J. Allard Interview Pt. 2

[jvd]

Ok so if the Xbox 3 came out at the end of 2009 and both PS4 and Nintendo N6 came out in 2011, you would see that as a potential problem for MS? The thing is london-boy developers would have enough time to fully utilize everything that the hardware is capable of. And why would MS want to add the expense of a new console say fast when they should be profiting on the X360?

actually it can be just as big of a problem for sony as it would be for ms . Ms will have hit thier 5th year. THey can push out a new console and have the market as the only next gen console for 2 years . Thier third gen games will be coming out against sony first gen games and by the time sony really gets going and the ps4 hits its 3rd year ms can push out another console.

It could be sony that falls into problems . Ms isn't like sega , they have the money to launch very early .



Anyway while 4-5 years may not be ideal for devs right now it may be going foward. The ease of use that xna brings to the table , the adoption of using premade engines will help ease the cost and raise the quality of first generation games and this will continue to increase as we go foward .

For the two main companys well they may not have much of a choice and ms keeping the console generations shorter can help them drain sonys pockets esp this generation where sony will still most likely have a large lead.

 

[AlNom]

Anyway while 4-5 years may not be ideal for devs right now it may be going foward. The ease of use that xna brings to the table , the adoption of using premade engines will help ease the cost and raise the quality of first generation games and this will continue to increase as we go foward .

Yeah, hopefully that part of the dev time gets minimized. I'd hate to see them offering one sequel per generation. Halo 2 and GT4 were cutting it close, IMO.

 

[mckmas8808]

Anyway while 4-5 years may not be ideal for devs right now it may be going foward.

Ok I see there is nothing that I can say to get you guys to understand. And why is it that MS can all of a sudden change the reals and nothing wrong (you guys are actually thinking is great for MS) but when Sony wants to spend a few extra dollars on a Blu-ray drive or one extra flash media slot its a HUGE problem. :| Don't you think that there is a reason why devs don't really like the concept of a new console every 4 years. *shakes head in disappointment*

For the two main companys well they may not have much of a choice and ms keeping the console generations shorter can help them drain sonys pockets esp this generation where sony will still most likely have a large lead.

You have got to be kidding me. Nintendo and Sony could afford to bring out a new console every 4 years if it wanted to, but thats not their focus. Sony has dominated on the console side of things for the last 10 years and Nintendo has pretty much been the father to videogames for almost 20 years. So why is it that a newcomer like MS can come in for 4 years and change everything and nothing is wrong.

The way you guys are thinking no wonder why Sony's people are calling MS next-gen system Xbox 1.5. And if they keep up with this every 4 years thing they will always have a .5 machine. So if MS does come out with a console in 2009 when the other two are only 2 to 3 years in then I hope you guys have fun with your .5 consoles.

Don't you think that there might be a reason why any of the major console developers haven't done this already.
________
DC MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

 

[London Geezer]

Anyway while 4-5 years may not be ideal for devs right now it may be going foward.

Ok I see there is nothing that I can say to get you guys to understand. And why is it that MS can all of a sudden change the reals and nothing wrong (you guys are actually thinking is great for MS) but when Sony wants to spend a few extra dollars on a Blu-ray drive or one extra flash media slot its a HUGE problem. :| Don't you think that there is a reason why devs don't really like the concept of a new console every 4 years. *shakes head in disappointment*

Oh yes, please please please call me a MS fanboi! I mean, that will make the whole worldwideweb laugh.

Maybe it's not us who need to understand, maybe it's you who needs to understand that there are different opinions than yours.

When did a 5-year lifecycle become a rule?!

Really, when jvd and I actually agree on something, you should start worrying that maybe your opinion is not fact, unlike you seem to think.

 

[mckmas8808]

Oh yes, please please please call me a MS fanboi! I mean, that will make the whole worldwideweb laugh.

