Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[pc999]

I doubt they are concerned with much of the tech at all (just some that I will talk later), which will be based on Cell, IBM or AMD/Nvidea anyway.

But they are concerned with other things, things like the financial crisis (which could be good if the end of it is around 1 year before the new console) but will also be concerned in how will dev use the consoles and in what will people what from a console.

Because devs what easy time, specially now that it is (and will be even more) a lot harder to make the diferences in HW count, so it must be easy to dev and port, as many tools tey can use the better.

People (most of them) will also what their games to be more than just gfx updates, they whant to see some inovation/diference, many times in the past gfx gave us that but those times are fading, fast (dont take me wrong I think that there will be a CoD9, just not sure that people will buy a new console for it).

People want things that barely depend on the HW, and arent directly tiead to (classic) gaming, like net, Buzz games, use it for other things etc...

It is quite probably that people will want (need) a cheapper thing.

So may prediction is thatconsoles will be using costum taiolored tech from PC/Cell/other existing tech, quite franqly I wouldnt be suprised if eg, MS used a costum fusion chip that would be like a low-mid end (eg like a current 4650, which already is much better han RSX/Xenos, so something in the terms of the likes of 4350-4650/9400-9500 (did I get the names right) would be better/updated/cheap tech) plus some gaming specializations AND costum components for the innovation in gameplay that they need. OF this last part we know that MS and Sony have R&D on things like movement and speech recg and we dont know what more.

So a console that is significantly much more powerfull than a 360/PS3 but not even close from he top (eg when a 360 launch the low end X1300-1600 in relation to the XGPU would fit the description very easly and lhey can run UE3 games), that are quite easy to dev with well know tech but also some good innovations that will diferentiate it from the PCs. A relatively low price and marketing based in no classic games features or no gaming features at all.

Would be suprised if Nintendo released a cheap tech updated Wii with some innnovation(?) that I cant even think off. MS launched with a "modular" console/media center/internet-comunication thing (is something that you could update to be more than just a console) with innovationS on things that we already heard off (controls+voice+...). And PS4 is again a trojan horse for new Sony tech, but cheaper and concerned with more than bieng bigger and better (ie tryng to have something that will diferentiate them from the others and last gen).

So most of the tech I think it will be, at least, based on PC tech in the low-mid end sprectrum+costum needs.

 

[midorigreenwood]

Nah, the crowd that just plays Wii Sports mostly won't go for the SCE games, not even LBP.

I'm not saying that they should be releasing Wiisports or Wiifit clones..... that would be a monumental mistake imo.

They should be finding new untapped ideas that would appeal to the mass market.

one idea I had was for a series of wildlife simulations

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1247158&postcount=10

The Wii audience pie is a much bigger than the one Microsoft and Sony are fighting over right now so its in their best interest to go this route.

By 2011/2012, their army of developers would be extremely talented at using the PS3 hardware and they could probably make software relatively cheaply.

Games like Locoroco and LBP would be more appealing if the console was at a mass market price.

 

[eastmen]

The real question is what will be the next wii remote ? If next gen everyone has motion hardware whats going to happen? For example if Ms is the one that comes out with a $500 brand new system with a new cpu , tons of ram and a cutting edge gpu. Sony comes out with a $300 ps3.5 which has more ram , a low cost dx 11 gpu and just a 2x16 cell chip. Nintendo comes out with someon on the xbox 360 level. But they all have wii remote type devices who wins ? I think it be MS in that comparison. The MS system would be able to do all the games that the Nintendo console could do , all the games that the playstation could do and then its own games which neither of the other two can do.



Anyway I really think tey are going to announce an xbox 3 in 2009 for a 2010 release. I think now that the 360 is at the $200 range its not that far off. Get the core to $150 next holiday season , Get it to $100 at the launch of the xbox next and load it with 8 gigs of flash ram or something and sell the hardrive seprately . Launch the xbox next at $400-500 and ms can start bringing in the hardcore gamers while leaving the casuals on the xbox 360.

 

[midorigreenwood]

The real question is what will be the next wii remote ? If next gen everyone has motion hardware whats going to happen?

