Are you expecting a significant graphical leap with next-gen consoles?

Nope. Game development already costs enough as it is. Graphics arent going to improve that much nowIantheone

Actually stronger hardware means mess develoment cost

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]Nope. Game development already costs enough as it is. Graphics arent going to improve that much nowloosingENDS

Actually stronger hardware means mess develoment cost

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]Nope. Game development already costs enough as it is. Graphics arent going to improve that much nowloosingENDS

Actually stronger hardware means mess develoment cost

So you think in the Atari days developers were paying more than $50 million to produce a game?

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]Nope. Game development already costs enough as it is. Graphics arent going to improve that much nowsoulitane

Actually stronger hardware means mess develoment cost

Less optimization effort. Optimization takes much more time than make more detailed models, for one there are less engine developers on the teams than model designers.

To get a game optimized they have to rewrite code on the engine. With more power you can pump out better graphics with just a resolution boost, and lets not forget ram as a limitation for current consoles, ram limits everything, textures, post processing...little off track, but the point is.

More power gives you less restriction.

Sony once thought they could sell a $600 console and walk away with it.

Look how that turned out, I still think they are showing red numbers.

I'm telling you, the world being in an economic recession and all, we wont see another PS3 again.

Microsoft will not risk another RROD console by filling a small case with the latest tech, it's just not feasible.

Think about it a single high end GPU doesn't suck several hundreds of watts just for the fun of it.

The goal which I think Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will go for is the following.

- Low cost, I expect something ranging $300 - $400

- Compact and small (nintendo wii)

- Low energy consumption (electricity bills)

- Eliminate heat issues (RROD, etc.)

It's more and moreabout functionality than anything else. Is the device FUN to use, YES or NO. Mobile phones are in many ways proof of this. Wewill certainly alsosee new innovative ways of interacting with games.

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

tenaka2

Then I'll be glad that I'm getting ready to put together a gaming rig.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]

Actually stronger hardware means mess develoment cost

SW__Troll

So you think in the Atari days developers were paying more than $50 million to produce a game?

I am talking comparing to this generation, very big budgets have gone to fitting these huge games on consoles, having better hardware would minimize these costs, also most developers now make or have already made straeming engines

Which is why 2GB is fine for next gen systems

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

tenaka2

Then why release a new system and not build on the existing one ? 360 has Kinect and amazing graphics anyway

Next gen systems will be at least 10x stronger than the bext PC hardware today, otherwise would be pointless

Then why release a new system and not build on the existing one ? 360 has Kinect and amazing graphics anyway

Next gen systems will be at least 10x stronger than the bext PC hardware today, otherwise would be pointless

loosingENDS

Ten times stronger? So the best PC hardware today... hmmm a good rig would come with say 16gb of Ram and a quad core cpu running at say 5ghz if nicely overclocked and say another 2gb of videoram with say a 1tb HD.

So in your wild imagination the next xbox will have:

160gb of ram, a 50ghz multicore cpu, 20gb of video ram and 40 terabytes of HD space?

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

So you think in the Atari days developers were paying more than $50 million to produce a game?

loosingENDS

I am talking comparing to this generation, very big budgets have gone to fitting these huge games on consoles, having better hardware would minimize these costs, also most developers now make or have already made straeming engines

Which is why 2GB is fine for next gen systems

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

tenaka2

Then why release a new system and not build on the existing one ? 360 has Kinect and amazing graphics anyway

Next gen systems will be at least 10x stronger than the bext PC hardware today, otherwise would be pointless

Because the market isn't there for it.

Also you only see the CPU and GPU side of things. To get the whole picture you have to look at it as a tool of entertainment. New OS, maybe mobile phone integrated software,improved internetexperience etc. etc. the list can be made long. Keyword on integration though.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Then why release a new system and not build on the existing one ? 360 has Kinect and amazing graphics anyway

Next gen systems will be at least 10x stronger than the bext PC hardware today, otherwise would be pointless

tenaka2

Ten times stronger? So the best PC hardware today... hmmm a good rig would come with say 16gb of Ram and a quad core cpu running at say 5ghz if nicely overclocked and say another 2gb of videoram with say a 1tb HD.

So in your wild imagination the next xbox will have:

160gb of ram, a 50ghz multicore cpu, 20gb of video ram and 40 terabytes of HD space?

