Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure extra shaders ALU or a clocked higher rendition of xenos would make as much difference as a "fixed" xenon.

Well, extra memory would be the least advantageous as devs will be targeting 512MB anyway. At any rate, supporting another SKU with clock speed increases probably won't sit well with QA (increased cost and time).

It may be worth noting that functionality tweaks will probably not ever be done for the sake of compatibility... even the erroneous quirks.
 
Well, extra memory would be the least advantageous as devs will be targeting 512MB anyway. At any rate, supporting another SKU with clock speed increases probably won't sit well with QA (increased cost and time).

It may be worth noting that functionality tweaks will probably not ever be done for the sake of compatibility... even the erroneous quirks.
I hinted CPU improvment because I guess it can be transparent to developers. I was especially thinking about fixing the LHS penalty. Devs could continue to work on current xenon and make their most to minimize LHS impact but it's sometime unavoidable, an hardware fix could be transparent just making the code runs faster on the new hardware than on the devkits/old model.

Anyway overall I don't believe in this ps560 thing :LOL:
 
@Prophecy2k, grandmaster and Shifty Geezer

I don´t think it´s important how many X % better games look, because as grandmaster points out we are approaching diminishing returns and people don´t really bother that much.

It will basically be all about marketing, add some dirt cheap memory, a new motion controller, maybe a few extra shaders to the GPU and voila you got a new console refresh that can live another five years.
Developers will be happy as they can use the same code and just upgrade some assets and add some effects, the motion controller will be new, but hey they already got the Wii to support so it would be done anyways.

To reiterate it´s mostly about marketing, the EA guy confessed EA is spending twice as much on marketing a title than the development budget. That gives a hint that it´s not the quality of a product that is most crucial for the success, Sony and MS will point to a number of improvements and people will just be happy to know they buy a better product at roughly the same price and that´s it.

I don't even know how you could concievably market the thing without it being much more than a "modest" updgrade.

As has been said, slight tweaks will likely not make any difference to the software being produced across the systems. You'd have to make it a significant enough upgrade for there to be a big enough increase in visual fidelity so that the average joe casual gamer can see it.

Otherwise, if you're gonna go motion control outta the box, then both the current PS3 and 360 will have their MC's out by 2010, both will cost less and already have a much larger software library available to any potential buyer.

So let's say you make it a significant enough upgrade so that you can do MC (motion control) games at higher resolutions and framerates. Significant enough for there to be a perceptible and therefore marketable difference. Then how to you persuade game devs and publisher to make games for these new consoles, exclusive games that would justify the upgrade or bring in new a new audience? Most devs and publishers, knowing that your new consoles are just a stop-gap until the real next-gen, would be adverse to doing any exclusive content as they'd likely earn more and would already have an established 54 million strong userbase with the current PS360. The same goes for your first parties, as it would make no economical sense to develop games, be them MC or standard controller games for only your PS560 and alienate your current userbase.

In the end you'd end up getting slightly uprezzed ports of multiplat games if you're lucky, and the only exclusive content (unlikely entire games) would be by your first parties anyway. Hence many consumers would have little reason or cause to upgrade to the new platforms, and new comers would likely just buy the cheaper current boxes rather than the newer "upgraded" consoles that offer little to no benefit.

As a platform holder you only have one other option... make the HW upgrade considerably significant! I.e. a REAL next-gen box. Hence why I don't see any logical benefit of doing anything less!

If the current PS3 and Xbox 360 weren't getting Natal and the Wands, then it'd be a different story entirely ;)
 
As far as i'm concerned this purported PS3.5 and Xbox560 = The PS3Slim bundled with the PSWands and the Xbox360 (or 360Slim) plus Natal.

Anything more would be a waste of effort and money which you could spend on marketing an effectual "re-launch".

heck, just redesign the current boxes on a smaller manufacturing process (say 32nm) and re-launch then as your PS3.5 and Xbx560 if EA wants it so bad.
 
EA don't want the 3.5 and 560, they're just saying that because whatever hot new hardware will make the PS4 and Xbox720, their next-gen engines will make them look like 3.5 and 560s .. :p

All kidding aside, both manufacturors will be working on a next-gen machine and have been working on one for quite some time. But they can probably both really use the extra time to make the hardware as efficient as possible, make some hard decisions (do I want to be able to support 3D?), and get the development software side of it up to speed well before launch. I can't even begin to imagine how complex the decisions are that the console manufacturors are going through now for the next-gen, but I think it will be safe to say that software and peripherals will play an ever increasing role.

Personally, I would wait and see what two years of motion controls bring, and then decide whether my next-gen console is ready to handle it or not.
 
I don't even know how you could concievably market the thing without it being much more than a "modest" updgrade.