Exactly, its likely that next generation will be an evolution rather than a revolution like this gen. ie: we're probably not going to be seeing something batshit insane like VR/3d goggles because its not suitable for the proposed pricepoints.

even I as a Nintendo fanboy can see that Wiimote controls are kinda broken unless its pointing/fps based or simple arcade fun. But it worked because it served its purpose for Nintendo at the US $250 pricepoint and consumers didn't really care.

All parties will have more intricate motion controls because the Wii has mandated that it be a virtual standard like analogue controls in the N64 and PS1 era.

Therefore it'll be price and software that will be the differentiating factors in this future.

 

[midorigreenwood]

ps: now that I think about it ..... I remember messing around with haptic technology a couple years back at a College lab.

ie: it was basically wearing a glove-like device and moving around 3d objects (it came with 3d glasses) and was supposed to be for developing software for the medical imaging industry. The haptic tech meant that it felt like you were actually holding a solid object rather than a visual representation.

That could be a hook to differentiate from other forms of motion control I guess if price has dropped to a competitive level.

A supercharged powerglove that allows tactile sensations.

 

[wco81]

Nintendo makes games which appeals to a different fanbase than Microsoft's.

 

[liolio]

I more and more agree with the possibility of if not "X2" systems, really conservative systems.
Not only wii prove that cutting edge hardware is not necessary but the effects of the actual crysis will add up for sure.
My wife will give me a 360 for chrismas ( but likely not a jasper ) she will also recieve a DS from her parents. Last evenings we watch quiet some vid and reviews on gametrailer.
I noticed that she was impressed by some games visuals (AC, PGR4, GTA4, GeoW2 for example).
She is an occasional gamer she played with his bro and dad and got her hand a most released systems.
I think that for most casual/occasional we're really close to the "good enough" point.

I don't know how much more graphic power is need to keep most users happy but I feel that it's not that much. It would almost resume in removing glitches that distract from the experience believability/consistency: flickering/shimering, bad AF, bad aliasing, frame rate drops, obviously wrong lighning, etc.

I question more and more the need for super powerful system.
If the less powerful system has enough processing power and memory to keep up in say AI/animation and textures size but come at a clearly lower price, the percieved advantage of the high end system will be thin especcially as we are alreally close to "the good enough point".

Now I completely agree with mintmaster a one chip design could very well be the best choice.
The point is to not enter the pissing contest like "my system will do 1080p AAx8 AFx16 // blabla // 35PFlops // 758GBs // " but come at launch with polished games and nice launch price.

To speak about a real life case I may have chose the Wii (would make my wife happier) only if it would have been able to support the same game as the ps3/360 but at SD resolution (and if it had been cheaper...).
I could have lived with upscaling and overall blurrier experience the problem with me and some others is that the wii is way too underpowered.

 

[pc999]

TI think it be MS in that comparison. The MS system would be able to do all the games that the Nintendo console could do , all the games that the playstation could do and then its own games which neither of the other two can do.

Just some questions, would MS sell such a console to as many users as Nintendo, we already know that many dont care with specs?

How many games do you really expect to be impossible to convert (while losing gfx etc... qualitity, to be that diferent/noticiable) from a more powerfull machine to a less powerfull one?

How many new things, ie that make worth a next gen, are really that depending of processing power and not of SW and/or I/O?

Do exclusives still mater that much? I mean each time there is less and it seems that multi platform games are each time moro comun and popular.

I do think that specs will matter much less, yet if you can take the example think of HL2 on XB, it run very poorly like a low end PC at low rez and low FPS, at the same time of 360 we had a cheap X1300 running the signifficantly updated HL2:LC at higher rez at high qualitity at faster FPS. So if they can give us that over Crysis/GoW2/KZ2 and specially late gen games would most people notice that power over the other two? CAn a companny really afford to rise the price of their console in something that must people will not notice?

Next gen consoles wil be defined by 1) what they can bring to justifie a new purchase (I really think that gfx beyond crysis and such wouldnt do it for must people); 2) the financial/social world in 3 years (wouldnt be suprised if they are conservative), in this we should take in consideration things like price of both HW and SW, power consumption and the such; 3) gaming suport features (online) and no gaming features like media and comunication (or lack off); 4) what the dev will want to/can do with the games.

