Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[ShadowRunner]

Oh? You realize that is one of the primary advantages of the 360 over the PS3 right? Development difficulty is a BIG factor in both the quality and quantity of games produced for a platform vs the competition.

So you think 360 would be in a better position now had it kept original xbox performance but made it easier to program for? The huge increase in performance over last gen had much more to do with its current success than the ease of development over its competition.

Sure its an advantage but its not something you can launch a console on the back of. Im saying that to launch a new console you have to improve performance(which ease of development is part of anyway) in order for there to be reason to upgrade, either that or a huge innovation like the wii has shown. Im not sure how you can say PS4 would be better off being easy to develop for rather than increasing performance over PS3, i wouldnt buy a PS4 that was the PS3 i already have but with slightly less moaning on forums about ease of development

Id also argue that PS3 holds its own very well in terms or quality and quantity of games, and im sure had the 360 been harder to develop for it would have still fared well here regardless, i doubt it would have effected thier overall success too much.

 

[SG79]

MS is now the most successful gaming company. Nintendo earns more money, but in range of titles - particulary where 3rd parties are concerned - they rule.

Success is really measured by the bottom line, and Nintendo is king. Otherwise, we wouldn't have MS and Sony doing their own motion control solution to get a piece of Nintendo's giant pie.

Most titles are multiplatform now, with the few exclusives on each HD system. The point you're trying to make can be simplified by the simple statement that publishers will support a new system, always, regardless of its maker. There will be migration to new tech, and MS will naturally make the transition to developers easier as they did with the 360. That's where they shine after all.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Oh? You realize that is one of the primary advantages of the 360 over the PS3 right? Development difficulty is a BIG factor in both the quality and quantity of games produced for a platform vs the competition.

In the case of 360 im sure its success has much more to do with the huge increase in performance over last gen systems rather than its its ease of development compared to the competition.

Sure its an advantage but its not something you can launch a console on the back of. Im saying that to launch a new console you have to improve performance(which ease of development is part of anyway, it allows better looking games for less effort) in order for there to be reason to upgrade, either that or a huge innovation like the wii has shown. Im not sure how you can say PS4 would be better off being easy to develop for rather than increasing performance over PS3, i wouldnt buy a PS4 that was the PS3 i already have but with slightly less moaning on forums about ease of development

Id also argue that PS3 holds up very well in terms of quality and quantity of games, and that had the 360 been as hard to program as PS3 it would still have fared well also and doubt we would have seen it suffer in the marketplace too much because of it. Serverely lacking in performance on the other hand would have hurt it significantly.

 

[Squilliam]

because you fragment your market and limit the return both for yourself and developers and you already have a system that allows developers to experiment with 3D and GPGPU called the PC which you also control?

Why would it fragment the market? If both were running with the same CPU then a great majority of the code would be identical. However I still cannot see how it would be a terrible thing for developers if they had an option to support a DX11 code path alongside a DX9 codepath especially when the DX11 path synergises with PC development.

They have already talked about having forward compatibility, and perhaps this might be a way forward for them to keep the hardware relatively fresh without it costing them too much and giving them a few neat competitive advantages for 3D and in competition for the hardcore gamers who will want the best possible rendition of a console game as well as giving them an easier roadmap for future console development.

 

[aaronspink]

Sure its an advantage but its not something you can launch a console on the back of. Im saying that to launch a new console you have to improve performance(which ease of development is part of anyway) in order for there to be reason to upgrade, either that or a huge innovation like the wii has shown.

Um, clue train here, improving performance isn't hard. Hell, just take ATI's bottom end graphics chip currently available and you'll significantly improve performance. Add to it either AMD's or Intel's cheapest currently selling chip and you'll significantly improve performance. Both 360 and PS3 are crappy designs with crappy performance that both came out on the wrong side of a technology break point.

Im not sure how you can say PS4 would be better off being easy to develop for rather than increasing performance over PS3, i wouldnt buy a PS4 that was the PS3 i already have but with slightly less moaning on forums about ease of development

If the PS4 was a PS3 it certainly wouldn't be easy to develop for...

