So on a side note: Now that flash has started to hit 200mb/sec read/100+ write. Will we see it included in the next generation consoles? Perhaps as a large persistant game cache of 16-64GB which can be included in practically any console SKU and perhaps a larger 200gb HDD for media etc? Wouldn't that help the streaming of data if you can multiply the throughput by 3? It would certainly scale well with price cuts and process shrinks.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
I just meant that people generally associate photo-realistic with next gen. Plus, Nintendo didn't go HD this generation, so they have to go HD as well.
Hey guys, let say Nintendo makes a super duper ultra machine next generation. Now, do you REALLY want to see a Mario that looks like this?
Here's a link to an HD version of the picture, because, it's not next gen unless it's HD.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/goodbean/boards/realmario.jpg
Toy Story proves that you dont need to add that unnecessary detail to create impressive superb graphics in real time if you have the available technology.
Rachet and Clank as well
Any objects rendered with realistic GI/AO look great. Add a couple of soft material shaders and Mario would look awesome!
Mario with crows feet will scare the kiddies.
Regarding design strategies for the next-gen, is it possible that with KK out of the picture, Sony goes for something incremental at best?
Certainly there seems to be no sign they're funding anywhere near the same kind of research as they did for the Cell or forming another STI alliance. They may not have to design another architecture from scratch, since the Cell will scale.
But maybe they will be satisfied with 1080p rendering (to help push their HDTV sales) and better scaling to support legacy sets. They've seen the PS3 and PSP trail the Wii and DS in marketshare. Stringer may conclude if he hasn't already that there is no point in pushing the performance envelope.
Regarding design strategies for the next-gen, is it possible that with KK out of the picture, Sony goes for something incremental at best?
Certainly there seems to be no sign they're funding anywhere near the same kind of research as they did for the Cell or forming another STI alliance. They may not have to design another architecture from scratch, since the Cell will scale.
But maybe they will be satisfied with 1080p rendering (to help push their HDTV sales) and better scaling to support legacy sets. They've seen the PS3 and PSP trail the Wii and DS in marketshare. Stringer may conclude if he hasn't already that there is no point in pushing the performance envelope.
I think your right. I think Sony will go for an incremental Cell2 and some kind off RSX2 GPU and an overall incremental design that will just allow up to 1080p with 4xAA (compared to todays 720p 2xAA standard) and that will be enough for them. In 2011/2012 that won't be such a stretch and should keep the hardware cost and research effort relatively low.
Am i the only person who thinks sony are going to launch much later than MS next gen. Since BR won and cell has so much untapped scope. Where is the real incentive to launch in 2011, I mean they could just ride out till 2013/14 I think without too much problem. (and make alot of money in the process)
Do they really have as much to gain by launching with MS in 2011? I dont think so personally. PS2 is still demonstrating how a console can last more then 5 years. and wii is proving you dont need to have the biggest muscles. And besides, considering how much of a risk Sony took putting BR in the machine, they deserve to have some benifits from it.
If MS cannot develope is user base any bigger than the HALO hardcore then Sony dont really have to be too concerned about not launching with them.
Do they really have as much to gain by launching with MS in 2011? I dont think so personally. PS2 is still demonstrating how a console can last more then 5 years. and wii is proving you dont need to have the biggest muscles. And besides, considering how much of a risk Sony took putting BR in the machine, they deserve to have some benifits from it.
If MS cannot develope is user base any bigger than the HALO hardcore then Sony dont really have to be too concerned about not launching with them.
I'm not sure how BR would be a reason to delay the PS4. If Sony wanted to get the full benefits from the format, it could go into the PS4 as well.
your missing my point slightly, Im not suggesting they wont put it in PS4. But the PS3 has got all the essentials for the HD era. Where as MS have not, ie a BR drive. This means there is more reason for MS to go next gen than Sony. If BR had of lost the battle that would of left Sony in a very difficult situation and prob would have forced their hand early. I think sony are in a luxurious position now. Once the software rolls in its going to be very tough for MS.
As someone said somewhere else, they might have the optical media and the CPU for a 10-year console, but they don't have the GPU for that. The RSX in 2013 will be 8 years old (counting from the introduction of 7800GTX), approximately as old as the Wii GPU is today (counting from the introduction of the Geforce 2, its closest counterpart in the PC world). Unless you see Sony playing on the Nintendo fiddle of "graphics don't matter anymore", they can't remain without a new console by 2013. The current PS3 will be popular and making lots of money, but it can't remain a flagship.
