-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Forbes column on PS4, Xbox 720, Wii 2 (next-gen systems)
- Thread starter Guy Legend
- Start date
AndresON777
shooting blanks
dankir said:
Yes I agree, I am completely satisfied with the current graphics...SC IV look great.
Psychotext
Member
To the best of my knowledge, the longest gap between console releases was Sony with the PS2 - PS3 (6 years, 1 month based on US release dates).
Are we really suggesting that MS will go even longer with the 7 years between releases it would take to bring the next xbox out in 2012? Let alone the utterly ridiculous 7 years from now in the article.
Are we really suggesting that MS will go even longer with the 7 years between releases it would take to bring the next xbox out in 2012? Let alone the utterly ridiculous 7 years from now in the article.
Mr Vociferous
Member
No way Microsoft is wating till 2018. lol.
I'd expect the new Xbox by 2011 at the very latest. 2012 looks like a likely candidate for the other consoles. It'd be nice to see Apple try their hand at a console, since they've had some much success with their mp3 player and mobile phone markets. Another console would mix things up a bit, especially if Apple made it.
I'd expect the new Xbox by 2011 at the very latest. 2012 looks like a likely candidate for the other consoles. It'd be nice to see Apple try their hand at a console, since they've had some much success with their mp3 player and mobile phone markets. Another console would mix things up a bit, especially if Apple made it.
Because you typically sit about half a metre away from your monitor, compared to over 2 metres from your TV?kiUNiT said:
Also my prediction? New generation from MS in Q4 2010 with no loss of support for 360. Emphasis in first couple of years will be on cross-generation compatibility.
Future PhaZe
Member
duk said:
Neogaf. Where console war speculation begins half a decade before it actually happens :lol
charlequin
Banned
This is exactly what I've been saying. Normally console length is determined by the loser, because they have the best interest in launching new hardware to get a "leg up" next generation. But this time, MS and Sony are very close to one another, both have room to price drop over a much longer period of time, and neither can really upend the Wii's table by launching a new, even more powerful system -- so there's very little reason for anyone to rush into an expensive new generation when instead they can focus on profitability for the current generation.
(Since many of the best games, and those that use their system's hardware most effectively, are late-generation titles anyway, this is a good thing for gamers.)
As others have said, I see the 2011-2012 as the year we'll see the launch of the first next-gen system. It really feels like this one has barely started though.
Even though it's far off, I can't wait to see what's in store. Sony/Microsoft touted this as the HD-era and yes we have it...but not where I thought/wanted it to be.
Even though it's far off, I can't wait to see what's in store. Sony/Microsoft touted this as the HD-era and yes we have it...but not where I thought/wanted it to be.
charlequin
Banned
viciouskillersquirrel said:
Every single bit of this is correct. The market leader won't announce the next system first because it's financial suicide to do so -- every console maker kind of dreams of the situation where they never have to make a new console because the existing one sells so well. And no one is going to bite off as much as this generation of HD consoles did -- whatever level of profitability they finally climb to over this long-ass generation, it's pretty clear that pushing the graphical edge at the expense of price wasn't worth it.
Kuramu said:
It's expensive as fuck to get into the console business these days. The number of companies with the resources to do it are actually quite limited.
Agent X said:
It's a well-worn principle of the gaming market, but one that people have to painfully relearn every generation.
Dirtbag 504 said:
Why would Nintendo cut off the legs of what is currently pretty much the most successful gaming platform of all time when they can keep on selling PS2-level or greater sales in all three regions without even really releasing any new software?
Since the PSP is essentially free money for Sony right now, too, I don't think they'll be any hurry to replace it -- but they'll definitely announce PSP2 before DS2, probably by a significant margin.
Psychotext said:
Yes. This generation is very different from previous ones, especially in pricing: given the path they've taken so far, Microsoft could easily continue to sell 360s at increasingly mass-market-friendly prices for years well past 2012.
