GamerBolt: "The question is – how long or short is the current average console’s life?"
im feeling it will be a 4-5 year this gen
Yep, my guess would be 5 years. I don't think Microsoft and Nintendo will hold more then 2018 if the PS4 continues with it's sales domination. Next Microsoft console for 2018... Nintendo probably sooner.
We'll know once VR releases.
I think it is actually because the cycle is accelerated due to prices. Notice how the prices held very well during the Xbox 360/PS3 generation? Even today, the Xbox One and PS4 is hitting lower prices much faster whereas Xbox 360/PS3 has held pretty paced pricing. Within the first year, we saw $360 PS4 and Xbox One's. At 4-5 years is the normal cycle, and I want it to have a shorter cycle, with a longer tail for those on last generation.
It won't surprise me if it's less than 5 years. Now that they are PC component based they can easily come up with new versions that are backwards compatible. Devs would then have 2 target configurations instead of one and release for both gens.
Well considering the 360 sold nearly 90 million consoles and the Xbox One is selling better during its first year of launch than the 360 did. Also you should be wondering if Sony as a company will still be around your that time. Maybe you didn't know, but they are financially bleeding right now. They can't afford another console. Microsoft has the $ to wait and outlast them.
The problem is that there is still 360 and PS3 development going on. Had it been like last gen when the new systems came out the old ones were cut off then we wouldnt have seen the prices drop so fast. Remember how dreadfully expensive the PS3 was when it released? They hardly sold any durring that time frame. When the price dropped it sold like hot cakes and once they did we saw an 8 to 10 year life span from it. With 400 and 500 dollar price tags combined with the fact that you can still get new games for last gen consoles something had to be done to make people buy the new ones. The solution chose was to drop the price. I do not think that this generation will be as long as the last one but considering it is still 400 bucks to get a new console I hope it lasts a while because I dont want to pay another 500 bucks in 3 or 4 more years.
2016 - new Nintendo system 2017 - microsoft will have something but it won't be a typical console 2018 - sony will have something but again it won't be a typical console sony and microsoft will move towards a service provider/cloud/streaming services where the hardware itself won't be key
I sure hope it is shorter, 7 years was insane. I quit gaming on 360/PS3 3 years ago cause I was so sick of the hardware. Had to switch to PC gaming for a while. With PS4/X1 already being severely underpowered I pray to god they don't Las for more than 4-5 years. They need to stop supporting 360/PS3 and move on, now. In all reality, this time next year production should be staring on the launch titles that will premiere with PS5/Xbox, and I guarantee there will still be working on 360/PS3 games at that point also.
@Return - Yeah we heard Sony couldn't afford another console after PS3, then when it became clear that PS4 was imminent we heard they couldn't afford to make it more powerful than the next XB. OT - Much shorter than last generation for sure, but probably in line with gens before that.
As technology grows, things get outdated faster so the generations may be shorter. I hope what happens incase this is true, the systems will be designed to grow so they still can proved 7 plus years without limitations.
@ReturnToSanity You're another person who knows nothing. Sony will still be around and there will be a PS5. Sony can also get rid of everything and survive on Playstation alone. Meanwhile the Xbox division is the one that won't be there in long term. Xbox division has lost a ton of money since it was made and shareholders and investors wants to get rid of it. Yes Microsoft has money, but the xbox division has lost a lot of money and it's logical for a healthy company to cut the bad divisions. Also, to anyone who says Cloud based is coming next-gen, it's not. Maybe for backward compatibility, but it's never gonna happen for new hardware. Internet infrastructure isn't good enough and won't be for decades. Too many people have slow connections or they have capped connections. Another reason they won't do that is that they can shove a new hardware down your throat for 400-500$ on top of games for 60-70$.
@Moldybread- I'm not buying that cloud/streaming is the future of video games. Not when too many people can't get enough bandwidth for it. Or when major ISPs do throttling and talk about bandwidth caps. The infrastructure has to come up to speed first.
MS stated they wanted the X1 to last 10 years. Sony and Nintendo will be more likely releasing a new console. Sales don't matter when you hit a wall, just like the Original Xbox which MS wanted to replace with the 360. XB1 has a lot more future proof features with more on the way with DX12 etc. http://au.ign.com/articles/...
