The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[ERP]

Exclusives alone dont cut it and Microsoft dont have a lot of them anyway(good ones).

That's very much projecting personal opinion, on to a user base at large.
The only reason I buy machines is for games I want to play, many of those are exclusives.
Others are games I want the living room experience while playing.
If it's a Keyboard and Mouse game I'll play it on my PC, if it's a game designed for a controller, I'll buy it on console. Even today I don't find the graphical difference between my rather high spec PC and my 360/PS3 to be enough for it to dictate the platform of purchase.

Most people aren't buying the specs of the machine, they are buying the games they want to play, and the convenience/experience of playing those games.

 

[JasonLD]

I wish Japanese companies get their shit together and do better in upcoming generation of consoles. Main reason I get consoles is to play games that I wont be able to play on the PC, and they happened to be mostly Japanese console exclusive games. Japanese companies mostly gone portable and their list of games for this generation of consoles so far were very disappointing. My excitement for this upcoming generation is far worse than it has been for all previous generations honestly.

 

[ERP]

I wish Japanese companies get their shit together and do better in upcoming generation of consoles. Main reason I get consoles is to play games that I wont be able to play on the PC, and they happened to be mostly Japanese console exclusive games. Japanese companies mostly gone portable and their list of games for this generation of consoles so far were very disappointing. My excitement for this upcoming generation is far worse than it has been for all previous generations honestly.

For a variety of reasons I don't think most Japanese developers were well positioned to scale development for 360/PS3, and I don't see that trend reversing, those developers that made the transition will probably continue to support home consoles, but I wouldn't expect those that made the move to mobile to come back.

 

[Arwin]

It's the open space for discussing what the next-gen consoles will be (not technicals), looking at business choices and competition. Competition with PCs strikes me as a valid part of that. If the next-gen consoles are fairly middle spec'd, they will encounter much stiffer competition. My own assumption was at release, the new consoles would provide better value than a middle-of-the-road PC, but that might not be the case, at which point the value proposition of these machines need to be reexamined. Ideas like the latest crazy rumours suggesting PS4 will come with VR goggles would certainly differentiate. Somewhat. Unless Valve stick goggles on Steambox.

Not likely if that thing is really a 40W unit!

 

[Scott_Arm]

Not likely if that thing is really a 40W unit!

It isn't. Gabe Newell already said in interview that that little Xi3 Piston unit is not the Steambox.

 

[b3vcard]

In terms of 'modest performance', was the PS2 modest hardware at the time? And was it priced accordingly?

 

[Love_In_Rio]

In terms of 'modest performance', was the PS2 modest hardware at the time? And was it priced accordingly?

I remember having a vodoo 1 when ps2 was announced,capable of drawing 1 million polys per second(not textured).Dreamcast was 11 raw,3 textured and Ps2 75 million raw polys,20 textured.But then came the transforming and lighting thing:geforce and xbox with its 300 million of polygons that ended up in 125 (raw of course).

 

[pjbliverpool]

I remember having a voodoo 1 when ps2 was announced,capable of drawing 1 million polys per second(not textured).Dreamcast was 3 and Ps2 66 million raw polys...

Voodoo 1 was ancient when the PS2 launched. PC's where running Voodoo 5's by then or the much more powerful GeForce 2 GTS.

 

[Love_In_Rio]

Voodoo 1 was ancient when the PS2 launched. PC's where running Voodoo 5's by then or the much more powerful GeForce 2 GTS.

Vodoo 1 was my card in that moment.The most powerful when ps2 was announced -not launched-was nvidia TNT2 if IIRC.By the time it launched Xbox Gpu was another generation of not only rasterizing triangles chips, in fact the term GPU replaced the term grahics accelerator.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

It's the open space for discussing what the next-gen consoles will be (not technicals), looking at business choices and competition. Competition with PCs strikes me as a valid part of that. If the next-gen consoles are fairly middle spec'd, they will encounter much stiffer competition. My own assumption was at release, the new consoles would provide better value than a middle-of-the-road PC, but that might not be the case, at which point the value proposition of these machines need to be reexamined.

This is a discussion that I find amusing, in part because I read other PC-centric forums that continually bash consoles for "holding back" PC gaming and giving them nothing but ports.

Unless my memory is mistaken, when the 360 launched it was the most powerful gaming platform you could buy. It was competing against single core P4s for the most part. The launch of the 360 (and then the PS3) moved gaming into the multi-core arena. But 360 only held that crown for about a year.

