NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*

[patsu]

I hear that. My T42 running ubuntu lasted over a decade, till I spilled a glass of water all over it. My brand new macbook pro has had nothing but problems with the battery recharging, and the headphone jack never letting the system speakers play, both completely solveable via software.

It may be obvious which of these console system seems more powerful, at least based on these leaks, but at the end of the day it's software that really matters.

Let's not forget the Wii:U is still in contention (though it's a bad example of lots of software atm), and its hardware is far less powerful than both Orbis and Durango.

It's the total package including h/w, s/w and intangibles (e.g., ecosystem).

H/w is important for longevity, peak performance, hard limits, etc.
S/w for the final user experiences, including the content and the actual performance.

I have my fair share of device failures, like my recent Acer 3D monitor that lasts less than 2 years. This is just a one-off sample.

Same for your example. Your MacBook Pro may also last 10 or more years. I think with Mountain Lion, you should be able to choose multiple speaker output, including AirPlay ones. Not sure what your charging issue is. Could be adapter related issues too. But yes, you won't be able to recompile your OS. ^_^. But you can install Windows or Ubuntu on your Mac if you so desire -- if you want different software.

This is where I hope Sony goes. If they want to include a general purpose OS and non-games in PS4, let us use low cost add-on hardware to run Android or Linux. Make it as painless as possible to integrate with other OSes like iOS.

Or do it via Gaikai. They can even let people choose their favorite OS + app services to run on the server in the future.

 

[kots]

That's the thing, nothing is guaranteed wrt xblg subscribers...
If durango disappoints, that leaves the door wide open for Sony and PSN. Then the transfer of "loyal subscribers" has already taken place.

If they release such an underpowered console and expect me and my friends to continue with XBXLGold , they're in for a shock

 

[Hardknock]

If they release such an underpowered console and expect me and my friends to continue with XBXLGold , they're in for a shock

Same here.

 

[(((interference)))]

Not so clear cut. Sony's tools may hamper progress (e.g., the FXAA guy said he doesn't expect low level GPU access in first year). Lead platform, budget, art, schedule may also affect production.

Actually I think the opposite is true, Lottes said MS could be restricting low level access to the hardware and this seems to be borne out by the latest Edge rumour:

Studios working with the next-gen Xbox are currently being forced to work with only approved development libraries, while Sony is encouraging coders to get closer to the metal of its box. Furthermore, the operating system overhead of Microsoft’s next console is more oppressive than Sony’s equivalent, giving the PlayStation-badged unit another advantage.

 

[Acert93]

Wow, talking about mixing rumors. The "approved" libraries and APIs is hardly different from the Xbox 360 (whereas Sony has encouraged in the past and present going strait to the metal) and the crazy rumor you like about Durango being a Windows8 box with a bloated OS/Direct3D.

Toss the two rumors together and TA DA! They are the same.

Or not.

 

[Sonic]

I could care less what API's devs have to use or if they get close to the metal during the first generation of games in a new generation of consoles. Just as long as those consoles have enough power to make a noticeable leap in graphics is what matters to me, and judging by the leaked specs of both consoles, that's going to happen. So that puts a smile on my face, while they might not be the 3 TFLOPS monsters we've yearning for they will still be a nice upgrade over the current crop of consoles. I'm a bit bewildered by the Durango specs, but having read many dev comments it helps ease those concerns. And the one thing, for me, that these consoles have that will make a huge upgrade in visuals is tessellation and higher geometry numbers. I really do hope we see more polys this gen as that just allows a strikingly better image overall.

But let devs use whatever methods that they have available to learn the machine. It's understandable MS wants devs to use a specific API with all of its other intentions for the machine to be doing things side by side while gaming. The tools will get better with time and devs will learn the machines better.

I'm actually excited about this new generation, quite a bit more than the past generation.

 

[temesgen]

Same here.

This is the point I was making a couple of pages back, granted there are some who will pay for Gold and Halo regardless but IMO many would be tempted to go to PS4 if the visuals are better, the cost for hardware are close and PSN is still free.

 

[(((interference)))]

Wow, talking about mixing rumors. The "approved" libraries and APIs is hardly different from the Xbox 360 (whereas Sony has encouraged in the past and present going strait to the metal) and the crazy rumor you like about Durango being a Windows8 box with a bloated OS/Direct3D.

Toss the two rumors together and TA DA! They are the same.

Or not.

I don't see how I'm mixing rumours, a thick API for 720 matches a view that it'll be a Windows 8 based box. And that Edge rumour states the OS is more oppressive on Durango.

 

[itsmydamnation]

what do they gain by having a "thick API" ? it makes zero sense.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

what do they gain by having a "thick API" ?

Forwards/cross device compatibility.

 

[deanos]

Forwards/cross device compatibility.

bingo.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

bingo.

