Should there be another console generation?

[aeroz]

This is an idea I've been kicking around after reading a few articles on the escapist. First off I am not talking about console gaming ending, I am talking about the need for new consoles. Already there is talk that things like fidelity are at a peak, games can process hundreds of characters on screen at a time, with massive forking dialogue, and alot of the "improvement" in technical end of console gaming is more to do with developers learning how to better use what they have.

A new generation would mean having to buy new machines on consumer end and on development end the unspoken rule that games must now meet the new standard of higher definition, more things being rendered, more complex games, all of which push development up and making it an increasingly risky endeavor.

Main complaint of many consumers is lack of innovation in their games and the high cost is the main driving reason. Another console generation will just make this issue worse, and entirely possible it will be the killing blow instead of the saving grace.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Of course we need a new console generation, the hardware for this generation was already outdated at release. Hell the xbox 360 and ps3 only have 512mb of ram (although the ps3's ram is distributed slightly differently). I mean sure, they've pulled a LOT out of that tiny bit of ram (Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 look incredible), but think of how much better games could be made if consoles were more powerful. Less pop in for open world games, better AI, etc, the benefits would be huge. This isn't even about graphical ability but processing power as a whole.

 

[Me55enger]

A better question would be "when" it will arrive.

Software seems to have taken a leap that the hardware is unable to keep up with.

 

[Commander Jack Rankin]

The way I see it this is a moot question. A new console generation is a near certainty, whether it's pushing innovation or not. Too much money has been made the past few years, with the Wii and Kinect successes as examples, for the Big Three to simply stop making consoles.

 

[Radeonx]

The current generation has a few years left, but it will get to a point where the hardware just isn't good enough.

 

[manaman]

The current generation is already being taxed. Sure it has years left in it, but generations tend to overlap by at least a year or more anyway. I'm pretty sure there are still a couple of releases slated for the PS2 even now. The next generation is probably only a few years away at the most.

Who want's to bet on who starts it? Will it be Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or some new upstart?

 

[aeroz]

Of course we need a new console generation, the hardware for this generation was already outdated at release. Hell the xbox 360 and ps3 only have 512mb of ram (although the ps3's ram is distributed slightly differently). I mean sure, they've pulled a LOT out of that tiny bit of ram (Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 look incredible), but think of how much better games could be made if consoles were more powerful. Less pop in for open world games, better AI, etc, the benefits would be huge. This isn't even about graphical ability but processing power as a whole.

yes we "can" question I postulated was, should we.

Like you said look at what Uncharted and Killzone did with that. When I think about games I'd like to make I realize whats limiting me isn't technology, its development time and cost. Would I like to see bigger worlds, better AI, of course I would. But it takes resources to create these things. Games already cost millions and take years to develop. What you are asking for will tack on another year or two and a few million more dollars with projected return remaining consistent. With risk like that do you really think investors will be taking many risks?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The current generation is already being taxed. Sure it has years left in it, but generations tend to overlap by at least a year or more anyway. I'm pretty sure there are still a couple of releases slated for the PS2 even now. The next generation is probably only a few years away at the most.

Who want's to bet on who starts it? Will it be Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or some new upstart?

Well according to rumors Microsoft is planning on releasing a new xbox on 2015. I believe the rumors, because really, a 10 year console life is pretty extreme considering how fast technology evolves.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

Of course we need a new console generation, the hardware for this generation was already outdated at release. Hell the xbox 360 and ps3 only have 512mb of ram (although the ps3's ram is distributed slightly differently). I mean sure, they've pulled a LOT out of that tiny bit of ram (Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 look incredible), but think of how much better games could be made if consoles were more powerful. Less pop in for open world games, better AI, etc, the benefits would be huge. This isn't even about graphical ability but processing power as a whole.