I said 10x stronger, not 10x beefier

Stength is not just raw specs, but design too

What do you need 16GB ram if games use only 2GB max ? Also what good is 16Gb ram if your bus speed is low and you cant actually use it properly

Consoles are not PCs, that is why 360 can do Witcher 2 and Crysis 1-2 looking so stunning, with 6 years old hardware

The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Then why release a new system and not build on the existing one ? 360 has Kinect and amazing graphics anyway

Next gen systems will be at least 10x stronger than the bext PC hardware today, otherwise would be pointless

tenaka2

Ten times stronger? So the best PC hardware today... hmmm a good rig would come with say 16gb of Ram and a quad core cpu running at say 5ghz if nicely overclocked and say another 2gb of videoram with say a 1tb HD.

So in your wild imagination the next xbox will have:

160gb of ram, a 50ghz multicore cpu, 20gb of video ram and 40 terabytes of HD space?

That's not quite how hardware power increases, but yah console hardware is not going to ship at 10x the power of a PC today unless it ships in like 2020.

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

tenaka2

That's a good view which i agree with, but i believe Sony will stay traditional more so than MS (which i believe will make a KinectBox sort of system).

wasting time arguing with console hating hermit before any announcement is pointless, when was last time you see a console's successor isn't a visually leap when it released? and console price through all generation is always stay at the same range, the hardware only gets far more powerful, more reliable, graphically without question will put the present top of the line PC to shame. 360 was, and by what logic to suggest the next xbox will do less? visual leap beyond current console and PC is a minimum requirement, but I can't guess what other surprise elements awaits.

Mind you, console hardware can't be measured by PC hardware standard, it's a hardware designed to use least effort to reach maximum efficiency it a piece of technology designed to last and to have dramatic graphic improvement over the years without upgrade the hardware, sample as that, just quit all your absurd assumption and wait for the hardware announcement,

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

Lucianu

That's a good view which i agree with, but i believe Sony will stay traditional more so than MS (which i believe will make a KinectBox sort of system).

I think you'll be surprised with what the next Xbox is like.

It's not going to big a massive jump i think as the big 3 game console company's are really pushing towards the user experience and experimenting with new control schemes than just pushing for more polygons. It worked for nintendo this generation as both its DS and WII consoles were much less powerful than the 360/ps3/psp but yet nintendo made awhole lot more money on there consoles than microsoft and sony,the battle for the best graphics is over and it's now more down to how you interact with your games,i for one thinks this is a positive move as HD graphics are nice 'n all but it shouldn't be the no.1 drive to push out a new console just to make the graphics betterblacktorn

Did Nintendo really make more money than MS ?

Because MS has profits from all the million selling 3rd party games Wii does not get and many multimillion sellers like Halo, Fable, Gears

So, are there any numbers showing Wii profits as far bigger than 360 ones ?

Because otherwise MS would be crazy to loose all their core gamers by going underpowered, when going for the best hardware has made them HD kings this generation and increased their market share tenfold

Why fix something that is not broken ? MS will probably go for the best PC hardware at the time of release or better (like 360 did) and makes zero sense to do anything else TBH

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

tenaka2

pretty much this

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

HaloinventedFPS

pretty much this

Strange, because there is zero sign of that

I said 10x stronger, not 10x beefier

Stength is not just raw specs, but design too

What do you need 16GB ram if games use only 2GB max ? Also what good is 16Gb ram if your bus speed is low and you cant actually use it properly

Consoles are not PCs, that is why 360 can do Witcher 2 and Crysis 1-2 looking so stunning, with 6 years old hardware

The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too

haha oh wow

720p, no AA, 25-30fps, no AF, texture pop ins, low/medium settings

sure is stunning for 2001

HaloinventedFPS

I said 10x stronger, not 10x beefier

Stength is not just raw specs, but design too

What do you need 16GB ram if games use only 2GB max ? Also what good is 16Gb ram if your bus speed is low and you cant actually use it properly

Consoles are not PCs, that is why 360 can do Witcher 2 and Crysis 1-2 looking so stunning, with 6 years old hardware

The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too

haha oh wow

720p, no AA, 25-30fps, no AF, texture pop ins, low/medium settings

sure is stunning for 2001

It looks stunning, that is all there is to it

Most definatly is stunning, have you seen the video ?

