Robbie Bach says this generation will last longer

[Acert93]

I think consumers don't value graphics as much as you give them credit for. There is a large number of consumers that demands better graphics than the Wii puts out, but the number of consumers that demands the best graphics available is actually quite small, as evidenced by low sales of high-end PC cards.

You are talking about video cards that have a shelf life of 12-18 months for this purpose, cost as much or more than a console alone, have a much smaller software support base for the hardware, and have piracy issues.

While no one doubts the market of people willing to get the "best at whatever cost" is small, that isn't the same as people who value graphics.

It is the same issue of casual market generalization.

Also, note that there is not exactly a huge demand for social games in HD.

How are you defining social games?

Online multiplayer gaming by definition social and the HD consoles dward the Wii in this regards. The growing popularity of non-competitive online mutliplayer to augment (not displace) online social gaming is proof that this market space continues to grow and evolve to cater to various consumer desires.

Today, it's Gears of War and Madden NFL. The success of such game types are probably more correlated with system power than other genres, since youngish males like to boast about having the best stuff. However, its lack on Wii probably has more to do with Nintendo's marketing strategy than system power.

Madden is a perfect example, but for a totally different reason. First it is important to note that NFL football is the most popular sport in America and is a massive marketing property that appeals to a huge segment of males and even females. The NFL isn't niche by any stretch of the imagination; it is simply a major force on standard TV, Cable & Satalite, radio, print, etc.

EA has put a lot of marketing muscle behind the Wii version and the sales continue to lag. Are graphics part of this? Probably some--we are talking about a product that mimicks real life so players want to see a game that mimicks the real thing. But the PS2 version stayed strong for a number of years after the 360 launched so it would be unfair to put all the burden on "testosterone" males.

A bigger problem, imo (and I do play Madden and know a lot of people who do), is that as much as the Wii version caters to the waggle and has special accessible modes this version fails to capture the essense of the game. Madden is a evolutionary product that over 20 years has helped drive and fashion the consoles we currently have. There is a reason gamepads have a large number of buttons--in a game like Madden gamers want to interact as realistically as possible and be in control. That means replicating wide arrange of movements quickly. The Wii-mote is laggy (there goes quickly) and simplified which is a hurdle to gamers reproducing the results when they want, every time. The Wii, in its effort to make a break and redeploy to a more accessible oriented audience created a hurdle for these games because they fall short of mimicking the licensed product as well as the competitors.

Even if I am wrong, and hormonal males drive these sales, the reality is this market generates sales on an annual basis no Wii title, or 360 or PS3 for that matter, can match. GTA is the closest competitor on year in, year out average sales.

The Wii really has had big issues attracting movement in these markets.

Of course some people don't really care about these things, a lot of people in fact, and the Wii has clearly connected with these gamers.

 

[RudeCurve]

If the goal was an aggressive price point and a pathetic 2x performance increase they could launch under $200.

Well my idea is the console would be at least 2X as powerful in terms of processing but with maybe a 4-6X increase in RAM and a larger optical storage format.

Double the number of cores for the CPU and unified shaders for the GPU of course more eDRAM too.

Priced at $300 and MS wouldn't have to lose money at launch...that's the idea.

 

[liolio]

Xenos already use unified shaders

I agree with Joshua I don't believe in 2x systems I think manufacturers could be mroe conservatie than this time but silicon process will allow for a clear jump in power.

I think that MS will have to fix the way game are copied to the HDD. They should shift at some point to real instal. Content creation tools will mature and I think that we will see quiet some double DVD games, they have to find a work around less "dumb" than copying two DVD on the HDD.
I think it's doable without breaking the compatibility with the core system.

EDIT If Ms want the 360 to stand till 2012 they would better add an "eject" function!!!!
How could they forget that in the NXE! damned I find it to stupid to be true.

 

[RudeCurve]

Xenos already use unified shaders

I agree with Joshua I don't believe in 2x systems I think manufacturers could be mroe conservatie than this time but silicon process will allow for a clear jump in power.

I said double the number of unified shaders.

Anyway, it's pretty obvious MS could increase the power of it's next console more than a factor of 2 but that's not the point. The point is to launch without losing money on hardware and retaining 100% BC.

 

[AzBat]

EDIT If Ms want the 360 to stand till 2012 they would better add an "eject" function!!!!
How could they forget that in the NXE! damned I find it to stupid to be true.

