upnorthsox
Veteran
We're going to the Atari 2600 as a rebuttal example? Really? Was even 1% of current gamer's alive in 1977?
The Console Arms Race: Is This What Console Gamers Want?
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
That's what they already are.
Despite the introduction of the (BC) 7800 in 1986!
Sigfried1977
Legend
17+ people is a quite a lot when you consider that this is a forum where people refuse to buy a game because they aren't a hundred percent on board with its implementation of chromatic aberration or motion blur.
Last edited:
I voted no I liked forward compatibility but the tick tock part is a joke when even Intel gave up on it.
Technology is not the driver for Sony (and possibly MSFT) move toward an improved version of their system, their reasons are driven by business consideration not technology. NOw waht those reasons are we don't know the data their business plan, there are many option: will to push VR or 4K either their data show that whereas adoption rate of their new system was fast it does not have as much leg as some would think, or they could decide to focus a slightly more profitable niche over a greater market, or a blend all of that and more, who knows really.
Anyway I think forward compatibility and tick-tock improvements are different topics with the later being a no go at a time of slowing technological progress. Nintendo is the closest we have for a tick tock approach, and there was possibly room from them ( from the GC on) to embrace slightly shorter hardware cycle than their competitors. The thing is that NIntendo is a little too opportunistic wrt to his business positioning in the face of the two technological behemot Microsoft and Sony are.
Technology is not the driver for Sony (and possibly MSFT) move toward an improved version of their system, their reasons are driven by business consideration not technology. NOw waht those reasons are we don't know the data their business plan, there are many option: will to push VR or 4K either their data show that whereas adoption rate of their new system was fast it does not have as much leg as some would think, or they could decide to focus a slightly more profitable niche over a greater market, or a blend all of that and more, who knows really.
Anyway I think forward compatibility and tick-tock improvements are different topics with the later being a no go at a time of slowing technological progress. Nintendo is the closest we have for a tick tock approach, and there was possibly room from them ( from the GC on) to embrace slightly shorter hardware cycle than their competitors. The thing is that NIntendo is a little too opportunistic wrt to his business positioning in the face of the two technological behemot Microsoft and Sony are.
Yea but intel has moved across each process. AMD has been stuck at 28nm for a long time. There was no 20nm for them and we are going right to 14nm. There is no tick tock there its Tick.......... Boom ........ then what.
So this could be their only chance for a change for awhile. I mean its taken what 4 years or so for graphics cards to change their micron process. That's almost a console cycle on its own. If they wait it out they will get stuck on the wrong side of a drop only having 14nm while waiting years for a new one.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Actually Intel have lengthened the product cycle from tick-tock to tick-tock-ticketyboo. Three stages instead of two between significant revisions. If you like Intel's new approach then you should be voting for Sony to release two console revisions between now and PS5.
I agree with this. The dilemma which I think the console manufacturers increasingly face is most other consumer devices iterate on a annual basis, or close to it. Even utilitarian items like washing machines and cookers and these are products designed to last 10-20 years. In comparison to just about everything else you can own, but particularly consumer electronics, consoles are beginning to look long in the tooth much quicker than they used too. The last console generation was, I think, universally agreed to be way too long and that started with both consoles being quite powerful and cheap relative to available PC hardware. The PS4 and XBO were modest at best and that was three years ago in 2013.
I keep harping back to smartphones but I believe this is a product category that has done most to change consumer's attitudes to technology and I think most people are used to getting a new smartphone fairly regularly and that phone being faster but running all their existing games and apps better. In contrast the console market looks archaic.
Giving consumers options is a good thing(tm) and as long as games continue to be made for the older revision of the consoles (and Sony's record is impeccable in this regard), a more powerful console really has no downsides. Those happy with the performance of the original version of the console can continue to stick with that performance envelope, those that aren't or enter the console market mid-way through a consoles 'natural generation' have the option to get a faster model. Just like pretty much every other type of consumer product.
Frankly I don't think Sony has much of a choice here. Microsoft have been laying foundation technologies like DirectX12 and UWP and both will be disruptive to the conventional console market. DX12 may not be as close to the hardware as PS4's GNM but by all accounts it's pretty good. Sooner than you think Microsoft will be able to truly blur the lines between console generational hardware with very little effort. Whether developers like it is another thing but developers will go where the consumers with the money are and even if Sony and Microsoft release new consoles every year it will still not be as varied as the PC market which has tens of thousands of hardware combinations.
I've never seen so many people argue that increasing consumer choice is a bad thing.
steveOrino
Regular
Because it goes against the grain of what a console traditional is/was.
I personally think faster revisions need to happen in order for consoles to stay relevant. Software costs too much to make, especially when you factor in consumers expectations for graphics each cycle so having smoother transitions between generations makes sense for everyone. We have decades of data showing what happens to a fixed console at the trail end of its life cycle for the platform company and the publishers making software for it (remember how publications were parroting how consoles were dead going past the end of the 7th gen and mobile was going to be the new era in gaming?). IMO, right now is the perfect time because commodity hardware finally won out in the console space making compatibility a non issue.
I say shoot for the moon on hardware whenever you can so it will keep consumers engaged through the entire life cycle of the platform.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Abolishing slavery went against what was normal - change isn't always bad. I see lots of fear and uncertainty but no rational reasons for it.
People need to get it together or just go hide under their comfort blankets!
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Ahh.. the slavery parallel, should have seen that one coming!
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole. This is the Internet.
I'm not sure if this is a valid statement. APIs are just that, APIs. They aren't programming languages. DX12 may not offer as much direct access to the memory but DX12 is a lot more than just a API, it's also this bundle of other things like a new Shader Model, and new features like execute Indirect, implicit and explicit multi-adaptor, bundles, etc. List goes on. Being lower on overhead should not imply that the API is capable of the same features by any means. The only way to compare what the APIs do is to actually compare the feature set which we can't do.
