Ubisoft: Bring on the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 1492
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
He has a point. A new console capable of new things would bring about some innovation and interest in consumers, sure. However, presently, the industry needs a different sort of innovation, an innovation that will be turned to DESIGNING better, more unique games with exciting new mechanics. Instead of adding in the technical nuts and bolts, they will have to explore new genres, storytelling techniques, Etc. This console generation can last another 10 years for all I care. Ill be glad when technological innovation comes, but I think this may force developers to try their hand at some other innovation first.
If the current generation hardware is a concern, just switch to PC. Hardware innovation hasn't stopped there; that's the "technological advances" Mr Cooper is referring to after all.
I rather think it's a benefit to have the same hardware for longer periods of time; at least it was before manufacturers started artificially limiting their hardware and putting ridiculous price tags on licensing middleware.
It wasn't until the last NES, SNES and PSX games that we really got to see what the hardware was capable of. In the Nintendo cartridges they actually started adding more hardware, even!
With the current generation, there's alot of pointless overhead in the OS and middleware; all the faux security and verification nonsense, heavy system tasks and overuse of network connectivity; the 360 binds one of its processors to system tasks even, and so on.
We certainly haven't seen what the PS3's Cell processors are really capable of. The idea of writing efficient and efficacious software seems to be out of style. Devs seem to just want more power so they can write code faster and at lower quality, but still get better results.
That's one part of computer software development I was hoping wouldn't carry over to the consoles, but seeing as patches are now as common on consoles as the PC, I guess we're past that point already.
Consoles are just subsidised and specialised PCs with 5+ years old hardware, it seems, and that makes me sad.
I rather think it's a benefit to have the same hardware for longer periods of time; at least it was before manufacturers started artificially limiting their hardware and putting ridiculous price tags on licensing middleware.
It wasn't until the last NES, SNES and PSX games that we really got to see what the hardware was capable of. In the Nintendo cartridges they actually started adding more hardware, even!
With the current generation, there's alot of pointless overhead in the OS and middleware; all the faux security and verification nonsense, heavy system tasks and overuse of network connectivity; the 360 binds one of its processors to system tasks even, and so on.
We certainly haven't seen what the PS3's Cell processors are really capable of. The idea of writing efficient and efficacious software seems to be out of style. Devs seem to just want more power so they can write code faster and at lower quality, but still get better results.
That's one part of computer software development I was hoping wouldn't carry over to the consoles, but seeing as patches are now as common on consoles as the PC, I guess we're past that point already.
Consoles are just subsidised and specialised PCs with 5+ years old hardware, it seems, and that makes me sad.
Why do we need new consoles? I mean, games are expensive already this generation to produce, so just think of how it'll be in the future. It's not worth all the shiny new graphics.
Also, if the Xbox 360 successor still uses DvD's, then that would mean that every game would require at least 2 discs.
Also, if the Xbox 360 successor still uses DvD's, then that would mean that every game would require at least 2 discs.
i think they need to start developing the next console but i dont think it needs to come out for the next two or three years. we are just now tapping into each consoles potential and i would hate to move on before need be
think about it, it has only been recently that we have begun to see multi-disc games being released and most of those are due to lack of blue ray compatibility for the 360 (which better be in the new console) and the graphics are still improving on consoles
am i excited for a new console? yes
do i want a new console right now? no
it just doesnt make sense to release a new console during a recession here in the states and the companies (besides nintendo) dont really have to update their console
think about it, it has only been recently that we have begun to see multi-disc games being released and most of those are due to lack of blue ray compatibility for the 360 (which better be in the new console) and the graphics are still improving on consoles
am i excited for a new console? yes
do i want a new console right now? no
it just doesnt make sense to release a new console during a recession here in the states and the companies (besides nintendo) dont really have to update their console
I've actually gotten rather bored with AAA console games. I mean, what of note is being released this year that isn't a sequel to a game that wasn't very all that fresh in the first place? Aside from Portal 2?Eggsnham said:
The problem is the era of a console hasn't been long enough. Take the PS2 for example probably the longest running development cycle on any console and they didn't peak it's performance till the very end. They still haven't hit the end of the potential with latest consoles so why move to something new.
I get it, I'm in the programming industry, new coding concepts and design come out and you want to use them but the hardware lacks the ability. Normally this is in play of saving time and not optimizing, it's not that it can't be done on what it's running on but isn't as fast as they would like it. However unless every dev company starts complaining that they max out the potential and want to move on there is no reason move.
I get it, I'm in the programming industry, new coding concepts and design come out and you want to use them but the hardware lacks the ability. Normally this is in play of saving time and not optimizing, it's not that it can't be done on what it's running on but isn't as fast as they would like it. However unless every dev company starts complaining that they max out the potential and want to move on there is no reason move.
But they could do tons of cool things and even more on top of that with new consoles. If AAA studios weren't obsessed with creating 5-hour "cinematic" games with zero player agency the current console technology would totally be holding them back.9_6 said:
Have they gone mad?
They may need a new console to play around with but I sure as hell don't, I'm happy with the current generation right now. I realize they can do cooler things with more power than what the PS3 and the 360 have, but remember all the cool games that the PS2 had and it wasn't really a technical powerhouse.
Settle down Ubisoft, you will get your new console eventually.
They may need a new console to play around with but I sure as hell don't, I'm happy with the current generation right now. I realize they can do cooler things with more power than what the PS3 and the 360 have, but remember all the cool games that the PS2 had and it wasn't really a technical powerhouse.
Settle down Ubisoft, you will get your new console eventually.
I think we have maxed out on this gen, outside of a few graphical tricks this is as good as it gets. I dare say pretty much any new game has to be held back for consoles. Be it lower resolution, shorter draw distances, no physx, lower framerates, lighting effects removed etc. BF3, Crysis 2, and any triple A PC game will be lesser on consoles just because there is only so much you can do on 6 year old technology.Truly-A-Lie said:
ACB doesn't look as good because it has to render a larger area in a mostly unscripted environment, with 10s of AI whereas uncharted is mostly linear and you can allow for more tricks.
OP, I've been waiting for a new gen since last year hopefully one comes out by 2012.
Dude... spoiler tags more media like that. Not everyone's internet and browser handle images that large gracefully.Dexter111 said:
I don't mind sequels as long as they look fun.BloodSquirrel said:
For instance Skyrim looks pretty kickass.
Battlefield 3, while not a fresh concept, looks like it could be a pretty good game.
A sequel to Demon's Souls, called Dark Souls, is coming out sometime this year, methinks.
Plus there are a couple of promising DLC games being released soon. One of them being a sort God-sim-terraforming-creation type of game.
I mean, none of these games are particularly unique, namely because we've thought of so many things that it takes creativity and developing talent which isn't very common to make truly unique games.
I'm also really easily amused, so as long as the game looks nice and has some interesting gameplay, I'll be playing it for hours =]
There is absolutely no point in a new console generation while the processing powers of the PS3 and 360 are barely being tested at the moment.
Also, I haven't even gotten around to getting a 360 yet! So don't go releasing the Xbox 1492, 3 days after I get a 360!
Is Xbox 1492 seriously the name of the next Xbox console?
Also, I haven't even gotten around to getting a 360 yet! So don't go releasing the Xbox 1492, 3 days after I get a 360!
Is Xbox 1492 seriously the name of the next Xbox console?
Skyrim and BF3 are cool and all, but hardly "This generation is just getting to it's more interesting parts!" material. This generation got to it's more interesting parts a while ago, and is currently in the re-hashing phase.Eggsnham said:
