neXtBox Speculation!

[Matt]

Thats the thing though. FPS games are generally all most companies dare put any serious money into now. Well that and TPS with cover systems mimmicking Gears of War. Don't get me wrong, I love a good FPS, I just don't think the diversity is there like it was last gen.

I think we're just starting to see more frequent random titles now with 3D Dot Heroes etc. However the budgets this gen have made those sorts of games extremely risky up until now. Thats only reason I'd rather see the PS3 and 360 go on as the "high end" systems for another 2-3 years.

Also, I agree, Microsoft really turned their focus from the 360 this last yea and it's shown with anything of interest being either multiplatform or PS3 exclusive this year for me. Hopefully it was them concentrating a lot on Windows 7 etc and also top secret Natal developments etc and lots more will be unveiled soon, but as it stands, I feel I could probably drop the 360 from my consoles and not miss it.

I think the focus on FPS titles is directly because of MS, and the market they've created - let's be honest, most Live players want to either shoot **** and shout at each other, or drive fast and shout at each other.

I don't think W7 has any impact on MS losing focus on 360 titles - we're talking a massive company, with multiple divisions. No, what I think has happened, is MS is happy with it's market share now, it knows what the gamers want, and now it's happy to sit back, cut back on game development, and spend a bit of money on advertising third party titles. It's almost like they don't want to have to develop, they'd prefer to spend fifty million buying exclusive DLC (don't get me started on that!). Sony meantime are chucking presumably huge sums of money into engine development, and we're seeing the benefit. Could be interesting if Sony suddenly start selling huge numbers, and keeping sales high, because MS won't be able to ramp up development quickly - you'd get even more buyouts and multiplatform titles becoming single platform / timed releases / whatever other nonsense they can dream up.

[Charlie]

let's be honest, most Live players want to either shoot **** and shout at each other, or drive fast and shout at each other.

Yup, that, sadly, is an apt description of the majority of Live players.

[MikeRox]

I think the focus on FPS titles is directly because of MS, and the market they've created - let's be honest, most Live players want to either shoot **** and shout at each other, or drive fast and shout at each other.

It is indeed the market they've created. I don't see it as being much different to the market Nintendo created on the Wii, it's seemingly no more adventurous for the most point. I do wonder if Microsoft are hitting a bit of a ceiling now though. They've got their loyal userbase who are hooked on Live, but I guess they'll have to wait until Natal now to see if they can get anyone else to fully embrace the system too.

I think once Gran Turismo, God of War and Final Fantasy hit the PS3 mind, that they'll get a lot of people upgrading from their PS2s that have so far been reluctant to move onto the PS3, especially now its under ?200 at some places.

[Matt]

Yep, agree there.

Though MS will get an extra million sales this month as those banned re-buy

[Matt]

Actually, can I add another counter argument to the, "We don't need new hardware, let's optimise what we've got" crowd. One word. Wii.

It's a GameCube, so devs have had forever to learn it. Sure, it's not a "real gamers" market but some devs have pushed it well beyond what the GC could do - I understand the Metroid games on it are very impressive. For the hardware. Even a **** 360 title will rip it apart visually.

Going up to the XBox3 / PS4, we'd have the same situation with the current gen. Sure you can work and work and work to get every ounce of power out of them, but what's the point?

Roll on next gen and great visuals

[Brats]

The point is though that the Wii has been responsible for some of the best games this generation, so the argument for more power becomes more of a 'nice to have' than an essential thing. It's not like we're in a situation where the ideas have run dry and we need the extra power to move on.

I stand by my point that when we go to a new generation, the average quality of games drops for a couple of years. If you take the 360 launch as being the start of this gen, we're now four years into it. Leaving aside the Wii (because as you say the hardware is not vastly more powerful than the GC) how many of the best games of this gen on the 360 and PS3 were from the first two years of this gen?

I'd argue only Oblivion really stands up against the best from the last two years, and that was a PC led game. The great games really started at Christmas 2007, over two years after the 360 launch. So the argument still stands, are we okay with taking a dip in quality for a couple of years for better visuals and better physics? The benefits to me don't seem worth it. Why not hold off for a few more years and enjoy some really high quality titles and then upgrade when the difference will be even more dramatic.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Matt]

I don't think games quality takes a dip at all. Looking at the 360 launch titles, Cod2 was a fantastic console FPS title. Amped, PGR3, Ridge Racer, all jumps over their previous gen versions, not just graphically, but in playability as well.

What is more likely, is some titles towards the end of the hardwares lifetime try and do things differently to make a market for themselves.

What titles from the first 2 years are still standouts? Surely a better argument would be what titles from the last 2 years of the PS2, before the move to the next gen, compare to those of the 360's first 2 years? Sure, they'll be a few good titles. But NONE of those titles couldn't have been done on the 360 and look much better for it

Look at FPS titles. How far can they really evolve, beyond better stories and more compelling missions? There are all kinds of directions. But the thing, imo, that will really open things up in the future are proper destructive environments. Not in the rigid way some games have now, you could have a voxel solution that would revolutionise shooters. A Cod title with a more realistic playing field. Very exciting. To do that, you need more power.

Again, if power didn't matter, we'd have stunning Wii games that kicked the arse out of 360/ps3 titles and, from what some believe, would actually look better. Not the case

[Brats]

I don't think games quality takes a dip at all. Looking at the 360 launch titles, Cod2 was a fantastic console FPS title. Amped, PGR3, Ridge Racer, all jumps over their previous gen versions, not just graphically, but in playability as well.