It still in NXE with an empty drive. Plus, it's still on the remote. It never left. That's the best place for it anyway.

Tommy McClain

 

[obonicus]

I agree with Joshua I don't believe in 2x systems I think manufacturers could be mroe conservatie than this time but silicon process will allow for a clear jump in power.

Is this so clear? I believe CarlB mentioned in the next-gen tech thread how companies will be a little careful about putting a whole ton of transistors on, say, 32nm because it's not clear how many process shrinks they can get at this point.

 

[Acert93]

Is this so clear? I believe CarlB mentioned in the next-gen tech thread how companies will be a little careful about putting a whole ton of transistors on, say, 32nm because it's not clear how many process shrinks they can get at this point.

I think it is pretty simple though: If 2 of 3 competitors go the GCN 2.0 route, aka Wii, with an emphasis on alternative input methods or the like, the other competitor if they have a traditional/evolutionary console will go unchallenged for the hardcore gaming market. This is the market that was payng $2k + for Xbox 360s, bought millions of PS3s at $600, and continues to buy software and peripherals as high levels. Not to mention they make up a large segment of consumers.

Obviously there are hurdles (design issues, cost consolidation, process reduction issues& the likelyhood that a console will last 7-8 years before a traditional leap in performance can be attained, consumer price points, etc) but every generation has had these. A big part of the solution will be partnerships and new approaches. One of the last things a company wants, though, is to find themselves without a convincing market position for a 7-8 year generation.

My guess is MS is Robbie and MS would love it if Sony bought into the "Wii hysteria." Think about it: Sony would vacate that segment of the market to MS. They could then be the digital hub for the living room providing all sorts of servies unchallenged. The momentum gained from the lack of competition and market presence would snowball.

On the pricing front I think people can take a page out of the Nintendo book. Lets assume a $50 cost reduction a year (cost reduction slows with time, but bear with me). If MS/Sony launched at $250 with a "limited supply driving demand" model and only make 1M units a month to control losses, we could see a new approach with a more static price tag:

Year / Price / Loss-unit / Loss-year
2012 / $250 / $350 / $1.2B -
2013 / $250 / $300 / $600M -
2014 / $250 / $250 / $0
2015 / $250 / $200 / $600M +

I think the next consoles won't see a successor ship for a longer period of time than previous generations so companies are going to have to figure out as many ways to remain compelling on as many fronts as possible -- both to publishers and consumers.

What I find most interesting is that market leadership and "lemming" mentality is never enough. The success of the NES didn't keep Sega at bay. The sucess of the SNES didn't keep the PS1 from snatching the market. The killer mind- and marketshare of the PS2 didn't prevent mass exodus.

From this perspeive the sub-$10 Wiimote will be adapted by MS and Sony and the playing field will revert to new and old fronts alike. As it is Nintendo is going to have their own issues getting people to upgrade to a new Wii--consumers need a compelling reason to buy a new box.

The last thing these companies want is a multi-billion dollar investment in R&D, marketing, game development, etc and consumers turn a cold shoulder due to lack of interest. This was one reason the Wii is what it is: Nintendo couldn't afford to be clobbard yet again and pretty much scrapped all those costs and went with a low-risk high-return strategy. If the Wii failed--so what. The problem is a little more complicated for Sony/MS as building relationships with consumers that bridge platforms and retaining their services is important. Losing 70% of your consumers is a big deal. Maybe one of the two will be desperate and toss out a v2.0 console to control costs with some low cost tech that appeals to millions of consumers in a way that takes the market by storm, but that is a big risk and puts your consumer base in jeopardy.

 

[tha_con]

If the goal was an aggressive price point and a pathetic 2x performance increase they could launch under $200.

Same question I posed earlier: Why would anyone even WANT that console?

From a consumer perspective you are shelling out $300 for essentially the same hardware with software that would look nearly identical to your current library.

From a publisher perspective you are supporting an install base that is much smaller than the released Xbox AND the hardware allows very little differentiation.

From MS's standpoint BC would rip into profits--especially if the game offer little distinction in quality--and would have little to differentiate the products and to move customers over.

