Next Next-Gen Won't Start Until 2012?

[Queasy]

Link - Longish article about companies like Intel, Nvidia, AMD, and Epic starting preparations for the next generation of consoles. Money quote:

"One of the things I like about this generation is we are still very early and there's still a lot of room for growth ? as we move down those price curves," says Brian Farrell, CEO of THQ (nasdaq: THQI - news - people ). "Those engines have a lot of steam left in them. We think it could be seven or eight years before new machines start to roll out."

Epic Games, maker of the hit "Gears of War" series, agrees. President Mike Capps recently said the company estimates new systems will not hit shelves until somewhere between 2012 and 2018.

Hmmm, if the current generation of consoles does indeed lasts another 4-5 years or more, we're going to be getting alot of use out of our machines. My question is, can the 360 hardware hold up, can the Wii hold up graphically, and does this do anything to modify the pace of price drops down to the magical $200 or less level?

Another good quote is Nintendo's Iwata basically saying their next console might not be perceived as 'revolutionary' as the Wii.

Nintendo, though, is in an unusual position. With the company's huge success with the current-generation console, consumers are going to expect a lot from it whenever the successor to the Wii is unveiled.

"Every hardware needs some revolutionary features," Iwata says. "This time around, it happened to be we had a revolutionary user interface. Will it be the same for the next generation? I really can't tell.

"It's natural for the current customer to expect Nintendo is going to once again do something different," he continues. "If the people are expecting so many different things from Nintendo, it's going to be difficult for us to go beyond that expectation again."

 

[Kabob]

I wouldn't mind having the current crop of consoles last that long (well, maybe not 2018...). As long as they can keep cranking out decent games I won't complain. Computers will get the graphical edge but considering that I heard somewhere a few months ago that they were only able to use around 33% of the 360's full power at the moment, it would seem capable of cranking out some really nice games that will hopefully hold me over until 2012 or whenever.

I'm sure they'll be alot of mixed views. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if different consoles are released far apart. Heck, the next Xbox might be out in 2010 while the nest Playstation might not be out until 2013, who knows.

 

[YoungGun21]

Originally posted by: kabob983
I wouldn't mind having the current crop of consoles last that long (well, maybe not 2018...). As long as they can keep cranking out decent games I won't complain. Computers will get the graphical edge but considering that I heard somewhere a few months ago that they were only able to use around 33% of the 360's full power at the moment, it would seem capable of cranking out some really nice games that will hopefully hold me over until 2012 or whenever.

I'm sure they'll be alot of mixed views. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if different consoles are released far apart. Heck, the next Xbox might be out in 2010 while the nest Playstation might not be out until 2013, who knows.

This. I would assume that the next Xbox would come far before the next PS because the PS3 does seem to have a little more longevity in mind. Sony got lucky with the Blu-ray winning out so one would think the next Xbox would need to have a Blu-ray drive in it but that shouldnt be necessary until much farther down the road (like the stated 2012 or so, most likely slightly earlier).

 

[bdubyah]

hmmm...if they are actually only using 33% of its power and are already out of space on the discs, then i suppose we are going to see more multi-disc games.

unless they end up going to digital distributing. and i don't think they will this generation.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: bdubyah
hmmm...if they are actuallt only using 33% of its power and are already out of space on the discs, then i suppose we are going to see more multi-disc games.

unless they end up going to digital distributing. and i don't think they will this generation.

😕

We already have digital distribution for this generation. Just not 100%.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
This. I would assume that the next Xbox would come far before the next PS because the PS3 does seem to have a little more longevity in mind. Sony got lucky with the Blu-ray winning out so one would think the next Xbox would need to have a Blu-ray drive in it but that shouldnt be necessary until much farther down the road (like the stated 2012 or so, most likely slightly earlier).

I think all three of the major players want to desperately move to an all-digital-download world. I would not be shocked if, by 2012, this actually happens.

 

[blurredvision]

I surely wouldn't mind if it was at least until 2012 that we saw a new console. Honestly, at this point, the 360 and PS3 do all I want them to do. Incredible graphics are easily achievable, there is still enough power to warrant good AI if the developer actually wants to put some time into it, and all the extra media stuff is icing on the cake.

