• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The future of console gaming..

after 30+ years of console gaming, i have finally lost interest in it. not one single game, well maybe FFXV, excites me. i miss the old NES/SNES days.
 
Yeah, I didn't like that article at all. He said that a hardware revision with speed increases should be near, but that would segregate the market, killing the point of consoles. I thought that idea stupid.

I've wondered if Microsoft might turn their Xbox brand into a Steambox-like experience going forward, but maybe with some handholding. Like, give it a hardware-sensing OS that allows people to upgrade it, if they want, and have a consistent Windows gaming platform as a whole. They could use Surface as their business/mainstream brand and Xbox as their gaming computer brand.
 
It would certainly fragment the market. Which is a huge problem in the mobile sector. Tablets especially. Even Apple can't convince people to buy a new iPad every two years. Consoles are expensive.

The other issue with this is just how slow consoles can be to gain steam. Both the PS4 and XB1 have been out almost 1.5 years and neither have what I would call a killer app. In fact a lot of big budget games have been downright awful.

I still think the eventual endgame for consoles will be streaming services like PlayStation Now. That way any connected device becomes a console. It has the added bonus of taking control of content away from the end user and ensuring continuous revenue streams. Though it's still a long way off from becoming a replacement. It's hard enough to pull off in North America and Europe, let alone crucial developing markets like China and Brazil.
 
lupi said:
Is faster hardware cycles?!?!

I'd say lack of compatibility between most generations slows down acceptance. Why buy something that can only play really pretty looking crap than buy a quality title for what you already have?

https://games.yahoo.com/news/xbox-playstation-must-change-form-162400045.html
Click to expand...

No, backwards compatibility does NOT slow down adoption. These are the fastest selling consoles ever and have zero backwards compatibility. Also, there's a reason why backwards compatibility never became a huge deal last generation, because hardly anyone used it. If it mattered then it would have been a big deal.
 
we are so far off from the whole SaaS console market that i don't even know why it is the discussion.

first people bitch about the consoles not being able to do 1080p@60fps constantly.

now people think that the consoles will magically be able to do this, but also streaming?

LOL.

we're so far off from streaming even bluray quality, and now they think we will be able to stream a service that is bluray quality, but at more than double the framerate?

it's amazing how clueless people in the industry can be. but i guess it's cool that they are "looking into the future". we are just so far off from that though that discussing it is a moot point.

and the whole "every other technology has 2 year life cycles" is also a stupid argument. every other piece of technology is already at the point that upgrading every 2 years is pointless because the gains every 2 years are hardly what they were 5 years ago. i haven't upgraded my pc at home in probably 7 years, and i still do development on it no problems. i was on my iphone4 for over 3 years and finally upgraded this past year to the ip6. just because new things come out every 2 years doesn't mean anyone needs to purchase them.

with the length of how long some of these AAA titles take to develop, having a new console every 7-10 years makes sense so that they can put out 2 or 3 of those games on one console.
 
purbeast0 said:
we are so far off from the whole SaaS console market that i don't even know why it is the discussion.

first people bitch about the consoles not being able to do 1080p@60fps constantly.

now people think that the consoles will magically be able to do this, but also streaming?

LOL.

we're so far off from streaming even bluray quality, and now they think we will be able to stream a service that is bluray quality, but at more than double the framerate?

it's amazing how clueless people in the industry can be. but i guess it's cool that they are "looking into the future". we are just so far off from that though that discussing it is a moot point.

and the whole "every other technology has 2 year life cycles" is also a stupid argument. every other piece of technology is already at the point that upgrading every 2 years is pointless because the gains every 2 years are hardly what they were 5 years ago. i haven't upgraded my pc at home in probably 7 years, and i still do development on it no problems. i was on my iphone4 for over 3 years and finally upgraded this past year to the ip6. just because new things come out every 2 years doesn't mean anyone needs to purchase them.

with the length of how long some of these AAA titles take to develop, having a new console every 7-10 years makes sense so that they can put out 2 or 3 of those games on one console.
Click to expand...


