Planet Ivy investigates why it's taken Sony and Microsoft so long to release their next generation of consoles.
"the current generation consoles have aged gracefully. " I agree. The ps3 has aged very well, and you can get a 360 on the cheap, the value in that is unmatched ( if you only play third party titles its all you need really). I couldn't watch 3D movies or play GOW, Motorstorm, Star Hawk, Uncharted, ect, ect,,, if it weren't for the ps3. Sure better graphics are always welcome, but graphics isn't worth the price difference between next gen and my ps3. That's why all my friends on pc boast about, (teh grafix), which doesn't make sense cause I catch them playing games and running SNES emulators that look like garbage all the time. LOL! It's all about the price now. I'm totally comfortable with buying a system that's no more than $300. If next gen cost more, I will definitely be riding out my ps3 longer than I anticipated.
To the author of this opinion piece; How do you get 2005 -> 2012 to be eight years? When I use my fingers to count, I only get to seven ;-) The Xbox 360 was launched 7 years ago, not 8. (Well, in November it will be 7 years ago; http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ) EDIT: Hmm will I buy a Next-Gen console at launch... sure why not, smartphones are just as expensive and how long do we keep one before we upgrade, honestly? Depends if both Microsoft and Sony has learned that they need a lot of good games at launch/in the launch window, and a decent price.
He counted 2005, 2012, and the years between rather than the difference between the two. Sad, common mistake. Yet the point is the same, and the tech has been around that long. On topic: Its about balancing deminishing returns and long term profitablity. Personally, the reason I put up with updates, hackers, etc. is the community, which is at its best at launch. That's why I'll be day 1 this time. Good games and a decent price are really all they need at launch.
Not buying a 720 at launch this year. My 360 broke down on me within the first two weeks. Not feeling MS whole push on Kinect within that console as well. Might just wait out next gen.
what they do is one thing but valve is planning on changing next gen totally: http://blogs.valvesoftware....
Actually it hasn't even been 7 years yet its only been 6 years, and 8 months.
"Not buying a 720 at launch this year. My 360 broke down on me within the first two weeks. Not feeling MS whole push on Kinect within that console as well. Might just wait out next gen." the next xbox isn't going to be made of the same parts dude. did the first xbox had the same issue? ....no, so it was something new for Microsoft. the xbox slim was made as a response to greatly changed the 360's image, so i'm sure it's on their mind once again.
Oh look, some fans of of a certain OS are apparently feeling the heat by disagreeing with Diver. Tough. Valve is changing the equation by giving gamers a free, continually updated rock solid, smart, flexible operating system to game on. Valve is giving gamers a great choice and I can't wait.
Looks like the HD consoles had the better strategy in the long run because they started with HD foundation early and are able to last longer than Nintendo. Now Sony & MS are in the position to provide more affordable gaming for the masses at the $200.00 price point which will surely be accessible to the masses. Also with titles like The Last of Us I am sure the PS3 can stand toe-to-toe with the Wii U. But still like Iwata stated its not about graphics but games, This might work on PS360's favor now. The Last of Us Beyond God of War Ascension GTA V The Last Guardian FF IV FF Versus XIII Bioshock Infinite BOps 2 Tomb Raider Watchdogs Hitman: Absolution Halo 4 Battlefield 4 2012 & 2013 will be a very exciting years for the PS360!
They already nerfed this gen, Why would next gen be any different lol.
It's the economy, stupid (to quote from Bill Clinton's campaign [no offense to anyone]). Sony hunkered down for the economic recession by going ahead of the curve using a motion-controlled controller and high-tech up the wazoo (but later on added the heretofore known move to the PS3's arsenal BUT basically had a mediocre showing for the sixaxis and move because of the lack of dedication to both motion controls), Nintendo's stab at it was the cost-effective Wii with the dedicated motion controls and dedicated games for the motion controls which became a smashing success and prompted others to follow, and Microsoft's solution was to make a pretty smart middle-ground between tech and tact which resulted in the 360 having add-ons like HD-DVD, HDD, and Kinect. The result is the following (which is happening) 1. If the PS3 made a profit or not, it could carry on two whole generations depending upon software upgrades, new programming techniques to the Cell, and already having the space to implement newer/next gen titles because of the Blu-Ray, Cell Processor, and other cutting-edge tech (like 3d) 2. Nintendo would make a profit, but it would have the option to advance it's tech if sales drooped on the Wii (which Nintendo did with the Wii U) 3. Microsoft can extend their abilities using add-ons if necessary, using third-party people to supply general gaming concerns, and using their internal game divisions to supplement any specific add-ons.
Count 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 unless 2005 wasn't an entire year for you. We ended up waiting that almost entire year for the Xbox 360. It was the longest year of them all.