People have to have a reason to shell out $300 for a "box." What I see mimicked in a lot of posts is the lemming mentality: copy the last gen leader. The problem is the Wii is doing what it is doing because it DIDN'T follow the PS2. Each generation poses its own challenges. Obviously Nintendo hit a nerve with the casual market (re: parents buy a huge percentage of consoles) with their marketing, family friendly gaming, and importantly accessible hardware both financially and from a user standpoint. Of course there are cheaper consoles on the market now and it still sells better (hint: maybe a console maker should go for a lower launch cost compensated by fewer long term price drops). User input will have to progress beyong waggle if people want to motivate new sales.

Btw, if I am a publisher selling HD games I am rooting for Sony or MS to ditch the HD market or see some compromises on hardware that result in fairly seemless porting. There is a huge market for graphically & gameplay advanced games. They idea that this market should be vacated or stagnated as many ideas call for would be a direct assault on a lot of the dev houses and publishers as well as an insult on the consumers. There is no doubt if MS released a 2x console and Sony did a proper next gen device MS's install base would be devistated. Consumers are fickle... asked Nintendo and Sony.

I think you are wrong on nearly every single point you bring up.

The Wii is popular because it didn't follow the PS2. This is correct. The Wii is popular because of it's price point and features. Price point. Frankly, both Nintendo and Sony want a piece of that Nintendo pie right about now.

We are currently at a point where visuals are "good enough" for about 80% of the market (pulled that out of my ass, I know). A meager 2x performance increase would yield enough for people to upgrade if other features were there. Especially if the console was backward compatible.

You bring up that BC would cut into their "profit". No it wouldn't, not in the slightest. If either MS or Sony opt for a 2x performance increase, there is a great chance they can make a profitable system out of the door, much like the Wii. So they'll rake in profit for the system, and the new gen software, and the last gen software. They have absolutely everything to gain from a marginal power increase and backwards compatibility.

You talk about gamers being "fickle" and cite Nintendo and Sony as examples.

1) Nintendo lost their handle because they refused to embrace disc based technology with the Nintendo 64. They lost the generation after that because of (in my opinion) the delay, and the perceived appeal of the console (a purple box is hard to sell to a teenager).

2) Sony lost their grip because they priced themselves out of the market with a super high profile tech box that was supposed to appeal to the people you seem to think can support that kind of market. WRONG. Where is Sony now? They're in a lot of trouble financially, and gamers have turned the other cheek for more affordable consoles, ignoring the 'power advantage' (however slight) of the PS3.

Frankly, "gamers" are no longer who determine what will happen in the future. The market has grown. Nintendo has opened the flood gates and proven that you don't need a high powered console to win over the market, you need engaging software with unique new features.

Mark my words, both the new Xbox and the new Playstation will not see the same power leap the current two have. It's not necessary to core gamers, and it's no longer necessary to Microsoft or Sony. The "loss leader" business model is out of the window, and profitable hardware is the new "jones". The next gen of consoles will be seriously underpowered by your standards, but will be far more successful (I think) than the current generation.

 

[Nano]

In terms of Wii performance, its a bit of a special case though, it could have easily been 5x as powerful as Gamecube yet still undercut its rivals by the same price. I guess they really weren't that bothered about new architecture, not that it matters. So, really even if MS and Sony wanted the quiet affordable route, they wouldn't need to have hardware as underwhelming as 2x the current generation, especially in 2012, and this isn't even talking a 32nm process.

 

[Nano]

2 markets, the HD hardcore and the casuals

I don't think this really exists. From what I'm seeing there is definitely a single market with a huge variety of consumers. I think people like to oversimplify things too much.

 

[eastmen]

Mark my words, both the new Xbox and the new Playstation will not see the same power leap the current two have. It's not necessary to core gamers, and it's no longer necessary to Microsoft or Sony. The "loss leader" business model is out of the window, and profitable hardware is the new "jones". The next gen of consoles will be seriously underpowered by your standards, but will be far more successful (I think) than the current generation.

I'm sorry but if everyone goes for a 2x system or whatever we want to call these things what will

A) Make people upgrade from the current system esp if 80% of the market inlcuding the core gamers don't care about graphics.

B) would make you choose one console over another in the case of the ps4 and xbox next. They both have a small leap and they will be both at similar pricep oints and graphical capabilitys

C) choose the ps4 or xbox next over a wii hd. If gamers want a wii experiance still why would they go to an imposter who doens't have the wii sports, mario , zelda and what have you.

