I might be trowing stones in a glass house now, but I cant help thinking that the demand from people around the world that consoles must be so cheap is limiting the companies to make more powerful/futureproof hardware. I know expensive consoles does not sell very well because of this and the companies know that. I think thats sad, but what can we do? The strange thing is that millions of PC gamers often upgrade their PC with only a graphic card that costs more than a complete console, hey millions even pay more for a cellphone!!!. Me personally would like to see a market with low-, mid- and high end alternatives of consoles. I use my PS3 so much (several hours each day) and have so much fun playing online with friends, so for me it would be totally worth it to pay even 2000$. (I payed close to 1000$ here in Norway on release). So I would have given the high end alternative a shot, but because of the market situation, I would most likely be amongst a few people with maybe a limited amount of games available. Maybe each company could make one low/mid end console and one high end console which both could play all games from that company, but with different graphic settings like in the PC world?....I dont know. Please do not tell me to just use PC for gaming because I just like to jump in my sofa, fire up the projector and use the controller for gaming. I am finished using my PC for gaming. For the next generation, my hope is that at least one company pushes the limits and dont choose the "Nintendo way".
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
Making things more expensive in the technology world doesn't really make them future proof. You would extend the life slightly, but the benefit is very limited.
Imagine they had done what you suggest in 2005/6 what could they have managed? $1000 hardware with double the ram and a 15% higher clock in a box twice the size to accommodate the extra cooling? Does that even buy the hardware an extra year? The vast majority of people wouldn't spend that so the developers would still target the base system with the higher end ones getting a higher texture pack or maybe AA from the odd release.
Imagine they had done what you suggest in 2005/6 what could they have managed? $1000 hardware with double the ram and a 15% higher clock in a box twice the size to accommodate the extra cooling? Does that even buy the hardware an extra year? The vast majority of people wouldn't spend that so the developers would still target the base system with the higher end ones getting a higher texture pack or maybe AA from the odd release.
It's losing that ability for me. I was most wowed maybe back in 2006-7. Then there was another huge jump with Killzone 2 and Uncharted. Then other games took a few years to catch up to those two.
I dont see any "big" jumps at all anymore. Nothing shocks me on this hardware.
The games are AAAAAAAAAMAZING for this hardware though. That's why I'm itchy to see what they can do with a big jump in power, it's gonna be unreal!
Here's one vote for "thinks console games have looked bad for a while now and can't wait for the next generation to arrive." :smile:
And I agree that it's the case of "you don't know what you have 'till it's gone." By that I mean, if you've been gaming on PC at 60fps with increased detail and IQ settings, it really hurts to go back to ≤30fps 720p with crappy IQ. But if you don't know what you're missing, you probably won't be demanding a huge upgrade. I think that's what Epic was trying to accomplish with the Samaritan demo (i.e. show people what they're missing), and frankly I expect the next generation to end up well ahead of that (but not for launch titles obviously).
Samaritan demo for me did not wow me near as much as UE3 demos (the brumak, etc) did back in the day.
I'm firmly against the "diminishing returns" camp and remain so, even believing the opposite. However, Samaritan demo unless it was just a bad demo, might be evidence the other way.
I'm firmly against the "diminishing returns" camp and remain so, even believing the opposite. However, Samaritan demo unless it was just a bad demo, might be evidence the other way.
I'm still wanting improvements in the games; the visuals would be good enough as long as the game experience evolved. eg. Syndicate and XCom are being remade as FPSes - whereas someone announcing a true-blue XCOM game for 2013 for PS360 would have me excited. From Dust has potential but needs to be evolved into a full game, but there would be a fabulous next-gen god game to wait for.
I'd agree to a point. I just feel that we are approaching that point where I'm not sure how big a difference it would make for me.
Besides looking prettier, I guess if I buy into 3D or holodeck tech, I don't see what is really going to get me to buy into next gen on day one.
It could be as homerdog has stated and that because I've been gaming on the old tech that I really don't know what I'm missing. Somehow, I just think that this gen has more to be squeezed out of it.
