# Graphical Impact of Xbox 720 & PS4



## slingblade1170 (Dec 31, 2012)

I don't think that the Xbox 720 & PS4 will have the graphical impact that the Xbox 360 & PS3 had over their previous consoles. I think most are expecting this vast improvement in graphics & hardware but I just don't see it happening. Now, of course both systems will pack more of a punch than the newly released Wii U but I don't see them being too much better, graphically.

The transition from Xbox to Xbox 360 was amazing, everything looked so much more beautiful and the details were outstanding. I just think that people have there hopes up a bit too high and won't be much too impressed with these new consoles. Whether it does or doesn't meet everyone expectations it will not stop me from buying the new gen of systems and enjoying what they offer. I just they bring something to the table besides slightly improved graphics or a slightly improved kinect or psMove. Anyways I stated my opinions, what are everyone elses' thoughts on the next gen?


----------



## chyyran (Dec 31, 2012)

TBH, the WiiU is a good idea of next gen graphics (See the graphics demo below), if developers take advantage of the GPU. You can't get much better than this without going into expensive, PC quality graphics territory, for the next few years. If the expected 2013 release year is to be believed, the graphics capability will be pretty similar.



By "packing more of a punch", that's not necessarily a given. I expect them to be pretty similar. Don't think that there will be that much of a gap, if at all between the WiiU, and the Sony and M$ 8th-Generation contributions.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> TBH, the WiiU is a good idea of next gen graphics (See the graphics demo below), if developers take advantage of the GPU. You can't get much better than this without going into expensive, PC quality graphics territory, for the next few years. If the expected 2013 release year is to be believed, the graphics capability will be pretty similar.
> 
> 
> 
> By "packing more of a punch", that's not necessarily a given. I expect them to be pretty similar. Don't think that there will be that much of a gap, if at all between the WiiU, and the Sony and M$ 8th-Generation contributions.



That's exactly the way I see it. I see a barely more powerful hardware setup over the Wii U but slim to none difference in graphics.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Dec 31, 2012)

The main problem with people expecting a leap in graphics on the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft is that yes they can be improved but the giant leap only comes from hardware costing a lot of $$$. Law of diminishing returns and all that. 

I do believe that the PS4 and 720 what every they are called, will be more powerful than the Wii-U but in the same breath I don't think that there will be enough of a difference that people will go "The Wii-U looks like crap!" 

The thing I would worry about from Sony and Microsoft is the $$$ if they do make some awesome machines they will cost a lot of money at launch. This would in effect hand Nintendo this gen as well at least when it comes to sales. 

I can hardly wait to see what Sony and Microsoft are going to offer. I suspect there will be some cool and not so cool surprises


----------



## chyyran (Dec 31, 2012)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> The main problem with people expecting a leap in graphics on the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft is that yes they can be improved but the giant leap only comes from hardware costing a lot of $$$. Law of diminishing returns and all that.
> 
> I do believe that the PS4 and 720 what every they are called, will be more powerful than the Wii-U but in the same breath I don't think that there will be enough of a difference that people will go "The Wii-U looks like crap!"
> 
> ...


 

I don't think Sony can afford to launch such an expensive console this gen. They need to get back on their feet fast, and a cheaper, not as "awesome" machine that is affordable at launch is a great way to do so.

Besides, the only reason people are expecting a "leap in graphics" is because the Wii's graphics looked like shit. I can't truly go back to playing my Wii anymore after seeing a bunch of games (Skyward Sword, TLS, etc) on my Wii, compared to Dolphin with just 2x Internal Res (No AA or anything, but it looked so awesome)


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 31, 2012)

The PS4 and the NextBox will live up to the expectations - games on consoles nowadays only look good because developers are capable of thinking of programming shortcuts and tricks that can squeeze more out of the systems. The truth is that they're running low, mostly on RAM. The 360 has 512MB RAM shared between the CPU and the GPU, the PS3 has 256MB RAM and 256MB VRAM - that's _not much_. The games we see on those platforms these days are either watered-down ports of PC games or games glued together with spit, ready to topple over due to lacks of resources.

Believe it or not, it's _high time_ for a new generation of consoles.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> I don't think Sony can afford to launch such an expensive console this gen. They need to get back on their feet fast, and a cheaper, not as "awesome" machine that is affordable at launch is a great way to do so.


 
I agree with that assessment. To be honest I have days when I wonder how much longer Sony can stay in business... They bleed astonishing amounts of cash in nearly every sector they are involved in. Few companies could afford that for very long and even Sony will fall if they do not make money on something soon.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 31, 2012)

I personally don't care. It does 1080p HD and doesn't look like PS1 graphics? That's all I care about. Hell Metroid Prime is still one of the best looking games of all time, so if that era of console gaming was still around but able to be done in HD, but still have the same specs, I'd still be happy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> TBH, the WiiU is a good idea of next gen graphics (See the graphics demo below), if developers take advantage of the GPU. You can't get much better than this without going into expensive, PC quality graphics territory, for the next few years.



Yeah you can - that's the problem.




The PS3 and the XBox 360 used to be the platforms of choice for developers - the PC games on the other hand were console ports adjusted to a keyboard plus mouse setup with upped graphics. Now, developers are still interested in console development, but the games are becoming more and more crippled as the platform of interest changed and the resulting software still has to be "down-portable" to the weaker architectures. More resources equals more freedom, and freedom is what the developers need to show off their talent.


----------



## chyyran (Dec 31, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I personally don't care. It does 1080p HD and doesn't look like PS1 graphics? That's all I care about. Hell Metroid Prime is still one of the best looking games of all time, so if that era of console gaming was still around but able to be done in HD, but still have the same specs, I'd still be happy.


 
Dolphin

That is all.



Foxi4 said:


> The PS3 and the XBox 360 used to be the platforms of choice for developers - the PC games on the other hand were console ports adjusted to a keyboard plus mouse setup with upped graphics. Now, developers are still interested in console development, but the games are becoming more and more crippled as the platform of interest changed and the resulting software still has to be "down-portable" to the weaker architectures. More resources equals more freedom, and freedom is what the developers need to show off their talent.


Can you elaborate a bit, I don't really understand what you mean.

I was talking about the fact that a good PC graphics card is expensive, and so if a console wants to match it, it will be expensive as well, if you're referring to that statement. Of course, since PC graphics are constantly evolving, you can't really match up with PC graphics for long, but regardless.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> Dolphin
> 
> That is all.


 
I'm not gonna lie, pretty sure my computer can't handle that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> Can you elaborate a bit, I don't really understand what you mean.


What I mean is that developers are forced to create games that would work on a 360/PS3 setup, mostly by the publishers who will always go for a multiplatform release unless they pay their royalties to either side of the "conflict". By being forced to do so, they have to cut corners, and by cutting corners they release content not in the form they would like to release it, but in a form that'll work.

