Support NeoGAF

[Grampa Simpson]

Get those Wii HD specs out of here lol

I call it as I see it, and I see it as a system that won't break bank. This is a 2012 prediction. Scale up slightly for a 2013 prediction.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I call it as I see it, and I see it as a system that won't break bank. This is a 2012 prediction. Scale up slightly for a 2013 prediction.

You're breaking my heart.

 

[godhandiscen]

Really?

The Entertainment and devices division just had to eat the losses from the WP7 launch along with the constant losses that Zune gives, NVM the 500M allocated for Kinect marketing. It is incredibly hard to get an estimate of how much the Xbox is really netting MS, but the only thing clear is that it is the only profitable business in that division.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

I call it as I see it, and I see it as a system that won't break bank. This is a 2012 prediction. Scale up slightly for a 2013 prediction.

Hah, scale up slightly (?) for a 2013 release?

You need to realize that the next generation is possibly going to be around even longer than this current gen (possibly close to a decade!) and you need to make sure that the tech stands up well throughout that time period. Now, let's go half-way into the life-cycle assuming a 2013 release (which I personally believe it won't be until 2014), which if we give it 10 years life-cycle, that puts the half-way point at 2018. Do you think the machine you created would be adequete for that time? Fuck. No.

Yes, MS wants the machine to be affordable, and you tried to show that with your specs. However, I think you're forgetting that MS and Sony heavily subsidize the cost of their systems to allow them to be better machines, and have a longer life. The machine you listed would definitely cost way less than $300. I would say you just built a $100 machine or even less by the time it launches.

1-1.5 GB would end up being way too constricting just a year or so into the lifecycle of the machine. I'm expecting 4GB (this would put it exactly in line as the 8x RAM increase from Xbox -> Xbox 360).

No HDD??? Are you insane? It will be standard, with different sized HDD's as plug-ins like now. Hell, the Xbox had a standard HDD back in the day, and the only reason MS took it out of the 360 was for cost reasons at the time. This is just plain wrong.

Only 8GB flash? Again, you aren't looking into the future. I can get a 8GB flash drive for $20 today, so going into the future 2 years, the price is going to plumment. Plus, the X360 Arcade already has 4GB flash in it. They are going to do more than double this. I would estimate 32GB, maybe even 64GB.

Unified memory is likely to come back to the next-gen as that was a really nice feature. 22nm also sounds reasonable given the time frame. Not sure on the 75 watt peak though (it's extremely hard to guess without knowing the other types of processors and such they're using)

3 core CPU?! What the fuck dude. The current X360 has this. The PS3 technically has 7 cores. Do you really think they aren't going to upgrade the CPU? I'm expecting 6-8 core processor.

I'm still not sure what MS plans to do with the motion market for their next console. Personally, at launch I think they're going to have two SKU's. Low-end which is maybe a slightly gimped console in terms of HDD space, and without a motion controller. High-end would include a motion controller and a bigger HDD.

The price is another tricky guess. MS wants to subsidize it as much as possible, but the possible addition of a motion controller may make this higher than the X360.

I would imagine $400-$500, though I'm sure MS will aggressively try to get this down to X360 launch prices of $300-$400 since it worked out well against Sony.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

You're breaking my heart.

I see three ways to take it.

1. Graphics Whore (your prediction basically)
2. PS360 plus - This is the one where we say that the blockbuster game needs to be kept at a certain level and not too much higher. We're already at the point where a flopped blockbuster can ruin a studio and a string of them can kill Eidos and Midway. Raising the minimum expectation would probably amplify this effect.
3. Sit and wait. New consoles in 2017. Let the software makers keep making software and see who survives. Then we can start the cycle again. I expect that all three manufacturers have considered doing this. If all three were at even keel on 3rd party support, they may have very well done this.

