Why did this gen of console go on for so long?

[reallyscrued]

I only want higher storage capabilities on whatever medium microsoft chooses for their next console. Swapping mutiple discs on the xbox 360 is a pita. Graphices on next-gen systems can only be marginally better than it is now. 720p/1080p are common now and going a solid 1080p on consoles will NOT make a game any better. Eyecandy can only go so far even now. We need good games, not higher resolution games. HW tech really hasnt change that drastically in the last few years that any developer can say "we didnt make that game 4 years ago because the tech wasnt there". The tech has been here for a while now, the games just got stupid. hell, I still play secret of monkey island 1 and 2. Those were/are great games that even with all the tech today cant match.

*shakes head*

This is the only post I've decided to quote...but there are many others my reply will apply to.

Dudes...where is this false idea (that is continually perpetuated everywhere, including a hardcore tech forum such as here) that gaming at 1920x1080 does not improve graphical fidelity? (Forget gameplay for a second, just for the sake of argument; I know gameplay has nothing to do with graphics)

Is it because of that stupid chart of 'TV Sizes and Viewing Distance' on AVS forums? Movies are different. They merely need to be displayed, frame by blurry frame, not rendered. They are run through filters on your Blu-Ray device and the video processor on your television.

Videogames are RENDERED. Their frames are grainy images that need to be rasterized at a set resolution and have hard jagged lines when polygons are displayed at angles. They have textures that need to be drawn at perspectives and need to be filtered. Resolution plays a huge role here. You can only introduce more particles and more texture data if the smallest pixel is affected by it.

1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
1920 x 1080 = 2, 073,600 Pixels

1080p is literally twice as detailed.

There is no reason to keep on adding more shadows, particles, sparks, geometry, if everything is going to look like a jagged mess.

It is not comparable in the least to say "I can't see the different between a 720p movie and a 1080p movie on my Full HD TV, so gaming must be the same way". You are not considering the (pardon the pun) whole picture.

Think resolution makes no difference? Play BF3 at 640x480 on a PC with all eye candy turned all the way up. You might as well be playing Doom.

The idea of marginal benefits is a very real one, and we are getting closer, but we're not there YET. A 32 inch television viewed at 8 feet away might not appear to have jaggies, but you are losing a lot of inherent detail just because it was a blurry image to begin with.

Lastly, 1080p sucks for decent screen sizes these days. Gaming at anything above 40 inches with no AA at 1080p has plenty of jagged lines. Everyone is simply appeased that the movie industry and television electronics are no longer dragging their feet on high definition television so the gaming industry adopted the "just enough to be okay" resolutions.



Anyway, this gen went on for so long because of a variety of reasons. The economy, sure, but I think it comes down to gamers themselves, gamers who keep buying the same crap peddled to them, so the powers-that-be still make money. Why would they want to invest in another console when Black Ops 2 already pre-ordered 3 times as much as MW3 did? I'm pretty sure on a monthly basis, every company does risk management assessments to see in the long run what would be profitable, to just release a new hyped up game or to focus efforts on a multi-multi-million dollar endeavor of hardware. The choice has been pretty clear for the last few years.

 

[thegimp03]

Maybe another reason is that game developers continue to find ways to stretch the limits what the 360 and PS3 can do.

 

[Oyeve]

*shakes head*

This is the only post I've decided to quote...but there are many others my reply will apply to.

Dudes...where is this false idea (that is continually perpetuated everywhere, including a hardcore tech forum such as here) that gaming at 1920x1080 does not improve graphical fidelity? (Forget gameplay for a second, just for the sake of argument; I know gameplay has nothing to do with graphics)

Is it because of that stupid chart of 'TV Sizes and Viewing Distance' on AVS forums? Movies are different. They merely need to be displayed, frame by blurry frame, not rendered. They are run through filters on your Blu-Ray device and the video processor on your television.

Videogames are RENDERED. Their frames are grainy images that need to be rasterized at a set resolution and have hard jagged lines when polygons are displayed at angles. They have textures that need to be drawn at perspectives and need to be filtered. Resolution plays a huge role here. You can only introduce more particles and more texture data if the smallest pixel is affected by it.