 

[eastmen]

Nintendo makes games which appeals to a different fanbase than Microsoft's.

You mean ms's current fan base.

Just some questions, would MS sell such a console to as many users as Nintendo, we already know that many dont care with specs?

Perhaps they will. Do you know one way or the other ? If ms has the same controller scheme there is no reason why there can't be an xbox fit and a xbox msuci. These games not not ideas that exist with just nintendo. However the xbox in this example would apeal to the hardcore gamers also and both crowds can be satisfied.

How many games do you really expect to be impossible to convert (while losing gfx etc... qualitity, to be that diferent/noticiable) from a more powerfull machine to a less powerfull one?

we already see games horribly dumbed down this generation from 360 to wii. As online becomes more and more a part of the experiance i expect it to be even more apparent next gen.

How many new things, ie that make worth a next gen, are really that depending of processing power and not of SW and/or I/O?

each time we got more processing power we got new game types and vast imrovements over previous game types.

Do exclusives still mater that much? I mean each time there is less and it seems that multi platform games are each time moro comun and popular

exclusives still help move units. Do you think the wii would have sold without zelda , mario , wii fit , wii play and what not.

Do you think the 360 would have sold wthout halo , gears and other exclusives ?

Also these exclusives make alot of money for platform holders

do think that specs will matter much less, yet if you can take the example think of HL2 on XB, it run very poorly like a low end PC at low rez and low FPS, at the same time of 360 we had a cheap X1300 running the signifficantly updated HL2:LC at higher rez at high qualitity at faster FPS. So if they can give us that over Crysis/GoW2/KZ2 and specially late gen games would most people notice that power over the other two? CAn a companny really afford to rise the price of their console in something that must people will not notice?

Last I checked an x1300 wont run any games. You need a cpu , hardrive , ram , case , motherboard , keyboard , mouse , monitor. I think you'd see it add up to the same if not more than a 360 at launch which could have been had for as low as $300

I also don't see why you need to raise the price. In 2010/2011 you can put alot of horse power in a $400 console. People bought the xbox 360 and people are buying the ps3. As long as you don't go crazy into the hole per each console lke sony did you can keep it at a good price range.

Next gen consoles wil be defined by 1) what they can bring to justifie a new purchase (I really think that gfx beyond crysis and such wouldnt do it for must people); 2) the financial/social world in 3 years (wouldnt be suprised if they are conservative), in this we should take in consideration things like price of both HW and SW, power consumption and the such; 3) gaming suport features (online) and no gaming features like media and comunication (or lack off); 4) what the dev will want to/can do with the games.

well 1) Graphics will be the easiest to improve. We already have a new control type this gen , the internet gaming started two gens ago and now everyone has it. So where is the invoation. More powerfull hardware can leadto gaming inovation.

2) Or we can enter a time of excess again. Also lets no forget for the first year or two of the next gen they will have to competewith the wii. A new xbox or ps3 will be going after the core gamer who will find the money be it $200 , 300 or 400. . Each year the price will drop and more gamers will go to that system.

if two of the 3 systems offer the same experiances as this gen with the same graphics or slightly improved how many people will go for that ?

 

[pc999]

Perhaps they will. Do you know one way or the other ? If ms has the same controller scheme there is no reason why there can't be an xbox fit and a xbox msuci. These games not not ideas that exist with just nintendo. However the xbox in this example would apeal to the hardcore gamers also and both crowds can be satisfied.

I am just saing that there is more things that will/could matter more than raw power and I/O, thing like price, power consumption, design, online/comunications features (or those guys you creat on wii, cant remember their name) media fatures etc... and their balance will affect specially if the console are close in I/O and or raw specs arent enought to make the diference.

we already see games horribly dumbed down this generation from 360 to wii. As online becomes more and more a part of the experiance i expect it to be even more apparent next gen.

Would the games be that diferent from a PS4 to a PS3+

each time we got more processing power we got new game types and vast imrovements over previous game types.

Please tell me (yet to be released) a game that is original, dont need to be a new game type, because of the amount of processing it can do.

