AfterDawn: News

Microsoft to release two next-generation Xbox consoles?

The latest rumor has Microsoft releasing two separate gaming consoles to replace the Xbox 360.

If accurate, the devices will launch in 2013, allowing the manufacturer Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) time to perfect their 28nm manufacturing process, says TS.



One console will be an "entry-level system" while the second will be aimed the true hardcore gamer.

The entry-level console will be small like a set-top box and be aimed at the casual gamer. The device will access to many streaming services like Hulu Plus and Netflix and will allow for downloadable games from Xbox Live.

Moving up to the gamer's upgrade, the console will have an HDD, an optical drive, backwards-compatibility with 360 games and updated hardware, obviously. Rumored specs are a six-core CPU, AMD graphics and 2GB of DDR3 memory.

Of course, the entry-level system will be hundreds of dollars cheaper.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 26 Nov 2011 1:36

• Previous article

• AT&T offers to sell 40 percent of T-Mobile if merger is approved

• Next article

• HDCP protection cracked by Germans and $250 worth of gear

• 30 comments

• jookycola

  LOL
  Next Gen with a SD DVD optical drive is hilarious.
  I can't wait to play my 6 disc games.
  

  
  

  26.11.2011 01:45 #1

• core2kid

  Originally posted by jookycola: LOL
  Next Gen with a SD DVD optical drive is hilarious.
  I can't wait to play my 6 disc games. I feel like next gen is going to have a minimal graphics enhancement and will be focused more on all in one devices with more interactive gameplay.

  26.11.2011 01:50 #2

• KillerBug

  Other than the ram, it sounds the same (in hardware spec) as a PS3. I doubt Microsoft is dumb enough to release the gamer version without BluRay...even the casual version will probably have BluRay, assuming it has optical at all. Like it or not BluRay won the war and streaming just isn't there yet.
  
  I am still holding out hope that this will have x86 support, but given the BC support, I have serious doubts; probably PPC again. In spite of this, I still think that going back to PC gaming is a good idea...it doesn't look like console gaming is going to offer the bang for the buck vs PC gaming that we saw with the release of the 360 and PS3...and I am guessing that the new 360 (and the PS4) will be locked to 1080P and lower.
  

  
  

  26.11.2011 02:02 #3

• core2kid

  Originally posted by KillerBug: Other than the ram, it sounds the same (in hardware spec) as a PS3. I doubt Microsoft is dumb enough to release the gamer version without BluRay...even the casual version will probably have BluRay, assuming it has optical at all. Like it or not BluRay won the war and streaming just isn't there yet.
  
  I am still holding out hope that this will have x86 support, but given the BC support, I have serious doubts; probably PPC again. In spite of this, I still think that going back to PC gaming is a good idea...it doesn't look like console gaming is going to offer the bang for the buck vs PC gaming that we saw with the release of the 360 and PS3...and I am guessing that the new 360 (and the PS4) will be locked to 1080P and lower. I honestly don't know what to expect. I knew what to expect from PS1 to PS2, PS2 to PS3. More power, better graphics. Can we really get significantly better than what we're at now?

  26.11.2011 02:07 #4

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by core2kid: Can we really get significantly better than what we're at now? Considering what we have now, yes. I think we can expect bluray to fix the 6-disk problems (as well as the lack of bluray movie problem). The memory on the current consoles is holding things back too. The games are bumping up against memory limits during production, and then they are having serious memory issues after release. 512MB of memory was sad for a Pentium 3...it is insane for a 6-core CELL in a PS3 or even a 3-core PPC in a 360. An increase in memory won't just help load times, stability, and gameplay smoothness; it will also allow for better textures, making better looking graphics even at the same resolutions. It is also highly likely that whatever the video chips in the XboX Next and PS4 are, they will be a whole lot better than what is in the current generation; further improving graphics quality.
  
  It won't be a revolutionary improvement like the move from the PS2 to the PS3...but it will be a noticeable improvement like buying a 5870 to replace a 3870 in a PC.
  

  
  

  26.11.2011 04:01 #5

• KSib

  Originally posted by core2kid: Can we really get significantly better than what we're at now? You must have not seen many PC games on a decent rig. Yeah, they can get a nice amount better to justify at least one more console release.
  