Sony will go at least 5 years. MS will cut it short if they're not doing well like they did with Xbox 1 (the first Xbox 1)
jeqen but that clown above me yes you Return sanity where did you get xbox sold 90 million
both the 360 and the PS3 are pretty close to that 90 million sold mark nosferatuzodd
MS cut short the first Xbox and dropped support mainly because of Nvidia being greedy. OT, people spend waaaay more on smart phones, so a new generation in 5 years isn't too crazy.
I think 5 years is plenty. Bring out new console let the current one get its 6th year in while the new one ramps up.
I can tell you right now thatwith the way the COD looks and how much better games are looking in general, I do not see any reason to purchase a new cobsole in 4 more years. Look at the backlog of PS3 and 360 games. Look at how many people are still buying those systems! I will be playing my XB1 and PS4 for at least another 6 years and I have owned them for 1 already.
2019 will be next-Gen and I think they will be both more expensive and a bigger leap in power. Last-Gen was way too long, for me anyway. 4k ready and 60fps will be the standard I reckon. The tv's at that time will be way less expensive and I think this current-gen is just a stopgap until then...IMO. @returntosanity - change the record...
If you think 4k 60fps will be standard at that time, then i'm really sorry to burst your bubble. That's not going to happen before another gen or two after that. PC is the only one capable of reaching it at that time, and we're already fast approaching it right now.
console devs always choose 30fps so it can come closer in matching the pc in graphics of the same game. even the majority of exclusives are 30fps on consoles.. no way you're getting games native 4k next gen,im sure they'll be a specialezed scaler for it,but its not gonna be native
You guys are crazy if you think Sony and Microsoft are going to develop another console again in 5 years and watch their install base go back to zero again. If you follow the industry analysis this is the reality: Microsoft has lost billions of dollars on their Xbox venture and it is NOT considered a key part of the company's core business and growth strategy. Sony has been hemorrhaging money for years. There's no evidence that the Playstation 4 can dig them out of the hole they're in. Most of the comments on these forums are related to the Xbox or Playstation's commercial popularity with no real understanding of the underlying business facts.
The generational overlap is paramount for the reason you stated. It is financial suicide to create a new console while simultaneously dropping support for the old one. The new machine cannot thrive on its own until the users reach over 20 mil. Those 2 years of support for the old hardware and more importantly its user base, is what keeps the industry kicking.
Even though the new CEO of Microsoft has come out and publicly said that Xbox is a part of their core as a company and is looking forward to it growing for years and years to come? And the fact xbox live ALONE rakes in $1billion/year? No, I dont think they are at billions of dollars in loses.
I was thinking more like 5-6. 5 more years to go from here. Who knows
I would agree with that. Last gen was too long anyways. I'd be mad about 4 years, but I'm fine if it's 5 or 6.
Nope 7 years (2013 - 2020). It seems long, but we're already about the enter 2015 in less than 2 months. That's 5 full years left of games and development to get everything out of these console. 2015: Halo 5 (Trilogy Pt. 1) 2016: Gears 4 2017: Halo 6 (Trilogy Pt. 2) 2018: Gears 5 2019: Halo 8 (Trilogy Pt. 3) 2020: New consoles The new consoles will be aiming for 2k - 4k gaming, and right now the best 4k value is the GTX 970, a $300 GPU which can 1080p @ 60fps everything the PS4/XBO throws at it. It's 4k performance is commendable for many last-gen PC ports (Tomb Raider, Bioshock, etc...) running those games at 4K @ 40fps, but for the high end PC games, and current console games 4K @ 30fps is a struggle. The whole point of this last bit, is to show that 4k gaming is coming to the PS5 and XB? It's 2014 and that GPU is $300, in another 5 years that level of performance will be low-end at best with a $100 GPU replacing it, and for Sony and MS that $100 retail GPU is more like $60 when making a console meaning they can go up 1 or 2 GPU tiers which would easily put them in the 2k - 4k range.
