War is Over

By Rob Fahey Published 21 May, 2011

Will the next generation of consoles herald a truce in the graphics arms race?

Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz's widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial, is a weekly dissection of an issue weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.

Towards the end of this year, the PlayStation 3 will celebrate its fifth birthday, with the Xbox 360 blowing out six candles on its cake about a week later. By this stage in the lifespans of their predecessors, these consoles would already be well on the road to replacement - five years after the launch of PlayStation 2, Sony was talking openly about the PS3, while five years after the launch of Xbox, Xbox 360 was already on shelves.

It's unsurprising, then, that speculation about the next generation of hardware is rife - especially given that Nintendo has fuelled the fires by deciding to unveil its next home console platform, codenamed Project Cafe, at E3 this year. In the past week, attention has also focused strongly on Microsoft, based on rumours that the company has sent very early development kits to close business partners. It's even been suggested that the company might decide to rock the boat with a surprise teaser for the new platform at E3.

This latter notion is something of a far-fetched idea, since right now it's Microsoft more than anyone else who stands to gain from prolonging the present console hardware generation. After taking huge losses on the original Xbox, it ended its lifespan prematurely in order to steal a march on its rivals in the current generation. Now the Xbox 360 is maintaining a (not terribly big) lead on Sony's PS3, consistently reporting very comfortable software tie ratios and even seeing very solid early figures for its much-hyped Kinect motion controller.

"Microsoft is right now doing something it never had an opportunity to do with the first Xbox - it's enjoying the harvest."

In other words, Microsoft is right now doing something it never had an opportunity to do with the first Xbox - it's enjoying the harvest. It must now strike a careful balance between keeping consumers interested in its present hardware offering in order to make this generation as profitable and successful as possible, and beginning to build excitement around what's coming next, to avoid being leapfrogged by a rival.

In this instance, however, Microsoft can sleep a little more soundly at night thanks to the knowledge that Sony is unlikely to have the stomach for much leapfrogging right now. PlayStation 3 took a kicking in its early years on the market, struggling to establish itself at a market-friendly price point and to build a solid catalogue of software - while Sony's business overall had the rug swept from under its feet by Nintendo, with the Wii poaching many of the consumers who could, in theory, have kept the PS2 profitable for even longer.

PS3 is now a business with a tidy operating profit, and despite being behind Microsoft overall, is presently the strongest-selling home console worldwide - Sony, a company faced with serious challenges in many of its other businesses, has little interest in jeopardising that by starting to talk about a new hardware generation so soon. These rivals are eyeing each other warily, but neither of them is actually prepared to draw just yet.

More than anything else, though, both Microsoft and Sony would probably like to get a good look at whatever Nintendo is planning before they commit themselves publicly to a specific direction for their future hardware. Everything we've seen so far about Project Cafe suggests that it's a system with graphical power not dissimilar to the present generation of HD consoles. Its games should look comfortably as good as PS3 or Xbox 360 titles, then, but the real selling point will be the control system, which reportedly builds a screen onto the controller itself.

Speculation about what exactly that means, and what functionality it will enable, is somewhat pointless - a lot of people already know what Nintendo is planning, but have been tightly wrapped up in non-disclosure agreements. What's more interesting is to think about the market reaction to a console which will launch six or seven years after the other HD systems, but only slightly out-match them in terms of graphical prowess.

We're all so used to the idea that new hardware is a straight-up fist-fight between sets of specifications that it's hard to imagine such a strategy doing well - but of course, it's a fairly direct repeat of exactly the strategy which has given Nintendo a Wii installed base of almost 90 million units. That isn't to say that it'll necessarily work again, but it's interesting to look at some of the advantages it confers.

For one thing, working with older, more well-understood and reliable chipsets gives a direct advantage in terms of manufacturing. It's cheaper to get up and running and you're far less likely to hit major production bottlenecks and shortages. Moreover, since you're not dealing with hugely expensive prototype silicon, you can seed tons of fairly advanced development kits to your partners early in the process, which should greatly benefit the early software line-up for your console.

The advantages to developers don't stop there, of course. Admittedly, by all accounts, direct ports to Nintendo's next-gen system will be just as pointless as they were on the Wii - the system's unique controller and interface should ensure that, although there's no doubt that plenty of publishers will defy such basic logic and demand shovelware ports aplenty, all the same. Developers wanting to do a good job on the console will need to think seriously about its advantages and disadvantages and tailor their software for the system.

However, even allowing for that significant bump in the road (which may be a bit of a pain for developers but is arguably an advantage for Nintendo, since it gives them crucial market differentiation), the actual development process ought to be relatively painless. Older hardware is familiar hardware, for one thing, and Nintendo's unlikely to stray far from off the shelf components. More importantly, taking aim at a similar level of graphical prowess to the PS3 and Xbox 360 means that the asset creation process is already in place. The same expertise and even the same asset pipelines that have been employed successfully on the present HD consoles should work fine on Project Cafe.

So, when Project Cafe hits the market, it's going to be a console with an innovative, headline grabbing interface, the power of the Nintendo juggernaut behind it, comparable development costs to existing hardware, and the media hype of a brand new system at a time when its rivals are beginning to look long in the tooth. The downside is that it won't actually be any more graphically powerful than its rivals. The million-dollar question is whether anyone will really care.

This is another "boy who cried wolf" story, of course. We've seen the end of the graphical arms race predicted any number of times in the past decade, and it's always entertaining to look back at screenshots and videos of games from times when people were saying things like "is there any need for graphics to be better than this?", and marvel at how easily pleased we were and how far we've come since then.

"Project Cafe is going to have such a huge influence on Microsoft and Sony's thinking - even though both companies are already well into the design and development process for their next-gen systems."

Yet this time, there are a number of factors aligning which - while they don't add up to an end to the arms race - certainly suggest a slowing down, and even perhaps a temporary truce. As discussed in previous weeks, skyrocketing development costs, both for software and hardware, are no longer being justified by sustained market growth. Moreover, in recent years consumers have voted with their wallets - by no means rejecting the cutting edge platforms, but certainly showing that they're also happy with hardware that offers a much less graphically impressive experience, such as the Wii, the PSP and the DS.

So, as uneasy as I am about joining the ranks of commentators who have asked "what's the point in graphics being better than this?" over the years, it's a question that must be posed - with some caveats. It's not that graphics can't be better, or that better graphics wouldn't be jaw-dropping, beautiful and wonderful. Rather, it's a question about a trade-off.

We could make games look an order of magnitude more impressive than titles like L.A. Noire or its ilk - but it would cost a vast amount of money. and I suspect that we've hit diminishing returns on that kind of expenditure already. Even the most casual consumers can see graphical improvements - they're not blind, or stupid - but the better game visuals get, the harder it is to create improvements that are good enough to sell consoles.

Even the most basic yardstick for console improvements has become a little hard to read. It used to seem like a reliable idea that every five years or so, consoles would catch up to the PC - a platform which sees advancements every few weeks - and remain competitive for a while, before the PC's cutting-edge accelerated away. In recent years, though, it's been interesting to watch what has actually happened to PC gaming.

Certainly, the PC cutting edge remains exactly that - new cards are released on a regular basis by AMD and NVIDIA, each more power-hungry and extraordinarily advanced than the last, with the best cards boasting a price tag which would comfortably buy you both of the current-gen HD consoles. However, the upgrade cycle appears to have slowed considerably - with games that actually demand cutting-edge systems being few and far between, and core gamers far more likely to continue happily playing on two, three or even four year old PCs than they were in the past.

