Why is veryone so sure that the PS4 won't launch with Move? I would think not having motion out of the box would make it seem like it's a step or two behind the competition, but having it would push up the entry price.

well supposedly the wiiU can do 1080p but who knows what the fuck fine print comes with that statement.  i agree, 6x is underwhelming.  i honestly don't think i care if the graphics are more than 6x 'cause lets face it -- the gaming industry cant' support that economically anyways so power or not it won't really be supported.   i was however really hoping for a console that was much much more effective at multitasking and that requires a fair amount of processing power too.

it's not true to say the industry can't support that economically. the specs we know about now, if true or not, would maybe not even enough to play actual pc games with ultra settings, 4x msaa, hbao, 1080p and whatever. it's not like they can't develop this games they do it NOW and i don't believe they couldn't few years in the future when technologies are better and it will be less expansive to make graphics we have NOW on the pc. i mean if it wouldn't be possible we wouldn't have those games for pc and pc games sales aren't very high...and even if this console could do everything an actual gaming pc can the console will release end 2013 then we will have much better pc games than nowadays so with a better console we could play them with these rumored specs we won't be able to play the games with the same setting but the settings are there, they aren't too expensive.

it's expensive to build those maps but if you put in 2x msaa or 4x msaa isn't such a big thing for development i think but it costs a lot of power.

If it's true then Nintendo actually has a shot at getting the same kind of 3rd party support as Microsoft and Sony.

Such an angry rant. Useless. You've never shown me any evidence. Millenium made sense, your post against me is more chaotic than understandable.

i dunno -- i'm not much of a technical guy but by my definitions i've seen the ultra, super, high settings of PC games and other than resolution they don't really look like better graphics.   the images are sharper but the assets are still low quality -- kind of like when ps2 games are made HD for the ps3.  yes the resolution is better and things do look better but the enviornments are still using the same assets and the game still looks dated and not at all up to par with a current gen game.

Resolution isn't expesive for development but the artists needed to make things look truely more detailed and better are.

I'd just like to throw this in the topic for no specific reason:

Game Technology Advancement:

2-3 years from now, the technology we build our games with will be far more advanced then what they are at right now, which will allow us to render games with better quality graphics, with less of an impact on the hardware it runs on.

An example of this would be COD 2 -> Gears of War -> Gears of War 3, in 6 years time, the technology has improved so much, we've been able to run far better looking games than we did with the engines we used at the start of the gen.

Well tbh the nextgen will mainly be between the first party titles, don't know about move though it's very underused as it is.

S.T.A.G.E., here is where your posts from the Microsoft IP thread are most powerful: in the context of a console launch.

But the uncertainty is as Millenium mentioned, what if the new studios provide those new IPs for the 720 launch. It's my understanding that the new studios will be working on A titles, as compared to AAA titles like Sony does (due to budget constraints and studio calibur discrepancies), but these would certainly satisfy the core at least for the first year, until the big guns are loaded (Halo, Fable, Forza). I also see some of the new studios at MS work on XBLA titles to diversify the already booming indie market even more.

Scenario 1) X720 has core and moderate offerings (games and value-adds) at launch.

Scenario 2) X720 only has interesting multiplats.

Though scenario 1 is more likely, even under scenario 2, with proper marketing, we know MS has learnt to excel but the question is will gamers bite? I would think so. Since they will see the new gen has arrived, they will reason that better games are on the horizon, and  bite. Regarding the core and graphical capabilities and all, if everything at least looks and feels "next gen" (new UI, branding, improved support HW), then they will also bite.

With that in mind, the Xbox720, along with kinect, has the leverage to attract the now booming casual crowd, and with such noise alert the moderate to see what the fuss is about, and bring awareness to the core offerings while no competition other than Wii U (wildcard), with Sony out of the picture in terms of next gen hardware. If priced reasonably, consumers will upgrade, otherwise they won't bother and continue to enjoy their 360s, much like some people continued on XP while Windows Vista came out. There are two outomes:

1) casuals upgrade to 720, causing an explosive sales curve.

2) casuals don't bite. If casuals don't bite, with little noise, the moderate probably won't bite, so the core will be adopting in year 1 with a traditional sales curve. Buyers are much more impatient nowadays, despite the weak economy. The core will bite. Since their faith is in MS, they will opt 720 over Wii U imho, unless the Wii U has made substancial headroom in its head start.

Here is another possibility. The PS3 aligns itself with the higher end, more in line with PC enthusiasts and cutting-edge afficionados by differentiating itself with cutting-edge graphics.

My two cents.

What about how power is allocated? I mean, the info displayed in the Wii U's controller is all gernerated by the Wii U and then streamed, correct? Doesn't that mean that Wii U's games won't trully use the systems power for graphics? There is so much we don't know yet. Parity on paper might not equal parity on the screen.