97 replies to this topic

[0003mg]

I was thinking. If Microsoft and Sony are waiting until 2014 to release new systems, and if the Wii 2 is released in 2012, could it be easily outdated? Two years is a lot of time for technology to innovate, which means the Next Xbox and PlayStation could be even more powerful than the Wii 2. What do you guys think?

Edited by 0003mg, 21 April 2011 - 08:12 PM.

[Feld0]

It's certainly possible that Nintendo will be surpassed by Microsoft and Sony in the next generation - in fact, I think it's inevitable with the 2-year gap between the releases. But really, I wouldn't worry too much about it - as Jikayaki made it clear on that other thread, the eighth generation really won't be so much about horsepower as it will be about delivering unique experiences and services.

In a way, the 3DS is already a sign of that - features like StreetPass, SpotPass, and dare I say, glassesless 3D visuals, have never been implemented on such a wide scale before. These killer features that can be listed as bullet points on the box are what will help the 3DS retain the upper hand in the handheld gaming race, even when the NGP and iPhone 5 surpass it in raw power.

Let's also think for a moment what a 2012 launch for Nintendo and a 2014 launch for Microsoft and Sony really means. Nintendo will have a 2-year head start on them, giving them plenty of time to build and market the Wii 2 into a commercially dominant product. Sony and Microsoft probably will come out with even more powerful consoles further on, but they won't get anywhere near Nintendo's success until they learn that it takes more than sheer muscle to sell consumer products these days.

[Play4Fun]

I think when Nintendo launches, Sony's and MS' hands will be forced and they will launch the following year. Nintendo won't do just a simple upgrade. I'm betting they will make a considerable power jump, have an attractive online system and the system's 'hook' will attract lots of people.

Even if Sony and MS were to wait until 2014 and leap frog the new console's power, it would still be inline for ports because Sony and MS know how high development costs have gotten. Launching really really powerful hardware could triple (or more) development costs which could potentially put Ninty's new console in a PS2-like (or 360-like) position where ports are built for it and ported to the others because costs are cheaper and the architecture is more familiar.

Not to mention for them to make a power jump so huge that it puts the new console in a Wii-like position it would probably require using parts that would have over heating problems unless they make them in boxes as huge as PC towers and launch at really expensive prices .

Either way, I'm expecting powerful, but more conservative consoles from MS and Sony next gen. I don't think either are willing to take as much loss as they did this generation, especially Sony.

Edited by Play4Fun, 22 April 2011 - 10:00 AM.

[AMAC]

The way I see it, the two years between the Wii and the next generation Xbox and Playstation, is two years for the Wii 2 without any competition. I think it's inevitable that when the Sony and MS consoles are released, that they will have more power than the Wii 2, although in my opinion, it takes more than just power to make a great games console.

[Jikayaki]

Regarding hardware and software the console will be outdated by release, but few games even use open GL 3.3 and DX 10.1 so there is a level of complexity possible using existing API's that you don't see in majority of games possible on the console. Whether it will be outdated in regard to its hardware's raw power comes down to exactly what R700 series GPU the console's own GPU is based on. The three options I'm hoping for is Radeon HD 4850, Radeon HD 4870, or Radeon HD 4890, which would mean a four, five, or six times more powerful than Xenos. If Nintendo is serious about maintaining 3D party support for the long hall they may choose either a Radeon HD 4850x2 or a Radeon HD 4870x2 equivalent dual GPU, which would mean eight to ten times as powerful as the Xbox 360. Ironically optimizing proven tech from 2008 seems a very Nintendo thing to do and both a Radeon HD 4850x2 and Radeon HD 4870x2 are likely the cheapest way to equal a jump in power equal to the jump from PS2/Xbox to Xbox 360/PS3. I'm reasonably optimistic that Nintendo's next console will be reasonably powerful just on there rumored focus on 3D party developers and regaining the hardcore. Only issue is tessellation, which would be in software with Xbox 3/PS4 and on hardware with N6. Ultimately tessellation will be the largest visual improvement next gen the rest of the power will be utilized for more subtle things, but it would take longer to learn to utilize in hardware tessellation capabilities. The year to year and a half headstart the console may have on the market may remove that issue for any dev that seriously utilizes its hardware.

