I think people are misunderstanding the term "ten-year plan"
PlayStation 2 is a ten-year system
Still got the PS3 six years into its life span, though
Well I think there's a slight difference in what they mean when they say that. Was the PS2 a ten year system? Absolutely. It wasn't intended to be. Sony introduced a new system about, what, six years into the PS2s life span?
Now, when Sony says "10 year system" they mean that they are going to rely specifically on the PS3 to last ten years. Same goes for MS. We won't see the PS3 lasting ten years along with the introduction of the PS4 halfway through the PS3's lifespan.
And I hope it all works out. As mentioned and shared by practically everyone else in this thread, none of us want to upgrade anytime soon.
Also, you're reading it wrong. 42% of 360 and PS3 owners also own a Wii. 26% and 14% of Wii owners also own a 360 or PS3. Because the Wii has higher sales numbers, fewer Wii owners own the 'other' console. But the others have lower numbers, which means a higher chance of owning a Wii.
Without the base numbers of the survey, it makes it hard to read the graph. Which makes it generally useless except to prove a 'point'.
Whoops, yep. I really should have noticed that it was the columns that showed who owns each console. Makes sense now. :oops:
I really don't think we'll get any price drops this year. I figure both Sony and Microsoft will go the "value added" route and use the new motion control as the main incentive to buy. Since they're coming out in the fall, there's not enough time for them to hit the price drop button if that doesn't work. Meanwhile Nintendo's fine as long as the Wii keeps selling as it does. Their only incentive to drop is if the other guys drop, and since that may not happen we're stuck where we are.
The slow rate of price drops certainly makes this feel like a 10-year cycle.
I don't understand how the PS3 or 360 would survive Sony or MS releasing a successor the way the PS2 did. Neither is the dominant console of this gen and neither is particularly profitable to develop for. The PS2 also benefited from the fact that the PS3 and 360 didn't catch on with consumers especially fast and the Wii didn't catch on with developers.
Anyway, short of Natal or Arc taking off allowing the 360 or PS3 to remain a viable console for casuals after newer consoles launch, I don't see who could make money making games for those systems once the people that buy all those games day one start moving on.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I don't understand how the PS3 or 360 would survive Sony or MS releasing a successor the way the PS2 did. Neither is the dominant console of this gen and neither is particularly profitable to develop for. The PS2 also benefited from the fact that the PS3 and 360 didn't catch on with consumers especially fast and the Wii didn't catch on with developers.
Anyway, short of Natal or Arc taking off allowing the 360 or PS3 to remain a viable console for casuals after newer consoles launch, I don't see who could make money making games for those systems once the people that buy all those games day one start moving on.
The dominant console of each generation tends to survive its successor for a little while, but the second and third-place consoles aren't necessarily doomed. Sure, the N64 and Cube pretty much croaked the instant their successors came out, but games kept coming out for the oXbox for about a year or so. It could be argued that, had Microsoft not dropped the console like a rock when they lost the rights to build it, we might have seen a few more oXbox games trickle out.
Not to mention this generation has such a weird split instead of having three of essentially the same thing. If the PS4 and 720 are fairly expensive come launch, the 360 and PS3 might soldier on for a while.
I don't understand how the PS3 or 360 would survive Sony or MS releasing a successor the way the PS2 did. Neither is the dominant console of this gen and neither is particularly profitable to develop for. The PS2 also benefited from the fact that the PS3 and 360 didn't catch on with consumers especially fast and the Wii didn't catch on with developers.
Anyway, short of Natal or Arc taking off allowing the 360 or PS3 to remain a viable console for casuals after newer consoles launch, I don't see who could make money making games for those systems once the people that buy all those games day one start moving on.
The dominant console of each generation tends to survive its successor for a little while, but the second and third-place consoles aren't necessarily doomed. Sure, the N64 and Cube pretty much croaked the instant their successors came out, but games kept coming out for the oXbox for about a year or so. It could be argued that, had Microsoft not dropped the console like a rock when they lost the rights to build it, we might have seen a few more oXbox games trickle out.
