Where is next-gen headed? *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

They'd all be optional of course, nothing on screen. I was thinking that you can enable "widgets" as it were and they just get preloaded into ram so they are only a button press away if you need them, and they load quick and look modern. Either way there would be nothing on screen when you play. Best way to explain it I guess would be having apps minimized in Windows. I have Skype for example loaded and ready right now, but I don't see it at all. But with one mouse click it instantly appears because it's all loaded and resident in memory.

That sounds a very good idea. I suppose the PS3 equivalent is pressing the PS button and picking an 'app' from the XMB, and most times the game has to be quit to launch. Even in-game shopping isn't possible. The whole experience will definitely be smoother next-gen. MS will certainly want the same apps and experiences on your PC, console and phone, so I expect one to be able to select an app from one device and have it available on the other devices. I guess the future of XBox is no longer DirectX box, but Windows Live box.

One issue I have with comparing PC functionality and things like Skype is the insane amount of bloat going on. Very efficient systems could perform online chat/video chat with little memory requirements. XB3 can do everything XB360 with exactly the same amount of 32 MBs reserved RAM ro whatever it is, although that'd go up a bit to support a 1080p UI. But it already has cross-game chat and custom soundtracks in that 32 MB, so it'd be a travesty if next-gen hundreds of MBs get used up to power Skype and friends.

A web browser could take up a significant amount (hundreds of MB), but that'd still look workable with 1/16th system RAM reserved, and an HDD for VM. Overall, I can see whatever experience being offered will be served by a standard box of CPU+GPU components and RAM and HDD/flash. The only reason I can think of for this not to be the case is if Live! is open to apps, and there are loads written that are extremely inefficient but people expect to use them on their console. As long as MS's XB division handle all the services software, they'll do an excellent job and keep impact minimal.

 

[RudeCurve]

I see on my win7 box skype using astounding 63MB memory at this point of time..

Skype running in the background on iOS only takes up 16MB of RAM.

Anyway I think MS has a pretty good handle on RAM usage from background services as Shifty explained with the cross game chat and music streaming examples on the current Xbox OS.

 

[joker454]

Skype running in the background on iOS only takes up 16MB of RAM.

104MB on mine, which I'm guessing isn't the full memory picture as there are other systems it likely relies on that are using memory elsewhere. But in any case I only brought up skype as it seemed like an easy example that everyone was familiar with.

How complex UI can one use while playing a game? I see on my win7 box skype using astounding 63MB memory at this point of time. Assuming even console version is as bloated that is still almost nothing to swap in It's not like console should be designed to run game, skype, web browser and some flash games at the same time. People will be perfectly happy if the use case is limited to primary and secondary use case at same time where secondary can be pulled in when necessary from pool of secondary services. At some point the user needs to pause the game and say that ok. too much to handle, I'll take a break to take care of these other things(like skype chatting+checking prices from amazon for that friend on skype). It's not like you can get many kills on cod if you are typing url's talking to a friend and part of the screen is obstructed by image of friend and browser.

Well these consoles have great little gpu's and could kick up a killer ui, but nowadays it's memory that dictates what the ui will look like. Hence they all look fairly primitive. It doesn't need to be a hollywood style fly-thru-city-while-checking-email type over the top ui, but something other than the uber minimalist ui we see now.

I'd think it would be cool to be able to keep a game, skype, app store and browser resident at all times. One click and you are instantly there to any app. I could keep gamefaqs.com loaded on the browser to check on the game I'm playing if I get stuck, that would be neat. Right now when I get stuck I drag out a laptop to look up what to do. They could shift all dlc related stuff to the app store and use the os memory. For example right now to buy dlc a game has to use some memory to bring up the list of what to buy, etc. Instead shift all that to the app store so if I press a key while I'm in LA Noire, it instantly brings up the LA Noire app store page to buy dlc, etc, and none of that takes any of the memory reserved for games like it does now. Some of that can be done with very little memory, but others like a browser are a bit of a wildcard as to memory use. Ultimately I think next consoles will be transition machines from being primarily just game players to more multi purpose boxes. It's tough to predict what people will do or want to do with these boxes so it seems like hedging your bets with some spare memory is a good bet. That way in case some new killer app/startup surfaces you can add it to your console. Or if some new idea sprouts up in 2015 on PC, or requires the 4gb iPad6, then you can bring it over to your console as well without worry.