Edited by Jikayaki, 22 April 2011 - 04:04 AM.

[xemnas]

from what i know it wont be outdated it will be very powerful and graphics are at there max until 2016 when ultra high definition is meant to come out

[Jikayaki]

from what i know it wont be outdated it will be very powerful and graphics are at there max until 2016 when ultra high definition is meant to come out

It will be outdated from launch. The rumored GPU architecture AMD's R700 series is openGL 3.3 and DirectX 10.1 complaint when Nintendo's competitors GPU's will likely be openGL 4.1 and Direct3D 11 complaint. Technically there wouldn't be as large a difference in total functionality as the transition from openGL 3.3 to openGL 4.1 and DirectX 10.1 to Direct3D 11 primarily was simply fixing the issues with the previous API's and adding software based tessellation. Project Cafe's GPU will likewise be capable of tessellation through a hardware based operation AMD integrated into the R700 architecture,but it was hardly used outside tech demos. As far as raw power goes Nintendo's next console could very well be a true next gen leap. There are GPU's in the R700 series that would give an eight to ten times increase over current consoles. It depends on whether Nintendo utilizes a double GPU. The rumored size and price of the console at around the size of the original Xbox and costing from $350 to $400 U.S. dollars because of high manufacturing costs points to the possibility its packing a lot more power than many expect. The only reason N6 ends up being a mid generation increase in power at an expected TDP of 150 watts or more judging from the rumored size is if it uses over the shelf PC parts.

[Ostro]

Every console is "outdated" when it launches because the hardware is set way before that.
Anyways, if Nintendo only makes it a little stronger than 360 and PS3 it's not enough. It will be the weakest console again (by a fair margin).

[Ruthie]

It is likely that the PS4 and Xbox 360 will be more graphically powerful but the Wii 2 could still have the advantage on them by still having acceptable HD next gen graphics but also having like others have mentioned, something unique such as the Wii's motion gaming. The NGP has better graphics than the 3DS but it is the 3D that will draw people to it.

[Sphinx]

Project Cafe will more than likely be outdated by the time that the new Playstation and Xbox roll around. But, I believe that the difference in graphics will be minor, and the gap will be tiny compared to this generation. If Playstation and Xbox were to decide to make consoles with graphics vastly superior to Project Cafe, they'd price their consoles out of the market.

[Play4Fun]

Sony and MS can't leapfrog Cafe in a way that would make the gap Wii-to-360-like without expensive hardware that overheats and sucks up alot of electricity so I'll say the gap will be small and won't matter much.

[Sphinx]

Sony and MS can't leapfrog Cafe in a way that would make the gap Wii-to-360-like without expensive hardware that overheats and sucks up alot of electricity so I'll say the gap will be small and won't matter much.

Exactly. As others have said, the focus of this next generation will be on innovative gameplay rather than amazing graphics.

[Nollog]

There's two paths.
1. ms and sony release slightly better consoles, but not incredible hardware.
2. ms and sony continue on from the last generations approach concentrating on pure power again.

I think they'd both choose 1.
Sony might even ride it out and launch ps4 mid-way through the next gen.
I don't see either risking as much money as they did 4-6 years ago. It wasn't very profitable to either of them.

[rob_shadows]

Actually that's a common misconception, it was EXTREMELY profitable for BOTH of them. When you saw Sony losing money on every PS3 sold because of the development cost people didn't look at the larger picture. Many of Sony's biggest franchises are created by studios owned by them, meaning they make direct profit off of every copy sold, then you also have to factor in peripherals, etc...and the fact that Sony was still heavily pushing the PS2 (and heavily selling PS2s) early on in the PS3 lifecycle, not to mention the PSP. Sony knew full well that each PS3 they made lost them money and it was part of a larger plan, no one would ever make a product that loses money if they didn't have other ways to make up for that loss. With Microsoft they make enough money on LIVE subscriptions alone to offset production costs much much higher than what the 360's actually were and again, many of their biggest titles are made by Microsoft owned studios resulting in a direct profit for Microsoft on every copy sold.