Id also argue that PS3 holds its own very well in terms or quality and quantity of games, and im sure had the 360 been harder to develop for it would have still fared well here regardless, i doubt it would have effected thier overall success too much.

Guess that's why the PS3 versions of multiplatform games pretty much blow?

 

[aaronspink]

Why would it fragment the market? If both were running with the same CPU then a great majority of the code would be identical. However I still cannot see how it would be a terrible thing for developers if they had an option to support a DX11 code path alongside a DX9 codepath especially when the DX11 path synergises with PC development.

Apparently someone is too young to remember SEGA!

They have already talked about having forward compatibility, and perhaps this might be a way forward for them to keep the hardware relatively fresh without it costing them too much and giving them a few neat competitive advantages for 3D and in competition for the hardcore gamers who will want the best possible rendition of a console game as well as giving them an easier roadmap for future console development.

Its quite simple, the dev don't care and don't want to care. Do you develop for the umteen million x360s in the marketplace or the handful of 361s?

 

[Grall]

Success is really measured by the bottom line, and Nintendo is king.

Only in the minds of stockholders. Gamers don't give a shit about the bottom line, they want good, cool, fun games. 360 offers that. Wii...not so much, unless you love Cooking Mama and Wiifit.

That's a fact, by the way.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have MS and Sony doing their own motion control solution to get a piece of Nintendo's giant pie.

Of course they want a piece of Nintendo's pie. That doesn't really change my point though, which is that MS offers games for gamers, and Wii offers games for kids and casual adults.

The point you're trying to make can be simplified by the simple statement that publishers will support a new system, always, regardless of its maker.

Naturally we're assuming it's a new system from one of the current, established manufacturers of video games consoles. Any newcomers don't stand a chance of course, and that goes without saying.

There will be migration to new tech, and MS will naturally make the transition to developers easier as they did with the 360. That's where they shine after all.

Yes, and that's why you can't simply leave the market to them for a year, two, or even longer. It was a near-fatal mistake of Sony to do that this time around, they do it again and they're history.

 

[thop]

Microsoft is the only company of the ones mentioned who does not care about games at all. It just happens that it was the vehicle they had to use.

 

[Squilliam]

Apparently someone is too young to remember SEGA!

I remember Sega, but this is a different case entirely. Sega used addons for the console whilst im proposing the idea of a larger one off fixed cost which doesn't have any significant effect on the cost of the console whilst improving its performance.

Its an excellent marketing bullet point to be able to say you can play current generation games at full HD (1080P) and also play every game in 3D. In addition to this its quite a good value adder for the games on demand service since they aren't limited to the DVD size, although Microsoft does have 1GB spare for that DVD movie which plays.

Finally its a pretty good assurance against another console coming out which is a little faster if Microsoft intends to keep the current Xbox 360 on the market for another 3-4 years and it satisfies those people who want more from the current crop of consoles and it has a pretty awesome synergy with Natal as the interface would work wonders with a 3D game.

Its quite simple, the dev don't care and don't want to care. Do you develop for the umteen million x360s in the marketplace or the handful of 361s?

It would be easy to support both, its the art assets which cost not the programming and developers are already making DX11 games.

 

[liolio]

Microsoft is the only company of the ones mentioned who does not care about games at all. It just happens that it was the vehicle they had to use.

You should give on this ideas about companies "caring" about games, it makes no sense imho.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

Suicide for Sony is to lose billions again engaging Microsoft in a cutting-edge hardware brawl (this after they have both already cracked the HD space) purely to gain market share for a license to sell expensive software and peripherals to millions of gamers.

Microsoft doesn't have a compelling previous generation still selling games and hardware nearly 10 years after it's release. There is no need for Sony to engage in a stoush, it has a sound SD and HD platforms selling well.