Not to mention this generation has such a weird split instead of having three of essentially the same thing. If the PS4 and 720 are fairly expensive come launch, the 360 and PS3 might soldier on for a while.
I would imagine costs SHOULD be largely in line if they come soon, theres just nowhere to go for these things. They might have some more RAM, some slightly larger Hard Drives, potentially a Blu-Ray drive in a 360 and maybe somewhat improved processors. I don't think any of them would be the overhaul these were compared to their ancestors.
I don't understand how the PS3 or 360 would survive Sony or MS releasing a successor the way the PS2 did. Neither is the dominant console of this gen and neither is particularly profitable to develop for. The PS2 also benefited from the fact that the PS3 and 360 didn't catch on with consumers especially fast and the Wii didn't catch on with developers.
Anyway, short of Natal or Arc taking off allowing the 360 or PS3 to remain a viable console for casuals after newer consoles launch, I don't see who could make money making games for those systems once the people that buy all those games day one start moving on.
The dominant console of each generation tends to survive its successor for a little while, but the second and third-place consoles aren't necessarily doomed. Sure, the N64 and Cube pretty much croaked the instant their successors came out, but games kept coming out for the oXbox for about a year or so. It could be argued that, had Microsoft not dropped the console like a rock when they lost the rights to build it, we might have seen a few more oXbox games trickle out.
Not to mention this generation has such a weird split instead of having three of essentially the same thing. If the PS4 and 720 are fairly expensive come launch, the 360 and PS3 might soldier on for a while.
I would imagine costs SHOULD be largely in line if they come soon, theres just nowhere to go for these things. They might have some more RAM, some slightly larger Hard Drives, potentially a Blu-Ray drive in a 360 and maybe somewhat improved processors. I don't think any of them would be the overhaul these were compared to their ancestors.
I don't think we could really expect a BR drive on the next Microsoft console (I could be wrong). More likely might be more open additional hard disc support (since that's well within the company's capacity to deliver on).
The thing is, you might not need a huge hardware jump, if they can supply a new, as of now unseen networking/gaming option, building up on the success of XBL (can't say what they'd do about price). The hardware difference between the PS2 and the original Xbox is pretty staggering in many respects, but they were still considered within the same generation (and the same price point) nonetheless.
Then again, I'm not sure where they can really go hardware wise besides "better GPU/CPU/RAM" etc. There's probably something out there I'm overlooking.
That and if there isn't anything to move on to there isn't anything to take away sales. Nintendo won't release a Wii 2 until it looks like the competition will require them to.
I don't understand how the PS3 or 360 would survive Sony or MS releasing a successor the way the PS2 did. Neither is the dominant console of this gen and neither is particularly profitable to develop for. The PS2 also benefited from the fact that the PS3 and 360 didn't catch on with consumers especially fast and the Wii didn't catch on with developers.
Anyway, short of Natal or Arc taking off allowing the 360 or PS3 to remain a viable console for casuals after newer consoles launch, I don't see who could make money making games for those systems once the people that buy all those games day one start moving on.
The dominant console of each generation tends to survive its successor for a little while, but the second and third-place consoles aren't necessarily doomed. Sure, the N64 and Cube pretty much croaked the instant their successors came out, but games kept coming out for the oXbox for about a year or so. It could be argued that, had Microsoft not dropped the console like a rock when they lost the rights to build it, we might have seen a few more oXbox games trickle out.
Not to mention this generation has such a weird split instead of having three of essentially the same thing. If the PS4 and 720 are fairly expensive come launch, the 360 and PS3 might soldier on for a while.
I would imagine costs SHOULD be largely in line if they come soon, theres just nowhere to go for these things. They might have some more RAM, some slightly larger Hard Drives, potentially a Blu-Ray drive in a 360 and maybe somewhat improved processors. I don't think any of them would be the overhaul these were compared to their ancestors.
