Motion Control To Lengthen Console Hardware Cycles

With the recent E3 demonstrations of new motion-based control for consoles — Microsoft's Natal, Sony's Motion Controller, and Ubisoft's camera-based system for the Wii — analysts now expect the current console generation to last longer than normal. Microsoft exec Shane Kim said he expects the Xbox 360 to last until around 2015, in part due to Natal and new services available through Xbox Live. Signal Hill's Todd Greenwald thinks this cycle may not need to end at all: "Microsoft and Sony have invested so much in their current hardware line, as have third party publishers, that we don't think any party is seriously interested in throwing away these investments and starting over from scratch. For all of these reasons, we think this cycle will last longer than those in the past, and don't see new hardware coming until 2011 at the earliest, and 2012 to 2013 more likely (if at all — if new services like OnLive take off, or if Xbox Live and PlayStation Network become more and more robust, there may not be a need for another console cycle).'"

Comments

Good enough is?

[Canazza]

Have we really reached the point where "Good enough is"
Is the XBox 360/PS3 really the pinnacle of console gaming for the next 5 years?
With the Wii selling bucketloads more initially than anything else, despite having inferior graphics hardware, have the other two finally realised that Faster chips, bigger numbers and impressive specs are really just nothing more than macho posturing?

Re:Good enough is?

[hattig]

Both Microsoft and Sony can create faster variants of their existing hardware, but mandate that new games are backward compatible.

I.e., they can release a PS3.5 as the PS4 that can handle 1080p60* gaming (possibly in 3D with a 3D monitor) based around the same hardware, just running faster or with more resourced. Games detect the console, run in 720p on the PS3 without some fancy graphical effects (assuming physics runs on the SPU in Cell and the new one has ~30SPUs compared with 7 in the current PS3), lower resolution textures (due to less RAM), etc.

Sony always make a console last 10 years anyway, but they also release the new high end 5 or 6 years into that lifespan whilst the previous model mops up the low end of the market and new poor markets around the world. I think it would be suicide to not build upon the hardware base in the PS3 - going with a new architecture would be a folly given their financial situation.

* I know that the PS3 can do this, but most games are in 720p, if that.

Re:Good enough is?

[Tom]

The hardware is good enough for good games. It has been since the Commodore 64. The problem is, games are more and more boring.

Actually, I disagree in part.

Some really good games have only become possible with better hardware. Except that graphics hardware comes last in that list. But more memory and CPU speed have allowed for more complex games. A game like Oblivion or Fallout 3 would not have been technically possible on the C64, even if you would've been happy with Bards Tale style graphics.

Re:Good enough is?

[Nursie]

Sorry, it's a hell of a lot more than macho posturing.

The GFX on the Wii look pretty poor on a decent sized 1080p capable panel. The Wii is sorely underpowered for today's display tech.

Now, it's still good fun, but I really don't buy into this horrible fanboyish meme that seems to hae taken hold, that the two are somehow exclusive. You CAN have both. There is no reason that bad graphics make good games. A Wii or other machine with Wii-like controllers and Wii-like games but with and updated GFX hardware would be great.

Re:Good enough is?

[MoonBuggy]

The problem is that the two often are exclusive. Games cost a lot to make and it's easy to blow the entire budget making something look spectacular and then realise there's nothing left to actually make it fun. Similarly, when you're restricted on the graphics front by less powerful hardware, you're forced into making games with selling points other than how they look.

Obviously it's not always the case, there are exceptions to both rules and I would never be one to argue against better looking games as long as they are still fun to play, but there is a somewhat sensible reason behind the 'bad graphics' argument.

Re:Good enough is?

[CoccoBill]

Have we really reached the point where "Good enough is"

No, we haven't. As we know, both the PS3 and the Xbox360 are struggling with true 1080p content, most games advertized as 1080p actually run at a horizontal resolution lower than 1920. We need faster consoles still to take full advantage of the current FullHD displays.

Obviously none of this has anything to do with how good the actual games are, and as Nintendo has shown quite vividly, the actual playability of the games matter more than eye candy. However, I don't see these two issues to contradict each other one bit, why can't we have games that are creative, fun AND look good?

Re:Good enough is?

