The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn
- Thread starter gongo
- Start date
In summary, I don't believe MS,Sony, or Nintendo (*shock*) can provide another wii-moment wow-factor of revolutionary interface. I said it when Project Natal was introduced. MS effectively killed any roadmap for future Wii growth. Some here (including you) said wait and see what Nintendo will come up with before judging what their future console will offer. Well, now we all know what that offering is and as I suspected, it ain't revolutionary
and will not sell gangbusters as Wii did.I'm not saying that there is no future interface (games are all about two things, the game world, and the interaction of it) which can top Kinect/Wii/Move, I'm saying the likelihood of MS/Sony coming up with it and producing it for a reasonable cost, which will be impressive enough to make up for the lost BOM on spec, is nil.
And back to the point you keep painting me into, it isn't ALL ABOUT GRAPHICS. It's about experiences which are impossible now. Having Gears 5 available on xb720 with 2 million polys per character with the same number of limited characters on screen in the same limited playing field ISN'T GOING TO CUT IT (regardless of resolution).
The reason I've been championing the bigger GPU budget vs CPU (as I've said countless times) is the modern GPU can help considerably in calculations outside of graphics. That doesn't mean I think they should just slap the same CPU in there (unless we're talking about vastly improving other aspects around the CPU to make up for wasted idle clocks or Cell which spends half the time acting as a GPU).
Getting back to interface vs tech (gameworld):
Interface COULD be used as a selling point, but MS and Sony have already played their cards here. They've cashed that one in.
At this point, they can improve them, but that is expected (even SNES improved interface over NES).
Wii sold because it was a COMPLETELY new interface.
Not for merely improving the old one.
So unless you believe Sony or MS have a COMPLETELY new interface which will appeal to enough new customers to offset the loss of old customers (how many of the 100million core gamers like Move/Kinect/Wii?), then it's probably not a good idea to alienate them by trying to pass off subpar tech with an improved interface (revolutionary interface has long since passed).
Last edited by a moderator:
Ballpark.
Hmm, I suppose to offset that they might want to sell the core model for 33% more than in 2005 and perhaps delay the launch by letting the latest process node mature on market for a year ...
In other words, launch a core model at $399 instead of $299 and wait til >q1/2013...
As for future process nodes, that is indeed an issue. And as always, intel will lead the way.
The facts around the second have not changed significantly. The latest node still has customers which still sell their products for roughly the same cost/mm as back in 2005:
x1300/rv515 128bit - 100mm - retail $100 (2005)
7750/capeverde 128bit - 123mm - retail $110 (2012)
So I'm not seeing the evidence suggesting this is a real issue preventing widespread 28nm adoption at the present. If so, we would see smaller chips sold for the same price, or the same size chips sold for more.
28nm production/availability/price should only get better from this point.
Future nodes will be available and get better with time as well. Granted, these process shrinks will not indefinitely be available, but for the foreseeable future, the roadmap is clear.
In summary, I don't believe MS,Sony, or Nintendo (*shock*) can provide another wii-moment wow-factor of revolutionary interface. I said it when Project Natal was introduced. MS effectively killed any roadmap for future Wii growth. Some here (including you) said wait and see what Nintendo will come up with before judging what their future console will offer. Well, now we all know what that offering is and as I suspected, it ain't revolutionary
I'm not saying that there is no future interface (games are all about two things, the game world, and the interaction of it) which can top Kinect/Wii/Move, I'm saying the likelihood of MS/Sony coming up with it and producing it for a reasonable cost, which will be impressive enough to make up for the lost BOM on spec, is nil.
And back to the point you keep painting me into, it isn't ALL ABOUT GRAPHICS. It's about experiences which are impossible now. Having Gears 5 available on xb720 with 2 million polys per character with the same number of limited characters on screen in the same limited playing field ISN'T GOING TO CUT IT (regardless of resolution).
The reason I've been championing the bigger GPU budget vs CPU (as I've said countless times) is the modern GPU can help considerably in calculations outside of graphics. That doesn't mean I think they should just slap the same CPU in there (unless we're talking about vastly improving other aspects around the CPU to make up for wasted idle clocks or Cell which spends half the time acting as a GPU).
Getting back to interface vs tech (gameworld):
Interface COULD be used as a selling point, but MS and Sony have already played their cards here. They've cashed that one in.