As people have noted, dev cycles are longer, prices are higher, and R&D losses on the HD systems are immense -- it's simply not sustainable to maintain five-year cycles given the current economics of the industry.
I think it can't be more than a year unless Nintendo really wants to challenge itself. It's normally really hard to beat a competitor when he already has a good library and the goodwill of the third parties (except when he screw it big time like Microsoft).charlequin said:
Sega did very well with Genesis, and Nintendo had a tough time in the USA.
The question is: When the competitors won't release their consoles in 2012, do they think they will have a better position against Nintendo one or two years later? Nintendo itself gains the more influence the longer this cycle lasts.charlequin said:
Though I believe this cycle will remain at least 6 years, which means Xbox3 in Christmas 2011 at earliest. I bet on 2012.
kiUNiT said:
Sir Fragula has already answered this but there is also another reason, those screen sizes are used by people who need as much monitor real estate as possible. Those screens are primarily for graphics design and modelling. Putting games on those screens is an exercise in excess. The nuclear power station you would need to get decent framerates in Crysis at max at that setting is off putting enough. 2160p is 3840x2160
For movies 1080p is transparent to the master on Blu-ray. The same could never have been said of any video format preceding it. Only difference is colour representation.
TV will move to wider and wider colour ranges over the next couple of years. It's been happening for the past 3 years. Panels go from 8-bit to 10-bit, the contrast wars are well under way.
In about a decade we'll start talking about 3-D, which will involve the move beyond 2160p. I'm sure certain makers will start releasing 2160p TVs very soon to differentiate, but to design a console around this resolution is to rip the balls out of your product.
If the technology advance is maintained into the next generation - certainly for Sony the costs should be a lot lower, then the type of graphics we will see in the 8th console generation will be beautiful. 1080p/60 should be a walk in the park and the levels of AA and AF will go through the roof. Both the 360 and PS3 are barely doing justice to HD resolutions right now.
GTFO, nobody's waiting until 2018.
In fact, Sony and/or MS will probably copy Nintendo and come out with a console that is basically a minor upgrade to its predecessor, with waggle-like functionality. I would not be surprised at all if this happens.
In fact, Sony and/or MS will probably copy Nintendo and come out with a console that is basically a minor upgrade to its predecessor, with waggle-like functionality. I would not be surprised at all if this happens.
And it will suck if it does.
Deus Ex Machina
Member
Well technically they already look like crap.. I mean you can run any games (except Crysis) on a 169$ HD4850 at 1920x1200 at 4xFsaa , 16xAF between 40-90fps+...jon bones said:
RubberJohnny
Banned
I definitely think console generations should expand to take into account increasing development times.
On the PS1 a game taking over a year to make was a rare occurrence, now AAA titles regularly take 2-3 years, but console cycles are still the same length. The situation is even more notable on the PC with DirectX cycles every 3 years, it feels as if Crysis has just come out and already they're talking about DX11. At this rate the 'flagship' title for that won't be finished until after DX12.
A console generation that was say - the dev length of an AAA trilogy would work well, so say 10 years for current gen, giving time at the start to make an engine, increasing to 15 years next gen; and I mean minimum, no overlapping generations - that's cheating.
It would have a number of advantages, most notably that the consoles could get down to really low prices, look at the PS2 - 8 years old, still selling, still having games made for it and at a proper mass market price.
On the PS1 a game taking over a year to make was a rare occurrence, now AAA titles regularly take 2-3 years, but console cycles are still the same length. The situation is even more notable on the PC with DirectX cycles every 3 years, it feels as if Crysis has just come out and already they're talking about DX11. At this rate the 'flagship' title for that won't be finished until after DX12.
A console generation that was say - the dev length of an AAA trilogy would work well, so say 10 years for current gen, giving time at the start to make an engine, increasing to 15 years next gen; and I mean minimum, no overlapping generations - that's cheating.
It would have a number of advantages, most notably that the consoles could get down to really low prices, look at the PS2 - 8 years old, still selling, still having games made for it and at a proper mass market price.