Microsoft on the other hand probably still doesn't understand hardware and that's besides their hardware failure rate or lack of a HD drive in a landscape of cheap HD screens. It's still third in my book and the foothold with the 360 is also very much about being first in the HD space. It seems to treat hardware expediently encouraging folks who have bought into their system to upgrade to their new hardware as soon as it's refreshed for the sake of it. This is software philosophy in a space that demands a good hardware philosophy as well (at least for a few years yet before the fabled network console arrives).

This geeky "give me cutting edge tech stuff now" really doesn't cut it for me in an 8-10 year console cycle. Nintendo Wii was released later with weaker hardware, and in the mind's eye of hardcore gamers, with weaker games, and comfortably outperformed Microsoft in the marketplace. That's what superior console philosophies that encompass more than simple console grunt get you.

This idea that new entrants are impossible is complete bollocks. If anything the sheer amount of change over the last 40 years in the console arena would make any such prediction baseless. Apple for instance could quite easily turn iTunes into Apple Steam overnight with a hardware release and it would only need to compete with Wii to make serious money.

Sony can wait and cannibilise the next-gen Xbox software library with a similar and simpler multi-core CPU architecture with ports that flow quickly and freely. Problem for Microsoft is, you will really need to make the next gen look next-gen on HD to make it a compelling buy and that's going to be a very expensive proposition.

 

[London Geezer]

Suicide for Sony is to lose billions again engaging Microsoft in a cutting-edge hardware brawl (this after they have both already cracked the HD space) purely to gain market share for a license to sell expensive software and peripherals to millions of gamers.

Microsoft doesn't have a compelling previous generation still selling games and hardware nearly 10 years after it's release. There is no need for Sony to engage in a stoush, it has a sound SD and HD platforms selling well.

Microsoft on the other hand probably still doesn't understand hardware and that's besides their hardware failure rate or lack of a HD drive in a landscape of cheap HD screens. It's still third in my book and the foothold with the 360 is also very much about being first in the HD space. It seems to treat hardware expediently encouraging folks who have bought into their system to upgrade to their new hardware as soon as it's refreshed for the sake of it. This is software philosophy in a space that demands a good hardware philosophy as well (at least for a few years yet before the fabled network console arrives).

This geeky "give me cutting edge tech stuff now" really doesn't cut it for me in an 8-10 year console cycle. Nintendo Wii was released later with weaker hardware, and in the mind's eye of hardcore gamers, with weaker games, and comfortably outperformed Microsoft in the marketplace. That's what superior console philosophies that encompass more than simple console grunt get you.

This idea that new entrants are impossible is complete bollocks. If anything the sheer amount of change over the last 40 years in the console arena would make any such prediction baseless. Apple for instance could quite easily turn iTunes into Apple Steam overnight with a hardware release and it would only need to compete with Wii to make serious money.

Sony can wait and cannibilise the next-gen Xbox software library with a similar and simpler multi-core CPU architecture with ports that flow quickly and freely. Problem for Microsoft is, you will really need to make the next gen look next-gen on HD to make it a compelling buy and that's going to be a very expensive proposition.

I disagree with almost everything you wrote, but i'm just going to single out the point you made on Apple.
You do realise that if Apple released a console, it would be priced at an impossibly high point - like everything else they do. Besides, Apple has its cash cow keeping them where they are, entering the console market when they can very well make do with the iPhone/iPod and Apps would not, in my opinion, be very wise. Future iterations of the iPhone/iPod will be Apple's way of being in the videogame market, one that actually makes them money.
Sony and MS's way of doing the videogame business (i.e. take a MASSIVE loss on hardware the first few years in the hope that they recoup with videogame sales and later on with the hardware itself) is very, very risky and i'm surprised they are still doing it after all these years. Don't get me wrong, i love that. It's the only way i'd be able to get something which i consider magical at times (my beloved PS3) at the price i got it for.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Um, clue train here, improving performance isn't hard. Hell, just take ATI's bottom end graphics chip currently available and you'll significantly improve performance. Add to it either AMD's or Intel's cheapest currently selling chip and you'll significantly improve performance. Both 360 and PS3 are crappy designs with crappy performance that both came out on the wrong side of a technology break point.





