Robbie Bach says this generation will last longer

[Nano]

Truth be said, I did said the same about Wii, anyway, it is a diferent market now, and it will be even more in 2011

But its true.

Wii was an extreme case, to take 5/6 yr old hardware, slim down the die size and overclock/enhance it was the extreme route to keeping cost low and manufacturing potential up. They made huge profits from day one, growing each year. That same console could have been more powerful if they wanted even if they added a little card with a 'pretty good' shader core on the cheap, it was just a choice.

The price of hardware plummets so fast, as you mentioned there is already PC h/w this generation that would produce superior results (far more than 2x) at a lower launch price than any of these generation of consoles had.

If next gen h/w companies are to be more conservative, I seriously doubt they'll be as extreme as to simply make the same old tech a bit faster with more memory when it can be an order of magnitude more powerful and hit the price sweetspot instantly.

 

[Crossbar]

The price of hardware plummets so fast, as you mentioned there is already PC h/w this generation that would produce superior results (far more than 2x) at a lower launch price than any of these generation of consoles had.

Didn´t Microsoft go that route with Xbox?
It became a very expensive experience in the end.

I also seriously doubt your statement: "superior results (far more than 2x) at a lower launch price than any of these generation of consoles had."

You are also overlooking the cost for developers to move to a completely revamped platform, Nintendos Wii approach was pretty cost effective with regard to that. I also believe that the talk about that we are approaching diminishing return with regard to graphics fidelity is getting more and more true. When the PS3 is able to output KZ2 level of graphics in the beginning of its third year what will games look like in its fifth and sixth year? I hardly believe that improved graphics will be the main sellingpoint for XB720 and PS4. There need to be some other unique feature to appeal to the mass market. We must not forget that the geeks and graphics whores of this board will not be the focus market for Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony.

 

[ShadowRunner]

The thing is better graphics is the easiest way to differentiate one genreration from the next, because it is bassed entirely on advances on the hardware side as time goes on. As time goes on what other areas are affected by advances in technology that have the same impact?

Motion control is now here and will play a part in the future but for next gen what new hardware advances are there to add something as groundbreaking as that? Is it reasonable to expect huge advances in the way we play games each gen and from each different company? This is unsustainable i feel, maybe every few generations something new comes allong that enables new experiences but in the last few decades we really havent seen that many. 2d -> 3d -> online -> motion control has all been enabled by advances in hardware, i dont see anything big on the horizon apart from maybe S-3D but that comes back to graphics again i suppose, which apparently nobody cares about.

We may see a wii style buzz again when a solution for virtual reality hits or maybe some sort of device bassed on brain waves but i dont think we'll be seeing that any time soon.

What do nintedo do next gen? Can we expect a groundbreaking new controller, and if so what new (or old but now cheep enough) technology advancement will it be based on. Before wii was anounced the idea of motion control had already been around for a long time, do we have any other such ideas being talked about that could be of a possible impact next gen? i aknowledge the possibility of new uses for eyetoy type devices which have been talked about many time already, any other ideas?

 

[Crossbar]

What do nintedo do next gen? Can we expect a groundbreaking new controller, and if so what new (or old but now cheep enough) technology advancement will it be based on. Before wii was anounced the idea of motion control had already been around for a long time, do we have any other such ideas being talked about that could be of a possible impact next gen? i aknowledge the possibility of new uses for eyetoy type devices which have been talked about many time already, any other ideas?

I believe Nintendo will aim for a more mature audience with the Wii HD and exploit the virtual sex market with a peripheral called Wii F***. It may be bundled with the console or sold separately.

Seriously I think the camera has a lot of potential if you solve the current problems that titles like "In the Movies" have when subtracting background from players. In combination with a simple 3D-tracking solution described by Softkinetics CEO Michel Tombroff (link) I believe there is brand new world of games that will open up. Virtual reality? maybe.

 

[Gubbi]

What do nintedo do next gen?

The Wii has built up enormous mind-share among entry level gamers (I don't like the term casual, the people I know who bought a Wii has never owned a console, but they are not casual about gaming, ie. they play alot).

