GameZone writes, "It's an inevitable truth that we will see new gaming consoles from Microsoft and Sony sometime in late 2013. My view may be the minority, but I don't think we need a new Xbox or PlayStation console, unlike some people in the industry. I'm sure a lot of gamers want a new console just because it's something new to own, but I have a few problems with new consoles and the argument for them. Before you completely write me off, just let me explain my point of view."
10°
20°
20°
40°
Ad 
20°
If your a core gamer, then you would understand that upgraded tech and enhanced realism come at the expense to greater development costs. The more a game costs to make, the less creative leeway devs will be given because publishers will want them to focus on creating guaranteed hits(Halo, COD, Halo imitator, COD imitator etc.)
Obvious and unnecessary. Stop trying so hard. Its clear your not a learned man.
2 Thoughts:
1. I've seen LOGICWINS make insightful comments in several forums and discussions. Don't accuse someone based on one statement and without actually addressing what he has said.
2. Speaking of learned - It's, not its. And you're, not your.
And, like logic stated, the more money that becomes invested in a product, the less chances will be taken. We don't only see this in videogames. Many in the movie industry have commented in the past how ballooning budgets rob them of their creative freedom as everyone becomes involved to try to protect their investments. Video games aren't different in that regard. Even when the new gen arrives, don't expect too much.
all We need is WII U ! It's perfect.... NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
^^ Right now I couldn't care less about "next-gen".
Since there was no breakthrough in hardware that allowed the use of GPGPU techniques, GPGPU coding can be done on the PS3 and 360 as well as the Wii U. The bad part is (and good part[in terms of extending the console life]) GPGPU as we know it has not been utilized on any console in a large way much at all at this time. In a way, on the PS3 is has been done more, but just in reverse in that the "GP" of the GPGPU has been done on the Cell and not the RSX (GPU).
The problem is that a lot of games haven't been optimized for use on the cell processor; which is why you get games like Black ops that isn't really as graphics intensive as a game like, say God of War, but doesn't run as efficiently when compared with God of War. The first big secret of the cell is that you run all of the heavy work through the cell, you would have plenty of ram for other things to do just like Julian Eggebrecht said... but the second theoretical part is that even when you do that, if after you run everything through the Cell you apply principles of GPGPU techniques to the RSX you should be able to have games that should be able to do the fabled 1080p, 60fps on games larger than the boards of Lair with no problem.
This is best guess here, but IF (a huge-frickin' if) someone comes up with an algorithm or efficient enough code to streamline the physics code and/or vector calculations coming to the cell to the degree that the code can ignore the RSX altogether (what I think the ultimate purpose of having the Cell-RSX setup was in the first place) you should have very efficient numerical data coupled with graphics code that has been bounced from the cell back to the RSX to be manipulated as GPGPU code, which should run very fast and even better with a higher resolution.
Basically, Cell for all of the math (if possible) RSX, ram for everything else (which should give you an even larger playground once GPGPU principles are applied).
Not to be of any offense, while the word and can be capitalized and used at the beginning of a sentence, your usage of the word is not one of those times.
Everyone makes mistakes. I'm sure that I've made a mistake or two in this very post.
Grammar side, the word "and" can be used as I used it above for emphasis. Intentional fragments are rarely used, but I was purposeful above.
You're right, however - everyone makes mistakes. My issue pertained more to the spirit of the message. The grammar was just a bonus. :-)
Im going to buy a PC after Xmas Ive decided
In fact, I'm off to play it now lol.
People wouldn't have bitched about Kinect, Blu-ray and an UD-DVD add on among other crap otherwise.
The attitude towards it. That community and even industry negativity still lingers towards it.
We can't have nice things on consoles like that until we get new hardware. So yeah, I want new hardware.
You don't need to buy next-gen consoles when they come out. You can stick with X360 and PS3 for the rest of your life but we both know that you will be first in line next year the get either one of the next-gen consoles buddy.
Not a fanboy, not even a pc gamer, just saying the truth.
We've been through this such a long long time
just...
But lovers always come and lovers always go
Sorry to be the combobreaker, but in this case
"But haters always come and haters always go"
would be more appropriate considering the title of this opinion piece of shit.
The next-gen will be more money focused than any other generation to date. Online multiplayer will be shoehorned into more games and we'll be seeing much more season passes.
You sir, are greedy. Share the love /s
Now I hear Apple and Valve want some also. LMAO.
Yeah....better get a 2nd and 3rd jobs.
...But WE damn sure 'WANT' em!
Bring on the next gen ASAP....and hurry up already ;)
Far Cry 3 is siiiick!
*Just seen your comment, okay no worries...edited :)
Farcry 3 is one of the games that shows that we need new Hardware.
