Will there be Next-Gen consoles at all?

[Slowtrain]

But consoles are no longer serving a very specific purpose. My 360 plays movies, and not just from DVD's, it streams them over the internet now. It works as a social networking platform. I can create chat rooms and sen messages to people. The only drawback is the lack of a keyboard, but with a headset I can send it over voice chat.

 

 

So do you feel then as though you are in agreement with the OP? That the console is going to fade away and we are going to return to a more generalized approach to home computing?

 

Understand, I am not arguing with you directly, except to say that such reasoning flys in the face of everything we've been told about pc vs console game development.

[Morgoth]

Well perhaps if PC hardware starts getting more unified, are more efficient but also easier to program (no API's anymore), maybe then they also start to become cheaper. That's what Sweeney predicts, or at least that what he wishes. In that case, yes, consoles would become obsolete.

[Mamoulian War]

But consoles are no longer serving a very specific purpose. My 360 plays movies, and not just from DVD's, it streams them over the internet now. It works as a social networking platform. I can create chat rooms and sen messages to people. The only drawback is the lack of a keyboard, but with a headset I can send it over voice chat.

 

 

So do you feel then as though you are in agreement with the OP? That the console is going to fade away and we are going to return to a more generalized approach to home computing?

 

Understand, I am not arguing with you directly, except to say that such reasoning flys in the face of everything we've been told about pc vs console game development.

 

I understand what he said in opposite direction, you do not need PC anymore to do all the fancy thingies you were able to do few years ago, now you can make all of it on a gaming console aswell...

[Niten_Ryu]

There will be next generation console but not any time soon. I wouldnt be suprised if we see PS3 and Xbox360 to last till 2014-2015 as top end consoles. Strangly enough, this doesn't really help PCs as consoles will remain as main development platform because of huge userbase. PCs will get quick and dirty ports similar to current GTA4 and Saints Row 2. Personally I'm fine with this as PCs will get more powerful each year so even those ugly ports will work ok in future. And maybe we get bit higher resolution, better textures and AA

[Slowtrain]

There will be next generation console but not any time soon. I wouldnt be suprised if we see PS3 and Xbox360 to last till 2014-2015 as top end consoles. Strangly enough, this doesn't really help PCs as consoles will remain as main development platform because of huge userbase. PCs will get quick and dirty ports similar to current GTA4 and Saints Row 2.

 

This seems a much more logical look into the immediate future to me. PC's continue to advance, though at a slower rate that years past, but current consoles are still the lead development and retail platform for most games. WHich means of course, there won't be any great advances in gaming technology for quite a few years, until there is a huge leap somewhere down the road, when a next next-gen console is released.

 

 

Frankly, I think that's great since it means we don't have to worry about turning over our computing technology every six months just to play current games.

[Morgoth]

It also means games will look and play the same over the course of another 5 years...

[Hurlshort]

But consoles are no longer serving a very specific purpose. My 360 plays movies, and not just from DVD's, it streams them over the internet now. It works as a social networking platform. I can create chat rooms and sen messages to people. The only drawback is the lack of a keyboard, but with a headset I can send it over voice chat.

 

 

So do you feel then as though you are in agreement with the OP? That the console is going to fade away and we are going to return to a more generalized approach to home computing?

 

Understand, I am not arguing with you directly, except to say that such reasoning flys in the face of everything we've been told about pc vs console game development.

 

I understand what he said in opposite direction, you do not need PC anymore to do all the fancy thingies you were able to do few years ago, now you can make all of it on a gaming console aswell...

 

I'm not really taking any one side on a console/PC debate here, I'm really saying that down the road it won't matter. There will be one box, and it will control everything. Even your appliances. And it will say things like "I'm afraid I can't let you do that"

 

Seriously though, technology is going to plateau at some point, and the constant stream of upgraded hardware for the PC will turn into a trickle.

 

So I think a good question to ask is, what is the difference between the console experience and the PC gaming experience? If I play my PC with a controller and sit on a couch, is it still a PC?

