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

Forums - Gaming - Why a new set of consoles in 2010 wouldn't be good for anyone

CAL4M1TY on 20 August 2008

I agree with the thread title, sadly the OP let's it down with the trying to cover up an obvious PS3 good, 360/Wii Bad post with a long post, which means you've wasted more time then the regular "T3H CELL ROXORZ" post with the exact same result.

Here's the reasons why we won't see a new home console from any company before or during 2010:

Nintendo: They are making a killing with the Wii, why would they incur development costs to bring out another console when they are obviously tearing the competition to shreds

Sony: They tried to do a MS and get the most powerful console, it backfired hard. They started slow, took alot of bad press and development costs are through the roof to produce a custom made cell that hasn't shown it can do more then it's competitor. They won't bring out a new console because they want to see money out of this venture and will continue until they do so (which'll be well after 2010).

MS: The 360 won't be leaving anytime soon because it's doing it's job, keeping the PS3 at bay. Year head start might have given them the lead, but if the PS3 is so much better then the 360, it should have caught up by now. The Wii did it, so the fact of the matter is the 360 is doing what it was designed to do, knock off the top dog (Playstation). So long as 360 continues to compete with the PS3 sales wise, it won't go anywhere (because 1 less sony console means 1 more microsoft from MS standpoint). Unlucky for MS though, Nintendo produced gold this generation or else it would be the market leader.



Around the Network
Resident_Hazard on 20 August 2008
CAL4M1TY said:
I agree with the thread title, sadly the OP let's it down with the trying to cover up an obvious PS3 good, 360/Wii Bad post with a long post, which means you've wasted more time then the regular "T3H CELL ROXORZ" post with the exact same result.

Here's the reasons why we won't see a new home console from any company before or during 2010:

Nintendo: They are making a killing with the Wii, why would they incur development costs to bring out another console when they are obviously tearing the competition to shreds

Sony: They tried to do a MS and get the most powerful console, it backfired hard. They started slow, took alot of bad press and development costs are through the roof to produce a custom made cell that hasn't shown it can do more then it's competitor. They won't bring out a new console because they want to see money out of this venture and will continue until they do so (which'll be well after 2010).

MS: The 360 won't be leaving anytime soon because it's doing it's job, keeping the PS3 at bay. Year head start might have given them the lead, but if the PS3 is so much better then the 360, it should have caught up by now. The Wii did it, so the fact of the matter is the 360 is doing what it was designed to do, knock off the top dog (Playstation). So long as 360 continues to compete with the PS3 sales wise, it won't go anywhere (because 1 less sony console means 1 more microsoft from MS standpoint). Unlucky for MS though, Nintendo produced gold this generation or else it would be the market leader.

 

I think Sony's days of crafting a do-all super processor may be over.  The Emotion Engine was successful, but early on, developers complained about difficulties in using it.  Complaints like that are still logged to the PS3's Cell, but the success isn't booming.  In theory, the Cell should be able to blow the Xbox360 out of the water--but it could turn into one of those Sega Saturn/N64 debacles where the generally low system popularity coupled with complicated technical structure prevents everyone but the most dedicated internal (1st or 2nd party) teams from fully utilizing the technology.

It's just too easy to build a game for the Xbox360 and simply port it to the PS3 rather than trying to optimize for the Cell and then restructure a game for Xbox360 use.  Developers always go the cheaper route.  It was easier to develop for the weaker PS2 and just port games to the Xbox and GameCube, and that's pretty much what everybody did last time.  Which is why seeing games that properly utilized those machines were few and far between and almost always 1st or 2nd party titles.

 



HappySqurriel on 20 August 2008
Resident_Hazard said:
HappySqurriel said:
Dno said:
Bitmap Frogs said:

Impulsivity said:

Bunch of Sony PR

 

Dude, you've swallowed way too many Sony marketing material.

The ps3 doesn't have the horsepower to handle 1080p games (unless we're talking about specific games with few/simpler elements onscreen), so it's already lagging behind display technology (how many of you have 1080p TV's?). The GPU is already outdated (a 2006? design afterall and GPU's update twice a year), el cheapo 8800GT's outperform significatively the ps3 and they are around 100 bucks now. Finally, the much talked about cell cpu has yet to prove it's worth as far as gaming is concerned and it's supposed "future awesome potential" only exists in PR. The blue-ray player is slow and pimping the easy hard drive serviceability just because most games require installation sounds more like apologetic talk rather than a real assessment of the situation. Microsoft or Nintendo could do something better than the ps3 specs-wise right now, even more so in 2010 - there are now available faster cpu's, faster gpu's and RAM is cheaper. The only aspect where the ps3 is really future-proof is playing blue-rays: the console has the proper disc drive and firmware updates guarantee it'll stay on top of things as far as movie playing is concerned.