I don't think Nintendo has a method to expand the market again like they did this time - at least not something that isn't derivative of what they've already done. They're watching 3rd party support tilt further and further in favor of the PS360, and they're wondering if maybe they'd like a slice of that pie. They think that they can bring their new audience with them into the PS360 generation, and because of this they'll launch a machine a little bit better (2x-3x) than the PS360 in 2012. They're making some very selective bets here. They know this might backfire, but at the same time they know that they can still ride a lot of the momentum that they gained with the Wii, and they don't think that Sony and MS have any decent cards to play for at least a year or two after.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

The price is another tricky guess. MS wants to subsidize it as much as possible, but the possible addition of a motion controller may make this higher than the X360.

I would imagine $400-$500, though I'm sure MS will aggressively try to get this down to X360 launch prices of $300-$400 since it worked out well against Sony.

It would take me weeks to stop laughing if this happened.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

It would take me weeks to stop laughing if this happened.

It's totally not even far-fetched dude.

You do know that the PS3 launched at $500 and $600, right?

$400-500 is a bit more expensive than what the X360 launched at, but you need to realize that it's not that bad considering you're going to be using the thing for about 10 years (and it's obviously going to have way better tech, and possibly a motion controller built-in).

 

[Grampa Simpson]

It's totally not even far-fetched dude.

You do know that the PS3 launched at $500 and $600, right?

$400-500 is a bit more expensive than what the X360 launched at, but you need to realize that it's not that bad considering you're going to be using the thing for about 10 years (and it's obviously going to have way better tech, and possibly a motion controller built-in).

The PS3 had a huge backlash for doing so. They were hitting sub-100k months during the year after launch. Not only that, but it was so subsidized that they wiped out all the profits that they made during the PS2 generation.

The 360's 300/400 price had a lot of backlash as well - although the comparison against the PS3's price helped it look cheaper.

That said, MS successfully breached us in to the age of the 300/400 launch. It can now be done without repercussions. 400/500 - they may not be so lucky.

On to the subject of subsidizing the razor's to sell the razor blades, it's taken both companies 3-4 years to start making back the money they lost in subsidies. In the mean time both of them restructured their game console divisions in such a way that it's harder to individually track profit/loss of the game console divisions by quarterly financial statements. I can't say that this was the exact purpose of doing so, but it was one of the effects.

The correct answer for all three players is $400 with hard drive, $300 without (and at least Nintendo and MS will have the without option), with little to no subsidy, and probably a small profit per system for Nintendo.

 

[Orlics]

2014? Shit. I'll be midway through my 20s...

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

2014? Shit. I'll be midway through my 20s...

Consider that holographic discs and optical interconnections can make a console obsolete, a single year could mean a decade's worth of difference in terms of graphics and physics. Being first could net you a big loss in the coming generation.


My opinion as professional coder and artist:
If a console has holographic discs and another doesn't, one gets photorealism and the other gets some approximation.

 

[mrklaw]

this 'Xbox 360.5' talk is crazy. By 2013/14 it'd almost be costing MS more to produce an xbox 360 than just make a new one from scratch. And it'd almost cost them more/be more effort for it *not* to be a huge jump in power from the 360.

Eventually stuff just becomes uneconomic to produce. thats one of the reasons you get PS3s with 320GB HDDs - the 20GBs are just not made anymore.

At some point, whoever fabs the chips for MS are going to say 'hey, can we please not keep this decrepit line open, producing clockwork chips?'

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Consider that holographic discs and optical interconnections can make a console obsolete, a single year could mean a decade's worth of difference in terms of graphics and physics. Being first could net you a big loss in the coming generation.

Nope.

Arguably the rate of power increase is slowing, but more than that, each generation's visual gap is smaller than the last as we approach photorealism and you have to invest more and more power to get increasingly small visually perceptible differences. This generation to next generation will not be as big a boost as the gap between the last, which was in turn smaller than the gap between PS1/N64 and PS2/GC/XBOX.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Nope.

