The next console generation

[next-Jin]

Did the Xbox and PS3 release with the most recent videocards and CPU's availible or were they a generation behind? We (people in my office) were pondering the possibilities of the new Xbox or Playstation with spec's rivaling;

Core i5 860
4Gb DDR3
Radeon 5850/70
240Gb Intel SSD
Blu-Ray Disc
Built in Blue Tooth, WiFi (b, g, and n), etc.

Mainly the move from Sony or Microsoft to put requirements saying every game has to be native 720p+, and 60fps and if that setup could last 5-7 years at those resolutions.

 

[lgestle]

I'm pretty sure the holiday season when the Xbox 360 was released it was the same time the 8800GTX/GTS came to market. It was also the same time the 680i chipset and EVGA motherboards came out. I remember all the ads for all those products in Fry's at the time.
So at least from my memory they were at leat one generation behind.

 

[Stereophile]

Actually the 8800s came out in 2006. X360 launched in 2005. At that time, the top card was the X1800XT. The 7900s and X1900s followed very shortly.

PS3 was due to launch in spring of 2006, approx 6 months after release of the 7800 line. Due to the scarcity of BD laser diode materials, it was delayed until November, by which time G80 had launched, and became the new top graphics card.

The next gen consoles will be immensely powerful. I expect the next Playstation will have a GPU at least twice as powerful as a 5870 or Fermi, with around 4-6 GB of total system/video memory.

 

[lgestle]

My mistake, your correct. I avoided consoles at the time and only remember seeing all the ads around the same time I was hunting for a 8800GTS and EVGA 680i during that holiday season of 2006.

 

[heatlesssun]

Actually the 8800s came out in 2006. X360 launched in 2005. At that time, the top card was the X1800XT. The 7900s and X1900s followed very shortly.

PS3 was due to launch in spring of 2006, approx 6 months after release of the 7800 line. Due to the scarcity of BD laser diode materials, it was delayed until November, by which time G80 had launched, and became the new top graphics card.

The next gen consoles will be immensely powerful. I expect the next Playstation will have a GPU at least twice as powerful as a 5870 or Fermi, with around 4-6 GB of total system/video memory.

And within six months PCs will be twice as powerful as that. No matter what, consoles are just always going to be behind technologically than PCs. That's why they are cheaper and easier to deal with, because they aren't ever really bleeding edge tech.

 

[Stereophile]

They're usually pretty close to bleeding edge when they launch. It's just the nature of technology that bleeding edge is old news within a year.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

Considering that both Sony and Microsoft execs don't think that we are even half-way into this generation yet, it will probably be 2013-2014 before we even see a hint of new consoles.

 

[Psychotext]

As already stated, they're usually a generation behind the top end GPUs when they launch. That said, a generation behind whatever is in 2012 (or whatever), assuming we don't get a resolution increase (god I hope not) will still be ludicrously powerful. Who knows, the norm may even end up being 60fps / ~8x AA / 16x AF / VSync / 1080p.

(Yeah, I made myself laugh too)

 

[JohnleMVP]

PS3 was due to launch in spring of 2006, approx 6 months after release of the 7800 line. Due to the scarcity of BD laser diode materials, it was delayed until November, by which time G80 had launched, and became the new top graphics card.

It wasn't just the BD lasers that caused the delay. The Cell had manufacturing issues that cost them 6 weeks and the addition of the NV GPU was probably the biggest set back.

Interestingly both consoles could have had only 256MB of memory vs 512MB. I believe EPIC showed M$ what Gears of War would look like with the planned 256MB vs 512MB and that was enough to convince M$ to spend the extra millions to double the memory.

On the PS3 side the Cell was suppose to also handle graphics. As it is the PS3 has 256MB of system memory and 256MB for the GPU. If M$ stuck with 256MB and they didn't need the NV GPU its possible Sony would have just used 256MB of ram as well.

