No new Xbox in 2012 - Microsoft

@GamerLegend10 It's simple actually... I never owned a ps3 before I had an xbox 360 and it died... so now that I know xbox is not going anywhere for now... most likely means ps3 is not either this is why I rather spend money on a ps3 this time around then an xbox.

Arrggg, more wait on DX11 tessellation animations. And more wait on DX11 GPGPU based physics.

just as i expected. good to know too. looks like the ps3 and 360 have plenty of life left in them

They`r waiting for PS4 to release the new XBOX

good! ....givem more time to think about, wether to allow people to resell they're lawfull acquisitions as being the right thing to do.... or should they charge them with a big dik in the A!

i thought last year they would anounce the new xbox specs in 2012 and still think that info will come out at the end of this year. But dont think that a new console will be available until 2013-2014 after nintendo have been out for at least a year and they see how sells will go during the economic climate as bad as it is at the moment.

if microsoft stop you from playing pre owned games i wont be using them. It would be a stupid idea and most gamers like to complete a game and sell it. For those that cant afford to buy new on release it gives them a chance to buy it cheaper at a later date. Fair all round in my opinion and stops pirating and modding which would happen more if it just played full price realease games.

zell11 i cant take the bull crap that comes out of your mouth why dont u just shut the fu k up

Pity Xbox 1's lifespan was so short. I may have invested in the 360 if I had good reason to believe it would last this long. But... I didn't.

Well if it really blocks used games, that hunk of tech is dead in the water...

Dear Microsoft: You better hurry up or Apple's gonna take it all.

==== NEWS FLASH ==== THE NEW XBOX IS ALREADY OUTDATED ==== NEWS FLASH ====

The only way either PS3 or Xbox would have a few years left in them, is if neither of them come out with a new console. It's all about competition. Neither will try to compete with Nintendo because they're so different. They have Mario, Mario Kart, Mario Bros., Smash Bros., Zelda, Metriod, Donkey Kong, etc. So many exclusives. So most gamers will have a Wii U AND Xbox/PS.

Gamer Legend has no life but to comment on his crappy system. Pitiful.

Sucks. So now all I have to look forward to this year is GTA5... oh wait, that's enough :)

ah well, wont be long before facebook has a console to play stupid cheap apps that everyone buys for no reason.. Seems to be where the industry is going.

Ha! No "old" xbox in 2012 either! I gave mine to Goodwill after I tried it's exclusives!! I hope the delay is to fix the controller.

bull, there will be lots of new xboxes this year. xbox slims with sticker kits, ie- star wars kinnect ..

I've heard that no new systems, other than the the wii thing, are coming until at least 2014. So who thought this was happening?

Sony we are not, I repeat NOT coming out with a new console this year!! Those rummers about us launching this year; False just false there is no bases for them, none what so ever. SO, you can launch your console next year with us. That way we do NOT get the year head start again. SO, be prepared to launch next year. Clear okay, just to let you know.

why are you arguing about graphics? gamers with lower budgets will be in a really tight spot without being to play used games. i think that is a little ridiculous.

I hope its region-free when its released

@voodo as a programmer i can say categorically that your wrong, the graphics of the PS3 are similar to the 360 because hardware wise they are at the same level. They achieve this in different ways, the PS3 has 128 bit BUS which is (im guessing the 360 has 64 bit buses) double the 360s memory architecture but to be honest there is not alot you can do with that... i mean its a cell processor and it can sling data around pretty damn quick but that has 0 effect on visual sure you can support more on screen and perhaps its a little faster but to be honest visually the GPU is what matters and they are comparable across both systems. Your talking about a processor big whoop, my i7 is faster than both systems

@rarson Yeah, I think most of the developers who've worked with Sony's system are probably past the learning curve by now, but Sony was getting it's share of lazy ports, that were inferior to their xbox counterparts, simply due to the lack of hardware understanding. So rather than utilize it's complex hardware design, they'd rather run it with similar coding to the 360, and not utilize it's SPUs properly. Seeing that the GPU on the PS3 is slightly weaker than the 360s, the PS3 shines when it's powerful processor is used in tandem with it's GPU, so when it isn't being coded properly we got those slightly inferior ports. This is what reminds me of the Saturn back in it's day. Sony's top tier first party team delivered excellent games, just like Sega's did for them on the Saturn, it's just the third parties who tried to cut corners, or go the easy route.

@moviequest14 ok my mistake, i apologize. But yeah i understand he is fanboy and an idiot, which is why i messaged him as-well.

Wooo hoooo, a blue-ray player, lmao...cracks me up.

@GamerLegend10 : That is quite interesting considering that I don't even own a ps3 (yet). I'm not saying that the ps3 is the better system,it is ultimately a matter of taste.In fact,most of my friends own 360's and I frequently play on them.It is absolutely fine if someone likes the 360 over ps3...but that doesn't mean they should post irrelevant fanboy garbage when it isn't even relevant...going and posting as though it is fact that the 360 is a superior system (and while I was mistaken about the graphic differences 360 just as equally isn't graphically superior over the ps3) when it is obviously just their incredibly biased opinion.