Have a look at Bethesda's Skyrim ports compared to the PC version. It's Bugfest City, everyone! Mostly due to Bethesda's inabillity to code for consoles, but partially because console hardware has been officially maxed out and to even work, Skyrim had to be "simplified". Try running any contemporary game on 512MB RAM (about 300 will be eaten up by Windows) with a 256MB VRAM graphics card - _good luck with those framerates._


----------



## kristianity77 (Dec 31, 2012)

I have to laugh at people thinking that the new Sony and MS consoles will look "similar" to whats on the WIIU.  If this was going to be the case, why on earth bother?  WiiU titles now look no better than what we get on 7 year old PS3s and 360s so what would be the point in releasing something that is barely better!

I get tired of saying this but a new console will NOT have to have anywhere near the power of a PC to get similar returns in terms of performance.  

Youve only got to look at some of the best graphics of this generation like Uncharted 3, Far Cry 3, Halo 4, Red Dead...the list goes on to know that its no where near the same bringing games to consoles as with PC.

There was no PC costing under £1000 (in 2004) that is based on 2004 technology (when current gen hardware was finalised) that could run these games back then.  

So why this time should it be any different?

The new consoles which come out, whether 2013 or beyond, will be comparable to high end PC gaming of today (perhaps not ultra high end insane graphics).  The hardware wont on paper be anywhere close to a high end PC of course, but then it doesnt need to be.  Its a closed system, with no real operating system chugging along in the background which means developers can hone the shit out of making games run at maximum optimisation with much lesser hardware.

What developers have done this gen astounds me and still does.  The graphics they can push from systems which are 7/8 years old is amazing.  You dont get graphics like that on PCs from the same era.


----------



## Geren (Dec 31, 2012)

Video games are becoming too big. I mean, the market has been growing steadily. In order to cater to this big audience, the next consoles must be cheaper. Not everyone is willing to take on a "five hundred ninety nine" dolars for a hobby. Just look at how much sony has lost over the ps3. Yes, it's a wonderful console, but I couldn't even dream of getting it in the first years. Anyone with the capability to get something like the ps3 at launch, was better going for a PC.

If game console designers are smart, they should learn from the mistakes of this generation: no crappy graphics like the wii, no big price like the ps3, and no goddamn hardware fails like the xbox360.


----------



## chyyran (Dec 31, 2012)

kristianity77 said:


> I have to laugh at people thinking that the new Sony and MS consoles will look "similar" to whats on the WIIU. If this was going to be the case, why on earth bother? WiiU titles now look no better than what we get on 7 year old PS3s and 360s so what would be the point in releasing something that is barely better!
> 
> I get tired of saying this but a new console will NOT have to have anywhere near the power of a PC to get similar returns in terms of performance.
> 
> ...


 

If the devs are able to push the envelop on the PS360, why not on the WiiU? Why not on the PS4/X720? And they will not be comparable to the high end PC gaming of today. Just look at the WiiU launch titles. Most of the ports look like shit, not because the WiiU has a bad GPU, but because the devs don't know it well enough yet. When the developers get to know the aspects of the PS4/X720 to pull off the magic they do today on the PS360, PC gaming will already have moved upwards.

Those games you listed were made near EOL for these consoles. Devs know it extremely well to pull those games off. What is more comparable, is if you compare a PS360 launch title, to a high-end game of that year. 

What you also don't get is that Sony cannot afford to create another extremely powerful console, relative to what the PS3 was to the Wii this gen. Simply because of this, the PS4 will not be more extremely powerful than the WiiU.

M$, can, but will they? Extremely powerful hardware hits extremely hard on your wallets. It's just not a good business move.


----------



## Sterling (Dec 31, 2012)

kristianity77 said:


> *Snip


Well, for one windows is a resource hog compared to the lightweight OSes of the consoles. Another is the fact that consoles are dedicated to games and for games. You don't set aside resources for word processing on an Xbox 360, so you can put that much more memory and processing power into games. PC games of yesteryear mostly required large amounts of power because PCs are easily upgraded and it's easier to harness raw power than constrain yourself within limits like they have to do on consoles. 

You seem to already understand this so it really shouldn't be such a surprise that older hardware is just as capable.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 31, 2012)

Geren said:


> Video games are becoming too big. I mean, the market has been growing steadily. In order to cater to this big audience, the next consoles must be cheaper.


Selling more for cheap or less for more may or may not be a successful strategy - consoles have to support contemporary games first and foremost, and they're doing that poorly today.





> Not everyone is willing to take on a "five hundred ninety nine" dolars for a hobby.


Not everyone has to play video games as a hobby. Believe it or not, playing video games is actually a luxurious passtime activity - nobody's going to slash prices just because you specifically can't afford it - ten other Average Joes can. That said, $599 was a bit of a stretch.





> Just look at how much sony has lost over the ps3. Yes, it's a wonderful console, but I couldn't even dream of getting it in the first years. Anyone with the capability to get something like the ps3, is better going for a PC.


Like it was said earlier, no PC at the $599 price point could run the games the PS3 could at the time, so that point is moot. The console became cheaper once the technology became cheaper - it's simple as that. Perhaps the PS3 was "too inventive" for its own good, and that ramped up the price.





> If game console designers are smart, they should learn from the mistakes of this generation: no crappy graphics like the wii, no big price like the ps3, and no goddamn hardware fails like the xbox360.


Here we agree entirely - sub-par hardware like the Wii is a no-no, behemoths nobody can code for like the PS3's CELL are a no-no, suicidal CPU/GPU/Memory setups like the 360 and non-working add-ons like the Kinect are a no-no.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 31, 2012)

Geren said:


> Not everyone is willing to take on a "five hundred ninety nine" dolars for a hobby.


 
Clearly you don't know many hobbies then.


----------



## kristianity77 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> If the devs are able to push the envelop on the PS360, why not on the WiiU? Why not on the PS4/X720? And they will not be comparable to the high end PC gaming of today. Just look at the WiiU launch titles. Most of the ports look like shit, not because the WiiU has a bad GPU, but because the devs don't know it well enough yet. When the developers get to know the aspects of the PS4/X720 to pull off the magic they do today on the PS360, PC gaming will already have moved upwards.
> 
> Those games you listed were made near EOL for these consoles. Devs know it extremely well to pull those games off. What is more comparable, is if you compare a PS360 launch title, to a high-end game of that year.
> 
> ...


 
I personally think that the WiiU is an absolute hunk of junk im afraid.  To me, its one generation behind just like the Wii was.  The Wii was a fair bit better than a PS2, but Id say only slightly better than the original XBOX.

The WiiU is absolute rubbish for 2012.  You can say that its early doors so games are going to look a bit ropey but i disagree, they should STILL have a marked improvement from a 7 year old 360 or PS3.  

And on the other point, if sony have the PS4 down as only "marginally" being better than the WIIU, which would only put it "slightly" higher than the current PS3, why on earth would they bother?

Can you imagine it "heres the latest call of duty running on PS3, and here it is side by side on the PS4.  As you can see, its marginally better.  Now, do you want to play it on PS3, or spend hundreds of dollars to play this slightly better game on a new console."    It wont happen.   When they new systems hit the shelves, if there isnt a massive improvement over what we already have, who on earth is going to buy it? 

The Wii U is a big jump from the Wii, which is solely what Nintendo wanted.  They dont care about competing for grunt.  The PS3 was a massive improvement from PS2, and the 360 the same over the Xbox.

So why all of a sudden do we think the trend will buck?  Ive been in and around consoles, PCs, since the early 80s, and these new microsoft and sony consoles will not come out without a massive increase in graphics, performance.  If there isnt that hike, whats the point in bringing something new out?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 31, 2012)

Geren said:


> Video games are becoming too big. I mean, the market has been growing steadily. In order to cater to this big audience, the next consoles must be cheaper. Not everyone is willing to take on a "five hundred ninety nine" dolars for a hobby. Just look at how much sony has lost over the ps3. Yes, it's a wonderful console, but I couldn't even dream of getting it in the first years. Anyone with the capability to get something like the ps3 at launch, was better going for a PC.
> 
> If game console designers are smart, they should learn from the mistakes of this generation: no crappy graphics like the wii, no big price like the ps3, and no goddamn hardware fails like the xbox360.


 
Well in all honesty, the graphics on the Wii weren't as bad as people say. I mean, games like Metroid Prime 3 could stand up to something on other consoles. It's just most developers were too lazy to figure out how to find shortcuts like they are doing on other consoles.


----------



## chyyran (Dec 31, 2012)

kristianity77 said:


> I personally think that the WiiU is an absolute hunk of junk im afraid. To me, its one generation behind just like the Wii was. The Wii was a fair bit better than a PS2, but Id say only slightly better than the original XBOX.
> 
> The WiiU is absolute rubbish for 2012. You can say that its early doors so games are going to look a bit ropey but i disagree, they should STILL have a marked improvement from a 7 year old 360 or PS3.
> 
> ...


 
The WiiU has a very radical (did I just use that word?) architecture compared to the last gen consoles. And you simply cannot compare a system that many developers know how to squeeze every last bit out of, to a system that's barely a year old. The devs are experienced with the PS360, much more so than the WiiU, and know how to exploit it.

As for "massive improvements", I'm not saying that they're going to release a marginally better system compared to the PS3, I'm saying that they're going to release a marginally better system compared to the WiiU. The WiiU is not an underpowered piece of crap (I use this term figuratively, the Wii is a great console) like the Wii. It is a very powerful system that devs just don't know yet how to push it the same way they do with the PS360.

As well, the Sony, cannot afford to create that much of a "massive improvement". They're bleeding cash as we speak! They need to turn a profit, and fast, and again, creating an extremely expensive, but powerful console, when you're that close to bankruptcy, is a great way to dig yourself in a ditch even further. The PS360, as Foxi4 pointed out, is very underpowered, perhaps not so much as the Wii, but still underpowered, and they have to keep up somehow. Soon, the WiiU will be pushed to the envelop, and if MS and Sony can't catch up, they'll fall way behind. They need to make a new console with more resources than the last gen ones to keep up with the times. Again, the only reason PS360 games look so good is because the devs know how to exploit it to it's full potential. The WiiU has yet to reach this, and when it does, the other next gen consoles have to reach it with the WiiU.

Also, "If there isnt that hike, whats the point in bringing something new out?"
Well, there's one very, very solid answer to that. Profit. Money. Cash. Get the idea? The PS360 is getting old, and gradually, devs are getting tired of it. Lack of resources just don't allow games to look as good as they can, so you make a console with more resources, but not necessarily that much of a difference from the last gen, to draw in devs, and therefore, customers.




ShadowSoldier said:


> Well in all honesty, the graphics on the Wii weren't as bad as people say. I mean, games like Metroid Prime 3 could stand up to something on other consoles. It's just most developers were too lazy to figure out how to find shortcuts like they are doing on other consoles.


 

I agree with most of this.

To be honest, the Wii could have stood up to the other consoles, if Nintendo had bothered to put 1080p support into it. Wii Games look like a blocky mess with even Component cables on my TV, and a CRT just doesn't cut it for the Wii. If you want to truly see how Wii games could look, play with Dolphin. No AA or AF, and just 1x internal res, but 1080p window res. This is how it would have looked on the Wii, had Nintendo took a gamble and allow HD gamng. It just looks so much better


----------



## FireGrey (Dec 31, 2012)

People don't really realize just how much graphics can get better than PS3 and 360.


----------



## kristianity77 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> The WiiU has a very radical (did I just use that word?) architecture compared to the last gen consoles. And you simply cannot compare a system that many developers know how to squeeze every last bit out of, to a system that's barely a year old. The devs are experienced with the PS360, much more so than the WiiU, and know how to exploit it.
> 
> As for "massive improvements", I'm not saying that they're going to release a marginally better system compared to the PS3, I'm saying that they're going to release a marginally better system compared to the WiiU. The WiiU is not an underpowered piece of crap (I use this term figuratively, the Wii is a great console) like the Wii. It is a very powerful system that devs just don't know yet how to push it the same way they do with the PS360.
> 
> ...


 

I take your points i do   I just believe that when new consoles come out, what makes them sell initially is showing the consumer what it can do that just cannot be replicated on the older generation.   Without that factor, it doesnt pull the public in.

When the 360 came out I had been gaming on a PS2 mainly, with a bit of Gamecube.  I remember on launch day walking into a couple of shops, seeing a few games running on demo machines.  We are going back a while so bear with me but im pretty sure one was Kameo, another might have been Project Gotham Racing 3 and I think another might have been an NBA title of some sort.  To cut a long story short every single one of them games at the time was "wow"  in that you just couldnt get or hadnt seen graphics like that before on a home console.  not even close.

Thats why i purchased one. And when the next consoles hit the streets ill no doubt do the same thing again.  Ill go into a shop and ill expect to be wowed again, in seeing something on screen which just isnt remotely possible on this current gen.  If i dont see that, i dont see the point in upgrading.  I might well be totally alone in my reasons for buying a new console but this is just my opinion and how i do things.  This is why the new ones HAVE to take a significant leap in performance.  If a company like Sony cannot afford to do this then there might well be another company in the wings ready to take their place and fancy a piece of the pie.


