Re: What New Feature Would You Like To See In The Next Console?



"The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:32ee6095-f1e8-4497-ac38-b4bc2fd855a9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 14, 6:47 am, Eman <supreme.evolution...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 13, 4:12 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 12:47 pm, "Morgan" <Nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > > Ultra high resolution textures is nice, but considering most people
> > > still don't even have HDTVs, it's rather targeted. HDTVs won't have
> > > 50% market share by the next generation and even then only a small
> > > percentage of HDTVs in homes will be 1080p. The benefit of ultra > > > high
> > > resolution textures quickly diminishes when you drop to 720p and
> > > especially when you drop to 480p.

> > Do we actually have a time frame for the next gen consoles?

> I'd expect the next Xbox system to hit in November 2010, maybe 2011 if
> they stretch it a bit.

> > I've seen a few
> > posts in here about Sony saying that they expect the PS3s life span > > to be in
> > excess of 10 years which, assuming they don't intend to release their > > next
> > gen consol until then makes it a very long way in the future in terms > > of
> > technology. Personally I'm not sure that the 10+ year time scale is > > true.

> Sony has been saying that all along but they never tied that to the
> release of a new console. The PS2's lifespan is still increasing as we
> type. I'd be surprised if the PS2 didn't make it to 10 years.

> > > Sure, but the fact that you're participating in these newsgroups
> > > indicates that you're likely a lot more technologically inclined > > > than
> > > most people. The average consumer doesn't care about Blu-Ray - the
> > > reason why is arguable - and probably still won't even in the next > > > few
> > > years. There's a much greater chance that Blu-Ray will remain niche
> > > than go mainstream - there's just not enough value proposition for > > > the
> > > average person.

> > True, thought I still believe that blu-ray will catch on eventually.

> Before the economic crisis hit, I expected that if Blu-Ray did catch
> on, it wouldn't happen until 2011-2012. Now, I simply have much less
> faith that the technology will go mainstream - if it does, it won't be
> until much later, years down the road.

> There is no reason for the average consumer to buy Blu-Ray.

> > Cheaper BR players have dropped to below the £180 mark now and > > although
> > that not even close to as cheap as DVD the prices are only going to > > come
> > down.

> While the prices of DVDs also continue to drop. Before the economic
> crisis, I said Blu-Ray needed to be at the same price point as DVD is
> right now in order to hit the mainstream. With people's savings
> crushed and their jobs gone, I'd say it will take even more of a price
> drop (Blu-Rays at about $12-15 MSRP).

> > The medium is finally getting an extensive library of older films
> > (thought I do wish they release Gladiator) and is getting industry > > support
> > from the film companies.

> Which says nothing to whether consumers will buy. Older films tend not
> to look nearly as good as the contemporary films so that hurts the
> whole "Blu-Ray looks a gazillion times better" shpiel.

> > > I'd love for Blu-Ray to succeed but I just don't see it happening.
> > > There's too much, especially as far as human nature is concerned,
> > > working against it.

> > >> Also, at least in the UK blu-ray films seem to be finally falling > > >> in
> > >> price, you can pick up older releases for £9.99 from supermarkets
> > >> now.

> > > 9.99 GBP is quite high in USD.

> > Relatively speaking we generally pay more for DVDs CD, hardware, > > cream
> > cakes. Pretty much every thing to be honest. :-) Though in my book > > £9.99
> > puts them into the impulse buy category if you pass a film you > > wouldn't mind
> > in the shop. It's still double the price of the dirt cheap DVDs but a > > good
> > £5 cheaper than you'd find six months ago.

> > > It's better than the prices we're
> > > seeing here in most retailers but it's still not at that mass > > > market
> > > level. Plus, "older releases" at least here tends to mean "movies > > > that
> > > even the hardcore early adopters don't want." LOL

> > > You can't even find Blu-Rays in supermarkets here.

> > You still can't in most here.

> > > Trust me, it's
> > > simply not widespread enough in the United States to take hold > > > anytime
> > > soon.
> > >> I agree that they look better on the 360 but the next gen games > > >> will
> > >> have higher res textures, more complex meshes, better quality > > >> sound
> > >> and hopefully be bigger games. Think of a game the size of Thief > > >> 2
> > >> but with modern graphics.