Perhaps though between the ps4 and xbox next the company that makes a true graphical leap can be the ones who actually take market share and take away some from those who are bored with a second go around with the wii or want something more in depth.

The Wii is popular because it didn't follow the PS2. This is correct. The Wii is popular because of it's price point and features. Price point. Frankly, both Nintendo and Sony want a piece of that Nintendo pie right about now.

didn't the wii launch at a $50 price diffrence from the 360 ? Also next gen when motion control isn't the new thing and we've had 3 or 4 sequals to wii sports and a few wii fit crazes what will drive sales when you have 3 consoles all with marginal graphical updates all at the $250 or under price point and all with motion controls ?

 

[wco81]

Well my idea is the console would be at least 2X as powerful in terms of processing but with maybe a 4-6X increase in RAM and a larger optical storage format.

Double the number of cores for the CPU and unified shaders for the GPU of course more eDRAM too.

Priced at $300 and MS wouldn't have to lose money at launch...that's the idea.

Make it much more reliable, quieter, 1080p with at least 4X AA, HDR. And at least 100 GB storage.

How much higher would people like Sony and MS to shoot for?

I like power too, but not at the price of higher power consumption and noise.

 

[BadTB25]

With stable and consistent rates of 60 fps and v-sync.

 

[eastmen]

Make it much more reliable, quieter, 1080p with at least 4X AA, HDR. And at least 100 GB storage.

How much higher would people like Sony and MS to shoot for?

I like power too, but not at the price of higher power consumption and noise.

well in 2008 we had a 1.5b tranistor gpu on 55nm i believe. In 2011 can't we have the same size chip but on 40nm or 32nm that will run quiter and make less noise ?

Last febuary I believe i bought my 3870x2. It was big and hot and noisy . This year i bought a 4850 1 gig for less than half the cost ($180 vs $400) and its more powerfull and peforms better and uses less power.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=22

under load it droped 50watts vs the 3870x2 and like i said provided more power for gaming and produced less heat

The leap in graphical power is already here to leave last gen systems in the dust. I don't know why anyone would settle on 2x when they don't have too. Heck come june these cards will already be a year old. Not only are they way more powerfull than the xbox 360 and ps3 gpus but they ahve new tech in them resulting from dx 10 specifications. Later this year we will see dx 11 gpus that most likely double the speed of what we have today.

Thats nothing compared to ram size and costs. Sure ddr 2 800 and 1000 are no longer the fast ram on the block , but when you can get 4 gigs of it for $15 bucks after rebates it shows you the drastic changes since 2005.

I would love a 2009 dx 11 gpu performance in an xbox next for 2011. Thats what i want them to shoot for. It doesn't have to be a 2011 gpu. Give me a dx 11 gpu from 2009 with lots of ram 8 gigs hopefully. Give me a bigger hardrive , 320 gigs would be good. We already have 120/160 gig drives and hopefully by the end of the gen they will go to 250 so 320 would be a good starting point. Put in 32to 64 gigs of flash ram inside teh console for cache and give me a cpu 3-4 times more powerfull than the waternoose and cell and i'm sold. I would pay up to $400 for it. If they are smart they will try and ahve it cost $400 or so at launch so that they can keep more consistant price drops.

I don't know about u but i don't want to spend another $200 or so on a system that looks marginaly better than the one i've had for the last 4 years. I don't see the benfit of that

 

[obonicus]

I think it is pretty simple though: If 2 of 3 competitors go the GCN 2.0 route, aka Wii, with an emphasis on alternative input methods or the like, the other competitor if they have a traditional/evolutionary console will go unchallenged for the hardcore gaming market. This is the market that was payng $2k + for Xbox 360s, bought millions of PS3s at $600, and continues to buy software and peripherals as high levels. Not to mention they make up a large segment of consumers.

The problem is that we seem to be disregarding the role 3rd party publishers play in this. I wonder if they would be so willing to embrace tech that is far more powerful than that of the current generation of consoles. HD games are already burdened with having to sell more and more copies just to break even, increasing the cost of game-creation might just be untenable (alternately, I doubt the market could bear another $10 markup on games). Would 3rd parties then be willing to jump onto Sony/MS 'more than 2x' wagon or stick with Nintendo's offering, especially if it seems like Nintendo is going to get the lion's share of the market again?

