Microsoft confirms next Xbox will not be at E3 this year

[Soldier 95B]

i'm not confused. i didn't say you accused him of derailing - just that it wasn't. i was a perfectly valid question for him to ask, so i don't understand why you won't answer or provide a link to one of the other threads.

you can't say "MS is focused upon the core", and then not expect people to want you to back it up.

I have backed it up in other threads as have others. I dont have links right now as I am on my phone.

You are not making yourself clear and it does seem you are quite confused. You have also changed the subject.

TapaTit

[J3ff3]

I have backed it up in other threads as have others. I dont have links right now as I am on my phone.

You are not making yourself clear and it does seem you are quite confused. You have also changed the subject.

TapaTit

well phones do have small screens, so perhaps you haven't read my posts carefully enough, because they aren't confused in any way.

i'll try to condense it. these aren't "console comparisons to intentionally derail threads" - they are responses to unsubstantiated comments, such as 'MS is focused on the core'. what do you expect people to say? of course they are going to start comparing MS to other publishers in order to disprove your view.

if that is a derailment, you are a catalyst.

[War]

At the same time you cant simply buy quailty, you cant just plonk money down and say great game.
Some games with huge budgets have faild miserably.
Good games are made randomly, by random talent with random ideas.
If that wasnt the case we wouldnt have great games.
They would all be greet.

This is not case at all. There is no "random" talent. You have talents in your firm because they are well scouted and offered a good deal. You have good game because you have good talents, good managements and etc with good financial backing. I repeat, you dont randomly make games and think that it will randomly be good or not.

Games with huge backing didnt just fail "randomly". they failed cause of poor management. Lack of talent. Inefficiency and etc. NOT RANDOM.

How are we even arguing about this? If it were truly random, then we WONT have good studios like Bungie, Epic, Naughty Dog and etc. Cause they will sometimes randomly make good games and randomly make shit which is absolutely not true.

What you are saying basically goes against everything.

If you believe that Sony are MS's only competition in games, then you've really missed the boat.

Sony and MS are the main competitors who try to offer something to their respective console.

CAN WE MOVE THIS DISCUSSION ELSE WHERE? this is off topic as is. And you still did not answer my question. you just avoided it. You cant just say one is better than other then turn around to refuse answering same question.

[Soldier 95B]

these aren't "console comparisons to intentionally derail threads"

Correct. NOT EVERYONE is intentionally derailing the thread. I agree, we should be able to have mature debates by including the competition and comparison. However, it seems a select few have different intentions, which is why THE staff as asked that comparisons be put in the comparison forum. Some ruin it for others.

they are responses to unsubstantiated comments, such as 'MS is focused on the core'. what do you expect people to say? of course they are going to start comparing MS to other publishers in order to disprove your view.

You said above that I came in and said Microsoft is focused on the core. It's an opinion based on my research, and was in reply to:

http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread...=1#post5793914

Which is the first post that started the entire casual/core derailment.

So, we really do not understand why you insist that my replying to someones opinion with my opinion needs "back up", everyday, on every thread, over and over again.

Clearly, you have missed much of the thread or forum.

[Soldier 95B]

If you really want to have "mature" debate, then you should stop making unsupported and outlandish statements.

But I haven't.

Explain what you mean. Support your argument.

Already did.

Also, you should read before clicking "dislike", kinda immature to just click "dislike" after 5 seconds i just posted that long comment. It contradict your whole stance on mature discussion and such. Dont you think?

I click dislike on posts that I dislike after reading them.

[War]

But I haven't.
Already did.
I click dislike on posts that I dislike after reading them.

I think about 5 people responded to your comment and you haven't answered any of their questions or supported them still. You still haven't answered Jeff's comment.

[Soldier 95B]

I think about 5 people responded to your comment and you haven't answered any of their questions or supported them still. You still haven't answered Jeff's comment.

Sounds good War. Thanks!

[Two4DaMoney]

Quality vs quantity is not whats important. It damn sure wasn't what I was talking about before yung got the shit storm started(ps3 vs 360).

