Xbox One

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I think another problem is that the difference between each console generation in terms of graphical advancement is narrowing. The difference in terms of graphics between the PS2 and the PS1 was certainly greater than between the PS3 an the PS2.

That's also partly because we don't have memory issues anymore. Back then game studios had to cut things out to fit the game in the console. But now, we don't have issues with space, but the graphics department ballooned to the point that they sucked budget away from the gameplay.

Graphics is still improving; but it takes longer and longer to draw more detailed art. So even though you might be able to afford photo realism, your artists aren't up to it in the time given.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Solace

I think this generation is the last of the the trio. One of them is going to abandon the market. It may even be Nintendo, but my money is on Microsoft.

I'd agree with you there. Or, they may not abandon it, but it'll basically just become a TV-based computer rather an actual video game console.

[Xagzan]

They already seem to be pursuing that model, with all the 720 rumors flying around lately, like the report about TV integration

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's also partly because we don't have memory issues anymore. Back then game studios had to cut things out to fit the game in the console. But now, we don't have issues with space, but the graphics department ballooned to the point that they sucked budget away from the gameplay.

Graphics is still improving; but it takes longer and longer to draw more detailed art. So even though you might be able to afford photo realism, your artists aren't up to it in the time given.

That's pretty much the problem. Increasing amount of resources seem to be going into games graphics for diminishing graphical returns. Meanwhile, allot of games don't seem to be nearly as interested in examining how they can use new graphics technology to expand gameplay potential. You have games like Assassins Creed and the Arkham series that put allot of effort into coming up with really neat ways to improve the way gameplay mechanics look, but you certainly don't see that from the average new COD or Halo game.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Of course hardware matters. It's just that there are tech cutoff points where if you go too far, you hit the wall of price/reliability/ease of programming.

People want a powerful console. But if it costs too much, if it crashes/overheats, or if game developers hate it (Cell processor of PS3) , then the bad outweighs the good.

With all major console dropping their own hardware in favor of using PC's, i don't think ease of programming/reliability is an issue like it was with PS3's Cell processor.

While certainly getting better hardware means higher price, there's a breakoff point for cost over efficiency where you get the most of our buck just like PC hardware. Let's take memory for example, the WiiU have 2 GB compare to 8 GB that PS4 will have. That's a huge difference but as any PC user knows, going from 2 to 8 GB is a very small price difference over the benefits you gain from it.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I think another problem is that the difference between each console generation in terms of graphical advancement is narrowing. The difference in terms of graphics between the PS2 and the PS1 was certainly greater than between the PS3 an the PS2.

I don't think it's feasible to really say until one of the major developers release some ingame footage. We have seen some of engine tech demo and the new unreal, activision, final fantasy engine looks fantastic compare to the previous generation.

Originally Posted by Solace

No doubt about the system specs things. They do win mindshare, I won't deny that. It's just that ultimately, it's never really translated into generation success. Gaining developer support on the other hand, does, and I do think Nintendo is hurt there by western development. But I have my reservations if the path that development has been chasing is actually sustainable, when I look back on this generation and the graveyard of companies who gambled and lost on chasing AAA dreams.

I mean, when a company like Square comes out and says "Yeah, we sold millions of copies of our games but they still lost us money", you have to wonder about the business model these guys are using. At the very least, a company like Nintendo has a strong first party to sustain itself, but a company like Microsoft could be really hurt by a large contraction in AAA game development.

It's mostly an expectation issue, Square tried to base their expectation on metacritic score which is a terrible method. There's plenty of times where games are ranked very favorably with reviewer but fail to pull in sales due to variety of reason.

Also, it's most likely these company have become bloated over their previous success. Happens in any other companies in other industry as well and not all AAA developers are suffering. Mismanagement is more often the case than not for companies failing.

I think this generation is the last of the the trio. One of them is going to abandon the market. It may even be Nintendo, but my money is on Microsoft.

The most interesting thing in that conference was a bunch of adults having a puppet show. The rest talked about high end graphics as if the PC has never existed.

I'm hoping MS offers something more compelling, but then again....they aren't known for amazing conferences.

Well, that's pretty typical of console press conference. I think they wish PC audience isn't there to tell em how their amazing graphics is something they have been doing on their PC already. Funny thing is, most of games for the next gen console is being developed on the PC before being ported to the console.

[Westlo]

Hilariously Xbox Live is down right now for some people.