Like I said, I think the publishers are yearning for the days of the PS2, when there was no doubt as to what platform they should release a game on. They've repeatedly mentioned that the success of the Wii caught them unprepared -- with the implication that they were going to retool. I certainly have my doubts, but we have to see how this generation pans out. If we start to see more 'real' efforts (and successes) on the Wii by 3rd parties then I'm pretty sure Nintendo will be calling the shots, tech-wise. And if that happens I'm pretty sure MS and Sony won't place themselves out of the loop.

Also, you say that Robbie is trying to 'trick' Sony, but I think Microsoft is even more likely to ape Nintendo next-gen than Sony. Remember, MS launched a their largest ad campaign late last year, targeted at the 'social and casual' segments (I also strongly believe that the arcade at $199 is not meant to combat Sony). None of their efforts on this front has panned out, so far, but I don't think they're going to stop trying. I certainly don't believe they're looking at Nintendo and going 'only Nintendo could pull that off' -- has Microsoft ever done that, for any competitor?

 

[tha_con]

I'm sorry but if everyone goes for a 2x system or whatever we want to call these things what will

A) Make people upgrade from the current system esp if 80% of the market inlcuding the core gamers don't care about graphics.

B) would make you choose one console over another in the case of the ps4 and xbox next. They both have a small leap and they will be both at similar pricep oints and graphical capabilitys

C) choose the ps4 or xbox next over a wii hd. If gamers want a wii experiance still why would they go to an imposter who doens't have the wii sports, mario , zelda and what have you.

Perhaps though between the ps4 and xbox next the company that makes a true graphical leap can be the ones who actually take market share and take away some from those who are bored with a second go around with the wii or want something more in depth.



didn't the wii launch at a $50 price diffrence from the 360 ? Also next gen when motion control isn't the new thing and we've had 3 or 4 sequals to wii sports and a few wii fit crazes what will drive sales when you have 3 consoles all with marginal graphical updates all at the $250 or under price point and all with motion controls ?

I can answer A,B, and C in two words.

Exclusive Software.

Sony bundles in a new Playstation Eye with enhanced features (as they've shown multiple times in tech demo's) and their new break away controller for $250/$300 with marginal power increase in a durable form factor.

Microsoft bundles in a new controller / motion sensing / camera / whatever along side enticing new online features and software connectivity. If it were the console to finally tie together the internet, home computer, and TV, it would sell wonderfully, especially at a low price point.

Also, the Wii did sell $50 under the Arcade, but it did so with mass appeal. The 360 had already established itself as a hardcore system, while the Wii introduced Wii Sports. A game that the drunk college kit, the grand parents, the 10 year old, the nephew, and the church going bible thumping soccer mom can all get into at the same time. Gears of War did not, and simply cannot, do this.

I don't know about u but i don't want to spend another $200 or so on a system that looks marginaly better than the one i've had for the last 4 years. I don't see the benfit of that

Really? Lower development costs, a possible return to $50 games, cheaper hardware. I mean, we're at the point where a marginal hardware increase would yield enough to offer up some improvement without the increased cost. It may also be easier to offer beefed up hardware similar to current architecture while offering a decent form of Backwards Compatibility, as opposed to creating new architecture to get the most power.

We're looking as ease of development, familiar hardware, and profitability for the hardware manufacturer. This could (emphasis on could) mean we may have cheaper accessories. The Wii certainly proves that this could not be the case, as the controllers are seriously expensive.

Still, I think we have plenty to benefit from as gamers from a system like this, even if the most it does is save us $10 on next generation games. If I buy an average of 20 games a generation, then that's $200 in my pocket that I can spend on more games. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[eastmen]

can answer A,B, and C in two words.

Exclusive Software.

Sony bundles in a new Playstation Eye with enhanced features (as they've shown multiple times in tech demo's) and their new break away controller for $250/$300 with marginal power increase in a durable form factor.

haven't all playstation eye games to date sold poorly ?

Also what exclusive sony ip is still doing the type of sales that wii fit , mario galaxy , smash brothers mario kart and others have sold ?

When you go into motion controllers and their software doesn't nintendo already have 30m + users linking them to motion controls ? wouldn't a ps4 end up like the n64 or the era ?