As has been said, slight tweaks will likely not make any difference to the software being produced across the systems. You'd have to make it a significant enough upgrade for there to be a big enough increase in visual fidelity so that the average joe casual gamer can see it.

Otherwise, if you're gonna go motion control outta the box, then both the current PS3 and 360 will have their MC's out by 2010, both will cost less and already have a much larger software library available to any potential buyer.

So let's say you make it a significant enough upgrade so that you can do MC (motion control) games at higher resolutions and framerates. Significant enough for there to be a perceptible and therefore marketable difference. Then how to you persuade game devs and publisher to make games for these new consoles, exclusive games that would justify the upgrade or bring in new a new audience? Most devs and publishers, knowing that your new consoles are just a stop-gap until the real next-gen, would be adverse to doing any exclusive content as they'd likely earn more and would already have an established 54 million strong userbase with the current PS360. The same goes for your first parties, as it would make no economical sense to develop games, be them MC or standard controller games for only your PS560 and alienate your current userbase.

In the end you'd end up getting slightly uprezzed ports of multiplat games if you're lucky, and the only exclusive content (unlikely entire games) would be by your first parties anyway. Hence many consumers would have little reason or cause to upgrade to the new platforms, and new comers would likely just buy the cheaper current boxes rather than the newer "upgraded" consoles that offer little to no benefit.

As a platform holder you only have one other option... make the HW upgrade considerably significant! I.e. a REAL next-gen box. Hence why I don't see any logical benefit of doing anything less!

You are totally missing my point. A "REAL next-gen box" costs huge amounts of money in R&D and the initial productions will be expensive and the console will require extensive subsidies at launch to get a foothold. Then we have the game developer side of the matter. They need to write new engines and the support at launch will be very limited.

The benefit of an upgrade/refresh is that you skip most of that cost. Whatever upgrade they will do it will be VERY cheap and add little to BOM. The developers don´t even need to support it explicitly at launch their games will work on it anyways. However it will take very little effort to add some specific support, when they feel it is warranted, i.e. when the competition is doing it and the user base large enough. First party developers will of course be the first to take advantage of the upgrade.

So why would the platformholders start using this approach at this time? We are approaching diminishig returns in the graphics department, the Wii has shown that many people were pretty content with the fidelity of the graphics of the last generation and the PS3 and 360 have significantly better graphics in my opinion so there are no big market shares to be gained by keep pushing cutting edge graphics. Not to mention that the risk when introducing a "REAL next-gen box" is huge.

An upgrade may refresh the interest in a platform that is approaching it´s fifth year on the market when sales are stagnating, it can also be seen as an preemptive strike to fight Nintendos upcoming Wii HD. Arwin mentioned 3D support, that could be a new bullit point as well, may not mean much the first years but in a couple of years who knows.
 
but will you get nvidia to design a new G70-based chip with more units, Sony to double the amount of Rambus memory, MS to get a bigger edram die etc. ? I doubt it. There still are big costs and the idea failed big times (Amiga 1200, Sega 32X, Jaguar CD - urgh)

3D support would be easier, it's only about video output (like the introduction of HDMI on xbox) and software. If there's no weird specific limitation on output, the 3D support would cost very little on PS3 (Nvidia has had and maintained 3D support for a decade already) ; but the slim PS3 has to have it. Else, better to leave it to next-gen (because of user base split, marketing costs etc.)
 
I really hope we are moving away from designing custom chips where there is no software infastructure in place for the ISA (really looking at Sony here).

There are enough industry standards out there that will be competitive for Sony/MS/Nintendo to cherry pick from. At least that is the theory.
 
I want to see the unholy matrimonial union of Microsoft and Apple.

I want to Microsoft to kill Zune.
I want Apple to kill Apple TV.

I want bucketloads of, now Apple owned, PA semi's fast and low power PPC cores in it.
I want very next gen graphics in it.
I want it to look sleek and sexy.
I want Apple to design and develop the user interface.
I want Microsoft to supply the software and networking infrastructure.
I want an online service that is a merger of the iTunes store, Net Flix and Marketplace.
I want iPods and iPhones to dock with it.

I want ... The iBox

Cheers
 
I want to see the unholy matrimonial union of Microsoft and Apple.

I want to Microsoft to kill Zune.
I want Apple to kill Apple TV.

I want bucketloads of, now Apple owned, PA semi's fast and low power PPC cores in it.
I want very next gen graphics in it.
I want it to look sleek and sexy.
I want Apple to design and develop the user interface.
I want Microsoft to supply the software and networking infrastructure.
I want an online service that is a merger of the iTunes store, Net Flix and Marketplace.
I want iPods and iPhones to dock with it.

I want ... The iBox

Cheers

I want an Apple console to be a 2d-focused, download only, $99 box. That plays lots of 16-bit style games (with of course the great 2D even todays low end tech can provide).