A few different factors have pushed us in this direction - one of which is the diminishing returns to which I referred above, another being the rapid growth in popularity of laptops and Apple systems as gaming platforms. Both of these are difficult or impossible to upgrade - for that reason and many others, both were conventionally scorned as gaming PCs in the past, but it's easy to see from the consumer sales data that the market has moved strongly in their direction in the past five years. PC game developers know this, and target their games to work on laptop graphics parts rather than top-end cards.

If not a halt to progress, this is certainly a slowing - and probably one which is welcomed in most quarters. Consumers love improvements in graphical quality, but most would probably prefer to see any major increase in development budget being spent elsewhere - more detailed content, more expansive storytelling, more progress in areas that have been neglected in the former headlong rush to cram more polygons and effects onto every screen. Developers, too, would welcome such a switch in focus - while publishers would breathe a sigh of relief if the next console transition didn't bring with it another step-change in development costs.

That's why the reception for Nintendo's Project Cafe is going to have such a huge influence on Microsoft and Sony's thinking - even though both companies are already well into the design and development process for their next-gen systems. If Nintendo can get by with current generation power levels, the option for Sony and Microsoft to reign back their graphical ambition and focus their efforts on other aspects of the console will be wide open. If that does happen, plenty of journalists and commentators will rush to lament the death of progress - but in reality, it could be the best thing to happen to the progress of videogames in decades.

If you work in the games industry and want more views, and up-to-date news relevant to your business, read our sister website GamesIndustry.biz, where you can find this weekly editorial column as soon as it is posted.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Rob Fahey is a former editor of GamesIndustry.biz who spent several years living in Japan and probably still has a mint condition Dreamcast Samba de Amigo set.

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (90) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • hoathenfold #1 1 year ago

    Double Paragraph now removed :)
    Edited by hoathenfold at 21/05/11 @ 10:24

  • Inmediasress #2 1 year ago

    I think it's obvious that we won't see any graphical upgrades in the next console generation because there is no need.
    The only thing will get is probably full HD and some stable fps on consoles maybe better 3D tech. If they would improve graphics too much it became like the PC cuttingh edge race in other words unprofitable.

    As for the PC, I believe it will rejuvenate somewhat if not else because even thick headed people start to understand now that the consoles are cheeper and you don't have to upgrade them every month argument is invalid since 4-5 years.
    I still game on my 4 or 5 year old PC( can't remember correctly lol). Of course it will still be the cutting edge platfrom, but people should realise that you don't need cutting edge because for example in this gen theres only literally a handfull of games that utilise that hardware.
    Everything else plays perfectly fine on my old pc that's almsot as old as the ps3. Well apart from bugy releases that arent optimized for pcs but thats not really the hardwares fault and you get those sometimes on the consoles as well.
    Edited by Inmediasress at 21/05/11 @ 09:26

  • Spunkweazle #3 1 year ago

    how is a joypad with a screen going to help nintendo sell ports of old 360 and ps3 titles?

    Enjoy the harvest

  • brainbird #4 1 year ago

    While I'm agreeing with most that has been written, the whole article is based on the assumption that Project Cafe is only slightly better graphically than the 360 and the PS3.
    I'm not convinced that's true.

  • Gambit1977 #5 1 year ago

    It's just occurred to me that Project Cafe is - PC! Expect a Nintendo OS with mouse control :D

  • coolbritannia #6 1 year ago

    That wouldn't be a white, middle class, cuntish man in the article picture on the front page would it Rob?

    /Spartacunt

  • Inmediasress #7 1 year ago

    @brainbird

    I think that would skyrocket the cost of game developement because the developers (more likely the publishers) would start their race again in the who brings out the shyniest toys this year contest. That would then result in increased price, which would directly result in more sales required to make profit, which means that a lot of effort would go in to make games even more casual oriented but that can also bite you in the ass.
    So I would predict a lot of people losing their jobs in the game industry.
    Edited by Inmediasress at 21/05/11 @ 09:47

  • muttler #8 1 year ago

    Boooring speculation, almost definitely wrong. I can't see MS or Sony not advancing the graphical power of their next consoles by a shitload, and risk being seen as the inferior console. Nintendo Wii and handhelds are not the same market as the 'core gaming' crowd that want the latest graphics for FPS franchise X.

  • Dannyboy1100 #9 1 year ago

    "In other words"

    *goes on to repeat the exact same thing*

  • infernox1 #10 1 year ago

    project cafe will have a similar architecture as the current xbox 360 but have a faster gpu and likely a newer cpu architecture. what this means is devs could essentially run close to the same code as the xbox 360 version of a game on the project cafe and see improved frame rates. how they use this extra power is up to them (higher res/more AA/keep the extra fps/add more effects etc) but the best console version on multi-platform games could be on nintendos console from now on.

  • JuJuCam #11 1 year ago

    It's clear to me that the graphical fetishism that drove the development of past generations of consoles is largely responsible for the lack of gameplay innovation to be seen there. It is no surprise at all to me that the more graphically progressive games of late have also tended toward the more bland and generic in terms of game rules and mechanics. A broad generalisation, but one only needs to look at the less artobsessed indie pc scene to see what might have been, and could still be.

  • tomkuryakin #12 1 year ago

    "Admittedly, by all accounts, direct ports to Nintendo's next-gen system will be just as pointless as they were on the Wii - the system's unique controller and interface should ensure that, although there's no doubt that plenty of publishers will defy such basic logic and demand shovelware ports aplenty, all the same. Developers wanting to do a good job on the console will need to think seriously about its advantages and disadvantages and tailor their software for the system."

    As pointed out, the Wii has been a huge commercial success but for me as a gamer, it's a failure. I bought one but I bought hardly any games for it. Developers had an opportunity to do things differently but for the most part, they didn't. It was just the same games with a different control system. If Project Cafe is to work for core gamers, then developers are really going to have to think about it this time.

    As far as graphics go, the headlong rush towards photo-realism seems to me to be, if not a waste of time, then a misdirected effort. It's often said that games are trying to be like movies but I would like to see games trying to more like animations. I don't mean Pixar or Dreamworks but surrealists like Jan Svankmajer or the lyricism of Yuri Norstein. I recently got a Blu-Ray of Pixar's shorts and it was striking how lacking in storytelling the early shorts are - they are more like tech demos. It took them years to develop their storytelling skills to a point where they matched their technical abilities.

    It seems to be smaller, downloadable games that have more interesting art styles than the big AAA games.

    Edit: typo
    Edited by tomkuryakin at 21/05/11 @ 10:36

  • RodHull #13 1 year ago

    Rod Hull does not comment on rumour and speculation.

  • BadBoyBonner #14 1 year ago

    Article seems to forget that all leading companies generate assets that are well above what the target machine can actually render effectively and have been doing so for years e.g. since Unreal engine 3, Cryengine 1, I.D. tech 4 etc all boasting 1,000,000 polygon models repurposed to look as close as possible with the minimum amount of polygons.

    Suddenly having 2 to 4 times more polygons to play with would hardly be the step up it was from last gen to this imo. The in game models would simply be nearer to the original.

    Developments in silicon & software obvoiusly mean that a lot of stuff comes for "free".

    PC gaming is making a comeback between me and my mates as we are wanting the next best thing. All of us starting to get in to 3D gaming on PC to offer the next level of immersion and push realism forward.



