Jump to content

Console iteration time frames


downzy

Recommended Posts

So a couple of knuckleheads over at IGN made the argument that console makers need to reiterate their products much faster, much like smartphone manufacturers.

Click on the link to watch the four minute video on the topic:

http://ca.ign.com/videos/2015/03/28/is-the-next-xbox-3-4-years-away

I'm f'n floored that IGN hires these nitwits if this is their "expert" analysis. I almost never post in the comments at any video game thread, but felt compelled to do so there. Here was my post:

I cannot believe how far off the comments by IGN's resident reporters are. It's mind-blowing to confuse and conflate the mobile market with the console market. Not including Nintendo, the mobile market as it's comprised of Apple's iOS and Google's Android platforms have only been around for less than a decade. Almost every market sees rapid expansion and improvements at the beginning of its life cycle. Consoles have been around for around forty years in some form or another. The margins of improvement have become so small that it's getting more and more difficult to justify a new console. Personally, I'm holding off buying a Xbox One or PS4 because I still have plenty of games to play on my Xbox 360. Moreover, I just don't see the graphically leap from last gen to current gen to rush out and pay for a new console that will likely be reduced substantially over the coming years. If you think myself and most casual gamers are going to shell out $400-$500 every three to four years like how people currently upgrade their phones you're crazy.

Examine the mobile market: sure there are huge technological gains in the iPhone from 2007 to 2015, but will we see the same innovative gains in the next eight years? Something tells me no. There's only so much you can innovate with one product design before the rate of innovation starts to fall off. Moreover, ask yourself why people upgrade or replace their phones? Is it simply because of new innovation? Probably not. First, a lot of people view smartphones as a fashion accessory - something that is not a factor in the console market. People like upgrading because they like having the newest phone to show off while they're out. Second, a lot of people upgrade their phones because they lose them, the battery becomes inoperable, or they drop it and the screen or the phone itself breaks. Again, none of those factors come into play with respect to consoles.

The mobile market can justify yearly product releases because the market itself is still in its infancy phase. What became clear as a result of the Xbox One and PS4 is that the console market is very mature, and until dramatic performance gains can be demonstrated to most customers, console makers would go out of business if they attempted to replicate the mobile smartphone market. Sorry, but I'm not sure how the two people speaking in this video can be qualified as experts if none of what I write is clearly apparent to them.

What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure; I lean towards agreeing with you, but find a few issues with your statements.

There is definitely graphical and performance improvements from last gen to current gen consoles. Is it worth $400 or more? Your call. To a lot of people, yes it is. Another major thing the current gen consoles brought was improved multiplayer user capacity, games like BF3 were pretty boring on multiplayer 360 because the maps were huge and you only had 12 players per team. I believe current gen brought that up to the full 32 per team (I think?). That alone would seriously entice me to upgrade, then with the performance/graphics upgrades, and the fact that new games may only get a new gen console release, it would make sense to upgrade.

If you think myself and most casual gamers are going to shell out $400-$500 every three to four years like how people currently upgrade their phones you're crazy.

Well, maybe. Defining "casual" gamer is tough. But PC gamers (a lot of PC gamers, including me, Bran, and The Glow Inc.) have bought/are buying upgraded parts for our PC's for new games. The cost? Generally in the $300 - $400 range. We're not in the minority, it's a pretty common thing.

I do agree with your appraisal of mobile, I think we've already started to see that technology improve less rapidly than when it became popular (though it is still improving).

Overall, I don't think a console life cycle of 3-4 years makes sense from a technological standpoint anymore. 10-15 years ago, yeah console tech was improving rapidly and it made sense. I don't think a PS5 or Xbox 720 that is released in 2017 or 2018 would be enough of an improvement (though I could be wrong). I'm guessing there's also a long and expensive development cycle for consoles, especially with more powerful/complicated consoles, I can imagine that it would take 5 or more years to develop and release in a stable condition. I do disagree that people wouldn't buy them though, I think if they released a console every 3 - 4 years they would definitely sell, though like I said I don't think it would make sense from a production standpoint.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the slow start of the current generation of consoles it's hard to imagine a new console every year or two. I think above all else the market would be too saturated and gamers would become alienated. Not just because of too many consoles but also because titles would sooner become obsolete or stuff like online support and networks would be dropped in favour of the newer games. Also, game designers would have less time to get used to a console. For example, Rockstar was able to do much more with GTA V on the 360 than they could with IV because in the years in between they learned how to maximize the consoles capabilities. With IV it was all new to them. Now imagine that problem but with a new console every year or two. It'd be a nightmare to get games running to their full potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is that game development cycles on the newest home consoles are often in the 3-4 year range for a triple A title. Back in the days of SNES, N64 etc you could expect to bring a new game to market in a far lesser timescale and for a much lower cost. Reduce your console life cycle to 3-4 years and you could quite conceivably start seeing games that take longer to develop than the lifespan of the host console.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure; I lean towards agreeing with you, but find a few issues with your statements.

