Topic: XboxOne ~News/Rumor/Speculation~ Biggest Console Released This Gen!!

[NWR_insanolord]

The best graphical improvements aren't always noticeable, after all.

This is true, and it's the problem. Most of the advantages new hardware would provide (and they are significant) aren't immediately obvious. People aren't going to be willing to spend that much money without seeing a major difference.

[Chozo Ghost]

Personally, I think the Wii has decent graphics. Its not as good as the competition, obviously, but its good enough for me. The thing I have a problem with is when games like COD: Black Ops have to cut out a bunch of features because of RAM and other limitations. Black Ops on the Wii is fine to me in a graphical sense, but I hate that it lacks things like Killcams and other features that can't be included simply because the hardware can't handle it.

Graphics may be something where there isn't much more room for improvement, but I think we are far from reaching the point where there isn't room to improve the hardware specs for things like increasing enemies on screen, improving the AI, and so on and so forth.

[Kytim89]

I am speculating that Nintendo is hoping that the market will drive down the price of HD development as much as possible in the next two years to make transitioning to that scale of graphics as cheap and easy as possible for them to make games. Also, Nintendo is in the best position financially to release a new home console. I would compare what Nintendo is going to do with the Wii 2 to what Microsoft did with the 360 in 2005. This is why I am betting that a Wii 2 announcement will happen at E3 2011 and a release some time in 2012.
 
Some one mentioned before how the gaming industry has platued in the graphics department, and it has done this. However, by Nintendo still having enough potential to expand into the same areas as its competitors with its next home console seems in a way to give a fresh coat of paint on the industry once again if Nintendo does things the right way.

[Ian Sane]

I think that a lot of the problem has more to do with art direction than anything. Every game that comes out is striving for the same bland realistic look... that doesn't help people to differentiate them at all. I don't think that this hardware plateau is necessarily at a standstill yet. Consoles have always held on until their graphics simply could not make due any longer. The problem however is that the Wii is already there. Too often I find myself staring at a Wii game and thinking that the GameCube looked better in a lot of ways. If Nintendo wants to continue to create this soft, round, cartoony graphics, then they really need to work on their anti-aliasing and get rid of the jaggies that absolutely plague even flagship titles like Super Mairo Galaxy.

I agree that art direction is probably a big part of it.  I see the Wii as an exception though.  The Wii more or less needed new hardware the day it was released.  There is no doubt in my mind that Nintendo needs new hardware.  The idea of consoles hanging on until their graphic simply can not make do any longer is sound.  I would consider the Wii as no longer able to make do but the other consoles being able to hold on longer.
 
I think my biggest concern is the price.  Even if they can make a better console with noticeably better graphics, what will it cost at launch?  The PS3 took years to reach a reasonable price point.  A $600 console doesn't fly.  We know that.  If MS can give us a decent sized hardware boost on a console that costs $300 with games that cost no more than $60 and they don't have to take a huge loss to do this, then bring on the next gen.  I figure they're going to go for either a very minor jump or they'll go for a bigger one and price it too high.  If it takes a few more years for the tech to become affordable then I think it makes sense to wait.
 

Personally, I think the Wii has decent graphics. Its not as good as the competition, obviously, but its good enough for me.

"Good enough" is probably the ideal way I would describe it.  Nintendo's graphics appear to aim for the bare minimum.  They're as pretty as they need to be and nothing more.  If they were the slightest bit uglier they would be unacceptable.  Nintendo aims to get a passing grade on their test and nothing more.  They are a solid C student.  I think the Wii is capable of better but few devs are interested in pushing it.  Good Feel is, from a visual standpoint, the most impressive Wii developer.

[Morari]

I think my biggest concern is the price.  Even if they can make a better console with noticeably better graphics, what will it cost at launch?  The PS3 took years to reach a reasonable price point.  A $600 console doesn't fly.  We know that.  If MS can give us a decent sized hardware boost on a console that costs $300 with games that cost no more than $60 and they don't have to take a huge loss to do this, then bring on the next gen.

