PS3----A console before it's time......

I always say ps3 was unnecessary too powerful and came unsuccessfully before its time. At first years, developers were saying that it's too complex and they cant program it properly and due to this fact the same games-third party ones- strangely would appear better on x360, so instead of making better games on PS3 by taking advantage of it is "CELL" processor, developers had to struggle to make the games as good as they appear on the less powerful x360. I think it's only now that third party developers can understand it and take full advantage of it's power and the mass blue ray storage. But now it's the time for the next generation consoles and Microsoft - believed to make the fist move- will certainly make a more powerful console than PS3. As result Sony has to reply, with more powerful console, again, than PS3. So most of PS3 potential will never be used. However the BlueRay driver is somehow in time, although I still prefer spending less money on DVDs or going to cinema rather than buying an expensive-13-quids blueray movie. Also, some of other futures like 3D blueray adaption were agian lavish as 3D TV takes some time to prevail and when it does it'll be the time for the the next-gen consoles.

Oh by the way, PS3 is the only console I have…….

i think people tend to overstate how much more powerful the PS3 is... the lack of ram is crippling it is like a bodybuilder with a torn ACL confined to a wheelchair,.

I don't know if I'd say it was ahead of its time, but I think Sony smartly planned for the long haul and built a system advanced enough to continue to grow and evolve over a lengthy lifespan rather than going outdated and obsolete in just a few short years. And it's my hope that Sony - and game developers - will continue to support the PS3 even after the next generation system is released, just as they have with the PS2 (though, hopefully not because the new system lacks backwards compatibility support). Because I believe the PS3 (and the XBox 360, to be honest) still has a lot of untapped potential and at least another 5 years left in it. I'm in no rush for the next new thing. Yeah, they can introduce faster processors and more powerful graphics cards, but given some of the visuals we've been treated to on this generation of consoles, I can't imagine the next ones will be as mind-blowing an improvement as the PS3/360 was over the PS2/XBox. How much better can it really get? And how much of that is dependent on hardware rather than software? I think it's really a matter of developers working harder to push the current hardware while tightening up on their programming.

Sadly, I don't have any faith in Microsoft to take the same approach. I think once their new system is launched, the 360 will be dead to them and they'll kill production of the hardware and drop all software support. After their treatment of the original XBox...I've come to think of Microsoft as OCP from Robocop, if the company were run by Dick Jones. I think of the way the original XBox was callously killed off and dropped cold, and then all the massive failures of the initial run of 360s, and I can't help but hear Ronny Cox's limp defense of the ED 209, saying he was guaranteed contracts and sales, and "Who cares if it worked or not?" I have that ingrained as Microsoft's attitude, and I expect a repeat performance whenever they release their next XBox. I don't doubt it'll be a worthy system, or that they won't eventually work out all the kinks, but I expect that same sloppy, half-assed effort that suggests they don't care about their products and neither like nor respect their consumers. But here's hoping they prove me wrong, because I do love the 360, almost as much as my PS3.

The Playstation 3 cost something like $875.00 for the componets to manufacture back when it launched in November 2006. Sold the console for $600.00 at launch. Sony proceeded to trim features in order to bring the price down. So in we have just begun the year 2012 and Sony is still in third place regarding comsumer adoption. Even though the Price is now a more affordable $250.00 now.

Sony has increased the HDD size from the original 20GB & 60GB from the 2006 launch Versions to the 160GB & 320GB version available now in 2012. Sony could have also increased the amount of Ram in the PS3, Whichhelp developers take full advantage of the Cell processor, make game development easier on the PS3.

Sony seemed more focused on winning the Disc format war via PS3more than anything.The PS3 still has 5 years left to go in the promised lifespan. So we willsee what Sony can do in the nextfew years with PS3(or at least until 2014)

i think people tend to overstate how much more powerful the PS3 is... the lack of ram is crippling it is like a bodybuilder with a torn ACL confined to a wheelchair,.

juliankennedy23

I believe the PS3 (and the XBox 360, to be honest) still has a lot of untapped potential and at least another 5 years left in it.

thedarklinglord

I think PS3 may does, But not the MS console, my reason being I've been hearing about developers pushing bounderies on X360 and trying very hard on it to make the games look like what they are now on it, these allegations will always unofficially be confirmed by MS themself by assuring audiences that the new Xbox(720) is inevitable to be seen soon. Even if it wasn't for the above reason, I think microsoft will still launch it's console soon because now gamers, who have bought a console three or fouror even five yearsago , are ready to spend their money on a new console especially if microsoft played it right by promising better kinect adaption and more powerful yet easy to develop on console, and Of course with some strong titles (a new Halo would be cool). Because Such a movement not only give MS the advantages of being the first to enter the next generation period whatever they are, but also could push sony to an embarrassing possition as they will have to decide between accepting being one generation behind microsoft and abandoning their console, which there is a lot of potential in it, still.

I can't imagine the next ones will be as mind-blowing an improvement as the PS3/360 was over the PS2/XBox. How much better can it really get? And how much of that is dependent on hardware rather than software? I think it's really a matter of developers working harder to push the current hardware while tightening up on their programming.

thedarklinglord

This is an interesting point. I can well remember thinking in the same way(how could graphics be better than this ?) when I was first saw PS1 graphics, as they were well above those of SEGA, and again I said the samething during switching from PS1 to DreamCast and PS2 and Xbox, and we are saying the samething now. From this experience I think we will se far much better graphics next-gen.

I don't think that a system being more powerful means it's more difficult to program for, it's more the architecture of the system.Archangel3371

This.

The Cell Processor has a very different structure than your average CPU. The way it is set up require a very different way of programming so it takes full advantage of it. If you do take advantage of it, it will be beneficial. But if you do not, it will of course hinder it and have worse performance. It was a stupid idea on Sony's part.

It isn't before it's time, if it was back in 2005-06, now it's perfectly timed, already dated I would say.

