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

[oohhboy]

360/PS3 had jumped the gun and under delivered at the same time when it came to graphic hardware. While they did anticipate the move to 720p/1080p, their machines were underpowered or very poorly designed for the job. Sure they look good next to the Wii since they could output in a higher resolution and now everyone is packing an LCD, but that "Advantage" had cost them dearly.

Now that 1080p is now the de-facto standard for the next decade or 2 with 720p as the floor, graphical gains are going to be marginal coming into next gen. Given the costs considerations, development costs, technological progress and the ability for the average human to even tell the difference, next gen consoles won't be that much more powerful than the WiiU without blowing the bank or having the only people who would notice be the pixel counters. MS can afford to break the bank, but Sony has no chance in hell considering how poorly the company is doing as a whole and the state that the Vita is currently in with no end insight.

720/PS4 will be more powerful, but it won't be the mine blowing large gap it is today. Even on the high end PC scene developments have been sluggish. There are only a handful of games that remotely push those computers and they do it pretty much out of brute force like having absurdly high resolutions or having having some very nice but expensive effects that can be done cheaper with marginal impact.

If this has any truth to it, MS is looking to sell you a locked down, striped down PC in the future.

[Chozo Ghost]

They may call it Xbox Infinite like the old rumor suggested. Infinity sign looking like the number 8 of course.

Well, a sideways 8, but yeah, that's a good point. You may very well be on to something.

[Spak-Spang]

Oohboy:  I agree with that...and yet...there are things that can be done to make games continue to look better.  Mostly, it involves great art design...but being able to push larger environments, larger number of characters on screen, have better more dynamic lighting effects, smoother animation...all of that will come with the upcoming systems.

But, what is clear with the Wii is that HD doesn't matter as much as art direction...and the more developers are pushing to this ultra realism...the worse the game community will be in my opinion.  I love the more stylized games for visual bliss. 

[NWR_insanolord]

It's diminishing returns going forward. Microsoft could go all out and blow the others away in terms of raw specs, but at a glance it won't look that much better than what Sony and Nintendo are doing. Most of the ways it would be a major improvement are hard to sell to a mass audience because they're not visible on the surface. By doing that, Microsoft would make less money with probably negligible effects on market share, and If Nintendo and Sony both play it safe they'll have a large enough combined install base to ensure that they both get most third party titles. It's easier and more profitable for Microsoft to do the same.

[Spak-Spang]

It's diminishing returns going forward. Microsoft could go all out and blow the others away in terms of raw specs, but at a glance it won't look that much better than what Sony and Nintendo are doing. Most of the ways it would be a major improvement are hard to sell to a mass audience because they're not visible on the surface. By doing that, Microsoft would make less money with probably negligible effects on market share, and If Nintendo and Sony both play it safe they'll have a large enough combined install base to ensure that they both get most third party titles. It's easier and more profitable for Microsoft to do the same.

This is true.  I went to look at the new Retina display Mac Book Pros, and I couldn't really see a difference. 

But still from here on out its diminishing returns...but the things about diminishing returns is they are...well diminishing...so this next generation can still get a pretty good bump of graphical returns...however, next will be less, and less and less. 

[Chozo Ghost]

Graphical returns may be diminishing, but there is still much that can be improved in non-graphical ways such as in physics, A.I. interactions, and so on. These things require enormous calculations to be performed.

[NWR_insanolord]

Which I acknowledged, and subsequently pointed out that there's no easy way to show that off, making it hard to convince people to pay upwards of $400 for the console.

[Ian Sane]

Years ago it seemed like the each company had something missing.  Nintendo had motion control but not HD and the other two had HD but no motion control.  Sony and MS then added Move and Kinect and now Nintendo is finally getting the HD specs with the Wii U.  I would actually be perfectly content if it stayed like that for years.  I think it logically COULD stay like that for years.  The only reason there even seems to be serious talk about new consoles from MS and Sony is entirely because Nintendo is introducing a new one, so I guess the other guys have to match that.  But do they really?  Sony and MS were able to address their motion control shortcomings with an accessory.  Nintendo couldn't do that to beef up the specs; they had to release a new system.  It doesn't seem like MS and Sony really HAVE to upgrade at this point.  Sony in particular was talking a bath on the PS3 for years.  Why abandon the PS3 when it is finally profitable for a PS4 that would logically restart the same process?  These can't be chincy upgrades.  They have to be something significant and that means they'll likely cost Sony and MS a lot of money.  If they're going to do that there needs to be a really obvious point to it and, as J.P. pointed out, they need to be able to sell consumers on it.

It seems like the point is mostly just that Nintendo has started a new generation so everyone has to follow when it really is only necessary if the Wii U is so superior to the PS360 systems that they would need to upgrade to stay competitive.  The "new console every five years" model was never going to be permanent because it never needed to be.  Someday we would reach a point where any game that would cost-feasible to make would be doable on the current hardware.  The future of consoles is going to be more like movie or music mediums where something like VHS or LP records can last a long time before a new format is needed.

[Ceric]

I agree with the VHS and LP one.

I will say that Sony somewhat botched there architecture this times around.  There is a lot of Power being lost in the PS3.

The 360 really could use a refresh.  Not a major one like the Wii, but I'm hearing stories of needing to do disc swapping and like in this day and age.  That's really old school.  It will only get worse with 2 Systems out with large media formats.  Plus a few other odds and ends.

2 Years and I think the 360 will really need to have its successor by then.  The PS3 on the other hand I think Sony can wait until it can have a reasonable price to compete.

