Four Microsoft Employees Confirm Working On Xbox Next-Gen

With Kinect still in its first year, it is understandable that Microsoft would maintain a position that Xbox 360 still got a long life ahead of him and that they have no plans to release its successor any time "soon". On the other hand, the company has to actively work on researching and developing a viable successor to be ready to release it when the time comes.

The first solid proof about that R&D process is not actually a single piece of evidence, but rather four.

Recently, four Microsoft employees have updated their LinkedIn C.V.s separately to reflect their experience in developing the Xbox 360 successor.

The first employee is Jeff Faulkner who held the title of "creative director of Xbox Next-Gen" from January 2011.

The second employee is Jonathan Harris who has been the "senior creative director" of Xbox Next-Gen since September 2011. In his C.V., Harris revealed that he is working on "Designing the next generation of entertainment."

Next in the list is Patrick Corrigan who takes part in providing UI and branding support for "next-gen XBOX on all forms of media."

Finally, an Xbox hardware intern called Joe Langevin is helping to prevent "electromagnetic interference in next-gen devices."

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Meh

Your argument doesn't do you justice in fact it just smacks you in the rear, its like having two mirrors and your standing in the center cussing away at an infinite void of you.

Most people that have

Most people that have consoles also own a mid range (or so) pc, therefore they cant miss out on games that are pc only, but pc fans that hate consoles, will miss out on many games that are console exclusives. why the hell would you want to stick to only one gaming platform, that's boring.

In part you are wrong.

@Ignorance isn't bliss ------- You'll find that regardless of whatever the next gen consoles overall performance will be, it is dictated by the hardware available at that time. -------- The company's like Sony and Nintendo who both use propriety customized chipsets for their consoles are largely based on current technology available at the time of design. That means that once they make the developer consoles, or some form of a developer console available, the end user hardware (what we can buy) that hits the shelves will be using technology that is already 6 - 12 months old. ------- Basically it means that within the next 6 to 8 months it will have been superseded by PC hardware tech anyway. ----- though there is this gap between what is the fastest, which i don't really care about anyway, there is no escaping the facts that console hardware by the time it hits the shelves is already up to a year old. -------- As for DirectX, i have to say that yes, it is a main cause for holding back development. ------ though it has been great for developers to get a quicker turnaround on games development, it has also allowed for lazy coding. This has been more evident over the past 2 to 3 years than at any other point. ------ Like many people here, i too own a Wii, PS3 and Xbox360, but i also own a PC too. -----
My problem is that i want to play a game for the PC. Not a lazily half-arsed port with a really lackadaisical control system that feels more suited to a pad than a mouse and keyboard. ----- Sometimes i get the feeling that the developers assume everyone owns a control pad, and for those that do own one because it came with their console, they assume that we would be happy or willing to use one. ------ This is no more evident than in ID's game Rage. -----
There is such a massive difference in mouse speed between in-game menus and the player controlled interface, and it's far, far worse when you are doing the driving missions. -----
Simply put, over the years all of the main developers bar a few have turned their backs on the PC market. ---- Yes, the market maybe growing in the terms of overall sales but what i'm talking about is developers making the most of the hardware available to gamers. Not just simply making a multi-platform game and then bodging a one size fits all control system or giving us average graphics because the people who play the same games on the consoles might complain because the PC version looks so much more superior. ---- I have a PC & console for a reason. It's because i want to play PC games and console games on each of the systems respectively. Regardless of graphics. ---- Do i want to be able to play a game like Super Mario on the PC? No. Do i want to play a game like Call of Duty on a Console? No. ------- I have separate systems for which i personally feel each type of game is best suited for. Hence the reason why i buy those type of games on separate systems.
Personally, i'd be happy for a developer to piss off and make their games purely for consoles rather than having to continuously suffer a shit control system or average graphics just because they couldn't be bothered or that it wasn't 'financially viable'. ----- I do personally believe that i will stop playing most games on my PC in the years to come. --- With the new OnLive game streaming service that is now available, i think in the years to come it will only get worse.

Ignorance isn't bliss

@Yaaay! > 55 million bought the last one. I would expect similar or greater numbers again.

@eh can you tell me how many PC's bought > 5 years ago can play the games being released today? How about I answer it for you? None.

