Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[assen]

If they make the right market decisions for the machine at the right time.... why not? its there for the taking.

Because it has much stronger competition than the PS2 ever did? It's not "there for the taking", Nintendo has already taken it.

 

[Squilliam]

your missing my point slightly, Im not suggesting they wont put it in PS4. But the PS3 has got all the essentials for the HD era. Where as MS have not, ie a BR drive. This means there is more reason for MS to go next gen than Sony. If BR had of lost the battle that would of left Sony in a very difficult situation and prob would have forced their hand early. I think sony are in a luxurious position now. Once the software rolls in its going to be very tough for MS.

Sony paid a lot for that BR victory. 1-2 billion dollars in subsidies and they lost how much % of the game console market? Still haven't made a profit from the PS3 endeaver? Luxuriant I think not. This will colour their decisions from now on. Release a less expensive upgrade sooner would probably be the name of the game. Especially as they don't want to lose any more market share to either the Xbox or the Wii. Sitting back now would probably be the worst thing for them to do. This will change their goals for the next generation, make them more realistic and less arogant. Remember? Pride before the fall! I doubt they will want to let a nextbox come out, and give Microsoft the chance to take the low end and the high end of the same market at the same time. They could squeeze them from both sides if they don't release in a timely manner.

I expect they will release a Cell 2 with more bits and pieces , more ram, bigger HDD, got the blu ray... Finally probably a 8800gt equivelent GPU of the time to keep costs/heat down.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Somehow, that captures exactly what Mario has been looking like in my mind for a long time already.

Really? This always comes to mind when I think of Mario:

 

[kyetech]

Because it has much stronger competition than the PS2 ever did? It's not "there for the taking", Nintendo has already taken it.

Lol, Nintendo has sold 22 million consoles, they havent taken anything (apart from a good start), Lets not forget here that before we had little girls, grannies, and parents enjoying their brain training and my little pony games, there was a 150 million console industry in the last gen. So how on earth can you say that nintendo has 'taken it', im sorry but it *is* there for the taking.

Sony paid a lot for that BR victory. 1-2 billion dollars in subsidies and they lost how much % of the game console market? Still haven't made a profit from the PS3 endeaver? Luxuriant I think not. This will colour their decisions from now on. Release a less expensive upgrade sooner would probably be the name of the game. Especially as they don't want to lose any more market share to either the Xbox or the Wii. Sitting back now would probably be the worst thing for them to do. This will change their goals for the next generation, make them more realistic and less arogant. Remember? Pride before the fall! I doubt they will want to let a nextbox come out, and give Microsoft the chance to take the low end and the high end of the same market at the same time. They could squeeze them from both sides if they don't release in a timely manner.

I expect they will release a Cell 2 with more bits and pieces , more ram, bigger HDD, got the blu ray... Finally probably a 8800gt equivelent GPU of the time to keep costs/heat down.

EDIT: also im not suggesting they sit back, far from it, if you read what im saying then youll see im saying they have a good opportunity to work hard with what they have got

I cant believe you think sonys best strategy is to move on as quickly as poss to a new console (ok, thats not quite what you said, sooner rather than later ) . They have a perfectly good one out already. They just need to make the right market decisions and exploit its potential. Releasing another console soon, would be industrial suicide of epic proportion. For so many reasons that Im not even going list them unless im asked to. But it should be common sense.

Well all I can say is time will tell. But what im expecting is more like a 200 - 250 million console generation this time lasting longer than the one before (again for a number of reasons, most of which can be found from previous posts). But considering that's only opinion I don't see we have much scope to do little else than wait and see what happens.

edit: for formatting

 

[babcat]

You aren't thinking. The PS3 is a 10 year platform just as the PS2 and the PS1 have been. However, that does not mean that the PS4 will come out ten years after the release of the PS3 - typically, you will see a new console every 5 years, and that won't change soon.

I am thinking and that is going to change this generation.

I think it will be eight years between the launch of the PS3 and the PS4.

Sony is going to try and make as much money as they can off the PS3.

By the way, I'm not a gambling person but I would bet money on this if I was a gambling person.

 

[Squilliam]

EDIT: also im not suggesting they sit back, far from it, if you read what im saying then youll see im saying they have a good opportunity to work hard with what they have got

I cant believe you think sonys best strategy is to move on as quickly as poss to a new console (ok, thats not quite what you said, sooner rather than later ) . They have a perfectly good one out already. They just need to make the right market decisions and exploit its potential. Releasing another console soon, would be industrial suicide of epic proportion. For so many reasons that Im not even going list them unless im asked to. But it should be common sense.

