Are we EVER going to get new consoles?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Are you ready for the next gen?

  • I'm totally ready, and willing to pay to play. The 360/PS3 are starting to feel old.

  • I'd like to see them sooner rather than later, but I'm not ready to put money on them.

  • I'm completely satisfied now, but I'll probably be ready several years from now.

  • I'm completely ambivalent. Current gen is good enough, and I'll prob never care to pay for more.

  • But if someone we're to buy it for me, I'd totally want it.

  • The kinect and move ARE the next gen, and I'm totally down.

  • I'm more than happy with my Wii/PS2. I dont even have a PS3/360 yet.

  • I'd prefer a world without the 360/PS3 - too much focus on graphics vs gameplay.


Results are only viewable after voting.

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
I'll just ignore your hallucinations about my own thoughts and pose you a question.

You say that profits are stagnating for the big budget games. It would be madness for them to start over. The longer these consoles are out, the more entrenched the installbase becomes.

By that line of reasoning, developers will never want to move up to the next generation as the profits just won't be there due to budgets become even more inflated, and the installbase will be too small to make it worthwhile.

So do you believe that this gen is as far as it goes, that we'll never see a ps4 since developers will ultimately be resistant to anything that busts the budget further?
 

gar655

Senior member
Mar 4, 2008
565
0
71
Gene - I'm sorry but that's crap. There are few games, if any, that can run at 1080P @ 60FPS consistently on the PS3/360. 30FPS, sure. 60? No. I can't find a list except for little/smaller games like Wipeout HD that can run at 1080P @ 60FPS. Even Sony is cracking down on developers coding for 1080P, according to this article:

http://www.gamesrelay.com/features/sony-limits-3d-ps3-games-to-720p-instead-of-1080p.html

Again, it's lazy coding more than any issues with the hardware. Just look at how a well coded PC game can run on low end machines as opposed to poorly coded (Crysis) that still can't run at full speed even on todays $10K machines.

And that has as more to do with the coding than it does with the wiz bang graphics that aren't much better (if at all) than other current games that DO run properly.

But, then again, you don't really need 1080P in animation anyway unless you're running it on a 100" + screen.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Again, it's lazy coding more than any issues with the hardware. Just look at how a well coded PC game can run on low end machines as opposed to poorly coded (Crysis) that still can't run at full speed even on todays $10K machines.

And that has as more to do with the coding than it does with the wiz bang graphics that aren't much better (if at all) than other current games that DO run properly.

But, then again, you don't really need 1080P in animation anyway unless you're running it on a 100" + screen.

Crysis wasnt that poorly coded. I think it just had engine features that were so way ahead of its time that it didnt run well at max settings on the best cards available then. It runs at more than full speed on todays $200 cards, and I remember running it just fine on a 7600GT back in the day. Obviously I didnt have everything nearly turned all the way up, but it still ran at a decent clip at moderate settings.

Crysis is actually a very good example of a lot of what I'm talking about. Especially on today's graphics cards, but even back then, almost 3 full years, it simply blows away on a visual level what this gen of consoles is capable of. Theyre putting Crysis 2 in the city because consoles simply dont have the memory and power to handle the level of detail in the foilage and surroundings.

Its also an example of a very, very good game where the graphics and sense of realism added to the overall experience. It wouldnt have been as good if you didnt feel so immersed in the island with the level of freedom to run around the jungle like you had.

3 years ago, they were able to make a game that clearly surpassed the consoles on a visual level. According to the Crytek CEO, it cost $22 million to make. Huge number to be sure, but it was still profitable, he claims. And I see no reason to deny that. And this was on a platform plagued by piracy, for a game targeted at hardware most people didnt have at the time. They even had to develop their own engine. Compared to the 20-30 mil console installbase, their PC installbase of people with hardware that could run the game was surely a fraction of that, and an even smaller fraction of those actually paid for it, and it was STILL profitable.

If Crysis could do it 3 years ago and make money, on the PC even, why is budget now this sort of impenetrable barrier to making games with visual quality surpassing that on a 360/PS3? MW2 supposedly had an even bigger budget, but I doubt many would argue that it beats crysis on a visual level. It still turned a hefty profit. Who are these struggling companies that cant turn a profit on their games due to insane budgets? Surely it isnt Activision (Profits doubled yty in Q1) or EA (96 mil profit in Q1).

I'm genuinely interested in specific examples of games that failed to make a profit because of budget. Of GOOD games. Mediocre or poor games shouldnt be expected to do well.
 

arredondo

Senior member
Sep 17, 2004
825
37
91
I'll just ignore your hallucinations about my own thoughts and pose you a question.

