How to do Next-Gen Graphics

[scooby_dooby]

As long as MS continues to sell X360 for the next 6-8 years, which I'm sure they will since they'll be turning profit, I don't see what the problem is.

They ahd very good reasons for killing XBOX1, we all know what they were, but those reasons are no longer present in X360 so there's no reason to think they'll repeat this trend in the future.

 

[jvd]

2009 they can launch mabye with hologram discs or even go with an established hd-dvd or bluray .

They can launch with bigger hardrives , a new generation ati chip. With tech that is 4-5 years more advanced. Most likely over 1 gig of ram for the system launch with a faster version of the xenos chp with more cores and cache .

tie in the xbox 3 with dx more closely .

 

[seismologist]

I dont see where a 4 year lifespan would benefit MS. Unless they need it to upgrade to an a HD optical format.

It wouldn't be putting pressure on Sony instead we'd end up with a situation where a new console is coming out every 2 years from either MS or Sony.

Xbox 360 design decisions seem to be aimed at long term profitability so I'm expecting they will try and follow through unless there is some unexpected change of events.

 

[jvd]

I dont see where a 4 year lifespan would benefit MS. Unless they need it to upgrade to an a HD optical format.

It wouldn't be putting pressure on Sony instead we'd end up with a situation where a new console is coming out every 2 years from either MS or Sony.

Xbox 360 design decisions seem to be aimed at long term profitability so I'm expecting they will try and follow through unless there is some unexpected change of events.

I'm sorry but imagine for a second how much market share ms would take if the ps3 wasn't coming out till 2007 . Do you really think ps2 graphics would stand up well at all to gears of war in march ?

Sony would be stuck with the ps3 most likely for another year or so and have that duking it out with the xbox 3 . The xbox 3 will be cheap to make before the ps4 is even released and the xbox 4 would be gearing up only 2 or 3 years into the ps4s life.

Keep presure on as much as possible don't give sony long console development cycles .

If they stick with ati and ibm they should have bc just fine and so for hardcor gamers an xbox 3 isn't a big deal and u still have that 100$ xbox 360 for casuals .

 

[Titanio]

I'm sorry but imagine for a second how much market share ms would take if the ps3 wasn't coming out till 2007 . Do you really think ps2 graphics would stand up well at all to gears of war in march ?

For starters, MS wouldn't be making 6-year leaps in technology in 3 years.

But more importantly, short cycles are simply bad for everyone. There's no doubt MS could sustain it, but I think publishers would simply laugh at the suggestion of a new MS console with PS3 just hitting its mid-cycle. Consumers would scoff..I can already see many european folk getting pretty pissed off that the box they bought with halo2 last year is already being replaced.

The only reason MS cut Xbox short was to "synch up" with Sony and release in roughly the same period, vs 18 months later. They're not going to keep cutting a year or two off the cycle. Increasingly short cycles would be bad for publishers, consumers and ultimately MS.

 

[scooby_dooby]

2009 they can launch mabye with hologram discs or even go with an established hd-dvd or bluray .

They can launch with bigger hardrives , a new generation ati chip. With tech that is 4-5 years more advanced. Most likely over 1 gig of ram for the system launch with a faster version of the xenos chp with more cores and cache .

tie in the xbox 3 with dx more closely .

well judging by this generations leap, we can expect about 2-4GB of ram

 

[jvd]

For starters, MS wouldn't be making 6-year leaps in technology in 3 years.

Where did anyone say they would ? Oh wait no one did , reread the thread

But more importantly, short cycles are simply bad for everyone. There's no doubt MS could sustain it, but I think publishers would simply laugh at the suggestion of a new MS console with PS3 just hitting its mid-cycle. Consumers would scoff..I can already see many european folk getting pretty pissed off that the box they bought with halo2 last year is already being replaced.

what are you talking about . Europe would have had the system for 4 years also. Ms did a worldwide launch this time.

Its sony that would be in trouble. Ms will have 2 systems on market . one at 100$ being phased out in the next year or so that devs caan still put games out and has a large base and a new system that will launch at 400$ that the devs can put out .

It really doesn't matter what part of the ps3s life cycle it is . Many devs will go to the new platform and there will be a visual increase in the system in 2009 hardware vs 2005 hardware

The only reason MS cut Xbox short was to "synch up" with Sony and release in roughly the same period, vs 18 months later. They're not going to keep cutting a year or two off the cycle. Increasingly short cycles would be bad for publishers, consumers and ultimately MS.

Ms can keep with thier 4 year cycle and cut no time off the cycle . It will just force sony to cut time off thier 6 year cycles .

Consumers seem just fine lining up to buy an xbox 360 just 4 years after the xbox 1 .

 

[drpepper]

I agree with Shifty, I don't see the point with a shortened life cycle of 4 years. Other than pissing off your devs and installed base, what benefit do you have?

With such short life spans happen how can the companies (developers and console suppliers) make money when they are constantly rebuilding their user base.

Why invest hundreds of millions of dollars just for short term gains?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Who really wants 6 year cycles? Besides the console makers with the majority of the market share?