Also runs in medium/high mixed setting that looks stunning on PC as well

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

loosingENDS

pretty much this

Strange, because there is zero sign of that

There is every sign of that, everyone can see it, MS has announced it, Kinect proves it.

They only one unable to see it would seem to be you.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

pretty much this

tenaka2

Strange, because there is zero sign of that

There is every sign of that, everyone can see it, MS has announced it, Kinect proves it.

They only one unable to see it would seem to be you.

Then why are all 2012 MS Kinect games core ones ?

I only see Kinect used in core games now, the casuals have already been won and everything is back to core games 100% as it seems

MS has announced Halo, Alan Wake, Fable, Mass Effect 3, Witcher, Ryse, Draco, Haunt, Steel batallion, Dust, Star Wars etc, all core games

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Strange, because there is zero sign of that

loosingENDS

There is every sign of that, everyone can see it, MS has announced it, Kinect proves it.

They only one unable to see it would seem to be you.

Then why are all 2012 MS Kinect games core ones ?

I only see Kinect used in core games now, the casuals have already been won and everything is back to core games 100% as it seems

MS has announced Halo, Alan Wake, Fable, Mass Effect 3, Witcher, Ryse, Draco, Haunt, Steel batallion, Dust, Star Wars etc, all core games

Kinect wont work for Core games no matter how much you say they can, it wont ever go past the gimmicky voice or gesture features face it, its a feeble peripheral for the core gamer.Forza was gimmicky,ME3 will be gimmicky and Ryse will just be flat out flail yo arms you also using star wars only reinforces how bad a point your making.

I'd gladly die than take Kinect as a main controller, if the big 3 all go gimmicky i'll probably just bite the bullet and dump consoles full stop.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

There is every sign of that, everyone can see it, MS has announced it, Kinect proves it.

They only one unable to see it would seem to be you.

razgriz_101

Then why are all 2012 MS Kinect games core ones ?

I only see Kinect used in core games now, the casuals have already been won and everything is back to core games 100% as it seems

MS has announced Halo, Alan Wake, Fable, Mass Effect 3, Witcher, Ryse, Draco, Haunt, Steel batallion, Dust, Star Wars etc, all core games

Kinect wont work for Core games no matter how much you say they can, it wont ever go past the gimmicky voice or gesture features face it, its a feeble peripheral for the core gamer.Forza was gimmicky,ME3 will be gimmicky and Ryse will just be flat out flail yo arms you also using star wars only reinforces how bad a point your making.

I'd gladly die than take Kinect as a main controller, if the big 3 all go gimmicky i'll probably just bite the bullet and dump consoles full stop.

but that is just opinion and assumption

the only fact is that 360 gets 18 core exlusives in 2012 and all its Kinect games are core ones

Gunstringer was said to be a 1/10 casual Kinect shovelware and yet scored almost as much as Skyrim and Uncharted 3

so opinions aside, Kinect games can be 100% core and work wonders

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Then why are all 2012 MS Kinect games core ones ?

I only see Kinect used in core games now, the casuals have already been won and everything is back to core games 100% as it seems

MS has announced Halo, Alan Wake, Fable, Mass Effect 3, Witcher, Ryse, Draco, Haunt, Steel batallion, Dust, Star Wars etc, all core games

loosingENDS

Kinect wont work for Core games no matter how much you say they can, it wont ever go past the gimmicky voice or gesture features face it, its a feeble peripheral for the core gamer.Forza was gimmicky,ME3 will be gimmicky and Ryse will just be flat out flail yo arms you also using star wars only reinforces how bad a point your making.

I'd gladly die than take Kinect as a main controller, if the big 3 all go gimmicky i'll probably just bite the bullet and dump consoles full stop.

but that is just opinion and assumption

the only fact is that 360 gets 18 core exlusives in 2012 and all its Kinect games are core ones

Gunstringer was said to be a 1/10 casual Kinect shovelware and yet scored almost as much as Skyrim and Uncharted 3

so opinions aside, Kinect games can be 100% core and work wonders

its not core, theres little depth to them.So because they are ADULT they suddenly become core thats what your logic comes off as, and more than likely how kinect games are rated varies a hell of a lot for kinect btw.