Luckily they didn't and we have 512MB. From what I heard from an interview of a Sega Dev manager, they definitely don't want more powerful consoles (at least not yet). More RAM would be nice, but it cost them enough to make games as it is. With more power it takes longer to develop games and cost more money and game development cost are already huge. The game industry has also felt the recession too so capital isn't easy to come by either.

 

[next-Jin]

As already stated, they're usually a generation behind the top end GPUs when they launch. That said, a generation behind whatever is in 2012 (or whatever), assuming we don't get a resolution increase (god I hope not) will still be ludicrously powerful. Who knows, the norm may even end up being 60fps / ~8x AA / 16x AF / VSync / 1080p.

(Yeah, I made myself laugh too)

This is what we were getting at I mean Christ if the max resolution is going to be 1080p in 2012, 2013 your talking about systems that would be massively bottle necked from the get go.

 

[JohnleMVP]

Not really. Look at CG movies. Even at 1080p they look better then anything we can play. Final Fantasy Spirits Within came out in like 2001. PC games still don't look as good. You can use the extra power for more complete environments, better ai, more cars on the track at once, less boxiness in character models, textures, physics, etc. Its a good thing that we will probably be stuck at 1080p for awhile.

 

[Psychotext]

Plus, if we're lucky they wont try to get us to buy a new TV for a while...

...oh no, they want us to buy a 3DTV next, and then probably Ultra HD.

 

[Stereophile]

and the addition of the NV GPU was probably the biggest set back.

The NV GPU was not a last minute addition. The whole story is a bit of an internet legend. Sony did originally consider 2 Cells with no conventional GPU, that part is true, but the idea was scrapped long before any serious plans were finalized.

Sony announced they had been collaborating with Nvidia on the next playstation's GPU for the last few years back in 2004. Besides variables like how much memory, the designs are finalized years in advance of the launch. The business and manufacturing requirements are too complex for them to haphazardly change major aspects of a console's hw at the last minute.

 

[next-Jin]

The NV GPU was not a last minute addition. The whole story is a bit of an internet legend. Sony did originally consider 2 Cells with no conventional GPU, that part is true, but the idea was scrapped long before any serious plans were finalized.

Sony announced they had been collaborating with Nvidia on the next playstation's GPU for the last few years back in 2004. Besides variables like how much memory, the designs are finalized years in advance of the launch. The business and manufacturing requirements are too complex for them to haphazardly change major aspects of a console's hw at the last minute.

Yeah pretty sure if my memory is right that the last time that happened was with Sega's Saturn with the 2nd SH4? They originally meant for the Saturn to be 2D and after seeing Toshinden they added the 2nd RISC chip forever making it a bitch to code for.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Actually the 8800s came out in 2006. X360 launched in 2005. At that time, the top card was the X1800XT. The 7900s and X1900s followed very shortly.

PS3 was due to launch in spring of 2006, approx 6 months after release of the 7800 line. Due to the scarcity of BD laser diode materials, it was delayed until November, by which time G80 had launched, and became the new top graphics card.

The next gen consoles will be immensely powerful. I expect the next Playstation will have a GPU at least twice as powerful as a 5870 or Fermi, with around 4-6 GB of total system/video memory.

You are smoking crack. The next gen of console from Sony is going to be a conservative beast, as will the next Xbox. As they SHOULD be. PS4 will no doubt have a capable graphics card, probably at or above the 5870 level IF we assume PS4 won't launch until 2014. 4-6GB of system memory though? Not gonna happen. 2GB tops, same for Xbox, and for a couple of reasons:

First, the cost. Memory and GPU's are EXPENSIVE.

Second, you don't *need* 4-6GB in a console to render at 1080p. Would it be nice? Hell yes. Would it be practical, especially for a company who's lost their *shirts* on the current generation of hardware? Hell no.

Sony will be looking to recoup losses for the rest of this generation and into the next. $5,000,000,000 of losses and counting is not easy to recover from.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

They're usually pretty close to bleeding edge when they launch. It's just the nature of technology that bleeding edge is old news within a year.