Microsoft bundles in a new controller / motion sensing / camera / whatever along side enticing new online features and software connectivity. If it were the console to finally tie together the internet, home computer, and TV, it would sell wonderfully, especially at a low price point.

I don't know , its my understanding that web browsing , video streaming and other pc lite functions of the console are used by a very small percentage of users. The wii has only web browsing and i know very very few people that use the browser and its not stoping the system from selling

Also, the Wii did sell $50 under the Arcade, but it did so with mass appeal. The 360 had already established itself as a hardcore system, while the Wii introduced Wii Sports. A game that the drunk college kit, the grand parents, the 10 year old, the nephew, and the church going bible thumping soccer mom can all get into at the same time. Gears of War did not, and simply cannot, do this.

so where will that core gamer with thier massive attach rates go to next gen ? Back to the pc ?

Really? Lower development costs, a possible return to $50 games, cheaper hardware. I mean, we're at the point where a marginal hardware increase would yield enough to offer up some improvement without the increased cost. It may also be easier to offer beefed up hardware similar to current architecture while offering a decent form of Backwards Compatibility, as opposed to creating new architecture to get the most power.

why would i pay $200 for a beefed up 360 in two years. Thats already a 4 year old experiance. At that point i can put $200 bucks into a computer and come out with a much better gaming experiance.

I also don't see the problem with $60 games and who is to say taht even if the devs are able to lower dev costs that they will suddenly decrease the price of software. Did the wii go from $50 gamecube priced games to $40 wii games ? No it stayed at $50 and thats because like all companys if they get u used to buying something at x price they will continue to try and sell it at x price of increase it if they can.

Here in the states gas is half the price it was last summer and yet UPS and other companys still have a fuel surcharge on shipping and other things that they claimed was due to higher fuel costs. Well the fuel just droped to $1.50 a gallon and yet the price is still where it was at at $3.50 a gallon.

We're looking as ease of development, familiar hardware, and profitability for the hardware manufacturer. This could (emphasis on could) mean we may have cheaper accessories. The Wii certainly proves that this could not be the case, as the controllers are seriously expensive.

as a gamer why would i want any of that ?

MS and Sony don't have to build another $900 ps3. But they can build $400 consoles and sell them at $300/400 and most likely break even or make money on the hardware

Still, I think we have plenty to benefit from as gamers from a system like this, even if the most it does is save us $10 on next generation games. If I buy an average of 20 games a generation, then that's $200 in my pocket that I can spend on more games. Sounds like a winner to me.

if a generation is 6 years as the 360 will be 6 years old in 2011 then your saving $34 bucks a year. That to me isn't worth loosing out on the leap we had this gen.

There are millions of core gamers who buy alot of accessorys and game that these companys will miss out on or alienate if they don't provide a leap worthy of getting excited about. I am one of those. I wouldj ust go back to the pc if the xbox next or ps4 doesn't offer something more than the horrid motion control gimmic of the wii.

I don't want a generation of slightly better looking games mabye at 1080p (which is already 3x the pixels of 720p and would mean we would need 3 tiems the shading power and rop power to just keep games as they are now) with motino control that amounts to me having to shake a controller like an idiot when someone trys to grab my weapon or stab me in COD8 . To me thats a borring as a qte

I also don't see why moving to an ext gen platform has to be expensive. I don't hear pc devs complaining that every year new hardware comes out and they need to start working with it. Console devs only have to deal with it twice a decade and really with MS there there shouldn't really be a big learning curve considering the dev tools. Go with a new verison of waternoose and a dx 11 ati graphics chip mabye based on xenos and you can get a leap like you did last gen and keep the ease of development.

 

[tha_con]

haven't all playstation eye games to date sold poorly ?

Also what exclusive sony ip is still doing the type of sales that wii fit , mario galaxy , smash brothers mario kart and others have sold ?

When you go into motion controllers and their software doesn't nintendo already have 30m + users linking them to motion controls ? wouldn't a ps4 end up like the n64 or the era ?

I don't know , its my understanding that web browsing , video streaming and other pc lite functions of the console are used by a very small percentage of users. The wii has only web browsing and i know very very few people that use the browser and its not stoping the system from selling



so where will that core gamer with thier massive attach rates go to next gen ? Back to the pc ?



why would i pay $200 for a beefed up 360 in two years. Thats already a 4 year old experiance. At that point i can put $200 bucks into a computer and come out with a much better gaming experiance.