Or heck, worse case if it goes unused then use that memory as optical drive cache

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well these consoles have great little gpu's and could kick up a killer ui, but nowadays it's memory that dictates what the ui will look like. Hence they all look fairly primitive. It doesn't need to be a hollywood style fly-thru-city-while-checking-email type over the top ui, but something other than the uber minimalist ui we see now.

Not sure I want a more complex UI. A bit of icon animation, maybe. But XMB looks very nice with film thumbnails and changing backgrounds. Anything more would be rather over-the-top I think.

I'd think it would be cool to be able to keep a game, skype, app store and browser resident at all times. One click and you are instantly there to any app. I could keep gamefaqs.com loaded on the browser to check on the game I'm playing if I get stuck, that would be neat...

I agree with all this, it's all stuff I've wanted, except...

Right now when I get stuck I drag out a laptop to look up what to do...

...that's a change that makes adding functions to the console less relevant. Why add an always on browser if everyone has an internet enabled TV or tablet or notebook to hand? If up to me, I would add the browser because it's relatively low cost and very useful. Memory consumption shouldn't be extravagant. Maybe disallow more than 3 tabs say, and 200MBs should be plenty. I still can't see a need to expressly address non-gaming functions in the hardware design, except maybe choice of hardware for compatibility such as Sony picking ARM and SGX for PS4 for bitwise compatibility with Vita. All non-gaming functions would work the same as this gen, occupying 10% or so of the whole system.

 

[joker454]

Not sure I want a more complex UI. A bit of icon animation, maybe. But XMB looks very nice with film thumbnails and changing backgrounds. Anything more would be rather over-the-top I think.

For sure, no one wants more complex. But current consoles interfaces, to me anyways, scream "i am starved for memory", and they look designed in the 90s to me.

I agree with all this, it's all stuff I've wanted, except...
...that's a change that makes adding functions to the console less relevant. Why add an always on browser if everyone has an internet enabled TV or tablet or notebook to hand?

Most existing browsers are basically garbage. Like the PS3's browser, unless you are into s&m and dig pain then perhaps you can tolerate it, but for the rest of using it is an appalling experience. Note I'm not talking about the hardcore that will seemingly tolerate anything sometimes, I mean the rest of us that simply won't use a browser like that. Likewise browsers built into other devices are equally garbage, partly due to woefully inadequate cpu and memory. Tablets aren't bad...but even my iPad browser crashes likely due to running out of memory.

Regarding tablets thats also an easy answer, not everyone has a tablet Think about it, people today can build a $400 gaming pc that utterly smokes what the consoles can do and they won't spend that, so what makes you think they will spend an extra $500+ on a tablet? Plus at the end of the day if I'm using a separate device then how to I quickly link it to one of my buddies on xblive for example?

If up to me, I would add the browser because it's relatively low cost and very useful. Memory consumption shouldn't be extravagant. Maybe disallow more than 3 tabs say, and 200MBs should be plenty. I still can't see a need to expressly address non-gaming functions in the hardware design, except maybe choice of hardware for compatibility such as Sony picking ARM and SGX for PS4 for bitwise compatibility with Vita. All non-gaming functions would work the same as this gen, occupying 10% or so of the whole system.

It's really hard to say what would be considered plenty for memory. Personally if just looking only at games, 2gb just seems way too light to me for a 2013-2021 machine. 4gb seems ok....which means I'd prefer ~6gb. 4gb lets you get the job done, and 6gb lets you experiment on new things and serves as a buffer for new gaming related discoveries over the course of 8 years.