About a year or so after the 360 launched, Intel came out with their Core2 processors (or, at least those became "standard"), which were a huge jump from the P4 era, and then halfway through this console cycle we saw Intel make another HUGE leap with the Core i series of chips that really just wiped the floor with everything else in terms of performance. But how long were PC gamers stuck using P4s with "hyper-threading" that no gaming software took advantage of?

Is it possible, now, for MS or Sony to launch a console in 2013 that beats only the most expensive of crossfire/sli, quad and eight core systems?

I think it's possible, and I think for the consoles to survive they MUST. They must, as Shifty has said, be able to be clearly superior to any mid-range PC you could pick up off the shelf. Otherwise, they are going to have a very difficult time.

HTPCs aren't uncommon these days. If I recall correctly, the original 360 didn't even launch with an HDMI port. Now, everything has an HDMI port, including tablets and cellphones. Almost any device can be easily plugged into any fairly new TV.

For the PS420 to succeed, they most certainly need to be more powerful than the core i5 I've got hooked up to my TV that I use as an HTPC that I bought for $300. And that's where the customization needs to come in. Adding eDRAM or increasing the memory bandwith, something needs to be custom designed in order to facilitate a better experience, even if the CPU/GPU are on par with their contemporary mid-level PC counterparts.

So I'm still hoping for the PS420 to launch as the best gaming experience outside of thousand dollar custom built PCs. I don't know how long they will be able to hold that crown (especially as it doesn't seem like Intel is facing the same sort of pressure these days as they were from AMD back at the 36 launch).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think it's possible, and I think for the consoles to survive they MUST. They must, as Shifty has said, be able to be clearly superior to any mid-range PC you could pick up off the shelf. Otherwise, they are going to have a very difficult time.

PC and consoles still offer different experiences, enough to differentiate. I asked about that here, considering replacing a console with a PC rig for work and gaming, and came to the conclusion that a PC isn't a straight replacement, focussed far more on single player or online multiplayer. that may change, but then the whole market is chaning. Sony have talked about Gaiaki offering gaming anywhere. If that's their long-term future, PS4 is just a stop-gap measure. A moderate spec machine for £300 or less with some good utilisation and games will impress enough for a few years.

So I'm still hoping for the PS420 to launch as the best gaming experience outside of thousand dollar custom built PCs. I don't know how long they will be able to hold that crown (especially as it doesn't seem like Intel is facing the same sort of pressure these days as they were from AMD back at the 36 launch).

'Best' is a relative, subjective measure. They won't have the best visuals in terms of frame-rate and quality, but they may still be the home to the simplest use for Joe Consumer and some of the best games funded by the console companies. My personal view is that console gaming has become much more wait-and-see - see how the PC develops with Win 8; see what Valve does; see what extras these consoles launch with. I see no certainties and have no expectations!

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

PC and consoles still offer different experiences, enough to differentiate. I asked about that here, considering replacing a console with a PC rig for work and gaming, and came to the conclusion that a PC isn't a straight replacement, focussed far more on single player or online multiplayer. that may change, but then the whole market is chaning.

Honestly, I think you can compare consoles/PC to Surface RT/Surface Pro.

They both do some of the same things, but they do them in different ways and they both have very distinct limitations. For example, the Surface RT tablet has great battery life, low heat draw and can do most of what you want. The Surface Pro tablet will have lower battery life, will be hot, have great power consumption, but will let you do everything you could want to do.

I see the convergence of consoles and PC as the same. The console is becoming a PC-lite, yet with an easier to use interface that also limits the user's freedom and choices. The PC is a wide open wild west world where you can do everything you want, if only you know how. Because it won't be easily spelled out to you.

Both of the "top grade" options will also come with something additional - a higher price tag. Surface Pro is more expensive than Surface RT, a gaming PC will be more expensive than a console. You can do more, you get more freedom, but you pay a premium for those options.

'Best' is a relative, subjective measure. They won't have the best visuals in terms of frame-rate and quality, but they may still be the home to the simplest use for Joe Consumer and some of the best games funded by the console companies.

Then this is where we disagree. Best is the best, it's objective, not subjective. If the next Gen consoles don't have the best visuals in terms of frame-rate and quality (I'd also include environmental interactivity and scale as well), then they are going to be just as DOA as the WiiU. And when I say "best", I understand that somebody will say they can build a custom water-cooled PC for $4,000 that will be superior. But I'm not talking about the top 2% of the market, and I promise you, MS and Sony aren't interested in the top 2% of the market.