Arguably the rate of power increase is slowing, but more than that, each generation's visual gap is smaller than the last as we approach photorealism and you have to invest more and more power to get increasingly small visually perceptible differences. This generation to next generation will not be as big a boost as the gap between the last, which was in turn smaller than the gap between PS1/N64 and PS2/GC/XBOX.

As an artist I disagree.

Realtime can look better than hollywood cg, even given a good canvas which is memory. Holographic discs have the necessary bandwidth and storage to allow people like carmack to shine.

Give John D. Carmack and similarly skilled people holographic storage, and you will see the full power of photorealism in real time.

Memory is the basis of intelligence, the heart of evolution, and the piece of pie, it is the basis of all. The heart of life, dna, is a molecular tape storing memory, that is the essence of life.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I see three ways to take it.

1. Graphics Whore (your prediction basically)
2. PS360 plus - This is the one where we say that the blockbuster game needs to be kept at a certain level and not too much higher. We're already at the point where a flopped blockbuster can ruin a studio and a string of them can kill Eidos and Midway. Raising the minimum expectation would probably amplify this effect.
3. Sit and wait. New consoles in 2017. Let the software makers keep making software and see who survives. Then we can start the cycle again. I expect that all three manufacturers have considered doing this. If all three were at even keel on 3rd party support, they may have very well done this.

I don't think Nintendo has a method to expand the market again like they did this time - at least not something that isn't derivative of what they've already done. They're watching 3rd party support tilt further and further in favor of the PS360, and they're wondering if maybe they'd like a slice of that pie. They think that they can bring their new audience with them into the PS360 generation, and because of this they'll launch a machine a little bit better (2x-3x) than the PS360 in 2012. They're making some very selective bets here. They know this might backfire, but at the same time they know that they can still ride a lot of the momentum that they gained with the Wii, and they don't think that Sony and MS have any decent cards to play for at least a year or two after.

BAH! Its true though. My "demands" were just a pipedream...a wishlist. I see something more akin to what you propose just...bumped up a notch lol.

 

[Stripper13]

As an artist I disagree.

Realtime can look better than hollywood cg, even given a good canvas which is memory. Holographic discs have the necessary bandwidth and storage to allow people like carmack to shine.

Give John D. Carmack and similarly skilled people holographic storage, and you will see the full power of photorealism in real time.

Memory is the basis of intelligence, the heart of evolution, and the piece of pie, it is the basis of all. The heart of life, dna, is a molecular tape storing memory, that is the essence of life.

Oh, it's one of you people. The hippie commune is that way.

 

[Deputy Moonman]

Nope.

Arguably the rate of power increase is slowing, but more than that, each generation's visual gap is smaller than the last as we approach photorealism and you have to invest more and more power to get increasingly small visually perceptible differences. This generation to next generation will not be as big a boost as the gap between the last.

That's what I said while playing E.T. for the Atari in '82 and boy was I wrong!

 

[McHuj]

I don't believe that MS will go with a xbox360 1.5 because I think MS likes how the current one turned out.

If MS didn't put out a powerful system, it wouldn't be selling as well as it is today nor in another couple years. It be very dated now an in need of an appropriate successor now as well.

Both MS and Sony, can sell these consoles for another 4 five years at lower and lower price points. They truly will be have around 10 year life spans. That simply wouldn't be possible for a 1.5 version of the system. If MS goes with a small upgrade, they'll have to refresh sooner.

I really hope they go all out and bring a console out in 2012/2013. That will be the right time for the early adopters to eat up an expensive console ($400) while they still can sell the xbox360 to the mainstream at a low price.

Last time, MS was losing money on both the x360 and the original at the launch of the x360. Now, their in much better position to buffer any expense and subsidies they might need for the successor to the 360.

 

[m.i.s.]

I don't believe that MS will go with a xbox360 1.5 because I think MS likes how the current one turned out.

If MS didn't put out a powerful system, it wouldn't be selling as well as it is today nor in another couple years. It be very dated now an in need of an appropriate successor now as well.