Sony bogged their machine down with a lot of needless crap, such as Blu-Ray and the Cell processor. Had they gone a more conventional route, their machine would have been cheaper, and would be more impressive in the long run. Hell, they might still be holding the #1 spot even. Their FUD helped them fight off the Dreamcast, but it doesn't seem to have done much to help them this generation.

[MaryJane]

You do realize that the PS3 having BluRay is what helped win the format war with HD DVD and more importantly Sony is the leading manufacturer of BluRay discs. The PS3 is by far the best Blu Ray player on the market, and offers the best 3D gaming(on a console) because of that cell processor so I don't know where you get this notion of 'needless crap'.

One reason for MS to release a new console in 2012 is so they can keep up with the PS3. 3D is still a niche, but just like HD will soon become an industry standard. I know there are movie directors who artistically refuse to use 3D, but there were also directors who artistically refused to use sound and color when those technologies came out.

Another thing is, with games like Killzone 3 and LBP 2, Sony is starting to show what that cell processor is capable of when it is being used properly and not in a multiplatform box. The cell is by no means done, and Sony is the only console maker whose system can go for ten years, because of how advanced it is, and because of as we're saying, the jump in graphics is getting smaller. Nintendo and MS's next systems will be at the very best only slightly (i.e not very noticeably) better than the PS3, and they may even in have Blu Ray drives, making Sony even more money. Sony went with a long term strategy, something I confess I thought was stupid at first, but taking gaming trends, and even the arguments in this thread, it looks like it might work out for them. When Wii2 and NeXBoX come out, Sony can still toot its own horn for having the largest userbase and still being able to carry multiplatform games. If either MS or Nintendo were to try the superpower route, developers could be turned off by high development costs and low userbase, as sales would be as slow as the PS3's initially were.

I still say MS would be best suited making a 'gaming PC' console; make it affordable and/or feature rich, with an open approach to development and playing nontraditional PC games without paying for them, like Facebook games, etc.

[Ian Sane]

The problem with a "gaming PC" idea is that there is a reason that both PC and console games exist.  Consoles are controlled environments, PCs are anarchy.  Those two concepts are incompatible and for PC and console gamers that's largely the deciding factor.  A console gamer wants standardized hardware where he knows everything is compatible and it's all plug and play with no fussing around.  A PC gamer is willing to give up the standardized hardware to have control and be able to tweak and customize and mod.

You can't have both so I don't think such a model would appear to anyone.  Or it would just end up being a console.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The other thing about a closed console is the manufacturer collects licensing fees from everyone that develops on the system.

If MS made a system that openly accepted PC and Xbox games (XboxPC) then either they would have to charge every developer that wants their game to be compatible with the XBPC a licensing fee or most other developers would just say their game is a PC game and avoid paying licensing fees altogether.

You can't have both regardless of how good it sounds in your head. It just wouldn't work from a behind the scenes business perspective.

[Morari]

You do realize that the PS3 having BluRay is what helped win the format war with HD DVD and more importantly Sony is the leading manufacturer of BluRay discs. The PS3 is by far the best Blu Ray player on the market, and offers the best 3D gaming(on a console) because of that cell processor so I don't know where you get this notion of 'needless crap'.

Because Blu-Ray is needless crap? I didn't mix words.

The PS3 didn't tip the scales for Blu-Ray. Sony's willingness to take it in the ass from the likes of Disney is what tips the scales. Content providers like to maintain control over everything, and Blu-Ray provided them with a more cumbersome form of DRM than HD-DVD.

In terms of a gaming console, Blu-Ray is definitely "needless crap", just like this 3D gimmick that's sweeping films and games. Sony hasn't really done much at all to show off the Cell processor. They designed a poor gaming machine, it's as simple as that. The PS2 sold far longer than it should have, despite looking like complete ass in comparison to everything else (GameCube, Dreamcast, Xbox), so ten years doesn't seem too far fetched for the PS3.

