What would you buy? A true Next Gen Console or Upgraded 2x PS3/360?
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
I think we are nearing a plateau as far as development costs go. I doubt we're going to get another five or tenfold increase in development budgets next-gen. That's not to say a good, solid upgrade in power would be useless. So my vote is for however much power it takes to have a game that
a) Runs at 60 fps in 1080p
b) Looks as good as Killzone 3
c) Has 256-player multiplayer maps the size of MAG's
a) Runs at 60 fps in 1080p
b) Looks as good as Killzone 3
c) Has 256-player multiplayer maps the size of MAG's
At the moment Wii-U is the only locked one for me. And I hope Nintendo upgraded the Nunchuck and Wiimote too, at least make them wireless like PS Move and its nav controller.
I'll get a PS4, if Sony design the unit around a 3D HMD with 180 degrees POV. If not I'll just stick with PS3 until a game I want to play for PS4 is out.
I'll get a PS4, if Sony design the unit around a 3D HMD with 180 degrees POV. If not I'll just stick with PS3 until a game I want to play for PS4 is out.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I find it extremely disappointing that option #1 is supposed to represent the 'true next gen' console. So I guess I'll pick #6. And when I get bored, I'll go back to the PC route.
I will be short and sweet, so pardon my blunt treatment, but if MS goes with 2 and Sony with 1 MS will be in serious financial straights because the following would happen: (a) Sony is going to attract a lot more early adopters and (b) by the sheer difference in hardware Sony multiplatform software will look better, perform better, and have fewer issues out of the gate, (c) Sony exclusives will be head and shoulders better. Getting way better MP games and way better looking SP games (lets call gameplay a way, we would all agree graphics would be in Sony's favor as would be platform performance).
As the poll stands right now, the early adopter hard core crowd that will be the ones buying these things out of the game, are in overwhelming favor of paying $150 for a better next gen experience. And with the difference mentioned in the poll we are going to tell all of our friends, "Dude, the PS4 version runs at 60Hz and looks better than the Xbox3 version."
I don't think there is a market for 3 platforms that all need special development. Even this gen the Wii got ignored a lot. Asking developers to do the Nintendo game and then split between the Xbox and PS would be a disaster. Publishers would see that the early adopters would rush to the $399 system and would cater to that crowd. And those that tried to get their title on the $249 system are looking at potentially holding back their $399 PS4 platform version for a scant number of sales.
That is one reason I did this poll: I think if Sony or MS is significantly underpowered they are in big trouble. Look at the BS PS3 flops and how far it took them along with CGI this gen, or how the irritating drip of reports, "PS3 MP version is almost on par and/or worse" and how that affects mindshare and tone. Now imagine a *serious* gamut in performance.
It would be a slaughter right out of the gate.
The only different experience would be all the crappy performing games on the Xbox!
This + services playing an increasingly important role.
Neither Sony or MS better find themselves in option 2 if the there is an option 1.
I do regular incremental upgrades to my PC to keep it fairly current (if never absolute top of the line). I really have no interest in a console that is only a modest upgrade over the current consoles as this would actually be a step down from what could be achieved on my current gaming PC, never mind what I could have in a year or two.
Ever since the PS1 days, I have cycled between primarily gaming on console to primarily gaming on PC as the console generation matured. This generation is no different and I now purchase most (single-player) multiplats on PC through Steam. If the next generation of consoles feature modest performance enhancements, I will just continue to game on PC and purchase the "new" consoles when they and their library of exclusive games are cheap.
Ever since the PS1 days, I have cycled between primarily gaming on console to primarily gaming on PC as the console generation matured. This generation is no different and I now purchase most (single-player) multiplats on PC through Steam. If the next generation of consoles feature modest performance enhancements, I will just continue to game on PC and purchase the "new" consoles when they and their library of exclusive games are cheap.
fortunately, none of that was very convincing.
Barring massive stupidity (on the part of MS/Sony), they will use a custom part.
How is a custom part going to significantly differ from a PC part? Strip some codec stuff, side port, trim out 64FP support, etc. But what, at the end of the day, is it going to look like in regards to performance fundamentally when you are still stuck in the ~ 250mm^2 range, < 125W TDP for GPU and Memory, have to be mindful of your pad not being too large that you cannot scale down (e.g. 256bit), and are staring down 28nm at TSMC?
Serious question because you found it unconvincing, I would like to know how a custom part, in your mind, is able to work within that framework and come out far ahead.
And worth noting the post isn't about a specific part but the performance/watt and how it is scaling on processes and what ballpark that is setting. Just being a console part won't all you to get 2x the performance at a set footprint--if it were possible PC parts would be doing it. A console can get away with cutting out PC specific features that may be redundant--but what do you think that gains you?
I have been reading the TSMC white papers on 28nm and there is no miracle there. For the same # gates they are advertising a 45% performance increase w/ the same leakage when moving for 40G to 28HP. Once you add more shaders, TMUs, etc you are either going to increase leakage or have to scale back performance to stay in the same TDP. Which, if as I mentioned, includes scaling up the shader arrays, TMUs, etc means you are effectively at a ceiling.
For a set TDP have to pick 2 of the following (within reason): Large Area, Fast Frequency, Power Efficient.
You can have Large and Fast ... at the expense of being power hungry and expensive so mark this one off.
So your real options are:
You can have Large and Efficient ... at the expense of having lower clocks.