  • Subdominator #15 1 year ago

    Of course we need a huge graphical update. If we don't get it I will build myself a nice gaming PC and say goodbye to console gaming. There's not much HD in today's games. Textures are very lowres, the games run in subHD resolutions. I've read the "people don't see the difference" argument of why there doesn't have to be another next gen step countless times. It comes up near the end of every console generation. It's always this and "and then we get 60 fps in all games".

    It's because people are under the wrong assumption that what we see today is the limit of what is possible. Call it lack of imagination or lack of faith - but take the PC. PCs can be eight times more powerful than a PS3. You just don't see it because they earn money on the consoles and so those are the platforms they develop for. But given the budget and the hardware power you'd cry tears if you see what next gen will be capable of.

    It has never been about hardware. Hardware doesn't sell hardware (ask Sony), software does. With an exclusive CoD as a launch title (has happenend before, see CoD 2) or Halo 4 you can calculate success. Thanks to achievements and trophies people are more likely to stick around for the next generation cause who wants to give up all those points? Xbox Live/PSN respectively, you bought those games, you want to be able to play them. Nintendo will struggle to get customers switch to their next console because the HD market is pretty much divided. Why give up on your Xbox Live friend list? Online is a strong selling point these days and that's something that Nintendo has been avoiding for a very long time.

  • tomkuryakin #16 1 year ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    You want "realism" but only up to a point. In games, too much realism is not fun. In real life, one bullet is enough to kill or incapacitate most people - you don't want that much realism in a shooter, do you?

  • TheNinkyNonk #17 1 year ago

    I completely agree

  • Uchikoma #18 1 year ago

    @coolbritannia,

    Isn't it a screen capture from the latest unreal engine tech demo?

  • The_Weird #19 1 year ago

    Its quite apparent that console games have held back PC games - my PC is nearly 7 years old with a recent, but budget graphics card dropped in. I can still enjoy most games at resolutions better than a console. Before this I remember upgrading constantly, every 3-6 months to keep up with the latest game.

    This period remonds me almost of the last days of the 8-bit machines when developers (we used to call them 'programmers') were forced to use ingenuity to squeeze the most out of systesms limited by tiny specifications. It actually encourages creative thinking and good game design, rather than lazily re-releasing the same game again with better graphics.

  • BadBoyBonner #20 1 year ago

    tomkuryakin

    No I do not want it to be realistic as most games are a form of escapism. I want the realism of pretending to be Neo and seeing the bullets fly past in 3d or stop in the air in front of me before dropping down. However, driving games are simply amazing in 3D - dusted off flatout 2 and it runs in 3D at 1080p 120 fps on a 460 gtx with x 8 antialiasing. I can see further into the distance in the monitorthan in realife - being slightly short sighted (years of staring at monitors! lol)

    Glasses and monitor were a package I bought from Scan. £ 263 for monitor and sender and glasses.
    [link url=http://www.scan.co.uk/products/23-bundle-lg-w2363d-full-hd-3d-120hz-lcd-plus-nvidia-geforce-3d-vision-kit
    ]http://www.scan.co.uk/products/23-bundle...[/link]

    Free delivery if ya have been a member of AV forum for longer than 14 days and add it to your Scan account.

    Monitor also accepts HDMi but is only 1.3. So while you can use the ps3 with it you can't do 3d with either console.

    Has no speakers but has a headphone socket - which can be set nice and loud.

    Was going to get a 3DS an some games but for the same price bought the monitor and playing my back catalogue of PC games.

    Tombraider has never looked so good!

    Edited by BadBoyBonner at 21/05/11 @ 10:44

  • JetSetWilly #21 1 year ago

    The Wii was supposed have the same advantages conferred on it by not making a massive technology leap and look how that turned out in terms of third-party software quality. It'll be the same as it always is: Nintendo's conservatism/tight-fistedness will gimp the platform in some fundamental way; the other two platforms will offer better returns for third-parties; the release schedule will turn into a wasteland inside two years and we'll all be clinging on in year five for a decent Zelda. Again.

  • BadBoyBonner #22 1 year ago

    just had a look at Scan Today only and they have the bundle on there. Its 6 quid cheaper - not much but like getting a free selection from a takeaway thrown in while ya set it up lol

  • Freek #23 1 year ago

    If gameplay matters more then graphicss, why is the Wii software line up so utterly barren?

    And would large scale gameplay of games like Assassins Creed or Battlefield even work on a console that is under powered? Open ended, always connetected games that blurr the lines between multiplayer, singplayer and give the player immens freedom in how to aproach the game in thier own way seem to be where things are going.
    That requires allot of computing power.

  • tomkuryakin #24 1 year ago

    BadBoyBonner

    Fair enough. I came late to this gen and was blown away by Fallout 3 but I guess a lot of people would say that was old tech now so perhaps I'm just easily impressed.

  • BadBoyBonner #25 1 year ago

    tomkuryakin

    Funny you should mention Fallout 3 as the flying eyeballs in it do look like the whizz past you in 3D lol

  • Lunastra78 #26 1 year ago

    I believe third-party support is the main reason why Nintendo wants to make a new console now. Wii just isn't getting the popular multiplatform games that PS3/360 is getting, and therefore have been lagging behind in sales the last years. They want the newest CoD, GTA and other mainstream bestsellers on their console. Not the watered down versions they have been getting so far.

  • BadBoyBonner #27 1 year ago

    And before I forget - all the new 3d tv's can't actually do 1080p 60fps per eye. When in 3D mode through HDMI they only support 720p60fps per eye - due to HDMI limitations.

  • RobTheBuilder #28 1 year ago

    I find it ironic that this article is followed by "Xbox vs Playstation Round 58!"

  • Retroid #29 1 year ago

    Hmm, if this generation of console hardware has proven one thing to me, it's that the smaller the difference in graphical grunt between the platforms, the more rabid the fanbase becomes - desperate for even the smallest 'victory' either way.

    Bloody depressing.

  • Dural666 #30 1 year ago

    I think that the REAL next gen (that is, Sony and M$'s offerings, non the usual half-baked/gimmicky "tech" of Ninty) should target 1080P@60 fps in almost every game with 2x AA (there shouldn't be the need of more at such an high resolution) to call the graphic race "over" once and for all (or at least for a prolonged period).

    My point is that FHD displays sholud constitute the mainstay of TVs for years to come, so the at least the resolution race should effectively be over with the next gen (but not if we get sub-30 fps games of course).
    Edited by Dural666 at 21/05/11 @ 12:03

  • DiamondIce #31 1 year ago

    The obsession with graphics pisses me off and has caused games, for me anyway, to lose something that those games of the Megadrive and Super Nintendo era had.

    Games can chug a bit on these consoles but I don't care. Gamers that obsess over how many sodding polygons can get pushed around on screen need to take a step back and think about their hobby because it all seems to be about willy waving these days.

    I will never go into PC gaming because I use one all day and want to stay as far away from the bloody things as I can when I am relaxing.

    I guess it is my age but having gone through so many generations I just cannot give a damn about the bestest top-end graphics any more.

  • DoctorFouad #32 1 year ago

    @subdominator : I agree with you,
    the article fails to mention and analyse one of the most important factors for consoles today : ONLINE Gaming and services
    Nintendo is lacking in online department, and I believe that the success or failure of project cafe will be determined by as much as its online features as its other hardware-software features...

