I agree with what you are saying Rainbird. There is a problem here that we might come up against in the next generation, that creating assets that push the hardware is too expensive for it to be commercially viable. That is, unless the way we create assets change.

I know of two (swedish) developers that are experimenting with computer generated content. I've seen that video of a girl talking that is looking very much like a real girl, that actually runs on a computer (they had some fancy video capturing tool to make the model...). I've also seen a video of a facemodeling software that was able to build a 3d model of a face from just a photograph.

What I'm getting at here is that assets could be created differently from how they are created now and that that would mean vastly superior assets could be created for a fraction of the cost. I'm not saying it will necessarily happen, just that it could. Lets not do as Bill Gates, when he said that 640k RAM was all one would ever need. I prefer to hope that the future will see techniques to conquer the problems that lie ahead.

Still, there are also other huge costs associated with big budget productions. Most of them comes due to more content, and are virtually untouched by my reasoning above. Voiceacting, for instance, will hardly become less expensive. Music and good directing will always cost money. These have little to do with graphics and more to do with the scope of the project, the ambition of the creators, but they still contribute a fair part to the expenses of game creation (though I have no idea as to how big that part would be). On the other hand, these costs are not likely to rise as steeply as the costs for creating graphical assets.

So I agree with you in part, I just think that there is more to this problem than what you have outlined.

I think next gen will see groups really innovating in ways to improve efficiency of game development. Cryengine 3 has already shown how a game can be made for 3 different platforms simultaneously. They really need to do this because costs are starting to get out of hand.

New ways of creating assets would always be welcome, and I agree that it would be a very good thing to have easy access to new 3D models. I just don't know what difference it will make, as not all games will be relying on humans. But I suppose this will be mostly down to the tech in the end. If it can be used to create a variety of assets, then that's awesome.

And scope is definitely a big part of it as well.

My expectations would be for an improvement in the quality of the graphics (as well as the in game physics), after all that's why I spend hundreds of £/$'s on a new system. I do agree with you that development costs are likely to be the prohibatiting factor in the next gen in terms of games pushing the hardware (as opposed to the hardware's technical limits). Therefore I think somethings will have to change to combat this. Costs will either have to be kept lower which means lower quality games or revenue will have to increase. I think the latter is the most likely but exactly how depends on which direction the market takes, either a rise in digital distribution or an increase in the price of games.

@ CrazyHorse

That is true, if DD takes off, it could mean more profit for publishers than if a game is sold through retail, which would do something to help combat the issue. I doubt it will be a significant factor though.

Good for a high end PC?  No.  Good for a gaming system that doesn't have to cost 600 and still cause $ony to hemmorage money, YES.  Frankly, if the PS3 had more RAM alone, it would be capable of far more.

Here's what I want next gen (for the billionth time)

1.  Baseline graphics of Uncharted 2 quality

2.  enough memory and power to do 60 FPS at 1080

3.  Backward Compatibility

4.  Price of $349 to $399

It is obvious that the "supercomputer in a box" idea was foolish and flawed.  $ony is insane if they try that again.

i want tons of AA, and 1080p in every game.

@costs:

DD isnt the way to go, because (at least i hope this) game sales will go down, i dont know how much, but the will.
the thing is to make the development easier and faster, by using things they built before again. (for example, why not using some of the textures from Uncharted 4 in uncharted 5 :o ?)

personally i could care less about graphics just because this generation proves to me we have reached the limit of the "oooooos" and "aaaaaaaaaaahs". because hdtvs can make a game or console for that manner have an sharper image. (sent via Blackberry)

I don't think developers would even begin to consider making games with development costs so high they'll never make them back. I mean, who would, they're businesses. :s No-one's gonna bother creating a massively expensive game that won't make back the money it costed to create.

The 8th gen will be the weakest console generation in terms of graphical upgrades, and here's why...

Atari 2600: 192x160; 128(?) color palette with 4 per scanline

NES: 256x224; 48-color palette with 16(?) per scanline

SNES: 512x478 (max); hundreds of thousands of colors

PS1: 640x480 (max); millions of colors (at this point it pretty much stops mattering)

PS2: 480p widescreen on many games

WII: 480p widescreen standard on most games; X360/PS3 support 720p standard on most games and 1080p standard on some

Basically, display technology caught up with contemporary TV technology around the time of the PS1 and has kept up with it up to the present. Now, there's no further to go unless TV manufacturers try to foist some new tech on us in the next few years (which doesn't seem very likely to happen).

This means that console manufacturers (other than Nintendo, anyway, who's already ahead of the game) will try to differentiate themselves from the crowd via means other than graphics. And that can only be a good thing.