At this point, they can improve them, but that is expected (even SNES improved interface over NES).
Wii sold because it was a COMPLETELY new interface.
Not for merely improving the old one.
So unless you believe Sony or MS have a COMPLETELY new interface which will appeal to enough new customers to offset the loss of old customers (how many of the 100million core gamers like Move/Kinect/Wii?), then it's probably not a good idea to alienate them by trying to pass off subpar tech with an improved interface (revolutionary interface has long since passed).
The WIIUU is so far the only next gen console that has a non standard input device, if i understand you correctly you expect Sony and Microsoft to ship with MOVE(2) and Kinect(2)? If they don't Nintendo will again have the serve right. And i think it's to early to judge WII2, if someone had told me that Nintendo would win the round with a Gamecube and a "funny" controller i would have said "no way".
Nintendo doesn't have to win, they just have to earn money, imho it's sony and microsoft that has to prove themselves. The Kinect is not for games as we know them, it's for family entertainment, and microsoft has to do something special to make that a new "surprise". Sony has the same problems, they have very nice high tech solution, but afaik, no real move sellers to move the sales (hehe).
Imho, XBOX3 and PS4, will have games that will look fantastic, so good infact that the classic first adapters will be lining up. I have no fear that they won't be able to produce system sellers from the get go. There dosn't have to be a new rabbit in the hat. But i expect them to make more money on digital services than in this round. Everything from selling movies to selling items in "Home". There will be more of that.
As for the WII2 and it's weak performance, yes compared to the other consoles. But as for me, this will be the first real upgrade for many years, and i look forward to playing Super Mario and all the other 1st party games in a universe that isn't limited by 2001 tech. In some ways Nintendo is making a bigger leap than Sony or Microsoft
The WIIUU is so far the only next gen console that has a non standard input device, if i understand you correctly you expect Sony and Microsoft to ship with MOVE(2) and Kinect(2)? If they don't Nintendo will again have the serve right. And i think it's to early to judge WII2, if someone had told me that Nintendo would win the round with a Gamecube and a "funny" controller i would have said "no way".
Nintendo doesn't have to win, they just have to earn money, imho it's sony and microsoft that has to prove themselves. The Kinect is not for games as we know them, it's for family entertainment, and microsoft has to do something special to make that a new "surprise". Sony has the same problems, they have very nice high tech solution, but afaik, no real move sellers to move the sales (hehe).
Imho, XBOX3 and PS4, will have games that will look fantastic, so good infact that the classic first adapters will be lining up. I have no fear that they won't be able to produce system sellers from the get go. There dosn't have to be a new rabbit in the hat. But i expect them to make more money on digital services than in this round. Everything from selling movies to selling items in "Home". There will be more of that.
As for the WII2 and it's weak performance, yes compared to the other consoles. But as for me, this will be the first real upgrade for many years, and i look forward to playing Super Mario and all the other 1st party games in a universe that isn't limited by 2001 tech. In some ways Nintendo is making a bigger leap than Sony or Microsoft
ofc they do , they do same leap as SOny and ms did when they went from xbox/ps2 to x360 ps3
. They are just how many 7? years behind 
I don't particularly disagree with you, but the next Big Thing doesn't have to just be a new interface. What if MS put the next XBox in a tablet and suddenly, for some odd reason, it becomes massively popular? Existing XB owners may not be very interested but if everyone else, who outnumbers the existing XB userbase a good 20:1, finds it appealing, then MS would be better off with...SGX cores, and not a 500 mm^2 uber GPU. Because some left-field idea might be more commercially rewarding than a simple progression of the existing ideas, it remains a distinct possibility that the performance envelope won't be the only avenue available for selling their consoles.
Which I've repeated many a time with you.
To tie this back to the poll, and make it ever-so-slightly-different, it could run like this.Joe Gamer: "I want better graphics!"
Bob Console: "What about I offer you (next big thing)*"
Joe Gamer: "Not Interested."
Jill and Jon Nongamer : "We are, and so are all our friends! Buy buy buy!"
...or...
Joe Gamer: "I want better graphics!"
Bob Console: "What about I offer you (next big thing)*"
Joe Gamer: "Oo yeah, I hadn't thought of that. That's a really good idea. Buy buy buy!"
Jill and Jon Nongamer : "What's that you've got? Ooo, isn't that cool. Buy buy buy!"
