Like weeds: new Natal Xbox rumor shot down, 3D Xbox rumor pops up to take its place
by Paul Miller 
posted Jun 16th 2009 at 11:28AM
Meanwhile, TeamXbox, the ones who seemed to think the Zune HD was a portable game console of sorts, have a new rumor in the works: the next Xbox 360 won't be out in 2010 because Microsoft is going to wait for 3D-capable TVs to become more commonplace and launch a stereoscopic 3D console at that time. It sounds enticing, but given the fact that the Wii has succeeded directly in the face of its next-gen television empowering PS3 and Xbox 360 competition, we can't say it's the most likely of ideas -- if anything, Microsoft will need to have some solid backwards compatibility for us 2D "Take On Me" types.
[Via PC World]
Read - Microsoft sources play down reports of new Xbox
Read - TeamXbox predicts 3D Xbox
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
BAWWW @ Jun 16th 2009 11:30AM
IT BURNS
webran61 @ Jun 16th 2009 11:42AM
@ Alex,
But how can you see his face? This is the internet! Is someone watching me?
DirtyVegas @ Jun 16th 2009 11:53AM
This is the internet. Someone's always watching you.
kal326 @ Jun 16th 2009 12:30PM
It's that damn Geico money...."I always feel like somebody's watching me!!"
David @ Jun 16th 2009 11:32AM
Didn't the Jimmy Fallon article show that Natal can exist on the current Xbox 360 design? It's sitting out in front of the monitor he was using?
Andir3.0 @ Jun 16th 2009 12:31PM
... with the help of a PC sitting in the huge wooden box to help...
Az1Z @ Jun 16th 2009 11:32AM
Whats with the pic?
David @ Jun 16th 2009 11:34AM
that's how 3-d images appear in books when you don't have the glasses on.
At least circa Friday The 13th 3-D
Alex @ Jun 16th 2009 12:11PM
That is how the image looks like without 3D glasses but if you wore some it would look 3D
fistpittingnork @ Jun 16th 2009 11:45AM
*sigh*
Apparently you've never looked at the back of a Fruity Pebbles box as a kid.
Sad world.
ben @ Jun 16th 2009 11:49AM
Gimmicky 3D glasses, not just for children anymore. Stupid adults welcome too.
n8bocks @ Jun 16th 2009 5:12PM
where do i get the glasses?
rickjamess04 @ Jun 16th 2009 9:00PM
The pic makes me think of that No Fear t-shirt that says "sight for sore eyes".
Chird @ Jun 16th 2009 11:35AM
It doesn't make sense for them to release a new system with Natal coming out. The 360 already became profitable about a year ago, if they can make further profit from Natal, without having to release a new console, which would cause them to start making negative money again, why the hell would they bother?
If anything, they'll do what they've been doing and release a subtly updated console. They already updated for HDMI and 45nm. Maybe they'll turn around and do BluRay and/or DisplayPort...
Andir3.0 @ Jun 16th 2009 12:33PM
As evidence has shown add-on peripherals do not sell well.
They will have to include it with every XBox720 (or whatever they'll call it) if they want it to take off. Otherwise it will be for niche games in very few houses and no developer is going to bank on users having it.
Chird @ Jun 16th 2009 12:38PM
True, but even in that scenario, they would have to make it the ONLY way to control the games if they want it to sell better. And I kinda don't see that happening within the next 12-18 months.
Like you said though, if it doesn't have a faithful software backing it WILL fail. Hopefully M$ can rally the developing community to get behind it early enough that they'll have a decent selection of games at release. I wonder where a fledgling company like Microsoft will find the money to convince them....
Taylor. Yes, Taylor. @ Jun 16th 2009 1:00PM
@Andir3.0
God, I am SOOOO sick of that argument. Everyone acts like marketing is some accident, and it's just not. Gaming isn't the same as it used to be, Microsoft spends LOADS of money promoting their games, and all they have to do is add a few more bucks to the royalties for Natal-enabled games and manufacturers will do it.
Trust me, Microsoft won't let this fail.
-Taylor
Fry Guy @ Jun 16th 2009 6:36PM
@Andir3.0 : Umm, Guitar Hero? Rock Band? Hello?
Andir3.0 @ Jun 16th 2009 7:06PM
Yeah, look at all those games that use the guitar and drums (besides those games you get with them...) I don't see anyone playing Halo with a guitar.
ThreeDee912 @ Jun 17th 2009 12:09AM
All they have to do is sell the 360 and the Natal attachment as a bundle for new buyers, and also sell the Natal attachment by itself for people who already own a 360. Easy as that.
Someone is here @ Jun 16th 2009 11:36AM
I'm guessing some yellow and "red?" 3D glasses are needed?
Am I right?
(I only have the red and blue, the ones used for chuck and the true disney 3d ones)
SiXiam @ Jun 16th 2009 12:07PM
It works with red and blue... I just checked.
Make sure the blue is on your left eye, otherwise it looks like the words under the image pops out.
StephenD @ Jun 16th 2009 12:34PM
Yes - they've got the 3D effect arse-about-face.
Peter @ Jun 16th 2009 6:09PM
Chuck used blue and yellow glasses, not red and blue. The picture in this post uses red/blue glasses. The 3D tech they are talking about in the article is either stereoscopic 3D (movie theaters) or active 3D (nVidia 3D vision).
Watts @ Jun 19th 2009 3:02PM
Blue on the right eye, Red on the left. You didn't really check, did you?
Az1Z @ Jun 16th 2009 11:36AM
but arent all the blu-ray lenses sold by sony?
Chird @ Jun 16th 2009 11:44AM
I assume that was a reply to me(?). Yeah, they are, but they could still license it (at a cost). That's how LG, Samsung, etc. release their players and they seem to be doing ok dropping prices (better than freakin Sony in fact). Sony likes to exaggerate how much BluRay technology costs, in order to try and justify their ridiculously overpriced console (and BluRay players and laptops and everything else).
Regardless, they may try and bone Microsoft by skyjacking the price, but it could be worth it for M$ anyways, due to the late-to-the-game BluRay adopters (myself included) who are hesitant to fork over 500 bux for a console that has significantly fewer games and a pretty lackluster online community just to watch 1080p movies.
Az1Z @ Jun 16th 2009 11:48AM
Yeah, but why would Sony license them out to a competitor? it doesnt make sense to me
Matt @ Jun 16th 2009 11:51AM
"Significantly less games"? It isn't 2007. Stop using the same excuse not to buy a ps3, at least man up and think of a different one.
rv @ Jun 16th 2009 12:02PM
@Az1Z
No one would use it if it wasn't licensed out. Thats like Sony saying, " We have made blu ray. You have to buy from us. Movie studios have to come to us. We are the rulers of the hd world!!!1one"
Chird @ Jun 16th 2009 12:25PM
@Matt, It does have significantly fewer games. It came out a year later and has a much slower release cycle, so in reality it's fallen further behind than it was at release. But that wasn't my point. I should have said games worth playing. As exclusives go, at least for me personally, there's MGS4, Drake's Fortune and inFamous. That's it. I played Resistance (and Resistance 2) as well as Killzone 2. Did not enjoy myself, Motorstorm either. I would say GT5, but who knows when they'll get their act together with that one.
And as reasons (note: not excuses) go, I did provide an alternative: "and a pretty lackluster online community." For me that is just as important as the games. Live was already a step ahead and now with Last.fm, Facebook/Twitter and the updates to Netflix (not to mention the friend system and its updates and PlayOn), it's decidedly leaving the Playstation Network in its dust. Now if only they would release a freakin browser it would be pure gold.
BigDaddyDW @ Jun 16th 2009 2:35PM
@Chird, if you didn't enjoy yourself at all playing Resistance...why did you play Resistance 2?
Templarian @ Jun 16th 2009 11:39AM
"backwards compatibility", its sort of already 3d, just takes a few extra external tweaks for it to become 3d (of course not as good as a game build for 3d). Nvidia showed that.
