Is it time for a new console generation?

[Conza]

I was talking about this with my friend recently, and we both agreed that it is time for a new console generation, currently this generation has been chugging along for 7 or so years now, and I think we a pushing the bare ends of what these consoles can produce.

But what to do you think?

Spoiler: On a side note

Also I currently have a console survey running for a marketing project worth 10% of my final grade if you could be so kind as to fill it out, I would be very happy. http://tinyurl.com/74rr2zr

Yes I think this year would've been the right time, next year is almost acceptable, so we'll just have to wait.

Didn't the PS3 come out in 2006? *looks up wiki* Yes infact, virtually 2007 (like now is virtually 2012, so we'll cancel it out call it 5 years).

So it's only been 5 years, which is about the perfect time to release a new console, next year.

Oddly, we're on track, but I think the biggest problem has been that the consoles became dated so much faster than they did in the past. They really need to push the envolope in the next generation, or best of all worlds, be upgradable consoles (graphics would be the only thing they would need to upgrade).

 

[DionysusSnoopy]

At the moment i'm inclined to say no. Maybe in 2 or 3 years i could get behind the idea but for the moment i wouldn't want them. I don't think the console companies would develop consoles that would live up to expectations. If a new generation is to come along, I want it to come with new innovative games as Halo was for Xbox or Little Big Planet on the PS3 (Still some of the funnest hours i've spent on a game) and i don't think developers would provide that at the moment apart from visually a nicer looking game. Also i enjoyed Minecraft, graphically, probably one of the worst games to come out recently(using the term loosely) it was fun and had solid gameplay and i believe thats what counts and developers are producing these games on current consoles. Someone mentioned earlier how Skyrim and RAGE would look better yea they would but then i would have got them for a more expensive price still thought Skyrim was awesome, and would still be buggy ,and still been massively disappointed in RAGE. Which gives me the thought that i would rather have the next-gen when most developers are ready to push the technology to its limits rather than just as an example Crytek (though the flipside of this argument is that developers won't until they're given the tech, i am all for Crytek to keep pushing the tech)

 

[Awexsome]

It's not the end, but I think BF3 may have signaled the beginning of the end. When games like BF3, severely gimped for consoles, start becoming more and more common then a new console is needed. Right now current 360 and PS3 games look fine in the graphics department and it would only be worth it for performance if it was just a massive upgrade.

Plus lets remember the console's specialty. Could I play Battlefield 3 for the PC on something that only costs 200-300$? Fuck no. Remember the whole 599$ PS3 initial release that people freaked on? Consoles are about reliability, price, and no hassle. Things they do a million times better than PCs.

 

[Conza]

They really need to push the envolope in the next generation, or best of all worlds, be upgradable consoles (graphics would be the only thing they would need to upgrade).

*Slap no!
Because Sega CD and 32X did swimmingly in the past right?
Sorry, console add-ons mostly fail hard.

If we console gamers wanted to upgrade and attach peripherals to our devices, we may as well be PC gamers. But we aren't. I just want to plug and play. The further consoles pull away from that, the less important they will become, as there will be no distinction between them and PCs.

Oh, no no no, you've misunderstood me, I mean, they use PC graphics cards. Yes, easily misunderstood there, inhouse graphics would be terrible, but yes, using PC graphics cards, that way they are much longer lasting investments.

If you think 'that' is a terrible idea, seek counselling .

 

[Bad Jim]

They really need to push the envolope in the next generation, or best of all worlds, be upgradable consoles (graphics would be the only thing they would need to upgrade).

*Slap no!
Because Sega CD and 32X did swimmingly in the past right?
Sorry, console add-ons mostly fail hard.

If we console gamers wanted to upgrade and attach peripherals to our devices, we may as well be PC gamers. But we aren't. I just want to plug and play. The further consoles pull away from that, the less important they will become, as there will be no distinction between them and PCs.

Oh, no no no, you've misunderstood me, I mean, they use PC graphics cards. Yes, easily misunderstood there, inhouse graphics would be terrible, but yes, using PC graphics cards, that way they are much longer lasting investments.

If you think 'that' is a terrible idea, seek counselling .

I'd say graphics is the one part that shouldn't be upgradeable. Developers will rely on upgraded consoles and it will remove one of the main advantages of consoles, that you don't have to upgrade them. Upgradeable RAM and harddrives would be better, you can minimise load times but you can generally expect that games will work without them.

 

[Lilani]

Yes, it's time for a new set of systems to make me feel even poorer. I'd venture to guess that if the next console generation were to come out this next year, the release day price would easily be over $1000. And people would STILL buy them. I mean really, that's why the newest console I have is a PSP. I'm getting along just fine with Steam and PC games, and I haven't had to spend several hundred dollars on a system, peripherals, games, and places to put the games since I don't have the space to have a bunch of cases lying about.

