Yeah but in game cosmetics are produced once at low cost with unlimited supply. Will there be enough for something like costly console production and distribution?
Do you think there will be a mid gen refresh console from Sony and Microsoft?
- Thread starter invictis
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The people over at EA's Frostbite Labs disagree. In their extensive 150+ slide presentation given at GDC 2017, PS4 Pro's checkerboard implementation gets mentioned a lot and their take on PS4 Pro checker boarding, as it was used in ME Andromeda and BF1, does not tally with yours.
4K Checkerboard in Battlefield 1 and Mass Effect Andromeda - Frostbite
Talk by Graham Wihlidal (Frostbite Labs) at GDC 2017.
www.ea.com
Next week on, When Random Forum Posters disagree with Game Engine Developers.. user 26165 tells us why John Carmack doesn't know anything about 3D.
They were one of few developers who used it and quality was not superior to developers who used other methods.The people over at EA's Frostbite Labs disagree. In their extensive 150+ slide presentation given at GDC 2017, PS4 Pro's checkerboard implementation gets mentioned a lot and their take on PS4 Pro checker boarding, as it was used in ME Andromeda and BF1, does not tally with yours.
4K Checkerboard in Battlefield 1 and Mass Effect Andromeda - Frostbite
Talk by Graham Wihlidal (Frostbite Labs) at GDC 2017.
Next week on, When Random Forum Posters disagree with Game Engine Developers.. user 26165 tells us why John Carmack doesn't know anything about 3D.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You might want to focus on performance, which is important on consoles with more modest hardware. Delivering the same image quality with less resources is as valuable as delivering better image quality with the same resources.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the markup is big enough, I'd have thought so.
"What can we do for a mid-gen refresh?"
"Barely anything. Hardware won't be any cheaper and the actual difference on screen will be pretty minimal."
"Okay. We'll have marketing create buzzwords for even more components and price at $900 instead of $650 and go for the chumps."
The original roadmap was 2029 for next, although Spencer said that had changed, how can you move up to 2027?
Are they dropping features and performances to be first to the market?
Are they dropping features and performances to be first to the market?
Probably sooner than that. They launched X1X one year after PS4 Pro. I am guessing they are going to do the same here.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Being first to market worked well for the 360, although the 360's hardware represented a massive leap in gaming experience compared to the consoles it was replacing, whether OG Xbox or PS2. Games like Gear of War and Oblivion really ushered in new levels of gaming experiences, especially in terms of visuals.
Especially in this day and age, releasing any "next-gen" console earlier won't help, when accounting reality of hardware and software development. Hardware solutions are commoditized , pricey and scaling slowly. Software development costs and time will make almost any title initially be crossgen with graphics sliders moved. Microsoft itself with their subscription focus and cost effective game development practices' would be against any clean slate scenarios. On top of that, with their current brand weakness, making such move would risk being dreamcasted. Looking at bigger picture, SeriesS trick "lets muddy the water with something earlier/cheaper/comparable for casuals didn't change their situation.
In the other words, everyone are in rolling generations, whether we like it or not
In the other words, everyone are in rolling generations, whether we like it or not
arandomguy
Regular
Wouldn't the dynamics be different here though? In that it wasn't so much that 360 released ahead but that the PS3 was delayed, and due to things outside of it's core gaming/graphics capabilities. This meant the 360 was able to to come out ahead while not compromising on the graphics/gaming side.
Unless something similar presents itself here the only way you'd be able to release significantly ahead, especially if they're both going to use a common supplier in AMD, would be to compromise on the graphics/gaming side compared to the later release.
I can’t imagine a nextgen console launching before 2028 being anything more than a glorified pro.
The process technology is simply not there. I think for a meaningful nextgen step, they have to wait for beyond 3nm processes, but given the slower pace of the foundries and cost those are way off for consoles.
The process technology is simply not there. I think for a meaningful nextgen step, they have to wait for beyond 3nm processes, but given the slower pace of the foundries and cost those are way off for consoles.
I cant stress how much of a disaster it would be if Microsoft try and rush a new generation. If anything, the smarter play is to extend this generation longer than normal. Microsoft surely cant be so stupid to think that devs will all stop what they're doing, abandon the hugely popular PS5 and start retooling and developing for their new Xbox, right? And if not, then what's the point? It'll just be a glorified Xbox Series X Pro model, all while a true PS6 will come out 2-3 years later and destroy the Xbox in terms of specs while also having the clout to get developers onboard.
It would end Xbox.
It's especially worrying given how many studios they have gathered up now, and what's at stake if Xbox as a division fails.
It would end Xbox.
It's especially worrying given how many studios they have gathered up now, and what's at stake if Xbox as a division fails.
Last edited:
What if MS release the next console in the XB series? The execution of the rolling generations, or rather rolling platform, that exists in every other market with their annual updates?
I think everyone's agreed that 3 years isn't much time for tech to advance. A PS6 in 2028/9 will be little more than a pro upgrade to an Xbox Series Y released in 2026, unless there's some magical new way for Sony to get more power from the same basic technologies. Sony will need at least 6 years, likely around 8, past anything MS releases to release something that's a whole generation ahead and looks it (and vice versa). Indeed, this new reality brings more flexibility to hardware releases. Without price drops and huge tech acceleration every year, it almost doesn't matter what and when you release. It'll be no cheaper, nor particularly uncompetitive, versus something coming 2 years later, and they'll remain price and performance comparable for the following 5 years.
At that point they'd sell them off. Too much in them to just shutter and wipe $70 billion from the companies value.
Are you kidding? Microsoft to simply hope to compete must be clearly superior in every single parameter.
I don't understand how that response follows the argument about a few years between machines ensuring not much difference between them.
What would I be kidding over?
To compete they must get rid of all executives that have being doing very badly for Xbox since XB1. This is how others companies usually do.
I think there will be a Series X refresh next-year, regardless of Kepler's beliefs. I can see a Series X refresh having slightly higher clocks, 2TB NVMe/SSD, and potentially additional and faster ram. If Microsoft wants to be brave and bold, maybe a Series S-like experience in a portable system.
But generally speaking, Microsoft will wait out the rest of generation with a Series X refresh (or possible mobile solution) without pissing off their current 25-28M Series userbase by introducing a whole new generation of consoles (and potentially ending Series X|S manufacturing and support in the process).
But generally speaking, Microsoft will wait out the rest of generation with a Series X refresh (or possible mobile solution) without pissing off their current 25-28M Series userbase by introducing a whole new generation of consoles (and potentially ending Series X|S manufacturing and support in the process).
While I agree that this is what *should* happen, recent behavior by Embracer has shown that just shuttering the studios is somehow a viable option. I can't, for the life of me, understand why they haven't openly tried to sell off some of their studios unless they really want to keep the IP, though I still think some deal could have been made.
Similar threads