Both MS and Sony, can sell these consoles for another 4 five years at lower and lower price points. They truly will be have around 10 year life spans. That simply wouldn't be possible for a 1.5 version of the system. If MS goes with a small upgrade, they'll have to refresh sooner.

I really hope they go all out and bring a console out in 2012/2013. That will be the right time for the early adopters to eat up an expensive console ($400) while they still can sell the xbox360 to the mainstream at a low price.

Last time, MS was losing money on both the x360 and the original at the launch of the x360. Now, their in much better position to buffer any expense and subsidies they might need for the successor to the 360.

It's selling well to casuals due to a certain motion detection camera. Powerful hardware has very little to do with that.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

That's what I said while playing E.T. for the Atari in '82 and boy was I wrong!

"But how could they improve graphics... Third dimension! How could I not have thought of that before? Genius!"

As an artist I disagree.

Realtime can look better than hollywood cg, even given a good canvas which is memory. Holographic discs have the necessary bandwidth and storage to allow people like carmack to shine.

Give John D. Carmack and similarly skilled people holographic storage, and you will see the full power of photorealism in real time.

I don't see how super high capacity storage is going to change anything here. The biggest limitation isn't disk space, it's the GPU's processing power and GPU memory (well there's architectural things you can improve too of course). On 360 space is obviously a much bigger limit than it is on PS3 or PC, but you get what I mean.

Just the ability to store huge amounts of data doesn't improve visual fidelity, excepting cases where you had to compress a movie to fit on a disc or something like that. To give a more specific example, at one stage polygon count was the ultimate arbiter of 3D graphics. But post PS2 generation, it's become less and less important and the focus has shifted to realism in other areas (shaders and lighting this generation) as characters actually looked sufficiently like humans to make "omg need twice as many polygons" less relevant. Presumably in the future these things will improve to the point where they are basically as good as you'll get, and we'll need to move to other areas to improve the graphics.

 

[McHuj]

It's selling well to casuals due to a certain motion detection camera. Powerful hardware has very little to do with that.

But if the hardcore hadn't been buying it since 2005, MS wouldn't have had the brand name, market share and mind share to enable something like Kinect. Initially, the hardcore bought it because it was a powerful system.

 

[Brimstone]

As an artist I disagree.

Realtime can look better than hollywood cg, even given a good canvas which is memory. Holographic discs have the necessary bandwidth and storage to allow people like carmack to shine.

Give John D. Carmack and similarly skilled people holographic storage, and you will see the full power of photorealism in real time.

Memory is the basis of intelligence, the heart of evolution, and the piece of pie, it is the basis of all. The heart of life, dna, is a molecular tape storing memory, that is the essence of life.

I think your understanding is pretty accurate. John Carmacks angle seems to be let the artists paint the game world however they want and not be concerned with Geometry or Texture resolution limitations. Then let the game engine compress the data.

 

[gofreak]

I think the software transition will be interesting to watch.

Depending on pricing of 360/PS3 when 720/PS4 arrive and how they keep selling, you could see a lot of software overlap for some time, with the latter being 'premium' new systems with much fancier graphics, for the core crowd. Then later than in previous transitions, a more determined shift to 720/PS4-only software.

Or maybe not. Maybe the 'core' software will go next-gen only pretty quickly, with a casual focus on the older systems.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Next Xbox will be an more powerful 360 integrated with Kinect. One machine for both.

 

[Gorgon]

My opinion as professional coder and artist:
If a console has holographic discs and another doesn't, one gets photorealism and the other gets some approximation.

Hum...that would be dependent on not only GPU horsepower, but also memory, etc. More disc space doesn't automatically translate into photorealistic graphics. Plus, with a small update you can get standard blu-rays with 200GB os space (if I remember correctly). I don't see games getting to even remotely need all that space (e.g. for textures) any time soon, specially on a console released in about 3 years.

Am I missing something? Please elaborate.

As an artist I disagree.