Dont take me wrong, FarCry brought us a new world, but FC2 only bring (very cool) fire propragation and, to be fair, Crysis just a add a few (great) details

exclusives still help move units. Do you think the wii would have sold without zelda , mario , wii fit , wii play and what not.

Do you think the 360 would have sold wthout halo , gears and other exclusives ?

Also these exclusives make alot of money for platform holders

They still move and make a lot of money and sell very well, but each time more, I see crossplatform games getting premier treatment (eg I saw much more for FC2 and Fallout than for GoW2 or Resistance2), also 3º partys exclusives (in 360 PS3, here they cost much more to make) are becoming a raritity.

Last I checked an x1300 wont run any games. You need a cpu , hardrive , ram , case , motherboard , keyboard , mouse , monitor. I think you'd see it add up to the same if not more than a 360 at launch which could have been had for as low as $300

I also don't see why you need to raise the price. In 2010/2011 you can put alot of horse power in a $400 console. People bought the xbox 360 and people are buying the ps3. As long as you don't go crazy into the hole per each console lke sony did you can keep it at a good price range.

Not sure I understand you, I know that you need mora than a GPU, just to say than someone could have launched a console at the same time than 360 but it the equivalent to a X1300 (instead a X1800/X1900, find the equivalent for the CPU RAM...) at a much lower price and much better gfx. If they do the same in a next gen, I belive that it would satisfy almost everybody need for specs, so more than that would be rising the price for something most people dont want.

well 1) Graphics will be the easiest to improve. We already have a new control type this gen , the internet gaming started two gens ago and now everyone has it. So where is the invoation. More powerfull hardware can leadto gaming inovation.

2) Or we can enter a time of excess again. Also lets no forget for the first year or two of the next gen they will have to competewith the wii. A new xbox or ps3 will be going after the core gamer who will find the money be it $200 , 300 or 400. . Each year the price will drop and more gamers will go to that system.

1) even I am starting to find hard to see improvements of gfx since the day I saw UE3 games and we already saw GI demos and the such, and I cant still remember any originality coming from gfx/specs (meybe beside some detail, and even that...)

2)True, but they are planing the consoles now and none is predicting that, Also why the PS4/XB3 need to go after the core first, hey can do like Wii and go after the casual right away.

if two of the 3 systems offer the same experiances as this gen with the same graphics or slightly improved how many people will go for that ?

DO they need to offer the same experience if they are (spec wise) just 36/PS3+? ANyway I really doubt it is there much more innovation left by the specs department.

There is a good amount of R&D in I/O, for example

Wii is barely a GC+ (imagine Wii with a equivalent to a X1300, more or less what I personally expect for next gen, the low-mid end of the time) and dont offer the same experince, even while it lost the oportunity of innovation in the gfx/specs spectrum.

Even a 360+ with a Wii remote+ would be a diferent experience. Althoughtt I do expect more.

 

[grandmaster]

I also don't see why you need to raise the price. In 2010/2011 you can put alot of horse power in a $400 console. People bought the xbox 360 and people are buying the ps3. As long as you don't go crazy into the hole per each console lke sony did you can keep it at a good price range.

I think you need to be looking more at the $250 launch price. Part of Wii's success was the fact that it was dirt-cheap (outside of the UK!) straight from the off. For the same reason we can expect the next generation of consoles to be duct-taped versions of the current ones... upgraded CPU, GPU, memory and optical drive.

I'd be enormously surprised if the next gen consoles were more expensive - $299 at a push, like the original PlayStation.

For the same reasons I think the launch of a next gen console in 2010 in hugely optimistic. PS3 has too much money to recoup, 360 will still be in its prime.

 

[eastmen]

I am just saing that there is more things that will/could matter more than raw power and I/O, thing like price, power consumption, design, online/comunications features (or those guys you creat on wii, cant remember their name) media fatures etc... and their balance will affect specially if the console are close in I/O and or raw specs arent enought to make the diference.

You have to carefull. If you go low on the price your going to have an under powred console and many might say to themselves well here is the ps3 and xbox 360 at $100 and they have all these great cheap games and they look pretty similar to this wii2. Or some people might say , well why do I need wii fit 5 with slightly better graphics , wii fit 4 does the same thing. With sony they may say well the ps4 is $250/300 but if it doesn't provide a large enough jump from the ps3 why woudl they upgrade ?