As a long time PC gamer I agree it is great but if you want real stability and longevity you are going to go console. Another generation or two of consoles and you won't be able to say that the humble PC is the dominant platform any more.

Anyone who says otherwise is vainly hanging on to the thin strings (developers like Blizzard, Valve etc) that carry PC gaming. Oh, and even they can not afford to ignore consoles when the target audience number around 200 million.

If you're going to answer a question,

try to answer it right. The right answer is: any 5 year old gaming rig can run any game available now @ the same or better quality level as any console. My Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, Radeon 4850 system runs everything fine & pretty much maxed @ 1280x1024 w/4x AA & AF. If you can't get 5 years out've a system for gaming then you either don't know who to build, or don't know how to keep it running lean & mean. My system does everything, it is my home computer that I game on. It wasn't very expensive, all you generally have to upgrade is the mobo, CPU, GPU & memory. Cost is less than a new gen' single purpose video game shit box & PC's really do do EVERYTHING. How much was a Piece of Shit 3 when it was released? Like $600? I don't spent that much upgrading my system.

Target audience "around 200 million"? How many PC's do you think there are for every console? I think Blizzard & Valve could ignore consoles quite easily. Steam is hugely successful & there's nothing that really needs to be said about Blizzard. I'm not a fan, but I've heard enough about their success. Versatility is the name of the game bitch. I had this argument w/someone over videophones. Why would one want such a thing? Another piece of junk only good for one job, when we already have things like "smartphones", laptops, desktops & now so called "smart TV's", which are all just different forms of personal computers "PC's". The day a console can do anything better than a PC I'll eat your shit. The day it can do all a PC can is the day it's no longer a console is it?

Stability? My PC has never given me an RROD. Maybe your department store one does. What are you talking about another gen' or two of consoles & the PC won't dominate anymore? Define dominate. Power, versatility, capability & technology? Yeah it's gonna dominate, always. It's what determines what you get in your shitty little console & it always will, because there will always be more PCs being sold & used in the world than consoles. All the crappy console games don't get designed on consoles bud, they get designed on PCs. Consoles are too single purpose to have two more gen's in them. TV's will become full blown PC's & games will come straight from Steam before you see a Shitbox 1440, or whatever dumb, lame, uninspiring name they'd come up with for it.

Hahaha... What??

I have all the console systems made, literally, every one, Coleco, jaguar, and everything else up to the PS3. I also have 4 PCs, One with all the most current tech, one Q8800, one E6600, and one P4. The e6600 is 4 years old, and I have a 2xHD4890 in that system and it can run anything DX 10.1 max detail and resolution just fine. And the 4890 cards go for less than 80 bucks used.

Oh, and the console systems we play here in the US, dont have nearly as large a following as PC users abroad. I went to Japan, and no one had a Xbox 360, it was either PC, Wii, or PS3, and the same goes for Europe. Most Xbox sales are in the USA

I love it when people have no idea what they are talking about.

Way wrong

Its not the big developers carrying PC gaming, Its the independent ones like Tripwire, Stratery First, etc. The PC gaming market is larger than the console market, and more profitable. With the trend going toward digital DL, Developers are recognizing that PC is where the gaming indursty is headed. My 2x2TB Hard drives can hold hundreds and hundreds of games. How many games can an Xbox 250G hold?? Maybe 25?? Piracy on consles, and game resales are a real problem for the Developers, this is why they are moving toward digital downloads. Look at what EA is doing. Research that and you will see that they want to move away from physical purchases, and more toward digital download. Steam has completely changed the gaming industry, now indie companies have the ability to compete with EA, Activision, and other big developers.

Yep

Pc game sales account for about 45% of the gaming market. The other 35% is spread across the platforms, in order from highest to lowest: WII, 360, PS3.

People buying games from retal outlets are getting ripped off.

Go buy a console game from Best Buy and pay 60.00.
Example: Best Buy Xbox 360 Homefront 39.33 10/14/11

I'll wait 6 months and pay 19.99 on a steam special.
Steam: PC Homefront with all DLC 25.00 10/13/11

HAHAHAHAA.... console suckers!!!

Lets make the inverse

Lets make the inverse comparison shall we? How many last gen games can your current gen console play? What about your PC? If you're tech savvy you can run any game from the dawn of pc entertainment to the current ones. As for PC gaming being small in a couple of gens, you really should read more news as EA, Ubisoft and others have recognized PC as a growing market once more.