On the Os side is where it gets really murky now. Look back at past gens, like NES/SMS era. It was clear the next machines needed more colors and better sprite manipulation. Look at the PS1/Dreamcast era, it was clear that more polygon power, z buffer, etc, was needed. Back then 99% of people used their machines just for games, the Os didn't do much of anything. Now look at the PS3/360 era. Things have shifted, people are as likely to be watching netflix as playing games. We're basically at the beginning of a paradigm shift in how consoles are used. So what do to on the Xbox 720? Yeah perhaps 200MB for Os would get the job done...maybe. Then again it would look really silly if in 2016 phones have more ram than consoles. I know you don't like what-if's...but next console gen has a lot of what-if's attached to it.

Ultimately I'm really only speaking of Microsoft. I have no clue what Sony will do, but personally I think they will be out of the console space in the future anyways but that's just my humble opinion that I have no interest in debating. For Microsoft to make sure they can get PC, Phone and Tablet stuff working in harmony on their next console during the 2013-2021 timeframe might mean betting a bit more on ram than usual. Eventually they will ship a tablet, what will it's baseline ram be? 512mb? 1gb? 2gb? That decision will affect how much ram they will want to put into the Xbox 720. I don't think any of us here have enough information to deduce how much ram will be enough, it really depends on their long term plans which include Windows 8, Windows tablets and multiple future Windows phones.

 

[Beef Stallmer]

you can Skype while doing other things on iPad2, you can even do it on iPad1, or iPhone 3G; to do so, start Skype, begin a call, during call press the home button, choose which game you want to play, and continue.

about the 104MB figure, it's probably virtual private memory (look it up) and not actual ram. Count all the apps you have running, do you have a magical >1.5GB ram ipad2 or did you interpret the numbers wrong?

 

[joker454]

you can Skype while doing other things on iPad2, you can even do it on iPad1, or iPhone 3G; to do so, start Skype, begin a call, during call press the home button, choose which game you want to play, and continue.

about the 104MB figure, it's probably virtual private memory (look it up) and not actual ram. Count all the apps you have running, do you have a magical >1.5GB ram ipad2 or did you interpret the numbers wrong?

I have the original iPad, not the iPad2. My memory figure was from the PC version actually, I use it more for 4 way calls, etc... I get that the pc version will prolly be more bloated but again Skype was but one simple example of a type of app one may want to keep resident and ready. Ultimately these companies want growth, and if they want next console gen to grow they need to venture outside of just games, which means thinking a bit differently when it comes to memory needs.

 

[Beef Stallmer]

I have the original iPad, not the iPad2. My memory figure was from the PC version actually, I use it more for 4 way calls, etc... I get that the pc version will prolly be more bloated but again Skype was but one simple example of a type of app one may want to keep resident and ready. Ultimately these companies want growth, and if they want next console gen to grow they need to venture outside of just games, which means thinking a bit differently when it comes to memory needs.

this even works on the 96MB ram iPhone 3G, you can try it on your iPad 1 and it will work trust me.

 

[RudeCurve]

this even works on the 96MB ram iPhone 3G, you can try it on your iPad 1 and it will work trust me.

+1...I knew something wasn't right when joker said on his "system" it used 100MB+ of RAM. Yes the PC version uses way more RAM than the iOS variant.

 

[hoho]

Skype running in the background on iOS only takes up 16MB of RAM.

When I was logged in to Skype, MSN, gtalk and facebook on my old N900 the unified IM and contacts thing didn't take more than ~15MB combined for all the protocols. In total I had around 200-ish "friends" for these accounts.

The reason why "same" apps take ~10x more on PC mostly comes down to pretty much completely un-optimized memory usage.

 

[Carl B]

Thing is, quite a bit may change next gen. For example, Microsoft has finally woken up and realized that they need to unify all their platforms together and make them interoperable.