I agree with this...I don't see the console model changing as quickly as the article suggests. At least at the highend with AAA titles.

I'm quite happy with the cycle to be honest. Games improve dramatically over those 7+ years.
 
purbeast0 said:
we're so far off from streaming even bluray quality, and now they think we will be able to stream a service that is bluray quality, but at more than double the framerate?
Click to expand...

People will tolerate lower image quality, but lag and data caps are the bigger issue. I don't see that getting fixed for awhile yet. It will probably be a decade before streaming is a viable replacement for dedicated hardware. I'm basing that just on how slow ISPs are to improve their core infrastructure.

As for the two year life cycle, the game industry is splooshing over the mobile model right now. But it really doesn't translate to traditional gaming.

I think the market would be able to withstand constantly evolving hardware. PC gaming has, but you'd have to keep the same architecture. You'd also have to make the games at least somewhat backwards compatible with older systems. Turn the detail down, and such. It's doable but far from ideal.
 
mmntech said:
People will tolerate lower image quality, but lag and data caps are the bigger issue. I don't see that getting fixed for awhile yet. It will probably be a decade before streaming is a viable replacement for dedicated hardware. I'm basing that just on how slow ISPs are to improve their core infrastructure.

As for the two year life cycle, the game industry is splooshing over the mobile model right now. But it really doesn't translate to traditional gaming.

I think the market would be able to withstand constantly evolving hardware. PC gaming has, but you'd have to keep the same architecture. You'd also have to make the games at least somewhat backwards compatible with older systems. Turn the detail down, and such. It's doable but far from ideal.
Click to expand...

considering how many people cry about console resolutions, i'm going to have to strongly disagree with you about the bolded. if you go back and look at the ps4/xbox1 announcement/launch threads, that is about 90% of the comments in there.
 
Backwards compatibility should not be so that old games can play on new consoles, but so that new games can play, with a lowered expectation, on old consoles. This would help drive upgrades. You should be able to buy one game that plays, at varying levels of acceptability, on several generations of consoles.
This way we could have minor managed upgrades to the consoles yearly, with games rated based on year, maybe with a quality rating system so that you can tell at a glance approximatly how well games will work on your year model.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Backwards compatibility should not be so that old games can play on new consoles, but so that new games can play, with a lowered expectation, on old consoles. This would help drive upgrades. You should be able to buy one game that plays, at varying levels of acceptability, on several generations of consoles.
This way we could have minor managed upgrades to the consoles yearly, with games rated based on year, maybe with a quality rating system so that you can tell at a glance approximatly how well games will work on your year model.
Click to expand...

we already have that. it's called a pc.

also a terrible idea in general IMO for consoles.
 
purbeast0 said:
considering how many people cry about console resolutions, i'm going to have to strongly disagree with you about the bolded. if you go back and look at the ps4/xbox1 announcement/launch threads, that is about 90% of the comments in there.
Click to expand...

People will get used to it. You just have to look at the rise of MP3 and Netflix. Compressed audio and video standards. You can squeeze the stream down to a point where people really can't casually tell the difference. h.265 will facilitate that even better than MP4 does.

The people whining on forums about image quality are most likely a) fanboys and b) techies.
 
mmntech said:
People will get used to it. You just have to look at the rise of MP3 and Netflix. Compressed audio and video standards. You can squeeze the stream down to a point where people really can't casually tell the difference. h.265 will facilitate that even better than MP4 does.

The people whining on forums about image quality are most likely a) fanboys and b) techies.
Click to expand...

mp3/netflix offer something their alternatives don't, and it's big - convenience.

with SaaS you would still have to buy the "steambox" or whatever they call it, and then upgrade it every 2 years or so, completely elminating what is basically the only benefit that stuff like mp3 and netflix offer over their counterpart.

i do agree that many people whining about the resolution and stuff are just fanboys trying to justify their decisions though.
 