I know this isn't likely though, so I guess secondarily I'd like it to mimic the Iphone app store maybe. A lot of dinky/casual games that are dirt cheap. And just as open, you'd probably see tons of 2D ports then.
 
I want to see the unholy matrimonial union of Microsoft and Apple.

I want to Microsoft to kill Zune.
I want Apple to kill Apple TV.

I want bucketloads of, now Apple owned, PA semi's fast and low power PPC cores in it.
I want very next gen graphics in it.
I want it to look sleek and sexy.
I want Apple to design and develop the user interface.
I want Microsoft to supply the software and networking infrastructure.
I want an online service that is a merger of the iTunes store, Net Flix and Marketplace.
I want iPods and iPhones to dock with it.

I want ... The iBox

Cheers

That will be 2000$ for the non glossy version.

iBudget 1000$ Wii perfomance
iMainstream 1200$ Wii x2
iEntusiast 2000$ Wii x4
 
Yes:!:

You heard it here first :D

Cheers
No you need to paid copyright to iPapy (French Nickname of Steve Jobs)!
All i**** is it own proprietariy and the iWant is the first thing he created when he return to Apple.:devilish:

@Rangers: Apple already made the console you talk (but not at this price, I think)…
The Pippin!!
One of the first iFlop! Maybe because is not a i***, this couldn't be a i$$$$ thing :LOL:;)
 
I want to see the unholy matrimonial union of Microsoft and Apple.

I want to Microsoft to kill Zune.
I want Apple to kill Apple TV.

I want bucketloads of, now Apple owned, PA semi's fast and low power PPC cores in it.
I want very next gen graphics in it.
I want it to look sleek and sexy.
I want Apple to design and develop the user interface.
I want Microsoft to supply the software and networking infrastructure.
I want an online service that is a merger of the iTunes store, Net Flix and Marketplace.
I want iPods and iPhones to dock with it.

I want ... The iBox

Cheers

I want totally uncrippled hardware, cheap and powerful. USB and jack connectors, no proprietary ones.
I want a chinese or korean-made piece of mobile hardware with no DRM, plentiful of functions with the default OS, can boot or dual-boot linux. I've already noticed the Dingoo A320 which is like a 65€ PSP in a GBA form factor ; next mobile thing to look for will be a 99€ netbook.
I want ultra powerful and ultra cheap desktop hardware running windows and ubuntu with a clean and fast desktop, can interface to anything, doesn't run quicktime or windows media player. Can use USB, audio jacks, PXE (server and client), SD cards, hard drive, electromagnetic spectrum, ethernet and a few other millions of things.
Check, that exists right now, it's called a PC and a decent one costs 300€.
 
but will you get nvidia to design a new G70-based chip with more units, Sony to double the amount of Rambus memory, MS to get a bigger edram die etc. ? I doubt it. There still are big costs and the idea failed big times (Amiga 1200, Sega 32X, Jaguar CD - urgh)
If I was Sony I would have let the same design team at Nvidia redesign the RSX right after the RSX design was completed. Anyone remember the secret Nvidia contract? Whatever upgrade they do it will be cheap, introducing a small redesign at the same time as they do a die shrink doesn´t add much cost.
The old consoles you mention can´t be ccompared to todays situation, smaller user bases and their graphics were not approaching diminishing returns.

3D support would be easier, it's only about video output (like the introduction of HDMI on xbox) and software. If there's no weird specific limitation on output, the 3D support would cost very little on PS3 (Nvidia has had and maintained 3D support for a decade already) ; but the slim PS3 has to have it. Else, better to leave it to next-gen (because of user base split, marketing costs etc.)
Not a big deal in my opinion. The current consoles already split the user base in different ways. The 360 with harddrive offer more functions (harddrive installs, some games require hard drive, Live DLC etc., than the one without hard drive.
People will learn that one model have optional 3D output in HD and the other not. Not saying this will happen, but I don´t think your argument is what will stop them introducing it.
 
I was thinking how the chances are that within the next ten years or so, a Nintendo console platform will become an actual commodity product and starts appearing in TV feature checklists. Think something along the line of a G5 iMac. It'd be a TV with a disc slot somewhere that can play Wii games. Just like today there are TVs with SD card slots that let you browse images.
 
I was thinking how the chances are that within the next ten years or so, a Nintendo console platform will become an actual commodity product and starts appearing in TV feature checklists. Think something along the line of a G5 iMac. It'd be a TV with a disc slot somewhere that can play Wii games. Just like today there are TVs with SD card slots that let you browse images.

That's a very interesting idea... however oen must consider the fact that more people will upgrade their dedicated £100-£299 video games console in a 5 year period than they will buy a new TV.

Nintendo would simply sell more Wiis on their own than if they intergrated them into TVs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top