And for that matter I can pick up 4 GB of ram for only £20.
Surely console developers can manage to adjust maybe a tenner towards a couple of gigs of ram? Maybe drop some of the gimmick crap, scrape off those functionalities that we all know didn't work in the first place, and give gamers something worthwhile.
Just a thought.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Of course we need a new console generation, the hardware for this generation was already outdated at release. Hell the xbox 360 and ps3 only have 512mb of ram (although the ps3's ram is distributed slightly differently). I mean sure, they've pulled a LOT out of that tiny bit of ram (Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 look incredible), but think of how much better games could be made if consoles were more powerful. Less pop in for open world games, better AI, etc, the benefits would be huge. This isn't even about graphical ability but processing power as a whole.

yes we "can" question I postulated was, should we.

Like you said look at what Uncharted and Killzone did with that. When I think about games I'd like to make I realize whats limiting me isn't technology, its development time and cost. Would I like to see bigger worlds, better AI, of course I would. But it takes resources to create these things. Games already cost millions and take years to develop. What you are asking for will tack on another year or two and a few million more dollars with projected return remaining consistent. With risk like that do you really think investors will be taking many risks?

Considering most developers reuse the same AI for a lot of their games (with slight modifications) I don't think that extra development times will really be that big a deal.

 

[aeroz]

Of course we need a new console generation, the hardware for this generation was already outdated at release. Hell the xbox 360 and ps3 only have 512mb of ram (although the ps3's ram is distributed slightly differently). I mean sure, they've pulled a LOT out of that tiny bit of ram (Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 look incredible), but think of how much better games could be made if consoles were more powerful. Less pop in for open world games, better AI, etc, the benefits would be huge. This isn't even about graphical ability but processing power as a whole.

yes we "can" question I postulated was, should we.

Like you said look at what Uncharted and Killzone did with that. When I think about games I'd like to make I realize whats limiting me isn't technology, its development time and cost. Would I like to see bigger worlds, better AI, of course I would. But it takes resources to create these things. Games already cost millions and take years to develop. What you are asking for will tack on another year or two and a few million more dollars with projected return remaining consistent. With risk like that do you really think investors will be taking many risks?

Considering most developers reuse the same AI for a lot of their games (with slight modifications) I don't think that extra development times will really be that big a deal.

Yes this is true, and I suppose AI could stand some improvement. Rather then argue it I will agree, except for one point, still a high initial development cost. Also re-using AI does have faults. I know I've played lots of games where I knew computers tactics from recognizing prior usage. Ok so I guess I had two points

Which is issue with other areas. Having expansive worlds loses its appeal when you realize its just a copy/paste. This is done as is, do you think they'd suddenly stop when they are expected to make even larger worlds? Its one of the main reasons sequels are done so much as you can re-use alot of code. You will occasionally see games that make full use of consoles resources but they will be very rare and unless they sell very well they will be failures. Its ok if you like seeing same games made but there is a reason most games out there only use a handful of engines. Only get worse each generation.

Not to mention making entry of new companies into the market even harder. Those that take risks and fail will be hit even harder and more likely to die. Limiting developers even more.

Bigger isn't always better, eventually you see diminishing returns

 

[gustcq]

I think there will be plenty of console generations as technology advances, we shall soon see virtual 3D gaming. There was an article circling the web the other day about mind controlled gaming being developed. So my answers still yes!

 

[DanDeFool]

There should be, but instead of having a game console per-se, I would prefer to see the next-gen consoles move towards general-purpose devices; kind of like what the PS3 is doing. Essentially, I'm thinking the next-gen consoles should be closed-platform home computers capable of running a wide range of software, including web browsers, productivity software, music, movies, TV and, of course, games. These devices should also have expandable storage, the capability to interface with a variety of display types and peripherals, and should support keyboard and mouse input as well as a game pad.

Most of you are now thinking to yourselves, "that sounds exactly like a PC". Well, that's my point. There's no reason a next-gen game console shouldn't have all the functionality of a PC. Aside from the fact that it uses lower-end hardware and runs a different version of Windows, there's not a whole lot of difference bewteen the cookie-cutter Dell workstation and the X360. Why can't we have a general-purpose home computer that has an OS and hardware that's optimized for games, but can do everything else as well?

