Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[pc999]

I will say that there doesn't need to be contention between designers and engineers. Different people serve in those roles in a studio and so there should be no focus lost on game play. Designers have their own ideas about game design and game play. Typically designers make requests and are only constrained by what can practically be delivered with the budget on hand with the hardware available.

They still can only pay designers or engineers, or spend more in the total.

Having hardware doesn't imbue anyone with ideas. Having hardware doesn't take any ideas away. Creativity is mutually exclusive to the hardware available.

True, one of the reasons why I think the Wii is so underpowered (not because of no HD and such, but because it compromisses too much). Still if devs had to fight the HW and/or increased cost there may have been games that would never be...

There have been many good ideas on expressed on all platforms this generation and most of the successful platforms of any previous generation. The hardware really is not the issue when it comes to ideas - it's people.

True devs and gamers alike, probably MS/S/N too.

Smarter AI , massive amounts of destructive enviroments not just one or two pillars as seen in gears 2 and killzone 2 with real physics where as no two attacks at a pillar is the same. More realistic movement in characters , higher resoultion textures to create more beautifull worlds.

Thats all stuff I want.

So you pick an existing X and say more/better of it. And althought you are not alone in it (far from that) there is much less people (as) interested as they used to be.

Nintendo still increased the specs of the console. They didn't just relaunch the gamecube and i'm sure that the wii is capable of things that the gamecube is not

I dont think that anyone even sugested a "jump" as low as GC to Wii.

Thing is, eg in PS3 the main goal of the design of the console just tried to put as much tech as they could within a certain cost/time limit, on 360 it has more or less the same (but it gave more importance to the cost/time limit).

It may be the case that the main goal isnt put as much tech as they can inside the box, just like the Wii.

Nintendo may have gotten lucky this generation but I still don't know how they are going to sell a wii 2 or wii hd to these people buying wiis

If they try to pick them just with specs I doubt so.

Maybe I just don't know what goes on inside a game studio, but I would assume EA Sports would have had character models and textures already made 4+ years ago that have to be scaled down for todays technology. It seems to me that many development houses are not very apt on future thinking and are also usually the ones who complain so much about having to "struggle" with new console technology.

Meybe if that as that easy to do, somebody would have done it by now...

I dunno. For some stuff, sports, racers, real-world locales, generic content seems perfectly acceptible to me. How many different people have modelled a Porsche 911 for games? Surely one perfect original-CAD-design source model could be applied to every racer out there with this car assuming automagical scaling worked. The difference in look would come from the renderer. The very same model in Forza 2 and GT5 would still look different (again, assuming the assets scaled and were optimized for the engine). Generic European streets and buildings, NY taxi's, geraniums, would all have a place.

There's also the question of how much variety we actually need in some content. To me, pretty much every sci-fi shooter has the same gritty, armour-clad space-marine style, such that it makes little odds to me! I think the assets of Oblivion and Fable 2 are sufficiently different to want unique content, but other games could share those assets quite happily. Gothic 3 isn't that far removed from Oblivion. So take Oblivion's architecture and orcs+goblins from an ADnD library of models, and you have the same look without having to recreate the content.

Carnnack said that for things like comun things (chairs and the such IIRC),some years ago.

And althought many games no realistic games looks alike you always have the risk of very few dev try to get a distintive look.

Anyway, way not just invest more on processural creation and the such for that kind of stuff (eg having a APU for that would be very nice IMO).

 

[grandmaster]

The idea of re-usable assets has been the standard for years in terms of audio. How many times have we heard the 'door opening' noise from Doom in other games, movies and TV shows?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The idea of re-usable assets has been the standard for years in terms of audio. How many times have we heard the 'door opening' noise from Doom in other games, movies and TV shows?

Yeah and the sound in Doom 2 during the final boss when the skulls are being shot from the wall is EVERYWHERE! Honestly that sound apparently comes from 1000 different things. My ears are nowadays very sensitive for that particular sound and I pick it up literally from everywhere :smile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agmEWaxuhCE&feature=related

 

[catisfit]

Not strictly on topic, but it looks like the next gen is in no hurry says Robbie Bach:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_11417526?nclick_check=1

Microsoft will rely on its Xbox 360 game console for longer than the previous version because it's getting harder to persuade consumers to upgrade, the head of the company's entertainment unit said.

Given that the alternative would see a new Xbox released this coming holiday (4 year lifespan), I don't think that's much of a surprise :smile:

 

[Dregun]

A blade of grass is a blade of grass, while some might be taller, some might be wider and some might be damaged or a change of color its still a blade of grass. So why have 40+ developers create that asset and throw it away once the game they were working on is finished?.