I'm actually quite surprised that Turn 10 has been able to up Forza 4's graphics from 3 in a short time with the added CPU overhead requirement for Kinect.
I'm actually saying I'm happy with this gen and its potential. I want the games to get 'better', which they can do on the current boxes. We don't need new hardware to advance the games yet, and a release of new console next year say would just mean more fo the same with prettier graphics. Well, that's not worth hundreds of bucks IMHO. I'm happy to stick with what I've got hardwarewise and wish devs would improve their desgin skillzorz (not puttung noobs up against vets in multiplayer for example, or not having stupid Overkill Perks).
I saw a lot of F4 on a Top Gear episode and wasn't impressed. I think GRID on my PC looks better, and that game is old and developed on fewer resources than Turn 10 can throw at F4. High quality AA and AF make a tremendous difference.
Dirt 2 on my PC has better IQ than Forza 4, but Forza 4 looks better IMO.
I have a quad Core Sandybridge 2500K unlocked overclocked blabla and a 560 TI overclocked supercooled blabla but I'm surprisingly unbothered about still having a 360 and playing on it. A good co-op game of Halo 3 over Live trumps any and every PC IQ and performance advantage combined at once.
I have Mass Effect on the PC and 360. The PC version I can play supersampled with some silly high FPS but it crashes randomly (maybe once an hour, or maybe ten minutes after that, whatever will irritate you most it appears) if you skip cutscenes (an unpatched bug) and so the 360 version was more enjoyable and therefore the superior game. So now I play Mass Effect 2 and (soon) 3 on the 360 because I get to use the original save file, which means the 360 games still trump the PC games no matter whatever the hell they add or whatever I can tweak with the the graphics through manually editing a text file or whatever on my overclocked high fps pc etc.
Nintendo have already planted their flag miles away from the super high end fanheater console camp of the PS360 and I suspect MS and Sony may try sneak a little away from it too. We have reached the point where the highest possible console specs is no longer worth it, and I actually think I might not care. For the first time, having a high end gaming PC has been really quite underwhelming (although forcing aniso on everything is a genuine treat).
Mouse still beats right thumbstick for looking and aiming though. Seriously. Short thumbsticks are particularly horrible. More work on the interface(s) please. That's a good place to throw some technology IMO.
I have a quad Core Sandybridge 2500K unlocked overclocked blabla and a 560 TI overclocked supercooled blabla but I'm surprisingly unbothered about still having a 360 and playing on it. A good co-op game of Halo 3 over Live trumps any and every PC IQ and performance advantage combined at once.
I have Mass Effect on the PC and 360. The PC version I can play supersampled with some silly high FPS but it crashes randomly (maybe once an hour, or maybe ten minutes after that, whatever will irritate you most it appears) if you skip cutscenes (an unpatched bug) and so the 360 version was more enjoyable and therefore the superior game. So now I play Mass Effect 2 and (soon) 3 on the 360 because I get to use the original save file, which means the 360 games still trump the PC games no matter whatever the hell they add or whatever I can tweak with the the graphics through manually editing a text file or whatever on my overclocked high fps pc etc.
Nintendo have already planted their flag miles away from the super high end fanheater console camp of the PS360 and I suspect MS and Sony may try sneak a little away from it too. We have reached the point where the highest possible console specs is no longer worth it, and I actually think I might not care. For the first time, having a high end gaming PC has been really quite underwhelming (although forcing aniso on everything is a genuine treat).
Mouse still beats right thumbstick for looking and aiming though. Seriously. Short thumbsticks are particularly horrible. More work on the interface(s) please. That's a good place to throw some technology IMO.
QFT. 16x AF is a prerequisite for rendering roads and the typical fences and foliage without AA is just a flicky, noisy mess. Even 720p is plenty for racing games but you *need* lots of good AA and AF.
Also Dirt 2/3 look amazing IMHO - by far the best looking racing games overall. Plus they are crazy fun and work really well multiplayer. I've basically stopped playing all other racing games since I discovered the Dirt series. They're a huge step above everything else out there.