I always say ps3 was unnecessary too powerful and came unsuccessfully before its time. At first years, developers were saying that it's too complex and they cant program it properly and due to this fact the same games-third party ones- strangely would appear better on x360, so instead of making better games on PS3 by taking advantage of it is "CELL" processor, developers had to struggle to make the games as good as they appear on the less powerful x360. I think it's only now that third party developers can understand it and take full advantage of it's power and the mass blue ray storage. But now it's the time for the next generation consoles and Microsoft - believed to make the fist move- will certainly make a more powerful console than PS3. As result Sony has to reply, with more powerful console, again, than PS3. So most of PS3 potential will never be used. However the BlueRay driver is somehow in time, although I still prefer spending less money on DVDs or going to cinema rather than buying an expensive-13-quids blueray movie. Also, some of other futures like 3D blueray adaption were agian lavish as 3D TV takes some time to prevail and when it does it'll be the time for the the next-gen consoles.

Oh by the way, PS3 is the only console I have…….

TangoGamer

Maybe there's this massive well of untapped power, but I strongly doubt it. Sony's done a pretty good job of squeezing power out of the PS3 (nods towards Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, Infamous 2 and Littlebigplanet 2). Having a large stable of technically proficient first and second party developers who build their own engines but share tips with each other (some of the graphics techniques of God of War 3 showed up in Littlebigplanet 2) helps a lot. Third party games have been mostly fine in recently years, with two prominent exceptions to the rule being Bayonetta and Skyrim.

Hell, I remember when Gabe Newell was openly denouncing the PS3, but after a while (either due to growing PS3 sales or Sony's efforts to improve its development library) with equal fanfare he became a supporter of the system.

the PS3 is not as powerful as you think, and I'm pretty sure Sony announced at E3 that the PS4 wasn't gonna be as big of a jump in "power" as the PS2 to the PS3 was so it will basically be the PS3.5

Sony shipped their supposedly powerful console with a s***ty graphics chip and a split memory interface that made things needlessly complicated for developers.

If they make the same mistake again, they will have no one but themselves to blame.

Sony shipped their supposedly powerful console with a s***ty graphics chip and a split memory interface that made things needlessly complicated for developers.

If they make the same mistake again, they will have no one but themselves to blame.

S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="TangoGamer"]

I always say ps3 was unnecessary too powerful and came unsuccessfully before its time. At first years, developers were saying that it's too complex and they cant program it properly and due to this fact the same games-third party ones- strangely would appear better on x360, so instead of making better games on PS3 by taking advantage of it is "CELL" processor, developers had to struggle to make the games as good as they appear on the less powerful x360. I think it's only now that third party developers can understand it and take full advantage of it's power and the mass blue ray storage. But now it's the time for the next generation consoles and Microsoft - believed to make the fist move- will certainly make a more powerful console than PS3. As result Sony has to reply, with more powerful console, again, than PS3. So most of PS3 potential will never be used. However the BlueRay driver is somehow in time, although I still prefer spending less money on DVDs or going to cinema rather than buying an expensive-13-quids blueray movie. Also, some of other futures like 3D blueray adaption were agian lavish as 3D TV takes some time to prevail and when it does it'll be the time for the the next-gen consoles.

Oh by the way, PS3 is the only console I have…….

CarnageHeart

Maybe there's this massive well of untapped power, but I strongly doubt it. Sony's done a pretty good job of squeezing power out of the PS3 (nods towards Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, Infamous 2 and Littlebigplanet 2). Having a large stable of technically proficient first and second party developers who build their own engines but share tips with each other (some of the graphics techniques of God of War 3 showed up in Littlebigplanet 2) helps a lot. Third party games have been mostly fine in recently years, with two prominent exceptions to the rule being Bayonetta and Skyrim.

Hell, I remember when Gabe Newell was openly denouncing the PS3, but after a while (either due to growing PS3 sales or Sony's efforts to improve its development library) with equal fanfare he became a supporter of the system.

God of War 4, Jbul. God of War 4.

Picture didn't load!

I will gladly re-buy a PS3 if God Of War 4 comes out, and doesn't have multiplayer (which it's heavily rumored to--gargantuan mistake). That's about the only thing that could draw me back to the machine at this point.

without bringing this to a system wars type of topic...ps3 was terribly mishandled...

I dont think it was before it's time, it was just the only console that packed enough features to make it worth still owning. It's the only console that can play blu rays which means even if i'm not gaming on it, still makes for a great media center. I still say the Xbox 360 should have used a HD-DVD drive but I can understand that they wanted to cut costs. Again though, ahead of it's time? Yeah dont think so.

God of War 4, Jbul. God of War 4.S0lidSnake

I always say ps3 was unnecessary too powerful and came unsuccessfully before its time. At first years, developers were saying that it's too complex and they cant program it properly and due to this fact the same games-third party ones- strangely would appear better on x360, so instead of making better games on PS3 by taking advantage of it is "CELL" processor, developers had to struggle to make the games as good as they appear on the less powerful x360. I think it's only now that third party developers can understand it and take full advantage of it's power and the mass blue ray storage. But now it's the time for the next generation consoles and Microsoft - believed to make the fist move- will certainly make a more powerful console than PS3. As result Sony has to reply, with more powerful console, again, than PS3. So most of PS3 potential will never be used. However the BlueRay driver is somehow in time, although I still prefer spending less money on DVDs or going to cinema rather than buying an expensive-13-quids blueray movie. Also, some of other futures like 3D blueray adaption were agian lavish as 3D TV takes some time to prevail and when it does it'll be the time for the the next-gen consoles.

Oh by the way, PS3 is the only console I have…….

TangoGamer

:lol:

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="TangoGamer"]

I always say ps3 was unnecessary too powerful and came unsuccessfully before its time. At first years, developers were saying that it's too complex and they cant program it properly and due to this fact the same games-third party ones- strangely would appear better on x360, so instead of making better games on PS3 by taking advantage of it is "CELL" processor, developers had to struggle to make the games as good as they appear on the less powerful x360. I think it's only now that third party developers can understand it and take full advantage of it's power and the mass blue ray storage. But now it's the time for the next generation consoles and Microsoft - believed to make the fist move- will certainly make a more powerful console than PS3. As result Sony has to reply, with more powerful console, again, than PS3. So most of PS3 potential will never be used. However the BlueRay driver is somehow in time, although I still prefer spending less money on DVDs or going to cinema rather than buying an expensive-13-quids blueray movie. Also, some of other futures like 3D blueray adaption were agian lavish as 3D TV takes some time to prevail and when it does it'll be the time for the the next-gen consoles.

