[babcat]

I'm convinced the PS4 and the next XBox will be designed with plenty of power to last for an even more extended life cycle than the previous one. As we know, the current PS and XBox have been around for a while, and have had an extended life. When the PS4 and next XBox launches, I think that they will be around for a very long time. I do not expect another next gen system for a minimum of 8-10 years. There are many reasons for this....

1) Everything about the XBox 360 and the PS3 has been expensive. Developing a new console will also be expensive. I think they will want to make it last for as long as possible. That means making it powerful enough to have good graphics (compared to PCs) for at least eight to ten years.

2) Although there is always a use for more power in a console, we are getting closer to a point of somewhat diminishing returns. The next PS and XBox will obviously produce stunning graphics. I think the graphical effects will be pretty close to photorealism. Another 20x that performance will not increase the closeness to photorealism the same amount. So it makes sense to make these consoles last a very long time until it is worth increasing the power 40x or more.

3) GPU technology is progressing rapidly. If poor graphics technology is put into the PS4 and the next XBox it will become outdated extremely quickly. When I say poor, I mean anything less than the best single GPU that Nvidia or ATI has to offer today. A GPU with the power of a Kepler 680 in a console could produce excellent graphics that may not keep up with all the latest GPUs, but would be competitive for a long time.

---

I expect Sony and Microsoft to make the PS4 and the next XBox very powerful. I expect the following to be the minimum of what to expect....

- CPU capable of performing tasks as well as a medium to high end current PC.

- GPU equivalent to a 680GTX or more. I think they will make the GPU more powerful than the CPU. I do not think the GPU will be skimped on.

- Plenty of RAM. I expect both systems to have at least 4 gigabytes. Anything less than this will NOT be future proof for 8 to 10 years.

- Power usage. I think the systems will both consume around 300 to 350 watts each, and probably will not come in small cases. I think they may be slightly larger than the PS3 and the XBox 360, and will have complex cooling solutions.

---

I also think these systems may not launch until 2014. I think it will be worth them waiting on another process shrink (down to 20nm) to get the power consumption down enough for them to fit a powerful GPU into their systems.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Reality is that the opposite would probably be a lot more beneficial for both sony/ms and gamers.

Not matter what hardware you put in, 5 years later pc hardware will be much faster and capable of much better gfx. So instead of designing a super expensive console that is going to make you lose money on the hardware I'd say it would be a much better idea to come up with a slower, much cheaper console that can be profitable from the start and release a new console 5 years later.

The difference between a console that would be ~400 to produce and one that will be ~600 to produce isn't going to give massive better gfx so arguably you are spending a lot of money while 5 years from now it will look outdated either way.

[dragonelite]

Man 7~10 years is just way too long tech moves way too fast and probably will move faster in the future.

[TheWretched]

I am not sure if it will move faster, but you do realize that the 360 already is in the market in its seventh year now. And it's not going stop drop dead once the next cycle of hardware is introduced (well, MS did kill off the original Xbox after the launch of 360, but that had a myriad of different reasons behind it, most of which do not apply to 360). And since we won't see 720 this year, the 360 will be in the market for at least EIGHT years until it's successor reaches the consumers.

[djskribbles]

Originally Posted by dragonelite

Man 7~10 years is just way too long tech moves way too fast and probably will move faster in the future.

Technology moves fast, but graphical advancement isn't IMO. I mean graphics already look pretty damn good, and other than resolution and AA, it's hard to improve things much more. Or maybe it's just me.

Plus I think the gaming industry has changed over the years. Consoles have sort of taken over and developers seem to focus more on optimization/efficiency rather than pushing the limits for high-end PCs. I mean they obviously try to achieve the best visuals to their ability and budget, but the focus is more on consoles now.

[Rangers]

I dont want an even longer life cycle.

If it's true MS/Sony end up doing profitable/break even hardware at launch, I think that lessens the pressure for an uber long cycle a lot. And some of this hardware we think is so lackluster, will get refreshed sooner.