@buying1999 Stop being a troll @constantterror @junglist101 @moviequest14 Counterattacking a fanboy by being a fanboy of another system is not the answer, your just as bad as him. Fanboys are fanboys and your all the same, no matter what system. @Exodiouse No...even if we didn't already know that the next xbox is currently being designed (which we do) then that would still be a ridiculous claim. @zell1 Go away fanboy, your opinions are completely biased.

Yay one more year of not having to upgrade. Im hoping the may small upgrades over time for those who what just specific things.

@Vodoo "The PS3 is capable of better looking graphics" Based on what? From what I've seen, that's not the case (and analysis of the hardware doesn't seem to offer Sony any advantage, either). "As far as the hardware goes, the ps3 is more powerful" Again, what are you basing this off of? "nothing yet has taken advantage of its overly complex system cores." Are you a programmer? How qualified are you to make this statement? "On paper the ps3 is more powerful" I disagree. "The ps3 has the awesome blu-ray player" But that has nothing to do with graphics.

@godzillavskong The Saturn was a 2D powerhouse! Many people forget the Atari Jaguar because it was so early, but it was also very good at 2D games. Saturn had it beat, however (though it brought load times that the Jaguar didn't have, at least compared to the cartridge games). "The PS3 reminds a bit of the Saturn, in it's difficulty to program for" Yeah, it definitely seems the PS3 is the most difficult to program for, although at this point, I would hope devs would be able to use the hardware efficiently.

The Wii-U isn't even competing against the Xbox/PS anymore. It seems to have carved out its' own niche area of the game industry. The Wii-U is going after a different type of game playing experience, very similar to how the Wii did, generally for a younger audience. Microsoft and Sony are going into the high-end, home media device trend for teenagers/adults. They have machines that play hd games/movies as well as many other media services and are looking to place themselves as the central unit in the home to manage/play all of your media content. They will soon be competing with other companies that offer these services individually, while the consoles want to be all-in-one media devices. Nintendo likes to stick to game playing and how they can evolve it into something different and more fun. So I no longer feel Nintendo should be considered to be competing in the same market segment as Microsoft & Sony. Next gen seems like it'll further divide the big 3 into their own respective markets.

To all of you arguing which console has better graphics ect.... I own both and have no alliance to either. The PS3 is capable of better looking graphics, if the developers have the time and are capable of configuring the system in such a way to accomplish the extra visual muscle, but has yet to show anything that would insinuate it's more powerful than the 360. As far as the hardware goes, the ps3 is more powerful, but again, nothing yet has taken advantage of its overly complex system cores. On paper the ps3 is more powerful, but in reality, they are on equal ground. Sony has always over stated the potential of their hardware with inflated statistics. The differences, if any, are so insignificant that only fanboy freaks would argue over them. The 360 hardware is being utilized to its fullest potential, while the ps3 is just being utilized, and the systems show equal products. For whatever reason, developers either don't have the know-how, or it's not worth the extra time it'll take, to push the ps3 to its' limits. The ps3 has the awesome blu-ray player, the 360 has the awesome online service fully integrated into the system itself. They both have positives/negatives, they both show equal results on par with their competitor. So stop the trivial arguments about such petty bs that noone cares about!

@moviequest14 Where is this "fact" that claims the PS3 is more graphically powerful?? It does have some remarkable first party games, but graphically superior? I haven't seen anything on my PS3 that leads me to believe the 360 couldn't manage the same. KZ3 looks really good, not better than Gears 3 in my eyes. Maybe on par with Gears 3. UC2 has some of the best lighting and reflections, but still nothing that tops even the best looking multiplatform games, like RDR, or JC2. I guess a lot of people see things differently, but to say it is a "fact" that the PS3 is more powerful, I disagree. I really think both of them are quite equal.

@rarson Yeah, with the Saturn I remember watching a video about how it was created, and how , or why it failed here in North America. Yu Suzuki, one of Sega's best programmers stated that most developers can only get one of those processors up to speed, or maybe 1 and a half, therefore not being able to utilize the Saturn's full potential. He said most would rather port it over, just using one of those Hitachi RISC processors, hence the inferior port. Most arcade 2D games looked better on the Saturn though. The PS3 reminds a bit of the Saturn, in it's difficulty to program for, with it's SPU's and all, although Sony seems to have more stability then Sega had during that time.

@junglist101 I hated the decision to go with the Blu-Ray drive when the PS3 first came out. It added a TON of cost to the system and the move was made purely to force Blu-Ray adoption so that Sony could reap the benefits of owning the format. It was one of many decisions that Sony did to bungle the PS3 launch (and they bungled it pretty badly). But, I have to admit, it was the smart move in the long run, and they managed to turn things around rather quickly. Having Blu-Ray in the system from day one turned out to be a pretty big advantage, and just like the PS2 with DVD, putting it in the console drove prices down a lot. I still think they pushed the format a bit too early, but that was a difficult decision that had to be made due to the console life cycle (I do think that the initial price of the PS3 is a big reason the PS2 continued to sell for so long). Although, personally, I have no use for movies on discs anymore.