My future in console gaming is the same as the present: always buy the PC version of a game.

If there is no PC version, wait until the system is $200 or less and the games are greatest hits status @ $20/$30 each.
 
The X1 and PS4 are now basically laptop parts in a console shell.

Some implications:

Backwards compatibility will be easy for the next generation since it will just be newer PC laptop hardware.

Development for X1 + X2 and PS4 + PS5 will be cheaper and easier since most of the same code will work on both. It might be as simple as the build step toggling some engine settings and selecting lower or higher resolution art assets, but in some cases the X2 / PS5 build might also tweak other setttings like more CPU cycles for physics and AI.

It will be a business decision to make certain games only run on X2 + PS5, but the default will be to also run on X1 + PS4 at lower quality.

What isn't likely to happen:

DOOOOMMM! No more consoles!
 
purbeast0 said:
we are so far off from the whole SaaS console market that i don't even know why it is the discussion.

first people bitch about the consoles not being able to do 1080p@60fps constantly.

now people think that the consoles will magically be able to do this, but also streaming?

LOL.

we're so far off from streaming even bluray quality, and now they think we will be able to stream a service that is bluray quality, but at more than double the framerate?

it's amazing how clueless people in the industry can be. but i guess it's cool that they are "looking into the future". we are just so far off from that though that discussing it is a moot point.

and the whole "every other technology has 2 year life cycles" is also a stupid argument. every other piece of technology is already at the point that upgrading every 2 years is pointless because the gains every 2 years are hardly what they were 5 years ago. i haven't upgraded my pc at home in probably 7 years, and i still do development on it no problems. i was on my iphone4 for over 3 years and finally upgraded this past year to the ip6. just because new things come out every 2 years doesn't mean anyone needs to purchase them.

with the length of how long some of these AAA titles take to develop, having a new console every 7-10 years makes sense so that they can put out 2 or 3 of those games on one console.
Click to expand...

another article in the news feed just after I saw this was one about a reviewer complaining that his PS4 had run out of space to install his latest review copy.
 
The Xbox One/PS4 will both be replaced faster than the 360/PS3 for one simple reason. The hardware wasn't heavily subsidized at launch. Last generation the subsidy was huge, and the window to recover it was long. The PS3 was more heavily subsidized, but the 360 had the RROD fiasco. Neither Microsoft, nor Sony were in any hurry to launch replacement hardware.* The Xbox One and PS4 though were barely subsidized at all. They'll probably be replaced after 4-5 years because it's easy and makes sense. It's hard to take seriously an article that doesn't seem to understand this basic history.

*To some extent this amounts to both Sony and Microsoft falling in to the Sunk Cost Trap. On the other hand, I'd want to be able to walk in to a board meeting saying "See we did eventually make a profit off the hardware!" before pitching a new product too.
 
Anon_lawyer said:
The Xbox One/PS4 will both be replaced faster than the 360/PS3 for one simple reason. The hardware wasn't heavily subsidized at launch. Last generation the subsidy was huge, and the window to recover it was long. The PS3 was more heavily subsidized, but the 360 had the RROD fiasco. Neither Microsoft, nor Sony were in any hurry to launch replacement hardware.* The Xbox One and PS4 though were barely subsidized at all. They'll probably be replaced after 4-5 years because it's easy and makes sense. It's hard to take seriously an article that doesn't seem to understand this basic history.

*To some extent this amounts to both Sony and Microsoft falling in to the Sunk Cost Trap. On the other hand, I'd want to be able to walk in to a board meeting saying "See we did eventually make a profit off the hardware!" before pitching a new product too.
Click to expand...

I don't think so because games take a long time to develop. Uncharted 4 has been pushed back to 2016 and the PS4 came out in 2013 so you're telling me we may only see one game from Naughty Dog the entire lifespan of the console? There also isn't a huge swath of games being released right now.
 
DaveSimmons said:
The X1 and PS4 are now basically laptop parts in a console shell.
Click to expand...

