The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3586[/URL]
Are the next set of consoles coming out to early? Is this really the issue here?
This blokey from Nintendo banging on about everyone rushing to bring out new consoles is true. The next set of consoles aren't really going to give us vastly new gaming experiances. The graphics probably won't be THAT significantly different from the current crop of games.
But what made me question his speech was when he said "people are still playing current generation of games With most people who bought a GameCube last christmas already owning a PS2 or X-Box."
Is this the question we should be addressing? The amount of different consoles on the market.
Soon (a yr or two), we'll have GameCube, Revolution, PS2, PS3, X-Box, X-House, Phantom....
Is this just over kill!?!
I'm a strong believer in the single console market, and believe that is what should happen to save (advance) the games industry.
Let people make different models of a single format gaming console. Take for example the GameCube and the Q. Both the same, but ones all shiney and has DVD play-back.
So why don't they just create consoles like DVD players, or VCRs. All play the same medium, but have different features, like 5.1 surround sound, DivX playback, mp3 reading, etc etc
That is what I think should happen as opposed to every console manufacturer bringing out their own console every 4 years.
Just imagine, one uber console, but YOUR choice of using a GC, PS, or X-B, controller...
:)
Are the next set of consoles coming out to early? Is this really the issue here?
This blokey from Nintendo banging on about everyone rushing to bring out new consoles is true. The next set of consoles aren't really going to give us vastly new gaming experiances. The graphics probably won't be THAT significantly different from the current crop of games.
But what made me question his speech was when he said "people are still playing current generation of games With most people who bought a GameCube last christmas already owning a PS2 or X-Box."
Is this the question we should be addressing? The amount of different consoles on the market.
Soon (a yr or two), we'll have GameCube, Revolution, PS2, PS3, X-Box, X-House, Phantom....
Is this just over kill!?!
I'm a strong believer in the single console market, and believe that is what should happen to save (advance) the games industry.
Let people make different models of a single format gaming console. Take for example the GameCube and the Q. Both the same, but ones all shiney and has DVD play-back.
So why don't they just create consoles like DVD players, or VCRs. All play the same medium, but have different features, like 5.1 surround sound, DivX playback, mp3 reading, etc etc
That is what I think should happen as opposed to every console manufacturer bringing out their own console every 4 years.
Just imagine, one uber console, but YOUR choice of using a GC, PS, or X-B, controller...
:)
[URL]http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3586[/URL]
Are the next set of consoles coming out to early? Is this really the issue here?
This blokey from Nintendo banging on about everyone rushing to bring out new consoles is true. The next set of consoles aren't really going to give us vastly new gaming experiances. The graphics probably won't be THAT significantly different from the current crop of games.
But what made me question his speech was when he said "people are still playing current generation of games With most people who bought a GameCube last christmas already owning a PS2 or X-Box."
Is this the question we should be addressing? The amount of different consoles on the market.
Soon (a yr or two), we'll have GameCube, Revolution, PS2, PS3, X-Box, X-House, Phantom....
Is this just over kill!?!
I'm a strong believer in the single console market, and believe that is what should happen to save (advance) the games industry.
Let people make different models of a single format gaming console. Take for example the GameCube and the Q. Both the same, but ones all shiney and has DVD play-back.
So why don't they just create consoles like DVD players, or VCRs. All play the same medium, but have different features, like 5.1 surround sound, DivX playback, mp3 reading, etc etc
That is what I think should happen as opposed to every console manufacturer bringing out their own console every 4 years.
Just imagine, one uber console, but YOUR choice of using a GC, PS, or X-B, controller...
:)
Are the next set of consoles coming out to early? Is this really the issue here?
This blokey from Nintendo banging on about everyone rushing to bring out new consoles is true. The next set of consoles aren't really going to give us vastly new gaming experiances. The graphics probably won't be THAT significantly different from the current crop of games.
But what made me question his speech was when he said "people are still playing current generation of games With most people who bought a GameCube last christmas already owning a PS2 or X-Box."
Is this the question we should be addressing? The amount of different consoles on the market.
Soon (a yr or two), we'll have GameCube, Revolution, PS2, PS3, X-Box, X-House, Phantom....
Is this just over kill!?!
I'm a strong believer in the single console market, and believe that is what should happen to save (advance) the games industry.
Let people make different models of a single format gaming console. Take for example the GameCube and the Q. Both the same, but ones all shiney and has DVD play-back.
So why don't they just create consoles like DVD players, or VCRs. All play the same medium, but have different features, like 5.1 surround sound, DivX playback, mp3 reading, etc etc
That is what I think should happen as opposed to every console manufacturer bringing out their own console every 4 years.
