Tyrone Slothrop
Banned
it shouldn't be to anybody's surprise that this'd be an extended generation. i've been saying it for years and got laughed off for it. glad to see people are finally starting to get it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EDGE - "Generation When?" ; Why this gen is staying put for the forseeable future.
- Thread starter Mama Robotnik
- Start date
JoJo13 said:
i can't stand this argument.
"we've gone as far as we can go with archaic control schemes, to progress we need to make new experiences with new, intuitive interfaces"
no. you've gone as far as you can go with the same, ankle deep cookie cutter game templates that this generation clings to like a deflating liferaft. in the ever increasing drive by publishers to put out games that lack any kind of surface complexity, and the depth this would facilitate, the pool for innovation and originality isn't deep enough to even wash your ass in (fear>fear 2 being the perfect case study).
so the solution - an even more vague, idiot proof control scheme that guarantees even further deviation from intricate and potentially complex game mechanics.
Tyrone Slothrop said:
I think everyone is looking way too much into the press going crazy over an early generation jump. Its only been three years since the 360 came out and two since the PS3 and wii, and yet the press is constantly talking about the next generation of consoles. A new wave of consoles coming out in 2012 or 2013 isn't an extended generation, its been the general time line of all console generations for a while now.
Mama Robotnik said:
If we are to identity the wants of the 'hardcore' as cutting-edge graphics and a sense of elitism, then marginal cost of appeasing the hardcore outweighs the marginal benefits. It's not like they are going two or copies of your games to make up for the higher development costs. There's more money in making your game, especially it's multi-player, as accessible as possible.
Mama Robotnik said:
Gaikai is a streaming MMO service, similar to Online, that will allow you to play MMOs in webrowsers. He seems to be championing his own product by saying how it'll allow customers to have high-end experiences without having to pay so much money for newer hardware.
comedy bomb
Banned
Who wants this really? I suppose new games could be built ground up for all three systems, but why would anyone want older 360/PS3 ports? By 2011 they could be had on the other systems for the fraction of the price.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I just wonder if casuals are in for the long haul.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
I'm MORE than happy for this gen to keep going for many years to come.
Still so much more to get out of each console, and with all the updates, DLC and constant 'frashness', this gen still feels new to me over 3 years later (Australia).
Still so much more to get out of each console, and with all the updates, DLC and constant 'frashness', this gen still feels new to me over 3 years later (Australia).
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
I wouldn't worry. The Playstation Generation is going to be around for a looooong time.Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
The sad part is that Sony could have and should have just rode the PS2 and PSP until 2010. Then release the PS3 with cells upon cells of power and bandwidth and simply launched with a FF7 Remake.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
MidgarBlowedUp said:
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
(Today, 11:08 AM)
Reply | Quote
I'm not sure if this is a serious post... but you do realise that it's mostly the PS2 audience that's adopting the Wii en masse, right? A PS3 in 2006 was inevitable. Its adopting the WE NEEDS MOAR POWAH philosophy in defiance of the Playstation line's previous history (solid tech at a good price vs unproven tech for a premium) wasn't, however.
Also, an FFVII remake isn't up to Sony to provide. SE is sitting on that little project and waiting for the right time, though I dare say they shouldn't wait too long or the original's fanbase will lose interest.
AltogetherAndrews
Member
The most amusing bit to me is that I can go gaga over the latest Splinter Cell footage, and still be somewhat dazzled while playing Chaos Theory as an Xbox Original. A team that knows design can make something that simply looks good even across generations, and even when directly compared to their new products on new platforms. The old PC fanboy bones ache just from saying this, but I think as this generation progresses, studios adept at design and balance will still be very capable of produce dazzling content, irrespective of whatever technical wall they might have hit.
Not really. In order for MS to not release a system until 2013, the 360 would have to last for 8 years from launch. I can't think of any system that survived that long without its successor being released, even as the number 1 system.onemic said:
The Famicom went 7 years before the Super Famicom hit. SNES went 6 years before the N64. The Mega Drive went 6 years (assuming you don't count all of its add-ons as successors). PSOne a little over 5 years. PS2 about 6 years.
