Robbie Bach says this generation will last longer

[ShadowRunner]

PS2+ would have been a failure. If you want a significant amount of people to upgrade you need to offer a significant upgrade, it really is as simple as that. The wii offered this significant upgrade and so did the HD consoles, and if you look at it both have been succesful.

 

[eastmen]

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.

MS got screwed with contracts though. Intel and Nvidia had no reason to drop the chips to smaller micron sizes for ms. This gen they learned to buy the designs so they can take them to any plant to make them.

I'm sure the postion that AMD is in right now they would easily allow ms to take the phenom 2 or whatever thier next design is to any fab out there to build it as long as they get x amount per chip like ibm is getting right now.

I don't see a cost problem. On the pc side hardware is constantly changing and no one complains about cost. We have games like crysis that from my understanding cost alot less than KZ2 and looks better on the pc. So why can't they do that on next gen systems ? The major problem with past generations of consoles is the large change in chips inside the console each generation. If sony was to go with a say 2x32 cell and a geforce gt 380 or whatever card with 4 to 8 gigs of ram much of the old code could be used again and the learning curve would be gone. Same with MS if ms used an enhanced waternoose and a new custom ati gpu based around dx 11 they shouldn't have a major development hurdle next gen.

KZ2 may look amazing but with the rumored 40m+ budget on the game how many more of those do you think we will see ? After a point I believe you will pay more to get little gains out of current gen systems than it would cost to develop better looking games on next gen systems. Not only that , but what if thats the limit of the ps3 and anything after that is very small that you can barely notice ? What do we do then?

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.

It certianly is a valid concern. But it wont disapear because its still a viable busniess.

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.

If ms launched the 360 when it did and sony followed up a year later with a ps2 + against the wii there is no doubt in my mind that sony would be in a worse postion than they are now.


I would think that third parties would want another ps360 as it seems that the 360 is selling alot of third party software.

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.

I maintain that if another company had put out a similar system as the wii , it would be the one with the prettier graphics that sold sytems. The wii currently exists by itself in terms of motion controls. What happens next gen when everyone has these motion controls . You can break away from the crowd with your ip in which nintendo most likely has the advantage when it comes to motion control ip. Or you can break away from the crowd by not only having motion control but also having better graphics.




When you get down to it , competing with each other these companys need to offer diffrent experiances , its how you carve out market share. perhaps launching a $800 system at a 500/600 price point isn't the smartest thing to do. However next gen bluray will be dirt cheap imo and even todays top of the line graphics cards are dirt cheap. Remember when looking at that $130 4850 512meg card 3 companys are making a profit on it. You have the fab selling amd the gpu , you have amd selling the board company the gpu and then the board company selling us the graphics card.

What you can build in 2011 or 2012 for a $300-400 console that actually cost 300-400 would make what we have today look as bad as the ps2 there is no reason why they shouldn't . ESP if two of your competitors are going the low end route. There is a market that will buy the better looking system.

 

[Arwin]

In the end is it too much to ask for a console that caters for everyone?

Actually, yes, that is too much to ask. The console market is so big that I'm fairly certain you will see the perfectly natural process of market differentiation in both hardware and software continue for a good while.

 

[PARANOiA]

Actually, yes, that is too much to ask. The console market is so big that I'm fairly certain you will see the perfectly natural process of market differentiation in both hardware and software continue for a good while.

I partially agree - you'll never find a "game" (or movie or song) that caters to everyone. But the hardware can theoretically suit everyone - it's just a box after all, and it's useless without software!

 

[ShadowRunner]

Actually, yes, that is too much to ask. The console market is so big that I'm fairly certain you will see the perfectly natural process of market differentiation in both hardware and software continue for a good while.

Ok, the vast majority then. should know better than to use absolutes

I think if the wii had the power of say the 360 it would be able to cater for most of the current market. It would be recieving all multiplat games and would likely see the lions share of the 3rd party exclusives which are currently going to the more powerful systems.

Obviously the idea doesnt work if your competition comes out with something new you cant implement!

 

[tha_con]

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 :
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.

It does so. Who's to say if the PS3 and 360 were less powerful they wouldn't sell as many units? Where else will consumers go?