Would the games be that diferent from a PS4 to a PS3+

It really depends Take a ps3+ at $250 and a ps4 at $400. For that $150 bucks you can add in alot more ram nad get away with much faster chips with a lower yield

Please tell me (yet to be released) a game that is original, dont need to be a new game type, because of the amount of processing it can do.

Dont take me wrong, FarCry brought us a new world, but FC2 only bring (very cool) fire propragation and, to be fair, Crysis just a add a few (great) details

PCs are diffrent though and are currently being handy capped by consoles.

I will tell you a game type we've barely seen on consoles and that is mmorpgs. The other is large scale multiplayer shooters.

They still move and make a lot of money and sell very well, but each time more, I see crossplatform games getting premier treatment (eg I saw much more for FC2 and Fallout than for GoW2 or Resistance2), also 3º partys exclusives (in 360 PS3, here they cost much more to make) are becoming a raritity.

Neither of those were established console franchises. GOW2 and Resitance were both sequals to high selling games and didn't need the raw advertising. Gears 1 also cost only 10m to make

Not sure I understand you, I know that you need mora than a GPU, just to say than someone could have launched a console at the same time than 360 but it the equivalent to a X1300 (instead a X1800/X1900, find the equivalent for the CPU RAM...) at a much lower price and much better gfx. If they do the same in a next gen, I belive that it would satisfy almost everybody need for specs, so more than that would be rising the price for something most people dont want.

That isn't possible. The x1300 has better performance because it has its own fast ram. 256 megs to 512 megs. Thats in addition to main system ram which would be measured in the giga bytes of ram range then to top it off its installed to a hardrive.

If you put an x1300 in a console with a shared 512 megs of ram and a 128 bit bus tahts shared with the cpu you'd have a machine alot slower than the 360. Just look at the nvidia chip in the ps3

1) even I am starting to find hard to see improvements of gfx since the day I saw UE3 games and we already saw GI demos and the such, and I cant still remember any originality coming from gfx/specs (meybe beside some detail, and even that...)

Thats you but considering i have my computer hooked up to the same 42 inch screen I have my pc and I can tell you graphics have improved alot. Look at crysis on a large screen and ist very apparent.

As from originality do you think we'd have the game types we have now if we were still stuck on the nintendo or on the n64 level hardware ?

2)True, but they are planing the consoles now and none is predicting that, Also why the PS4/XB3 need to go after the core first, hey can do like Wii and go after the casual right away.

what like the game cube and dreamcast did ? What is going to attract core gamers to it aside from the price ? We are entering 2009 and the ps3 still costs $400 to produce.

DO they need to offer the same experience if they are (spec wise) just 36/PS3+? ANyway I really doubt it is there much more innovation left by the specs department.

There is a good amount of R&D in I/O, for example

What experiance will they offer if they are just enhanced wii , ps3 , xbox 360s ?

Wii is barely a GC+ (imagine Wii with a equivalent to a X1300, more or less what I personally expect for next gen, the low-mid end of the time) and dont offer the same experince, even while it lost the oportunity of innovation in the gfx/specs spectrum.

Um why would casual gamers who are happy with wii graphics go out and buy an enhanced wii ? Is there a new controller type or a new fad game ?

What is going to sell these next gen under powered systems. This gen the wii is selling because of its controller, but thy already played that hand. What do these guys play next hand ?

Even a 360+ with a Wii remote+ would be a diferent experience. Althoughtt I do expect more.

How is that .

 

[eastmen]

I think you need to be looking more at the $250 launch price. Part of Wii's success was the fact that it was dirt-cheap (outside of the UK!) straight from the off. For the same reason we can expect the next generation of consoles to be duct-taped versions of the current ones... upgraded CPU, GPU, memory and optical drive.

I'd be enormously surprised if the next gen consoles were more expensive - $299 at a push, like the original PlayStation.

For the same reasons I think the launch of a next gen console in 2010 in hugely optimistic. PS3 has too much money to recoup, 360 will still be in its prime.

