id Software: 'Extended console cycles are actually good for everyone'

GB: "Its no secret that he current generation is lagging in comparison to PC gaming technology and hence there is a lot of talk going about how the next generation of consoles are desperately needed to solved this problem."

[Inside_out]

.
One minute the consoles are old, outdated and as Johnny C says, a modern PC is 10 more powerful and now this bean counter comes out and says...

"I think extended console cycles are actually good for everyone. I think they’re good for consumers and good for developers. As much as a new console will excite everyone about its technical gee-wizardry, your worst economic period is often the very first year of a new console. Install bases are not there, you’re selling lower units of games, people are having to pay $600-$700 for a console as opposed to $200-$300. And the first games to come out are among the least technically compelling, because there’s just such a rush to get stuff out for launch. Those are the reasons in my mind."...

SOoooo...It's all about the money and seeing how the economy is bad, we should be like third world nations now and go back to the PS2...480i is so under rated...O_o

They should of at the very least up dated these machines every two years with more memory and have the consoles scale the game according to whatever console model you happen to have. Look at PCs...there are no two PC's the same and yet they ALL play most games in one form or another. Consoles should be built with this " future proof " mentality. It has been talked about but basically ignored.

btw...launching a new console is a money maker as well for EVERY aspect of the gaming universe. New consoles is a big win for manufactures, advertisers...etc and all corners of gaming world will see some of that. This guys view point is all about Id and their new engine that took 7 years to complete...O_o...and now wants another 7 years to sell it. :/

Why not make new consoles and for a change, have them built in NORTH AMERICA!!!

[gamingdroid]

I second the built in NA, but the actual cost would be prohibitive.

That said, the reason why there are diverging views is probably cause developers care about technology, while management also cares about business and profit.

"btw...launching a new console is a money maker as well for EVERY aspect of the gaming universe."

Not for the console manufacturer. It tends to loose a bundle of money and take on additional risks. See what happened to Sony and PS3, they went from number one and hugely profitable to major losses and being third. MS lost billions as well on the Xbox 360 and only Nintendo made profits.

But I would have loved for fixed hardware that has an upgrade path i.e. essentially have three specs low end/cheap, medium, and high end/costly. Then very 2-years drop the low end machine and add a higher end and shift the price.

That is what they should do with PC.

[Caleb_141]

Your wrong in so many ways that I can't be bothered to correct you

[Micro_Sony]

What ID is really trying to say is that We took so much resources and funds to make our engine that we need another 5 years to make another game with it.

I for one thinks it about bloody time we move on to the gen - 5 years is dinosaurs in the tech world.

[Jio]

I'm sick of the PC gaming community bashing consoles, just play your games and stop trying to speed up the next generation. I hope this generation still lasts for a while.

[gamingdroid]

I'm not much into PC gaming, but want a new generation. It is long overdue and the manufacturers are holding us back to increase their profit. At this stage there is no reason a PS3 still cost $300, an Xbox 360 $200 and a Wii at $150.

There is just not enough competition. We need a 4th console maker! Sega come back please!

[Ju]

Sure, let 100s of consoles put pressure on the prices.

Until each vendor realizes they don't make a dime and drop out like dead flies leaving us with the 2-3 that can survive.

Oh, wait, that already happened.

How can you build a console with a BD drive, a 250GB HDD well, and HD output cheaper than $300? I mean a freaking cell phone - without those price parts costs $300+ (tablets...look at those...anything remotely close >= $399).

The only way a 10x performing machine like a PS3/360 for $200 is to get rid of all costly parts. That is HDDs and optical drives - something what nobody here wants.

[Ducky]

^ Why did you compare cell phone and tablet prices?

Technology is more expensive as you decrease size.
It's why a 13" laptop will cost a boatload more than a desktop.

Also, the costly parts are not the HDD or the optical drive.

@Gamingdroid
Doesn't Sony still sell PS3's at a loss to themselves, or did that change?

[gamingdroid]

Sony has indicated they are making a profit on PS3, but I believe Sony shot themselves in the foot due to the initial high cost that caused massive losses. This puts pressure on them to keep a profit going in the division.

Xbox 360 is definitely profitable, and likely to be profitable with a price cut. There just has not been enough pressure on MS to drop the price.

[gamingdroid]

These consoles have been on the market for 5-6 years now. They are all making profits on these machines now.

***How can you build a console with a BD drive, a 250GB HDD well, and HD output cheaper than $300?***

Because you can now buy a brand-name Blu-ray stand-alone player for less than a $100 and the manufacturers and store are both making a profit.

