RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!

[Morgoth]

Nobody at Sony and MS really gives a crap about Nintendo.

 

I don't think Project Cafe will be that much more powerful than the current gen, so no worries. Besides, Sony just started to turn a profit last year or so hence they won't switch anytime fast.

[entrerix]

Nobody at Sony and MS really gives a crap about Nintendo.

 

 

and with that i will remove myself from debate!

 

*whisper* just keep your eye on november 2013 *end whisper*

[Tale]

I think I saw Entrerix stick his tongue in Morgoth's ear.

 

It makes sense, too. I heard Entrerix talk about Morgoth's "sweet potato" earlier.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Tale

[Morgoth]

Perhaps we're both wrong.

 

You have to consider the economical environment. By that time most countries could be broke and economical and political disaster would render any possibility for new consoles obsolete. Maybe MS, Sony etc don't exist in 2013 anymore.

 

Just sayin'

[entrerix]

I think I saw Entrerix stick his tongue in Morgoth's ear.

 

It makes sense, too. I heard Entrerix talk about Morgoth's "sweet potato" earlier.

 

 

sweet potato obviously refers to the inner ear canal. So of course that is where my tongue would go! what do i look like? a fool who hates delicious sweetearpotato?

[Calax]

You do realize that both Sony and Microsoft poured the equivalent of a next gen budget into the development of Move and Kinect trying to make their systems last 3-5 more years right?

[entrerix]

... did you really believe the pr?

 

you dont think they were just trying to suck a few million out of some housewives?

 

oh and edit: kinect will be compatible with the new system. its just a camera system......

Edited May 27, 2011 by entrerix

[Tale]

Claiming you spent more on something than is true isn't PR. It's a federal offense. It's often referred to as embezzling.

[entrerix]

what??

 

ms and sony spent tons of money marketing some toys, and then tried to tell people that it was in lieu of making new systems so people didnt think they were just making wii knockoffs at the tail of a console lifecycle.

 

the pr speak was the "we arent going to make new systems so dont bother saving your money for them, buy some kinect!"

[Tale]

More like "we spent a **** ton of money on this and now we want to maximize those profits by whoring it out as long as possible without spending a **** ton more money."

 

You talked about maximizing profits earlier, yourself. Constantly building new things is not maximizing profits. It's the opposite.

 

This was their excuse to delay spending money on a console development cycle.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Tale

[entrerix]

sony made the move with no idea what their end goal was. it was a cash grab.

 

MS is planning on keeping the kinect around for a while, they will do minor updates to it over time, and continue to sell it alongside their new system. it definitely does not mean they are going to wait until 2014 to release their next console.

 

edit: the new system (to be revealed at e3 2012 or possibly 2013 - with a 6 month later release)will showcase 1 or 2 lame kinect games too, only with "super awesome" graphics to help kids convince their moms that the new system will make their kinect even better

Edited May 27, 2011 by entrerix

[Tale]

No, they both know what their goal was. Their goal was to put off another console cycle. Because that way they could maximize their profits.

 

Selling Kinect or Move with a new cycle isn't going to do that. It'll just be an extra expenditure that doesn't bring them anything new.

[entrerix]

maybe they actually believed that 2-3 years ago, but not anymore.

 

really im surprised people are still arguing with me, i was absolutely dead right about the new nintendo system getting released next year...

[Tale]

I don't see how a lucky guess makes you an expert.

[entrerix]

ohoooo so now that was a lucky guess?

 

and here i thought everyone was going to say "oops my bad, guess entrerix was right, maybe we should start listening to his predictions more"

 

 

 

 

 

edit 2: hey look, more writing on the wall http://www.industrygamers.com/news/sony-wo...estment-in-ps4/

Edited May 27, 2011 by entrerix

[Oner]

[tripleRRR]

 

 

DO WANT!

[Calax]

ohoooo so now that was a lucky guess?

 

and here i thought everyone was going to say "oops my bad, guess entrerix was right, maybe we should start listening to his predictions more"

 

 

 

 

 

edit 2: hey look, more writing on the wall http://www.industrygamers.com/news/sony-wo...estment-in-ps4/

The question there is how long is the console development cycle. If they're just now talking about how they aren't going to invest as much I'd expect 3-5 years before another system pops out of the pipe.