People need to realize that in the gaming world Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo make MUCH more money on games, peripherals, online content, etc...than they do the consoles themselves, more than enough to offset extremely high production costs. Especially in the case of a company like Sony or Microsoft where gaming is just one division of a large corporation that makes profit in other areas as well. If Microsoft or Sony release a console where they initially lose money, even for a few years (as was the case with the PS3) the company can afford it until profit outweighs costs (which happened massively over the last couple years with the PS3).

The fact is, Microsoft and Sony can indeed afford very high production costs with initial losses on systems built and sold with no problem at all. That's the very reason that Microsoft and Sony do tend to go for overpowering systems while Nintendo goes cost efficient. Nintendo doesn't have kind of money from other products that Microsoft and Sony do to offset those costs, it's the reason that what project cafe is rumored to be is nowhere near as powerful as current tech allows for (if the rumors of it only being slightly ahead of the PS3 are indeed true).

Because of all that...yes, when the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony are released they will be considerably more powerful than project cafe as far as graphical capabilities, clocking speed, etc...are concerned. Especially considering some developers are specifically requesting that they be considerably more powerful (Such as Crytek pleading for at least 8GB of RAM on the next wave from Microsoft and Sony).

And for those touting that Nintendo will be okay going for Innovation instead of power, just remember that the 2 year head start has it's negatives as well as it's positives. While it will grant them a lead on initial install base and ensure that by the time Sony and Microsoft do release their next consoles project cafe will be considerably cheaper (especially if it releases at a max of $400 as rumored, which would likely already be below what the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony will be priced at for their launches) it also allows Microsoft and Sony to take any innovation put into Cafe and improve upon it for their own consoles. Similar to what we saw recently with Move and Kinect respectively, taking the motion controls of the Wii, making them better and then adding them to the PS3 and 360. Only this time, they'll be able to improve whatever innovation Nintendo puts into project cafe and have it ready for their own systems launch.

Ultimately I don't see much changing, Nintendo will sell higher numbers initially because of cheaper costs while Sony and Microsoft will sell lower numbers at launch but still sell more than enough to make high profits and eventually catch up to Nintendo towards the end of the generation. Same as we've seen with the Wii, 360 and PS3. I think ultimately all 3 companies are satisfied with that trend for now.

EDIT:

Another thing we have to remember is consumer expectations, people EXPECT that Sony and Microsoft will blow us away with technical specifications and capabilities on their next systems and if they don't, it absolutely will hurt their sales figures. People aren't going to be as excited to buy a new console if it doesn't meet their expectations which for Sony and Microsoft are extremely high.

Edited by rob_shadows, 21 May 2011 - 12:58 PM.

[Ostro]

Because of all that...yes, when the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony are released they will be considerably more powerful than project cafe as far as graphical capabilities, clocking speed, etc...are concerned.

I guess clocking speed won't change much since the processors kind of hit a bar where going faster turns out to be a heat problem due to the size of those millions of transistors and stuff. That's why we're pretty much stuck at around 2-3GHz for years now, only going for more cores and better memory/cache.
And I don't think any console will have loads of RAM that isn't even standard for PCs when there's no OS that needs a big part of it.

Still, Microsoft and Sony will surely try to build something that can fight PC gaming for years.

[rob_shadows]

Oh don't get me wrong I doubt we'll actually see 8GB of RAM in the next systems from Microsoft and Sony but I do think they'll put a large increase of what we currently see and what Cafe will have just because developers are now asking for it (and because we all know how much they love to be flashy).

The OS on a game system may use very very little RAM but the games themselves are reaching a point where they can be extremely demanding, developers aren't asking for more just so it's flashy, they are asking for it because they know full well that they would use it. Especially when considering an increase in popularity of games on a massive scale that attempt to create a "living" virtual world (like Elder Scrolls, GTA, Mass Effect, Fable, etc...) all those little details they try to put in to make the world as immersive as possible can be very taxing and it would certainly increase their capabilities with larger amounts of RAM.