That's soooooo long! I don't want to wait until 2011 for a new console, that's way to far away.

 

[Titanio]

Where did anyone say they would ? Oh wait no one did , reread the thread

PS2 to GoW is 6 years.

what are you talking about . Europe would have had the system for 4 years also. Ms did a worldwide launch this time.

I'm saying that MS isn't enamouring themselves to those who value a healthy and stable lifecycle as it is, particularly in Europe.

Consumers seem just fine lining up to buy an xbox 360 just 4 years after the xbox 1 .

There'll always be those to buy at launch. But consider that we're coming toward the end of a generation generally, not just Xbox's. 2009 will not be the general end of a lifecycle, these machines should and will only be hitting their stride then.

The only reason they'll cut the X360's life will be if it's bleeding money and going nowhere. If it's going as they hope, there should not be another system till 2010 at the earliest.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I agree with Shifty, I don't see the point with a shortened life cycle of 4 years. Other than pissing off your devs and installed base, what benefit do you have?

With such short life spans happen how can the companies (developers and console suppliers) make money when they are constantly rebuilding their user base.

Why invest hundreds of millions of dollars just for short term gains?

After launching the new console in 4 years, they would continue to sell and make money from the X360 for many years. Why would developers be pissed off? If they want to stay on the old system they can, if they want to try new things and cash in on the launch hype, possibly become a #1 franchise over night, they can try that too.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why invest hundreds of millions of dollars just for short term gains?

In MS's case it's to cripple Sony's gaming division. If everyone updates their hardware every four years, MS would of course lose money, but they can afford to. Sony on the other hand trying to keep up an every four year launch would suffer greater net losses. Though as I say, PS4 could just be a quad-Cell and better GPU. Actually, for the same leap in performance Sony would want like 30 Cells....

 

[drpepper]

Who really wants 6 year cycles? Besides the console makers with the majority of the market share?

That's soooooo long! I don't want to wait until 2011 for a new console, that's way to far away.

Well then... buy a PC. It's obvious you guys want bigger and better things as the tech is developed. But consoles are designed for the long term, hence future proofed.

The developers and consumers are also the type of people who don't want short life cycles.

Everytime a new console appears the devs have to climb up another learning curve, that leaves less time for optimization. The better games typically come late in the life cycle. Right now we're seeing this with the current gen. Undercutting the life cycle means undercutting any gains the developers achieved from the current gen.

Consumers... No one wants to buy a 400$ machine every 4 years. That's asking too much. Not everybody directs their money towards gaming...

 

[jvd]

PS2 to GoW is 6 years.

reread .

I said imagine if the ps2 wasn't launching till 2007 , that would be what it would be like for the ps3 . The ps3 would have a 6 year cycle. That means 2011-2012 is when we would see a ps4 . The xbox 3 would have a 4 year cycle and we would see a new one in 2009/2010 .

The graphics for the ps3 would be up against the xbox 3 for a year or two before the ps4 comes out .

I'm saying that MS isn't enamouring themselves to those who value a healthy and stable lifecycle as it is, particularly in Europe.

Why is that . They launch in each country at the same time every 4 years while still supporting the last gen (unlike this time) . So the devs shouldn't have a problem. Thier projects will still launch onto a selling system.

Europeans shouldn't mind because its 4 years. Don't see them complaining about the xbox 360 even though the xbox 1 launched less than 4 years ago .

There'll always be those to buy at launch. But consider that we're coming toward the end of a generation generally, not just Xbox's. 2009 will not be the general end of a lifecycle, these machines should and will only be hitting their stride then.

and that is why ms should go to shorter cycles , because it will hurt sony alot more than microsoft.

The only reason they'll cut the X360's life will be if it's bleeding money and going nowhere. If it's going as they hope, there should not be another system till 2010 at the earliest.

or if they want to gain more market share .

 

[Titanio]

reread .

I said imagine if the ps2 wasn't launching till 2007 , that would be what it would be like for the ps3 . The ps3 would have a 6 year cycle. That means 2011-2012 is when we would see a ps4 . The xbox 3 would have a 4 year cycle and we would see a new one in 2009/2010 .

The graphics for the ps3 would be up against the xbox 3 for a year or two before the ps4 comes out .

A PS3 in 2007 versus a X360 in 2009/10 is a 2/3 year gap. I don't see how a comparison between PS2 tech and X360 tech applies, it would not be "like that".

This is really really silly.

Why is that . They launch in each country at the same time every 4 years while still supporting the last gen (unlike this time) . So the devs shouldn't have a problem. Thier projects will still launch onto a selling system.

Europeans shouldn't mind because its 4 years. Don't see them complaining about the xbox 360 even though the xbox 1 launched less than 4 years ago .

Well, actually, I do. I've heard more than a few of my friends complain about how quickly it's being supplanted (most of them bought last year for Halo2, like me).

and that is why ms should go to shorter cycles , because it will hurt sony alot more than microsoft.

