BOTH New Xbox and PS4 Will Be Shown At E3
- Thread starter Jak23
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I feel like they should wait a bit longer before coming out with a new system... it feels a bit to soon.
though for the xbox it first came out in 2001 and then the 360 came out in 2005. Between the xbox and then the 360 it was 4 years between the two and now its been 7 years from the 360 to now... so its not really like its been a short while.
But I still feel that perhaps they could still do more with the system at the moment before making a new one... perhaps I am just being silly?
though for the xbox it first came out in 2001 and then the 360 came out in 2005. Between the xbox and then the 360 it was 4 years between the two and now its been 7 years from the 360 to now... so its not really like its been a short while.
But I still feel that perhaps they could still do more with the system at the moment before making a new one... perhaps I am just being silly?
New hardware offers more of both though. It offers a chance for devs to try something different, whilst showing shiny graphics as a selling point, whereas currently trying something different is considered too risky. It also allows for better AI, larger worlds, more interactivity and all round better games.Jak23 said:
OT: Honestly, I think its high time that a new console generation came around. Its time for Sony and Microsoft to stop holding back what games can do to try and get as much money as they can out of their old hardware.
Personally though, I will be disappointed if it has anything less than a quad core CPU @ at least 3Ghz, 6Gb RAM and the equivalent of a 560Ti in graphics capabilities. Anything less and there really isn't a point to buying one.
Won't happen. Unless their rigs cost 3K each, they won't have better specs than the best PCs. Not to mention such a thing would be impossible anyway considering Sony is planning on not making their own parts due to the high costs, and Microsoft has always used cheap, low end PC parts in its consoles. If you want cost efficient power, get a PC, these consoles won't impress you if what you've said is really what you're looking for. They will be worse than the best PCs on the market ATM, I expect by a long shot too.Westaway said:
New and original game ideas cannot be implemented without new hardware. It is considered too risky.Reaper195 said:
With new hardware, new ideas can be sold with having 'shiny graphics' to attract new customers, whilst original ideas come into play within the games. Currently, there are no shiny graphics on consoles so nothing to sell an innovative idea to the masses.
New hardware would also allow better AI, larger worlds, more characters on screen at a time and much more. Graphics is not the only thing that will improve, and nothing at all will improve without new consoles.
Define untapped potential. There really isn't much, if any. People seem to be taking statement like 'We are finally getting to finding out what the PS3 can do' to mean 'We just found an extra 20% power in the PS3 by magic!Mayamellissa said:
In reality, I believe it is more a fact of 'How can we make "We've hit the limits of the PS3" sound good for the PS3 to get more money from Sony?'. There is not a lot that consoles can do more than they currently can. Many developers are saying that they have used up everything that the systems have to offer. Some just reword that to market the console.
Edit: Too used to having people post between my posts. Curse you Youtube. Will start using edit button.
That is your opinion and that is fine. Thing is, nothing at all is going to change without a new console generation, except that consoles die out and PCs become a larger platform.him over there said:
The graphics offer a path for better games to be made, as they present a certain selling point were there was none previously. Look at this from a Marketing perspective. If someone comes up to you and gives you a sheet of things that MAY be fun, but no-one knows for sure, and there is no guarantee of sales, and someone comes up to you with something that is known to sell, but with 'better' graphics to make it better than the previous installment, which are you going to fund?
Now consider that that stuff that might be fun has 'Awesome new graphics' and 'Aims to push what the new hardware can do', and it starts to stand a chance. In the uncertain market that begins with a new console cycle, new games will be given a chance, and marketing will be more willing to fund these games as they may pump out some truly amazing visuals to draw people in, and that may be a requirement of it. Yes the 'known is going to sell' will still take priority, but there is no reason to put millions into making something you have no guarantee is going to sell.
As well as that, more than simply graphics will be improved with this console cycle. The opportunity for better AI, larger worlds, more interactivity, more actors on screen at once, and even more will be bought to the table. If graphics were the only thing a new console would bring to the table, devs wouldn't be asking for 6Gbs of RAM. That doesn't make graphics. That makes game.
I just think it's like the Wii - it's not ready to bow out in terms of games, technology, etc. True it does seem like it's coming to the end but that doesn't mean it is. Sorry if you don't agree I just feel likes it's a bad move to come out with a PS4 and Xbox. I mean what the hell will they be able to offer? Better graphics? More expensive hardware? Making it more chunky and loud when it gets hot?! Dude, my PS3 is just fine as it is because I was a lucky schlub who managed to nab one with PS2 back-play capability before they discontinued it. The Vita is already looking like a bad idea due it basically being a PSP GO with extra crap added to it. Unless the PS4 and Xbox ??? is a freaking Stepford android you can game on I don't think the world is ready for it.Joccaren said:
Higher detail models, higher detail on textures, further view distances - resolution is just the smallest part of it.LetalisK said:
As an example (Pictures only, videos automatically have decreased quality) of simply texture improvement:
http://static.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/849-1-1325903945.jpg
http://static.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/1382-2-1322841044.jpg
And more that I currently CBF looking for.
Add to that more shader effects, better lighting and even new effects, and you will notice a major graphical upping.
Compare a PS2 game to a PS3 game. That sort of thing.
No one is really that obsessed with graphics. There are plenty of overhyped garbage games with both shitty and amazing graphics, just as there are plenty of amazing games with both shitty and amazing graphics.Jak23 said:
A lot of the reason why the consoles need to upgrade is because games are simply becoming more complex, and the current consoles may not even have the processing power to run the engine at all, let alone output current generation visuals.
I still don't see how people can say this. The difference is pretty substantial. You may need a better monitor and/or glasses, lol.LetalisK said:
Better Graphics, better AI, Larger worlds, shorter loading times, more things on screen at once, better performance, more interactivity, better physics - EVERYTHING will be improved by better hardware. Granted it will be louder and bigger and more expensive, but if you want the opposite of that with better hardware still you get a PC.Mayamellissa said:
As for new games, they are more likely to appear in the already high risk environment of a new console generation than they are in the current one.
And as a final point, whilst the world may not be ready for it, many devs are. Devs everywhere are complaining about how hard it is getting to make the game they want on a console. Give it a few more years, and many may start moving to the PC exclusively because consoles just CANNOT do what they want them to.
For example, that 'What would you want in Starwars Battlefront 3' thing at Game informer cited Ground and space battles with 128 players, great animations, full destructibility and physics - even of vehicles - and much more. That simply would not be possible on a console at all. Cut it down to 24 players with a 300 meter ground and 300 meter space area separated by 200m of air with reduced destruction and present physics, and it might be possible, but that takes the entire purpose of making the game and turns it into a BF3 clone (Which is kinda what they were going for, but they were going for even bigger and better than BF3).
There is not much consoles currently can do differently, or will do differently, until the next cycle. I doubt we'll see a crapton of innovation, or something like the indie market start up, but at least there will be a break from the current stagnation and crapification of games ATM.
Joccaren said:
Perhaps I overstated it. When put side-by-side, I can tell the difference. But without that, I probably wouldn't be able to tell you just playing a game because I don't pay that much attention to the graphical details(edit: Or, as perhaps a better example, the difference when it comes to movies). However, I would be able to tell the difference between PS2 graphics and PS3 graphics without needing a side-by-side. I suppose that's why I don't personally feel moving up to 1080 is as much of a graphical leap.TomLikesGuitar said:
