VG247 rumor Xbox 3: Blu-ray, 4-6 core CPU, '2 GPUs', Kinect as standard, net required

[parallaxscroll]

Xbox 720: Blu-ray inside, always-on netcon required

Xbox 720 has been fully detailed to some third-parties, VG247 has learned, and has been slotted in for a Christmas 2013 release. And yes: of course it’ll have a Blu-ray drive.



VG247 has learned that Microsoft has now detailed Xbox 720 to certain partners and has internally confirmed the machine for a Christmas 2013 release.

The next generation Xbox will have a Blu-ray drive, contrary to a recent report.

Multiple sources have confirmed this morning that the machine will have two GPUs. One said: “It’s like two PCs taped together.”

We’re waiting for final confirmation of specs, but the graphics cards are thought to be equivalent to AMD’s 7000 series GPUs, but “not CrossFire or SLI”. The GPUs aren’t structured as they are in a normal dual PC set-up, in which the two chips take it in turns to draw lines of the same object: Xbox 720′s graphics units will be able to work independently, drawing separate items simultaneously.

It was reported last week that PlayStation 4, internally codenamed Orbis, will also be powered by AMD hardware.

There will be “four or six” cores to the Xbox 720 CPU, one of which will be reserved for Kinect and one for the OS.

Xbox 720 will require an always-on internet connection as an anti-piracy measure.

We’ve also been told that the next generation of Kinect will be built into the device as standard.

The details have emerged in the wake of a hastily removed tweet from Sean Tracy, a technical designer for Crytek, that said he was attending the “Durango summit” in London at the end of February. Durango is though to be the codename for the console.

Microsoft is not expected to announce anything pertaining to its next machine until next year.

Many developers have been posting job openings for “next-gen” and “future-gen” systems for months.


http://ht.ly/a1eSh


It begins :D

[Oobgarm]

Xbox 720 will require an always-on internet connection as an anti-piracy measure.

Bullshit.

They'd not cannibalize a large part of the gaming populace that doesn't have broadband in their area or can't afford it. Plus, bandwith caps could cripple it.

[Kitsune Sniper]

The GPUs aren’t structured as they are in a normal dual PC set-up, in which the two chips take it in turns to draw lines of the same object: Xbox 720′s graphics units will be able to work independently, drawing separate items simultaneously.

The only reason they'd do this is... native, easier to compute 3D support?

[kedawa]

Anyone willing to buy something that requires a constant internet connection and a motion sensing camera deserves the Orwellian nightmare that awaits them.

[Tupin]

Bullshit.

They'd not cannibalize a large part of the gaming populace that doesn't have broadband in their area or can't afford it. Plus, bandwith caps could cripple it.
Yeah, the lack of cooperation/ between ISPs and gaming companies will ensure that this will not happen for a long time.

[Az]

Bullshit.

100% agreed. We always see numbers indicating how many are offline but never the opposite.

Companies want to sell to as many people as possible. Broadband penetration is not anything compared to do those who actually buy consoles.

From a statistical standpoint, take the number of families worldwide who do not have broadband and that's a customer that will never ever buy your product.

[Superman]

Interesting.

It's possible that any of these features could be instituted, but I'm in agreement with those that think the always on connection won't be one of them.

[The 1 2 P]

Xbox 720 will require an always-on internet connection as an anti-piracy measure.

Like others have already mentioned, I can't see this happening anymore than when I heard Sony was rumored to be doing this. The infrastructure is nowhere close to where it needs to be able to support this, both on the ISP's side and the availability to the customers.


We’ve also been told that the next generation of Kinect will be built into the device as standard.

The problem with this is that it would require you to place your console directly centered in front of your tv, which can be a challenge for those of us with multiple consoles hooked up and limited space. While I do think Kinect 2.0(or whatever they call it) will be included/bundled with all new purchases of Xbox Next I think it will still be a seperate unit that plugs directly into the console. That way it's easier to place on it's own and you can still put the console where ever you have space for it.