----------



## chyyran (Dec 31, 2012)

FireGrey said:


> People don't really realize just how much graphics can get better than PS3 and 360.


 
This. The PS3 and 360, at their current state, have pretty good graphics. You can get better, but not as much as the jump from PS2 to PS3, and so forth.



kristianity77 said:


> I take your points i do  I just believe that when new consoles come out, what makes them sell initially is showing the consumer what it can do that just cannot be replicated on the older generation. Without that factor, it doesnt pull the public in.
> 
> When the 360 came out I had been gaming on a PS2 mainly, with a bit of Gamecube. I remember on launch day walking into a couple of shops, seeing a few games running on demo machines. We are going back a while so bear with me but im pretty sure one was Kameo, another might have been Project Gotham Racing 3 and I think another might have been an NBA title of some sort. To cut a long story short every single one of them games at the time was "wow" in that you just couldnt get or hadnt seen graphics like that before on a home console. not even close.
> 
> Thats why i purchased one. And when the next consoles hit the streets ill no doubt do the same thing again. Ill go into a shop and ill expect to be wowed again, in seeing something on screen which just isnt remotely possible on this current gen. If i dont see that, i dont see the point in upgrading. I might well be totally alone in my reasons for buying a new console but this is just my opinion and how i do things. This is why the new ones HAVE to take a significant leap in performance. If a company like Sony cannot afford to do this then there might well be another company in the wings ready to take their place and fancy a piece of the pie.


Might as well =/= will

And then you have the Ouya.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Dec 31, 2012)

The PS360 have not reached the apex or pinnacle of visuals in games. I say this as a PC gamer. Simply playing the same games available on consoles at higher settings on my PC produces an instantly noticeable improvement in visuals and I only have a mid-range graphics card. The PS3/360 are ancient consoles and we're long overdue for new ones.

If you want a hint at what next-gen will deliver, just look at the demos we've seen on high-end PCs. Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs. At the bare minimum, we will have games that achieve the level of visuals seen in that Wii U bird demo posted earlier.



@kristianity77

Large graphical leaps are not necessary for a new console to sell. Just look at the Wii which sold the most out of the current consoles and yet is the weakest.

*That said*, I don't think Sony (and Microsoft to an extent) really have a choice in that matter. If their system does not show a clear leap over the predecessors, there will be no reason to get it over the Wii U. Without a gimmick to allure customers (motion-controls for the Wii), a PS4 that's only marginally more powerful than the PS3 would be dead in the water.

And it's bit too early to deride the Wii U as a "hunk of junk". The system just came out and devs have yet to properly grasp the hardware. And the weaker the system, the more work it'll take for games to really shine and show a noticeable jump. The Wii U is not a humongous leap over the PS360 or we would have noticed by now but it is _at least_ more powerful by a fair bit than the PS360. It will take more time and effort on the devs part to create games that show a noticeable leap (perhaps Retro's games will be a first hint at it's true capabilities).


----------



## kristianity77 (Dec 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> The PS360 have not reached the apex or pinnacle of visuals in games. I say this as a PC gamer. Simply playing the same games available on consoles at higher settings on my PC produces an instantly noticeable improvement in visuals and I only have a mid-range graphics card. The PS3/360 are ancient consoles and we're long overdue for new ones.
> 
> If you want a hint at what next-gen will deliver, just look at the demos we've seen on high-end PCs. Star Wars 1313 and Watch Dogs. At the bare minimum, we will have games that achieve the level of visuals seen in that Wii U bird demo posted earlier.
> 
> ...





Agreed with much of this.  My point on needing graphical leaps to sell new consoles was meant really for those who already own PS3s and 360s.  Im guessing this would be the primary reason for them to upgrade to the latest console.  Because in fairness, I think the Wii and Wiiu have a sort of separate user base than the PS3 and 360.


----------



## J-Machine (Dec 31, 2012)

with multi-platform games being the norm right now I seriously doubt WiiU games are gonna wow us untill sony and microsoft make new consoles and even then, unless the devs truly hate coding on nintendo's system, I doubt they will work harder than they would need to on that one when porting to the competition. With the WiiU out first and an improvement over the PS3/360, it will become the benchmark for consoles untill well into it's life when dev's finally get bored with what they can easily make out of it.

you want jaw dropping visuals? 1080p tv (a high quality one) and hook it up to high end pc. You want unique experiences where a company dominates the games and peripherals for said experiences? get a video game console (by unique I mean exclusive titles)


----------



## slingblade1170 (Dec 31, 2012)

Ron said:


> The WiiU has a very radical (did I just use that word?) architecture compared to the last gen consoles. And you simply cannot compare a system that many developers know how to squeeze every last bit out of, to a system that's barely a year old. The devs are experienced with the PS360, much more so than the WiiU, and know how to exploit it.
> 
> As for "massive improvements", I'm not saying that they're going to release a marginally better system compared to the PS3, I'm saying that they're going to release a marginally better system compared to the WiiU. The WiiU is not an underpowered piece of crap (I use this term figuratively, the Wii is a great console) like the Wii. It is a very powerful system that devs just don't know yet how to push it the same way they do with the PS360.


Ron makes a very good point here, look at Halo 3 compared to Halo 4 or Oblivion to Skyrim on the same Xbox 360, same hardware, etc. Those graphical improvements are mind blowing and nothing has changed but the developers finding new ways to add more detail and texture without upgrading cpu & gpu. The WiiU doesn't look like much now because we have seen the same graphical ability on X360 & PS3 until the WiiU is pushed to its limits. Give the WiiU some time and a few high budget AAA games and it will really show all of its power. 

I'm not a PC gamer but I have seen some amazing games running on a high end PC but for a console to spend that kind of cash to keep up with PC would make the consumer pay $500+ easily. If we learned anything from this gen that cost is a big issue as well as online abilities and graphics. The Wii showed that success can come from 1st party games & very low cost but it lacked it a lot of great AAA titles. The PS3 showed us that being the most powerful isn't always best, I mean you had this overpriced console that really had no graphical difference over the Xbox 360 and was inferior to Xbox Live. Also, as far as motion control goes, it should be a choice because motion control can really ruin a game.


----------



## duffmmann (Dec 31, 2012)

Unless I've missed something, we have come to a point where, graphically, any further improvements are negligible. To the untrained eye, I'm certain that a player will look at the next gen Sony or Microsoft console and be unsure if what they are seeing is something from the PS3/Xbox 360 or something newer. Yes, maybe you'll be able to make a characters eye look even more realistic or something crazy like that, but you really have to be on the lookout for something like that.

I honestly think we've come to a point where Sony and Microsoft have to take a page from Nintendo and innovate their next new console, it can't simply be a graphical upgrade. It doesn't necessarily have to be a screen in the controller, but add something to your system that is both unique and warrants the upgrade in console. Lets have our systems ultimately working toward the goal of the PS9 in that old commercial for when the PS2 was first released.

