I have developers like Crytek to based that opinion on.
besides a better digital distribution (I'm currenlty happy with how it's handled now but there's room for improvement), I see no other real reason for a new crop of consoles.
The PS3 is already a great media center, even when it was mocked by many including members in this forum, for focusing on that. The 360 has caught on that as well
A new gen it's mostly to keep up with current PC graphical performances, they are bringing close to nothing new in terms of gameplay innovation. like I said mention a PC game that can't properly run on PS360, besides the graphical differences.
Nintendo is the one with most to gain with a new console, besides they've yet to implement a half decent online service (both on distribution and gameplay options)
I'm not saying graphics are everything, but with current PC, a new gen of consoles seems to be about it.
__________________
"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die." -BANE
Why are you surprised that next gen consoles are all about graphics?
It's been like that since the beginning.
What's the point of releasing a new console or any device if it doesn't improve from the previous device. The only way to improve is to have better graphics. Anything else can be implemented by software which can be downloaded through their network. (unless the software is too resource intensive, which means better hardware)
Your missing my point and I'm not surprised at all.
Talk about new consoles at this point is
The only way to improve is not only and just about graphics. Games are so much more than that, Crysis with all its beauty and hard-to-run-at-max-specs thing is a shooter barely above mediocre... at best
... unless you're talking about the only way next gen can improve upon current gen is graphics wise, in which case I agree, just as my original post says
I'm not against a new generation of consoles, the thing is that:
a late 2014 onwards could be a good start date.
the boom of news about new consoles is just due to Nintendo's 2012 launch, and it's gain this much attention become some developers not clever enough to come out with something original and innovative can't think of anything to improve, besides graphics... and of course there's those dumb "games analysts"
and before my post gets taken out of context, yes R&D needs to be going underway this early on and I say they should take their sweet time with it (specially MS if they don't want another RRoD debacle)... but some may say they feel threaten by Nintendo's Wii2
__________________
"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die." -BANE
Last edited by S_D_J on Nov 12th, 2011 at 04:03 AM
couldnt care less. Ive been a hardcore gamer al my life but ill be sitting out the next console race/war. I hate nintendo, MS cant manufacture a game console, and Sony, well, im not paying five hundred dollars for a console during a single transaction
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Not for me. It is both. Crappy graphics with excellent gameplay? It is not as fun.
Improve the graphics and keep that awesome gameplay? Awesome combination.
In fact, some games have done decently specifically because of their "oooooo" and "ahhhhhh" graphics.
Of course, the "name some" comes to mind. What I name no one will agree with. They will claim it had great gameplay. I disagree. I just don't think a sweeping statement like "gameplay >graphics everytime" is a good position.
The consoles of today is nothing compared to the PC.
Never was, never will be.
PCs will ALWAYS be superior to ANY console.
IMHO, the graphics of consoles of this generation are inferior in this day and age.
Now we are in 2011, when quad-core smartphones are being developed, and when PCs are running in 32-cores (even 64-cores).
And here we have a console with 8-cores and STILL reigns supreme (graphically) amongst the other consoles.
If Sony can produce the PS4 with more cores than the PS3, it will be at least 'future-proof' for the next 4 years.
All they need now is to find a better GPU and switch from HDD to SSD.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
I don't think switching to SSD will be much of great idea.
To my knowledge, and correct if I'm wrong, the difference between speed is marginal (though that depends on the hardware, but in case of a PS3, it is) Taking into account storage capacity and price, an HDD is, for the time being, better.
now if you allow me to switch out the SDD and use any HDD just like you can with the PS3 then I have no problem
or by the time they come out, SDD are standard and therefore cheaper (and not cost $150 for 120GB)
__________________
"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die." -BANE
I have done literal testing on SSDs drives. The type of testing that you do in controlled environments and you publish to your university. However, our work never got forwarded on to a tech website or magazine we are are still "unpublished".