Perhaps it's worth expanding on this a little. We are already seeing a few rival systems appearing who will offer just that. Ouya will offer a box where your games get better over time, to some degree, as you upgrade the hardware. SteamBox will provide the same. If Apple create a set-top box, that'll provide the same. And MS already have a forwards compatible platform that allows your old library to be played in better and better quality in Windows. That could be a significant advantage next-gen against a rival who's library is a one-stop deal. If MS communicate effectively that it's Xbox Forever, than my options will be: PS4 that may be notably better than XB3, but who's library will be outdated and a dead-end in 4ish years; or XB3 and a family of improving boxes I can buy into when I feel its time for an upgrade, including PC even, taking all my library with me. That's a compelling argument.

There's a whole other two or three threads discussing this (Upgradeable console etc.) for those who want to argue for or against, but the key point is this is clearly a valid business strategy for MS and so shouldn't be looked on with surprise or consternation. We might well see a disparity between Orbis and Durango that goes beyond hardware differences, but that may also result in Durango (DirectX, Windows) being the preferred platform for gaming in the coming years.

 

[dobwal]

and after that, a bigger durango 3 will come, and still same orbis

The point would be to avoid two year refreshes. If you modularize the hardware, you can address upgradeability and multiple skus at launch. If tessellation is as promising as some believe it to be, then a well designed tessellation console means that multiple skus can be addressed without the need of porting and provide forward compatibility. We aren't talking better performance with new games. We are talking better performance and higher IQ across your entire library.

We as enthusiasts would buy the higher end skus at launch with the option of upgrading in the future without having to ditch our current console. We would remove the gpu/cpu modules included at purchase and replace them with modules with higher cpu/gpu counts made possible with 20nm and below. Lower end models would have the option to upgrade at the onset of launch by the addition of CPU and GPU modules that are already installed on higher end skus.

A modular console would allow the current gen to be extended before us as enthusiasts would demand a new generation of consoles. It would drive up the profit potential for console manufacturers through generation lengthening and other realities that a modular console would provide.

The current model is stifling and is hampering market expansion. The more MS and Sony address our needs and desire as enthusiasts the less feasible it is for MS and Sony to address those with less disposable income in countries where annually salary don't approach those of Western countries.

If MS were to release a 4 core jaguar 6 CU apu based console and called it the Xbox TV for $99 at launch. It would be feasible with die shrinks and other cost reduction to address markets not typically available to consoles with costly hardware in a more efficient time frame.

A successful forward compatibility modular console would change the gaming landscape as we know it. However, "successful" is the key word as its not a given that this possible at this point. Its certainly feasible but may be not practical for another generation or so.

 

[Xenio]

I've just upgraded from a faulty IPad 1 to an IPad 4. There's a considerable difference in CPU and graphics power, but ive not noticed any real differences in games. Higher resolutions certainly, but that's about it.
I can't see the Durango being any different if it went this rapid upgrade route.

We can suppose, same levels but

better framerate
better resolution
better antialiasing
better tessellation
better textures
more effects
more object on the scene
better physics
more/better particle

this is why some buys high end 2000++€ pc for gaming, same level design of 300€ pc, but different experience

 

[AlphaWolf]

We can suppose, same levels but

better framerate
better resolution
better antialiasing
better tessellation
better textures
more effects
more object on the scene
better physics
more/better particle

this is why some buys high end 2000++€ pc for gaming, same level design of 300€ pc, but different experience

Why would a dev put in that effort for a smaller base? If it runs faster or at a higher resolution, that's about all you're going to get. They aren't going to be adding effects.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Tessellation is one area that makes forward compatibility possible. You keep low level meshes in RAM and then use the hardware and software to drive up geometry and lighting based on the performanc capabilities of the hardware. If its all jaguar and AMD CU based, a good tessellating hardware makes forward compatibility as practical as ever.

Tessellation is not a magic bullet. It has some very serious issues that have to be settled...

Modeling for tess+displacement requires a very different workflow and a very different mesh, some details have to be left out, but you'll also need to add more polygons elsewhere. Rigging will have to change, map baking will have to change, all in all I would compare the change to the introduction of normal mapping. We all know how much a step that was (something Blizzard still hasn't made in WoW or in Diablo!) and how expensive it's been to game studios.


The other problem is that it's not as scalable as you seem to believe. Not having enough geometry to manipulate means you loose geometry detail - silhouettes change, complete components disappear. The non-tessellated mesh has to be completely different, with different UVs, normal maps, to accommodate this lack of vertices to work with.

Also, a lot of stuff is not possible to model with displacement maps. Multiple independently moving pieces of armor, weapons, vehicles - how do you displace them?

It would also only work well if you introduce it at a near-micropolygon level, which would immediately kill the GPU's efficiency with the small triangles.

Tessellation without displacement also wouldn't get you too far, except for smooth objects we call hard surfaces, like cars, pipes, guns etc. And these would really require a completely different modeling paradigm to preserve sharp edges and bevels and such, increasing the polygon count astronomically.


So, in short, the way you believe it could be used just won't work, it can't provide an easy click-and-go LOD system to take advantage of faster hardware without seriously compromising the base version.

 

[dumbo11]

That's very interesting. Your example reminds me of someone that's happened to me recently.
I've just upgraded from a faulty IPad 1 to an IPad 4. There's a considerable difference in CPU and graphics power, but ive not noticed any real differences in games. Higher resolutions certainly, but that's about it.
To make financial sense games are still targeted towards the Ipad1 spec.
I can't see the Durango being any different if it went this rapid upgrade route.