You say that profits are stagnating for the big budget games. It would be madness for them to start over. The longer these consoles are out, the more entrenched the installbase becomes.

By that line of reasoning, developers will never want to move up to the next generation as the profits just won't be there due to budgets become even more inflated, and the installbase will be too small to make it worthwhile.

So do you believe that this gen is as far as it goes, that we'll never see a ps4 since developers will ultimately be resistant to anything that busts the budget further?

Profits for games on HD systems are stagnating when compared to previous generations in the sense that they aren't automatically going up on average like every generation before. Handhelds, mobile units and the Wii combined with the popularity of online games that can be played for a few years after a single purchase are sucking up more profits than previous "powerful" systems in the past have had to deal with.

There are still profits to be made, and some games do exceptionally well for the 80 million HD systems sold, but it takes more unit sales than ever before to make it work since the budgets are so huge. It is madness for any company to increase development budgets to make next gen titles when the installed base at best will be a few million for the first few years after launch.

Only when it is clear that current releases have so little chance at making a significant profit on our systems of today do they slowly start supporting future next-gen platforms. We aren't there yet. I predict that we will see the X720 and Wii HD announced in 2012 for releases in 2013/2014, and see an announcement of the PS4 in 2013 for a release in 2014/2015.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Well, what's do you see thats going to change in 3 years that's going to get them over the hump? If profits for current gen AAA titles are stagnating despite the installbase, how can they hope to EVER make a profit when a new gen is going to necessarily have higher budgets and lower installbase? If what you're saying is true, and it's madness now, then it's going to be absolute insanity in three years. How can the next gen ever get off the ground, and why would the developers ever be onboard such a doomed endeavor? Especially when there's greener pastures in other market segments?
 

EightySix Four

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2004
5,122
52
91
It's naturally going to cost game developers more money to make games which are more realistic, the game engines have to be better, the hardware has to be better, and the art work will take longer/cost more.

The only way I can see this changing in the future is if we come up with a new method of game development, current methods are just too costly and it's going to get exponentially harder as we get closer to photorealism.

The textures will have to get better, the modeling far more detailed, the physics engines will have to become more believable, its hard. As much as I'd like a new console, I don't think we are there yet, sure we have the hardware, but the development side isn't there yet.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,004
5,892
126
I think the further along we get that more and more that engines are not going to be built in house, and rather companies will build them and sell them. it is already happening, but I think it will happen more and more due to time/cost constraints.

either that or games will take a lot longer to make, and game prices will rise.

it is just a fact that games cost a lot more now than they used to, and that is going to happen more and more as they evolve. the amount of people that are involved in game creation now, and time involved, has grown dramatically.

we are honestly pretty damn lucky that game prices have hardly rised at all since video games came out. hell NES games were $50, and that is over 20 years ago. with inflation and the increased cost of game development we need to be happy as hell prices havent rose.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
It seems to me like the software/engine/middleware side is the real constraining factor as well rather than strictly budgetary reasons. But then don't we have a sort of chicken or egg problem? Without the newer hardware to develop the software to, where's the imperative to push software that can take advantage of it?

Microsoft's success in the console market stemmed from basically throwing pc parts in a box and giving it an x, although to a lesser extent with the 360. The pc market was constantly pushing the limit on software AND hardware while the consoles stood still for 5 years at a time. But I see few PC games nowadays that push the limits past what the consoles can do (albeit at a higher res). Even id and epic are more concerned with consoles than pc with their games and engines. Without the pc as the proving ground for the next gen, and with ever extending console lifecycles, it seems that the more time goes on, the less incentive there is going to be for that next console generation. And if AAA games are struggling to profit, if the majority are already satisfied with this gen, and there's more money in the casual/mobile sector anyway, who's at all stands to profit from the next gen?

I'd hate to think the outlook is really that bleak.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Sigh.

Software IS a budgetary constraint. You do realize that you have to PAY people to write SOFTWARE, I hope.
 

arredondo

Senior member
Sep 17, 2004
825
37
91
Well, what's do you see thats going to change in 3 years that's going to get them over the hump? If profits for current gen AAA titles are stagnating despite the installbase, how can they hope to EVER make a profit when a new gen is going to necessarily have higher budgets and lower installbase? If what you're saying is true, and it's madness now, then it's going to be absolute insanity in three years. How can the next gen ever get off the ground, and why would the developers ever be onboard such a doomed endeavor? Especially when there's greener pastures in other market segments?

