Ubisoft: Don't wait 7 years to launch PS5

This long console cycle should not be repeated, says Ubisoft. The firm, which took to the stage last night to reveal Watch Dogs for PS4, told MCV that new consoles invite more creativity and more innovative titles. And that the publisher doesn't want to wait seven years for PS5.

[Abash]

I have a feeling this console cycle will be just as long if not longer

[MostJadedGamer]

There is actually 8 years between the 360, an the 720. So if anything they should be complaining about Microsoft not Sony.

[Ripsta7th]

Both MS and Sony said their consoloes would have a 10 year cycle.

[BanBrother]

@MostJadedGamer

Agree. I find it funny that Ubisoft are complaining though, as they have been taking advantage of the large PS3/360 install base by milking Assassin's Creed.

@Ripsta7th

Yes, they did. So that means we will see games still being made for the PS3 even whilst the PS4 is out. Some will be cross-platform, and some will be unique to the PS3, like the original God Of Wars.

Some might think that strange, but it is very smart. As the PS3 install base is massive (just like the PS2's) so it is a very good business decision.

[shutUpAndTakeMyMoney]

lol but they are complaining about 7 years..

[Cupid_Viper_3]

You know you're in for a bunch of recycled bs games from a certain company when, right after a new console has been announced with Surprisingly impressive tech and the first they have to say is: "please don't let it last too long".

I watched the entire conference yesterday, and on the surface, their game looks like another generic game that holds your hand at every turn. Next Gen Graphics for sure, but current gen gameplay. The Same goes for Killzone as well.

But that's something you have to expect as developers need time to transition to a new way of thinking. But developers need to start coming up with new ideas of how we go from point A to point B in our games from now on. NO MORE EXCUSES, it's no longer the consoles, it's on all YOU now (speaking to Devs)

[Sarcasm]

^Can't believe people are still confused over Sony's 10 year lifecycle comment. They say they will support the console for 10 year, nothing ever said that they can't release a new console in between that time.

And the reveal of the PS4 just proves that. They retired the PS2, and now they will continue to support the PS3 until it is no longer lucrative while we have our PS4s.

[Timesplitter14]

In my opinion, the PS4 arrived just at the right time. Maybe even a little early. No point in releasing new consoles when the current ones still have juice left in them

[Thatguy-310]

Exactly. Honestly I didn't even feel it was that long even though it was. The reason being was the incredible games releasing every year. In the ps3 case a lot of games just kept pushing the boundaries so there was no point to rush into next gen. The time is right though and this year I will welcome it with open hands.

[MizTv]

I could wait a year or two

[SAE]

It was tooo long for us here. My brothers stopped playing because it's getting old and nothing impressing like when it's first released. So i think you guys are wrong. It should have announced the sae time last year and released in the end of the year..

That's why i agree with Beyond developers. Gaming need to grow up. Sony mentioned that before talking about the ps4 so i'm having hopes it bring back the exciting new games and evolve..

I want wow factor back again. Ps3 can't bring me that ..

[Gimmemorebubblez]

I think in 5 years the Ps5 will be anounced.

[Rainstorm81]

I hope not....PS3 still has legs and unless dev cycles greatly reduce this next gen, 5 years is a pipe dream

[BitbyDeath]

6 years would be better.
Give every dev a chance to release at least 3 games.
(1 title every 2 years)

[f789790]

It costs money to develop the hardware. A lot of money!

Then there's the fact that MS and Sony consoles are sold at a loss in the beginning because they want to get the initial user base established. That costs them a lot.

They like to wait as long as they can and will do so.

[swice]

As someone on a budget, I welcome these long cycles. Plus, we'll get a lot better games toward the end of the 10 year cycle, since everyone knows how to properly utilize the hardware at this point

[Virtual_Reality]

Probably in 6 or 7 years, just check the history.

1994 - PS1
2000 - PS2
2006 - PS3
2013 - PS4

Notice the differences of 6 years, 7 years with PS4.

Probably in 2019 or 2020 Sony will release a new PlayStation.

[Gamer1982]

The PS4 is so powerful why would we need a new one in 5 years? What could they possibly add other than graphics to it? In the past we upgraded for graphical leaps the last one was the biggest from SD to HD but this one will finalize that where we can finally get that true 1080p gaming at 60fps. What could we possibly need from our next consoles? These ones are already 4k compatible (well no word on new xbox but it probably will be).

So unless they invent Virtual reality thats so damn amazing it HAS to be on consoles in the next 5-7 years I cant see the point of new consoles. Graphics are coming to the tip of the iceberg where gamers are losing interest in them and are more interested in gameplay now.

[Sy_Wolf]

The PC will have faster hardware when the PS4 is released. It actually has faster hardware now. Graphics can vastly improve contrary to what you think. 4k will be for movies only.

[HexxedAvenger]

lol I actually was thinking about that. As of right now, if a new way to play, i.e. virtual reality or something along that line, isn't possible yet, we don't really need a gen after this.
When I think about it Nintendo might be the only one with the advantage. I mean later down the line, if they feel like their console isn't enough they could always release something to rival the PS4/Durango.

