Would it be wise for Sony and Microsoft to "skip" a generation?

not unless their goal is to let nintendo take all of their market share.

[QUOTE="verbtex"]

[QUOTE="gamefan67"]No, losing market share is never a good idea.gamefan67

I wrote this five posts above you. "Will it really be "losing marketshare" if the PS3 and Xbox360 keep their current sales and then "Project Cafe" releases with 0? Isn't that above average marketshare, especially if all the console have pretty much the same specs?"

Yeah devs can demand better hardware, but then they also have to spend more money to master it. How much better hardware is needed?

PC tech keeps getting stronger, but we aren't talking about PCs. PCs will always be superior, there's no doubt about it. Its easier to customize them and make them more powerful.

We don't know how much stronger Cafe will be. But if the rumors of the touch screen on the controller are true, I don't see how this could be a great and revolutionary thing. Think of how you use a controller. usually you press the main buttons (like the directional pad, x, circle, triangle, square, y, a, and b) with your thumb. the triggers are usually controlled by your index finger and your middle finger. The index finger is most likely going to control the touch screen, because we have the most "control" over that finger. stretching the index finger over the thumb to press the main buttons would be painful, and awkard really. Plus the bottom triggers would have to be pressed by your ring finger. Our ring fingers aren't used to be used in video gaming very much, and are actually the least used of our fingers because they depend on the posisiton of the other fingers. It would take a little bit of getting used to, and quite a lot of fatigue, to use the ring finger. Watch, put your hand down, and your middlde finger down so that it is folded under. If you have it on a surface, you can't use your ring finger.

Smartphones and tables are getting cheaper, yes, but I don't see them as competition to the consoles. I see the more as competition to the handhelds. I wouldn't play a game like Uncharted, Infamous, Halo, Gears, SSBB, Metroid on a smartphone, my eyes would get tired. I would rather play them on a TV. Smartphones are more competitors to the 3DS and NGP.

Yes.. We do not need another console.. just keep on making great games.Dogswithguns

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]Hardware limitations. It's not about better graphics people, it's about having better hardware to make better games. Many this gen's best games would not be possible on last gen hardware. -RocBoys9489-

[QUOTE="gamefan67"][QUOTE="verbtex"]

I wrote this five posts above you. "Will it really be "losing marketshare" if the PS3 and Xbox360 keep their current sales and then "Project Cafe" releases with 0? Isn't that above average marketshare, especially if all the console have pretty much the same specs?"

shinrabanshou

And the consoles are currently still at ASPs similar to the launch pricepoint of the PS2.

If anything development is getting too costly and there's little desire for new hardware to increase development costs even further from developers and publishers alike.

Some publicised examples:

"At this point I have no desire as a developer and zero desire as a gamer to see the next generation come out," Ken Levine

"It would be horrible," Bilson told Eurogamer in an exclusive interview published today. "But I think they all know our model's broken anyway.

"It still costs us a fortune to make games on this platform. If they're going to up the scale, up the art, up the content, I don't know how to make that and sell it to anybody for under $100 a game.

"Who wants to do that?" he asked. "It's bad for everybody."

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="verbtex"]

Based on what incentive?

Are you not satisifed with the Xbox360 and PS3? Do they feel stale now? If no, there's no reason you need an upgrade. Why would you want to spend an extra $300+ on a new console if for the same amount you could buy 5 games on current gen consoles?

verbtex

How much better can we really get with hardware without making the consoles cost over $300? And do we really need better hardware? Physics on most games this generation are so close to realistic, its hard sometimes to forget some of the greater games are just games. Plus developer costs are rising, and developers are just getting really good with what they got. why increase costs even more and limit more developers? I'd rather have a console with a lot of games of the quality we have today than consoles with only exclusives, and only 6 of them due to developer costs, on better hardware.

People are silly using the "losing market share" excuse. Because most people will always remember who Microsoft and Sony were. So, let's say for example they skip the next generation. Then, the generation after that people would be excitedly crazy to see what their new console would be like because they made consoles before and we know that. Doesn't matter anyway, there will be no newconsoles by that time.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]The same reasons as last gen? Games stop coming out for the old system, and you gotta get the new one-RocBoys9489-

That's because a successor released, if one didn't release, would they still jump ship and move on to Nintendo?