Actually, they usually aren't. This is the first generation where consoles at launch were relatively cutting edge. PS2 wasn't, Xbox wasn't, GC wasn't. Of course, the reality is that they've also never *needed* to be. SD resolutions and no need for AA or anything alike to it didn't really require a great deal of computing power.

The sad part is, though, that as "powerful" as we like to pretend PS3 and 360 are, they only barely get into HD at all, with 720p as the best we can hope for in a really detailed game, while many of them don't even render in HD at all.

Next gen will really be the true HD console gen. This is more like "warmups"

 

[JohnleMVP]

The NV GPU was not a last minute addition. The whole story is a bit of an internet legend. Sony did originally consider 2 Cells with no conventional GPU, that part is true, but the idea was scrapped long before any serious plans were finalized.

Sony announced they had been collaborating with Nvidia on the next playstation's GPU for the last few years back in 2004. Besides variables like how much memory, the designs are finalized years in advance of the launch. The business and manufacturing requirements are too complex for them to haphazardly change major aspects of a console's hw at the last minute.

I'm not saying the NV was a last minute add on, but it came late in the game and was a major hurdle to overcome. The idea of the Cell is a powerful multimedia processor as its great at graphics. Its pretty pointless to have the Cell and then have a separate GPU, but thats what they ended up having to do. If Sony worked with Nvidia much earlier on it would make a lot more sense to have shared system memory like the X360 has than splitting the memory with 256MB of XDR memory for the system and 256MB of DDR3 for GPU. Sure they say the memory can be allocated differently but I doubt its very eloquent or easy to develop for.

 

[bigdogchris]

The next gen consoles will be immensely powerful. I expect the next Playstation will have a GPU at least twice as powerful as a 5870 or Fermi, with around 4-6 GB of total system/video memory.

You're absolutely dreaming.

I would think something around 2GB of memory and a 5800/gt300 series GPU (considering consoles will not ship for another 2-3 years).

 

[Stereophile]

PS4 will no doubt have a capable graphics card, probably at or above the 5870 level IF we assume PS4 won't launch until 2014

I'm guessing 2013 and by then, x2 5870 performance will be considered passé. In 2013, I'm quite certain a $159 mid range card would blow the doors off today's $400+ 5870. Much like how today's 5770 owns an 8800 GTX that cost $500 only 3 years ago.

A conservative $400, priced to break even console design, will outperform today's high end PC cards. 3-4 years is an eternity in graphics tech, even if the console launches with a GPU one year behind state of the art, it will be far more powerful than a 5870.

4-6GB of system memory though? Not gonna happen. 2GB tops, same for Xbox, and for a couple of reasons:

2gb tops are you joking ? Maybe the next Nintendo console.
2gb would represent only a X4 increase over this generation. With at least a 7 year gap between launches ? I don't see that happening. Historically X8 is the most likely increase, 4gb is what I'd bet on, and that would easily be doable in a $399 retail box in 3-4 years, as would a GPU that smokes a 5870.

Xbox wasn't

When xbox launched, its gpu was more advanced than the best PC card available at the time (geforce 3). The geforce 4 line, which eclipsed the Xbox's gpu capabilities, didn't come out until after the system launched. I'd argue 360's was bleeding edge at launch. Come on, world's first unified shader GPU ?


The Voodoo 1 had more raw power, but the N64 was capable of more advanced effects. It had a programmable GPU. But when I think of bleeding edge 1990s graphics, I think of Sega's arcade cabinets featuring the Martin Marietta graphics chips. Not a fair comparison to $250 consoles and PC graphics cards though.

but it came late in the game and was a major hurdle to overcome.

This is the same assertion, but I don't see any facts to support it except an often repeated tale on the internet. They said they had originally thought of using two Cells. Since they didn't go with that design, the info was spun by certain parties to spread fud. It's pretty clear Sony announced plans on using an Nvidia gpu many years before the PS3 launched. I don't see how that logically contributed to the delay. They told the world almost 3 years before it launched, it was going to use an nvidia gpu. The system's launch was delayed around 8-9 months. The delay was mostly from BD laser diodes, and other fab problems. I think if changing a major component like the GPU and CPU interface and buses caused a delay, it would have been much worse.

