Microsoft Natal to Launch November 2010?

[Terry Olaes]

Microsoft’s Project Natal is scheduled for a November 2010 release, according to MCV. The controller-less interface for the Xbox 360 debuted at E3 earlier this year, spawning much debate in the console world. Big-name publishers like Activision, EA, and Ubisoft have all committed to making games for Natal so we’ll see in a year what they’ve come up with.

Microsoft is planning to manufacture 5m units for day one release, with a mix of console and camera plus solus SKUs expected. The device should cost under £50 when sold solo. One publishing source says Microsoft is “trying to get as close as possible to ‘impulse buy’”. Another even says the camera could even retail for just £30.

 

[Azhar]

A full year from now. That's quite the wait.

To make it worthwhile, they should include this in the default package of the next generation Xbox.

 

[Vola]

Guess it would do no good to release it before any games that support it hit the market.

 

[heatlesssun]

This will be coming out Windows PC's as well correct?

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

This will be coming out Windows PC's as well correct?

I hope so. Imagine being able to flip through your Music or Movie library with just a few specific hand gestures.

 

[WBurchnall]

I hope so. Imagine being able to flip through your Music or Movie library with just a few specific hand gestures.

Yeah, that'll be awesome. I hate when I have to gesture my hand to the left while attached to a mouse to scroll left through a list of music. Its going to be much more convenient when I can lift my arm straight infront of me and do the same-thing.

Well, lift my hand infront of wherever the camera is, wait for the camera to recognize my hand is there and then move my hand. I'll just hope I dont need to do a few gestures as there might be some delay with the camera, processing time, reaction time, etc such that when its scrolling left, it might stop a bit late. So I have to scroll back right, oops, left agian, oops right. Ok, there we go. Play gesture. Doh, it scrolled to the left. Alright, back right some more, no no too far, left left left ah ok, Play. See it works? I told you honey it was worth the $50.00 to never have to use a mouse again. Double clicking was always to much of a hastle. I prefer twisting my hand anyday.

Not to mention, remember what we used before the mouse? That old system of finger-gesturing with the up, down, left, right isn't very convenient either. It gets confusing even after years of computer use, which gesture means up and which gesture means down. I wish they'd put arrows on those keys to make them easier to understand. I'm looking forward to remembering hand gestures much much more.

 

[Tokamak]

A whole year? Those adverts made it look like it was already done...

 

[stop!theradio]

Yeah, that'll be awesome. I hate when I have to gesture my hand to the left while attached to a mouse to scroll left through a list of music. Its going to be much more convenient when I can lift my arm straight infront of me and do the same-thing.

Well, lift my hand infront of wherever the camera is, wait for the camera to recognize my hand is there and then move my hand. I'll just hope I dont need to do a few gestures as there might be some delay with the camera, processing time, reaction time, etc such that when its scrolling left, it might stop a bit late. So I have to scroll back right, oops, left agian, oops right. Ok, there we go. Play gesture. Doh, it scrolled to the left. Alright, back right some more, no no too far, left left left ah ok, Play. See it works? I told you honey it was worth the $50.00 to never have to use a mouse again. Double clicking was always to much of a hastle. I prefer twisting my hand anyday.

Not to mention, remember what we used before the mouse? That old system of finger-gesturing with the up, down, left, right isn't very convenient either. It gets confusing even after years of computer use, which gesture means up and which gesture means down. I wish they'd put arrows on those keys to make them easier to understand. I'm looking forward to remembering hand gestures much much more.

OMG so, like, don't buy this device?

 

[heatlesssun]

Windows is just getting so cool with natural language interfaces.

 

[CRSharff]

Sad to think that the Xbox 360 will still be the "next-generation" in a year from now...
how many more pixels need to be cut out of a game before they finally decide that they need new hardware.

 

[Serpico]

A whole year? Those adverts made it look like it was already done...

They made it very clear during E3 that Natal was just a prototype. Hell, they also made clear that the name itself was just one for the research project, that might even change by the time it launches.

 

[Serpico]

Sad to think that the Xbox 360 will still be the "next-generation" in a year from now...
how many more pixels need to be cut out of a game before they finally decide that they need new hardware.

They will treat it like Sony treated the PS2, which is to amortize the hardware over a very long period of time and squeeze every last drop of performance out of them.

