Xbox One could last 12 years <-- RARE

[Arkaign]

http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/kinect_sports_rivals/news/xbox_one_could_last_12_years_rare.html

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah okay. PS4 is considerably beefier with GPU and RAM performance, but I doubt it will last 12 years either. This guy is smoking some serious Microsoft-branded crack.

By 2016-2017 they will be a bit creaky, by 2020 they will be genuinely archaic.

If this imbecile honestly thinks they can ride this watered down console for over a decade, he's dreaming. Hell, iPads with wireless HDMI will be more powerful in less than 6 years.

Dumb PR speak never ceases to amuse.




Thread has more than run its course; turned into nothing but trolling and beating dead horses.

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent

 

[SaurusX]

No way. No possible way. Microsoft (and Sony) intentionally gimped this generation of consoles for whatever reason that I can't imagine. They certainly weren't planning for longevity.

 

[smackababy]

G92 was in 2007, and that is till a card with acceptable performance at less than 1080p in PC gaming. That is almost 10 years. 12 years isn't a huge stretch of the imagination. I'm sure they will want to sell a new console before that, but the Xbox 360 is still selling almost 10 years later and still is being supported. Why would we expect that to stop?


And the intentionally gimped this generation? Why? Because they didn't use a $500 GPU in a machine that is supposed to cost that? Yeah... MS and Sony didn't make a console that cost $2,000... They gimped it so hard!

 

[dguy6789]

This is a thinly veiled bash Xbox One troll thread.

I will humor you however. Are you aware of how massive an issue diminishing returns in improving graphics versus how much power is needed to achieve it has become? Visual quality in games has never advanced at a slower rate than it has been in the last few years. This is not because of consoles, this is because of how graphics work.

http://www.shapeways.com/blog/uploads/cars_low.jpg

We are at a point now where a five fold increase in graphics power results in a very minimal visual improvement. Next to no one is going to care when the best games on a $3000 PC in 2022 look like the left most model and the Xbox One version looks like the model two slots to the right of it.

Adding polys and increasing texture resolution or increasing particle density can only go so far. A sphere can only be so round; there comes a point where having 10x the polygons will not make it noticeably more round. There comes a point when making textures sharper or increasing screen resolution is pointless because it's already really close to the maximum definition of what the eye can see.

The 360 will be a decade old next year and its games still don't look ancient.

 

[American Gunner]

I can't read the article at work, but have seen other quotes like this. Of course it could last 12 years, but that doesn't mean they won't be making the next console before that.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I mean, if the NES can make it that long....

 

[Wingznut]

This is a thinly veiled bash Xbox One troll thread.

From Arkaign??? Say it isn't so!

 

[dguy6789]

I'd go as far as to say that in 2026 the best looking game will be a smaller jump visually from Crysis 3 to it than what Farcry to Crysis 1 was.

 

[smackababy]

This is a thinly veiled bash Xbox One troll thread.

I will humor you however. Are you aware of how massive an issue diminishing returns in improving graphics versus how much power is needed to achieve it has become? Visual quality in games has never advanced at a slower rate than it has been in the last few years. This is not because of consoles, this is because of how graphics work.

http://www.shapeways.com/blog/uploads/cars_low.jpg

We are at a point now where a five fold increase in graphics power results in a very minimal visual improvement. Next to no one is going to care when the best games on a $3000 PC in 2022 look like the left most model and the Xbox One version looks like the model two slots to the right of it.

Adding polys and increasing texture resolution or increasing particle density can only go so far. A sphere can only be so round; there comes a point where having 10x the polygons will not make it noticeably more round. There comes a point when making textures sharper or increasing screen resolution is pointless because it's already really close to the maximum definition of what the eye can see.

The 360 will be a decade old next year and its games still don't look ancient.

this pretty much wins the thread.

It is like trying to accelerate to the speed of light. It requires exponentially increasing fuel costs.

 

[purbeast0]

12 years is quite the stretch. but considering the ps2 went on for over a decade and the 360 is on it's 9th year with the ps3 right behind it, both of which are getting support well into this year and probably more, it's not out of the realm of possiblity, especially considering the games that Rare has been making. i mean it's not like you need a beefy machine to run kinect sports rivals.

and "wtf/lol" at someone claiming ms and sony both intentionally gimped the x1 and ps4.

this thread is going places.

 

[Sonikku]

No way. No possible way. Microsoft (and Sony) intentionally gimped this generation of consoles for whatever reason that I can't imagine. They certainly weren't planning for longevity.

The reason was that of business.

Pros to having an outrageously fast gpu in a console:
Great graphics. Graphics that will still pale in comparison to PC's anyway.

Cons:
Higher price point, alienating countless customers in an age when disposable income is evaporating.
Hardware issues, system runs super hot which leads to red ring of death etc.
cooling issues: Fans have to be bigger and run faster to cool hot running chips, making it sound like a leaf blower.
Lower profit margins. Every system sells for a loss rather than a profit.
Cost of development rises even higher, increasing the toll on developers and putting more out of business.

Basically, making your console so stupidly powerful that you have to take a loss on it is only an advantage if your main competitor doesn't do the same. If they do it just sets a new baseline in which no one is ahead and everyone is losing money. By mutually agreeing behind closed doors to not compete and to lower the bar, Microsoft and Sony effectively are still on comparable terms this generation, they're just going to make more money and churn out smaller losses on their systems. It was a smart move from a business perspective. And gamers that care about the best hardware imaginable aren't going to bother with consoles anyway, making appealing to their demographic not worth the money.

 

[Arkaign]

Check back in 5 years. Things are going to be substantially different.

 

[Arkaign]

This is a thinly veiled bash Xbox One troll thread.

I will humor you however. Are you aware of how massive an issue diminishing returns in improving graphics versus how much power is needed to achieve it has become? Visual quality in games has never advanced at a slower rate than it has been in the last few years. This is not because of consoles, this is because of how graphics work.

http://www.shapeways.com/blog/uploads/cars_low.jpg

We are at a point now where a five fold increase in graphics power results in a very minimal visual improvement. Next to no one is going to care when the best games on a $3000 PC in 2022 look like the left most model and the Xbox One version looks like the model two slots to the right of it.

Adding polys and increasing texture resolution or increasing particle density can only go so far. A sphere can only be so round; there comes a point where having 10x the polygons will not make it noticeably more round. There comes a point when making textures sharper or increasing screen resolution is pointless because it's already really close to the maximum definition of what the eye can see.

The 360 will be a decade old next year and its games still don't look ancient.

1- Yes, the 360 and PS3 look ancient compared to the best next-gen (Ryse/Second Son)

2- That car example is ludicrously stupid. Yes, increasing poly count for a single ugly simple object is going to be pointless, but having TONS of detail everywhere is the point of higher powered graphics. With XB1 and PS4, there is a substantial leap forward, but it's not going to be enough of a leap to still look good in 10 years.

This is basically what a high end setup should be capable of in a decade, only in 4K :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rTfiMqn30

http://vimeo.com/15630517 <--- this is CG

 

[purbeast0]

1- Yes, the 360 and PS3 look ancient compared to the best next-gen (Ryse/Second Son)

2- That car example is ludicrously stupid. Yes, increasing poly count for a single ugly simple object is going to be pointless, but having TONS of detail everywhere is the point of higher powered graphics. With XB1 and PS4, there is a substantial leap forward, but it's not going to be enough of a leap to still look good in 10 years.

This is basically what a high end setup should be capable of in a decade, only in 4K :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rTfiMqn30

http://vimeo.com/15630517 <--- this is CG

im confused by your post. are you saying that in a decade high end pc's should be able to have games looking like that 2nd video, and in 4k resolution? is that really cg? it looks like normal footage with effects added.

 

[ultimatebob]

Sadly, most of the new console games already can't run at native 1080p on either the XBox One or PS4.

If you spend just $200 more on a PC with a good graphics card now, they will run at 1080p native.

I could see even the $300 AllInOne PC's running games better than an XBox One can 5 years from now, and $800 PC's running the same titles at 4K resolution with ease.

And they want the platform to last for over a decade?!? As a kid's toy, maybe.

 

[Arkaign]

im confused by your post. are you saying that in a decade high end pc's should be able to have games looking like that 2nd video, and in 4k resolution? is that really cg? it looks like normal footage with effects added.

No, PS5 and/or Xbox Two (Lol)

After a long period of stagnation, process tech, stacking, modularity, etc is all within the next 5-7 years in leaps that will make a complete mockery of even high end multigpu rigs today.

 

[Arkaign]

And yes that video is CG that used some real photo sources for textures similar to phototexturing in games.

 

[purbeast0]

No, PS5 and/or Xbox Two (Lol)

After a long period of stagnation, process tech, stacking, modularity, etc is all within the next 5-7 years in leaps that will make a complete mockery of even high end multigpu rigs today.

i don't know why you would think that. shrek 2 came out in 2004 and it is a decade later now, and high end pc's aren't even close to having games look that good.

