Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[function]

8GB could potentially mean twice as crisp textures, twice the rendering resolution (assuming no EDRAM), or who knows how many times the level size compared to 4GB.

It probably won't make a difference to the rendering resolution (which is almost entirely limited by processing power), and with good texture management and fast streaming might not make much difference to textures either.

Beyond a point it's better to put money into faster memory or more GPU shaders or whatever.

Look at a Llano APU. Which would give you the best result: going from 4GB of 1333 memory to 8GB of 1333 memory, or going from 4GB of 1333 memory to 4GB of 1866 memory? It's the faster memory by a mile, and it'll save you money too.

And talk of the billions that MS/Sony "lost" (this is known as an investment, not loss) is inappropriate in the face of the billions they have made and will still make.

Those are some deep holes MS are Sony are climbing out of.

 

[AlNom]

Sandbox games would like a word with you, erick, last gen, and this gen. It's always a game of trade-offs and what type of game the developers wants to do vs what the publisher will approve. Devs will work with what they have/want to deliver.

Is it their fault that the mass market loves Call of Duty? Publishers go towards where the cash is. You're oversimplifying the nature of game development practises by making RAM the root cause of the tunnel vision.

 

[function]

Try 2-4x times bigger levels on for size

The number one reason why X360/PS3 game levels currently look like tunnel instead of a maze is too little RAM (and I'm saying it should've been 1GB).

Who told you this? Not the people working on GTA or Oblivion I'll wager!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Try 2-4x times bigger levels on for size

Multiplatform titles won't have bigger levels on the machine with 2x the RAM - there's no benefit to the developers to add extra expense creating a larger version of the same game to sell for the same amount of money. In fact, as Joker will tell you, publishers don't want differences between versions of their titles because, instead of the response being positive in favour of the better version, owners of the console with the inferior version grumble about the devs not trying etc., and so you risk alienating customers. Multiplatform will always promote the lowest common denominator, and multiplatforming is becoming increasingly the norm.

For exclusives, you'll need to present evidence that one or two sophisticated games will sway the market. Gears did wonders for XB360 without it needing the added cost of more RAM than PS3. GTA catapulted PS2 sales despite the console having half the RAM of XB. WiiSports completely outsold every franchise not by relying on the bestest specs! The things people want to buy a console for aren't directly governed by RAM, or any particular spec.

The number one reason why X360/PS3 game levels currently look like tunnel instead of a maze is too little RAM (and I'm saying it should've been 1GB).

Sure, more RAM is better. No-one's saying otherwise! So's more power. The question is what's the right amount of each resource to be competitive? As a businessman, how are you going to justify a choice to go with 8GBs instead of 4GBs? The only rationale of the businessman is "by including more RAM, we'll get more sales and more profit". Now clearly, given a choice of two identical boxes with two identical services and range of games, only with one box offering twice the RAM for an extra twenty bucks, or even the same price, you'd expect a lot of buyers to pick the better value machine with more RAM. Just like they will a PC. But that's not the case. As I've said before, the money invested in more RAM could be spent elsewhere. So from this list:

1) More RAM
2) Faster RAM
3) Better processors
4) Slimmer form-factor (more expensive and sophisticated cooling for the same power)
5) Better services
6) More exclusives
7) A few key exclusives

...what's your business reasoning that investing a little extra in Option 1 will yield better returns than investing that same amount in any of the other options?

 

[TheWretched]

I agree that comparing the RAM size between Xbox and PS2 isn't really "fair". The Xbox was a much more capable system overall, yet it had no chance against PS2, which launched much earlier and had MUCH more support from all developers from Japan. It was already a very established system when the Xbox came. Plus, since MS had the worst contracts with the hardware deliveres, it meant they couldn't really push for massive price cuts. And this wasn't because of twice the RAM, but because of an Intel CPU, an Nvidia GPU and an HDD.

Well, PS3 was already at the brink of a sensible price when it launched. And with Sonys... well bad OS design, it's even less optimal that PS3 only has 512MB of RAM. Imagine if PS3 had twice the VRAM. That could make quite the difference and would've enabled Sony to do a lot more in terms of in-game OS capabilities. They could've just left out BC in favor of more RAM. In the long run, it would've been a LOT better.

 

[erick]

Look at a Llano APU. Which would give you the best result: going from 4GB of 1333 memory to 8GB of 1333 memory, or going from 4GB of 1333 memory to 4GB of 1866 memory? It's the faster memory by a mile, and it'll save you money too.

Jezus, what kind of an example is that? 0_o

This is 2011 and an integrated GPU and on *this* you're basing your claim of next gen consoles with their insanely more powerful GPUs not needing 8GB compared to 4GB?

