The videogame industry is blaming its state on the fact that "next generation has been delayed".  It is believe that release of new equipment will be the road to profitability.  Well, I am wondering if the movie industry is doing the same thing.  Are they saying they need to have BluRay really take off, or 3D or whatever to fix things the way the videogame industry is now?  If not, then could it be the videogame industry has run out of ideas on what it needs to do to be profitable?  What kind of industry is dependent upon people throwing out their old equipment and buying new, to run new content?  The videogame industry seems to bank on it.

The difference between disk readers for movies only enhances the visual/audio performance for viewers. It has zero bearing on what movie makers are limited to. They have constantly evolving technology that allows them to create new movies. Consoles hold back games in ways that are not comparable to video formats holding back movies.

PS3 already has blu ray though :S

wfz said: The difference between disk readers for movies only enhances the visual/audio performance for viewers. It has zero bearing on what movie makers are limited to. They have constantly evolving technology that allows them to create new movies. Consoles hold back games in ways that are not comparable to video formats holding back movies.

This hit it on the head for me as its what i was going to say before i seen it was already said

That's not the entirety of the argument. Part of it, from what I've read, is that almost no one wants to risk a new IP at the end of a generation. I guess the idea is that you cut the legs off a release and thus make the potential of a sequel less than it would be otherwise.

As far as some IPs not really being doable on current gen, I can kind of understand, and the film industry is actually a good example of that. Early superhero films were horrible, awful things; it wasn't until technology advanced to a certain point that they could be pulled off in a way that didn't look absolutely stupid. There are probably certain concepts in gaming that are the same.

One angle here I am bringing up, is that it is like the videogame industry is banking on next generation platform to suddenly make it profitable. It was said above that the industry needs a new platform to release a new IP. But, what makes people think the platform sales, and dollars spent, is going to make them profitable? What if the industry goes EXTREMELY hit drive, and all people remain married to is the old IP from this generation, and maybe a handful of new ones? What if the amount of money doesn't change, or even goes down? I would say go down, at least, on games, because people pumped a bunch of money into a platform, if they do?

The movie industry doesn't seem to have this problem, at least from what I can see.

movie industry has real humans as actors and real environment as long as it isn't a computer movie so there is no need to get better graphics for humans or faster fps or whatever. for consoles you need more techniques to get better iq, better physics, more fps, more people at the same time on one screen and so on to let your vision come true.

all of this does only count for computer rendered movies and i'm pretty sure those guys would complain as much if not more if they would always have to use the same computers to create their movies and if movies would still look like toy story 1.

and if a director would like to make a new braveheart and someone would tell him he can only get 50 for a huge battle i'm pretty sure he would complain about it as well.

crissindahouse said: movie industry has real humans as actors and real environment as long as it isn't a computer movie so there is no need to get better graphics for humans or faster fps or whatever. for consoles you need more techniques to get better iq, better physics, more fps, more people at the same time on one screen and so on to let your vision come true. all of this does only count for computer rendered movies and i'm pretty sure those guys would complain as much if not more if they would always have to use the same computers to create their movies and if movies would still look like toy story 1. and if a director would like to make a new braveheart and someone would tell him he can only get 50 for a huge battle i'm pretty sure he would complain about it as well.

Look at some of the biggest titles this generation, as far as buzz, building a fan base, and being relevant.  You have Minecraft and also Angry Birds.  These titles do not require huge horsepower.  You also see that people are opting for tablets and smart phones over the likes of the Vita.  The shift is away from the home.  With this trend, then why would there be thinking that increased horsepower is what is needed?  Heck, even the DS platform isn't graphically intensive.

richardhutnik said: crissindahouse said: movie industry has real humans as actors and real environment as long as it isn't a computer movie so there is no need to get better graphics for humans or faster fps or whatever. for consoles you need more techniques to get better iq, better physics, more fps, more people at the same time on one screen and so on to let your vision come true. all of this does only count for computer rendered movies and i'm pretty sure those guys would complain as much if not more if they would always have to use the same computers to create their movies and if movies would still look like toy story 1. and if a director would like to make a new braveheart and someone would tell him he can only get 50 for a huge battle i'm pretty sure he would complain about it as well. Look at some of the biggest titles this generation, as far as buzz, building a fan base, and being relevant.  You have Minecraft and also Angry Birds.  These titles do not require huge horsepower.  You also see that people are opting for tablets and smart phones over the likes of the Vita.  The shift is away from the home.  With this trend, then why would there be thinking that increased horsepower is what is needed?  Heck, even the DS platform isn't graphically intensive.

yes and that is enough for some gamers but not for other and some developers are those who make games for people who don't want to play games like this. and it's not as if everyone who makes a cheap smartphone game is successful and you should also not believe that smartphone games will look as simple in 10 years as they do right now. smartphone players would also start to ask for something new after a while. at the moment the games we have right now are enough for people who play on these devices but that doesn't mean that they think it is still good in 10 years.

and it's not as if we wouldn't have the same for phones or do you think snake would be the same success nowadays for a smartphone as it was for the 3210?

advancement is something humans always want, if that wouldn't be the case we would still drive with cars from 1900 and live in tents.

developers want new consoles to make new games for guys like me who lost a little bit the interest in console gaming the last year or so. if we would have the same consoles in 2020 almost nobody would play with them anymore.

wfz said: The difference between disk readers for movies only enhances the visual/audio performance for viewers. It has zero bearing on what movie makers are limited to. They have constantly evolving technology that allows them to create new movies. Consoles hold back games in ways that are not comparable to video formats holding back movies.

/thread.