* New interface; new sales method (subscription model with zero upfront costs, so people can get their $300 console from day one instead of having to wait 3 years for a price drop); portable device; some social network thing that I can never get my head around on account of being unsociable, etc.
Just because Joe Gamer thinks he wants better graphics (and of course he does, because we all always want everything to be better), he may find some feature or ability or price point or even styling makes a product more appealing than a larger bump in graphics would.
That's interface.
And an established one at that.
If MS or Sony are stupid enough to play the tablet game with their console biz, then they deserve to lose it to Apple.
They will be putting themselves at a huge disadvantage by leveling the playing field of power constraints, but without the advantages of name recognition in the space, apps, and ecosystem as Apple enjoys and dominates the market in (even against android in tablets).
I know you're big on this concept, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you won't just go buy an ipad3 and be done with it (or smaller scale, more gamer centric, psvita)
The only advantage and reason that consoles can have a fighting chance moving forward against tablets and smartphones is the inherent disadvantage that those device cases impose on power constraints.
No matter how snazzy and hi-end Apple or Samsung want to take those devices, they will always be limited by battery power, and size/heat as hand-held devices.
For all the hoopla which goes on here on this board for cool and quiet operating consoles, there are audio amplifiers which dissipate >1000w without a fan. Granted, expensive - but possible. 1000w is impossible on a handheld device... regardless of cost.
That's the advantage - power.
What that means for the end user is that better and more believable game worlds are possible.
It's up to Sony/MS to utilize this advantage successfully, but IMO that doesn't include removing it from the arsenal.
As for other trinkets which could be used instead of power, the problem with any of them is that they are easily replicated and included on ipad 4,5,6,7 etc.
The one thing they can't replicate is power.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't expect Sony/MS to include move2/kinect2 in every box because not every gamer enjoys that interface. In fact, many of them hate it. I suspect that Sony/MS MIGHT include them initially to spur adoption but then after a year or so, split the offering out and introduce a "core" model. (Early adopters will pay a premium for the new box regardless)
Some on here might be too tepid to denounce wiiU's chances, but I have no qualms about calling it a flop for many reasons, but the core reason is that the interface isn't revolutionary, and the spec is old.
Indeed, Nintendo will likely make money on each box sold. Pretty easy to do when selling 7 year old tech for a premium price. And after the fanboys have their fun, the party will be over. Fitness moms will be eying kinect (or maybe move?), kids/parents are enjoying the free/cheap games on ipod touch/iphone/ipad/android, and the rest of the gaming populace is waiting for ps4/xb3 and depending on results of ps4/xb3, may go pc, may keep ps3/xb360, or may jump completely into ios or android.
And as you said, there are no surprise introductions anymore on kinect/move. All they can do is improve them (as they should). But regardless of the improvements, even if kinect could track mm movements on a couch 15ft away from 8 different people on every one of their fingers ... in the eyes of the public, it's "just an improved kinect". And at this point, I'm not sure that the device isn't doing more harm than good in the eyes of the general populace as the software library is mediocre and the quality of interaction (while revolutionary) is poor.
Move IMO has an issue of looking like a nightclub sex toy, and the interaction of a device which has been on the market since 2006.
Selling dlc can be done on wii. I'm not seeing "services" as something which require a console, and in fact, this plays into the hands of ios/android.
I'm not convinced either Sony or MS are investing enough in tech and if rumors or to be believed, a trinity core variant will be a joke which doesn't provide much more than what is possible now. In fact, in the case of Sony, I doubt it could run Uncharted3. Never mind different architectures not being compatible, we're talking inferior architectures not having the muscle to do the job of a 7 year old architecture.
Good luck to the marketing team on that one... "It only does ... less than before"
As for the WII2 and it's weak performance, yes compared to the other consoles. But as for me, this will be the first real upgrade for many years, and i look forward to playing Super Mario and all the other 1st party games in a universe that isn't limited by 2001 tech. In some ways Nintendo is making a bigger leap than Sony or Microsoft
True, and Nintendo fans will likely buy it up for the reason alone. I just question how many there are at this point.