Just imagine, one uber console, but YOUR choice of using a GC, PS, or X-B, controller...
:)
I've considered a single format before. But whilst Sony and Microsoft are still battling it out for dominance in the home that will never happen. And Nintendo couldn't cope not having their own format. There would be too many delays for them and they would just lose sales.
A single format was the idea behind the Nuon, the graphics chip developed for building into DVD players. Look where that ended up. Same with the 3DO, it was sold in various guises, but was a flop.
Yes I think that the upgrade cycle is a touch on the fast side, but the reason that MS and Sony want to upgrade is that the current hardware is actually limiting them. Sure they are not always pushing it to the extremes, I think mainly due to them knowing that it isn't worth biting off more than they can chew as it were.
Also I detect some bitterness from the Nintendo guy. Most of his issues will stem from the fact that whilst at the moment Nintendo can just about compete, chances are they will be blown out the water technologically next time round. Also Nintendo no doubt want more time to sell more Gamecubes. Only in the past year has it started being successful, but recent reports have mentioned the Xbox now having sold over 14 million, which would put it back in second world wide. That coupled with the runaway success of Xbox Live AND the Xbox having the highest tie ratio of all consoles (that's the amount of games sold per console sold) then MS appear to be in better shape just now than Nintendo.
MS will want the next cycle to begin soon simply so that they can take out Sony. Sony will be happy to delay it as long as possible for a few reasons. #1 They are struggling to get the ambitious hardware for the PS3 into reality. #2 The longer the PS2 stays around the more sales it will garner, both on units sold and games sold. Hell, the PSOne is still selling and some Playstation games sold over 100,000 copies last year. #3 Sony know that they are going to be under a lot more pressure in the next generation.
I can't blame the manufacturers for wanting to advance things. You can never have too much processing power to use after all. But if MS were to win the next generation then they would be the ones in no hurry to speed up the next cycle. If Nintendo were to win it, then they wouldn't want to release the next generation soon either. It makes simple business sense for the leaders to try to hang onto their position for as long as possible and for the runners up to launch initiatives to catch up as fast as possible.
I'm not opposed to technological advancement, in fact I'm all for it. Right now I'm happy with my consoles. But the next generation of games can always be bigger and better and people want that. That is why we play 3D games now and not 2D Spectrum style games. I'm happy just now, but in 18 months time I will probably be prepared to get a new console. I do predict that the next generation will last longer however as we are beginning to push the boundaries of what can be done with computers in clock speed etc. The Xbox and PS2 generation was the first decent 3D generation, it had the power to do it nicely. The next will push the bar higher still and it will take a lot more to make any improvement worth paying for beyond that.
The real ways in which to innovate and improve are in terms of online services and new ways of interacting with games and software. Games which learn about you could be possible soon. Better AI. Bigger enironments. Who know's?
A single format was the idea behind the Nuon, the graphics chip developed for building into DVD players. Look where that ended up. Same with the 3DO, it was sold in various guises, but was a flop.
Yes I think that the upgrade cycle is a touch on the fast side, but the reason that MS and Sony want to upgrade is that the current hardware is actually limiting them. Sure they are not always pushing it to the extremes, I think mainly due to them knowing that it isn't worth biting off more than they can chew as it were.
Also I detect some bitterness from the Nintendo guy. Most of his issues will stem from the fact that whilst at the moment Nintendo can just about compete, chances are they will be blown out the water technologically next time round. Also Nintendo no doubt want more time to sell more Gamecubes. Only in the past year has it started being successful, but recent reports have mentioned the Xbox now having sold over 14 million, which would put it back in second world wide. That coupled with the runaway success of Xbox Live AND the Xbox having the highest tie ratio of all consoles (that's the amount of games sold per console sold) then MS appear to be in better shape just now than Nintendo.
MS will want the next cycle to begin soon simply so that they can take out Sony. Sony will be happy to delay it as long as possible for a few reasons. #1 They are struggling to get the ambitious hardware for the PS3 into reality. #2 The longer the PS2 stays around the more sales it will garner, both on units sold and games sold. Hell, the PSOne is still selling and some Playstation games sold over 100,000 copies last year. #3 Sony know that they are going to be under a lot more pressure in the next generation.
I can't blame the manufacturers for wanting to advance things. You can never have too much processing power to use after all. But if MS were to win the next generation then they would be the ones in no hurry to speed up the next cycle. If Nintendo were to win it, then they wouldn't want to release the next generation soon either. It makes simple business sense for the leaders to try to hang onto their position for as long as possible and for the runners up to launch initiatives to catch up as fast as possible.
