Pachter: This Is The Final Generation

[Jumplion]

It's not out of the question, it's just a cash dump. In order to sell the console with better hardware, they have to cut back the price and take a loss until the tech becomes cheap to manufacture. Unlike the PC market, which is accustomed to paying proper value, people with consoles tend typically expect to pay less since it's a limited device.

So you can either do like the Wii did and just use cheap tech keep production cheap, stick with the consoles that are out now, or go through another console cycle where you risk millions and hope you come out alright.

Just saying I'm not shocked that no one is keen on doing the third option anymore.

I won't say that there's definately going to be a new generaton, to be honest there is something impending about the end of this generation. But we've barely started this damn generation, it's been only 3 god damn years! 3 years, 4 if you want to go with the 360!

3 years is really early to start calling that this is the final generation of console, I mean come on! People said the same thing in the PS2 era, "this'll be the final generation, nothing can get better!", and look where the heck we are now.

Why are we calling out the doom n' gloom of the consoles three fucking years into the generation? This generation is far from over, in fact it's barely begun!

 

[jonathandureund]

I hate to use a Bill O'Reilly but this is just a dopey statement. People must have no imagination if they think that another round of hardware upgrades would be meaningless. The current generation hardware ran into it's performance wall awhile ago and anyone expecting developers to pull a rabbit out of their hat are going to be dissappointed. That includes you too PS3 fanboys. It's been 3 years and your cell processor still isn't delivering the order of magnitude performance gain over the 360 that you've been promised.

Both systems are based on 2004 hardware which has long since been obsoleted in the PC realm. Neither system can output 1080p/60 or 1080p/30 with any consistency and what can be rendered on screen currently no where near meets the limitations of my imagination. Some games even have to upscale from 1152x640 because 720p is too taxing.

In addition, obvious compromises in LOD, draw distances, resolution, AF and AA are still painfully obvious even on the most cutting edge games. When we get to the point where LOD ratios and draw distances are far enough out that it exceeds the capability of the display to show detail then MAYBE you could say that we've peaked.

The onlive concept is innovative but definitely 10-20 years ahead of its time in terms of being the silver bullet of gaming. Very few people have connections capable of utilizing that system at 1080p and barely a majority have connections capable of 720p. There are still millions who would be unable to connect whatsoever. Let's not even get started on the obvious issues with latency. It'll be awhile before low latency fiber optic internet connections are pervasive.

If not already today, we are only a short period away from off the shelf technology being able to deliver true 1080p gaming at a console friendly price. That alone will justify a next generation of consoles as people look to finally get some bang out of their 4 digit investment in a 1080p TV. It ain't over folks, not in this generation atleast.

 

[Lord Kofun]

I just find it a little hard to believe.
I guess if you use the reasoning that it's hard to improve on almost hilariously-good graphics, you could progress your way to "no more consoles." Maybe once holographic stuff goes mainstream, or something, they'd have to release a new console, but I just don't think that this is the end. Maybe I'm just an alcoholic who refuses to believe the last brewery is shutting down. I don't know.

 

[profit0004]

Bunch of text that is wrong.... Blah blah.. consoles cost 30$ at most.... blah blah...
>>>----Therumancer--->

Microsoft and Sony both lose money on each console they sell and Nintendo makes a tiny amount if I recall correctly.
*Actually I am gonna bother to do some research just to quash some ignorance and give real figures....

3 mins later... google says:


PS3 costs 441$ to sell for 399.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/report-ps3-hardware-almost-break-even

HDD-equipped 360 console cost $470
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html

Nintendo makes 6$ on each Wii sold
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/

 

[bluepilot]

I hope there are no more consoles soon. I am still saving up for my own PS3.

I do not really see how today`s consoles could improve in a way that would make gaming better. I always see the next logical step in gaming as virtual reality. The wii is the closest to this with movement sensors, but in terms of applying this effectivly to games, all companies seem several years away at least.

They just bought out a black wii though. And a colour change is an upgrade right? It makes the wii...have better graphics?