They won't be so lucky next time with RROD, they can't let Microsoft have more than one years head start when they call the next generation. A strategy that wins this generation but loses the next is not a very good strategy at all. If Microsoft moves to 4 year product cycles, releasing too late into a hostile market and then getting another console come out just two years into your cycle could be quite devastating.

They can still exploit the potential of the Cell, however any viable strategy is aware of what the opposition is doing.

I am thinking and that is going to change this generation.

I think it will be eight years between the launch of the PS3 and the PS4.

Sony is going to try and make as much money as they can off the PS3.

By the way, I'm not a gambling person but I would bet money on this if I was a gambling person.

If you were a gambling person, I think you'd realise that it's not for you.

2014 is a long time. A good micro-laptop will have more power than the PS3 by then! It's also a horribly risky strategy, in a fast paced technology environment to place your bets on old technology for that length of time. They won't be able to react as well to changes in the markets, to changes in usage habits etc. Microsoft could release two console generations in that time! Furthermore, the PS2 won't last forever, there will come a point where people just get the Wii or the Xbox360 because they aren't "OLD". A highlevel/lowlevel console strategy has worked well for the past 2-3 generations, why abandon it now?

 

[kyetech]

OK, Ill go on record and say: 2011/12 for Nextbox. and 2013 for PS4.

Ill put a 5er on it. you can pay with Paypal. hehe.

 

[JPT]

Alex St. John: "Consoles as We Know Them are Gone"

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2277507,00.asp

The Death of Console Gaming?

ET: Now, Mr. Sweeney, and also the God of War: Chains of Olympus studio head, Didier Malenfant, indicated enthusiasm for the next generation of consoles—not next-gen consoles as they're referred to now, but the following generation. Now when I spoke to you at Game Developer's Conference, you predicted that the current generation of consoles would be the last. Who's correct here?

ASJ: It's a heretical thing to say, but I have a damn good point. First of all, it's not crazy to point out many, major console failures in history completely destroyed the company and stymied the console market for years. Sega and Colecovision being two of the classic ones. They were leaders, everything they did—they could do no wrong, and boom, they're gone.

And the thing that's interesting in this era, that I think is significant, is that Sony and Microsoft severely overextended themselves. Burned themselves. Burned more money than they could ever hope to get back on these consoles. Even if the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are wild successes, they will never get their money back.

Billions of dollars. Billions of dollars. And, to say that they will have—for one, to say that they will be eager to do that to themselves anytime soon, is highly improbable, which means that this generation of consoles could be in the market as the only generation of consoles available for a very long time.

Second, who are the guys making money in the console space? Nintendo! They shipped off the shelf, cheapo, ATI video chips! And they're killing it! And the reason is that Nintendo correctly observes that graphics is no longer a differentiating feature; it's a commodity. The feature of the Nintendo [Wii] is a new type of game mechanic, enabled by a new controller. And so what that says is that graphics has become a commodity. As we talked about on the PC, all PCs are gonna have great graphics compared to a console, in many cases; the Japanese and Microsoft aren't going to engineer a superior graphics chip in the future than one you can buy from ATI or Nvidia; it's never gonna happen again. For Sony or Microsoft to go and design their own graphics chip would be lunacy in the next generation.

So that means that if there is another generation, it's gotta be about either input devices, or online community. Graphics will just be good everywhere. And if it's about community, that puts the console out of business. Because why the hell does Wal-Mart want to sell a money-losing loss leader device, when all the valuable content will be tied to online services and subscriptions and downloadable stuff? So for all the talk about downloadable content on the console, the console depends on the retail channel for that market to be valuable, and the retailer, if they don't get a cut of that, is going to say why the hell am I trying to sell these consoles at a loss for?

 

[ShaidarHaran]

As impressive as Alex St. John's resume is, I don't think I've ever read anything he's said that I've agreed with. He comes off as trying to spin everything towards his company's way of doing things.

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

OK, Ill go on record and say: 2011/12 for Nextbox. and 2013 for PS4.

Ill put a 5er on it. you can pay with Paypal. hehe.

