BOTH New Xbox and PS4 Will Be Shown At E3

[SonOfVoorhees]

Waste of time, more powerful consoles have not lead to better games. Only better looking version of older games. So even with the power of the PS4/720 or whatever you will get games exactly the same (eg COD)just with better graphics. I want an open world COD game where you have to fight through open areas and make your own way through a warzone to get to the target rather than being funnelled through corridors. Some of the best gaming i had was in one of the WW2 COD games when the game opened up and you had to clear out an area of 5 or 6 houses.

But i guess shiny graphics sell games and why put more effort into a franchise than you need.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I understand Xbox's release, but the PS4? Really?

Could be worse, if Apple made a console there would be new one each year.

I agree though, didnt both companies say they had a 10 year life span....guess thats gone out the window. Plus its the wrong time to release a console with the current economy - not many people will splash out £350+ on a new console.

 

[FrozenSkye]

Why would they want to add backwards compatibility when they could just put the same old stuff back up on their marketplaces and make you buy it again at a new reduced sale price!!!

I hear there's also a lot of technical issues with backwards compatibility that makes it not worth the time and effort to make it happen. Not sure if it's true, read an article about it years ago.

 

[Vigormortis]

I keep hearing that Microsoft is saying the new Xbox will be able to put out Avatar caliber graphics or whatever.

Now I've never seen Avatar so is that necessarily a good thing?

It would be, if it were even possible. Put simply, we don't have the hardware yet to render scenery at that level of detail in real time. At least, not in a consumer-grade game console.

It's not possible in any way, shape or form on any computer anywhere. There's a reason CGI studios use renderfarms.

Yes, but it IS possible to a certain degree. While filming Avatar, the special camera systems Cameron used allowed him to view a real-time rendered video of the actors CG characters while he filmed them. Granted, they weren't full-detail models, and the back-drops were even less so, but they were still able to render extremely high-level CG video in real time.

Still, that's not something any basic, consumer-grade piece of hardware, especially a GAME console, is going to be able to do.

 

[Nalbis]

I think its about time for some new consoles, I'm happy about this.

 

[spartxn]

I wish they would wait, but honestly if these Next Gen consoles are compatible with the 360 and PS3 then I am happy. I REALLY would like it if they were COMPATIBLE. Please. Microsoft, Sony?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I keep hearing that Microsoft is saying the new Xbox will be able to put out Avatar caliber graphics or whatever.

Now I've never seen Avatar so is that necessarily a good thing?

It would be, if it were even possible. Put simply, we don't have the hardware yet to render scenery at that level of detail in real time. At least, not in a consumer-grade game console.

It's not possible in any way, shape or form on any computer anywhere. There's a reason CGI studios use renderfarms.

Yes, but it IS possible to a certain degree. While filming Avatar, the special camera systems Cameron used allowed him to view a real-time rendered video of the actors CG characters while he filmed them. Granted, they weren't full-detail models, and the back-drops were even less so, but they were still able to render extremely high-level CG video in real time.

Lemme guess... upscale version of mocap/motrack visualisation systems? Cool tech but not relevent. You use down scaled models and BG that a real time rendering engine can handle with rough approximations of lighting. It's about as much a 'certain degree' of 'avatar calibre graphics' as a pushbike is a 'certain degree' of car. The biggest barrier to realtime photorealistic graphics tech is the complexity of calculations required for realistic behaving light, the complexity of which increases semi-exponentially (it's kind of hard to explain exactly how it works without giving a crash course in CGI lighting) for each polygon added to the scene.

Of course, you can argue that to the layman the criteria for being 'avatar calibre graphics' is much lower... and seeing as many would probably have difficulty telling the difference between 'avatar calibre graphics' and high end PC game graphics makes their criteria pretty much useless and the claim of 'avatar calibre graphics' the marketing bullshit of a knobber who thinks 'High End PC graphics' wouldn't be enough of a drawcard.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Waste of time, more powerful consoles have not lead to better games. Only better looking version of older games. So even with the power of the PS4/720 or whatever you will get games exactly the same (eg COD)just with better graphics. I want an open world COD game where you have to fight through open areas and make your own way through a warzone to get to the target rather than being funnelled through corridors. Some of the best gaming i had was in one of the WW2 COD games when the game opened up and you had to clear out an area of 5 or 6 houses.

Read my post. The reason why COD is a linear corridor shooter is because of the limits set by the 360 and the PS3. You are not going to get an open world shooter full of detailed warzones to fight through on systems with only 512mb of RAM to offer. Not unless you want to see loading screens every 30 seconds. Sorry, but that's the way things work...