With the amount of money and risk involved in this multi-billion dollar industry, I can definitely see more time in-between releases of consoles since that effectively just gives more time to make money back on current consoles.

 

[Kabob]

Originally posted by: bdubyah
hmmm...if they are actually only using 33% of its power and are already out of space on the discs, then i suppose we are going to see more multi-disc games.

I would assume the same. Prediction: Final Fantasy 13 will be multi-disk.

As for digital downloads, I'm sure they'd love it. It'll cost alot less when they don't have to buy boxes, make art and instruction inserts, etc. I bet places like Gamestop will fight it every step of the way, digital downloads would KILL them. It'd also mean that the next gen consoles had better have HUGE hard drives.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: kabob983
I bet places like Gamestop will fight it every step of the way, digital downloads would KILL them. It'd also mean that the next gen consoles had better have HUGE hard drives.

Yep and yep. I've often wondered how Gamestop would adapt to a completely digital distribution world. Gamestop keeps the doors open simply because of used games.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: kabob983
I bet places like Gamestop will fight it every step of the way, digital downloads would KILL them. It'd also mean that the next gen consoles had better have HUGE hard drives.

Yep and yep. I've often wondered how Gamestop would adapt to a completely digital distribution world. Gamestop keeps the doors open simply because of used games.

In their latest financials, EA reported $90mil in revenue from digital downloads alone. I think it is a given that this is the way everything is moving. Steam, Live, PSN, WiiWare. The only limiting factors right now are storage space, speed, and current agreements with publishers and retailers. I imagine that the next-gen will have even more digital distribution than now but we won't see disks disappear yet.

 

[KentState]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: kabob983
I bet places like Gamestop will fight it every step of the way, digital downloads would KILL them. It'd also mean that the next gen consoles had better have HUGE hard drives.

Yep and yep. I've often wondered how Gamestop would adapt to a completely digital distribution world. Gamestop keeps the doors open simply because of used games.

Not as big of a market for them, but you still need a place to buy hardware. Until MS and Sony can materialize your RockBand drumset at home, you will still need the stores.

 

[randay]

I hate digital distribution. im not going to support virtual ownership. I want the 1s and 0s on physical media and I want the ability to migrate software I have paid for without having to jump through hoops.

 

[Kabob]

I'm with you randay, I like having a physical object I can hold and see. Something...comforting about it. Course considering my old 360 ate my first copy of CoD 4 I guess all you'd have to worry about are magnets 😛

Consider this though, with all digital download assuming that your console OS and games are on the same drive that means that if you get a RROD or whatever and you ship your console in you've essentially lost all your games. Even if you can re-download them who wants to sit there and download 40+ GB of games all over again...

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: kabob983
I bet places like Gamestop will fight it every step of the way, digital downloads would KILL them. It'd also mean that the next gen consoles had better have HUGE hard drives.

Yep and yep. I've often wondered how Gamestop would adapt to a completely digital distribution world. Gamestop keeps the doors open simply because of used games.

I read some where that Gamestop was going to start becoming more of a gaming center with tournaments and other events in store. Maybe that's their plan.

 

[MoMeanMugs]

I simply don't buy that the 360 is only using 33% of its power. I am no programmer, but MS made the development kits user-friendly and similar to a PC development kit. Many game developers also code PC games using DirectX. Some of these games stress current PC hardware. I don't see why there would be so much untapped potential in the 360. I loaded up Tomb Raider a while back, which came out in 2006. It looked quite horrible by today's standards, so I can believe that game was only using a small percentage of the 360's power. However, you can't tell me that a system with an older GPU chip and 512 MB of RAM is going to get 3x better than what you see today. I also believe the same of the PS3. I'm sure it will get better as programmers become more familiar with the cell processor, but 256 MB is quite a limitation. Yes, I realize consoles have less overhead, but these things aren't miracle makers. FWIW, I own both a 360 Elite and PS3. I'm not trying to hate, but let's be realistic.

 

[warcrow]

I was actually thinking about this topic over the weekend as I was recently revisting several times. I played through Bioshock (on my PC) last week, started Zelda:TP up once more (never compelted it), even GTAIV and several others made me think of where we are this generation all around.

There was one in particular, The Bourne Conspiracy, that made me think...hey, this looks pretty darn good. After playing it for about an hour I got to thinking about how so many games look really good this generation--even some of the licensed stuff looks great.

