Support NeoGAF

[Thunder Monkey]

2gb ram.....weak realy weak.

And yet still a huge increase over the 360.

Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.

 

[[Nintex]]

Yeah, $399 is entirely viable as a launch price at this point; people will pay that to the tune of 3-6 million units upfront and probably continue to buy it at least at moderately decent rates throughout the first year.

The issue is really that a $399 system needs to actually cost $399 to make and be designed with quick price drops in mind. They need to at least be planning a $299 pricedrop within the first year, with a roadmap that's chopping an additional $100 off the manufacturing price every year. Without that, they'll be right back in the situation from this generation where the price is killing them at retail while their excessive manufacturing costs keep them from dropping said price.

All MS needs to do is put Windows 8 on this thing. If investors, shareholders and the board see the Windows userbase growing with high percentages every year because they put it on Xbox's, phones and whatnot they don't care if MS writes down hundreds of millions in manufacturing this thing. Knowing MS they're going to do this next gen stuff in a big way or they drop it. That's how they roll.

MS wants you to put a Windows Phone in your pocket when you head to work to use your Windows PC with Office, use the Windows Tablet during meetings and end the day by browsing GAF on your Windows Laptop while Playing Halo on your Windows Xbox. The Xbox is their ticket to the living room, it has seen nothing but growth in the short while it existed and both Sony and Nintendo won't be able to compete with the Windows side of Xbox anyway. Well, maybe Sony if they partner up with Google that would be an interesting fight.

But MS can't start this 'integration' strategy unless they put Windows on their most popular consumer device, the Xbox.

 

[guek]

2gb ram.....weak realy weak.

To add to what has been said already, there's other issues in people expecting larger amounts of ram. There's also things like traces on the motherboard that need to be taken into account. Sure you could use 16 ram chips, but the cost of manufacturing the motherboard is going to jump big time. Currently the high end types of ram like GDDR5 are topping off at 2 gigbit chip sizes, which is equal to 256 megabytes. So 1 gig of GDDR5 ram needs 4 ram chips. It's not as simple as my PC has 16 gigs of ram so should my Xbox3!


To give you an idea of price differences, back in 2009 when iSupply did a breakdown of the PS3 the XDR ram chips used in it (64 megabyte sized) were estimated to be 10 bucks a chip. (the PS3 uses 4 of these) That comes out to a cost of $160 for 1 gig. At the same time 1 gig of DDR2/DDR3 ram was around $30 - $40.

EDIT

Don't have the iSupply link, but wanted to add a link showing ram prices in 2009
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WMPG/article.php/10706_3794471__8

Also, console ram >>> PC ram

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

And yet still a huge increase over the 360.

Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.

Also, wouldn't the fact that resolutions are not expected to exceed 720P/1080P help a lot?

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

And yet still a huge increase over the 360.

Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.

no its not.

4x increase is not a huge increase after almost 7 years.

It would be very hard to match the texture quality of say uncharted 3 in an open world game with 2 gb.

 

[Kaako]

And yet still a huge increase over the 360.

Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.

"Huge increase" is not the phrase I'd use in this situation. It's just an increase; nothing huge about it.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Also, wouldn't the fact that resolutions are not expected to exceed 720P/1080P help a lot?

And another factor.

I just don't get what is so iffy about it.

Your environments would still be larger (though do they really need to be?), you'll still have much prettier games, I could easily say they'd be about as close to a generational leap as you can expect under the heat, power, and price restraints the market has. MS seems to have made a big push into the casual gaming market and it is paying off in spades in America. And all it took was a hook and cheap console.

People don't care much about whats under the hood, but mainly what it can do for them. This system... well a system with 2 gigs of GDDR5, a modern customized GPU, edram, and a beefy CPU would be able to usurp anything PC's can do this year.

And they could gain an unfair advantage just from being able to set what standards come next in DirectX.

Whiners the lot of you. I'll buy both it and the WiiU. They'll have more than enough power to keep me happy until next go around.

 

[Raide]

Hopefully they add Keyboard and Mouse support so all those Developers can stop moaning about the lack of buttons on consoles. Despite it being on the PS3, its amazing how much it was underutilized.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

no its not.

4x increase is not a huge increase after almost 7 years.