The PS3 was almost exactly this, until they removed the ability to run Linux on it. That was very disappointing. Maybe Sony's learned its lesson after this whole Geohot scandal, and the PS4 will be able to run Windows 7 and use a Blu-ray burner. That would be awesome.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Of course we need a new console generation, the hardware for this generation was already outdated at release. Hell the xbox 360 and ps3 only have 512mb of ram (although the ps3's ram is distributed slightly differently). I mean sure, they've pulled a LOT out of that tiny bit of ram (Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 look incredible), but think of how much better games could be made if consoles were more powerful. Less pop in for open world games, better AI, etc, the benefits would be huge. This isn't even about graphical ability but processing power as a whole.

yes we "can" question I postulated was, should we.

Like you said look at what Uncharted and Killzone did with that. When I think about games I'd like to make I realize whats limiting me isn't technology, its development time and cost. Would I like to see bigger worlds, better AI, of course I would. But it takes resources to create these things. Games already cost millions and take years to develop. What you are asking for will tack on another year or two and a few million more dollars with projected return remaining consistent. With risk like that do you really think investors will be taking many risks?

Considering most developers reuse the same AI for a lot of their games (with slight modifications) I don't think that extra development times will really be that big a deal.

Yes this is true, and I suppose AI could stand some improvement. Rather then argue it I will agree, except for one point, still a high initial development cost. Also re-using AI does have faults. I know I've played lots of games where I knew computers tactics from recognizing prior usage. Ok so I guess I had two points

Which is issue with other areas. Having expansive worlds loses its appeal when you realize its just a copy/paste. This is done as is, do you think they'd suddenly stop when they are expected to make even larger worlds? Its one of the main reasons sequels are done so much as you can re-use alot of code. You will occasionally see games that make full use of consoles resources but they will be very rare and unless they sell very well they will be failures. Its ok if you like seeing same games made but there is a reason most games out there only use a handful of engines. Only get worse each generation.

Not to mention making entry of new companies into the market even harder. Those that take risks and fail will be hit even harder and more likely to die. Limiting developers even more.

Bigger isn't always better, eventually you see diminishing returns

You know, I never said anything about "bigger worlds," all I said was that I wanted bigger draw distances with less pop in. This doesn't have anything to do with large open world games per say. I was actually thinking about Halo Reach when I was saying this, because if you play Halo Reach in 4 player split screen on one of the forge world maps, players disappear from view after about 50 meters unless using a scoped weapon. This wouldn't be an issue if the xbox 360 had had more processing power.

Also about the development of AI, sure it would be a pretty steep one time investment, but a single developer could make a good AI algorithm, which other developers could then lease, like what they do with graphics engines. I mean, think about the enemy AI in Gears of War, Uncharted, and Killzone. Because all of them are cover based shooters the AI for their enemies are virtually identical, even though they're developed by different companies. One company making really smart AI and leasing it out for modification to other companies would save the entire industry a lot of development costs and would still allow for better AI design than what the current generation's processing power allows.

 

[Jordi]

Yes, there should be a new console generation. I agree that the beautiful graphics of modern games are extremely expensive to create and that this has made it less plausible for large games to be developed. But actually the graphics themselves are not the problem (I think). At least not the technical developments. The problem is that we now require more detail and diversity. I doubt that it will cost much more time to make a texture with a higher resolution, or to have more accurate shadows, or any other technical graphical enhancement. I think we have arrived at a point where you can pretty much add as much detail to an environment as you want, or need. Better graphics are just going to render that stuff prettier, but I don't think it will cost much more time.

Right now, games are developed on a very stringent performance budget. Optimizing the game so that it runs fast can take a lot of time, and might cause features to be cut. The time that developers save by not having to worry about performance so much, might very well be spend in making the game bigger, or adding other features (such as better AI).

 

[AndyFromMonday]

No. I believe graphics get in the way of creative freedom. Until there's a significant upgrade in graphics there's absolutely no reason to move on to another generation.

 

[aeroz]

you are correct, I forgot about draw distance. Mostly as its been awhile since its personally been an issue for me. Doesn't surprise me there are times it still comes up though. As for leasing, you contradict yourself. Leasing them would raise development cost because well, they are leasing them. Leasing complex software is not cheap.