Can the average person, walk into an electronics store and buy a PC that is better than the PS420? They couldn't when the 360 was launched. If they can when the PS420 is launched, then the PS420 is in for a lot of pain. (Assuming comparable pricing)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then this is where we disagree. Best is the best, it's objective, not subjective. If the next Gen consoles don't have the best visuals in terms of frame-rate and quality (I'd also include environmental interactivity and scale as well), then they are going to be just as DOA as the WiiU.

Wii wasn't best by any of those metrics, but for many it was the platform of choice. Deep into any platform's life it's far from best too, but it's still highly desirable. Anyone who loves Sony's first party titles won't be satisfied by PC, regardless of the hardware's relative ability. Best can only be measured against a person's personal requirements. The best digital camera (or car, or TV, or bike) will be different to the best digital camera for someone with different requirements, and best gaming platform is similarly subjective.

 

[anexanhume]

Wii wasn't best by any of those metrics, but for many it was the platform of choice. Deep into any platform's life it's far from best too, but it's still highly desirable. Anyone who loves Sony's first party titles won't be satisfied by PC, regardless of the hardware's relative ability. Best can only be measured against a person's personal requirements. The best digital camera (or car, or TV, or bike) will be different to the best digital camera for someone with different requirements, and best gaming platform is similarly subjective.

IMO the Wii was an anomaly. The novelty of the motion controls drew a lot of people in and it had a lot of popularity as a party system. It also had a much lower price than the two competing consoles (a first for nintendo really), so it was the defacto cheap choice for Christmas.

I think this is supported by the Wii U's lackluster holiday sales. I see them on shelves everywhere and the Wii actually outsold the Wii U in December. I personally see nothing compelling about the Wii U and feel like it's just catching up with the current gen. I have an interest, but I'll need a Mario, Mario Kart, & Star Fox/Kirby/Donkey Kong title for me to even to start sniffing around it.

As for this holiday, it's possible I may get both, but I'll get the one that either has the best exclusives or the one that's clearly more powerful. Given MS just launched a Halo title and a new Gears is coming this year, I don't know what whiz bang first party title they're going to have to sell the new Xbox. Sony has a much deeper 1st party library to pull from.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

IMO the Wii was an anomaly. The novelty of the motion controls drew a lot of people in and it had a lot of popularity as a party system. It also had a much lower price than the two competing consoles (a first for nintendo really), so it was the defacto cheap choice for Christmas.

I don't think there's any doubt about it. Can any other console repeat the success of the Wii? No. That makes it an outlier, not a rule. Also, don't forget the IP that Nintendo owns and the generational gap. Those parents who played with the SNES and N64 bought their kids the Wii, in addition to all those parents who didn't play those games but didn't seem them as threatening and bought them for their children.

I'm sure in 20 years when those kids who grew up playing the Wii as their first console will buy their children the newest Nintendo console. But that's a long time from now.

I have an interest, but I'll need a Mario, Mario Kart, & Star Fox/Kirby/Donkey Kong title for me to even to start sniffing around it.

Yep. It's all about the IP and the Nintendo faithful and then the unique easy to access controller that sold the Wii. The WiiU has a complicated controller and hasn't released any of the above games to make even Nintendo fans want to buy it, and with the price point its selling at, it can't be just a "throw away" purchase.

I actually think if Nintendo just went into software sales, they'd actually make more money. Especially now, when the WiiU isnt profitable on its own. They have what? Close to 300 million possible customers if they sold to the PS360 fan base? As opposed to 100 million just Nintendo fans?

Then again, they made money selling the Wii itself. They made money on the hardware.

I don't expect that to ever happen again. It's only going to be about how much you can sell and how much you can lower your losses at that price point.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Unless my memory is mistaken, when the 360 launched it was the most powerful gaming platform you could buy.

Not really, the highest end PC's of the day still had greater peak performance. Obviously console advanatages (single spec, API advantage etc..) have resulted in superior performance over time but had a console been released with the same hardware as the top end single GPU PC's of the day, it would likely be outperforming the 360 today - not in every respect, but on balance.

It was competing against single core P4s for the most part.