Well the 360 is going to be at least 8 years old by the time 'Next Gen' starts, which is pathetic.
That's a fallacy, a more powerful system doesn't not equate to just graphics. It allows developers more creativity and freedom with many engine options. Maybe one designer wants to have a game with just a ridiculous amount of zombies, look what happened to dead rising on the Wii. Maybe one developer wants to have everything in the game destructible like Red Faction, that requires a lot of power. When I load up Mount & Blade on my PC I want the biggest, baddest, most awesome fights possible. So I crank up the unit count as high as it can go. That game is ugly as sin and it can still tax your computer when you have hundreds of units on the field. So do we need more powerful consoles? Sure. There will certainly be games that are linear, bland, and focus on nothing but graphics, sure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I enjoy watching games push the edges of realism just as much as I enjoy watching them develop innovative game-play mechanics.
What IDIOT disagreed with you, it made perfect sense to me. Do they want games to just be pretty with stagnant environments and stupid AI? If you go outside and pay attention, say in a park, the level of activity, movement, and ambient sound is something that no game has come close to reaching yet. Power is needed for all of the above, not just higher resolutions and AA.
I agree with Scubba. I want to see games push the envelope as much as the next guy but I don't think new hardware is necessarily the answer. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it all rests in the hands of the developers. If it were just about the hardware, every game would be an Uncharted or a Gears of War but clearly that's not the case. Certainly the systems are capable, but the games that push those limits are rare. The reason is that it takes a helluva lot of time, resources and talent to produce huge, AAA games. Few developers these days have the means to create the next Gears or Uncharted because creating games on the current gen hardware is time consuming and expensive. New hardware might make a few of their tasks easier but really, if they weren't pushing the hardware now it's not logical for those who conclude that new hardware is just going to magically transform all games. Just like how not every game on the PC is the Witcher 2, or Battlefield 3. It's not about the hardware. All new hardware means is that developers who weren't able to push the systems before can now become lazier when it comes to optimizing their games to run correctly. And it means development becomes even more expensive. The next gen can take as long as it needs to as far as I'm concerned. I really can't see new hardware creating any kind of leap in the games we play, and I've read many developers who believe the same thing.
I think AI needs new technology to genuinely improve as well (or as far as developers want to take it). To think that new hardware is only about graphical improvements is very narrow minded and shows huge naivety. Sure, I like graphics but they aren't the be all and end all and the only thing to a game. On the graphics front I expect one thing that will improve drastically on next gen tech is lighting. BF3 on PC made me realise just how far lighting has come over the last 5 years.
The problem I have with pumping up the power is how it is done: graphics get the brunt of the attention. From xbox to 360, the games were largely the same, but prettier(when they worked...) and unlike previous gens graphical horsepower as the main focus wasn't enough to actually advance games. Hopefully, the advance of power will lead to more stable platforms with better performance, and increased complexity of ai and processing ability instead of just a bump up in visual quality, which is having less and less affect on advancing game design going forward. We need bug free games with convincing ai and interesting gameplay mechanics, not prettier but braindead, stuttering versions of games we already have.
I care about graphics but it's not my main thing. Give me 64player BattleField on console or give me a PC.
Thank you Dms. I think what people need to realize is that improved technology doesn't just mean improved GRAPHICS! It is so much more. AI, Physics, Animation, Better Multiplayer, Bigger Worlds, More room for developers to explore in general.
It can mean that. But this last gen doesn't give me much confidence that developers will use increased power for anything other than unnecessary glorified "shoe polish".
im pretty have already done it. well i mean specially m$. why im saying m$? - because they buy or having potential studio but then they make sh!t games or they dont do sh!t. they also invest in time exclusive which is wack. i use say that my friend was crasy for saying that the gaming market is going for a crash and the main cause was m$ but i think its not crasy after all.
You talk like a prehistoric caveman.
SMH...this guy has 5 bubbles my god that is sad.
Dude, I'd lay low if I were you because you're probably wanted for raping the English language.
@ undertaker It doesn't matter if it's made from different parts. The fact that Microsoft willingly released a known broken console just so they could be first to market is reason enough for me to avoid them. Their customer's shouldn't suffer just so that they can get a jump start. Who knows what they'll sacrifice next gen in order to try and get ahead. I say wait it out 6 months to a year and see how solid the hardware is before diving in.
Sony did it with the PS1 and more so with the PS2. But unlike Microsoft they refused to replace your console for free.
I think they would want to make them as powerful as they can,because they would want next gen to last even longer than thisgen.
Madden celebrated 15 years with Madden 2005 and 20 years with Madden 2009... welcome to video game math!