That's because next-gen games

That's because next-gen games on the PC don't have to be crippled in order to run on prehistoric hardware. Being able to run games with lowered visuals and dumbed down gameplay isn't something to brag about. I'd much rather spend $800-1000 every two years than play on a console just because it'll run gimped games. This isn't an attack on consoles and console gamers (I couldn't care less about what you choose to play games on), but bragging about a piece of hardware that's severely stalling gaming software/hardware advancement is just wrong.

You know...

If we could kill off the Xbox and Microsoft in the console wars, we could get them to finally make a heavily efficient DirectX or skip it all together to access the hardware directly easily through Windows making PC games 10+ times better than they are now.

Direct hardware access

Direct hardware access existed before directx, devs arent using it anymore for a reason. YOU HAVE TO CODE THE GRAPHICS PART OF THE ENGINE FOR EACH DIFFERENT CHIPSET. Get you facts straight before posting moron.

You don't belong...

"I said they could make it easier to do so" - That's what directX does. There is no such thing as magic (easy, compatible and highly efficient) in computing. Go back to farmville granny, tech talk isn't for you.

Perfidious

That makes no sense, because DirectX has been acknowledged to be holding back progress according to AMD (ATI). And Further still, Windows is a product of Microsoft... NOT A COMPANY...so it dosnt produce games... Microsoft owns both Windows and Xbox. The point your making is fallacious.

Uses big words, but can't read

That is exactly what the first post is saying. DirectX currently sucks. Microsoft themselves are most likely holding it back so they can get people to buy consoles instead. If the Xbox flopped and they dropped out of the console business, they may make DirectX better or skip it altogether, adding better support for direct hardware access, which would DESTROY consoles in performance and quality. No where in the post claims Windows is a company...

Not Quite.....

The amount of money Microsoft brings in from console sales pales in comparison to what the company makes from software sales ( full windows OS 199.99+ / New bare bones Xbox 99.99). Microsoft is not purposefully holding back graphic advancements. Is a system of, "if it aint broke, why fix it?". Sure, It could be better, and is about to get better, picture quality graphics are just around the corner, and it wont be on a console.

This whole Console VS PC debate is retarded. PCs will always be superior to the console, and one day, you wont really have either. The television and PC will most likley integrate into one device, and everything will be streamed, or downloaded. Once the CPU and GPU are integrated, the processing power of the PC will multiply by 25x. This is in the process of becoming a reality, and its probably only 6 to 7 years away from being available in a large variety. The beauity of the PC is that you can develope different graphic engines. You cant do this with a console, thats why developers like the console so much, its easy, but the graphics and games suck, with both neutered, and dumbed down. Developers tried strategy on consoles with Halo Wars, Universe at War, etc..... And we see why they have not tried it again.

i was thinking in my head

i was thinking in my head yesterday or today before i even went online at all damn is it not about time for a new xbox and ps3 but was thinking that they could maybe just start putting new hard drives and memory and graphics and processors in the current format and maybe build a new user interface but mainly it needs directx 11 support to be next-gen these days then i read this and think to myself am I picking this stuff up in the airwaves or something I want to a ps3 only because rocksmith was just released and i have a rather well built guitar and have beeen looking at this game for a while now and am upset because my first two xbox 360's broke within a couple years and i played halo 3 all the time, and my bro has a ps3 for like the 5 years now and no failures. damn i wish i had gotten ps3 because even though halo 3 is fun rocksmith looks to be the real deal and halo is an addiction.

True that

Yea my brother has RROD'd 3 xbox 360's and my girlfriends brother 2 xbox 360's while our origional 60G ps3 with a new laptop HDD still is going strong!
Oh and the xbox 360 scratches disks to shit, my brother has many ruined games due to it. My ps3 games have no scratches and is built better, have you ever pulled a xbox apart? Its just a circuit board, no components (CHEAP)

Yaaay!

Does that mean we can look forward to more hardware errors like the RLOD and piss poor customer service? ------------- I wonder how many mugs will buy one?

Ummm...

Duh? They are always working on the next console. Seeing what hardware they can put in it, developing new UIs, etc. It's just when they think the new hardware is cheap enough and is far better than the previous harder to justify finally releasing the next console.

Add new comment