PS3 Mania In Next OPM
- Thread starter Slay
- Start date
scooby_dooby
Legend
Kameo wouldn'ty have been the same game without the jaw dropping GFX, that was part of what made it such a good game was everywhere you went, you couldn't wait to see wait awesome new area would await you. Hell, I must've spent 20% of the time just looking at stuff.
And the scenes with the hundreds of dragons in the background, or 5000 trolls fighting as you storm through them on the horse, or the throne room with the million particles, the boss battle with the 100ft tall robot, those are all key moments in the game that would've been much less impressive with last gen hardware.
PD0 I agree, no need to be a 360 game really, PGR3 I dunno, it's whole things is GFX it's not like it took any gameplay steps further, so PGR3 for xbox would've essentially been PGR2. COD2 probably, but it wouldn't have been the same again cause there's no way they could've had 30 or 40 enemy soldiers all with advanced AI on the same screen charging you, and again those are some of the key moments in teh game.
And the scenes with the hundreds of dragons in the background, or 5000 trolls fighting as you storm through them on the horse, or the throne room with the million particles, the boss battle with the 100ft tall robot, those are all key moments in the game that would've been much less impressive with last gen hardware.
PD0 I agree, no need to be a 360 game really, PGR3 I dunno, it's whole things is GFX it's not like it took any gameplay steps further, so PGR3 for xbox would've essentially been PGR2. COD2 probably, but it wouldn't have been the same again cause there's no way they could've had 30 or 40 enemy soldiers all with advanced AI on the same screen charging you, and again those are some of the key moments in teh game.
COD2 minimum system requirements on PC:
# Windows 98/2000/ME/XP
# Pentium PIII 800 MHz Processor or AMD Athlon
# NVIDIA GeForce or ATI Radeon 7000 or higher
# CD-ROM: 4X or Faster
# 256 MB RAM
Yeah, you could do this game on Xbox, considering you don't have to fight with Windoze for CPU resources. You're right, probably wouldn't look nearly as pretty (though a ground-up new gfx engine would look a lot better than just stripping out sfx until it ran), and the framerate probably wouldn't be blowing your mind with its smoothness.
# Windows 98/2000/ME/XP
# Pentium PIII 800 MHz Processor or AMD Athlon
# NVIDIA GeForce or ATI Radeon 7000 or higher
# CD-ROM: 4X or Faster
# 256 MB RAM
Yeah, you could do this game on Xbox, considering you don't have to fight with Windoze for CPU resources. You're right, probably wouldn't look nearly as pretty (though a ground-up new gfx engine would look a lot better than just stripping out sfx until it ran), and the framerate probably wouldn't be blowing your mind with its smoothness.
And Sony would have had a shorter time to make returns on the hardware, cutting into profitability affecting how much they can invest. And the time to develop new technologies would be reduced, including the time to develop tools for new hardware (which isn't an issue if you use PC tools which is a new area for consoles).Titanio said:
I've no problem with 6-7 year cycles. It makes economic sense for all parties and gives a good 4-5 years mainstream console period. There's a tail off period entering the next-gen, and a...head-on period in the next-gen where it's rough around the edges. On a four year cycle you're really reducing the useful period. Then again I'm not an avid gamer. I imagine most people who want a shorter span also upgrade their PC a lot? And what about other devices like TVs and recorders?
scooby_dooby
Legend
6-7 year cycles are ridiculously long. I don't know why people are so concerned with tapping the potential of antiquated hardware when we can simply get some modern hardware. Why bother tapping the extra 30% of power in a system, when you could just build a modern system wih 1000% more power?
I mean, what's the point in 2006 trying to get the most out of a box made in 1999? Who cares? No matter what you do it's still gonna suck compared to new technology.
I agree there has to be enough time for developers to get past the technological learning curve, and concentrate more on content production, but IMO that sweet spot is a 5 year cycle (which inevitably means 6 years of big-name titles). That give's 2 years to get grips with the hardware, 3 years to produce titles, and 1 more year to milk the established install base while the new generation launches. Then we get new hardware and start all over.