    Nintendo succeded with the Wii despite the lack of a good online infrastructure and services, but this time around they wont be able to get away if they dont imporove their online strategy and services...

  • TigerX81 #33 1 year ago

    It's not all about gfx! Extra horsepower can also mean better physics, better AI and better sound.

    Also, take the upcoming Battlefield 3 as an example. The PC version will support up to 64 players which will likely (given past BF games) be set on much larger maps than the console versions which only support 24 and result in a completely different experience which actually feels like a battlefield rather than a small skirmish around a couple of buildings.

    When people talk about 'gameplay' it really annoys me. What is 'gameplay'? To me it's just a word to describe how much fun something is. I cannot stand Mariocart or any of it's ilk but apparently that's the height of gameplay. Personally I find Forza much more enjoyable and no amount of turning the gfx down will make it run on the wii because it's the physics that makes Forza feel like Forza. Take the physics away and you might as well be playing Outrun on a 1980s arcade machine.

    To sum up: Next gen doesn't solely mean advances in gfx!

  • Duggie8472 #34 1 year ago

    Put it like this, if they're all using the same hardware.. What's the point in building a console and sticking different names on the side??

    Competition brings revolution! If they stop trying to better what they can push out via hardware and software. What's the point?

    I dread to see how nintendo are going to push the wii 2. They should release their own tv channel so I don't have to watch those dopey insulting adds for wii fit hd??? Lol

  • Bremenacht #35 1 year ago

    More objects, greater draw distances, higher framerates, clever textures - the 'war' continues in different ways, not least on the input side. Until TVs move beyond 1080p.

    "and the media hype of a brand new system at a time when its rivals are beginning to look long in the tooth"
    - I think that's the critical bit. An innovative controller or headline-catching gimmick is the very least that the media hype requires

  • zythe #36 1 year ago

    "The advantages to developers don't stop there, of course. Admittedly, by all accounts, direct ports to Nintendo's next-gen system will be just as pointless as they were on the Wii"

    I'd care to argue against that -- I think that direct ports to a Nintendo system would be a wise and interesting move -- even if it is only "slightly" more powerful, if it manages to pull off full 1080p with games that run at 720p on the PS360, then I know that a lot of consumers would eat it up -- especially if it's at a decent price point/ comparable to the PS3's current position.

    Games that are going to be graphically demanding, such as Skyrim, would be interesting to see on the Cafe in comparison to other consoles on the market. I just hope Nitty actually encourage 3rd party devs to invest in its new system so that it becomes a viable platform for gamers with budgets for just one system.

  • Pocketgrandpa #37 1 year ago

    You cac criticise the Wii all you like (i very quickly got rid of mine and bought a PS3 to go with the 360) but it did open up a new market for motion control. I doubt we'd have had Kinect or Move without it. If Nintendo are putting screens in their controllers - especially ones that let you stream full games on them while the telly's being used for something else - then it seems a pretty good idea and one that Sony and MS will follow.

  • Dural666 #38 1 year ago

    I sincerely hope not, at home I like to game on my 50", not on a crappy 6", otherwise I'd rather buy a NGP..

    Same thing for motion controls, they added aòmost nothing for the hardcore crowd gaming experience, only result is, Sony and M$ (particularly the latter) are pouring money in promoting crappy motion-controlled games rather than focusing on their core franchises (Gears 3 is for the moment the only M$-exclusive announced for this year, hope that the E3 would bring something else to the table, but I'm afraid that their showing wil rather be Kincet-centric..)

  • jablonski #39 1 year ago

    Maybe get Jeff Fahey to write next week's article?
    He'll surely know more about gaming than this weekly vomit of hot air and speculation

  • Bigglesworth #40 1 year ago

    Moreover, in recent years consumers have voted with their wallets - by no means rejecting the cutting edge platforms, but certainly showing that they're also happy with hardware that offers a much less graphically impressive experience, such as the Wii, the PSP and the DS.

    But people aren't buying PSPs and DSs instead of PS3s and 360s, its a complementary market. Similarly in part for the Wii, though that machine succeeded mostly because it opened up a new market of people who wouldn't have bought a PS3 or 360 anyway.

  • KDR_11k #41 1 year ago

    I think a bigger issue is mentality. As long as it's expected that developers have to cram as much stuff into the game as possible the dev costs will rise. The Wii ran counter to that thinking, not just hardware wise but games like Wii Sports were concerned with looking right, not looking great.

  • digitalash #42 1 year ago

    I can't help but see Project Café as 3DS part 2 at this stage. A controller with a screen - be still my beating heart. The Wii and Kinect worked because they presented a simple, new, exciting, visual concept that consumers actually wanted.

    We've seen controllers with a screen/console synchronisation concepts for the Dreamcast and original PS. They didn't exactly go down a storm.

    Now, if Nintendo revealed that their next console was also their next handheld, people might sit up and listen.

  • kongzi #43 1 year ago

    I hope the polygon war is over and they'll finally get around to improving the rest. Graphical quality isn't just how it looks in a screenshot, for me it's more about how it moves. If you have a photorealistic shooter it's just gonna be more annoying that the environment is static as hell, the animations are stiff and robotic, the enemies dumb and interactivity is limited to press the button when the on screen prompt appears. Metro 2033 is a great example. I was hugely impressed when I saw it running in glorious dx11. Untill it started moving that was..

  • DrStrangelove #44 1 year ago

    If the consoles managed to make the very same games run at full 1080p and consistent 60fps, that would be a huge improvement over current-gen graphics without need for extra work. But of course that wouldn't work, because devs will always try to make graphics that are as impressive as possible on screenshots, so the new consoles will again quickly drop below 30 fps.

    Also, it's true that creating software that lives up to high-performance hardware is costly, but keep in mind that devs are currently investing a lot of work in figuring out how to squeeze a few more tiny bits of performance out of consoles, so that their new games somehow improve on older ones. That is costly too.

    Then, keep in mind that it's usually not the more powerful console that dominates the market. The Wii is the weakest of current consoles, but reigns supreme. In the previous generation, the PS2 was the weakest, and it absolutely crushed its rivals. The NES was weaker than Sega's Master System, and if I remember right, the N64 was also more powerful than the PS1, but clearly lost the race. Then there's Game Boy vs. Sega's Game Gear, or DS vs. PSP. Actually, the SNES is the only console I can think of that was No.1 on the market despite being technically superior. Interestingly, Sega was never as far behind technically as with the Mega Drive (compared to SNES), but at the same time they were never closer to the top sales-wise.

  • Pickster #45 1 year ago

    Why do people keep requesting 1080p 60FPS as a standard.

    I'll not argue the resolution point. But how can you demand 60fps as standard. And how would you go about locking that down. Drop from 60fps to 30pfs and the engine can throw out more eye candy. Its just a flat out stupid request.

    Not that I expect anyone to believe me when I say this. But I do love 60fps. However I think it should be upto the developer to choose what best suits their game.

    On top of that, the motion blur in todays games makes 30fps much easier on the eyes. And a next generation of consoles, with more power will employ even better techniques.

    Which leads me onto the actual topic. I totally bet on the next gen from Microsoft/Sony having the standard leap in power that we have come to expect. I think they would be foolish to completely redesign the architecture, although I feel this is less of an issue fordevelopers on Microsofts console as they create excellent development tools and don't let developers code to the metal.... It would however cause a headache for those people making the development tools.