If Sony worked with Nvidia much earlier on it would make a lot more sense to have shared system memory like the X360

The system was designed differently, that's all.

 

[biiscit]

Given the power of the PS3 and 360 with outdated technology, I feel that the quoted specs above are probably overkill for whatever games are going to be released.

 

[Rash]

the next gen consoles from ms and sony need to be capable of 1080p with 8xaa 16xaf with 120fps for liquid 3-D gaming, and have gigabit wifi/4 ethernet ports for streaming for syncing the psp 2 or windows phone, and for using the console as a central hub that can output to all the tvs in your house for multiple users that can use the ps4/xbox 1080 independantly from any other user in the house, basically you download the game and only need one console in your house but your whole family can be in different rooms and use whatever feature they want at the same time. I think multiple simultaneous users would be fantastic!
nintendo could probably stretch the wii out for another 10-20 years lmao

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'm guessing 2013 and by then, x2 5870 performance will be considered passé. In 2013, I'm quite certain a $159 mid range card would blow the doors off today's $400+ 5870. Much like how today's 5770 owns an 8800 GTX that cost $500 only 3 years ago.

A conservative $400, priced to break even console design, will outperform today's high end PC cards. 3-4 years is an eternity in graphics tech, even if the console launches with a GPU one year behind state of the art, it will be far more powerful than a 5870.



2gb tops are you joking ? Maybe the next Nintendo console.
2gb would represent only a X4 increase over this generation. With at least a 7 year gap between launches ? I don't see that happening. Historically X8 is the most likely increase, 4gb is what I'd bet on, and that would easily be doable in a $399 retail box in 3-4 years, as would a GPU that smokes a 5870.



When xbox launched, its gpu was more advanced than the best PC card available at the time (geforce 3). The geforce 4 line, which eclipsed the Xbox's gpu capabilities, didn't come out until after the system launched. I'd argue 360's was bleeding edge at launch. Come on, world's first unified shader GPU ?


The Voodoo 1 had more raw power, but the N64 was capable of more advanced effects. It had a programmable GPU. But when I think of bleeding edge 1990s graphics, I think of Sega's arcade cabinets featuring the Martin Marietta graphics chips. Not a fair comparison to $250 consoles and PC graphics cards though.



This is the same assertion, but I don't see any facts to support it except an often repeated tale on the internet. They said they had originally thought of using two Cells. Since they didn't go with that design, the info was spun by certain parties to spread fud. It's pretty clear Sony announced plans on using an Nvidia gpu many years before the PS3 launched. I don't see how that logically contributed to the delay. They told the world almost 3 years before it launched, it was going to use an nvidia gpu. The system's launch was delayed around 8-9 months. The delay was mostly from BD laser diodes, and other fab problems. I think if changing a major component like the GPU and CPU interface and buses caused a delay, it would have been much worse.



The system was designed differently, that's all.

No question, even a midrange GPU in 2013 or so will be more powerful than today's 5870, but there is simply no reason to believe that Sony or MS will go "bleeding edge". They don't need to--and Nintendo proved it unequivocally. See, Sony and Microsoft are still *businesses* after all, and they exist to turn a profit. They can only sit around and bleed cash from the asshole for so long before the shareholders pull the plug. Sony is deep into that point right now; Microsoft is still climbing out of it from last gen, and making headway. Sony still hasn't even *started* recouping PS3 losses, they're still incurring them. You can't possibly believe they'll want to start that insane cycle over again anytime soon.

I absolutely think you'll see consoles max in the range of 2, MAYBE 3GB of RAM when the next gen hits. Not only is it expensive to go much higher, they really don't *need* to go any higher. We're already deeper into the generation of HD televisions than we've ever been, and what's the best selling console by a mile? The SD console. Sony and Microsoft haven't a *prayer* of catching the Wii this generation, for all intents and purposes the race is *over* for first place and has been for a long time. For the next gen, what they'll want to do is focus on games that can render natively in 1080p, possibly do 3D (though I predict that'll only become dominant when it can be done WITHOUT the need for glasses), improve physics and motion controller responses, and possibly delve into speech control. You simply won't need 4-6GB of RAM and a 5870x2 to do that, and as far as graphics go, consumers en masse will continue to be happy with right where we're seeing 360 and PS3 for a long while to come.

