Re: What we expect out of the next generation Xbox

On Jul 15, 2:25 pm, "Tom" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:d2f93c9d-5d1e-4614-bbe7-b0e125955e48@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Jul 14, 5:04 pm, "Tom" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:a9e8042a-ab6c-4d4e-a31b-8f2def4c72d4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 13, 7:14 pm, Nick Soapdish <JGordon...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:21 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 13, 1:42 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The alMIGHTY N <natle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

2010 is way too soon. 2011 is pushing it. 2012/13 is more
like
it.

Ugh. No way. 7-8 years between generations? It was 6 years
between
the
PlayStation 2 and the PlayStation 3 and even then the
PlayStation 2
had more games around to support it so long than any current
generation system has or will have in the next few years.

As we saw this generation, price is a big issue. By 2011, the
hardware
needed for the next generation will be cheap enough to allow for
$300-400
consoles again. Anything earlier and you're basically looking at
the
"2
Gamecubes with duct tape" type of technology leap. In otherwords,
what
the point?

Console manufacturers didn't need 7-8 years in the past and need it
even less now. Technology evolves at a noticeably faster rate now
than
it did even a decade ago. Like you said, 2011 is pushing it... but
pushing it in the sense that a new console generation can't start
any
later than that.

The point you keep missing, no offense intended, is that the
DEVELOPERS need more time.

About that...

I think actually developers are going to want the next generation
sooner than you think. Developers aren't going to be able to get much
more out of the current Xbox 360 hardware. Epic and Infinity Ward are
already pushing it with the Gears and COD series.

Sony and developers were able to get by with a broad, diverse library
of games in the previous generation but more and more gamers are
focusing on specific genres to get grittier, more realistic
experiences. At the heart of this is graphics. Now, more than ever,
gamers seem to be locked in on how good a game looks.

Mirror's Edge - so many people immediately pointed out the rather
unsophisticated (at least technically) graphics. Prince of Persia - so
many people immediately pointed out "cartoony" graphics.

Then, look at games that were well-received. BioShock - great
graphics. Modern Warfare - great graphics (in fact, the reason
everyone got so hot about this game in the months leading up was the
amazing graphical effects). Gears of War - great graphics. Killzone -
everyone was talking about the graphics. MGS4 - graphics.

If these games looked more like Mirror's Edge and Prince of Persia but
everything else remained the same about them, guaranteed sales would
have been much less and everyone would be complaining about how this
generation sucks.

Developers are going to soon feel the limitations of at least the Xbox
360 if not the PlayStation 3 as well. They're not going to happy being
handcuffed for another 6 years.

I cannot remember where I read it, and I think I even posted it here not
long ago. But, I read somewhere where the head of a big game developer
stated that the 360 is all but maxed out for graphics and the PS3 still
has
room to grow.

LOL

The PlayStation 3 has room to grow alright... developers will
eventually be able to get their games to look consistently as good as
the Xbox 360 versions!

In all seriousness, there really isn't a whole lot more the
PlayStation 3 can do than the Xbox 360 in terms of graphics. The GPU
in the PlayStation 3 is slightly better than the one in the Xbox 360
but the memory architecture is superior in the Xbox 360.

You mean better in quality or power? The 360's GPU is sizeably more powerful
than the PS3's, considering it is a complete 512meg unit. The PS3 is the one
that shares 256x2 cross lines (system and graphics memory).

You're mixing up the GPU with the memory architecture.

The Xbox 360's GPU is clearly (but not severely) inferior to the
PlayStation 3's GPU. The PS3's GPU runs at 550MHz compared to the
360's GPU's 500MHz. This alone isn't a reliable indicator of
performance but coupled with other specs such as the PS3's GPU's 13.2
gigatexels fill rate (the 360 GPU maxes out at 8), 51 billion dot
product operations (the 360 GPU maxes out at 9.6) and 4.4 gigapixel
fill rate (the 360 GPU does 4), the picture is a bit clearer.

The Xbox 360's GPU does have the advantage of a more flexible design,
though. Much like the memory architecture, the shader pipelines can be
used as pixel or vertex on the fly as necessary. The Xbox 360 has 48
pipelines in total that can be dynamically assigned. The PlayStation
3, on the other hand, has 24 dedicated pixel shader pipes and 8
dedicated vertex pipes.