Thats my opinion.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 31, 2012)

I'd just like to say unless you're an industry insider who knows what the next consoles are you shouldn't be throwing out accusations or guesswork. There's so many rumors and so much conflicting information flying around about the next generation that we have no idea.

A lot of people say "We've hit a visual plateau! We can't go any higher!" You can only not go any higher once it looks like real life. Anything is possible.


----------



## duffmmann (Dec 31, 2012)

FireGrey said:


> People don't really realize just how much graphics can get better than PS3 and 360.


 

i don't think its really a question of realizing how much better the graphics can be, I think its more a question of do people really care how much better graphics can get at this point?  Don't get me wrong, by all means improve your graphics with each new console.  But I do think we've come to a point where improved graphics are going to add little to gameplay overall.  I can see many many games coming for the xbox720 and PS4 that also get xbox360 and PS3 releases, because the gameplay will not be changed, only how polished off the graphics are.  Thats why i stand by my statement that Microsoft and Sony have to go in the next gen with the Nintendo mindset: innovate.  Find something that makes gameplay on your system unique from what you did on previous systems, something that you would have been incapable of doing on previous systems.  And at this point I don't know what that is.  Obviously the PS3 is capable of using the Vita as a controller.  Unfortunately the Vita is not cheap, so it is unrealistic to come out with a ton of WiiU like games for the PS3, but what I'm saying is that capability is already there.  It seems that Sony could probably just keep innovating the PS3 and not release a new console for a long time, which makes me wonder what the PS4 could possibly have going for it aside from a graphical upgrade, and then I question, how many established gamers are going to be clamoring for the PS4 if its nothing more than a boost in graphics.  Sony and Microsoft need to innovate in a way that their current gen systems aren't capable, and for me simply improved graphics aren't going to cut it.


----------



## Satangel (Dec 31, 2012)

Well I answered no to the poll, mainly because I think the next consoles are going to disappoint me in the fact they will be more aimed at multimedia/streaming than gaming. 
Another thing, I _hate_ paid DLC and consoles do that plenty of times.
Meanwhile piracy and secondhand games will keep getting harder and harder, making it much more expensive for us.

So no, I doubt the next generation will live up to my expectations.


----------



## duffmmann (Dec 31, 2012)

Satangel said:


> Well I answered no to the poll, mainly because I think the next consoles are going to disappoint me in the fact they will be more aimed at multimedia/streaming than gaming.


 
Wrong.  Gaming systems will always be about gaming.  However gaming systems are capable of more and more, and if they're capable of more, why not use those capabilities to improve television watching experiences and get more sales for those that don't game.

Without these multimedia/streaming services, the gaming systems would still have the same games, its not like these services somehow affect what developers are working on for the systems.  That makes absolutely zero sense.   The existence of Netflix has no impact on the GTA series.


----------



## ScreamingBeast (Dec 31, 2012)

Important facts seems to have been overlooked during the course of that thread.

1. The Wii is somewhere in between 2.5x/3x more powerful than the GameCube
2. The GC was the most graphically capable console amongst his own generation 

What's keeps Nintendo behind is the lack of good 3rd party support, the ridiculous amount of censorship and the lack of decent online support.. plus the fact that very few developper had the capabilities/budjet/time to understand and push the hardware. Please go play Mario Galaxy 2 or Conduit 2 on a good HDTV and just TRY to tell me it was not absolutely gorgeous


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 31, 2012)

ScreamingBeast said:


> Important facts seems to have been overlooked during the course of that thread.
> 
> 1. The Wii is somewhere in between 2.5x/3x more powerful than the GameCube
> 2. The GC was the most graphically capable console amongst his own generation
> ...


 
Conduit 2 looked like shit. Like I remember playing the first game (I actually own a copy of it) and thought it looked pretty good but when I booted up the second one it struck me as a shitty looking Wii game.

And yeah, Super Mario Galaxy looks good because lighting effects are pretty easy last time I checked and there's like hardly any textures. Any game with serious textures looks like ass on the Wii.


----------



## duffmmann (Dec 31, 2012)

ScreamingBeast said:


> Important facts seems to have been overlooked during the course of that thread.
> 
> 1. The Wii is somewhere in between 2.5x/3x more powerful than the GameCube
> 2. The GC was the most graphically capable console amongst his own generation
> ...


 

I don't think anyone disagrees with you.  Thats not what this thread is about.  Of course the Wii had some beautiful games (mostly 1st party).  The question is when the next xbox and playstation are released, are their improved graphics going to be as amazing a leap as it was from the PS2 and Xbox to the PS3 and Xbox360. 

I just don't foresee new systems having that kind of impact again graphically.  It was obvious during the Xbox/PS2/GCN era what the next leap in graphics would bring, this time I don't see it being so amazing a jump at all.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 31, 2012)

kristianity77 said:


> I have to laugh at people thinking that the new Sony and MS consoles will look "similar" to whats on the WIIU. If this was going to be the case, why on earth bother? WiiU titles now look no better than what we get on 7 year old PS3s and 360s so what would be the point in releasing something that is barely better!


Maybe because the console is just starting off, so the true power wouldn't even begin to show just yet.





kristianity77 said:


> The WiiU is absolute rubbish for 2012. You can say that its early doors so games are going to look a bit ropey but i disagree, they should STILL have a marked improvement from a 7 year old 360 or PS3.The Wii U is a big jump from the Wii, which is solely what Nintendo wanted. They dont care about competing for grunt. The PS3 was a massive improvement from PS2, and the 360 the same over the Xbox.So why all of a sudden do we think the trend will buck? Ive been in and around consoles, PCs, since the early 80s, and these new microsoft and sony consoles will not come out without a massive increase in graphics, performance. If there isnt that hike, whats the point in bringing something new out?


You may just have to take another look at ps3/360 "early doors so games".If you want speak of "trends", then you'll see that it would make more sense to see the next consoles all in the same ball park since the wii is the only home console from Nintendo that went away from that.The only reason you are in that line of thinking towards the ps4 is because the whole time you are using baseless assumptions that the Wii u can't be near the ps4 if ps4 is strong enough over ps3 or in other words, if the ps4 and wii u are near each other then the ps4 would only be "slightly" stronger than the ps3.

Sorry to break it to you, but you not going to see Uncharted years of effort and work from the get go.





Satangel said:


> Meanwhile piracy and secondhand games will keep getting harder and harder, making it much more expensive for us.So no, I doubt the next generation will live up to my expectations.


While these expectations are off-topic, I think we still have sometime to not worry about that, at least not too much.Oh, and don't buy games that abuses dlc and wait for collections and eoty editions.