Oh by the way, PS3 is the only console I have…….

Jbul

Maybe there's this massive well of untapped power, but I strongly doubt it. Sony's done a pretty good job of squeezing power out of the PS3 (nods towards Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, Infamous 2 and Littlebigplanet 2). Having a large stable of technically proficient first and second party developers who build their own engines but share tips with each other (some of the graphics techniques of God of War 3 showed up in Littlebigplanet 2) helps a lot. Third party games have been mostly fine in recently years, with two prominent exceptions to the rule being Bayonetta and Skyrim.

Hell, I remember when Gabe Newell was openly denouncing the PS3, but after a while (either due to growing PS3 sales or Sony's efforts to improve its development library) with equal fanfare he became a supporter of the system.

I can't believe people are still buying into this hidden power nonsense. This is not an anime where you can unlock hidden or subdued power. This belief is all marketing BS. The PS3 is more in some cases and less in others capable than the Xbox 360. As it stands, both are old and have been fully realised.

I can't believe people are still buying into this hidden power nonsense. This is not an anime where you can unlock hidden or subdued power. This belief is all marketing BS. The PS3 is more in some cases and less in others capable than the Xbox 360. As it stands, both are old and have been fully realised.

Pedro

[QUOTE="Jbul"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Maybe there's this massive well of untapped power, but I strongly doubt it. Sony's done a pretty good job of squeezing power out of the PS3 (nods towards Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, Infamous 2 and Littlebigplanet 2). Having a large stable of technically proficient first and second party developers who build their own engines but share tips with each other (some of the graphics techniques of God of War 3 showed up in Littlebigplanet 2) helps a lot. Third party games have been mostly fine in recently years, with two prominent exceptions to the rule being Bayonetta and Skyrim.

Hell, I remember when Gabe Newell was openly denouncing the PS3, but after a while (either due to growing PS3 sales or Sony's efforts to improve its development library) with equal fanfare he became a supporter of the system.

CarnageHeart

My impressions of those games comes from the stallion known as S0lidsnake. He's got a keen eye for technical issues, and I'll take his word for it, since he works in programming, and he is a huge fan of MAG.

I haven't seen The Last of Us, but I'll take your word for it. I find it funny when people say graphics and game performance can't get "signifigantly better" or that we've "hit a wall in terms of graphics in videogames". Seriously, c'mon guys, back in the SNES days people said that. My bank account doesn't desire a new generation of systems, but my curiosity about where videogames are going sure as hell does.

I felt the same way about the GC, actually now I think about it the PS3 may well be the GC of this gen.

With Crysis 2, based on the reviews (I didn't follow the player impressions) I got the impression that the X360/PC versions also suffered a lot of tech issues (including but not limited to framerates). I don't pay any attention to the AC series, but I'll take your word on it. Generally speaking, the PS3 ports of games don't perform quite as well as their X360/PC counterparts, so if the X360/PC versions suffer from sloppiness, the PS3 versions will be sloppier. As to whether or not Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 will be overshadowed, at least one of their studios is working on another big budger PS3 title (nods towards The Last of Us). And Sony has quite a few other technically proficient development teams which might be working on PS3 games (not the least of which is Sony Santa Monica, makers of GoW3). Don't get me wrong, I don't buy into the hidden power argument, but based on past experience I belive that provided developers are willing to put in the time, there is always more that can be squeezed from a system.CarnageHeart

I played Crysis 2 on the 360 and the framerate went as low as 12 fps during shootouts and considering it's a shooter, there were lots of shootouts. Of course, you could play the game stealthily which means you got a 30fps in most cases. The PS3 version almost always stayed below 30fps, but never below 20 fps. So in this particular case, the PS3 wasn't as bad as the 360 version. Check out the digital foundry analysis of Crysis 2's fps. It's ridiculous how reviewers didn't see or mention it.

the performance in AC games has always been better on the 360. Again accoridng to Digital Foundry. Ac1 was simply a shoddy port on the PS3, but the last three games have been very close to their 360 counterparts. Still, there is more tearing and framerate issues on the PS3 AC games than there are on the 360.

The only multiplatform games that seem to perform better on the PS3 are Criterion games and games that run on the Frostbite engine. All Unreal Engine 3 games perform worse on the PS3.

That said, after playing exclusives on both consoles, the PS3 exclusives easily outshine 360 exlsuives. Gears 3 is easily the best looking game on the 360, and it doesnt even come close to KZ3/U3/God of War 3. I was playing KZ3 MP the other day and even the mp looks better than anything i've played on PC so far, let alone 360. So i agree with you that anyone who spends time and builds their engine around PS3's strengths will get the most of the 'complicated' PS3 architecture. People tend to forget that it does have 8 processors running at 3.2 Ghz at the developer's disposal.

No, that was Dreamcast.

I think a better thread title would have been, "PS3 -- Wrong place, wrong time."

I say this not out of spite for the machine, but because that is honestly what I believe. This machine was made -- engineered -- under the mindset that Sony was still existing within a bubble and not swimming amongst megalodons like Microsoft. Still, Sony did a superb job of making a rottweiler sound like a werewolf. I believe this to be a fair assessment, because on any other day, a rottweiler is consdered one bad-ass f****ing canine, EXCEPT for the day when its breeder tries to sell it as a werewolf. Still, the Marketing Gods won, and back at the time before launch, many people (some here in this thread, in fact) believed it was going to be the Second Coming of a digitalcellbluray120fps1080pJesus.

Obviously that was not the case. Although, to a degree, that fanciful bit of fiction still persists even to this day and you still see otherwise logical, fair-minded folks who believe there is some untapped, unfound turbocharger beneath the hood that some developer will find someday with a big "Aaaaaa HAH! I KNEW IT," and games will magically get like 10 times more rad and the like.

The rest of us know that day will not be coming, just like we knew there was no spaceship behind the comet, but what's a little Kool-Aid amongst friends?