Yep I'd say the same thing. No way Sony is going to release a console before this for all the reasons you mentioned in your previous post. Btw I really think PS3 is going to claim the #1 spot in a few years, both the Wii and the X360 just wont last as long.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Most of that was mind-crushingly stupid, but he had a very good point here:

Because why the hell does Wal-Mart want to sell a money-losing loss leader device, when all the valuable content will be tied to online services and subscriptions and downloadable stuff? So for all the talk about downloadable content on the console, the console depends on the retail channel for that market to be valuable, and the retailer, if they don't get a cut of that, is going to say why the hell am I trying to sell these consoles at a loss for?

Let's say the next generation is all about the downloadable content, and physical media becomes a thing of the past. Who wants to sell such a console? Gamestop goes completely out of business. Wal-Mart and Best Buy aren't making money on the machines, either. Right now, software is making the retailers rich, and that's why they sell the machines for almost no profit. Take that away, and what's the motivation for having an "Xbox" section in electronics at all--especially when it's taken up only with boring-looking console boxes and accessories?

 

[Geoson]

Yep I'd say the same thing. No way Sony is going to release a console before this for all the reasons you mentioned in your previous post. Btw I really think PS3 is going to claim the #1 spot in a few years, both the Wii and the X360 just wont last as long.

Same here, I agree with PS3 winning the console war eventually. However there is one worry, what if Microsoft really releases the next xbox in 2011, that's still 2 years until PS4 comes out, and the next xbox will of course be vast superior to the PS3. My bet is that the same thing would happen, PS4 releases one year after the next xbox, since they can't exactly release it at the same time given the golden 5--6 years life cycle of the console. PS4 would probably be conceived around two to three years before its release, so if it releases in 2012, it would be 2010 or 2009.

 

[Grolik]

Well all those predictions are pretty interesting, but when you're talking about a 2013 PS4, for how long do you think the PS3 would have been in technical agony? Same question for the XBox 360?
I mean, sure the PS2 still stands quite proudly in sales, and a few good PS2 games still come on the market... but as a PS2-only owner I can tell you it's been about a year and a half I'm really eager to play some current gen games, XBox 360 specificaly (early 2006 line-up didn't impressed me).

So, how a PS3-only owner would feel by 2011? Seeing photorealistic games on a quad core, 8800 SLI XBox? Do you think Cell is such an advance that PS3's still gonna rock its old bones pretty cool in 2012?

 

[Grolik]

'Doh!
Geoson had the same thoughts, but was way faster to post

 

[Squilliam]

Well all those predictions are pretty interesting, but when you're talking about a 2013 PS4, for how long do you think the PS3 would have been in technical agony? Same question for the XBox 360?
I mean, sure the PS2 still stands quite proudly in sales, and a few good PS2 games still come on the market... but as a PS2-only owner I can tell you it's been about a year and a half I'm really eager to play some current gen games, XBox 360 specificaly (early 2006 line-up didn't impressed me).

So, how a PS3-only owner would feel by 2011? Seeing photorealistic games on a quad core, 8800 SLI XBox? Do you think Cell is such an advance that PS3's still gonna rock its old bones pretty cool in 2012?

For PS4 owners in such a scenario... C'est la vie. They would have even MORE superior architecture but it would be meaningless because even more of the games will be multi-platform than they are now. It seems consoles are moving to a standard, but the console fanboys haven't realised it. I wonder also if the next Wii might be much more powerful to keep up with the other consoles and make multiplatform development on all three viable. Apart from exclusives, most of the first two years of games would be ports of the Nextbox anyway in such a scenario.

You could argue that the Xbox360 arcade is more of an annoyance to a PS3 owner because it is the lowest common denominator for most cross platform development!

Edit: Geoson, REMOVE your post! Thats not fair for multi-lingual people.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I don't see any reason why PS4 wouldn't be coming in fall 2012. I think 6 years is long enough. By 2010-2011 Sony will have long since abandoned its stance of letting PS3 go for 10 years before PS4. The PS3 can still be very strong as a dirt-cheap Blu-ray player and bargin game machine for low-end games for years after PS4 launch.

2011 for next-gen Xbox - 2012 for PS4 and Wii HD sometime between the two.

I suppose PS4 could be held until 2013 - that's 7 years after PS3 launch, and no more than that. The problem with launching after 2012, say in 2013-2014, is that Sony would be roughly in the middle of Xbox Next lifecycle. It would be bad to be squeezed in between Xbox3 in 2011 and Xbox4 in 2017. PS4 needs to launch within 1 year of Xbox3.

 

[Squilliam]

Whats the lead time between developing a reference machine and releasing a console? If we're talking about Nextbox release dates.

Furthermore, how long does it take to develop a game at the end of a consoles lifespan? Im assuming that the Nextbox would have pretty much an evolved architecure of the Xbox 360.