The switch will happen like it always does - the next gen development costs will eventually come down enough (along with a decline in average profits from games this gen) to a point where it makes sense to move on. The difference I keep emphasizing to you is that this process is taking longer than the old 5-year cycles you are pining for.

Making games takes longer and is more expensive than ever for top tier consoles, but potential profits hasn't kept up in pace. Still, the profits are higher now than if they tried to drag out PS2/XBox generation longer than the public would have supported it. The profits are also higher now than if they simply *poof* launched two new Super-HD consoles this Christmas.

No, the industry isn't in the best shape, but your solutions would make things worse, not better.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
The switch will happen like it always does - the next gen development costs will eventually come down enough (along with a decline in average profits from games this gen) to a point where it makes sense to move on. The difference I keep emphasizing to you is that this process is taking longer than the old 5-year cycles you are pining for.

Making games takes longer and is more expensive than ever for top tier consoles, but potential profits hasn't kept up in pace. Still, the profits are higher now than if they tried to drag out PS2/XBox generation longer than the public would have supported it. The profits are also higher now than if they simply *poof* launched two new Super-HD consoles this Christmas.

No, the industry isn't in the best shape, but your solutions would make things worse, not better.

:thumbsup:

It's an evolutionary process and it happens at it's own pace based on everything happening in the industry. You can't force it or you end up with a Sega CD or 32X.
 

Sahakiel

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2001
1,746
0
86
Somehow, I get the impression this thread is a long introduction to economics.
High school economics.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
None of which was every really necessary. I started the thread thinking that there'd be some support for new consoles. The poll and all the hostility towards the idea clearly indicates there isn't. If the support from the gamers was there, their money would be there with them, which would completely change the economics of it all.

A shame in my eyes, but it is what it is. I still hold out hope that the PC can pick up some of the technological slack in the meantime, but otherwise I'll have to settle for decent looking games in the meantime, which isn't such a terrible thing.

The people who think we'd have been better off without the ps3/360 are still crazy though. :)
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I think the further along we get that more and more that engines are not going to be built in house, and rather companies will build them and sell them. it is already happening, but I think it will happen more and more due to time/cost constraints.

either that or games will take a lot longer to make, and game prices will rise.

it is just a fact that games cost a lot more now than they used to, and that is going to happen more and more as they evolve. the amount of people that are involved in game creation now, and time involved, has grown dramatically.

we are honestly pretty damn lucky that game prices have hardly rised at all since video games came out. hell NES games were $50, and that is over 20 years ago. with inflation and the increased cost of game development we need to be happy as hell prices havent rose.
Actually, game prices have stabled and lowered this (and last) generation. Remember paying $64.99 for an N64 title? How about $79.99 for an SNES title? The lower price point for games has lowered a bit. This is despite inflation and rising costs across the board. I am astounded this even happened. I am happy about it as well of course. I am happy with the current price points so long as they stand and companies continue to make money off it.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Well, they saved a ton moving to disc based vs cartridge based games. They also stand to save quite a bit more on digital distribution, although they seem quite resistant to passing those savings along. Then there's dlc, in game ads, reselling old games on emulation, remaking old games and selling them for full price, subscription fees, etc etc. And to top it all off there's more gamers than ever.

They'll find plenty of ways to make money outside of direct game sales. I wouldn't fear for their bottom lines.
 

FeathersMcGraw

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2001
4,041
1
0
Actually, game prices have stabled and lowered this (and last) generation. Remember paying $64.99 for an N64 title? How about $79.99 for an SNES title? The lower price point for games has lowered a bit. This is despite inflation and rising costs across the board. I am astounded this even happened.

Without any sort of market data to back it up, I would expect that the relative price stability across generations despite massively increased software production costs is due to expansion in the number of households with consoles. The increased affordability of consoles is probably in some part thanks to Moore's Law.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Actually, game prices have stabled and lowered this (and last) generation. Remember paying $64.99 for an N64 title? How about $79.99 for an SNES title? The lower price point for games has lowered a bit. This is despite inflation and rising costs across the board. I am astounded this even happened. I am happy about it as well of course. I am happy with the current price points so long as they stand and companies continue to make money off it.

That was actually due to materials, and it's why it was the last cartridge based system.

