Next Gen Consoles- Too Early?

C

CreganTur

Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
882
The X-Box 360 hype has decreased some now that the holiday madness is over, and has been for some time. PS3 Hype is still strong as well. The fact that these systems are here makes me think: do we need them?

There's no question in my mind that it is time for a new Playstation. The PS2 is years older than the X-Box, and has trouble handling newer games (some may disagree, but Lego: Star Wars loads in seconds on my X-box, and minutes on some PS2s).

However, the X-Box still seems to have some untapped potential, or so it seems.

So, here's the question: Is it too early for these sytems to be coming out? Do they really bring enough big technological advancements to the table, which justify their existence?

Just curious.
 
I dont think its too early. Its been a while since the ps2 and xbox have come out.

I think the only thing holding back any new console is how good the games are. I'm becoming less and less interested in how the graphics are and more and more interested in innovation.
 
It's too early for Microsoft, that's for sure. They're pushing console cycles from 5-6 years, to 3-4 years, and that's a shame. They are setting the pace to slowly equal PC upgrade cycles, and I bet they are happy about it. I, for one, buy consoles for them to last at least 5 years. Plus the PS3 and X360 has really lengthened game-developing times... as you can see by the X360 launch, there should have been more time between consoles.
 
Hell no they aren't too early. Both the xbox and ps2 sucked for those of us with HD television. I thouroughly enjoy my 360 and if Sony quite's screwin I'll enjoy that one two. The 360 is getting a bumb rap due to launch titles but I'm liking it now. Fight night the Demo is awesome. I cannot wait until it's released.
 
the ''next generation'' of console is just a mere upgrade of the actual console . I do not wish to pay three time the price of an actual console to get the same games for just better visuals... can you guys work harder and bring us NEW stuff...

thats why im waiting for the revolution . Nintendo next console will start the next generation of console... xbox 360 is just the same old same old... but thats a MS problem...
 
steviep said:
It's too early for Microsoft, that's for sure. They're pushing console cycles from 5-6 years, to 3-4 years, and that's a shame. They are setting the pace to slowly equal PC upgrade cycles, and I bet they are happy about it. I, for one, buy consoles for them to last at least 5 years. Plus the PS3 and X360 has really lengthened game-developing times... as you can see by the X360 launch, there should have been more time between consoles.
Click to expand...
i like consoles every 3-4 years and i see it as a beniefet........why should i play something equive to N64 graphics when pc has UT99
 
arr4ws said:
the ''next generation'' of console is just a mere upgrade of the actual console . I do not wish to pay three time the price of an actual console to get the same games for just better visuals... can you guys work harder and bring us NEW stuff...

thats why im waiting for the revolution . Nintendo next console will start the next generation of console... xbox 360 is just the same old same old... but thats a MS problem...
Click to expand...


DFR!

People think nintendo is the underdog - but to me they are the ones that innovate and create, they bring you NEW content, not the same old recycled crap!
 
i'd also have to agree with the idea of better gameplay, not just the same game but prettier.

haha if you think about it, its just like life. a hot chick with a so so personality is nice for a while. but after, you would really prefer an avrg chick w/ a great personality
 
Ya, like the NEW mario, the NEW mario cart, the NEW mario party, the NEW zelda, you get the point. Nintendo's biggest games originated 20 years or so ago.
 
i have had more fun on my n64 than any other system...too bad i bought a ps2 :\.
 
Focker said:
Ya, like the NEW mario, the NEW mario cart, the NEW mario party, the NEW zelda, you get the point. Nintendo's biggest games originated 20 years or so ago.
Click to expand...

Pikachu would disagree with you...so would Animal Crossing...and Nintendogs...and so on...
 
steviep said:
It's too early for Microsoft, that's for sure. They're pushing console cycles from 5-6 years, to 3-4 years, and that's a shame. They are setting the pace to slowly equal PC upgrade cycles, and I bet they are happy about it. I, for one, buy consoles for them to last at least 5 years. Plus the PS3 and X360 has really lengthened game-developing times... as you can see by the X360 launch, there should have been more time between consoles.
Click to expand...

...funny how you can say this, considering they've only done it once. It's asinine to even attempt to make such a determination when you only have one follow-up system to use as a basis of an argument.

Also, the tripe about extending developing times is bullshit as well. Mind posting sources? Last I checked, this kind of delay happens after every launch (Including your beloved Gamecube).
 
I dont really think its too early, the 1st system of this generation of consoles (dreamcast) came out in 98', and the most dominate one came out in 2000, so its been plenty of time as far as the entire generation is concerned, however the distance between xbox and xbox360 does seem a bit short.
 