***How can you build a console with a BD drive, a 250GB HDD well, and HD output cheaper than $300? I mean a freaking cell phone - without those price parts costs $300+ (tablets...look at those...anything remotely close >= $399).***

First of all, those business models aren't really built on future sale. Secondly as you make the items smaller, they cost more for obvious reasons.

How about the fact that I can get a full fledged laptop with a 17" screen, 2+ GB of RAM and 250GB Hard drive for a mere $400! That includes profit to all parties!

[Ducky]

I mostly game on PC, and I'm not really in a hurry to see the next generation. (I'm perfectly happy with modern visuals, a bit more ram wouldn't hurt though)

... however, the people who want the next-gen to come are arguing that the current gen has dragged on for long enough (i.e. it is being slowed down)
So, they aren't trying to speed up the next-gen but are rather trying to move on in the natural order of things.

[Getowned]

I game mostly on PC as well and i agree with you i'm happy with the current set up of things,but i don't mind if next gen starts soon so long as the next consolse don't cost a arm and a leg..any way im going play TF2!! lol

[aaronobst]

Yes, a thousand times yes

[JsonHenry]

I was ready for new consoles years ago. But at the same time I completely understand why a lot of people want it to last as long as possible. It is cheaper for them and if they don't care about bleeding edge technology (which they don't or they wouldn't own consoles) then it really is a good thing for the end user from a financial standpoint.

The problem with us spoiled on PC gaming is that we tend to expect a reason on a 16 month recurring basis to upgrade our gaming rigs. We don't have a problem spending the money it takes to stay on top of the newest visuals/options. We LIKE to tinker around with game settings, overclocking, SLI/Crossfire, different AA/AF settings. It is just in our nature I think.

Thank goodness we have both options to suit our individual preferences.

[Ranshak]

I agree with most of what you said, however:

"But at the same time I completely understand why a lot of people want it to last as long as possible. It is cheaper for them and if they don't care about bleeding edge technology"

I belive if anyone is buying about 2 games a month, then paying all those extra royalties and prices to MS and Sony doesnt really make consoles a cheaper alternative.

Infact the extra charged on every game bought is so costly compared to the discounts availble from sites like Steam and D2D that you could build a high end rig in about 1-1.5years time with the price of games difference alone.

Hence i dont think console gaming is cheap rather i think its much more costly then PC.

[Ju]

I agree with you, but I also have a question. If "you" are so spoiled on a PC, why do "you" want new consoles? Just keep playing - and upgrading - your PC and be good with it. Why do you need a (new) console? I thought you don't care about consoles anyway.

[JsonHenry]

Because consoles hold back a lot of devs from pushing the envelope. Every time a new console is introduced it means that devs are pushing the envelope more and it shows on the PC ports because they are not being held to the lowest common denominator. OF COURSE devs could make the PC look night and day better than the console versions of a game but that rarely happens because of the cost of the extra development.

So that is why I want a new console.

[Ju]

You know, that is just such a bullcrap. Consoles do not hold PCs back. Without console gaming PC gaming would already be dead.

There is just no financial viable way to release AAA titles in the amount we are getting on a PC which is plagues with piracy.

Also, the only one holding the PC back is the PC itself. The market is so fragmented, that a developer simply cannot support only one "platform" on the PC. The "platform" there is the level of GPU features and performance those machines deliver.

Yes, it is nice to have a full featured multi GPU compute shader environment. And the elitist will freak out. It is just damn hard to scale that across the main stream PC feature set and make a significant portion of money and yet satisfy the high end.

So, stop that bullcrap that its all the consoles which hold back the PC.

New console would just be that: A major thread to the PC. If they could actually compete with 3x SLI nobody would even bother making a PC version of the same game.

If you would know anything about development (and maybe listen to what Carmack said the other day) it is just so much easier to work with a fixed HW platform than with a moving target which the PC is. You could do the same on a PC (well, not really - there will always an OS running which will prevent you to get down to the metal - Re: Carmacks "you have to go through the driver" - even though his comment "they have a Quake patch in the driver" put a big grin on my face. LOL Rookie Carmack was reading fixed strings back in the days...ha ha), but you have to pick one specific hardware configuration - and if you are lucky, you can cover 2 or 3 within that range.

[gamingdroid]

I prefer gaming on my Xbox 360, but consoles are most definitely holding back PC.

The amount of resources put into a PC port compared to consoles would make those games look significantly better. Even at the basic porting we do now, the game already looks better on PC which should give you an indication.

If there was no market for consoles, you betcha those developers and publishers will find a way to profit.

[reynod]

Nvm Ju hes a blind console fanboy. Follower of the church of the cell lol. He will start throwing technical garbage that Sony used to promote their gimped tech back in 2006 and he will also act as if its cutting edge lol.

