Inside the Games Machines of the Future

UtahSaint writes "Electronic design, the guys who nicely opened up the iPod a couple of weeks back take a look into the future of gaming - covering everything from the PC to the Gizmondo to the upcoming Xbox 2 and Playstation 3 next-generation units. If you want to get more of an understanding as to where we're heading, this is not a bad place to start."

Comments

starting the betting

[strider44]

I'm more interested in wondering when the new XBox and Playstations will run linux or hacked proggies. */me hugs his xbmc*

It's funny how many people I know don't even think about using XBoxes for actual gaming.

Re:starting the betting

[drinkypoo]

1) You must be new here.
2) The Xbox has pretty good video output, an acceptably fast CPU and enough memory to get things done, a dvd-rom and a hard disk, 10/100 ethernet, and takes up fairly little space. It costs $150 brand spanking new and about $120 used. It has an nVidia video card (only useful when using the XDK, admittedly) and pretty good sound hardware. Show me another PC with all that for the same price. Remember, it has to take up the same amount of space as the Xbox, or less, and have Composite, S-Video, and Component-video output hardware.

Using better physics engines

[Council]

What's really needed now is a one-hand glove for interacting inside the physics engine. With physics only slightly better than HL2, the mouse-only interface becomes pretty cumbersome. The big revolutions in the near future should be in physics engines, and we're gonna need better interaction.

Future of gaming and the gamers

[HardSide]

The article was nice and all, but it basically summed up everything most gamers already know, those people who have been out of the loop, the article is a good read. As for the future of games and the people that play them...one word...'generic' The average player who been playing games since Idsoftware release of Commander Keen find just about every game that been released in the past 5 years very generic, its always the same formula, if the storyline is different, the plot is the same. Fable for the xbox was suppose to change that, it was said to be the game where you pick either 'good or bad' unfortunately whichever you pick in the game you still get the end result and the ending, nor the game is different from whatever path you choose. Then we had Doom 3 that was released in 2004 by idsoftware, sure it was 'spooky' and 'creepy' some say, I mean the average review in a pc magazine or online boards said its probably the scariest game ever released. The average gamer however found that eyecandy doesn't make the game, and cute little monsters jumping from walls isn't enough to excite a old time gamer. So whats the future of gaming if you ask me? There is no future, eventually we will hit the pinicale where either a game changes its true environment and play style everytime you play or eventually games will die out.

Re:Future of gaming and the gamers

[Scorpius-nl]

Yes, I agree with you on most terms.
The problem is that there is no real breakthrough in gameplay anymore, and the question is are we gonna see something really innovative in the future ? I think the problems are indeed with the software and not the hardware:

Problem one is the increasing conglomerates of software houses. Making games more of business then an art, obvious example is ofcourse EA games. With it's main franchise existing of "recycling" games (especially with it's sports games).

Problems two, is the increased costs of making something really innovative. Only an idea is not enough, in the early days people would be satisfied with EGA graphics, but nowadays people want eye candy and pixel shaders, otherwise they won't even consider it.

Problem three is the increased shift of balance towards game consoles. The console world is in control of software houses, and there is in general a steep barrier for new game developers. Not to mention that the console lacks several input methods which make several games impossible (RTS, FPS).

But most importantly, for most of the gamers who have witnessed alot of games since the early days like doom, keen, etc, it's important to know that the level of expectancy has been raised also. I think the game industry is going the same way as the movie industry: Alot of average material, and once or twice a year something worthy.

My Future Console

[Space_Soldier]

The article is pure speculation. They have no way of knowing exactly what the future will bring. Will the XBOX have a cell processor, or will it have a standard one? They don't know, neiether do I, but judging from the past, it will probably have a standard one; they chose PIII last time. While I own a XBOX now, my next system will probably be Playstation 3 because Microsoft is too draconian with their hardware, especially with XBOX Live and mod chips. I love XBMC, and I need that chip to run it. I'm aware that you can turn the chip off, but if you forget to turn it off, the XBOX gets banned.

Re:My Future Console

[Anonymous Coward]

While I own a XBOX now, my next system will probably be Playstation 3 because Microsoft is too draconian with their hardware..

Whereas Sony are the paragon of free thinking, copyleft supporting anti-materialism?

How do people manage to delude themselves to this extent? Is there some drug you can take that surpresses all critical thinking abilities?

Re:My Future Console

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony actually released linux for the PS2. Hopefully they will for the PS3 as well. Sony also doesn't try to control how people use their PS2s online-- just buy the adapter and it's all free to use.

Now, Sony ain't no angels, sure... and their media companies are as bad as any. But SCE isn't going to try to shut you down. Remember when Ken Kutaragi admitted that Sony had made a mistake in allowing its media division to stifle its computer division, and promised to correct it? Honestly, I think SCE really gets it. I am sure that Microsoft will never ever EVER get it.

Re:I was always taught...

[ThosLives]

I'm with you man - even with "total immersion" and "realistic physics engines" that others in this thread have noted, it's all pointless without good games. Gameplay has been seriously lacking of late; while I do hear of the occasional refreshing new idea (Katamari Damacy!?!), mostly games are either sports sequels, movie or TV marketing, or another FPT or RTS; even RPGs are starting to lack on gameplay but at least many of stories are still good! About the only thing "more power" and "more realism" is going to improve are things like simulations (Gran Turismo for driving, for instance. Though, I still have yet to see a good console flight sim...).

So, in essense, it boils down to the fact that having more hardware capability will not guarantee better games. It will probably guarantee better looking games, but the rest is up to creativity and execution and a good balance between revenue plans and creative risk.

What the hell?

[TimeTraveler1884]

From the article:

With CPUs running at several gigahertz plus a high-performance video card or two, PC gaming is now just as lifelike as its console-based competition.

This was where I stopped reading. This is a joke right? Because I've played both consoles and PC and the PC is always the fore-front. Allbeit, at a higher cost financially.

But come on, PCs don't trail behind consoles. It's the other way around. Resolution for starts, 480p vs 1024x768 (native of my front projector) makes a world of difference. I bought the XBox for HDTV but the hardware can't do it apparently, because there are very few games that will output more than 480p.

Re:future consoles?

[Fulg]

You say that like one is obviously better than the other, but you didn't say which one? I have the PS2 and I haven't seen car games on the PC as good as Burn Out. But on the other hand, I haven't seen a FPS on a console that rivals that of Half Life on the PC.

I have no intention of (re)starting the PC vs Console debate, each platform has their ups and downs... Since you asked, for most games I play (racing, action/adventure, shoot-them-ups) the console is obviously a better choice. But as you say, for first-person shooters (HL2, Doom3, etc) the PC is clearly superior, if only because of the dual mouse/keyboard inputs.

I may be biased since most PC ports of console games I've seen completely sucked (*cough* RalliSport Challenge *cough* - it was unplayable on a beefed-up PC but flies at 60fps on a lowly Xbox).

I guess my point is that in general the best way to fully enjoy a game is to play it on its original platform (much like movies are generally better in their native language).