The positive thing you should recognize is that unlike PC hardware which is a moving target, console developers can specifically program to the machine. As years go on they find way to squeeze more and more performance out of the same hardware. There is no such luxury with PC hardware, the coding is much broader and more brute force since things change so quickly in comparison.

The PS2 is a perfect case study. Compare PS2 games from 2000, something like The Bouncer, with a game like God Of War 2 that came out in 2007. God Of War 2, on hardware from 1999, had graphics that rivaled new games that were coming out on the XBox 360. Now, the GOW2 developers bled and cheated every last bit of performance out of that ancient hardware, but they did it, and it looked incredible.

Expect the same out of the XBox 360 and the PS3. Figure that the final wave of XBox 360 games in 2012, 2013, 2014, whenever they decide to start retiring the machine, will look much better than what we saw out of the 360 in 2006 and 2007. This includes stuff like Gears. The PS3 is already seeing huge improvements as developers are finally figuring out how to exploit the Cell processor. Uncharted 2 looks leaps and bounds better than nearly anything I've seen in ages, PC included, and developers aren't going to stop squeezing performance out of these systems with another 3-5 years left coding for them.

 

[CRSharff]

They will treat it like Sony treated the PS2, which is to amortize the hardware over a very long period of time and squeeze every last drop of performance out of them.

The positive thing you should recognize is that unlike PC hardware which is a moving target, console developers can specifically program to the machine. As years go on they find way to squeeze more and more performance out of the same hardware. There is no such luxury with PC hardware, the coding is much broader and more brute force since things change so quickly in comparison.

The PS2 is a perfect case study. Compare PS2 games from 2000, something like The Bouncer, with a game like God Of War 2 that came out in 2007. God Of War 2, on hardware from 1999, had graphics that rivaled new games that were coming out on the XBox 360. Now, the GOW2 developers bled and cheated every last bit of performance out of that ancient hardware, but they did it, and it looked incredible.

Expect the same out of the XBox 360 and the PS3. Figure that the final wave of XBox 360 games in 2012, 2013, 2014, whenever they decide to start retiring the machine, will look much better than what we saw out of the 360 in 2006 and 2007. This includes stuff like Gears. The PS3 is already seeing huge improvements as developers are finally figuring out how to exploit the Cell processor. Uncharted 2 looks leaps and bounds better than nearly anything I've seen in ages, PC included, and developers aren't going to stop squeezing performance out of these systems with another 3-5 years left coding for them.

I can agree with a lot of the things you have said, especially how nice it is for console hardware all being the same making a much easier, streamlined process to design games for. This in turn gives the game optimization and thus looks as good as it can.

But you have to admit: there is a physical hardware limitation that is eventually hit.
The RSX and the Xenos (Nvidia 7 series architecture and Radeon HD 2000/3000 architecture, respectively) can only pump out so many pixels with so much eye candy before they hit a wall.

Now you cite Uncharted 2, and since I have not played the game my opinion is very very limited but a super quick google search brings up 1280x720 native resolution with a frame rate of 30fps. Now I am not pulling the PC "elitist" card or anything but since this is [H], which caters to enthusiast, I know I am not the only one questioning how that can compare visually to Crysis at 2560x1600 (or even 1920x1200) at whatever frame rate with a AMD 5970 or so forth.

I am not here to argue anything as I own both a PC and a console, but most my games are enjoyed on the PC. As with many people on this forum I like being up close with a mouse and a keyboard and enjoying the game at a half way decent resolution. That is all I am fighting for; I am actually on the console gamers side because I think that they deserve their games at true 1920x1080 with AA and full 60fps.I realize that consoles age and is a side effect for being just that a console; but the thing is, you would be hard up to find games rendering at native 1080p even when the consoles were brand new. I think it hurts the gaming community as a whole when games are released for a console at 1024 x 600. It's just not the way it's meant to be played (as Nvidia would put it).

 

[Tolyngee]

While I usually give my computer the finger after a BSOD, the day soon will come when flipping the computer the bird will cause it to BSOD...

 

[Emission]

I can agree with a lot of the things you have said, especially how nice it is for console hardware all being the same making a much easier, streamlined process to design games for. This in turn gives the game optimization and thus looks as good as it can.

But you have to admit: there is a physical hardware limitation that is eventually hit.
The RSX and the Xenos (Nvidia 7 series architecture and Radeon HD 2000/3000 architecture, respectively) can only pump out so many pixels with so much eye candy before they hit a wall.