    Something else that points to Microsoft planning the standard generational leap is kinect. If Microsoft were going to release a new box not that much different from the 360, they would need a hook/gimmick. Kinect would have been the perfect launch gimmick.

    Thats not even beginning to talk about Microsofts advancement and development in Direct X. And the fact that ATI/AMD & nVidia have already dome much of the R&D for high end GPU developemnt and advancement.

    Also what about advanced physics being calculated on the GPU or even a dedicated PPU (I think the former is more likely)

    More power is comming. All the signes are there.
    Edited by Pickster at 21/05/11 @ 16:11

  • CraigMcG #46 1 year ago

    for once, a decent article from the cumt

  • geox30 #47 1 year ago

    Then someone could argue that if the new Nintendo is equal in terms of power with current gen,what would happen if the competition launched in say two years time consoles twice as powerful?Could it be the same story all over again?The way I see it,the new Nintendo should be significally more powerful than current hd consoles.It needs to be as futureproof as possible,or it may be dumped from third party again..

  • Pickster #48 1 year ago

    I'd like to argue that Nintendo are counting on Sonys 10 year cycle, so they can afford not to totally leapfrog the current gen.

    However, Nintendo is Nintendo. They do what pleases them. I'm not saying they don't consider the opposition, but I don't think they would make design choices based on what others are/might/might-not be doing.

    First and foremost Nintendo makes a console as a base for them to release their own games. Everything else comes after.

  • DrStrangelove #49 1 year ago

    @Pickster

    Why do people keep requesting 1080p 60FPS as a standard.

    Easy, because 60fps is a lot better. Not only for the visuals, mainly for controls. I wouldn't wear bear skin as shoes, I wouldn't eat horse shite, and I wouldn't want 30fps. I want my games to be fun, not pain. 30fps is unacceptable, and that's one of the main reasons I gave up on consoles.

  • Machiavellian #50 1 year ago

    Developers, too, would welcome such a switch in focus - while publishers would breathe a sigh of relief if the next console transition didn't bring with it another step-change in development costs.

    This article is right on the money. The next generation, all major console developers need to make sure their system is easy to code for, provide all the tools, libraries and optimizations needed for developers to be successful on their platform. Sony do not have the luxury to do the same thing they did this generation where they cobbled together some hardware and then told the developer community to figure it out. The good thing is if Sony can ramp up the Cell processor for the next gen without increasing the complexity, then they should be alright.

    I just cannot see any of the big 3 selling their console at a lost. Nintendo doesn't do it. I am sure MS doesn't want to go down that road again and I believe Sony has taken it on the chin enough to not want that either.

    I also do not see any console priced above 280 euro and I would say that there should be a 210 euro price point as well.

  • Machiavellian #51 1 year ago

    Its quite apparent that console games have held back PC games - my PC is nearly 7 years old with a recent, but budget graphics card dropped in. I can still enjoy most games at resolutions better than a console. Before this I remember upgrading constantly, every 3-6 months to keep up with the latest game.

    I call BS on this one. Console games have not held PC games back. PC gamers have held PC games back. It would be suicide for a developer to develop just for the top end. Developers have always coded for the lowest end system then try to scale their games for the top. Most PC games never even make it to consoles so why would consoles be the reason PC games are held back. Instead, PC gamers like yourself have stop the graphics card top end purchase.

    Such PC gamers have moved on like myself and do not play in the arms race any more. Steam and other services show developers that the majority of their audience are still running 7 year old graphics cards. This article also point out that laptops have taken over and there are already stats that show laptops and other such devices have overtaken the desktop in peoples homes.

    I'll not argue the resolution point. But how can you demand 60fps as standard. And how would you go about locking that down. Drop from 60fps to 30pfs and the engine can throw out more eye candy. Its just a flat out stupid request.

    I wonder the same thing because you can get 1080P and 60FPS on the 360 and PS3 today. Yes they will not look like your 30fps 720p game but then most people only requested the above. The more a developer has the more he will push what they can do with it. So you might get 1080P and 60FPS but it will not look like your 720P 30fps game so you will still have to make the same trade off on what you want.

  • cjb110 #52 1 year ago

    Agreed that the next gen shouldn't be, and probably won't be about the graphics. But I would like to see both Sony's and Microsoft's consoles capable of pumping a nice 1080p image, rather than this sub

  • smelly #53 1 year ago

    I love the fact you've based an entire 2 page article on RUMOURS and SPECULATION as to the power of the new machine - before actually REALLY knowing ANYTHING about it...

  • Kami #54 1 year ago

    Thing is, graphics aren't as important right now. Things are already pretty - and rarely do things run in proper HD anyway. And then there is the middleware - ahh, what can I say about this other than point to the stream of clones, copies and generic shit we've had the past few years.

    Damn right this generation should last a few more years, because if we were to move onto better graphics - this whole generation would in future be seen as one utterly massive cock-up. Nintendo have joined in, surprisingly, at the right time. An HD console just as we remind X-Box and PS3 devs that actually most of us can run true HD now, the screens are cheap and we expect them to make use of that. It will also, for a few years, level out their costs a bit - and hopefully, by encouraging some of them to differentiate, we may see some crackers.

    I don't think the arms race is over - but what is the point pushing tech on like this if it is only going to bankrupt half of the companies out there? THey can't afford to keep chasing up with it. Maybe what we need in this marathon that is technological progress is a pit stop, some orange juice and a catch of breath before we go again. And that goes for all of us on PC as well. We're going to have to accept it's just as bad for people developing for the PC as it is for those developing on consoles.

    This is not a bad thing. It's not a stop - this is where, we'd hope, this generation actually begins.

  • DarthMartious #55 1 year ago

    Although history hasn't been all that kind to console upgrades (mega-cd, 32x), it can't, surely, be beyond the wit of Sony or Microsoft (or some other player) to design a console architecture that can be upgraded, although not perhaps as regularly as pc's.

    More processing grunt is always good, but for me and my gaming tastes unnecessary. A more modular design would let consumers decide what level of experience they want, ensure backwards compatability, increase platform life time without the expense or upheaval of constantly developing completely new hardware.

    /pipedream.
    Edited by DarthMartious at 21/05/11 @ 21:23

  • Pickster #56 1 year ago

    @DrStrangelove

    Easy, because 60fps is a lot better. Not only for the visuals, mainly for controls. I wouldn't wear bear skin as shoes, I wouldn't eat horse shite, and I wouldn't want 30fps. I want my games to be fun, not pain. 30fps is unacceptable, and that's one of the main reasons I gave up on consoles.

    That's just pure elitism.

    Certain games benifit from 60fps. I'm not sating 30fps is a best fit for all. But to say EVERY game would automatically be improved by making the leap to 60fps over extra graphical details/effects is just asinine.

    As for controller response. Because controller polling is not, or atleast doesn't have to be tied to the refresh rate (along with other sub systems like physics) 30fps these days is not the burden it use to be. Also, 60fps is more improtant in a PC compaired to a console because of the input. Specifically I'm talking about the mouse. Having such a direct input method means you feel the 'lag' more than when using a controller.

    Demand 1080p as standard. Demand no tearing. Demand 16xAA. At least those are enforceable by adding hardware features, compiler settings.

    But demanding creative freedom is held back just so an eliete few can have their 60fps in every game is just ... well being a white middle class cunt.

