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."
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.
> 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
... 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
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?
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
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
Have fun with those resolution-limited console ports.
Wii was actually one of the only consoles to NOT be sold at a loss.
2006 Article
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.