It would be very hard to match the texture quality of say uncharted 3 in an open world game with 2 gb.

"Huge increase" is not the phrase I'd use in this situation. It's just an increase; nothing huge about it.

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather the systems be relatively inexpensive, reliable, and moderately powerful over what we had this gen.

First gen I've had a console die twice in the span of two years. Second not covered under warranty. My best friend practically gave me his otherwise I'd be a no 360 playing fool.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather the systems be relatively inexpensive, reliable, and moderately powerful over what we had this gen.

First gen I've had a console die twice in the span of two years. Second not covered under warranty. My best friend practically gave me his otherwise I'd be a no 360 playing fool.

0 failures and ample disposable income here. Bring on the 599 USD next gen power-hogs!

 

[abracadaver]

Don't forget 3D !

1080p 3D

 

[thuway]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather the systems be relatively inexpensive, reliable, and moderately powerful over what we had this gen.

First gen I've had a console die twice in the span of two years. Second not covered under warranty. My best friend practically gave me his otherwise I'd be a no 360 playing fool.

If you want modestly more powerful, look no further than the Wii U. If all the console manufacturers were to go for- "moderate improvements", we would get nothing more than just a PS3.5 or a Xbox360 X 2. I want something substantial.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

0 failures and ample disposable income here. Bring on the 599 USD next gen power-hogs!

That would be like one of the worst things to happen to videogames since the crash.

Very slow adoption is very bad for both gamers and developers alike.

No matter how much they might want that extra power. And again, nothing about the system I proposed would be weak. It'd still be more powerful than the WiiU, which is a lot more powerful than either the PS3 or 360.

Epic themselves allude to the WiiU being a half step. Like a mid generational console.

Using a GPU design finalized in 2011, with some blazing fast RAM, a sizable edram pool, and a modern CPU would equal very very pretty games.

 

[dr_rus]

The speculation I read (and like I said "speculation") noted that TSMC is still having trouble getting 28nm (32nm?) where it needs to be, and it was more than likely going to push everything back for a bit. I didn't mean that the technology couldn't or wouldn't exist, just that those process wouldn't be mature enough to be used as soon as originally thought.

Internet speculation is internet speculation though

28G for TSMC.
That's why I've said first half of 2014 for TSMC's 20G while technically it's a 2013 node in their roadmap (and 28G was supposed to be 2011).
Problems with ramping new products which push process boundaries doesn't mean that the process itself is unusable though. If some platform holder is willing to wait for 2014 then he'd probably will be able to launch at 22/20nm.

 

[ZombieFred]

Considering on how developers crafted beautiful games on 512mb of ram on this generation alone, 2 gig should be more than enough if the other components are top of the range?

 

[Majanew]

Considering on how developers crafted beautiful games on 512mb of ram on this generation alone, 2 gig should be more than enough if the other components are top of the range?

If it's 2GB they get to work with. I just don't understand the use of DDR3. Why would the system need that much RAM? 2GB DDR3 and ~1-2GB GDDR5?

 

[Raide]

Considering on how developers crafted beautiful games on 512mb of ram on this generation alone, 2 gig should be more than enough if the other components are top of the range?

It is more to do with PC gamers thinking all Consoles should have 4Gb and beyond, just because the average PC needs that amount.

I am really looking forward to seeing what developers can do with a more meaty console. Sure, 60fps and 1080p will do wonders for most games. Imagine Dark Souls at 60fps, imagine BF3 at 60fps on console. 2Gb will be plenty for developers to play with but 4Gb at least future-proofs it for a little longer, plus it will still be awesome even when Sony announce the PS4.

 

[Kermit The Frog]

That would be like one of the worst things to happen to videogames since the crash.

Very slow adoption is very bad for both gamers and developers alike.

No matter how much they might want that extra power. And again, nothing about the system I proposed would be weak. It'd still be more powerful than the WiiU, which is a lot more powerful than either the PS3 or 360.

Epic themselves allude to the WiiU being a half step. Like a mid generational console.

Using a GPU design finalized in 2011, with some blazing fast RAM, a sizable edram pool, and a modern CPU would equal very very pretty games.

And you know this how exactly?

 

[Thunder Monkey]

If it's 2GB they get to work with. I just don't understand the use of DDR3. Why would the system need that much RAM? 2GB DDR3 and ~1-2GB GDDR5?