8 years between hardware releases is quite literally unheard of for a home console, at least amongst companies with a continuing line of home consoles.
Ysiadmihi said:
For starters, it uses that much when you have all the bells and whisles turned up. The minimum ram requirement is 1 gig so if you have that much it's obviously going to use less. It's also designed with a PC in mind so any optimizations that could be made.
Assassins Creed PC min specs suggest 4 times the RAM that a 360 has and twice the ram Crysis min specs suggest. Did Assassins Creed not exist on the 360?
FLEABttn said:
This post really reinforces the "lying to themselves" thing I've been talking about. Am I meant to take it seriously :lol I can't fathom why console exclusive gamers think they're buying super computers for a few hundred bucks.
Also AC PC had inflated requirements. It also recommended a 512MB video card and I played it perfectly with an 8600GT 256MB (which is a very shitty card, in case you didn't know). Well, until I got bored with it.
I have to admit I'm saddened by this. I really like getting monumental leaps in hardware every five years. I'll get over it, but it is so nice and fun to buy a new platform and get the new smell and such. Plus, if you save incrementally like I do every cycle (put away like $4-5 a week), you'll have so much over a generation just to kick off the next gen.
Ysiadmihi said:
I'm in the "super duper PC that rapes Crysis sideways" club as well so you saying "themselves" like it's a completely different sphere of people are making these claims is cute. Ignorant, but cute. I'm in your group (since you're classifying it as an 'us vs them' battle royale) saying it can be done. And I could point out a great number of other games where the PC requirements were higher than what the console equivalent was, and yet the console still had the game. But I'm sure the requirements for all of those were overstated, or it was just a bad port, right?
When I first got Crysis, it ran in a playable state on an AMD Athlon 64 2800+, 1 gig of ram, and a 6600GT with 128 megs of vram. It looked like Far Cry, but it ran smoothly enough to play. Crysis on the 360 or PS3 isn't out of the question from a technical standpoint. From an economic one, then it becomes out of the question.
ConsumerSquare
Member
That's why an extended generation is a good thing... designers will be forced to stop thinking only about technology and start applying a little artistry to their games.AltogetherAndrews said:
I never say never, but I'm this close to saying I'll never buy another console. In two years I'll be 30 years old. My wife might want a kid by then, or an addition to the house. And even if she doesn't, I still won't be able to justify another $400 for a new machine when I still don't feel that I've gotten my money's worth out of my current Xbox 360. My current gen library is the smallest console library I've ever owned, despite the fact that I've had more disposable income than at any point in my life. 3D isn't ugly anymore, the online interface is solid enough and can still be improved in its current iteration, ditto that with digital content... I'm just not seeing an incentive to upgrade anytime soon. Not this soon, and not at the prices publishers have made standard this generation.
I mean, shit, I'll just replay Astroboy on GBA.
Angelcurio
Member
When you think about the general consumer, i dont think they would want a new generation to start just a year after shelling out $400 for a game console. I personally believe that we are in the middle of this gen, i dunno why, but i still feel like this gen started just a year and a half ago.
Probably has something to do with the quality of the software that we started getting 2 years ago, compared to what we were playing in 2005 and 2006 respectively.
Probably has something to do with the quality of the software that we started getting 2 years ago, compared to what we were playing in 2005 and 2006 respectively.
FLEABttn said:
I find this very funny because my Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 8600GT 256MB 2GB DDR2 system could barely run Crysis on low and medium settings...at 1280x1024 with no v-sync or AA. It looked like shit and stuttered constantly.
The game would not run well enough to be enjoyable on 360 or PS3, but you're determined to keep believing that so what am I going to say? You have no reason to think either system can handle the game but you're just going to repeat it no matter what's said.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The whole "hard core gamers are too few" thing is utter bullshit.
The non-hardcore games are hit and miss, complete and utter gambles. Then look at games like Fallout, GTA, Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, Burnout, WoW, etc. There's a fine limit between "casual games" and "accessibility-oriented games".
We're still the main crowd here, and no one should think that the video game industry is going to be made up of Petz and Babiez, not anymore than today's movie industry is made of cheap comedies, there's just more of them, but there's also a bunch more indies movies, big summer blockbusters, etc.