Realtime can look better than hollywood cg, even given a good canvas which is memory. Holographic discs have the necessary bandwidth and storage to allow people like carmack to shine.

Give John D. Carmack and similarly skilled people holographic storage, and you will see the full power of photorealism in real time.

Memory is the basis of intelligence, the heart of evolution, and the piece of pie, it is the basis of all. The heart of life, dna, is a molecular tape storing memory, that is the essence of life.

Megatextures are great and they can fill up a lot of space on disc, specially if the bandwith is there for streaming. But the geometry problem is far from solved and so far Carmak "would like to" to solve that problem in idTech 6 but that's far from coming and we have no evidence Cramak will pull it off.

The last Unreal demo was running on 3 ultra-high end GPUs interconnected, with an i9 CPU. I don't think we'll see that level of power in the next gen consoles if they are released in 3 years.

 

[brotkasten]

Nvidia Maxwell looks fcking powerful...

It sure does, but lets not forget that Nvidia is the king when it comes to charts and slides.

"Our Tegra quad-core is faster than a Core 2 Duo!*"

*In a different version of that benchmark

 

[perfectnight]

2014-15 for next gen sounds great to me. These current systems still have a lot of juice left.

 

[Curufinwe]

Actually, they're creaking at the seams, barely able to do 720p 30fps in a lot of cases.

 

[fastford58]

This thread has become tantamount to watching a bunch of seagulls fight over a french-fry. Awesome.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Actually, they're creaking at the seams, barely able to do 720p 30fps in a lot of cases.

They're just as capable as they were at the start of the generation.

 

[H_Prestige]

Actually, they're creaking at the seams, barely able to do 720p 30fps in a lot of cases.

These systems are perfectly capable of delivering full 1080p and 60fps.

 

[StevieP]

These systems are perfectly capable of delivering full 1080p and 60fps.

Yes, but the graphics engines being thrown at them are trying to do more with... well, not enough juice.

 

[Curufinwe]

These systems are perfectly capable of delivering full 1080p and 60fps.

Then why do so few games perform at that level?

They're just as capable as they were at the start of the generation.

The difference is that nowadays games are being designed on, developed on, and usually developed for, PCs that have vastly superior hardware than what's in the PS3 and 360. Tech has moved on in the past 5 and half years, believe it or not.

Lol.... smh, indeed.

 

[mrklaw]

Yes, but the graphics engines being thrown at them are trying to do more with... well, not enough juice.

this combines with gofreak's comments quite well.

Modern console games are hugely complex. Layered shader effects, multiple light sources, animation, physics etc. So yes, they creak at the seams, often not even managing 720p

Fucked up as it is, thats potentially a good thing for next gen smooth transitions - for devs at least. They won't need to relearn new toolsets particularly, they're already up to speed with multicore optimisations etc. Just more of the same will get you great looking launch games - 1080p/60 with all the same great effects we get now.

Then later on you'll get the strong devs really pushing the platforms to get the next big jump in performance.

 

[H_Prestige]

Yes, but the graphics engines being thrown at them are trying to do more with... well, not enough juice.

And with a more powerful system, the graphics will become even more complex, just like they did this gen. The point is, devs choose to increase the eye candy instead of game performance. Nobody is stopping anyone from taking ps2 engines and running them at max performance.

Then why do so few games perform at that level?

Because it's not a marketable feature. If more people cared about it and demanded it, you can bet this gen's games would look a lot different. Simpler graphics in full 1080p and smooth framerates would be the norm.

 

[Curufinwe]

So what you really meant was, if they drastically simplify a game's graphics to the extent that the market wouldn't be interested in the game, the PS3 and 360 can do 1080p and 60 fps.

 

[H_Prestige]

So what you really meant was, if they drastically simplify a game's graphics to the extent that the market wouldn't be interested in the game, the PS3 and 360 can do 1080p and 60 fps.