 

[Therumancer]

Bunch of text that is wrong.... Blah blah.. consoles cost 30$ at most.... blah blah...
>>>----Therumancer--->

Microsoft and Sony both lose money on each console they sell and Nintendo makes a tiny amount if I recall correctly.
*Actually I am gonna bother to do some research just to quash some ignorance and give real figures....

3 mins later... google says:


PS3 costs 441$ to sell for 399.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/report-ps3-hardware-almost-break-even

HDD-equipped 360 console cost $470
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html

Nintendo makes 6$ on each Wii sold
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/

Wait, and you actually believe that?

Generally speaking I grow tired of some of the disrespectful responses I receive, but I'll bite for the moment, and post another response.

Simply put, I call BS on a lot of those claims for a lot of reasons. One other reason is that I have been doing stuff with computers for a VERY long time. Electronic components are exceptionally cheap to manufacture, and the markup on any kind of electronics hardware has always been ridiculous. This is why for a very long time you could (and still can to some extent) assemble your own uber-PC for peanuts compared to what they cost in the store. Albeit some of the manufacturers got wise to this when it became so common and started intentionally inflating the "base" prices for a lot of things like motherboard and chips. For a while a "trade war with Japan" caused prices on RAM to explode to lulzworthy prices as well.

The thing is though that especially when dealing with Sony and Microsoft we're dealing with companies that manufacture their own components or get them mega-cheap through buying ultra-wholesale or having other contracts. Especially in regards to Sony.

Your typical console basically costs these guys peanuts. The "price" of the components being largely based on the inflated costs that they could theoretically sell the components for individually if they had a buyers market. As the systems get older but remain in production they ultimatly become radically cheaper to manufacture even by that logic.

In Sony's case it was even started during the PS-3 shortage that the big problem was a shortage of the blu-ray laser components, which they were instead putting into blu-ray DVD players. Even cheaper to make than a console, but commanding mondo profit.

Any of these companies claiming they take a loss on selling hardware are lying to you hardcore. I've seen too much through the years to be that gullible. As far as what the electronics media says about it, let's be honest: electronics media is paid advertisement. Sort of like how Rockstar basically bought those "10" ratings for Grand Theft Auto IV, and the whole "Kane and Lynch" fiasco. It's an even bigger issue when going being the cosm of games and into hardware itself.

Electronics manufacturers have had a racket going on for decades, its also been fairly transparent for people taking a look at it. This is no differant than it ever has been. Claims that they sell these products at a loss are complete BS, any truth to the arguement is based totally on bureaucracy with the loss being comparitive to what else they could be using the material for.

Sort of like how nowadays companies work on "projected growth" and if they don't meet those goals then they have "failed", "lost money", or "ceased to be profitable", which is complete BS. You only make 2 billion dollars in pure profit when you think you should have made 10 billion in pure profit and that's an "OMG we've taken a huge bath" occurance.

 

[profit0004]

And the USA never went to the moon....

I love conspiracy theorists. Sigh....

 

[CrystalShadow]

I can understand why Sony and Microsoft might not put out another console but Nintendo has to if it wants to survive. Nintendo makes video game and not much else. I can't imagine them not putting out a new console.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Nintendo has been around for about 120 years now, and they started life selling Hanafuda trading cards...

They struggled for ages, and along the way have sold all manner of crazy things, (including washing machines), until in the late 70's, they got lucky with electronic games. (the game & watch series - Considering this, it's perhaps not a surprise that their most consistent success has been portables.)

Nintendo could collapse if it loses out on the gaming market, but it could equally well do what it's always done, and try something completely different.

 

[luvd1]

Hmmm, I can see where he's coming from. But there still will be new consoles. Perhaps not like we're used to before hand. I can't see any radical changes from gen to gen. Just "upgrades" of current gen consoles. Like the new 360 with added natal out later this year.

 

[C117]

Gee, I sure hope this will be the last generation. Saves me the trouble of choosing which console to buy.

But since both Playstation 4 and Nintendo Wii HD are already in development, there will be at least ONE more generation. Then, hopefully, the console wars will come to an end, after more than twenty years.