Slashdot Mirror
The 5-Year Console Cycle Is Dead
Pickens writes "The Xbox 360 recently turned five years old, and with no known successor on the horizon for the 360, PlayStation 3 or Wii, Cnet reports on the death of the 5-year console cycle — one of the video game industry's most longstanding truisms. For example, the Nintendo Entertainment System came out in 1985, followed by the Super NES in 1991, the Nintendo 64 in 1996, the GameCube in 2001, and the Wii in 2006. But now, why should console makers upgrade their offerings? Consumers are still buying their machines by the hundreds of thousands each month, and ramped-up online initiatives are breathing new life into the systems. A lot of it has to do with the fact that with the current generation of consoles, each company found a way to maximize either the technology behind the devices, or the utility to a wide range of new gamers."
It was over 7 years between the famicom and the super famicom, the gap is shorter in the US because Nintendo waited 2 years to start selling the famicom(NES) in the US.
Monstar L
The business model has changed in a way which makes 5-year-console-cycles less important. It used to be turning out a new console would give you new capabilities AND would get people to buy lots of new games. Now you may get a little more power and may be able to upgrade the way a few things are done, but more of your revenue stream comes from subscriptions than from new game or new console sales. (New console sales are actually a net negative, at least for some of the major providers, because they keep the lost low to encourage sales of the games and recoup the loss on games + subscriptions.)
Also, the technology of game platforms isn't advancing quickly enough any more to make a five-year-lag a competition killer.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Game studios and developers probably put some pressure too. Having to program for yet another console gets expensive and complicated. Instead of having to learn new hardware, they can continue expanding the tech behind the software.
You need to learn basic geometry.
zosxavius photography
Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away.
I think it could simply be that people realized that they didn't need to buy new systems to play (more) decent games. The manufacturers saw that they were certainly not making ANY significant amounts of profit of the hardware, and the existing hardware (PS2 for example) just wouldn't DIE, as developers just kept pumping out games for them. Why waste money in bringing new systems when no revitalization is needed in the industry? These are businesses after all. They won't try to fix what 'aint broke.
And the Kinect is just a new controller for the 360.
> vast majority of people playing games at 720p max
Your comment skirts around the issue, but is not entirely accurate. It is not the players, but the game devs themselves that are "not demanding" a new console. The PS3's RSX is ~= 7800 GTX. Most _games_ DON'T render at the native 1080p but at 720p simply because most (PS3) games are GPU bound. (XBox 360 games are CPU bound if you are curious.) That said, currently the SPUs are _still_ under underutilized. Naughty Dog said this a few years back, but it is slowly getting better:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/832/832114p2.html
"I'm more impressed with the hardware the longer we get to work with it. Imagining trying to develop Uncharted without the Blu-ray drive, without the hard drive, or without the Cell processor makes me wonder what kind of game we would have ended up with. It certainly would have required a lot more compromises than I would have been comfortable making. And much like the PS2, I think the longer developers work with the machine, the better the games are going to get. For instance we are only using approximately 1/3 of the processing power of the SPUs on the Cell processor in Uncharted."
The presentation "Getting Unreal Engine 3 to 60Hz" isn't (yet) available on Devnet, but thankfully can be found here...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15118967/Hitting-60Hz-in-Unreal-Engine
Other presentations (GDC 2009) worth reading are
* The PlayStation®3's SPUs in the Real World - A KILLZONE 2 Case Study
* Practical SPU Usage in GOD OF WAR 3
It will be REAL interesting to see what Polyphony Digital (Gran Turismo 5), and Team Ico (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus) since these two studios are known to typically push the PlayStation (2 & 3) to its limits.
Cheers
Just one more generation and we'll finally have a true HD console (one rendering at 1920x1080, not scaling up from a much lower rez). I don't want to build another gaming computer. Give me a console that can do what my current rig can do and I'll be set.
... take too long to make today because hardware power has increased asset production time exponentially. So it's obvious why console generations are no longer 5 years, its pretty much approaching 3+ years between a game and its sequel.