Now you cite Uncharted 2, and since I have not played the game my opinion is very very limited but a super quick google search brings up 1280x720 native resolution with a frame rate of 30fps. Now I am not pulling the PC "elitist" card or anything but since this is [H], which caters to enthusiast, I know I am not the only one questioning how that can compare visually to Crysis at 2560x1600 (or even 1920x1200) at whatever frame rate with a AMD 5970 or so forth.

I am not here to argue anything as I own both a PC and a console, but most my games are enjoyed on the PC. As with many people on this forum I like being up close with a mouse and a keyboard and enjoying the game at a half way decent resolution. That is all I am fighting for; I am actually on the console gamers side because I think that they deserve their games at true 1920x1080 with AA and full 60fps.I realize that consoles age and is a side effect for being just that a console; but the thing is, you would be hard up to find games rendering at native 1080p even when the consoles were brand new. I think it hurts the gaming community as a whole when games are released for a console at 1024 x 600. It's just not the way it's meant to be played (as Nvidia would put it).

You know, PC versus Console arguments never seem to take into account the price differences for both performance levels. Not only that, but the ease of setup and use between the two.

Console:
- Inexpensive
- Plug-and-play out of the box
- Pop in a disc and you're good to go
- One set of hardware, no guess work
- Nothing to worry about outside of actual gaming (up-keep on the PC end of things, anti-virus, updates, patches, etc.)
- Manufacturers have an easier time dealing with broken hardware, easier to diagnose and, in the worst case, it's not that expensive to just hand out a new console in exchange for a broken one.

PC:
- Gets rather expensive as you go up the scale, especially with your preference of PC hardware capable of Crysis at 2560x1600 (High-end dual-core at the very least, HD 5970, and the rest of the system to match this, which is easily at least $1000, not including the 2560x1600 monitor, another $1000).
- You have to either build it yourself or suck up to the outrageous mark-ups of the OEMs who are going to build you your super-crysis machine.
- You have to maintain it both on the hardware and software end. What if shit breaks? Send it back to the OEM or RMA parts, in which case it's not that easy to diagnose what's wrong, and usually more expensive to replace things that are broken. Maintain the OS, patches, updates, install the games, make sure they work, which they don't always work out of the box.
- These games are not optimized for the PC the same way they are for the console, developers have to take into account the different architectures of cards coming from generations of Nvidia and ATI hardware.

At the end of the day, is it really worth that extra ~$1200+ investment in PC/Monitor hardware just so you can see a bead of sweat on your enemy's forehead in excruciating detail? The most you could argue is the whole mouse/keyboard vs controller deal, but even then, the PS3 supports the use of mouse/keyboard on some of its FPS titles. As much as I love my mouse and keyboard, at the end of the day, I have enough controller skill to get me through those first-person shooters just fine.

IMHO, the 720p rendering of the Xbox 360 is pretty damn good for this generation of console, and they're far from done with the optimizations. The games keep looking better and better as they're released.

 

[Tolyngee]

The most you could argue is the whole mouse/keyboard vs controller deal, but even then, the PS3 supports the use of mouse/keyboard on some of its FPS titles.

How about user-made content?

The PS series of consoles have the GT series of racing games as their best seller. But GT cannot compare to everything that's out there for GPL/GTR/GTL/rFactor/GP2/GP3/GP4/F1Challenge/etc. GPL's now over 11 years old and there's still new content being released for it.

Not to mention the plethora of user-designed mods and levels for various FPSs out there. Doom's now 16 years old, and there's so much stuff out there for it, that you'll never find time to try it all out.

Now, user-made content may not all be of the best quality... But neither is all of the stuff the devs are putting out, either...

 

[Emission]

It all comes back to my price argument. Being able to spend the money on a pc that can handle the eye candy, and a monitor to match.

It isn't something that everyone can afford, especially with this economy.

 

[ripken204]

It all comes back to my price argument. Being able to spend the money on a pc that can handle the eye candy, and a monitor to match.

It isn't something that everyone can afford, especially with this economy.

except that everyone has a computer now and if they wanted to, they could upgrade just the tower. and for like $500 you can get a pretty good rig..

and it can do a lot more than just game.

 

[Emission]

What about XBL and PSN? Where's the PC equivalent? Last time I checked, there was none. Maybe Steam, but that's not exactly equivalent, not to the extent that XBL and PSN are integrated.