> > > One would hope for these things but I don't think the reality
> > > necessarily matches up. I don't think the majority of developers > > > are
> > > going to go much higher as far as resolution of textures. The extra
> > > cost isn't justified by the apparent benefit to the common end > > > user.
> > > It's cheaper to just provide for the lowest common denominator.

> > The cost shouldn't really be an issue, it shouldn't cost any more to > > create
> > a high res texture than one half the resolution. Te graphical > > improvement
> > can be very noticeable. There have been a few PC/console games where > > the PC
> > versions have been modded to include higher res textures.

> In those cases, the developers designed the textures at a higher
> resolution for the intent of using it them in a PC version where the
> graphics capabilities were likely to be higher and then downgraded
> them for use on the consoles. Creating the texture at a higher
> resolution in the first place is most certainly a higher cost effort
> than aiming for lower resolutions. If you have to account for much
> higher detail, you have to work that much harder to include that much
> more detail.

> > Oblivion and Thief
> > 3 are the two that spring to mind. The next gen consoles will > > obviously have
> > a lot more horse power and game companies will want to use that > > power.

> The next generation consoles are still going to output to 1080p max
> which means that there's only so high up you can go with the
> resolution. That's why I said not to expect higher resolution textures
> - if the console can only output to 1920 x 1080, it won't matter if
> you include a texture that is 2880 x 1620 since it's going to be
> downgraded to 1920 x 1080 anyway.

> > > Think about it -- how many people who aren't downloading pirated
> > > movies or games do you know would even fill up 50GB of data? Okay, > > > now
> > > think about how many of those people would need to fill up 50GB > > > discs
> > > multiple times (as in enough times where you could justify dropping
> > > that kind of cash on the drive itself and then paying $10+ for each
> > > disc)?

> > Yeh but that's as a home storage medium, I was thinking more as a > > game
> > distribution medium.

> These transitions occurred when there was a need for a transition. By
> the time CD-ROMs took over as the standard format for games, games
> were coming on *many* floppies. There was a need for a new media
> format that could store all that on one unit.

> By the time DVD-ROMs took over as the standard format for games, games
> were coming on *many* CD-ROMs. There was a need.

> Games right now are *not* coming on many DVD-ROMs, however. There is
> no need at all for a transition to BD-ROM because 99% of the time you
> can do with just one DVD+9 and even when there are multiple discs,
> it's 2 or 3 discs total and not 5 or 6 discs (where you start to
> approach the total capacity of a single BD-ROM).

> > > No, you can forget about BD-ROM.

> > I see your points but I necessarily agree with all of them.

> I'm glad you see things my way. ;-)

> > I'll bet you a
> > pint the next gen consoles have blu-ray drives. :-)

> Okay, but it only counts if *all three* consoles have Blu-Ray drives
> and not just the Playstation 4, LOL.

> > Thought I do wonder
> > how Sony would be about allowing MS to use the technology (assuming > > they'd
> > have any legal power to stop them if they went through a third > > party.)

> Sony would have no power to stop them nor would they want to. If
> Microsoft was crazy enough to want to use Blu-Ray as the storage
> format for their next console, this only helps Sony as that would make
> Blu-Ray the standard for consoles.

> If developers got used to developing for that capacity on consoles,
> you could be sure that this would translate over to PC gaming, which
> would be another win for Sony.

> I simply don't think Microsoft will have any inclination to go that
> route. First off, it helps Sony. Secondly, there isn't going to be any
> benefit. Xbox games were already coming on DVD-9... they just became
> the standard for the 360. Storage requirements really haven't blown up
> all that much from last generation to this.

> The only way Microsoft could justify such a move was if developers
> were, by the time they got well into the development of the console,
> putting out games that came on 3+ DVD-9s more often than not. That's
> not going to happen anytime soon. Hell, even a game with the sizeable
> content of Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Oblivion, etc. doesn't need 3
> DVD-9s.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Why even bother with a new gen console. Same texture sizes as today,
same sound quality as today, same physical media as today. By your
account the "average gamer" has a SD tube TV playing sound out of a
mono speaker.

By anybody's account, the "average gamer" has a SD TV and no speaker
system. If you think for one second that even a quarter of the people
who own game systems have them attached to an HDTV of any kind and
even a basic home theater system, you should be kind enough to share
whatever drugs you're on with the rest of us.

If the "average gamer" can't even use current gen
technology to its fullest, no wait 4 year old technology, why
repackage and try to sell something new for another $400, 2 - 3 years
from now.

