Post by: RickPowers on March 09, 2004, 01:27:26 PM
In a story at BBCi, it's being predicted by Informa Media Group that Sony will 30 Million PS3 units by 2010. They put Microsoft at 10M and Nintendo at 5M in that same time frame.
Nintendo currently is in third place behind Microsoft in Europe ... but ONLY in Europe. Nintendo is in second place worldwide.
It's highly unusual for forecasts of this nature to come this early, but much of this analysis is based on the importance of Online gaming for the immediate future, in addition to Sony's dominance in this generation.
Post by: RickPowers on March 09, 2004, 01:43:34 PM
The BBC is probably not that far from the truth.
Microsoft is already headlong into the next-gen, holding back Rare projects specifically for Xbox 2. Combined with their remarkably strong online service which will persist into the future, and Nintendo's continued insistence in not giving gamers what they've said they want, and this is a scenario that could very likely play out.
Sony making a 20M console lead is not entirely out of the question, given their dominance over the past decade, but if all of the consoles launch in the same time frame, it could end up being a battle of specs. It SHOULD be a battle of software, but the problem with that, is that the spec determine which developers are going to focus on what hardware, and if they choose to focus on the machine with the best paper numbers, as opposed to what machine will yield the best price/performance ratio, then Nintendo could be on the short end of the stick from the starting gate.
Nintendo needs to not only have a strong initial lineup from their own internal efforts, but the specs need to be compelling enough to attract developers, or this news story could end up more true than even Nintendo would want to admit.
And just a reminder ... these are just EUROPEAN numbers.
Post by: - NintendoFan - on March 09, 2004, 01:48:41 PM
Post by: joshnickerson on March 09, 2004, 01:48:56 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 09, 2004, 02:18:19 PM
Besides, if Sony does what they want to do with the PS3, I can't see it doing well at all.
Post by: vudu on March 09, 2004, 02:41:24 PM
Post by: Coarse_Limely on March 09, 2004, 02:56:31 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on March 09, 2004, 03:51:43 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on March 09, 2004, 04:40:27 PM
Quote
The report stirred up little new dust--it predicted Nintendo would emphasize gameplay, Microsoft would continue to target the hardcore gamer, and Sony would leverage its existing brand recognition. "Sony is set to exploit the lead it established with the PS2," the report's author Toby Scott reported.
GameSpot checked in with the Zelos Group's Billy Pidgeon about how the next-gen console wars might rage in the US market. He cautioned against any presumptuous declaration of a winner. "The current generation market leader always has an advantage going into the next generation," Pidgeon said today, "but disruptive technologies or business practices deployed by competitors can reset market shares."
American Technology Research analyst P.J. McNealy agreed with the first part of Pidgeon's assessment. "Having an installed base of 98 million original PlayStations, and having another 70-plus million and growing PS2s is a huge advantage over Microsoft, Nintendo, and anyone else who wants to enter the console market."
So, shouldn't we be hearing about how the PSP is already another NGage by now?
Post by: Perfect Cell on March 09, 2004, 04:55:26 PM
This is harldy fair at all... Nobody expected Microsoft to do this well, or Sony to dominate this generation. I wouldnt count out the big N just yet, but maybe thats because im a Nintendo fanboy
Post by: cubedcinder128 on March 09, 2004, 05:28:43 PM
Post by: RABicle on March 09, 2004, 05:50:26 PM
Post by: Mario on March 09, 2004, 05:50:44 PM
Post by: Chongman on March 09, 2004, 05:55:09 PM
Quote
According to the report, the PS3 is expected to sell 32 million units in Europe by 2010, more than the combined sales of the Microsoft and Nintendo machines.
THIS JUST IN!! According to a report fresh of the press, Sony is introducing a brand new waffle iron, COMPLETE with online capabilities to maxmize features that a small majority of waffle users will comply to. Microsoft, never letting themselves be outdone, will also premier their own breakfast toaster, the xwaff, that comes in with built in ethernet port adjacent to the crispness setting. These two machines will compete neck and neck with performance, each one being able to cook 12 million waffles while online. But of course this war is already decided, it says so here on the report. Sony with 1 billion units by 2015 trailed by Microsoft with 3.5 million. And nintendo? Frankly they suck. thats right.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
really, i dont want to be a fanboy, i dont want to sound childish or devoted to nintendo, but WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THIS???!? A "report" which is obviously infallable has been put out by their top notch analysts....bah! I can be an analyst too! Hmmm.....i think I'll side with the market leader....yup, sony with 10 bajillion units and nintendo with 2.4! Now pay me you fools!
it just seems dumb, no? and I have no doubt that nintendo will pull of an online plan next gen, I dont know why so many ppl whine about it so often. Like mouse clicker said, would any of us expected ps1 to trounce the 64?? what idiots!! I hate these types of "reports," they should be suied for making themselfs sound infallible.