One caveat to my projections of WiiU failure: If MS/Sony bring extremely weak hardware to the table, all bets are off. Many people may see ps4/xb720 as not worth the investment and instead look to WiiU as "worth it" for getting those new and improved experiences in franchises they love.
example:
Gears 4 + xb720 = "meh, looks and plays just like gears3. Why bother?"
vs
New New Mario Karting New Brothers Pokingman Zelda Universe + WiiU = "Wow that looks tons better than Wii!!"
Well my 10 cents, Nintendo games is still very popular around these part.. with the kids, that is one of the markets that could turn out to be stronger. Simply because the games and characters kids know from the the DS/3DS would be impressive looking on a WII2.
It might require Nintendo to produce easy/accessible games as well. Mario Galaxy is a clusterfrak of gigantic dimensions if you don't read english. Kids can play Lego games, unlock everything, understand almost any challenge and solve them, because there is barely no text. But Mario Galaxy, no way.
Sidestepping a bit i know, sorry.
You're getting hung up on the details and failing to understand the argument. It doesn't matter what the Approach taken is, and there's no point trying to argue for or against any approach as 1) consumer behaviour isn't very predictable and it's never obvious what they'll take to or not and 2) we may never identify before release what approach is taken and all end up surprised.
The ONLY argument I am presenting is that trying to reason that they have no choice but to put in powerful hardware is false, because that assumes that there is absolutely nothing a company can do to add value to their CE device other than offer more of the same only better. Every example I presented wasn't an argument in favour of doing something different, but an indicator of a choice that may lead to far better returns than putting in better hardware. For all you know, the billion people in the market who don't currently console game may absoutely love the idea of a Windows tablet gaming console that is portable, and even if shunned by the existing XB gamers, that may be the best route for MS to go. Those sorts of choices cannot be objectively considered without serious market research.
No, I fully understand the argument.
In theory, game-world improvement isn't necessary to move console hardware.
In practice though, the likelihood of finding this other lever which causes consumers to buy console hardware outside of improved game-world capabilities is not something to build a business plan on.
So, if we leave it at the theory level, I agree with you. When we start breaking it down into the real world, we have to start looking at details...
Revolutionary interfaces which inspire the masses to adopt a new device (regardless of game-world) are not easy to come by. (gaming = interface + game-world)
One can't make a business projection based on it and say "in five years for our next generation product we will need the new new, so engineers, get cracking on producing that interface at an affordable BOM".
In the real world, business projections need to be based on sustainable goals. If a paradigm shift happens to be found, then great. If not, then stick to the plan as usual.
I'm thinking this paradigm shift will not surface for MS or Sony and the interface game will be improved upon, but not enough for consumers to overlook subpar spec.
Now, had Sony/MS waited to introduce their motion wares and were just now looking to introduce them with slightly improved hardware spec, then that would be a completely different case.
It would still piss of the core gamer, but improvement is improvement and "wow, motion controls" would still sell quite well.
As is, that ship has sailed.
And yes, the details are important because one can't just say: "well engineering team come up with another revolutionary interface that everyone will love! What's taking so long?". One looks and evaluates potential outcomes.
Having said that, I agree that if MS/Sony were able to do so by some miracle, then sure the game-world becomes less important.
I agree. It doesn't actually take much to get media coverage for innovation, really.
I remember a fair bit of mainstream press coverage about the fact that Commodore's new Amiga computer could *talk*, due to the inclusion of a software text to speech driver. Software speech synthesizers were already long since old news, but bundling it into the system got attention.
If Microsoft came out with a next-gen Kinect, made it connect wirelessly to the 720, and made a big noise about how you can finally Skype from the living room, they could get a lot of press for that, no matter how trivial a thing that would actually be.
Make the Kinect2 able to capture and skype a stereoscopic image, if you must do something actually novel, but market the thing as a game changer that everyone has to have.
Boom! Instant momentum. Microsoft already has a huge, ah, halo effect around the 360, enough so that folks in the press talk about Microsoft as being the main threat to Apple taking over the livingroom. Come out with a better 360, find some angle that the press can jump on, and they'll continue to forget that Sony makes a console.
I remember a fair bit of mainstream press coverage about the fact that Commodore's new Amiga computer could *talk*, due to the inclusion of a software text to speech driver. Software speech synthesizers were already long since old news, but bundling it into the system got attention.
If Microsoft came out with a next-gen Kinect, made it connect wirelessly to the 720, and made a big noise about how you can finally Skype from the living room, they could get a lot of press for that, no matter how trivial a thing that would actually be.
