The ten year life-cycle

[Holborn]

Hi everybody,
this is my first thread in this forum, so be gentle. And i don't want this to turn into a "VS" flame-war.

So my question is this: Could the "ten year life-cycle", as stated by Sony for the PS3, really be achieved. And not in a PS2 way -content wise- but graphic wise. From what we know so far about the technology of current gen consoles (minus Wii as everything is content based for Ninty), could the CELL-RSX or XENON-XENOS combos make it until 2014-16 without bruttal degredation of their dignity?

So what do you think? http://forum.beyond3d.com/images/smilies/icon_question.gif

 

[Nano]

To me there is little doubt that the games on PS3 will look out of date aside more advanced consoles and PCs at that time, I don't think the architecture is as 'future proof' as they seemingly made out with certain press conferences.

However, I think we'll still look at PS3 games and marvel at their visual quality some days into the next generation. Based on what they achieved and for what the platform was. To this day Rogue Squadron III is as impressive to me as it was 6 years ago, even though it has been most definitely superseded since then in every way. Games can show their age, but don't necessarily stop looking good or being technically impressive.

 

[PARANOiA]

The "ten year plan" is something that most people seem to misunderstand. It doesn't mean the PS4 will launch in 2016 - it just means people will still be able to buy the PS3 in 2015. For reference, the PS2 is in its tenth year this year (2000 - 2009), and is still selling decent hardware, though software sales have obviously dropped off the shelf now the Wii/360/PS3 are taking that piece of the pie.

The real question isn't one of technology - the PS2 obviously isn't comparable at all to current consoles or PC hardware - it's one of market. Will there be a market for the PS3 in 2015? Sony say yes.

 

[Brad Grenz]

The PS3 is even in better shape for a long life as a convergence device. A slim version will be a great blu-ray/media/internet/gaming device for anywhere you have a TV in the house.

 

[Holborn]

The real question isn't one of technology - the PS2 obviously isn't comparable at all to current consoles or PC hardware - it's one of market. Will there be a market for the PS3 in 2015? Sony say yes.

In my mind comes GOW1, it was released in the seventh year of ps2's life, and it was awesome graphically mainly because ee+gs are a bitch to write code for, thus making the term "secret potentials" (the ps2 joke of the time) a legal term because the learning curve for the system's power was so slow... and then came gow2.

Are there any secrets left for both systems that hint the same type of evolution? I am aware that ps3's scaler was introduced to the devs with an sdk update somewhere in jan. 08, and that sony has a mysterious tight grip in the resolutions allowed in rendering in the back-buffer. I am sure the same thing happens in MS's side.

Could it be that both platforms are not fully "opened" even to developers, making it possible for Sony and MS to keep "aces up their sleeves"?

 

[RudeCurve]

IMO GOW didn't do anyting that games like MGS3 didn't do so the "untapped power" was just wishful thinking by PS2 fanboys.

 

[djskribbles]

IMO GOW didn't do anyting that games like MGS3 didn't do so the "untapped power" was just wishful thinking by PS2 fanboys.

God of War was released only 3 months after MGS3. IMHO, God of War II looks quite a bit better than MGS3. I was shocked at how good GoWII looked considering it was a PS2 title.

To me, there's no doubt that PS2 games looked better and better as the PS2 aged.

 

[RudeCurve]

God of War was released only 3 months after MGS3. IMHO, God of War II looks quite a bit better than MGS3. I was shocked at how good GoWII looked considering it was a PS2 title.

To me, there's no doubt that PS2 games looked better and better as the PS2 aged.

Well looking better doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of untapped power, it could just as easily be attributed to better art, larger budgets etc. MGS3 looked slightly better than MGS2 which came at the expense of a lower framerate 30fps vs 60fps. From what I could tell Konami pretty much maxed out what the PS2 could achieve with regards to "untapped" power. If there is still power to be tapped, I honestly couldsn't see it in games released after MGS3.

 

[Holborn]

Let's not use the term "untapped power" any more. Everybody by now knows it was pure bull and fanboy-ism
You're right about mgs3. it was more of a technological advancement than gow, but the later was more impressive when it tried to impress.

 

[djskribbles]

I agree, it's not so much of "untapped power" but more experience and knowledge with the system. More time spent with the machine leads to new tricks and methods of achieving something that looks good. You could have two games with one of them being technically better, but the other is more impressive looking.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

In my mind comes GOW1, it was released in the seventh year of ps2's life, and it was awesome graphically mainly because ee+gs are a bitch to write code for, thus making the term "secret potentials" (the ps2 joke of the time) a legal term because the learning curve for the system's power was so slow... and then came gow2.

God of War 1 was released about 4.5 years after the North-American launch of PS2. I personally think that GT3 and MGS 2 already got most out of PS2. X360 and PS3 games will seriously pale in comparison against the biggest PC-games in 2015. About the same as Crysis vs some PS2 game.

 

[djskribbles]

The whole limits of x console is all fanboy talk. I'm sure developers will do the best of their ability in whatever time frame they have. The console is only as good as the developers and their budget/time frame. GT3 is probably one of the best looking PS2 titles and it was released early in the PS2's life, but PD are very good developers, they have good artists, and they probably had a relatively high budget. But with GT4, PD probably learned more from their experience to make a better looking product. As a console ages, developers will get more experience and better looking games will come.

With that said, PS3/360 games will definitely look dated 6-7 years from now. Hell, even 2-3 years. But they will progressively look better and better.

 

[babcat]

I don't think many devs have fully tapped the power of the SPEs. I think that as time goes on PS3 games will continue to improve (gradually). I think the biggest limitation will be RAM.