Lastly BF3 (any platform) > Halo. That is all
For my money, Rallisport Challenge 2 is still the best driving game I've experienced and by a huge margin. Dirt 2 on the PC was cool (not played Dirt 3) but it felt empty and lacking in character compared to RSC2 despite its flashy and intrusive and annoying presentation. And all the AA and aniso and 3D glasses in the world couldn't change that.
The range and quality of interactions available with entities in the game world (be it people, cars, animals, etc) is far more important than a slick camera transition or sponsor logos or smoothing off [edges with] curves using tessellation. That kind of stuff is the icing on the cake, but not the substance that makes people want to game in the first place.
The reason so many people are happy with current systems isn't that they've never played on a PC or seen 60 fps or any other (really quite insulting) crap like that, it's that there's no indication that technology is currently the limiting factor in any of the things they're actually bothered about.
The range and quality of interactions available with entities in the game world (be it people, cars, animals, etc) is far more important than a slick camera transition or sponsor logos or smoothing off [edges with] curves using tessellation. That kind of stuff is the icing on the cake, but not the substance that makes people want to game in the first place.
The reason so many people are happy with current systems isn't that they've never played on a PC or seen 60 fps or any other (really quite insulting) crap like that, it's that there's no indication that technology is currently the limiting factor in any of the things they're actually bothered about.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
As a PS3 owner, I'd be happy to see a next gen where Sony actually attempts to compete with XBox Live in features.
Looking at the network features on Vita, id say sony are putting a lot of effort in here. From what i have seen so far on Vita they seem to be matching if not exceeding Xbox Live in most areas, and thats just a handheld.
No, it is clearly because most of them never had better!
Like how people played and accepted PS1 games bar the fact that today most people would hate games that looked that bad.
And you can clearly see that fact just by the number of console gamers that think that a gaming PC costs $5000 (anyone that has been anywhere near PC gaming in the last 10 years knows that).
I'm not sure I understand some of TheD's post, but I agree that people often don't know they want better graphics until they see better graphics. In the old days I played games with sub-VGA graphics and had fun, but after getting used to higher resolutions I can't go back to the old games and enjoy them. I've tried in the past with a few games I used to really enjoy.
A year ago:
...and...
And now we have news of a pretty compelling push by MS to enter cable tv land:
http://betanews.com/2011/10/05/live-tv-on-xbox-360-launching-in-20-countries-with-40-content-partners/
People, I think the "gaming console" is about to finally grow up into the full-size entertainment device it so rightfully deserves to be.
...and...
And now we have news of a pretty compelling push by MS to enter cable tv land:
http://betanews.com/2011/10/05/live-tv-on-xbox-360-launching-in-20-countries-with-40-content-partners/
People, I think the "gaming console" is about to finally grow up into the full-size entertainment device it so rightfully deserves to be.
But, but... I already have all of that and more on my PC under the TV and it's a lot quieter while doing it too
Seriously though, why does anyone think that your TV is not just going to do all of this itself going forward? None of this is complex nor requires you to boot up a power-hungry, loud console for. My TV and my receiver already do most of this (netflix, web, etc) and I don't even want/need them to. It's because I can't even buy a device that doesn't these days since it's so dirt cheap to throw it in everything!
But, but... I already have all of that and more on my PC under the TV and it's a lot quieter while doing it too
Seriously though, why does anyone think that your TV is not just going to do all of this itself going forward? None of this is complex nor requires you to boot up a power-hungry, loud console for. My TV and my receiver already do most of this (netflix, web, etc) and I don't even want/need them to. It's because I can't even buy a device that doesn't these days since it's so dirt cheap to throw it in everything!
Think - cable box replacement. Not just netflix.
As for the tv doing it all eventually, Personally, I like to keep my tv a simple monitor for feeding data. It keeps it as cheap as possible for when it eventually breaks, I can replace it cheaply.
Not to mention, good luck stuffing it into a projector..
As for quiet, that's where the full size form factor comes into play.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