I think at best that part is just bull.

I couldn't see them using RAM like that, no matter how cheap it is, because it's completely ineffectual. 2 gigs I can see, DDR3 I cannot.

It might cost them a buttload on the RAM alone, but 2 gigs of GDDR5 makes me drool.

That kind of speed and that much space. Huge textures flowing in and out of the memory. On top of whatever DX effects MS has their teams working on.

Like I said. I don't get it.

And you know this how exactly?

The very next sentence?

 

[gofreak]

I think at best that part is just bull.

I couldn't see them using RAM like that, no matter how cheap it is, because it's completely ineffectual. 2 gigs I can see, DDR3 I cannot.

DDR3 makes sense if they want more than 2GB of RAM in there.

For the same module budget as 2GB of GDDR5 you could have 2GB of DDR3 + 1GB of GDDR5.

There's no alternative but to involve DDR3 if they want more than 2GB and don't want to use more than 8 ram modules. At least as far as I know, I don't think higher density GDDR5 is on the cards for next year. DDR4 might be too immature next year to use if it's available at all.

If 2GB is all they want, then of course, all GDDR5 would be preferable. But they might figure it's more desirable to have larger capacity, even if some of that is slower.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I think at best that part is just bull.

I couldn't see them using RAM like that, no matter how cheap it is, because it's completely ineffectual. 2 gigs I can see, DDR3 I cannot.

DDR3 isn't unusable, it's the same thing we use for PC main memory. But it's substantially slower than the RAM that 360/PS3 had access to, and is thus a step backwards in at least one respect. Slower, non-unified memory (i.e. the system can't access the faster GPU memory) would likely sound the death-knell for backwards compatibility, as well.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

DDR3 makes sense if they want more than 2GB of RAM in there.

For the same module budget as 2GB of GDDR5 you could have 2GB of DDR3 + 1GB of GDDR5.

There's no alternative but to involve DDR3 if they want more than 2GB and don't want to use more than 8 ram modules. At least as far as I know, I don't think higher density GDDR5 is on the cards for next year. DDR4 might be too immature next year to use if it's available at all.

The math, the price, and their love of unified memory pools leads me back to 2 gigs of GDDR5.

Until shown otherwise I think that is the likely scenario. I expect substantial edram.

It might end up costing them some hardcore gamer cred, but I think the end result would be better than relying on a large pool of very slow RAM.

DDR3 isn't unusable, it's the same thing we use for PC main memory. But it's substantially slower than the RAM that 360/PS3 had access to, and is thus a step backwards in at least one respect. Slower, non-unified memory (i.e. the system can't access the faster GPU memory) would likely sound the death-knell for backwards comparability, as well.

If I have to keep reading how the system not having more than 2 gigs is some form of death for the platform, I can be hyperbolic too dammit!

 

[mrklaw]

Don't forget 3D !

1080p 3D

won't be any next-gen, not anytime soon at least - it'd need a HDMI standards update.

1080p/60 for 2D, and 720p/60 for 3D. Thats good because if a game can handle 1080p/60 without problems in 2D, it should look great in 3D at 720p.

 

[mrklaw]

I think at best that part is just bull.

I couldn't see them using RAM like that, no matter how cheap it is, because it's completely ineffectual. 2 gigs I can see, DDR3 I cannot.

It might cost them a buttload on the RAM alone, but 2 gigs of GDDR5 makes me drool.

That kind of speed and that much space. Huge textures flowing in and out of the memory. On top of whatever DX effects MS has their teams working on.

Like I said. I don't get it.

You only need the speed of GDDR5 for what is being drawn on the screen right now. Slower DDR3 RAM would be very usable as a fast cache, especially for open world games. You can store more of the upcoming parts of the level in the slower RAM, and just load it into the fast GDDR5 just before its needed. You walk/run around a level slowly enough that you have plenty of time to load stuff up from a slower RAM cache without issues.

GGDR5 will make whats on the screen look very pretty. Additional DDR3 RAM will make the worlds more expansive.

 

[gofreak]

DDR3 isn't unusable, it's the same thing we use for PC main memory. But it's substantially slower than the RAM that 360/PS3 had access to, and is thus a step backwards in at least one respect. Slower, non-unified memory (i.e. the system can't access the faster GPU memory) would likely sound the death-knell for backwards compatibility, as well.

