The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[steviep]

The Wii was successful at selling consoles but I bet the attach rate was far higher for 360 systems.

By about 1 game, yes. Wii's worldwide attach rate according to their latest financial report is 8.5. Within spitting distance of the PS3.

I disagree it's not a matter of casual vs hardcore, it's really about what is a major jump forward.
I've my idea about a major jump in "graphics" ( as a whole) I can't see next gen deliver.
Next gen can deliver high end pC IQ but that's it.
There is nothing fancy about over tessellated mesh, Epic and other have to use wire frame for people to really notice. Neither particles running on GPUs are news. More is different from new.

If people are a bit like me, which I expect as we are never that different, what they would want is more akin to voxel based world ala Atomontage. Only voxels will allow really deep interaction with the game world environment (from chemical to mechanic to whatever).
That's won't happen anytime soon.

Then there is animations and no easy solution in sight. One just have to look at robotic to see how tough it is to do fine movement and it requires feedback. That's a bit to much for an AI puppet trying to grab a stone on the ground.

My belief is that the technological curve is not at a point where major improvement can be offered.
More is the new new. No paradigm shift in sight only people with something to sell...

On the back of a revolutionary interface design ...

Neither of which is the case anymore. Sony has already introduced Move and MS already introduced Kinect (and nintendo decided to go the non-portable Vita route). Any "wow factor" which would offset sub-par hardware is long gone.

The sales of these new boxes will be directly related to what is seen as "impossible" on current gen hardware to inspire sales.

This will require a hefty increase in tech.

Despite what some may see as a take it or leave it inevitable offering from both Sony and MS, if the offering isn't compelling enough, we may well see a mass exodus with people choosing the latter vs the former.

Other options at this point are numerous and likely to expand even further if weakness in the sector is detected by potential platform producers, so don't be too quick to blow off the demands of the consumer for what they are looking for in nextgen tech...

My belief matches with some of what people from *within* the companies on this very board have said in the past: next gen is going to be more about user interface, software, and services more than anything else.

 

[MrFox]

Wow. Call me stupid and naive but the IGN poll is an eye opener for me, I didn't expect that. These are hardcore gamers, only 11% would pay more than $400, 72% want major leaps in graphics, have your cake and eat it too? Hardcore gamers would have been the only ones I thought would pay for a "great" console with amazing graphics, so that 11% is pretty scary... if even hardcores don't want to pay for it, who will?

A wiser man than I am told me that there are usually 3 products safely existing in the same market.
1. low cost bracket, good enough
2. high-end, best
3. new and/or different

If one of these becomes completely vacant, a company can step it and grab it all. The Wii managed to be practically alone in both #1 and #3 above. PS3 and 360 were competing against each other for #2, at all costs, the same population of hardcore gamers (because it was the most lucrative piece of the pie). If the PS3 (or 360) wouldn't have existed, the other console would have had the whole 140 million piece of the pie #2.

This time around all three companies have something cool to show for #3, the Wii cornered #1 again, and the poll showed that gamers still want #2 but they don't want to pay for it. It boggles the mind. I guess Sony/Microsoft will compete for #1 by keeping the 360/PS3 in the market, compete for #3 with an improved gimmick controller, and #2 doesn't seem like a lucrative market anymore? I mean how much better can they do with $400 versus $250 we have now?

Where's the real high-end market? PC?

The only other satisfactory angle would be that one of them come out with a high-end console at 500 or 600 and the fans will buy it anyway and whine about the price until the price drop later. But at least that one will last 10 years, the WiiU definitely won't. I really loved my Wii, a center piece of great parties, but it's on a shelf right now.

 

[steviep]

Where's the real high-end market? PC?

Yes. I think it's about time we go to a slightly more sustainable 5 year cycle. It would be better for the console makers and the industry at large. The only reason this generation lasted longer than 6 was the massive trails of red ink that started it... and continued for the first 3-4 years.