  • NeoTechni #57 1 year ago

    We're likely going to get 3D 1080p 60 fps standard on PS3

    Nintendo, is not likely to even be as powerful as PS3/360
    -they'd have to charge more than a PS3/360 for the hardware, especially given they refuse to sell at a loss
    -development costs would be on par with PS3/360 games, where Nintendo currently spends less than PSP games
    -Nintendo would no longer be able to get away with lazy development/online/etc
    -Wii won (in sales alone) due to its low cost, why would Nintendo sacrifice their winning strategy to be merely like the competitors that lost?

  • miiiguel #58 1 year ago

    The diference between Nintendo and Sony/MS is that the former is a games company, and the later are computer companies. Nintendo DNA is games not Ghz and Frames per Second. Now, they might need to change their ways a bit, but they are indeed diferent. Not judging, not saying they're better or worse.

  • TudeScud #59 1 year ago

    @Bigglesworth "complementary", I believe that's what "also happy with" means.

    Anyways, some good points here all around, people are satisfied with current gen graphics, and yet powerful machines don't just mean graphics upgrades. I think that the next generation would have a hard time topping the 'best' of this generation's graphics, such as "Uncharted", but the average quality of a title like "Crackdown 2", which actually scaled down it's texture quality from "Crackdown 1" for performance trade-offs, could obviously benefit. I do wish overall though, that these performance trade-offs would be taken with greater consistency in the industry. If you can't manage 30 fps and decent controller response -- taper off the graphics a little, I won't mind.

    If there's one technological benefit I haven't heard speculation on, it's getting the response time of controllers and monitors back to a number close to zero. Some optional wired controllers from first-parties like Sony is something I'll open my ears and eyes to.
    Edited by TudeScud at 21/05/11 @ 23:36

  • Daikon #60 1 year ago

    No matter how little or more powerful than 360/PS3 the new Nintendo system is, I'll buy it just for HD Mario, Zelda and Mario Kart. Pilot wings would be nice also.

    In the end it's all about the games.

  • 3william56 #61 1 year ago

    The same thing gets talked about with cameras. Virtually noone needs more than 5 megapixels and both Canon and Nikon have tried to draw a line, but as soon as someone blinks and throws out a cam with a bigger number on the box, reviewers froth, dopey consumers fall for it, and the stupid arms race is back on. Consoles are no different, especially with pixel sads like Digital foundry around

  • arcam #62 1 year ago

    Steam and other services show developers that the majority of their audience are still running 7 year old graphics cards.

    Um, not really: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/v...

    On topic, Rob does point out that he doesn't want to join the people who, every console generation say: "graphics are good enough, lets concentrate on something other than power", but he has.

    My prediction is that this generation will be just like the others: MS and Sony will release powerful hardware, similar to high power PCs, and each will boast about how theirs is faster and better than the other.

    They'll release jaw-dropping screenshots which we'll coo over, and while some will wish things weren't changing so fast, the majority of us will be thankful that consoles keep getting better and better and that graphics are still capable of blowing us away.

    There's a long, long way to go before the hardware arms race is over. Let your grandkids worry about it.
    Edited by arcam at 22/05/11 @ 01:44

  • Collymilad #63 1 year ago

    If they can get close to the samaritan E3 demo I'd be alright with them stopping there.

    No less though.

  • DawnrazorDCLXVI #64 1 year ago

    Nintendo releasing early just means Microsoft and Sony will copy with better tech.

  • Machiavellian #65 1 year ago

    I don't think the arms race is over - but what is the point pushing tech on like this if it is only going to bankrupt half of the companies out there? THey can't afford to keep chasing up with it. Maybe what we need in this marathon that is technological progress is a pit stop, some orange juice and a catch of breath before we go again. And that goes for all of us on PC as well. We're going to have to accept it's just as bad for people developing for the PC as it is for those developing on consoles.

    I believe that Sony and MS understand that throwing together some hardware and letting the developers figure out how to leverage it is over. Really this was a leason that Sony needed to learn and I believe they have learned it. I believe both companies will make sure their next systems are developers friendly because if they do not, their system will suffer. Developers just do not have 3 years to understand a console before they can take advantage of it. Both companies should understand that their new system also needs to have the tools, documentation and libraries that let developers harness the system on the get go. This takes time and proabably a good reason neither Sony or MS want to start the new gen early.

  • traind #66 1 year ago

    This is a well written article with an informed perspective. It is, of course, one perspective only. Much of it I disagree with.

    A few of the missing things which have been pointed out by many: consoles are what is holding pc gaming graphics back. EA may be leading a little bit of a change on this with BF3.

    Nintendo selling consoles with less than cutting edge graphics has little to do with what hardcore gamers want graphically. Nintendo sells boxes because they have a legion of very loyal fans who will always buy the next Mario and Zelda games. And with good reason--though I do not play them myself-- I still realize that Nintendo has, on average, the best first party software developers in the world.

    Microsoft and Sony have some good IP but to compete they need to differentiate from Nintendo. Part of that differentiation strategy will continue to be more power once they launch their next systems. Really, except for the Wii, every other console in history had better graphics as a main selling point. We will see this again with the next consoles from Sony/Microsoft.

    Some gamers claim what they only want is gameplay innovation. Others admit they love graphic advances. Why not have both? I know I'd like to see both. And after seeing BF3 trailers for the PC... who doesn't want the average console game in the next gen to look that good?

    Many AAA developers are ready for more power. They've tapped most of the space in the current boxes and want more RAM, gpu and cpu power etc. Sure, the business guys are worried about cost. But great content properly marketed will always make money. And there are a growing set of spaces for developers to put out less graphically intense games.
    Edited by traind at 22/05/11 @ 05:14

  • SaberEdge #67 1 year ago

    arcam and traind, I couldn't agree more with you guys. There is nothing wrong with wanting better graphics. And it's not just graphics that will benefit from more powerful hardware -- gameplay and interactivity benefits too.

    When I go back and play older games like Tomb Raider or Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 they don't simply have worse graphics, they also have worse controls, gameplay and interactivity. I still love those games, but they are far inferior to what we enjoy today.

    I believe that those who claim that graphics have improved at the expense of gameplay and who imagine that games were so much better "back then" are merely seeing things through the pleasant haze of nostalgia.

    I have been playing games since their inception and I can honestly say that we have never had it better. There is a greater diversity of games today than at any other time in history. We can enjoy everything from quirky indie games to high-production blockbusters like Uncharted 2. I have never had a harder time keeping up with all the quality games that I want to play.

  • Rack #68 1 year ago

    Was this written last year? EVERY PC game released this year requires a stocky graphics card, demented amount of RAM and a quad core, even the simple console ports.

  • Murton #69 1 year ago

    After weeks of having his opinion and speculation derided for being misguided or even wrong, it would appear that Fahey is playing it safe with an article that is almost bereft of any opinion and doesn't really speculate beyond what has already been posted in other publications.

    A well written piece, if a little boring. I don't think Project Cafe whatever it turns out to be is going to be a game changer though and I don't think Sony and MS are really going to let it affect their next generation plans. It has been speculated by pretty much everyone, including regular commentors on EG that the next gen for Sony and MS will not be much different to this gen, more memory, faster processors, beefier GPU, enough to allow 1080p at 60 frames and full 3D capability. They don't need anything more than that, we certainly won't see a major shift in design/architecture that much is certain. And that decision is largely due to economics and third party pressure from devs/pubs and certainly nothing to do with Nintendo reaping superior profits by sticking to old tech, look at executive statements from all three and the one thing that everyone agrees on is that Nintendo is no longer a competitor, they created their own sub-market with the Wii and Project Cafe is merely an extension of that strategy, the arms race will continue.