I do generally agree with this premise. Going forward, I would really be surprised if MS does not try to leverage 720 hard at the outset into providing distinct value-add relative to its other offerings in the market.

A lot of us are fans of the distinct console business model, and then some like myself were a fan of the PS3's original vision of an all-in-one device, complete with exotic architecture. But the traditional console business can be no more in the world we live in now, and are headed towards. The reason is that devices that in their purest form have no business playing games, are now all game playing devices.

Steve Jobs for years and years had been adamant in his distaste for gaming, yet the devices produced by Apple have nevertheless gone on to become primary gaming devices for the sub-hardcore crowd. Phones allow gaming. Set top boxes allow gaming. Some TVs allow gaming.

They cannot reproduce the fidelity or experience of a console, but the field of games achievable only in that environment is diminished. And when you have consumer 'experience' and ecosystems turning into monsters with benefits beyond the sum of their parts, you cannot ignore an area of strength and differentiation - in this case the console - as part of your unified strategy.

I don't think it will be like Sony's unified strategy relative to Blu-ray though, and with what we already know is going to be some slowed cost-cutting going into future die shrinks, I really feel that the hardware going into these things is going to more reflect the positioning as an additional 'device,' albeit specialized, in a broader ecosystem and set of product offerings rather than the traditional loss-leader model where the expectation of volume software sales alone was enough to justify the risk. I expect a lot more service/DLC focus likely unified across Windows, and if not that, then at least a unified cloud strategy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They cannot reproduce the fidelity or experience of a console, but the field of games achievable only in that environment is diminished.

I'm not sure it is. We've sold over 100 million core-experience consoles this generation and it's still going. Chances are PS360 together will supercede what PS2+XB+GC managed, and that's ignoring Wii bringing in motion gamers. Next-gen will still have a market for 100= million core gamers who love their FIFA and COD and Halo and Uncharted experiences, and unless the PC can turn around its image completely and becoming the machine for control-pad pick-up-and-play gaming, there'll be no other offering for this market than the games consoles. Suffice to say if MS or Sony or Nintendo pulled out to create all-in-one portable mobile CE gaming platforms, whoever was left could release a straightforward, high-spec console and pull another PS2. As long as next-gen consoles cater for the new breed of gamers, providing a TV platform to play those same Android/Live games that they play on their mobiles, than it'll work out IMO.

 

[Carl B]

Here's the thing with the sales numbers and such, and why it folds back in to the other points I was making though. The fidelity achieved on these consoles relative to the horde of other devices is achievable in part due to the initial expense endured on the front end to have competitive hardware in the console tradition, with early gen loss-leading as the trade-off. If that loss-leading aspect goes away, you are going to be in a situation where the price for a console starts to become quite similar to what similar hardware purposed for other segments might be spec'd at. Equipment that wherever possible, is already in the pattern of taking on more and more functionality simply for the sake of having it.

As Patsu alluded to earlier also, a lot of owners are using their systems for tasks additional to gaming; as the years go on, there's going to need to be a certain minimum level of parity maintained on the non-gaming front simply to be competitive on a front where the benefits can't quite be quantified or measured.

Going back to Apple - who for better or worse presently defines the technology landscape - now that Steve Jobs is taking a back seat, what if there were to be a gaming push into the living room? The investment at this junction need not even be that great, as the dev community is already there on iOS. And you could be certain that Apple TV and the rest of it would be bundled on in with this system as well, to Apple's advantage.