I think there is too much of a grey area for "too early". Have the limits of the current consoles been pushed? I don't think so. However, new consoles being out now means developers will try to go farther in the next year than they would have if the current consoles stuck around.
 
ZX6Master said:
...no. It came out in the United States on 9/9/99.
Click to expand...

You're right, it came out in Japan on November 27, 1998, 34 days before 1999. :rolleyes:
 
Gnu314 said:
You're right, it came out in Japan on November 27, 1998, 34 days before 1999. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



there is a difference b/w 9/9/99 and 99, as you said above


regardless, I agree with everyone else who said Nintendo is initiating the next gen. However, we are then looking at two different generations of video game consoles.

The first - Raw fucking power. Play the games the same - cause it works, but get great graphics.

The second - Innovation. The day of playing the games the same is over - cause its been the same for the past thirty years, lets have some fun!
 
It amazes me that people you the argument of 'rehashes' or 'same thing, better graphics' to describe MS and Sony offerings....but then laud over Nintendo for originality. Cause Nintendo isn't known for making sequel after sequel right?

Say what you will about MS and Sony, but Nintendo brings you the same games, with slightly better graphics (cause if you stick to 480p [like Nintendo is doing] then you aren't much better than the gamecube) and a new controller. A controller that will most likely force you to use the shell for a majority of games.

No, next-gen is not too early. In fact it is a year late.
 
steviep said:
It's too early for Microsoft, that's for sure. They're pushing console cycles from 5-6 years, to 3-4 years, and that's a shame. They are setting the pace to slowly equal PC upgrade cycles, and I bet they are happy about it. I, for one, buy consoles for them to last at least 5 years. Plus the PS3 and X360 has really lengthened game-developing times... as you can see by the X360 launch, there should have been more time between consoles.
Click to expand...

Believe me the last thing on Microsofts mind has been "Gee lets convert the video game industry from 6 year cycles to 4 year cycles...BRILLIANT!"

The move to bring out the 360 when they did was solely to try and gain marketshare and bite into Sony where it hurt. They are not stupid, and knew that with the consoles being so close in graphical prowess that Sony would win heads up based upon brand loyalty alone. They wanted the headstart at all costs, and they got it.

Also there is nothing known about whether the development cycles are lengthened at all. There are great development tools for the 360. In fact some of the games were probably put together in less than a year. Didn't God of War take 3 years to make? That would seem like the 360 has a much lower development cycle. In all fairness I wouldnt be surprised if the development cycle on average was a tad larger, but only because there is much more you can do with the system to make larger game environments, not because it is miles more difficult to make a game for it. I believe that in the next year the compilers for PS3 and 360 will be very good at making efficient use of the consoles respective architectures.
 
Gnu314 said:
You're right, it came out in Japan on November 27, 1998, 34 days before 1999. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

November 27, 1998 is significantly earlier than September 9, 1999. Thank you.

Erasmus said:
Believe me the last thing on Microsofts mind has been "Gee lets convert the video game industry from 6 year cycles to 4 year cycles...BRILLIANT!"
Click to expand...

No kidding...the last thing they want is to release new hardware. If they could get away with it, they wouldn't upgrade at all; releasing new consoles costs billions in R&D and they lose millions on manufacturing. The losses are usually quelled at the end of the console's shelf life, so why would they be in a rush to release new, more expensive hardware?
 
It is well known industry wide that development cycles have lengthened greatly, and on top of that dev costs have BALOONED, increased almost exponentially thanks to MS and Sony. As for the rest of the crap in here.... /leaves Nintendo-bashing thread to the trolls that initiated it.
 
steviep said:
It is well known industry wide that development cycles have lengthened greatly, and on top of that dev costs have BALOONED, increased almost exponentially thanks to MS and Sony.
Click to expand...

Again; prove that it is because of Microsoft/Sony.

Games are more ambitious now in every respect. Environments are massive, photorealism is being approached, AI in some games is more advanced than ever, online play is now prerequisite...people expect more for their money now. To blame that on any particular company is asinine.
 
To me, the rev seems like a good idea.. since I like acting like a fool while I play games. (guitar hero.. DDR.. all those mocap games), but then sometimes.. you gotta take a break and blast some kids face off in singapore.. or play a good story.
 
ZX6Master said:
Again; prove that it is because of Microsoft/Sony.

Games are more ambitious now in every respect. Environments are massive, photorealism is being approached, AI in some games is more advanced than ever, online play is now prerequisite...people expect more for their money now. To blame that on any particular company is asinine.
Click to expand...