@moviequest14 That's why I said that it had "arguably the best graphics hardware of its generation". I imagine the limited disc capacity also hurt Nintendo in the long run. "Not only is it FACT that the ps3 is more graphically powerful..." No, it's not.

well i heard that it's gonna block used games but i think it's not true because if it is true than no one would buy the system but it's pretty cool that it's gonna play blu-ray

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

@buying1999 That's sounds like what people who couldn't afford a launch ps3 would say. That added blu ray player sucks amirite?

@rarson : Though I see the point you're trying to make,xbox actually had the best graphics last gen (significantly so) though the gamecube graphics were no slouch.While I know the wii has technically ''better'' graphics..for the most part I like the graphics on gamecube better..some games like True Crime NY have better graphics than many wii games.

"And if you talk about the Wii, it was a Nintendo decision to not improve the graphics, what for me was a really stupid idea." I wasn't talking about the Wii, but since you mentioned it, you're wrong again because the Wii does actually have better graphics than the Gamecube (try playing a Gamecube game if you don't believe me). Considering that the Gamecube had arguably the best graphics hardware of its generation, a doubling of power isn't terrible, and the major benefit of the design is perfect backwards compatibility (if that's your thing). However, Gamecube games definitely suffered graphically from lazy ports and developers who targeted their games to a younger crowd. The Wii has sold a lot of hardware without being sold at a loss, so I wouldn't call it a "really stupid idea".

@danielmbg "Dreamcast was from the Sixth Generation, but it can't compete with graphics against the Playstation 2" You've got a screw loose if you think PS2 graphics are better than Dreamcast graphics. For starters, if you ignore all the bogus numbers that Sony threw around in the year before the PS2 launch (no doubt to prevent people from buying the Dreamcast), in practice, PS2 games and Dreamcast games push about the same number of polygons (probably about 5-6 million), only the polygons on the Dreamcast are WAY better-looking. Dreamcast can also do high-res and hardware anti-aliasing, both of which the "superior" PS2 can't do. Ports of Dreamcast games to the PS2 look TERRIBLE compared to the originals. "And Xbox 360, with you compare with a PS3, it's far worse in graphics." You're just plain wrong. The GPU in the Xbox is superior to the one in the PS3, and is much more customized for console graphics (the PS3's GPU is basically a cut-and-paste PC part). Sure, the PS3 can do good graphics, but it can't do anything that the Xbox can't do. Most of the games I've compared side-by-side look better on the 360. I can understand having a personal preference of one over the other (personally, I've always found Sony consoles' graphics to be quirky, but unique), but to state that the 360's graphics are "far worse" is just absurd.

@godzillavskong Not only was it more complicated, but it used an entirely different method of rendering polygons (ever notice how polygons on the PSX are composed of triangles while polygons on the Saturn are composed of quadrilaterals?). That made porting a whole lot more difficult. Doesn't change the fact that the Saturn still had more power than the PSX, despite the common misconception of the reverse being true.

@buying1999 That's simply your opinion and nothing more. See, I can do it too: "PS3 is the BEST console EVER made!" - dawnofhero

@buying1999 lol 360 sucks compared to ps3 what games do you have that are worth playing besides halo and gears. oh and as far as the online goes psn is better I don't lag out alot like live does.and for the record most of the 360 sales are due to people having to buy another console cause of rrod plus the ps3 will surpass 360 in about a few more months if you do the math its selling faster now.

I still can't believe some people fully believe that the Wii U will only catch up to PS3/360 in terms of processing power. Really people? The Wii U is rumored to have a Radeon RV770 GPU. That is at least 3 generations ahead of what's found in PS3 and Xbox360. While I don't think for a second that Wii U will be able to compete spec wise with PS4 / Xbox 720, Wii U will be far more advanced than any of the current consoles. Anyone who even mildly follows hardware would tell you that because the GPU power in PS3 and Xbox360 is only equivalent to integrated graphics today. Therefore, practically any GPU from 2010-2011 would be much faster than the GPUs of PS3/360. The question remains, will developers actually take advantage of this new hardware or will Wii U suffer the same fate of Dreamcast by launching too early and developers failing to take advantage of its capabilities? Also, it's possible that Wii tarnished Nintendo's reputation enough in the eyes of hardcore gamers, that it will be far more difficult for them to attract those gamers back EVEN if Wii U is extremely powerful, etc. Finally, it seems a lot of gamers are not yet ready to upgrade. Therefore, it seems one large reason that MS and Sony are delaying their consoles well into 2013-2014 period is becaus they want to time the upgrade path for current gamers. If the majority of gamers aren't willing to ugpgrade, it wouldn't even matter if Xbox 720 had 100x more power and sold for $399 because mentally they aren't ready. I am sure MS did a lot of focus groups and market testing to arrive at the 'most optimal' launch period.

No....the truth is that the n64 was a way better system than the playstation, but it did not sell as much as the playstation, unfortunately.

The truth is, wii was always the better systems, its games just didn't attract to the typical hardcore gamer, who is limited to one type of game. Bootyholes