I am not saying such a scenario would or would not play out, but it would be in Microsoft's and Sony's best interests to go into the next gen expecting this to be the case, rather than waiting for any sort of confirmation before responding.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

To have a competitor to MS and Sony and possibly Nintendo, depending on where they find themselves the next few machines they release, would need AAA titles. Appl'es cultivated a culture of $5 games being seen as expensive. How can they integrate a...20 GB GTA into the Apple ecosystem over the next 5 years? The iOS contingent can't offer that. Apple would need a serious box, which'll cost serious money and keep them as niche as ever (okay, maybe not as niche as The Masses have largely contracted Appleitus). For Sony or MS to look solely at a games box would definitely lose them interest and sales, but we know that isn't happening. they've already provided a good range of added-value services this gen, and they'd be extremeyl stupid not to extend their services next gen. MS will have Live! Sony will have...PSS, or something, running on Vita, Android and PS4. What they'll both have that Apple and Samsung and Google won't is a box that people can afford to buy that'll offer the best FIFA, COD, and GTA experiences on top of all the casual games and apps and stuff of the other CE contenders. I don't think anyone else will try to get into this market because it's so damned hard to get it right and there's not much to be gained by them (Apple, Samsung) in taking a smaller share of the 100+ million core gamers.

 

[Carl B]

To have a competitor to MS and Sony and possibly Nintendo, depending on where they find themselves the next few machines they release, would need AAA titles. Appl'es cultivated a culture of $5 games being seen as expensive. How can they integrate a...20 GB GTA into the Apple ecosystem over the next 5 years?

The game size is a good point, but what I would expect would be digital delivery to onboard storage - the "console" store would simply be an extension of the present store, and like with their other offerings, would cut out physical retail completely. A $5 game *is* a whole lot different than a 20GB GTA, but the GTA devs - and all major devs/publishers - are already there on iOS. If said Apple TV/console/super box ships with 500GB onboard storage, then the remaining challenges would only be will to enter the market.

For Sony or MS to look solely at a games box would definitely lose them interest and sales, but we know that isn't happening. they've already provided a good range of added-value services this gen, and they'd be extremeyl stupid not to extend their services next gen. MS will have Live! Sony will have...PSS, or something, running on Vita, Android and PS4.

That's the point though that I think Joker was originally making - yes, they will have all that, as they do now... but what those value-adds are and how they interact with the ecosystem and other devices will become more integrated and cohesive.

What they'll both have that Apple and Samsung and Google won't is a box that people can afford to buy that'll offer the best FIFA, COD, and GTA experiences on top of all the casual games and apps and stuff of the other CE contenders. I don't think anyone else will try to get into this market because it's so damned hard to get it right and there's not much to be gained by them (Apple, Samsung) in taking a smaller share of the 100+ million core gamers.

Samsung I am not at all viewing as a - direct - contender as many seem to when mentioning would-be entrants. Google though, I absolutely think could get in the game indirectly at some point. Even by the end of the PS2 era, the console was viewed as one of many avenues to controlling the digital living room absolutely, and thus we had the PSX experiment. If Google succeeds in establishing Android as any sort of platform for gaming, I think it's a short hop-skip-jump away from their establishing standards for the Google set top box. They're already involved in that space as it is, and their acquisition of Motorola only strengthens that hand.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I don't believe in the single-device digital living room and apparently neither does MS or Sony or Apple. They have iPhone, iPad, Macbook, iMac and all of these could be in the same room, even for the same person (there was at least one friend of mine who had three of the above more than once).

MS has Windows phones, Xboxes, plans on tablets and already covers portable and desktop computer software. Sony's the same whit an emphasis on hardware instead of software.
What Apple has for an advantage is a unified digital content delivery platform in iTunes. That's what Sony and MS are probably working on, but I'm not sure if Apple's best response is yet another new device...

 

[Carl B]

I don't believe in the single-device digital living room and apparently neither does MS or Sony or Apple. They have iPhone, iPad, Macbook, iMac and all of these could be in the same room, even for the same person (there was at least one friend of mine who had three of the above more than once).

MS has Windows phones, Xboxes, plans on tablets and already covers portable and desktop computer software. Sony's the same whit an emphasis on hardware instead of software.
What Apple has for an advantage is a unified digital content delivery platform in iTunes. That's what Sony and MS are probably working on, but I'm not sure if Apple's best response is yet another new device...