Doing a modern AAA game takes at lest 3 or more years to do it right, and games that are developed in 2 years often show it in lack of quality and the use of rehashed concepts ad-nauseum.
Not to mention all the money and years spent wasted in failed attempts and false starts that is hidden from view.
Indeed. Slashdot has a very, very short memory. Just a few days ago there was an article featured on the consoles being too slow.
http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/11/25/2126215/PC-Gaming-a-Generation-Ahead-of-Consoles-Says-Crytek-Boss
Although honestly, I think the larger danger to the consoles is not the PC market, but the mobile market with the iPad and such. I've been surprised at how much the iPad can actually pull off for not being just a gaming device (N.O.V.A., etc).
This article reminds me a bit of some of the early predictions where the people couldn't see the need for more than a few computers in the world. It reeks of something that will come around and bite them in the ass for not progressing quick enough.
Sorry for the bad netiquette / karma whoring, didn't realize these were available ...
* The PlayStation®3's SPUs in the Real World - A KILLZONE 2 Case Study
http://sijm.ca/2009/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/michiel-van-der-leeuw.pdf
* Practical SPU Usage in GOD OF WAR 3
http://www.tilander.org/aurora/comp/gdc2009_Tilander_Filippov_SPU.pdf
Cheers
-- ...
CPUs & GPUs are still too damn slow.. A graphics programmer who worked on Uncharted 2 (one of the best looking PS3 games available) shares his comments on the future of GPUs / Rendering
http://filmicgames.com/archives/467
The early consoles couldn't even take care of the available resolution. NES was 256x240. Not to mention the 16 colour limitation on NES. SNES then looked better with the same (NTSC) display, as did N64. They were all major improvements on their predecessor.
I don't think you can improve that much on the existing consoles, definitely not the leaps and bounds they had in the early days.
You need to learn to think outside the X-Box, and get past the assumptions of basic geometry. He is probably walking backwards, keeping a steady eye on the box, ever vigilant against any mutant viruses that might attack at any moment.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Every time a new, high-profile FPS comes out, I ask myself, "is this game better than Deus Ex?" And the answer is inevitably "no". When a PC developer uses all the superior hardware they like to circlejerk over to make a game that's more fun to play, then maybe they'll have a point. As it is, PC gaming is still generations behind PC gaming.
Didn't you see the commercials? Kinect is not the controller, you are the controller....
Um, what?
The Wii has only one processor core. The Wii has a GPU capable of only ~15 million polygons/second max, and incapable of plain old bumpmapping, nevermind more complex shaders. It has a pitiful amount of memory available. Reducing the resolution of a 360 or PS3 game doesn't reduce the massive amount of shaders and effects the Wii simply could not handle. That's why games need to be completely independently developed for the Wii, it's nearly impossible to do a straight port and downgrade, simply because the limitations are so vastly different. It's a Gamecube. Surely you're not suggesting that a PS2 could play PS3 games easily at 480p as well?
am getting a red Wii.
You might want to have that looked at by a doctor.
I play most of my games at 1920x1280...oh, wait, that's because I use a COMPUTER, not a limited machine, for my gaming. Ooops.
I have to agree on most of your points, and would like to add that $400+ for a console (at initial release), and even more for a modest sized HDD for said system kept people away for a while. Many of the PS3 purchases were for the blue ray functionality as much as gaming. And the 360 limited to DVD discs (since the crash and burn of HD-DVD) has held it back some. I just bought my kid a 360 this last year, waited for the RROD issues to be squared away first. I won't buy a Sony product, so PS3 isn't an option for me. As it stands, the 360 and PS3 are both passable systems, and as Nintendo has shown, playability means a lot more than uber graphics. I do with Nintendo would come out with a Wii+ or something as a second-gen device, which would be nice... even a bump to 1080p, and built in blue ray for an extra $100-150 would be a big seller, would mean a faster CPU, but minimal changes as far as compatability... Maybe an ATI or nVidia discrete graphics chipset... compatability is a must imho, though dropping the Game Cube controller ports wouldn't make me cry..