Guild McCommunist said:


> I'd just like to say unless you're an industry insider who knows what the next consoles are you shouldn't be throwing out accusations or guesswork. There's so many rumors and so much conflicting information flying around about the next generation that we have no idea.A lot of people say "We've hit a visual plateau! We can't go any higher!" You can only not go any higher once it looks like real life. Anything is possible.


I rather see games become bigger with more contents then see them focus effort and time on realism.Not sure how to answer the poll, but I will say that I feel we didn't need a ps2 -> ps3 jump for ps4 have a nice jump from the ps3.


----------



## chyyran (Dec 31, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'd just like to say unless you're an industry insider who knows what the next consoles are you shouldn't be throwing out accusations or guesswork. There's so many rumors and so much conflicting information flying around about the next generation that we have no idea.
> 
> A lot of people say "We've hit a visual plateau! We can't go any higher!" You can only not go any higher once it looks like real life. Anything is possible.



A game that looks like real life is only impressive the first few times around. After that it gets pretty bland. Just saying'. But who knows, someday, graphics tech will transcend real life   

We haven't really hit a visual plateau, but the problem is the cost involved. High end graphics are expensive, and it wouldn't be a good choice to put it in a console.


----------



## Satangel (Dec 31, 2012)

duffmmann said:


> Wrong. Gaming systems will always be about gaming. However gaming systems are capable of more and more, and if they're capable of more, why not use those capabilities to improve television watching experiences and get more sales for those that don't game.
> 
> Without these multimedia/streaming services, the gaming systems would still have the same games, its not like these services somehow affect what developers are working on for the systems. That makes absolutely zero sense. The existence of Netflix has no impact on the GTA series.


Let's hope what you said is true. All I know is that for example 360 dashboard really is clogged now with all kinds of services, to rent everything and watch sports channels. 
Gaming is tugged away in that dashboard.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 31, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> A lot of people say "We've hit a visual plateau! We can't go any higher!" You can only not go any higher once it looks like real life. Anything is possible.





As it stands I seriously doubt MS or Sony have cooked up a world shattering GPU* which means if they follow the same patterns (and I doubt MS is going to break stride from the directX timeline) high end PC now, mid to low when it ships (assuming this time next year I could be playing on one).

*possible exception for something low powered or some slightly exotic CPU/GPU on a single die arrangement but that is probably more a concern for those that enjoy semiconductor fabrication/design.

I already went in the last thread we had on the "games cost more to develop"/"systems are underpowered" subject (which the summary of my input amounted to though resources are nice another option is to stop being a tart and be a better developer).

The only thing that I could be surprised on is if they went in for the GBC approach of having various levels of games (GB, GB with enhanced GBC and GBC only).


----------



## slingblade1170 (Dec 31, 2012)

Satangel said:


> Let's hope what you said is true. All I know is that for example 360 dashboard really is clogged now with all kinds of services, to rent everything and watch sports channels.
> Gaming is tugged away in that dashboard.


This is true, I like netflix/hulu/etc. but its starting to take over. You see more movie & music services on the dashboard than games, it feels more like a PC.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Dec 31, 2012)

I honestly don't think Sony and Microsoft can push the graphical envelope far higher than the Wii U like they did last generation and expect people to pay the price that accompanies it once again. It's not because they can't (though at least Microsoft is capable of it), but because it depends on who they are trying to compete with. It isn't just the Wii U they are competing with. It's the PC. In all likelihood, the only games that won't reach the PC audience are exclusives, and people have more than enough reasons to hand over a lot of cash for a computer rig than they do for a game system, because a computer can do more than just gaming. When Sony and Microsoft pushed out the PS3 and 360, they lost quite a bit of money, and have been trying to make it up in recent years. They took a risk, and it bit them in the butt. I just don't think they'll try to take that risk again, as seeing Microsoft is pushing for Kinect integration, for example.


----------



## duffmmann (Dec 31, 2012)

Satangel said:


> Let's hope what you said is true. All I know is that for example 360 dashboard really is clogged now with all kinds of services, to rent everything and watch sports channels.
> Gaming is tugged away in that dashboard.


 
Sure there is all that junk, but none of that junk has any impact on game production.  How could it???


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 31, 2012)

duffmmann said:


> Sure there is all that junk, but none of that junk has any impact on game production. How could it???


 
Well no but it does really detract from the experience. It feels like you paid (or are paying for in the case of XBL Gold) a virtual billboard. There's a lot of clutter in the UI and it detracts from the experience.


----------



## Arm73 (Dec 31, 2012)

I got a question for you :
How many TV sets on the market today or in the near future go beyond 1080p and how expensive are they ( = meaning how many of us ca afford it ) ?
Sure they can have better, more powerful systems out there, I'd expect them to excel in stuff like improved AI, physics and storage, but really, beyond offering a native 1080p support at a smooth framerate with improved lighting and shadows, I don't see how much will I actually be blown away by next gen graphics.

This time around, they really have to come up with something clever, something new, besides improve their graphics.
Last gen we had a major switch SD > HD, now we still have HD....

I really had a great time with the DS, and Nintendo has been clever to try to offer something new for a home console and hopefully some of the magic I had playing on the DS will return on the big screen, but beyond that, there is only som much they can improve on current ( Wii U ) graphics.

PCs are another territory because we have those monstrous resolution such as 2048×2560, and in order to output a ( moving ) image of that size you really need some power.....but like I said, consoles are meant for the living room TVs......
So don't expect such a leap as last gen.


----------



## KazoWAR (Dec 31, 2012)

I don't really see the graphics improving all too much, but I am hoping that the hardware of the ps4/720 will be able to at least push native 1080p60 on the current and hopefully future game engines.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 31, 2012)

You say that Arm73 but 
The shift to "HD" came in the previous go around- the original xbox did support various flavours of it and it was not a few token efforts either (much as I dislike wikipedia it should serve here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games_with_HD_support ). It is a potentially dangerous analogy as well as the landscape changed a bit between the DX8 stuff of the original xbox and the late stage DX9 that the PS360 sports.

Monitors of higher res- not enough for my liking (seriously the last few years have been bad times for fans of increasing quality monitors compared to the increases in the CRT era though laptops were worse) but given we are all more or less on HDMI/DVI these days I am going to fold in actual monitors where before I could not realistically have included VGA box users among those (people shifting away from TV usage/needing a TV decoder in their screen probably only adds to that). Should I go to them then there are a few, granted most will be stuff like 1440 vertical res or whatever counts as "ultrawide" rather than a true leap (though four player splitscreen and those with wall size displays/projectors aside I am not sure there are great benefits to going too much higher). Price wise they are definitely competitive/in the "this is what I plan to spend on a new screen type device".