If the PS3 had come to the same market soup that the PS2 swam in, that silicon heir apparent would have existed most likely. But those days are long gone, and in its place is a good system (with some serious shortcomings) that is just trying to keep up with the a market that has been on life support for 18 months already. That is the sad fate for the machine (and the 360, to a degree) -- in that it is left to shamble around like a zombie months after it should have s*** the bed, with no sign of a mercy kill in sight. At this point in the same span of time, the PS2 had already been allowed to cycle somewhat more conventionally and healthfully, as the 6 year cycle benefitted not only the market, but the aging console itself... allowing it to die gracefully, like an old rock star. There will be no such graceful exit for this console, or that of its closest competitor. They'll be stuck in the ground only once appendages start dropping off and fluid begins to leak out.

There's just so much, so wrong with the PS3. First off, Sony doesn't seem to understand that hardware is supposed to IMPROVE as a generation wears on. You don't start subtracting features. Requiring a PSN+ account for backround updating, seriously? Why can the inferior X360 update in less than five minutes while the mighty cell powered beast can take upwards of an hour to update? What a joke.

Sony made a huge mistake in forcing Blu-Ray onto the console. They had no choice of course given their investment in the format, but it drove up the price of the console to absurd heights which made the PS3 nearly stillborn right out of the gate. At this point, it's safe to say that blu-ray is irrelevant to gaming, at least in this console gen. Other than MGS4 and maybe Uncharted, blu-ray has been a total nonfactor in the format's contribution to gaming.

Microsoft learned well from the PS2. You can have the worst hardware, and still come out on top.

The PS3 has let me play great games that look better than they would've on the PS2. That, by the way, implies in no possible way that the PS3 necessarily has BETTER games than its predecessor. They're both fine consoles for the respective time period.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] With Crysis 2, based on the reviews (I didn't follow the player impressions) I got the impression that the X360/PC versions also suffered a lot of tech issues (including but not limited to framerates). I don't pay any attention to the AC series, but I'll take your word on it. Generally speaking, the PS3 ports of games don't perform quite as well as their X360/PC counterparts, so if the X360/PC versions suffer from sloppiness, the PS3 versions will be sloppier. As to whether or not Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 will be overshadowed, at least one of their studios is working on another big budger PS3 title (nods towards The Last of Us). And Sony has quite a few other technically proficient development teams which might be working on PS3 games (not the least of which is Sony Santa Monica, makers of GoW3). Don't get me wrong, I don't buy into the hidden power argument, but based on past experience I belive that provided developers are willing to put in the time, there is always more that can be squeezed from a system.S0lidSnake

I played Crysis 2 on the 360 and the framerate went as low as 12 fps during shootouts and considering it's a shooter, there were lots of shootouts. Of course, you could play the game stealthily which means you got a 30fps in most cases. The PS3 version almost always stayed below 30fps, but never below 20 fps. So in this particular case, the PS3 wasn't as bad as the 360 version. Check out the digital foundry analysis of Crysis 2's fps. It's ridiculous how reviewers didn't see or mention it.

the performance in AC games has always been better on the 360. Again accoridng to Digital Foundry. Ac1 was simply a shoddy port on the PS3, but the last three games have been very close to their 360 counterparts. Still, there is more tearing and framerate issues on the PS3 AC games than there are on the 360.

The only multiplatform games that seem to perform better on the PS3 are Criterion games and games that run on the Frostbite engine. All Unreal Engine 3 games perform worse on the PS3.

That said, after playing exclusives on both consoles, the PS3 exclusives easily outshine 360 exlsuives. Gears 3 is easily the best looking game on the 360, and it doesnt even come close to KZ3/U3/God of War 3. I was playing KZ3 MP the other day and even the mp looks better than anything i've played on PC so far, let alone 360. So i agree with you that anyone who spends time and builds their engine around PS3's strengths will get the most of the 'complicated' PS3 architecture. People tend to forget that it does have 8 processors running at 3.2 Ghz at the developer's disposal.

I'm not a programmer, but as I alluded to before, I think much of the gap is due to the fact that MS has cut its first and second party development to the bone and most third parties live within the confines of licensed engines (thus they never come anywhere near the metal).

I think a better thread title would have been, "PS3 -- Wrong place, wrong time."

I say this not out of spite for the machine, but because that is honestly what I believe. This machine was made -- engineered -- under the mindset that Sony was still existing within a bubble and not swimming amongst megalodons like Microsoft. Still, Sony did a superb job of making a rottweiler sound like a werewolf. I believe this to be a fair assessment, because on any other day, a rottweiler is consdered one bad-ass f****ing canine, EXCEPT for the day when its breeder tries to sell it as a werewolf. Still, the Marketing Gods won, and back at the time before launch, many people (some here in this thread, in fact) believed it was going to be the Second Coming of a digitalcellbluray120fps1080pJesus.

Obviously that was not the case. Although, to a degree, that fanciful bit of fiction still persists even to this day and you still see otherwise logical, fair-minded folks who believe there is some untapped, unfound turbocharger beneath the hood that some developer will find someday with a big "Aaaaaa HAH! I KNEW IT," and games will magically get like 10 times more rad and the like.

The rest of us know that day will not be coming, just like we knew there was no spaceship behind the comet, but what's a little Kool-Aid amongst friends?

If the PS3 had come to the same market soup that the PS2 swam in, that silicon heir apparent would have existed most likely. But those days are long gone, and in its place is a good system (with some serious shortcomings) that is just trying to keep up with the a market that has been on life support for 18 months already. That is the sad fate for the machine (and the 360, to a degree) -- in that it is left to shamble around like a zombie months after it should have s*** the bed, with no sign of a mercy kill in sight. At this point in the same span of time, the PS2 had already been allowed to cycle somewhat more conventionally and healthfully, as the 6 year cycle benefitted not only the market, but the aging console itself... allowing it to die gracefully, like an old rock star. There will be no such graceful exit for this console, or that of its closest competitor. They'll be stuck in the ground only once appendages start dropping off and fluid begins to leak out.

Shame-usBlackley

Why do you feel an urgent demand for new hardware? In past generation either gorgeous arcade games or more recently gorgeous PC games created demand for new hardware capable of running said games. Such games have not appeared just yet (ona related note, many guys who used to focus on high end PC games now make multiplat games). Which isn't to say there aren't some wonderful looking PC games out there, but there's not anything which makes console games feel that game design is being held back by current gen console's lack of power.

Heck, this generation most developers haven't done a great job of pushing current gen hardware (because they live within the confines of licensed engines like UE 3.0).