I'll take my sandwich in the study

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Strange, because there is zero sign of that

loosingENDS

There is every sign of that, everyone can see it, MS has announced it, Kinect proves it.

They only one unable to see it would seem to be you.

Then why are all 2012 MS Kinect games core ones ?

I only see Kinect used in core games now, the casuals have already been won and everything is back to core games 100% as it seems

MS has announced Halo, Alan Wake, Fable, Mass Effect 3, Witcher, Ryse, Draco, Haunt, Steel batallion, Dust, Star Wars etc, all core games

Kinect can never have core games, your confusing the word core with something else.

I think when it comes down to the PS4 and nextbox both Sony and MS will be trying to decide how far they want to push the graphical capabilities, how much they want to push casual/family gaming and how important affordability is.

The PS3 and 360 are pretty much equal as far as graphics go but if we saw the PS4 come out with much better graphical capabilities than the nextbox then PS4 would seem like the better choice for many gamers, but then the nextbox would invariably be much cheaper so could gain a strong foothold by being the one people could afford. The Wii U is obviously going for a more family oreiented experience and will be the cheapest of the 3.

Personally, I'd like to see Sony and MS push the graphical capabilities as much as they can without needing to charge over £400. I'm not fanatical about graphics but then again if PS4 games looked almost the same as PS3 games it wouldn't seem like a good choice to buy a new console. That, and I want to see what Naughty Dog and Guerrilla can do with more power.

Yes along with many other significant aspects as well and if I don't get them, I'll be very disappointed, not be a day one buyer and likely go the gaming PC route once again. :P

No, next gen there won't be a huge graphical leap. What I expect from next gen is all game playing in 1080p, and perhaps, all, or at least, most games running at 60fps.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

Kinect wont work for Core games no matter how much you say they can, it wont ever go past the gimmicky voice or gesture features face it, its a feeble peripheral for the core gamer.Forza was gimmicky,ME3 will be gimmicky and Ryse will just be flat out flail yo arms you also using star wars only reinforces how bad a point your making.

I'd gladly die than take Kinect as a main controller, if the big 3 all go gimmicky i'll probably just bite the bullet and dump consoles full stop.

razgriz_101

but that is just opinion and assumption

the only fact is that 360 gets 18 core exlusives in 2012 and all its Kinect games are core ones

Gunstringer was said to be a 1/10 casual Kinect shovelware and yet scored almost as much as Skyrim and Uncharted 3

so opinions aside, Kinect games can be 100% core and work wonders

its not core, theres little depth to them.So because they are ADULT they suddenly become core thats what your logic comes off as, and more than likely how kinect games are rated varies a hell of a lot for kinect btw.

I'll take my sandwich in the study

There is actually a huge lot more depth than any linear shooter imo, where you only shoot stuff

Project Draco has 150 powers to upgrade with, Fable JOurney is a full RPG, Haunt is a exploration/puzzle adventure, Alan wake is an adventure, i dont see any lack of depth, there is a million times more depth to those than Uncharted or Gears imo

That is why Gunstringer is 8.5 and Infamous is 7.5

Definatly far more core than the 7.5 one

With next-gen consoles looming up ahead, I think it's time for some wild speculation! - http://www.computerandvideogames.com/326289/xbox-720-to-arrive-in-2012-edge-source/

Personally, I think launch titles will just look like the best games on PC, or slightly better.

Adversary16

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

loosingENDS

I said 10x stronger, not 10x beefier

Stength is not just raw specs, but design too

What do you need 16GB ram if games use only 2GB max ? Also what good is 16Gb ram if your bus speed is low and you cant actually use it properly

Consoles are not PCs, that is why 360 can do Witcher 2 and Crysis 1-2 looking so stunning, with 6 years old hardware

The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too

losing ends really come on.... 10x stronger is 10x more beefier you have no idea how hardware works do you?

Do you realize that 16gb isnt needed for a game if it only needs 2gb? Pc's have more memory because they are truely a multi function system in which you have many programs and items stored in memory. The current consoles are stream based while Pc has the better option storing everything into memory. Stream bases gaming is the reason why you dont have long draw distances, Cell loading sections of a map or area as you move, the player's interactive options are limited because the small size of the area.