Post by: ThePerm on March 09, 2004, 05:56:32 PM
Post by: Deguello on March 09, 2004, 07:05:46 PM
I find that a fallacy. If you are referring to online stuff. Some might say they want it, some might say they do not want it. So I guess the majority wins here, and I guess 90-94% of gamers don't want online because of the some 80 million or so consoles out there, only around 1.7 million want to play things online, free or otherwise. So I guess Nintendo IS giving gamers what they want. Now you might say something like "Give gamers an option" or something like that. The thing is, I would rather have Nintendo not waste their time coding online data in their games to delay the game just to please 3% of the gaming population. You may want it, but I don't, and there are more of me than there are of you.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 09, 2004, 07:17:08 PM
I always hate this assumption that Xbox is the hardcore gamer's console. It BY FAR has the most "casual" fanbase of them all. All of the major sellers are extremely market friendly corporate games designed in board meetings. The only "hardcore" games for the Xbox are Sega titles and they BOMB in sales. Just because MS says they're for hardcore gamers doesn't mean they are. Sorry to get off topic but I had to get that off my chest.
Anyhoo I first saw this article and I thought they were predicting that the PS2 would win the console wars to which I thought to myself "well DUH". I just now realized it was the PS3 they were talking about. I agree with Rick; it's too early to make a prediction like that. The N64 was widely considered in 1996 to be the market leader. It had it all: hardware specs that blew the sh!t out of the other consoles, the strong Nintendo brand name, exclusive support from red hot developer Rare, and the "best game of all time" as its launch title. It seemed safe at the time to assume that the current market leader would continue to lead particularly since Nintendo had just had a resurgence in popularity thanks to Donkey Kong Country. I thought the CD thing might bite them in the ass but my assumption was that if they lost they would lose to Sega. I never thought that f*cking SONY would win. They weren't even a "real" game company.
MC is right in that the console wars can change overnight. What if Sony goes with an expensive set-box for the PS3 and MS and Nintendo have significantly cheaper consoles? Don't you think that with a near simultaneous launch that sort of thing would affect the outcome greatly? It seems that MS is going to try to make a profit with their next console. Things are going to be different when they can't throw money at everything. They're going to have a different strategy. Plus what has Sony REALLY done this gen to keep them on top? They had a year head start and got really lucky in that the biggest seller this generation happened to be a PS2 exclusive. They had a pretty lazy approach this gen since they won before the other consoles were launched. They can't keep the same approach and maintain dominance.
I think the real deciding factor this next gen will be launch. Assuming that all three consoles launch at the same time and have virtually identical specs the first console to have an exclusive must-own killer app will win. By the end of the first year we'll know where they all stand.
Post by: Jensen on March 09, 2004, 08:31:32 PM
Quote
The new consoles, expected by 2005, could have up to 1,000 times more processing power than current models and emphasise online gaming.
HAHAHA 1000 times...... Wow.... Sony is hyping the capabilities of the PS3 more than they did with the PS2!
There isn't really much that we know that differentiates the next generation hardware. Don't they all have an IBM cpu and an ATI gpu?
Their reputations in this cycle are the only thing that we know that may effect their sales in the next cycle.
Post by: Bloodworth on March 09, 2004, 08:46:20 PM
Post by: past pixel on March 10, 2004, 01:34:37 AM
Post by: DevAdvocate on March 10, 2004, 04:27:17 AM
I don't doubt that Sony will have an early advantage (although they may be the last to launch), but it's going to be closer than 30-10-5 four years from launch. To me, the real question about the next generation is how the flow of quality titles may be effected by the higher technical specs and consumer expectations...even longer development cycles and with more delays than before? I hope not, but it's likely.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 10, 2004, 04:49:26 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on March 10, 2004, 05:28:26 AM
Most know me as a pesimist who always tears down Nintendo's decisions of purple lunch boxes, but this BBC article is the kind of unfounded falsity that I hate about the media who know nothing of the market. I always keep my fingers crossed that these articles will be proven false simply by good decisions from Nintendo and not the kind that have taken them were they are today as being percieved as a loser in third when they are actually on equal footing with Sony.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 10, 2004, 07:07:13 AM
I highly doubt japanese style games will ever be really popular in North America EVER again.