I just don't see the point in waiting SO long, technology moves too quickly to wait 7 years between hardware revisions, why suffer through 2 extra years of crap when we can have a good strong lifecycle of 5 years+1?
I mean, what's the point in 2006 trying to get the most out of a box made in 1999? Who cares? No matter what you do it's still gonna suck compared to new technology.
I agree there has to be enough time for developers to get past the technological learning curve, and concentrate more on content production, but IMO that sweet spot is a 5 year cycle (which inevitably means 6 years of big-name titles). That give's 2 years to get grips with the hardware, 3 years to produce titles, and 1 more year to milk the established install base while the new generation launches. Then we get new hardware and start all over.
I just don't see the point in waiting SO long, technology moves too quickly to wait 7 years between hardware revisions, why suffer through 2 extra years of crap when we can have a good strong lifecycle of 5 years+1?
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby said:
I wouldn't advocate waiting 6-7 years before releasing a new system - 5 or 6 at most is fine - but keeping a system healthily alive for 7+ years is a worthy effort. Once a system matures there can definitely be a continuing market for it at the lower end, not to mention the existing base of customers already there who'd appreciate it. I doubt you'd find too many people here who'd prefer a cycle of 7 years between new systems.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Which I think everyone plans to do, MS, Sony Nintendo will all do this.
Killing the XBOX was obviously a result of cost issues, something that won't be an issue for MS with the 360.
I think alot of people think MS is going to continue killing off their hardware, I'm not sure where that comes from. We can all understand why the xbox just wasn't sustainable. Seems to me, once they have a cheap console that they can effectively cost reduce, MS will be just as happy as sony to milk royalties from their existing install bases many years after the new consoles launch,.
They might use aggressive livecycles to offset sony, but I'm sure it won't be any shorter than 5 years, that would still put them launching earlier than sony next generation unless sony seriously cuts their cycle short @ 4 years.
Killing the XBOX was obviously a result of cost issues, something that won't be an issue for MS with the 360.
I think alot of people think MS is going to continue killing off their hardware, I'm not sure where that comes from. We can all understand why the xbox just wasn't sustainable. Seems to me, once they have a cheap console that they can effectively cost reduce, MS will be just as happy as sony to milk royalties from their existing install bases many years after the new consoles launch,.
They might use aggressive livecycles to offset sony, but I'm sure it won't be any shorter than 5 years, that would still put them launching earlier than sony next generation unless sony seriously cuts their cycle short @ 4 years.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I'm not holding my breath, I'm the kinda guy who has no problem with even a 4 year cycle.
However, looking at how MS is positioning themselves, the way they have set up the console to cost reduce, it indicates they are intending on a much longer lifecycle than the 4year XBOX cycle.
Also, given they already have a year lead, they have absolutely no reason to make their cycle any shorter than 5 years, in an effort to even match that Sony would need a 4 year cycle which is not going to happen.
However, looking at how MS is positioning themselves, the way they have set up the console to cost reduce, it indicates they are intending on a much longer lifecycle than the 4year XBOX cycle.
Also, given they already have a year lead, they have absolutely no reason to make their cycle any shorter than 5 years, in an effort to even match that Sony would need a 4 year cycle which is not going to happen.
scooby_dooby
Legend
that's pretty meaningless, my PC is much better than those specs(a64, gb of ram, radeon 9800) and I still couldn't run COD at greater than 800x600 with no AA, and the framerate was so bad it was barely playable.fearsomepirate said:
scooby_dooby said:
Look what you fail to see is the fact that the console market is different from the PC market.Games on old technology still have value in consoles, and owners of for example PS2 or GC still crave for games that milk as much out of their console.There is no problem supporting them for 7 or even 8 years as long as this doesnt mean that we will have to wait as long as 8 years for the next gen console to come.
In the case of Playstation consoles, its 6 years old and PS3 will be released "soon", without meaning the death of the PS2 or that PS3 support will be negatively affected by still supporting PS2.PS2 might live as much as 8 years.