Probably the only truth about this rumor is that the next Xbox will be launching holiday 2013 but most of us have already guessed as much. But to be honest I wouldn't mind a 2014 holiday launch either.

[Leo_A]

An always on internet connection doesn't equate to digital distribution. Staying connected to Xbox Live doesn't take a ton of bandwidth and is something most of their customer base is doing voluntarily right now. The last stats I saw from two years ago put the percentage of Xbox 360's connected to the internet at nearly 75% and the percentage of PS3's at nearly 80%.

If those numbers have grown a decent bit over the past two years and we're looking at a release date at least a couple of years out from now, I don't think requiring you to stay connected as a DRM measure for retail games is out of the realm of possibility. Bandwidth caps certainly isn't a reason why they wouldn't impliment it since it doesn't take much bandwidth to be connected to Xbox Live (Although it's a valid reason why we don't have to worry about digital distribution taking over with this upcoming console generation).

And I think they mean by saying built into the device as standard that Kinect would be included with every console sold rather than selling some bundles without the device. I don't think they literally mean that the device is built into the console itself but rather than its inclusion with the console will be universal. And with the numbers the Xbox 360 is doing, I'm starting to lean towards a 2014 date after thinking 2013 was all but guaranteed for a while.

Anyways, I'm not buying into it. Last week the rumor was that the console wouldn't even have an optical drive (From the same source, even). And I'm sure next week it will be something new. I wouldn't be surprised if they're just writing things for hits rather than reporting on a rumor from an outside source.

[Press_Start]

An always on internet connection doesn't equate to digital distribution. Staying connected to Xbox Live doesn't take a ton of bandwidth and is something most of their customer base is doing voluntarily right now. The last stats I saw from two years ago put the percentage of Xbox 360's connected to the internet at nearly 75% and the percentage of PS3's at nearly 80%.

Here's a question: why do we need internet to play video games? Don't get me wrong. The internet is a wonderful thing but a liability it shouldn't be. What happens if my router breaks? Should my system be considered a brick if everything on my 720/PS4 works fine except my broken wifi? Why should my gameplay time be hindered when the servers at Sony/MS HQ shutdown due to downtime or cyber attack?

Game + Insert Machine = Play. A simple formula. You don't need to complicate it more than that.

[Bojay1997]

Same reason your cable or satellite box is in constant contact with your cable operator and won't operate otherwise. It provides you with access to VOD media, updates and other features and more importantly, provides another revenue stream for the cable provider. For large companies to keep making money on consoles and console games, selling people shiny discs one time which can be resold repeatedly thereby cutting the publisher and developer out of that revenue isn't going to result in profit. From the collector's perspective, it sucks, but that's the world we live in now unfortunately.


Here's a question: why do we need internet to play video games? Don't get me wrong. The internet is a wonderful thing but a liability it shouldn't be. What happens if my router breaks? Should my system be considered a brick if everything on my 720/PS4 works fine except my broken wifi? Why should my gameplay time be hindered when the servers at Sony/MS HQ shutdown due to downtime or cyber attack?

Game + Insert Machine = Play. A simple formula. You don't need to complicate it more than that.

[Leo_A]

Here's a question: why do we need internet to play video games? Don't get me wrong. The internet is a wonderful thing but a liability it shouldn't be. What happens if my router breaks? Should my system be considered a brick if everything on my 720/PS4 works fine except my broken wifi? Why should my gameplay time be hindered when the servers at Sony/MS HQ shutdown due to downtime or cyber attack?

Game + Insert Machine = Play. A simple formula. You don't need to complicate it more than that.

No disagreements here. I hope no one mistakes that post of mine as meaning I'm for such measures.

I'm against such nonsense as much as anyone here is. Many of my recent post at various boards (Including Digital Press, I imagine) have been due to speaking out against such things as the pace of new generation rumors has picked up in recent months.