What do you think they will have to do to achieve 1080p and 60fps on next gen system? Do you think they will reach that performance while still delivering graphics like that new unreal engine demo?

 

[Curufinwe]

No, did I say that somewhere in this thread?

Any console released by MS or Sony in Fall 2012 or later is obviously going to have a much easier time of running games at 1080p 60fps than the PS3 or 360. And the 1080p standard is going to be around for a long time to come as adoption of even higher resolution TVs is going to be very slow.

 

[H_Prestige]

No, did I say that somewhere in this thread?

Any console released by MS or Sony in Fall 2012 or later is obviously going to have a much easier time of running games at 1080p 60fps than the PS3 or 360. And the 1080p standard is going to be around for a long time to come as adoption of even higher resolution TVs is going to be very slow.

Yes, as long as you don't increase the graphical complexity. That's my point.

And there is no 1080p standard for video games. Devs can do whatever they want, even sub-720p. There are no rules as to how to use a console's power.

 

[Gorgon]

What do you think they will have to do to achieve 1080p and 60fps on next gen system? Do you think they will reach that performance while still delivering graphics like that new unreal engine demo?

No, but with that performance games will still have better graphics than they have now. No one is realisticaly expecting the power of 3 ultra-high end PC GPUs in SLI in the next batch from MS/Sony. But even a single of those will be enough to get BOTH better graphics than now at 1080p@60fps, and that's the whole point. Heck, I can get it with my factory overcloked 8800GTS bought in early 2007.

 

[H_Prestige]

No, but with that performance games will still have better graphics than they have now. No one is realisticaly expecting the power of 3 ultra-high end PC GPUs in SLI in the next batch from MS/Sony. But even a single of those will be enough to get BOTH better graphics than now at 1080p@60fps, and that's the whole point. Heck, I can get it with my factory overcloked 8800GTS bought in early 2007.

All it will take is one 720p game that is pushing a bazillion polygons and 10,000 light sources and suddenly 360 games, even in full 1080p, will start to look too simple. Why don't ps3 and 360 devs just take ps2/wii level graphics and run them at max performance? Because after seeing stuff like uncharted, killzone, and gears, those graphics look too basic even in super high res.

Any new console is going to have a fixed spec. If you push the visuals too far, you have to make concessions with performance. This isn't a technical problem. The devs don't care about performance and image quality as much as other things. Their priorities are not going to change next gen.

 

[Gorgon]

Yes, as long as you don't increase the graphical complexity. That's my point.

And there is no 1080p standard for video games. Devs can do whatever they want, even sub-720p. There are no rules as to how to use a console's power.

You don't know what GPU will be there, so you can't say that to have 1080p the graphics have to remain the same. As I said, my GPU was bought in 2007 and still delivers 1080p and better graphics than any game on console. It's pretty much certain a console in 2013 will easily do the same unless they want a 10 bucks chip in there.

108¨p will most certainly be standard because it will be the norm in TVs AND because that's what the core consumer wants. MS/Sony ins't Nintendo, and the core consumer is what dictates sucess or failure for these systems.

 

[Gorgon]

All it will take is one 720p game that is pushing a bazillion polygons and 10,000 light sources and suddenly 360 games, even in full 1080p, will start to look too simple. Why don't ps3 and 360 devs just take ps2/wii level graphics and run them at max performance? Because after seeing stuff like uncharted, killzone, and gears, those graphics look too basic even in super high res.

Any new console is going to have a fixed spec. If you push the visuals too far, you have to make concessions with performance.

You continue to assume that the next gen consoles will obligatorily have the same polygon count and FOV but with higher resolutions. They won't. They will have higher rez AND higher polygon counts on screen, because a middle-range GPU on PC already does that NOW and have been doing it for a long time.

 

[Gorgon]

The devs don't care about performance and image quality as much as other things. Their priorities are not going to change next gen.

The framerate will depend on the game and will not standard. People dreaming about every game at 60fps can make a reallity check now. We agree there.

1080p, however, will be standard.

