How to do Next-Gen Graphics

[Shifty Geezer]

The simple obvious answer for me seems to be look at comments made over the coming next-gen, XB360 and PS3. I only remember reading about devs and companies saying MS were pushing the change too quickly and they wanted another year or two. That's Sony, Nintendo, and software houses too. I don't remember anyone saying 'Yeah, new hardware every four years would be great for us.'

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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?

Because in two years time that'll have another generation machine, so may as well just skip one. That's what I'd likely do.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Then you would've bought the X360 at launch as well, since you're indicating you prefer GFX over game library, and cost is not an issue. That person would already own a next-gen console.

I bought my xbox in 2001 and there's no way I would want to wait until 2007, spend 2 more years gaming on an archaic console while PC's have mind-blowing GFX and I'm stuck with blurred out, jaggy 640x480 video, in 2007!?!? No thx...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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).

You're not understanding jvd's example. Imagine instead of considering PS4+XB3, we're talking about PS3 and XB2, and both PS2 and XB launched in 2001. Both consoles have been out 4 years, XB360 is just about to be launched, and PS3 isn't going to show for another two years. Of course PS2 would be better than it is now, as it'd have been in development longer/later, so would be more comparable with XB in performance. That pits an XB-like PS2 against a XB360 at the end of this year, and for the next two years until PS3 is launched.

Of course then you'd have a PS3 two years beyond XB360 tech. And then an XB3 two years beyond PS3. And then XB4 and PS4 launching at the same time...

And learn how to spell lose, please.

Please don't criticize people's spelling and grammar unless what they write really is intelligable as a result. There's a million reasons to overlook spelling and grammar errors if they're not forum requirements, none of which I'll go into.

 

[Titanio]

You're not understanding jvd's example. Imagine instead of considering PS4+XB3, we're talking about PS3 and XB2, and both PS2 and XB launched in 2001. Both consoles have been out 4 years, XB360 is just about to be launched, and PS3 isn't going to show for another two years. Of course PS2 would be better than it is now, as it'd have been in development longer/later, so would be more comparable with XB in performance. That pits an XB-like PS2 against a XB360 at the end of this year, and for the next two years until PS3 is launched.

Ok I see you now, thank you. But I thought we were talking about the case of another 4 year cycle for X360 now, and what the actual case would be with PS3 etc. What'd actually happen, not some completely made up "well if this was released then, and this was released x years later, and this was released..." etc. etc.

As for spelling, I don't mean to offend, simply "loose" as "lose" particularly annoys me.

 

[jvd]

Ok I see you now, thank you. But I thought we were talking about the case of another 4 year cycle for X360 now, and what the actual case would be with PS3 etc. What'd actually happen, not some completely made up "well if this was released then, and this was released x years later, and this was released..." etc. etc.

As for spelling, I don't mean to offend, simply "loose" as "lose" particularly annoys me.

we are talking about a 4 year x360 console. I was equating it to an example of this gen tech.

My full example goes on to state that it would be the same wit hteh xbox 3 and ps4 .

The xbox 360 launches 2005. The ps3 launches 2006. If ms stays 4year cycle its 2009/2010 at the latest. Sony with thier 6 year cycle would be 2011 at the earliest.

So you would have a new xbox , which i call xbox 3 in 2009 /2010 going against the ps3 till 2011/2012 .

So do you really believe that a ps3 can compare favorably with a console made in 2009 ?

That is the point . Sony would be stuck either rushing out a ps4 2 years ahead of schedual or allowing ms to have the next gen basicly to themselves for as long as sony had it with the ps2 (18 months or so) Then of course sony would launch thier system. However in a mere 2-3 years ms would be able to launch a new console . Thus keeping sony off balance .

Why play it the way sony is playing it .


As for spelling and grammer mistakes , Sorry but i've never been a good speller (allways admited it) and don't really feel like pasting everything into word and then back to the forum

 

[Titanio]

we are talking about a 4 year x360 console. I was equating it to an example of this gen tech.

My full example goes on to state that it would be the same wit hteh xbox 3 and ps4 .

The xbox 360 launches 2005. The ps3 launches 2006. If ms stays 4year cycle its 2009/2010 at the latest. Sony with thier 6 year cycle would be 2011 at the earliest.

So you would have a new xbox , which i call xbox 3 in 2009 /2010 going against the ps3 till 2011/2012 .

So do you really believe that a ps3 can compare favorably with a console made in 2009 ?

Absolutely, if it's the most popular at that point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So do you really believe that a ps3 can compare favorably with a console made in 2009 ?

Technically, of course not. But if it's games look good, has a great software library, and is cheap, in terms of sales and keeping developer support PS3'll likely hold it's own for an extra two years. It's a strategy MS could employ but I think it'd lose them lotsa money, cause lots of trouble with the shareholders, and gain them nothing. What would the benefit be to MS? A loyal fanbase of hardcore early-adopters who every four years spend $400 to buy MS's new console, which costs more than that to make and loses MS $100 per machine?