Why piss away mountains of cash to achieve a higher level of visual detail (poly count wise, I mean; I fully expect to see increases of things like particle effects, fluids, real physics, environment manipulation, etc) that will only cost you more money if the consumer base mostly doesn't give a shit?

Today's graphics will be fine for a long time to come, for the mass market. And that's who Sony and Microsoft are aiming for next, as proven by both Natal and Sony's PSThriimote.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

the next gen consoles from ms and sony need to be capable of 1080p with 8xaa 16xaf with 120fps for liquid 3-D gaming, and have gigabit wifi/4 ethernet ports for streaming for syncing the psp 2 or windows phone, and for using the console as a central hub that can output to all the tvs in your house for multiple users that can use the ps4/xbox 1080 independantly from any other user in the house, basically you download the game and only need one console in your house but your whole family can be in different rooms and use whatever feature they want at the same time. I think multiple simultaneous users would be fantastic!
nintendo could probably stretch the wii out for another 10-20 years lmao

Mmm, not likely. In the first place, Gig wifi doesn't exist, and if the unbelievably long period it took to ratify 802.11n (300Mb) is any indicator, we won't be seeing a new standard any time soon. You certainly won't see consoles with multiple gig ports, nor consoles that will allow you to play games on every TV in your house with just one console. See, they're still in the business of making money, and they can't do that effectively if you only need to buy one console to service 3 or 4 TV's. They want a console on very tv.

I do think we'll see some device convergence; we already are, after all. But I don't think you'll see it to such a level as would relieve you from buying multiples of their products to use in various places.

As for Wii? You'd think from the sales that they'd keep selling it until there's a slowdown-and I think they will. However, what I think will happen is that Nintendo will be the first to hit the market next generation and they'll follow the PS3/PS2 model of selling the new one for a higher price (though I don't think they'll start their new system past $299) and the old one at a lower price ($149, $129, eventually $99 Wii should have some loooooong legs!).

 

[Rash]

i was exaggerating a bit, but the multi room wold be cool, i currently have my ps3 hooked up to 4 tvs in the house via a 4 way splitter and thanks to the Bluetooth working through walls i have a separate Dualshock 3 for each tv just to save me having to buy a machine for each room, (i have 2 ps3s in total) and psp go remote plays in the bedroom. i suppose i cold get a ps3 for each room but it would take me forever to redownload all the games and movies 4-5 times lol (easy hard drive copy please sony!).
I remember Microsoft touting a couple of years ago that windows 7 could have multiple users on one pc on 2 monitors but its not there.

the wii should end up outselling the ps2 easily

 

[Psychotext]

the wii should end up outselling the ps2 easily

I used to be pretty sure about that.... but I don't know, I'm not feeling it any more.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I used to be pretty sure about that.... but I don't know, I'm not feeling it any more.

You may not be, but the sales number sure are . Hard to say, though, it really depends on how long they leave it on the market for. If they do follow the Sony model and sell the Wii HD and Wii SD at the same time at different price points, it's anybody's guess.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

i was exaggerating a bit, but the multi room wold be cool, i currently have my ps3 hooked up to 4 tvs in the house via a 4 way splitter and thanks to the Bluetooth working through walls i have a separate Dualshock 3 for each tv just to save me having to buy a machine for each room, (i have 2 ps3s in total) and psp go remote plays in the bedroom. i suppose i cold get a ps3 for each room but it would take me forever to redownload all the games and movies 4-5 times lol (easy hard drive copy please sony!).
I remember Microsoft touting a couple of years ago that windows 7 could have multiple users on one pc on 2 monitors but its not there.

the wii should end up outselling the ps2 easily

Wow, a splitter, eh? Pretty slick. How's that work out for you? I like hte PSP remote, though it doesn't work worth a damn over the internet, just inside the house.

