Topic: Next Gen Longer?

[ThePerm]

This generation was rather short, but i think were entering a new super nintendo-esque era
psx/n64 -proto (intellivision,atari, etc)
gamecube/ps2/xbox (nes, master system)
ps3/xbox360/Rev (super nintendo)

i also think this generation will be the longest in a long time. Graphics are all really good...i mean they are impressive for once in a long time...even crappy games. I dont think people are goign to urge at all for new systems to comeout so quickly like they did this generation.

[ShyGuy]

I'm guessing it will be shorter if it's up to MS, they want to replace the xbox with a PC that hooks into your HDTV

[Ian Sane]

This generation isn't short unless you're an Xbox owner.

Xbox 2001-2005: Four years, one year shorter of the expected five.

PS2 2000-2006: At least five years going on six.  Longer than the usual five.  Perfectly acceptable lenght.

Gamecube 2001-2006: Five years.  Perfectly acceptable.

Graphically there's no reason to expand any time soon.  But I don't think we'll get any extra time considering the players involved.

Sony and Microsoft don't care much about videogames.  Their focus is more on establishing presence in people's living rooms.  So I doubt they're going to sit and let this gen go for ten years.  They want to sell more product and they're both fiercely competitive.  I wouldn't be surprised if in three years the one trailing will jump the gun and release a followup to try to get a leg up on the other one.

Nintendo's design is quite risky so I think there's a big question mark regarding the Rev's longitivity.  If it catches on with non-gamers it would last a long time since the non-gaming market doesn't necessarily expect a new console very five years like the traditional market does.  But if non-gamers don't like the Rev then it might not even make the usual five years and Nintendo might have to pull a Sega and get something else out pronto to make up for lost ground with the traditional market.  Nintendo though isn't really planning for a long time because they left HD support off.  That sort of limitation will probably be acceptable for the next five years but in 2016 there's no way in hell that that sort of omission is going to be acceptable.  They've pretty much told us that they're going to continue with the five years thing because it would be so stupid to make a decision like that with the intention of it working out for seven-to-ten years.  It's the same thing with the rumoured lower specs.  That can fly for five years but not for a long time.  If they were going for a long time they would want to have the absolute best hardware they could.

[ThePerm]

another thing though...what about upgrades? Why buy a whole console when you can upgrade it every five years. Although rev doesnt look too upgradable.....

and polygon count....according to xbox 360 specs its only pumping out 500 million poly's while of course effects are vastly improved. If i recall from 8 years ago someone spat out that the number for photo realistic quality graphics is about 800 million..i see that as being pretty acurate. I really don't see things going much further...that may sound hind sighted. But the resident evil models were 50,000 polygons and looked pretty real..but if you can pump out 100 times those models then were doing pretty good.

lets take dead rising for example. The models arn't anywhere in that ball-park..they might be 5000 poly's...but that still means you can pump out 1000 times. Also, half-life mdoels looked pretty good at the time up close..they had a limit of like 2000 polys......so if you budget that you can pump out over 1000...n64 modles were in the 100s...maybe link had 200 poly's or more...well...you can pump out 250 million of his quality models...ok im rambling

[ShyGuy]

holy pumpin' poly's....

I think the console makers are still scared of making console upgrades because of the segaCD, sega32x fiasco..

[Ian Sane]

Console upgrades largely kills the appeal of consoles in the first place.  PCs are typically way more powerful than consoles and they're something people own anyway which in theory would make buying another item kind of unnecessary.  But consoles have stayed relevent because you buy one console and it works for every game released on it perfectly.  You don't have to constantly upgrade it, at a significant cost, just to keep up.  You don't have to worry about waiting years for a game only to find out it won't work on your machine unless you pony up the dough.

If consoles start upgrading on a regular basis then there's not much point in buying a console when your upgrading money could go towards your PC, which aside from gaming provides other functionality that could benefit from the upgraded hardware.  Plus if you're a developer and you have to deal with the uncertainty of the userbase not having the hardware to play your game what are you more likely to do?  Stick with consoles and pay a licencing fee or go with PCs where you don't?  The fact that console hardware is set in stone is a big incentive for developers.

[ThePerm]

in  the past it really  wasnt  feasable...but were starting to reach a photo realistic  quality...so  it  could  be  done...maybe sega

[Sir_Stabbalot]

Honestly, unless we want games that take decades to make, we're never going to see photo-realim.

[thepoga]

i think there's probably going to be a new method to make graphics, CGI, etc. in the future. But probably twenty years down the road.

[ThePerm]

when  i  mean  photoreal  i  mean toy  story  quality....not l ike  final  fantasty :  spirits within  in real  time.  We  can pretty much  do  toy  story now though.

[Nephilim]

We will proberly see a new Gen in 5years or so, PC is still making leaps
Ps3, 360 only have the graphics of what half life 2 on the newest chips has now, there are already games coming out beyond it such as UT2007... just imagine in 2010, I doubt a longer then 6year cycle,  esp when computers could be 3-4times as power as now

[Spak-Spang]

Ian Sane:  I think your right about the goals of Sony and Microsoft, but I think those goals CAN lead to longer life cycles...but probably not this generation.

Both companies will have longer and better penetration if they can get their product powerful and useful enough to last the same amount of time you would keep a DVD player, or a television.  The game console can't be a temporary device that must be replaced every 5 years to stay current.  It must evolve into something with more substance and staying power, then more people will view it as a useful media device instead of just a game console. {edit}  

Sony has actually placed itself in good shape to go 10 years or so with the Blue-Ray Movies.  The Playstation 3 can be your primary device to watch these new movies and play games.

Microsoft doesn't have that luxury as it is still primarily a game system, and little more.  Next generation I expect Microsoft to create a more perminate media device.

Nintendo is interesting.  I don't think they consider themselves a technology company, but an entertainment company.  It is very different market.  With entertainment your goal is to provide new experiences and means to have fun, not just through technology advances, but through new experiences.  The Gameboy Micro is an extension of that philosophy.  It is OLD technology, but it is a new experience, because now the Gameboy is truly, portable...it is now completely viable ot have your Gameboy on you at all times.

The Revolution could catch on and Nintendo will allow it to exist for years if the market for the experience is good.  However, they will move to make a new console when the next new fun experience can be developed.  It may be an evolution of the Revolutions control device or something entirely new.

 

[Rancid Planet]

As long as companies other than Nintendo are making consoles, the gap between generations is only getting to get shorter if anything at all. If Nintendo were alone in this market they would release one system every 8-10 years. They've pretty much admitted as much outloud.

MS have no shame when it comes to jumping the gun. I look for them to do it again.

[KDR_11k]

and polygon count....according to xbox 360 specs its only pumping out 500 million poly's while of course effects are vastly improved. If i recall from 8 years ago someone spat out that the number for photo realistic quality graphics is about 800 million..i see that as being pretty acurate.

I disagree.
1. The X360 specs are theoretical, the number thrown around was meant for actual use.
2. That was before normalmaps and the ability to simulate a much larger polycount with very few polygons.
3. The biggest hurdle we're facing is not polygons, even a perfect scene would look like crap without proper lighting behaviour. All we can do is cheat and approximate material behaviour but realtime radiosity is still too complex to do. There are various attempts at faking these behaviours as well but I don't think current workarounds will be good enough to fool the eye.
4. Photorealism isn't easy. You can fool the viewer with a specially composed render but usually, once motion, multiple characters and deadlines enter the scene you're screwed. Look at the FF movie, in stills it can look photoreal but once you see it moving that perception changes immediately.