Note that none of the above means the ps3 can't be an excellent console and also that most of above applies to the 360 as well (as far as performance goes compared to current state of GPU/CPU technology). The truth of the situation is that consoles always and rapidly become obsolete tech because they don't even launch with cutting edge processors (since the cost would be prohibitive).

I hate to mention this, but you really need to doublecheck things before stating that MGS4 is almost at Crysis level. That's nuts - Crysis has more polygons, higher res textures, better lightning and shading and a ton more graphical prowess that MGS4 can't even match. Nevermind the fact current GPU's run Crysis at 1900x1200 while the ps3 renders MGS4 at 1280x720...

 

Lair, GT5, and about 20-30 other 1080p games say hi^^

 

 

I didn't know that rendering at a lower resolution and scaling to 1080p counted as 1080p ...

I guess I can go out and buy an upscaler and attach it to my Wii and claim that Mario Galaxy is a 1080p game, and my upscaling DVD player is displaying images that are the same as Blu-Ray movies.

 

 

Essentially, upscaling is the way the Xbox360 supports 1080.  Sony went ahead and announced that the PS3 was the only console capable of 1080 resolution, and then MS did a firmware update and said, "hey, so do we."  In reality, the Xbox360's firmware update allows for up-scaling to 1080, not "true" 1080 which I believe is hardware-related, not firmware/software related.  The PS3 is the only system that does actual "true" 1080, but in a vast number of the early games, it wasn't used, but the PS3 had the ability to, shall we say, streamline those titles to look more 1080-ish. 

But again, most HDTV's are only now getting to 1080--at the time the PS3 launched, however, I believe that pretty much only some of Sony's HDTV's actually did 1080 and everyone else played catch-up soon after.  On top of which I believe that 720 is still the most commonly used HD resolution.  I could be mistaken.  To date, I don't think there are actually any Xbox360 games built for 1080 for the reason that it isn't a true hardware-based ability.  Much of what Microsoft and Sony did with a lot of the 1080 mumbo-jumbo was spin-doctoring with an ironic lesson that maybe 720 is the way to go. 

Feel free to come in with some other, newer facts if you have them, though, because some of what I'm going on might be dated information.

For instance, are there actually external hardware upscalers?  I haven't heard of that.  Probably need a firmware update from Nintendo to allow the use of such an object on the Wii.  Or some hardcore hacking of the thing because I have serious doubts Nintendo would ever support such a thing.  In theory, the Wii is capable of doing it's own upscaling to higher resolutions, but it would require a firmware update with the unfortunate side-effect that it would be way too taxing on the CPU thus making it pointless.  The lesson for the Wii is, from what I've read, get a Plasma TV, jam the Wii into that 480 and just be happy it goes that far (apparently the Wii isn't too LCD TV-friendly on the visual side).

 

Yes, there are external hardware upscalers and they have existed since displays were available at a higher resolution than a TV signal ... They're insanely expensive though (last time I looked they were $500)

What I was talking about was not whether it was possible to display images at 1080p on the PS3, but the fact that no game that I know of actually renders at 1080p. Lair had serious frame-rate hick-ups and was rendered at 720p (IIRC) and Gran Turismo 5 prologue (and I assume GT5) renders at 1280x1080 and they're both scaled up to 1080p. The fact is that there are never going to be any graphically impressive PS3 games that render at full 1080p (1920x1080) because it simply doesn't have the processing power to handle that resolution. 



Bitmap Frogs on 20 August 2008
Resident_Hazard said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

 

Essentially, upscaling is the way the Xbox360 supports 1080.  Sony went ahead and announced that the PS3 was the only console capable of 1080 resolution, and then MS did a firmware update and said, "hey, so do we."  In reality, the Xbox360's firmware update allows for up-scaling to 1080, not "true" 1080 which I believe is hardware-related, not firmware/software related.  The PS3 is the only system that does actual "true" 1080, but in a vast number of the early games, it wasn't used, but the PS3 had the ability to, shall we say, streamline those titles to look more 1080-ish.

