Apparently, the XBox 360 (with its 6 year old 3 core CPU and 5 year old graphics) is here to stay for a while.

I had read it would be replaced in 2012. However, that rumor was "wishful thinking". Now, 2015 is an unlikely rumor. Anyhow, its the "far future", computerwise.

This means many mainstream games will continue to be DX9 ports (or parallel developments) from way out of date XBox hardware. Almost ANY cheap CPU and cheap GPU can handle DX9 XBox ports.

Thus, big improvements in game-graphics might be slow to come. Rather, gaming computer enthusiasts might have to go to 3+ monitors and 3D to make good use of their hardware.

Update:

XBox and PS3 in 2014?

Many cross platform games are DX11 now, but since sims are almost never on consoles, it shouldn't have any effect on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support

Upcoming and current pc games, cross platform, with DX11:
Battlefield 3
Deus Ex
HAWX 2
Metro 2033
Medal of Honor
Lost Planet 2 [
Homefront
F1 2010
Dragon Age II
Dirt 2
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Aliens vs. Predator (not that it shows)

I wouldn't worry about it. Regardless, graphical ability isn't the shortcoming of the consoles, it's the cookie-cutter game offerings that are disappointing 90% of the time.

I know my feelings might not be shared by all here, but - I like that idea.

Some of the best games I currently have on the PC (visually brilliant games, like Just Cause 2, F1 2010, NFS Shift...) are also on the Xbox. The wireless controller is the best thing ever for casual PC games, and it's nice to know I will be able to buy a replacement in as much as five years. And all those games run at almost 60FPS on my 4890 at 1920x1200 and 4xFSAA.

It's true that GFX development might be held back at little by this - but for me personally, I actually like the fact I can spend less on the hardware chase. I'm quite satisfied with the way the "top titles" look today.

Also, couldn't it simple mean that programmers will have to find more efficient ways of doing things, like in the days of old? The console limits might just act as a limitation on their squandering of memory and CPU time, forcing them to make clever use of ressource-saving methods.

However, it's already happening that some Xbox titles get limited to 720p and 30FPS to make up their lack of performance compared to the console version. Certainly in the future it could become a true problem for the consoles themself to run the same kind of games the PCs will run.

Actually, I was just reading today that MS was putting out want ads for people to work on the next-gen console, but that doesn't really say when it will happen.
The upshot is console development is expensive and early ones are sold at a loss. They want to just sit back and make profit for awhile now that they've driven the costs down.



The Jedi MAster

It's also a chance for devs to catch their collective breaths. Retarding the progressive march of tech means the software devs can keep going with current invested techniques and hardware kits.

It's also good news for the PC world though, because now the PC is able to affordably outclass the counsols. As the graphic disparity increases between the Xbox/PS3, the value argument for said PC goes up with it.

Plus, the people who are complaining about bad graphics on the Xbox are usually the same hardcore audience that is willing to devote $1200 worth of income to a gaming rig anyway. The casual folk are fine with the graphics, and the dirt cheap hardware costs of a 360.

As a side note, Sony said they were planing a 10 year life span for the PS3 from the start, so this move from MS doesn't surprise me too much.

The worst part is Windows Live will have the NXE in windows for DirectX Games.... Queue W.G.E.

The Chinese will have a commissioned stealth fighter in service before MS releases another console

Agreed, this is a major benefit to pc gaming from the success of consoles and cross platform games. Devs have had to learn to optimize games for limited hardware, but while still pushing the envelope graphically.
The result? Decent low/mid level pc hardware blows away the consoles and performs extremely well due to the games being well optimized. A few years ago, the race for the most demanding games was ridiculous---Far Cry and then Crysis---and they simply demanded HUGE rigs to force everything out of them. If they were released with today's standards, I bet they could've performed just as well and with much less high end hardware. It was unrealistic back then, I'm glad that race has let up now. Hardware has longer life these days too. My card is basically 5-6 years old, just the newest version of the old 7800/8800/9800 line. Older card, still runs most games at max or close enough that it just doesn't matter. Mainly thanks to devs learning to optimize console games. The way it used to be, they'd just say "guess you need to spend $500-1000 again to run this one!" Glad that's over, pc gaming is just about cheaper than console gaming now. *That* is how pc gaming can get back to the forefront.

Crysis was originally a PC title.

Sure, it was hard on equipment. But, it pioneered use of DX10 and had fabulous graphics and a fabulous almost "sandbox-like" environment. One of my favorite games -- ever.

Now, Crysis 2 is out. Made first for Consoles, but with a PC version. DX9 only (so they say, I don't own it). Dramatically reduced graphical quality. A simpler environment (a city takes a lot less pixels). Poorer physics.

So, Crysis moving from PC only to Console-plus-PC has suffered graphically (if the review I read was true).

Thing is, the developers themselves (during a moment of frustration and honesty) "warned" this would happen a couple years ago.

Anyhow, I was looking forward to it. But, now I won't buy it.



Dragon Age 2 -- ditto from the review I read. Cheapened in every way important to an RPG player. Dragon Age 1 was developed for PC only and was shifted to consoles late in development. DA2 was console from the beginning and shifted to PCs. I won't be buying that one either.

Crysis seemed like just another directed shooter to me, no real freedom. It sure did look good, but I'd rather have a better balance of gameplay along with a nice looking game. Seemed more like a show off for the engine than a real game attempt.
Not worried about Crysis 2.

IMO, consoles are really screwing PC game development. Look at a game like TES V: Skyrim. Its predecessor (Oblivion) is 5 years old, and in the PC version easily runs into memory limitations on a 32 bit executable. But will Skyrim feature a 64 bit executable to avoid those issues? Will it use the massive leaps in processor power, GPU power, and memory availability over the last 5 years to enhance graphics quality, draw distance, and etc?

No, of course not. Because it has to cater to those same damned outdated consoles with their ancient processors and 512 MB of memory.



No, no, NO!

Those hacks and optimizations work on consoles because they're fixed hardware. They don't really do jack for the PC. And if they did try to do that on PC, you wouldn't like the results. You'd start seeing labels like "requires Core i7 and nVidia 5XX card". Targetting specific hardware with low level optimizations is a lot of work. They're only going to pick a few of the most popular product lines to support if they did it.

And, of course, no amount of optimization will get around fundamental limitations of memory and processor power.