Also, there is the fact that a big chunk of modern gamers are casuals who care more for the interface than the hardware (Kinect has sold quite well).

Why do you feel an urgent demand for new hardware? In past generation either gorgeous arcade games or more recently gorgeous PC games created demand for new hardware capable of running said games. Such games have not appeared just yet (ona related note, many guys who used to focus on high end PC games now make multiplat games). Which isn't to say there aren't some wonderful looking PC games out there, but there's not anything which makes console games feel that game design is being held back by current gen console's lack of power.

Heck, this generation most developers haven't done a great job of pushing current gen hardware (because they live within the confines of licensed engines like UE 3.0).

Also, there is the fact that a big chunk of modern gamers are casuals who care more for the interface than the hardware (Kinect has sold quite well).

CarnageHeart

I feel the demand for several reasons.

First, I know that it takes 18 months before new hardware actually begins completelt outperforming existing hardware beyond superficial flourishes. This means if we see a NextBox or PS4 launch in late 2013, it will be mid-late 2015 before the next cycle really begins to show its muscle. That's far too long, and in fact, it's been too long already.

Second, the games are beginning to show limitations. Games like Skyrim, Rage, and Gran Turismo spring to mind. All have fit and finish issues directly related to aging hardware limitations, and that's just to name a few. Also, how many games had eye-popping graphics this last year similarly to how God of War 2 did on the aging PS2 when the PS3 was already out? None. Gears of War 3 looked like Gears 2. Resistance 3 largely looked like R2. Uncharted 3 didn't look a whole lot better than U2 outside of cutscene enhancement. Killzone 3 looked like K2. COD whatthef***evernumberitisnow looked a lot like the one before it. The apex has been reached and now comes the decline. Everything is becoming very same-ish and expected -- there's no POP anymore. That's when new hardware is needed.

Third, I don't care about the casuals, and neither should Microsoft. They have done nothing to prove they are worth caring about from a software standpoint on home consoles, so unless Microsoft intends to make money off the Kinect hardware, the casuals can go f*** themselves while the people who actually buy games in high, consistent numbers are catered to. When Kinect Sports 7 or whatever outsells the next Halo or COD, then I'll start caring about the casual market. Until then, this is a market that is driven and dictated by those who play conventional games, and Microsoft needs to pull its head out of its ass and start acting like it. The portion of the casual market (those that actually play games) is into actually playing iOS games they can buy for $2.99 and play anywhere on their phones and tablets.. not some $50 or $60 game that can only be played at home in very limited confines and often requires friends to enjoy fully.. let the casual market stay with the 360, while the rest of us move on to next generation hardware. Let the 360 become the casual dumping ground for shoddy shovelware that the Wii was, while those of us with discerning tastes move on to less polluted pastures.

I wouldn't say the hardware itself is overly powerful.

It's good enough for what it's supposed to do, its main purpose it to show off Playstation exclusives with a side order of PS3-lead platform multiplats, Blu-Ray movies, and to be a media box.

What I like about Playstation is how the "brand" fits together in a fun way.

I feel the demand for several reasons.

First, I know that it takes 18 months before new hardware actually begins completelt outperforming existing hardware beyond superficial flourishes. This means if we see a NextBox or PS4 launch in late 2013, it will be mid-late 2015 before the next cycle really begins to show its muscle. That's far too long, and in fact, it's been too long already.

Second, the games are beginning to show limitations. Games like Skyrim, Rage, and Gran Turismo spring to mind. All have fit and finish issues directly related to aging hardware limitations, and that's just to name a few. Also, how many games had eye-popping graphics this last year similarly to how God of War 2 did on the aging PS2 when the PS3 was already out? None. Gears of War 3 looked like Gears 2. Resistance 3 largely looked like R2. Uncharted 3 didn't look a whole lot better than U2 outside of cutscene enhancement. Killzone 3 looked like K2. COD whatthef***evernumberitisnow looked a lot like the one before it. The apex has been reached and now comes the decline. Everything is becoming very same-ish and expected -- there's no POP anymore. That's when new hardware is needed.

Third, I don't care about the casuals, and neither should Microsoft. They have done nothing to prove they are worth caring about from a software standpoint on home consoles, so unless Microsoft intends to make money off the Kinect hardware, the casuals can go f*** themselves while the people who actually buy games in high, consistent numbers are catered to. When Kinect Sports 7 or whatever outsells the next Halo or COD, then I'll start caring about the casual market. Until then, this is a market that is driven and dictated by those who play conventional games, and Microsoft needs to pull its head out of its ass and start acting like it. The portion of the casual market (those that actually play games) is into actually playing iOS games they can buy for $2.99 and play anywhere on their phones and tablets.. not some $50 or $60 game that can only be played at home in very limited confines and often requires friends to enjoy fully.. let the casual market stay with the 360, while the rest of us move on to next generation hardware. Let the 360 become the casual dumping ground for shoddy shovelware that the Wii was, while those of us with discerning tastes move on to less polluted pastures.

Shame-usBlackley

If developers depend on "hardcore" audience only, they will starve.

Even on the 360 there are more "hardcore" games coming out than people realistically have time to play, the exclusives are strictly for forum bragging rights, when there's literally 1000 hours per month worth of multiplat content who the hell has time to play everything?

So some developers put their energies into Kinectimals, Dance Central, etc etc

Main problem with PS3 is :

1. Sucky developers like Bethesda

2. Sony vetting process allowing companies to put out botch jobs without saying, "No this is bad, work on it some more. You can't release it like this."

You can bet your ass MS vets each game, if it's a bungled job, they will not allow you to release it.

..... I find it funny when people say graphics and game performance can't get "signifigantly better" or that we've "hit a wall in terms of graphics in videogames". Seriously, c'mon guys, back in the SNES days people said that. My bank account doesn't desire a new generation of systems, but my curiosity about where videogames are going sure as hell does.

Jbul

Back in the SNES days games DID NOT look realistic nor did it have any resembalance to realism. That is not the case for today's games. We are now part of the graphical curve in which the improvements are getting more and more negligible.

I feel the demand for several reasons.