actually the best 4K value are the R9s from AMD
Actually the PS3 and Xbox360 support 2k gaming since 2k is 1920x1080 pixels or 1080p (assuming an aspect ratio of 16:9). As for 4k this is 3840x2160 pixels (assuming an aspect ratio of 16:9). The problem you have with 4k HDTV is that many people have already purchased 2k (1080p) HDTV's and the higher resolution TV's don't really have enough content to to justify replacing their older and usually quite reliable HDTV's. Five years from now that will most likely change and 4k HDTV's will become the norm however 8k HDTV's are also not that far in the future as well, so it is quite possible that 8k may be the preferred future proof HDTV purchase in the foreseeable future. Comparing 2k to 4k then to 8k with appropriate content you would definitely be able to see the difference however that difference is more significantly noticeable at closer distances depending on the size of the screen. PS: Definitely like your comment on the Halo Trilogy :)
@Cueil Not for consoles, where heat and TDP matters more than PC, which is why I picked the GTX 970. The R9 270x is too weak for real 4k gaming. The R9 280x can barley play any current high end PC game in 4k with max settings, and better off in 1440p. The R9 290x is a solid choice and $300 as well, but the TDP and heat it produces put the GTX 790 as the better choice for a console design. @nitus10 1080p is considered Full HD by many and it's only 1.5x 720p. 2k is actually 2560x1440 / 1440p (aka 1280 *2 x 720 * 2). I think HDTV manufacturers are the only ones using 1080p as a base to scale from instead of 720p. But honestly the defined 2K is all over the place, but for the PC gaming community and mobile community 2k is 1440p. PC Gaming / Mobile 1280x720p = 720p 1280x720p * 1.5 = 1080 1280x720p * 2 = 2K aka 1440p (current high-end PC gaming) 1280x720p * 3 = 4K aka 2160p 1280x720p * 6 = 8K aka 4320p etc... 8K HDTV are already a thing, just not really for sale, so I agree that 8K TV will be here. However, 4K TV's are dropping down in price (Sam's Club has a $998 4K 60" Vizio 240Hz on sale soon), and many gamers, myself included, buy new TV's with the new release of consoles (so every 6+ years I get a new TV). So I think that alone will sell 4KTV's over 8K for many people. As far as content goes Netflix streams in 4K (need at least 25Mbps), some movies and pictures are rendered / upscaled to 4K now, so there will be something there, and by 2020 it should be enough content to justify the purchase. 8K not so much. 2K -> 4K is a pretty big gap in quality, which is why I said games would likely aim for those resolutions. But the good news is there are A LOT of different resolutions in-between those two, that developers can get away with just about any resolution they want (2.5K, 3K, 3.5K, 2.8K, 3.2K, etc...). What's most important is making sure the game runs well, and I think dynamic resolution will be a main stay for consoles, until they become streamboxes.
average is 5-6. 4 is way too short.
I'm still not buying into this shorter lifespan. It's going to take years for developers to use the full capacity of the next gen consoles (~7 years like last gen). Plus it doesn't seem to make a lot of economical sense to make it last 4 or even 5 years. I feel like everyone is just being impatient already.
We'll be [email protected]#$ed if Microsoft did the same thing like the original xbox.It had a short life spam with sub one thousand games library.
We're down a year, still missing E3 revealed features, still got pathetic PSN crashing issues or messaging issues, still 30 FPS, still barely 1080p. This gen has maybe 1 game that is ACTUALLY next gen so far and that's Shadow of Mordor, amongst a sea of inevitable downgrades.
I don't think so. Consoles have developers that create specifically for these set of specs. I mean... devs just recently stopped making games for the PS2. Just because the specs aren't high end doesn't mean that the gen will be shortened. Developers just have to optimize the games to work with the set of specs at hand. I'm guessing 7 - 8 years before a new console and 10 minimum before they start to phase this gen out.
Knowing how Sony is with their products, it's sure going to last longer than the Wii-u and XboxOne, maybe up to 7-8 years.
Average life span of a console generation is 6 to 7 years. There is still more games coming out for last generation. It take years to make games now. I high doubt this generation will be shorter than last generation. However, I would not be surprised to see new systems out in 5 years. Especially Nintendo.
I hope it's shorter, but who knows what will happen.
What? Then you have to spend $400 or more sooner! A man would rather get at least 6 years of value from his box
well, personally, i have the money with a very good job so cost is not really an issue for me.