There is definitely graphical and performance improvements from last gen to current gen consoles. Is it worth $400 or more? Your call. To a lot of people, yes it is. Another major thing the current gen consoles brought was improved multiplayer user capacity, games like BF3 were pretty boring on multiplayer 360 because the maps were huge and you only had 12 players per team. I believe current gen brought that up to the full 32 per team (I think?). That alone would seriously entice me to upgrade, then with the performance/graphics upgrades, and the fact that new games may only get a new gen console release, it would make sense to upgrade.

If you think myself and most casual gamers are going to shell out $400-$500 every three to four years like how people currently upgrade their phones you're crazy.

Well, maybe. Defining "casual" gamer is tough. But PC gamers (a lot of PC gamers, including me, Bran, and The Glow Inc.) have bought/are buying upgraded parts for our PC's for new games. The cost? Generally in the $300 - $400 range. We're not in the minority, it's a pretty common thing.

I do agree with your appraisal of mobile, I think we've already started to see that technology improve less rapidly than when it became popular (though it is still improving).

Overall, I don't think a console life cycle of 3-4 years makes sense from a technological standpoint anymore. 10-15 years ago, yeah console tech was improving rapidly and it made sense. I don't think a PS5 or Xbox 720 that is released in 2017 or 2018 would be enough of an improvement (though I could be wrong). I'm guessing there's also a long and expensive development cycle for consoles, especially with more powerful/complicated consoles, I can imagine that it would take 5 or more years to develop and release in a stable condition. I do disagree that people wouldn't buy them though, I think if they released a console every 3 - 4 years they would definitely sell, though like I said I don't think it would make sense from a production standpoint.

I suppose it's arbitrary, but for me, I haven't seen anything on the new consoles that made me feel the graphical improvements warrant a new machine. I watched the video review of Bloodborne yesterday on IGN and other than a few nice open world shots and some of the boss battles, the game looked no different than a PS3/Xbox 360 game. Meanwhile, I started playing Tomb Raider on my xbox 360 over the weekend and the game is gorgeous. Granted, I haven't seen the current gen version, but are the visuals that remarkably better to warrant a console upgrade at this point? In my opinion, the graphics on Tomb Raider on my Xbox 360 was plenty good enough. But again, I acknowledge that's a personal preference. However, I'm not sure there could be big enough gains from a graphical perspective if consoles were released every three to four years.

I do agree that the multiplayer components of the new generation is a definite advantage, but would you say there's a lot more they can do in this area of gaming? Would you want more than 32 players on a team? Wouldn't would reach a point where there would be too many people on one map? Not sure how another console in 2018 would add value to the multiplayer component of gaming.

I suppose my issue isn't necessarily with Xbox One or the PS4. I think there are solid arguments for those systems. What I don't understand is the call for another round of systems three or four years down the line because the rate of iteration in the mobile category is yearly.

Also, I think a lot of "hardcore" gamers are likely already PC games. In my opinion, and I have no evidence to back this up other than anecdotal, I would imagine a majority of console gamers aren't too concerned about graphical output as PC games are. People who want the fastest, best looking games likely aren't wasting much of their time on consoles. Most of my friends who still play video games still use their PS2s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is that game development cycles on the newest home consoles are often in the 3-4 year range for a triple A title. Back in the days of SNES, N64 etc you could expect to bring a new game to market in a far lesser timescale and for a much lower cost. Reduce your console life cycle to 3-4 years and you could quite conceivably start seeing games that take longer to develop than the lifespan of the host console.

Great point. Which again leads me to wonder how employees and supposed "experts" at a place like IGN could argue that the console market needs to become more like the mobile smartphone market? It's mind-blowing, in my opinion.