I don't think those are going anywhere :/
Yes, yes we do need them. Tell that to the countless number of devs saying we desperately need new consoles.
Do you honestly think games will become more fun or exciting with better graphics?
Yes, I am opposed to CG in movies. Look at what it has done to the quality of movies...Battleship, Transformers, the new Star Wars films.
Sure, better graphics can sometimes be nice in video games, but until developers learn innovation than sales will continue to slump.
it doesn't sound like you are opposed to cg in movies... it sounds like you're opposed to bad movies trying to use cg to make it better.
inception has cg, lord of the rings, avatar, jurassic park, star trek, 300, matrix 1, ... they are all awesome.
CG is not the problem... bad everything else is the problem... and if everything else is awesome! the visuals can kill it if it sucks... so really... you need everything to be perfect.
to add... are you saying you would have liked Battleship if it weren't for the cg? haha... that movie had failure written all over it. CG had nothing to do with it sucking.
Personally i think movies like star trek and 300 were awesome with cg... and even if you find a recent movie you like... chances are you'd prefer to watch it in HD or the theater.
And if you're one of those people that wait for a movie to come out on DVD and watch it on their old 480i/p setup... then all the power to you.
i want new fresh console ip's (i still get them on the pc all the time) but my consoles don't even get turned on more than 3 times a year, why would they, 95% of the games are multiplat, they look 10x better on pc
i did play halo 4 for a week, and starhawk for a month, that is the extent of my console gaming this year
so, no, i could totally get by without ps4/nextbox, but i still want them, even though i know for sure, next gen consoles will have nothing on a current gen pc
as far as comparing the platforms using screenshots that fill up half your screen... you will still notice a difference... but the difference will be even more if the screenshot was actually 1080p! better yet... even more of a difference if you're watching the VIDEOS running at FULL 1080p.
Consoles have moved in the multi media direction, and they have had a degree of success in doing that. both the PS3 & 360 have media functions, web browsing, etc...HOWEVER... while the PC does all of these things pretty effortlessly consoles currently are merely able to do one thing at a time and that is directly related to their limited hardware and RAM. They still play great games...but its not simple to swap back and forth between Uncharted 3, Netflix and you web browser...its load screen after load screen to swap between the 3.
This is where new console hardware will evolve. The realities are Nintendo currently and MS and Sony will be launching boxes that are closer to PC's than ever before. And they have to be to survive.
shows his lack of vision.
such an ignorant comment stupid Gates!
bottom line, PS3 can barely handle rendering games in 720p let alone upscale to 1080p. and when it does, it sacrifices a lot. Aliasing shadow clipping lighting issues. True 1080p games should look as clear and smooth as a pixar blu ray movie - 60fps at full native 1080p, and looking beautiful with Anti aliasing tessellation hd lighting ray tracing etc... that would be awesome! Some compare games like Battlefield or crysis on ps3 and pc and say "they look similar, why upgrade". But that's so incorrect. There is a huge difference, and instead of comparing screenshots that fills up half your screen, compare by playing the game on a high end PC vs PS3 and you'll quickly notice the difference.
Consoles are relatively cheap (vs. iphone fanboys that pay $700 a year for a new phone). Buying 1 console every 7 years is not "too soon".
And once all our hardware is updated, developers will not have to port to a lesser playing field, and games will just start looking even better. Game engines will be upgraded as developers slowly develop less and less for the ps3 and xbox360.
bring on the new tech!
Some Sega Genesis titles cost more than PS2 titles (remember Virtua Racing and Sonic & Knuckles with its lock-on technology?)
Each new gen DOES NOT increase the price of games. It's just that this gen the new R&D costs were pretty high at the start of the gen and the price of the games had to offset those expenses, hence the $60 price tags.
However, as the generation wears on -- as 2K Games CEO pointed out -- the tech gets cheaper, middleware is low enough in price that ANYONE who knows a thing or two about coding can make a game on a shoestring budget and more money is spent in optimizing a game than actually developing and producing it.
Realistically games should only cost $50. COD is literally recycled assets after recycled assets every year on end but they still charge $60. It's running on a four year-old engine.
For next-gen costs shouldn't be anymore than what they are now. All the software tech and middleware is already designed for next-gen hardware so there will no longer be high R&D costs like it was at the start of this gen, and it takes smaller teams to make higher quality games thanks to things like procedural physics and animation techniques that are available in engines like Unity, CryEngine and Unreal Engine. They just need the hardware capable of utilizing this tech to actually use it.
wasn't it just a couple years after the release of the PS3 that gamers began ranting at how they wanted next gen? this has been going on for years now. After the next playstation and xbox releases, give it 2 years and people will complain yet again.
getting sick of all this.