Nextbox rumors..

Scratched wrote:

I think it would be really funny if it was just an improved this-gen, and the next 10 call of duty games are still using a polished Quake3 engine, and still sell blockbuster numbers.

Well that's it, really. What has the last six years of this technological generation gained us, when the most lucrative game still follows the nearly-twenty-year-old deathmatch formula. What reason do I have to to get excited believing the next generation will give us something incredible, when this existing "next generation" proves that the money is still in "draw a line from object A to object B".

Upping the number of lines that can be drawn from 32 to 64, or letting those lines be drawn against higher resolution textures, or drawing them all in 1080p isn't exactly firing me up. And of course, the most successful component of the most successful franchise doesn't require any AI, either.

Anyway. That's basically the rant that's been stewing in my brain all morning. I am intrigued by the possibilities of the next Xbox, but I could care less if it's going to have a 6770 or a 6950 or a Pennsylvania 6-5000. That's an easy and sexy thing to sell, sure, but it's a given that it's going to be more powerful, and the specifics are immaterial. The features I want to know about, the potential changes that excite and scare me, are compatibility, license transfers, content delivery, and ownership.

Gravey wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I think it would be really funny if it was just an improved this-gen, and the next 10 call of duty games are still using a polished Quake3 engine, and still sell blockbuster numbers.

Well that's it, really. What has the last six years of this technological generation gained us, when the most lucrative game still follows the nearly-twenty-year-old deathmatch formula. What reason do I have to to get excited believing the next generation will give us something incredible, when this existing "next generation" proves that the money is still in "draw a line from object A to object B".

But you'll be able to play it without a controller! Isn't that exciting?

Gravey wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I think it would be really funny if it was just an improved this-gen, and the next 10 call of duty games are still using a polished Quake3 engine, and still sell blockbuster numbers.

Well that's it, really. What has the last six years of this technological generation gained us, when the most lucrative game still follows the nearly-twenty-year-old deathmatch formula.

Well it's not just the same formula, there's literally a lot of Quake 3 code still in there
Like the classic FPS dependant jumping that comes from the acceleration vector being rounded every frame. You don't notice it on consoles because the framerate is locked. It's just kinda funny that they have all this old Carmack code in there that nobody has cleaned up yet.

Man, you guys sure know how to depress a dude.

There are tons of other gametypes besides FPS. In fact, the FPS on a console is still a relatively new thing that is only two to three gens old, and only in this gen did it completely take off.

I don't get the complaints that a lot of people like game type X. There are lots of other genres being covered as well. I don't play Madden, but I don't begrudge those that do having a game year after year.

MannishBoy wrote:

There are tons of other gametypes besides FPS. In fact, the FPS on a console is still a relatively new thing that is only two to three gens old, and only in this gen did it completely take off.

I don't get the complaints that a lot of people like game type X. There are lots of other genres being covered as well. I don't play Madden, but I don't begrudge those that do having a game year after year.

I wasn't so much getting at COD, as I was that there could be nice new expensive hardware and it's treated just the same as old hardware. You'll be paying more for more of the same.

Scratched wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

There are tons of other gametypes besides FPS. In fact, the FPS on a console is still a relatively new thing that is only two to three gens old, and only in this gen did it completely take off.

I don't get the complaints that a lot of people like game type X. There are lots of other genres being covered as well. I don't play Madden, but I don't begrudge those that do having a game year after year.

I wasn't so much getting at COD, as I was that there could be nice new expensive hardware and it's treated just the same as old hardware. You'll be paying more for more of the same.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that appreciates the graphical differences between Console BF3 and a Good gaming PC BF3. Immersion online is increased when the graphic fidelity is increased.

Scratched wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

EDIT 2: Scratch that. Devs will scale their games down to make this work 1080p if that's the target resolution. Unless the GPU framebuffer is memory starved and can't store enough frames ahead of time.

No they won't. Look at the games this-gen that drop resolution for eye-candy.

Despite how "everyone" on PC hardware is running 1080p, I think it's more realistic to see 720p with good image quality aspects like anti-aliasing. Last-gen was also running mostly on DX9-ish hardware and engines that couldn't do anti-aliasing because of the lighting techniques.

I'd also wonder how "everyone" is supposed to be running 1080p displays, I don't think they are. A good 720p benefits everyone.

The answer is we're not running them. I bought an HDTV with the 360 when it launched. A 32" 720p Samsung that still looks great. It looks so good I haven't been tempted to upgrade it or get a bigger one in spite of my computer monitor size creeping up close to that.