The PlayStation 3 is limited to 256MB of graphics memory whereas the
Xbox 360 uses a shared memory architecture that allows usage of that
memory to go back and forth between the CPU and the GPU as needed.

The PlayStation 3's Cell processor could be utilized to boost certain
aspects of graphics processing but at the same time usage of the CPU
for CPU-focused tasks would then be limited. The Cell really isn't
designed for graphics tasks so it would also perform said tasks less
efficiently.

Honestly though, I don't know how much better graphics can get,
considering
that right now and for definitely well into the future, 1080P is tops for
many years to come. Having better AI and physics is what I think they
will
be primarily shooting for.

There are other things related to graphics besides resolution that
could improve. The "modern age" consoles prior to this generation,
dating all the way back to the NES, all worked with the same
television resolution and we saw massive improvements in game
graphics.

That's what I said when I stated my 1080p comment, as the past has nothing
to do with what can be accomplished now. They can improve physics, AI and
even better AA.

I'm not talking about those things although I agree that developers
should focus on them. I was talking about graphical improvements that
can occur that have nothing to do with what resolution the display
has. That's why I mentioned older consoles and televisions - even
though the 480 resolution remained the same for so long, game graphics
improved significantly which each generation. Similarly, game graphics
can improve significantly next generation without a need to increase
beyond 1080p resolution.

As far a television of old, it was what it was considering
it was basically many variable sizes of a CRT that could not have it screen
size adjusted. The built in graphics thenjust made pixels smaller, but the
TV still couldn't get any better than 480i. Console makers had a total
standard to make their consoles to, not so today. What I am saying about
resolution, is that you cannot get any better than what is already there for
TV based games, as 1080p is the max and will be for many years to come.
Unlike a PC LCD monitor, where you can adjust the resolution to your liking
as much as your graphics card will support.



Look at how many games have been delayed
this generation, and how many have failed to take advantage of the
technology properly. Hell, Halo 3 took until late 2007 to come out,
and the graphics weren't advanced enough to be considered at the
cutting edge of "next-gen". I still don't understand why you say "a
new console generation can't start any
later than (2011)." Really, what's going to happen if it starts
later? Gamers will still buy games, and let's face it, the increase
in price over the $50 mark means that people need more time to save up
to buy games than prior console generations. Add in the economy
continuing to suffer like it hasn't since the days before videogames,
and it's clear that following the same "5 years or less life" cycle
isn't the safe bet it was in the past. The rules are different now.

Throw in the fact that the economy is still in the toilet
worldwide.
What's the point in introducing a new console when no one can
afford
it?
Better to wait a little longer. It's not as though any of the
consoles
have "hit the wall" as it were.

I don't see the next generation of console hardware being any more
expensive than it was in 2005 when the Xbox 360 arrived. In fact,
console manufacturers will be under more pressure to deliver at a
cheaper initial cost - even the 360's $400 starting price tag was a
bit ridiculous.

Not one sane consumer wanted the price of games to go above the $50
mark- yet it happened anyway at the beginning of this generation. As
we've seen, what consumers want, and what manufacturers and developers
are willing to do, are not the same.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why are there so many 360 fans ragging on the Ps3 now?
    ... since it doesnt play PS2 games? ... console brand great are its games and the people who make those games ... SONY makes great consumer electronics, I'll go with SONY" it's just ... had issues with the Playstation 3's architecture. ...
    (alt.games.video.xbox)
  • Re: What we expect out of the next generation Xbox
    ... > I think actually developers are going to want the next generation ... At the heart of this is graphics. ... look at games that were well-received. ... Console makers had a total standard to make their consoles to, ...
    (alt.games.video.xbox)
  • Re: analysts predict permanent decline in PC games
    ... the evolving PC graphics? ... Have you seen an XBox 360 in action? ... Then the games cost more on top of all that. ... Next gen console gaming ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action)
  • Re: analysts predict permanent decline in PC games
    ... the evolving PC graphics? ... Have you seen an XBox 360 in action? ... Then the games cost more on top of all that. ... Next gen console gaming ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action)
  • Re: analysts predict permanent decline in PC games
    ... the evolving PC graphics? ... Have you seen an XBox 360 in action? ... Then the games cost more on top of all that. ... Next gen console gaming ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action)
Loading