Looks like that three year old graphics card can last another three years.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6309320.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;2
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6309320.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;2
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
New consoles in 2014
- Thread starter hajalie24
- Start date
Well seems like Nintendo will be first to market in late 2012 and then Sony and Microsoft in 2014?
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
they say 2014, but i think nintendo's launch in 2012 will force their hand to release earlier in 2013 like it suggests in the article. unless nintendo's next console doesn't sell so hot, then perhaps it will be 2014. but yeah, at least another couple of years before the next level in graphics when the ps4/ xbox720 arrive.
why??
the new wii will be just as powerful as the Xbox and ps3.nintendo
and why do people insist on calling i the 720. whats wrong with xbox 3
nerdydesi
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,093
Ugh. 
What can we blame for this unusually long console cycle? The recent economic recession? That gamers in the past bought only games but now buy DLC, accessories like guitars and drums for Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc. so they have less money to spend on new consoles?
What?
What can we blame for this unusually long console cycle? The recent economic recession? That gamers in the past bought only games but now buy DLC, accessories like guitars and drums for Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc. so they have less money to spend on new consoles?
What?
Ugh.
What can we blame for this unusually long console cycle? The recent economic recession? That gamers in the past bought only games but now buy DLC, accessories like guitars and drums for Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc. so they have less money to spend on new consoles?
What?
That companies aren't looking to sink another few hundred million into losing money on hardware now that they are finally making a profit off the hardware?
Ugh.
What can we blame for this unusually long console cycle? The recent economic recession? That gamers in the past bought only games but now buy DLC, accessories like guitars and drums for Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc. so they have less money to spend on new consoles?
What?
It's more around the line of technology isn't increasing as rapidly, whereas game development expenses are. It's why there are always tons of threads from people who state that the XBox/PS3 look just as good as the PC version. Even if it's not true, the difference between CoD on your XBox running @ 640p vs a PC running @ 1080p with higher textures, etc., isn't as much of a difference as the NES to the SNES, or the SNES to the PSX, etc. Why spend money developing hardware where most people won't immediately recognize a difference?
That's never going to happen.
I'm a professional software developer. My salary is pretty high. I also work with a team, who all have a pretty high salary.
Now, you through in artists, writers, musicians, level designers, etc., and you're talking millions of dollars in one year based on salary alone. Let's not even get into if you hire any professional talent, who charge a pretty penny for their work.
People have this misconception that games are expensive to purchase. You spend what, maybe $60 on a brand new game? When you think of expensive software, maybe you're thinking of 3ds Max or Photoshop, which run at $3000 and $700 MSRP respectively. That's nothing though honestly. Some software I've used in the past runs at over $75k per license (that's $75,000 per person).
Unless you're willing to take several steps backwards in terms of technology, price will only increase over time.
pandora's box
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,847
yup pretty much the graphics wouldnt be that much better if they were to release a new console now. sure the games might be rendered at 1080p and have some/more aa applied but thats pretty much the extent of it as far as what the general populace would notice
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
I think so it wont seem less than the playstation.
With the PS3/xbox 360 if it had been xbox 2, 2 is less than 3, so it might appear to some people less advanced as it was the second stage vs the third stage. The bigger the number the better the product seems, especially in technology. So thats why they went with the 360 i'm assuming, so it was also a "3".
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
You ignore the fact that the cost of photoshop/max is vastly bloated to make it have more "value". They inflate the cost massively to make it appear like its high tech cutting edge stuff. If I gave you a $100 axe and a $100000 axe, which would you think was the more advanced, and would be the "better"? People like expensive things. Do you really think them selling photoshop at $600 would be at a $100 loss? Simple proof of this bloat is similar software which can be had for fractions of the cost yet is of an identical quality. eg. PSP.