For those who already have a computer, a $200 Xbox 360 can be a more viable option, especially when you can buy a console + accessories + several games for that same $500.

 

[CRSharff]

You know, PC versus Console arguments never seem to take into account the price differences for both performance levels. Not only that, but the ease of setup and use between the two.

Console:
- Inexpensive
- Plug-and-play out of the box
- Pop in a disc and you're good to go
- One set of hardware, no guess work
- Nothing to worry about outside of actual gaming (up-keep on the PC end of things, anti-virus, updates, patches, etc.)
- Manufacturers have an easier time dealing with broken hardware, easier to diagnose and, in the worst case, it's not that expensive to just hand out a new console in exchange for a broken one.

PC:
- Gets rather expensive as you go up the scale, especially with your preference of PC hardware capable of Crysis at 2560x1600 (High-end dual-core at the very least, HD 5970, and the rest of the system to match this, which is easily at least $1000, not including the 2560x1600 monitor, another $1000).
- You have to either build it yourself or suck up to the outrageous mark-ups of the OEMs who are going to build you your super-crysis machine.
- You have to maintain it both on the hardware and software end. What if shit breaks? Send it back to the OEM or RMA parts, in which case it's not that easy to diagnose what's wrong, and usually more expensive to replace things that are broken. Maintain the OS, patches, updates, install the games, make sure they work, which they don't always work out of the box.
- These games are not optimized for the PC the same way they are for the console, developers have to take into account the different architectures of cards coming from generations of Nvidia and ATI hardware.

At the end of the day, is it really worth that extra ~$1200+ investment in PC/Monitor hardware just so you can see a bead of sweat on your enemy's forehead in excruciating detail? The most you could argue is the whole mouse/keyboard vs controller deal, but even then, the PS3 supports the use of mouse/keyboard on some of its FPS titles. As much as I love my mouse and keyboard, at the end of the day, I have enough controller skill to get me through those first-person shooters just fine.

IMHO, the 720p rendering of the Xbox 360 is pretty damn good for this generation of console, and they're far from done with the optimizations. The games keep looking better and better as they're released.

Like I said I wasn't here to argue console vs. PC at all in fact I agree with many of the points you make but this is [H] and people don't roam these forums because they want easy and inexpensive. As enthusiasts we want the bead of sweat on our enemies forehead, we want customization over our hardware, and the ability to mod/customize the game. So as said before I am not here to argue that, my point was that even as a console gamer I believe that you should have the right to a standard of 1920x1080 with AA and 60fps, now obviously the console will get old and they will have to cut corners and I believe when game developers have to drop the resolution to sub-HD, its time to bring in some new hardware.

 

[Nostrovia]

Everyone always seems to forget the TV as a needed part of console gaming... that can go from ~$700 to >$2000.

I've owned consoles over the years but my heart still is with Pc gaming as my main form of gaming. The modding community bringing current games and or still doing mods for older games always bring new experiences to the table. That's why i like the PC the most. Rather than beating a game and then trading it in for the next greatest game I get to play my games anytime I want and with the mods it can be entirely different than the first time.

And with the options we have at customizing our systems, hardware, UI, etc... what's not to love about the PC..... oh yeah... the price card aye? Buy smartly the first time and it's no big deal, just a possible videocard upgrade in about the same time you'll be able to get your xbox 720 or ps4 or whatever. I'm still rocking an 8800gt that i bought when it first came out.... and you can game your PC on a TV WITH a controller too.

regarding xboxlive & psn, we have GFWL, Steam, Xfire, or anyone who uses a computer is bound to have aim, yahoo, or something in some form (astra for me).

BUT for everyone who laughed at the idea of the Wii, saying they don't want to stand up to play games.... are they jumping on the MS bandwagon now?

 

[stop!theradio]

No. I love the Wii.

 

[Emission]

@Killing2Live: I agree, if their hardware can't handle the demands, it's time for something new.

@Nostrovia: I was looking at it from all angles. Of course you can do a lot more with your computer, that's one of the reasons I have a computer that I have spent a decent amount of money on, but sometimes people would rather have the familiar and inexpensive plug-and-play feel of a console that will last for many years before they actually have to upgrade. PC Games become more and more demanding of the hardware every year, whereas console games tend to look better every year as the optimizations follow, since the hardware hasn't changed. In regards to the Wii, Microsoft implemented the motion control much better, you don't have to wave around a controller anymore.