What I can see happening with cloud-technology becoming more and more capable is more of the processing is conducted outside of the console. A console could be upgraded somewhat remotely by employing cloud technology. That way console makers could make the necessary changes in-house without disrupting their customer base by buying new systems. Theoretically, one could end up buying a console that could last you 20 years or more so long as the manufacturer supported it. Manufacturers make very little money off of their consoles, it's the games and accessories where profits are made. Think of how much money they could save from an R&D perspective if most of the upgrading was done on their end versus having to totally redesign the user machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 to 7 years is ok

The decade that was the last gen was too much, though

Arguably more than a decade. Microsoft is supporting the 360 until 2017 if I remember correctly, thus giving it a twelve year life. Imagine if the SNES had gone on for twelve years or something like that. It's pretty amazing that games have come this far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft is supporting the 360 until 2017 if I remember correctly

Wish they supported the original Xbox for a decent amount of time. What was it, 4 years? I know they were officially discontinued in '07/'08 but it seemed like there was almost no software from them or third-parties as soon as the 360 dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that's really keeping my interest in the current games market is the indie scene and Steam sales. When I was growing up the indie scene of the Spectrum/Commodore era etc. had passed, so it's cool to see that sector thriving again thanks to platforms like Steam and availability of developer tools.

When I saw the Dreamcast running for the first time it was like seeing something from the future, I couldn't believe it was a real piece of hardware. Sonic Adventure's graphics blew my mind. Now we're seeing the PS4 and Xbone being surpassed graphically by PCs years beforehand. The budgets and development cycles for AAA games have gotten ridiculous, it's just not profitable to take risks any more, I'm sad we'll never see another Shenmue or even something less ambitious like a Jet Set Radio or a Samba de Amigo. While I wasn't much of a fan of theirs growing up, I'm increasingly drawn to Nintendo and their Wii U, it's cool seeing games that exist outside the COD/Assassins Creed/Halo paradigm thrive there, I'd love to try Bayonetta and Splatoons at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

consoles would sell every 3-4 years if the games were there at launch and were exclusive to the up and coming consoles. im not sure how much in terms of power or graphics it would be worth it since the cost would be very high to put top of the line stuff into a console nor can you upgrade but to me that wouldnt matter if say gta 6, fallout 4 or the elder scrolls VI were new console exclusive.

as for the upgrading for PC gamers yeah we do it quicker on the most part than the console cycles, but its not just for graphic power or performance(sometimes a game requires going overkill just to get it to run somewhat smooth *cough* assassins creed unity *cough*)

to me the cost of games and mods are the reason for doing it. mods that are created for pc games really add a whole new dimension to new games or even creates whole conversions that are quite good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me the cost of games and mods are the reason for doing it. mods that are created for pc games really add a whole new dimension to new games or even creates whole conversions that are quite good.

CounterStrike was a mod once upon a time...

What other mods made it big? I'm sure there's one other big one I can't remember right now. I think Red Orchestra was fairly big for a while. Had a friend who was obsessed with Desert Combat mod for Battlefield 1942: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Combat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me the cost of games and mods are the reason for doing it. mods that are created for pc games really add a whole new dimension to new games or even creates whole conversions that are quite good.

CounterStrike was a mod once upon a time...

What other mods made it big? I'm sure there's one other big one I can't remember right now. I think Red Orchestra was fairly big for a while. Had a friend who was obsessed with Desert Combat mod for Battlefield 1942: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Combat

the ones for skyrim are quite good the total conversion of oblivion nehrim was fantastic and its sequel enderal is looking great.

there have been some popular mods here and there(garrys mod) but none will top counterstrike IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I modded Jedi Outcast to death back in the day, remember even getting LOTR skins and maps (running around Mines of Moria as Aragorn). Same with Allied Assault.

I remember the more popular mods would come with the demo discs that came with PC mags back in the days before widespread broadband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

consoles would sell every 3-4 years if the games were there at launch and were exclusive to the up and coming consoles. im not sure how much in terms of power or graphics it would be worth it since the cost would be very high to put top of the line stuff into a console nor can you upgrade but to me that wouldnt matter if say gta 6, fallout 4 or the elder scrolls VI were new console exclusive.

as for the upgrading for PC gamers yeah we do it quicker on the most part than the console cycles, but its not just for graphic power or performance(sometimes a game requires going overkill just to get it to run somewhat smooth *cough* assassins creed unity *cough*)

to me the cost of games and mods are the reason for doing it. mods that are created for pc games really add a whole new dimension to new games or even creates whole conversions that are quite good.