You can have Fast and Efficient ... at the expense of not being very large.
I know AlStrong gets pissy every time I mention 4GB of memory or 3GFLOPs (booh hiss! Al, they could do it if they wanted to--and should) but I do concede to Al there is no magic panacea console special sauce coming from AMD or NV that will blow away the current GPUs.
Actually, because of how AMD and NV have attacked the PC market differently AMD is currently making PC GPUs *very similar* to the constraints set forth for a console GPU. Barts looks like a GPU that could fit into a console if it had shipped in 2010.
As long as it fits this budget @ 28nm, this should be plenty for a nextgen console IMO.
Did you foresee xenos based on x800 (this is even too generous, as we might well see 2 more generations of GPUs before a console)? It could be quite different and most certainly more tailored to a specific use. They might well have a TDP limit akin to 6850, but that doesn't mean you should expect anything like it.
To be honest, I think you lost me a bit with your reply. I imagine the scenario of having one "super console" stacked against a "upgraded console" to create some headache. Still, in the interest of being realistic, having the upgraded console would yield the advantage of being to market first and attracting (probably) more publishers due to market and economic constraints.
I don't think this scenario is that likely, but for the sake of the discussion lets analyze extremities: If super console that is 5 times more powerful in performance terms requires a much higher investment and development costs (2.5 times or would it be more?) than the 'upgraded' console - AND launches a year later - how many publishers would support that over the earlier upgraded console?
That's the quandary.
If they are released at the same time, I think Acert's scenario would likely come to fruition and quickly (assuming they are priced similarly).
First mover in either case (Sony or MS) will dictate how the generation unfolds. Neither one can afford to be caught at a significant hardware disadvantage in the marketplace, yet neither one wants to invest more then necessary (hardware-wise) to gain sales.
If MS/Sony come out first with a high-spec, the other will follow suit with similar high-spec as soon as possible (with perhaps enough headroom to ensure multiplats have some advantage).
IF MS/Sony come out first with a low spec 1.5 generation machine, the other will follow suit with similar low spec as soon as possible (with perhaps enough headroom to ensure multiplats have some advantage).
And as we saw with ps2, the weakest machine set the pace with software developers, not the most robust one that came out a year late.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Weakest machine is irrelevant, being first out and the base of multiplat development is the overriding factor. x360 certainly has also benefitted from early out with devs and I expect the nextgen to be the same.
On a semi-related note, if someone like Sony were to be thinking of using a different architecture such as PowerVR then being first out is imperative. With iPadmania, an early PowerVR system could garner interest and support but being late and different will get you a lot of "Sorry, x console is our development platform, we'll give you a port though".
Indeed, but "first out with what?" is the point.
The technology baseline of the first mover will dictate at what levels software developers will target and likely what level the 2nd console will target as well.
You mean the baseline for WiiU wasn't set 6 years ago with 360? Nintendo hasn't come out with mention that it's going to be a generational leap over what's currently out there. There's already a better rendition of assets i.e. the PC version, so what makes you think they're going to go the distance with WiiU when there's already far superior technology on PC? If anything, the PC iterations will be setting the next baseline, not WiiU.
edit:
The WiiU has already been set for easy 360/PC ports, so again... what exactly is WiiU bringing to the baseline? More RAM? Just use currently produced PC assets. The cost has already been ameliorated by current level of development. DX10.1 Tessellation? Ok, that's already being worked on and surpassed on PC DX11, which mind you is a highly scalable feature.
Anyways, it's a bit moot considering just how scalable a number of graphical features are these days compared to hardware that didn't even feature a 6 year old shader model (Wii). Shader precision, tessellation factors, frame buffer precision, AA/AF, shadow rendering ...
edit:
The WiiU has already been set for easy 360/PC ports, so again... what exactly is WiiU bringing to the baseline? More RAM? Just use currently produced PC assets. The cost has already been ameliorated by current level of development. DX10.1 Tessellation? Ok, that's already being worked on and surpassed on PC DX11, which mind you is a highly scalable feature.
Anyways, it's a bit moot considering just how scalable a number of graphical features are these days compared to hardware that didn't even feature a 6 year old shader model (Wii). Shader precision, tessellation factors, frame buffer precision, AA/AF, shadow rendering ...
Nintendo is in another world.
I have no idea what their plan is, but they certainly seem to be on a path of self destruction.
Wii allowed them to come up short HW wise due to the gimmick. This time around, mimmicking another gimmick that has already been on the market a few years and is vastly more popular will not allow them to be as nonchalant about their hardware choices and succeed.
I think Nintendo is hoping/praying that MS/Sony will either delay ps4/xb360 for 5 more years, or they are hoping/praying that MS/Sony will continue to support the current gen consoles well into the future after the next-gen boxes are launched.
If MS/Sony do sleep on the job, then Nintendo may have a shot.
But I'm not convinced that MS/Sony will let them have the upper hand for long (if at all).
edit: None of my comments or suggestions involve Nintendo. Unless I explicitly say their name, I'm talking strictly about Sony/MS.
FTR, their final contribution this gen will be that they forced MS/Sony's hand in launching their next-gen machines - IMO, they will be out of the game here in short order.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing.
Their plan is to compete favorably with xb360 and ps3 and hope/pray that the touchscreen gimmick will catch fire again.
I'm not convinced.
Similar threads