The only example that Llano can serve as is that 4GB would have been overkill for X360/PS3 (to which it offers comparable performance). Well, that we already knew

Shifty, if you want to know what twice the available RAM can do for an open-world game, compare the X360 and PC versions of Oblivion - the former infamous for its plasticine textures and horrible LOD as well as horribile loading times when entering buildings or moving to a new area - all problems which were completely absent on PC.

It also proves that multiplatform open world games can be done on halved RAM, its just that the one running on less RAM will look and feel like a substandard game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree that comparing the RAM size between Xbox and PS2 isn't really "fair". The Xbox was a much more capable system overall, yet it had no chance against PS2, which launched much earlier and had MUCH more support from all developers from Japan.

That's precisely the point! The factors that make a console a success aren't just the specs. Even when XB offered more of everything, devs didn't target it and pundits didn't buy it. A new generation offers new challenges, but they are still there in numbers. $200 million spent on advertising instead of more RAM could make all the difference between success and failure. Or maybe that $200 million should be spent on securing FIFA, Madden, and COD exclusivity...

Jezus, what kind of an example is that? 0_o

It's an example that faster RAM, on any GPU, provides more advantages in many cases over more RAM.

Shifty, if you want to know what twice the available RAM can do for an open-world game, compare the X360 and PC versions of Oblivion

I already know more RAM can improve an open world (actually improve any game, because an open world is all about streaming and more RAM just means better assets at a given moment, no different to a closed world like Uncharted). That's not what I want to know.

What I want to know is your take on the business rationale, but you are avoiding the question. You just keep repeating yourself, saying more RAM is better which everyone agrees with, but everyone else recognises all the other factors in play which you are turning a blind eye to. If you want a debate, argue the points raised. If you're not going to engage in bidirectional discussion, you don't have a place in this thread (because your POV has been expressed numerous times and doesn't need repeating any more).

 

[AlphaWolf]

Just upgrading the ram on the 360 wouldn't make it look like a PC version.

There needs to be a balance of upgraded amounts of ram and performance from that and pc/gpu. And what this thread has proven (more than anything else) is that it isn't an easy task to find out what will give that best balance years in the future while maintaining a cost effective platform going forward.

 

[function]

Jezus, what kind of an example is that? 0_o

This is 2011 and an integrated GPU and on *this* you're basing your claim of next gen consoles with their insanely more powerful GPUs not needing 8GB compared to 4GB?

You seem to be trying to avoid the point!

Llano benefits more from faster ram than more ram, beyond a certain amount of memory. Even slightly faster ram will bring a greater benefit to Llano than doubling the ram after 4GB.

It is this idea - that chasing ram capacity above all else can lead to a sub-optimal system - that I'm trying to get across with the Llano example.

The only example that Llano can serve as is that 4GB would have been overkill for X360/PS3 (to which it offers comparable performance). Well, that we already knew

Llano is a great example to show that in the right circumstances a system with faster memory can outperform a system with more memory.

Llano is faster than the 360 btw, and it is hamstrung by bandwidth.

Shifty, if you want to know what twice the available RAM can do for an open-world game, compare the X360 and PC versions of Oblivion - the former infamous for its plasticine textures and horrible LOD as well as horribile loading times when entering buildings or moving to a new area - all problems which were completely absent on PC.

The textures were no more or less "plasticine" on the PC by my recollection. The PC game seemed to use the same LOD system too iirc (I put well over 100 hours into the PC game, only saw the 360 version briefly). Loading times were dependant on how fast the storage was.

It also proves that multiplatform open world games can be done on halved RAM, its just that the one running on less RAM will look and feel like a substandard game.

Open world games can be done on any amount of ram and any amount of processing power. "Substandard" is subjective, but I suspect reduced frame rates and resolutions (from scaling back the rest of the system) and increased loading times (from filling more memory from the 12x DVD drive) wouldn't help improve 360 owners' experiences of Oblivion.

 

[homerdog]

Just upgrading the ram on the 360 wouldn't make it look like a PC version.

It is known. But a 360 with 1GB of RAM would be a fair bit more capable than the model we got, all other things being equal. And it would definitely be a huge draw for 3rd party devs. I'm not saying MS should've launched with 1GB - don't think that would've been feasible - I'm just saying.

 

[Svensk Viking]

Just curious, what improvements would a PS3/360 with more RAM actually bring? Less pop-ins?

 

[AlphaWolf]

It is known. But a 360 with 1GB of RAM would be a fair bit more capable than the model we got, all other things being equal. And it would definitely be a huge draw for 3rd party devs. I'm not saying MS should've launched with 1GB - don't think that would've been feasible - I'm just saying.

Sure and upgrading other components likely does the same thing, all else being equal. The trick is making the right choice with what's available (or will be available when you launch). If they had so much more in the power budget and cost budget, would adding more ram have been the right choice for that surplus? I'm not sure we can say where they best would have put it now, and we've got 5+ years of hindsight.