Yep. Of all the technological disadvantages of consoles their pissy amount of RAM is almost criminal... and probably the cheapest to fix... or would be if the console manufacturers didn't insist on using shit like GDDR(the fuck?) and XDR for their system RAM.

Stick 2Gb of RAM and VRAM a piece in the next gen, added in with some modern hardware and with lack of OS bloat and the ability to 'code to metal' that consoles allow for and the next gen will be worth taking notice of as an actual step forward.

Unfortunately for console gamers I have the suspicion that the next gen of consoles is going to concentrate even more of 'multimedia' services than what the bloody things are supposed to be made for - gaming.

 

[Right Hook]

Meh, it isn't too soon but I honestly can't really see how they'll be able to wow anybody but the most hardcore into buying these things, sure the games will look better, load faster and have a few new capabilities but I'd be surprised if they came up with anything that really made people, other than hardcore fans, absolutely have to have these on launch day for full price. I'm really just not sure what they'll be able to do without another gigantic leap forward in tech.

 

[Bagk Nakh]

I doubt that they will release a new console like the 360 per say, instead they will probably release something similar to the vita/3ds/wii u.

Kinect 2?

Electric Boogaloo?

OT: I'm surprised it took them this long. How long has it been since the Wii U was announced?

 

[Vigormortis]

Lemme guess... upscale version of mocap/motrack visualisation systems? Cool tech but not relevent. You use down scaled models and BG that a real time rendering engine can handle with rough approximations of lighting. It's about as much a 'certain degree' of 'avatar calibre graphics' as a pushbike is a 'certain degree' of car. The biggest barrier to realtime photorealistic graphics tech is the complexity of calculations required for realistic behaving light, the complexity of which increases semi-exponentially (it's kind of hard to explain exactly how it works without giving a crash course in CGI lighting) for each polygon added to the scene.

Of course, you can argue that to the layman the criteria for being 'avatar calibre graphics' is much lower... and seeing as many would probably have difficulty telling the difference between 'avatar calibre graphics' and high end PC game graphics makes their criteria pretty much useless and the claim of 'avatar calibre graphics' the marketing bullshit of a knobber who thinks 'High End PC graphics' wouldn't be enough of a drawcard.

Um...no offense but you seem to be taking my comments both WAY too personally and not for what they are. Not sure if it was your intention, but your explanations comes off as a tad condescending. Just saying.

I'm not at ALL saying Microsoft's supposed claims are possible. Not even the slightest.

I am well aware of the "complexity" in rendering detailed CG imagery. In real-time or otherwise. All I was saying in my previous post was that rendering highly detailed CG video in real-time is possible. The cameras used on the set of Avatar did just that. It's just that rendering such imagery with a level of detail even a quarter as detailed as was seen in the final cut of Avatar is impossible. (with todays tech)

 

[CrashBang]

I'll be impressed/disappointed once they reveal the specs. It's high-time for a new console generation, but it's probably not worth buying them for a year or two until after release, as they almost certainly won't be backwards compatible.

It's not high time, the average console generation is seven years long and the 360 only came out six years ago; the PS3 a year after. Both Sony and Microsoft have also said in the past that they expected the current gen to last years longer than previous ones due to the spec and potential of the 360 and PS3.
I personally hope nothing's revealed, don't wanna be shelling out for new hardware yet when the current gen consoles are still excellent.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

You people are so depressing. Guess what? If you don't want the new consoles, you DON'T HAVE TO BUY ANY OF THEM. Isn't that great? It's called Capitalism.

Meanwhile, the rest of us want something new instead of that Atari 2600 that people call the Xbox 360.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Thank God Corporations don't release products based on the ability of pre-teens without jobs to purchase new products.

But That IS what they do. Haven't you been paying attention?
Every year there's a slightly different 360 or DS that hits the market...and yes, there are plenty of people who actually buy every new one. Even people who can't really afford it. Still, I guess it's still cheaper than doing the same thing with your car.

After negotiating through this console cycle between a childrens toy, a well supported console with a chronic bricking problem (and a fee), and a well built machine that gets the worst support imaginable, I've ended up preferring the PC as my gaming platform. All this really means to me is that I should finally upgrade my desktop pc in another couple of years. Console wize, I only see it being another generation of broken machines and promises.
I don't care how much they hype up the new consoles, there's no way they're getting me to buy one.