Yeah I mean... Skyrim has like 2 or 3 popular mods that are literally fan made expansion packs that add like 10+ hours of storied gameplay. Though modding culture has become increasingly less prevalent in the last 5-10 years, at least for the games I play. I would no longer consider it a factor in a new purchase unfortunately.

I modded Jedi Outcast to death back in the day, remember even getting LOTR skins and maps (running around Mines of Moria as Aragorn). Same with Allied Assault.

I remember the more popular mods would come with the demo discs that came with PC mags back in the days before widespread broadband.

I only played JO briefly, but I was an avid JA player, I even made a few (bad) skins myself! I loved the mods for that game, the skins/models, the fan made maps like Naboo and the ones with ships! That was a great great game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

So looks like I was way, way, way off on this.  The newly announced PS4 Pro and the expected Xbox Scorpio to be released next year seem to indicate that both Sony and Microsoft are changing their business models somewhat.  What I didn't consider was that upgraded consoles would work or sit side by side with current consoles.  

What does everyone think of the new consoles?  I'd consider a PS4 Pro (I still don't have a current gen system) but I'm likely going to hold off for two reasons.  First, the fact that the system can't play 4K Blu-rays seems like an obvious misstep.  While I don't currently own a 4K tv, I plan to do so in the near future and would appreciate a system that can play 4K blu-rays.  Second, with Scorpio coming out next year, I might hold off, since it seems that system will take a bigger step forward with respect to graphical prowess.  I'm also partial to the Xbox controller over the Sony's.  Every generation I usually end up buying two or three systems, but this time around I will likely be limiting myself to one system.  I really don't play video games much anymore but still want something to play games put out by Rockstar (RDR, GTA).  I'm tempted to buy a gaming PC and call it a day, but I prefer the convenience of a gaming console.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, downzy said:

So looks like I was way, way, way off on this.  The newly announced PS4 Pro and the expected Xbox Scorpio to be released next year seem to indicate that both Sony and Microsoft are changing their business models somewhat.  What I didn't consider was that upgraded consoles would work or sit side by side with current consoles.  

What does everyone think of the new consoles?  I'd consider a PS4 Pro (I still don't have a current gen system) but I'm likely going to hold off for two reasons.  First, the fact that the system can't play 4K Blu-rays seems like an obvious misstep.  While I don't currently own a 4K tv, I plan to do so in the near future and would appreciate a system that can play 4K blu-rays.  Second, with Scorpio coming out next year, I might hold off, since it seems that system will take a bigger step forward with respect to graphical prowess.  I'm also partial to the Xbox controller over the Sony's.  Every generation I usually end up buying two or three systems, but this time around I will likely be limiting myself to one system.  I really don't play video games much anymore but still want something to play games put out by Rockstar (RDR, GTA).  I'm tempted to buy a gaming PC and call it a day, but I prefer the convenience of a gaming console.  

Build a gaming pc and use the xbox controller.  Done... Yes I said build it, WAY CHEAPER

Edited by gunsguy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gunsguy said:

Build a gaming pc and use the xbox controller.  Done... Yes I said build it, WAY CHEAPER

yup, it is a little more expensive in the startup, but if you have a nice tv to set your pc up to, plug a xbox controller(ps4 with a little more work) up to it if that is your thing and you are good to go for a decade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bran said:

yup, it is a little more expensive in the startup, but if you have a nice tv to set your pc up to, plug a xbox controller(ps4 with a little more work) up to it if that is your thing and you are good to go for a decade. 

What would you say is the bare minimum?  Perhaps I'm getting wrong information, but I've read that $600-$800 gets you a system that will play most games out today on low to medium graphic settings, but that in two years time the machine will need upgrading to play new games on their minimum requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, downzy said:

What would you say is the bare minimum?  Perhaps I'm getting wrong information, but I've read that $600-$800 gets you a system that will play most games out today on low to medium graphic settings, but that in two years time the machine will need upgrading to play new games on their minimum requirements.

a 650-700 dollar(a little less if you get good deals) machine will get you a pc with better performance than a ps4. 

you can get an amd rx480 4gb graphics card(ps4 and xbox one have a 2gb) for $199 dollars. you can get a amd fx 8350 4.0 ghz cpu for 130-180 dollars. throw in a mother board and 8 gb of ram, also fans and you will be good to go.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/

that site is a great tool, it allows you to pick any part for your PC, and it will give you the price.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Wagszilla said:

I'd go the PC route but I'm just not going to wait 6 months to 1 year to play Rockstar's next games.