Games companies can makes games for much much less than the "$60m, $100m" pricetags they wave around. How much of that goes directly to quality content? How much is "expenses" and other fluff. Software companies have 100s of people working on titles, but its not like theres 100 programmers, or 100 model artists. Look at what "indie" game producers can do with 10 or less people.
scaarbelly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2008
- Messages
- 4,462
Are we talking about consoles or Apple here?
somewhere between 2011 and 2015 sounds about right.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
as far as names, i'm just going with what ppl have been calling it - xbox 3 wouldn't make sense as the current system is called 360 already, which might confuse ppl; also, same reason ms didn't go with xbox 2 when they named the 360 - to have perceived parity in the eyes of the consumer along with the playstation 3 (xbox 2 < ps3 while xbox 360 = ps3). so xbox 3 < ps4 as the scenario would go.
[edit: sorry deathprincess, didn't see your post till now]
well if the next nintendo console sells like hotcakes for whatever reason, that will eat into sales of current ms/ sony consoles, meaning they would want to release new flashy consoles asap to gain back consumer mindshare. that's not to say that it won't go to 2014 for them to milk the current consoles as long as possible, but the next nintendo system could play a large role in determining whether ms and sony release in 2013 vs. 2014.
and i don't think nintendo will call the next system wii 2 or wii hd but something else entirely.
Well, as long as people keep saying it's never going to happen, then it's never going to happen.
If the next gen comes too soon without some way for developers to make games and not go bankrupt (if it doesn't sell half a million copies), then game variety, quality, and substance is going to dramatically decrease in the next console iteration.
Of course it's not a big deal if people don't mind Call of Duty 11, Halo 13, Uncharted 6, Killzone 22, and GTA 97.
Andrew_Carr
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,787
So what you're saying is the next gen Xbox will be the 420? I'm hoping for something interesting from Nintendo though. Hopefully nice graphics and a few new interesting features (kb + mouse at a minimum ffs)
BrunoPuntzJones
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,337
Back that up. If you think you can find equivalent software with the same amount of support and fidelity as what studios use, I'd be all ears.
Sure, where I am we could use some $50 off the shelf software, but it would be miserable and counter-productive. So we spend $10k a person for licenses and have full support and integration across every piece of software. If there is a problem, I don't have to go hunting down some message board and wade through trivial postings, I just call support, or the engineers directly.
Also, a lot of the cost of games is advertising. Artwork is eating up development costs. People demand "real" graphics and is a huge time and money sink. People are graphic whores.
In the xbox 360 filing by MS when it launched, they expected the life cycle of the console to last ten years (for the PS3 as well) and nothing would be launched before 2015. I'm sure that could change, but was what their public filing said.
I'm going to say it will be called the Xbox Next, or Nextbox.
It's not just about art, the one things current consoles lack bigtime is RAM, I mean if they just released a triple core power pc at 3Ghz with 2GB of ram and a DX11 based video card with 512MB or more memory it would be a significant upgrade over today's consoles with memory intensive games.
video game developers are way over payed. yall don't make anything amazing, just same old same old garbage. i wish we would get a video game industry crash and layoff tons of developers. $60 is way too much in most cases buddy.
the industry needs to put a $30,000/year cap on your pay and work twice the hours. thats about what yall do is worth.
Me too to all of that, and I still think games are expensive. They're expensive if you, like most here, want to play A LOT OF GAMES. As in, all the major releases plus a good number of PSN/XBL/indie titles. We're talking 20+ games/year.
Yes, the AAA titles cost a shitload of money to develop (of which I think I can safely claim, the retail-tools budget is a minuscule part), but there's also a huge market with basically zero cost per item once you're done.
That said, fortunately, with a few exceptions, games are only $60 for a short time, and I have no problem being "behind the curve" for most titles. I just got my copy of "Enslaved" today, paid what, $18 for it or something. In fact, my goal is to increase my lag somewhat. I'm still waiting to dig into to Fallout:NV. I think a version with all the DLC is just around the corner. This is why I really don't bitch about prices. If they need to take $60 from early adopters, go ahead. As long as I can be part of a long tail that's just fine by me. I'll get in early from time to time on that one game, the rest will go in under $40.