Edit- as for xbox live adverts. I do not do live of any form and I will note it is almost like going without adblock when I wander in somewhere that does have some form of XBL.


----------



## duffmmann (Dec 31, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well no but it does really detract from the experience. It feels like you paid (or are paying for in the case of XBL Gold) a virtual billboard. There's a lot of clutter in the UI and it detracts from the experience.


 
Yeah I understand that, i do.  But as cluttered and crummy as a UI can get from all that junk (which definitely should be fixed, I completely agree with that), its never gonna change the fact that a gaming system still plays games, and the same great games are going to come out for it, regardless of if that other stuff is there or not.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Dec 31, 2012)

Arm73 said:


> I got a question for you :
> How many TV sets on the market today or in the near future go beyond 1080p and how expensive are they ( = meaning how many of us ca afford it ) ?
> Sure they can have better, more powerful systems out there, I'd expect them to excel in stuff like improved AI, physics and storage, but really, beyond offering a native 1080p support at a smooth framerate with improved lighting and shadows, I don't see how much will I actually be blown away by next gen graphics.
> 
> ...


If you're expecting games to be rendered in 1080p and have a framerate of 60FPS on the Orbis/Durango, well you're going to be disappointed. Devs will continue to render games with a resolution of 720p (and sub-HD later on) at ~30FPS so they can squeeze whiz bang effect out of those consoles.

If you're hoping for good image quality in your multiplatform games, you should just get a high-end PC. Don't bother with consoles.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Dec 31, 2012)

I won't be able to help myself from comparing WiiU games to Xbox 360 games when I get the cash to pick up a Wii U and something like Mass Effect 3 or AC3.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Dec 31, 2012)

slingblade1170 said:


> I won't be able to help myself from comparing WiiU games to Xbox 360 games when I get the cash to pick up a Wii U and something like Mass Effect 3 or AC3.


Don't bother.

http://www.eurogamer.net/?topic=digital_foundry

The only multiplatform game superior performance-wise on the Wii U right now is Trine 2.


----------



## emigre (Dec 31, 2012)

Personally I much rather have some original ideas that actually has substance for the next gen of games.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Dec 31, 2012)

soulx said:


> Don't bother.
> 
> http://www.eurogamer.net/?topic=digital_foundry
> 
> The only multiplatform game superior performance-wise on the Wii U right now is Trine 2.


I know theres probably not one difference between them but I won't be able to help myself after I've had a few beers and get bored. lol


----------



## Chiodo (Dec 31, 2012)

I find it funny reading everyone comments about the huge leap form the Xbox to the Xbox 360.

I remember watching the 360 launch on G4.  The host of the show stated they expected a larger leap in graphics.  The leap was not as great these commenters are claiming.

Gaming comes down to how fun the game is.  How many peopke care about graphics?  The DS and 3DS have out sold the psp and the vita with inferior graphics.  I still play SNES games.

The WII U will be a great platform as development cost will be less than the next gen consoles.  Inaccurate Motion controls are what killed the wii not the graphics.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Dec 31, 2012)

Chiodo said:


> I find it funny reading everyone comments about the huge leap form the Xbox to the Xbox 360.
> 
> I remember watching the 360 launch on G4. The host of the show stated they expected a larger leap in graphics. The leap was not as great these commenters are claiming.
> 
> ...


No, graphics do not kill a game you are right. Iphone & Android has a bunch of SNES looking games that sell more than most console games because they are fun. I never cared much for graphics it was more of a bonus rather than what made the game. Like I mentioned in my first post graphics will not stop me from buying a system where the games looks fun to play. 

Damn, reminds me I still need some cash to buy a Wii U.


----------



## Chiodo (Jan 1, 2013)

slingblade1170 said:


> No, graphics do not kill a game you are right. Iphone & Android has a bunch of SNES looking games that sell more than most console games because they are fun. I never cared much for graphics it was more of a bonus rather than what made the game. Like I mentioned in my first post graphics will not stop me from buying a system where the games looks fun to play.
> 
> Damn, reminds me I still need some cash to buy a Wii U.


 
The problem with the current and next gen is devs only focus on graphics. I have not turned on my PS3 or xbox360 in over 2 years. We need better game play or original ideas.

I bought WII U day one (I am not a fanboy) It's cool tech. It could flop but worth my $400 investment. Support Devs with good ideas.


----------



## Chiodo (Jan 1, 2013)

Chiodo said:


> The problem with the current and next gen is devs only focus on graphics. I have not turned on my PS3 or xbox360 in over 2 years. We need better game play or original ideas.
> 
> I bought WII U day one (I am not a fanboy) It's cool tech. It could flop but worth my $400 investment. Support Devs with good ideas.


 
Also, Free to Play gaming is here to stay.  The company that best embraces this new concept will be the most successful.

Guild Wars 2, DOTA2, SMITE, hawken, end of nations, Blacklight Retribution, Sin of a dark age, Tactical Intervention. lots and lots more.  I have played many of these games for hours.  They are quality games.


----------



## Qtis (Jan 2, 2013)

Chiodo said:


> Gaming comes down to how fun the game is. How many peopke care about graphics? The DS and 3DS have out sold the psp and the vita with inferior graphics. I still play SNES games.
> 
> The WII U will be a great platform as development cost will be less than the next gen consoles. Inaccurate Motion controls are what killed the wii not the graphics.


 
The first part of your post is both right and wrong. Yes, the DS and 3DS have outsold the PSP and PSVita, but the starting point for both comparisons have been the following: Nintendo with years of experience and customer awareness vs. Sony with a brand new console type (never been in the handheld market before). It does matter a lot since many people will buy first and foremost the one that is familiar. Also the GBA BC on the DS and DS BC on the 3DS helps a lot with the massive game libraries of the previous gens. Sony on the other hand (unfortunately) doesn't have BC on the PSVita for PSP UMDs or PSX discs (though PSN titles do work).

As for the Wii, the hardware killed the Wii. When it wasn't capable of doing even close to the same level of graphics and elements as its counterparts, it lost a lot of large (multiplayer) games. Sure the console did make great games with good looking graphics, but SD vs HD in games that were made to look beautiful.. It just isn't right. That's the reason why Dolphin can be considered a HD Wii emulator when used with a decent machine. If the possibilities of Dolphin were made available on the WiiU (or whatever console) and Wii games could be re-rendered for better resolution output, the Wii games could compare better.

TL;DR: Nintendo is a huge name in the console business and it has a certain level of success. Especially in the handheld business, since Sony is pretty much the only contester now (all other tries have failed) Still having limited hardware capabilities vs the other makers does cripple a non-handheld console. Portables can be crippled by many things like having few quality games.