[Sphinx]

Actually that's a common misconception, it was EXTREMELY profitable for BOTH of them. When you saw Sony losing money on every PS3 sold because of the development cost people didn't look at the larger picture. Many of Sony's biggest franchises are created by studios owned by them, meaning they make direct profit off of every copy sold, then you also have to factor in peripherals, etc...and the fact that Sony was still heavily pushing the PS2 (and heavily selling PS2s) early on in the PS3 lifecycle, not to mention the PSP. Sony knew full well that each PS3 they made lost them money and it was part of a larger plan, no one would ever make a product that loses money if they didn't have other ways to make up for that loss. With Microsoft they make enough money on LIVE subscriptions alone to offset production costs much much higher than what the 360's actually were and again, many of their biggest titles are made by Microsoft owned studios resulting in a direct profit for Microsoft on every copy sold.

People need to realize that in the gaming world Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo make MUCH more money on games, peripherals, online content, etc...than they do the consoles themselves, more than enough to offset extremely high production costs. Especially in the case of a company like Sony or Microsoft where gaming is just one division of a large corporation that makes profit in other areas as well. If Microsoft or Sony release a console where they initially lose money, even for a few years (as was the case with the PS3) the company can afford it until profit outweighs costs (which happened massively over the last couple years with the PS3).

The fact is, Microsoft and Sony can indeed afford very high production costs with initial losses on systems built and sold with no problem at all. That's the very reason that Microsoft and Sony do tend to go for overpowering systems while Nintendo goes cost efficient. Nintendo doesn't have kind of money from other products that Microsoft and Sony do to offset those costs, it's the reason that what project cafe is rumored to be is nowhere near as powerful as current tech allows for (if the rumors of it only being slightly ahead of the PS3 are indeed true).

Because of all that...yes, when the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony are released they will be considerably more powerful than project cafe as far as graphical capabilities, clocking speed, etc...are concerned. Especially considering some developers are specifically requesting that they be considerably more powerful (Such as Crytek pleading for at least 8GB of RAM on the next wave from Microsoft and Sony).

And for those touting that Nintendo will be okay going for Innovation instead of power, just remember that the 2 year head start has it's negatives as well as it's positives. While it will grant them a lead on initial install base and ensure that by the time Sony and Microsoft do release their next consoles project cafe will be considerably cheaper (especially if it releases at a max of $400 as rumored, which would likely already be below what the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony will be priced at for their launches) it also allows Microsoft and Sony to take any innovation put into Cafe and improve upon it for their own consoles. Similar to what we saw recently with Move and Kinect respectively, taking the motion controls of the Wii, making them better and then adding them to the PS3 and 360. Only this time, they'll be able to improve whatever innovation Nintendo puts into project cafe and have it ready for their own systems launch.

Ultimately I don't see much changing, Nintendo will sell higher numbers initially because of cheaper costs while Sony and Microsoft will sell lower numbers at launch but still sell more than enough to make high profits and eventually catch up to Nintendo towards the end of the generation. Same as we've seen with the Wii, 360 and PS3. I think ultimately all 3 companies are satisfied with that trend for now.

EDIT:

Another thing we have to remember is consumer expectations, people EXPECT that Sony and Microsoft will blow us away with technical specifications and capabilities on their next systems and if they don't, it absolutely will hurt their sales figures. People aren't going to be as excited to buy a new console if it doesn't meet their expectations which for Sony and Microsoft are extremely high.

There's no chance that Sony or Microsoft will price their consoles above $450 or so. The market has shifted over time, and consumers expect cheap entertainment. The casual consumer isn't willing to pay a hefty amount for a game console, a fact that Microsoft and Sony have learned during this generation.

In addition, if the rumors are true of the large touch screen on Project Cafe's control, there is no way in hell that either Microsoft or Sony will attempt to replicate that type of innovation. It will look just like a "me too" product, and most certainly won't catch the consumer's eye, especially if it's more expensive.

And no, Sony and Microsoft are not fine with the cycle you mentioned, and will work as hard as they can to gobble up as much market share as they can, as any company would. They're not going to approach this generation thinking, "Hey, let's create a system that maybe catches up to Nintendo 5 years down the road". They're going to come out guns blazing with prices that rival Nintendo. The gap will be $50-$100 maximum.