Loving the fake Kaz twitter.





https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/stat...68405026922496

/bow

Originally Posted by Sides

Not sure but wasn't FF15/Versus always stated as being a sony (PS3) platform game? Don't think anything has changed, except for the platform and possible being partially funded now, or for a while, by sony.
VGleaks seems to have accurate data, but some of the information seem to be dated when they are released, which in turn makes them seem inaccurate again for present day.

With the state Square Enix is currently in there was no way that Versus was going to stay a PS3 exclusive. Now that it has been bumped up to Ps4, rebranded as FF15 and is being helped/funded by Sony, it's locked in.

Originally Posted by Solace

That won't be true this gen, except maybe in a few rare cases of a developer really pushing the hardware....but then again that goes for all three systems. The Wii U can run everything the other two next gen systems can, with a few dials turned down at the worst. It's a big difference from the last gen.

Either way, at worst this is a repeat of Gen 6 in terms of power difference, and that's not a bad thing for us as gamers. Graphics never really decide these gen wars anyway, it always comes down to games and services.

There's no way the Wii U is comparable to the ps4/nextbox, there's going to be massive difference between the U and the 2. There's talk that Unreal Engine 4 won't even run on the Wii U and stuff like AMDs tessellation is pretty noticeable, check the hair on Lara for the PS360 vs PC.

People thinking X looks anywhere near as good as the ps4 killzone are insane, and killzone is only going to look better since the ram was increased. (rumors had it only using 2gig for what was shown)

The Wii U is screwed if the nextbox is used as the base for multiplatform titles. The Nintendo first party titles while popular need a gateway title to sell, without Wii Sports bringing in a new audience (who have now moved on to tablets or have no interest remaining) the nintendo games are back to N64/gamecube levels as opposed to the Wii heights.

I also wonder how Nintendo are handling the transtition from SD to HD, they've like never had to program anything with shaders in it before lol... this caused a lot of companies problems at the start of last gen, now that the PS4/720 are as easy to program as a PC game... well look @ that the Witcher guys are capable of.

The main reason for games being more expensive is the massive marketing budget they attach to them these days... the hd reason no longer flys, not when you can purchase engines like unreal.

Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon

That isn't what the 'industry leaders' seem to think. Did you see the PS4 conference?

Did you forget how the Dreamcast was blown out of the water by the Ps2? People always want to point out how the best hardware doesn't win but ignore the factors that was at play.

SNES - Better hardware (why do nintendo fans not bring this up? lol)
PSX - No not as powerful as the N64 but was superior to the Saturn and it had areas it was better than the 64 due to CD advantages. Do you remember the ads for Final Fantasy 7? All FMV, perception is everything.
Ps2 - Yes it was not as powerful as the xbox or gamecube, but it blew out the dreamcast while being the stronger machine, the gamecube and xbox coming late against this juggernaut was dumb, period.
wii - fluke win by motion controls, for as dominant as it was it didn't have the legs of the ps2 and it will probably get outsold by the xbox in america.

Originally Posted by Solace

The most interesting thing in that conference was a bunch of adults having a puppet show. The rest talked about high end graphics as if the PC has never existed.

For the price point the PS4 will launch at they might as well not exist. I mean the average console buyer is not really going to care that someone has 2xtitan cards that cost $1000 each when they're buying a ps4.

And for the most part the pc games wait on console jumps to improve.

[kenjiharima]

Adam Orth fired nuff said

[Tong]

PC wins every generation graphic-wise anyway, which is why they probably don't bother comparing it to consoles. Except at the beginning of each new generation, since consoles indeed look equal, or even better than PCs and are cheaper.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Westlo

There's no way the Wii U is comparable to the ps4/nextbox, there's going to be massive difference between the U and the 2. There's talk that Unreal Engine 4 won't even run on the Wii U and stuff like AMDs tessellation is pretty noticeable, check the hair on Lara for the PS360 vs PC.

Unreal Engine 4 doesn't run on Wii U, because epic doesn't official supports it, same as with UE3 (games using UE3 on Wii, see that fitness game zumba(?), and Wii U, where actually ported by individual studios themselves). Epic ..., they or people say that they are pushing hardware to the limits, but they have scrapped features in their latest engine, so that it can run on weak "next-gen" consoles, wth.

Originally Posted by Westlo

The main reason for games being more expensive is the massive marketing budget they attach to them these days... the hd reason no longer flys, not when you can purchase engines like unreal.