This thread is about console gaming. Therefore blaming 2 particular companies with those prerequisites is absolutely valid. We're not touching PC gaming, here. We're talking about the push for visuals brought on by both MS and Sony. And those visuals cost money... lots and lots of money and lots of extra developing time. Have you not noticed that most of today's games (that aren't on a 4-year dev cycle like the FF's and Zeldas) are only 10 hours long... sometimes less? Continue to enjoy your uber-HD graphics :p
 
Tiny said:
It amazes me that people you the argument of 'rehashes' or 'same thing, better graphics' to describe MS and Sony offerings....but then laud over Nintendo for originality. Cause Nintendo isn't known for making sequel after sequel right?
Click to expand...


QFT!

I have a gamecube but its covered in about an inch of dust at the moment...
 
And I've got a PS2 that's been collecting dust ever since I beat Shadows of the Collosus. What's your point? You have friends, don't you? The Gamecube is the best local multiplayer system by FAR, try getting some decent games for it.

BTW... Nintendo is just as guilty as whoring franchises -I agree completely (even though those Mario Sports games are usually a LOT more fun than EA's offerings). But we've gone over this already... a million times. Aside from a few examples (Mario Party, Metroid 2), Nintendo's sequels are *usually* far more original than other companies' sequels are. I'm not going to get specific to avoid inciting a flamefest, but I'm sure you can fill in the blanks on your own. You can call out "oh but there's a Zelda every 4 years!!" all you want... I still say that the only things most of them have in common are the characters and the main sword/shields. You can't say that for a lot of other rehashed sequels. Now enough of this crap and back on topic!!
 
none of the previous consoles supported HDTV output, thats what i have been waiting for, being able to play racing and sports games on my big screen HDTV in actual HiDef with digital surround through the 5.1 setup...........no way is this too early.....too late i say
 
Tiny said:
It amazes me that people you the argument of 'rehashes' or 'same thing, better graphics' to describe MS and Sony offerings....but then laud over Nintendo for originality. Cause Nintendo isn't known for making sequel after sequel right?
Click to expand...

It's because people talk out of both sides of their mouth a lot of times.

The example you gave is one.... The others are "It's all about gameplay, graphics don't matter" Then in a thread showing screenshots they'll say "lol look at the jaggies"

Probably another 100 examples of people doing this. It's either one of two things (IMO) The person is just an overall moron/hypocrit or he's bashing one system to justify what he spends his time/money on as superior.
 
nobody_here said:
none of the previous consoles supported HDTV output, thats what i have been waiting for, being able to play racing and sports games on my big screen HDTV in actual HiDef with digital surround through the 5.1 setup...........no way is this too early.....too late i say
Click to expand...

You're in the minority... <15% minority to be exact. Though we may see that number go up over 50% by 2009... maybe. I still say it's too early. We should all be talking about our new systems in 2007 :p
 
Whether it's too early or too late doesn't particularly matter to me. I am definitely against the PS3/360, and here's why: look at the history of console launches. NES to SNES to N64. Each console brought something truly new. The SNES made games look and sound so much better, but also allowed them to be more complex because of the faster hardware and increased memory. Look how many clunky, poorly-controlled NES games there were, compared to SNES games. I think it really did change the way we played because it took away so many techological limits. It was like upgrading from a 386/25mhz to a 486/100hmz (if any of you were into PC's back then you know that was a huge jump). Yes the SNES brought much better graphics, but also a level of fluidity in the controls that had been lacking before.

Then the N64/Playstation brought 3D graphics, which was another leap. Then came the Dreamcast, which I love, but it was pretty much just an uber-PS1. Not quite powerful enough to really be "next gen" but still much more powerful than anything else (I really consider it an odd system that falls between the PS1/N64 gen and the PS2/Xbox/GC gen). Then came the PS2/Xbox/GameCube, which were advances in the sense that 3D gameplay became more fluid, like the NES to SNES jump. However I don't believe last gen's systems were ever fully realized, because you still have rampant clipping problems and f'ed up cameras.

Think about it in terms of PC hardware. If 15 years ago you jumped 75mhz that was amazing, today if you jump 200mhz the difference is negligible. The PS3/360 are, in my opinion, less of a jump from their predecessors than the NES to SNES jump. The reason being that they are not going to change the way you play games, only make them prettier and sound better. Madden 09 is going to play just like Madden 06. 3D platformers will still have shitty cameras, and racing games are going to have the same level of precision handling. These new systems are just going to promote feature-creep, because the only technological barriers facing last gen's systems were graphical in nature, ie, how many polygons does this person have, how textured is everything.