  Look at Arkham City, for instance PC vs console. It's a fair amount better with its visuals and I think it was optimized plenty for both.
  

  26.11.2011 06:29 #6

• scorpNZ

  Originally posted by KillerBug: Other than the ram, it sounds the same (in hardware spec) as a PS3. I doubt Microsoft is dumb enough to release the gamer version without BluRay...even the casual version will probably have BluRay, assuming it has optical at all. Like it or not BluRay won the war and streaming just isn't there yet.
  
  I am still holding out hope that this will have x86 support, but given the BC support, I have serious doubts; probably PPC again. In spite of this, I still think that going back to PC gaming is a good idea...it doesn't look like console gaming is going to offer the bang for the buck vs PC gaming that we saw with the release of the 360 and PS3...and I am guessing that the new 360 (and the PS4) will be locked to 1080P and lower. Going back to PC gaming (not that i ever bothered with pc gaming) is exactly what i've been thinking of doing instead of wasting more money on yet another console both the ps3 & 360 are a massive let down they aren't that much further along than the original xbox apart from slightly more detail & a lot of stink'n 360 games are just absolute rubbish game wise & graphics goes the same with the ps3
  

  http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/
  http://www.elitemodscene.com/

  26.11.2011 11:39 #7

• Venom5880

  I've ended up just building a gaming PC for the living room and hooking it up to the TV in there. Depending on the game, I've just been playing with wireless 360 controllers. Some games even have local multiplayer (dungeon siege, cursed crusade, etc). Haven't turned on the games consoles in a while. Think the last console game I played was L.A. Noire when it first came out.
  

  
  
  
  
  Thanks goes out to theridges for the userbars :)
  
  EZIV/EZIV Lite Guide - http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/359076

  26.11.2011 12:04 #8

• buxtahuda

  It took me like three years to finally hop on for a PS3. I grew up with other consoles of course, but my first owned was a PS and we got the PS2 as soon as it came out to give DVD's a go. Waited on BR cuz $30 a movie was unacceptable; now they've gotten better and PS3's are dirt cheap. So I've only made an immediate transition to the next gen once and I don't see such huge improvements in the future to warrant doing so again.
  
  If I decide to upgrade, it will be another four or five years from now; until then I'm investing in some good PC hardware. I generally disliked PC gaming most my life, because gamepads and joysticks were always either too cheap or too complicated and the keyboard/mouse combo drives me crazy after a time; too non-intuitive for gaming in my opinion, considering it's for typing.
  
  But for the price you'll pay for a new console, you could just revamp the hardware inside your old PC box (or retro-fit one of the old consoles ;D really surprise someone) and kick it with more resources and features. I've certainly been steadily moving to PC, but I'm too hardcore a gamer to go any one way; but this next generation will probably break that mentality.
  
  Let's see more advancement in "holographic" displays. I'll dish out tons of money again when I buy a console that goes on and throws out a projected image onto your choice of surface, possibly with "3D" capabilities. Forget having to have your own screens, and it would make it kind-of-but-still-not-really portable. Suppose then though, affordable options for projection lighting would need to be found or consumers would be manhandled.
  
  </ramble>

  26.11.2011 12:14 #9

• LordRuss

  The thing with consoles is/are they're always going to be behind whatever the latest technology is driving the newest games. And those corporations having built those consoles will demand with the loudest voice & the most shriveled penis that the game developers conform to their platforms or forever feel their legal sodomy. Albeit by proxy seeing as they themselves can never really 'measure' up...
  
  But such is the consumer's complaint as well... We can't race out & plop down $500 for the latest video card to render the hottest game either, thus such is the dual edged sword. But it is nice to at least be within spitting distance once & a while for $100 instead of $250/300 & be called casual (nice idea calling your customers that, ad campaign) or dumping the whole load $600/700 for the title gamer/enthusiast. Which we all see the price down the middle is the cost of said hot shot video card all along.
  