 

That's the thing, I do love me some Rockstar and I just can't wait that long to play their latest games.  

I came across this article today that says to build a similar-spec'd PC as the newly announced PS4 it would cost around $700 (US):

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/we-built-a-pc-using-ps4-pro-specs-how-does-it-perf/1100-6443491/

That's $300 more than a PS4 Pro and I'd have to put the thing together (my PC gaming-building days are nearly twenty years behind me).  

Think I'll just wait to see what the Scorpio has to offer.  Doesn't look like RDR or GTA VI is coming out prior to the next holiday season anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wagszilla said:

Yep. It's more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. 

I can play a decent chunk of games via Steam on my Mac, I'll likely always want Sony's 1st party games, and the delays are unbearable.

That said, the thought of playing The Witcher 3 or really intense shooters at high spec / 60fps turns me on. Just not enough to tolerate the cost and added inconvenience of another box.

My chips are RDR2 March 2018. I'll be shocked if we get GTA VI before PS5.

Maybe it's me getting old, but I have a hell of a time seeing a difference between PC and PS4/Xbox One when they do those graphical comparisons.  Perhaps it's not fair to evaluate them via youtube, but when they freeze the video to show a side-by-side comparison, there really isn't a big enough difference for me to justify the effort and expense of a PC rig if I'm also thinking I'll end up with a console.  I do get that PC's provide more than just detail; that they offer frame-rates and frame-rate consistency that consoles just can't match.  But again, if it's just to play one or two games a year, not sure it's worth the cost and expense.  Still not sold on a console, but considering they're now being offered on an iterative basis I think I'm more inclined to stay with my original idea and pick up a PS4 Pro or wait for Scorpio.

I could see RDR being released next holiday season.  It was rumoured to be showcased this past E3.  But yeah, I think your eta fits.  As for GTA, they usually work on a five year basis, which means 2018, maybe 2019.  Rockstar has released a GTA game for every generation since PS2.  I'd be very surprised if they skipped this one.  Hopefully by the time it comes out they've got VR figured out.  GTA VR would be a lot of fun, I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wagszilla said:

Yeah, I'm mostly interested in them for the increased frame rate and draw distance and decreased bugs.

As you said, not really worth it, and I'm not a competitive gamer and don't play multiplayer games an obscene amount of hours a day like I used to, so whatever. 

I could see Holiday 2017 too but it's Rockstar™ so that means at least one unexpected delay.

Rockstar North finished up development on PS4 GTA V in November 2014, PC in March 2015. So optimistically, they've not even had two years since finishing that. There was the rumored SP DLC for GTA V that could've been cancelled outright or put on the shelf. Also all the studios help on Rockstar's games, so I imagine they're helping on the next Red Dead. All this to say, right now is when the Housers would probably just starting to think about the next Grand Theft Auto.

Unless they've uniquely had a lightning strike of inspiration, that means they figure out the city they want to do and further ideate from there. That would put us 5 years out. It's possible it comes out at the tail end of this generation as a bridge to the next one but I'm not optimistic. You'll see it, I don't know if soon's the word...

Combine that with GTA Online making money hand over fist and Leslie Benzies throwing in the towel and you're not in a good situation to pump out games.

I've read that the higher ups start work on the next GTA within a couple of months of a new release.  GTA V for Xbox 360/PS3 was released in late 2013.  They could have been working on the broader strokes while Rockstar North worked on the PS4 versions (which, let's be honest, wouldn't have taken much work compared to the effort to make the PS3/360 version).  

As much money as GTA online makes, it still pales in comparison to what a new GTA game would do ($500 million versus $2.3 billion).  

Again, I could be wrong, but I'd be gobsmacked if we don't see another instalment of GTA in the next three to four years.  Perhaps it's not GTA VI.  Maybe a San Andreas or Vice City kind of a game, but there will be something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...