On the actual question: It's all about how well it will look. The viewing distance of TVs is a lot larger compared to computers. Lower resolution is not that bad as long as it's not sub HD (or in cases of a TV with >~40" FullHD). You probably won't notice that great a difference. That's the reason why 4k will have a lot harder time justifying it's reason of existence in a normal living room. Movie theaters have a big ass screen, but getting anything out of 4k will require a large screen. Possibly even bigger than 50-60" because of the viewing distance.


----------



## duffmmann (Jan 2, 2013)

Wii was never "killed" it didn't compete directly with the 360 or PS3.   But it sold extremely well, and by all accounts and measurements should be considered a huge success.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Jan 3, 2013)

duffmmann said:


> Wii was never "killed" it didn't compete directly with the 360 or PS3. But it sold extremely well, and by all accounts and measurements should be considered a huge success.


Yes, opinions are one thing but the Wii did sell very well actually more units than the competition. Even the software was a hit especially games like Wii Sports.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jan 3, 2013)

slingblade1170 said:


> Yes, opinions are one thing but the Wii did sell very well actually more units than the competition. Even the software was a hit especially games like Wii Sports.


 
Wii Sports was a pack-in except in Japan I'm pretty sure.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Jan 6, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Wii Sports was a pack-in except in Japan I'm pretty sure.


My bad, Wii Play is what I meant.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jan 7, 2013)

Why isn't "I have no freaking idea" an option in the poll?


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Jan 7, 2013)

I'd imagine nex-gen graphics could have visuals just like some animation movies from some years ago, with the main difference they would be able to generate the graphics in real-time unlike animation studios where it takes a lot of time to render all the scenes


----------



## koimayeul (Jan 7, 2013)

Eh, i don't think there will be much of a jump in quality, just more on par with PC evolution.


----------



## Tekken179 (Jan 7, 2013)

Put it this way if those Dev consoles are out there atm with the specs that have been leaked, even if they are not the final hardware for the console I couldn't imagine them going much further than what they are aiming for as always they will be 2 steps behind PC or what the current technology market can provide for reasonable prices.


----------



## ReBirFh (Jan 8, 2013)

There is one thing no one seems to talk much about - Development costs - this generation killed a lot of softhouses, the current gen games are so expensive that there isn't much room for failure or experiments and because of that I don't expect the next gen to be such a big improvement graphically not because of lack of technical resources but for lack of money to keep the game looking gorgeous while your company stays alive, there is a reason for all the "DLC" that in previous generations were unlocked through gameplay and now you have to pay for them.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 8, 2013)

ReBirFh said:


> There is one thing no one seems to talk much about - Development costs - this generation killed a lot of softhouses, the current gen games are so expensive that there isn't much room for failure or experiments and because of that I don't expect the next gen to be such a big improvement graphically not because of lack of technical resources but for lack of money to keep the game looking gorgeous while your company stays alive, there is a reason for all the "DLC" that in previous generations were unlocked through gameplay and now you have to pay for them.



The game software/creative industries have always been brutal and it is not like the last few years have been noticeably different here. I do have serious issues with "games cost more to develop" as a concept as well, I will grant you that if you are going to fill every possible role then things get expensive but such a thing is hardly a requirement.

DLC as gameplay unlocks..... I recall trotting on down to game shops to buy expansion packs and addons. That is overlooking the DLC as stuff actually developed after the game went gold thing as well.


----------



## ReBirFh (Jan 8, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> The game software/creative industries have always been brutal and it is not like the last few years have been noticeably different here. I do have serious issues with "games cost more to develop" as a concept as well, I will grant you that if you are going to fill every possible role then things get expensive but such a thing is hardly a requirement.
> 
> DLC as gameplay unlocks..... I recall trotting on down to game shops to buy expansion packs and addons. That is overlooking the DLC as stuff actually developed after the game went gold thing as well.


 
Expansion Packs and addons were common in PC not in consoles (ok, they lacked the capability for that) but those expansion packs added significant content just as big or bigger than the main game and were released months/years after the first release, actually giving more lifetime to your game, I'm criticizing the ridiculous day 1 dlc, on disc dlc. Usually new stages, characters and costumes were rewards the player acquired through conquering the game.


----------



## BenRK (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm fairly confident that the graphical jump in future consoles wont be as great as "hardcore gamers" like to think. Things are looking good now, if a little limited. The best we will see graphically is higher res textures and a cleaner picture. What will improve games at this point is better processors and more RAM, seriously. The amount of polygons on the screen is becoming less important.

I think that what will make a successful console is how open it is to indie developers, not AAA developers. It's becoming a duopoly there, slowly, but soon it will be ruled by EA and Activision. The indie crowd is where it's at.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Jan 9, 2013)

I would like to see what developers can do with a bit of extra hardware and the massive amount of memory on the game disc.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jan 9, 2013)

ReBirFh said:


> Expansion Packs and addons were common in PC not in consoles (ok, they lacked the capability for that) but those expansion packs added significant content just as big or bigger than the main game and were released months/years after the first release, actually giving more lifetime to your game, I'm criticizing the ridiculous day 1 dlc, on disc dlc. Usually new stages, characters and costumes were rewards the player acquired through conquering the game.


 
Because current add ons don't?

Even then, how does rebuying a game for an add-on that "added significant content" make it better than just spending $10 extra on content that adds a decent amount? Like if you don't want to pay $15 for a map pack, don't. You can still play the game just fine. However if you want to pay $15 for a map pack because, god forbid, you really enjoy the multiplayer and you'll invest a lot of time into these new maps, then go ahead.

All these new stages, characters, and costumes are usually made after the game's development. Back in the day you had to rebuy a thousand versions of Street Fighter II. Now, well yeah you have to rebuy some Capcom fighters (like SSFIV vs SFIV) but stuff like Arcade Edition is now an optional add-on.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jan 10, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> I do have serious issues with "games cost more to develop" as a concept as well, I will grant you that if you are going to fill every possible role then things get expensive but such a thing is hardly a requirement.


If you want to be competitive against other AAA games, you don't have much of a choice. The natural motion shit, movie-style soundtracks, almost-real life visuals that are common in AAA games now ain't cheap. Multi-million dollar budgets are common with triple-A games and the cost will only increase with more powerful hardware.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Jan 15, 2013)

i think the ps4/x720 will be almost the same as ps3/x360 but rendered at 1080p, the current gen was supposed to render graphics at 1080p but actually are rendering at 720p maximum just to add massive postprocessing and antialias because the leap in power to 1080p with all thats effects is very large, anyways if ps4/x720 can render all those effects at [email protected] then ill be satisfied. try comparing viewing a bluray with a 720p and a 1080p screen you will see the difference only if you see it side to side, thats the people is generally satisfied with current gen graphics, because is used to 720p renders.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jan 15, 2013)

would have preferred the option "I have no expectations"


----------