It just seems like most games are getting their graphical fidelity at such top notch levels and the artisits are really getting in their groovy with the hardware, that I just dont see us needing an upgrade in hardware for years. I feel like everyone is sorta hitting their stride. There is that synch between the artist and the software engineers and it's starting to show.

There are some games, however, that I think really could use more horsepower, like GTAIV, that are so ambitious graphically that they could really use more RAM, GPU and CPU cycles to make a substantial improvement for a greater view distance and more crisp visuals.

Dunno--just really happy with where we are right now. I hope that devs continue to explore the art direction and push things much like Okami, Mad World, Bioshock and even Everyday shooter have. There is a lot of room to grow, even now, in that regard.

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: kabob983
I bet places like Gamestop will fight it every step of the way, digital downloads would KILL them. It'd also mean that the next gen consoles had better have HUGE hard drives.

Yep and yep. I've often wondered how Gamestop would adapt to a completely digital distribution world. Gamestop keeps the doors open simply because of used games.

In their latest financials, EA reported $90mil in revenue from digital downloads alone. I think it is a given that this is the way everything is moving. Steam, Live, PSN, WiiWare. The only limiting factors right now are storage space, speed, and current agreements with publishers and retailers. I imagine that the next-gen will have even more digital distribution than now but we won't see disks disappear yet.

My 2 cents... If you look at the trends in the US. Microsoft will be the dominant "console" maker in the future. Sony & Nintendo's entire model is based on physicall mediums (blu ray, discs, way behind the curve in online services). MS, if my guesses are correct, should be working on deals with cable / satellite tv providers.

Imagine.... you get a set top box from the cable company and pay maybe $5 on your monthly bill. You pay $7 and get a xbox 360 with tivo like interface, netflix or cable company on demand movies, and you can download games on your 1tb drive from xbox live.

Xbox would have access to all home immediately and has the online service to support it. Heck only a few bucks more on your cable / satellite bill and their install base goes to 50,000,000.

Heck... I could see them setting up something like their Zune service where you pay $X.XX a month and can play whatever games you want on their live service. No discs! No piracy! No being sold out! When there is a new system the cable guy brings out your new system!

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: kabob983
I'm with you randay, I like having a physical object I can hold and see. Something...comforting about it. Course considering my old 360 ate my first copy of CoD 4 I guess all you'd have to worry about are magnets 😛

Consider this though, with all digital download assuming that your console OS and games are on the same drive that means that if you get a RROD or whatever and you ship your console in you've essentially lost all your games. Even if you can re-download them who wants to sit there and download 40+ GB of games all over again...

I don't think the redownload will be a problem. Think about it. The new game is "Gears of war 6". You download that game and play. In the background live would still be filling your system with the data while you play & after you shut it down to watch TV. Xbox does that now.

 

[jpeyton]

Sony won't have a PS3 successor until at least 2012, and don't expect the PS3 to be off the shelves until several years after that (much like the PS2 is right now).

The first company out of the gate with a new generation console will be Microsoft, again. That extra 12 month advantage over the PS3 helped the X360 become the major player it is today.

Nintendo doesn't care about graphics. I expect the Wii to be the best selling console of this generation, and it will continue to sell in mass quantities for the next 2-3 years. There should be a NDS replacement before that, however (thinner, bigger screens, more power?)

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Nintendo doesn't care about graphics. I expect the Wii to be the best selling console of this generation, and it will continue to sell in mass quantities for the next 2-3 years. There should be a NDS replacement before that, however (thinner, bigger screens, more power?)

Nintendo's financials are showing DS's slowing down in Japan. I guess that means they've gotten DS's in about as many hands as they are going to be able to. Time to bring out a new model.

Probably won't be for another year or two though.

 

[BD2003]

Digital distribution is going to be a pretty tough sell when theyre charging the same price without giving you the physical object (with the ability to resell), and with potentially loading it with DRM that might make it impossible to buy the game you *bought* in the future. The whole Yahoo DRM debacle is proof that DRM can and will bite the consumer in the ass. It works well with arcade and PSN type games because theyre simply not as valuable in the first place. Few people care about being able to resell $5-10 dollar games, but $60 games that you can resell for $40 are a much different story.