[Nate-Dog]

YESS PLEASE SONY AND MICROSOFT GIVE US MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO MILK OUR FANBASE AND MAKE MORE MONEY

If it only takes new consoles to make creative and innovative titles why are you still making Rayman, Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed games?

[00001]

how do you have so many bubbles? i would guess multiple accounts...

[-Alpha]

He's a moderator. They get the power, and the babes.

(But mostly the power)

[bicfitness]

Probably a mod. I'm pretty sure that they have 10.

Edit: -Alpha, you're like one beat ahead of me today lol

[Rumplebumpkin]

@ -Alpha

Don't forget the cocaine!

[00001]

my apologies mod

[Nate-Dog]

It is OK my child, follow the good path of not being a fanboy on N4G and showers of gifts shall befall ye.

ya dig?

[Root]

Why not, the PS3 is still going strong today and it's not like third party devs like Ubisoft don't have anything to aim towards on the console....it's not like they've maxed it out and done as much as they can with it

If I saw a Ubisoft game, exclusive or not, which was up to the same standards as God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Last of Us, Heavy Rain etc then fair enough but they still could of aimed towards something this gen. If you get what I mean

[rainslacker]

I guess if Ubisoft doesn't like it they could always release their own console. I means what's a couple billion dollars in R&D and marketing when you can get the hardware you want, when you want.

Of course he wants new consoles sooner, however the people taking the biggest risks on the hardware(Sony/MS/Nintendo) are the ones doing the heavy lifting so Ubisoft can sell their games. Pretty ungrateful attitude if you ask me.

Edit: Creativity and Innovation are not mutually exclusive to new technology. How about showing that ability in your current gen titles before asking for new hardware.

[Theyellowflash30]

This upcoming generation is going to last at least 8 years. The Wii U 2 or Wii 3 will be out in 2016.

[Rainstorm81]

And it will be slightly more powerful than PS4 and Xbox 720

[Theyellowflash30]

Yup! Nintendo won't wait long to release the Wii U 2. There already working on it by unifying there hardware and handheld divisions. Nintendo needs games fast! And There better be a Pokemon game announced at E3 for the Wii U.

[whiteyjuice]

What he means is the console makers cannot afford to allow for another 10 year console cycle. Already, the consoles are outdated, service based duds, outclassed by the PC and it's inexorable dance with Moore's Law. Should Sony and MS choose to allow for a longer cycle, they will buried by the screaming tide of PC superiority, fueled by the unstoppable force of technological evolution.
Already, people begin to talk of the gap between console and PC- and it is only widening. Sooner or later, game makers will have to cater to an ever increasing customer base who are intelligent enough to realize that the PC gives the consumer the best bang for their buck.

[Rainstorm81]

One question.......PCs are far superior to next gen consoles already why don't we see games that look like or look better than Capcom's Deep Down?

[f789790]

Because current consoles have held things back to a degree.

That's why pc gamers are screaming at the top of their lungs right now. Low midrange graphic cards are able to max out games at the moment (assuming you aren't being dumb with 16xaa.

[trenso1]

@ft89790 still doesnt explain why games dont look that good on these amazing pcs, there are a bunch of developers for pc but no one is making games that look as good the ones shown at the press conference, except a small portion

[landog]

@rainstorm

cause the deep down "gameplay" was fake, it was NOT real gameplay, and the witcher 2, uber sampling in 1600p, destroys it already, even the fake "gameplay" did not look as good as the witcher 2.

if you really think a weak 8 core 1.6ghz cpu and a mid range, two year old graphics card are going to produce gameplay visuals like the deep down capcom CGI TRAILER, lol...sorry

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

ps4 will NOT have graphics that good, and it came out 2 years ago

[Rainstorm81]

@ LANdog

While the Witcher on PC looks Phenomenal, it looks like a Hi res current gen game.

PC games never seem to lead the advancements in gaming graphics physics and animations, It seems like they wait for consoles to advance gaming then build on what the consoles achieved until the next console generation and it starts over.

I'm not saying there was no trickery with that Deep Down trailer because it looked unbelievably amazing to be real time.......What I'm saying is why aren't there ANY PC games on that graphical / animation level when they are so much more powerful.

The answer is Lowest Common Denominator......something developers don't need to worry about with consoles.

And BTW if you think PS4 games will never look as good as that Witcher vid I don't know what to tell you....Witcher 3 probably look as good or better but hey time will tell

[rainslacker]

That gap will actually decrease as the console/PC cycles continue. There comes a point where the differences between generations just aren't as apparent. Even with the amazing games we saw last night, the difference between the generations graphically is nowhere near a drastic as say PS1 to PS2, or PS2 to PS3. Most of the differences come from higher poly/texture count, and increased physics for particle effects and physics computations.

Since all this will eventually surpass the uncanny valley, where the actual computational power of the processor will become moot, because there is just no place else to go. It isn't until we see other technologies advance(such as VR) where new processing power will be needed.