And the rest of the industry to boot. But who cares? In truth, though, Sony could easily leverage PS3 tech investments to create a new system sooner if they wanted (PS4 in 2011/12 will likely do this anyway to some degree). But they don't, because building a successful platform isn't about seeing who can put out more new systems faster.

Seriously jvd, buy a PC and just keep upgrading it.

 

[typoEDR]

Uggh.... short console cycles = PC gaming = Really sucks.

I'm still pissed at MS for killing off the XBox as it early as it did.

 

[drpepper]

In MS's case it's to cripple Sony's gaming division. If everyone updates their hardware every four years, MS would of course lose money, but they can afford to. Sony on the other hand trying to keep up an every four year launch would suffer greater net losses. Though as I say, PS4 could just be a quad-Cell and better GPU. Actually, for the same leap in performance Sony would want like 30 Cells....

LOL, well that machine will be the size of a fridge. Assuming the PS4 is a CELL derivative I guess Sony can sustain a short life cycle.

MS may be able to afford that strategy but whether it works or not has yet to be seen. And I'm sure the shareholders will be wondering why they would be offering a new console when the older one has yet to be milked out.

After launching the new console in 4 years, they would continue to sell and make money from the X360 for many years. Why would developers be pissed off? If they want to stay on the old system they can, if they want to try new things and cash in on the launch hype, possibly become a #1 franchise over night, they can try that too.

Well, the developers would be in a dilemna. Either develop for an installed base that is large, say 50 million users, or develope for an instaled base that is small/non-existent but has new and improved hardware.

It's a difference between selling 20 million titles to possibly 3 million titles.

Developing for both consoles would just increase cost and time just for the sake of covering your bases.

 

[jvd]

A PS3 in 2007 versus a X360 in 2009/10 is a 2/3 year gap. I don't see how a comparison between PS2 tech and X360 tech applies, it would not be "like that".

This is really really silly.

Once again your just not following .

I said if ms sticks with a 4 year market gen then the ps4 will come out 1-2 years after the new xbox , which would have been like the ps2 lasting an extra year this gen.

Or to make it easier for you , it would be like if sony launched in 2001 and had to keep an xbox lvl machine on the market against a xbox 360 lvl system for 2 holidays before launching a next gen machine .

Its a very simple comparision .

Well, actually, I do. I've heard more than a few of my friends complain about how quickly it's being supplanted (most of them bought last year for Halo2, like me).

sucks for them but they can still buy xbox games , new ones are coming out through next year .

That would be 5 years of games for a system .

Perhaps they shouldn't wait till the end of the gen .

And the rest of the industry to boot. But who cares?

Seriously jvd, buy a PC and just keep upgrading it.

The industry wouldn't loose money.

You have yet to show why.

They will still have the xbox 360 to dev for and it will be at a mass market price , they will also have the xbox 3 to dev for and it will have been itroduced at a hardcore gamer price.

They can sell thier current projects to the xbox 360s market base and start to move to the xbox 3 while still making money.

I don't see where they will loose any money.

From your point of view we should never have left the nintendo generation . Cause some devs may have lost money

 

[Titanio]

Once again your just not following .

I said if ms sticks with a 4 year market gen then the ps4 will come out 1-2 years after the new xbox , which would have been like the ps2 lasting an extra year this gen.

Or to make it easier for you , it would be like if sony launched in 2001 and had to keep an xbox lvl machine on the market against a xbox 360 lvl system for 2 holidays before launching a next gen machine .

Its a very simple comparision .

I still don't get how it could be like a Xbox-level machine versus a X360-level machine when the gap between release of PS3 and the next Xbox would be 3 years, given a 4 year cycle (not the 4 that existed between Xbox and Xbox360, or the 5 between the PS2 and the machine GoW is running on).

sucks for them but they can still buy xbox games , new ones are coming out through next year .

Come now jvd, no one likes being stuck with the "old" system. The number of games would be far greater if MS wasn't releasing X360 this year.

The industry wouldn't loose money.

You have yet to show why.

They will still have the xbox 360 to dev for and it will be at a mass market price , they will also have the xbox 3 to dev for and it will have been itroduced at a hardcore gamer price.

They'd have the cost of investing in a new platform - more expensive development - and I think consumers would simply get pissed off at "consoles as snacks" and stop buying the system, limiting their market. Publishers want a system that'll establish a large base that they can "milk" over a long period, and a decent amount of time to offset initial investment against.

And learn how to spell lose, please.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well then... buy a PC. It's obvious you guys want bigger and better things as the tech is developed. But consoles are designed for the long term, hence future proofed.

The developers and consumers are also the type of people who don't want short life cycles.

...

Consumers... No one wants to buy a 400$ machine every 4 years. That's asking too much. Not everybody directs their money towards gaming...

Who says 4 years is short? To me it's ideal, any less would be short, any more is long.

I don't want to waste money every 6 months on upgradeing my GPU, once every 4 years sounds great to me.

As for consumers not wanting short lifecycles, 1st like I said I do not consider 4 YEARS short, 2nd, they are free to continue gaming on their current system for 2 more years, and pick up the next-gen console when it's hit the <$200 mark. What's wrong with that?