The original Xbox literally was laptop parts in a console shell. 😀

I wonder why Microsoft dropped x86 for PowerPC in the 360. They could have used the Athlon 64 X2 if they wanted a multi-core chip, but I guess they didn't deliver the same performance.
 
They WANT to milk a console gen for as long as possible. I don't blame them. They aren't in a race, it's not even remotely the same market as say tablets or phones. The every 2 year thing is a fiasco put on by hardware makers to keep a constant revenue stream coming in. Consoles are built around making money off the games and licenses, not the consoles.


I still have zero interest in this gen, but I can't see them speeding up the generations. It just wouldn't make sense unless they got completely out of the hardware market and just put all games out on mobile and pc.
 
They are not talking about completely new consoles in the article but something like upgrades.
I could imagine a version 1.1 product from both Microsoft and Sony which adds in slightly more speed and slightly more memory very similar to how phones and tablets work today.
Click to expand...
Something like going from the dual athlon 5150 they have now to a dual athlon 5350 maybe(or the new godamnari) ,or maybe giving it slightly more gpu cores or whatever,it would give the newer models a slight boost without breaking compatibility for the original models.
The consoles are just PCs now, so why not upgrade them everytime better binning allows for improvements without raising costs?
 
cmdrdredd said:
I don't think so because games take a long time to develop. Uncharted 4 has been pushed back to 2016 and the PS4 came out in 2013 so you're telling me we may only see one game from Naughty Dog the entire lifespan of the console? There also isn't a huge swath of games being released right now.
Click to expand...

I don't see why not. Naughty Dog wants (and all the other devs) will release games when they can. I'm sure they'd like to do it faster, and have fewer devices to design for. Going forward though, if future consoles are x86 with broadly similar architecture, which seems likely, it will be a lot easier to do cross platform development.

The long lifespan of the last gen was a real anomaly in console gaming. I'm just predicting that it was a temporary one.
 
TheELF said:
They are not talking about completely new consoles in the article but something like upgrades.

Something like going from the dual athlon 5150 they have now to a dual athlon 5350 maybe(or the new godamnari) ,or maybe giving it slightly more gpu cores or whatever,it would give the newer models a slight boost without breaking compatibility for the original models.
The consoles are just PCs now, so why not upgrade them everytime better binning allows for improvements without raising costs?
Click to expand...

again, we already have this. it's called the pc market.

the #1 defacto benefit of a console is that EVERYONE who plays is on one level ground. this also helps the development process because there is literally one piece of hardware they have to test it out on. add in just 1 more piece of hardware, and that changes the development process by a ton. there is a reason many exclusives are super polished.
 
TheELF said:
They are not talking about completely new consoles in the article but something like upgrades.

Something like going from the dual athlon 5150 they have now to a dual athlon 5350 maybe(or the new godamnari) ,or maybe giving it slightly more gpu cores or whatever,it would give the newer models a slight boost without breaking compatibility for the original models.
The consoles are just PCs now, so why not upgrade them everytime better binning allows for improvements without raising costs?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't have to ask that question. The answer's obvious, and it's because consoles are about an even experience for all owners. Console owners (well, many of them) don't want the PC gaming experience, where you have to understand how game aspects affect hardware performance, so upgrading hardware does nothing for the console, if you're not willing to make those efforts.

Therefore, you have two possible outcomes:

1. Outrage from early adopters whose older console models either couldn't run newer games, or ran them poorly.
2. Pointless hardware upgrades because games will be kept on a level playing field, from a visual standpoint, meaning the new hardware might hold a higher framerate, but that's it.

Like was said, you're asking for a PC market disguised as a console one, and it's not happening. Microsoft's going to sit and pray DX12 can lessen the performance gap in its hardware, when put against the PS4, but it'll also be interesting to see how quickly and noticeably performance and visuals improve on these consoles, since there is a much-smaller learning curve with gaming development on these architectures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top