Yep, it's notable that the original brief that was leaked for the 720 did describe an upgrade path - 'the cloud'.

--

There is one thing people never mention for cloud gaming... the cloud does not need to be on the internet:

- provide cloud gaming, via gaikai/whoever, with better graphics etc as part of the gold/PSN+ subscription with 100ms+ lag and huge bandwidth requirements.

- additionally, ship a 'Durango/Orbis 2 LAN box' for $200. Headless (no screen, no controller), plugs into the local network (or uses that wi-fi-direct thing) and runs games in exactly the same manner, but at lower latency, lower bandwidth requirements and obviously a large outlay.

Similarly you could let a PS3/360 communicate with a PS4/720, sending the screen data over the network, and providing the controller input by-proxy. (Wii-U has shown that data can be sent with ludicrously low latency)

 

[Xenio]

Why would a dev put in that effort for a smaller base? If it runs faster or at a higher resolution, that's about all you're going to get. They aren't going to be adding effects.

because the same assets are forward compatible to next durango. (and the game it's already done for the previous durango, adding textures and effects it's not a big effort)

PC devs do this all the time, for all the games, it's so incredible for you?

and devs creates games even with a 0 (zero) userbase, at launch, add that resolution, physics, tessellation, antialiasing etc are FREE with better hardware

 

[anexanhume]

Rather than try and quote everyone, I'll just lay out the problems with a tiered SKU model or a rapid iteration.

Problems with tiered model:

• You create a logistics problem for yourself because you have to 1) devote more NRE to creating multiple boxes, and 2) create a logistics problem for yourself as you have to decide how many of each SKU to manufacture, manage inventory, and manage repairs for.
• You alienate developers if your competition doesn't do the same. Android developers have to target more devices than iOS developers do. iOS has more and higher quality releases as a result.
• Your lower end SKUs become outdated quicker. Do you just keep adding SKUs on top at a higher pace to keep up? Do you force obsolence on lower end SKUs quicker, or do you keep hard generation stops? How do you convince customers to buy new hardware every 2 to 3 years instead of every 5?

Problems with rapid iteration:

• You raise your NRE costs because you're constantly developing new hardware, software and APIs.
• You alienate developers because they don't know which platform they're targeting or which to target. Current development cycles don't support this.
• You don't have a viable model to keep customers coming back every 2 years. You want to keep customers subscribing via live? So now you want to either 1) take a cash stream you had for 5 years and eat into it by using part of it to subsidize hardware or 2) make boxes cost more to compensate for the fact you have less console life to recuperate development costs and less BoM decline over the life of the device.

The mobile market works because there are huge subsidies that make the phones net the creator much more for each device sold. You cannot create such a subsidy in the console market unless you move to a scheme where your online service costs much more. How can you guarantee your consumer will pay that?

You also have a very different development environment. Your best selling titles are not 0.99 to 9.99 priced games that can be developed rapidly. They are $60 titles that take years to make and tens of millions to develop. The mobile pricing structure doesn't support that. If you force consumers to sacrifice on the quality of their experience for pricing, they'll move to where it isn't compromised, such as the PC or your competitor.

You would only move to one of these models because you thought it would help you defeat your competitor. A lower end SKU would help more people in initially, but would they actually buy the high end software and keep developers happy? You're starting to move towards a hardware as the money maker strategy, which is antithetical to your goal of getting cheap hardware in every consumer's hands.

At the other end, faster iteration of hardware would please the hardcore gamer, but they are only a fraction of your market. If you decrease the size of your market, developers can't make money as easily.

So, both of these strategies are decreasing your market size for developers. Either they have to sell their games for more, or spend less making them. I don't think either of those is what a console owner wants.

 

[Xenio]

Rather than try and quote everyone, I'll just lay out the problems with a tiered SKU model or a rapid iteration.

Problems with tiered model:

• You create a logistics problem for yourself because you have to 1) devote more NRE to creating multiple boxes, and 2) create a logistics problem for yourself as you have to decide how many of each SKU to manufacture, manage inventory, and manage repairs for.

• 
  
  I don't think that this is a problem for microsoft
  
  

  [*]You alienate developers if your competition doesn't do the same. Android developers have to target more devices than iOS developers do. iOS has more and higher quality releases as a result.

  
  Apple release new hardware every year, sometimes after 8 months, so no problem to do the same every two years
  
  

  [*]Your lower end SKUs become outdated quicker. Do you just keep adding SKUs on top at a higher pace to keep up? Do you force obsolence on lower end SKUs quicker, or do you keep hard generation stops? How do you convince customers to buy new hardware every 2 to 3 years instead of every 5?

  
  if the old SKU is old, no problem, jump on the new one. bingo.
  
  

  [*]You raise your NRE costs because you're constantly developing new hardware, software and APIs.

  
  microsoft is already developing new tools and evolving API's, so nothing new to see here
  
  
  

  [*]You alienate developers because they don't know which platform they're targeting or which to target. Current development cycles don't support this.

  
  why they should be confused, there's no reason