  What a fickle world...
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  26.11.2011 14:40 #10

• xnonsuchx

  The thing between PC gaming vs. consoles is that consoles provide a guaranteed experience (standardized hardware), are optimized for gaming/multimedia purposes and a box that's intended as a TV appliance is far easier for most people to deal with. Real hardcore gamers are often going to prefer PCs w/ high end (generic purpose) CPUs, tons of RAM and $400+ video cards, that can do a lot more than the consoles can, but that's a fairly small percentage of people (who often think their opinions should be everyone's and call people stupid for disagreeing).

  26.11.2011 21:56 #11

• DVDBack23

  Do PCs really need $500 cards though? I played Modern Warfare 3 on my $32 GT 430 with no lag or any issues of any kind.
  

  AfterDawn News
  AfterDawn Guides
  AfterDawn Downloads
  AfterDawn Hardware Section

  26.11.2011 23:18 #12

• scorpNZ

  farcry 2 looks sweet on dell 755 with hd2400 256mb graphic card,you can't get more low end that that bugger,the graphic card that is,looks excellent even picture is more crisp than the 360,shame i can't play it i'm no good with the keyboard,my usb logitec rumble pads 2 don't work with it for some reason & i don't have the wireless dongle thingy for the 360 controller,yeah anyway my pc gaming starts today well the games installed that's a start
  
  ps:got farcry 2 on 360 can't finish game keep getting corrupt game saves & can't go live to get updates to fix the game for jtag console..grrrrr
  

  http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/
  http://www.elitemodscene.com/

  27.11.2011 00:07 #13

• LordRuss

  OK, OK, I took a bit of poetic license there... I was reminiscing about times when Crisis & games of that ilk would hit the market & such hardware really hadn't hit the market to run it in its full glory.
  
  Just like you folks, I have played several games (with the exception of a couple of games & my complaints of Steam/Valve) with little or no problems to quality. However, I have revisited some of my old titles after upgrading to newer hardware a couple of years later & seen a markedly grand difference in the appearance of the game & the fluidity of its performance. Did it rob me of its original gameplay? No, not really.
  
  @xnonsuchx... consoles provide a guaranteed experience (standardized hardware)... Uhm... that 'should' make it guaranteed, but your statement is flawed in that you know that it doesn't. Even console games are now being roped with having to load the game onto the HDD & then download patches in order to play appropriately. You may as well have done this on your PC where you could have at least surfed the web or played another game while all that garbage was going on. You know, multitasking.
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  27.11.2011 13:19 #14

• Xplorer4

  Originally posted by KillerBug: Other than the ram, it sounds the same (in hardware spec) as a PS3. I doubt Microsoft is dumb enough to release the gamer version without BluRay...even the casual version will probably have BluRay, assuming it has optical at all. Like it or not BluRay won the war and streaming just isn't there yet.
  
  I would not be the least bit surprised to see the next MS console go with out blu-ray, but I could see them going with HD-DVD. Yes the format is dead but on the gaming side this makes no difference of course. Multimedia side is another story, but at the time of release, I can see the console go with out blu-ray and still survive. Blu-Ray players can be found for sub $100 now. Of course I question the quality but to the average consumer this does not really matter. They see Blu-Ray player $79.99 and they are all over it for the ability to jump on the next-gen format bandwagon.
  

  Thermaltake Mozart TX Case - Core i7 860 - MSI P55-GD65 - 2x2 GB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws - Sapphire 4890 1 GB Vapor X - 2xIntel X25-M Mainstream G2 SSDs RAID 0 - 1x1TB WD Caviar Black - 1x1TB WD Caviar Green - 1x2TB WD Caviar Black - 1x2TB WD Caviar Green - Corsair HX520 PSU

  27.11.2011 18:22 #15

• xnonsuchx

  Originally posted by LordRuss: @xnonsuchx... consoles provide a guaranteed experience (standardized hardware)... Uhm... that 'should' make it guaranteed, but your statement is flawed in that you know that it doesn't. Even console games are now being roped with having to load the game onto the HDD & then download patches in order to play appropriately. You may as well have done this on your PC where you could have at least surfed the web or played another game while all that garbage was going on. You know, multitasking.
  Um...no. "Guaranteed experience" as in the game plays the same for all users of a particular console and that devs don't have to make considerations based on wide varieties of hardware differences.