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

Explain to me please how the Xbox 360 will continue to sell if a Xbox 720 comes out in 2009? Come on man please think about this. You should know that developers will be mad as crap if they have to re-invest in a new piece of hardware even though their current generation (i.e. Xbox 360) is selling games quite well.

Thumbs down to you hardcore guys that want to talk about the xbox720 in 2008.

 

[jvd]

Explain to me please how the Xbox 360 will continue to sell if a Xbox 720 comes out in 2009? Come on man please think about this. You should know that developers will be mad as crap if they have to re-invest in a new piece of hardware even though their current generation (i.e. Xbox 360) is selling games quite well.

Thumbs down to you hardcore guys that want to talk about the xbox720 in 2008.

same way a ps3 would . 100$ price point vs 400$ or hell next gen 500$ may be the entry price (we may even see it with a ps4 if we believe some rumors )

besides 2009 will see a host of new tech .

It's a strategy MS could employ but I think it'd lose them lotsa money, cause lots of trouble with the shareholders, and gain them nothing. What would the benefit be to MS? A loyal fanbase of hardcore early-adopters who every four years spend $400 to buy MS's new console, which costs more than that to make and loses MS $100 per machine?

they can have both . You don't have to kill the xbox 360 , you can have it last 6 years , just put out a new high end machine in 4 years .

Devs can keep putting games out on the xbox 360. WHat it does is allow ms to take larger market shares (hopefully) while kepeing sony off guard.

They can settle into better 5 year or even 6 year time tabls when they have half the market or more . While they aren't market leader than they can press the time tables.

 

[mckmas8808]

same way a ps3 would . 100$ price point vs 400$ or hell next gen 500$ may be the entry price (we may even see it with a ps4 if we believe some rumors )

besides 2009 will see a host of new tech .




they can have both . You don't have to kill the xbox 360 , you can have it last 6 years , just put out a new high end machine in 4 years .

Devs can keep putting games out on the xbox 360. WHat it does is allow ms to take larger market shares (hopefully) while kepeing sony off guard.

They can settle into better 5 year or even 6 year time tabls when they have half the market or more . While they aren't market leader than they can press the time tables.

NO! NO! NO! NO! You can't fully support two generations of consoles at the sametime. The only way that it is possible is if your console is the obvious winner. The marketshare would have to be 70% Xbox 360. The developers would more than likely rather make a game that can actually sell hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Why spend double the money to make a game for a Xbox3 when the fanbase will just then be enjoying the Xbox 360? And how do you expect MS to make money in the console business if every 2 years they have to research and develop a console? We know they have money but come on?

And why as a gamer like yourself do would you even want a 4 year lifecycle? You know that means that your favorite devs will stop supporting the Xbox 360 (which you are buying) much sooner than most people would want right?

Which console would you expect to sell more? A $200 PS3 with a Blu-ray player and great games or a $300-$400 Xbox 3 with some good launch games?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Explain to me please how the Xbox 360 will continue to sell if a Xbox 720 comes out in 2009? Come on man please think about this. You should know that developers will be mad as crap if they have to re-invest in a new piece of hardware even though their current generation (i.e. Xbox 360) is selling games quite well.

Thumbs down to you hardcore guys that want to talk about the xbox720 in 2008.

Umm, probably teh same way PS1 sold for 6 more years despite there being PS2, and the way PS2 will continue to sell for 6 more years despite there being a PS3? How can you accuse people of not thinking things through, when you've obviously took all of 2 seconds to consider this...

And don't exagerate things, no one is asking for a 2008 which would only be 3 years and much too short. 4-5 years is ideal to me, because after 4 years the hardware becomes horribly outdated.

 

[scooby_dooby]

NO! NO! NO! NO! You can't fully support two generations of consoles at the sametime. The only way that it is possible is if your console is the obvious winner. The marketshare would have to be 70% Xbox 360. The developers would more than likely rather make a game that can actually sell hundreds of thousands if not millions.

That's ridiculous. Even if market share were split 50/50, that would mean instaleld bases of 50million users for both consoles.

And you're gonna sit here and tell us that developers can not turn a profit on teh backs of 50 MILLION users? Of course they can, and they will. The only impact a split market would have, would be that more games would be xross-platform.

If MS wasn't killing XBOX1 from a hardware standpoint, then it would continue to recieve support for many years to come due to it's large installed base.

 

[mckmas8808]

Umm, probably teh same way PS1 sold for 6 more years despite there being PS2, and the way PS2 will continue to sell for 6 more years despite there being a PS3? How can you accuse people of not thinking things through, when you've obviously took all of 2 seconds to consider this...

And don't exagerate things, no one is asking for a 2008 which would only be 3 years and much too short. 4-5 years is ideal to me, because after 4 years the hardware becomes horribly outdated.

scooby_dooby the PS1 sold for those 6 more years because it was the leading platform in that generation by far. Do you think that the PSone could have received those extra years of support without it's huge fanbase?

And I said 2008 because you would be hearing about the hype at least one year before the system would come out. So if the system came out in 2009, we would be talking about it in 2008.

 

[scooby_dooby]

And do you think that if N64 had've split the market that the PS1 would've somehow withered away?

