| RageBot said: So... are you agreeing with me that this gen will stay much longer than most anticipate? |
I agree, but I'll take a different point of view. I'll give you my view of the story, but we have to remember what happened at the beginning of this gen :
At first, we have to think at the motivation of the change of generation. The change of gen was due to the high definition TV boom, and by the distance between PC games and consoles' in term of graphic capabilities. Meaning, PS2, XBOX and GC were at the maximum of their capacity, while developper were having fun developping tech beasts such as with Doom3, Crysis, Far Cry, UT2K4. So a new generation was needed, not for the consumer, but for the developpers. MS was the first to answer.
That's why I think this gen started too early, with MS releasing a half finished product, trying to copy sony by being the first to release its the first gaming machine of the generation with a 1 year headstart (remember PS2 had a 2 year headstart last gen). But, this decision made Sony response with their own half made machine, thrown at a price lower than manufacturing costs, with features hastily implemented (Sixaxis, home, BC). On the other hand, MS plan backfired later with the RRoD issue, people deciding to wait for the PS3.
In parrallel, in my opinion, the developpers had anticipated two years before the beginning of the current gen to make current gen games with higher graphical possibilities. I think almost no dev, second and first parties apart, couldn't forecast nor believed in the roaring success of the Wii at that time, and a lot of money and time was thrown at that moment to be ready for the next generation. HD consoles at the time, were a link between the consoles and PC, while Nintendo was giving little information about their new console. This has been a strategic move to ensure nobody copied them too early, but this backfired too because a lot of interrogation hit gamers, journalists, and devs, and the semi echec salewise of the GC was in everybody's mind.
Now, almost 5 years later, PCs graphical capacity have risen, but the developpers now are making games for both consoles and PC. I don't know how to express it, but I really think that the PC gaming had its crown stolen by the HD consoles this gen. I don't really think graphical capacites in games have reached their limits (it's another debate ^^), but one thing is sure, the wow effects of graphics have now reached a stagnant state. What you had exclusively for PC before, is reachable to the console crowd. The graphic card race is no more in the PC crowd, in my case, I have a GT8800 and I can perfectly run the latest PC games without any problem. A few years ago, in 2005, that was not the case, you had to evolve your rig every year to keep up the pace. And this had thrown more people in the console business.
So devs are not pushing PC graphical capabilities, thus staying at the HD consoles standards, to justify their HD investments. That's one of the main reason the Wii is not being given more love by devs, imho.
Unless a viable graphical/technological jump unavailable to console isn't made by the PC or whatever, you won't see a new console gen. I personally don't really believe in 3D, and I don't know about the impact of motion control solutions from the HD twins.
Let me do a prediction :
- If Move and Natal are a success, then new games benefitting from this tech and the higher graphical capabilities of the HD consoles will make this gen even longer, and this will force ninty to release a 3D version of the Wii.
- If Move and Natal fail, then MS and Sony will be behind Ninty when Big N will release their HD version of the Wii (which I believe, but that's not what I want).
Edit : Oh btw, the Source, I love your articles and admire the sheer accuracy and neutrality of your writing ^^ Sometimes, this forums need a bit of love...