[tendoboy1984]

Why abandon the PS3 when it is finally profitable for a PS4 that would logically restart the same process?  These can't be chincy upgrades.  They have to be something significant and that means they'll likely cost Sony and MS a lot of money.  If they're going to do that there needs to be a really obvious point to it and, as J.P. pointed out, they need to be able to sell consumers on it.

You could make that same argument for every single console ever made. Designing and selling a new console costs a lot of money and resources. If it wasn't worth it, then no company would have ever made a successor console. In most cases, there is enough software and hardware sold to make up for the costs of development.

[Ian Sane]

Why abandon the PS3 when it is finally profitable for a PS4 that would logically restart the same process?  These can't be chincy upgrades.  They have to be something significant and that means they'll likely cost Sony and MS a lot of money.  If they're going to do that there needs to be a really obvious point to it and, as J.P. pointed out, they need to be able to sell consumers on it.

You could make that same argument for every single console ever made. Designing and selling a new console costs a lot of money and resources. If it wasn't worth it, then no company would have ever made a successor console. In most cases, there is enough software and hardware sold to make up for the costs of development.

But it's not like most consoles from the past were a total money pit for several years.  It WAS worth it, but in the past you didn't bleed money for years after launch.

[Spak-Spang]

Also, in the past it was more affordable to make AAA titles.  Now, with HD graphics, voice acting, cut scenes, story, multi and single player games, online, offline support.  Everything that goes into making a high caliber HD game is much more expensive than game development in the past.  And the talented designers are asking for more and more money for their labor.  (They deserve it.)  But it all adds up.  We are not just talking about HD consoles are expensive and risky with each new release...but also HD game development.  The market is risky...and so it makes new consoles in more risky. 

I don't think we are in a 10 year cycle yet...perhaps an 8 year cycle...but I imagine in 2-3 generations we will be up there to a 10+ year cycle...and when that happens gaming will be good/great again.   

[Chozo Ghost]

The Atari 2600 had a 14-15 year life span, and even longer than that if you count the Flashback units.

[Ian Sane]

The Atari 2600's life span though was like the PS2 in that it kept going along years after its successor came out.  But it only lasted from 1977-1982 before the 5200 came out.  So that was five years until its successor came out.  Of course the 5200 was kind of a dud so the 2600 continued to be successful and then continued on as a sort of fringe retro system during the NES years.  But those extra years don't really matter.  What matters is how long a system is around as the current system for its manufacturer.  That timeframe indicates how long the hardware can remain current before it logically needs to be updated.

Of course some consoles have had a little bit longer than five years between systems.  The Genesis came out here in 1989 and wasn't replaced by the Saturn until 1995, so that's six years.  The NES went from 1983 to 1990 in Japan and 1985 to 1991 in North America.

[Chozo Ghost]

The Genesis came out here in 1989 and wasn't replaced by the Saturn until 1995, so that's six years.

That's if you don't count the 32x and/or Sega CD.

[tendoboy1984]

The NES went from 1983 to 1990 in Japan and 1985 to 1991 in North America.

Actually the NES lasted until 1994 in North America, that's 9 years. (!)

[Ian Sane]

The NES went from 1983 to 1990 in Japan and 1985 to 1991 in North America.

Actually the NES lasted until 1994 in North America, that's 9 years. (!)

I guess you missed the part where I was talking about the years before a successor came along.  As the primary Nintendo console, the NES lasted from 1985 to 1991 when the Super Nintendo came out.

[Chozo Ghost]

Yeah, I wouldn't really say the NES had much life after the SNES came out. How many new NES games came out after the SNES? Zoda's Revenge and Wario's Woods are it as far as I know.

[TJ Spyke]

Yeah, I wouldn't really say the NES had much life after the SNES came out. How many new NES games came out after the SNES? Zoda's Revenge and Wario's Woods are it as far as I know.

According to Wikipedia, the following games from Nintendo were released (just using the US) in the US after SNES came out:
NES Open Tournament Golf
Kirby's Adventure
Yoshi's Cookie
Yoshi
Tetris 2
Zoda's Revenge: StarTropics II
Wario's Woods

[Chozo Ghost]

I knew there was more than those two I could think of offhand, but just as I suspected there wasn't that much more. Keep in mind those 7 games were spread out over 1991-1994. That's very slim pickings for such a length of time.

The NES certainly deserved more support than that, though. Its install base was 60 Million which was the highest of any system at that point. Seems wasteful for Nintendo to just kick it to the curb like they did.

[TJ Spyke]

In that same time frame Japan got 3 more games (2 of them being Fire Emblem games). I think Nintendo wanted to put more resources into the SNES since the Genesis was really picking up steam. Nintendo has better supported the NES after its successor came out than any of their other systems (at least outside of Japan).

[Louieturkey]

TJ is right, the NES was getting major love compared to just about any other Nintendo system outside handhelds.

I think it more has to do with if the system is selling still or not.  The NES was still selling after the SNES was released, so they kept making games.  The SNES stalled after the N64 was released.  The N64 stalled a year before the GCN was released and the GCN stalled 2 years before the Wii came out.  Now the Wii stalled last year and probably won't get many more, if any games directly from Nintendo after the Wii U is released.

[BranDonk Kong]

PS2 selling (far) better than the PS3 is why SONY took away backwards compatibility. Shame.

[Chozo Ghost]

PS2 selling (far) better than the PS3 is why SONY took away backwards compatibility. Shame.

Hey Brandogg, is there any way to solder the emotion chip thing into the newer PS3s to add PS2 BC? If you could do that I'm sure you could make a lot of money because a lot of people would want that.

[shingi_70]

There's a good chance the PS4 wont be BC with the PS3. Either.


Also I'm still going with fall 2013 for Durango at least. I'm expecting an annoucment event between October and December.  Quite possibly at the Windows 8 launch event.