The CPU's access to memory in 360 wasn't exactly great to start with. I'm sure most games saw the GPU using a majority of bandwidth, and CPU access didn't have fantastic latency either.

As long as the CPU<->GPU bus was designed to allow the same performance characteristics as 360's (i.e. accommodated decent CPU access to the memory off the GPU), the GDDR5 off the GPU could replicate the 360 setup for BC.

 

[DieH@rd]

won't be any next-gen, not anytime soon at least - it'd need a HDMI standards update.

1080p/60 for 2D, and 720p/60 for 3D. Thats good because if a game can handle 1080p/60 without problems in 2D, it should look great in 3D at 720p.

Im not sure, but bluray movies can be played in full 1080p 3D. They sequentialy show one full frame for right eye and then one for left eye. The video that is played is esentialy 1080p@48fps, and hdmi can transfer that much data without a problem.

 

[Durante]

DDR3 isn't unusable, it's the same thing we use for PC main memory. But it's substantially slower than the RAM that 360/PS3 had access to, and is thus a step backwards in at least one respect. Slower, non-unified memory (i.e. the system can't access the faster GPU memory) would likely sound the death-knell for backwards compatibility, as well.

This is just not true. My PC has 26 GB/s of (measured, not theoretical) main memory bandwidth on DDR3. Newer systems get up to 40.

The point of a large pool of memory is just what lots of people on GAF always claim they want: allowing better games, not just prettier games. Where "better" is defined as more interactivity, more openness and less/no loading.

 

[mrklaw]

Im not sure, but bluray movies can be played in full 1080p 3D. They sequentialy show one full frame for right eye and then one for left eye. The video that is played is esentialy 1080p@48fps, and hdmi can transfer that much data without a problem.

But you get 1080p/24/3D. So each eye only gets 24fps. I don't even think 1080p/30/3D is an approved spec, which should be doable as its just 1080p/60 levels of bandwidth.

So its not usable for games unless you want to play at 24fps.

 

[BurntPork]

The very next sentence?

Shut up! We all know that Wii U is a repackaged 360 with a cowboy hat!

To everyone worried about the DDR3, If this rumor is true, you can bet that the final unit will have better RAM. No question there.

As for the amount, keep in mind that MS originally planned to have 256MB. A 4x jump would not be shocking for them.

 

[Culex]

My question is that since 1080p is the max we'll be using for image fidelity, what is the REAL top end of video RAM that is truly needed to give the best picture quality?

 

[thuway]

My question is that since 1080p is the max we'll be using for image fidelity, what is the REAL top end of video RAM that is truly needed to give the best picture quality?

4 GB of high quality RAM is probably the best trade off we can get. If you want to go really bonkers, 2 GB of GDDR5/XDR 2 + 2 GB DDR 3 + 150 mb of ED RAM. That will yield too much win.

 

[nasos_333]

I wonder if VRAM can be 1GB or more, which would bring the whole ammount of RAM to 3GB total

 

[Jburton]

I wouldn't mind $400 personally, but I'd rather them put as much stuff in it as possible, since they only launch one every 5-7 years.

Bingo!

I certainly don't mind being premium price for a premium product, the higher the spec and the more features the better.

The real reason most people where unhappy with the PS3 launch price was not feature set or specs but rather the lack of polished and must have titles.

Especially considering where 360 was at the time in terms of polished titles that looked and felt next gen and at the cheaper price.


First dip of the toe for each of those companies into the HD pool, this time will see much more impressive pieces of launch software.

 

[GavinGT]

I wonder if VRAM can be 1GB or more, which would bring the whole ammount of RAM to 3GB total

Unified memory.

 

[Plinko]

No. People gladly pay $300 for smartphones they toss in a year. Don't make the mistake of thinking people don't buy baubles. Look at the tablet market.

No. Not even close to the same thing. Comparing smartphones and game consoles isn't helpful at all.

 

[Shtof]

No. Not even close to the same thing. Comparing smartphones and game consoles isn't helpful at all.

Very, very true. Game consoles will most of the time be the last thing people buy after laptops, phones and other electronic devices.

