BOTH New Xbox and PS4 Will Be Shown At E3

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

<-Just bought a PS3 this christmas because I'm terribly poor
I think I just shat my pants in rage.

Don't worry. I doubt they'll come out until 2014. And when they do, prices for last gen consoles will drop. Which is always a plus.

 

[viranimus]

Don't use terms like comprehend when you don't know what the flying saucer you're talking about.

I apologize but I used the appropriate term and I know exactly what I am talking about. I am an amateur developer myself and I understand many things about development that the average gamer has no clue on. Just because you disagree with it, does not mean that I am pulling it out my ass.

Here. Simple yard marker. Invariably with every single console there is a layover time when the graphics from the new system look negligibly different from the old system (Granted there will always be some improvement, but it will never be a vast improvement). Look at ANY launch title for a console of any generation. Then trace the progression over the course of a year, two years, three years etc. You see vast improvements in graphical representation and utilization the longer it goes. Do you know why? Because developers need to learn new techniques to utilize new technology and it takes time, trial and error to accomplish that. If the devs were ready for a new console generation you wouldnt see that sort of layover in technique.

Also while were at this, take a look at a system such as the super nintendo. We started off with something that looked like an advanced NES graphic set,on a 16 bit system and ended up with a console that while showing its age was able to produce games like Donkey Kong Country that were able to hold their own against 32 bit systems like the PSX at the end of the SNES life cycle. (also look at the various games on PSX. Granted they were able to perform the transition into 3d level graphics, but more often than not devs made the choice to stick with 2d sets because its what they understood better and when they DID 3d it rarely looked good) Developers need to learn to maximize what they can do with the old tools before you start throwing them new tools because the more they learn of the old tools, the more practical that knowledge becomes when they start using the new ones.

Are you telling me that with enough coding the PS2 could run better looking games than the PS3?

No, and thats bordering into strawman territory. Ive explained my positioning on the transition in generations above this. However the real point I was trying to make out of this has been missed. Simple fact is graphics are irrelevant. We are at the uncanny valley, photo realistic plateau of game development. The games look fine. Adding more shaders, higher AA rates, etc are all well and good, but when you have a game that looks as photo realistic as say Battlefield 3 (provided you have the 360 graphic patch) then that level of graphical prowess is more than sufficient for your immersion. What needs to be focused on will not benefit from increased graphical prowess. Predominantly that is going to be in the AI, mechanics, and physics areas, but also there needs to be extensive improvement on the narrative and content ends of development as well. Thats the point I was making and honestly you dont need more heat and horsepower to accomplish those things.

I said most. Doesn't mean everyone. Some people's juvenility isn't mitigated by age.

Quite true. I did not imply that I took it personally. Just expressing disagreement of the position simply as I am a case example that goes against what you were suggesting.

 

[Pimppeter2]

The facts:
I am actually a shocked how young many of you appear to be, and I don't mean that in any derogatory sense. I just get the impression this current gen is your first, because you don't understand that we are LATE for the next gen. It doesn't normally take this long for a jump from one console to another. We need another jump to, because developers have both said and displayed in their games that they are starting to struggle with the limitations of the current hardware. Xbox graphics are getting to the point that they seems like they would be ideal... for a Nintendo game. I am basically saying the 360 now looks the equivalent of the wii when it first came out, because we all know have have seen how much better games can look (look at Battlefield 3 for the 360 vs. the PC)

The Facts:
Gamers realize that this generation of consoles is "overdue" by previous standards, but this cycle of consoles was predicted to last longer than any one before. I mean, last year we were told that many of them will last up to ten years [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/307428/ps3-will-last-a-minimum-of-10-years-sony/]. This has nothing to do with age, but the expectations we were told to have.

My opinion
Read comments more closely. Also that your The Facts, My Opinion post is pretty pretentious. Especially because stating and opinion at the end of your facts one made it irrelevant. But also that most of us knew it was coming because of devs comments that you mentioned above. Its just a disappointment that another generation has to come along to create games that we're supposedly going to be available this generation

 

[viranimus]

Any reason to believe there's much more power left to exploit?