Hmmm... I disagree with the way you're viewing things, though. Phones and tablets are not living room components - they are mobile devices. But the reason they work into the living room strategy is because interoperability between the two increases the attractiveness of both. iPhone and iPad have spurred sales of Macs, for instance, even though the two occupy different spaces.

The "living room" battle is ultimately between devices such as DVRs/STBs, 'smart' TVs, media players such as BD players, consoles, etc. It could very well be that there never is a successful "living room" singular device, but I am fairly certain that all of these players are going to keep pushing to get there, and you don't want to be on the losing side of that battle, or you risk being Apple'd in the same way so many already have been in the mobile space.

 

[patsu]

I agree mostly with Mr. Bender.

The "living room" battle is ultimately between devices such as DVRs/STBs, 'smart' TVs, media players such as BD players, consoles, etc. It could very well be that there never is a successful "living room" singular device, but I am fairly certain that all of these players are going to keep pushing to get there, and you don't want to be on the losing side of that battle, or you risk being Apple'd in the same way so many already have been in the mobile space.

... but the "living room" war or battle may be "irrelevant" ultimately.

EDIT:
[size=-2]It may be a good base for Sony to launch its strategies though[/size]

 

[Arwin]

The only devices that benefit from a fixed hardware platform for a longer period are devices that play games. All other devices benefit from getting better every year.

That has to change first before dedicated gaming devices become under serious threat. Do we have any indication that such is the case? I know there are some indications for certain, but I'm not immediately convinced at the moment.

I don't expect much of anything to dominate in the near future. As the general market expands, we should normally see more and more diversification in all directions. I think that is exactly what we're seeing right now.

 

[Carl B]

The only devices that benefit from a fixed hardware platform for a longer period are devices that play games. All other devices benefit from getting better every year.

That has to change first before dedicated gaming devices become under serious threat. Do we have any indication that such is the case? I know there are some indications for certain, but I'm not immediately convinced at the moment.

I don't expect much of anything to dominate in the near future. As the general market expands, we should normally see more and more diversification in all directions. I think that is exactly what we're seeing right now.

The reasons that game-playing devices benefit from those situations though are...

a) from the manufacturer's standpoint, because initial costs are high and time is required to recoup those costs, with the expectation that software will be the primary driver of profits over an extended period

and

b) from the developers/publishers standpoint, because initial costs are high, and time is required to adequately monetize tools development and build an install base large enough to reasonably assure a return on game production costs

Now, keeping in mind that the above mostly relate to PS360 this gen vs the Wii, if we envision a new gen of high(est)-def consoles from these two where the BOM costs are much reduced at the front end, and we assume a move away from less exotic architectures, then we are going to be in a situation where at their launch, both consoles are on a relative basis less powerful than the 360 and PS3 were in their day and age at launch, and one in which there is increased platform commonality with other 'generic' devices.

It won't be a stretch IMO for down-spec'd versions of popular franchises/games to begin appearing with minimal porting effort across the range of higher-end iOS and Android devices come the new gen in 2013 (arbitrary guess), with said devices being able to offer an increasingly similar experience to the dedicated gaming devices as the years go on towards the next 5-yr window. If the console manufacturers hold back on initial expense due to profitability concerns, and they use semi-generic parts, it will be the market reality that they will automatically have lowered the barrier to entry for competition.

Gaming back in the glory days of console gaming was niche and specialized, and required hardware above and beyond what the typical embedded device was designed for. Now, gaming is omnipresent, on every device in one form or another, and developers are seeking to exploit every (easy) path to leveraging IP and design assets. Publishers like SquareEnix and EA have already been active in trying to leverage the space, and as hardware improves, those efforts can only increase. In that world, MS and Sony need to be able to offer a differentiated and compelling unified experience for its own sake, and focus on the production of top tier, A-class content (games) appreciably compelling enough as possible exclusives to draw in users.