Then who will buy the new consoles?
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Exactly. But who is pushing for new consoles right now?
Not the big three if you can trust their pressers, especially not Sony who finally seems to have things on track.
Not the developers who are just starting to reuse engines and make quicker, cheaper sequels to their blockbusters to recoup costs and make the big bucks.
Only people who want new consoles are those dissatisfied with this generation. So extreme tech heads and the even rarer sub breed of Japanophile crossed with a tech head who wants tons and tons of HD JRPGs.
Well Im not saying I want a new gen, just that theres nowhere for them to go. I just hope 3D doesn't become the new waggle, I care even less about 3D than I do waggle and I don't need a new gen thrusting on me for the sake of it.
Even PC stock hasn't moved much lately, I got me 4800 what must be 2 years ago or at least a year and theres nothing I cant play at fullly maxed on it. Everything has just come to a halt right now.
At best, like I said, more RAM and enhanced processors that may lend themselves to even better cities and open worlds. But thats it.
I was going handheld only when the PS3 and 360 were announced. The Wii waggled me back in with that Remote demonstration. VC and Brawl made sure I was there day one.
Of course someone says it every gen, but fortunately every gen there are even more people saying, "Oh yeah, we have a very long way to go from every generation." Because it's always true, there's always room for improvement.
However, the question is not where can we go from this gen, but rather, if a new gen were to launch tomorrow, how much further would they be able to take it given the first parties' circumstances and the state of the industry? Probably not far.
Fortunately there's no reason to go to next gen so soon. Longer gens are nice anyway.
"I don't see where they could possibly go from here!"
And then they go from there and it's awesome
Bring on the next gen, I say
I can't say I'm overwhelmed with the games we've had since the step up nor by teh technology presented over PS2, I mean yeah shit looks nice but all those zombies in DR are still just mindless polygons until you get close. And there are still tonnes of games that look like absolute ass.
Yeah you can probably get a better processor that makes more zombies active or lets you put more peds on the street, same with the Ram but they're only gonna end up looking a little better and feeling a little more alive. I'd rather they work on this gen since noone can release a game anymore without it needing some sort of patch to fix a fuckup that should've been caught before printing.
Of course someone says it every gen, but fortunately every gen there are even more people saying, "Oh yeah, we have a very long way to go from every generation." Because it's always true, there's always room for improvement.
However, the question is not where can we go from this gen, but rather, if a new gen were to launch tomorrow, how much further would they be able to take it given the first parties' circumstances and the state of the industry? Probably not far.
Fortunately there's no reason to go to next gen so soon. Longer gens are nice anyway.
Some of the most amazing looking games came near the end of the PS2s life/start of the PS3s, like MGS3. I know developers keep saying they're using 95% of the xenon or whatever but they won't be using it well for a long while yet. I just have no urge for slightly prettier graphics, I'd be quite content with new Metal Gears, Dead Risings, good GTA's, Saints Rows and whatever here on this gen, enhanced in terms of gameplay instead of graphics.
"I don't see where they could possibly go from here!"
And then they go from there and it's awesome
Bring on the next gen, I say
Well in previous generations devs and publisher were able to make money so that's kind of different.
This.
I would have been perfectly happy if we capped out the graphical updates last gen. As it stands, I feel bad for the developers that have to spend years and millions making a game, for a slight hope of breaking even. I mean, there are only about a dozen developers that know for certain that whatever they put out, it'll make a profit.
I miss the SNES days, where dev teams were about 20 people, and dev cycles were about 7 months.
I wouldn't mind slightly prettier graphics with awesome funtime physics. Explosions good.
I think we could still get those quite handily from the current hardware.
Where is my monster game where I can crush puny individual humans while tearing up an extremely detailed city with actual shit in the buildings that fall out when I pick them up and throw them?