Sure, considering that professional game reviewes like Adam Sessler are saying things to the effect that Skyrim impressed us so much that it not only impressed us graphically, it impressed us that it was able to do it in this console generation. (granted Skyrim is NOT the best example of graphical prowess, but meh) The fact is that there are preconceived notions that develop over time and inventive people will find ways to work around limitations and surprise you. So if Sessler is surprised today, that means that they still have yet to plateau because as the saying goes, its amazing what you can get done when it has to be done. Also other examples like the graphical progression you see in Battlefield 3 for example over top of what weve seen in other bland FPS, or how a title like RAGE took 6 years of development in the new tech5 engine and graphically looks on par just about any other game with a quarter of that development cycle. Simply by utilizing an improved engine graphically it can still keep up with developmental trends started years later. Consider many development teams have JUST built new engines. Bethedsda has essentially utilized 2 new engines between creation and tech5. How many years worth of improvement will they be able to wring out of those new engines once they get them purring like a kitten?

Being a developer, you don't seem to realise just how much time developers spend downscaling and optimising the games already,

Please dont confuse things like down scaling and optimizing as soley representative of graphical processing. MANY instances of development resulting in these have more to do with the storage capacity of the delivering media than the processing power of the unit. How many times has a developer cut a texture budget simply because they did not want to eat the cost of adding an additional disc to the production costs? Sure some may be resource related but its certainly not the predominant problem, especially considering even the PC unoptimized version of BF3 can run on a 512mb GFX 8800.

Really the "need of a new generation" sounds more like a hybridization of the imaginary pissing contest that will forever plague PC gamers that behave like if you didnt drop at least 2 grand into your rig, it will explode if you try to run minesweeper.

I keep mentioning every time this dumb topic comes up - shaders, textures and draw distance haven't improved substantially for years, you know there's a problem.

Except there hasnt been a substantial improvement on texture maps or draw distances in years on PC exclusive releases either. Compare 2007s witcher vs 2011s Witcher 2. Draw distance is equal, texture maps are larger but certainly not a great deal larger. About the only thing that has made a major improvement is superfluous shaders and with shaders you quickly get to a point of diminishing returns as what you can do with shaders is so insignificant and typically its just useless resource consumption anyway and other equally low yield effects.

And it probably ain't the coding, because developers are breaking their asses to make what little they have run on the current-gen consoles already.

So thats why when asked about new console generations the responses from developers is a pretty mixed bag with some begging for one, but others coming off pretty indifferent to the idea.

Thats another thing to consider. No two developers are at the same level of graphical development. In actuality very few developers are at the point where a new generation would be beneficial. Its predominantly only two different game types that are coming anywhere close to the ceiling, most of the rest are coming no where even close to that level of need of horsepower. Considering that the game types that are using the most graphical horsepower are also co-incidentally some of the most shallow and regurgitated game play experiences possible it illustrates that need for horsepower is more symptomatic of stagnation of the genre than reflective of the needs of the industry. Hearing a company that produces nothing but generic regurgitated brown shooter remix every year complain that they need more horsepower sounds more like they are saying "The only thing we know how to do to make our game better is to wow you with more "pretties" than suggesting what the industry as a whole needs. That is a sign of a greater problem and illustration on exactly where their development does NOT need to be.

You know what would be an infinitely better yardmarker of when we need a new console generation? When the Unreal 4 engine is officially announced with a release date (rather than the 2012 - 2018 floating around), because considering how many games will license the unreal engine it stands to reason that until the tools are ready for it, theres not a lot of reason to build a system that predates the software that will properly utilize the hardware.

Now I apologize to have to dissect quote, but there were so many points to touch on. Now I have said my peace on the matter. Granted we need a new console generation, but honestly we should not have the announcement for it until 2013, with the soonest the console being released being 14 or even possibly as late as 15. I honestly cannot fathom nor have I heard a single good reason why we need one sooner than that. You obviously disagree with that, and youve made it abundantly clear you hold a disproportionate amount of importance on graphical prowess and such is your prerogative but please kindly keep the veiled (as well as the not so veiled ) insults to yourself when the logic your putting forth is on even shakier ground than you claim mine to be.

Look, Im done. Ive said what I needed to. Your going to interpret what I have said in whatever way your going to and nothing I will say will change your mind on that because youve already made up your mind that your right. Such is your prerogative. I stand by what I said. We dont NEED another console generation any earlier than 2014. If you put undue importance on horsepower, more power to you, but that need is NOT representative of the needs of the industry as a whole and developers have infinitely more important things they need to work on, especially when perhaps the top selling game of 2011 boiled down to a copy pasta of last years installment and equaled out to a 5 hour campaign at best.

 

[cciiss4499]

i honestly cant belive sony and microsoft are litterly bending us over for our money 599$ really like why cant we keep our current consoles grapics are good enough right?

 

[The Chaz]

Only one more console generation or two until they just become PCs!

 

[bluegate]

I hope that, with the new consoles, they will also create better development kits.