 

[Stereophile]

They don't need to

The next consoles are going to need to last until like 2020. What sounds like enough 3-4 years before it launches, won't be.

640k is all the memory anyone will ever need blah blah blah

They can only sit around and bleed cash from the asshole for so long before the shareholders pull the plug. S

Hasn't MS already made their money back ? Or come close. For sure in 3-4 years. So they will be launching a next gen system, and $400, sold at no loss or profit, will afford some pretty nice hw. You're making way too big of a deal about the cost of memory. 4gb of ram won't be too expensive in 2012-2013. MS will probably announce before Sony. And Sony will try to match them as closely as possible. They don't want a repeat of this generation, where MS had the next gen HD console market to themselves for a year. And Wii doesn't prove anything. It's a different market. If either MS or Sony decided to go "low rent" next gen, the other will go "high end" and whip them soundly. And the HD penetration will be quite a bit higher next go around.

 

[theNoid]

I want a standard for cross platform gameplay between Xbox Live and all GFWL enabled games.

 

[Psychotext]

Hasn't MS already made their money back ? Or come close.

Not even slightly close. Though arguably it doesn't matter, shareholders care if you're making money now, rather than worrying about what you've already lost.

 

[Stereophile]

I thought RROD had set them back, but didn't know it was that bad.

 

[Psychotext]

Just taking into account the money lost since this generation's consoles have launched you're looking at -$4.7bn for Sony and -$2.3bn for Microsoft. (For each gaming related division as a whole)

 

[Tigerblade]

Why do ppl go off into major fantasy land when second guessing next gen specs

I'd like to state right now that anyone expecting 2gb is gonna be sorely disappointed....those saying 6gb are just fuckin deluded. Bare minimum to keep costs down I'd say, bareing in mind there is no memory hogging OS I'd be surprised to see any more than 1gb. BIG hdd is a given I'd say as is BR drive. BT must be pretty cheap to encorporate now and seeing as wifi is built into 2 of the 3 current gen then I'd say it's guaranteed next gen. Didn't Sony say something like the PS4 was gonna be using faster clocked Cell? GPU wise is anyones guess but again, anyone expecting anything top end is just bonkers. I'd say were gonna see a more one box solution type of affair too with built in HD tv tuners and the like too.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

The next consoles are going to need to last until like 2020. What sounds like enough 3-4 years before it launches, won't be.

640k is all the memory anyone will ever need blah blah blah


Hasn't MS already made their money back ? Or come close. For sure in 3-4 years. So they will be launching a next gen system, and $400, sold at no loss or profit, will afford some pretty nice hw. You're making way too big of a deal about the cost of memory. 4gb of ram won't be too expensive in 2012-2013. MS will probably announce before Sony. And Sony will try to match them as closely as possible. They don't want a repeat of this generation, where MS had the next gen HD console market to themselves for a year. And Wii doesn't prove anything. It's a different market. If either MS or Sony decided to go "low rent" next gen, the other will go "high end" and whip them soundly. And the HD penetration will be quite a bit higher next go around.

MS certainly has not made their money back on the Xbox franchise. Possibly on the 360, but you have to remember that they were already $4,000,000,000 in the hole when they launched 360, as a result of Xbox 1's expensive components.

HD penetration will certainly be higher (unless these idiotic companies with their bullshit "3D TV" garbage end up fragmenting the market even more) and that's a good thing, but you're 100% WRONG about Wii not proving anything. The first people in line for the Wii were the *hardcore gamers*--because they're ALWAYS the first in line for a new console. They then evangelized it to their friends and relatives-the "casual" crowd-and it took on a life of its own. And although the hardcore still bitch about the Wii's graphics, the fact is that a lot of HC gamers still own and play their Wiis for certain titles, and of course, the casual market is nearly double what PS3 or 360 have managed to achieve individually. Wii is VERY important to consider because, unlike the other two, it was a true game changer in terms of business models.