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]Which is fine for the limited number of early adopters. But what tangible incentive and perceived value proposition is there for the "average consumer." What's the hook?

Coolyfett

the more you care about graphics the more you need a new console...Im perfectly fine as long as they bringing up good games, there games out that are impressive to me and they don't have pc-like graphics like LA Noire. I want a new console thatit's more than justhigher resolution texturestextures.

[QUOTE="verbtex"]

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] Hardware limitations. It's not about better graphics people, it's about having better hardware to make better games. Many this gen's best games would not be possible on last gen hardware. -RocBoys9489-

How much better can we really get with hardware without making the consoles cost over $300? And do we really need better hardware? Physics on most games this generation are so close to realistic, its hard sometimes to forget some of the greater games are just games. Plus developer costs are rising, and developers are just getting really good with what they got. why increase costs even more and limit more developers? I'd rather have a console with a lot of games of the quality we have today than consoles with only exclusives, and only 6 of them due to developer costs, on better hardware.

Witcher 2 isn't coming out on consoles?

Crysis is of course out of the question, because Crysis plays on the best PC's possible. PC's will always be better because you can upgrade the hardware. If we always compared PC's to consoles, of course the consoles always lose, it's because consoles can't be upgraded hardware wise, otherwise we would have messes of operating systems, and too many people would be dissappointed that they didn't upgrade their console to play the latest game. I understand that PCs are better than consoles, but is that ever false?

For the same reasons they abandon the best selling console of all time last gen-RocBoys9489-

Multiplatform games still release onto the PS2 today.

But the value proposition for the general populace between the 6th and 7th generations, be it in control scheme with the Wii or technically with the PS3 and 360, was much more evident. It was tangibly evident. Anyone, publishers and developers included, could see it.

What is the unique selling point of new hardware for the general populace?

[QUOTE="Coolyfett"]

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] The same reasons as last gen? Games stop coming out for the old system, and you gotta get the new one-RocBoys9489-

If they aren't large budget games (unless they are gimmicky movie games like Toy Story 3), they typically don't sell well. Even some large budget games don't sell well..look at Turok. The goal is ultimate to make money, and if not, at least break even. If the games next gen are of this gen's quality, why skip to the next generation and pay the money for the entrance fee? (console.). It's like a country fair copying every ride that Disneyland has, but charging a lot less for tickets. Why would you go to disneyland if you have the same quality for cheaper?

The market isnt saturated yet....which is really my point. Im looking ahead. 3-5 years PS3 and 360 will be extremely outdated by technology standards (they already are). And with the rise of smartphones and tablets, it isnt like 360 and PS3 are selling astronomical numbers anyway. You have to make something new and exciting to entice consumers (Kinect is working for now, at least for 360). All things considered, not a smart move on either company's part.gamefan67

I think it's a smart move from Nintendo releasing a system with performance somewhere between this gen and next gen Sony/MS consoles. Somebody mentioned that the wii2 will come with a GPU comparable to a 285 gtx so maybe three times as powerful as the current consoles would be a safe bet.

MS/Sony will not have new consoles out earlier than 2014 and you can quote me on that.

Gamers who are ready to move on will make the switch, brand loyalty or not.

not unless their goal is to let nintendo take all of their market share.

theuncharted34

If nintendo releases a new console, and it is in direct competition with the Xbox360 and PS3 because they all have about equivalent stats, and they stick to the PS3 and Xbox360 as it's competitors, don't the PS3 and Xbox360 already have a huge lead?

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

not unless their goal is to let nintendo take all of their market share.

verbtex

If nintendo releases a new console, and it is in direct competition with the Xbox360 and PS3 because they all have about equivalent stats, and they stick to the PS3 and Xbox360 as it's competitors, don't the PS3 and Xbox360 already have a huge lead?

You're not being realistic. Do you honestly believe that Nintendo will stick asix year old 7900 gtx in their new console?