I never called you a fanboi. If I thought you were I would had said so. I know that its your opinion, but everytime someone has an opinion does mean that I have to respect it. London I respected everything that you said its the other party that I didn't respect. Thats why I didn't quote your post. When you said your opinion it seemed to me that you actually believed it. But jvd seems like he's just trying to agree with everything that MS does or may do in the future.
________
TOYOTA YARIS VERSO SPECIFICATIONS

 

[Acert93]

In fact, i think there's more people nagging about "wanting a new playstation", cause the old one is showing its age, and has been for quite a while. Same for Xbox in fact.

I agree.

And if Sony/MS/Nintendo go on a backward compatiblity trend I see even less of a reason to hold back the cycle. In my opinion, 6 years is way too long; I will take 4 years over 6 years.

With a 4-5 year cycle there is also less of a demand to project future technologies as much. A console is first and foremost a game machine, not a trojan into my home or a trojan to get some new gadget/standard/format established.

I would rather pay for value, first in games, and then supporting usefull devices that are cost effective. e.g. I think the new consoles, with HD displays, would be more than proficient at email, browsing, etc... And these features would add hardly any expense to the system itself. Similarly the VoIP and Video Messaging features are exciting for that reason. They add value to the product without trying to insert some new expensive device.

But this is just me. Everyone buys consoles for different reasons and have different interests/needs. I like consoles because I like playing high quality games with friends, and with this new generation that means I can finally get online on a regular basis with friends who I moved away from (as most cannot afford a gaming PC).

But I understand there are people who want certain tech features and/or have space limitations. And that is one of the great things about having 2 or 3 Hardware makers in the market. Different strokes for different folks.

And some of us would rather have backwards compatible platforms with fairly quick hardware cycles. Sony/MS/Nintendo pay through the nose for the last 5% of performance and have to guess at the future... a less "projected" cycle could actually mean cheaper consoles (possibly). Anyhow, better 4 years than 6. The PS2 is a 10 year platform, but that does not mean I want to be stuck without a HD, no integrated broadband connection, and 1999 graphics forever :?

A 4-5 year cycle would keep me longer (especially if we see KB/MS support along with High Def). But again, that is just me

 

[London Geezer]

Oh yes, please please please call me a MS fanboi! I mean, that will make the whole worldwideweb laugh.

I never called you a fanboi. If I thought you were I would had said so. I know that its your opinion, but everytime someone has an opinion does mean that I have to respect it. London I respected everything that you said its the other party that I didn't respect. Thats why I didn't quote your post. When you said your opinion it seemed to me that you actually believed it. But jvd seems like he's just trying to agree with everything that MS does or may do in the future.

Well it shouldn't matter how jvd "sounds".

In the end we have the same opinion on this, so if you understand mine, you should be ok with his.

I'm just a much better writer that's all. He's more like Bigfoot.

Really, the whole point of this is that... well i've written my points, not sure why you're still nagging if you respect them.

 

[mckmas8808]

A console is first and foremost a game machine, not a trojan into my home or a trojan to get some new gadget/standard/format established.

Obviously your talking about the Blu-ray drive in the PS3. How in the world do you see this as a problem in a console is weird to me. That trojan horse will save you more money and time waiting for a next-gen movie player.

I would rather pay for value, first in games, and then supporting usefull devices that are cost effective. e.g. I think the new consoles, with HD displays, would be more than proficient at email, browsing, etc... And these features would add hardly any expense to the system itself. Similarly the VoIP and Video Messaging features are exciting for that reason. They add value to the product without trying to insert some new expensive device.

How expensive do you really expect the Blu-ray drives to be for Sony over DVD drives. Do you really think its going to be THAT much. By the sound of things it seems to me that you are expecting the PS3 to bbe $100 more dollars than the X360.

The PS2 is a 10 year platform, but that does not mean I want to be stuck without a HD, no integrated broadband connection, and 1999 graphics forever

I just had to comment about this sentence, its like a worm on a fishing hook. The graphics for the PS2 are not that bad. Its so ridiculous how some people portray the RE4 graphics to be some of the best this generation, but when I look at the video of the same game on the PS2 it looks about 98% alike. And thats probably due to the fact that the game still has about 6 months left of development to go on it.
________
No2 Vaporizer Review

 

[Acert93]

Obviously your talking about the Blu-ray drive in the PS3. How in the world do you see this as a problem in a console is weird to me. That trojan horse will save you more money and time waiting for a next-gen movie player.