I am all for fancy graphics and what not, but not if developers have to jump through hoops to get them on screen. In the previous generation, 'noob' developers could easily create games that were still somewhat on par with the heavy-weights of the time. However, recently, most upstart developers don't have the resources to create big games, and some developers start focusing on indie-esque games, whilest not a bad thing, you can't play the 'indie' / 'retro' card forever.

We need something to change the game entirely, so that not only big studios are able to crank out eye catchers. Better where the days when a small team of upstarts could create a game and compete with seasoned developers, graphically and gameplay-wise.

I hope that this made some sense to some one out there...

 

[Sirron Kcuch]

The best move would be having more complex games, just that.

I mean, how many of you have wanted, say, a game like GTA where you can enter every single building ?

Or an actual weapon crafting system, where you have real CUSTOM gear. Not stuff like Dead Rising, but make your weapons from whatever mix you may want.
That would have been too complex for this generation; maybe there could be a game BASED on that concept, but what if that's just a part of the gameplay?

For example: a zombie apocalypse game where you can enter every single house, take random stuff and craft your own weapons. But not only that: take yourself some wooden plancks and reinforce the windows; fix that fracture in the barrel of your shotgun with some duct tape. Then use more tape to add a knife under said barrel.

Go out, see a car and ampty its fuel into the bottle you're carrying for whatever purpose you may have. Break into a supermarket and get some cameras to watch for zombies around your shelter. Find a radio and try to find emissions from survivors.

If the city becomes too crowded, take the road on a permanent emmigration (English?) or go to the forest in order to hunt some food.

I don't know, just the complexity that games lack nowadays


Regarding graphics, look at this demo of what they could be like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzjsTt_DzCw&feature=related

 

[Westaway]

Hooray, hopefully tey have the same specs, and those specs are better than best PCs on the market, so they can keep up if only for a year or two.

Won't happen. Unless their rigs cost 3K each, they won't have better specs than the best PCs. Not to mention such a thing would be impossible anyway considering Sony is planning on not making their own parts due to the high costs, and Microsoft has always used cheap, low end PC parts in its consoles. If you want cost efficient power, get a PC, these consoles won't impress you if what you've said is really what you're looking for. They will be worse than the best PCs on the market ATM, I expect by a long shot too.

That may be so, but they have to improve te consols enough to make better games than before, and not just a little bit. I think they know that if they don't make them much more powerful, the games will be almost the same quality. But maybe thwy don't care because people will buy them anyways.
And besides, PCs are never cost effective. I know that. Even cheaper ones, maybe them even more, because you have to upgraded more frequently.

 

[Sirron Kcuch]

Did you guys know that the 360 has only 512 MB of RAM memory, while the best PC's can have up to 16 GB?

The 360 has a huge optimization when it comes to games, so the next model can be perfectly fine with 4 GB of RAM memory, which is far from the best PC's
Console gaming is not as demanding as on PC due to optimization, so wouldn't worry about the specs.

 

[Joccaren]

And besides, PCs are never cost effective. I know that. Even cheaper ones, maybe them even more, because you have to upgraded more frequently.

$800 dollar PC from 8 Years back runs BF3 mix of medium, high and ultra. Add to that that PC games are often $10 less than console games, and those 50 games I've bought have saved me $500 by buying them for PC. PCs are often more cost efficient, you just have to know what you are doing (And live in a place with a good PC parts supplier, which I don't [Hence why that PC cost $800 instead of $500], but the large numbers of games I buy saves me a lot of money in the long run.).

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

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.

 

[esperandote]

In the past console realeases where in pair with technological improvements, for example, the 6, 16, 32 and 64 bits consoles or more recently the cardtrige, cd, dvd blue ray consoles. Now it doesnt feel it's going to be any improvement in technology in genereal (i know we haven't seen the anouncement yet).

The only reason i can think for them to make a new generation is $$$ but they just got their consoles right with the slim models, new interfaces, overheating issues (xbox), security issues (ps3/psn), etc.

 

[esperandote]

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?

 

[esperandote]

I'll be buying one of those pretty much when their predecesors are announced.

I think you me successors.

You're right

In the past console realeases where in pair with technological improvements, for example, the 6, 16, 32 and 64 bits consoles or more recently the cardtrige, cd, dvd blue ray consoles. Now it doesnt feel it's going to be any improvement in technology in genereal (i know we haven't seen the anouncement yet).

The only reason i can think for them to make a new generation is $$$ but they just got their consoles right with the slim models, new interfaces, overheating issues (xbox), security issues (ps3/psn), etc.