It doesn't fill me with any kind of confidence that they are keeping it so under wraps with so little time left. They could end up with a really lackluster launch. Is there ANY awareness outside of the gaming community?

I wouldn't be concerned about that. I believe the Xbox 360 was announced May 2005, and was released that very same year in November. Prior to that, nobody really had very much concrete info on that console, either.

Nobody was really aware of the Xbox 360 outside of the gaming community prior to that big reveal, either. In fact, very few IN the gaming community even knew about it.

We had a very detailed leaked document describing 360's architecture back in spring 2004.

Did we really? I thought that leak was nothing close to what the final ended up being. Weren't the dev kits just a Mac G5 computer with an ATI r500 graphics chip? That's quite a bit different from what became final. Got a link to the info from back then?

This leaked back in April 04.



More or less what 360 ended up being.

Hmm, not even close from the looks of it :) Jk, that's pretty much it, alright.

They most likely make up for x86 architecture by outright including the 360 GPU and CPU as apart of the overall system for backwards compatibility in addition to the main next xbox cpu.

At least, this is what was included in Microsoft's plans in that leaked pdf document that is now confirmed as accurate.

Check page 9 of the pdf. The plan then was to include the original 360 gpu and cpu for backwards compatibility. I expect they'll stick with that idea. That way people still get to play all their 360 games on the next system with no issue.

It will be extremely cheap to manufacture and include the 360 GPU and CPU by then. Heck, it's already significantly more affordable to make for MS as it is right now. Both the gpu and cpu are now included on a single chip in the new 360s. They are no longer separate like they once were at the start of the 360's life.

Also, I'm personally not expecting this console to sell for anything less than $500. If it's under $500, I'll be personally surprised, and happy. Microsoft is targeting this thing as far more than a games console. They are going for an any and everything box with the intent of dominating living rooms on day one of release. Kinect is also being included in every single console. Don't underestimate Microsoft's willingness to flat out pack the 360 CPU and GPU into the next xbox to take care of backwards compatability. It would be surprisingly affordable for them to do so by then.

I suspect that it's mostly xbla that will be covered far into the life of the next xbox, as you say, whereas they might only initially cover 360 backwards compatibility. That will be one of the more obvious and immediate cost cutting measures early on, though, like you say. They'll just drop the included 360 CPU/GPU later on. Still, I've been prepared for $500 for a good while now. Even without thinking about 360 backwards compatibility, with the kinect success they've had, and an obviously upgraded kinect at that, there's no way they won't be packing it into every machine.

Yea, you're right about that. I should be careful to say that it's much cheaper than some would think, but certainly not free. Yea, their bottom line is extremely important to them, especially with the company technically taking its first ever quarterly loss recently, I believe. That may just play into their decision as well.

Well, i hate to say this, but that $500 prediction is not entirely a prediction, although I'd love if it were just a wild prediction on my part. :P It's what far more informed individuals than myself suspect Microsoft will almost have to make the entry price for this thing. There are devs that really do not believe this thing sells for anything less than $500 at the minimum, which is certainly a tough price for anyone at this point. The only good thing that you could even remotely say about such a price is that, "well, at least it isn't $599.99 US Dollars :P" I hope MS takes the loss, but somehow I doubt they will.

But wait... What if Microsoft goes big on that subscription idea they started with the Xbox 360? What if that is a model they use for the next xbox? Even if the end cost after all the months of payments ends up being more than if you just purchased one outright, that's certainly a very good way to initially mask the true cost of this thing initially. And even for people who won't be fooled by a cheaper entry price with a monthly subscription,I'd certainly be willing to pay a monthly fee if it meant I got a new xbox for far cheaper than the full on retail cost. I think the subscription idea would be a fantastic idea for the next xbox.