 

[Vigormortis]

Lemme guess... upscale version of mocap/motrack visualisation systems? Cool tech but not relevent. You use down scaled models and BG that a real time rendering engine can handle with rough approximations of lighting. It's about as much a 'certain degree' of 'avatar calibre graphics' as a pushbike is a 'certain degree' of car. The biggest barrier to realtime photorealistic graphics tech is the complexity of calculations required for realistic behaving light, the complexity of which increases semi-exponentially (it's kind of hard to explain exactly how it works without giving a crash course in CGI lighting) for each polygon added to the scene.

Of course, you can argue that to the layman the criteria for being 'avatar calibre graphics' is much lower... and seeing as many would probably have difficulty telling the difference between 'avatar calibre graphics' and high end PC game graphics makes their criteria pretty much useless and the claim of 'avatar calibre graphics' the marketing bullshit of a knobber who thinks 'High End PC graphics' wouldn't be enough of a drawcard.

Um...no offense but you seem to be taking my comments both WAY too personally and not for what they are. Not sure if it was your intention, but your explanations comes off as a tad condescending. Just saying.

I'm not at ALL saying Microsoft's supposed claims are possible. Not even the slightest.

I am well aware of the "complexity" in rendering detailed CG imagery. In real-time or otherwise. All I was saying in my previous post was that rendering highly detailed CG video in real-time is possible. The cameras used on the set of Avatar did just that. It's just that rendering such imagery with a level of detail even a quarter as detailed as was seen in the final cut of Avatar is impossible. (with todays tech)

Read his post again.

The CGI rendered in real-time for Avatar was not highly detailed. That was the whole point of his argument. The CGI used on set at Avatar was basic and undetailed. It provided Cameron and co with a working skeleton of how everything would be positioned, and nothing more. The camera's on Avatar rendered a very basic skeleton of the world, which the animation and rendering then went over and overhauled in practically every way imaginable.

It's no different to when Jackson and Weta used mo-cap to create Gollum for Lord Of The Rings. When Andy Serkis performed his lines and actions, there was a very, very basic blocky model of Gollum that acted out the moves. It still took hundreds of hours of fine-tuning, extra animation and rendering to create Gollum as he was seen on screen.

Commercially available real-time CG is no more advanced than the latest high end PC games. That's because videogames are now the main area of focus in rendering computer-generated imagery in real time. There's a reason people were blown away by Crysis back when it first came out. It wasn't impressive just for a game, it was impressive by CG standards full stop.

Sigh...missing my point again.

Not once did I say the real-time rendered video was as detailed as the final product. But comparatively speaking, it was far more detailed than most other real-time rendering techniques.

Also, the overly convoluted explanations are really not necessary people. I KNOW how this stuff works. I KNOW the sorts of things that are and were possible with the tech we have and had. It's becoming a tad insulting how condescending your responses are. I don't like being talked down to. Especially when the "explanations" I'm given are extremely basic and obvious bits of information compared to what I actually know on the topic.

Perhaps you should reread the entirety of my post again before you decide to inform me that I need do the same with another.

 

[Erttheking]

Well, I'm fairly interested, despite what other people are saying, my xbox 360 and nintendo Wii are both working just fine. I may look at these new systems, but for the moment I'm happy with what I've got, if I'm going to buy something, they better make it worth the six hundred...by the way off topic for a sec, why is it always 599.99 or something like that, why not 600 and make it less complicated?

 

[l3o2828]

IS it really necessary? i doubt the PS3 and XBOX360's life are far from over and i dont think a slightly bigger proessing power will make the difference, even more so if they are gonna use it for graphics alone the bastards...

captcha: iviteh annus.

 

[wooty]

Its seems the two worlds are clashing away again.

Console owners seem to mostly be saying, too much, too expensive, too soon.
PC owners seem to be saying yes to it, for graphical reasons.

As a player of both.......I couldnt care, it took me 3 years to bother upgrading my pc and if a new console comes out, then I'll probably buy it because of ease of play.

 

[Shadow flame master]

Oh goody, I just got a PS3 for Christmas and I now have all three consoles of this generation, as if that wasn't enough, I get news that a new Xbox and Play Station is coming out. Fucking. Hell.

I only have one game for the PS3 and now I have to save up money to buy a NEW Play Station AND a Xbox? This sucks because soon I'll be a college freshman and I'll need all the money I can get.

 

[redisforever]

I JUST bought a PS3! No, I don't think they will, because both companies have games coming up on their consoles, and they won't just switch now.