1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels
1920 x 1080 = 2, 073,600 Pixels

1080p is literally twice as detailed.

It is not comparable at the least to say "I can't see the different between a 720p movie and a 1080p movie on my Full HD TV, so gaming must be the same way". You are not considering the (pardon the pun) whole picture.

Think resolution makes no difference? Play BF3 at 640x480 on a PC will all eye candy turned all the way up. You might as well be playing Doom.

The idea of marginal benefits is a very real one, and we are getting closer, but we're not there YET. A 32 inch television viewed at 8 feet away might not appear to have jaggies, but you are losing a lot of inherent detail just because it was a blurry image to begin with.

Lastly, 1080p sucks for decent screen sizes these days. Gaming at anything above 40 inches with no AA at 1080p has plenty of jagged lines. Everyone is simply appeased that the movie industry and television electronics are no longer dragging their feet on high definition television so the gaming industry adopted the "just enough to be okay" resolutions.



Anyway, this gen went on for so long because of a variety of reasons. The economy, sure, but I think it comes down to gamers themselves, gamers who keep buying the same crap peddled to them, so the powers-that-be still make money. Why would they want to invest in another console when Black Ops 2 already pre-ordered 3 times as much as MW3 did? I'm pretty sure on a monthly basis, every company does risk management assessments to see in the long run what would be profitable, to just release a new hyped up game or to focus efforts on a multi-multi-million dollar endeavor of hardware. The choice has been pretty clear for the last few years.

^ Still wont make better games, like I said in my post that you quoted.

 

[BD2003]

While we're on the topic of dispelling false ideas, let's include the notion that resolution is the primary way graphics are going to get better next gen. Between each successive generation, resolution has increased. But it's hardly the main differentiator. The difference between a ps1-ps2-ps3 game is plain as day on an old CRT that can barely resolve 640x480.

Resolution is important, and on its own makes a huge difference. But it's only part of the story.

 

[reallyscrued]

^ Still wont make better games, like I said in my post that you quoted.

If that was your main argument, then ignore my post. You started talking resolutions and how it wouldn't improve graphics because of marginal benefits, and that's what I was focusing my reply on.

But the 'still won't make better games' is a tired mantra too. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo's goal is not to make/publish 'better' games.

 

[Oyeve]

If that was your main argument, then ignore my post. You started talking resolutions and how it wouldn't improve graphics because of marginal benefits, and that's what I was focusing my reply on.

But the 'still won't make better games' is a tired mantra too. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo's goal is not to make/publish 'better' games.

yeah, that was my main argument. I miss really great games. I dusted off my old Freespace II game and installed in on my PC and it still looked awesome and has great gameplay. Its over 12 years old. There was barely 1024x768 and sure as hell no WS but it still looks pretty damn good. Why are games with that depth not made today? Surely there is a market for it?

Gaming video quality took off with 3dfx. If you took a 640x480 game and added 3dfx that 640x480 looked amazing at the same resolution. IMO, resolution is not that important anymore as pretty much everyone has at least 720p/1080i. Yes, true 1080p is much higher but do we really need it or do we really want it? Me, I would rather stick at 720p if games were great on it than have mediocre games at twice the res.

 

[reallyscrued]

yeah, that was my main argument. I miss really great games. I dusted off my old Freespace II game and installed in on my PC and it still looked awesome and has great gameplay. Its over 12 years old. There was barely 1024x768 and sure as hell no WS but it still looks pretty damn good. Why are games with that depth not made today? Surely there is a market for it?

Surely there is; it's just not big. The market for money is is for...Angry Birds...and Black Ops.

MW3 got 3.4 Million Pre-Orders, Black Ops 2 has 3 times as much. Let's round that to 10 Million.

at $59.99 x 10 million, that's $600 million they know they're gonna get.

Or....they could spend the time to make a complicated game like FreeSpace and take years to develop and not know how much they will make on it..What would you do if you owned a company?

Yes, true 1080p is much higher but do we really need it or do we really want it? Me, I would rather stick at 720p if games were great on it than have mediocre games at twice the res.

I don't understand why you are trying to extrapolate gameplay from graphics. I see no reason why crappy games at 1080p would result into great games if we artificially capped the developers at 720p...

You'll still have shitty games.

 

[JamesV]

Or....they could spend the time to make a complicated game like FreeSpace and take years to develop and not know how much they will make on it..What would you do if you owned a company?

Good question, and one I've thought about - after I win the lottery :awe:

First, I wouldn't sell my company. That is the big reason we have so many similar games; a dev has a hit, sells the company to MS or EA, and then they head the new company with millions in their pocket, which equals the same games coming out continously (see Bungie, etc).

Then I'd make my own versions of HoMM, Baldurs Gate (multiplayer party based adventure with NWN's multiplayer setup), and lastly Battlefield (because it's really CoDfield now; proof - look at the new expansion).

Not everybody is greedy, but I agree it's hard to look at those figures and not become just like everyone else.

 

[reallyscrued]

Then I'd make my own versions of <snip> and lastly Battlefield (because it's really CoDfield now; proof - look at the new expansion).
.

Agreed. And I'd back you on that if I could. I miss tactical shooters.

Or we could just support this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE0gMYDrapQ

 

[zerocool84]

^ Still wont make better games, like I said in my post that you quoted.

Newer powerful consoles allow you the capability to do more hence the ability to innovate in other areas that weren't possible before. Sure we've had a ton of rehashed games but we've also had a ton of new types of games or the ability to make the same games better. Look at GTA IV, it's basically the same GTA game that we've had many times before but purely because of how much more powerful the newer systems were than the previous generation, they were able to make the same game that much better and more alive. Not to mention the new motion controls that they are surely going to implement. I'm not a motion control fan but there's that too.

 

[byteman99]

While it is very amazing to see what some of these devs can do with that 8 year old hardware, theres still a lot more they can improve upon in the graphical department. Just imagine what they would be able to create if they had more horse power to use? And we aren't just talking about an incremeantal difference. This improvement would be something you will notice like better textures, aa, longer draw distance, bigger worlds, faster frame rates, the list just goes on.

 

[BoberFett]

Publishers are probably scared to death of the next generation. Imagine what's going to happen to development costs to create these bigger more detailed worlds.

 

[BD2003]

Publishers are probably scared to death of the next generation. Imagine what's going to happen to development costs to create these bigger more detailed worlds.

Let the weak perish.

 

[alent1234]

Publishers are probably scared to death of the next generation. Imagine what's going to happen to development costs to create these bigger more detailed worlds.

i bet the current dev tools already support higher spec'd machines, but the games are dumbed down to meet the specs

check out the mass effect 3 videos on youtube. they were all done on PC and look a lot better than the xbox version of the game

game dev workstations are already a lot more powerful than the normal PC

 

[BoberFett]

i bet the current dev tools already support higher spec'd machines, but the games are dumbed down to meet the specs

check out the mass effect 3 videos on youtube. they were all done on PC and look a lot better than the xbox version of the game

game dev workstations are already a lot more powerful than the normal PC

Too bad half the argument in this thread has been that it's not just higher resolution and better textures that we'll be seeing, it's more realistic AI, more realistic physics, and bigger more detailed worlds. Somebody has to create all those things.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

It's really not THAT much longer, people just have a warped sense of time on the internet when it comes to technology and want everything right now.


PS2-->PS3= 6 years

Don't overlook the fact that the PS2 consistently outsold the PS3 and 360 for some time. And, remained a strong seller even longer. A low price point, combined with a very extensive and compelling game library, were more important to most consumers, than new "bells and whistles". The low HDTV adoption numbers at the time, could not have helped PS3&360 sales either.

I would not be surprised to see both enjoy a nice sales boost after the next gen offerings hit either. Provided they handle them the way Sony did with the PS2.

 

[BoberFett]

Hell, I just bought a PS3 a couple weeks ago at what some people here would consider the end of that products life. For $200 I'm going to enjoy going back and playing 5 year old games that I missed. And I probably won't pick up the next gen until they've been out for a few years. I never do.

 

[darkxshade]

I think the first couple of years for the PS3 should be written off due to the entry price. I didn't even consider a PS3 until it was <$300. So at least for me, I would hope the PS3 still has life in it because I certainly don't want them to release PS4 at a grand and completely neglect PS3 now that I have one.