Who said anything about repackaging? There's a LOT of things that can
be improved in the next generation of consoles.

Keep in mind the life of a console. It has to live at
least five years after its release. Go out and try to buy a TV that
isn't HD today.

How often do you think people go out and buy new televisions? After
you've thought about that, throw in the reality of the economic crisis
and then figure out how many people are going to drop a thousand bucks
on a brand new television.

Even with the relatively good sales of HDTVs, still only 34% of
households in the U.S. have HDTVs. Yeah, yeah, I know, Europe and
Japan have higher percentages, but Europe and Japan *combined* make up
less of the worldwide video game market than the U.S. and all three
console manufacturers focus on the U.S. market since that's the
richest and the fastest growing.

720P HD LCDs is all you can buy at Sams Club and
Walmart (where all the average gamers shop). All you want out of the
next gen is a larger hard drive?

No, that's just the first thing that popped into my head. Better CPU
and GPU, and more memory, are a given. A hard drive standard isn't.

For what? There's nothing stoping
MS from releasing a larger HD for the 360 today, other than the fact
that nobody would buy it. I've had an Elite for over a year,
downloaded most of the major demos, have 5 games ripped, and a handful
of XBLA games and never deleted anything on it and its only half
full.

Go track the size of games and their sequels over time. Halo 2: 2.8
GB, Halo 3: 6.2 GB, Morrowind: 1 GB, Oblivion: 2 GB, FO3: 6 GB (yes I
know FO3 isn't the sequel to Oblivion, but you can bet its a demo for
TES5),

If you believe even half of what many gamers here say when comparing
Oblivion and Fallout 3, then no, you wouldn't bet it has anything to
do with TES5.

Considering that Oblivion apparently has a gazillion times the content
and a world a gajillion times bigger than Fallout 3's, I would think
they'd be able to pull off a proper sequel to Oblivion even with just
the 6GB of Fallout 3, forget about the 9GB of a DVD-9 disc.

And let's say Oblivion needs to use 2 discs instead of one. No big
deal. Games have used multiple discs for a long time. A handful of
games requiring 2 discs instead of one is *NOT* in any way an argument
for Blu-Ray capacity. Even a handful of games using 3 discs isn't.

Storage has to be a prevalent problem affecting most games in order
for there to be justification to bump up the amount of space in the
storage medium.

Eman's 2G size for Oblivion is way off and it is actually around 6.4gs in size, Fallout 3 is about the same really.

I don't see the next games needing more storage on the discs. Even then, if Oblivions' next release was to be two discs, I could rip them to the HDD and play from there anyway.


PG1: 2.3 GB, PG2: 4.3 GB, PG3: 6.7 GB, PG4: 7.2 GB, COD3: 2.9
GB, COD4: 2 GB, COD5: 6.4 GB.

And you're saying for the next 7 years games aren't going to grow more
than 2 gigs?

You're listing a small handful of games and I'm not entirely convinced
that you have the right numbers, anyway, since I've seen a few of them
fully ripped at considerably smaller sizes.

In any case, a standard hard drive affords developers the ability to
significantly compress assets for installation without having to worry
about a hit to game performance at runtime. A standard hard drive
significantly reduces the need for a larger storage medium.

Consider that many of these games have ballooned in size this
generation because of the fact that developers could NOT count on a
standard hard drive in the Xbox 360.

You may be right, but if you are, i'm done with gaming.
It will no longer be cutting and leading edge technology, innovation
and ingenuity will be vacant, and it will be just another appliance
like a refrigerator, stove, or vacuum cleaner frozen in time and
defined by near sighted and complacent consumers lulled into
mediocrity by corporations that will reap billions by rehashing decade
old technology.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't think Microsoft or Sony would shed a
tear. It's clear that the traditional hardcore gamer is much less
important in today's gaming industry.

Nevertheless, "cutting and leading edge technology" was never the core
of quality gaming. Games were around long before the game companies
started relying on the latest 3D graphics and hi-def sound and many of
those were a sight better than the ones we have today.

Further, innovation and ingenuity are not tied to technology and never
have been. I dare say most traditional hardcore gamers care less about
innovation and ingenuity from ATI and NVIDIA and more about innovation
and ingenuity from game programmers and designers.

If all gaming ever was to you was the latest and greatest tech, then
you got into gaming for all the wrong reasons (if there ever could be
a "wrong" reason to get into gaming).

.

Relevant Pages
Loading