 

[Geoson]

Whats the lead time between developing a reference machine and releasing a console? If we're talking about Nextbox release dates.

Furthermore, how long does it take to develop a game at the end of a consoles lifespan? Im assuming that the Nextbox would have pretty much an evolved architecure of the Xbox 360.

The NexBox would be more of a trivial task to develop games for if they just evolve with what they have in the 360, sames goes for PS3. Neither Sony and Microsoft are going to abandon their current designs, they've dumped a lot of money investing in the current gen, well not so much for Microsoft, but Sony did invest few hundred millions at least in the PS3, if not billions. It would be a beefed up Cell 2 for PS4 and a super Xenon for 720.

 

[liolio]

I would tend to think that some here tend mix stuffs together ie:
finishing as the leader
and
have 100 millions units lead.

What do you think help the ps2 the most (now or really few years ago), being first OR (huge one lol) have a 100 millions units lead?

By the way a question grows in mind lately, if I don't agree with Alex St. John nevertheless I really wonder if manufacturers will go through the expense of designing something really new.
We all predict the same thing (/ difference in silicon budget time frame):
Ati/Nvidia for the gpu // IBM for the cpu
Intel could bring something new but it would came at some expenses(cost // likely less performant if we only consider graphics).
One thing it's clear games will looks mostly the same on the next generation system (and pc by the way). Manufacturers will have a hard time to differentiate themselves.
Editors won't help them as they are really to leverage the market as a whole through multi platform games to a point where I wonder if it would be wise for manufacturers to try to differentiate themselves through graphical // technical merit while in the same time it would be craz to not provide something close enough (performances and architecture).

So my little question do you think one manufacturer would be crazy enough to go with something new/ unproven/non standard? (fake question )

Think a bunch of fine tuned ARM cores (or new vliw architecture) + some fixed function hardware.
Larrabee may not be a bad idea but x86 core is not likely to be the good starting point.

 

[Geoson]

I would tend to think that some here tend mix stuffs together ie:
finishing as the leader
and
have 100 millions units lead.

What do you think help the ps2 the most (now or really few years ago), being first OR (huge one lol) have a 100 millions units lead?

By the way a question grows in mind lately, if I don't agree with Alex St. John nevertheless I really wonder if manufacturers will go through the expense of designing something really new.
We all predict the same thing (/ difference in silicon budget time frame):
Ati/Nvidia for the gpu // IBM for the cpu
Intel could bring something new but it would came at some expenses(cost // likely less performant if we only consider graphics).
One thing it's clear games will looks mostly the same on the next generation system (and pc by the way). Manufacturers will have a hard time to differentiate themselves.
Editors won't help them as they are really to leverage the market as a whole through multi platform games to a point where I wonder if it would be wise for manufacturers to try to differentiate themselves through graphical // technical merit while in the same time it would be craz to not provide something close enough (performances and architecture).

So my little question do you think one manufacturer would be crazy enough to go with something new/ unproven/non standard? (fake question )

Think a bunch of fine tuned ARM cores (or new vliw architecture) + some fixed function hardware.
Larrabee may not be a bad idea but x86 core is not likely to be the good starting point.

Next gen hardware most likely are going to stick to IBM, since it's in the companies control, if they go for Intel they would have to pay probably more to Intel for them to design the CPUs, and they would be tied to a some sort of agreement which limits their vision. Whereas for IBM, for Sony, they pretty much designed the Cell with help from IBM and also Toshiba. The three parties formed STI (Sony, Toshiba and IBM), and they co-developed the chip. They have more control on what they're designing that way, instead of giving Intel all the control. And it's likely a large part of the profit would have to be given to Intel if Intel designs their chips for them. Personally, I think Sony is just going to beef up Cell in the PS3, like 2--4 PPEs with a wider instruction set, 32 SPEs or more for horsepower and speed. They might even make the chip an out-of-order execution type though it is highly unlikely. For the Xbox 3 or 720, most likely they will just use more cores, like 6-12 PowerPC cores. Though i think the Cell design would be better. However, the GPU for the nextbox will be from ATI probably, and PS4 will get something good from Nvidia. Sony really screwed themselves a bit with the 2 Cell concept, had they accept Nvidia's offer to use a derivative G80 earlier (G80 was in development back in 2002), PS3 would be a lot more powerful, a derivative G80 beats out G71 by quite a bit. I hope PS4 will get some hardware close to the PC this time around.