The 360 cant do the Witcher 2 Crysis 1 or 2 in a stunning way with the 6 year old hardware with limited resources. First the Witcher 2 has not been released for consoles yet and anyone with even some hardware understanding. Knows that the Witcher 2 will be running mostly on low settings at 720 or lower for the consoles because of the lack of video memory. Crysis 1 for consoles proves this point the console versions have less of everything in terms of quality(detail draw distances,certain effects) runs sub HD resolutions, has texture pop ins, and over done lighting to help cover the flaws in the game and awful performance isues when alot is going on.

Crysis 2 was actually a downgrade in terms of ability and what the game did with the Cryengine 3 because of the console limits. The Consoles can not overcome their processing limits and their memory limits too, they cant not match a Pc that has 2x more processing power and video memory. Consoles still follow basic computer laws, and just because they optimize, does not mean they can overcome the laws of physics. For the last couple of years at lest its been all about compromises "what can we cut to save memory or power for another area or even to allow the game to run 30 fps". The fact that quite a few of today's games have glitches, performance issues and having trouble with running the games at a steady 30 fps anymore shows that a they have hit a physical wall.

Again MS and Sony are not going to spend the same type of money they did in 2004 and 2005 to get prototype hardware that ended up being outclassed as soon they were released. Because MS is working with AMD with their next console "The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too" that will not happen because of many factors Cost, power, heat, and the limit that APU dies have in how many transistors they can put into a die. Even when the 360 was released it was not able out do a Geforce 7800GTX out right with any multiplat game all the way into 2007. And even with those multiplat games a 7800GTX was able to play those multiplatform games with better resolutions, detail and performance then the 360.and the 8600GT still proves this point today because that the 8600GT is actually a tad slower then 7800GTX and is able to match and or produce better results then the 360 or PS3.

I find that comment very funny though because you dont know what your talking about because for them to release a GPU that outclasses a GPU from 2012 or even 2013 on Pc. Do you realize how much money would be needed to develop and research a item like that or the power and cooling needed for something that fast? or how about the fact that the console is going to be released in 2012 or 2013. It can not outclass the high gaming gpu of today or even in 2012. the Price on the console would be nerly the same as a Pc with equal power. it wont happen because MS plans to turn a profit. Sony and MS have stated that they are not going to do the same thing what they they did with their current consoles... waste money and not make a profit until years later.

I think Wii U launch games will look slighly worse than Battlefield 3 PC.

HaloinventedFPS

I said 10x stronger, not 10x beefier

Stength is not just raw specs, but design too

What do you need 16GB ram if games use only 2GB max ? Also what good is 16Gb ram if your bus speed is low and you cant actually use it properly

Consoles are not PCs, that is why 360 can do Witcher 2 and Crysis 1-2 looking so stunning, with 6 years old hardware

The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too

haha oh wow

720p, no AA, 25-30fps, no AF, texture pop ins, low/medium settings

sure is stunning for 2001

The console ports always play at a standard most PC gamers would consider barely playable. PC gamers don't look for medium settings at 30 fps, that's just bad. Hmm something went wrong with the quote box here, and only these lines at the bottom are NOT quotes.

The only way consoles will get a leap ahead if they sell hardware for your console each year, but no it will be inferior like always repeating cycle.

Pc will be called pci soon personal computing interface in future anyway where everything is accessed virtually form your pc from anywhere, like play a game on your phone and stream it from your pc power settings while still retainning settings future for pc will be legendary or dead.

I expect this to be the least impressive graphical jump between gens.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

04dcarraher

I said 10x stronger, not 10x beefier

Stength is not just raw specs, but design too

What do you need 16GB ram if games use only 2GB max ? Also what good is 16Gb ram if your bus speed is low and you cant actually use it properly

Consoles are not PCs, that is why 360 can do Witcher 2 and Crysis 1-2 looking so stunning, with 6 years old hardware

The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too

losing ends really come on.... 10x stronger is 10x more beefier you have no idea how hardware works do you?

Do you realize that 16gb isnt needed for a game if it only needs 2gb? Pc's have more memory because they are truely a multi function system in which you have many programs and items stored in memory. The current consoles are stream based while Pc has the better option storing everything into memory. Stream bases gaming is the reason why you dont have long draw distances, Cell loading sections of a map or area as you move, the player's interactive options are limited because the small size of the area.