First, I know that it takes 18 months before new hardware actually begins completelt outperforming existing hardware beyond superficial flourishes. This means if we see a NextBox or PS4 launch in late 2013, it will be mid-late 2015 before the next cycle really begins to show its muscle. That's far too long, and in fact, it's been too long already.

Second, the games are beginning to show limitations. Games like Skyrim, Rage, and Gran Turismo spring to mind. All have fit and finish issues directly related to aging hardware limitations, and that's just to name a few. Also, how many games had eye-popping graphics this last year similarly to how God of War 2 did on the aging PS2 when the PS3 was already out? None. Gears of War 3 looked like Gears 2. Resistance 3 largely looked like R2. Uncharted 3 didn't look a whole lot better than U2 outside of cutscene enhancement. Killzone 3 looked like K2. COD whatthef***evernumberitisnow looked a lot like the one before it. The apex has been reached and now comes the decline. Everything is becoming very same-ish and expected -- there's no POP anymore. That's when new hardware is needed.

Third, I don't care about the casuals, and neither should Microsoft. They have done nothing to prove they are worth caring about from a software standpoint on home consoles, so unless Microsoft intends to make money off the Kinect hardware, the casuals can go f*** themselves while the people who actually buy games in high, consistent numbers are catered to. When Kinect Sports 7 or whatever outsells the next Halo or COD, then I'll start caring about the casual market. Until then, this is a market that is driven and dictated by those who play conventional games, and Microsoft needs to pull its head out of its ass and start acting like it. The portion of the casual market (those that actually play games) is into actually playing iOS games they can buy for $2.99 and play anywhere on their phones and tablets.. not some $50 or $60 game that can only be played at home in very limited confines and often requires friends to enjoy fully.. let the casual market stay with the 360, while the rest of us move on to next generation hardware. Let the 360 become the casual dumping ground for shoddy shovelware that the Wii was, while those of us with discerning tastes move on to less polluted pastures.

Shame-usBlackley

I don't understand your sense of entitlement and your agnst towards "casual" gamers. The concept or even the belief that hardcore is better than "casual" is truly misguided. But if you believe that companies are placing their efforts in these gamers for no real financial gain then you are mistaken.

Besides that, the need for new hardware is currently not there. Most of the desire comes from wanting better graphics and not necessarily for making better games. This idealogy that better graphics equals better games have been crippling the advancement of gaming. Too much time is spent on cinematics and slowly;in some cases drasticaly, games are moving away from being actual games. So before we go jumping or "needing" better hardware developers should at least demonstrate that there is an actual benefit to this upgrade besides graphics.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Why do you feel an urgent demand for new hardware? In past generation either gorgeous arcade games or more recently gorgeous PC games created demand for new hardware capable of running said games. Such games have not appeared just yet (ona related note, many guys who used to focus on high end PC games now make multiplat games). Which isn't to say there aren't some wonderful looking PC games out there, but there's not anything which makes console games feel that game design is being held back by current gen console's lack of power.

Heck, this generation most developers haven't done a great job of pushing current gen hardware (because they live within the confines of licensed engines like UE 3.0).

Also, there is the fact that a big chunk of modern gamers are casuals who care more for the interface than the hardware (Kinect has sold quite well).

Shame-usBlackley

I feel the demand for several reasons.

First, I know that it takes 18 months before new hardware actually begins completelt outperforming existing hardware beyond superficial flourishes. This means if we see a NextBox or PS4 launch in late 2013, it will be mid-late 2015 before the next cycle really begins to show its muscle. That's far too long, and in fact, it's been too long already.

Second, the games are beginning to show limitations. Games like Skyrim, Rage, and Gran Turismo spring to mind. All have fit and finish issues directly related to aging hardware limitations, and that's just to name a few. Also, how many games had eye-popping graphics this last year similarly to how God of War 2 did on the aging PS2 when the PS3 was already out? None. Gears of War 3 looked like Gears 2. Resistance 3 largely looked like R2. Uncharted 3 didn't look a whole lot better than U2 outside of cutscene enhancement. Killzone 3 looked like K2. COD whatthef***evernumberitisnow looked a lot like the one before it. The apex has been reached and now comes the decline. Everything is becoming very same-ish and expected -- there's no POP anymore. That's when new hardware is needed.

Third, I don't care about the casuals, and neither should Microsoft. They have done nothing to prove they are worth caring about from a software standpoint on home consoles, so unless Microsoft intends to make money off the Kinect hardware, the casuals can go f*** themselves while the people who actually buy games in high, consistent numbers are catered to. When Kinect Sports 7 or whatever outsells the next Halo or COD, then I'll start caring about the casual market. Until then, this is a market that is driven and dictated by those who play conventional games, and Microsoft needs to pull its head out of its ass and start acting like it. The portion of the casual market (those that actually play games) is into actually playing iOS games they can buy for $2.99 and play anywhere on their phones and tablets.. not some $50 or $60 game that can only be played at home in very limited confines and often requires friends to enjoy fully.. let the casual market stay with the 360, while the rest of us move on to next generation hardware. Let the 360 become the casual dumping ground for shoddy shovelware that the Wii was, while those of us with discerning tastes move on to less polluted pastures.

I never played Rage, but I own GT5 and owned Skyrim, and in my opinion both of those game's problems are due not to hardware limitations, but the developer's tendency to frantically throw stuff into the games up until they moment they ship and then patch them once they are in gamers' hands. GT5 boasted a lot more content than Forza 4 (or any other three racing games not named GT), but much of the content lack the polish of Forza not due to hardware limitations, but because the designers lacks the time to properly implement all of the cars (I remember the GT team boasting that the cars were so detailed each took hundreds of man hours to model). And Bethesda has long been in the habit of shipping games incomplete, with the problem getting worse as they have grown more successful (if gamers don't care, why spend the money to polish?).

I had my issues with KZ3 (didn't like how they made the handling more like the standard recoiless jumpy boy type one normally sees in first person shooters) but there were a lot of scenes which were way beyond KZ2 in terms of tech perfomance (lots of big battlefields with sharp AI, massive enemies like the MAWLR, battlefields set in snow, admist junkyards and exploding computers, etc). I think most of the games you mentioned improved upon their predecessors in meaningful ways, but I concede that they are linear improvements rather than radical improvements. Late in a system's life linear improvements are all one can reaslistically expect (God of War 2's Colossus of Rhodes was kickbutt, but he was merely a linear improvement on the Colossi of Shadows of the Colossus).