 

[erick]

What I want to know is your take on the business rationale, but you are avoiding the question. You just keep repeating yourself, saying more RAM is better which everyone agrees with, but everyone else recognises all the other factors in play which you are turning a blind eye to. If you want a debate, argue the points raised. If you're not going to engage in bidirectional discussion, you don't have a place in this thread (because your POV has been expressed numerous times and doesn't need repeating any more).

Actually, I've explained it on numerous occasions.

Adding more RAM would result in a technological advantage over the competition (assuming they don't match it), while the actual "financial sacrifice" would be relatively small since RAM tends to be the cheapest performance component, and also the one which has the fastest and most extensive price reductions over time. It is also the number 1 bottleneck in consoles.

The factors you have brought out are simply shortsighted. If $15 buys you 8GB instead of 4GB, you simply cannot argue this advatage away by saying that that money would be better spent elsewhere - if we're talking bang for buck it is THE BEST investement seeing as $15 won't exactly buy you a faster CPU or GPU which are both custom made anyway and cost many, many times more initially.

Also, if X720 has 8GB RAM the advantage cannot be optimized away on PS4 with 4GB of RAM. Graphics doesn't work that way, you actually have a very limited budget concerning RAM. One of the systems will have a serious handicap and that's it.

 

[AlphaWolf]

There's a limit on financial sacrifice as well, being willing to lose money only works up to a point. You had better be certain that your sacrifice is going to lead to developers preferring and giving your box upgraded visuals, and the market following them. If people don't care enough about the difference all you've done is sacrifice X dollars on every box you make until the next one.

 

[function]

Actually, I've explained it on numerous occasions.

Adding more RAM would result in a technological advantage over the competition (assuming they don't match it), while the actual "financial sacrifice" would be relatively small since RAM tends to be the cheapest performance component, and also the one which has the fastest and most extensive price reductions over time. It is also the number 1 bottleneck in consoles.

Adding more processing power would result in a technological advantage over the competition too. "RAM tends to be the cheapest performance component" doesn't really mean anything without context. The number 1 bottleneck in consoles varies depending on what you're doing, and memory quantity is something you can plan around. Whatever you're doing on a console, a faster GPU would always be a nice thing.

Adding a series of killer apps to your software library trumps both memory and processor power, and also takes money.

The factors you have brought out are simply shortsighted. If $15 buys you 8GB instead of 4GB, you simply cannot argue this advatage away by saying that that money would be better spent elsewhere - if we're talking bang for buck it is THE BEST investement seeing as $15 won't exactly buy you a faster CPU or GPU which are both custom made anyway and cost many, many times more initially.

On a Llano based gaming PC is it most certainly not the best investment! Even on the PC the money can be better spent in other places than ram quantity after a point. Even on the PC!

Also, if X720 has 8GB RAM the advantage cannot be optimized away on PS4 with 4GB of RAM. Graphics doesn't work that way, you actually have a very limited budget concerning RAM. One of the systems will have a serious handicap and that's it.

Kind of like how the Xbox beat the PS2 hands down? And how the Xbox made greater profits than the Gamecube because of its greater ram?

 

[Beef Stallmer]

Actually, I've explained it on numerous occasions.

Adding more RAM would result in a technological advantage over the competition (assuming they don't match it), while the actual "financial sacrifice" would be relatively small since RAM tends to be the cheapest performance component, and also the one which has the fastest and most extensive price reductions over time. It is also the number 1 bottleneck in consoles.

The factors you have brought out are simply shortsighted. If $15 buys you 8GB instead of 4GB, you simply cannot argue this advatage away by saying that that money would be better spent elsewhere - if we're talking bang for buck it is THE BEST investement seeing as $15 won't exactly buy you a faster CPU or GPU which are both custom made anyway and cost many, many times more initially.

Also, if X720 has 8GB RAM the advantage cannot be optimized away on PS4 with 4GB of RAM. Graphics doesn't work that way, you actually have a very limited budget concerning RAM. One of the systems will have a serious handicap and that's it.

You are talking about MicroSoft; they wanted to gimp 20cent of DVD lens shielding on advertising, knowingly having this damage the discs due to slight vibrations @ 20 speed dvd rotation. And then deny repairs for months until the EU forced them to.
You can expect them to want to save every cent they can, let alone 15 dollar.

 

[Squilliam]

From another perspective on the RAM debate:

I think it definitely makes sense to think from the perspective of HOW the RAM will be used. Now if we look at what defines the experience of this generation, we know that RAM improves in game experiences quite significantly in some ways as various developers have put the extra RAM of the Xbox 360 available to good use due to differences in how much the OS uses between the PS3 and Xbox 360. However there's another area where RAM does seem to help and that is the OS features which can be implemented whilst playing games. A significant difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 was forged by what the system can do besides and whilst playing games. I see no real evidence that this will no longer be the case in the next generation especially as all console makers strive to differentiate or match what they are offering with competitors.