[Deag]

Well "Good enough" for now. The last update to consoles brought HD compatibility with the now standard HD TV, and good use of internet connection. Without both of those consoles would look like backward technology.

But we certainly haven't reached good enough for gaming in general. Games do look good enough, but the worlds they simulate need more power.
For example, go to the top of a building in GTA IV and look into a street in the distance, it is empty. That game does a good job of having an illusion of a busy city, but it really is just that. Four blocks away from you there is nothing.

Wouldn't it be great if every brick in every building was simulated, and having ten million entities walking around the city with you, rather than the 50 odd that follow you around at the moment.

Of course you don't need all this to have a fun game, some of the better games on the 360 are geometry wars and braid, both of which are 2D. And the success of the Wii speaks for itself.

But I think it would be sad if the development of more immersive environments stalled here.

That early?

[Daemonax]

I'm still waiting for the price of a PS3 to come down to a ridiculous price, right now they have a ludicrous price.

Re:Blu-Ray...

[EdZ]

The major failing of current motion control systems (wiimote, Natal, whatever the PS3 system is called) is that there's no feedback. You're waving about, and simply hope that the game gets it right. By removing the layer of abstraction the controller provides, you're making things LESS immersive by starkly revealing that the game cannot respond to you in ways other than the visual or the audio.
Until cheap, reliable haptic control systems emerge (not a for about half a decade if things like the Falcon, and the cost of more flexiable systems, is anything to go by), motion control will be limited in usefulness to a few casual games that don't require fast and accurate responses.

Re:Longer console lifecycle will kill them

[Sockatume]

I'm not convinced that the "waning interest of consumers" actually exists outside of a niche. Console manufacturers make the most money during the tail-end of the cycle, when the console is affordable by the massmarket and is being produced at a profit or at least a significantly smaller loss. The manufacturers actually don't make a whole lot of money during the period in which it's being sold to "gamers [...] constantly looking for the latest and greatest". Those customers are a necessary part of getting the word out, but the people that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are really keen to please are the people who grab the system and a half-dozen three-year-old games for $300 at Walmart.

Re:Blu-Ray...

[RedWizzard]

Yes they did.

However, was there not research showing that the attach rate (i.e. frequency of game buying) was very much lower for casual/Wii gamers? Making the Wii continue to pay might be difficult.

That's a myth.

From Wikipedia:

Best selling PS3 games:

1. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue (3.31 million)
2. MotorStorm (3.31 million)
3. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (3 million shipped)

Xbox 360 games selling more than 3.31 million:

1. Halo 3 (8.1 million)
2. Gears of War (5 million, may include PC version)
3. Gears of War 2 (5 million)
4. Grand Theft Auto IV (4.074 million approximately)
5. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (3.772 million approximately)
6. Call of Duty: World at War (3.35 million approximately)

Wii games selling more than 3.31 million:

1. Wii Sports (45.71 million)
2. Wii Play (22.98 million)
3. Wii Fit (18.22 million)
4. Mario Kart Wii (15.4 million)
5. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (8.43 million)
6. Super Mario Galaxy (8.02 million)
7. Mario Party 8 (6.72 million)
8. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.52 million)
9. Link's Crossbow Training (3.76 million)
10. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (3.4 million)
11. Animal Crossing: City Folk (3.38 million)

So the Wii has 5 games that have sold more than any game on either the PS3 or the Xbox 360.

Looking at it another way, the top 10 PS3 games have sold a total of 21.4 million copies, the top 10 Xbox 360 games have sold a total of 29 million copies and the 10 Wii games have sold a total of 133 million copies. The consoles themselves have sold 21.3, 28, and 50 million copies each respectively. So for the Wii, excluding Wii Sports, that's 87 million top 10 games for 50 million consoles: 1.7 games per console. The other two consoles manage only 1 top 10 game per console.

In terms of total games, PS3 has sold 94 million and the Wii has sold 353 million. Not sure about the Xbox 360. So that's 4.4 games per PS3 and 7 games per Wii (6 excluding Wii Sports).

Clearly, the idea that the Wii has a lower "attach" rate is pure BS. It might have been true initially but now the attach rate is significantly higher for the Wii.