Frankly, if the consumers who want the 'visual upgrade' will just buy the [perceived] strongest console on the market. Most casual gamers who own PS3s will tell you it has "Better Graphics"...which is clearly not always the case.

Frankly, "but 50 million people own a PS3/360" doesn't hold up. All it says is that consumers wanted something 'better looking' than the Wii.

I think we've hit a point, visually, where the increase simply isn't going to mean as much to the consumer, especially not when the HUGE majority of next generation titles are stylized and not 'photo-realistic'.

You also can't make exceptions and say "well there are 50 million people who own PS3/360, so clearly they want something that looks great, they are concerned" but then exclude the PC market, which has considerably better looking games (especially ports) for roughly the same price in required hardware (and cheaper games to boot!).

Like I said, even if we just see a minor upgrade in CPU / GPU performance with the biggest increase being with graphics, that will still yield enough performance increase to make a notable difference to consumers (especially if each competitor plays to their strengths and adds features worth purchasing).

KZ2 may look amazing but with the rumored 40m+ budget on the game how many more of those do you think we will see ? After a point I believe you will pay more to get little gains out of current gen systems than it would cost to develop better looking games on next gen systems. Not only that , but what if thats the limit of the ps3 and anything after that is very small that you can barely notice ? What do we do then?

Obviously the Killzone Budget is a result of nearly 3 to 4 years of development time, and a lot of it could be poured into voice acting, music, advertisement, etc.

The better question is, if we only see a 2x power increase, how much money would developers save using and tweaking their code for longer than a few years? It could have a significant (positive) impact on the cost of "big budget" games. It could also relieve pressure from the developers shoulders to get big budget games out of the door "as soon as possible", which in turn would improve polish, since the budgets would be smaller, engines would be more familiar, and more time could be spent on polish rather than engine assembly.

I mean, does absolutely no one see where I am coming from? I understand you all want performance gains, this is a 3D gaming site afterall, geared toward technical analysis and 3D modeling, but if I were to be completely honest, I think the constant increase in power is exactly what put us in the PS3 boat in the first place, and gamers pretty much rejected that idea.

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to say "But gamers love the PS3 and 360" and then go into a NPD thread and talk about how poorly the PS3 is doing, and see threads about "how the lack of a price drop is effecting PS3 sales" etc etc? Obviously this strategy has taken it's toll on Sony, and took it's toll on MS last generation, and part of this generation (even more so with the RROD).

Just take a few minutes to think about it, instead of replying with your own thoughts on what YOU want.

 

[RudeCurve]

Well that's basically what I'm predicting. The next Xbox will have double the number of CPU cores and shaders. The memory capacity will increase by 4-8X and it will launch at around $300-$350. It's really up to the art and developer budgets that are going to make the games stand out from this generation in terms of graphics. The increase in RAM alone will give the next generations console a nice graphics boost let alone the doubling of cores and shaders.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Well Sony certainly needs to get their money out of this iteration of the PS hardware, also you have diminishing returns in regards of graphics. Games are starting to look the similar in terms of realism. Honestly one could live I think with the next (I said NEXT) generation of hardware probably for 10 odd years and not get tired of it graphically. What's really important? It's the interaction and control side of gaming that needs a real change. More and more powerful orchestration and interaction are always in need to run the non-graphics side of things, however even that state of gaming seems to be slowing down. The CPU in the next Playstation will probably be a quad cell like many predict because it's a logical architectural progression and the ~3.0 GHz area seems to be a good sweet spot for clock speeds. I do expect a GPU in the class of the next Nvidia GPU series (GTX 3?). Today's chips I think are the child like versions of tomorrow's console hardware, more mature, better understood when they become more commonplace. Problem is Moore's Law I think is starting to go by the wayside. We can get by on chips for longer and longer without it being too much of a drag like in the early days. It's the idea/problem of diminishing returns. You only need so much until some radical process requires much more powerful capabilities than what you got at the time.

 

[Zassk]

To me, the next big leap has to come on the content generation side. There must be a cheaper way to generate or reuse assets - be they textures, models, animations, physics, etc.

Perhaps the next great "UE3 middleware phenomenon" will be a common set of intermediate models or animations that drastically reduce the cost of generating final art assets. I don't really have any clue what the biggest bottleneck is, or what could be streamlined or standardized.