 

[babybumb]

Yes. I think it's about time we go to a slightly more sustainable 5 year cycle. It would be better for the console makers and the industry at large. The only reason this generation lasted longer than 6 was the massive trails of red ink that started it... and continued for the first 3-4 years.

The current model is doomed. There simply wont be another GEN of bricks you buy

consoles are so easy to replace in that time

 

[kagemaru]

Yes. I think it's about time we go to a slightly more sustainable 5 year cycle. It would be better for the console makers and the industry at large. The only reason this generation lasted longer than 6 was the massive trails of red ink that started it... and continued for the first 3-4 years.

I don't think it's logical to expect 5 year life cycles anymore. Node shrinks are getting harder and more expensive, making it harder to provide noticeable performance jumps between generations. I understand how the future of consoles won't be about bleeding edge tech anymore, but now services and features. However launching a console is very expensive, so it makes no sense to launch a system that may be too similar to your existing product. Besides, in ~15-20 years, we probably won't be gaming on traditional game consoles anymore.

This gen has lasted 7 years, I can see next gen lasting just as long, if not longer.

 

[Brimstone]

I'm not so sure about radical breakthroughs, but there is plenty of room for "wow factor" devices to help keep intrest in consoles and dampen the flames of Tablets and Smart Phones. Sony already has released a head mounted display, and Microsoft can do the same thing. Another big issue with using flat screens is that your trying to display a 3d image on a 2d surface. Curving the display will make the game experience more immersive. OLED TVs could be curved or projector with a curved screen can be used.

I can easily magine playing something like Forza with Kinect combined a single chip DLP projector using a LED light source.

Would these be massive sales hits, probably not. The point is to keep intrest and mindshare with the console experience. Consoles will stay in the limelight.

 

[joker454]

Wow. Call me stupid and naive but the IGN poll is an eye opener for me, I didn't expect that. These are hardcore gamers, only 11% would pay more than $400, 72% want major leaps in graphics, have your cake and eat it too? Hardcore gamers would have been the only ones I thought would pay for a "great" console with amazing graphics, so that 11% is pretty scary... if even hardcores don't want to pay for it, who will?

I think the definition of core gamer has changed over the years, and graphics just aren't that important to them anymore. Those that value graphics moved back to pc a long time ago, to the rest they just aren't all that important in spite of what that poll says. The fact that core gamers don't want to spend more than $400 on a new console, which is close to what current 7 year old consoles cost right now points to that as well. I don't see it as scary, I just see it as core gamers evolving beyond just graphics. They likely value stuff like common online gaming interface, voice chat, good user experience, etc, more than graphics now.

A wiser man than I am told me that there are usually 3 products safely existing in the same market.
1. low cost bracket, good enough
2. high-end, best
3. new and/or different

If one of these becomes completely vacant, a company can step it and grab it all.

One company already is trying to take over all of the above. Once Windows 8 unifies the Microsoft landscape and you have XBLive everywhere then they will have high end gaming on pc's, new/different gaming with consoles/kinect, and low end gaming with phones/tablets. It's already happening, either the competition hasn't realized it yet or there are some major surprises in store from Apple, etc, in the next year or two.

 

[Mobius1aic]

I think the definition of core gamer has changed over the years, and graphics just aren't that important to them anymore. Those that value graphics moved back to pc a long time ago, to the rest they just aren't all that important in spite of what that poll says. The fact that core gamers don't want to spend more than $400 on a new console, which is close to what current 7 year old consoles cost right now points to that as well. I don't see it as scary, I just see it as core gamers evolving beyond just graphics. They likely value stuff like common online gaming interface, voice chat, good user experience, etc, more than graphics now.




One company already is trying to take over all of the above. Once Windows 8 unifies the Microsoft landscape and you have XBLive everywhere then they will have high end gaming on pc's, new/different gaming with consoles/kinect, and low end gaming with phones/tablets. It's already happening, either the competition hasn't realized it yet or there are some major surprises in store from Apple, etc, in the next year or two.