I think 2012 to 2018 represents the overall timeframe of when and how long the next-generation lasts. Not the timeframe of when the new consoles will launch.
There is no way that Nintendo, Microsoft or even SONY would wait until 2018 to launch a next-gen console.
I'm pretty certain next-gen consoles will be launching between 2011 and 2013 (none in 2010).
There is no way that Nintendo, Microsoft or even SONY would wait until 2018 to launch a next-gen console.
I'm pretty certain next-gen consoles will be launching between 2011 and 2013 (none in 2010).
charlequin
Banned
Neo C. said:
I guess "significant" maybe wasn't the best word choice. I expect to see PSP2 announced, with the DS2 not to follow for a number of months -- definitely not at the same event. I could see them putting up to a year between the release dates, too.
Nintendo has already won by a ludicrous margin, and will have passed the combined PS360 install base by Q1 of 2009. The only question for Sony and Microsoft is whether people will keep buying their systems and games, not whether they can get more leverage over Nintendo for next generation (they already have none and are stuck reinventing themselves if they want to do better next time out.)
One of these two (I don't think there's any reason it has to be Microsoft) will still want to try to launch first when the next generation does start, but they'll want to have a better idea of what their competitors are doing first and to squeeze the current generation for as much profit as they can. That means launching after their current sales start the end-of-gen die-off, which I think will take much longer this time around because there will still be so many people waiting to buy in at $200 or below.
(In terms of the actual systems, I expect everyone to tack towards the center next generation -- more weird control schemes, hardware power relatively greater than the Wii but more modest than PS360, etc.)
Zero_Phoenix
Banned
jmdajr said:
I'll add some :lol :lol :lol No way you're going to be running Crysis anywhere that good even on crazy multi-SLi setups... Guy is full of shit.
noirebanana
Member
Diablos said:
Dude, Sony's already tried that this generation with the SIXAXIS controller for the PS3, although it's completely half-assed due to them basically throwing it in there the last second.
Fenderputty
Banned
Forbes said:
Wait ... so a repeat of this gen?
Does anyone really think Sony is going to follow the steps of MS? Vice Versa?
Zero_Phoenix
Banned
KHarvey16 said:
Oops, I misread, nevermind then. Obviously that's not true in all non-Crysis cases, but I thought he typed even Crysis
BTW, to those who say the Wii2 will be about the same or less powerful than the 360/PS3, you're forgetting about the need for backwards compatibility. If they don't want to be stuck in the mess MS and especially Sony are now, with system just not quite capable of emulating the previous gen' in software, the Wii2 is probably going to have to be quite a bit more powerful than the PS3/360.
There's no way they can simply extend the same basic platform again like they did GC>Wii. Nor will they want to include otherwise useless silicon (they won't make the same mistake Sony did).
There's no way they can simply extend the same basic platform again like they did GC>Wii. Nor will they want to include otherwise useless silicon (they won't make the same mistake Sony did).
kame-sennin
Member
Most people in this thread seem to disagree with the article. They expect the current generation to last as long as previous ones. But how can we talk about next gen without talking about the costs involved (something I haven't seen a lot of)?
The 360 and PS3 are barely profitable now. Will Sony and Microsoft's shareholders be happy about launching another presumably loss-leading console so soon? Think of the development, production, and marketing costs involved with a new launch. Also, how cheap will the 360 and PS3 be in 2011? Are Sony and MS willing to leave the mass market on the table as they move into next-gen? And what incentive does Nintendo really have to move into next-gen? Anyone who says outdated tech has been asleep this entire generation.
And if the 360 and PS3 can't outsell the Wii now, why would there successors be able to do so in 2012 (I'm not saying they won't, but it is a question worth asking)? The PS2 held out for a while against the 360 in spite of the fact that development resources were being shifted to its successor - both externally and internally. How well would PS2 have done if it had full support and no threat of a PS3?
That's not what "disruption" means in this context.