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
So basically he claim that if it can run Amiga Bratwurst in 1080 there's not need to upgrade the hardware because hey, it's 1080p?
Omg the graphics! http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/bratwurst/screenshots/gameShotId,192350/ ;D
(Actually it's very fun, zooming in and out as you approach each other.
Amiga Roketz looked better but played worse.
And then there was Gravity Force of course.)
The hell it was. Gamecube and Wii used different media formats, different input device busses, different CPU, different GPU.
Gamecube GPU - ATI "Flipper", 162 MHz
Wii GPU - ATI "Hollywood", 243 MHz
Gamecube CPU - IBM PowerPC "Gekko", 486 MHz
Wii CPU - IBM PowerPC-based "Broadway, 729 MHz
Because when you see it you do 3 60's and walk away!!!!!11111lol
come on, *serious* gamers don't have friends over
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
I believe you. Wholly.
This was to be a Haiku,
but I couldn't think of anything finish up with.
Refrigerator.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
i think the power of my gaming pc in a handheld would be nice
warning pointless sig
I think most of the innovation is in the hand held arena these days. New markets often get the focus of developers and manufacturers for awhile, but I think in time we'll circle back to consoles as graphics, processing, and sensing technologies improve.
Perferably moonwalk away after that spin.
Let me check the date. Yep, still 2010, four years after the Wii came out. Wikipedia says the Playstation came out in 1994, PS2 in 2000, and PS3 in 2006, so we shouldn't expect a PS4 until 2012. Doesn't the summary contradict itself?
But wait, the Xbox came out in 2001 and Xbox 360 in 2005. Where is my Xbox 720???
While the Wii uses a mere 18 Watts or so, the PS 3 and Xbox 360 use well over 100, (earlier models can be closer to 200). If one wants to use the device for watching video, it's certainly worth comparing the Apple TV which uses less than 6 Watts. Streaming from a PC, particularly one with a power hungry GPU card, adds considerably to the consumption.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm
In areas where power costs about $.13 per kw/h, every 10 Watts used full time runs about $1/month.
Do the math, it really adds up. (Of course more consumption affects the environment more too)
The savings from using an energy efficient setup could cover the cost of new hardware or some paid content.
Power used becomes heat which was a major factor in the 360s' (especially early units) being very unreliable. Monitors/TVs use significant power too, especially with larger screens. Plasma is generally much worse than LCD.
You're probably one of those poor deluded souls who think that a thousand euro lens will automatically make for great pictures.
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Woosh!
As someone who wrote and implemented OpenGL on the Wii and shipped 2 Wii games that used it, actually, you and the GP are both right, and wrong.
The Wii was Gamecube x2. Meaning in the Real-World it was twice as fast. Check the Nintendeo forums where Jack Matthews benchmarks the performance (especially memory.)
Nintendo DIDN'T fix _any_ of the hardware GPU rendering bugs in the Wii, which is why the derogatory Gamecube is applicable.
Cheers
I still play those games regularly, you insensitive clod!
NES was 256x240. Not to mention the 16 colour limitation on NES.
What 16 color limit? I read wiki.nesdev.com and count 25: one background color, four sets of three for parts of the tile plane, and four sets of three for sprites, not to mention the tint bits that can be turned on for "rising water" effects. Perhaps you're estimating that some of these sets often share identical colors.
> they had to bolt on a GTX to the Cell because the cell didn't have the horsepower to compete with the Xbox 360.
Huh? The PPU was never designed to do rendering. Looking at the data flow, say for skinning, you have this:
PS2: CPU (EE) -> vector processors: VU (T&L) -> GPU (VS)
PS3: CPU (PPU) -> vector processors: SPU (T&L) -> GPU (RSX)
Ergo, if you pardon the French, you don't know WTF you are talking about.
One of the reason the PS3 was initially so much was because of the hardware. Specifically, the Blu-Ray drive for one, the PS2 hardware compatibility for two, and all the superfluous flash-type memory card slots for three.
There were teething problems, because the *whole* industry was changing from single-core to multi-core design. Taking a PC game and porting to the PS3 will of course have extremely poor performance (because you are letting the hardware go unused / to waste); when you design for multi-core from the beginning, and say port a PS3 game to the Xbox 360 or PC, you won't have toilet performance on the Xbox 360.
Cheers
Part of the PS3's problems stem from the fact that the Cell wasn't supposed to be just the CPU, it was supposed to be the GPU. Sony had demonstrations to this effect. However that was all wishful thinking, when the real Cell hardware was delivered it couldn't stand up to dedicated GPUs. So Sony remade it in to the CPU only, for which it was not well suited. They then had a problem in that they didn't have a GPU. nVidia was, of course, happy to oblige but the thing was they didn't have time for a full redesign. Normally console GPUs are specially designed for consoles. A big thing is sharing system RAM, since consoles have less RAM than PCs and are single user single process and so and handle that better. Most consoles allow for direct GPU use of system RAM or total integration. Also they often feature things like embedded DRAM (the Wii and 360 do and the PS2 did). Well the problem was there wasn't the time for that kind of redesign. Chip design takes a long time. So nVidia was only able to modify a 7800/7900 series architecture a bit. Not a bad card, but not what you wanted for a console.
The net effect with this late design chance is that the Cell has power that isn't used, and may not be able to be used. The actual PPC CPU part gets startved for time and bandwidth and can't dispatch to the Cells effectively. There may not be a way around it, IBM canceled further Cell production because it just doesn't stack up well. Regular CPUs do better at general tasks, GPUs do better at vector/stream tasks.
The PS3 was not a well planned design, it was what they could hack together in the time they had.
Have fun with those resolution-limited console ports.
They must of been drinking the same, with all due respect to an otherwise extremely bright programmer, software rendering kool-aid as Tim Sweeney.
"The End of the GPU Roadmap" http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/archive/SweeneyHPG2009/TimHPG2009.pdf
And while Real-Time Ray Tracing is the "Holy Grail" and is achievable, there is no way VRAM is going away to be replaced with traditional CPU memory. There are so many memory optimizations in the rendering pipeline that it would be stupid to suggest that it all should be tossed out and use slow DRAM instead.
He was actually talking about something like CUDA or OpenCL programs that look similar to a typical software rendering engine.
GPUs would still be there... but you would "talk to them" in a similar way you would a CPU. Only with slightly more simple commands that are parallelized across thousands of cores.
Basically Tim Sweeney is annoyed at all the DirectX and OpenGL quirks they need to dodge and would want to program each engine basically from first principles -- but still use the GPU for calculations that could be split into hundreds or thousands of independent parts.
Just about every console port doesn't have the resolution locked. ... that said their internal assets are usually low-res enough that the extra resolution will just be rendering the crappy artwork with even more crappy detail.
Wii was actually one of the only consoles to NOT be sold at a loss.
2006 Article
Graphics are not the same as gaming.
I'd say that if anything is holding back gaming it's the fact that AAA titles are so freaking expensive and are so huge an investment that they need to be incredibly safe.
But gaming is not being held back. There's PUH-LENTY of innovation going on, it's just happening outside the glare of the major developers. The economic factors that force AAA titles to play it safe make it a no-brainer to take risks and try to innovate with less expensive games.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
There are non-trivial ways new hardware could improve the experience on existing HDTVs. Very few games can consistently output to 1080p on the current generation of hardware. It could also be interesting to see what improvements can be leveraged for 720p - maybe 2x antialiasing guaranteed for 1080p, and 4x (or higher?) at 720p. Bumped-up levels of anisotropic filtering at all resolutions would be a big, noticeable across-the-board change. Texture resolution is also still an issue for certain titles, though >512 MB total system RAM would go a long way toward fixing that. That doesn't even go into 3D HDTVs, though I know little about them because my level of interest is low.
That said, we're certainly a long way from the NES' 256x240, 16 colors onscreen / 56 color palette output, or even the 640x480x16 the Voodoo Graphics board could manage on its flagship titles.