I'm not opposed to technological advancement, in fact I'm all for it. Right now I'm happy with my consoles. But the next generation of games can always be bigger and better and people want that. That is why we play 3D games now and not 2D Spectrum style games. I'm happy just now, but in 18 months time I will probably be prepared to get a new console. I do predict that the next generation will last longer however as we are beginning to push the boundaries of what can be done with computers in clock speed etc. The Xbox and PS2 generation was the first decent 3D generation, it had the power to do it nicely. The next will push the bar higher still and it will take a lot more to make any improvement worth paying for beyond that.
The real ways in which to innovate and improve are in terms of online services and new ways of interacting with games and software. Games which learn about you could be possible soon. Better AI. Bigger enironments. Who know's?
I wasnt so keen about the xbox and the PS2 has always been my favourite, but now whenever I see clips of PS2 games I tend to think they're for the PSOne because well to be honest the graphics look rather crap. Also playing online with the xbox has been very easy, enjoyable and playing games like Crimson Skies the quality stays the same, as if I'm playing against very tough AI instead of actual people. We can easily plug it in and get going. However with the PS2, with it's two game ports and it's ugly design with the modem attached, the ugly online software and of course graphics not looking as great to me as they should. Perhaps I'm comparing the graphics from a PS2 game to that of an Xbox, an example would be say RS3 which to be honest wasnt worth releasing on the PS2 at all.
If sony are going to stay the market leaders then they're going to have to rethink everything because I don't think I ever want to play an online game on a PS2 anymore and I'm rather put off by the graphics. My brother will always buy the xbox version of games now. Similar to the Gamecube, the graphics look crap, I think I've raised my standards now, What looked great 3 years ago doesn't look so great now.
I can't wait for the next generation consoles, I hope they actually think ahead, if the PS3 is badly designed without an internal modem, harddrive and 4 ports and other functions then I'm not going to be so happy. I don't really care about them being an entertainment systems, if they can play music off the harddrive, that's a bonus, if they can play dvds that's a bonus if they allow keyboards and mice, headsets and guns then great.
If sony are going to stay the market leaders then they're going to have to rethink everything because I don't think I ever want to play an online game on a PS2 anymore and I'm rather put off by the graphics. My brother will always buy the xbox version of games now. Similar to the Gamecube, the graphics look crap, I think I've raised my standards now, What looked great 3 years ago doesn't look so great now.
I can't wait for the next generation consoles, I hope they actually think ahead, if the PS3 is badly designed without an internal modem, harddrive and 4 ports and other functions then I'm not going to be so happy. I don't really care about them being an entertainment systems, if they can play music off the harddrive, that's a bonus, if they can play dvds that's a bonus if they allow keyboards and mice, headsets and guns then great.
Fooly Cooly wrote:
>> Similar to the Gamecube, the graphics look crap, I think I've raised
> my standards now, What looked great 3 years ago doesn't look so great
> now.
>
Agreed with most of it, except this. Rubbish.
>> Similar to the Gamecube, the graphics look crap, I think I've raised
> my standards now, What looked great 3 years ago doesn't look so great
> now.
>
Agreed with most of it, except this. Rubbish.
Biggles, I think there's a slight flaw in your reasoning.
There was a significant improvement in each console, since the Nes to the Gamecube (taking Nintendo's lineage as the example, being the oldest survivor).
The thing is, the Gamecube (and Xbox and PS2) can pretty much do everything you need from a console.
Nice graphics played smoothly.
The only significant advance I see in the Xbox2 and PS3 is taking online gaming further. The difference in power won't mean much.
But maybe I'm overlooking something here.
Notice how devellopment costs are so high nowdays?
Well, with new powerful hardware, even middleware games would be stunning.
That way devellopment costs will drop dramatically, games will generally be of a better standard and less bugged, and games devellopers can put the bulk of their efforts into the design of the game, rather than be held back back menial coding efficiency and debugging.
Some of the more daring and innovative devellopers will push the new hardware to the limits, but devellopers won't HAVE to.
Game devellopment will become cheaper, prices will drop and so forth...
I think the next generation will be the least exciting for hardcore gamers, but the stablisation of a volatile industry.
There was a significant improvement in each console, since the Nes to the Gamecube (taking Nintendo's lineage as the example, being the oldest survivor).
The thing is, the Gamecube (and Xbox and PS2) can pretty much do everything you need from a console.