I remember reading something a long time ago about how it takes Pholyhpony Digital over 1 month to create each car for the GT games. 1 freakin month, I've seen offline renders of vehicles that I couldn't distinguish from the real thing, GT is good but it isn't that good. So how many man hours are wasted because instead of scaling back a perfect model they create a new one?

I understand the limitations of re-using assets but some assets are always going to be the same in the most basic way. Take GTA4 for example; they probably spent time remodeling the freakin lamp posts, the same posts that has been present since GTA3. Weapons, benches, trees, grass, gaurd rails, birds, rats, dogs, bullet casings, lamps, couches, tables, chairs, doors, televisions, radios, cell towers, satellite dishes, etc etc. So many models that are present in many different games yet are all modeled and textured again and again and again. Isn't it easier to modify an existing model then to create a new one? Wouldn't a couch be easier to adjust and make unique with an existing model instead of spending countless man hours creating from scratch?

My line of thinking is, why waste artists time creating assets that are so basic and don't need much art direction from to begin with. Why have an artist spend 4-8 hours creating a new model and texture for a phone when chances are someone did a better job if it already? Let him/her use an existing model and spend 2 hours modifying it and put the artistic touch it needs to mesh with the game, or put that artists talents somewhere else where it will make a better impact for the game.

I mean how many artists right now have probably created the same asset 2-4 times already? You have to think some poor sap is sitting in front of his monitor and thinking. "Damn, I spent 3 days doing this exact same model 2 years ago".

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I understand the limitations of re-using assets but some assets are always going to be the same in the most basic way.

Ithink the real priblem is how you scale back assets. There's isn't a magic forumal that a computer can apply. And if an artist needs to make manual tweaks, it can be quicker to start from scratch.

This is exactly the same debate as reusing code and engines. Why do 5 developers all write their own FPS engine? Why not just have one engine that they can all use? Yet we know that middleware solutions can be thwart with issues, and often writing your own is better, more cost effective and with better control over it.

The ideal is great, but I just don't think the practicalities will ever match, without some new technologies. If next-gen could render HOS objects in realtime, perhaps there'd be a chance. As long as everything has to be reduced to a per-engine optimized mesh though, and there's no industry-wide movement to create a proper shared-asset system, it can't happen. As Collada demostrates. Great in theory, but it doesn't work smoothly as it should.

 

[tha_con]

Maybe this may come off as "casual" but I would like to see this generation last until 2013.

I really hope for a "PS4" that has specs similar to these:

Cell BBE (I'd guesstimate about 6Ghz will be possible when PS4 hits)
Blu-Ray Drive (I wouldn't bet on more than a 4x BRD)
1GB of Memory (double what PS3 has now)
HDD Standard
New "PS Eye" out of the box, along with a new controller to go along with it for "motion sensing"

That's what I'd "hope" for. But honestly, I think Sony, MS, and Nintendo stand to gain more visually from a memory increase than they do from much else. If the consoles next generation can stand to bump up texture memory, I think that will be a significant enough "bump" for gamers, along side the "slightly stronger than last gen" visuals.

Both Sony and Microsoft should focus on offering more with the online department, more interactivity, etc (don't ask me for ideas, just throwing things out).

Who knows what will happen though!

 

[assen]

I remember reading something a long time ago about how it takes Pholyhpony Digital over 1 month to create each car for the GT games.

Actually, they were talking about how GT1/2 cars took 3 days, GT3/4 cars took a month, and now they are looking at 9+ months per car...

 

[Nano]

Not strictly on topic, but it looks like the next gen is in no hurry says Robbie Bach:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/latestheadlines/ci_11417526?nclick_check=1

And that's the way it should be. This generation has been very costly so far (for both the consumer and developer). Also, I think there is a lot more to be achieved with all current platforms.

In my opinion, this generation itself would have done well to start later that it did.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Maybe this may come off as "casual" but I would like to see this generation last until 2013.

I really hope for a "PS4" that has specs similar to these:

Cell BBE (I'd guesstimate about 6Ghz will be possible when PS4 hits)
Blu-Ray Drive (I wouldn't bet on more than a 4x BRD)
1GB of Memory (double what PS3 has now)
HDD Standard
New "PS Eye" out of the box, along with a new controller to go along with it for "motion sensing"

That's what I'd "hope" for. But honestly, I think Sony, MS, and Nintendo stand to gain more visually from a memory increase than they do from much else. If the consoles next generation can stand to bump up texture memory, I think that will be a significant enough "bump" for gamers, along side the "slightly stronger than last gen" visuals.

Both Sony and Microsoft should focus on offering more with the online department, more interactivity, etc (don't ask me for ideas, just throwing things out).