"Nintendo has the strongest chance of grasping the hardcore market if they would just get their mainstreme image under control. The next generation is a clean slate;"
FALSE, nintendo's image isnt going away very fast, if at all the moment, hell, it may even be getting worse.
"I believe whoever can grasp the minority audience of hardcores then they can lead the market. Just like any other company who may use racial minority groups to get their mainstreme audience active."
This is so flawed it isnt even funny. Nintendo already has the Minority. The minority translates to less sales, it is as simple as that. MArio games will NEVER be as popular as they once were, to think otherwise is just wishful thinking.
I will use myself as an example. I am an older gamer (33), who has alway owned NIN consoles, I have had every single one, this was the first generation I have owned the "others" as well.
I consider myself to be a longtime gamer, who plays often, who has the financial means to buy whatever games and consoles I desire. The way things stand at the moment, this will be my last NIN console. I hardly use it at all anymore, all of the NIN favorites I had grown up with I didnt like this generation, Zelda, Mario, all failed to meet what I was looking for. I play my X-box the most now, simply because I llike the games on it better, I love X-box live, I also love the fact many of the games are in 480P and almost all are DD5.1, letting me make the most of my TV and Stereo.
Many here will say, great, get lost. That is fine with me, but remember that I am not alone in my thoughts, and that it wouldnt be very hard to make me change my mind if NIN offered a more diverse product.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 10, 2004, 07:20:27 AM
"Ever" is a pretty long time. After Atari crashed I don't think anyone thought that American games would ever be really popular again. That turned out to be wrong. Plus some Japanese games are still really popular. Final Fantasy for example.
I also think that Mario's popularity is dependant on Nintendo's popularity. If they ever go back to being a dominant force again so will Mario. Plus he has managed to remain quite popular on the GBA so he's not a total non-factor.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 10, 2004, 07:22:49 AM
Oh, then gamers think Final Fantasy is a U.S.-developed game?
And since when has the Xbox had a more diverse lineup? Sports, racing, and random, generic hack n' slash and FPS titles, that's all I see...I mean, come on, I only have 2 Xbox titles, both which were released within the first year of the system, and nothing else...And I might get 2 titles this year...That's pretty pathetic when a single company is holding my interest in the system, and it's hardly one of the best(Tecmo)...
The same goes for my PS2...I've got Vice City, Ratchet & Clank, MGS2, and Devil May Cry, but nothing else, though the PS2 has more exclusives than any other system...Why? Because they suck in comparison...Jak? Crap...Sly Cooper? Even worse...And what do I see in Sony's lineup at E3? Gran Turismo FOUR, Jak THREE, Sly Cooper TWO, Ratchet and Clank THREE...There's hardly diversity in the industry anymore, and at least Ninty is trying to change that and put some great innovative titles onto the market(Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, Animal Crossing) Of course, there are people who say, "OMG GOTTA GO BUY THE NEWEST EDITION OF MADDEN!" instead of trying these new faces...Diversity means nothing if you don't support the companies that put out these great products and buy generic tripe like True Crime...End of Story...
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 10, 2004, 07:43:00 AM
As for Final Fantasy, it sells simply because of its name.
In all honesty I really dont care what happens with NIN, because there are currently plenty of games on the X-box (Rainbow6) and PS2 (manhunt) that I am currently playing and enjoying. I will dictate where I spend my dollars, not you.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 10, 2004, 08:00:52 AM
It really is kind of silly to complain about diversity when you admit to playing and liking generic games...It has nothing to do with my or your taste in games...
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 10, 2004, 08:20:23 AM
If I came accross as rude, I apologize. However your comments can be looked at as just as rude, thought you try to be subtle in your appraoch.
"OMG GOTTA GO BUY THE NEWEST EDITION OF MADDEN!"
"How about reading what I said more carefully, eh?" is that a shot at Canada EH?
The problem is I dont find games like GTA, manhunt, rainbow 6 and Halo to be generic. Infact I fine these games to be a lot less generic than any Nintendo title I own. I see nothing innovative abot Luigi's mansion, sunshine or WW. Maybe it is just my taste in games, or maybe itas the games, who knows and who really cares.