I'm stickin with my PS3 till the PS4 is the same price as the PS3 is now.
yup! Not buying ps4 at launch. My 2012 pc (gtx 680) will do until 2016 - 2017.. And I doubt ps4 or 720 will have a big ass gtx 680 in it by next year. PC technology is moving even faster than 2006. It seems that It will be hard for console makers to keep up this time around. Not to mention Nvidia is expected to make a big jump with Nvidia Maxwell Gpu (delayed till 2014). http://www.youtube.com/watc... lol why disagrees? It's true! The faster technology that we create the faster we can create better technology! Moore's law doesn't apply to consoles. Then when Nvidia (Project Denver) comes? Having a Nvidia Gpu & Cpu in a gaming pc. My God.. so in short yes console makers will try to save money. If WiiU Takes off MS & Sony will compete with it. MS already has there touch screen thingy..
Yeah yeah, I wanna see you guys say it when some good PS4 exclusive games arrive.
They won't have a GTX 680 in them by next year. Those chips are too hot and power hungry to fit inside a sleek, quiet console design, not to mention far too expensive. Unless there's some massive breakthrough in the manufacturing process, don't count on it. At most, expect something like 78XX series equivalent, and that's if the console's housing is pretty big.
you. I don't understand why you have disagrees. Next gen wont launch until 2014. I'm sure both Microsoft/Sony will show off the next systems @ E3-2013. But I sure these systems won't come to market until 2014 which is in line with the Maxwell Gpu. If the graphical leap isn't that big, then there really is no justification for buying a newer system. This is what going to happen with the Wii U.
The disagrees come from the idea that you won't need a PS4 or 720 completely disregarding both publishers rarely make PC games. I own a PC myself, but i own a PS3 too. My PC can't give my GT5 mo matter how beast it is. @LightOfDarkness- I wouldn't say all that. it's very likely that the playstation 4 and 720 will be using the best gpus released this year for there systems next year. and I'm willing to bet that whoever announces theyre system next E3 releases their system that very same year. microsoft has been known for announcing their system or games 6 months prior to the releases. as for sony they may or may not release in 2013. it actually might come down to when microsoft releases. take a look at what the playstation 3 in360s g p u is modeled after befor you make a claim like that. both systems where modeled after the best gpus of their previous year. Thus if the playstation 4 and 720 release next year it's very likely there gpu will be modeled after the best of this years. I mean we could say we "doubt" such a thing would happen but then again it happened this gen so who could really say it won't? Also look up how much a gtx 7600 was in 2005.
I have a nvidia 690x, I am not worried about consoles satisfying me next gen. I know they won't, but my PC will. Really edmix, your pc can't give you a game made on a PC? That is an issue between you and your PC. Not PCs general lack of capability. Just yours.
I still have a back log of ps3 games to play( several are still wrapped!) and its gonna take a while to get to all of them since new games keep on coming! plus to busy to play games on the daily...
Yeah, after spending $400 on my PS2 and $500 on my PS3, I'm realizing that its just a waste of money buying systems at launch. Its at the beginning when a console is sold at a premium, yet the games are at their worst. Might as well get it when its cheaper, slimmer, has a bigger library of games, and exclusives that take advantage of the consoles potential.
@Logic: you're absolutely right. I bought my PS2, PS3 and Xbox 360 at launch, and they really aren't worth it. Unless the consoles launch with a killer app, don't bother. The PS2 made sense because Tekken Tag was friggin' awesome to me, but with the PS3 and 360, I could've waited about a year before taking the plunge. More to that, my gaming PC was visibly more powerful at launch, so there was so little point in buying those machines for me. Quake 4 ran at nearly 60FPS on my machine @ 1280x1024, while it chugged along at 30FPS @720p on a 360. Of course, I was still under the illusion that consoles had some kind of mystical powers that allowed them to do some things better than PCs, but of course we live and learn :p
I think i will buy an xbox 720 at launch since in the past Microsoft has had some pretty decent games come out within the early stages of their console cycles. Then i will buy a ps4 later because Sony will start dishing out the amazing games as well. Hopefully both sides have learned their lesson and just make amazing games all the way through lol. But at launch ill only have money for one system.
The PS2 and PS3 made sense to me as they had huge value even with the absence of tons of games. The DVD and BluRay alone made them worthy launch purchases. However, it's doubtful that the PS4/Xbox will have anything close to that type of value on launch. Seems like a good idea to wait for lower prices and a better idea of hardware stability.
@biggest I agree 100%
my launch ps3 so it was a good buy in my case. But like I mentioned before. I really think the graphical leap is going to have to be pretty significant otherwise asking people to cough up $500-$600 would seem naive.
i wont be able to help myself i will have to buy my ps4 at launch knowing it will be epic goodness. I bought my 80 gig fat for 500 hundred plus and dont regret it one bit because of all that it offered at the time which would have been more expensive it bought seperate at the time (ex blu ray 3d player, wifi, etcc....) Not to mention it lasted me up until a few months ago of non stop gaming since launch. It was well worth it!!!!!!!!