My point was that Sony still TRIES new i.p's with a lesser budget than MS. Them failing or succeeding was not the point. I questioned why MS can't do the same due to making more money than Sony. MS USED to do this before the focus shifted to kinect and Live titles. They had shadow run, too human and I can't recall anything else at the moment(im sure theres more) that they are afraid to try again on. Their comment about this was basically "They aren't going to do halo/gears numbers so why bother?"...My gripe is that there is all this money being made from the casuals and they are scared to try something new because it might flop. It could be a big hit. But they won't know until they try.

Phil also said that "the same amount of dedication that's put into gears went into too human and other "flops"." Too human devs blamed the problems on Epic. That right there tells you that things are being managed wrong. Phil Spencer was stupid enough to ok the further development of too human and it cost them 80million dollars. Phil knows what went wrong. You have to know what went wrong in his position overseeing titles.

You can't just half ass a new i.p. and expect for it to turn you a profit. You have to make sure it's something the gamers are going to want that isn't being offered by another i.p. Once you have that concept set then you have to nail the gameplay. That all goes to management. I'm talking about Sony and MS here. You have to make sure you got the right talent behind those desk before you spend a ton of cash on a title. If it's not panning out then you axe it.

The biggest example of this is the uncharted series. Uncharted 1 didn't sell well but Uncharted 2 came out(being managed better) and lifted the bar. It sold well. It can be done. Management is the key here. That's why I look at "Quality over quantity" as a bullshit excuse not to try something new or fixing an exclusive you released in the past.

All of this is just what makes me question where MS will go at the start of next gen but of course we won't know until it's revealed and near launch. I'm in no way bashing MS. Just questioning their current direction. That's all. We can somewhat see where Sony and Nintendo wants to go because they have other products out and one on the way(wiiU).

[Brian6330]

Hmmmm, seems like not much besides new games and stuff about the Wii U will be at e3 this year :/

[admartian]

Sounds good War. Thanks!

That was the 'best' non-answer capitulation I have read.











Anyway, I came in here to read some possible info, speculation about the next xbox; and we have another console battle?

Figures...

[mynd]

This is not case at all. There is no "random" talent. You have talents in your firm because they are well scouted and offered a good deal. You have good game because you have good talents, good managements and etc with good financial backing. I repeat, you dont randomly make games and think that it will randomly be good or not.

Talent is not random, its dispersion is.
Identificaiton of talent appears to be random quite frnakly, with what poeple feel is a good game (another COD clone-Lets do it!)

Games with huge backing didnt just fail "randomly". they failed cause of poor management. Lack of talent. Inefficiency and etc. NOT RANDOM.

Some event happened that created that failure.
Somehwere somehow a set of thigns fell into place that made it happen. Chance/randomness whatever you want to call it.
If its not blind luck that bad mangers become bad mangers by fluking their way to a point where they are in over their heads but still dont care.

And its quite often simply a lack of a good idea.

How are we even arguing about this? If it were truly random, then we WONT have good studios like Bungie, Epic, Naughty Dog and etc. Cause they will sometimes randomly make good games and randomly make shit which is absolutely not true.

What you are saying basically goes against everything.

I think your confusing the creaiton of a game, with game ideas that make a truley great game.

Tetris was not created by a formula, it was created by a guy who had the idea.
Randomness/luck/chance/fluking a good idea, whatever you call it, he never made a good game since.

Truely great genre changing games come about by a set of random, unlinked events that bring people together, talented or not.




Sony and MS are the main competitors who try to offer something to their respective console.

CAN WE MOVE THIS DISCUSSION ELSE WHERE? this is off topic as is. And you still did not answer my question. you just avoided it. You cant just say one is better than other then turn around to refuse answering same question.[/QUOTE]

[War]

Sounds good War. Thanks!

Thx for proving my point, catalyst. Also, thanks for your "mature" discussion.

Talent is not random, its dispersion is.
Identificaiton of talent appears to be random quite frnakly, with what poeple feel is a good game (another COD clone-Lets do it!)

Some event happened that created that failure.
Somehwere somehow a set of thigns fell into place that made it happen. Chance/randomness whatever you want to call it.
If its not blind luck that bad mangers become bad mangers by fluking their way to a point where they are in over their heads but still dont care.

And its quite often simply a lack of a good idea.


I think your confusing the creaiton of a game, with game ideas that make a truley great game.