If the PS4 was a PS3 it certainly wouldn't be easy to develop for...



Guess that's why the PS3 versions of multiplatform games pretty much blow?

None of your points have any relation to what upgrade you need to launch a new console and make it desireable. Im not arguing whether being easy to develop for is a good thing, of course it is. Its something that is an advantage over competition and may swing favour towards purchase of one of two otherwise similar consoles, it is not something that effects the consumer enough to make them want to upgrade from a last gen console.

You seem to just want to troll though so im probably wasting my time, saying PS3 versions of multiplatform games blow is not only incorrect its also unclear weather the bad ports that do exist would have had much of an impact on the way things have gone this generation anyway.

 

[liolio]

Suicide for Sony is to lose billions again engaging Microsoft in a cutting-edge hardware brawl (this after they have both already cracked the HD space) purely to gain market share for a license to sell expensive software and peripherals to millions of gamers.

Sony didn't engage Ms, they decide to go with cutting edge hardware on their own. STI were formed to achieve that. If anything Katuragy and the decision to push BRD through the ps3 are responsible for the billions and market shares Sony loss this generation.

Microsoft doesn't have a compelling previous generation still selling games and hardware nearly 10 years after it's release. There is no need for Sony to engage in a stoush, it has a sound SD and HD platforms selling well.

Looking backward to much won't get a company anywhere, PS2 should no longer be relevant base for future strategies at Sony HQ, and I guess it's not. For the HD part of the market, Ms also have a HD system and it's unlikely for them to stop production when their nextsystem launch.

Microsoft on the other hand probably still doesn't understand hardware and that's besides their hardware failure rate or lack of a HD drive in a landscape of cheap HD screens.

Priceless...

It's still third in my book and the foothold with the 360 is also very much about being first in the HD space. It seems to treat hardware expediently encouraging folks who have bought into their system to upgrade to their new hardware as soon as it's refreshed for the sake of it. This is software philosophy in a space that demands a good hardware philosophy as well (at least for a few years yet before the fabled network console arrives).

Do you have a proof of that? The old and trollish argument making the first XBOX EOL a definying fact of MS strategy in the console realm should no longer appear here, it's plainly stupid from an economical POV.

This geeky "give me cutting edge tech stuff now" really doesn't cut it for me in an 8-10 year console cycle. Nintendo Wii was released later with weaker hardware, and in the mind's eye of hardcore gamers, with weaker games, and comfortably outperformed Microsoft in the marketplace. That's what superior console philosophies that encompass more than simple console grunt get you.

Still the HD market while split between two brands is bigger.

This idea that new entrants are impossible is complete bollocks. If anything the sheer amount of change over the last 40 years in the console arena would make any such prediction baseless. Apple for instance could quite easily turn iTunes into Apple Steam overnight with a hardware release and it would only need to compete with Wii to make serious money.

I would not say impossible but very ballsy

Sony can wait and cannibilise the next-gen Xbox software library with a similar and simpler multi-core CPU architecture with ports that flow quickly and freely. Problem for Microsoft is, you will really need to make the next gen look next-gen on HD to make it a compelling buy and that's going to be a very expensive proposition.

This argument is broken if technical evolutions are so slow that Ms can't make system worse it 7 years (say the launch occurs in 2012) after the 360 how will Sony will distinguish it-self from Ms based only on two years of technical evolutions?

 

[Prophecy2k]

Wow and amazing... i leave the forum for a week and comeback only to see the place soiled up with blatent trolling and anti-faceless coorporational spiel...

B3D was a technical forum the last time i checked, and this particular forum was for speculation on the next gen console technologies and not system flame warz.

 

[liolio]

Wow and amazing... i leave the forum for a week and comeback only to see the place soiled up with blatent trolling and anti-faceless coorporational spiel...

B3D was a technical forum the last time i checked, and this particular forum was for speculation on the next gen console technologies and not system flame warz.