400$ is nothing, it costs 600$ in my country. If i can as a pc user use a lot more than 600$ in the next 6 years, u can use 400$.
A good question, maybe four or five years would be ideal, let's not forget that the last generation still receives games when the new consoles come. Probably no one wants a short span just like what happens with smartphones, also technology evolves very fast, i guess 4-5 years could be the norm.
also next gen will likely be fully backwards compatible for Microsoft they'll even likely run the same OS
@cueil Sony 100%, MS 75%. Backwards compatibility is more so a hardware issue not a software issue. It's makng sure you have a CPU powerful enough or similar enough to emulate the the CPU used to code for the last generation of games. Sony really has no choice, but to go with AMD again, because it's cheaper, and AMD can give them the best bang for their buck. As I said I don't expect a PS5 until 2020, and it should feature a 12-Core FX 8370 which should be more than powerful enough to emulate the PS4's A8-4555m. The reason I'm not too sure about MS, is because I don't know if they're going to stick with AMD. Sony doesn't really have a choice, but MS does have some pull in the world of PC, and there's a chance they might go with Intel + NVIDIA (mainly because there's no way NVIDIA is going to want their GPU working with an AMD CPU as petty as it may seem). If that happens the Intel CPU should be more than powerful enough to emulate the XBO CPU as well, but the architecture could be the problem.
Microsoft's partnership with AMD created the APUs... there is no emulation... the reason you use to have emulation is because it had to emulate different hardware if they stick with X64 based cpu and their OS is compatible there is no reason that there should be any need for emulation at all and games should run with very little issue. Think of it as going from a Phenom II X2 to a FX8350... and at 4750 to a 7870... there should be no issues with your games except a marked increase in performance with no downside so long as you're running the same OS family with supported drivers. This is why I feel Microsoft has the advantage in this area. Same hardware base with same OS equals a much more likely scenario for full BC
@cueil But that's looking at it from a PC perspective which I completely agree with you that there will be no real issue. However, from a console perspective all games are coded directly for that hardware, so any minor hardware changes means something has to be reprogrammed, which is why emulation is often the solution if the CPU is powerful enough to run through everything. The architectures are the same which is a HUGE PLUS for the 8370E (but by 2020 they can change), they have to have the same instruction set and I don't feel like looking that up (by 2020, things are going to change), and more. So as you can see it's possible, but not likely and emulation is the safer bet, since a 12-Core FX 8370E would be at least 5x more powerful than the PS4 CPU. As a matter of fact the extra 4 cores alone should be able to match the PS4's entire CPU. The reason I say I'm not sure about MS is because of NVIDIA. NVIDIA wants to change the PC landscape with their NVDIA-Link technology, however, no PC manufacturer is going to jump on board with the type of changes NVIDIA is planning with 100% support, because these companies thrive on surefire bets (which is why none of them will ever be the next Apple). This means NVIDIA has to link up with either Apple (who's will to take a chance, but currently has contracts with AMD for their Mac Towers), build their own PC brand which could happen but is a business endeavor that could hurt them badly if it fails, or partner with the consoles they had Soooooooooo much to say about. The safer bet is the console partnership. And it works for both parties because MS's Xbox division needs a niche to differentiate itself from the PlayStation division, because going head to head with the same price and the same specs, is always going to be a losing battle for them. It's one of the reason this gen was so bad for them early on, they both used AMD and we can instantly compare the hardware and pick the better hardware. Going with Intel + NVIDIA stops that. Intel should provide the better CPU even if it's a revamped i7 4790 (should still be solid by 2020, and offer better single core performance than the 12-Core FX 8370E the PS5 would use). The real question comes down to GPU which would likely be less powerful than what the PS5 since going with NVIDIA means a higher price forcing MS to choose something lesser than the PS4, but still powerful enough for the 2K - 4K @ 60fps range they're aiming for. The real boost will come from if NVIDIA-Link really pays off for them. But this is all speculation, on my part.
I seriously hope its a bit longer than 5 years. Since games cost more to make and generally take longer to produce, I want to make sure this gen is long enough to get several waves of good games.