I feel no rush to jump into the next gen just yet, but I probably said that last gen, that is until I saw Gears of War, Resistance:Fall of Man, and Motorstorm in person.
Where are these judgments coming from? Why can't Sony and Microsoft just continue to add more things to the Console that we already have? Just because there was a certain timeline that many people think Sony and Microsoft should follow through with doesn't mean they will. If both systems are both excelling, let them continue to. The Wii didn't have anything else going for them so they HAD to release a new System
PS4 launch sales will be dissapointing judging by these comments.
Its really a testament to how good the PS3s library is. Four years down the line(when the PS4/720 are in the limelight) I see myself buying tons of PS3 games on the cheap. The Last of Us, Beyond, GOW: Ascension, AC: Brotherhood, AC: Revelations, AC3, Brutal Legend, Ni No Kuni, the Tomb Raider Collection, Tomb Raider, Sleeping Dogs etc.
that's nice but can't this be said about any systems launch?
I won't agree or disagree with you 1st of all. I see your thinkin kind of like mine but I plan to buy the current console games NOW and buy the PS4 and XB720 at launch. But i won't open the box until the Ideal game come out on that system. So long story short I'm ready for new toys but i'm not givin up the old ones. psn: cedaridge / xbl: cedar4Thunder
The 360 hasn't even been out 7 years and he claims it has for 8 (and emphasizes just how inaccurate he is by saying it in a second [though one-worded] sentence).
Agreed... the 360 indeed only coming up on its 7yr anniversary this Nov. That said you could make the case that the specs for the 360 were most likely finalized 8yrs ago... but that is splitting hairs really. :)
Dude the gtx 500 series is like some of the worst graphic cards made. That thing wont play medal of honor the new one at max settings. Let alone last light, crysis 3, Bioshock 3, and a long list of new games coming out. My 690 wont make it until 2016. Well max settings wise of course.
What makes you think the 690 won't last 4 years?
I have a EVGA Geforce GTX570, and i run all games maxed out. includes Crysis 2 with DX11 and High Res Textures. It runs 50-60FPS on 1680x... Resolution.
I call BS. I had 570 before 690, and there is no way you run every game at 50 60 fps at max setting. Put in batman 2 you get about 25 to 30 fps. And with crysis 2 its right about 30 35. My 570 was overclocked also, and didn't put up those great of #s
I also have a 570, and get a 47 fps average on Crysis 2. Also batman runs at 25 fps because of a error rocksteady made, it should run at 60 fps atleast.
It's all in the CPU if a 5 series isn't working for you.
What ExCest says.. Its not all about your Video Card. I think your CPU is being a bottleneck. Or maybe your 570 was broken and had to be sent RMA.
I got a Gtx 560, i5 CPU and I can play bf3 on high settings at 57-61fps and Arkham City at 55-59fps at high settings... And if a gtx 570 is better than a 560, then your either lying or have the wrong CPU pushing your rig.
At what resolution do you play?
At 1080p, on a 40in tv
Yea you can't play batman at max setting with out at least a 570 and a dedicated 460. It says so right in the menu system... Learn you stuff dude. And i have a sandi bridge Cpu. So pffffffff
Dude I said high, not "MAX" do a little more reading, or try understanding the differences between high and max settings good sir...
PS4 sales will be disappointing only if its priced to high and isnt offering anything new or doesn't have a wow factor. Knowing Sony however it will be something ppl will want to have!!!!!!! If its 350 400 tops it will sell well.
I think if they go VR there system will sell regardless of price. the 1 thing sony has proved this gen is that they could sell their system in beat any other systems regardless of price. 360 at this point is even cheaper than the wii when you factor in not adding hard drive. it didn't rise it's sales to beat the wii. the playsation 3 releasing at a higher price point and a year after microsoft system and still able to catch up in sales that something not many companies can say they could do. That being said early adopters will keep up that sales margin. and if it truly is VR that sony is planning I'll be happy to pay the full price for such a. thing. it's understandable most won't pay for such a thing at launch but truthfully if people truly want a system to push boundaries of gaming you need to be able to actually be willing to pay for such a thing. they could make it 400 but they could also lower the g p u settings they can also take out ram etc in the long run is it really worth it to gimp an entire generation to save you 100 bucks? At the end of the day did you really get the best experence?
My coffee warns me that jimmies are going to be rustled just by the headline alone...
Your coffee was right. Jimmies have been rustled.
wouldn't want better graphics, AI, physics, bigger enviroments etc