Even this generation, the difference between PC and console games hasn't been so drastic over the entire generation that it makes me think that PC's will gain a huge upper hand. That difference is going to be even less apparent in the next gen, despite fan boy wants and needs.

[stuna1]

I agree with you rainslacker, if anything once this next gen gets into full swing and all consoles have released say 11/2 to 2 years, alot of developers should pretty much have a handle on optimization techniques on the big three consoles! Thus shortening the glaringly obvious difference as far as graphics and what not! Note I am not saying console will outdo pc games, I'm just saying the differences won't as big as they are now.

Sure the next line of graphics card would have came and gone, this factor would still have remained, most pc owners don't upgrade their gaming rigs every time a new graphic card comes out! And two when they do come out, just like the console makers wait for prices to go down, so do pc enthusiast! Popular to most people belief, everyone doesn't have a disposable incomes.

[SatanSki]

And with 3d gaining popularity consoles will age much faster as it almost doubles porcessing power requirements.

[Wesley85]

Sony have just stated they are not fully supporting 3D now. Just another phase that never caught on...again.

[SatanSki]

Wesley: Thats unfortunate as im already not sure whether i want to invest in PC and Oculus Rift or new console. No full 3d support is big let down for me

[a_bro]

7 years is perfect. gives more time for companies to develop their hardware the right way.

[TheGamerDood]

I think 5 years is the sweet spot, anything longer than that is pushing it.

[NotSoSilentBob]

They want more consoles out there so they can crank out crappy ports and bring in more $$$.

[seanpitt23]

People need to realise that bringing a new console to market costs £billions with research advertising, development and manufacturing costs so basically they cannot afford to do it any earlier than 7 to 8 years and more in to the future we go its going to cost even more so basically I cannot see a console after ps5 because it will all be done online.

[Jek_Porkins]

If you look at past consoles, 5 years is about when new consoles should be announced. This long console cycle has hurt a ton of developers and us gamers as well.

We get sequel after sequel because they already have those engines built and it's easy to pump them out. If we had the standard cycle, we'd have more innovation and less sequels.

I think around 2010 we should have had a new Xbox announced, you have tablet and phone owners getting new hardware every year, and that excites people, I'm not suggesting yearly console releases, but 5 years should be fine.

[Genki]

The landscape has changed far too much for us to use the past as a hard guide. Whereas 20 years ago you could create a game like Mortal Kombat with 3 people in a time span of 3 months, these days it takes core teams of well over 100 people and roughly 2 years(if not more) to get a quality title to market. A 5 year life cycle would limit all of your favorite studios to 2 games per generation given the current state of affairs.

Besides that, we're seeing diminishing returns as the hardware becomes more robust. The difference between 2D and 3D was readily evident, but as polygon counts and texture resolutions continue to climb, the differences are harder to see, and more importantly, harder to reach. The very reason why I stopped playing sports games is because I was tired of the new editions being little more than roster updates. To me, clamoring for a 4-5 year life cycle is essentially asking for the same thing to be done from a hardware perspective. The fact that aspect ratios and display resolutions continue to change won't make the numbers any easier to crunch either; we'd be liable to have a new system produce games of a similar quality to an old generation if 4K and 21:9 became the supported standard after a 5 year refresh cycle.

The complaints about sequelitis is a valid point, but again, thats just what the gaming landscape has evolved into. Again, 20-30 years ago, a handful of people with the know-how could throw together a respectable game and have it sell, kind of like writing a book or publishing an editorial, but now, game production isn't much different from that of movies, requiring an immense amount of capital, orchestras to produce the score, and countless hours from core teams and outsourced teams to put togetehr a complete product. It's just the nature of the beast.

[SnakeCQC]

ubisoft dooesn't understand consoles

[Genki]

Given the current state of affairs, I for one think that they should wait another ten. A hot issue with the current generation since it debuted was sub-HD resolutions and anything else under 1080p.

Even still, we've got 4K and possibly 8K looming on the horizon, which will be yet another exponential performance cost on future consoles. The current gen almost seemed like a test bed for the HD revolution, and not one console was able to manage it adequately(how many 1080p/60fps games did we actually end up with? Exactly.). You can bet your bottom dollar that not a single game will even be allowed to run at 720p during the next generation(it's almost certain to be in the fine print), and that resolution increase doesn't come for free. I say wait an adequate amount of time and allow the optimal hardware to be developed for future resolution standards. A lot of people seem to take higher resolutions for granted, but the increase doesn't come for free.

I still think that the forthcoming generation is launching prematurely; if it were up to me, we wouldn't see new machines until 2015 at the earliest. Personally, I'm on the fence about the footage that was shown at last night's conference. The Killzone gameplay, IMHO, looked like what I think the PS3 iterations SHOULD HAVE looked like; it seemed more like the next-gen equivalent of todays ubiquitous "HD re-release" of PS2 classics. Oddly enough, the trailers with the highest fidelity came from Capcom and Ubisoft; that Deep Down footage was stunning, although I couldn't differentiate between what was in-engine and what was pre-rendered.

[seanpitt23]

^^^^^^ English please