The 360 and PS3 are barely profitable now. Will Sony and Microsoft's shareholders be happy about launching another presumably loss-leading console so soon? Think of the development, production, and marketing costs involved with a new launch. Also, how cheap will the 360 and PS3 be in 2011? Are Sony and MS willing to leave the mass market on the table as they move into next-gen? And what incentive does Nintendo really have to move into next-gen? Anyone who says outdated tech has been asleep this entire generation.
And if the 360 and PS3 can't outsell the Wii now, why would there successors be able to do so in 2012 (I'm not saying they won't, but it is a question worth asking)? The PS2 held out for a while against the 360 in spite of the fact that development resources were being shifted to its successor - both externally and internally. How well would PS2 have done if it had full support and no threat of a PS3?
[Nintex] said:
That's not what "disruption" means in this context.
Rollo Lawson
Banned
Kuramu said:
exactly, i was coming to post this. if someone comes to this gen or next gen the way sony did with the ps1, anything is liable to happen...especially if they do it any time soon. these 3 companies cant wait too long becuz thats exactly what will happen
To assume that the 360 and PS3 will stay longer than the previous cycles, you also assume that they will do somehow allright in the next few years. I think this is quite hard to predict, perhaps those two consoles will die quite harshly and be forced to drop the price big time. There's no guarantee that both competitors can stay profitable in the next few years, we don't know when they reach the peak in their sales.kame-sennin said:
Of course lately it seems all three hardware producers are aiming for profit, still I'm not sure if the sales remain stable as it is now.
Iced_Eagle
Member
I would fucking go batshit insane if we have the 360, PS3 and Wii until 2018...
2010, 2011 would be my hopes. I mean, sure the systems will still do well after that, but I think after that, we're no longer questioning their power, but whether consumers will want to deal with having the systems that long.
With the New Xbox Experience though, at least it will help in not making the 360 feel so stale anymore though
2010, 2011 would be my hopes. I mean, sure the systems will still do well after that, but I think after that, we're no longer questioning their power, but whether consumers will want to deal with having the systems that long.
With the New Xbox Experience though, at least it will help in not making the 360 feel so stale anymore though
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
fwiw, I'm making my bet on 2011.
kame-sennin
Member
Iced_Eagle said:
Why? The Xbox, Playstation, and Wii are just plastic boxes until you put games in them. If the game experiences remain fresh, why would consumers get tired of them? We have limited data on long lasting consoles because losing manufacturers are always trying to change the market with new entries (and incumbents are rarely brave enough to not respond). But looking at the NES, Gameboy*, PS1, and PS2, it seems that consumers have no problem sticking with an older product as long as there is a steady supply of new software.
*The Gameboy actually survived multiple generations before it was even updated, and then later replaced.
It should be noted that with new games, new peripherals (and BT wireless capabilities making them easier), network gaming and better graphics engines...the need for new console hardware is less and less needed. Sure, raw power & output can always improve with new hardware, but there is a point of diminishing returns.
disappeared
Banned
just throwing this out there as kind of a b-side discussion, but I can't wait to see what 360 and PS3 games look like by 2012. By that time pretty much all developers will have grasped the technology ins and outs and we're probably going to see some really good stuff. Things like MGS4 and Gear of War are hopefully just a taste.
The thing that bothers me about this generation is that we're stuck with either inferior graphics (Wii) or inferior controls (360/PS3). It seems almost like a half-generation advancement in each case.
Knowing what we know now, I wish I system(s) with 360/PS3 level graphics with Wii/Motion+ controls was launching right around now for ~$300. Last-gen ended way too early / had a lot more lift in it.
Knowing what we know now, I wish I system(s) with 360/PS3 level graphics with Wii/Motion+ controls was launching right around now for ~$300. Last-gen ended way too early / had a lot more lift in it.
disappeared said:
The trend has been towards more effects, but lower rez and less/no anti-aliasing. I suspect we'll be seeing even less games at true 720p (forget about 1080!) and relatively few with anti-aliasing, but with super-sharp textures, lots of nice particle and screen effects (good motion blur and depth-of-field will be standard practice).