[MaryJane]

With a gaming PC console MS brings together its two gaming platforms. Developers already make games for both Windows and Xbox, and with a gaming PC console developers would no longer need to spend money developing for both. Microsoft would be able to basically offer them two markets to sell their one game.

The other factor is that with the introduction of things like Google, Apple, and internet-enabled TV it is obvious people want to use their TVs as their computer screen and a gaming PC console would further bring those things together. MS is competing with Google and Apple in the computer world, and the computer world is moving to the TV and MS as a maker of the most popular computer OS and most popular 'hardcore' console is in a good position to bring TV and PC together in a bigger way than they already do.

I mentioned before that MS is looking to bring in 'cable' TV directly through the 360. The NeXBoX could be an all in one system (as in one box, one remote, or no remote with Kinect) with cable TV, hardcore gaming, internet, and browser based games. MS could even use PC parts and allow user-upgradeable graphics cards for those who want it. They could be NeXBoX certified to make their architecture is compatible, but also, the minimum requirements for the games would still be the base level NeXBoX. MS would be missing a big opportunity if they don't try what Sony is trying to with the PSPhone and PSPTablet and bring their different divisions together.

@Morari:
BluRay might not be all that important to gaming but it is for movies. BluRay gaming was supposed to allow ridiculously massive games, but developers have not been willing to take that risk, yet. And I garuntee you 3D is not a fad, the movie studios are pushing it, movie goers love it, and eventually every movie will be in 3D. And you're right, the cell hasn't been properly shown off, yet. What you see as needless crap I see as future proofing. The cell too powerful, BluRay too large but maybe will be good next-gen where PS3 is still relevant.

[Stogi]

I think Microsoft would be stupid to upgrade their hardware that soon especially since they just released a new console upgrade and the kinect.

As for Nintendo, I think they'll continue to do what ever the hell they want until real stiff competition shows up (i.e. Apple) or if the Kinect or Move actually do well.

[Morari]

And I garuntee you 3D is not a fad, the movie studios are pushing it, movie goers love it, and eventually every movie will be in 3D.

3D films have always been a fad. The fad comes and goes every decade. The movie studios are pushing it because they make more money off of it. Sony makes movies. Sony makes televisions. Sony stands to gain from forcing everyone to spend massive amounts of money of 3D films and 3D televisions. It's all junk, and a lot of people think so. Movie goers don't necessary love it, they just don't have much of a choice in the matter. More often than now, I see people in the theater not wearing their 3D glasses. Why? It gives them a headache and doesn't actually add anything extra to 99% of the films presented. The day that every film is in 3D is the day I gouge my eyes out. Modern films are already laughable enough without being bogged down with gimmicks like 3D glasses.

As for the future proofing of the PS3... That is, at best, a very optimistic way of looking at things. Being a generation ahead doesn't really matter if it can't be utilized until the next generation. In the mean time, it's sapping resources away from presenting the best they can in the here and now. Of course, knowing Sony, they're probably more concerned with stripping advertised features (like Other OS) out of their console, or installing rootkits on the PC of anyone that buys a Sony-produced music CD.

[Stogi]

The idea of 3D isn't a fad, but maybe glasses wearing 3D is a fad.

[ThePerm]

my friend has been playing the new Assassins Creed game on his 360 and it looks ridiculous, i think even if the next nintendo system was only par with current hardware heavyweights that the graphics threshold might have been reached, at least for a while. It might be hard to tell the difference between games on a way better system and games on a weaker system. It might be harder to make games look even better than they look now. The time and energy required is staggering.

[MaryJane]

I've never tried it, but I though that if someone watches a 3D movie without the glasses all they see is a blurry image? I can't imagine that being very enjoyable.

3D is not a fad because it is now affordable. Studios can do it without much financial risk, people can afford the TVs and PCs in their homes, and gaming systems are capable of broadcasting it, even on a portable. That is the only reason 3D hasn't taken off in the past; the prohibitive cost.