 

[Curufinwe]

Yes, as long as you don't increase the graphical complexity.

False. You can still have a significant increase in graphical complexity as well as 1080p 60fps when there will be seven years worth of technical improvement between console generations. As Gorgon points out, you appear to be unfamiliar with how much advancement has already happened with GPUs on the PC, and not just the high-end video cards.

 

[H_Prestige]

You don't know what GPU will be there, so you can't say that to have 1080p the graphics have to remain the same. As I said, my GPU was bought in 2007 and still delivers 1080p and better graphics than any game on console. It's pretty much certain a console in 2013 will easily do the same unless they want a 10 bucks chip in there.

108¨p will most certainly be standard because it will be the norm in TVs AND because that's what the core consumer wants. MS/Sony ins't Nintendo, and the core consumer is what dictates sucess or failure for these systems.

It doesn't matter what the GPU is. It could be the most powerful GPU known to man. It will still have a limit. There will always be a fixed pool of power and there will always be trade offs and devs will always be able to prioritize other things over resolution and framerate, just like they do now. As I've said a few times, ps3 and 360 devs can design their games to be full 1080p and 60fps if they want to. There actually are such games out there too, so it is not a technical problem. It is a design choice.

 

[H_Prestige]

False. You can still have a significant increase in graphical complexity as well as 1080p 60fps when there will be seven years worth of technical improvement between console generations.

And you can have an even more significant increase in graphical complexity if you sacrifice 1080p 60fps.

 

[Gorgon]

It doesn't matter what the GPU is. It could be the most powerful GPU known to man. It will still have a limit. There will always be a fixed pool of power and there will always be trade offs and devs will always be able to prioritize other things over resolution and framerate, just like they do now. As I've said a few times, ps3 and 360 devs can design their games to be full 1080p and 60fps if they want to. There actually are such games out there too, so it is not a technical problem. It is a design choice.

The discussion here is about having both 1080p@60fps AND better graphics (higher polygon counts, etc), which you have denied in an above post.

No one here is talking about anything else.

And you can have an even more significant increase in graphical complexity if you sacrifice 1080p 60fps.

Again, no one said that was not true.

 

[H_Prestige]

Fair enough. For all I know you probably can increase the graphics a bit while also going for 1080p. My only point was if that devs are happy butchering framerate and resolution over prettier graphics this gen, no reason to assume they won't next gen either.

How much of a graphical leap was the 360 over a ps2, and how much better would a next gen system realistically be than the current systems? Given size and thermal constraints, they can't put 200W GPU in. It would probably be the equivalent of a low-mid end modern GPU.

 

[Curufinwe]

There were only five years between the PS2 and the 360, though. And they rushed the 360 because they absolutely had to have it out before the PS3.

There could easily be an eight year gap between the 360 and next Xbox.

 

[Gorgon]

Fair enough. For all I know you probably can increase the graphics a bit while also going for 1080p. My only point was if that devs are happy butchering framerate and resolution over prettier graphics this gen, no reason to assume they won't next gen either.

How much of a graphical leap was the 360 over a ps2, and how much better would a next gen system realistically be than the current systems? Given size and thermal constraints, they can't put 200W GPU in. It would probably be the equivalent of a low-mid end modern GPU.

Those are good questions. I think the folowing:

1) Framerate will never be standard. Some games will have a 30fps target while others will have a 60fps target. That will depend on how much eye candy the devs will want to put in vs the type of gameplay and genre. Racing games and fighting games will almost always try to get to 60fps while shooters and RPGs will probably sacrife 60 for 30fps for graphics. 1080p will be standard to match TV rez and that actually makes a big difference in visual fidelity. I don't thing upscaling will be used by the majority of dev, if at all. Also, the consumer of these machines demand it.

2) The power envelope will depend on both the tech that will be available at that time and the nm process available for mass production at that time. We simply don't know now, but taking into account my 2007 GPU, I predict the jump will be significant.