If they impliment such things, I'll be out or at the very least my buying habits will be drastically changed compared to my current mentality (I'll "buy" as I play, gone will be the days where I might buy several dozen games over the course of a year and end up just actually playing two or three of them during the course of that year). I won't risk having many unplayed games on my account that are destined to go poof the minute they turn the servers off a few years down the road. Oh and I sure as heck won't ever pay anything close to $60 for an extended rental that I don't actually own.


Same reason your cable or satellite box is in constant contact with your cable operator and won't operate otherwise.

Your analogy doesn't work. The only function a cable or satellite box has is to deliver that content to your home. Without that connection, the box has no other purpose.

A console requiring a persistent internet connection isn't due to a functional need for it. Someone can easily enjoy a console without patches, access to YouTube, achievements, messaging, online multiplayer, digital distribution, Netflix, etc.

The only point of requiring a constant internet connection on an optical drive equipped console that would still be seeing retail game releases is as a DRM measure to restrict your freedom with retail software to combat used game sales. It isn't functionally driven like a cable box having to be connected to a cable source that would be useless if disconnected.

Not the same reason at all.

[Press_Start]

Same reason your cable or satellite box is in constant contact with your cable operator and won't operate otherwise. It provides you with access to VOD media, updates and other features and more importantly, provides another revenue stream for the cable provider.

Apples and oranges. Lumping cable/satellite and video games together is a fundamental fallacy. You're not selling a service, you're selling a product. The difference is I don't legally own what ever is shown on my tv but I do own my collection of video games that are legally MY property.


For large companies to keep making money on consoles and console games, selling people shiny discs one time which can be resold repeatedly thereby cutting the publisher and developer out of that revenue isn't going to result in profit. From the collector's perspective, it sucks, but that's the world we live in now unfortunately.

Bullshit.

So if I sell my used copy of Mass Effect 3 to my brother for $20, you're saying EA lost $60? That's a self-hating propaganda lie peddled by manipulative greedy gasbags like EA eaten up by gamers that don't know the wiser. It's also bad math. EA didn't lose $60 nor did they make $20. They made a big fat zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Why? One again, they're MY games. What I do with them or my consoles is none of EA's/Sony/MS business. First sale doctrine decrees it so and for every other non-service based industry for centuries. So why should the rules change for video game companies now?

[Griking]

Apples and oranges. Lumping cable/satellite and video games together is a fundamental fallacy. You're not selling a service, you're selling a product. The difference is I don't legally own what ever is shown on my tv but I do own my collection of video games that are legally MY property.



Bullshit.

So if I sell my used copy of Mass Effect 3 to my brother for $20, you're saying EA lost $60?

I think that in many cases (but not all) it does. I bet that many people who go to game stores looking for a specific game will pick up a used copy instead of a new one if they can save $10, as long as its in good condition that is.

[WCP]

Everybody thinks that Microsoft and Sony are bluffing with this stuff. Don't you guys see what's happening? Collusion is happening right before our very eyes. Sony and Microsoft with all these so called "leaks" that their systems will have anti-used game measures. It almost seems like Sony and Microsoft are trying to send somebody a message.... gee, I wonder who?

[Steve W]

It's the Blu-Ray drive that gets me. It's easy to get a Blu-Ray burner for your computer and pirate games. Microsoft has already had dealings with the perfect optical media they need for a new machine. HD-DVD. They had the technology already, and now that the market for the hardware is long gone, that means they now have a digital format that they can have absolute control over. They can buy full rights to the tech and then use it only for their new system. No HD-DVD burners in computers so that high school kids can easily burn downloaded games onto. And the format is almost as good as Blu-Ray. All the horrific amounts of money that went into the development of the technology, and it's just been wasted. Microsoft can buy it up for a fraction of the development cost and have a format that can't be pirated.

[Leo_A]

And then you end up with optical disc replication costing more and with fewer plants that would be willing to do it along with increased cost of disc drives and again fewer available suppliers. Taking advantage of the Blu-Ray format allows them to take advantage of the economies of scale associated with that format, a wider variety of suppliers, and with a faster learning curve rather than going it alone with what is now a defunct format. From a pure manufacturing standpoint, it has lots of cost advantages.

And you'd lose the ability to support the only active HD video disc in the market, one that is becoming more popular everyday and is a important segment of the marketplace. People seem to want to dismiss Blu-Ray as unimportant due to the growth of Netflix, but many millions of people regularly utilize the medium and the market grows significantly every year (30 seconds in Google shows that Blu-Ray sales grew 35% in 2011 alone; well into the Netflix/Hulu era and yet it's still growing by leaps and bounds).

The format is still relevant and still growing. If Microsoft wants to be at the center of people's entertainment centers, it's an important consideration.

[BHvrd]

It's the Blu-Ray drive that gets me. It's easy to get a Blu-Ray burner for your computer and pirate games. Microsoft has already had dealings with the perfect optical media they need for a new machine. HD-DVD. They had the technology already, and now that the market for the hardware is long gone, that means they now have a digital format that they can have absolute control over. They can buy full rights to the tech and then use it only for their new system. No HD-DVD burners in computers so that high school kids can easily burn downloaded games onto. And the format is almost as good as Blu-Ray. All the horrific amounts of money that went into the development of the technology, and it's just been wasted. Microsoft can buy it up for a fraction of the development cost and have a format that can't be pirated.

Very, VERY good point, problem is Microsoft lacks the balls "and the talent" to purely rely on videogames to make their system successful. If only these consoles would just purely go back to what they are supposed to be "gaming machines" instead of mini pc's.

[Trumpman]

Very, VERY good point, problem is Microsoft lacks the balls "and the talent" to purely rely on videogames to make their system successful. If only these consoles would just purely go back to what they are supposed to be "gaming machines" instead of mini pc's.

I can't be the only one here who likes to watch Netflix, HBOGO, and ESPN on my Xbox. I would love to be able to have my Xbox function as my cable box. What's wrong with this stuff?

[Bojay1997]

Apples and oranges. Lumping cable/satellite and video games together is a fundamental fallacy. You're not selling a service, you're selling a product. The difference is I don't legally own what ever is shown on my tv but I do own my collection of video games that are legally MY property.



Bullshit.

So if I sell my used copy of Mass Effect 3 to my brother for $20, you're saying EA lost $60? That's a self-hating propaganda lie peddled by manipulative greedy gasbags like EA eaten up by gamers that don't know the wiser. It's also bad math. EA didn't lose $60 nor did they make $20. They made a big fat zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Why? One again, they're MY games. What I do with them or my consoles is none of EA's/Sony/MS business. First sale doctrine decrees it so and for every other non-service based industry for centuries. So why should the rules change for video game companies now?

Actually, they're not "your" games. You are purchasing a license to use them on one (or more depending on the particular licensor) specific console. If they were your games, there wouldn't be such thing as on-line passes or other mechanisms which prevent you from fully transferring your ownership interest in the games. As a collector and consumer I don't agree with it, but sadly that's the state of the industry today. The console/game as a stand alone consumer product is not a viable business model. So, it's quite possible that the next generation will be a subsidized console box where you are buying the content on a pay per view/subscription basis. There is no legal reason preventing console manufacturers from forcing you to remain connected. If you don't like it, you can always buy something else although if both Sony and Microsoft pursue this path, you might just have to stick to older consoles or less powerful consoles or give up modern console gaming.

As for the "propaganda", you need only look at the annual and quarterly reports of the largest game developers/publishers. Sustaining profitability is becoming harder and harder as game budgets balloon. While it's certainly possible that changes can occur at the developer/publisher level to reduce costs and squeeze out profits that way, so long as people are demanding games that require tens of millions of dollars to develop, the only viable means of recouping that investment is through DLC, on-line passes, etc...It's just a reality of the industry right now and while you might not agree with it, it doesn't make it any less true.