If the PS4 is $800 for instance, it will utterly fail.

[rob_shadows]

"There's no chance that Sony or Microsoft will price their consoles above $450 or so. The market has shifted over time, and consumers expect cheap entertainment. The casual consumer isn't willing to pay a hefty amount for a game console, a fact that Microsoft and Sony have learned during this generation."

Exactly how did they learn that "fact" from this generation? By selling out every single console shipped for the first few months of production like they both did? By the 50+ Million consoles sold? The 360 sold over 10 million copies within it's first two years (only using the first two years because after that you need to start taking larger drops in price into consideration due to price cuts) the PS3 did the same, selling over 10 million units within it's first two years.

You truly believe Microsoft and Sony weren't/aren't happy with over 10 million sold in the first two years and over 50 million sold to date? Sure the Wii has sold more but since we're talking about price lets say the "average" price of every Wii sold was $200 and the average price of every PS3 and 360 sold was $300, in reality the Wii number is likely a bit lower and the PS3/360 number a bit higher but this will provide a fine example. Now, go ahead and do the math 70 Million Wii's x $200, 50 Million PS3's or 360's x $300. You may be surprised by just how small the difference in revenue is. Now factor in the fact that everything for the consoles right down to games and peripherals have those same price differences and you start to understand that while the Wii has sold more, it doesn't necessarily mean it's earned higher revenues.

And as far as this mythological shifted market, it's a complete fallacy. What proves it? Slower sales causing console price drops years after they are released just like every other console generation has had? Surely your not referring to the argument industry "experts" claim that Iphone games are replacing console games, no one is leaving their Wii, 360, or PS3 for Iphone games...your simply seeing people that would never normally get into console games playing Iphone games because they are so cheap and a good way to pass time wherever you are. Iphone apps will NEVER directly cut into the console market, personally I highly doubt they'll ever even cut into the handheld market.


"In addition, if the rumors are true of the large touch screen on Project Cafe's control, there is no way in hell that either Microsoft or Sony will attempt to replicate that type of innovation. It will look just like a "me too" product, and most certainly won't catch the consumer's eye, especially if it's more expensive."

This is another statement already proven wrong by the current generation of consoles. Were Move and Kinect not extremely obvious "me too" products to capitalize on what Nintendo started with Motion gaming? How bout the implementation of Netflix into all three consoles after seeing it debut on one? Were trophies not a direct answer to achievements? These companies could care less if people thing they are "ripping off the competition", if it will improve their consoles, thus improving their sales, you can bet they'll gladly rip anyone off. That's not even something that only applies to the gaming world, it applies to literally every industry and is commonplace, once a company establishes "innovation" it WILL be copied by their competitors.



"And no, Sony and Microsoft are not fine with the cycle you mentioned, and will work as hard as they can to gobble up as much market share as they can, as any company would. They're not going to approach this generation thinking, "Hey, let's create a system that maybe catches up to Nintendo 5 years down the road". They're going to come out guns blazing with prices that rival Nintendo. The gap will be $50-$100 maximum."

This ties in to the first statement I addressed, it's not all about market share. If you sell X amount of systems at $350 a system that sells at $600 can have a much lower amount representing X while still generating equal revenue.


"If the PS4 is $800 for instance, it will utterly fail."

Again, this ties in to the first statement and the last statement but to elaborate further, people said the same thing about the PS3, there was no way at $600 it would be sell at the same level as the 360, go ahead and look up the numbers of the 360 from '05 to '07 (it's first two years) and the PS3 from '06-'08 (again, it's first two years). You might be a bit surprised that the console outrageously priced $200 higher (the PS3) than it's closest competitor (the 360) was stride for stride with the 360 during the two consoles first two years on the market respectively.

If your asking yourself why I always leave the Wii out of the PS3/360 discussion it's because the PS3 and 360 do NOT target the same core demographic and thus are NOT direct competitors with the Wii, just because they are all video game companies doesn't mean they view them as direct competition. The PS2 and Xbox did not contend directly with the Gamecube, the 360 and PS3 do not contend directly with the Wii and the 720 and PS4 will not contend directly with Project Cafe.