I wouldn't mind slightly prettier graphics with awesome funtime physics. Explosions good.
I think we could still get those quite handily from the current hardware.
Where is my monster game where I can crush puny individual humans while tearing up an extremely detailed city with actual shit in the buildings that fall out when I pick them up and throw them?
That;s effort not technology. I remember in San Andreas you could see in some buildings, they just didn't bother putting stuff in them or creating access to most since it involves rendering stairs and shit.
That;s effort not technology. I remember in San Andreas you could see in some buildings, they just didn't bother putting stuff in them or creating access to most since it involves rendering stairs and shit.
They didn't do that because it would grind the frame rate down to a halt.
Doing anything that involves a ton of physics with decent graphics results in small levels.
That;s effort not technology. I remember in San Andreas you could see in some buildings, they just didn't bother putting stuff in them or creating access to most since it involves rendering stairs and shit.
They didn't do that because it would grind the frame rate down to a halt.
Doing anything that involves a ton of physics with decent graphics results in small levels.
Yeah, GTAIV can make an even decent gaming PC struggle if you start to jack up things like the view distance.
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Just like how when I saw Madden 2001 on PS2 and people were like "You could mistake it for a football game if you squinted!", I was like "Well that's bullshit, it looks fantastic now but by the end of this gen that game will look like garbage."
And it did.
I'm always looking forward to more graphical advancement...I don't see how this is odd?
UnbreakableVow on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
Meh, we're just restating our opinions over and over again. :P
Agree to disagree and all that jazz.
edit: I will say that I can't see how another graphical leap for console generations would do anything other than increase development cycles and costs, with 0 gain on profit.
Meh, we're just restating our opinions over and over again. :P
Agree to disagree and all that jazz.
edit: I will say that I can't see how another graphical leap for console generations would do anything other than increase development cycles and costs, with 0 gain on profit.
Not to mention there has to be enough of a graphical leap so the non-techie part of the audience (that is, the 95 percent of the market that isn't us) really notices and wants to buy the new shiny thing. And Kor's right, it's going to be tough for game makers to make things look significantly better without bankrupting themselves. I keep wondering when the makers of non-casual games will realize you don't have to push the visuals and, by extension, your credit lines to the limit in order to sell games.
Meh, we're just restating our opinions over and over again. :P
Agree to disagree and all that jazz.
edit: I will say that I can't see how another graphical leap for console generations would do anything other than increase development cycles and costs, with 0 gain on profit.
Not to mention there has to be enough of a graphical leap so the non-techie part of the audience (that is, the 95 percent of the market that isn't us) really notices and wants to buy the new shiny thing. And Kor's right, it's going to be tough for game makers to make things look significantly better without bankrupting themselves. I keep wondering when the makers of non-casual games will realize you don't have to push the visuals and, by extension, your credit lines to the limit in order to sell games.
There is a standard though now, you can't really get away with something that looks atrocious. But they don't all need tobe Uncharted 2 or ME2 (face wise) either.
Eh, a good art style matters loads more than high-resolution anyway.
Plenty of HD system games, for my money, don't do anything with their supposedly better graphics.
Example: Infamous.
Xagarath on
0
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
Meh, we're just restating our opinions over and over again. :P
Agree to disagree and all that jazz.
edit: I will say that I can't see how another graphical leap for console generations would do anything other than increase development cycles and costs, with 0 gain on profit.
Not to mention there has to be enough of a graphical leap so the non-techie part of the audience (that is, the 95 percent of the market that isn't us) really notices and wants to buy the new shiny thing. And Kor's right, it's going to be tough for game makers to make things look significantly better without bankrupting themselves. I keep wondering when the makers of non-casual games will realize you don't have to push the visuals and, by extension, your credit lines to the limit in order to sell games.
There is a standard though now, you can't really get away with something that looks atrocious. But they don't all need tobe Uncharted 2 or ME2 (face wise) either.