Just to further illustrate how EA lost money, there are only so many gamers out there who have a finite amount of money to spend. If there was no such thing as a used game market, at least some of that money would be spent on new games and perhaps some people would either give up gaming or spend that money on other entertainment goods. It doesn't change the fact that instead of paying that money to EA, they have paid it to Gamestop or another used retailer which invested nothing to develop, market or publish the game and is only out the cost of what they paid for the used game and their overhead. You can argue first sale doctrine all you want, but it doesn't change the economics for a large publisher.

[TonyTheTiger]

Actually, they're not "your" games. You are purchasing a license to use them on one (or more depending on the particular licensor) specific console. If they were your games, there wouldn't be such thing as on-line passes or other mechanisms which prevent you from fully transferring your ownership interest in the games. As a collector and consumer I don't agree with it, but sadly that's the state of the industry today.

It's debatable. This is a very contentious issue that hasn't seen significant testing in the courts yet. Right now it's a crapshoot whether libertarian sensibilities of ownership in a physical item outweigh the IP holders' interests in the contents within. I'd venture a guess that once these issues start to result in giants vs. giants we'll start seeing some real action. Let's not forget that VCRs were once a huge source of controversy.

I don't think things like online passes are such an affront given the fact that it's more related to the online server rather than the individual copy of the game itself. When you buy a game you don't buy the servers along with it. There's a distinction there. Just like how Microsoft is free to ban people from Live for hacking their Xbox but they can't come and repossess the thing. I think we all know that there could possibly be a point where protective measures cross a line and start to infringe on the first sale doctrine. I'm not going to presume to know where that line is but I think we all know it does exist.

[Bojay1997]

It's debatable. This is a very contentious issue that hasn't seen significant testing in the courts yet. Right now it's a crapshoot whether libertarian sensibilities of ownership in a physical item outweigh the IP holders' interests in the contents within. I'd venture a guess that once these issues start to result in giants vs. giants we'll start seeing some real action. I don't think things like on-line passes are such an affront given the fact that it's more related to the online server rather than the individual copy of the game itself. There's a distinction there. Just like how Microsoft is free to ban people from Live for hacking their Xbox but they can't come and repossess the thing. I think we all know that there could possibly be a point where protective measures cross a line. I'm not going to presume to know where that line is but I think we all know it does exist.

I would agree with you that it's an unsettled question. I do strongly disagree that an online pass is just a minor issue, especially when the bulk of gameplay many gamers get out of FPS and similar games occurs in multiplayer. Similarly, a number of newer games already have DLC on the disc which cannot be unlocked without paying a fee which only allows access for that specific console. Essentially, you can never fully transfer a game to anyone if either on-disc DLC or on-line passes are present and I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that publishers will move to completely block used transfers in the next generation. Heck, if you buy any download games, you are already familiar with how restrictive transfer provisions have become, even if your console dies or you upgrade. Again, I am all for a strong first sale doctrine as applied to video games, but I can easily see the courts going the other way as well and publishers and console manufacturers taking advantage of the opening to boost profits by eliminating used sales by crippling the functionality of used games.

[TonyTheTiger]

Well, part of the reason I see online passes as separate is because let's say the server simply shuts down, which has happened for a number of games. Even without the online passes, subsequent buyers are SOL regardless of how they come into ownership (bought used, bought new, found in a dumpster, etc.). A publisher isn't on the hook for that presumed loss of value. There are going to be a shit load of useless World of Warcraft discs at some point but that's just the nature of online gaming. Online passes simply monetize that scenario. I don't know if I'd call it unethical but I'd certainly not call it illegal.