Your right of course,
The graphics is the weak link for the machine. But the PS2 isnt exactly modern tech now and despite the lack of AAA release games on it now. its still doing remarkably well. I Just feel Sony will give it an extra 1 or two years over MS to make up for losses and expenses this side of the product.
The graphics is the weak link for the machine. But the PS2 isnt exactly modern tech now and despite the lack of AAA release games on it now. its still doing remarkably well. I Just feel Sony will give it an extra 1 or two years over MS to make up for losses and expenses this side of the product.
And as old as RS is in PS2, but people are still happy to buy the PS2. PS3 won't be selling to the cutting-edge crowd in 2013 - no console will. Anyone who decides to go after this crowd will need new hardware. If new hardware doesn't come out, that cutting-edge crowd will be making do with their currently owned consoles just as we were before this gen launched, or moving to PC.
Yeah,
I dont think think they will be in a rush to spend an extra $1 billion dollars early just to capture that 10 million that really care about getting the cutting edge tech. Its the other 150 million that really matter. And they are not the early adopters.
By leaving untill 2013/14 they get some key advantages...
1) Maximise the ps3 potential, exploiting every channel of market revenue (There is an aweful lot they havent fully exploited yet, both in terms of tech and market)
2) It also means it will be very easy to produce a cheaper console that will still out perform MS 2011/2012 console. Heavily reducing RnD and launch costs. (A must for sony next gen) They dont have bottomless pockets.
3a) There is the added advantage of leveraging the tech thats already been developed on MS 2011 console games, decreasing the steep learning curve of a console breaking new ground.
3b)and it will give them a chance to build great dev tools for the industry.
I see there being many wins from this strategy, Far more wins than the loss of the initial 10 million hardcore that wont get their pretty graphics and souped up physics. Thats not to say it will be a weak console when it launches, but that it wont be launched in a time frame that quenches the hardcore thirst for new tech.
Last edited by a moderator:
I thank about something.
In nintendo case could it be interesting to go with a ARM multi-core design, that would allow more than easy portability between its next console and handheld?
And it looks like this architecture have a lot to offer without breaking the silicon budget or the power envelop
In nintendo case could it be interesting to go with a ARM multi-core design, that would allow more than easy portability between its next console and handheld?
And it looks like this architecture have a lot to offer without breaking the silicon budget or the power envelop
I've heard Sony say over and over again that the PS3 is a ten year platform. My guess is that the PS3 won't come out until 2014 at the earliest. Look at how the PS2 is selling right now! Sony will be able to make money on the PS3 for a very long time.
I think there is no way of telling if the CELL will be used in the PS4. If it is used I think it will be a very advanced form of it.
I also think the PS4 will have a minimum of 8 gigs of RAM and a GPU that is light years ahead of the RSX.
I think there is no way of telling if the CELL will be used in the PS4. If it is used I think it will be a very advanced form of it.
I also think the PS4 will have a minimum of 8 gigs of RAM and a GPU that is light years ahead of the RSX.
You aren't thinking. The PS3 is a 10 year platform just as the PS2 and the PS1 have been. However, that does not mean that the PS4 will come out ten years after the release of the PS3 - typically, you will see a new console every 5 years, and that won't change soon.
Hey guys, let say Nintendo makes a super duper ultra machine next generation. Now, do you REALLY want to see a Mario that looks like this?
Here's a link to an HD version of the picture, because, it's not next gen unless it's HD.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/goodbean/boards/realmario.jpg
Somehow, that captures exactly what Mario has been looking like in my mind for a long time already.
Its true the PS2/1 were 10 year life cycles. And it boils down to the bell curve of the product life cycle and how they overlap one generation to the next. Obviously to maintain revenue the introduction of the next product supports revenue as the previous is fading. That entire process of increase / maturity / decrease is what lasts 10 years.
Im saying that what sony want to do, and I think will achieve with the CELL and especially BR is that they have afforded themselves a longer product life cycle. If a company can eek it out it will (see Nvidia with g80), it boils down to profitability and margin at the end of the day (or financial year, as the case maybe)
The PS2 is selling well right now because it already sold 120 mln - and the huge catalog and low manufacturing costs following from that. Are you willing to bet real money on PS3 reaching 120 mln at all?
If they make the right market decisions for the machine at the right time.... why not? its there for the taking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