Also another thing that should be noticed is the fact that a huge number of console gamers choose a console because they dont feel like spending huge amounts of money and/or upgrading their PCs to be able to play new AAA PC games.With other words many of them dont feel like they can affort more expensive gaming, so they still see value in their PS2 GC or even XBOX.
Even when PS3 is released many will wait for a price drop or see how well it will do to get it no matter how much they d love to get their hands on it sooner.Until then they want to enjoy as much as possible out of their PS2's.
I am one of these gamers and I am not alone either
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry Vysez, I know this post isn't about PS3 mania... 
Not all devs are gonna want to do fast-developed puzzlers/DDR/super monkeyball type games. A MGS or Halo represents a significant investment. You can't do that on a hardware that's going to become obsoleted in less than a handful of years.
You may not have a problem with it, I bet devs do though. Suppose you do a launch game. Console terminates 4 years later, that gives you time to release ONE more major title, and then you'll straddle the console generation gap and take it square in the nuts when you have to toss away work and start all over again for the new system. And this is just if you get in on the action at the START of the console's life! Suppose you form your company say 2.5 years into the current console cycle. Then what? Hope you can squeeze out something at least mediocre by the end of life of the current hardware? Mighty big gamble there.scooby_dooby said:
Not all devs are gonna want to do fast-developed puzzlers/DDR/super monkeyball type games. A MGS or Halo represents a significant investment. You can't do that on a hardware that's going to become obsoleted in less than a handful of years.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Guden Oden said:Sorry Vysez, I know this post isn't about PS3 mania...
You may not have a problem with it, I bet devs do though. Suppose you do a launch game. Console terminates 4 years later, that gives you time to release ONE more major title, and then you'll straddle the console generation gap and take it square in the nuts when you have to toss away work and start all over again for the new system. And this is just if you get in on the action at the START of the console's life! Suppose you form your company say 2.5 years into the current console cycle. Then what? Hope you can squeeze out something at least mediocre by the end of life of the current hardware? Mighty big gamble there.
Not all devs are gonna want to do fast-developed puzzlers/DDR/super monkeyball type games. A MGS or Halo represents a significant investment. You can't do that on a hardware that's going to become obsoleted in less than a handful of years.
I realize that, that's why I would argue a 5 year lifecycle is a good balance for both consumer & developer. I was just responding to the 'don't hold your breath' comment, as if he thinks 720 will launch in 2009 or something...that wouldn't bother me personally, but I do agree it's too short.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Shifty Geezer said:
a few random thoughts & ramblings:
6-7 year cycle only makes sense if you're starting off with a console that is truly break-through and way ahead of the general technology curve. Xbox 360 is not. Revolution is in terms of controler but not core chipset. PS3 might be.
NEO-GEO was but that was elite high-end. you have to admire SNK though. they launched in 1990 and support has only recently ended (a year or two ago) although there is at least one more homebrew game coming out... NEO-GEO had a 14 year life. it lasted through the 16-bit, 32/64-bit and most of the way through this past generation. pretty incredible. this is the model i would like to see in the future, although keep software prices to $50-$60 instead of $200-$300. I would not mind paying $1000 for a super highend console that lasts 10+ years. NEO-GEO's base unit was not even half that, it was $400
($650 if you wanted 2 arcade controllers plus a game)
I tend to agree with you though. 4 year lifecycle does not allow for much of a useful period. I think consoles need to be totally breakthrough each generation if they're going to last 6-7 years. and not be based on any mainstream computer technology. Xbox 360 *is* a break from PC technology unlike the original Xbox. although Xbox 360 is still using ordinary PC GDDR3 memory. PS3 GPU is closer to PC technology, even though Cell is pretty radical.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby said:
If the "antiquated" hardware isn't fully tapped yet, it obviously isn't antiquated yet. I see little reason to move on into the next generation and pay the full price on hardware that will never be really utilized. As games become more expensive and difficult to produce, longer cycles are inevitable, especially since publishers/developers will want a return on their investments into their choice of platform. Prior to PS2, 5 year cycle were possible and feasable - today with the PS2, the cycle has already extended and I expect it to continue even more into the next generation as development costs skyrocket.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 7537
- Games Industry