It just seems to me that the programming effort is no longer the chief burden of the industry, and content creation needs a non-linear reduction in complexity.

 

[eastmen]

Obviously the Killzone Budget is a result of nearly 3 to 4 years of development time, and a lot of it could be poured into voice acting, music, advertisement, etc.

its still a large budget for a game , MGS4 also have an extremely large budget. Both are very pretty games that cost alot to make on current consoles. ON next gen consoles they would cost less

The better question is, if we only see a 2x power increase, how much money would developers save using and tweaking their code for longer than a few years? It could have a significant (positive) impact on the cost of "big budget" games. It could also relieve pressure from the developers shoulders to get big budget games out of the door "as soon as possible", which in turn would improve polish, since the budgets would be smaller, engines would be more familiar, and more time could be spent on polish rather than engine assembly.

I don't understand why they couldn't reuse the code on systems that are 30x more powerfull. Wow works on geforce 3 cards up to geforce 280s . I'm sure there is at least 30x more power in those jumps and I don't see blizzard complaining about not being able to reuse code.

I mean, does absolutely no one see where I am coming from? I understand you all want performance gains, this is a 3D gaming site afterall, geared toward technical analysis and 3D modeling, but if I were to be completely honest, I think the constant increase in power is exactly what put us in the PS3 boat in the first place, and gamers pretty much rejected that idea.

What put us in the PS3 boat is Sony. They went from a $300 gaming system to a $600 gaming system. There was no reason for that except their idiocy and insistance on bluray. From what I see in games there is no graphical advantage with the ps3 to warrent its additional cost over the 360 and many of its expenses were on things other than power.

If sony removed some things like standard hardrive , bluray we would most likely have seen a system closer to the 360s price point.

I see no reason why if today on 55nm we have 1 gig graphics cards with 1.5b tranistors selling for under $300 we can't have a console using 40nm or even 32nm in 2011 /12 with more powerfull processors than that.

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to say "But gamers love the PS3 and 360" and then go into a NPD thread and talk about how poorly the PS3 is doing, and see threads about "how the lack of a price drop is effecting PS3 sales" etc etc? Obviously this strategy has taken it's toll on Sony, and took it's toll on MS last generation, and part of this generation (even more so with the RROD).

Once again sony's problem has nothing to do with building a graphical beast , its what they put in it that wasn't needed like the bluray drive and standard hardrive. THey put the bluray drive in for other reasons than cost and that is one of the major factors of why it costs so much more than the 360.

Just take a few minutes to think about it, instead of replying with your own thoughts on what YOU want

Last night the Wizard was on hbo family and I watched it. That was the last time nintendo was so dominate in the console space. I remember all the casual gamers buying it for the power pad and otehr acessorys. I also remember what happened the next generation , Sega released an extremely powerfull system at the time and sat un answered for 18 months or so from Nintendo. Sega was able to go from almost no market share to what 30-40% just by releasing a powerfull console. Looking further back you can see the atari and its clones and how those bridge the gap of casual gamers. Remember way back when to before I was even born and you'd see pictures of Busniess men in suits at the arcades ? Or familys getting together to play the lastest game. Well what happened is everyone went for a me too aproach and started ripping each other off and we ended up with a market flooded with copy cat games that no one wanted and we saw the market crash.

If all 3 companys try to give a wii experiance , two of them will fail and we will see another market crash.

Thats even if this "new" market nitnendo is getting will even buy another system in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years. Do grandma and grand pa want a wii 2 ? do they even want more wii games ?

 

[AlNom]

ON next gen consoles they would cost less

Why do you believe content creation will be less expensive?

I see no reason why if today on 55nm we have 1 gig graphics cards with 1.5b tranistors selling for under $300 we can't have a console using 40nm or even 32nm in 2011 /12 with more powerfull processors than that.

Power consumption, heat dissipation, chassis size, chip yields for starters.

 

[pc999]

I see no reason why if today on 55nm we have 1 gig graphics cards with 1.5b tranistors selling for under $300 we can't have a console using 40nm or even 32nm in 2011 /12 with more powerfull processors than that.

Well for one 22nm and 16nm are expected to be much more dificult to acomplish, so a expensive chip at 32nm will keep expensive for a lot of time.

Anyway you are talking about things that are as expensive as a 360 and while I belive they will be more powerfull ( a costumized X2 6000/Pentium C2D with VMX units would be a much beter and easier performer than Xenus and really inexpensive, even at 45nm) and any costumized 4600/9600would also be much better tahn 2x360/PS2, but than is quite diferent from expecting next gen consoles will be on par with gfx cards that cost as much or even more than the console.

Why do you believe content creation will be less expensive?

I think he means to get the performance to having a game like KZ2 runing will cost less.

Anyway most of the budget is spend on content creation, not on coding the machine and unless prucessural creation or the such gets a real big jump it may only turn even more expensive. Jonh Carnack last speechs should be a good indication, id tech 5 is one of the best lookings and he only talk abou who easy is content creation.

 

[eastmen]

Why do you believe content creation will be less expensive?

The actual effort to get the visuals up to killzone 2 would require less time and effort. Textures and models would most likely cost the same though. IT could be less however depending on how much it currently costs to design high polygon assets and then scale them down and tweak them to fit inside the current memory foot print. All the effort that went into hidding the current limitations of the hardware would be lessened .

Power consumption, heat dissipation, chassis size, chip yields for starters.

These things can all be managed fine when they are taken into account during the design process.

The xbox 360 released in 2005. Its cpu was 150m transitors or so and its gpu with edram was around 320m tranistors correct ?

http://www.beyond3d.com/resources/chip/95

That was right in line with the r520 released in q4 of 2005 also. We have a 1.4 trasnistor gpu on 65nm. Targing that die size would give you 4.37 times the tranistors as the xenos had. On 45nm or 40nms that would be a pretty small gpu for the 2011/12 time frame. Using the same tranistor jump on the waternoose you can target 655m transistors.

Designign a custom gpu with edram with a 1.4b tranistor count would make for a very nice leap over the 360 and ps3. And it would be a small chip on 40nm

 

[eastmen]

Well for one 22nm and 16nm are expected to be much more dificult to acomplish, so a expensive chip at 32nm will keep expensive for a lot of time.

Anyway you are talking about things that are as expensive as a 360 and while I belive they will be more powerfull ( a costumized X2 6000/Pentium C2D with VMX units would be a much beter and easier performer than Xenus and really inexpensive, even at 45nm) and any costumized 4600/9600would also be much better tahn 2x360/PS2, but than is quite diferent from expecting next gen consoles will be on par with gfx cards that cost as much or even more than the console.

of course its more expensive than a 360 is now. I would expect a console in 2011 to be more expensive than a 360 also.

The 360 did launch at $300/$400 and we don't really know how much it cost to make. Even still you can get a 4850 for $130 bucks with 512 megs of ram. Its less than the 360 and unlike the 360 there are 3 companys trying to profit off the card. You have the foundry , the gpu designer and the add in board vendor.

 

[AlNom]

These things can all be managed fine when they are taken into account during the design process.

Can they be for your linear extrapolation on transistors? Keep in mind, yields for the 360 chips were abysmal at launch and for some time after. Their cooling solution left much to be desired, and how many units have failed despite their additional heatpipe in Zephyr

of course its more expensive than a 360 is now. I would expect a console in 2011 to be more expensive than a 360 also.

You're missing the point, or at least not addressing it. As has often been mentioned, the roadmap for transistor scaling becomes muddy beyond 22nm. Future cost reductions are at stake, and the designers cannot bet on good die reductions as they have in the past. Power density, static/leakage power, pads/power supply, analog components... At sub-20nm, designers will be looking at rising importance of quantum effects... i.e. easier said than done.

 

[pc999]

of course its more expensive than a 360 is now. I would expect a console in 2011 to be more expensive than a 360 also.

I am not sure I understand you post But I do expect a XB3 to cost more than a 360 in 2011/12.

Thing is if you are to release a console in 32nm, you will want it to cost cost as litle as possible at launch because wit will be hard to reduce cost later (but not impossible).

Anyway like I showed before inexpensive HW from today is already quite competitive with a 360.

The 360 did launch at $300/$400 and we don't really know how much it cost to make. Even still you can get a 4850 for $130 bucks with 512 megs of ram. Its less than the 360 and unlike the 360 there are 3 companys trying to profit off the card. You have the foundry , the gpu designer and the add in board vendor.