Tetris was not created by a formula, it was created by a guy who had the idea.
Randomness/luck/chance/fluking a good idea, whatever you call it, he never made a good game since.

Truely great genre changing games come about by a set of random, unlinked events that bring people together, talented or not.

Sorry. I am bit tired, so I wont answer in detail in wall of text, but I believe that success is earned and doesn't just "randomly" happen. and no identification of talent does not happen randomly. Firm that successfully recognizes talents are most often successful ones. If you ever gone through job interviews or promotion process, you should know. There is so many example of this this is not even worth discussing. Same with idea. Most ideas comes from talented and created people. And comes to fruition within a firm that recognizes what a great idea is. They dont put ideas in a box and randomly hope that they pick a best one.


And I dont think you really believe what you are saying cause implication of your argument is huge.

What would you say about MS's success on Halo, Forza and Gears? Just happened out of random? And What about Halo 4. Since whether it would be a good game would be "random" according to your argument, deciding to make only one core for a year is willing negligence towards core gaming on MS's part (using your theory at least).

Again, I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.well didnt want to make it a wall of text, but ended being one. lol

[mynd]

Sorry. I am bit tired, so I wont answer in detail in wall of text, but I believe that success is earned and doesn't just "randomly" happen. and no identification of talent does not happen randomly. Firm that successfully recognizes talents are most often successful ones. If you ever gone through job interviews or promotion process, you should know. There is so many example of this this is not even worth discussing. Same with idea. Most ideas comes from talented and created people. And comes to fruition within a firm that recognizes what a great idea is. They dont put ideas in a box and randomly hope that they pick a best one.


And I dont think you really believe what you are saying cause implication of your argument is huge.

What would you say about MS's success on Halo, Forza and Gears? Just happened out of random? And What about Halo 4. Since whether it would be a good game would be "random" according to your argument, deciding to make only one core for a year is willing negligence towards core gaming on MS's part (using your theory at least).

Again, I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.well didnt want to make it a wall of text, but ended being one. lol

Im not talking about randomness in the sense of literally randomly made games. What Im talking about is that extra something, those little bits of magic that happen in games made by companies.
These usually happen because of a random event, whether it be, hiring "just the right guy", who happend to be just looking for a new job etc etc, its life, like most things in life, the best of intentions by the most talented people can still go completley wrong.
Bear in mind, I dont consider sequals to games in anywhere near the same game creation process. Like anything creative, yes it 99% hard work, and 1% genius.

Its that 1% Im referring to.
Its that 1% that is the difference between a game that technically sound and perfectly good in gameplay..and something amazing.
.

[War]

Im not talking about randomness in the sense of literally randomly made games. What Im talking about is that extra something, those little bits of magic that happen in games made by companies.
These usually happen because of a random event, whether it be, hiring "just the right guy", who happend to be just looking for a new job etc etc, its life, like most things in life, the best of intentions by the most talented people can still go completley wrong.
Bear in mind, I dont consider sequals to games in anywhere near the same game creation process. Like anything creative, yes it 99% hard work, and 1% genius.

Its that 1% Im referring to.
Its that 1% that is the difference between a game that technically sound and perfectly good in gameplay..and something amazing.
.

Then it has no application to the original argument you brought up. Also, you dont just randomly get that "just right guy". Active scouting dramatically increases your chance of getting that "right guy". I recently had to go through an interview process where they literally went through 6-7 universities. In each university, they interviewed 6 people out of 50-80 people applying per university. Guess how many they are hiring? One out of 350 to 560 people that are applying. The company is paying for months of traveling expense and two interviewers salary to find this one guy.

Either way, you keep changing topics, but this "randomness" you brought up has no application to the argument.

So two choices. Choice A: one 91 rated game Choice B: 92 game 92 game and 83 game. Which one is better?

[mynd]

Then it has no application to the original argument you brought up. Also, you dont just randomly get that "just right guy".Active scouting dramatically increases your chance of getting that "right guy". I recently had to go through an interview process where they literally went through 6-7 universities. In each university, they interviewed 6 people out of 50-80 people applying per university. Guess how many they are hiring? One out of 350 to 560 people that are applying. The company is paying for months of traveling expense and two interviewers salary to find this one guy.