It is INEVITABLE that if the casual market grows, so does the hard core gaming market!
The non-hardcore games are hit and miss, complete and utter gambles. Then look at games like Fallout, GTA, Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, Burnout, WoW, etc. There's a fine limit between "casual games" and "accessibility-oriented games".
We're still the main crowd here, and no one should think that the video game industry is going to be made up of Petz and Babiez, not anymore than today's movie industry is made of cheap comedies, there's just more of them, but there's also a bunch more indies movies, big summer blockbusters, etc.
It is INEVITABLE that if the casual market grows, so does the hard core gaming market!
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
This is true. The problem right now is that the "hardcore" gaming market isn't growing at a rate commensurate with the cost of developing to meet the needs of this market.Ether_Snake said:
When the marginal cost of selling one more game is equal to the marginal revenue garnered from that sale, businesses need to stop production. That is what the guy is complaining about.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I'd be all down for longer console life cycles if the consoles were engineered that way.
In short I'd prefer it if the consoles were designed and highly crafted to last so many years instead of being rushed to the market and trying to cram everything in one box thus being inconsistent.
In short I'd prefer it if the consoles were designed and highly crafted to last so many years instead of being rushed to the market and trying to cram everything in one box thus being inconsistent.
D.Lo
Member
Every one of these articles misses the point.
In the history of gaming, generations have mostly been pushed forward by NEW companies entering the market. And generally bigger and bigger companies. Were it not for Nintendo and their brilliantly run business, wed now have an industry with only two players, both of which are multi-national conglomerate behemoths, and both of which have bled each other dry in an effort to use games as a conduit to controlling your entertainment future. Never before has so much money been lost. Sega and Ataris losses were piddling compared to those Sony and MS have weathered over the last few years.
There are basically NO bigger companies left in the world who are interested, Sony and MS have created a stalemate by dropping so much money they cant possibly justify doing it all again to investors just to gain a bit more marketshare.
And in fact they may lose marketshare by starting a new generation. MS has grown from last gen, but its fairly mediocre growth. Moving from 15-20% market share to 30%ish (and slowly falling every month as the Wii powers on) and gaining some nominal profitability, while not recovering basically any of the $7 billion+ investment over 2 generations? And they achieved only this with first mover advantage and by far the best support from third parties? Sonys obviously even worse, dropping from 70%+ down to less then 15% while losing billions.
If someone started a new generation and everyone followed, what would happen? At this point Nintendo would be starting way ahead, as the easy winner of this gen from a standing start, they would surely get more 3rd party support in their next console then they did this time (ie basically no meaningful support for at least a couple of years, and still none from the west). Theyve also proven themselves, and their motion tech, and would likely have a console thats more of a jump power wise as it wouldnt be as risky this time. Basically, Nintendo would be in a great position to grow marketshare next time, starting from an excellent market position and having grown in confidence in themselves and in reputation as a serious market contender.
With all the beds unmade again, who would 3rd parties see as the best bet next gen?
I think MS and Sony are simply happy for their smaller pieces of the pie for now, as a reset spells even more danger.
And for the first time in history, theres no-one bigger ready to barrel in and give it a go.
In the history of gaming, generations have mostly been pushed forward by NEW companies entering the market. And generally bigger and bigger companies. Were it not for Nintendo and their brilliantly run business, wed now have an industry with only two players, both of which are multi-national conglomerate behemoths, and both of which have bled each other dry in an effort to use games as a conduit to controlling your entertainment future. Never before has so much money been lost. Sega and Ataris losses were piddling compared to those Sony and MS have weathered over the last few years.
There are basically NO bigger companies left in the world who are interested, Sony and MS have created a stalemate by dropping so much money they cant possibly justify doing it all again to investors just to gain a bit more marketshare.
And in fact they may lose marketshare by starting a new generation. MS has grown from last gen, but its fairly mediocre growth. Moving from 15-20% market share to 30%ish (and slowly falling every month as the Wii powers on) and gaining some nominal profitability, while not recovering basically any of the $7 billion+ investment over 2 generations? And they achieved only this with first mover advantage and by far the best support from third parties? Sonys obviously even worse, dropping from 70%+ down to less then 15% while losing billions.