I'd like to see 6 year cycle tops. A lot depends on the various competition though as far as cycles go. If Wii U is a terrible failure for example, Nintendo's cycle will be pretty short eh?

[Jedi2016]

Originally Posted by djskribbles

Technology moves fast, but graphical advancement isn't IMO. I mean graphics already look pretty damn good, and other than resolution and AA, it's hard to improve things much more. Or maybe it's just me.

I think it's just you. Go watch the Watch Dogs video again and come back and tell us if higher resolution and AA are the only "extra" things going on there. Especially toward the end of the video.

IMO, it's the exact opposite.. it's shaders, lighting, post, and particle/volumetric effects that will create the biggest jump in "good graphics" for next-gen.

I would not want to see another long console generation, though. This one's already gone on about two years longer than it should have.. PC gamers don't complain about games being "held back" by consoles for nothing, you know. Developers are starting to push back already, that's what Watch Dogs and Star Wars 1313 are, I think.. developers saying to the manufacturers "Hey, look what we can make when we don't have to cater to your eight-year-old hardware".

[dragonelite]

Originally Posted by djskribbles

Technology moves fast, but graphical advancement isn't IMO. I mean graphics already look pretty damn good, and other than resolution and AA, it's hard to improve things much more. Or maybe it's just me.

Plus I think the gaming industry has changed over the years. Consoles have sort of taken over and developers seem to focus more on optimization/efficiency rather than pushing the limits for high-end PCs. I mean they obviously try to achieve the best visuals to their ability and budget, but the focus is more on consoles now.

Do you mean the GPU or more the shaders and rendering techniques.
Because we can always use better IQ as a gamer(imo) and lets not forget fps i would love next gen to target 60 fps(Keep on dreaming lets see if cod is still 60 fps a 30 fps can unthrown it).

[joker454]

Originally Posted by Jedi2016

Developers are starting to push back already, that's what Watch Dogs and Star Wars 1313 are, I think.. developers saying to the manufacturers "Hey, look what we can make when we don't have to cater to your eight-year-old hardware".

I don't think it's only the hardware that's the issue. The development process, financially, is now broken. You can't just keep increasing budgets and expect to recoup sales anymore. Sure someone could release uber hardware and some publisher will try to spend the ~100 million it will take to make a game on it, and the result will be more companies get taken out because the financial model isn't feasible anymore.

I'm in favor of exactly what Microsoft is doing, name unifying the development platform. With the Win 8 Phone announcement they now have pc, laptop, tablet and phone all on the same dev platform. The 720 (in my mind) inevitably will follow and also be Win 8 at it's core. What this means is that it will be dramatically cheaper for developers to target larger audiences since pc, laptop, tablet, phone an console will all be on similar dev paths. That in my mind is exactly what the industry desparately needs, and what will allow them to be more comfortable with higher game budgets and also more comfortable trying new things. Just releasing yet another uber console with it's own custom api, code, tools, etc, to me is a collosal waste of time.

[djskribbles]

Originally Posted by Jedi2016

I think it's just you. Go watch the Watch Dogs video again and come back and tell us if higher resolution and AA are the only "extra" things going on there. Especially toward the end of the video.

Well I admit I'm not the most technical person here and don't have a trained eye for these types of things. But I didn't say those are the only things that can be improved, I meant (and I thought I was pretty clear) that these are the only things (more or less) that can be improved significantly, at least to my untrained eye.

While Watch Dogs looked impressive, I think the specs floating around for the PS4/X720 should be able to run a game with that level of quality without much trouble at 1080p (which will probably be the target next gen). And as joker said, budgets will definitely limit the freedom developers will have.

I just think that were going to see graphical advancement slowdown considerably from here on out, due to budgets and that developers are now focusing more on consoles rather than pushing the limits of high-end PCs. We're already seeing it this generation.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by joker454

I'm in favor of exactly what Microsoft is doing, name unifying the development platform. With the Win 8 Phone announcement they now have pc, laptop, tablet and phone all on the same dev platform. The 720 (in my mind) inevitably will follow and also be Win 8 at it's core.
...
Just releasing yet another uber console with it's own custom api, code, tools, etc, to me is a collosal waste of time.

hm... .NET Framework? (no support for SSE at the moment )

[McHuj]

I think relying on a long life cycle exposes you to losing the market to a disruptive technology.