    The couple of paragraphs on PC were interesting and while its true that the PC is still improving in terms of technical performance it must be said that most developers aren't keeping pace with those developments as they port their console development to the PC rather than create PC games from scratch. It should also be noted that the PC@ tech progress is also slowing. Throughout the 90s and early 0's we saw a number of architectural changes which brought huge leaps in innovation and performance, we're not seeing that anymore, merely faster/smaller/cheaper/more efficient versions of what we already have and if this trend continues then even the PC* will stagnate in terms of technical progress.

    *disclaimer: I'm talking specifically about the home PC here, there are of course major steps being taken in Power PCs and supercomputers, but these are another matter. Eventually these innovations will make their way into home and gaming PCs, but in the here and now, things are slowing.

  • braydee89 #70 1 year ago

    Really good read. The most important areas of improvement for me are A.I and mo-cap. Games like L.A Noire show that it's possible to provide the illusion of reality through movement instead of textures and polygons.

  • Inmediasress #71 1 year ago

    @DarthMartious

    That's all nice and well but you know PC says hello, when you start upgrading your console what's to differentiate it from a PC???
    Also say hello to the same problems that the PC faces namely compatibility issues and of course say hello to the console kidies who always argue that consoles are cheap you don't have to upgrade them and anyway I don't know shit about upgrading I'm too lazy to do that( there's a whole bunch of them out there not that I'm hating on every console user just the idiots).

  • Otis_Inf #72 1 year ago

    Clearly, the author isn't a developer: he thinks that stuff on current gen HD consoles can be re-used aplenty on Project Cafe, 'because it will use off-the shelve hardware'. Yet, developers have had a big struggle to get equal quality across 360 and PS3 for the past years. That doesn't add up: new hardware from Nintendo will require a learning curve and porting code over: new hardware in a console has weaknesses and strong points and you only learn them by experience, so this takes time. You can't learn from what's already there in competing consoles, unless they have the same CPU's, bus speeds, DMA scheduling and memory speed.

    All in all a painful read.

  • Lunatic4ever #73 1 year ago

    Though Nintendo has a certain fanbase and many casual gamers were attracted to Wii in terms of "lets play a few minutes" the Wii is just not a console I can take seriously. Yes, there are a few very good games but other than its image is just too...casual.
    We've seen it all now. Controller swinging and dancing and using it as a wheel.Okay. Using a screen on your controller is just the kind of thing that sounds like a selling point to me. Furthermore its very hard to sell a console while saying " in terms of graphics there is basically no development BUT HEY its going to be a new way of playing games"
    Because thats what they are going to say,right? Well, I'm really satisfied with what the PS3/360 offered in terms of games and for the next generation I don't need incredible Innovations. Just give them consoles more power and enable developers to realize the games they have in mind.

  • panathatube #74 1 year ago

    Well in games immersion is significant in my book. Great graphics does not mean great game, but it really helps a lot in immersing the gamer in the story! I mean, look at Witcher 2, Assasins Creed 2, the upcoming Skyrim or Shogun 2 Total War. The graphics really DO help. I am playing Witcher 2 right now and the gameplay is great. And yet i cant' stop thinking that without these jaw dropping graphics the experience wouldn't be the same. The games' world is lavish, and incredible to behold. Yeah, its trend right now to scorn at graphics power (especially by console users for obvious reasons), but i am a gamer/ consumer and i want great gameplay and great story line and great graphics as well. I am paying my hard earned euros and i want it all period.
    PS. Graphics and physics actually change the way a gamer plays. For example large scale gameplay can not work in consoles. Open ended games which give player immense freedom require a lot of computing power.

  • bivith #75 1 year ago

    Graphics can get better without budgets getting bigger. Assets are already often created in far higher quality than the consoles are capable of rendering, and scaled down for the target platform.

  • Mr.Spo #76 1 year ago

    It tends to be that Nintendo's new hardware is dictated by what new things they can do with cheap, available technology. I wouldn't be surprised if the new system is a small chunk more powerful than the current HD machines, but I believe that processing power will be pushed into streaming games to this new controller--Nintendo have said they consider all forms of entertainment as competition to videogames, and the big disadvantage home consoles have right now is that if they are attached to the living room television, they have to compete with all the other functions the television is used for.

    If you can seamlessly stream the home console content to the controller (having the console do all of the hard work, the controller is just a display/interface unit), then the console becomes a gaming and entertainment hub that can be used regardless of what is on the tv. This fits in with Nintendo's family friendly approach--the husband can play Zelda as the wife watches a soap, the kids can play Mario Kart on their controllers as the parents watch a film, and users can switch back to using the tv as a display when no-one else is using the television. And that sets aside the possible uses of this controller in tandem with a television to replicate the advantages of the DS display. It might not sound like a particularly amazing or desirable innovation to the current market, but did Wii or DS sound like innovations we needed? Does 3DS streetpass and spotpass seem like innovations we need? I don't think they do, but in the long run I think they will prove to be the genuinely compelling features of Nintendo's systems.

    As for Microsoft and Sony--I agree with the assertion that a new hardware generation within the next few years is undesirable to both companies. Sony in particular have invested massive amounts in the PS3, and though I always viewed their "ten year plan" as a PR gimmick, the simple fact is the PS3 took far longer to get going than Sony would have liked, and they had to cut price (delaying profitability) earlier than they would have liked. As for Microsoft, their investment in Kinect, as well as the RRD fiasco has made this generation far more costly than they would have liked. They might be able to find the raw funds for a new machine that will launch in 2013, but how desirable is this when they are squeezed on both sides by Apple and Google? The question isn't whether or not these companies can afford new machines, but whether or not they can justify those costs?

    I don't think they can. I agree that the new MS/Sony machines will be more incremental upgrades in terms of processing power, and by extension, development costs. But that isn't a bad thing--hopefully it will encourage the kind of out of the box thinking that has resulted in the Wii, DS and Kinect. Hopefully this will encourage not just control innovations, but OS innovations in games consoles, online services innovations, new ways of delivering content and new hierarchies of content. The danger (as Wii's software market has displayed) is that these low development costs will encourage shovelware, mountains of which can wreck the market for third party software. But that's a risk I think we'll have to take, and we'll have to trust to the quality of developers to deliver new, compelling experiences that justify the continuing existence of 'traditional' games devices. I think that was the misunderstood message of Iwata's keynote at GDC this year--we shouldn't fear new ways of playing games, or new business models, but we need to accomodate these new models while also seeking to remind the wider market why evolving our old way of doing things, of having a games dedicated box with secondary functions, of buying £40 blockbuster titles from retail, is still a valid and compelling way of developing and playing games.

  • oi #77 1 year ago

    "the upgrade cycle appears to have slowed considerably - with games that actually demand cutting-edge systems being few and far between"

    bob should read that ^

  • P1GEONPOO #78 1 year ago

    it saddens me that 90 million people are playing fitness and mini games

  • GamerG #79 1 year ago

    A future Xbox with back compat and capable of 1080p 60fps and i'll be happy especially if they let me download all my XBLA games, the console's should be able to do that with ease and be relatively cheap seeings a PC that can do that wouldn't cost much these days.