Who knows what will happen though!

That would be a absolutely ****tty console system for 2010-2012.

Atleast 4-8GB RAM should expected from next gen Xbox\PS , 2gb as a bare minimum.

Your "hopes" for the PS4 also dont have any GPU. Which would make it an immediate failure. CPUs suck for graphics,even Cell cannot compete with a 4 year old GPU at this point, having no GPU would make life very hard for devs and the next Xbox interation would smoke it in graphics immediately (aspecially if next gen xbox has same relative gpu power that x360 had in 2005\2006)

 

[tha_con]

That would be a absolutely ****tty console system for 2010-2012.

Atleast 4-8GB RAM should expected from next gen Xbox\PS , 2gb as a bare minimum.

Your "hopes" for the PS4 also dont have any GPU. Which would make it an immediate failure. CPUs suck for graphics,even Cell cannot compete with a 4 year old GPU at this point, having no GPU would make life very hard for devs and the next Xbox interation would smoke it in graphics immediately (aspecially if next gen xbox has same relative gpu power that x360 had in 2005\2006)

*sigh*

Just because I didn't mention a GPU doesn't mean it won't have one.

Also, you can wish for all you want, but somehow I get the sneaking suspicion that you would cry bloody murder when you saw the price. That's just me though.

Honestly, the way the economy is, we don't need $400+ boxes, we need cheaper boxes. You want that dream machine, build a freaking PC. I want to see gaming survive, and companies stay afloat.

Unless you want more Activision / EA type companies popping up all over the place, that's SURELY good for the industry, right?

Consoles don't need super advancements right now, increasing memory to 2GB would be more than sufficient, this isn't a freaking PC you know. There is absolutely no need to jump that high in memory, 2GB is already FOUR times larger than what we currently have...

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Also, you can wish for all you want, but somehow I get the sneaking suspicion that you would cry bloody murder when you saw the price. That's just me though.

Honestly, the way the economy is, we don't need $400+ boxes, we need cheaper boxes. You want that dream machine, build a freaking PC. I want to see gaming survive, and companies stay afloat.

Consoles don't need super advancements right now, increasing memory to 2GB would be more than sufficient, this isn't a freaking PC you know. There is absolutely no need to jump that high in memory, 2GB is already FOUR times larger than what we currently have...

Yet you have no problem tossing numbers like 6Ghz out there... I'm thinking 4GB would be welcome, well within the realm of possibilities in late 2011 or later and much more likely than 6Ghz processors. 1GB would be a bad joke.

 

[Humus]

Consoles don't need super advancements right now, increasing memory to 2GB would be more than sufficient, this isn't a freaking PC you know. There is absolutely no need to jump that high in memory, 2GB is already FOUR times larger than what we currently have...

A double in that amount of time is not much. Even 4x sounds little. I'd say 2GB is the absolute minimum for next generation.

 

[V3]

Actually, they were talking about how GT1/2 cars took 3 days, GT3/4 cars took a month, and now they are looking at 9+ months per car...

With 9+ months per car, they should also in business of designing cars for automaker. That's insane for a game that have hundreds of cars.

 

[tha_con]

Yet you have no problem tossing numbers like 6Ghz out there... I'm thinking 4GB would be welcome, well within the realm of possibilities in late 2011 or later and much more likely than 6Ghz processors. 1GB would be a bad joke.

4GB would be welcome, but it would also be costly. Console manufacturers are going to quickly take a different turn next generation.

Also, it's likely we won't see another Playstation Platform until 2014, at least I think we'll see it or start hearing about it.

I just don't think that we need 4GB of memory. 2GB would keep console costs down. A 6GHz processor (specifically a Cell based processor, if Sony decides to go that route again) would be something Sony needs to look into, as it would help to keep PS3 and PSN titles Backwards compatible.

Maybe I'm in a different camp, but I don't think we need 4GB of memory on a console. It would be nice, but it will also cost a pretty penny. It's also very likely we'll see some stable 6Ghz processors within the next 5 years.

Wasn't it IBM who unvieled a 5Ghz processor back in April?

If the PS3 is 2 years old, then it's got at least another 4 years until we see another Playstation (well, who knows really). But let's just say 4 years. 2013, you don't think a 6Ghz Cell processor would be cheap and easy for Sony to use? The R&D required wouldn't be much, Developers would already have their heads wrapped around the architecture, and it would allow for enhanced CPU heavy things like physics, collision, and animation.

I stand by my thoughts, a 6Ghz Cell with a decent GPU (hopefully a beefed up RSX) and 2GB of memory would be capable of some great stuff. Not "omg this is virtual reality so awesome woohoo" stuff, but great none the less.