Nintendo has put the squeeze on Microsoft and Sony this gen and is very well positioned next gen. Selling a Wii-HD to existing users is going to be a no-brainer for Nintendo.

Nintendo can release a console that is slightly more powerful than the 360 and the PS3. Existing Wii users will experience a massive fidelity improvement, 360 and PS3 users would experience the same or slightly improved games. The massive marketshare would enable more big titles for such a dominant platform creating a self reinforcing marketshare strengthening (the same way we saw it in the PS2 days).

Because the hardware can be relatively unambitious it can be:
1. Sold cheaply, while turning a profit
2. Launch earlier. Imagine Nintendo making a fully backwards compatible Wii-HD and releasing it for the holidays 2010.

Cheers

 

[ShadowRunner]

The Wii has built up enormous mind-share among entry level gamers (I don't like the term casual, the people I know who bought a Wii has never owned a console, but they are not casual about gaming, ie. they play alot).

Nintendo has put the squeeze on Microsoft and Sony this gen and is very well positioned next gen. Selling a Wii-HD to existing users is going to be a no-brainer for Nintendo.

Nintendo can release a console that is slightly more powerful than the 360 and the PS3. Existing Wii users will experience a massive fidelity improvement, 360 and PS3 users would experience the same or slightly improved games. The massive marketshare would enable more big titles for such a dominant platform creating a self reinforcing marketshare strengthening (the same way we saw it in the PS2 days).

Because the hardware can be relatively unambitious it can be:
1. Sold cheaply, while turning a profit
2. Launch earlier. Imagine Nintendo making a fully backwards compatible Wii-HD and releasing it for the holidays 2010.

Cheers

Oh i agree along with an evolution of the current controls, but my question is based on an assumption (an incorrect one imo) that graphics dont matter to the general consumer.
If they do matter, and they go this route, then they could be directly in competition with a potentially significantly more powerful console that also takes advantage of a very similar control scheme. Do they take that risk?

 

[pc999]

Didn´t Microsoft go that route with Xbox?
It became a very expensive experience in the end.

That is mostly because of the deals they made with Nvidea/Intel, they couldnt lower the price of the CPU/GPU and the such.

Also I doubt that anyone would release a uncostumizied PC part.

I also seriously doubt your statement: "superior results (far more than 2x) at a lower launch price than any of these generation of consoles had."

Why not? Probably (if right costumizied) even lower end/cheap CPU/GPUs parts are already more powerfull.

You are also overlooking the cost for developers to move to a completely revamped platform, Nintendos Wii approach was pretty cost effective with regard to that. I also believe that the talk about that we are approaching diminishing return with regard to graphics fidelity is getting more and more true. When the PS3 is able to output KZ2 level of graphics in the beginning of its third year what will games look like in its fifth and sixth year? I hardly believe that improved graphics will be the main sellingpoint for XB720 and PS4. There need to be some other unique feature to appeal to the mass market. We must not forget that the geeks and graphics whores of this board will not be the focus market for Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony.

There are some chalences this gen that will not be in the next (ie not as a big one), the move from single to multicore, the use of shaders and all the problems (tech and art), althought may appear a few (eg GPGPU?).

What do nintedo do next gen?

There is a few thing in the works, for some time now, from voice/image recg., to Augmented Reallity (?see the new EyeToy demos from E3 2006?) amoung others.

Because the hardware can be relatively unambitious it can be:
1. Sold cheaply, while turning a profit
2. Launch earlier. Imagine Nintendo making a fully backwards compatible Wii-HD and releasing it for the holidays 2010.
Cheers

Nintendo and MS certanly want the new consoles as late as they can, as they are making them so much money, unless something happens...

 

[Crossbar]

Oh i agree along with an evolution of the current controls, but my question is based on an assumption (an incorrect one imo) that graphics dont matter to the general consumer.

Of course graphics matter to the general consusmer. The question is to what degree.
Does he/she care if a game has 2xAA or 4xAA? I don´t think so.