Also, there are so many titles and so little time, that titles that 'never' fall in price, like the CoDs which seems to pretty much only go down in price when the next in the series is out, never gets bought at all by me.
Last edited:
Clearly prices don't only go up. Music has gotten cheaper. Home movies have gotten cheaper (side note: theater movies have gotten more expensive and that industry is in tatters. Higher prices don't necessarily mean more profit, or any profit.)
Industry wonks can drag out the old chestnut of $80 SNES carts until their faces go Mode 7. The business reality for the games industry is that the growth segments are focused on cheap games. For every dinosaur publisher raking in profits using the $60 fits all model there's 10 garage developers getting fat selling $2 apps. And don't forget the dinosaurs that have been getting thrashed quarter after quarter chasing those blockbuster numbers.
That doesn't mean $2 garbage iPhone games are the future. It also doesn't mean the AAA $60 (or $70, $80, whatever) game is dead. What it probably does mean is that if your business model is rigidly locked into multimillion dollar development, multimillion dollar ad campaigns and premium pricing at Best Buy in time for the Holidays, you might be in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later.
Industry wonks can drag out the old chestnut of $80 SNES carts until their faces go Mode 7. The business reality for the games industry is that the growth segments are focused on cheap games. For every dinosaur publisher raking in profits using the $60 fits all model there's 10 garage developers getting fat selling $2 apps. And don't forget the dinosaurs that have been getting thrashed quarter after quarter chasing those blockbuster numbers.
That doesn't mean $2 garbage iPhone games are the future. It also doesn't mean the AAA $60 (or $70, $80, whatever) game is dead. What it probably does mean is that if your business model is rigidly locked into multimillion dollar development, multimillion dollar ad campaigns and premium pricing at Best Buy in time for the Holidays, you might be in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
I'm fairly certain that the next Nintendo console will be more powerful. The PS3 and 360 are dinosaurs now, and even low end graphics cards are superior. So it wouldn't even be expensive for the next Nintendo to significantly our perform them.
TheGreySpectre
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 439
haha. hahaha. hahahahahahahahahahaha.
Good luck not playing video games then. If you cap the salary at less then 50% of a software engineer starting salary you will get no one to come to your company. Not to mention the fact that $30k is not even up to par for average household income.
/yeah yeah yeah don't feed the trolls...still
The 360 console really isn't in that bad of shape. I think Microsoft could do themselves a favor to upgrade their hardware so that it can continue to compete for the next few years with some minor changes that would not take a lot of development/testing training and increased cost.
Here is a short list of what they could do on the cheap to really knock anything new from Nintendo out of the water, and make the PS3 feel like it needs to stay out of the passing lane.
So what did we get out of it? 2x the performance(at least), backward compatibility and limited risk by not using new technology, and the developers already have a known development environment and current work can easily ported to the new console.
Here is a short list of what they could do on the cheap to really knock anything new from Nintendo out of the water, and make the PS3 feel like it needs to stay out of the passing lane.
- Add more memory, everyone knows this is a given. (I hope whoever made the decision to include 512mb of memory over 256mb got a big bonus)
- Add a 2nd Tri-core processor, most of the games are threaded anyway, would still be able to play original xbox360 games (and xbox)
- Upgrade graphics processor, games should be capable of 1080p @120hz so 3D is possible at full resolution/speed, why not make these GGPU's as well so we can use them for things besides display if we wanted, also up the graphics memory while we are here
- If you really want to get Sony's goat add a couple cell cores for physics/ai/streaming calculations not to mention real time trans-coding etc. Microsoft basically used the work on the Core processor to help create their current processor so why not again?
- Required Hard drive - and let us buy a replacement and stop trying to nickel and dime us
- Blu-Ray - you know you need it and you have to have a disk player to play those old games anyway
So what did we get out of it? 2x the performance(at least), backward compatibility and limited risk by not using new technology, and the developers already have a known development environment and current work can easily ported to the new console.