That's why these new systems aren't worth anything to me: they're reinforcing the paradigm, not changing it. I will only buy one if, at the end of it's lifespan, I feel enough games that I would like to play have been released for it. I just bought a PS2 about a month and a half ago. I have 8 games for it, and am only interested in maybe 3 or 4 more, and that's it.

edit: spacing, clarity
 
steviep said:
And I've got a PS2 that's been collecting dust ever since I beat Shadows of the Collosus. What's your point? You have friends, don't you? The Gamecube is the best local multiplayer system by FAR, try getting some decent games for it.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ dude...sorry to have said something negative about Nintendo...
 
I'm not picking on you in particular, but your comment was certainly included in my response. This thread was going way off track, and the "Gamecube sucks!!" stuff is getting really really old now. Slarti's post is an example of a great contribution to this thread.
 
steviep said:
I'm not picking on you in particular, but your comment was certainly included in my response. This thread was going way off track, and the "Gamecube sucks!!" stuff is getting really really old now. Slarti's post is an example of a great contribution to this thread.
Click to expand...

At no point has anyone said that the gamecube sucks!!

Where in my post have I suggested that...simply that I havnt played it in a while the poster that I quoted was only pointing out that Nintendo is as guilty of rehashing stuff as anyone else....

WorldRunner is right, people are too blinded by loyalty to a brand...they will praise their chosen brand for one thing and then slam another brand for doing something similar...its pointless...

As for being on topic it was kind of relating to the point that not matter how fast consoles come to market we will still be playing the same old shit on a different day....just with some shinier graphics generally.
 
Nobody said "gamecube sucks" in those words, but read between the lines. I may be partial to Nintendo games (since I think they make the best games), but that doesn't mean I'm insanely brand loyal. I own a PS2, I owned a Dreamcast (love Sega), and I almost bought an XBox 360 (not enough good games for me to buy right now). The point I'm trying to make is that the Nintendo bashing is getting old now. At least they are TRYING to do something new, and they've done so a lot of times in the past as well. They may fail miserably, but at least they're trying to push SOMETHING forward each generation. Microsoft really made online console gaming mainstream (where Sega didn't quite succeed), and I applaud them for that. But what did they do this gen? Tweak the same formula, add a couple convergence features... :eek: What has Sony done, aside from the EyeToy, last gen? What are they going to do this gen? There is more than just shiny graphics... that's the whole point.
 
steviep said:
You're in the minority... <15% minority to be exact. Though we may see that number go up over 50% by 2009... maybe. I still say it's too early. We should all be talking about our new systems in 2007 :p
Click to expand...
Minority might mean quite large in this case... I don't know what is the population of USA but let's say that 15% HDTV people is around 20 million and about 70% of that 20 mil are gamers, that would make around what 14 mil HDTV people ready for HD capable console I think that's a quite large number... I know those numbers are way off but I think you get the point.
 
steviep said:
Nobody said "gamecube sucks" in those words
Click to expand...

Gamecube sucks!

j/k :p

I like my cube and my xbox, but unlike a lot of people out there, I thought the PS2 was a terrible system. I bought one on launch and though the launch titles were horrid. I held onto it for about 3 months, and didn't see ANYTHING I was interested in, so I sold it and haven't looked back.

I'm in the process of getting an xbox 360 (if I can find one) and there's a few games out now i'd like to get, but moreso, there's games coming out in the next month or two that i'm really excited for. I've been borrowing my friend's 360 and I really dig it.

As for Revolution, i'm not even going to comment until its out. I like how Nintendo's not saying anything until there's an official announcement. Sony, on the other hand, just irritates me with PR stunts and baseless theories on how their new system will be. If they really think they can outdo Live, then good luck. But they better be prepared to take flack if their online service sucks.

Time will tell.
 
bazylik said:
Minority might mean quite large in this case... I don't know what is the population of USA but let's say that 15% HDTV people is around 20 million and about 70% of that 20 mil are gamers, that would make around what 14 mil HDTV people ready for HD capable console I think that's a quite large number... I know those numbers are way off but I think you get the point.
Click to expand...

good point, i agree, i think the largest majority of HDTV owners are twenty-something guys that are the largest consumers of consoles, thats why the console prices are warranted too, what twenty-something guy that will spend thousands on a HDTV that likes playing games wouldn't spend $400-600 on a HD capable console?

i know i would, and will, as soon as my PC parts sell on ebay i'm goin shoppin'!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top