[Ju]

"If there was no market for consoles, you betcha those developers and publishers will find a way to profit"

Yeah, sure. But this actually contradicts why you want another next gen console. You'd suggest no consoles at all. Not sure if everybody would run tablets instead or mobile, though.

And, it never worked. An open platform never worked for game developers. A scale-able platform simply does not allow you maximize the effort. The business case simply disagrees with you.

Reality is, we all want virtual reality games, but yet, this technology - while on the edge of becoming available - is not mainstream. And won't be any time soon.

If the bottom line allows everybody to enjoy the games with entry level machines, and allows developers easily scale to max settings (could work with some sophisticated dynamic tech - but that really means same shaders for all, which scale dynamically, for example), then yes.

Well, flying to Mars and building a colonies is everybody's dream - and will never become reality since the gravity can't sustain an atmosphere.

Endless gaming performance is maybe possible from a technical perspective, but not feasible if nobody buys it.

[gamingdroid]

***Yeah, sure. But this actually contradicts why you want another next gen console. You'd suggest no consoles at all.***

I suggest no such thing, nor did I contradict myself.

***Not sure if everybody would run tablets instead or mobile, though.***

Not even sure what you are trying to say there?

***"And, it never worked. An open platform never worked for game developers. A scale-able platform simply does not allow you maximize the effort. The business case simply disagrees with you.***

What do you mean it never worked? It has worked all these years prior to the rise of the consoles! In fact, it is still working with plenty of games being sold on PC via services like Steam.

My case is never about maximizing hardware, it is the fact that hardware is so much faster that you don't care to maximize it. Even at the baseline, the PC exceeds consoles.

Furthermore the business case for consoles are in some ways diminishing and we can already see that manufacturers are hesitant on making large investments into creating an eco-system that poses significant risk.

Why do you think they are dragging this console generation out?

Why do you think there aren't more competitors?

Why do you think Nintendo re-did their business plan and shipped the Wii profitable out of the gate?

If consoles manufacturers didn't launch their console (at a loss) to shift the value proposition in their favor, people would still be buying gaming PCs in droves.

Do you think hardcore gamers would have accepted the Wii type graphics if there are no other options, but PC? I have a sneaking suspicion PC would have won over.

***Reality is, we all want virtual reality games, but yet, this technology - while on the edge of becoming available - is not mainstream. And won't be any time soon.***

***Well, flying to Mars and building a colonies is everybody's dream - and will never become reality since the gravity can't sustain an atmosphere.***

This is relevant how?

***Endless gaming performance is maybe possible from a technical perspective, but not feasible if nobody buys it.***

I didn't say anything about endless gaming performance, but PC is a moving platform so ultimately in some sense it is.

***If the bottom line allows everybody to enjoy the games with entry level machines, and allows developers easily scale to max settings (could work with some sophisticated dynamic tech - but that really means same shaders for all, which scale dynamically, for example), then yes.***

There certainly is a benefit to consoles that I prefer that PCs lack as you mentioned, but that is irrelevant to the fact that consoles do hold back PCs capabilities.

[reynod]

@Ju

Lol i find it funny that you actually mentioned this.

"And, it never worked. An open platform never worked for game developers. A scale-able platform simply does not allow you maximize the effort. The business case simply disagrees with you."

Of all the retarded comments you have made this one out does them all.

Tell us aside Nintendo who decided to go the route of casuals(and is now making losses).

Have Microsoft or Sony been profitable this gen? Steam alone has made more money this gen then Microsoft or Sony combined, you know why? because both of them are in losses.

Sony as of feburary 2011 was 4.7billion in the red as of this gen is concerned. Microsoft still hasnt recovered its losses of the first Xbox.

They must now prepare for further losses if they are to release another console gen. This is exactly the reason why both of them are dragging this gen as far as they can.

I hope this is clear and you dont come back with your mindless arguements.

[Ju]

They drag the console out for 3 letters actually: ROI. As always. The longer a generation lasts the higher your return is. Simple. New generations costs a lot of money upfront to build technology to support that generation. One title cannot recoup those costs. Now that technology is build, making games is becoming cheaper, obviously. So, of course, studios want to build on that investment now. And the question is, how much more can you make with a new platform which would justify to basically go back to the start and re-write all the engines. Of course studios and platform vendors what to drag out the generation as long as they can.

There aren't more competitors because studios need to support those platforms and it costs a shitload of money to release a console, so much that even MS (a company with a license to burn money) has trouble to keep the bottom-line in the black.

The ecosystem developers-publishers-platform holder was build over years, sure some say, why pay royalties to a platform when we can use an open system (=PC). Publishers and developers would want to get rid of that 3rd part, I understand. But it had (and has) it's uses. There is always a 3rd party involved. Even on the PC. There that "virtual" platform is Steam, or Origin, or Apple (iTunes) or Google (Market), or what ever you want to call it.