I think the DS and the Wii could argue what the general population sees as the standard, though.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I've heard my fair share of frat boys at a gamestop saying something along the lines of, "Dude, the graphics are this looks so fucking tight."
I'm just saying, the general population probably wouldn't have even known/cared that graphics could have improved until they were shown with this generation.
It's like, competition is healthy, and usually beneficial for the consumers. However, there is a breaking point where one company is going to fuck themselves over trying to play the superiority game. Cold War references and what have you.
Posts
Well I think there's a slight difference in what they mean when they say that. Was the PS2 a ten year system? Absolutely. It wasn't intended to be. Sony introduced a new system about, what, six years into the PS2s life span?
Now, when Sony says "10 year system" they mean that they are going to rely specifically on the PS3 to last ten years. Same goes for MS. We won't see the PS3 lasting ten years along with the introduction of the PS4 halfway through the PS3's lifespan.
And I hope it all works out. As mentioned and shared by practically everyone else in this thread, none of us want to upgrade anytime soon.
Whoops, yep. I really should have noticed that it was the columns that showed who owns each console. Makes sense now. :oops:
The slow rate of price drops certainly makes this feel like a 10-year cycle.
Anyway, short of Natal or Arc taking off allowing the 360 or PS3 to remain a viable console for casuals after newer consoles launch, I don't see who could make money making games for those systems once the people that buy all those games day one start moving on.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
The dominant console of each generation tends to survive its successor for a little while, but the second and third-place consoles aren't necessarily doomed. Sure, the N64 and Cube pretty much croaked the instant their successors came out, but games kept coming out for the oXbox for about a year or so. It could be argued that, had Microsoft not dropped the console like a rock when they lost the rights to build it, we might have seen a few more oXbox games trickle out.
Not to mention this generation has such a weird split instead of having three of essentially the same thing. If the PS4 and 720 are fairly expensive come launch, the 360 and PS3 might soldier on for a while.
I would imagine costs SHOULD be largely in line if they come soon, theres just nowhere to go for these things. They might have some more RAM, some slightly larger Hard Drives, potentially a Blu-Ray drive in a 360 and maybe somewhat improved processors. I don't think any of them would be the overhaul these were compared to their ancestors.
I don't think we could really expect a BR drive on the next Microsoft console (I could be wrong). More likely might be more open additional hard disc support (since that's well within the company's capacity to deliver on).
The thing is, you might not need a huge hardware jump, if they can supply a new, as of now unseen networking/gaming option, building up on the success of XBL (can't say what they'd do about price). The hardware difference between the PS2 and the original Xbox is pretty staggering in many respects, but they were still considered within the same generation (and the same price point) nonetheless.
Then again, I'm not sure where they can really go hardware wise besides "better GPU/CPU/RAM" etc. There's probably something out there I'm overlooking.
Then who will buy the new consoles?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
If console launches are known for anything it's lots and lots of games being available.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Not the big three if you can trust their pressers, especially not Sony who finally seems to have things on track.
Not the developers who are just starting to reuse engines and make quicker, cheaper sequels to their blockbusters to recoup costs and make the big bucks.
Only people who want new consoles are those dissatisfied with this generation. So extreme tech heads and the even rarer sub breed of Japanophile crossed with a tech head who wants tons and tons of HD JRPGs.
Even PC stock hasn't moved much lately, I got me 4800 what must be 2 years ago or at least a year and theres nothing I cant play at fullly maxed on it. Everything has just come to a halt right now.
At best, like I said, more RAM and enhanced processors that may lend themselves to even better cities and open worlds. But thats it.
"I don't see where they could possibly go from here!"
And then they go from there and it's awesome
Bring on the next gen, I say
However, the question is not where can we go from this gen, but rather, if a new gen were to launch tomorrow, how much further would they be able to take it given the first parties' circumstances and the state of the industry? Probably not far.