Well you do have the fundry too (in MS side not sure about Sony) also IBM/AMD and if they are not making proffit right now, soon you will have MS too making proffit in each console sold., not so diferent in the end.

 

[xexuxjy]

Why would a new generation console limit itself to KZ2 level visuals? While it would probably be easier to reach those with a more powerful machine, there would be pressure to get more out of that machine and you're back to a similar situation to what we have currently.

 

[dobwal]

Upgraded visuals are the easiest way to entice the market to adopt your new console.

While the Wii has used its motion controller to compensate for its lack of visual improvement, its something that can't be done every generation. Imagine any new tech that could possibly reproduced the appeal of the Wii's motion controller. What's the possibility that you can package it with software and sell it for $50.00 with a respectable profit margin normally produced by an accessory? Cheap tech that revolutionary and with massive appeal is hard to produce just once, nevermind every 5 to 6 years.

This console market will eventually become saturated and new consoles will have to be introduced to drive new sales. Whats going to drive the sales of the Wii2? A new and improved motion controller? How do you effectively market that improvement? More than likely Nintendo's marketing focus will be on more of the same with improved graphics and then depend on its unique software offerings to drive sales.

Improved graphics is a tried and true method thats more easily produced and easily marketed generation after generation. While PS2 was the weakest visually, it was still a step beyond the PS1 and N64 as was marketed as such and help drive early adoption.

MS and Sony are likely to introduce tech whose performance is as high as feasibly possible for a $300 to $400 dollar console from a financial point of view. Nintendo, MS and Sony can't rely on a motion controller feature that will be ubiquitous next gen versus exclusive to one console as it was this gen. Neither can Nintendo, MS and Sony can rely on producing a new revolutionary feature with a big enough massive appeal to overshadow visually fidelty and high profile third party titles.

 

[tha_con]

Just to tap on a few subjects:

1) If you desire to get "easier results" for a game that looks "as good" as KZ2, why even increase the hardware if that's your benchmark? Further more, no engine is infinitely scalable, so if you increase the hardware to such a degree, you *have* to redo your framework and create the engine to utilize the hardware, unless you are using some sort of middleware, in which case there is still a lot of work to be done.

Sure, WoW runs on a multitude of cards, but how many of them actually "significantly" improve the visuals of WoW? What do you gain playing a game like WoW on a high end system, aside from some AA and high res/frame rate?

I understand why some of you may want such high power increases, however, I think what is best for the industry matters more than what is important to us.

Sure, a lot of people bought PS3 and 360, but there is absolutely no way for us to know that they only bought said systems for the 'graphics'. I believe it is true that were both of those competitors to release a console that does have more power, but not a considerable leap in power, that they would still sell well because of low price, great software selection, and new features.

I just think the industry has more to gain this route, than they do in keeping with the same business model they've had for decades. Everyone stands to gain from this model. The consumer, the developer, the hardware manufacturer. Even the PC industry stands to gain, as the folks who are seriously looking for that hardcore upgrade in visuals will migrate to that market, which would hopefully stir the sales of both hardware and software.

I just don't see why so many avid gamers are so opposed to this model, because it benefits them the most.

 

[dobwal]

I believe it is true that were both of those competitors to release a console that does have more power, but not a considerable leap in power, that they would still sell well because of low price, great software selection, and new features.

And how do you expect the console manufacturers to achieve such a market without mutual cooperation?

And how would this benefit consumers more than the market does right now. If I want a cheap console with cheap graphics, a huge library of quality titles and with current titles with cheap budgets, you only have to look at the PS2. If you want a more nominally priced console with great graphics then you have the 360 arcade. Add $100 more and add $5 a month fee and you get great graphics with additional services like multiplayer. Add $200 more and you get all those feature minus the additional $5 monthly fee plus BluRay.

Tell me how a market based on less powerful consoles with cheaper dev costs can produce a more diversified market that exists right now.

Today's market might not be the healthiest from a dev or manufacturer point of view especially if you are Sony or a dev that poured 10 of millions into a title that underperformed but from a consumer stand point this is literally the best market for a generation ever.