PS3 Mania In Next OPM

[rabidrabbit]

We should remember that these consoles are made for the mainstream, who might be happy playing Shadow Of The Colossus on PS2 after 6 years of consoles release, without thinking "oh this looks so antiquated".

I'd be happy with a 10 year lifecycle, but only if they overlap two or three years
4 years is definitely too short, 5 years might just pass.
In four years there is a danger that the technology has not advanced enough to make new console and games look better enough.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I get pretty antsy when my games no longer look anything like their PC counterparts and I'm not about to jump back on the old PC upgrade train.

So instead you want a console ugrade train?

Playstation 2 has 32 Megabytes of RAM.
Read that again. Sorry but I shouldn't be playing games on 32 MB of RAM in 2006.

There's people out there enjoying GBA's still. How old is that tech? There's people playing retro games, based on 1980s hardware that only needs 1980's level hardware to play. It's the games that matter, and as long as a system produces games that are good, what's the problem? Looking at the amount of RAM and deciding a machine is no good is ignoring the issue of what the games are like. Of course better quality can be obtained with newer hardware, but if people always compare their current products with the latest and greatest, they'll always be disappointed. It's worth considering that as many PS2s have been sold as PS1s. If we assume they're all upgraders, plenty of people have been happy to play PS1 several years into PS2's existence. The latest, greatest, sparkliest graphics aren't always needed, and it's at this point when the tech is old that the companies start accumulating the profits needed to blow out on the next hardware development.

I think alot of people think MS is going to continue killing off their hardware, I'm not sure where that comes from.
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.

Which would go against MS's open coments that they'd prefer not to do hardware. I expect them to make XB360 last as long as it's profitable, but ultimately if they could develop the XNA standard or whatever Allard (IIRC) called it, they would have an ever improving technology (PC) with no delays between each generation, so they'd always out-tech the latest console, and yet not have to spend any money developing hardware either.

That wouldn't help the idea of using a console to enter the living room though, so they may change tack in the coming years and go for another XB console.

 

[nintenho]

So instead you want a console ugrade train?


There's people out there enjoying GBA's still. How old is that tech? There's people playing retro games, based on 1980s hardware that only needs 1980's level hardware to play. It's the games that matter, and as long as a system produces games that are good, what's the problem? Looking at the amount of RAM and deciding a machine is no good is ignoring the issue of what the games are like. Of course better quality can be obtained with newer hardware, but if people always compare their current products with the latest and greatest, they'll always be disappointed. It's worth considering that as many PS2s have been sold as PS1s. If we assume they're all upgraders, plenty of people have been happy to play PS1 several years into PS2's existence. The latest, greatest, sparkliest graphics aren't always needed, and it's at this point when the tech is old that the companies start accumulating the profits needed to blow out on the next hardware development.

Which would go against MS's open coments that they'd prefer not to do hardware. I expect them to make XB360 last as long as it's profitable, but ultimately if they could develop the XNA standard or whatever Allard (IIRC) called it, they would have an ever improving technology (PC) with no delays between each generation, so they'd always out-tech the latest console, and yet not have to spend any money developing hardware either.

That wouldn't help the idea of using a console to enter the living room though, so they may change tack in the coming years and go for another XB console.

For gaming consoles, that philosophy is sound. But didn't Sony repeatedly say that they want PS3 to be an all-in-one home entertainment, gaming console, website server thing?

 

[Lysander]

Xbox 360 is not.

You wouldn`t say that x360gpu is evolution and excellent implementation of tech which works into one package? In my thought x360 is future tech, just weaker due to cost reason.

 

[swanlee]

The Revolution not supporting High-Def put it DOA as far as future tech goes. This was the worst decision Nintendo has ever made, The PS3 might not hit stores till early 2007 or late 2006, which is way to long a cycle. The 360 hit the sweeet spot with being out early and supporting all the major tech advances and being built for the ability of cost reductions to compete with Sony.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Which would go against MS's open coments that they'd prefer not to do hardware. I expect them to make XB360 last as long as it's profitable, but ultimately if they could develop the XNA standard or whatever Allard (IIRC) called it, they would have an ever improving technology (PC) with no delays between each generation, so they'd always out-tech the latest console, and yet not have to spend any money developing hardware either.

What is this quote you're always referring too? I've seen you say before you think the next xbox will be a PC, I'm not sure where you're getting this.

IMO MS has to deal with the reality that most gamers want to game in their living room, not on a PC, so what they would 'like' to do is irrelevant.

XNA is a package of development tools IIRC.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If the "antiquated" hardware isn't fully tapped yet, it obviously isn't antiquated yet.

what kind of logic is that? So if something is so complex that it takes 20 years to fully utilize, you would not consider it antiquated for 20 years?

IMO it's antiquated when it has been vastly surpassed by modern technology.

As far as development time, a 5 year cycle should allow for 6-8 years worth of game sales for developers who wanted to stay on the old platform, so I see no need for 6 or 7 year gaps between HW updates. As long as gamers keep purchasing games for the old system, devs will keep making them, so the consumer will ultimately decide how long a system lasts for.

