decision to bring about
a swift end to the current-generation Xbox - which will have been on
the market for under four years when its new younger sibling appears
to usurp its position. The company's continuing losses on Xbox
hardware sales and resultant bleeding of investment in the current
generation is something it would obviously like to stem as soon as
possible; after all, while Nintendo and Sony are reaping huge profits
from this generation, it's easy to see why Microsoft, bleeding cash
with every Xbox sold, would be champing at the bit in its eagerness to
move on.

More important, though, is the company's desperation to enter the
next-generation race with "first mover advantage" - establishing a
strong beach head before its competitors can launch their own fifth
generation (counting from the NES) machines. Despite its claims to be
delighted with the performance of the Xbox, the fact is that many
within Microsoft have been bitterly disappointed with the console's
market share. Prior to launch, there was a genuine belief that they
would deliver a system which would be neck and neck with Sony in the
global marketplace; managing to come neck and neck with Nintendo
instead, while both companies are being trounced by Sony's PS2, is an
achievement in its own right but not what Microsoft had hoped for by
any means.

The belief within Microsoft's top Xbox executives, according to
company insiders, is that the main reason that Xbox has failed to
seriously challenge the PlayStation 2 is because Sony had first mover
advantage - a gap of a year in which to build up its installed base
and convince consumers and industry alike that it was the key platform
of the next generation. Hence the urgency around launching Xbox 2 well
ahead of its competitors; if, as seems increasingly likely,
PlayStation 3 doesn't arrive until late 2006 or even early 2007,
Microsoft believes that it will have won a huge competitive advantage
by being to market as much as two years earlier. This, the
conventional wisdom says, is how Microsoft will crush Sony.

It's a plan that makes sense on the surface, but probe a little deeper
and you encounter serious flaws in the logic - and hints of the old
Microsoft arrogance which the company has tried desperately hard to
hide since the early days of the Xbox. The single biggest problem is
that developing for Xbox 2 is going to be a major leap for game
creators - and Microsoft is effectively asking them to make that leap
while the current generation is still profitable, and the biggest
contender in the next generation is still years away.

To be entirely fair, Microsoft sees this problem, and that's why XNA
exists - but no game programming framework is ever going to get around
the fundamental problem, which is that creating games for
next-generation systems is going to require tools, technologies and
resources which simply don't exist yet, and which will be hugely
expensive and time-consuming when they do arrive. Studios which focus
on cross-platform titles, as many of the largest publishers in the
world do, face a gigantic problem - while developing a title on PS2,
Xbox and GameCube is an easy prospect as code, art and audio can be
effectively reused on all three platforms, adding a next-generation
platform to the mix will require complete re-development.

In other words, studios are being asked to invest in next-generation
R&D two years before it's required for PS3, and to spend more money
developing an Xbox 2 version of a cross platform title - for an
audience of a few million people - than they'll spend developing all
three current-generation versions of the game - for an audience of
well over a hundred million. Faced with this prospect, huge companies
like EA may be able to throw money at the problem, and some small
independent developers may be able to make a go of it by switching
entirely to Xbox 2 development; but the simple fact is that nobody is
going to stop supporting PS2 for Xbox 2, and the cost of supporting
both may be prohibitive for a great many publishers and developers.

Microsoft may be making a colossal mistake by trying to force the
industry into a next-generation cycle before it is ready to move.
Sony, with its enormous dominance of the market, could probably just
about get away with it - if it moved, the industry would have to move
with it, however much it hated the idea. But Microsoft, still a
relatively small player in the games industry, just doesn't look like
a company that has the influence needed to force a shift like this. It
may be backed up by the biggest software company in the world, but
publishers will still look at the bottom line - in this case,
installed base and cost of development - and base their decisions on
that alone. Herein lies the arrogance; Microsoft isn't used to making
decisions as an industry small-fry, and it's trying to act like an
industry leader in an industry it simply doesn't lead.

It would also do well to remember that in fact, PlayStation 2 didn't
have first mover advantage in the last generation; that dubious honour
fell to Sega's Dreamcast, which launched well ahead of its Sony
competitor and was completely crushed by a combination of consumer
anticipation for the Sony console, and publishers being perfectly
happy to stick with PlayStation 1 and wait for its successor. Two
years later, Sega was out of the console business for good; and while
that seems unlikely to happen to Microsoft, a defeat on that scale in
the next generation would be a crushing blow to its ambitions in the
console space.


Chris

The Franchise

I agree with the article above completely. Instead of "too little too late", this seems like "too little too soon"! I don't think people are ready to invest in new consoles yet. Current gen graphics are still pretty darn good and the next jump wont be that much more apparent. Even though XBOX has better graphics than PS2, the difference is not a deal-breaker as is evidenced by people still buying more of the latter. Part of that is brand loyalty (Playstation is a super powerful brand name now) and the fact that PS2 has the widest variety of games available.

I think by jumping the gun on the next gen and potentially not being backward compatible, MS is going to fragment it's own market and perhpas not have the most technically superior console this time around.....

el_jer

What a stupid move. MS may lose some XBOX1 consumers that will holdout until 2005. Especially, if they have the PS2 or cube.

Roan

Good point. Why does MS think its future will be any different than Sega's?

Dan Average

One thing MS has going for them that Sega didn't: their reputation isn't anywhere near the sub-basement levels Sega's was in by the end of the Saturn era.