Apart from PR costs, I am going to say it, most games that were expensive to make last generation was because of mismanagement. Like overpaid artists, story writers, and failed movie directors or screen writers trying to convert their knowledge about a passive media into an interactive form.
Another big factor are that some people are celebrated as superstars, which in case mean they probably have nowadays big juicy paycheques. If we look at games coming from japan, I don't think most of them complain about the development cost at all, same with CD Projekt RED (Witcher). People say that japanese staff are underpaid, same as with polish ones, but maybe western staff are overvalued for the actual work that they are doing.

People say that next gen is going to push consoles close to PC gaming, but seeing what Epic had done, I'm pretty sure that "next gen console" are already holding back PC gaming, which can be a good thing like last generation. Build a rig now and it probably last you for 5 years, or even longer, with minor upgrades over the years, plus you can actually do work with it.

[Alchemist007]

Originally Posted by Tong

PC wins every generation graphic-wise anyway, which is why they probably don't bother comparing it to consoles. Except at the beginning of each new generation, since consoles indeed look equal, or even better than PCs and are cheaper.

Wonder how that price point will stack up moving forward. I mean $500 consoles? Maybe it'll be more enticing to get than a $500 worth of PC parts, but IMO the main draw would be game titles. I've never been an early adopter since that takes a while to build up. But never say never.

[Wild Goose]

For $500, rather than a console, I can build my own budget gaming PC. And it will run Crysis. On Ultra High.

And it will do everything.

[Jazzrat]

Console market is the mass consumer gaming platform of choice although mobile market is quickly.taking over. I m seeing less people buying gaming pc these days because console can do it with less technical hassle. The draw for console has always been exclusive games with the hardcore gamers. When was the last time you choose console version because its graphically superior to pc version?

[Tong]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

When was the last time you choose console version because its graphically superior to pc version?

PS1-PS2 era, when good PC hardware costed x5 as much as a console

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Tong

PS1-PS2 era, when good PC hardware costed x5 as much as a console

Even so, PC games are still much better at graphics than console then. Not to mention as you said it yourself, you choose the console because of the price performance factor.

Let's assume the next gen console is around $400 USD, the equivalent amount of money will only get entry level of gaming pc and not including monitor/mouse & k/b according to /bapc on reddit.

While certainly not a huge difference in actual hardware specs, console will always be able to pump out more performance even with equivalent specs due to optimization.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

While certainly not a huge difference in actual hardware specs, console will always be able to pump out more performance even with equivalent specs due to optimization.

Which means the recent attempts to turn gaming consoles into multimedia devices, is destructive. Once you have extra programs running in the background, you no longer have a dedicated gaming machine. A multimedia system that can play games is no different from a PC. The attempt to add extraneous functions to a game console is precisely why the PC is reviving as a gaming platform.

[Tong]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Even so, PC games are still much better at graphics than console then. Not to mention as you said it yourself, you choose the console because of the price performance factor.

Let's assume the next gen console is around $400 USD, the equivalent amount of money will only get entry level of gaming pc and not including monitor/mouse & k/b according to /bapc on reddit.

While certainly not a huge difference in actual hardware specs, console will always be able to pump out more performance even with equivalent specs due to optimization.

Well, not exactly a choice since PS2 games library was just much more attractive than Gamecube and Xbox's. No multi-platform "bullshit" lol.

PC may have had good graphics, but was more of an enthusiatic platform than it is today. Not to mention that 95% of the users ran on composite cables (very low res). But still, a huge improvement over the PS1.

Now let's think abit... what kind of improvement should we expect in this generation?

[GDB]

I don't really expect any improvements beyond "MOAR POWA!"

[Destined_Fate]

Eh. I hope that some of the less... Awesome rumors about the Nextbox are false in the end and that they can at least match the memory/RAM/Whatever that the PS4 will be sporting as it's a huge improvement over the PS3 by far in that regard.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GDB

I don't really expect any improvements beyond "MOAR POWA!"

As I mentioned last post, they are likely to waste processing power trying to add social features. This means LESS power than you could have had.

[Flying Dagger]

Random thought:
One of my greatest disappointment in the PS3 is how they scrapped the idea of allowing linux to run off the box - for the purpose of DRM.

People wonder: if I am already spending that much money on a console, why not buy a PC? That is because the amount of games for PC are limited and consoles are tailor made for games (optimized hardware).

But what if you think in reverse? What if you give a console, right now taking on the role of an entertainment central, the basic functionality of a PC? Ie: Linux support. While you need superior hardware on the PC to render console level graphics, office productivity software suits do not require as much processing powers as games generally do.