Maybe MS needs to abandon the hardware market now while they have a chance. Software platforms are the future. MS can go back to making excellent accessories, and developing and publishing software (including games!) via Windows 8 based Xbox Live, etc.

What I wonder, is the possibility of cross platform capabilities of a single piece of software. If MS can make very thin, yet flexible APIs, that process can be simplified greatly for developers, and make Win8 much more useful for consumers across different types of hardware.

 

[Rangers]

Yes. I think it's about time we go to a slightly more sustainable 5 year cycle. It would be better for the console makers and the industry at large. The only reason this generation lasted longer than 6 was the massive trails of red ink that started it... and continued for the first 3-4 years.

Actually the main reason it lasted so long was because it could. All 3 parties had tenable positions. If for example, it's clear Wii U is going to flame out very fast, and within 2-3 years Nintendo is forced to release a new console (possibly even one more powerful than XB3/PS4), that could cut the cycle shorter than this time.

As soon as one company fails miserably, they have to start over. Once they start over it puts pressure on the others and cuts that gen short. What really causes gens to "end" is that the competition comes out with a "next gen" console. And your current gen console is no longer tenable in the long term.

It's a delicate balance with many interlocking parts.

I never said it was. Only that the console companies' targets don't have to be just the wishes of the current fanbase. Hence this poll doesn't help us identify what the next-gen console hardware will be.

I think it's pretty relevant in the attitude of countless pundits that graphics dont matter at all anymore. Apparently actual (core) gamers feel overwhelmingly differently. And certainly, companies can ignore the wishes of consumers or devs and presume they know best, they might even be right (as Nintendo's Phyric "victory" with the Wii, which has left them in a very dangerous position in 2012), but it's a risky game. Certainly this type of poll seems like it would be something MS, Sony and Nintendo would pay heed to.

These are hardcore gamers, only 11% would pay more than $400, 72% want major leaps in graphics, have your cake and eat it too?

Actually this isn't even a problem because early adapters are the few and uber hardcore. How many Xbox 360's sold in the first year or two versus overall? The poll showed something like ~1/3 of gamers were willing to pay 300-400. I think even the 11% willing to pay more than that is enough to get you to the first price cut. Then at the least it shows the 300-400 range is tenable for a launch, as 1/3 of gamers is a huge amount, beyond that of course you do price cuts. And I think you can do a very nice generation gap console for $300/$400 SKU split, so there's no having cake and eating it too either.

 

[RudeCurve]

Wow. Call me stupid and naive but the IGN poll is an eye opener for me, I didn't expect that. These are hardcore gamers, only 11% would pay more than $400, 72% want major leaps in graphics, have your cake and eat it too? Hardcore gamers would have been the only ones I thought would pay for a "great" console with amazing graphics, so that 11% is pretty scary... if even hardcores don't want to pay for it, who will?

How is this having your cake and eating it too? A $400 console would be a loss leader...same as before...so you'll be getting a $500 piece of hardware for $400. Why is $500 not enough for a major leap in graphics??? The current Xbox360 without HDD is selling for $200 and it's not losing money on hardware. The only things that change are the CPU, GPU and RAM.

 

[Silenti]

Actually the main reason it lasted so long was because it could. All 3 parties had tenable positions. If for example, it's clear Wii U is going to flame out very fast, and within 2-3 years Nintendo is forced to release a new console (possibly even one more powerful than XB3/PS4), that could cut the cycle shorter than this time.

.

Is this not a large part of what killed Sega? A failed console that lasts 2-3 years when you are already losing money and your handheld isn't flying off the shelves could kill Nintendo as a hardware manufacturer.

 

[nasanu]

Is this not a large part of what killed Sega? A failed console that lasts 2-3 years when you are already losing money and your handheld isn't flying off the shelves could kill Nintendo as a hardware manufacturer.

Not one failed console but several. Sega launched the DC off the back of two successive failed consoles, the 32X and the Saturn. Nintendo's situation is a world away. They are coming off massive consecutive successes, the DS, Wii and now the 3DS is a lot stronger of late. Plus they have very, very deep pockets.