  • thedriffter50 #80 1 year ago

    I know its cliché but I really think graphics are overrated. As long as the gameplay is good then to be honest I could be playing a PS1 game for all I care as long as its fun to play.

    If you want graphics and you own a console then you own the wrong system. You should get a PC then you can have all the graphics you want.

  • phil_75 #81 1 year ago

    console can do 60fps its just that devs push em with effects to make it look better and then have to halve the frame rate.

    Will be no different next gen!

  • CaptainJelly #82 1 year ago

    Brilliant article which I hope comes to pass. Increasing dev costs will cruel the industry, kill small / indie devs and ultimately deprive gamers of groundbreaking and original product.

  • theonlyix #83 1 year ago

    Project Cafe will be a portable touchscreen console with hdmi port... hence you will play on the touchscreen or its buttons.
    Then you can take it with you and play on the go aswell. Mark my words!


  • McShifty #84 1 year ago

    Nintendo's ever changing control schemes really do grate with me. I do believe that new hardware should be sold on it's content, not the physical object you have to control it with. I hope Sony and Mircrosoft continue evolving and refining their respective controllers once they realise motion/gimmick controls are just a fad.

  • kinth #85 1 year ago

    the reason pc advantage is slowing is due to games being built primarily for consoles then being shoddily ported over to PC.

    look at witcher 2 while it may be a it buggy (every major massive RPG is and its nowhere near the mess that fallout 3 or NV was)
    its graphically stunning on a machine that can run it on full and years ahead of consoles. i can run it on allmost full spec on a pc that cost me about £400 about 3 years ago, which is cheaper than a ps3 when it first released and does a whole lot more than a ps3 does.

    this problem is from 3 major parts,
    the skyrocekting development costs for new engines to utilize this tech.
    the massive base of people on consoles.
    the redicoulously high pracing of games.

    gaming used to be a fairly cheap hobby you would buy a pc or console and then games would be fairly cheap.
    but now games cost a small fortune and i dont believe its nessecary, yes development costs have risen but cheaper games will undoubtedly sell more copies. i bet if cod black ops was £20 alot more people would have bought it, while they may or may not have made the day one profits they did at £40 they would make money back from alot more people buying DLC.
    alot of games dont have demos so your expected to pour blind faith into buying a product.
    this is leading to piracy being bigger than it has ever been on both consoles and PC, piracy has always been about but it used to be alot less prevelent, atm people who woud like to buy games are going the pirating way because they can't afford too and you may say oh well tough luck if they cant affordd it etc but that isn't going to stop them doing it.

    £40 for about 8 hours entertainment is alot of money.
    and you no longer get the whole game for that price, things like day one DLC that should of been in the game to start with, or having to pick a certain bit of content by buying it from a certain store.

    cod dlc price has risen(used to be free on pc, but even since mw2 the price has gone up again.) and anyone who plays it on PC will know its become a whole lot more restrictive, you used to be able to have custom maps, but your no longer alowed that. because god forbid the community might develop better maps than treyarch and IW do.

    its not only that either, dlc like map packs is almost intetgral to enjoyment of the game online. like halo 3 dlc that if you didnt have it restricted you down to about 2 playlists which few people played.
    and to make things worse they are trying to kill off the used game markets with these silly online pass things.

    we are in recession and people cant afford to keep pouring extortionate amount of money into games.
    pirates of the caribbean 3 (according to wikipedia is the most expensive film ever made) cost $300m to make yet i could go see it in cinemas for about £5 or own it a few months later for about £12

    modern warfare 2 reportedly cost $200m including all its marketing budget etc
    yet i have to pay £40 for it. that makes no sense to me. you can say its because you get more content or you get online, but i can enjoy watching that film oer and over again jus tlike i can run around the same map shooting people over and over again.
    these companies have more money than sense.

    the gaming market is backwards, look at beta testing. games companies act like its a privelege for us to do free testing for them :S

    with their own greed the videogame companies will kill their own market, actually they already have started to kill their own market.

    doomsday scenario: next gen wii, xbox, and PS will cost too much for average consumers too afford(the ps3 nearly already fell victim to that one) games prices will go up again most people will stop buying( alot of people are already unhappy about the current cost of games) and it will result in a market crash.

    market growth has already slowed a fair bit and people are getting sick of playing the same old game with a new skin, hence the recent boom in the indie market.
    minecraft being a brilliant example. a game built by one man, sold it cheap, people dint think twice about spending £5 on a game, made him a millionaire. the best bit the game isnt even out of Beta yet and i believe he had sold a million copies before it was even out of alpha.

    the xbox and ps3 will compete for graphical superiority. wether people will care depends on pricing.

    Consoles promote the wrong sort of competition. since its the consumer who gets the worse end of it. such as shoddy ports, console exclusives that we cant play (and lets face it its not like most people are going to buy the other console just to play it so in the end it only hurts the development studio's profits), fanboys.
    it was better when there was only one major console like when playstation 1 was about. all studios worked on the same hardware and came up with some amazing games that everyone could enjoy.

    /end rant. because i could go on for bloody days :p

  • Creasy #86 1 year ago

    "While I'm agreeing with most that has been written, the whole article is based on the assumption that Project Cafe is only slightly better graphically than the 360 and the PS3.
    I'm not convinced that's true."
    Me neither, I highly doubt it will be even as strong as 360/PS3

  • AaronTurner #87 1 year ago

    I don't understand how anyone can claim there has been a lack of gameplay innovation this generation. To me almost every game seems to be innovative in many different ways, persistant online rank systems, perks, parkour, iron sights, conversation systems, rewind in racing games, portals etc. Not to mention a large leap in the quality of story telling, graphics and immersion. Then you come to playtesting, most games these days are playtested to perfection, 5 years ago hideous difficulty spikes were around every corner, annoying control systems annoyed and many things just seemed counter intuitive.

  • kinth #88 1 year ago

    @AaronTurner

    most of those things have been around for years and years

    persistant online ranking system been in tons of games before current gen.
    Iron sights in tons of games before currentgen.
    conversation systems, if you think mass effect is deep go and play the original fallouts or planescape: torment.
    only leap ive seen in story telling is more shoddy cutscenes and more voicing.

    "most games are playtested to perfection" have you played any games this gen? its very rare that i find one that is not full of bugs and exploits.

    parkour has been in 2 games series assassins creed and mirrors edge. brink does not count becaus eit doens't work half the time.

    there has been very little in innovation since this gen started about 6 years ago.
    companies are churning out the same game with a new skin year after year, cod is a great example of this.
    as is assassins creed.

    yet look at the indie market were we have had games like, Braud and minecraft.

  • Quixz #89 1 year ago

    I just want a console with a normal controller from Nintendo or the choice to play all the games with a normalish controller that's all.. :S

  • ScepticMatt #90 1 year ago

    I disagree with this article. We are not at the end. Battlefield 3 and Witcher 2 have shown that people are still impressed with shiny new graphics. Dynamic lighting, wide open vistas that you can actually explore, detailed physics and animation still play a huge part in immersion. The rise of 'corridors' and 'action bubbles' has shown that consoles are limited.

    But I can see one consequence of this. The lack of new console hardware has lead to quite a few developers shifting their focus back on PC. PC Game sales are higher then ever before. And due to the prevalence of digital distribution, margins are very high and the used game market weak.
    Edited by ScepticMatt at 23/05/11 @ 19:58