Does he/she want photo realism in games, such as "Save Private Ryan" level of realism in CODX? Maybe. But is he/she prepared to pay the price that kind of level of detail would require? I don´t think so (unless there is a major break through how these kind of games are developed).

The visual component is only one parameter of a game. If it was deal-breaker for most people I wouldn´t expect the Wii to continue to outsell the cheaper 360. BTW here in Sweden the Wii is now often sold at a higher price than the 360 Pro in stores. The Arcade is more than $100 cheaper than the Wii.

 

[Nano]

Didn´t Microsoft go that route with Xbox?
It became a very expensive experience in the end.

No. Microsoft owned the box and the OS, their fatal flaw was to have no control over the CPU/GPU IP.

Furthermore, Xbox had one of the most advanced GPU at the time, adding 'some features' over the Geforce 3 and succeeded greatly by the Geforce 4 architecture.

I also seriously doubt your statement: "superior results (far more than 2x) at a lower launch price than any of these generation of consoles had."

Well its mathematically certain. There are current GPUs that are several times as powerful as what we see in consoles. Compare the 9800GTX+ to the RSX for instance and see how 'cheap' it is for a PC component. In 2011 or even more extremely 2012, there is no doubt that that if a console launched with that level of hardware (plus any any proportional increase in RAM and CPU), the manufacturer owned the chips, even more so if they decided to further shrink the dies, we'd be seeing architecture that is not only reasonable in price, but dirt cheap. whilst being several times as powerful.

We're not talking £260, £300 or even £425 launch prices, we're talking >=£130 & <£200 that is less than what people have been paying for consoles in the 7th generation,and guess what, the prices will only get lower in years after launch.

You are also overlooking the cost for developers to move to a completely revamped platform, Nintendos Wii approach was pretty cost effective with regard to that.

False. I did not make any statement concerning developers. Its already a fact that every generation, capacity has to be increased to accommodate new hardware. However, we also need to factor in the ideas 1) middleware has taken off big time, 2) it could be the first generation where developers move to a new architecture with the same instruction sets and basic 'way of doing things'. I predict current h/w experience both in architecture and styles of programming (i.e. parallelism) will be very transferable to 8th generation hardware.

On Nintendo, if for Wii, they similarly used a PowerPC varient CPU except something a little meatier like a low Radeon X based GPU, developers would not be complaining about difficulty in development so I think that is irrelevant. Performance would be superior to GC, yet in price it would still have trounced its rivals, Nintendo just would have not got quite as huge profit from day one (still no losses).

I also believe that the talk about that we are approaching diminishing return with regard to graphics fidelity is getting more and more true. When the PS3 is able to output KZ2 level of graphics in the beginning of its third year what will games look like in its fifth and sixth year? I hardly believe that improved graphics will be the main sellingpoint for XB720 and PS4. There need to be some other unique feature to appeal to the mass market. We must not forget that the geeks and graphics whores of this board will not be the focus market for Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony.

Me neither, as I believe graphics will almost certainly reach a level of saturation point (from a consumer perspective), next generation is the 'hot favourite time' for this prediction to happen.

 

[Crossbar]

No. Microsoft owned the box and the OS, their fatal flaw was to have no control over the CPU/GPU IP.

Furthermore, Xbox had one of the most advanced GPU at the time, adding 'some features' over the Geforce 3 and succeeded greatly by the Geforce 4 architecture.

Yep, partially owning the chip IP and setting up initial manufacturing is not for free but it pays off in the long run.

Well its mathematically certain. ....

From you original post I couldn´t read that it was a 2011-2012 frame production you meant, I thought you meant today in my previous post, so you are probably right.
Anyway I think both Sony and Microsoft may come a long way just by scaling their current designs and by doing that they may hit a sweet launch price right from the start. Just doubling the CPU/GPU capacity and quadrupling the memory would probably be dirt cheap and you´d get backward compatibility for free. Reselling last gen games as downloads is easy money.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You keep saying "gamers" dude. This whole "hardcore" and "casual" thing is so stupid among gamers who want to separate themselves from the average consumer to they can feel more privileged to the industry and feel like the little guy is invading their territory, it's sickening.