Either way, you keep changing topics, but this "randomness" you brought up has no application to the argument.

You can dramtically increase you chances by doing all things you say, for sure.
But that doesnt explain why Notch did what he did and EA didnt.
It doesnt explain why Jaffe made of God of War.
Getting back to what we said about throwing enough darts at the board, and you are saying therefore that everysingle one of Sonys release should have hit the bulls eye?
Why didnt they?

BTW, your the one who decided throwing darts at a board is random.
If your aiming at the bullseye everytime, what non-random event made you miss?
I mean surely you aiming at the bullseyes eveytime arent you (if thats the aim of the game).

So two choices. Choice A: one 91 rated game Choice B: 92 game 92 game and 83 game. Which one is better?

The one with the games I like to play.

[War]

BTW, your the one who decided throwing darts at a board is random.
If your aiming at the bullseye everytime, what non-random event made you miss?
I mean surely you aiming at the bullseyes eveytime arent you (if thats the aim of the game).

this is even more off topic of already off topic discussion, but no. Aim of the game isnt to get bulls eye. Also, it dart reference was not referring to random or randomness, please tell me what you meant.

Actually, this does sound like you are refering to randomness "No one is arguing if you throw enough darts and a dart board you'll hit the bullseye, and you may hit the bullseye better than the guy who threw only 2 darts."

which again is not correct. You are just denying what you said previously to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

and you are saying therefore that everysingle one of Sonys release should have hit the bulls eye?

where did i say that?

The one with the games I like to play.

That was not the answer you provided when you decided that MS is somehow best publisher. It was same problem addressed differently, but you answered differently. You did so because you knew that with your previous logic you knew you have to admit your previous choice was incorrect.

[three3-times]

Guys, keep this thread on topic.

[Soldier 95B]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57...-anytime-soon/

CNETNewsThe Digital HomeMicrosoft: Don't expect a new Xbox anytime soonSoftware giant says it will spend all its time talking about the Xbox 360 at this year's E3 gaming expo.

Microsoft is happy to hear about excitement surrounding a new Xbox, but the company cautioned recently that such a scenario is still premature.

"While we appreciate all the interest in our long-range plans for the future, we can confirm that there will be no talk of new Xbox hardware at E3 or anytime soon," Microsoft Corporate Communications chief Frank Shaw told All Things Digital in an interview published Friday. "For us, 2012 is all about Xbox 360."

And for good reason. Microsoft's console has been handily beating Sony's PlayStation 3 and Nintendo's Wii in monthly U.S. sales. Earlier this month, Microsoft announced that it sold 426,000 Xbox 360 units in February, easily outpacing the Wii's 228,000 unit sales. Sony didn't divulge unit sales for last month.


Although the Xbox 360 just celebrated its sixth birthday, sales are actually accelerating--a feat not often seen at such a late stage in a tech product's lifecycle.

The Xbox 360's secret sauce in the U.S. is made up of two key elements: pricing and games. Consumers can pick up the device for as little as $200, putting it within striking distance of the $150 Wii. What's more, game developers have been doubling down on the console, bringing many of their top titles to the platform. Some gamers consider the Xbox 360's title library the deepest in the business right now.

All that success and developer desire to continue to bring games to the console has ostensibly reduced Microsoft's desire to offer up something new anytime soon. In the past, game consoles would usually start to see demand falter after about five years.

Still, all this hasn't stopped the rumor mill from working overtime to determine what Microsoft might have planned for its next console. In October, video games site Develop reported that Microsoft was planning to announce the next Xbox at the E3 gaming show. Less than a month later, U.K.'s Edge Online cited sources who made the same claim. It was also reported at that time that the next Xbox would come with enough graphics firepower to match those found in the 2009 megahit "Avatar."

Gaming blog Kotaku said earlier this year that the next Xbox will feature built-in technology that stops people from playing used games on the device. Used games have long been a thorn in developers' sides, since the revenue generated from them goes solely to retailers, like GameStop, and not to the companies that have actually created the titles.

Although Microsoft won't be talking up the next Xbox at E3 in June, it will still have something to say about its current console. And CNET will be there to cover it.