Don't get me wrong, if I could I would get a console. But at this point I know it's too late in the generation to bother. Plus pretty much all the big titles I want are all on Steam.

 

[Conza]

They really need to push the envolope in the next generation, or best of all worlds, be upgradable consoles (graphics would be the only thing they would need to upgrade).

*Slap no!
Because Sega CD and 32X did swimmingly in the past right?
Sorry, console add-ons mostly fail hard.

If we console gamers wanted to upgrade and attach peripherals to our devices, we may as well be PC gamers. But we aren't. I just want to plug and play. The further consoles pull away from that, the less important they will become, as there will be no distinction between them and PCs.

Oh, no no no, you've misunderstood me, I mean, they use PC graphics cards. Yes, easily misunderstood there, inhouse graphics would be terrible, but yes, using PC graphics cards, that way they are much longer lasting investments.

If you think 'that' is a terrible idea, seek counselling .

I'd say graphics is the one part that shouldn't be upgradeable. Developers will rely on upgraded consoles and it will remove one of the main advantages of consoles, that you don't have to upgrade them. Upgradeable RAM and harddrives would be better, you can minimise load times but you can generally expect that games will work without them.

No I disagree, sure have that too, HDDs are already upgradable (atleast the PS3's are, I think 360s are, but only when supplied by the manufacturer?), Ram would be just as easy, but graphics is THE most limiting thing, to consoles to date.

the PS3 was old in what? 18 months post release date? I think they should come out with a console, bundled with an approved graphics card from either/both graphics card manufacturers, same price, and then later on they pick one/two more card/s two years later, and then games released may or may not choose to support the higher graphics. It's utterly brilliant, for a start, people who chose not to upgrade can still play their old games, and any new ones that come out not requiring the higher settings, then people who upgrade, can also play their old games, but a whole swap of new ones, AND, developers who were LIMITED by the graphics card they had before, just got a ceiling increase, but their still using the same development tools to code the software.

The next console generation, hopefully the PS3 development tools are either replaced with something similar yet improved and easier to use, or maintained since companies know what they are doing. I mean, that's the linch pin with PC, you invest slightly more in the beginning, but they last longer, and if companies want their consoles to last longer - this is the way to do it, the only way short of ripping their customers off with old looking games 5 years post release.

 

[Bad Jim]

No I disagree, sure have that too, HDDs are already upgradable (atleast the PS3's are, I think 360s are, but only when supplied by the manufacturer?), Ram would be just as easy, but graphics is THE most limiting thing, to consoles to date.

Graphics is always limiting, but it's not just about how many polygons you can push, but how much RAM you have to hold those polygons, how much hard drive space you have to store them, how fast they can be loaded from optical media/internet etc. Every part of the console is involved in handling graphical data.

What you will really want is a whole new system. This is especially true of consoles, which are designed with plenty of graphical power and everything else is done as cheaply as possible. Even for PCs it's pretty common to upgrade nothing for four years then buy an entirely new PC.

developers who were LIMITED by the graphics card they had before, just got a ceiling increase

You mean they just got a license to make games that the base console can't run. And the great unwashed who buy consoles in massive numbers will hate it, because they don't like having to buy hardware until technology makes the improvement absolutely staggering.

 

[Conza]

You mean they just got a license to make games that the base console can't run. And the great unwashed who buy consoles in massive numbers will hate it, because they don't like having to buy hardware until technology makes the improvement absolutely staggering.

Ok, well set aside that the graphics is the most important part AS WELL AS you need ram and a hdd, sure, whatever.

There's a solution to that last loophole, which I failed to mention. The consoles newer games, which require the newer cards, won't 'require' them, but you'll need the newer cards to play the game at full specs, problem solved!

 

[Jingle Fett]

Yes, yes, desperately yes.

New technology means a new arms race. New arms race means developers scrambling over each other to make the next big thing. The result? Cool new games nobody has seen before. Right now developers are thinking "man, if the consoles had X amount of power, I would do this, this and that".

Also, better hardware doesn't only mean better graphics. It also means new forms of gameplay. Should we have stayed in the SNES generation when 3d graphics were just around the corner? Well of course, 3d graphics were more realistic than 2d graphics...but it also lead to new types of games that had never existed before. That, and the control stick.

Put it this way, Halo wouldn't have worked nearly as well on consoles if it hadn't been for the dual analogue controller. Super Mario 64 wouldn't have had nearly the impact it had if it hadn't been in 3D. So yes, an upgrade is more than overdue. Being scared of the launch line-up shouldn't hold back progress.
To put things in perspective, the xbox 360, with all the games we have today, only has 512mb ram. Originally it was going to be 256mb. The iPad 2 has 512mb ram. The average laptop today has 2-4gb.