  27.11.2011 19:27 #16

• Joe_1981

  That article is way too vague for me to consider it credible. There's no way that it will be 2013 or MS would have made some sort of announcement. And for the love of God, I hope the next-gen consoles have more than 2GB of RAM. With 6-8GB becomming very common in the PC world, 2GB just seems like way too little. Granted, a PC has way more tasks to keep the computer running than a console, but still.
  
  That said, I think XBox360 and PS3 games look very good right now and with time and care they can almost match the PC version for the most part. But, with a monster gaming PC, there is plenty of room for graphical improvement. Let's not even talk visuals, let's talk processing power. Imagine playing a game with killer visuals, in true 1080p with like, 50+ enemies on screen, bullets flying everywhere, explosions, dust, dirt, sparks flying all over and it all running at like, 100+ frames per second. Verses the PS3 and XBox360 that render most of their games at 720p, hell, 640p, in some cases and the consoles simply upscale to 1080p. Consoles could make a HUGE jump in visuals if they actually put something decent under the hood.
  
  Like I said, I think current consoles can look great, but there's definitely room for improvement.
  

  28.11.2011 00:15 #17

• xnonsuchx

  Originally posted by Joe_1981: ...for the love of God, I hope the next-gen consoles have more than 2GB of RAM. With 6-8GB becomming very common in the PC world, 2GB just seems like way too little. Granted, a PC has way more tasks to keep the computer running than a console, but still....
  There are numerous reasons why consoles have the least amount of RAM needed. Keeping it to a minimum allows better optimization, less power/heat issues, and lower cost (will customers be willing to spend an extra $50-100+ for the console just to load it w/ RAM that's not really needed?). With HD video rendering and better texturing/etc. being possible, they do need more than the 512MB they currently get by with, but it's unlikely any new consoles would have more than 1-2GB. Even most devs say they just need a LITTLE more memory to make things easier...not tons.

  28.11.2011 06:16 #18

• LordRuss

  Originally posted by xnonsuchx: Um...no. "Guaranteed experience" as in the game plays the same for all users of a particular console and that devs don't have to make considerations based on wide varieties of hardware differences. And STILL (I find myself repeating myself) these programmers you seems to defend, with very rare exception, can't seem to release a game without the aforementioned patches needed for glitches & shortcomings all consoles inevitably seem to complain about. I.e., the game fails equally across all platforms. There should have been no problems in the first place, yet there they are.
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  28.11.2011 14:28 #19

• LordRuss

  Originally posted by xnonsuchx: There are numerous reasons why consoles have the least amount of RAM needed. More often than not cost of production & money in the elitist's pockets is the biggest motivator. Maximize the minimum & put the screws on the consumer. How long can we string them along for the top dollar before we can convince them to pay top dollar again for another top dollar gaming machine. It's the business model that has serviced them the best since the late 70s & until the common consumer finds a way to turn the tables it won't change.
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  28.11.2011 14:33 #20

• Interestx

  Originally posted by KSib: You must have not seen many PC games on a decent rig. Yeah but most PCs don't run through a TV which for the foreseeable future has pretty much fixed resolution & refresh rates.
  
  So long as the hard drive is big enough (and expansion possible) then I don't care about a Blu-ray reader.
  I already got one far better than any they might possibly fit into a game console.
  I don't need another.
  
  
  

  29.11.2011 09:29 #21

• LordRuss

  Originally posted by Interestx: So long as the hard drive is big enough (and expansion possible) then I don't care about a Blu-ray reader. Then you kinda contradicted yourself with regards to the PS3 (unless I missed something here) because that's what it has in it. Big HDD & a bluray. Bluray to cut down on the number of dvds in a box (thus shipping costs to the store), bigger HDD for the very reason you just described. The newer machine either company proposes isn't going to upgrade from that, so what you propose doesn't seem to make a bunch of sense...
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  29.11.2011 11:53 #22

• Interestx

  Originally posted by LordRuss:
  Then you kinda contradicted yourself with regards to the PS3 (unless I missed something here) because that's what it has in it. Um, I don't have a PS3?
  The PS3 with Blu-ray drive & hard drive is irrelavant to me, or the next Xbox.
  