I know people with 50" TVs upgrading to 80" TVs. That's not me. I don't know when the next "must have" upgrade will be. Possibly when my TV dies. Until then 720p looks fine to me.

Scratched wrote:

I wasn't so much getting at COD, as I was that there could be nice new expensive hardware and it's treated just the same as old hardware. You'll be paying more for more of the same.

But if people like that, what's wrong with it?

This console generation has been fully of a lot of improvements I don't think even Sony and MS foresaw at the level they've hit. Gaming services are now the norm, and consoles are used nearly as much for non-gaming activities as they are for gaming activities. Motion gaming, like it or not, is here to stay.

Complaining that there are still CoDs for whatever the next gen is would be like complaining that we're still seeing platformers on the current gen.

Maybe I'm just missing the point. I don't think we know enough yet to say, and probably won't know enough for a couple of years after the releases. Who knows what the disruptive tech will be? Maybe it will be software, services, or something else.

shoptroll wrote:

Despite that, it does give some hope that maybe next generation we might not be shelling out $300-600 for a new console :)

Found a benchmark for the old X1800 back in 2005. The price tag on the chip started at $450 on launch day. This rumor is talking about a sub-$100 graphics card as the GPU. That's a huge difference in system design from an overall cost and performance perspective. For example, at 2048x1536 resolution the X1800 pulls near 60 FPS on FarCry and Doom 3 which were still fairly relevant back then.

MannishBoy wrote:
Scratched wrote:

I wasn't so much getting at COD, as I was that there could be nice new expensive hardware and it's treated just the same as old hardware. You'll be paying more for more of the same.

But if people like that, what's wrong with it?

This console generation has been fully of a lot of improvements I don't think even Sony and MS foresaw at the level they've hit. Gaming services are now the norm, and consoles are used nearly as much for non-gaming activities as they are for gaming activities. Motion gaming, like it or not, is here to stay.

Complaining that there are still CoDs for whatever the next gen is would be like complaining that we're still seeing platformers on the current gen.

Maybe I'm just missing the point. I don't think we know enough yet to say, and probably won't know enough for a couple of years after the releases. Who knows what the disruptive tech will be? Maybe it will be software, services, or something else.

I think you did miss the point. The problem isn't that we'll get to COD 17 on the next generation. That's fine for that to exist. I don't care. I'll pop in and play it now and then. The problem is more that all the AAA money is going to making the same games over and over and over again. So it would be a completely pointless upgrade to upgrade just to play COD in slightly better resolution. Something beyond horsepower has to be improved in order for me to care about a next generation.

Yep, only the same old FPS games on console. I mean, if the current gen had only seen things like RDR, the Mass Effect series, the Saints Row series, Rock Band games, fun takes on FPS like Borderlands, the Bioshocks, and the L4D series, plus the massive explosion of downloadable titles with fun stuff like Trenched, Dungeon Defenders, M&M: Call of Heroes, Castle Crashers . . .

This console generation has been phenomenally fun and innovative. I see no reason why the next one wouldn't be the same. The giant technological glass is half-full, people.

DSGamer wrote:

I think you did miss the point. The problem isn't that we'll get to COD 17 on the next generation. That's fine for that to exist. I don't care. I'll pop in and play it now and then. The problem is more that all the AAA money is going to making the same games over and over and over again. So it would be a completely pointless upgrade to upgrade just to play COD in slightly better resolution. Something beyond horsepower has to be improved in order for me to care about a next generation.

No, I understand and disagree with the point.

AAA money goes to where consumers spend money. Just look at how much AAA money was diverted to the Wii when it took off, only to be rediverted back into more "core" games after a year or so showed that people really didn't want a bunch more motion mini-game collections.

And there are a lot of things being scaled back even on PC, because current consoles limit what can be done, and consoles are where the biggest dollars in games come from. So lots more things can be done with a higher end platform.

And I'm all for better graphics, environments, and game play features in current genres.

Nobody says anybody has to buy new tech. If you're happy, current gen consoles have a big enough base that they'll still be supported for quite a while after next gen releases.

In the meantime what does a hardware upgrade do for Saints Row, Dark Souls, Castle Crashers, etc.? Those games worked just fine on this generation of hardware. So unless serious effort is going to be put into AI or other systems I don't understand why I would care about nicer versions of all of the above.

I think a hardware upgrade for Dark Souls would be cool.. would allow for even greater realization of environments and enemy AI... in theory anyway lol

Hair. I want my characters to look like they have hair, instead of all being bald dudes or people wearing hats that has a hair texture applied to it.