 

[ChopperDave]

Obviously to maximize ROI on two consoles that were loss leaders out of the gate.

Retail 101. End thread.

 

[fixbsod]

Many things delayed the next gen --

1) The large investment made by console companies on this gen -- still recouping losses on that PS3
2) The economy, 'nuff said
3) Apple, Apple Apple -- changed the game up completely and offered similar gaming experiences on pads and phones which was a new front to the gaming competition
4) Good timing insofar as the consoles debuted as HDtvs were building up critical mass, so for many people the good enough graphics really were.
5) The fact that all of the above coupled with large advancements intel's x86 while the currently used cell and powerpc made it extremely inefficient / costly for Sony or Microsoft to come out with a traditional successor type console with backwards compat. You're seeing this now as MS and Sony are just wiping the slate clean and going to x86 similar to how the Xbox1 was. Nintendo may have more room considering their Wii was so slow that they may not 'wipe the slate' until after WiiU.

So all that, plus all the companies likely also waiting it out to see if they could go digital / disc-less only to kick the entire used sales market to the curb. This gen nobody wants to move first, last gen MS was racing the shit out the door so fast they had to eat a multi-billion charge to cover all the RRODs.

 

[Oyeve]

3) Apple, Apple Apple -- changed the game up completely and offered similar gaming experiences on pads and phones which was a new front to the gaming competition


.

I hope you mean the similarity is between the iphone and the ipad and not with consoles.....

 

[frumply]

Graphical fidelity is more than good enough as it is now. When you look at screenshots, when you look at slower cutscenes w/ character conversations, THEN the added fidelity becomes important... but is that something that's important to making games more interesting? I honestly couldn't care if I could count the creases of skin on Sheperd's forehead, and that's where graphics seem to be heading: extra details in places most people don't give a rat's ass about.

Besides, games are still routinely failing in aspects that DO matter when things are moving: animation. Very few games make characters that don't look excellent up to the point where they move, and suddenly you feel like you've been thrown back 10yrs in time. I know realistic motion is hard to get right, but it seems advancements in animation is being put on the backburner because they don't show up in screenshots.

 

[reallyscrued]

I honestly couldn't care if I could count the creases of skin on Sheperd's forehead

Graphical fidelity is more than good enough as it is now.

Thanks for your input, in my opinion: No, it's not.

I don't know if all advances in the later years will be aimed at adding more wrinkles to people's foreheads but that's not the department in which I see video game graphics lacking.

Rendering games at native-res of your display then adding 4x MSAA will appease me. I think we've gotten to the point where graphical assets have become just detailed enough that if enough smoothing is applied, we will have real-time gaming that looks like pre-rendered cutscenes of the late '90s.

As far as shadows, textures, geometry, I'm pretty content with where we are now plus with assuming that next-gen, all consoles will have higher density game discs that can hold more detailed textures so that, for example, street signs in Crysis 2 don't look so out of place.

Besides, games are still routinely failing in aspects that DO matter when things are moving: animation. Very few games make characters that don't look excellent up to the point where they move, and suddenly you feel like you've been thrown back 10yrs in time. I know realistic motion is hard to get right, but it seems advancements in animation is being put on the backburner because they don't show up in screenshots.

This is a very valid point, but I think we are making breakthroughs.

Ironically, Nintendo games have always had great animation applied to their characters but since we're talking about a more cartoony aspect, I guess most people dismiss this.

On the more realistic side, I think Battlefield 3 has decent animation.

However, I would say BF3 really belonged on next gen consoles. And this is what next-gen consoles will provide from the get-go, all the nifty extra details developers started fiddling around with at the end of the previous generation. Check out Max Payne 3's body animations as well; we're getting there. It can't come soon enough.

 

[jay2nice000]

microsoft and sony will milk every last penny they can before launching a new console. they are full of greed thats why i switched over to the future proof of gaming console PC 4 LIFE

 

[fixbsod]

Nope, I said it like I meant it. You forget that there are WAYYY more casual gamers than hardcore gamers, cmon just think about it, there's likely more casual X than hardcore x for ANY situation.

I hope you mean the similarity is between the iphone and the ipad and not with consoles.....