Make the Kinect2 able to capture and skype a stereoscopic image, if you must do something actually novel, but market the thing as a game changer that everyone has to have.
Boom! Instant momentum. Microsoft already has a huge, ah, halo effect around the 360, enough so that folks in the press talk about Microsoft as being the main threat to Apple taking over the livingroom. Come out with a better 360, find some angle that the press can jump on, and they'll continue to forget that Sony makes a console.
Can't most new TVs run Skype?
It's not a case of theory versus practicality, but probabilities of real but likely/unlikely options and outcomes. These probabilities are probably impossible to guage. Nintendo have said that they didn't know what the outcome with Wii was going to be. Instead, they had a vision for something new and built their system around it, and they got lucky. Likewise, Ms or Sony could have an idea, build a system around it, and float it out there. They may well be far more risk averse than Nintendo (just look at Sony's feeble support of its novel interface options), but it's still a matter of probabilities well above 0%.
There are more choices than just interfaces. A portable tablet console isn't anything different in interface if connected to a TV, but maybe the ability to use it as an iPad on the go and a console at home would have massive appeal with general consumer? Maybe the introduction of a
cheap rented console STB would see massive adoption and growth of the market well beyond the current <150 million HD gamers? Perhaps the inclusion of 3D camera as standard along with non-gaming apps, like virtual makeovers and AR shopping (try how a virtual item would look in your actual living room before buying), would be the must-have feature of the new CE goldmine. If any of those, or things I've never even thought of, would prove to be the factor that really matters to consumers, then paring back on the GPU in support of this golden factor makes sense. I don't regard the probabilties of this happening as about 0%. Maybe it's all of 10%, but it's relevant enough that there's a valid case for not putting in the best GPU they can.
This is what I mean when I say, I hope MS/Sony didn't learn the wrong lesson from Wii.
You look at it as a novel interface and a bit of luck. I looked at it when it was announced and saw revolutionary interface and success. I said, "they're giving up the core gamer, but put this in non-gaming places and they can make up the difference while not having to compete with Sony/MS and making a tidy profit in the process".
It was a distinctly unique offering which even Nintendo wasn't able to replicate (even though they are trying).
Although this isn't a spec or interface and more of a business-model, it's one I've been championing for quite a while. Get in bed with the cable/satellite companies (DVRs aren't free for them) and they can take off like a rocket. But there are numerous political and business interests which prohibit this ideal scenario from taking place.
Another option which I've mentioned previously (and was mentioned above) is the potential of a console/pc. As soon as the concept of profitable hardware from day one enters the picture, then MS can entertain the thought of making windows available.
Having said that, I don't think either scenario can afford to ship with a Trinity APU and find success because neither offering is revolutionary or novel outside of hardware.
They are both merely more convenient and/or affordable offerings as they take other expenditures typically found outside of the console world and bundle them in.
They are the proverbial, "...but wait, there's more".
Maybe I'm wrong and MS/Sony wow us at e3 with some new whiz bang thing that I've never thought of which negates the need for top notch spec...
But I put the chances of that happening at roughly .01%.
I'll prepare a healthy dose of crow for myself if I'm wrong.
Honestly, I don't see any of this happening. There is no doubt that the Wii U will be less successful than the Wii (but such will be the case with all of the upcoming consoles).
You don't need to put quotes around "victory" there. However, when it comes to sales it is very clear you're not in the majority. And not just with the Wii either. The biggest third party success story this generation doesn't even run in HD on any of the consoles.
I would suggest that Kinect will be an integral (and, by that nature, default - in the box and detracting from the BOM) part of the experience with the Xbox 8. It's very important to them.
How do you know either of those things?
I agree it's important to them, but only in establishing the new standard interface. Once it's established, there is no point in either eating the additional cost (as the device can sell on it's own) or in preventing a lower MSRP (which leads to more unit sales which leads to more xbl sales which leads to more ad revenue).
The x-factor in this is the subscription model which could enable high spec and kinect2 standard.
Old hardware spec is from what devs have been saying regarding WiiU vs xb360/ps3.
Premium price is based on common sense for what ps3/xb360 will be selling for vs WiiU.
then why are you and fellow gaf nintendo fans obsessed with wii u being powerful?
your actions dont match your professions regarding graphics.