I want next gen hair, dammit.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Yep, only the same old FPS games on console. I mean, if the current gen had only seen things like RDR, the Mass Effect series, the Saints Row series, Rock Band games, fun takes on FPS like Borderlands, the Bioshocks, and the L4D series, plus the massive explosion of downloadable titles with fun stuff like Trenched, Dungeon Defenders, M&M: Call of Heroes, Castle Crashers . . .

This console generation has been phenomenally fun and innovative. I see no reason why the next one wouldn't be the same. The giant technological glass is half-full, people.

Of course it is. That's not the point. The point is that for every RDR or Saints Row or Dark Souls there are a dozen dudebro shooters. And that will only get worse, I think, until Activision flogs that into the ground. In the meantime what does a hardware upgrade do for Saints Row, Dark Souls, Castle Crashers, etc.? Those games worked just fine on this generation of hardware. So unless serious effort is going to be put into AI or other systems I don't understand why I would care about nicer versions of all of the above.

MannishBoy wrote:

So lots more things can be done with a higher end platform.

But what *is* going to actually be done that's any different? What's going to be done to justify another $300 - $600 hardware purchase beyond a prettier version of those games? If you tell me that systems and open worlds and AI are the focus I will get excited. You tell me that I'll be able to play a prettier version of Battlefield and I don't really care, honestly.

I feel the same way about the 3DS and Vita. It's hard for me not to shake the idea that an upgraded PSP with a second analog stick would have been fine. No need for a hardware bump, really. Just keep rolling with the hardware and add better controls.

How about asking this way: It costs $X for next year's entry in your favourite franchise. What values of X are acceptable to you? $50? $250? $650? What's your limit and why?

I find putting money on the table often changes the tone of many conversations.

DSGamer wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Yep, only the same old FPS games on console. I mean, if the current gen had only seen things like RDR, the Mass Effect series, the Saints Row series, Rock Band games, fun takes on FPS like Borderlands, the Bioshocks, and the L4D series, plus the massive explosion of downloadable titles with fun stuff like Trenched, Dungeon Defenders, M&M: Call of Heroes, Castle Crashers . . .

This console generation has been phenomenally fun and innovative. I see no reason why the next one wouldn't be the same. The giant technological glass is half-full, people.

Of course it is. That's not the point. The point is that for every RDR or Saints Row or Dark Souls there are a dozen dudebro shooters. And that will only get worse, I think, until Activision flogs that into the ground. In the meantime what does a hardware upgrade do for Saints Row, Dark Souls, Castle Crashers, etc.? Those games worked just fine on this generation of hardware. So unless serious effort is going to be put into AI or other systems I don't understand why I would care about nicer versions of all of the above.

Because those games didn't exist in the earlier generation, nor could they have. SR2 would not have had the same insanity on an older system. You wouldn't have had that huge, seamless world of RDR on the PS2; it wouldn't have felt so real or had as much to do. Improved hardware gives the *possibility* of doing a lot more, and every succeeding console generation has seen all kinds of creativity and innovation. I fail to see why I should expect the next generation to be any different.

As for the shooters, yeah, they sell. People will keep making them. Other things sell as well. My life is not lessened because more people are buying CoD than will buy Mass Effect 3. ME has been a very successful series, and it shows that there is a clear market outside of online shooters. Somebody will fill that market, and they will do it in fun ways.

It's basic capitalism--where there's a demand, there will be a supply. Somebody out there will continue to make the same kind of games that still move a million+ units.

TheGameguru wrote:

I think a hardware upgrade for Dark Souls would be cool.. would allow for even greater realization of environments and enemy AI... in theory anyway lol

Improved textures, draw distances and just more stuff running around in Saint's Row as well.

MannishBoy wrote:

Hair. I want my characters to look like they have hair, instead of all being bald dudes or people wearing hats that has a hair texture applied to it.

I want next gen hair, dammit.

Oh man, point conceded. If we must single-mindedly pursue photorealism and physical fidelity, then I would welcome a new technological base for realistic hair. DSGamer is taking my other points hard to the net, so I can agree on this one.

Scratched wrote:

I find putting money on the table often changes the tone of many conversations.

Games today cost less in inflation adjusted dollars than stuff did years ago. Some NES games were $70.

Gravey wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

Hair. I want my characters to look like they have hair, instead of all being bald dudes or people wearing hats that has a hair texture applied to it.

I want next gen hair, dammit.

Oh man, point conceded. If we must single-mindedly pursue photorealism and physical fidelity, then I would welcome a new technological base for realistic hair. DSGamer is taking my other points hard to the net, so I can agree on this one.

We already had that in 2001!

:p

Duoae wrote:

We already had that in 2001!