If someone started a new generation and everyone followed, what would happen? At this point Nintendo would be starting way ahead, as the easy winner of this gen from a standing start, they would surely get more 3rd party support in their next console then they did this time (ie basically no meaningful support for at least a couple of years, and still none from the west). Theyve also proven themselves, and their motion tech, and would likely have a console thats more of a jump power wise as it wouldnt be as risky this time. Basically, Nintendo would be in a great position to grow marketshare next time, starting from an excellent market position and having grown in confidence in themselves and in reputation as a serious market contender.
With all the beds unmade again, who would 3rd parties see as the best bet next gen?
I think MS and Sony are simply happy for their smaller pieces of the pie for now, as a reset spells even more danger.
And for the first time in history, theres no-one bigger ready to barrel in and give it a go.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
This is the only one that truly bothers me, as it, if enacted like music has, lead to sterile generic fare that doesn't let large installed bases give alot of love to all the various decent-sized niche demographics that that kind of installed base can give.
I think this time around, we won't have a Microsoft style attempt to jumpstart the generation while dropping their current gen console prematurely. 2011 seems like a safe bet to see any major movements, and that's when both Wii/PS3 hit 5 years and the motion controllers of Sony/MS are out for everyone to evaluate.
As much as the 10 year cycle seems to appeal to a lot of people here, I find it very hard to see the big 3 sitting on their laurels doing nothing for 5 more years. Someone will launch at the 5-6 year mark.
You sentiment marks a lot of what is wrong with the industry to begin with. The overwhelming sense of entitlement and the blind pursuit of the bigger and better for its own sake.
But surprisingly I disagree. Technology will find its way into the new generation of consoles, it just won't necessarily be 'performance' based technology insofar as silicon chips that gives noticeably better graphics.
I think it's time for consoles to be... better at the other stuff they do anyways. They'll probably grow into miniature computers more and more.
As much as the 10 year cycle seems to appeal to a lot of people here, I find it very hard to see the big 3 sitting on their laurels doing nothing for 5 more years. Someone will launch at the 5-6 year mark.
Y2Kev said:
You sentiment marks a lot of what is wrong with the industry to begin with. The overwhelming sense of entitlement and the blind pursuit of the bigger and better for its own sake.
But surprisingly I disagree. Technology will find its way into the new generation of consoles, it just won't necessarily be 'performance' based technology insofar as silicon chips that gives noticeably better graphics.
I think it's time for consoles to be... better at the other stuff they do anyways. They'll probably grow into miniature computers more and more.
kame-sennin
Member
D.Lo said:
I agree with this post. The only thing I would add is that if Sony or Microsoft were to launch a new console, Nintendo would not be likely to respond immediately. Instead they would gauge the market and see if there was an exodus of their consumer base as they did when MS dropped the 360's price. They saw that the 360 price drop had no effect and thus did not follow suit. But if a new MS or Sony console were to gain traction, their likely response would be to release a peripheral akin to motion plus or Wii fit. Launching a new console would not be a needed or effective strategy. The war for better graphics is over. No company will ever gain market share by simply releasing a console with superior horsepower ever again (or at least for the foreseeable future). Iwata was correct in stating that we have hit the "saturation point". Not in the sense that graphics will never progress, but in the sense that the majority of consumers will not pay for an improvement in graphics alone from this point onwards.
That is why a major peripheral is more likely part of Nintendo's planned response to future competitor attacks. A peripheral has the advantage of providing what new consoles traditionally have - new gaming experiences that were not possible before - while not forcing the manufacturer to build up a new user base from scratch.
This ties in perfectly with the title of this article. The reason we won't see a new generation of consoles is because new consoles have become irrelevant. New hardware is no longer needed to provide new experiences. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all found ways to deliver new experiences with peripherals. New consoles may come again at some point in the future, but only when the major manufacturers are incapable of expanding the market with devices like the Sony Wand, Natal, and the balance board.
SouthernDragon
Member
kame-sennin said:
No, you're just lying to yourself.
kame-sennin
Member
FlightOfHeaven said:
How so?