[Slowtrain]

It also means games will look and play the same over the course of another 5 years...

 

 

Pretty much. SInce the platforms will be essentially static until the replacement platforms are finally released. A big difference of course compared to the dynamic and constant tech improvement seen with pcs.

 

But overall, it is a really good thing for 2 reasons:

 

1) Our current technology will still be playing games for 5 years instead of just for 5 months.

 

2) With the emphasis no longer on technology as a means to demonstrate how great a game is, developers will be forced to actually design games instead of engines. I mean, if all games look the same, devs are going to have to actually do some design work to make their game interesting and unique. I think that is fantastic.

[Morgoth]

It also means games will look and play the same over the course of another 5 years...

 

 

Pretty much. SInce the platforms will be essentially static until the replacement platforms are finally released. A big difference of course compared to the dynamic and constant tech improvement seen with pcs.

 

But overall, it is a really good thing for 2 reasons:

 

1) Our current technology will still be playing games for 5 years instead of just for 5 months.

 

2) With the emphasis no longer on technology as a means to demonstrate how great a game is, developers will be forced to actually design games instead of engines. I mean, if all games look the same, devs are going to have to actually do some design work to make their game interesting and unique. I think that is fantastic.

The current gen console hardware is already for some 3-4 years available, yet we still see tons of boring and crappy games released on it... The difference is just, we now have to wait longer for the good games.

[Slowtrain]

The current gen console hardware is already for some 3-4 years available, yet we still see tons of boring and crappy games released on it... The difference is just, we now have to wait longer for the good games.

 

 

I agree, BUT, the longer the current tech level is in place the more time the developers have to hone their skills and the more pressure is on them to do it in order to get their games to stand out and sell.

 

So I have hope that things will get better.

[Pidesco]

Heavenly Sword takes 50Gigs? There's no possible way a 7 hour long game requires that much space, unless it was developed by idiots, so I call shenanigans.

 

Edit: Ah, Heavenly Sword is actually less than 18 gigs. Still seems too big to me, though.

[Morgoth]

Heavenly Sword takes 50Gigs? There's no possible way a 7 hour long game requires that much space, unless it was developed by idiots, so I call shenanigans.

HS was more a movie, less a game. Back then when I still owned my PS3, I was quite intrigued my teh graphics...but man, that game was so primitive. All you do is always hitting the same 2 buttons.

 

MGS4 also filled a full Blu-Ray btw.

 

Contrary, Valve managed to get HL2+Ep1+Ep2+TF2+Portal on a single normal DVD for the 360.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Morgoth

[Mamoulian War]

Heavenly Sword takes 50Gigs? There's no possible way a 7 hour long game requires that much space, unless it was developed by idiots, so I call shenanigans.

 

Edit: Ah, Heavenly Sword is actually less than 18 gigs. Still seems too big to me, though.

 

ehm my fault... i thought it filled double layer BD, but looks like it it filled only single layer...

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The only drawback is the lack of a keyboard, but with a headset I can send it over voice chat.

 

You forgot the lack of mods and moddding tools...

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

In any case its not like the graphics need to get any better.

[Nightshape]

Sweeny makes some good points, I also have stated before that I don't think we'd see another gen of consoles until beyond 2010.

 

In all honesty the XBox 360 has alot of advantages over the PS3, it's easier to develop for a start. That's not related to the hardware, the 360 Dev Kit, is very similar to working on the PC, you debug in VC++ etc... It's pretty much the same process. Working with the PS3 SDK, while not hard, its a different experience.

 

The PS3 suffers from the fact it basically has a Geforce 7 card bolted into it, the CELL processor operates in little endian, and the GPU in big endian (I could have those the wrong way round) this means an endian swap takes place.

 

The CELL has alot of raw processing power, but it's not like your PC, it's not like you have 7 PC processors, you actually only have a single processor which is like the PC, and that's the PPU, the rest are SPU which have some memory limitations, etc...