All I know for sure is that if things dont change, NIN will have one less customer next generation.
Post by: vudu on March 10, 2004, 09:53:36 AM
you start a conversation you can't even finish it
you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything
when i have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
say something once, why say it again
Post by: Ian Sane on March 10, 2004, 10:14:44 AM
Yeah but you're only one person and there's no proof that enough people share your tastes to make it hurt Nintendo. "I don't think Nintendo cuts it anymore" and "Most people don't think Nintendo cuts it anymore" are different statements. And it doesn't make any sense to dislike Nintendo for not having a diverse lineup and then defend generic gaming tastes in the next post. All three companies can be accused of releasing generic games. Therefore one company shouldn't be given more flack for it than another company.
"As for Final Fantasy, it sells simply because of its name."
So do a lot of titles. How does that arguement justify saying that Japanese games will never be really popular in the US again?
It bugs the f*ck out of me when someone accuses Nintendo of being generic because they release sequels (OH NO! God forbid they please the fans!) when every other company in the world does the same thing. Nintendo took SIX YEARS to release a sequel to Super Mario 64. Companies like Capcom and EA release sequels to their popular franchises EVERY YEAR. Why the hell don't those companies get flack for that? Most Nintendo sequels are released two to three years apart which seems quite acceptable to me.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 10, 2004, 10:36:05 AM
Not exactly- Nintendo is definitely using an IBM CPU and an ATI GPU next generation, and Microsoft is at least rumored to be using both companies as well. I don't think Sony has announced what company they'll be using for their GPU, or if they're making their own. IBM does have a hand in the PS3's CPU, but so do Sony and I believe Toshiba, so it's not exactly IBM alone.
Post by: Coarse_Limely on March 10, 2004, 12:14:33 PM
Post by: ThePerm on March 10, 2004, 01:32:26 PM
), are the fans who have the most games, are the fans who have the best rated games, are the fans who have the weirdest games because they offer interesting new play, these are the fans who buy the posters, the bobbleheads, the action figures...(let alone go to the blacksmith to have themself a master sword carved) thats what a hardcore fan is...its someone who is really deeply rooted into the videogame culture....hardcore does not mean a gamer who like wrestling or drives a mean car.....
Post by: nolimit19 on March 10, 2004, 05:29:56 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 10, 2004, 05:53:16 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 10, 2004, 06:52:11 PM
The biggest hurdles Sega faced with the DC were a huge debt, non-existent advertising, and a launch between generations. The N5 will not have two of those problems and although Nintendo kind of sucks at marketing it's not nearly as bad as that of the Dreamcast. I think that if Nintendo goes out and sincerely tries to make the N5 the absolute best console on the market, even if it is not acknowledged as such by all, it will ultimately be better accepted by hardcore gamers and Ninendo fans and will likely be in a better position. Nintendo did NOT try to make the Cube the best as it has been clear that the GBA has always been their main focus. As a result it's not even well embraced by hardcore gamers and Nintendo needs to be universally loved by the hardcore to be a serious competitor. That means with the N5 they need to have more original content, more varied content, all the genres covered, and their sequels have to be polished to perfection (something Mario Sunshine was not).
It's clear that Nintendo has no chance winning the casual market so they should aggressively target hardcore gamers because they can be quite good at appealing to those gamers when they want to. The Cube is quite wishy-washy and doesn't really appeal to any one group strongly. If it targets the hardcore not only will have a core group that embraces it but it also will consistently get better reviews and coverage from the gaming media.
Post by: Tryonic Prinv on March 10, 2004, 11:32:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
well heres whats gonna happen...all the video game systems are gonna be real similar...chepa ports...high power...ninty wins on fisrt party
ThePerm is right, so long as Nintendo isn't slow to the draw. If these consoles are truly launched in the same time frame, Nintendo could turn the whole war around with software. Forget about luigi's mansion and wave race - think about launching with zelda and metroid instead. The world would become sony's and microsoft's own personal hell.
The proof is there that people still go crazy for Nintendo games, they just come too damn late.
Post by: theRPGFreak on March 11, 2004, 09:08:13 AM
Post by: Jensen on March 11, 2004, 06:43:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: theRPGFreak
The only real threat that I see in the PS3 is this whole"Cell" chip. If it is what Sony says it is, then this could be a bad day for the big N and MC.