Games are an expensive product, so its no wonder reselling is such a huge part of it all. If they cut that out, theres going to be a pretty huge shock to the industry when they figure out that gamers only have so much money.

I'd be all for a subscription type scheme though, or for buying if they price the games appropriately. I'm not paying $60 online for the same thing I get in the store, and I know I'm not alone on that.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: MoMeanMugs
I simply don't buy that the 360 is only using 33% of its power. I am no programmer, but MS made the development kits user-friendly and similar to a PC development kit. Many game developers also code PC games using DirectX. Some of these games stress current PC hardware. I don't see why there would be so much untapped potential in the 360. I loaded up Tomb Raider a while back, which came out in 2006. It looked quite horrible by today's standards, so I can believe that game was only using a small percentage of the 360's power. However, you can't tell me that a system with an older GPU chip and 512 MB of RAM is going to get 3x better than what you see today. I also believe the same of the PS3. I'm sure it will get better as programmers become more familiar with the cell processor, but 256 MB is quite a limitation. Yes, I realize consoles have less overhead, but these things aren't miracle makers. FWIW, I own both a 360 Elite and PS3. I'm not trying to hate, but let's be realistic.

All games use 100% of the power of the system - its how efficiently they use the resources thats the issue. Saying a game uses 33% of the power is just a shorthand way of saying we didnt have the time and/or experience to use it any better than that.

And when youre dealing with inefficiency, theres always diminishing returns. Games look much better very quickly, and then its fairly incremental from there on in. No matter how good SF Alpha 2 for the SNES looked for the SNES, the PSX version blew it away.

I'd personally love to be able to throw more money at my 360 and Wii to get a premium experience. I would absolutely be willing to pay more money to have a higher resolution, higher framerate system, like I do on the PC, without having to deal with the general crappiness of the PC experience. But theres all sorts of issues with that, so I doubt itll happen.

 

[RedRooster]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Digital distribution is going to be a pretty tough sell when theyre charging the same price without giving you the physical object (with the ability to resell), and with potentially loading it with DRM that might make it impossible to buy the game you *bought* in the future. The whole Yahoo DRM debacle is proof that DRM can and will bite the consumer in the ass. It works well with arcade and PSN type games because theyre simply not as valuable in the first place. Few people care about being able to resell $5-10 dollar games, but $60 games that you can resell for $40 are a much different story.

Games are an expensive product, so its no wonder reselling is such a huge part of it all. If they cut that out, theres going to be a pretty huge shock to the industry when they figure out that gamers only have so much money.

I'd be all for a subscription type scheme though, or for buying if they price the games appropriately. I'm not paying $60 online for the same thing I get in the store, and I know I'm not alone on that.

Agreed 100%. Not to mention not being able to trade games with friends. Digital distribution is a TERRIBLE idea, and I hate it. I'd probably stop gaming if games were by download only, I'm not paying $60, getting bored or beating the game and then having a $60 investment sitting on my hard drive never to be touched and unusable by anyone else.

Now, if they could replicate the current disc based medium sales channels, digitally. That is, being able to buy the license or DRM or whatever for the game, and then sell that license or be able to transfer it to someone else when you're done with it, THEN I'd be back on the bandwagon. But the way the Live Marketplace works right now, with all these shitty arcade games sitting on my hard drive(not like I have many, I've tried to resist) and no chance to let someone else use them or recover any of my money out of it, it's just bad.

 

[BD2003]

Well, I dont think digital distribution is a terrible idea, just not the best execution for higher priced titles right now. On the other hand, I know a lot of it has to do with the fact that gamestop etc will refuse to carry a game if the publisher is going to undercut them online, and while the importance of DD is growing, retail is far more important right now.

My guess is that once the infrastructure is in place to fully support it, it is going to be absolute nuclear war between publishers and retail, and once theyre comfortable undercutting gamestop on the price, they will. I'd be shocked to see DD games remain at $60, or at least any company solely selling its games online like that stay afloat.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: randay
I hate digital distribution. im not going to support virtual ownership. I want the 1s and 0s on physical media and I want the ability to migrate software I have paid for without having to jump through hoops.

:thumbsup: You can pry my physical media out of my cold, dead hands. I buy most of my games used. If I have to pay full price, I'll buy fewer games.