I wonder if anyone has done a study of game prices after factoring out the actual manufacturing costs? If I were a betting man I'd wager that, after adjusting for inflation, the development costs per unit sold are right in line with what they were 20 years ago. In a competitive industry, profit margins are fairly static.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Without any sort of market data to back it up, I would expect that the relative price stability across generations despite massively increased software production costs is due to expansion in the number of households with consoles. The increased affordability of consoles is probably in some part thanks to Moore's Law.

Heh, beat me to it.
 

I4AT

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2006
2,630
3
81
I'm not ready yet, there just aren't enough AAA titles on either console IMO. Still waiting on Batman 2, the next Ratchet and Clank that's finally bringing co-op (wanna see more co-op titles and especially LAN support for new and existing titles), Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, Bioshock Infinite, need more quality PSN multiplayer games. The only thing I'd be interested in is a hardware refresh with maybe a faster Blu Ray drive and more system memory for better multitasking/web browsing while keeping full compatibility.
 
Last edited:

arredondo

Senior member
Sep 17, 2004
825
37
91
None of which was every really necessary. I started the thread thinking that there'd be some support for new consoles. The poll and all the hostility towards the idea clearly indicates there isn't. If the support from the gamers was there, their money would be there with them, which would completely change the economics of it all.

A shame in my eyes, but it is what it is. I still hold out hope that the PC can pick up some of the technological slack in the meantime, but otherwise I'll have to settle for decent looking games in the meantime, which isn't such a terrible thing.

The people who think we'd have been better off without the ps3/360 are still crazy though. :)

OK, I'll have the gamer side of me respond to this point. The developers still haven't fully maxed out what I already have, that's why I'm in no hurry to upgrade. To keep it simple, let's use the PS3 as the only example.

Resistance 1 at the PS3's launch was a nice step up from FPS titles on the PS2. Uncharted 1 and Batman were impressive technically when compared to Resistance. Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 were more impressive than those titles. Now the upcoming Gran Turismo 5 and Infamous 2 are looking really, really good. Check out THIS new Infamous HD trailer, which has that open world with a lot of people running in the streets wish you asked for earlier.

Once the titles stop improving and hold steady for awhile, I may start looking forward. For now I'm pretty satisfied.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Why are we still waiting on news of new consoles, and why aren't people expecting one from anyone besides Nintendo anytime soon?

For the week ending 8/14 the 360's software sales were up 5%, the PS3's were up 28%, even the PSP was up 15%.

Same week, DS software is down 13% and the Wii is down 15%.

Hardware sales, PS3 is up 58% YoY, the 360 is up 78%. The Wii is down 30%, the DS is down 31% and the PSP is down 39%.

As a business, if my sales are up from ~60%-80% YoY I'm pretty damn happy. If they are down 30%, that may have me getting a plan together.

If you look on a historical basis it normally ends up that a new console gets announced during E3 of the year following the first big downtrun in hardware sales for an existing generation machine- this isn't always true, but it is the norm.

As of right now, Sony hasn't even come close to hitting mass market price, hell they haven't even hit the launch price of the Wii. There is still a ton of movement to be in this generation, particularly for the HD parts(Wii's marketshare is tanking pretty fast ATM). The PS3 and 360 Elite(or whatever they happen to be calling their model with a HDD) could both potentially double the sales- perhaps even more, by the time they get to the ~$129 price bracket. Announcing a new system any time soon could significantly reduce that number as people would stop investing the same money into a system that they knew was on its' last leg.

The console business is a business. We will start to hear about the next generation once MS/Sony/Nin have a good reason to tell us about it from a financial perspective. When you are hitting a huge growth spike, it isn't the time to be doing that.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
None of which was every really necessary. I started the thread thinking that there'd be some support for new consoles. The poll and all the hostility towards the idea clearly indicates there isn't. If the support from the gamers was there, their money would be there with them, which would completely change the economics of it all.

A shame in my eyes, but it is what it is. I still hold out hope that the PC can pick up some of the technological slack in the meantime, but otherwise I'll have to settle for decent looking games in the meantime, which isn't such a terrible thing.

The people who think we'd have been better off without the ps3/360 are still crazy though. :)

I'm one of those people but it's because they are half-assed replacements for the pc; which means they take away from development on the pc and become the lowest common denominator which stifles real game advances. Instead we end up with the equivalent of Rocky 1 through 10.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
The Wii has the best gaming hardware of this generation. There will most likely be a new generation console from Nintendo with hi def output.

MS and Sony are both just repackaging the current generation, a key indicator they don't have plans for a new console. And there's little incentive to develop one.
Wii has weak hardware and sh*tier games. It's a great console for 9 year old girls and maladjusted men who haven't psychologically graduated past puberty.