Fortunately there's no reason to go to next gen so soon. Longer gens are nice anyway.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Well in previous generations devs and publisher were able to make money so that's kind of different.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I can't say I'm overwhelmed with the games we've had since the step up nor by teh technology presented over PS2, I mean yeah shit looks nice but all those zombies in DR are still just mindless polygons until you get close. And there are still tonnes of games that look like absolute ass.
Yeah you can probably get a better processor that makes more zombies active or lets you put more peds on the street, same with the Ram but they're only gonna end up looking a little better and feeling a little more alive. I'd rather they work on this gen since noone can release a game anymore without it needing some sort of patch to fix a fuckup that should've been caught before printing.
Some of the most amazing looking games came near the end of the PS2s life/start of the PS3s, like MGS3. I know developers keep saying they're using 95% of the xenon or whatever but they won't be using it well for a long while yet. I just have no urge for slightly prettier graphics, I'd be quite content with new Metal Gears, Dead Risings, good GTA's, Saints Rows and whatever here on this gen, enhanced in terms of gameplay instead of graphics.
I think we could still get those quite handily from the current hardware.
This.
I would have been perfectly happy if we capped out the graphical updates last gen. As it stands, I feel bad for the developers that have to spend years and millions making a game, for a slight hope of breaking even. I mean, there are only about a dozen developers that know for certain that whatever they put out, it'll make a profit.
I miss the SNES days, where dev teams were about 20 people, and dev cycles were about 7 months.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Where is my monster game where I can crush puny individual humans while tearing up an extremely detailed city with actual shit in the buildings that fall out when I pick them up and throw them?
As much as it sucks for developers, I have to disagree.
Last gen just looks so damn ugly in comparison
That;s effort not technology. I remember in San Andreas you could see in some buildings, they just didn't bother putting stuff in them or creating access to most since it involves rendering stairs and shit.
But you didn't know that until you saw this gen.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Doing anything that involves a ton of physics with decent graphics results in small levels.
Yeah, GTAIV can make an even decent gaming PC struggle if you start to jack up things like the view distance.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
But better-looking games (like God of War II, Ninja Gaiden) let me know there was something more to be had beyond that generation
How does that make sense? You saw something that looked amazing last gen so fantasized about the day it would become substandard?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Just like how when I saw Madden 2001 on PS2 and people were like "You could mistake it for a football game if you squinted!", I was like "Well that's bullshit, it looks fantastic now but by the end of this gen that game will look like garbage."
And it did.
I'm always looking forward to more graphical advancement...I don't see how this is odd?
Agree to disagree and all that jazz.
edit: I will say that I can't see how another graphical leap for console generations would do anything other than increase development cycles and costs, with 0 gain on profit.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Insert "Of course he is, XoB is a single console Wii owner this gen!" joke right here.
Not to mention there has to be enough of a graphical leap so the non-techie part of the audience (that is, the 95 percent of the market that isn't us) really notices and wants to buy the new shiny thing. And Kor's right, it's going to be tough for game makers to make things look significantly better without bankrupting themselves. I keep wondering when the makers of non-casual games will realize you don't have to push the visuals and, by extension, your credit lines to the limit in order to sell games.
There is a standard though now, you can't really get away with something that looks atrocious. But they don't all need tobe Uncharted 2 or ME2 (face wise) either.
Plenty of HD system games, for my money, don't do anything with their supposedly better graphics.
Example: Infamous.
I think the DS and the Wii could argue what the general population sees as the standard, though.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I've heard my fair share of frat boys at a gamestop saying something along the lines of, "Dude, the graphics are this looks so fucking tight."
I'm just saying, the general population probably wouldn't have even known/cared that graphics could have improved until they were shown with this generation.
It's like, competition is healthy, and usually beneficial for the consumers. However, there is a breaking point where one company is going to fuck themselves over trying to play the superiority game. Cold War references and what have you.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????