By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Playstation 'will reclaim lead'

Ail on 07 May 2008
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
I highly doubt the PS3 will get the lead this gen but I doubt too the fact that as the market extends to more casual gamers that the renewal rate for consoles will stay as short as it has been in the past.
So he's got some stuff wrong but I think the PS3 will last closer to 10 years than from 5 years...

Maybe it's just me but personally I feel the leaps from one gen to the next have been smaller and smaller and it's going to become harder and harder to convince the buyers to move a new console.
This gen the arguments were HD, Graphics, CPU.

One of those at least won't be there next gen.( HD standards won't change within 3 years)
Graphics are slowly closing to the point where making them better won't improve so much more how immersive game are.
And like many have pointed out on this site, development costs raised with this gen and developers will want more time to amortize all the new engines they have built or are building with this gen of console...

 There is still more to making a more powerful console than graphics. It could make larger worlds, better ai, and physics. Those are just a few. Not to mention innovations such as the wii and ds that allow for a diiferent way to play.


I will give ya larger worlds and better AI ( although what % of the games are constrained byt this gen ? yeah Liberty City could be 3 times bigger, but imagine the development cost....And more linear games are not constrained by the console specs right now, just by the amount of time and money the developers are willing to poor into them) but better physics ? Honestly I would think a lot of us don't want their gaming experience to become too close to reality( I crash my car into another and it gets damage ok, I don't really care if the damage is exactly the same as would happen in a rl world crash..).



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
sc94597 on 07 May 2008
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
I highly doubt the PS3 will get the lead this gen but I doubt too the fact that as the market extends to more casual gamers that the renewal rate for consoles will stay as short as it has been in the past.
So he's got some stuff wrong but I think the PS3 will last closer to 10 years than from 5 years...

Maybe it's just me but personally I feel the leaps from one gen to the next have been smaller and smaller and it's going to become harder and harder to convince the buyers to move a new console.
This gen the arguments were HD, Graphics, CPU.

One of those at least won't be there next gen.( HD standards won't change within 3 years)
Graphics are slowly closing to the point where making them better won't improve so much more how immersive game are.
And like many have pointed out on this site, development costs raised with this gen and developers will want more time to amortize all the new engines they have built or are building with this gen of console...

There is still more to making a more powerful console than graphics. It could make larger worlds, better ai, and physics. Those are just a few. Not to mention innovations such as the wii and ds that allow for a diiferent way to play.


I will give ya larger worlds and better AI ( although what % of the games are constrained byt this gen ? yeah Liberty City could be 3 times bigger, but imagine the development cost....And more linear games are not constrained by the console specs right now, just by the amount of time and money the developers are willing to poor into them) but better physics ? Honestly I would think a lot of us don't want their gaming experience to become too close to reality( I crash my car into another and it gets damage ok, I don't really care if the damage is exactly the same as would happen in a rl world crash..).

That would make the world seem more realistic though. It could also allow for mor interaction with the environment. Also the worlds could be considerabely larger. By the time next gen comes along developement costs won't be as expensive.

 



ssj12 on 07 May 2008
ZenfoldorVGI said:
ssj12 said:
The PS3 will no doubt reach 2nd place. 1st place, now thats a long shot in the dark.

lol, well, if it does manage to stick around for 10 years, it could creep near or in first place assuming Nintendo moves on in 5 years.

 

However, I kinda doubt it. :P


 Did you miss the article that Nini agreed with Sony that 5 year console ife is to short and decided to do 10 year life spans for their consoles? The Wii = 10 year life, PS3 = 10 year life, even if M$ decided to release another console in 2 years it wouldnt make a difference as the Wii and PS3 would be cheaper and have more game developers making games for it.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
vaio on 07 May 2008
Sky Render said:
Of course you can't fathom where Nintendo will take gaming next; that would mean they were being predictable. And quite frankly, no industry ever gets better when it's predictable. As Iwata put it, "we can't ask our customers 'what will surprise you?', because they don't know either." Upgrading online capabilities and storage capacity is a predictable upgrade.

Transitioning from controller-based gameplay to non-controller-based gameplay is not so much so. Finding a way to make games entirely playable without any need to hold something in your hands sounds downright ludicrous to an established gamer, but would certainly accomplish the task of surprising people were it done correctly. That's only one example of where Nintendo could go from here. There's many other routes that nobody outside of Nintendo has thought of yet, too.

I read i an Interview with one of the higher ups in Nintendo saying that they were trying to solve the problem with the limits of TV´s and that gives a good picture of where nintendo is heading.

Vaio - "Bury me at Milanello"      R.I.P AC Milan

In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird  and people take Prozac  to make it normal.

If laughing is the best medicine and marijuana makes you laugh

Is marijuana the best medicine?

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

“If any creator has not played Mario, then they’re probably not a good creator. That’s something I can say with 100 percent confidence. Mario is, for game creators, the development bible.

Ail on 07 May 2008
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
I highly doubt the PS3 will get the lead this gen but I doubt too the fact that as the market extends to more casual gamers that the renewal rate for consoles will stay as short as it has been in the past.
So he's got some stuff wrong but I think the PS3 will last closer to 10 years than from 5 years...

Maybe it's just me but personally I feel the leaps from one gen to the next have been smaller and smaller and it's going to become harder and harder to convince the buyers to move a new console.
This gen the arguments were HD, Graphics, CPU.

One of those at least won't be there next gen.( HD standards won't change within 3 years)
Graphics are slowly closing to the point where making them better won't improve so much more how immersive game are.
And like many have pointed out on this site, development costs raised with this gen and developers will want more time to amortize all the new engines they have built or are building with this gen of console...

There is still more to making a more powerful console than graphics. It could make larger worlds, better ai, and physics. Those are just a few. Not to mention innovations such as the wii and ds that allow for a diiferent way to play.


I will give ya larger worlds and better AI ( although what % of the games are constrained byt this gen ? yeah Liberty City could be 3 times bigger, but imagine the development cost....And more linear games are not constrained by the console specs right now, just by the amount of time and money the developers are willing to poor into them) but better physics ? Honestly I would think a lot of us don't want their gaming experience to become too close to reality( I crash my car into another and it gets damage ok, I don't really care if the damage is exactly the same as would happen in a rl world crash..).

That would make the world seem more realistic though. It could also allow for mor interaction with the environment. Also the worlds could be considerabely larger. By the time next gen comes along developement costs won't be as expensive.

 


We're disagreeing around the same idea.

You're saying games need to be more realistics, I am questioning that. And right now you can't say that the console winning this gen is the one with the most realistics games.

When I game I want to evade from the real world, I don't want to find myself in a copy of it...

PS: A new gen would mean the need for new engines optimized to the new hardware so yes higher development costs.

As long as computers have existed development costs have risen with the complexity of the hardware, introducing more complex/powerfull hardware would indeed increase those costs, especially if you tried to offer bigger worlds to gamers... 

 



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Ail on 07 May 2008
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
I highly doubt the PS3 will get the lead this gen but I doubt too the fact that as the market extends to more casual gamers that the renewal rate for consoles will stay as short as it has been in the past.
So he's got some stuff wrong but I think the PS3 will last closer to 10 years than from 5 years...

Maybe it's just me but personally I feel the leaps from one gen to the next have been smaller and smaller and it's going to become harder and harder to convince the buyers to move a new console.
This gen the arguments were HD, Graphics, CPU.

One of those at least won't be there next gen.( HD standards won't change within 3 years)
Graphics are slowly closing to the point where making them better won't improve so much more how immersive game are.
And like many have pointed out on this site, development costs raised with this gen and developers will want more time to amortize all the new engines they have built or are building with this gen of console...

There is still more to making a more powerful console than graphics. It could make larger worlds, better ai, and physics. Those are just a few. Not to mention innovations such as the wii and ds that allow for a diiferent way to play.


I will give ya larger worlds and better AI ( although what % of the games are constrained byt this gen ? yeah Liberty City could be 3 times bigger, but imagine the development cost....And more linear games are not constrained by the console specs right now, just by the amount of time and money the developers are willing to poor into them) but better physics ? Honestly I would think a lot of us don't want their gaming experience to become too close to reality( I crash my car into another and it gets damage ok, I don't really care if the damage is exactly the same as would happen in a rl world crash..).

That would make the world seem more realistic though. It could also allow for mor interaction with the environment. Also the worlds could be considerabely larger. By the time next gen comes along developement costs won't be as expensive.

 


We're disagreeing around the same idea.

You're saying games need to be more realistics, I am questioning that. And right now you can't say that the console winning this gen is the one with the most realistics games.

When I game I want to evade from the real world, I don't want to find myself in a copy of it...

PS: A new gen would mean the need for new engines optimized to the new hardware so yes higher development costs.

As long as computers have existed development costs have risen with the complexity of the hardware, introducing more complex/powerfull hardware would indeed increase those costs, especially if you tried to offer bigger worlds to gamers... 

 



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Sky Render on 07 May 2008

@vaio

That still doesn't give you much to work with. Perhaps that they plan to expand the market in such a way that a television is no longer a prerequisite (and thus handily disrupting the television game industry in the process), but it only gives you one piece of the puzzle. And that piece is very incomplete; it could mean just about anything.

From what I've seen of how Nintendo works, however, I think it's safe to say that they're going to go back and look at what they and others have done so far (as they have with the Wii; each and every Wii peripheral has its origins in the NES and SNES eras), and find a way to make past failures into components of their next disruption. So what commercial failure will they look at and make a real contending force in a new form? Virtual Boy, perhaps? Maybe the U-Force? Possibly the Power Glove again, but this time from the glove angle?



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

sc94597 on 07 May 2008
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
I highly doubt the PS3 will get the lead this gen but I doubt too the fact that as the market extends to more casual gamers that the renewal rate for consoles will stay as short as it has been in the past.
So he's got some stuff wrong but I think the PS3 will last closer to 10 years than from 5 years...

Maybe it's just me but personally I feel the leaps from one gen to the next have been smaller and smaller and it's going to become harder and harder to convince the buyers to move a new console.
This gen the arguments were HD, Graphics, CPU.

One of those at least won't be there next gen.( HD standards won't change within 3 years)
Graphics are slowly closing to the point where making them better won't improve so much more how immersive game are.
And like many have pointed out on this site, development costs raised with this gen and developers will want more time to amortize all the new engines they have built or are building with this gen of console...

There is still more to making a more powerful console than graphics. It could make larger worlds, better ai, and physics. Those are just a few. Not to mention innovations such as the wii and ds that allow for a diiferent way to play.


I will give ya larger worlds and better AI ( although what % of the games are constrained byt this gen ? yeah Liberty City could be 3 times bigger, but imagine the development cost....And more linear games are not constrained by the console specs right now, just by the amount of time and money the developers are willing to poor into them) but better physics ? Honestly I would think a lot of us don't want their gaming experience to become too close to reality( I crash my car into another and it gets damage ok, I don't really care if the damage is exactly the same as would happen in a rl world crash..).

That would make the world seem more realistic though. It could also allow for mor interaction with the environment. Also the worlds could be considerabely larger. By the time next gen comes along developement costs won't be as expensive.

 


We're disagreeing around the same idea.

You're saying games need to be more realistics, I am questioning that. And right now you can't say that the console winning this gen is the one with the most realistics games.

When I game I want to evade from the real world, I don't want to find myself in a copy of it...

PS: A new gen would mean the need for new engines optimized to the new hardware so yes higher development costs.

As long as computers have existed development costs have risen with the complexity of the hardware, introducing more complex/powerfull hardware would indeed increase those costs, especially if you tried to offer bigger worlds to gamers...

 

Yes, realism is bad, but that is when you are mimicing everyday life. Tell me how having more realistic environments or gameplay is bad. OH and to the wii being the least realistic. I will disagree. The wii allows you to control the game realistically.

Oh on the developement cost thing. You say it like they will get more expensive, but as technology progresses developement costs decrease. Now the only reason it increased this gen was , because the leap in technology is larger than it would make sense if you wanted to make money, and have cheap developement costs.

 



HappySqurriel on 07 May 2008
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
I highly doubt the PS3 will get the lead this gen but I doubt too the fact that as the market extends to more casual gamers that the renewal rate for consoles will stay as short as it has been in the past.
So he's got some stuff wrong but I think the PS3 will last closer to 10 years than from 5 years...

Maybe it's just me but personally I feel the leaps from one gen to the next have been smaller and smaller and it's going to become harder and harder to convince the buyers to move a new console.
This gen the arguments were HD, Graphics, CPU.

One of those at least won't be there next gen.( HD standards won't change within 3 years)
Graphics are slowly closing to the point where making them better won't improve so much more how immersive game are.
And like many have pointed out on this site, development costs raised with this gen and developers will want more time to amortize all the new engines they have built or are building with this gen of console...

There is still more to making a more powerful console than graphics. It could make larger worlds, better ai, and physics. Those are just a few. Not to mention innovations such as the wii and ds that allow for a diiferent way to play.


I will give ya larger worlds and better AI ( although what % of the games are constrained byt this gen ? yeah Liberty City could be 3 times bigger, but imagine the development cost....And more linear games are not constrained by the console specs right now, just by the amount of time and money the developers are willing to poor into them) but better physics ? Honestly I would think a lot of us don't want their gaming experience to become too close to reality( I crash my car into another and it gets damage ok, I don't really care if the damage is exactly the same as would happen in a rl world crash..).

That would make the world seem more realistic though. It could also allow for mor interaction with the environment. Also the worlds could be considerabely larger. By the time next gen comes along developement costs won't be as expensive.

 


We're disagreeing around the same idea.

You're saying games need to be more realistics, I am questioning that. And right now you can't say that the console winning this gen is the one with the most realistics games.

When I game I want to evade from the real world, I don't want to find myself in a copy of it...

PS: A new gen would mean the need for new engines optimized to the new hardware so yes higher development costs.

As long as computers have existed development costs have risen with the complexity of the hardware, introducing more complex/powerfull hardware would indeed increase those costs, especially if you tried to offer bigger worlds to gamers... 

 


One of the unknowns right now is how procedural content will develop in the future, and how much processing power it will require ... Although one thing is certain, it will (probably) require a lot of processing power because you will need enough processing power to generate the simulation the game is based upon and the additional processing power to generate the content. We were able to see the infancy of this concept years ago on the PC (and it is very central in games like Civilization) but it has never taken off because too much processing power is devoted towards the simulation that it is not plausable to generate content on top of that.



Imperial on 07 May 2008
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
sc94597 said:
Ail said:
I highly doubt the PS3 will get the lead this gen but I doubt too the fact that as the market extends to more casual gamers that the renewal rate for consoles will stay as short as it has been in the past.
So he's got some stuff wrong but I think the PS3 will last closer to 10 years than from 5 years...

Maybe it's just me but personally I feel the leaps from one gen to the next have been smaller and smaller and it's going to become harder and harder to convince the buyers to move a new console.
This gen the arguments were HD, Graphics, CPU.

One of those at least won't be there next gen.( HD standards won't change within 3 years)
Graphics are slowly closing to the point where making them better won't improve so much more how immersive game are.
And like many have pointed out on this site, development costs raised with this gen and developers will want more time to amortize all the new engines they have built or are building with this gen of console...

There is still more to making a more powerful console than graphics. It could make larger worlds, better ai, and physics. Those are just a few. Not to mention innovations such as the wii and ds that allow for a diiferent way to play.


I will give ya larger worlds and better AI ( although what % of the games are constrained byt this gen ? yeah Liberty City could be 3 times bigger, but imagine the development cost....And more linear games are not constrained by the console specs right now, just by the amount of time and money the developers are willing to poor into them) but better physics ? Honestly I would think a lot of us don't want their gaming experience to become too close to reality( I crash my car into another and it gets damage ok, I don't really care if the damage is exactly the same as would happen in a rl world crash..).

That would make the world seem more realistic though. It could also allow for mor interaction with the environment. Also the worlds could be considerabely larger. By the time next gen comes along developement costs won't be as expensive.

 


We're disagreeing around the same idea.

You're saying games need to be more realistics, I am questioning that. And right now you can't say that the console winning this gen is the one with the most realistics games.

When I game I want to evade from the real world, I don't want to find myself in a copy of it...

PS: A new gen would mean the need for new engines optimized to the new hardware so yes higher development costs.

As long as computers have existed development costs have risen with the complexity of the hardware, introducing more complex/powerfull hardware would indeed increase those costs, especially if you tried to offer bigger worlds to gamers...

 

Yes, realism is bad, but that is when you are mimicing everyday life. Tell me how having more realistic environments or gameplay is bad. OH and to the wii being the least realistic. I will disagree. The wii allows you to control the game realistically.

Oh on the developement cost thing. You say it like they will get more expensive, but as technology progresses developement costs decrease. Now the only reason it increased this gen was , because the leap in technology is larger than it would make sense if you wanted to make money, and have cheap developement costs.

 


 The Wii has a more arcadey feel to me as opposed to realistic and technical but that's IMO.

 

Development cost's decrease as the gen goes by , initial development cost's are traditionaly more expensive than the initial development cost's of the previous generation. New technology means , new game engines , new development techniques , staff trainning , new software and all other procedures and complexities.