But, basically, we did this:
We tested 3 hard disk drives (the best of the best at the time) against 2 SSDs (the best of the best at the time). RAID 0 was not allowed because that would add an additional layer of variable: the RAID controller would have to be controlled for and that would have added too much to the testing to do in a timely manner.
We ran multiple tests including multiple operating systems, multiple configurations to each OS, and multiple software programs. It was about 60 pages long (lol) and had dozens of hours of work from each of us, put into it (almost 600 total man hours involved in the project).
The results: for Windows 7 had the fastest results on the SSDs (our research showed that it was due to Windows 7 making better use of the SSDs and PCI-x drivers being optimized for Windows...due to it being on the majority of computers. They were from twice as fast to 3 times as fast as the fastest HDDs. We used bootloader software to ensure we had exact measurements of the boot time FROM the drive. We wanted to eliminate the POST associated with the motherboards so we could get an exact measure of the work done by the drives themselves.
We tested both an S3 connected SSD and a PCI-x (2.x...since our study, we could have tried the 3.x format but we did not have enough funds to purchase that and the motherboards were novelties at that point...and the standard wasn't official yet so we could not say for sure IF we used the 3.x format that it would be "real world"...similar to the USB 3.0 spec not being official for a couple of years) card interface.
The card interface was MONSTROUSLY faster. It was STUPID fast. Basically, we overloaded Windows 7 with 15 different programs IN The start-up folder. This would make the fastest of fast computers take up to 5 minutes (considering some of the programs or files were hundreds of megs in size and the total size of the items that had to load up into memory were several gigs) if using a HDD. It took almost exactly 22 seconds each and everytime (you may ask yourself...why was it almost the same exact time, everytime? The beauty of SSDs is they do not need to be defragged because there's no moving head). TWENTY TWO SECONDS! This was more than a year ago with the 2.x format. It should be between that and twice as fast on a 3.x interface. Coming awake from sleep was the largest different: 7 seconds.
Seven freaking seconds to come awake in Windows 7 on a "fat" setup.
There is a myth and it is many years old, that SSDs are only marginally better than HDDs. That myth has been destroyed since around 2008 with the Intel based algorithms used in SSD memory writing and read processes. We had to justify our findings with some sort of explanation and that was it.
In our video rendering test, the results were limited by how fast other media could be. When we switched the files onto the SSD instead of the blu-ray player, it sped up the rendering much faster (HD video conversion). So, it was the Blu-ray drive that slowed it down, not the SSD itself. This is part of where the myth comes form: people will think their SSD is not faster than their HDD but they do not realize it is the USB or ROM drive that is the problem: not the internal storage.
Wait...this is with the PS3?
I thought you were talking about a potential configuration for the PS4 since that was what the other dude was talking about. Why would you care about a SSD in your PS3? It's a waste: your interface has to be faster, not the drive itself (which it looks like you are saying).
This is supposed to happen in 2012: the pricing per gig is trending, slowly, and according to the market research, the price per gig is supposed to reach the same levels as it is for HDDs.
However, I find that to be misleading. That's for the cheapest of cheap. Those have slower than HDDs in performance in some areas. We need the mid-range SSDs to surpass the HDDs in price before we can say they are the same price per gig.
With something like a nexgen console, we need a current gen interface of the SSD. That would drive the cost of the PS4 up. We don't need that.
So it is not looking like a reasonable thing to do. Unless, of course, we can get PCI-X 3.x speeds withOUT the costs. Meaning, Sony makes a great deal with a manufacturer without compromising quality. That COULD happen in the next year or two. So, we cannot totally rule out that a SSD drive with PCI-X 3.x speed will be released.
The other reason was one I provided in my post: the cost per gig has to equal or be better than HDD for the mid-rangers, at the LEAST. That is possible by 2013...maybe even 2014. So we cannot totally rule it out of the question for Sony in 2014.
So my two reasons are: interface being too slow or too expensive and the cost per gig being unreasonable for a decently performing SSD.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 11th, 2011 09:06 PM