Sony is deep, DEEP in the red with PS3. They're already more than $5,000,000,000 in the hole, it's eaten ALL of PS2's profits and it's still losing money. They can barely keep pace with Wii on software attach rate (sometimes they're up, sometimes they're down, but never by very much either way), so they're not making up the difference in games. "Heavy Hitters" like Killzone 2 have seriously underperformed (though I do think that game deserved to do better, it just plain didn't. Its main competition, Gears of War 2, *creamed* it in sales).

All this adds up to a simple truth: Sony, as a business, NEEDS the PlayStation brand to be profitable. So far, PS3 has been an anchor around their necks. They have surely learned from Nintendo that there is a "good enough" point on graphics, and the PS3/360 are easily in that territory, making massive performance improvements unnecessary. Sure, we'll get more powerful systems, but not order of magnitude more powerful. Maybe 2-3 times as powerful, and that'll be just fine. Consumers will be happy, Sony can start digging itself out of the hole its in, and everybody's a winner. There is simply no meaningful gain to be had by breaking the bank two generations in a row.

We'll see a new console from Nintendo by 2012 at the latest. I'm betting on a 2011 reveal with a 2012 launch date, because they'll want to be first. My guess is they'll match or slightly surpass 360/PS3 but skip a hard drive and go with built in flash memory as a cache (big though, maybe 16-32GB) since it's not only cheaper but it keeps getting cheaper to make over time (hard drives don't get cheaper to make, for the most part, which is why it's sort of a "fixed cost" part of a console system; yes, capacity increases, but cost doesn't decrease as a result of that, except for at the retail end, and then, only to a point).

When Nintendo launches their Wii successor, they'll force Sony and MS's hands. Sure, they can probably afford to be a year or so late to the party, but from a marketing standpoint if they wait too long it'll seem like they're standing still.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Why do ppl go off into major fantasy land when second guessing next gen specs

I'd like to state right now that anyone expecting 2gb is gonna be sorely disappointed....those saying 6gb are just fuckin deluded. Bare minimum to keep costs down I'd say, bareing in mind there is no memory hogging OS I'd be surprised to see any more than 1gb. BIG hdd is a given I'd say as is BR drive. BT must be pretty cheap to encorporate now and seeing as wifi is built into 2 of the 3 current gen then I'd say it's guaranteed next gen. Didn't Sony say something like the PS4 was gonna be using faster clocked Cell? GPU wise is anyones guess but again, anyone expecting anything top end is just bonkers. I'd say were gonna see a more one box solution type of affair too with built in HD tv tuners and the like too.

You might be right, but figuring you can get 2GB at retail today for about $30, I can only guess it'll be cheap enough when the next systems launch. You might be right, though about the 1GB, only time will tell.

I'd also say BR is a guarantee, but I think hard drives are NOT a guarantee. In fact, given the relative cheapness of flash memory, I think it's more likely that next gen consoles will *support* a hard drive but ship without one, instead relying on 16-32GB of onboard flash for caching and such. It's cheaper AND faster than a hard drive, after all, and hell-let the consumer buy their own damn hard drive.

As for Sony and Cell, that's very much up in the air. Recent rumors are that they're planning to dump Cell for PS4 to try and make it easier on developers. I'd say it's a moot point at this stage and to drop two cells and a fat GPU in, triple the memory, double the bus and call it good, but who knows. All I do know is that they'll be looking to make a profit, that'll be goal #1 for PS4.

 

[Stereophile]

Sure, we'll get more powerful systems, but not order of magnitude more powerful. Maybe 2-3 times as powerful, and that'll be just fine. Consumers will be happy

A 2007 PC GPU is at least 3 times more powerful.

Today's current state of the art GPUs are already an order of magnitude more powerful than RSX and Xenos.

You're so off base it's pointless to continue this line of conversation. 2-3 times as powerful as current consoles will not cut it for next gen PS and Xbox. It wouldn't even compete with today's high end PC.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

A 2007 PC GPU is at least 3 times more powerful.