I don't think its price had anything to do with it , even early this year you could stll sell them for $400 or so online. Its obvious that if nintendo didn't meet demand this year you could have fetched even more.

It was all about the controller and the right fads at the right time to go along with it. Whats going to move people to these new 360+ wii + ps3 + consoles ? Do you really think grandma and grandpa are going to get excited when they get shown another motion controller ?

 

[V3]

I think Nintendo will just keep going with the Wii, they might do stealth upgrades like inluding HD capabilities and HDMI port or other upgrades to keep up with the standard much like DS or Gameboy.

MS and Sony need an upgrade because 'Core gamers' will demand upgrade at certain point. If one goes after the Wii with cheap audio and visual upgrades for that $250 launch price point. I assume the core gamers will abandon that company. If both go the cheap upgrade, well that would be the best out come for both MS and Sony.

 

[Silenti]

Would it really be the best outcome for both Sony and MS? I know what I would end up doing, returning to PC gaming primarily. Something I thought would never happen. I was already considering that shift given the moronification(TM) of today's console games.

Assassin's Creed is a good example, but the first hint of what was to come was MechWarrior for the original Xbox. They took an excellent PC game and ruined it horribly. Where's the complexity? The depth in the play? The huge store of items and apparel? I'm not seeing much so far. Everything seems sterile. GTAIV, Fable 2, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, they all seem to have lost a lot of depth and complexity. Or never had it to begin with for Fable.

I'm still stuck with this feeling that something is horribly wrong this generation, something hard to put my finger on, and that the trend will continure. Going the underpowered cheap route would just confirm my worst fears.

 

[pjbliverpool]

It will certainly be interesting if the PC is left as the only "high end" platform next gen.

 

[Neb]

It will certainly be interesting if the PC is left as the only "high end" platform next gen.

Nah, it would like a Ferrari enzo with a speed limiter set to 30mph... much like now!

 

[obonicus]

Nah, it would like a Ferrari enzo with a speed limiter set to 30mph... much like now!

x100. At least you'll be able to run them at 4320p with 16x MSAA, right?

 

[V3]

Would it really be the best outcome for both Sony and MS?

Financially yes. They can't afford another lost like this gen. Some people aren't too happy with current gen graphics. You know sub HD res, choppy frame rate, lack AA etc. Both MS and Sony is bleeding money in order to deliver us graphic that some consider to be sub par.

The technologies to deliver core gamers expectation of next gen graphics is even more expensive.

If a next gen consoles were to launch in next two years, the GPU will be around 1+ billion transistors. That's about the processing power of RV770 or GT200. It's getting harder and harder to deliver eye candy to awe core gamers. They would need to look to PC with it's 1000+W PSU to deliver the eye candy.

I know what I would end up doing, returning to PC gaming primarily. Something I thought would never happen. I was already considering that shift given the moronification(TM) of today's console games.

What new PC games would you play though ? New PC games are mostly consoles port or designed with consoles in mind. Though console ports in high res and lots of AA with good frame rate controls as well as mouse and keyboard, is very attractive to most PC gamers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Financially yes. They can't afford another lost like this gen. Some people aren't too happy with current gen graphics. You know sub HD res, choppy frame rate, lack AA etc.

Last gen we had sub-SD res, choppy framerate, lack of AA etc. Most PCs playing games throughout history offered an experience of choppy framerates and a lack of AA, or at least when the AA is applied it knocks the framerate on the head.

The hardware is irrelevant. Developers could get smooth, beautiful IQ on any hardware if they aimed for that. However they spend more on the visual niceties (the ones that show up really well on screenshots) to the detriment of the IQ features. Just as PC games do (NWN looked quite nice at the time, but ran like a dog, for example. Guildwars needed a spec when beyond the recommended to get a smooth experience. If you want smooth framerates on a typical PC, it means scaling back the rendering effects). Picking hardware to create smooth, high-AA, high-res games is impossible. Whatever hardware you offer, developers will choose to use it in alternative ways. The only way to enforce these IQ enhancements is in the TRC - "your game must run a minimum of 720p native, 60 fps solid with no more than a 3% dip below across the game, and have a minimum of 2xAA as standard." This would result in less polys, textures, simpler lighting etc.