The 360 cant do the Witcher 2 Crysis 1 or 2 in a stunning way with the 6 year old hardware with limited resources. First the Witcher 2 has not been released for consoles yet and anyone with even some hardware understanding. Knows that the Witcher 2 will be running mostly on low settings at 720 or lower for the consoles because of the lack of video memory. Crysis 1 for consoles proves this point the console versions have less of everything in terms of quality(detail draw distances,certain effects) runs sub HD resolutions, has texture pop ins, and over done lighting to help cover the flaws in the game and awful performance isues when alot is going on.

Crysis 2 was actually a downgrade in terms of ability and what the game did with the Cryengine 3 because of the console limits. The Consoles can not overcome their processing limits and their memory limits too, they cant not match a Pc that has 2x more processing power and video memory. Consoles still follow basic computer laws, and just because they optimize, does not mean they can overcome the laws of physics. For the last couple of years at lest its been all about compromises "what can we cut to save memory or power for another area or even to allow the game to run 30 fps". The fact that quite a few of today's games have glitches, performance issues and having trouble with running the games at a steady 30 fps anymore shows that a they have hit a physical wall.

Again MS and Sony are not going to spend the same type of money they did in 2004 and 2005 to get prototype hardware that ended up being outclassed as soon they were released. Because MS is working with AMD with their next console "The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too" that will not happen because of many factors Cost, power, heat, and the limit that APU dies have in how many transistors they can put into a die. Even when the 360 was released it was not able out do a Geforce 7800GTX out right with any multiplat game all the way into 2007. And even with those multiplat games a 7800GTX was able to play those multiplatform games with better resolutions, detail and performance then the 360.and the 8600GT still proves this point today because that the 8600GT is actually a tad slower then 7800GTX and is able to match and or produce better results then the 360 or PS3.

I find that comment very funny though because you dont know what your talking about because for them to release a GPU that outclasses a GPU from 2012 or even 2013 on Pc. Do you realize how much money would be needed to develop and research a item like that or the power and cooling needed for something that fast? or how about the fact that the console is going to be released in 2012 or 2013. It can not outclass the high gaming gpu of today or even in 2012. the Price on the console would be nerly the same as a Pc with equal power. it wont happen because MS plans to turn a profit. Sony and MS have stated that they are not going to do the same thing what they they did with their current consoles... waste money and not make a profit until years later.

In the 360 video, Withcer 2 runs in a mixed medium/high setting clearly

I am a computer engineer BTW, with a PhD (in a few months) and years in graphics, so i know very well what i see

For example, the light beams in Withcer 2 xbox video are from high PC setting, do you deny it ?

I must remind i have the game on PC, so i know exactly the settings and what they offer

Witcher 2 video on 360

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtJ7uXktqEg

This is definatly above medium on PC, far above even

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

I said 10x stronger, not 10x beefier

Stength is not just raw specs, but design too

What do you need 16GB ram if games use only 2GB max ? Also what good is 16Gb ram if your bus speed is low and you cant actually use it properly

Consoles are not PCs, that is why 360 can do Witcher 2 and Crysis 1-2 looking so stunning, with 6 years old hardware

The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too

loosingENDS

losing ends really come on.... 10x stronger is 10x more beefier you have no idea how hardware works do you?

Do you realize that 16gb isnt needed for a game if it only needs 2gb? Pc's have more memory because they are truely a multi function system in which you have many programs and items stored in memory. The current consoles are stream based while Pc has the better option storing everything into memory. Stream bases gaming is the reason why you dont have long draw distances, Cell loading sections of a map or area as you move, the player's interactive options are limited because the small size of the area.

The 360 cant do the Witcher 2 Crysis 1 or 2 in a stunning way with the 6 year old hardware with limited resources. First the Witcher 2 has not been released for consoles yet and anyone with even some hardware understanding. Knows that the Witcher 2 will be running mostly on low settings at 720 or lower for the consoles because of the lack of video memory. Crysis 1 for consoles proves this point the console versions have less of everything in terms of quality(detail draw distances,certain effects) runs sub HD resolutions, has texture pop ins, and over done lighting to help cover the flaws in the game and awful performance isues when alot is going on.