There should be, but instead of having a game console per-se, I would prefer to see the next-gen consoles move towards general-purpose devices; kind of like what the PS3 is doing. Essentially, I'm thinking the next-gen consoles should be closed-platform home computers capable of running a wide range of software, including web browsers, productivity software, music, movies, TV and, of course, games. These devices should also have expandable storage, the capability to interface with a variety of display types and peripherals, and should support keyboard and mouse input as well as a game pad.

Most of you are now thinking to yourselves, "that sounds exactly like a PC". Well, that's my point. There's no reason a next-gen game console shouldn't have all the functionality of a PC. Aside from the fact that it uses lower-end hardware and runs a different version of Windows, there's not a whole lot of difference bewteen the cookie-cutter Dell workstation and the X360. Why can't we have a general-purpose home computer that has an OS and hardware that's optimized for games, but can do everything else as well?

The PS3 was almost exactly this, until they removed the ability to run Linux on it. That was very disappointing. Maybe Sony's learned its lesson after this whole Geohot scandal, and the PS4 will be able to run Windows 7 and use a Blu-ray burner. That would be awesome.

then its not really a "console" anymore

Yes, there should be a new console generation. I agree that the beautiful graphics of modern games are extremely expensive to create and that this has made it less plausible for large games to be developed. But actually the graphics themselves are not the problem (I think). At least not the technical developments. The problem is that we now require more detail and diversity. I doubt that it will cost much more time to make a texture with a higher resolution, or to have more accurate shadows, or any other technical graphical enhancement.

actually yes, alot. A slight fidelity increase takes alot more rendering and the higher the detail the more it costs to make a noticeable improvement

 

[xedi]

Already there is talk that things like fidelity are at a peak, games can process hundreds of characters on screen at a time, with massive forking dialogue, and alot of the "improvement" in technical end of console gaming is more to do with developers learning how to better use what they have.

Just compare PC and the current console generation. Many developers sacrifice resolution so that they can keep other technical aspects. That way many games do not even reach 720p, whereas on PC you can easily have 1080p with the same game, with no sactifices in other areas. This is the best example that developers are limited by technology.

 

[geier]

Do we need a new generation ?
NO

Will there be a new generation ?
Yes

Why ?
Two reasons:

1.) Because there are to much little stupid children that can't tell a good game from a bad game with to much pocket money and parents that only whant the kids to shut up.

2.) Firms like sony need new ways of restraining the consoles to make them consumerUNfriendly as possible.

 

[DanDeFool]

There should be, but instead of having a game console per-se, I would prefer to see the next-gen consoles move towards general-purpose devices; kind of like what the PS3 is doing. Essentially, I'm thinking the next-gen consoles should be closed-platform home computers capable of running a wide range of software, including web browsers, productivity software, music, movies, TV and, of course, games. These devices should also have expandable storage, the capability to interface with a variety of display types and peripherals, and should support keyboard and mouse input as well as a game pad.

Most of you are now thinking to yourselves, "that sounds exactly like a PC". Well, that's my point. There's no reason a next-gen game console shouldn't have all the functionality of a PC. Aside from the fact that it uses lower-end hardware and runs a different version of Windows, there's not a whole lot of difference bewteen the cookie-cutter Dell workstation and the X360. Why can't we have a general-purpose home computer that has an OS and hardware that's optimized for games, but can do everything else as well?

The PS3 was almost exactly this, until they removed the ability to run Linux on it. That was very disappointing. Maybe Sony's learned its lesson after this whole Geohot scandal, and the PS4 will be able to run Windows 7 and use a Blu-ray burner. That would be awesome.

then its not really a "console" anymore

Well, no, I guess not. My point is, who cares? The iPhone isn't a gaming console, but it's a great platform for playing games, and you can access Netflix and browse the internet on your X360. Why waste good hardware by restricting its function to a single purpose?

Also, think about it from the hardware manufacturer's standpoint. If you could market your "game console" as not just a player of games, but a versatile home computing solution (kind of like what Sony's already doing; "It only does everything." amirite?) you make it easier to justify the cost of the hardware to your consumers and can sell to a much larger demographic than you would otherwise be able to. This broadens the potential market for game developers at the same time. It's a win-win-win for the hardware mfg., game developers, and consumers.