 

When we compare it to the 360, we find the 360 has an equally powerful GPU (infact some would argue more powerful), you don't have to do an endian swap, and it has a shared memory resource, PS3 has dedicated video and system memory.

 

The 360 is more like a triple cored PC (it's not exactly like it mind).

 

Developers actually seem to be having an easier time with the 360 opposed to the PS3, and the strange thing for me personally is that basically, of the multiplatform releases the PS3 always looks and plays the worst.

 

So what am I getting at? Simple, the PS3 is actually no better as a games machine than a 360, so why buy one?

[Hell Kitty]

Console gaming is doomed, WildTangent is the future of gaming.

[Mamoulian War]

Developers actually seem to be having an easier time with the 360 opposed to the PS3, and the strange thing for me personally is that basically, of the multiplatform releases the PS3 always looks and plays the worst.

 

Moat of the time it's a direct result of making game for xbox 360 first and then porting to PS3... same we have with games proted from xbox 360 to PCs... they looks and plays worse aswell (unless you got very powerful PC)

 

I would like to see an application made for PS3 1st and then ported to Xbox... Which we will see with release of Final Fantasy 13... I am realy curious how both versions will differ from each other...

[Meshugger]

Sweeny makes some good points, I also have stated before that I don't think we'd see another gen of consoles until beyond 2010.

 

In all honesty the XBox 360 has alot of advantages over the PS3, it's easier to develop for a start. That's not related to the hardware, the 360 Dev Kit, is very similar to working on the PC, you debug in VC++ etc... It's pretty much the same process. Working with the PS3 SDK, while not hard, its a different experience.

 

The PS3 suffers from the fact it basically has a Geforce 7 card bolted into it, the CELL processor operates in little endian, and the GPU in big endian (I could have those the wrong way round) this means an endian swap takes place.

 

The CELL has alot of raw processing power, but it's not like your PC, it's not like you have 7 PC processors, you actually only have a single processor which is like the PC, and that's the PPU, the rest are SPU which have some memory limitations, etc...

 

When we compare it to the 360, we find the 360 has an equally powerful GPU (infact some would argue more powerful), you don't have to do an endian swap, and it has a shared memory resource, PS3 has dedicated video and system memory.

 

The 360 is more like a triple cored PC (it's not exactly like it mind).

 

Developers actually seem to be having an easier time with the 360 opposed to the PS3, and the strange thing for me personally is that basically, of the multiplatform releases the PS3 always looks and plays the worst.

 

So what am I getting at? Simple, the PS3 is actually no better as a games machine than a 360, so why buy one?

 

The Cell is little-endian. I didn't know about the GPU though. You did forget to mention that the Xbox360 core has a shared local cache memory access, while each SPU in the Cell have its own local scratchpad memory, called "Local Store". It resembles a cache, but at the same time, it is not (the difference lies in register-writing and reading, i wouldn't bother to go any further).

 

Having one PPU and 6 SPUs (the seventh is reserved by Sony's OS) + the developer has to bother with the inner timings of the Local Store, can be a bit tricky, but Naughty Dog seems to have grasped it pretty well. If you want to port code from a PC to a Cell, then you're in world of trouble though. Most developers usually skip the SPUs entirely and run it on the PPU exclusively.

 

Moral of the story? Do not bother with releases that haven't used the PS3 as a base or first in mind, or haven't had a separate and competent team to do it. For evidence, see any EA port to the PS3.

[Nightshape]

The Cell is little-endian. I didn't know about the GPU though.

 

I knew it was one or the other, that means the GPU is big-endian. All the rendering data requires an endian flip.

 

You did forget to mention that the Xbox360 core has a shared local cache memory access, while each SPU in the Cell have its own local scratchpad memory, called "Local Store". It resembles a cache, but at the same time, it is not (the difference lies in register-writing and reading, i wouldn't bother to go any further).

 

Having one PPU and 6 SPUs (the seventh is reserved by Sony's OS) + the developer has to bother with the inner timings of the Local Store, can be a bit tricky, but Naughty Dog seems to have grasped it pretty well. If you want to port code from a PC to a Cell, then you're in world of trouble though. Most developers usually skip the SPUs entirely and run it on the PPU exclusively.