Crysis 2 was actually a downgrade in terms of ability and what the game did with the Cryengine 3 because of the console limits. The Consoles can not overcome their processing limits and their memory limits too, they cant not match a Pc that has 2x more processing power and video memory. Consoles still follow basic computer laws, and just because they optimize, does not mean they can overcome the laws of physics. For the last couple of years at lest its been all about compromises "what can we cut to save memory or power for another area or even to allow the game to run 30 fps". The fact that quite a few of today's games have glitches, performance issues and having trouble with running the games at a steady 30 fps anymore shows that a they have hit a physical wall.

Again MS and Sony are not going to spend the same type of money they did in 2004 and 2005 to get prototype hardware that ended up being outclassed as soon they were released. Because MS is working with AMD with their next console "The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too" that will not happen because of many factors Cost, power, heat, and the limit that APU dies have in how many transistors they can put into a die. Even when the 360 was released it was not able out do a Geforce 7800GTX out right with any multiplat game all the way into 2007. And even with those multiplat games a 7800GTX was able to play those multiplatform games with better resolutions, detail and performance then the 360.and the 8600GT still proves this point today because that the 8600GT is actually a tad slower then 7800GTX and is able to match and or produce better results then the 360 or PS3.

I find that comment very funny though because you dont know what your talking about because for them to release a GPU that outclasses a GPU from 2012 or even 2013 on Pc. Do you realize how much money would be needed to develop and research a item like that or the power and cooling needed for something that fast? or how about the fact that the console is going to be released in 2012 or 2013. It can not outclass the high gaming gpu of today or even in 2012. the Price on the console would be nerly the same as a Pc with equal power. it wont happen because MS plans to turn a profit. Sony and MS have stated that they are not going to do the same thing what they they did with their current consoles... waste money and not make a profit until years later.

In the 360 video, Withcer 2 runs in a mixed medium/high setting clearly

I am a computer engineer BTW, with a PhD (in a few months) and years in graphics, so i know very well what i see

For example, the light beams in Withcer 2 xbox video are from high PC setting, do you deny it ?

I must remind i have the game on PC, so i know exactly the settings and what they offer

Witcher 2 video on 360

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtJ7uXktqEg

This is definatly above medium on PC, far above even

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

losing ends really come on.... 10x stronger is 10x more beefier you have no idea how hardware works do you?

Do you realize that 16gb isnt needed for a game if it only needs 2gb? Pc's have more memory because they are truely a multi function system in which you have many programs and items stored in memory. The current consoles are stream based while Pc has the better option storing everything into memory. Stream bases gaming is the reason why you dont have long draw distances, Cell loading sections of a map or area as you move, the player's interactive options are limited because the small size of the area.

The 360 cant do the Witcher 2 Crysis 1 or 2 in a stunning way with the 6 year old hardware with limited resources. First the Witcher 2 has not been released for consoles yet and anyone with even some hardware understanding. Knows that the Witcher 2 will be running mostly on low settings at 720 or lower for the consoles because of the lack of video memory. Crysis 1 for consoles proves this point the console versions have less of everything in terms of quality(detail draw distances,certain effects) runs sub HD resolutions, has texture pop ins, and over done lighting to help cover the flaws in the game and awful performance isues when alot is going on.

Crysis 2 was actually a downgrade in terms of ability and what the game did with the Cryengine 3 because of the console limits. The Consoles can not overcome their processing limits and their memory limits too, they cant not match a Pc that has 2x more processing power and video memory. Consoles still follow basic computer laws, and just because they optimize, does not mean they can overcome the laws of physics. For the last couple of years at lest its been all about compromises "what can we cut to save memory or power for another area or even to allow the game to run 30 fps". The fact that quite a few of today's games have glitches, performance issues and having trouble with running the games at a steady 30 fps anymore shows that a they have hit a physical wall.

Again MS and Sony are not going to spend the same type of money they did in 2004 and 2005 to get prototype hardware that ended up being outclassed as soon they were released. Because MS is working with AMD with their next console "The GPU will be leaps ahead of 2012 hardware too, probably better than the 2013 GPUs on PC too" that will not happen because of many factors Cost, power, heat, and the limit that APU dies have in how many transistors they can put into a die. Even when the 360 was released it was not able out do a Geforce 7800GTX out right with any multiplat game all the way into 2007. And even with those multiplat games a 7800GTX was able to play those multiplatform games with better resolutions, detail and performance then the 360.and the 8600GT still proves this point today because that the 8600GT is actually a tad slower then 7800GTX and is able to match and or produce better results then the 360 or PS3.

