I wouldn't say that it is for sure going to be unveiled at E3 this year, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Um, excuse me?
I have been playing Halo pretty hardcore for over 8 years. I was their for the 16 person LAN parties on Halo 1, and for the glory days of Halo 2&3 XBL, I've frequented Bnet since 2006, between Halo 2, 3, and Reach I have over a month and a half of multiplayer in-game time between nearly 8000 games played on XBL, I was one of the last 150 players left on Halo 2 XBL.
I'm pretty sure I know what I am talking about. It is general conse...
If this is true, then there is no excuse for next gen consoles not to be able to output visuals that are at least that good in 1080P.
Halo Reach is by no means the definitive multiplayer experience. I don't know a single Halo veteran who likes Reach as much as the first 3. Reach ruined Halo, there's almost no weapon balance, and Armor Abilities have no place in Halo. Halo has always been about having a completely level playing ground for all players upon spawn, until Halo Reach that is. It's an OK game at best, it's nothing near what Halo 1,2, and 3 brought to us.
Because...
A)Some of us do both console and PC gaming. There are games that are better on console, and some of the best games are exclusive to console. Most of my favorite games are on console only, or are better for console.
B)Not all of us have $1000+ to throw at a gaming PC on whim. Anything under that has only a negligible leap forward in graphics, so don't argue with me about it not being that expensive, I've priced one out before, and for a good PC it wi...
A massive leap forward in processing power and lots more RAM. That's all there needs to be. I don't need all this gimmicky crap like Kinect or screens on my controller. Just give me a slightly modified 360 or PS controller, and a lot more processing power and RAM.
You'll more than likely get 1080P, but you're not going to get many games with 60FPS. Devs will always want to push the hardware further and will sacrifice 60FPS for 30FPS with better graphics, just like this generation.
If you want 1080P with 60FPS for every game, you're going to have to get a gaming PC.
Let's be honest here, anyone who owns both consoles knows that XBL is much better than PSN. To argue otherwise is utterly ridiculous. And anyone who does a little searching can find a 12 month code for $40 or maybe even a little bit less. And $40 a year comes out to $3.33 a month. It's worth that.
For the love of all things good. THE NEXT GEN XBOX WILL NOT USE AN ATI 6670!!!!!!!!
The Xbox 360's GPU is very similar to and ATI X1900, which had a retail price of $600 in 2005 when the 360 launched. Manufacturers pay a fraction what we would have to pay for something like that.
http://reviews.cnet.com/ATI...
Not sure why I have so many disagrees. People need to do some research. The 360's GPU is closest to an ATI X1900, which in 2005 would set you back $600, this is fact not an opinion.
@OpenGL
The idea was to gain back their money on the games and XBL while getting a jump on the market. That worked out pretty well. Less than a year after it came out, the production costs dropped below their retail price and they were making profits on their hardware again. And the overwhelming vast majority of their sales were after production costs had dropped.
They took a hit in the beginning, and it made them a lot of money in the long run. This is Micro...
The Xbox 360's GPU in 2005 was comparable to a $600 graphics card. Remember, manufacturers don't pay the same price we pay.
HALO 2!!!!!
I miss playing that game online so much.
An announcement at or around E3 is quite likely I think. I guarantee that it won't launch until late 2013 though.
I want next gen ASAP. We won't get next gen Xbox and Playstation until late 2013 though.
I seem to remember a rumor about the PS3 not being able to play used games as well. That would be absolutely rediculous.
People seem to forget that MS will be paying a fraction of what consumers would have to pay for a comparable GPU. I'd bet that MS would pay 20-30% of what we would have to pay.
At the time the 360 launched, it's GPU was comparable to a $600 graphics card. MS actually sold the 360 consoles at a loss for a while. It cost MS somewhere around $500 to $750 to make.
http:/...
Hahahahaha!!! WWWWHHHHEEEEWWWW!!! That's a good one!
This would be capable of nothing more than running current gen games in 1080P at the same framerate they already are running.
This article is simply an attempt at getting attention. That GPU is slightly more powerful than the GPU in my laptop.
People also seem to forget that at the time of the 360's release, a graphics card comparable to the GPU in the 360 was $600.
...
Jackasses like these are the reason the internet is going to be highly regulated before too long.
HAHA!! Nope.