 

[wco81]

Performance should have enough headroom that 1080p rendering is the baseline and developers don't have to use sub-720p resolutions like they're doing now.

1080p or "full HD" is a big part of the marketing vernacular these days for TVs, cameras, camcorders, etc.

Consumers at large are more familiar with that spec. than 4x or 8x AA, HDR, etc. Of course we want improvements in those areas to produce a demonstrably sharper, better lit picture quality.

As for RAM, instead of targeting a performance profile, it would be nice if you can run several tasks in addition to the game at once, like XMB, Home, PSN Store, etc Or maybe even more than one game, for downloaded PSN games or installed games.

Probably too much though.

 

[Tahir2]

If sales carry on as they are now proportionally then Sony will launch first, then MS and finally Nintendo.

PS3 is not doing so well so could see a replacement sooner than the other two consoles and

Sony may decide on a headstart with a console that was not in need of a complete architectural overhaul (e.g. PS2 -> PS3) and could use much of the already spent R&D on building a faster, more efficient and cheaper Cell. Whatever the next gen GPU is at the time of PC gaming, Sony will probably be in a position to use one generation below that so if we have a G5xx or R10xx Sony would use a GPU derived from a G4xx or R9xx. Or IMHO Sony should do what MS did and get a custom designed GPU specific to the closed architecture and system of a console rather than an "off the shelf" part.
RMBS(t) will probably get ditched next-gen or at least only one type of system RAM and VRAM.

MS may make some bigger changes with regards to the CPU used next-gen depending on where PowerPC and IBM are but the GPU side of things seems pretty good and MS seems to have made an intelligent choice going for a custom design this generation.
Depending on resolutions and target specs eDRAM might be here to stay (obviously a more generous amount).

Nintendo are on the right strategy for their core market and understand they do not need to compete on technical prowess but it would be nice to see the Wii2 go to Hi-Def resolutions... more of the same perhaps but surely they cannot use the same processor and GPU and clock them up again. A major redesign to help overcome architecture bottlenecks to attaining higher clockspeeds would be better spent on a more efficient CPU and GPU.


As a minimum I would expect a quadrupling of RAM on all consoles next-gen - as process technology goes down, chip densities increase and the "cost" of 2GB of DDRx RAM etc and yada.... so Nintendo gets approx 512MB of RAM, Sony and MS approx 2GB+.

Clockspeeds maybe into the 4GHz for MS and Sony with Nintendo probably content to stay at 1.5GHz to 2GHz (just a crappy guess) range but I think the emphasis will be on amount of cores rather than sheer clockspeed gains. And 6GHz is feasible but they will need cooling too and with many core architectures the transistor sizes will also probably quadruple.

Optical drives would be Blu-ray for MS and Sony and a plain DVD drive for Nintendo with flash drives used rather than HDD's for inbuilt storage.

Would expect all consoles to go wireless by then and adding motion sensing controllers as standard.

Hopefully developers wont be screaming murder come next-gen and are over the multi-core coding learning curve this time round. Also would be nice if console documentation and hardware is sent early to 1st party and 2nd party developers come... 2011-13.

..... My guess is as good any ......

 

[Dominik D]

Performance should have enough headroom that 1080p rendering is the baseline and developers don't have to use sub-720p resolutions like they're doing now.

Why would you want 1080p instead of 720p with high AA and higher polycount? (yes, I assert that next generation of consoles won't be able to achieve both 1080p and high AA).

 

[wco81]

Why would you want 1080p instead of 720p with high AA and higher polycount? (yes, I assert that next generation of consoles won't be able to achieve both 1080p and high AA).

So PC GPUs now can't render games in 1080p with "high AA" (4x? 8x?) and "higher polycount" now?

Or the GPUs likely to be available by the time the next gen consoles come out?

It would be a marketing point. Consumers were introduced to "full HD" in the last couple of years.

Maybe with the next gen, the can tout "true full HD."

 

[PARANOiA]

I actually (sadly) agree with ConayR. Developers appear to be far more focussed on more detail that looks good in static screenshots than native resolution differences and a stable framerate. A 1080p screenshot is pretty useless when it won't look any different on the box, most sites resize images to a "mass market user" size (generally <720px wide) and have generous levels of AA applied anyway. 720p will be "good enough" with more detail than you could put in a 1080p game with less detail.

I remember the good ol' days when Natoma and londonboy would sit and argue that the mandate for "next gen" should be 60FPS before upping the detail level. And here we are with games floating at 30FPS on a good day, a small chunk of games never dropping below the 30FPS mark, and far fewer than that group maintaining a constant 60FPS.