 

[eastmen]

That would be like one of the worst things to happen to videogames since the crash.

Very slow adoption is very bad for both gamers and developers alike.

No matter how much they might want that extra power. And again, nothing about the system I proposed would be weak. It'd still be more powerful than the WiiU, which is a lot more powerful than either the PS3 or 360.

Epic themselves allude to the WiiU being a half step. Like a mid generational console.

Using a GPU design finalized in 2011, with some blazing fast RAM, a sizable edram pool, and a modern CPU would equal very very pretty games.

I don't really agree.

The PC has allways featured scalable engines. THere is no reason why it can't be introduced into the console world.


Design the game around the Xbox Next and lower the resolution / texture quality and other factors for it to run on the xbox 360.

The 360 is still selling record numbers , MS can sell both a $150 xbox 360 and a $400 xbox next.

For games like COD there is no reason why a 360 user can't play multiplayer with a xbox next player. People have all diffrent levels of computers that play BF3 together perfectly fine.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I don't really agree.

The PC has allways featured scalable engines. THere is no reason why it can't be introduced into the console world.


Design the game around the Xbox Next and lower the resolution / texture quality and other factors for it to run on the xbox 360.

The 360 is still selling record numbers , MS can sell both a $150 xbox 360 and a $400 xbox next.

For games like COD there is no reason why a 360 user can't play multiplayer with a xbox next player. People have all diffrent levels of computers that play BF3 together perfectly fine.

You're espousing the exact same thing I've been talking about recently.

I agree with you. The console market would be a healthier place if PS4 engines could scale all the way down to the Xbox360. Nothing I posted would preclude that happening.

What I'm posting might make your thought up there easier, compared to some of these other guys outlooks.

 

[Mutombo]

I don't even really want a new console. I've talked about it with my friends - and this has probably mentioned in this thread numerable times as well - and the consensus seems to be that we're all fine with the current generation of graphics. It's only just now that PC seems to overtake the 360 and the PS3... and to give game developers that extra push of freedom I understand why (ie) some extra memory is needed. But I can also see why dev's think this current generation is fine and would want to continue making 360 or ps3 gen-quality-games. I predict a new console on which you can still play 360 games, both the downloadable (xbox live) and retail ones, but will also be able to play newer generation games... the ones that the dev's will be able to produce in a cost effective manner a few years after the release.

So 'upgrade' seems to be a good choice of word by which I am entirely fine and agree with Cliffy B's statement on the Wii U also being some sort of upgrade. But I think in the next 10 years that's all we'll see. New ways to play new games but we won't run out of money to make them.

 

[60_gig_PS3]

You're espousing the exact same thing I've been talking about recently.

I agree with you. The console market would be a healthier place if PS4 engines could scale all the way down to the Xbox360. Nothing I posted would preclude that happening.

What I'm posting might make your thought up there easier, compared to some of these other guys outlooks.

that would be more like PCs where you need to upgrade every 2 years to get the best performance.

I would much rather have 1 console version and know that the game Im buying was designed specifically to run on that console.

 

[[Nintex]]

I don't even really want a new console. I've talked about it with my friends - and this has probably mentioned in this thread numerable times as well - and the consensus seems to be that we're all fine with the current generation of graphics. It's only just now that PC seems to overtake the 360 and the PS3... and to give game developers that extra push of freedom I understand why (ie) some extra memory is needed. But I can also see why dev's think this current generation is fine and would want to continue making 360 or ps3 gen-quality-games. I predict a new console on which you can still play 360 games, both the downloadable (xbox live) and retail ones, but will also be able to play newer generation games... the ones that the dev's will be able to produce in a cost effective manner a few years after the release.

So 'upgrade' seems to be a good choice of word by which I am entirely fine and agree with Cliffy B's statement on the Wii U also being some sort of upgrade. But I think in the next 10 years that's all we'll see. New ways to play new games but we won't run out of money to make them.

Lucky for us the gaming industry is stupid. So publisher like EA will make money on squeezing out the tablets, facebook, Wii U and whatnot and put all that cash to work on super graphical beasts for the Xbox Ten. Kinda like how Ubisoft subsidized their HD business with shitty Wii and DS games. Activision, EA, Ubisoft et all probably also think they can knock out their competitors by hitting them on the head with game and marketing budgets of over a billion dollars.