People as it is already pay monthly fees for rental of HD DVR receivers and what not, often times without ever having a prospect of truly owning the thing after x months of paying for it. After awhile with the xbox subscription plan now in place for the 360, you pretty much do have full ownership of it after a period of time. Maybe Microsoft will hide the cost that way.

edit:: Grift, you misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm not referring to Kinect backwards compatibility. I'm only referring to more traditional xbox 360 title backwards comptibility, and then just pointing out the fact that Microsoft has had so much success with kinect in general, that I think regardless of whether people want it or not, kinect 2.0 will likely be a standard item on every next gen xbox, likely adding to overall cost, and not necessarily for game reasons, either. Kinect has exciting living room/home entertainment potential, and Microsoft is deadly serious about the living room with this next xbox. This is suppose to be their one device to rule them all dreams coming to fruition finally. Key words being "suppose to be" :D

It was also recently made public that Microsoft plans on including many more retailers and stores on the xbox subscription plan thing, best buy among them. Can you imagine getting a next gen xbox for $100-$200 upfront with a monthly subscription plan? I'd take that route in a heartbeat, and then pay the much smaller monthly installments over time. Much better than dropping $500+ in one go.

Wouldn't mind seeing consoles get subsidized by ISPs and such, like phones :)

That's the thing, though, to a lot of people, it really isn't. A lot of folks see it as no different from what they already do with cell phones and some television services offered by the likes of Verizon, cablevision, directv etc.

I understand that, come the end, you end up paying more money than you would if you had just outright bought a 360 + kinect, but there are many people who are far more comfortable dropping something like $100 up front, and then paying a much smaller monthly fee for 2 years, even if it ends up being more than they would have paid if they had just dropped the full price for both in one go.

Different people have different financial situations, or are just plain more able to pay in a different way, and there's nothing wrong with there being a choice for such individuals. Can I afford to buy a next gen xbox for $500 or possible $600? Yea, sure, but would I if there was a subscription plan that had me instead paying $100 upfront to get a new xbox in my hand and in my living room, where I just pay a monthly fee of like $15 every month after that for the next 2 years?

Microsoft cares about their bottom line, but so do a lot of other folks. I have always hated the thought of dropping anything in the ballpark of $400-$500 or higher on a videogame system. Even though I was fortunate enough to be able to, I always saw it as kinda irresponsible to drop that kind of money for videogames, but that, of course, didn't ever stop me from doing so anyway, because my personal enjoyment and the enjoyment of those around me is very important to me, and thus, in my eyes, worth every penny. Still, in the end, I see a subscription based plan for an xbox as much more to my liking. I much rather spend $580-$600 over a period of 2+ years, rather than spend $500+tax in a period of about 5 minutes.

I don't see it as a gigantic rip off. $100 and an agreement to enter into a subscription of $15 a month for a certain period of time gets you an xbox 360 and kinect to take home with you? Yea, may not want kinect all that bad, but that doesn't sound so bad at all, regardless of what the end price ends up being. Are Microsoft making more money out of offering the convenience of basically getting a 360 in your house for $100? Yes, they are, but I don't have a problem with that, if it means I might be able to get a next gen xbox in a similar fashion, with a significantly lesser upfront cost. They do subscriptions for cell phones that already cost more than game consoles in a lot of cases, why not for videogame systems?

And I think you could be right about that, Grift. These next consoles may very well be the last that we ever see of their type, and MS and Sony might realize this, too, so I wouldn't be surprised what either would be willing to charge for these things out the gate.

I never said the cost would be less, only that I prefer to pay more money over a certain period of time, rather than pay a sum of like $500 immediately just to get the thing in my house.

For example, I would gladly pay a combined $640, which of course includes my initial $100, over a period of three years, rather than pay $500+tax in the span of 5 minutes in a store or over the internet.

I find the subscription route more financially manageable/favorable than just going into a best buy, or going on Amazon.com and charging $500+tax to my Citibank Mastercard.

Don't get me wrong, i see your side, too, and I agree with a great deal of what you're saying. There's a big part of me that would just prefer to pay my $500 + tax, and just be done with the entire thing, rather than be concerned with making monthly payments. There's no feeling quite like knowing that the moment you put your money down on something, it's all yours with no caveats. Monthly payments can be a pain in the ass a lot of times, but that's probably a pain in the ass I'd be willing to endure if it meant getting a shiny, next gen videogame console into my living room for $100 and a subscription plan.