Once you start getting into the 20, 30, 40million console range there is plenty of money on the table for developers, regardless of the market share. Market share will only impact which legacy system gets MORE support, in a market split 50/50 then both consoles would recieve roughly the same support.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's ridiculous. Even if market share were split 50/50, that would mean instaleld bases of 50million users for both consoles.

And you're gonna sit here and tell us that developers can not turn a profit on teh backs of 50 MILLION users? Of course they can, and they will. The only impact a split market would have, would be that more games would be xross-platform.

If MS wasn't killing XBOX1 from a hardware standpoint, then it would continue to recieve support for many years to come due to it's large installed base.

That's the thing scooby. How do you know that the market will be split 50/50? You're talking now as if you want a Xbox 3 in 2009. And you are talking as if MS should be considering that now. And wouldn't MS be alienating the developers if they came out with a next-next-gen console in 2009? Why cut the developers in the knees like this. I'm sure most devs actually like to push a console as far as they can.

The Xenos GPU with it's Edram by itself should take at least 3 years to even start to maximize. By then the developers would have to get their next-next-gen games starting. So as soon as things get good and their Xbox 360 programming techniques get really great, you want MS to say, "Ok now learn how to program the Xbox 3"?

 

[mckmas8808]

Once you start getting into the 20, 30, 40million console range there is plenty of money on the table for developers, regardless of the market share. Market share will only impact which legacy system gets MORE support, in a market split 50/50 then both consoles would recieve roughly the same support.

Didn't the N64 sell around 32 million consoles? Being that the system came out in 1996, why didn't we see a lot of N64 games coming out in 2002?

 

[jvd]

NO! NO! NO! NO! You can't fully support two generations of consoles at the sametime. The only way that it is possible is if your console is the obvious winner. The marketshare would have to be 70% Xbox 360. The developers would more than likely rather make a game that can actually sell hundreds of thousands if not millions.

Says who ?

Once a console has 20-40 m users and developers making games for it they dn't suddenly just stop making the games and leave unfinished work. Look at the xbox , ms stoped making them and still games are coming out till the middle of next year .

If the xbox 360 does better than the xbox we are looking at over 20 m units sold by 2009 . Devs developing games will continue to release games through the xbox 360s 5th year . Giving the xbox 360 5 years of support and games but only 4 years till a new console comes out .

Why spend double the money to make a game for a Xbox3 when the fanbase will just then be enjoying the Xbox 360? And how do you expect MS to make money in the console business if every 2 years they have to research and develop a console? We know they have money but come on?

Same way sony does it , they will never stop developing the next gen. I would be suprised if conceptiual phases of xbox 3 and ps4 haven't started already.

Ms will want to increase market share and minimize loss . They have done that with this system. the price will drop quickly and acessorys will make money.

The system will continue to bring money in through its 5th and 6th years , there will just be a new one in 4 years .

Ms has done this with many of thier products , shorten dev cycles and crush the others with newer products offering newer features quickly .

And why as a gamer like yourself do would you even want a 4 year lifecycle? You know that means that your favorite devs will stop supporting the Xbox 360 (which you are buying) much sooner than most people would want right?

They will still make games . Don't get why they wouldn't . I would still get brand new xbox 360 games for another year and be able to play them on my xbox 3 .

Don't see where your getting this .

Your whole arguement has no merit , its all just bs .

Which console would you expect to sell more? A $200 PS3 with a Blu-ray player and great games or a $300-$400 Xbox 3 with some good launch games?

Until shortages are done the ps3 , after that though the xbox 3 will .

As for that in 2009 do you think bluray will matter ? Either bluray wins and the xbox 3 has it in it , bluray flopped and hd-dvd is the standard which then ms will support or a new format like holographic discs are feasiable and the xbox 3 uses it .

But its the same as anything else . What will sell more next year ? ps2 at 100$ or a ps3 at 400-500$

Its a dumb ass question which i have no idea of why you brought it up. The question isn't at launch its the year after and the year after that .

 

[jvd]

Didn't the N64 sell around 32 million consoles? Being that the system came out in 1996, why didn't we see a lot of N64 games coming out in 2002?

media costs , carts were way to expensive and didn't scale in cost. There was more money to be made on the ps2 , dreamcast , gamecube and xbox with cheaper publishing costs .


Aside from that dev support was allways low on the system. So there weren't many people finishing up projects its 6th year .

xbox even though the console is dead has games coming out as devs will still make money and they have almost completed games . Ps2 will have the same thing happen .

Devs just don't scrap games to move on to the next gen otherwise come march the ps2 would not have any games made for it .

 

[scooby_dooby]

So as soon as things get good and their Xbox 360 programming techniques get really great, you want MS to say, "Ok now learn how to program the Xbox 3"?

No they'll say here a machine with 4GB of ram, 5x's the CPU power, and a much more powerful GPU. They'll also assure developers they plan to continue selling X360's at $99 for the next 5 years, Developers will say 'sweet!'

Dev's have a choice, they CAN develop primarily for the existing generations as the installed base of the X360 continues to grow, or they can make next-gen games if they want.