I'm not saying the good games aren't there and those titles you mention are clearly good games, but I don't think any of them can hold a candle to what came later on. Honestly would you rather be playing those or Uncharted 2, L4D, Rock Band, Demon Souls, Fallout 3, LBP, etc.

Plus in the early years you get abominations like PDZ and Bomberman Zero. Sure there are bad games now like Matt Hazard, but the bad games today are better than the bad games at the beginning. Look at the beginning of the PS2 and XBox1 and witness crimes like The Bouncer and Brute Force. Yuck!

I appreciate this all subjective, but it's my belief and I suspect many others. And if it was yours, I suspect you'd be less inclined to want a new generations too. It's not that we don't like the idea of more power, it's balancing that against what we have to suffer to get it.

When people talk about 'best year for games ever', it's rarely (if ever) the start of a generation. It's usually 1998, 2004 or 2008. So clearly I'm not alone in my thinking here.

What titles from the first 2 years are still standouts? Surely a better argument would be what titles from the last 2 years of the PS2, before the move to the next gen, compare to those of the 360's first 2 years? Sure, they'll be a few good titles. But NONE of those titles couldn't have been done on the 360 and look much better for it

I believe that the last two years of the PS2 and XBox were excellent and given the choice I'd rather be playing games like Psychonauts, God of War and Stranger's Wrath than the games you mentioned above. We're not talking about visuals or whether the games would be possible, we're talking about quality.

Look at FPS titles. How far can they really evolve, beyond better stories and more compelling missions? There are all kinds of directions. But the thing, imo, that will really open things up in the future are proper destructive environments. Not in the rigid way some games have now, you could have a voxel solution that would revolutionise shooters. A Cod title with a more realistic playing field. Very exciting. To do that, you need more power.

Maybe. Such a title sounds great, but not wanting to sound like an old grump, I do firmly believe it'd be two plus years into a new generation before we saw such a title. I'm trying to think of any early generation title that used the extra grunt to deliver substantially new gameplay, rather than pushing the visuals. TBH I'm struggling.

OTOH Borderlands has finally got the RPG/Shooter hybrid right and is an exciting development that doesn't need to push the hardware, So I believe there are still lots of room for innovation outside of more power.

Again, if power didn't matter, we'd have stunning Wii games that kicked the arse out of 360/ps3 titles and, from what some believe, would actually look better. Not the case

Just to be clear, I never said power didn't matter. But with consoles it's a trade off. Do we got for more power now and suffer a slight dip in quality and additional cost, or do we improve what we have and let gameplay become the primary focus?

I'm not convinced at all that a new generation brings immediate benefits besides visual improvements. TBH it's a massive period of upheaval. Markets are split, developers have to learn new tools and skills and publishers lose money. It's no surprise that quality takes a slight dip. Plus we have to contend with issues over backwards compatibility and now DLC. Will my DLC work on new machines? Who knows?

I agree that at some point it will be worth upgrading. However I'm of the opinion that on balance, nows not the time.

To me, the generations are like manual gears on a car. As you change gear, the car loses a slight bit of power, but over time it builds up even more speed. You can't stay in first gear forever, but to get the best from a car it's all about timing the gear changes. To me it feels that we're only at about 2,000 revs in this gear, and I'd like to see us push our foot down on the gas a bit more before we shift .

[dvdmike]

The new xboxes will all have a new feature that allows them to last 8 months beating the 360 by a whole 2 months of use

[Matt]

Basically, I associate improved graphics with improved immersion, which to me helps a game no end.

BTW, voxel level destruction may not even come next gen - in fact I think it's unlikely to really be there beyond a novelty. That will depend on GPUs becoming more general, LRB taking off, CUDA, etc. I'm hoping the next gen will have hugely programmable GPGPUs but I'm unconvinced.

I'm still not sure how much further this gen will push anyway. There seems little need to write a kick arse 360 engine, the market doesn't require it.

Also worth considering, the "best year in gaming" comes about, as has been pointed out, once a generation has been around a bit. But once it peaks, that's it. Move forwards. We won't get too much out of this gen now beyond iterations and incremental updates. We've seen what's graphically capable (KZ2, UC2) and while the sequels will of course look better, they won't be gob smackingly better.

The gameplay improvements and design improvements people laud are usually possible due to increased processing power. Better car handling in the latest Forza, improved AI, they're only possible because the computational power this gen is much higher than last. More power allows devs to do more things.

A lot of the first gen 360 titles were revamped XB1 titles; in some cases, literally dumped across. If those titles had appeared on XB1 instead, they'd be used now as examples of how the best titles came at the end of it's lifetime. Given they'll be a lot of similarities between the 360 and whatever comes next, there is no reason at all a dev couldn't be working on a kick arse, revolutionary title right now, and port it across - instantly making it 1080p, 60fps, 4xAA, etc. I firmly believe the nextBox will have the same instruction set, just faster, more optimised cores and more of them.

[MikeRox]

The new xboxes will all have a new feature that allows them to last 8 months beating the 360 by a whole 2 months of use

I thought they'd be gunning for that magic 13 months? Like Sony managed to do and set all their stuff up to last in the 90s (google Sony Timer )

[Sam The Man]

To me, the generations are like manual gears on a car. As you change gear, the car loses a slight bit of power, but over time it builds up even more speed. You can't stay in first gear forever, but to get the best from a car it's all about timing the gear changes. To me it feels that we're only at about 2,000 revs in this gear, and I'd like to see us push our foot down on the gas a bit more before we shift .

Thats such a good analogy and very true.