Today's current state of the art GPUs are already an order of magnitude more powerful than RSX and Xenos.

You're so off base it's pointless to continue this line of conversation. 2-3 times as powerful as current consoles will not cut it for next gen PS and Xbox. It wouldn't even compete with today's high end PC.

You're wrong, end of story. 2-3 times as powerful would be more than plenty for the VAST majority of games and gamers. Where they need to improve primarily is *not* in graphics, it's in physics, interface, interaction, connectivity and little details like particle effects and such.

The only thing off base here are your wacky dreams of a world where Sony or MS don't give a shit about turning a profit and will bleed themselves dry to give you bleeding edge consoles. If they can do a slight improvement on today's graphics, with full AA and AF, at true 1080p, they'll be fine.

 

[Stereophile]

Graphics still matter. You're poorly informed and not living in reality if you think they'll settle for 4-5 year old GPU performance in 2012 or 2013 or beyond. Do you think x3 an RSX or Xenos will last until 2020 and DX11 and beyond ? All 3 companies are not doing a Wii refresh.

I can't imagine being in such a bubble. Keep talking to the rubber walls buddy. Don't bring up the cost. It's a red herring. Even a $250 retail box in 2013 could have a GPU far more powerful than the current consoles. Today, a $100 card off newegg blows them away.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Graphics still matter. You're poorly informed and not living in reality if you think they'll settle for 4-5 year old GPU performance in 2012 or 2013 or beyond. Do you think x3 an RSX or Xenos will last until 2020 and DX11 and beyond ? All 3 companies are not doing a Wii refresh.

I can't imagine being in such a bubble. Keep talking to the rubber walls buddy. Don't bring up the cost. It's a red herring. Even a $250 retail box in 2013 could have a GPU far more powerful than the current consoles. Today, a $100 card off newegg blows them away.

Sorry, it's not a red herring at all. As I said, they don't need to make a huge improvement in graphics, that's not the primary issue going forward. If anybody's living in a bubble, it's you, pretending that NOTHING but graphics matter. The Wii has proven otherwise-there is a "good enough" point that works well for most people, and we've reached that point; PS3 and 360 are BEYOND that point. As long as the GPU tech shipping in those consoles is better than what we have today (2012 level tech will EASILY be able to render 1080p for virtually everything, with filters and effects), that's good enough. Your "$100 card off Newegg" isn't a complete system, either, that's a straw man.

If PS4 and Xbox 420 simply manage to improve texturing and filtering (let's eliminate jaggies, shall we?) while rendering at a true HD resolution consistently, but make improvements in those other areas I've already mentioned, keeping the costs reasonable for THEMSELVES (we're not even talking about consumer costs here, we're talking to the BUSINESSES who sell these things), they'll have done well.

Last but not least, you used the "You think people will accept last gen graphics? You're crazy" argument when PS3 and Wii launched. We both know how that turned out. If Wii's graphics are good enough to bury PS3 and 360 in worldwide sales in spite of 360 having a 10 million unit lead and both systems having better graphics, slightly improved PS3 and 360 visuals will have ZERO problems in the marketplace. The difference between now and then is this: Back then, I agreed it was very likely PS3 and 360's superior graphics would kill the Wii, because after all, how could those graphics be acceptable to the mass market? Bottom line? I was wrong-so were you-but I'm admitting it and factoring the experience into my future projections. You're just carrying the same torch as if nothing happened that should alter your view. Reality check: something DID happen that should alter your view. Denial doesn't change that.

You're delusional if you think they're in this for the sake of gamers, gaming, art, realism or anything else. Sony and Microsoft are in it for the MONEY, end of story.

 

[Rash]

Wow, a splitter, eh? Pretty slick. How's that work out for you? I like hte PSP remote, though it doesn't work worth a damn over the internet, just inside the house.

sweet, it like having a ps3 in every room really, but on the odd occasion when the wife wants to watch a film its frustrating and i have to go on my second ps3 that hasnt got all my psn downloads on/patches yet