 

[dguy6789]

snip

People have been saying "the next gen will look like real life " pretty much since every generation of visuals.

My post wasn't about the car pic, that was just to get an idea across: There comes a point where even radically increasing polygon count doesn't make an object look noticeably better. This is an unalterable truth for all things graphics.

Another quick example(sorry for random quick google images): http://people.sinclair.edu/nickreeder/eet150/PageArt/exponentialVC.gif

Think the Y axis as how much graphics improve and the X axis as how much graphics power is needed to achieve the improvement.

You can spend 20x the graphics resources and money to increase the detail 20 fold but most of the increased detail will go unnoticed if it is being increased from a level of detail that was already right on the edge of discernibility.

I don't think you're aware of just how complex a scene like in that CGI video is to render. Individual frames in videos like that take many hours to render on computers far more powerful than what the average gamer has. Quad R290X cards couldn't come close to rendering a scene out of something like the first Toy Story movie in double digit frames.

 

[smackababy]

People don't realize the farms of GPUs they use to make those Pixar movies. We aren't anywhere close to that, and won't be, for a long time.

 

[Arkaign]

People have been saying "the next gen will look like real life " pretty much since every generation of visuals.

My post wasn't about the car pic, that was just to get an idea across: There comes a point where even radically increasing polygon count doesn't make an object look noticeably better. This is an unalterable truth for all things graphics.

You can spend 20x the graphics resources and money to increase the detail 20 fold but most of the increased detail will go unnoticed if it is being increased from a level of detail that was already right on the edge of discernibility.

Adding details to things that are already excellent definitely are a waste. At the same time there is still tons and tons of room for improvements. Look at Wall E or Toy Story 3. They look ridiculously better than current 'next gen' PC and console visuals, and it's obvious. The problem is easy to see in games like Titanfall, Forza, Killzone, Thief, BF4, etc. To make the primary things look good, they spend most of the GPU resources there, then have to really scale back on background details, effects, and especially realistic dynamic lighting, fog, refraction, physics, etc.

28nm was a curse, but if you follow semiconductor tech, there are a ton of awesome leaps forward that should truly mark a Titanic shift forward in capability.

 

[Aikouka]

We are at a point now where a five fold increase in graphics power results in a very minimal visual improvement. Next to no one is going to care when the best games on a $3000 PC in 2022 look like the left most model and the Xbox One version looks like the model two slots to the right of it.

Adding polys and increasing texture resolution or increasing particle density can only go so far. A sphere can only be so round; there comes a point where having 10x the polygons will not make it noticeably more round. There comes a point when making textures sharper or increasing screen resolution is pointless because it's already really close to the maximum definition of what the eye can see.

Sigh... it's this sort of thinking that really holds everything back. You don't even consider that we can implement new hardware-based techniques to simplify difficult tasks. For example, you mention adding more polygons to a sphere. There's not much of a point to that anymore since we started pushing Tesselation! By adding more hardware capabilities, we can draw significantly more complex scenes. This doesn't juts mean more objects, but also more/better effects such as lighting. Real-time lighting can be quite expensive and that cost goes up even more with the number of objects given each one must be factored into the calculation.

So, maybe it's worth saying that we're seeing a lot more smaller detail in our graphics. I mean... greatly enhanced models are easy to spot, but superior lighting may not be that easy to notice.

The 360 will be a decade old next year and its games still don't look ancient.

Sure, the games don't look as bad as they did on the original XBOX, but the games definitely look old. I cringe a bit every time someone lauds The Last of Us for its graphics. Does the game look terrible for a console game? No. However, all you need to do is look at the background, and you should be able to easily pick out the nasty, low-resolution textures.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I can't read the article at work, but have seen other quotes like this. Of course it could last 12 years, but that doesn't mean they won't be making the next console before that.

I agree with this. They can try to keep it supported but I don't think it'll be the flagship.

 

[tential]

It'd slow down game visual progress so much to see the XboxOne/PS4 last 12 years.

If 4K gaming took til 2016 to become mainstream I'd cry.....

I think that Sony/MS's move to far weaker consoles (comparatively to the Xbox360/PS3 to hardware out at their time), means that both companies will feel far more comfortable moving to a new generation quicker than the 360/ps3 did.

 

[xantub]

well, in all fairness, you could grab an Atari 2600 and it would play today too.