Casual games cost a fraction of what core games cost, so Kinect Sports 7 doesn't need to put up Halo numbers in order for it to be profitable for MS. Also, I don't think casual games crowd out core ones. The Wii had(has?) roughly as much core support as the GC and the advent of the Kinect certainly hasn't lessened the amount of quality core games on the X360 (inbetween Bastion, Dark Souls, Mortal Kombat, Gears of War and Rayman, there was a lot of core stuff on the X360 worth playing in 2011).

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I feel the demand for several reasons.

First, I know that it takes 18 months before new hardware actually begins completelt outperforming existing hardware beyond superficial flourishes. This means if we see a NextBox or PS4 launch in late 2013, it will be mid-late 2015 before the next cycle really begins to show its muscle. That's far too long, and in fact, it's been too long already.

Second, the games are beginning to show limitations. Games like Skyrim, Rage, and Gran Turismo spring to mind. All have fit and finish issues directly related to aging hardware limitations, and that's just to name a few. Also, how many games had eye-popping graphics this last year similarly to how God of War 2 did on the aging PS2 when the PS3 was already out? None. Gears of War 3 looked like Gears 2. Resistance 3 largely looked like R2. Uncharted 3 didn't look a whole lot better than U2 outside of cutscene enhancement. Killzone 3 looked like K2. COD whatthef***evernumberitisnow looked a lot like the one before it. The apex has been reached and now comes the decline. Everything is becoming very same-ish and expected -- there's no POP anymore. That's when new hardware is needed.

Third, I don't care about the casuals, and neither should Microsoft. They have done nothing to prove they are worth caring about from a software standpoint on home consoles, so unless Microsoft intends to make money off the Kinect hardware, the casuals can go f*** themselves while the people who actually buy games in high, consistent numbers are catered to. When Kinect Sports 7 or whatever outsells the next Halo or COD, then I'll start caring about the casual market. Until then, this is a market that is driven and dictated by those who play conventional games, and Microsoft needs to pull its head out of its ass and start acting like it. The portion of the casual market (those that actually play games) is into actually playing iOS games they can buy for $2.99 and play anywhere on their phones and tablets.. not some $50 or $60 game that can only be played at home in very limited confines and often requires friends to enjoy fully.. let the casual market stay with the 360, while the rest of us move on to next generation hardware. Let the 360 become the casual dumping ground for shoddy shovelware that the Wii was, while those of us with discerning tastes move on to less polluted pastures.

Pedro

I don't understand your sense of entitlement and your agnst towards "casual" gamers. The concept or even the belief that hardcore is better than "casual" is truly misguided. But if you believe that companies are placing their efforts in these gamers for no real financial gain then you are mistaken.

Besides that, the need for new hardware is currently not there. Most of the desire comes from wanting better graphics and not necessarily for making better games. This idealogy that better graphics equals better games have been crippling the advancement of gaming. Too much time is spent on cinematics and slowly;in some cases drasticaly, games are moving away from being actual games. So before we go jumping or "needing" better hardware developers should at least demonstrate that there is an actual benefit to this upgrade besides graphics.

I'm been gaming for 33 years and I haven't seen that trend.

Also, I firmly believe that tech progress (whether it comes through squeezing more out of old hardware or working on newer, more powerful hardware) does benefit games. Better tech doesn't merely translate into higher quality textures, it translates into better AI, bigger environments/more stuff onscreen and more interactivity. Better tech doesn't make an incompetent designer competent, but it does allow a good designer to do stuff he's never done before. For example, up until ZOE, no one offered a 3D action game which was as tight controlwise as the best 2D action games. Also, I'm a huge fan of the LBP games and their four player coop and worlds governed by complex (cartoon) physics just wouldn't have been possible on prior generations of hardware.

I'm been gaming for 33 years and I haven't seen that trend.

Also, I firmly believe that tech progress (whether it comes through squeezing more out of old hardware or working on newer, more powerful hardware) does benefit games. Better tech doesn't merely translate into higher quality textures, it translates into better AI, bigger environments/more stuff onscreen and more interactivity. Better tech doesn't make an incompetent designer competent, but it does allow a good designer to do stuff he's never done before. For example, up until ZOE, no one offered a 3D action game which was as tight controlwise as the best 2D action games. Also, I'm a huge fan of the LBP games and their four player coop and worlds governed by complex (cartoon) physics just wouldn't have been possible on prior generations of hardware.

CarnageHeart

You haven't seen what trend?

Also I am not saying that the technology should not advance or new systems should not be released but, that the need for it is generally not there outside of the standard desire for prettier graphics. You mentioned AI but I have yet to see good AI(please recommend a game that has good AI). In fact AI is mentioned regularly yet its one area that has stagnated for many years. As far as interactivity, well most of it is simply superficial and falls under cosmetic/graphics. With regards to physics found in LBP one can argue that the PSP is on the same level as the PS2 and there is a PSP version of LBP.

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I feel the demand for several reasons.

First, I know that it takes 18 months before new hardware actually begins completelt outperforming existing hardware beyond superficial flourishes. This means if we see a NextBox or PS4 launch in late 2013, it will be mid-late 2015 before the next cycle really begins to show its muscle. That's far too long, and in fact, it's been too long already.

Second, the games are beginning to show limitations. Games like Skyrim, Rage, and Gran Turismo spring to mind. All have fit and finish issues directly related to aging hardware limitations, and that's just to name a few. Also, how many games had eye-popping graphics this last year similarly to how God of War 2 did on the aging PS2 when the PS3 was already out? None. Gears of War 3 looked like Gears 2. Resistance 3 largely looked like R2. Uncharted 3 didn't look a whole lot better than U2 outside of cutscene enhancement. Killzone 3 looked like K2. COD whatthef***evernumberitisnow looked a lot like the one before it. The apex has been reached and now comes the decline. Everything is becoming very same-ish and expected -- there's no POP anymore. That's when new hardware is needed.