If you put out a console that will take ~3 years to start making money, you're likely forced to stay with it for a while (like the current systems). If you put out a reasonable system and make money from day 1, I don't think your hands are tied long term, you can adapt to changing markets and disruptive tech more quickly.

[ultragpu]

This is a paradox actually, assuming a company makes a profitable system on day one, which means its hardware would be gimped to hell but still providing a noticeable improvement to previous gen, yes the company would make money and publishers would feel more relaxed about a less financially burdened development cycle. But in return at least a good portion of core gamers would feel less encouraged to get the new system when it's not the uber powerful hardware or quantum leap in graphics that they hoped for. After all, why waste another $300-$400 on something that only provides marginal improvements, will they really be attracted by a slew of social media techs, motion control gimmicks or central media hub in their gaming box? Or rather something that would give them Samaritan, Agni's Philosophy level graphics, interaction on day one? The point is you can't have both ways, unless the technology available is cheap enough to provide the latter, but then the competition isn't gonna wait for you either. I think people still vastly underestimate just how expensive it is to launch a new console gen, so I really don't see the returning of 5-6 year cycle, it would only get longer and longer.

[dragonelite]

Originally Posted by joker454

I don't think it's only the hardware that's the issue. The development process, financially, is now broken. You can't just keep increasing budgets and expect to recoup sales anymore. Sure someone could release uber hardware and some publisher will try to spend the ~100 million it will take to make a game on it, and the result will be more companies get taken out because the financial model isn't feasible anymore.

I'm in favor of exactly what Microsoft is doing, name unifying the development platform. With the Win 8 Phone announcement they now have pc, laptop, tablet and phone all on the same dev platform. The 720 (in my mind) inevitably will follow and also be Win 8 at it's core. What this means is that it will be dramatically cheaper for developers to target larger audiences since pc, laptop, tablet, phone an console will all be on similar dev paths. That in my mind is exactly what the industry desparately needs, and what will allow them to be more comfortable with higher game budgets and also more comfortable trying new things. Just releasing yet another uber console with it's own custom api, code, tools, etc, to me is a collosal waste of time.

Don't know aren't art assets already created way higher then even next gen can render real time. Atleast if you watch some of the stuff epic guys show on the internet.

And i think publishers are going more and more to unreal engine,cryengine or make their own one like EA using FrostBite for their games or SE with luminous engine. I think the publishers and studio that are going under are the one that already mismanaged this gen and weren't smart or quick enough to adept. If something is loosing money you change stuff around and hope you dont or lose less money.

[DoctorFouad]

Originally Posted by McHuj

I think relying on a long life cycle exposes you to losing the market to a disruptive technology.

If you put out a console that will take ~3 years to start making money, you're likely forced to stay with it for a while (like the current systems). If you put out a reasonable system and make money from day 1, I don't think your hands are tied long term, you can adapt to changing markets and disruptive tech more quickly.

I agree with this statement,

the ken kutaragi 10 year ps3 plan was a bad idea, it is impossible to know what the market and consumer preferences would be after 5 years (tablets for example) but 10 years is craziness...designing a console to last 10 years is simply WRONG, I think Apple has the best business model suitable to the gaming industry. I explain :

developers are still developing games for Ipad1, but if as a consumer you choose to use ipad2 or ipad3 you get automatic benefits from doing so. the same for iphone. this way : developers have a long lasting development platform and consumers have the choice to upgrade their hardware and get the benefits. even developers in this model have the flexibility to develop ONLY for the specifications of ipad2 or even ipad3. they have the choice.

I believe apple has the best business model to give CHOICE to developers and consumers, and at the same time a minimum of stability. If you have an Ipad1 you could still enjoy 99% of the apple software.

in short : if it happens that apple enters into nextgen in 2014 for example (I am pretty sure they are thinking about it), sony and micorosft should adapt to a nex world of new hardware each 2 years, or they would loose a lot of consumers.