 

[Nostrovia]

@Killing2Live: I agree, if their hardware can't handle the demands, it's time for something new.

@Nostrovia: I was looking at it from all angles. Of course you can do a lot more with your computer, that's one of the reasons I have a computer that I have spent a decent amount of money on, but sometimes people would rather have the familiar and inexpensive plug-and-play feel of a console that will last for many years before they actually have to upgrade. PC Games become more and more demanding of the hardware every year, whereas console games tend to look better every year as the optimizations follow, since the hardware hasn't changed. In regards to the Wii, Microsoft implemented the motion control much better, you don't have to wave around a controller anymore.

I know you were looking at it from all angles, to me it's not all about the graphics to a game, but in my eyes i think the games industry isn't nearly as great as it was years ago (as a whole). With developers putting late releases for the PC and pushing the console as much as they can for every dollar (DLC that you have to pay for.. like 1 single map, etc..) I think that's hurting the industry, but console users dont know any better and will buy anything it seems (not trying to anger anyone.. but i see more pc users not willing to shell out for little trivial downloads that cost money). I can't stress enough that there should be more 360 & PC games that can be co-opd or against each other. The misconceptions & ignorance new gamers have of the PC as a gaming system and the industry pushing each system to have "exclusives" hurt it more than helps it.. sure they're pushing more games but i think the experiences could be more improved... online leagues for NHL 11 of 360 and PC users would rock.. etc.

I dont think the Wii could handle a Natal like system anyway.. but i was sticking with everyone i know not wanting to play Wii since they'd have to get off their asses..... i do own a wii and for the games i have they're definitely fun, more of a group of friends over thing but its fun.

 

[Emission]

I do wish they would make more games with multi-platform servers, I would probably stick to my PC in that case. It was very nice being able to play with a buddy in FFXI that was on the Xbox 360 while I was on the PC, and I'd like to see more of that.

I also wish they would make DLC worth more, as I hate spending loads on a single map or a single item, it's ridiculous, console or PC regardless.

 

[Serpico]

I can agree with a lot of the things you have said, especially how nice it is for console hardware all being the same making a much easier, streamlined process to design games for. This in turn gives the game optimization and thus looks as good as it can.

But you have to admit: there is a physical hardware limitation that is eventually hit.
The RSX and the Xenos (Nvidia 7 series architecture and Radeon HD 2000/3000 architecture, respectively) can only pump out so many pixels with so much eye candy before they hit a wall.

Yup, its a wall that is usually hit by the time the next generation of console hardware launches. The peak of the PS2's capabilities with God Of War 2 dovetailed nicely with the launch of the 360 and the PS3.

Now you cite Uncharted 2, and since I have not played the game my opinion is very very limited but a super quick google search brings up 1280x720 native resolution with a frame rate of 30fps. Now I am not pulling the PC "elitist" card or anything but since this is [H], which caters to enthusiast, I know I am not the only one questioning how that can compare visually to Crysis at 2560x1600 (or even 1920x1200) at whatever frame rate with a AMD 5970 or so forth.

Taking a holistic view of the game's graphics, looking at its art direction, setting, lighting, textures, visual effects, etc, I'll say that Uncharted 2 is a better looking game even given the resolution and framerate numbers that you put out there. The only game I can see looking better than Uncharted 2 on a PS3 is Uncharted 2 somehow running on a PC at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 (lordy) resolutions.

You should check it out, IMO the GOTY, my favorite game of this console generation, and my favorite single player action game since Half Life 2: Episode 2.

 

[westrock2000]

It gets confusing even after years of computer use, which gesture means up and which gesture means down.

This made me think of how split people are using "inverted" up/down and regular up/down. Even though to me "inverted" is the natural way.

 

[Serpico]

I do wish they would make more games with multi-platform servers, I would probably stick to my PC in that case. It was very nice being able to play with a buddy in FFXI that was on the Xbox 360 while I was on the PC, and I'd like to see more of that.

There aren't very many games where it would make sense given the differences in interface and performance of the platforms.

That said, Street Fighter 4 should absolutely have had crossplatform multiplayer. I have it on both 360 and PC and it is a flawless port. Both run amazingly and both can use the game controls. I use my 360 compatible Hori fight stick on my PC, plug & play in Vista and Windows 7.