No, I was not specifically talking about the BR drive. That is but one trojan effort. Both MS and Sony are clearly aimed at being the new multimedia hub in your home.

As for the BR drive, who says I want a crappy 1st gen device? I would personally rather wait until 1.) the HD format is settled and 2.) affordable, high performance devices that do what I need come to market.

If someone is not interested in using it (i.e. it is a game machine first and foremost to me) then it is not saving me anything. As noted in the BR/HD DVD/DVD threads a lot of people do not use their console DVD players. Why? Inferior quality and/or their console is not always hooked up to their home entertainment center (i.e. it may be in a bedroom).

How expensive do you really expect the Blu-ray drives to be for Sony over DVD drives. Do you really think its going to be THAT much. By the sound of things it seems to me that you are expecting the PS3 to bbe $100 more dollars than the X360.

Right now BR media is more expensive; and BR drivers are more expensive. DVD was already a standard and in living rooms and in movie rental stores before it hit a console. Ditto CDs in consoles. Blue Laser technology is not even available in any US store I have been to, ditto the media/movies.

If consoles were on a 4 year cycle Sony would have released this last year (or 2005 at latest) and probably stuck with a DVD drive. And in 2009, when a Blue Laser technology has won on its own merits and a host of media is available AND there are more than 10M HD TV sets in the US, PS4 could ship with the winning format.

People forget that while normal TVs will benefit from more powerful consoles, normal TVs wont get as much out of BR over DVD. While HD TV sales are picking up, they are fairly limited in market penetration. That is one HUGE difference between blue laser technologies and DVD. DVD looked GREAT on a normal TV. So you had an install base in the US of what, 120M or more? Blue Laser technology will benefit far less consumers.

So to me and many consumers the extra money for movie capabilities or to help gain marketshare is not worth it. Now if they use it for games that is another story... but the media does cost more. And all costs eventually get passed on to consumers in one shape or another.

And that is the good thing of multiple console makers. If I do not want to pay for something that I wont use I can buy a different console. With Sony and MS fighting for the same gamers with basically the same games sans exclusives I will wait to see which has the exclusives I like best and the features I like best. I play a lot online but watch few movies. If MS can fix the E3 trainwreck they have a chance at my money. But I am waiting for REAL PS3 games to appear before I make a decision. Also Nintendo... but I do not know much about what they are doing so hard to factor them in.

I just had to comment about this sentence, its like a worm on a fishing hook. The graphics for the PS2 are not that bad. Its so ridiculous how some people portray the RE4 graphics to be some of the best this generation, but when I look at the video of the same game on the PS2 it looks about 98% alike. And thats probably due to the fact that the game still has about 6 months left of development to go on it.

Obviously you do not play on a PC. Having outdated gaphics has nothing to do with how it compares to other consoles. ALL the consoles have nappy graphics compared to the PC and the new consoles.

Specifically I am tired of aliases, muddy, blurry games running at 480i. I am tired of repetitive textures, stiff animations, and so forth. I am tired of broadband not being a standard element.

You put HL2, FarCry, Doom 3, BF2, CoD, or whatever high end PC game next to a console and it makes you laugh. And when you compare those games running at 1600x1200 with AA and AF you will know what I mean by 1999 graphics. 640x480 is no longer an acceptive PC resolution The high resolution, texture detail, lighting, and level site is really leaps and bounds better. And these top end PCs are hardly being tapped.

I am ready for consoles to catch up/pass PC again. Waiting 6 years between consoles is unbearable at times. The PC always draws me back because it has a HD display, a HDD, better input devices/options, more memory, and more evolution in gameplay. I like how when my console feels STALE I can get a cutting edge PC game that wows me. And not just in graphics, but in new gameplay elements, level size, and in geneal I think PC games tend to be more innovative.

But PCs, gaming PCs, are expensive. With HD standard now, consoles might keep me longer if they had a shorter cycle over a long cycle. Nothing insane, but 6 years is too long for me. Good for Sony/MS/Nintendo profits, but I am tired of the limitations by year 5. By then the PC is offering some neat stuff. Limiting the generations to 4/5 year cycles w/ BC would keep me from wandering to PC land so much.