Nice graphics played smoothly.
The only significant advance I see in the Xbox2 and PS3 is taking online gaming further. The difference in power won't mean much.
But maybe I'm overlooking something here.
Notice how devellopment costs are so high nowdays?
Well, with new powerful hardware, even middleware games would be stunning.
That way devellopment costs will drop dramatically, games will generally be of a better standard and less bugged, and games devellopers can put the bulk of their efforts into the design of the game, rather than be held back back menial coding efficiency and debugging.
Some of the more daring and innovative devellopers will push the new hardware to the limits, but devellopers won't HAVE to.
Game devellopment will become cheaper, prices will drop and so forth...
I think the next generation will be the least exciting for hardcore gamers, but the stablisation of a volatile industry.
Well true, they are nice graphics and they do tend to be smooth. But we are beginning to notice a lack of power in the consoles already. Doom 3 for instance will be noticably better on the PC compared to the Xbox. Now sure, the Xbox version will likely be the greatest graphical achievement yet on a console, but it just doesn't have enough power to take it to the absolute limit.
The next generation will hit a barrier of diminishing returns for new consoles performance wise. In other words, the next generation consoles should take us very close to life like graphics (if of course the developers want that as opposed to cell shading or something) and after that the improvements the next next generation would bring would be much lower.
The best analogy would be like the N64 with Perfect Dark. There was a barrier, and they just couldn't quite breach it. There ended up being slowdown at places because the old N64 just didn't have the power. Whilst slow down is not an issue currently, it could be soon. Just like the Gamecube had the power to lift Zelda to a whole new level, the next generation will have the power to take us into almost perfect graphics.
The main bottle neck just now is really not graphical power however. It is memory and main processor power. Because I'm happy with the graphics just now. Sure, I'd prefer it if they looked like live camera footage as opposed to computer graphics, but they are that bit better than the N64 and Saturn I was used to. The real advances however will come from AI and being able to have more going on at any one time. And that needs more memory and more processor power.
The last generation started the climb up the 3D hill. This generation marked a plateau, a rest stop. The next generation will take us almost to the summit. I'm ready to start climbing again.
The next generation will hit a barrier of diminishing returns for new consoles performance wise. In other words, the next generation consoles should take us very close to life like graphics (if of course the developers want that as opposed to cell shading or something) and after that the improvements the next next generation would bring would be much lower.
The best analogy would be like the N64 with Perfect Dark. There was a barrier, and they just couldn't quite breach it. There ended up being slowdown at places because the old N64 just didn't have the power. Whilst slow down is not an issue currently, it could be soon. Just like the Gamecube had the power to lift Zelda to a whole new level, the next generation will have the power to take us into almost perfect graphics.
The main bottle neck just now is really not graphical power however. It is memory and main processor power. Because I'm happy with the graphics just now. Sure, I'd prefer it if they looked like live camera footage as opposed to computer graphics, but they are that bit better than the N64 and Saturn I was used to. The real advances however will come from AI and being able to have more going on at any one time. And that needs more memory and more processor power.
The last generation started the climb up the 3D hill. This generation marked a plateau, a rest stop. The next generation will take us almost to the summit. I'm ready to start climbing again.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> >
> The last generation started the climb up the 3D hill. This generation
> marked a plateau, a rest stop. The next generation will take us
> almost to the summit. I'm ready to start climbing again.
I suspect you're quietly pleased wth that.
> >
> The last generation started the climb up the 3D hill. This generation
> marked a plateau, a rest stop. The next generation will take us
> almost to the summit. I'm ready to start climbing again.
I suspect you're quietly pleased wth that.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Well true, they are nice graphics and they do tend to be smooth. But
> we are beginning to notice a lack of power in the consoles already.
> Doom 3 for instance will be noticably better on the PC compared to
> the Xbox. Now sure, the Xbox version will likely be the greatest
> graphical achievement yet on a console, but it just doesn't have
> enough power to take it to the absolute limit.
Yeah, but petty differences...
Won't really change the game.
Bar a couple of graphical downgrades, I think that the Dreamcast could've managed most Gamecube and Xbox games.
Obviously with toned down graphics but you'd still get the game...
> The next generation will hit a barrier of diminishing returns for new
> consoles performance wise. In other words, the next generation
> consoles should take us very close to life like graphics (if of
> course the developers want that as opposed to cell shading or
> something) and after that the improvements the next next generation
> would bring would be much lower.
Yeah, but...
Is that really important...