 

[Farid]

Topic: PS3 Mania In Next OPM

If you guys want to discuss about the Console life cycles, just start a new thread.

 

[megateto]

Topic: PS3 Mania In Next OPM

If you guys want to discuss about the Console life cycles, just start a new thread.

Sooo, nobody has the mag yet?

 

[Titanio]

The 1up show this week has a teaser on the new OPM. You can briefly see shots from the magazine. It looks interesting! It involves gangsters and such, asides from the main theme of 'the darkness' taking over the main character. Some of the enemies from the E3 trailer feature. It's also third person, apparently, for some reason I was under the impression previously that it was first person - and in fact, some of the shots are from a first person perspective, so maybe there's a mix. Also, OPM didn't get to play the game, but they did see it running on a PS3 dev kit (that was a condition for them putting it on the cover, apparently). And yes, the shots, or many of them at least, look like gameplay shots.

I would take screencaps, but windows media player doesn't want to play nicely..

edit - also, might be just taking the piss, but the whiteboard in the OPM editor's office has some games listed on it - GTA4, GT5, MGS4 - which aren't so surprising, but also..Blasto 2 ??

 

[Cobra101]

I think a 5 year cycle between consoles is just right.

MS's next system will probably be out in 3 years.

They seem hell bent on shortening the cycle.

They also like to cut and run, unlike Sony.

But I am a hardware whore so short cycles are really not a big deal to me.

 

[weaksauce]

I think a 5 year cycle between consoles is just right.

MS's next system will probably be out in 3 years.

They seem hell bent on shortening the cycle.

They also like to cut and run, unlike Sony.

But I am a hardware whore so short cycles are really not a big deal to me.

I think long generations are good because developers have time to make the best of the system, and when the next gen comes, it will be so much better. I mean if it only was 3 years lets say, the next gen wouldn't be that much more powerful.

Also I like it how my firend has had the same ps2 for five years.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

What makes people think that MS wants to shorten the cycle?? All they do is shifting their cycle from Sony's, so that they can get on the market a whole year before their main competitor. So Sony can either accept that for a long time, or shorten the PS3's cycle to catch up with MS - and both would hurt them.
But the X360 will stay here for at least 5 years, you can be sure about that; because MS wants to make money this time...

 

[zidane1strife]

What makes people think that MS wants to shorten the cycle?? All they do is shifting their cycle from Sony's, so that they can get on the market a whole year before their main competitor. So Sony can either accept that for a long time, or shorten the PS3's cycle to catch up with MS - and both would hurt them.
But the X360 will stay here for at least 5 years, you can be sure about that; because MS wants to make money this time...

Indeed, not to mention that everytime it takes ever more power to achieve a noticeable generational jump in quality.

 

[superguy]

Indeed, not to mention that everytime it takes ever more power to achieve a noticeable generational jump in quality.

Well, not really.

 

[London Geezer]

Well, not really.

Actually, yes.

 

[nintenho]

Actually, yes.

Especially considering that they predict that Mohr's law (is that the law?) is going to stop in a few years.

I say that developers have to make seperate teams for console-centric genres and for PC-centric genres so that each platform has it's own strengths. Of course, you have to assume that all gamers have both a console and a decent PC, and considering how PC developers don't really seem to grasp the concept of playing on a two year old PC, it could all turn into a cluterfuck of mediocrity. Well, at least there's the Revolution!

 

[London Geezer]

Especially considering that they predict that Mohr's law (is that the law?) is going to stop in a few years.

Moore's Law...? How is it gonna stop? You mean it won't be valid in a few years? Not sure about that, the "law" has always just been a bit abused over the years... The "Law" was just Moore's observation that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented, and he predicted the trend would continue for some time. Nothing more. Certainly not a "law" in the strictest sense, as no one has to "follow" it, it was little more than an observation and prediction. As such, of course things can change, technology accellerates and decellerates all the time.

This can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

 

[rabidrabbit]

Already this gen vs. "next gen" there seems to be a lesser jump in discernible quality as there was from PSOne to PS2, tha's pretty much an accepted fact now.
How would things be different when jumping from PS3 to PS4, if anything it'll be even moreso.
There's little difference in graphics quality between Toy Story and Toy Story 3 that is visible to the common viewer. As the technology advances enough to be able to render all those fancy effects and high resolution textures on games, it'll be mainly the art that differentiate the games, not technology.
Of course there's always the holy grail of true photorealism to aim for, but that won't happen over generation.

 

[nintenho]

Moore's Law...? How is it gonna stop? You mean it won't be valid in a few years? Not sure about that, the "law" has always just been a bit abused over the years... The "Law" was just Moore's observation that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented, and he predicted the trend would continue for some time. Nothing more. Certainly not a "law" in the strictest sense, as no one has to "follow" it, it was little more than an observation and prediction. As such, of course things can change, technology accellerates and decellerates all the time.

This can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

That's exactly what I meant! Yeah, I knew what the "law" was an observation of, but it was an observation of how much cheapness to manufacture, size, AND performance are improving. Basically my point was that the "bang for your buck" will start to go down.

*pouts in corner*