I think we'll also see *LESS* dynamic lighting / more pre-baked lighting and effects since it's just more efficient.
In a lot of ways PC-centric devs with traditional PC priorities have been in the drivers seat technically so far this gen, and increasingly we're going to see that shift back.
milanbaros
Member?
kame-sennin said:
You know, I was wondering that today.
Sony could have released a PS2.5 in say mid 2005. It would be the same system except have a hard drive, wireless controllers and psn and some other stuff. Games could come with the option of dlc and online multiplayer when played in ps2.5 but it would work fine in a normal ps2. The thing could launch for $149.
stewacide said:
Well, the problem is, when you try to be the most innovative AND the best in everything, you either end up with a mediocre product, or less success, or utter failure, or with insane costs... Or all of the above.
It's a fine balance between consumer expectations and needs, and business management (I don't know if it's the right word here, but I mean the way you run your company so that it's successful). Not mentioning vision.
Higher end machines won't allow Microsoft and Sony to capture the mass market. It didn't work for them this time, it would be even worst next time. They are already one generation ahead in terms of graphics, but one generation behind in terms of controls/casual appeal.
So I highly doubt Microsoft or Sony would release a more powerful console before at least 6 years: the potential market would be too small, as would be the 3rd party support. If one had to do it nevertheless, it would be a desperate move resulting from a long stagnation in sales.
On the other hand, if the PS3 or the 360 can rebound through a new innovation, taking sales and 3rd parties away from Nintendo, then Iwata may decide to launch a next gen system first, mostly to regain 3rd parties revenue.
But I don't believe Sony or Microsoft can top MotionPlus this gen. They have nothing in terms of casual franchise that can compete with Wii Sports 2 to make their new controller a standard and steal Nintendo's thunder.
People do not see it coming, but Nintendo's weak lineup in 2H 2008 is a sign they are working on MotionPlus and projects innovative enough, they can't be unveiled yet. As great as Alan Wake/next Ico turn out to be, a good Punch Out will certainly be a much bigger system seller, to take one example.
Nintendo's challenge will be to sell a gyro extension to an exiting controller, with a sensor bar already on the TV, bundled with a sequel to a game everyone enjoys, or at least knows.
Microsoft and Sony's challenge will be to produce a new advanced controller from scratch, sell it a very low price, so that the mass market can afford it, supported by games that demonstrate a better value than Nintendo's upcoming offerings.
I question Sony's and Microsoft's ability to achieve meeting these conditions before Nintendo's domination on the mass market becomes too important.
So I highly doubt Microsoft or Sony would release a more powerful console before at least 6 years: the potential market would be too small, as would be the 3rd party support. If one had to do it nevertheless, it would be a desperate move resulting from a long stagnation in sales.
On the other hand, if the PS3 or the 360 can rebound through a new innovation, taking sales and 3rd parties away from Nintendo, then Iwata may decide to launch a next gen system first, mostly to regain 3rd parties revenue.
But I don't believe Sony or Microsoft can top MotionPlus this gen. They have nothing in terms of casual franchise that can compete with Wii Sports 2 to make their new controller a standard and steal Nintendo's thunder.
People do not see it coming, but Nintendo's weak lineup in 2H 2008 is a sign they are working on MotionPlus and projects innovative enough, they can't be unveiled yet. As great as Alan Wake/next Ico turn out to be, a good Punch Out will certainly be a much bigger system seller, to take one example.
Nintendo's challenge will be to sell a gyro extension to an exiting controller, with a sensor bar already on the TV, bundled with a sequel to a game everyone enjoys, or at least knows.
Microsoft and Sony's challenge will be to produce a new advanced controller from scratch, sell it a very low price, so that the mass market can afford it, supported by games that demonstrate a better value than Nintendo's upcoming offerings.
I question Sony's and Microsoft's ability to achieve meeting these conditions before Nintendo's domination on the mass market becomes too important.