Indeed, but shit happens
But to some extend this thread could almost be closed till some rumours with real "meat" to it hit the web. We all (almost and me even more than the others) have been through many many predictions hoping that out of the bunch one will old true..
We're clearly going round and it's only set to get worse as next gen launches seem to be moving target, the success or failing of Ms and Sony motion "thingy" will most likely have an impact on the timeline.

That was for the reasonable talk now I can make a crazy prediction

Spoiler

Ms will be the one making a risky move this time around and will beat Intel to Larrabee with chip made out of a shit load of 6 wide VLIW cores (4 standard ALUs, one transcendental and and one branch) support for 8 threads per cores, tiny L1 caches, tiny L2 cache coherency will be handle through a L3 cache. There will be some texture processors on die. Somewhere on the die they will have a rework xenon. The chip will be around 300mm² on GF 32nm process

 

[Squilliam]

That was for the reasonable talk now I can make a crazy prediction

Spoiler

Ms will be the one making a risky move this time around and will beat Intel to Larrabee with chip made out of a shit load of 6 wide VLIW cores (4 standard ALUs, one transcendental and and one branch) support for 8 threads per cores, tiny L1 caches, tiny L2 cache coherency will be handle through a L3 cache. There will be some texture processors on die. Somewhere on the die they will have a rework xenon. The chip will be around 300mm² on GF 32nm process

Wouldn't they use GF28nm bulk? They don't need SOI and they certainly don't need the added expense. Also their Xenon CPU doesn't use/need SOI either.

If they did indeed go for such a beast technically then would they also include OOOE for Xenon if it remains a part of the future chip to net more effective performance for code which doesn't suit the VLIW model?

Lastly their technology is dictated by both their camera technology and the supporting CPU/GPU technology. If they have to wait for 4-5 years for the camera technology to catch up to where they want it to be to release an effective Natal replacement then won't they have to wait until then to release their console which fully leverages this technology? I don't see them wanting to release Natal 2 any time except on release of next generation hardware.

So if they are moving that direction why not slap Redwood or Juniper onto the side of the Xenon processor and start moving towards that technology today so they aren't caught with their pants down technologically by more advanced consoles in 2012/2013. Theres a quirky little timespan between 2012-2014 where they need to be prepared to respond to competitor actions and not updating hardware leaves them vulnerable, especially when considering 3D.

 

[aaronspink]

I remember Sega, but this is a different case entirely. Sega used addons for the console whilst im proposing the idea of a larger one off fixed cost which doesn't have any significant effect on the cost of the console whilst improving its performance.

Which is exactly that SEGA did with its addons and then eventually integrated systems. It doesn't work that well in the context of consoles.

Its an excellent marketing bullet point to be able to say you can play current generation games at full HD (1080P) and also play every game in 3D. In addition to this its quite a good value adder for the games on demand service since they aren't limited to the DVD size, although Microsoft does have 1GB spare for that DVD movie which plays.

Which means you now have to test every console game on multiple hardware with multiple settings = increased cost for minimal benefit.

Finally its a pretty good assurance against another console coming out which is a little faster if Microsoft intends to keep the current Xbox 360 on the market for another 3-4 years and it satisfies those people who want more from the current crop of consoles and it has a pretty awesome synergy with Natal as the interface would work wonders with a 3D game.

If someone else is going to put out a new console it will be a generational change and the current 360 hardware will not be competitive. Look at it this way, the current 360 and PS3 are competitive on a hardware level with current generation bottom feeder CPUs and GPUs.

 

[aaronspink]

None of your points have any relation to what upgrade you need to launch a new console and make it desireable. Im not arguing whether being easy to develop for is a good thing, of course it is. Its something that is an advantage over competition and may swing favour towards purchase of one of two otherwise similar consoles, it is not something that effects the consumer enough to make them want to upgrade from a last gen console.

It IS something which affects the consumer because it allows really impressive games to come out actually at launch instead of 3-4 years later. The hardware side as far as increasing performance is fairly easy at this point.

 

[ShadowRunner]

nevermind