[BoardBonobo]

They should just make them modular. The box itself doesn't really need to change only the internals (cpu,gpu,ram). Just plugging in a faster GPU or more memory during a generational change would be a lot easier than buying a whole new box to get used to.

[Grall]

Originally Posted by joker454

I'm in favor of exactly what Microsoft is doing, name unifying the development platform. With the Win 8 Phone announcement they now have pc, laptop, tablet and phone all on the same dev platform.

Not sure what good exactly that will do anyone. A phone and a gaming-rig PC are many (well, ok then, many many many many) orders of magnitude apart in performance. They also differ completely in memory and storage capacity, input methods and so on. You can't actually develop any serious games that fit all of these diverse platforms - a hypothetical windows 8 console falling somewher in the middle of the spectrum, with yet another different set of hardware capabilities and input methods, with controllers and kinect being added to the existing mix.

So unless all you do are zynga and popcap type games, this won't actually help.

[dragonelite]

Originally Posted by BoardBonobo

They should just make them modular. The box itself doesn't really need to change only the internals (cpu,gpu,ram). Just plugging in a faster GPU or more memory during a generational change would be a lot easier than buying a whole new box to get used to.

Fragmentation of the market that is a big no no atleast that is the main complain i hear from Android devs the hardware ranges way too much.

[DoctorFouad]

Originally Posted by dragonelite

Fragmentation of the market that is a big no no atleast that is the main complain i hear from Android devs the hardware ranges way too much.

did you read my post ?
there is no fragmentation of the market for games developed for ipad1 but work for ipad2 and ipad3. If develoeprs choose to develop exclusivgely to the capacity of ipad3, they bare the risk and the benefits of doing so.

for example you have assassins creed 4 for ps4 V1, running at 30 fps, if you buy ps4 V2 after 2 years, you can run the same game at 60 fps, if you buy ps4 V3 after 4 years you can still run the game at 60 fps but at higher respulution or even more anti aliasing, you could even download a new higher res texture pack exclusive to ps4 V3.....

this is the apple model, I am sure if apple enters the next gen war with this model, than MOST HARDCORE gamers would certainly go with apple. of course if you are an average gamer you dont need to upgrade your ps4 V1 would still be capable to play all ps4 games. BUT YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO UPGRADE your hardware. Today I want to play uncharted 3 at 1080p with 4x AA and 60 fps, BUT I CANT. Kazunory Yamuchi wants GT5 to run at 1080p at 4X AA with full rez polygon car models. BUT HE CANT.

The genius of the apple model is that it gives freedom/ choice to upgrade for everyone, yet with the advantages of a fixed development platform. another advantage is that the evolution to a next gen harwdare is smoothless, it is not like the current console model, where games at the end of the console cycle become very ugly compared to their pc counterparts....

[dragonelite]

Originally Posted by DoctorFouad

did you read my post ?
there is no fragmentation of the market for games developed for ipad1 but work for ipad2 and ipad3. If develoeprs choose to develop exclusivgely to the capacity of ipad3, they bare the risk and the benefits of doing so.

for example you have assassins creed 4 for ps4 V1, running at 30 fps, if you buy ps4 V2 after 2 years, you can run the same game at 60 fps, if you buy ps4 V3 after 4 years you can still run the game at 60 fps but at higher respulution or even more anti aliasing, you could even download a new higher res texture pack exclusive to ps4 V3.....

this is the apple model, I am sure if apple enters the next gen war with this model, than MOST HARDCORE gamers would certainly go with apple. of course if you are an average gamer you dont need to upgrade your ps4 V1 would still be capable to play all ps4 games. BUT YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO UPGRADE your hardware. Today I want to play uncharted 3 at 1080p with 4x AA and 60 fps, BUT I CANT. Kazunory Yamuchi wants GT5 to run at 1080p at 4X AA with full rez polygon car models. BUT HE CANT.