But every gamer is different. Some people have no problem with their PS2/Xbox/GCN. Personally I am ready for dynamic lighting, destructabile environments, physics based animation and gameplay, HUGE worlds, broadband, HD, and so forth.

And in 4-5 years there will be just as many new features we want that NEW hardware makes available. Just as we are looking at finally getting some decent physics this gen, we may have to wait until next gen to fully destructable worlds. And I will upgrade for that!

 

[scooby_dooby]

I agree completely, first of all I trhink the idea of Blu-Ray saving you money on a HD movie player is pretty dumb.

Like JVD said almost everyone I know ended up buying a seperate DVD player other than their xbox or ps2, because the console drives just weren't as good quality. I can only see the problem being worse with a 1st generation of brand new hardware.

Anyone who's serious about using HD-DVD/BluRay would wait until real players hit the market, and for the casual person they could care less about HD-DVD's.

In the past DVD worked great as an excuse for kids to get their parents to buy a PS2, I now many parents that bought the console using that as an excuse. Blu-Ray won't have the same appeal, not even close. When PS2 came out everyone wanted a DVD player, when PS3 comes out the majorit of people won't even know what blu-ray is.

As for the 4-5 year lifecycle, I think that's perfect. With the rate technology is moving waiting any more than 4 years means the consoles will get too outdated. And it's not like production just stops once a new gen is released, there are something like 200 XBOX games in development right now. So, even if a new console is launched ever 4 years, it still gives dev 5 or 6 years to exploit that platform.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

You put HL2, FarCry, Doom 3, BF2, CoD, or whatever high end PC game next to a console and it makes you laugh.

I Agreed almost completely what you said, but I didn't laugh when I saw Doom 3 on Xbox, and the HL2 and Far Cry Instincts videos I have seen are really good looking on Xbox, ofcourse they look better on PC, but Xbox is fighting back admirable.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I too would prefer a 4-year cycle with the following holiday pricing: $299, $249, $199, $149, $99 (newer platform is launched). Support with games for 6 years, but make new hardware every 4 years.

IMO this is what MS is going to attempt to bankrupt Sony. By the time PS3 sees anywhere near its potential, the next Xbox will be on its way. That's why MS isn't that concerned with the "potential" power of Cell and PS3. They aren't planning for it to be relevant.

It's very hard to see if this will work...

 

[mckmas8808]

Obviously you do not play on a PC. Having outdated gaphics has nothing to do with how it compares to other consoles. ALL the consoles have nappy graphics compared to the PC and the new consoles.

Comparing console games to PC is really not fair. Those games require you to upgrade your GPU more often than getting a new console. For over $1000 I better have something thats better than a $300 console. Today a great GPU may cost you over $500 whereas any of the consoles today would cost less than $150.

And for the record I don't agree with the 4 year thing. 5 years are ok, 4 seems to short. And going by what you said the PS3 should have came out in the year 2004. Well if it came out in 2004 the X360 and NR would have killed anything Sony could have thrown at it. That would have put Sony at a horrible place.

Right now it looks like Sony might implement some kind of gyro technology in the PS3. They couldn't have done that in 2004 properly. The CELL chip or RSX wouldn't have been finished. It would have been a PS 2.5 instead. I think 4 is too short while 6 maybe a little too long.

I think its worth waiting a little bit longer for a Blu-ray drive, Gigabit ethernet port, RSX, Agegia like physics, etc. A 2004 PS3 couldn't have had none of this stuff. As a matter a fact PC games like F.E.A.R. would have already surpassed the PS3 if it would have came out in 2004.
________
BUY EASY VAPE

 

[twotonfld]

I too would prefer a 4-year cycle with the following holiday pricing: $299, $249, $199, $149, $99 (newer platform is launched). Support with games for 6 years, but make new hardware every 4 years.