Third, I don't care about the casuals, and neither should Microsoft. They have done nothing to prove they are worth caring about from a software standpoint on home consoles, so unless Microsoft intends to make money off the Kinect hardware, the casuals can go f*** themselves while the people who actually buy games in high, consistent numbers are catered to. When Kinect Sports 7 or whatever outsells the next Halo or COD, then I'll start caring about the casual market. Until then, this is a market that is driven and dictated by those who play conventional games, and Microsoft needs to pull its head out of its ass and start acting like it. The portion of the casual market (those that actually play games) is into actually playing iOS games they can buy for $2.99 and play anywhere on their phones and tablets.. not some $50 or $60 game that can only be played at home in very limited confines and often requires friends to enjoy fully.. let the casual market stay with the 360, while the rest of us move on to next generation hardware. Let the 360 become the casual dumping ground for shoddy shovelware that the Wii was, while those of us with discerning tastes move on to less polluted pastures.

CarnageHeart

I don't understand your sense of entitlement and your agnst towards "casual" gamers. The concept or even the belief that hardcore is better than "casual" is truly misguided. But if you believe that companies are placing their efforts in these gamers for no real financial gain then you are mistaken.

Besides that, the need for new hardware is currently not there. Most of the desire comes from wanting better graphics and not necessarily for making better games. This idealogy that better graphics equals better games have been crippling the advancement of gaming. Too much time is spent on cinematics and slowly;in some cases drasticaly, games are moving away from being actual games. So before we go jumping or "needing" better hardware developers should at least demonstrate that there is an actual benefit to this upgrade besides graphics.

I'm been gaming for 33 years and I haven't seen that trend.

Also, I firmly believe that tech progress (whether it comes through squeezing more out of old hardware or working on newer, more powerful hardware) does benefit games. Better tech doesn't merely translate into higher quality textures, it translates into better AI, bigger environments/more stuff onscreen and more interactivity. Better tech doesn't make an incompetent designer competent, but it does allow a good designer to do stuff he's never done before. For example, up until ZOE, no one offered a 3D action game which was as tight controlwise as the best 2D action games. Also, I'm a huge fan of the LBP games and their four player coop and worlds governed by complex (cartoon) physics just wouldn't have been possible on prior generations of hardware.

Yep. Technology is extremely important to gaming. A game like Uncharted 2 (regardles of everyone's personal opinion) could've never been achieved on older hardware, and some of the most exciting new moments in gaming are courtesy of graphical and technological wizardly, which add immeasurably to immersion and enjoyment -- hell, they bring us new experiences not previously possible. Some of the most magical moments in gaming these past 6 years wouldn't have had the same impact (if at all) were it not for technology.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

I'm been gaming for 33 years and I haven't seen that trend.

Also, I firmly believe that tech progress (whether it comes through squeezing more out of old hardware or working on newer, more powerful hardware) does benefit games. Better tech doesn't merely translate into higher quality textures, it translates into better AI, bigger environments/more stuff onscreen and more interactivity. Better tech doesn't make an incompetent designer competent, but it does allow a good designer to do stuff he's never done before. For example, up until ZOE, no one offered a 3D action game which was as tight controlwise as the best 2D action games. Also, I'm a huge fan of the LBP games and their four player coop and worlds governed by complex (cartoon) physics just wouldn't have been possible on prior generations of hardware.

Pedro

You haven't seen what trend?

Also I am not saying that the technology should not advance or new systems should not be released but, that the need for it is generally not there outside of the standard desire for prettier graphics. You mentioned AI but I have yet to see good AI(please recommend a game that has good AI). In fact AI is mentioned regularly yet its one area that has stagnated for many years. As far as interactivity, well most of it is simply superficial and falls under cosmetic/graphics. With regards to physics found in LBP one can argue that the PSP is on the same level as the PS2 and there is a PSP version of LBP.

I own the PSP version of LBP. The physics are nowhere near those of its console cousins (on a related note, levels tend to be much simpler) and of course its only one player.

Games with good AI? The original FEAR, the Uncharted series and KZ2-3. I haven't played the last Halo sequel, but I've heard it has great AI. What is quality AI? AI the lives within a set of limitations but reacts well within those limitations (making omniscent soldiers with perfect aim is easy). For example, generally speaking the original Uncharted had good AI, but once you made contact with one enemy, for the rest of the battle enemies always knew where you were. FEAR might also have been guilty of AI that never lost you after first contact, but one was fighting in really small corridors, so it didn't stand out as much. In Uncharted 2 and 3, enemies were smart, but they didn't always know where you were. The same could be said for KZ 2 and 3.

As a piece of hardware, the PS3 is fantastic. Blu-Ray, a bunch of slick wireless capabilities, etc. make it a great media center. I think one of the problems with the PS3 is that Sony doesn't have good software guys. The UI isn't great, the way they handle updates is a drag, and there's a lot of "clunk" to it in general. Still may favorite console of this gen though.

RAGE has fantastic A.I. Enemies are so unpredictable in the game and take full advantage of their surroundings. No way in hell we would've seen something like that in last gen consoles.

Also I am not saying that the technology should not advance or new systems should not be released but, that the need for it is generally not there outside of the standard desire for prettier graphics. You mentioned AI but I have yet to see good AI(please recommend a game that has good AI). In fact AI is mentioned regularly yet its one area that has stagnated for many years. As far as interactivity, well most of it is simply superficial and falls under cosmetic/graphics. With regards to physics found in LBP one can argue that the PSP is on the same level as the PS2 and there is a PSP version of LBP.

Pedro

A game like Assassin's Creed could've never been done on last gen hardware. For example, compare the PSP versions of AC with the console versions, the PSP simply cant handle it. AC games are massive, tracking dozens if not hundreds of interactive A.I NPCs at once. Mass Effect allows you to controls three fully upgradable characters at once. I dont remember playing anything like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed or Infamous last gen. Infamous controls like a dream and for an open world game that allows you to climb and fly over anything, it's a phenomenal achievement. And let's not forget coop and advancement in online integration this gen. 256 player battles in MAG etc.

Dont mean to be harsh, but you and I aren't exactly game developers. I bet there are a million things developers want to implement in their games, but cant due of hardware limitations. We just dont know what they have under their sleeves. If you think next gen consoles will bring just prettier graphics then you probably dont have a good imagination (which is fine considering we aren't game developers butting our heads against the hardware day in, day out).