Now disc-locked content is a bit of a different issue. Capcom's been facing this with Street Fighter X Tekken. Honestly, I'd argue that, sure, Capcom can charge for disc unlocks if they want but at the same time they should have no recourse if an end user circumvented the locks and accessed the stuff without paying. Really, I don't see why disc-locked content exists at all. I would think the publishers are worse off for it than ordinary DLC. Not only do they have to deal with the bad press, they also open themselves up to a scenario where they can't stop people from accessing the stuff.

If there's a silver lining to all of this, it's that I honestly think in the long term most of this won't matter. Outside of online functionality which we all know isn't forever, these games and consoles are going to eventually be hacked to hell and back and if something exists in 1s and 0s then people will have access to those 1s and 0s. DLC will be preserved.

[Press_Start]

As for the "propaganda", you need only look at the annual and quarterly reports of the largest game developers/publishers. Sustaining profitability is becoming harder and harder as game budgets balloon. While it's certainly possible that changes can occur at the developer/publisher level to reduce costs and squeeze out profits that way, so long as people are demanding games that require tens of millions of dollars to develop, the only viable means of recouping that investment is through DLC, on-line passes, etc...It's just a reality of the industry right now and while you might not agree with it, it doesn't make it any less true.

Oh cry me a river on the world's smallest violin.

What's killing the industry is the anathema of new ideas. Motion controls was a great starting point to revolutionize the game's industry, injecting new blood of gamers to the market, and provide an affordable out from the doomsday scenario of "bigger graphics". Given that the Wii's development cost was 1/3 of PS3/360 at least, game companies could have easily constructed and embraced a working model that profited by producing fun, original (not party games) titles for the new generation of gamers Nintendo's introduced, then using the aforementioned same revenue stream to fund deeper, bigger budget AAA projects for their diehard cashcows. Therefore, profits from that can help fund more Wii projects, rinse, lather, repeat. It's best of both worlds.


If there was no such thing as a used game market, at least some of that money would be spent on new games and perhaps some people would either give up gaming or spend that money on other entertainment goods. It doesn't change the fact that instead of paying that money to EA, they have paid it to Gamestop or another used retailer which invested nothing to develop, market or publish the game and is only out the cost of what they paid for the used game and their overhead.

Bullshit!

You're blame shifting. You honestly believe the purchasing decisions of a 16-17 yo teenager would have rectify the mistakes of 30-40 something CEOs/Execs/Bean-counters for turning the industry into a twisted form of stagnant Darwinism? If so, then you're fooling yourself. They brought it onto themselves. No one held a gun to their head and told them to keep manufacturing MW/Madden/GTA knockoffs one after another. They embraced the status quo full heartedly and now that we've finally come its natural conclusion, they're screaming like trapped rats on a sinking ship.

I said it before, I'll say it again. The industry is long....LONG overdue for a readjustment. New ideas, new innovations, new ventures. The meme of "Bigger n' better graphics" is a poison pill at this point and the idea of a "internet leash" and second-hand lockdown will cripple those who embrace it, if not, outright kill.

Edit: And I would like to add this lil' tidbit too.


They WILL hamstring themselves. Even with the overall apathetic appearance of a large portion of the United States, if they attempt to kill off the secondary or used game market they will, in effect, be killing the console game market. The only people who can afford to throw $60+ at a game every time they turn around does not constitute the overall gaming market. I would be willing to bet that those people with large enough bank accounts to buy games AT WILL amounts to less than 10% of the overall gaming market. The VAST majority of the gaming market depends on being able to play a game and then turn it in to lessen the cost of the next game, specially when you can run through the majority of the games on the market in under, what? -- 20 hours per game?