IMO this is what MS is going to attempt to bankrupt Sony. By the time PS3 sees anywhere near its potential, the next Xbox will be on its way. That's why MS isn't that concerned with the "potential" power of Cell and PS3. They aren't planning for it to be relevant.

It's very hard to see if this will work...

In my opinion, this is the scenario where everyone but the publishers get economically raped.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I too would prefer a 4-year cycle with the following holiday pricing: $299, $249, $199, $149, $99 (newer platform is launched). Support with games for 6 years, but make new hardware every 4 years.

IMO this is what MS is going to attempt to bankrupt Sony. By the time PS3 sees anywhere near its potential, the next Xbox will be on its way. That's why MS isn't that concerned with the "potential" power of Cell and PS3. They aren't planning for it to be relevant.

It's very hard to see if this will work...

In my opinion, this is the scenario where everyone but the publishers get economically raped.

How is that?.
4 years sounds good to me too, I don't want to play with underpowered machine too long.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I just had to comment about this sentence, its like a worm on a fishing hook. The graphics for the PS2 are not that bad. Its so ridiculous how some people portray the RE4 graphics to be some of the best this generation, but when I look at the video of the same game on the PS2 it looks about 98% alike. And thats probably due to the fact that the game still has about 6 months left of development to go on it.

Hmm I tried, but couldn't resist...
While the PS2 port is in fact quite good looking, it is definately not within 98% of the Gamecube version. Maybe if you have seen only the low-res trailer it might seem like that, but it is definately not the case.

 

[twotonfld]

It really has nothing to do with playing the games - it has more to do with keeping the industry a viable market. A 4 year life span creates a constantly moving target. Granted, some of this development headache can be mitigated by middleware such as DX, but 4 years cuts out the later cycle, higher-margin period for both developers and console makers. It also cuts out the time period in which a console's best and most creative games tend to be made since dev houses are finally out of the period of fighting with the HW.

A lot of people are already worried that this coming generation may push out too many cookie-cutter engine based games. Think of what shortening the cycle does to the market.

 

[mckmas8808]

Exactly twotonfld. Thats one of the points that I'm trying to make. I guess some people would have like a no CELL chip, no RSX, 256 MB of RAM, etc on their PS3s. I don't know why? :? Do you guys actually think that alot of people buy their next gen hardware within the first year. NO they don't

If Xbox3 launches in 2009, people that brought the Nintendo Rev. in lets say the end of 2007 (one year after release) probably are not going to want to fork over another $300. Do you guys want someone like myself to buy a 2nd gen PS3 game and have to think about a new Xbox console at the same time. Does that really make sense to you.

Also I guess you guys don't care about games like Okami, SOTC, FF-12, Ominusha 4, Soul Caliber 3, Socom 3, Kingdom Hearts 2, or Rachet: Deadlocked. Those are only PS2 games and we wouldn't have expirenced them had the PS3 came out in 2004.
________
Jimny

 

[jvd]

The problem is there is no fixed cycle for video games. There is no law on when they should move on. Some console cycles are longer than others .

I.e the nes generation was very long for nintendo but sega was able to steal half the market from them (from having virtualy none) becasue the consumer agreed it was time to move past the nes 18 months before nintendo decided that .

Once again the consumers decided it was time for a new console with the psone about 18 months before nintendo choose to move on .

Sega tried to accelerate the console cycle even faster and the consumer said no.


Ms is going with 4 years this console gen and we will see what the final word is from the consumer . They may very well vote that the 4 years is more than enougn time

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Also I guess you guys don't care about games like Okami, SOTC, FF-12, Ominusha 4, Soul Caliber 3, Socom 3, Kingdom Hearts 2, or Rachet: Deadlocked. Those are only PS2 games and we wouldn't have expirenced them had the PS3 came out in 2004.

And you are assuming that those games wouldn't come to PS3. I wonder what makes you say that. It's also stupid to say that PS3 would have less power if it would have come sooner, because we would get PS4 sooner that would but PS3 to shame. Overall in terms of power it doesn't matter how long the cycle is. If you fast forward to 20 years, it the hardware is just as powerful whether using 4 year or 6 year cycles, it just depends where in the cycle you currently stand.