 

Moral of the story? Do not bother with releases that haven't used the PS3 as a base or first in mind, or haven't had a separate and competent team to do it. For evidence, see any EA port to the PS3.

 

I think you'll find porting from PC to any console is a nightmare, its merely more of a nightmare with the PS3. I've heard a few war stories about the HL - 2 port for PS3, stuff to loose sleep over.

 

Alot of companies are finding it hard to get the best from SPU's, but they're actually better at vertex shader type calculations than the PS3's GPU, least that's what I hear.

 

SPU's ain't bad mind, they're just alot more effort for very little gain. EGO does have some good SPU support.

[Nightshape]

Moat of the time it's a direct result of making game for xbox 360 first and then porting to PS3... same we have with games proted from xbox 360 to PCs... they looks and plays worse aswell (unless you got very powerful PC)

 

Most games are developed in Parallel, but the PS3 compiler is stricter than the 360 compiler, plus the nature of the systems are different, this means the PS3 build tends to begin to lag behind.

 

Porting from XBox 360 to PC isn't actually that hard, but it always depends on engine tech, and how much work has gone into it or if it's just a straight port.

 

I would like to see an application made for PS3 1st and then ported to Xbox... Which we will see with release of Final Fantasy 13... I am realy curious how both versions will differ from each other...

 

I'd like to see some proof of that... It sounds like a retarded decision.

[Dark_Raven]

No more next gen console tards. Back to the pc, the way games were meant to be played.

[Humodour]

Haven't we been told for the last 2 years that PC gaming is dead (REALLY dead this time)?

 

Not really. Did you happen to read that article by Valve's main guy where he explains that it's a myth?

 

Gabe Newell explains why PC gaming is the future: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/valve-wh...-future-article

Doug Lombardi further discredits "the PC is dead" claims: http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=873

[Humodour]

Seriously though, technology is going to plateau at some point, and the constant stream of upgraded hardware for the PC will turn into a trickle.

 

I think the key here is actually something different. Technology improvements haven't really slowed down at all, and materials science promises some sweet new things for the future (photonic circuits, graphene transistors, memristors, etc). What HAS slowed down is the human capacity to fully utilise technological improvements.

 

Technology sort of improves exponentially, while the human capacity to utilise it improves logistically, as it were. We've seen it before: a new technology is created and all sorts of mad geniuses utilise it to make cool things, but then the number of innovations starts to slow down significantly and there's a shift to collaborative research drawn out over many years. The same is true for PC gaming, or specifically physics engines, graphics engines, audio/voice engines, etc. In light of this, I predict (and hope for) a shift back to focusing on game content instead of graphics, since they are basically now static.

 

To those mentioning multiple cores and processors: parallelisation is definitely an important technological step, but it does not give linear speed boosts and recent studies suggest it actually tapers off at n cores (with n being below 100, possibly significantly below) with potential performance decreases for large numbers of cores. It's not something you can rely on to continue the exponential growth trend.

[Slowtrain]

Haven't we been told for the last 2 years that PC gaming is dead (REALLY dead this time)?

 

Not really. Did you happen to read that article by Valve's main guy where he explains that it's a myth?

 

Gabe Newell explains why PC gaming is the future: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/valve-wh...-future-article

Doug Lombardi further discredits "the PC is dead" claims: http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=873

 

 

Those were interesting. Thanks, Krezzie.

 

Its funny that they both blame the Microsoft PR machine for fostering the impression that pc gaming is dead.

 

Otoh, Valve and Blizzard are really the only 2 pc-centric games companies doing well at the moment. ANd both those interviews were from Valve people, so, hmmm.

 

I found it interesting that they made the point that in many non-US markets, pc game sales crush all console game sales (except the DS). WHich would explain why eastern and central europe is currently the haven for pc game development.

 

Newell's thoughts on service-based pc gaming future were interesting.