If the end result is the death of the hobby existing gamers enjoy to be replaced with a different form of gaming, it's a fair concern.

Look, this is what is GOOD for the industry. The industry simply cannot continue to grow the way it is, period. The Wii has grown the market, and shown that consumers DON'T want the big visual leaps.

50% of the current gen install base seems to disagree with you, who all bought high-spec hardware for, in part, it's visual prowess. I would say some consumers don't care about big visual leaps, some do. Putting it another way, if Sony hadn't pursued the visual-leap crowd and produced a PS2+, they'd have no market whatsoever now!

Did you ever take a minute to think maybe it was the console exclusives that people wanted to play that sold the hardware, not the graphics?

How well do you think KZ2 would do wtih mediocre graphics compared to how it'll do when it's actually released?

Folks were STILL playing Halo 2 well into the 360s life cycle. Uncharted is the absolute best looking title available on PS3, not the top selling. Halo 3 doesn't look better than Gears of War, but sold better. I rest my case.

This is an old debate, but still...some people care. Some don't. Some games sell while not looking impressive, yet you can't conclude that all games can get away with mediocre graphics, nor can you fairly say that the best looking game must equal the best selling if people care about graphics. The question is would a good looking game or console sell any less if it didn't look as good? Can you honestly answer that with an adamant 'yes' and you believe Uncharted and KZ2 would sell not a copy less if they were visually spectacular? Would the GT series have done so well if Polyphony hadn't pursued photorealism so doggedly?

The issue is way more complex than that. Graphics matter to a large portion of the gaming population. Not all, but a lot. Whether they can be coaxed to care less and adopt a mild upgrade or not, I don't know. But Wii does not prove categorically that an 'underspec'd' console can do just as well thank-you-very-much. As a personal anecdote, if the Wii were the only console this gen, I'd still be playing PS2 and I expect the same is true of my mates and a lot of people here (or XB). Visuals was a big part in me wanting an HD console.

 

[obonicus]

50% of the current gen install base seems to disagree with you, who all bought high-spec hardware for, in part, it's visual prowess. I would say some consumers don't care about big visual leaps, some do. Putting it another way, if Sony hadn't pursued the visual-leap crowd and produced a PS2+, they'd have no market whatsoever now!

I don't know if we can say that: if Sony had announced a PS2+, would Microsoft then go and make the 360 or would they build a competitor for the PS2+? Remember, last-gen everyone assumed that Sony would be on top this gen too, and Microsoft already learned that having a more powerful console doesn't mean much when all you're getting is ports. I also dispute whether people bought the PS360 because of graphics -- I think the presence of games was far, far more important. It's a chicken and egg scenario, but that's why I think it's shortsighted to talk of next-gen and act like third parties will have no say.

 

[Nano]

Anyway I think both Sony and Microsoft may come a long way just by scaling their current designs and by doing that they may hit a sweet launch price right from the start. Just doubling the CPU/GPU capacity and quadrupling the memory would probably be dirt cheap and you´d get backward compatibility for free. Reselling last gen games as downloads is easy money.

The time of making the most powerful rendering machine ever or topping predecessors by 30x the processing power is over in my opinion, so I agree. The only thing is, I'm pretty sure the consoles will be at least 5x the current processing power + support for the latest shader standards and such. For 2012, just a 2x increase of the same hardware would be a bit too modest and a bit too cheap for what we could do even on a small budget.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Of course graphics matter to the general consusmer. The question is to what degree.
Does he/she care if a game has 2xAA or 4xAA? I don´t think so.

Does he/she want photo realism in games, such as "Save Private Ryan" level of realism in CODX? Maybe. But is he/she prepared to pay the price that kind of level of detail would require? I don´t think so (unless there is a major break through how these kind of games are developed).

The visual component is only one parameter of a game. If it was deal-breaker for most people I wouldn´t expect the Wii to continue to outsell the cheaper 360. BTW here in Sweden the Wii is now often sold at a higher price than the 360 Pro in stores. The Arcade is more than $100 cheaper than the Wii.