The current consoles are acting like central media hubs but they are only single user central media hubs. If they want to be a true centerpiece of the main entertainment unit they need to move away from a model where they can only service the needs of a single user. Nintendo has shown the way in part because of the ability to use the console without a TV and the next generation PS4 and Xb3 need to do one better by broadening what their OS can do from a multi-user perspective. To do this you need RAM and any console which just stocks the bare minimum will not be able to implement this will need to have RAM in reserve to implement better features and the only way this can be achieved is if the console has an overabundance of memory right from the start with a good proportion reserved for future OS needs.

 

[AlNom]

Actually, I've explained it on numerous occasions.

No, so far you just reiterate the advantages that more RAM brings, which is quite obvious. You're skipping a lot of the business decision making process.

Adding more RAM would result in a technological advantage over the competition (assuming they don't match it), while the actual "financial sacrifice" would be relatively small since RAM tends to be the cheapest performance component, and also the one which has the fastest and most extensive price reductions over time.

How is doubling the number of RAM chips the cheapest aspect when you haven't even considered the effect on the mainboard design? Relatively small does not mean it will be financially justifiable.

What makes you think the second company to launch won't try to be in the same ballpark of specifications just to placate developers and stop escalating the costs? At the end of the day, the majority of sales are from multiplatform titles. Platform parity has become a necessary mantra.

Shifty has already given a great list of areas where the budget could go instead.

It is also the number 1 bottleneck in consoles.

And at some point, the companies are going to have to draw a line as to what is financially viable against ROI.

You need to justify that $15 more of RAM (and that will filter down the chain as it has impacts on the size and design of the mainboard as well as the chassis and shipping weights for instance) will net you that many more buyers compared to the competition, and history suggests that mass market buyers quite frankly don't give a rat's ass if your console has even 8x more RAM.

If I'm not being clear enough, I'm talking about Wii's 64MB GDDR3 against Xbox360/PS3's 512MB. And to bring back the Xbox/PS2 example, again, double the RAM made no grand difference to sales. Your excuses that Microsoft was in a bad position, etc, actually help that side of the argument. Again, Dreamcast & PS2 - RAM was not the deciding factor. Gamecube vs Xbox - RAM did nothing when both consoles sold similar amounts. Your argument that there should be an increase in sales over competition due to RAM being in greater availability on a particular console is simply unfounded and baseless. There are more external factors to be considered instead of isolating the direct effects of greater RAM and making some errant correlation with sales to justify it.

Of course, devs will flock to where it makes sense (360/PS3 over Wii), but you cannot deny the hardware sales. Sony and Microsoft will be that much more cautious about creating loss-leaders.

No one is denying the boon to games that more RAM would bring, but you insist on reiterating that point rather than addressing the arguments thus far.

Also, if X720 has 8GB RAM the advantage cannot be optimized away on PS4 with 4GB of RAM. Graphics doesn't work that way, you actually have a very limited budget concerning RAM.

And devs will cater to multiplatform development. You trivialize too much the impact that 4GB more of features and assets would have to game development costs as well.

One of the systems will have a serious handicap and that's it.

And does that translate to sales? You are again ignoring the business side.

 

[Rangers]

Sure, more RAM is better. No-one's saying otherwise! So's more power.

I imagine the key question is balance. I feel like PS3 and 360 are pretty well balanced, RAM vs processing power. It does remind me I once made a thread though asking basically "which would be better to PS360's visuals all else equal, 50% more shading power or 50% more RAM?". Of course I got back the usual unsatisfying "it depends" if I recall

It's easy to look back and say "if only it had X more RAM all our problems would be solved!". But one will always be able to play that game in 5 years hindsight.

 

[Rangers]

A disingenuous example. MS was just getting into the console business, so naturally Xbox never gained much ground during its short life cycle.

I do tend to agree with this. People point to the Xbox as the example of "see power means nothing" but I feel like it's a misleading example.

Overall I'm with Erick, I believe the most powerful system (if there is a clear advantage, bigger than PS3/360 or PS1/N64 for example) will generally triumph in the hardcore space (and the Wii though it still lost to the HD twins as a whole, is not in the hardcore space). But that will trend OT as always

People argue against that, yet for example every Wii U speculation thread is full of Nintendo fans absolutely pining for one more ounce of power in the system (check neogaf), etc. It seems actions speak louder than words. I believe in the hardcore space graphics are the most important factor, and there isn't a close second. I once read Jaffe lamenting that he wished for one console of baseline never increasing power or something, so that in his words, all game devs like himself dont have to spend 70% of their time (of course with Jaffe it was, 70% of their f*cking! time ) trying to squeeze better graphics into their game and instead can concentrate on gameplay. My take is, well they spend 70% of their time on graphics because that's what people care about.