I also don't see the problem with $60 games and who is to say taht even if the devs are able to lower dev costs that they will suddenly decrease the price of software. Did the wii go from $50 gamecube priced games to $40 wii games ? No it stayed at $50 and thats because like all companys if they get u used to buying something at x price they will continue to try and sell it at x price of increase it if they can.

Here in the states gas is half the price it was last summer and yet UPS and other companys still have a fuel surcharge on shipping and other things that they claimed was due to higher fuel costs. Well the fuel just droped to $1.50 a gallon and yet the price is still where it was at at $3.50 a gallon.



as a gamer why would i want any of that ?

MS and Sony don't have to build another $900 ps3. But they can build $400 consoles and sell them at $300/400 and most likely break even or make money on the hardware



if a generation is 6 years as the 360 will be 6 years old in 2011 then your saving $34 bucks a year. That to me isn't worth loosing out on the leap we had this gen.

There are millions of core gamers who buy alot of accessorys and game that these companys will miss out on or alienate if they don't provide a leap worthy of getting excited about. I am one of those. I wouldj ust go back to the pc if the xbox next or ps4 doesn't offer something more than the horrid motion control gimmic of the wii.

I don't want a generation of slightly better looking games mabye at 1080p (which is already 3x the pixels of 720p and would mean we would need 3 tiems the shading power and rop power to just keep games as they are now) with motino control that amounts to me having to shake a controller like an idiot when someone trys to grab my weapon or stab me in COD8 . To me thats a borring as a qte

I also don't see why moving to an ext gen platform has to be expensive. I don't hear pc devs complaining that every year new hardware comes out and they need to start working with it. Console devs only have to deal with it twice a decade and really with MS there there shouldn't really be a big learning curve considering the dev tools. Go with a new verison of waternoose and a dx 11 ati graphics chip mabye based on xenos and you can get a leap like you did last gen and keep the ease of development.

Edit:

Okay, here we go

The Eye Toy applications on the PS2 may have sold poorly in the past, but as is with all software that requires accessories, the hardware was not bundled with the console itself.

Motion control on the Wii is successful and interesting to consumers only because it comes standard with the console, with software to use it from the very start. If it were like the Eye Toy, it would also be moderately successful at best.

What Sony could offer would be different from motion controls. I'm sure you've seen promo videos for the Eye Pet application, no?

Think of the evolution of that to casual consumers. A bundled camera with decent resolution. Take features we now have in some games (like Tiger Woods and RB6 IIRC) a snapshot of your face, which translates into a modeled representation of yourself in the game. Interaction with onscreen objects has also been shown to have been possible with current technology (PS3) so I would assume that would only evolve as time goes by for the next entry into the Playstation family.

You say you don't want to 'shake your controller' when an enemy grabs your gun, and that it's as boring as a QTE. What other solution is there, exactly? Isn't shaking the analog sticks pretty much the exact same concept?

YOU may not want hardware the is only moderately more powerful than current gen hardware, but I think millions of consumers have already shown that they are far more interested in engaging software with a low price tag than they are immersive games with a high price tag.

I'm of the opinion that massive leaps in hardware and power are not yet needed. The console industry needs to take a "break" from that, for at least one generation. Obviously as we saw at the start of this generation, consumers were not ready for it. The Economy is slow, and who knows if it will be 'booming' within the next few years.

I think it's in the best interest of the industry, and us as gamers, to settle for a moderate hardware increase in power, with bundled features to separate the strengths and weaknesses of each console, all at an affordable price.

Everyone stands to gain from this model, at least for one generation.

Like you said, those who don't like it will obviously gravitate to PC gaming, which would also be good for that industry as it would boost hardware sales, and potentially revive software sales.

 

[eastmen]

I will come back to this post later, as I don't have a lot of time currently, but you misunderstood many of my points, and introduced some more points of your own.

not a problem , pm me when you get time to respond and correct me on anything i miss understood . Slow day at work thast why i've had a chance to respond

 

[tha_con]

not a problem , pm me when you get time to respond and correct me on anything i miss understood . Slow day at work thast why i've had a chance to respond

I edited my post above I obviously missed some counter points, but I've been typing it between meetings and other tasks (Go Army!). Tried to send it via PM, but it was all too large