Chris Dunning @ Jun 16th 2009 11:42AM
I don't think enough people are buying into the 3D craze to make it worthwhile for a company to make a play for that market yet. Not saying it wont happen someday, but I think the market for in home 3D entertainment needs to grow before this happens.
Taylor. Yes, Taylor. @ Jun 16th 2009 1:02PM
Well, Pixar has said that every new movie they make will be released in 3D (like UP), and a few other movies lately have been. 3D tv's are just around the corner so once they are available, I think we will be seeing more 3D content. Blu-ray already has a spec for 3D.
-Taylor
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jun 16th 2009 11:42AM
I'd be shocked if both of the next Sony and MS consoles don't do 3D. Nintendo I can't predict, they haven't even adopted digital audio yet, which is 15 years old.
HektikLyfe @ Jun 16th 2009 11:43AM
Wonder what a 3D RROD would look like?
I believe it will most likely be a special pack in but no drastic changes to the hardware. Not for a few years.
Matt @ Jun 16th 2009 11:52AM
It wouldn't be the RROD, it would be the RSOD (Red Sphere of Death)
superhobo @ Jun 16th 2009 11:45AM
Thanks for breaking my eyeballs, Engadget.
SewerShark @ Jun 16th 2009 4:26PM
It's better to brake your eyeballs than your balls.
DrEvil @ Jun 16th 2009 11:47AM
Don't forget that Sony had PS3's running Stereoscopic 3D games at GDC this year.
They had a version of Wipeout HD and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue running in true Stereoscopic using their new 3D-capable Bravias & Real3D Glasses.
No new hardware was require (except for the 3d TVs obviously)...
Technically MS wouldn't have to release a new console, if the 360 was powerful enough.
NBShermanator @ Jun 16th 2009 12:28PM
That's the thing...
Technically the Xbox IS powerful enough... which is why this whole "new hardware for 3D" crap is BS
Choco_Taco @ Jun 16th 2009 11:51AM
3D TV's are so stupid. who the hell wants to wear glasses everytime they watch TV? What happens when you have friends over. Is everyone going to have a stash of 3D glasses laying around, I hope this phase blows over soon.
l Squid l @ Jun 16th 2009 11:59AM
exactly what i was thinking.
Templarian @ Jun 16th 2009 11:59AM
Some of the screens don't require glasses. The Laser TV's don't require glasses. It's all a cost thing.
Chird @ Jun 16th 2009 12:31PM
I don't know about the other ones, but LaserVue from Mitsubishi you need glasses.
They aren't the traditional color swapping ones though. They're polarized i.e. they appear clear, but have a vertical filter in one eye and horizontal in the other that does some mind magic with the image on the TV to make it pop at you.
Taylor. Yes, Taylor. @ Jun 16th 2009 1:03PM
They have some prototype TVs that don't require glasses, only the first generation will require glasses and honestly, it's so cool I wouldn't mind, I've tried it.
Chill out.
-Taylor
ejordan @ Jun 16th 2009 3:23PM
I agree Taco. 3D tv is definitely a phase. Every time I hear it in the news I think 'bull'. 3D TV's that don't require glasses? I'd rather spend the extra thousand or so on a better quality TV than one with niche tricks. Think about the wasted processor power and memory 3D images would sap from the console, when instead you could get better graphics, AI, or deep color. When will we get deep color games?
Choco_Taco @ Jun 16th 2009 4:30PM
I remember 1998 when 3Dfx had stereoscopic glasses and it was suppose to be the next huge thing. It's been more then 10 years and I don't really see any huge advances, except maybe the headaches aren't as bad. I don't even really consider it 3d as more of a 2d / 3d image. Maybe once an actual holodeck type device comes out I will care. Until then I consider it a cheap gimmick, I don't know why companies are investing so much into it.
DirtyVegas @ Jun 16th 2009 11:53AM
@ webran61
This is the internet. Someone's always watching you.