 

[Mobius1aic]

The whole limits of x console is all fanboy talk. I'm sure developers will do the best of their ability in whatever time frame they have. The console is only as good as the developers and their budget/time frame. GT3 is probably one of the best looking PS2 titles and it was released early in the PS2's life, but PD are very good developers, they have good artists, and they probably had a relatively high budget. But with GT4, PD probably learned more from their experience to make a better looking product. As a console ages, developers will get more experience and better looking games will come.

With that said, PS3/360 games will definitely look dated 6-7 years from now. Hell, even 2-3 years. But they will progressively look better and better.

Well diminishing returns in graphics don't make games seem like eyesores anymore, especially when most games are multiplatformed to the PC as well, and the limitations of the consoles effectively limit how good a PC version will look. When all versions of a game have full dynamic shadow mapping, normal/bump mapping, and relatively similar geometry, it doesn't really matter how high the resolution is for the effects as long as they are not noticeably muddy in comparison, therefore they'll look very similar in motion, especially at the same screen render resolution.

 

[Holborn]

Yes, but i'm not sure if a comparison between this "next" gen consoles and the future pc is just. pcs have the ability to adjust to the needs by upgrading. consoles are fixed systems and the only thing that can be "upgraded" is the optimization of the code. it's good business for both platforms if that optimization takes a relatively long time to be achieved (10 years perhaps?).
in ps2 it happened by mistake. in this gen i feel like it was planned.

 

[deepbrown]

Hi everybody,
this is my first thread in this forum, so be gentle. And i don't want this to turn into a "VS" flame-war.

So my question is this: Could the "ten year life-cycle", as stated by Sony for the PS3, really be achieved. And not in a PS2 way -content wise- but graphic wise. From what we know so far about the technology of current gen consoles (minus Wii as everything is content based for Ninty), could the CELL-RSX or XENON-XENOS combos make it until 2014-16 without bruttal degredation of their dignity?

So what do you think? http://forum.beyond3d.com/images/smilies/icon_question.gif

But that's not what the ten-year life cycle means. If PS3 games would look as those PC games in 2013, why would we need a PS4?

The 10 year life cycle means the console will still be selling in significant numbers for 10 years with new game releases. The PS2 is doing this, the PS1 got to about 9 years. The PS4 will be out at around 6-7 years after the PS3 launched.

But yes, developers will continue to get more out of the console as time goes on. And they'll be more games that get more out of the console.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

graphic wise. From what we know so far about the technology of current gen consoles (minus Wii as everything is content based for Ninty), could the CELL-RSX or XENON-XENOS combos make it until 2014-16 without bruttal degredation of their dignity?

i dont understand the question of the thread starter. PS3 and X360 allready look dated next to a PC, in 5 years they are gonna look like shit compared to a PC.... I dont know if that would degrade their dignity or what not, but it should be obvious to anyone that none of the consoles made today have any special hidden hardware thingy that make them viable graphically in the future.

The PS3 and the X360 will both look like utter crap compared to a 2014 high end PC. Anybody trying to dispute that is either high on drugs or ignorant.


All platforms will evolve graphically (simply because graphics allways evolve, given enough time and development, no matter what platform your doing it on) but they will be ultimately restrained by the hardware which is not magicall.

Also, this whole "untapped" power is business is pure fanboy BS.

None of these consoles are designed to have untapped power. However, how good you utilize that hardware power means everything. And the longer you develop on one hardware platform, the better you get, you learn the fine tricks of the hardware, simply put: the more money and time that is spend developing game titles on a console, the better the graphical evolution in that console will be.

Playstation 2 titles looked so fantastically good after 7 years, not because there was anything magical about the PS2, but because the PS2 held 80% markedshare for 7 or so years,
resulting in the PS2 having by far the biggest development budgets and time spend, this results in great progress, nothing else.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

it's good business for both platforms if that optimization takes a relatively long time to be achieved (10 years perhaps?).
in ps2 it happened by mistake. in this gen i feel like it was planned.

"optimization" never ends, so dunno what your on about. You cannot say that it takes 10 years to optimize a console. If we still had support for the PS2 and kept making high budget games for it, games would look much better now than GoW2.

It has nothing to do with the hardware, the PS2 did not have any magical hardware that made it look better and better.

If you have 100 dev teams with a lot of money making games for 10 years on one platform, (this platform can be any platform, Wii, PS3, X360, Gameboy) games will look better.

Its simple human evolution, we will figure out better ways to make games. And the more dev teams that try to make games on any given platform, the more competition, and therefore the better games.

Sure, some consoles are tricky to work with, and have a higher learning curve than others. But again, there is no secret untapped power, its just human evolution. We learn to use stuff better, more efficiently.

That is what console game development is all about, learning to use stuff more efficiently.

Saying that one console has reached it max etc, is ridiculous because as long as people keep making games there will be evolution. At one point im sure nobody would notice the differences anymore, but im confident that if we spend another 10 years with the PS2 one could have produced quite more impressive stuff than GoW2.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also, this whole "untapped" power is business is pure fanboy BS.

Not really. Untapped power means there's more potential in the hardware than the deveopers have got to grips with. In PS2's case it was optimizing code for the VU's. In many titles there was 'untapped power' of the PS2, because the available processing potential wasn't being fully used. 'Untapped power' thus means either hardware so advanced and sophisticated developers will take years to make anything of it, or hardware so abstract and convoluted developers can't make sense of it and the potential goes unused - these are just the optimisitic and pessimistic definitions of the same situation.

 

[catisfit]

this whole "untapped" power is business is pure fanboy BS.

Saying that one console has reached it max etc, is ridiculous because as long as people keep making games there will be evolution. At one point im sure nobody would notice the differences anymore, but im confident that if we spend another 10 years with the PS2 one could have produced quite more impressive stuff than GoW2.

Huh?