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,101
They went with 360 to symbolize "a complete experience around the player" or something like that. This is probably PR speak for what you've just said: consumers like bigger numbers.
so what about the new games that would have these requirements being playable on the existing consoles?
people with a 360 now would have to replace their console; what's the point of "upgrading" to the same console with slightly different specs?
Tigerblade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,423
This.
Name a console upgrade that has been successful, some would argue that's one of the main reasons Sega is now software only.....and you'd still have to cater for 'slower' consoles as well as the faster ones.
Is anyone willing to bet that the next Xbox or Playstation iterations launch with out any sort of optical drive? I feel like with the rise of Steam, and the popularity of digital only media, one of them will be willing to take the plunge into digital distribution only. Unless anyone hasn't noticed, it seems like Gamestop has been preparing for the transition into a world without tangible copies of games. I feel like if anyone is going to take the step, it has to be microsoft, sony has too much invested in blu-ray to not support it. Would it be more cost effective for them to supply users with 500gb or 1TB hard drives and not have any sort of bay for disc?
Tigerblade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,423
No chance until the world's internet structure is like Japan, until then do you think ppl with 2Gb bandwith caps will be happy about downloading the latest 25Gb game at less than 8mb broadband speed?
Optical drives are hear to stay for at least another gen IMO.
Optical drives are hear to stay for at least another gen IMO.
Last edited:
pandora's box
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,847
I dont see it happening any time soon. Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth. Also game sizes are getting larger and larger.
I think if they did do it they would need to allow the end user to use additional hard drives alongside the one provided with the console AND allow us to upgrade the hard drive included in the console (and it better not be a proprietary one either)
Mr. Bluntman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,101
At any rate a 2014 relase is fine by me since I just bought two 360s. One last September and another in February. I'd rather invest in more games and possibly Nintendo's new system since I haven't had one since the Gamecube.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,002
Lol,go make some aaa games and get back to us on that. Have fun!
They called the XBOX 360 the XBOX 2 for a long time until the actual name was announced.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,627
wrong thread
Last edited:
But it is just entertainment software and not mission critical software. A top-tier game cost no more to produce than the average AAA movie, probably less. Why should we pay $60.00 for a game when a movie that costs the same or more to produce I can buy for $20.00 to $30.00?
I do pay $60.00 for some games if I really want it (rarely) but go over that amount and you will just lose money due to loss of customers and not make more money as you seem to think. BlueRay is selling poorly because it is overpriced compared to a DVD version and not because we don't want to buy BD.
The answer is simply economies of scale.
A blockbuster game sells 8 million copies
A blockbuster movie sells:
200 million tickets
10 million dvds
+ network rights
+ merchandising
+ other rights associated with the movie
Well, I work on economy of perceived value so like I said, go over that $60.00 mark and you will lose money and not make more. But, because as I am in Canada your $60.00 mark is actually $69.00 here, even though the CAD is worth more than the USD now. Goddamn thieves. I pass up console games all the time because they are $69.99 instead of the $59.99 price I would be willing to pay and I doubt I am the only one. When I can get all kinds of good PC games for $49.99 or less why would I pay $69.99 for a console game? I wouldn't.
To those devs sitting pretty on high salaries, make the most of it while it lasts. If you're not already outsourcing to places like India and China, you soon will be. And for all the horror stories of outsourcing being less cost-effective in the long run, you'll eventually discover that the work you think you're uniquely equipped to perform can in fact be done for a fraction of the cost by someone in the East. They're not idiots over there, nor are they necessarily poorly-trained. Just keep a handful of Westerners around for design, direction and quality control.
So go ahead and sit in your ivory tower on your comfy Aeron and continue to believe you're special, but games absolutely could be made for less, and the more the industry becomes consumed by the big corporate publishers, the more incentive there is to make it happen.
So go ahead and sit in your ivory tower on your comfy Aeron and continue to believe you're special, but games absolutely could be made for less, and the more the industry becomes consumed by the big corporate publishers, the more incentive there is to make it happen.
A bit misleading as merchandising and other rights certainly fall under videogames as well.