I want to remind you that Dx11.X for Xbox One is low overhead but because of the way it's structured cannot implement many of the features that dx12 does - also looking at multithreaded draw calls as well for instance.
Dx12 and shader model 6 should bode good improvements to the graphical arena for Xbox one developers and net more improvements than just "none". If the slide deck on execute indirect and the customization on the Xbox command processor is any indication, there should be significant improvements on newly developed engines that take advantage of it.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Low overhead isn't the selling point, hardware agnostic low overhead is. This means Microsoft can change the GPU architecture and a new driver will abstract.
Was GNM written with this in mind? If not Sony are pretty tied to AMD's architecture. That's s shit place to be when your competitor has complete freedom within the bounds of hardware that supports DX12.
Sure that's one aspect but I'm pretty sure features is also pretty key. APIs are far from done in terms of innovation, developers are always asking for different ways to manipulate the hardware and it's important that the API Teams stay on top of that. Unfortunately much of GNM is shrouded in NDA so we're not going to get much info. But dx12 is progressing along nicely it sounds like.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I really don't know where you're going with this or how its remotely relevant to my post.
I guess it's just that how we compare APIs is difficult it's more than just a sum of which APi had lower overhead. More a statement than a rebuttal. Sometimes it comes off as that low level APi means you can do more with it, which I think is the wrong impression to give. It's not really a programming language.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I think you've missed the point of my post. Let me try again.
Microsoft have been developing and deploying technologies like DX12 and UWP that serve a single purpose: to offer good performance from hardware while avoiding inefficient fat APIs and benefitting from hardware abstraction. This means a common gaming platform that could, possibly, run on almost any hardware. This is hugely flexible. An Xbox running AMD hardware one gen could run on Nvidia or Intel hardware next gen with full backwards compatibility - just like Windows games have for decades because the games don't care if you have AMD or Nvidia GPUs. Or AMD or Intel CPUs.
What do Sony have and does it offer the same hardware flexibility that Microsoft have?
Because Microsoft look like they're bedding in for forwards compatibility on console/PC for the future and their solution lets Microsoft chop and change hardware vendors.
Right- yea, I apologize for that, your responses were actually quite clear, my return messaging was actually poor. Might be a symptom of writing a response on a phone while riding the train.
I'll do the tl;dr; of where i wanted to get to, and expand on your response actually;
So on this point, I was actually trying to indicate that DX12 outperforms DX11 significantly, even for Xbox it offers a slew of advantages even though low overhead portion of it is likely equivalent. The additional advantages are performance advantages and they are a result of the API being architected better. I just wanted to point out that being the lowest in terms of overhead, shouldn't imply that development of the API is at an end, and no more performance can be extracted because we can go no lower.
As such bringing onto your point of DX12 and being hardware agnostic - I want to go one step further and also indicate that the hypervisor portion of the MS console OS allows developers to ship their titles with the API of choice, meaning no API changes can wreak havoc on previous titles. So the development of the API in this case, can continue incrementally or in the case of 11 moving to 12 monumentally shift in architecture without breaking forward or backwards compatibility - alongside the fact that it's also hardware agnostic
If there were ever a DX13, say some new thinking came about solving problems that have arisen in DX12, I can safely assume that DX13 will come to XBO and it's future derivatives (but still be limited to Feature Level 12) and yet simultaneously still benefit from the new API architecture without needing to worry about wrecking any older software.
That's actually what I was trying to get at; that being low level is amazing, but being low level isn't the end of evolution, Sony actually may already, or may not address these problems, but we can see from our discussion that these are going to be issues that will need to be addressed.
Edit* sorry just catching up on PS4K.
Meaning, with a new console with double the GPU power and possibly a new architecture, if they want to let developers program once and deploy twice, they cannot jump off their API or change their APIs recklessly like MS can. And that being said, being low level is great, but it may be missing out on newer architectural advantages despite the increase in power.
Last edited:
So is MS likely to upgrade its hardware too in response?
There were already questions about whether its new CEO was committed to console gaming business, since there were some shareholders pushing for MS to spin off the Xbox group or shut it down.
MS has run a lot of sales promotions, usually around Black Friday, to stay within striking distance of Sony. But this would require presumably a lot more capital.
Do they double-down or get out of the game -- still sell Xbox Ones, probably pushing costs down to present a low-priced alternative?
There were already questions about whether its new CEO was committed to console gaming business, since there were some shareholders pushing for MS to spin off the Xbox group or shut it down.
MS has run a lot of sales promotions, usually around Black Friday, to stay within striking distance of Sony. But this would require presumably a lot more capital.
Do they double-down or get out of the game -- still sell Xbox Ones, probably pushing costs down to present a low-priced alternative?
Phil Spencer not so subtly hinted at this, which is what brought up all of these discussions again:
http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/1/11121666/xbox-one-hardware-upgrades-phil-spencer-microsoft
"We see on other platforms whether it be mobile or PC that you get a continuous innovation that you rarely see on console," he said. "Consoles lock the hardware and the software platforms together at the beginning of the generation. Then you ride the generation out for seven or so years, while other ecosystems are getting better, faster, stronger. And then you wait for the next big step function.
"When you look at the console space, I believe we will see more hardware innovation in the console space than we've ever seen. You'll actually see us come out with new hardware capability during a generation allowing the same games to run backward and forward compatible because we have a Universal Windows Application running on top of the Universal Windows Platform that allows us to focus more and more on hardware innovation without invalidating the games that run on that platform."