:p

But not in real-time!

*cues Toy Story running on PS2 fluff*

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Yep, only the same old FPS games on console. I mean, if the current gen had only seen things like RDR, the Mass Effect series, the Saints Row series, Rock Band games, fun takes on FPS like Borderlands, the Bioshocks, and the L4D series, plus the massive explosion of downloadable titles with fun stuff like Trenched, Dungeon Defenders, M&M: Call of Heroes, Castle Crashers . . .

This console generation has been phenomenally fun and innovative. I see no reason why the next one wouldn't be the same. The giant technological glass is half-full, people.

Of course it is. That's not the point. The point is that for every RDR or Saints Row or Dark Souls there are a dozen dudebro shooters. And that will only get worse, I think, until Activision flogs that into the ground. In the meantime what does a hardware upgrade do for Saints Row, Dark Souls, Castle Crashers, etc.? Those games worked just fine on this generation of hardware. So unless serious effort is going to be put into AI or other systems I don't understand why I would care about nicer versions of all of the above.

Because those games didn't exist in the earlier generation, nor could they have. SR2 would not have had the same insanity on an older system. You wouldn't have had that huge, seamless world of RDR on the PS2; it wouldn't have felt so real or had as much to do. Improved hardware gives the *possibility* of doing a lot more, and every succeeding console generation has seen all kinds of creativity and innovation. I fail to see why I should expect the next generation to be any different.

That's why I've qualified everything I've said with "If they focus on AI and systems". If developers put horsepower to use on those things and realize that graphical upgrades will be really minor compared to last generation then that's fine. Otherwise I don't see a reason to upgrade.

Also as to the above about a fun, seamless world on last gen hardware you're right. Games like Vice City and San Andreas were close minus the awful loading times when crossing a bridge. So yes, you can stream in a world without needing to load constantly (elevators in Bioware games and doors in Bethesda games excepted).

So will that be the reason I spend $600 on a new console? So that there aren't loading times when walking into doors or elevators in open world RPGs? I'd take that, but I'm not sure that's the major innovation, a more seamless world.

DSGamer wrote:

So will that be the reason I spend $600 on a new console? So that there aren't loading times when walking into doors or elevators in open world RPGs? I'd take that, but I'm not sure that's the major innovation, a more seamless world.

I'd be surprised if you couldn't get close to that with just a SSD on current gen hardware and optimizing your disk accesses knowing every customer is using an SSD. I think that's less an issue about GPU/CPU and more about RAM and storage bandwidth.

DSGamer wrote:

That's why I've qualified everything I've said with "If they focus on AI and systems". If developers put horsepower to use on those things and realize that graphical upgrades will be really minor compared to last generation then that's fine. Otherwise I don't see a reason to upgrade.

AI isn't a horsepower problem, it's a design and complexity of implementation problem, unless you're just talking about putting more bots in a game.

AI can absolutely be a horsepower problem, and not just in terms of number of bots. There's a reason the best chess AIs run on supercomputers.

DSGamer wrote:

So will that be the reason I spend $600 on a new console? So that there aren't loading times when walking into doors or elevators in open world RPGs? I'd take that, but I'm not sure that's the major innovation, a more seamless world.

Unfortunately that won't work in real time multi-player. The world needs to be completely seamless. You could not get games like Bad Company 2 to run on last gen systems and Battlefield 3 had to be cut down on map size and player count to work on current gen consoles. The divide would even become greater in "BF4" and I don't want that.

Demyx wrote:

AI can absolutely be a horsepower problem, and not just in terms of number of bots. There's a reason the best chess AIs run on supercomputers.

Well you need a ton of RAM to store all the decision trees, right? Fast CPU is necessary for sifting through all that data in the amount of time you have to make a move. Both are something you're going to have in abundance in a supercomputer. We're still not to the point where anyone has written a Go Bot to the same level of sophistication as a Chess Bot because the possibility space is so much larger in that game.

Most game AI is intentionally short-sighted because there's usually not enough RAM for the AI to see more than a few moves ahead at a time.

Scratched wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

That's why I've qualified everything I've said with "If they focus on AI and systems". If developers put horsepower to use on those things and realize that graphical upgrades will be really minor compared to last generation then that's fine. Otherwise I don't see a reason to upgrade.

AI isn't a horsepower problem, it's a design and complexity of implementation problem, unless you're just talking about putting more bots in a game.

Most developers I've talked to say that it is very much so a limitation with current console hardware.. it can also be a limitation of the way code is executed on the systems but having more raw horsepower will certainly give developers choosing to flex their AI skills "room to work"