> The best analogy would be like the N64 with Perfect Dark. There was a
> barrier, and they just couldn't quite breach it. There ended up being
> slowdown at places because the old N64 just didn't have the power.
> Whilst slow down is not an issue currently, it could be soon. Just
> like the Gamecube had the power to lift Zelda to a whole new level,
> the next generation will have the power to take us into almost
> perfect graphics.
But there's a difference.
Perfect Dark couldn't be handled.
Neither could Conker.
That's when the Gamecube became a necessesity.
What can't the Xbox or Gamecube do?
Metroid Prime and Starfox adventures had graphics as good as you'd ever need, really...
> The main bottle neck just now is really not graphical power however.
> It is memory and main processor power. Because I'm happy with the
> graphics just now. Sure, I'd prefer it if they looked like live
> camera footage as opposed to computer graphics, but they are that bit
> better than the N64 and Saturn I was used to. The real advances
> however will come from AI and being able to have more going on at any
> one time. And that needs more memory and more processor power.
That was one of the things I was thinking about.
AI and character models (real time character motion rather than preset animations) have lots of scope for improvement, and online play will be taken further. But that'll only affect the most hardcore of games.
I think that the only real benefit will be the drop in game devellopment costs (which hopefully carry on to prices) that comes from more use of middleware.
> The last generation started the climb up the 3D hill. This generation
> marked a plateau, a rest stop. The next generation will take us
> almost to the summit. I'm ready to start climbing again.
The way I see it, this is almost the summit, and although there's a slightly better view, I've gotten frostbite getting this far and the small path to the top is such an "expensive" climb that is it really worth bothering with?
> Well true, they are nice graphics and they do tend to be smooth. But
> we are beginning to notice a lack of power in the consoles already.
> Doom 3 for instance will be noticably better on the PC compared to
> the Xbox. Now sure, the Xbox version will likely be the greatest
> graphical achievement yet on a console, but it just doesn't have
> enough power to take it to the absolute limit.
Yeah, but petty differences...
Won't really change the game.
Bar a couple of graphical downgrades, I think that the Dreamcast could've managed most Gamecube and Xbox games.
Obviously with toned down graphics but you'd still get the game...
> The next generation will hit a barrier of diminishing returns for new
> consoles performance wise. In other words, the next generation
> consoles should take us very close to life like graphics (if of
> course the developers want that as opposed to cell shading or
> something) and after that the improvements the next next generation
> would bring would be much lower.
Yeah, but...
Is that really important...
> The best analogy would be like the N64 with Perfect Dark. There was a
> barrier, and they just couldn't quite breach it. There ended up being
> slowdown at places because the old N64 just didn't have the power.
> Whilst slow down is not an issue currently, it could be soon. Just
> like the Gamecube had the power to lift Zelda to a whole new level,
> the next generation will have the power to take us into almost
> perfect graphics.
But there's a difference.
Perfect Dark couldn't be handled.
Neither could Conker.
That's when the Gamecube became a necessesity.
What can't the Xbox or Gamecube do?
Metroid Prime and Starfox adventures had graphics as good as you'd ever need, really...
> The main bottle neck just now is really not graphical power however.
> It is memory and main processor power. Because I'm happy with the
> graphics just now. Sure, I'd prefer it if they looked like live
> camera footage as opposed to computer graphics, but they are that bit
> better than the N64 and Saturn I was used to. The real advances
> however will come from AI and being able to have more going on at any
> one time. And that needs more memory and more processor power.
That was one of the things I was thinking about.
AI and character models (real time character motion rather than preset animations) have lots of scope for improvement, and online play will be taken further. But that'll only affect the most hardcore of games.
I think that the only real benefit will be the drop in game devellopment costs (which hopefully carry on to prices) that comes from more use of middleware.
> The last generation started the climb up the 3D hill. This generation
> marked a plateau, a rest stop. The next generation will take us
> almost to the summit. I'm ready to start climbing again.
The way I see it, this is almost the summit, and although there's a slightly better view, I've gotten frostbite getting this far and the small path to the top is such an "expensive" climb that is it really worth bothering with?
I think Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Sega and Namco should work together to make one console having Nintendo designing the consoles look and design. Microsoft making the insides. Sony doing market reaserch, while Sega and Namco get the realese line-up looking good, they could be more 2nd party. Then the console would have classics like Zelda, Mario and Metroid from Ninty, Halo and Ninja Garden from Microsoft and... well what the hell do Sony make??? It would solve companies losing money and the public wouldn't have to buy a new console just to play final fantasy or Zelda. I hope this day comes soon, before the next next generation consoles. It would rock!