Personally I'd say that Nintendo is certainly a company that can literally afford to lose a generation (which I suspect they will...).

 

[XpiderMX]

(Rumour) Wii U specs:


-A lot of Dev-kits were sent to Ubisoft
-One of them was 4GHz
-The 6GHz one was from 3 months ago
-Graphic card will be a Radeon HD 6770
-Wii U has 2GB of RAM, 560MB of that are for the OS
-supports DX11, they managed to port Unreal Engine 4 on it
-Xbox 8's graphic card will be more powerful than Wii-U's

 

[TheD]

(Rumour) Wii U specs:


-A lot of Dev-kits were sent to Ubisoft
-One of them was 4GHz
-The 6GHz one was from 3 months ago
-Graphic card will be a Radeon HD 6770
-Wii U has 2GB of RAM, 560MB of that are for the OS
-supports DX11, they managed to port Unreal Engine 4 on it
-Xbox 8's graphic card will be more powerful than Wii-U's

2. Unlikely
3. 6Ghz is a load of BS
5.No way the OS would take up that much RAM.
6.The WiiU does not support DX11! (It is only likely to have a GPU that meets the DX11 feature requirements).
7. Xbox 8???

 

[TheChefO]

...you don't believe there can be any interest in a consumer CE device beyond its graphics...

Where did I say that?

Don't put words in my mouth.

I said the "revolutionary interface game" has been played and all of the big players have shown their hand. And just as I suspected, Nintendo could not recreate another Wii-moment with yet another revolutionary interface which can sell on the back of sub-par console tech (the discussion of this thread).

For that reason, (not that other things cannot sell hardware) I do not believe that either Sony or MS can afford to low-ball nextgen specs and succeed in remaining relevant in the next 5-10 years.

I believe that Sony and MS must now sell hardware on improved spec across the board. Adding Move and Kinect just increases the expectation beyond a PCB and into the interface as well.

Nobody wants to play xb720 with 2 second lag and low fidelity on kinect, and for Move, Sony I suppose should look into getting rid of the need to have pink glow balls on the end of their remotes (accuracy and lag are non-issues but the device has proven to be a dud at retail).

You may look at the landscape and say, no need for much improved console tech, just bump a new app on the marketplace and drop kinect2/move 2 and everyone will be happy (and that's fine everyone has their opinion), but I look at the interface as an additional metric which must be improved beyond the core metric of console tech which not only needs a prettier ad to sell games, but new and improved worlds which are seen as impossible on current tech.

Simple example: the interactivity of Fallout/Skyrim with the graphic fidelity of Rage.

Something to where core gamer enthusiasts say "I want that", which leads to sales of their friends, and their friends, etc.

I didn't say it was only about the graphics and I didn't say graphics was the only way to generate sales, but ignoring them is a good way to find oneself in the bargain bin. Especially when the likelihood of a revolutionary new interface is pretty much nil at this point.

I could be wrong and Sony comes out with PS4 which can read your mind-waves wirelessly through their new Bravia TVs and beams the matrix back directly into your optic nerve ... with haptics ... but that is rather unlikely.

And since we are discussing businesses (Sony/MS), they need to plan for things which are scalable and predictable. At this point, that means take what is working now, and make it better.

I just hope for their sake they aren't taking the wrong lesson away from the success of Wii.

• Low ball spec + revolutionary interface = success
• Low ball spec + old interface = failure

As I said, there are other options outside of MS/Sony (or N) and those options will be expanding and becoming more attractive as time moves on.

Spec min: (IMO)

Hex Core Waternoose 3.2GHz 2MB Cache
Pitcairn GPU 800MHz
2GB GDDR5

 

[TheChefO]

...and the poll showed that gamers still want #2 but they don't want to pay for it...

Where in the world is this concept coming from?

$400 for a console (not misc other media and technology) is enough to have a top notch console spec.