Well that is exactly the point i am trying to get across and i am being met with 'graphics dont mater and wii proves it' comments from a particular user. The thing is we have no idea how much graphics matter to those who bought the wii, including me, because there was something else at play in the decision. Graphics can mean a lot to the consumer as in my case, but i still bought the wii because what it promissed overided my desire for better graphics.

What it comes down to is differentiation. There are several ways to gain this with a new sytem. Wii has shown one way but that doesnt mean that is now the only way. The wii route is actually the hardest to take consistantly because it doesnt come 'free' with advances in technology wheras better graphics do. Wii has proven that if you get it right you can make tons of cash but it relies on you having something a little special. Going the wii route could be seen as a huge risk as if your idea doesnt catch on you are stuffed, throughout the history of gaming graphical upgrades have proven a consistent success, there are riskier but higher rewarding options but they will be harder to pull off.

 

[pc999]

What it comes down to is differentiation.

Just to note that diferenttiation will be a risck too, I mean lets say that in 2011/12 we have 3 consoles all of them with more or less the same specs (ie enought to make easy ports), but besides that their are completely diferent (eg one have Wii remotes v3.0, the others image recg, the other AR ...).

Third party dev (and so must of the games, including many, many best sellers) would lost their way, what could they do? Amost 3 diferent (eg fifa/call of duty) games? Exclusive only games with a much lower market share (and in which one bet?). How to get those devs on you console?...

So it will be one of the most interesting problems.

And a most interesting question is if the consumers would be better or worst this way (althought very cheap consoles can help having more consoles...).

 

[dobwal]

If the end result is the death of the hobby existing gamers enjoy to be replaced with a different form of gaming, it's a fair concern.

50% of the current gen install base seems to disagree with you, who all bought high-spec hardware for, in part, it's visual prowess. I would say some consumers don't care about big visual leaps, some do. Putting it another way, if Sony hadn't pursued the visual-leap crowd and produced a PS2+, they'd have no market whatsoever now!

How well do you think KZ2 would do wtih mediocre graphics compared to how it'll do when it's actually released?
This is an old debate, but still...some people care. Some don't. Some games sell while not looking impressive, yet you can't conclude that all games can get away with mediocre graphics, nor can you fairly say that the best looking game must equal the best selling if people care about graphics. The question is would a good looking game or console sell any less if it didn't look as good? Can you honestly answer that with an adamant 'yes' and you believe Uncharted and KZ2 would sell not a copy less if they were visually spectacular? Would the GT series have done so well if Polyphony hadn't pursued photorealism so doggedly?

The issue is way more complex than that. Graphics matter to a large portion of the gaming population. Not all, but a lot. Whether they can be coaxed to care less and adopt a mild upgrade or not, I don't know. But Wii does not prove categorically that an 'underspec'd' console can do just as well thank-you-very-much. As a personal anecdote, if the Wii were the only console this gen, I'd still be playing PS2 and I expect the same is true of my mates and a lot of people here (or XB). Visuals was a big part in me wanting an HD console.

I agree. I don't think that the Wii has shown that graphics aren't important. However, it has shown that the new and unique features of the Wii's motion controller is being more attractive than graphics to a huge segment of the market. If the Wii lacked its unique controller, its highly doubtful that it could manage the level of sales it has so far. Not only has the Wii controller overshadowed graphics this generation, its has somewhat negated the market's attraction to high profile franchises that usually serves as the epitome of the gaming market.

However, its unlikely that the motion controller of the Wii will have the same impact next gen as it has this gen as its more than likely that motion control will be a common feature of all next gen consoles. Nintendo will more than likely have to shorten the visual gap between them and their competitors and have more high profile third party offerings, because MS and Sony will be able to have similar commericals with people laughing and smiling while swinging the controllers at their TVs.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Just to note that diferenttiation will be a risck too, I mean lets say that in 2011/12 we have 3 consoles all of them with more or less the same specs (ie enought to make easy ports), but besides that their are completely diferent (eg one have Wii remotes v3.0, the others image recg, the other AR ...).