The argument isn't about the most part of the PC market though, it's about the high end and at the time, the high end consisted of Athlon X2's and Pentium D's. Certainly not, single core P4's which back then were similar to todays AMD processors. i.e. not considered particularly good for games.

The launch of the 360 (and then the PS3) moved gaming into the multi-core arena. But 360 only held that crown for about a year.

About a year or so after the 360 launched, Intel came out with their Core2 processors (or, at least those became "standard"), which were a huge jump from the P4 era, and then halfway through this console cycle we saw Intel make another HUGE leap with the Core i series of chips that really just wiped the floor with everything else in terms of performance. But how long were PC gamers stuck using P4s with "hyper-threading" that no gaming software took advantage of?

I completely agree with the principle of what you're saying. Consoles did move PC gaming into the multicore era, no doubt. However your timings are a little off. The Core2 line released around 6 months after the 360 although by then dual cores were had already been around for over a year. Quad cores launches almost 12 months to the day after the 360 launched.

Is it possible, now, for MS or Sony to launch a console in 2013 that beats only the most expensive of crossfire/sli, quad and eight core systems?

I think it's possible,

I think you're very wrong. This has been talked about here in great detail for many months now. The power limitations just won't allow a console to get close to (when they launch) 780 or 8970 level performance. Let alone 4/6 core Haswells packing 16GB of RAM. To expect such a level of performance is simply to set yourself up to be dissapointed.

For the PS420 to succeed, they most certainly need to be more powerful than the core i5 I've got hooked up to my TV that I use as an HTPC that I bought for $300.

CPU wise it won't come close. Even current generarion i5's are going to be well out of reach for the console CPU's based on the rumours we've heard. GPU wise though the consoles will no doubt be far more powerful than whatevers in a $300 HTPC.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

IMO the Wii was an anomaly.

Wii was an anomaly. I wasn't saying otherwise. Only using it as one example where 'best' is clearly subjective. A more powerful PC wouldn't have given those Wii buyers the same experience, so the PC wasn't the better option for them.

 

[anexanhume]

I think you're very wrong. This has been talked about here in great detail for many months now. The power limitations just won't allow a console to get close to (when they launch) 780 or 8970 level performance. Let alone 4/6 core Haswells packing 16GB of RAM. To expect such a level of performance is simply to set yourself up to be dissapointed.

Yup. The peak TDP of GPUs has nearly doubled since 2005. Radeon X1900XTX was 135. 7970 is 250W.

We're probably not going to see anything over 100W. Definitely not more than 130W without breaking the historical console TDP budget.

Wii was an anomaly. I wasn't saying otherwise. Only using it as one example where 'best' is clearly subjective. A more powerful PC wouldn't have given those Wii buyers the same experience, so the PC wasn't the better option for them.

My argument was that it existed outside of that normal trade for most people. It really hit the "new shiny" in a lot of people's brains.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My argument was that it existed outside of that normal trade for most people. It really hit the "new shiny" in a lot of people's brains.

It has nothing to do with 'normal'. One person's best car is a $10,000 city motor. Another's is a $50,000 people carrier. Another's is a $30,000 pickup with raised suspension. When it comes to games, one person's best is a fun, accessible console that the whole family can play together, and another's is an economical FPS player that easily fits in the TV, and another's is a money-no-object best quality possible machine. And all the flavours and options in between, from which people choose the closest fit from the options available.

Best is subjective and needs to be measured according to a standard. That's why we never answer the question 'which is the best console', because each console is the best at different things and the best overall will depend on the individual's weighting of each parameter.

 

[anexanhume]

It has nothing to do with 'normal'. One person's best car is a $10,000 city motor. Another's is a $50,000 people carrier. Another's is a $30,000 pickup with raised suspension. When it comes to games, one person's best is a fun, accessible console that the whole family can play together, and another's is an economical FPS player that easily fits in the TV, and another's is a money-no-object best quality possible machine. And all the flavours and options in between, from which people choose the closest fit from the options available.

Best is subjective and needs to be measured according to a standard. That's why we never answer the question 'which is the best console', because each console is the best at different things and the best overall will depend on the individual's weighting of each parameter.

The Wii made people buy a console that otherwise wouldn't have bought one. Your car analogy only works if all the sudden you start considering Amish as car buyers. The Wii had a lot of non-core buyers and that showed later in its life when the attach rate was crap and hardware sales were slumping. MS and Sony finally started eating their lunch because they had dedicated customers with titles people wanted.