Their need for control and their greed will be their undoing. A lot of people say that voting with your dollars doesn't work. I say that it will work when at least 50% of the market rises up against the corporate overlords who are producing this crap. Who want us, the gamers, to continually pay them for the privilege of using their game - not owning OUR game. As these rumors become fact, I hope that each of you who despises this will begin educating those fellow gamers who may not be following the information. Educate them that the cool thing to do is not to buy that uber new shiny, but to reject the new paradigm that the corporations want to foist upon all of us. Actually vote with your dollars this time and not just pay it lip service. All it takes is enough of us protesting in forums, in direct mails to the companies, in e-mails to the companies, and DO NOT BUY ANY NEW CONSOLES. Make it plain and clear, without resorting to cursing and ranting, that you nor anyone in your family or circle of friends will be purchasing any gaming console that removes the rights of the people* to First Sale Doctrine or the ability to trade it in so you can afford to purchase another new game.

Make them understand they will pay for their hubris by us, the gamers, simply saying "No."

* Do NOT, under any circumstance, call yourself a consumer. We should always remind them that even if we act as a group, we are individuals who are much more than just a consumer.

[Bojay1997]

Oh cry me a river on the world's smallest violin.

What's killing the industry is the anathema of new ideas. Motion controls was a great starting point to revolutionize the game's industry, injecting new blood of gamers to the market, and provide an affordable out from the doomsday scenario of "bigger graphics". Given that the Wii's development cost was 1/3 of PS3/360 at least, game companies could have easily constructed and embraced a working model that profited by producing fun, original (not party games) titles for the new generation of gamers Nintendo's introduced, then using the aforementioned same revenue stream to fund deeper, bigger budget AAA projects for their diehard cashcows. Therefore, profits from that can help fund more Wii projects, rinse, lather, repeat. It's best of both worlds.



Bullshit!

You're blame shifting. You honestly believe the purchasing decisions of a 16-17 yo teenager would have rectify the mistakes of 30-40 something CEOs/Execs/Bean-counters for turning the industry into a twisted form of stagnant Darwinism? If so, then you're fooling yourself. They brought it onto themselves. No one held a gun to their head and told them to keep manufacturing MW/Madden/GTA knockoffs one after another. They embraced the status quo full heartedly and now that we've finally come its natural conclusion, they're screaming like trapped rats on a sinking ship.

I said it before, I'll say it again. The industry is long....LONG overdue for a readjustment. New ideas, new innovations, new ventures. The meme of "Bigger n' better graphics" is a poison pill at this point and the idea of a "internet leash" and second-hand lockdown will cripple those who embrace it, if not, outright kill.

Edit: And I would like to add this lil' tidbit too.

People have been saying the exact same thing about the movie industry for many, many years. Of course, those same people keep paying more and more per ticket to see blockbuster big budget movies and completely avoid smaller independent films, no matter how well done. There is already a very vibrant outlet for niche games through downloadable services like iTunes, Steam, PSN, XBL, etc...As a gamer for over three decades, I would take issue with the claim that the Wii or any other motion controlled system could have been the great savior of gaming. I think the Wii is great, but I haven't played a motion control game in literally years. It's a gimmick which appeals to the very young and the very old and it's just not necessary for a great game experience. Most of my favorite Wii games require little or no waggle to play.

Five years ago your predictions may have been accurate, but today with people willingly giving up most of their private information for free on Facebook and paying for things like very expensive cable, satellite, DSL, satellite radio, 3G/4G services for iPads, etc...the idea of being connected at all times is not something average people will balk at. In fact, many of my friends who wouldn't have touched a computer outside of work five years ago now own tons of connected devices and happily pay for that privilege on a monthly basis. All of my friend's kids have smartphones starting as young as five years old. Clearly, the vast majority of people have no issue with remaining connected and while there may be a small minority who takes issue, the added revenue from eliminating the used market will more than make up for those who walk away from gaming for good. I agree with you that it's frustrating, but your calls for a consumer revolution in a world when people line up to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for the latest connected consumer electronics product are strong evidence that there are more than enough willing consumers to keep the bloated budget publishers in business for a very long time if they adopt a new only or even more likely, a download only model.