Rewind the tape a bit here and we saw ~500mm2 worth of silicon in xb360 at the latest and greatest process node available being sold at retail for $299 in 2005.

Granted, they had engineering/manufacturing/design problems which were easily avoidable which cost them in the RRoD fiasco and delayed their profitability (note: delayed, not stopped), but this was still a feasible cost structure for Microsoft.

Moving the clock a few years (*ahem*) and $399 for a base console is not unheard of to again fit roughly 500mm2 worth of the latest and greatest silicon in the box.

Let's also not forget that unlike 2005, MS makes a killing on xblive fees. Significantly more so than in 2005.

And on top of that, there are more revenue streams on the horizon (search) and the addition of subscription fee model to offset the initial cost and spur rapid adoption of the new platform.


In conclusion, yes, gamers want top notch hardware and yes, they are willing to pay for it.

$400 is a fair price for that silicon budget, and that silicon budget will provide a suitable upgrade over current gen at the latest silicon node.

 

[TheChefO]

They likely value stuff like common online gaming interface, voice chat, good user experience, etc, more than graphics now.

The poll says otherwise (70% want better graphics), but if you are correct, I suspect the majority will just sit happy with their xb360's and PS3's and never upgrade... They have those services available now on current hardware. What they don't have is new hardware which can provide new experiences that are impossible on current gen boxes (or anywhere else that sells games).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Where did I say that?

Don't put words in my mouth.

Okay, let me rephrase. You don't believe there are any changes a console can introduce that'll create an appealing CE device other than bumping up the graphics. That no-one can invent a new interface or social platform or business model or feature set that'll make their CE device massively desirable, so they have to just focus on making the existing designs better and selling to the same audience as an improved model.

iPad only does what a Windows PC does. It doesn't do any more than that. It doesn't empower users to do more. But it's selling gangbusters because it's in a different package. No-one predicted it (including companies that have had tablet computers out before Apple) but there it is. Now plenty of people who wanted a more powerful PC I'm sure are instead buying less powerful iPads because they are more desirable. And plenty of people who want a console with better graphics will be happy to buy a less powerful machine IF it can provide that something-else. Hence as a business it doesn't make sense to just look to chase the existing market when instead it may be possible to expand in another direction. Hence the request for better graphics from the existing userbase can be effectively ignored while researching the new product. That doesn't mean graphics are irrelevant (I've never said as much, only that the level of progress needs to be balanced with costs and what the market will be happy with) but that they aren't the only landmark to chase. Where you say MS+Sony ahve to invest in GPU, if instead they invest in Something Else that has way more appeal and wow factor, that'd be better for their business.

 

[function]

Rewind the tape a bit here and we saw ~500mm2 worth of silicon in xb360 at the latest and greatest process node available being sold at retail for $299 in 2005.

Xbox 360 was ~438 mm^2 spread over 3 chips, not two larger chips.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2682/4

That doesn't even get to 500 if you round it (if you round it to the nearest hundred it actually goes down to 400). And nearly 20% of that is memory (not logic) to enable a cost saving on not having a 256-bit bus, and for the last four years has been made on an older and cheaper process.

Again: Xbox is not "~500 mm^2" even if you round it, and even if you treat a separate memory chip as being the same as swelling the logic in a CPU or GPU.

Also, "the latest and greatest process nodes" now cost more, are more difficult to move to, are more difficult to migrate from, and cost savings down the line are coming much more slowly and with much less certainty.

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...y-with-tsmc-claims-22nm-essentially-worthless

If Xbox 3 uses 500 mm^2 of logic on the "latest and greatest process node" it won't have anything to do with the Xbox 360 because the first point is wrong and the facts around the second have changed significantly.

 

[Rangers]

7. Xbox 8???

A name some rumor the Durango/Xbox 3 may be called. The idea is that MS will try to focus things around Windows 8 in tablets/phones/pc's and maybe even console.

Also makes sense if allegedly MS does not want to appear inferior by having a lower number than the competition, EG Xbox 360 vs PS3 instead of Xbox 2 vs PS3.