Third party dev (and so must of the games, including many, many best sellers) would lost their way, what could they do? Amost 3 diferent (eg fifa/call of duty) games? Exclusive only games with a much lower market share (and in which one bet?). How to get those devs on you console?...

So it will be one of the most interesting problems.

And a most interesting question is if the consumers would be better or worst this way (althought very cheap consoles can help having more consoles...).

I was talking in terms of deferentiation from one generation to the next rather than between each cosole, but you raise an interesting point...

In the end is it too much to ask for a console that caters for everyone? Does it have to be a choice between great graphics or innovation?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't know if we can say that: if Sony had announced a PS2+, would Microsoft then go and make the 360 or would they build a competitor for the PS2+?

And would either sell in light of Wii offering a similar level of graphics performance and the innovation of the Wiimote? Why is anyone buying a PS3 or XB360? Because they offer a different experience to the Wii, part of which is HD experience. Sure, to some people it's the games library as much as anything, and no-one can put a finger on what percentage of visual appeal actual matters. But it does. This is why developers invest lots in creating graphics engines and varied assets instead of releasing 8-bit quality pixelised efforts. Uncharted would still be Uncharted if all we saw was grey boxes instead of stone walls, right? (I'm sure we've heard all this before... ) This is why people buy nice colour TVs instead of using the old round B&W sets of yesteryear that are just as capable of carrying any current TV story. This is why Hollywood invests countless millions in special effects tech instead of using the old tech from 50 years ago that'd be dirt cheap these days and still do the job. It's why companies spend millions designing aesthetically pleasing products instead of just putting out a utilitarian box, and why there are huge industries devoted to enabling people to tart themselves up with fancy looking clothes and make-up etc. The way things look is a part of the experience. It can't be dismissed at all - it's an intrinsic part of human nature. If there were a Wii and WiiHD with PS360 level graphics side-by-side in a store, everyone would be drawn more to the WiiHD. If they were the same price, no-one would buy the lower quality Wii. Ergo graphics do matter. For those chosing Wii over PS360, the graphics don't matter as much as the gameplay experience, but they would absolutely prefer better looking games given the choice.

 

[obonicus]

And would either sell in light of Wii offering a similar level of graphics performance and the innovation of the Wiimote? Why is anyone buying a PS3 or XB360? Because they offer a different experience to the Wii, part of which is HD experience. Sure, to some people it's the games library as much as anything, and no-one can put a finger on what percentage of visual appeal actual matters.

No, and we're discussing opinions at this point, but I do think the game diversity is far more important. Graphics are a nice bonus. Why didn't the Xbox's graphical edge over the PS2 make that console more successful? This generation, though, the higher-specced consoles are the ones with the higher-effort games, so I feel it makes it difficult to draw a conclusion about what makes them successful.

But it does.

Sure, but how much? How many console gamers have moved to the PC when all those ports started getting announced, considering they'd have unquestionably better graphics?

But what we're arguing is the chicken or the egg scenario. We have greater graphics, so developers use it. If the choice had been different, if MS had decided to go with the 360 despite Sony releasing a PS2+, would we see the games we saw this gen for 360, or would third parties have signed up for the PS2+ and release the type of PS2->360 up-ports we saw early on in the 360's lifespan, except now for the entirety of the generation? Would UE3.0 have seen such a widespread adoption? It's difficult to speculate because it's likely that the PS2+ probably wouldn't have forced Sony to give MS a 1-year lead, but even assuming that everything but the details of Sony's next console was kept the same I have serious doubts about studios gearing up for HD (OTOH I think we'd have seen fewer traditional PC studios developing for consoles).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sure, but how much? How many console gamers have moved to the PC when all those ports started getting announced, considering they'd have unquestionably better graphics? etc.

You know that. I know that. We've been here before indiscussions, and most of us agree that you can't consider any one aspect in isolation as the deciding factor, and some features are more important than others, to different people. No argument there. My response was only to this statement of tha_con :

The Wii has grown the market, and shown that consumers DON'T want the big visual leaps.

Wii shows nothing of the sorts. Consumers do want visual leaps. Just not in isolation nor to the exclusion of any other factor, as you and I and 99.9% of this board are probably aware.