The future won't be a PC. Guess why Microsoft actually makes Win8 "console" like. Sleek interface so a (PC based) settop box can actually run their apps without the hurdle of keyboard and mouse.

Or why apple has an app store. Or why Google works on GoogleTV. etc.

The future is a console - probably more closer to an open platform, but still not a traditional PC. Scalable? Sure? Will it grow? Sure. But Tablets and Phones do the same without being a PC.

And no, consoles don't hold PCs back. BF3 is a good testament to it. Well, maybe in some way or the other as long as a dev has to support multiple platforms, there will be compromises. Developing exclusively for the PC would possibly push those games further - but yet I fail to see how, e.g. Crysis (PC Exclusive) kills Crysis2 (Multiplatform) - in fact, I would ask Crytek: does the DX11 optimization for Crysis2 pay off the additional investment? (well, in all fairness, when they delivered the DX11 version everybody already had the game...stupid move).

Sure thing, supporting multiple platform needs compromises (same as no game utilizes the full dual layer BD 50GB storage - not even on the PC). Lately there are quite some PC games coming out which get special PC treatment. And then get back ported to consoles. So, how do the consoles hold back those games again?

Sure thing, I want a new super console. I want 60fps, foto realistic. No installs, instant download (or a drop in media - what ever that would be). Immediate-on play. A PC will never cut that, it'll be another console again. Maybe neither of what we call a PC nor a (today's) "console", though. I am looking with envy at the power of a PC, yes, but at the same time I tried to get into PC gaming a couple of times now, and it just doesn't work for me.

@reynod you didn't really get what I tried to say, huh? BTW: Any real numbers with sources for your claim?

[gamingdroid]

With all due respect, but I'm not sure anyone can follow your reasoning as you are just going in circles refuting your own argument and repeating what I said. I will attempt, but my head hurts now....

***And no, consoles don't hold PCs back. BF3 is a good testament to it. Well, maybe in some way or the other as long as a dev has to support multiple platforms, there will be compromises. Developing exclusively for the PC would possibly push those games further - but yet I fail to see how, e.g. Crysis (PC Exclusive) kills Crysis2 (Multiplatform) - in fact, I would ask Crytek: does the DX11 optimization for Crysis2 pay off the additional investment? (well, in all fairness, when they delivered the DX11 version everybody already had the game...stupid move).***

So one game proves consoles aren't holding back PC gaming? Well then, since my neighbor won the lottery, surely I would win too if I bought that lotter ticket!

An exception doesn't make it the norm!

***Sure thing, supporting multiple platform needs compromises (same as no game utilizes the full dual layer BD 50GB storage - not even on the PC). Lately there are quite some PC games coming out which get special PC treatment. And then get back ported to consoles. So, how do the consoles hold back those games again? ***

Because, the entire resources are put into the PC game obviously when 90% of your sales go to console.

Which goes against your argument:

***You know, that is just such a bullcrap. Consoles do not hold PCs back. Without console gaming PC gaming would already be dead.***

Which is just bullcr@p! PC gaming would thrive without consoles.

***Sure thing, supporting multiple platform needs compromises (same as no game utilizes the full dual layer BD 50GB storage - not even on the PC). Lately there are quite some PC games coming out which get special PC treatment. And then get back ported to consoles. So, how do the consoles hold back those games again?***

The compromise is essentially to attempt to work around issues, when all else fail reduce the scope to the least flexible system which is the console.

***@reynod you didn't really get what I tried to say, huh?***

Try as hard as we may, it is hard to understand you when you just do a brain dump with thoughts that are completely irrelevant such as if the market is heading into a console business model or not.

[caseh]

I used to look at it in the same way. I loved tweaking my kit to get an extra few FPS out of it or ready it for a new game. Loads of mods released for games, sometimes years after the game was released. In some cases those mods would spawn new games like Counter Strike. Ridiculous number of free MMOs, emulators with online play which have been around for over 10 years etc etc.

At the same time I don't miss having to download/update/patch this, that and the other. I don't miss failing PC components, overheating issues etc. Where as every console I've owned in the past 20-25 years has never failed.

Just comes down to tolerance and individual preference like you said.

[gamerwiips360]

WOW! ID has been in news consecutively lately.....
Good for them. Some of their claims do have valid reasoning.

[MilkMan]

What a surprise.

[rob6021]

While I agree with his statements, it's pretty clear he has an obvious bias with Doom 4 being built with ID5 tech and will be finished in god knows how long considering how long Rage is taking.