The genius of the apple model is that it gives freedom/ choice to upgrade for everyone, yet with the advantages of a fixed development platform. another advantage is that the evolution to a next gen harwdare is smoothless, it is not like the current console model, where games at the end of the console cycle become very ugly compared to their pc counterparts....

You are still dependent on the devs if they dont patch or create higher res textures then you're fucked and have no use of getting the better hardware. Unless microsoft and sony order devs to give them control over res and framerate.

[french toast]

I firmly believe that we will get enough power for 3-4 years max, after that we will go to the cloud.

[blakjedi]

Originally Posted by BoardBonobo

They should just make them modular. The box itself doesn't really need to change only the internals (cpu,gpu,ram). Just plugging in a faster GPU or more memory during a generational change would be a lot easier than buying a whole new box to get used to.

In the leaked Durango PowerPoint...ms alluded to this...

[tongue_of_colicab]

Ah cloud gaming... can't wait for that one to die a fast death.

It's bad value for consumers. Montly subsription and no way to resell your games? Not to mention you don't actually own anything. Buy a console and games and you can still use it 10 years from now. Not to mention that eg a onlinve box costs you 100 and another 10 a month for the subsciption and you might as well buy a console.

And than we are not even talking about the fact you need a good connection (which a lot of people dont have, or the extra costs if you need to upgrade), that what I read from it most of the time games don't really look better than the current console games (and that is 7 year old hardware!) and why for the love of god would anybody want to look at shitty compressed images on his/her big screen tv?? Lets go back in time and look at shitty vhs quality imagaes instead of super crisp images.

Can't believe people are falling into that trap.

[french toast]

Defo it is the cloud, with Microsoft unifying all systems, the expense of actually making a system combined with the ever widening internet growth means that's the way to go.

Do not forget Microsoft has been spending a hell of a lot of money on cloud computing, it would enable consumers to get free upgrades and free game storage, and instant game play without downloads or going to the shop.

There is always negatives to everything you can't help that, but for Microsoft that makes sense as it is cost effective and you get instant install base for your 'new system' as everyone will just reuse the box or phone or whatever.

For publishers it makes sense as they will likely get more game sales and no second hand sales.

Internet will be rapidly improving with download/upload speeds gaining massive ground, alongside better latency and easier coverage thanks the 4g.

You can have a semi decent experience playing online worth you mobile phone as it is...add another 4 year's on and xbox live will be xbox full stop..on every device.

[Jedi2016]

Originally Posted by DoctorFouad

the ken kutaragi 10 year ps3 plan was a bad idea

No, it was merely misunderstood.

The problem is how people interpreted that statement. A ten-year life cycle simply means that it will continue to be manufactured and supported, and games will continue to be made for it, for ten years.

What it does not mean, and has never meant, was that it would be ten years before the next Playstation came out.

The PS2 had around a ten-year life cycle, if I recall, and was also advertised as such before its launch. Long after the PS3 was released, you could still purchase a brand-new PS2 in stores, and there were still brand-new games being released for it (many of them downports from PS3, but they were there). Heck, I think it was only around the time of the PS3 launch that they finally stopped producing the PS1.

But, the media forgot all about that and decided that Kutaragi was saying that it would be until 2016 before the next Playstation was launching. The really incredible part is that Sony themselves seem to have interpreted it this way.

What I was referring to earlier regarding WD and SW1313 is that at least two developers decided to take a different route at E3.. instead of pushing the boundaries of what our current consoles can do, they showed us things that the current consoles can't do, and that there is room for improvement.. PS360 is not the peak of graphical prowess, any more than the PS2, GC, and Xbox were.

It is becoming a very different landscape, and I think David Jaffe had a point when he said that the next gen could well be the last generation of "traditional" consoles. I'm primarily a PC gamer these days, so I don't think cloud gaming is worth a damn to me personally, but I can see where it could easily be the way forward for "console" gaming in another five or ten years. At that point, the idea of fixed hardware platform goes away, as will the limitations that hardware places on developers.