The Cell chip thing is just massive hype (at least in relation to the ps3)... the same thing as the 'emotion engine' hype. And people bought into the hype. Progress in console capabilities has always been fairly straightfoward.... the later the release date, the more power the system has. If two systems with close release dates have different capabilities (gamecube and xbox), the more powerful machine costs more ($99 and $179 now).
Remember the stories about the ps2 being used as a supercomputer in countries where supercomputers are banned?
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 12, 2004, 02:24:09 AM
Post by: vudu on March 12, 2004, 05:38:12 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 12, 2004, 06:04:01 AM
Every single Cell is supposed to be more powerful than the current consoles and there will be like 32 of 'em in a PS3. The problem is heat, massive multiprocessing, especially with fast processors, causes extreme heat and usually uses industrial cooling systems. So expect PS3s to be not nearly as powerful as claimed, about as loud as a GeForce FX (older model) and likely to melt when the room temperature rises one degree.
Sony claims the Cell will be in 45nm process, which is unlikely. They claimed the PSX was 65nm, but an analysis showed it to be manufactured in the 90nm process. They need to research the process, design the chip (which isn't supposed to complete until 2007), finalize the device and start manufacturing it. I know, Sony is as smart as a brick in this respect...
The Cell is supposed to be able to cluster (share load) over the internet, which is pure bull#### unless your internet connection has a latency at nanosecond scale. This can be done in large-scale analysis (SETI), where the results can take days, but is unacceptable for videogaming.
Post by: Retroyoshi on March 12, 2004, 06:47:00 AM
The problem isn't processing power right now. The only reason art looks bad in games RIGHT NOW is because of time constraints (or budget constraints). Rasing the bar on technical power isn't going to help that at all. This is why I'm kind of confused. Art isn't being pushed in current games. How is adding advanced shaders and more drawing ability going to help? This is a little off topic- so I'll leave it at that.
However, I'm not convinced yet that the next gen is going to do well at all - at least at first.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 13, 2004, 03:52:40 AM
I doubt they could just add more cells without research, at least if they don't want it to evaporate the moment you power it up.
Post by: oohhboy on March 14, 2004, 12:16:53 AM
The problem is that the market has dirfted from wht it originally began as, a group of hardcore gamers. Now it has shifted into the mainstream as per say. But not much care has been taken in expanding this market. It is an uncontrolled mess of crap games, hype, bad marketing, lack of comsumer direction and almost a total lack of planning for the future from most of the companies involed in this mud fight.
Sure everything looks good now with growing revenues across the board, the market now expanded to a scale which can challege other forms of entertainmant. But the direction it has been taken in is not the best for all concerned. With Sony and MS moving their way towards set-top boxes, they unknowingly bring other forms of entertainment that are in direct competition for the comsumer dollar that much closer. When set-top boxes becomes a financal reality, the gaming market would fade into a subcatagory of the entertainment station. Gaming developers, even now are somewhat unsure whether thier game would sell due to market volitlaty would be blind. Pressure from movie releases, music, TV would be a button away from games and with the lost of identity, would come ruin.
Funny thing that you guys say that developers haven't got any experience with multiple processors. Since when is a GPU not a processor? iven it dos serve a specalized funtion, therefore it does it better. There was a point where CPU power wasn't that important due to the point that AI wasn't really good and nobody really cared. But with graphics becoming a given with exceptions of developers that need a serious ass kicking, AI would become the new focus in advancement. With that you need processing power. But games being a set of serial events, the program would also be a serial set of processes. Multiple CPUs is un suited for gaming since so many variables depend on another variable that has gone before it. You fire at someone, they start dying. Cause and effect. They simply don't happen at the same time. How would the person die if the bullet hasn't reached them? Multiple processing is only really usefull for when you know what variable your going to put in next and that it is not going to be needed by the other processor. the Sega Saturn has already proven that multiple CPUs for a gaming is not a good idea.
But then the DS is a different matter. One should think of it as two sparate, but extreamly closely networked computers outputing to two different screens.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 14, 2004, 04:57:18 AM
The whole "cause-effect" stuff isn't a valid point, games have lots of individual entities, each reacting to different signals. That could be handled with multiple threads (i.e. SMP), one thread per entity. That would demand a lot from the load balancer, though. In your example, you'd have a player thread, which fires a bullet thread, which, upon impact, signals to the enemy thread "hey, you're hit!" and the enemy thread then decides its pawn must die. While all of this happens, another enemy thread might be busy running around or shooting at the player, creating additional bullet threads that are independant of the shot action above.