[NWR_insanolord]

I think Unagi's got it right: it's not going to really take off until you don't need the glasses. Content owners will push it, but won't gain much traction outside of the captive audience of theaters until then.

[ThePerm]

after they are done pushing 3d then they'll start pushing holograms and then we'll call that 3d

[Spak-Spang]

3D with glasses is very uncomfortable if you wear glasses and sometimes if you wear contacts.  3D is pretty cool, but it is limited.  I am curious to see how glasses-less 3D might shake up the industry...but I still think 3D is a fad that really doesn't add much to the overall experience.

[TJ Spyke]

3D is not a fad because it is now affordable. Studios can do it without much financial risk, people can afford the TVs and PCs in their homes, and gaming systems are capable of broadcasting it, even on a portable. That is the only reason 3D hasn't taken off in the past; the prohibitive cost.

It is still not affordable. A decent 3D TV still costs around $1,000 (with great TVs being around $1,500). People put up with the glasses because they have too, I don't know anyone who likes having to wear glasses just to watch a movie. Many people have only recently upgraded to HDTV's, I doubt they would be willing to go out and make a substantial purchase just to be able to add 3D.

As it has already been mentioned, movie studios love 3D because they can charge more, an average movie ticket costs $10 (although I have never paid that much in my local theatres) while the 3D version costs $15. Why do you think movies like The Last Airbender and Alice in Wonderland had 3D slapped on at the last minute? They saw the success of Avatar and wanted that extra money from 3D. With 3D TV's still pretty new, it will be many years before it becomes common and by then it is possible that studios won't even be interested in it.

[Ian Sane]

I seriously think 3D will be dead in five years.  The 3DS might throw a monkey wrench into that prediction but it also might actually hasten the demise of the 3D fad as it will get people used to no glasses, which the TVs probably won't be able to do.

3D was popular in the 50's, then the 80's and now the present day in 2010.  Notice those are all about 30 years apart?  It's almost like once a generation they bring this gimmick back to impress the people who weren't born yet when the previous fad was on.  The novelty wears off, the fad dies, and then they wait 30 years for a new generation to be temporarily dazzled.

What people want is virtual reality.  They want the holodeck.  The problem is the step between watching a screen and being in the movie or game is a huge jump.  So in the space between we get 3D glasses and inaccurate motion control.  Nobody really wants those things but they can't have their holodeck so they have to go with the closest thing which is usually pretty half-baked and lame.

[MaryJane]

It is still not affordable. A decent 3D TV still costs around $1,000 (with great TVs being around $1,500).

You don't find it all contradictory to say they aren't affordable, and then say they cost less than HDTV's did when they started booming?

I seriously think 3D will be dead in five years.  The 3DS might throw a monkey wrench into that prediction but it also might actually hasten the demise of the 3D fad as it will get people used to no glasses, which the TVs probably won't be able to do.

Actually, the 3DS is proof that 3D is here to stay. The most popular system EVER is going to incorporate the tech, and you don't think that bodes well?

Also, they already have autostereoscopic TVs: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/philips-dimenco-3d-tv-of-the-glasses-free-future-hopefully-our/

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/04/toshiba-regza-gl1-wants-you-to-put-down-the-glasses-enjoy-the-3/

Obviously, the tech is still burgeoning, but it will improve over a short span of time, and become the standard. And even beyond that, people are willing to, and do pay for 3D that requires glasses in their homes, so this will take off as well.

Why do you suppose so many companies are jumping on the 3D bandwagon? To throw money away? No. It is because despite the limited 3D content out there, people are still buying 3D TVs and Blu-Ray players. ESPN has a 3D channel, and while they currently only show one game a week in 3D, consider the fact that ESPN is part of Disney, which also owns ABC. The sports arena is an obvious testing phase before shows like No Ordinary Family on ABC, and the Wizards of Waverly Place on Disney(?) are also shown in 3D. Plain and simply, 3D is cool, and now that it can be placed affordably in homes, it is going to grow.