I don't know why above commenters want 4 or 5 year cycle....that's crazy. it takes devs time to bring out the best in console - I'd say 7 years at the least.
The PS4 and Xbox One are going to be showing their age a lot sooner this gen than last. At the present rate, we'll probably be seeing PS4 and Xbox One graphical capabilities usurped by tablets before this generation is over.
Stop posting sense, Panda. We can't have people actually seeing the realities. /s
Seriously. It takes some games 4 years of development time, or more. 6 years is ok.
Because the current gen is way too underpowered. "t takes devs time to bring out the best in console" The problem with that statement is that it ignores one big reality- the current gen don't have any special gimmicks or hardware they're just low end p.c.s There is no gold to mine for from this gen like with the the PS3's insane architecture that was stronger than some high end p.c.s in its day. Last gen was supposed to be 1080p 60fps but even this gen can't get 60 fps.
I don't know why this is even a discussion in the first year of a new gen. When it happens, it happens. There is probably at least another 5 years before we see another console announced, and one more after that for it to be released, although Nintendo may bring something new in 3-5 years. Too much money goes into building these consoles before they ever hit the assembly line, and all the companies will want to maximize profit before they come out with the next thing.
I think the Lifespan will last like 8 years. 4-5 years is too short for current gen because it takes about 2-3 years for devs to get the hang of current gen hardware. From there, it take about 2-3 years to produce a game. I think most devs are using old game engine now so that they can stretch the lifespan of the console a bit. After that, I think they'll bring out their new engine(or revamped version) when they feel that their old game engine can give them what they need any longer. Though, I think MS is going to excel quickly in the graphical department 1-2 years from now while Sony struggle to match MS visual technology. MS hired a graphics engineer to accomplish this. I think are out to create new ways to produces very detailed texture maps maps to give x1's game a complete face lift in the graphical department. I think MS are interested in creating textures with multiply layers in a single texture map. Of course, devs are already doing that now...I think MS wants to take it to a whole new level.that said, well made textures can make a difference in the amount of polygon used to build a scene or object. As for Nintendo, I think Nintendo are going to released their next system much sooner than they've done with their last gen console(wii)By doing so, they'll remain competitive much longer even if they release a system that matches the power of current gen hardware. Nintendo will not break their low cost policy so don't even think for a sec you'll get a powerful machine. Back to MS/Sony. The next gen system MS will climb to the top again because I'm pretty sure they've learn their lesson in the same way Sony learned their mistakes. MS has the money to spend while Sony struggle to make ends meet.
Once 4k TVs come down in price we'll see a new generation.
so 2 years?
Not really. Even if 4k TVs are picked up more and more that doesn't make the tech that can run games in 4k and still warrant a quality increase other departments of graphics automatically affordable. 4k TVs have already dropped in price significantly. I highly doubt that next gen will run games in 4k by the way apart from some exceptions like 2D games and maybe some 3D games with simple graphics. It'll most likely be 1440p for most games.
I have seen some interesting developments where GUI could render in 4k while the underlying graphics can be rendered in a lower resolution
lots of games cant even do 1080p 30fps without framrate drops, screen tearing, and jaggies. i hope they dont try for 4k
I saw a Samsung 4k for 899 at bestbuy.
The price difference between a 4k HDTV and a 2k HDTV is not all that great (approx 5% to 20% more), however there is not allot of content much less games for 4k HDTV's. In the fairly foreseeable future you will most likely see 8k HDTV's sell better than 4k HDTV's since people will see 8k HDTV's as a more future proof purchase. It must be noted that most people who have purchased a 2k (1080p aspect 16:9 ratio) HDTV in the last few years are not going to upgrade for a few years from now and by that time 8k HDTV's will be out and there is no reason to think that 8k will be vastly more expensive than 4k.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Yeah 2020 is sexy year to release new console.
@Is the PS4 and XBOX One Lifespan Set To Be Much Shorter Than Previous Consoles? Nope Why would anyone purposely shorten the lifespan of a cash cow?
It depends if they have a cash cow or not.
I kinda think it'll be between 5-6 years that the consoles will be 'matured' and perhaps both SONY and MS may be looking to launch their next-gen consoles (or not, because there is no guarantee of that). Nintendo will probably launch a year or so sooner.