To give a similar example look at the auto industry, we'll take 3 manufacturers...let's say...Kia, Cadillac and Lincoln. They are all car companies but no one considers Kia a direct competitor to Cadillac and Lincoln (whereas those two are indeed direct competitors), one company focuses on a cheaper product with similarly cheaper quality while the other two are "luxury" vehicles with all the fancy bells and whistles.

The same is true in the video game world and has been for over a decade now, Nintendo took the role of the cheaper company that produced the cheaper product starting with the Gamecube and Sony and Microsoft take the role of the "luxury" manufacturer making the fancy high end models starting with the PS2 and Xbox respectively. Don't forget that Sony ALWAYS priced themselves $100 ahead of Nintendo ever since entering the market with the original PS and the PS2 debuting at $299 (higher than the Wii at it's launch) while still managing to dominate both generations.

Hopefully all of this helps illustrate the point that being priced significantly higher than Cafe would mean squat for Sony and Microsoft, even with higher prices and lower sales revenues can be even and gamers have already proven they are willing to pay for the bells and whistles.

That being said, you are right that it may not be as big a difference as it was this time not because they would fear doing so but because they wouldn't need to. Considering we're talking about the consoles coming 2 years after Project Cafe, Moore's law (which can be applied to practically anything related to computing, not just CPUs but also GPUs, Memory, Storage, etc...albeit at varying degrees) dictates that the two year period will allow for producing a significantly more advanced product without the need to significantly advance price. Especially when you consider that for all intents and purposes according to every rumor we've heard so far Project Cafe is not what anyone would consider "advanced" or "top of the line" by today's terms as far as power goes.

[Wertville]

~rob_shadows

Much of your theory gets thrown out when you consider the fact that the late coming, vastly superior gamecube... Sold horribly compared to the relatively weak PS2.

The PS2 won out during last gen because it came out earlier than the cube, it had already claimed a portion of the market during the year it was out for, and it was cheaper to develop games for. The same thing happened with the N64 Vs. PS1 generation. The same thing ALMOST happened this generation... However, this generation saw the rise of many western developers....

And you know how us westerners crave us some graphics, despite the cost of them :/

Things will revert back to the way they were next gen, though. Developers won't want to spend X million dollars on a game that might not even sell 500 thousand+ copies. Nintendo, through the 3DS, has already shown 3rd parties that they're willing to go the extra mile for them, and companies like Capcom and Koei were already Ninty fanboys at heart, paving the way for smaller developers to follow

(Capcom makes Resident Evil games, which they made superior on the Gamecube/Wii; Koei makes Samurai Warriors, which 3 was exclusive for Wii. (And the expansion to 3 is being multi-plat because fans begged for it... So they made the Wii one the superior version ))




P.S. if my argument doesn't match up to your exactly, it's because it was a while ago when I read it... And it's far to large for me to read it again right now :s
I know I addressed some of your points, though, and that's all that really matters

[rob_shadows]

The Gamecube wasn't "vastly superior" to the PS2, the CPU was faster, more efficient, etc...but all you have to do is look at the games from both to know that obviously that didn't matter in terms of graphical power. Not a single gamecube game came out that touched some of the titles released on the PS2. And that's despite the fact that the system was described as being easier to program for.

Heck the Gamecube even had some aspects of it's architecture that were above the Xbox but no one will ever claim it was more powerful than or vastly superior to the Xbox.

In reality when you consider the fact that the Gamecube was still cheaper than the PS2 at it's launch despite coming out after the PS2 it actually helps my argument which is simply that a higher price point doesn't mean anything.

And no, things won't change next generation. Western Action Adventure/RPG's and Shooters will still dominate the market, that's not going to change anytime soon, and companies like Bethesda, Bioware, Epic, Infinity Ward, etc...will continue to push games to their limits to try to blow people away, even the most infamous JRPG company in Square is a company that has always and will continue to try to push games to the limits.