  Originally posted by LordRuss: Big HDD & a bluray. Bluray to cut down on the number of dvds in a box (thus shipping costs to the store), bigger HDD for the very reason you just described. The newer machine either company proposes isn't going to upgrade from that, so what you propose doesn't seem to make a bunch of sense... I suspect that Microsoft will show Sony & the BDA the finger & use a development of the old HD DVD tech, the triple layer 51gb disc.
  Digital distribution is already well established in many Asian & western markets and that can only grow exponentially.
  
  Either way for Xbox Blu-ray doesn't mean a thing.
  
  ....and why would it with entry level Blu-ray players so cheap now?
  If you want Blu-ray go buy one, it's not Nov 2006 anymore where the alternative Blu-ray player was a worse performing Samsung @ $1000 or more.
  
  
  

  29.11.2011 13:23 #23

• LordRuss

  Originally posted by Interestx: Um, I don't have a PS3?
  The PS3 with Blu-ray drive & hard drive is irrelavant to me, or the next Xbox.
  If you want Blu-ray go buy one, it's not Nov 2006 anymore where the alternative Blu-ray player was a worse performing Samsung @ $1000 or more. I'm not starting an argument, just trying to get a handle... I just take it that you're probably a PC game(if much of a gamer at all) which obviously alleviates some of the BR dispute. Until, literally 'everything' software wise gets to a point that it won't fit on a couple of dvds & developers decide that the BR is a valid option, that was my 'not so clear' argument.
  
  As for your "go buy a BR player"... well, I did. But I paid $100, it was an LG, it plays AVCs and last count it's 2011 in lieu of getting rid of my PS3 because they wanted to pull the firmware upgrade limiting the AVC playback.
  
  I just take it you're not sold on game consoles. I was for about a year as a kind of catch all entertainment system, but what a boat anchor. Better money was spent on a home theater PC, that's all.
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  29.11.2011 14:04 #24

• GI2

  2 next gen boxes? Great. More money to save on...
  

  
  

  29.11.2011 22:03 #25

• Joe_1981

  My only point in hoping there was more than 2GB of RAM was, when you can get a 4GB stick of RAM for $39.99 these days and I'm sure if MS bulk ordered RAM for a new console they'd get it even cheaper, Id gladly pay an extra $20-$30 bucks for a console to have the RAM beefed up and the possibilty of games being better having it to utilize, not that it's necessary. But, RAM is so cheap these days, I see no reason it shouldn't have more than 2GB.
  

  30.11.2011 03:02 #26

• xaznboitx

  Play X360 haha... then it will not support online play no more and X360 owners have to buy the new console to continue to play online with new games. They forgot one letter for the word " Too many"
  

  1.12.2011 15:25 #27

• xnonsuchx

  Originally posted by LordRuss: Originally posted by xnonsuchx: Um...no. "Guaranteed experience" as in the game plays the same for all users of a particular console and that devs don't have to make considerations based on wide varieties of hardware differences. And STILL (I find myself repeating myself) these programmers you seems to defend, with very rare exception, can't seem to release a game without the aforementioned patches needed for glitches & shortcomings all consoles inevitably seem to complain about. I.e., the game fails equally across all platforms. There should have been no problems in the first place, yet there they are.
  I don't know why you have to find yourself repeating something that was never part of the argument.

  1.12.2011 16:43 #28

• LordRuss

  Originally posted by xnonsuchx: I don't know why you have to find yourself repeating something that was never part of the argument. It was... I made it part of said 'argument'... I also said I didn't want to argue, yet there you go... I repeated, otherwise you wouldn't find yourself back to read the forum & to just type 'repeat' is moronic...
  
  Now, seeing as you have nothing else to add (other than to whine of my redundancy) I believe we can move on to more important things like solving world hunger, putting corrupt politicians in Turkish prisons, publicly disemboweling drug lords and castrating money laundering Wall Street fat cats. What say you?
  

  http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

  2.12.2011 12:17 #29

• voyager

  I read somewhere that the next Xbox will handle graphics like Avatar movie

  2.12.2011 17:30 #30