In the 50's and 80's very few movies were shown in 3D, while in 2010, I think something like 1/3 of movies have the 3D option. Yes, tacked on 3D sucks, but movies filmed from the beginning for the purpose of 3D will push the tech.

And yes, people want holograms, and guess what; that technology isn't really all that far away either. I would ten years at the MOST before holographic projectors start showing up in people's homes.


3D is beginning this generation just like HDTVs began, slowly and with little content. Now look, everything is in HD, and people use the term HD for things that aren't even in HD. That's how it goes, once affordable, it is popular and everyone makes content for it.

[TJ Spyke]

HDTVs started booming when they got below $1,000 (and really when they got down to around $500). I haven't even seen a 3DTV for less than $1,000, yet alone a good one. Hell, HDTV's only this year became available in most US homes (a study in April showed about 53% of US homes have one, although only 47% actually get a HD signal).

It is not affordable yet, and all those people who just got their first HDTV in the last few years is not gonna go out and make another $1,000+ purchase just to add a little 3D content. Right now a 3D TV is still a major investment.

[MaryJane]

You are absolutely wrong. The boom in HDTVs is what brought the price down to $1,000, and that only happened within the last 18 months or so. Early last year HDTV saturation was at about 35% and now a Google search will tell you that it's anywhere from 56-65%. And there about 116 million household in the U.S just for reference.

Those people who bought an HDTV in the last few years ARE going to be willing to make another $1,000 purchase in the next few years.

America is the land of over-indulgence and "keeping up with the Jonse's" it is wrong to assume a family would be unwilling to buy two TVs in a matter of 4-6 years, especially when next year 3DTVs are certain to be big part of 2011 Black Friday/Cyber Monday/holiday shopping.

And your point about only 46% of US homes receiving an HD signal proves my point; lack of content is not a hinderance to purchase. Those 9-19% of people with no HD signal through their cable provider either have BluRay or are just simply enjoying widescreen TV. Most 3DTV owners are probably just viewing the demo disc their TV came with or the few 3D BluRays they can buy. For now, the point of the purchase is being 'hip' and having the privilege of bragging about the lack of 3D content to people who don't have your level of perceived luxury.

[Ian Sane]

Why do you suppose so many companies are jumping on the 3D bandwagon?

Aside from Nintendo, it's to sell TVs.  The move to HD created this sort of frenzy where everyone bought a new TV.  I'm like the only person I know who doesn't have one.  But people don't buy something like a TV very often, or at least they don't normally have any need to.  You buy a new TV when the old one breaks or something major like color TV or HDTV comes out that gives you justification for upgrading.  The TV manufacturers know that once everyone has an HDTV then sales will diminish.  They have to come up with some new justification for buying a TV and 3D is their answer.  And if it works in a few years they'll come up with some other dumb gimmick to sell TVs.  They want people to buy a new TV every couple of years and can't do that without some sort of new feature that makes the old TVs obsolete.
 
For Nintendo it's the same strategy with the DS and Wii where they use some gimmick feature to attract casuals.  I'm not crapping on the 3DS for it has useful improvements as well like the analog stick and the beefed up specs.  But they need a shiny novelty to get rubes to buy it.  3D is currently popular and is eye-catching so that's what they went with.  And when they release the successor to the 3DS it too will have some sort of gimmick as well.
 
In fact you could look at the current 3DTV push the same as you can look at the future of consoles.  Nintendo has introduced the gimmick as the justification for an otherwise unnecessary new product (without the remote what use would there be to go from Cube to Wii?)  That's what TV manufacturers are doing and that's probably what console makers will do as the hardware improvement becomes less significant.

[Morari]

Actually, the 3DS is proof that 3D is here to stay. The most popular system EVER is going to incorporate the tech, and you don't think that bodes well?

Isn't that what they said about the VirtualBoy?