MS can do a billion things with their next Xbox. One probably not so popular strategy around the industry would be to actually put in 6 cores at max, 2GB DDR3 Main Ram, 2GB GDDR5 VRAM and a dual AMD HD7000-series GPU... produce the thing at $750 and take a $350 loss covered by Windows Apps, advertising, closing Rare and forcing Sony into bankruptcy. Part of the reason why the 360 and PS3 remain close in marketshare is because of the multiplatform releases. If MS could somehow trick the industry into backing their new uberpowered horse and PS3/WiiU ports aren't possible or at least much worse than their Xbox Ten counterparts Sony would have to up their game. They would take a hit on both Vita and PS4 in production and would have to support two very expensive platforms(a handheld 'PS3' and a balls to the walls insane console because MS forced them). Is this a likely scenario... no not at all. But would MS have the cash and support to do something like this, the scary truth is... they do and Steve Ballmer is a lunatic.

 

[onQ123]

Also, console ram >>> PC ram

no it's not Console Ram >>> PC ram.


it's more of the fact that there is millions of different PC configurations so devs can't develop games that make the best of the ram that's in a PC & add to that the heavy OS that's on PCs that's different for must people,


if there was a standard gaming PC that had the same specs as the top end gaming PC's that's out now & the devs made games just for that PC the games would look & run about 10X better than they do now on high end PC's.

 

[charsace]

no its not.

4x increase is not a huge increase after almost 7 years.

It would be very hard to match the texture quality of say uncharted 3 in an open world game with 2 gb.

Why though? I'm thinking uncharted uses 2048*2048 textures. With compression thats a 4mb texture? How wouldn't it work? Not saying I wouldn't like 3-4GB of ram in the system. Just saying that it might work at 2gb. I don't see textures getting bigger than 2048*2048*4. Of course I'm not accounting for other layers like normal and specular map.

I still think the final system will have a modified Radeon 7000 series card and somewhere between 2-4 gigs of ram. People are saying the dev kits have 6990 ati cards in them so the system will have something that pushes 6990 levels of graphics. That will probably be a 7850 or 7870.

I hate the idea of scaling games and having the old systems hold back the new ones in the areas of physics, animation, size of the worlds, etc. Devs have the tools to take advantage of new systems already in place I want to see them use them. I want to see better hair, more cloth physics, more physics effected actions, just more everything.

 

[[Nintex]]

People are saying the dev kits have 6990 ati cards in them so the system will have something that pushes 6990 levels of graphics. That will probably be a 7850 or 7870.

Holy shit, that's insane. If that's true they're not fucking around and Sony better start opening some more credit lines if they still want to compete.

 

[quickwhips]

Hopefully they add Keyboard and Mouse support so all those Developers can stop moaning about the lack of buttons on consoles. Despite it being on the PS3, its amazing how much it was underutilized.

you have enough buttons with ps3 or xbox now. you can map r1 and face buttons r2 face buttons and so on. Its lack of imagination that ruins most developers.

 

[Angelus Errare]

It is more to do with PC gamers thinking all Consoles should have 4Gb and beyond, just because the average PC needs that amount.

More like console gamers think the next console should have 4GB and beyond because PCs do.

 

[Majanew]

People are saying the dev kits have 6990 ati cards in them so the system will have something that pushes 6990 levels of graphics. That will probably be a 7850 or 7870.

Who are these people? Got a link?

 

[charsace]

Holy shit, that's insane. If that's true they're not fucking around and Sony better start opening some more credit lines if they still want to compete.

Its on beyond3D. Don't know if its true or not. Just saw that people were saying that.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

whatever pc does is completely irrelevant. Since the overwhelming majority of the games are simple console ports. Games designed with xbox 360 specs in mind. ie 512mb of ram.

Very few pc games use even moderate pc specs.

 

[Steverulez]

I would like more RAM than 2gb just to give the machine that extra bit of longevity. As said console RAM is utilised differently to PC RAM so 2gb is more than it sounds but this next console will probably need to last even longer than the 360 before a new one comes out so giving it that extra bit more could prove better choice in the latter years.

Also I would like MS to adopt blu-ray for the disc capacity and also to play movies it would be a bit annoying if my main machine didn't play the current disc format.