So back on topic, I guess it does make sense to not introduce it now. The games keep pouring in, great scores are out there, prices are dropping, new features are being consistently added thanks to Microsoft's software services focus. I have to say, I can't complain in the least. If they keep bringing the games, I will keep bringing the money.

[J3ff3]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57...-anytime-soon/



So back on topic, I guess it does make sense to not introduce it now. The games keep pouring in, great scores are out there, prices are dropping, new features are being consistently added thanks to Microsoft's software services focus. I have to say, I can't complain in the least. If they keep bringing the games, I will keep bringing the money.

they don't keep bringing the games. third parties do.

i'm sorry, but you cannot praise them for their recent efforts at producing games, maybe for their strategy, which is very astute, but not their production of games.

[Soldier 95B]

they don't keep bringing the games. third parties do.

i'm sorry, but you cannot praise them for their efforts, maybe for their strategy, but not their production of games.

I never said once..Microsoft FIRST PARTY games or their production of games. Microsoft is also responsible for making sure GAMES are coming to their platform as well as helping developers from third parties to make them and bring them. I am talking about Microsoft first party, Microsoft published third and second party, XBLA and Xbox Live Indie Games.and third party multi platform...I look at all games. If you have a different opinion or set of rules to which you abide by for your gaming tastes or preferences, by all means share them. But don't discount mine and DO NOT put words in my mouth, understood?

I can PRAISE exactly what I want TO praise.

[F34R]

they don't keep bringing the games. third parties do.

i'm sorry, but you cannot praise them for their recent efforts at producing games, maybe for their strategy, which is very astute, but not their production of games.

ffs +rep mah man!

[J3ff3]

I never said once..Microsoft FIRST PARTY games or their production of games. Microsoft is also responsible for making sure GAMES are coming to their platform as well as helping developers from third parties to make them and bring them. I am talking about Microsoft first party, Microsoft published third and second party, XBLA and Xbox Live Indie Games.and third party multi platform...I look at all games. If you have a different opinion or set of rules to which you abide by for your gaming tastes or preferences, by all means share them. But don't discount mine and DO NOT put words in my mouth, understood?

I can PRAISE exactly what I want TO praise.

you honestly think that MS has to work hard to ensure games come to their platform at this stage in the console life cycle with such a large install base????

you can praise exactly what you want to, and i can bring you up on it.

"they keep bringing the games" implies they are providing a wide range of quality titles to the console. i keep waiting for the evidence of this. you could easily say "there are plenty of quality games to choose from on the 360" and i'd have no problem with it. but you don't.

its not the end of the world that they are taking this strategy, in fact i praised them for it, its very clever. why spend the money when you don't need to?

[Soldier 95B]

you honestly think that MS has to work hard

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? When did I say MS has to WORK hard at this console life cycle? I didn't. But they still do work to bring ALL games to their console.

you can praise exactly what you want to

Yup I can. So don't tell me what I can and cannot praise. That is exactly what you did, and put words in my mouth (just like you did above).

"they keep bringing the games" implies they are providing a wide range of quality titles to the console. i keep waiting for the evidence of this.

Ok, wait as long as you want. That won't change anything though.

I will ask of you one more time, kindly. Do not tell me what I can and cannot praise, and do NOT put words in my mouth....saying things I never said.

[F34R]

TOPIC _ Msoft @ E3 = new console.


They said they aren't. So.... lol Where does the discussion go now?

[J3ff3]

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? When did I say MS has to WORK hard at this console life cycle? I didn't. But they still do work to bring ALL games to their console.



Yup I can. So don't tell me what I can and cannot praise. That is exactly what you did, and put words in my mouth (just like you did above).



Ok, wait as long as you want. That won't change anything though.

I will ask of you one more time, kindly. Do not tell me what I can and cannot praise, and do NOT put words in my mouth....saying things I never said.

you can keep making sweeping statements about them "bringing the games" as if its somesort of achievement.

and i'll keep asking you for evidence of that achievement. i don't mind that much, but i'd prefer if you were more clear to avoid confusion.

they could close down their gaming division right now, and i'm sure the games would keep coming. gone are the days when they really had to fight to ensure equal footing with sony in terms of content.