 

That's a lie. Several 360 games run natively at 1080p. Virtua Tennis 3, some NBA game, etc are just examples. You'd wish the ps3 had some innate capabilities differentiating it from the rest of the pack, but it doesn't besides the blue-ray disc drive.

BTW, both Lair and GT5 render below 1080p. You can check quartz's thread at B3D to check for yourself. The only true 1080p games on the ps3 are the same kind as on the 360: games with simpler/less complex environments and smaller amount of models on screen at once - tennis games, basket games, 2d oddities like flow...

Hazard, you need to learn a bit about tech stuff... Nintendo doesn't need to support an external scaler, it just works off the console's output.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

ookaze on 21 August 2008
HappySqurriel said:

Yes, there are external hardware upscalers and they have existed since displays were available at a higher resolution than a TV signal ... They're insanely expensive though (last time I looked they were $500)

What I was talking about was not whether it was possible to display images at 1080p on the PS3, but the fact that no game that I know of actually renders at 1080p. Lair had serious frame-rate hick-ups and was rendered at 720p (IIRC) and Gran Turismo 5 prologue (and I assume GT5) renders at 1280x1080 and they're both scaled up to 1080p. The fact is that there are never going to be any graphically impressive PS3 games that render at full 1080p (1920x1080) because it simply doesn't have the processing power to handle that resolution.

 

I wish this nonsense would stop.

There, here are the resolutions of most high profile PS3 and XB360 games : http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

 

XB360 have no more than 3 1080p retail games IIRC. PS3 has several. As for simple downloaded games, they both have several, as these games are not really demanding graphics wise.

Then, I wish this misinformation would stop. 1080p doesn't mean 1920x1080 resolution. 1080p means 1080 pixels of vertical resolution progressive, meaning 1080 pixels of vertical resolution for every single frame.

Just like a DVD, stretching the image in the horizontal resolution by anamorphism or any other way (rectangular pixels "like" in video realm) in no way change the fact that an image is 1080p, 720p, 480i/p, ...

1080p only means 1920x1080 resolution for 16:9 digital displays.

It's strange because people that can't understand that still can talk about DVD upscaling to 1080p (or to 720p).



http://www.backloggery.com/main.php?user=ookaze

Around the Network
tuoyo on 21 August 2008
Impulsivity said:

    Second for Nintendo a 2010 switch doesn't make much sense.  Nintendo is selling mainly to people who want Nintendo games no matter what and slow adopter households that aren't really that into fast upgrades to HD.  Those houses will probably eventually get a 1080p TV, but not until they cost under 1000 dollars and their current TV breaks.  If anything going expensive would ruin a lot of Nintendos whole profit center model.  If they turned the Wii into a 360 hardware wise they would make 100 dollars less a console, have marginal benefits since the bad graphics on the Wii clearly aren't hurting sales and really wouldn't do much to extend their appeal.  When Nintendo had the gamecube which had graphics on par with the PS2 their system sold worse then teh Wii is now so clearly trying to compete with Sony on graphics has no point for Nintendo. 

 

You have made a terribly inaccurate assumption there.  People don't buy a Wii because they don't have a HD TV.  They buy a Wii because of the Wii Remote, the games and the fact it is sensibly priced.  To suggest there is a huge batch of peoplebuying Wii because they don't have HD TV's doesn't make any sense.  As lacking in sense is the suggestion by Sony fans that people would buy a PS3 because they bought a HD TV it still makes much more sense than your suggestion that there are huge amounts of people buying Wii because they don't have HD TVs.        

 



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

Reasonable on 21 August 2008

I don't care when they release 'em. I bought a Wii this June and a PS3 May 2007 and won't be seeking to replace either until I've had five years out of them - which means my PS3 has until May 2012 before I'm going to consider replacing it. As for my Wii that won't be up for replacement until June 2013.

I almost hope new consoles do come out in 2010/2011 - just think how much they'll have hopefully dropped in price before I consider buying one!





Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

obieslut on 21 August 2008

i knew that next gen started when i opend up th eps3 for the first time and sore that big black beast starring back at me



xman on 21 August 2008
bouzane said:
I'm not touching another console until 2012 at the earliest.

 

I am pretty happy myself I think I would look at a new one in 2011 maybe



PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

Xbox live:mywiferocks

Spankey on 21 August 2008

Whenever it is, I just hope they don't rush the next gen of consoles like MS did with the 360 and then have to explain to the customers why the first batch of 11 million or so units are expected to have a serious problem.
A well tested product means a happy customer.



Proud Sony Rear Admiral