Basically it would be an extension of OOP, but needed additional error checking to avoid unpredictable results (e.g. the bullet gets two calls while the player gets none). They don't know how to do that error checking, though, and would apply their ways of OOP to that multithreaded program, which easily results in a desaster (as my friend found out the hard way).
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 14, 2004, 05:58:55 AM
Quote
How come everybody is faulting the GameCube when the GC itself is a piece of techincal art in design? The problem with Nintendo's current generation has neve been about the hardware. It matches ploygon for ploygin, texture for texture to the other two consoles out. Sure the machines do have different feature sets, but Hardware is not the current issue and never was.
The problem is that the market has dirfted from wht it originally began as, a group of hardcore gamers. Now it has shifted into the mainstream as per say. But not much care has been taken in expanding this market. It is an uncontrolled mess of crap games, hype, bad marketing, lack of comsumer direction and almost a total lack of planning for the future from most of the companies involed in this mud fight.
Sure everything looks good now with growing revenues across the board, the market now expanded to a scale which can challege other forms of entertainmant. But the direction it has been taken in is not the best for all concerned. With Sony and MS moving their way towards set-top boxes, they unknowingly bring other forms of entertainment that are in direct competition for the comsumer dollar that much closer. When set-top boxes becomes a financal reality, the gaming market would fade into a subcatagory of the entertainment station. Gaming developers, even now are somewhat unsure whether thier game would sell due to market volitlaty would be blind. Pressure from movie releases, music, TV would be a button away from games and with the lost of identity, would come ruin.
That was beautiful, oohhboy. Thank you.
Post by: Oldskool on March 15, 2004, 07:08:40 AM
Quote
The new consoles, expected by 2005, could have up to 1,000 times more processing power than current models and emphasise online gaming.
Is it just me, or am I thinking of the "PS9" commercial that aired when the PS2 launched?
Post by: oohhboy on March 15, 2004, 11:05:08 PM
With GOOD games averaging 10 mil ploygon count and looking great, boosting that by a modest 100x from last generation would give 1 Billion ploygons. Dividing that by 30 frames would give you 33 Million ploygons per frame. 640 * 480 = 307200 pixels. I would say that's a bit on the over kill side. the only thing that can be really inproved here on in is not the number of ploygons, but texture resolution and effects. With all that spare power from not drawing those ploygons would be more than enough from any texture that can fit into the RAM.
They say large crowds are still a problem. Given in Pikmin and games like TA already push 100 unit to 1k per side for TA on newer machines, I would say crowd control never was really a problem, just the lack of imagination of using the crowd.
With all that excess power on tap, my guess is that Nintendo's next gameplay step I would say would be in A.I. Graphicaly, without everybody going to HDTVs or holodecks, graphically everybody is going to be equal. RAM and how is it used will be the new deciding factor in power. Ploygon counts will become meaningless, texture sizes and detail will become only limited by onboard RAM.
Tommorrow's games will be judge on A.I, detail in the enviroment, movement, control, level design, gameplay.
Detail in the enviroment you say? Whats the point of having a brick wall with immense detail when there is nothing but the brick wall. Things like trash, the wind, hair, smoke, debries, everyday things you see in the street should be there. Absoult immersion in detail, not in the graphical sense, but in the art.
Post by: KDR_11k on March 16, 2004, 07:41:07 AM
2. TA has pretty lowpoly models. I don't know about Pikmin, but I haven't seen any game where you could run into a real crowd (100+ people) and I cannot imagine this looking good (the polygon count needs to be kept low enough). Pikmin are simple characters, human characters, especially in a first-person game need a lot more detail.
3. More details in the environments eat ressources that could be used elsewhere. That's why games are getting so damn short, they need too much time per level.
4. Texture resolution is absolutely disastrous on consoles. While the PC is closing in on 2048x2048 (vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004), the current consoles still have just 128x128 textures (or 256x256, in case of the XBox). They'll need a LOT of texture memory, UT2003 (1024x1024 texs) already kills my 64MB r200. Or they'll need a BIG bandwidth, but please with enough cache so we won't see something like the PS2 again (IIRC giving it a chunk larger than 128x64 causes it to choke...).