 

Also consider that a games development cycle is a good 18-24 months... if it was coming out that soon the dev kits should already be out and we'd probably have heard SOMETHING about that stuff. Even if it was just rumor.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Calax

[funcroc]

The death march: the problem of crunch time in game development

 

(via tweets by OEI sr. programmer Erik Novales and OEI tech artist Jean-Eric Khalife)

[Niten_Ryu]

Also consider that a games development cycle is a good 18-24 months... if it was coming out that soon the dev kits should already be out and we'd probably have heard SOMETHING about that stuff. Even if it was just rumor.

 

Personally I think it's bit different this time around. Xbox360 and PS3 game developers already use high resolution textures and models (like from Zbrush) and then downscale 'em to fit consoles pitiful memory. Just normal quick and dirty type of PC port hackjob is enough for the first games of the new console generation. It's highly unlikely that Sony will do something as radical as Cell was in this generation. And even if they do, developers are already experienced with multicore programming (unlike in the beinning of the this generation of consoles).

 

It's true that first games won't be able to show to full power of the new consoles but it's been always like that. And current high end PCs are already more powerful then anything that MS or Sony can do on the console front. No matter when new console generation is released, most developers will continue to support this current generation. It'll most likely to be PC / new MS / new Sony version and Cafe / Xbox360 / PS3 version. Well, maybe not PC for Rockstar games

[Calax]

To quote one of my friends on this "Why would they develop new consoles when there isn't any real major tech breakthroughs since the system came out" Admittedly I don't know how much of the resources of a system the games are currently using but it doesn't seem like you can throw that much more muscle behind the 360 and PS3. I could see a Wii 2 being produced as that thing has about as much strength as a nintendo 60, and if nintendo wants to really compete against the PS3 and 360 in their market then it has to bump up the graphics and processing power behind the sucker.

 

Similarly if MS wants to compete against the wii in it's market it needs to put out games that aren't cheap cash ins for the kinect (although they should just start working to commercialize that in something other than gaming).

[Niten_Ryu]

To quote one of my friends on this "Why would they develop new consoles when there isn't any real major tech breakthroughs since the system came out"

 

This is common viewpoint and direct result for AAA PC gaming being (almost) dead. Crysis was released 2007, Xbox360 is 2005 tech. So from technical point of view we already hit the wall 4 years ago. I'd say The Witcher 2 (on the most powerful available PC right now) is something that could be expected from optimized next generation consoles. Even your friend would see the difference in textures, lighting, level of detail in character models and such. But if you show the The Witcher 2 on low settings and it'll probably look just like the 2005 tech console game.

 

I just finished the Episodes from Liberty City run and started another GTA San Andreas run. Damn the graphics are ugly on that one. It was released for consoles in 2004 and for PC 2005, so a typical late console generation game. There is a huge difference in visual quality. Obviously as closer we get to the so called "photorealism" or "hyperrealism", the closer we get to dimishing returns on visual quality. But there's still a long way to go, as good as the Witcher 2 look like, I don't think anyone mistake it for the lastest Pixar movie or Weta's work in movies. One thing is certain - In this generation art direction and aesthetics are already way more important then technical aspects of the graphics. It's even more true in the next generation.

[Calax]

I admit that there probably is smaller upgrades that are available, but the question is if the current hardware available is being used to it's greatest extent. If it is then it'd probably be a good idea to work on a new generation, if it isn't (like I'm guessing) then there's still a whole pile of life left.

 

Also compare GTA:SA to God Of War 2.

 

Or even God of War 2 to God of War 3.

[Oner]

SW:TOR Trooper progression trailer

Love how he stabs the sith, then empties the clip in her while she's still down.

[trulez]

The death march: the problem of crunch time in game development

 

(via tweets by OEI sr. programmer Erik Novales and OEI tech artist Jean-Eric Khalife)

That's what you get when you live in a frakking 3rd world country. Any decent modern society has job security to the point where firing someone for not working overtime would render them liable to pay compensation due to illegal termination of employment. If you happen to live in a such country and are tired of taking it up the arse then get organized, that's exactly what unions are for.