I find that comment very funny though because you dont know what your talking about because for them to release a GPU that outclasses a GPU from 2012 or even 2013 on Pc. Do you realize how much money would be needed to develop and research a item like that or the power and cooling needed for something that fast? or how about the fact that the console is going to be released in 2012 or 2013. It can not outclass the high gaming gpu of today or even in 2012. the Price on the console would be nerly the same as a Pc with equal power. it wont happen because MS plans to turn a profit. Sony and MS have stated that they are not going to do the same thing what they they did with their current consoles... waste money and not make a profit until years later.

soulitane

In the 360 video, Withcer 2 runs in a mixed medium/high setting clearly

I am a computer engineer BTW, with a PhD (in a few months) and years in graphics, so i know very well what i see

For example, the light beams in Withcer 2 xbox video are from high PC setting, do you deny it ?

I must remind i have the game on PC, so i know exactly the settings and what they offer

Witcher 2 video on 360

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtJ7uXktqEg

This is definatly above medium on PC, far above even

I played the game on low, but that does not mean i did not try all settings at key points, like the forest

It is rather simple, play up to a point in low, then to see the max visuals up the settings and load, of course is a slide show, but i can see all effects of higher settings

[QUOTE="soulitane"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

In the 360 video, Withcer 2 runs in a mixed medium/high setting clearly

I am a computer engineer BTW, with a PhD (in a few months) and years in graphics, so i know very well what i see

For example, the light beams in Withcer 2 xbox video are from high PC setting, do you deny it ?

I must remind i have the game on PC, so i know exactly the settings and what they offer

Witcher 2 video on 360

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtJ7uXktqEg

This is definatly above medium on PC, far above even

loosingENDS

I played the game on low, but that does not mean i did not try all settings at key points, like the forest

It is rather simple, play up to a point in low, then to see the max visuals up the settings and load, of course is a slide show, but i can see all effects of higher settings

Sony once thought they could sell a $600 console and walk away with it.

Look how that turned out, I still think they are showing red numbers.

I'm telling you, the world being in an economic recession and all, we wont see another PS3 again.

Microsoft will not risk another RROD console by filling a small case with the latest tech, it's just not feasible.

Think about it a single high end GPU doesn't suck several hundreds of watts just for the fun of it.

The goal which I think Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will go for is the following.

- Low cost, I expect something ranging $300 - $400

- Compact and small (nintendo wii)

- Low energy consumption (electricity bills)

- Eliminate heat issues (RROD, etc.)

It's more and moreabout functionality than anything else. Is the device FUN to use, YES or NO. Mobile phones are in many ways proof of this. Wewill certainly alsosee new innovative ways of interacting with games.

fireballonfire

Pretty much this

Anyone expecting a big graphical leap is in for a disappointment. Next gen will be all about additional services and casual stuff. There will be an improvement in graphics but I'm not expecting a huge leap.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

So you think in the Atari days developers were paying more than $50 million to produce a game?

loosingENDS

I am talking comparing to this generation, very big budgets have gone to fitting these huge games on consoles, having better hardware would minimize these costs, also most developers now make or have already made straeming engines

Which is why 2GB is fine for next gen systems

I think the graphical leap will be very small and all 3 companies will be aiming at the family market with kinect like gimmicks.

tenaka2

Then why release a new system and not build on the existing one ? 360 has Kinect and amazing graphics anyway

Next gen systems will be at least 10x stronger than the bext PC hardware today, otherwise would be pointless

ROFL

Do you really think MS/Sony will release consoles at a huge loss like they did this gen? In this economic climate? When they see that the biggest sellers are not the most advanced graphics-wise?

ROFL

Do you really think MS/Sony will release consoles at a huge loss like they did this gen? In this economic climate? When they see that the biggest sellers are not the most advanced graphics-wise?

nunovlopes

Yes, i think will go for same as 360 launch price, 300-400$ is my guess, after all they can always lower the price a year later if they see sales decline

That has always been the console model, release at loss and make up with sales of games/peripherals etc

If I remember your specs correctly, then I doubt your PC could handle the game even at high, it would be more like a frame per minute. Even then it would be quite hard for you to actually see the full effects whilst playing a slide show me thinks.

soulitane