Hmm, then again, now that I mention my mastercard, I just remembered that I only pay $5 a month towards my citibank mastercard regardless of how much i charge to it, because my credit is flawless, so going the subscription route may not be the best idea in my particular situation, as $5 a month while also paying less money overall will always be better than whatever subscription plan MS could offer me for a potential next gen xbox. But, yea, not everybody is in my situation, so the subscription route might very well be best for them. Choices are always good.

Also, I'd be on the lookout for a Verizon/Microsoft partnership to help with subsidization. This is just a wild guess on my part, but it just feels very likely to me.

I wouldn't say many, it's only 3 guys, after all. Speaking of insider contacts, not a single one of them that I have spoken to have ever mentioned anything about the next xbox running an intel processor. Unless they've just kept that detail from me, it has never, not once, come up when I spoke to any of them, and believe me, I asked. I haven't heard anything about a Nvidia GPU, either.

I've only ever heard AMD mentioned, and based on the way that the conversations went, I'd say it was safe to assume that AMD would most likely be making the GPU based on everything I've heard. I'll admit, however, that while AMD seems like the supplier on the GPU side of things, it isn't quite as clear on the cpu side of things. Again, they don't tell me every little detail, but Intel and Nvidia seem like pretty big things to omit from the discussions, especially when I've nagged, nagged and nagged some more about it. These aren't just run of the mill acquaintances, after all. 2 of them have spent the last 2 thanksgivings with my family. If I have been misled, so help me, their plates will be much smaller next thanksgiving :)

The initial math wasn't really me trying to be accurate in my math, more than I was just trying to get a basic point across, that paying more money overtime through a subscription based plan, might be more attractive than shelling out like $500+tax on the spot.

I really do believe that Verizon a Microsoft partnership, and a big one, will happen, though. I feel so strongly about it, I'd even place a friendly ban bet on it. One month ban If such a partnership is not somehow announced before the release of the next xbox.

Damn Optimusv2 would rather pay 640$ rather than 500$ + tax??? And then you're going to pay for xbox live service on top of that!? This isn't a car investment. I say if you know it's 500$ and you have at least a year notice, then start saving up now, and keep the extra money to spend on other good stuff. Just a tip to keep yours and everyone else's wallets fatter in the long run buddy. I mean...someone get this guy off of the threads...someone from Microsoft may actually get word of this stupidity and follow through. LOL

Anyways, I have a feeling xbox3 will be around 500$ but we can probably expect the gold service to go up due to other entertainment services they'll bring out...just a speculation. Gaming is getting expensive, no doubt.

haha, you're missing my point. I obviously won't do it now, although I won't lie that the option was initially an attractive one up until I realized that I only pay $5 a month on my citi mastercard bill regardless of how much I charge on it, due to flawless credit.

So, in other words, there's no subscription deal that MS could possibly offer me that would ever beat me purchasing a next gen xbox for $500+tax on the spot with my mastercard, and then slowly paying off the charge with $5 a month over a period of a few years. However, if I weren't in this situation, I do think it would be more economical to pay $640 over a period of 3 years, as opposed to $500+tax on the spot.

amera, the $640 ALREADY includes xbox live costs. That's what the monthly cost is all about. You're using monthly xbox live payments of basically $15 to pay for the initially subsidized cost to get the system into your house. So that $15 a month is basically you paying to keep xbox live gold while simultaneously paying for the hardware itself over time. This is a sound choice for some folks. It obviously makes much less, or no sense at all for me to use this method, but some other people might find it pretty attractive. Not a lot of people, even if they save, can afford to handle months where they drop $500+tax on a videogame console.

That will depend entirely upon IF games continue to being played the same way, controller/mouse/keyboard/screen. If at any point that changes, and by that I mean VR, holography or even interactive desktops (like the original Surface table device), you could see consoles hanging around alot longer. Devices like Kinect will continue to require processor based hardware.And you won't, Durango is an alpha kit. Microsoft isn't going back to off-the-shelf components for it's next console, they saved far too much money this generation by customizing and then manufacturing their own hardware. Off the shelf would put them at the mercy of suppliers as was done with Xbox 1. That would be a step backwards for them.

Yea, I don't expect them to do something like that again. For them to go back to Intel and Nvidia, the arrangement would have to be drastically different from what it was compared to the first Xbox.