There's already 200-300$ laptops coming out soon which are more powerful than the consoles.

People are going to end up with a more capable "gaming" pc through the mere process of having to buy a new computer for web browsing.

If new consoles aren't released soon, there's likely to be a continual decline in software sales as people get the better looking/running and cheaper pc version.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]For the same reasons they abandon the best selling console of all time last genshinrabanshou

Multiplatform games still release onto the PS2 today.

But the value proposition for the general populace between the 6th and 7th generations, be it in control scheme with the Wii or technically with the PS3 and 360, was much more evident. It was tangibly evident. Anyone, publishers and developers included, could see it.

What is the unique selling point of new hardware for the general populace?

they should just wait till 2015 or sothing

There's already 200-300$ laptops coming out soon which are more powerful than the consoles.

People are going to end up with a more capable "gaming" pc through the mere process of having to buy a new computer for web browsing.

If new consoles aren't released soon, there's likely to be a continual decline in software sales as people get the better looking/running and cheaper pc version.

topgunmv

Thanks for proving my point, you guys are acting as if you can't still play the current consoles after the new ones come out. Don't wanna play PS4? Put up w/ it and continue to play PS3; adopt late, like you probably did this gen which is why you feel no need for new consoles. And also, the difference will be very evident when new hardware is shown off and the potential for games is shown. No more crappy not even HD resolutions, no more sacrificing graphics for larger scale games, no more limitations on the sizes of game worlds because of a dismal memory amount, no more low framerates, no more limited player counts on multiplayer games, I could go on.-RocBoys9489-

The early and late majority outnumber the early adopter set. The lower the unique selling proposition, the smaller the early adopter set and the longer the diffusion of innovation as far as I'm aware.

The pain points you listed aren't sufficient for the general populace, to whom the vast majority of the 185 million current gen consoles have sold, to invest in new technologies.

And while first mover advantage can be important, it isn't usually decisive in console gaming, again as far as I'm aware.

[QUOTE="verbtex"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

not unless their goal is to let nintendo take all of their market share.

fireballonfire

If nintendo releases a new console, and it is in direct competition with the Xbox360 and PS3 because they all have about equivalent stats, and they stick to the PS3 and Xbox360 as it's competitors, don't the PS3 and Xbox360 already have a huge lead?

You're not being realistic. Do you honestly believe that Nintendo will stick asix year old 7900 gtx in their new console?

Are they going to release a really expensive console and risk being out sold by the older gen cheaper consoles?

[QUOTE="fireballonfire"]

[QUOTE="verbtex"]

If nintendo releases a new console, and it is in direct competition with the Xbox360 and PS3 because they all have about equivalent stats, and they stick to the PS3 and Xbox360 as it's competitors, don't the PS3 and Xbox360 already have a huge lead?

verbtex

You're not being realistic. Do you honestly believe that Nintendo will stick asix year old 7900 gtx in their new console?

Are they going to release a really expensive console and risk being out sold by the older gen cheaper consoles?

You are completely overseeing the fact that there is something called, "middle end".

It will most probably be something in the line of the 200 series gpu. They are hardly expensive anymore.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] Thanks for proving my point, you guys are acting as if you can't still play the current consoles after the new ones come out. Don't wanna play PS4? Put up w/ it and continue to play PS3; adopt late, like you probably did this gen which is why you feel no need for new consoles. And also, the difference will be very evident when new hardware is shown off and the potential for games is shown. No more crappy not even HD resolutions, no more sacrificing graphics for larger scale games, no more limitations on the sizes of game worlds because of a dismal memory amount, no more low framerates, no more limited player counts on multiplayer games, I could go on.shinrabanshou

The early and late majority outnumber the early adopter set. The lower the unique selling proposition, the smaller the early adopter set and the longer the diffusion of innovation as far as I'm aware.

The pain points you listed aren't sufficient for the general populace, to whom the vast majority of the 185 million current gen consoles have sold, to invest in new technologies.

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]Why would they do such a thing when they are making a profit?verbtex

The PS3 became profitable just a few years ago. Why would they want to restart a generation where theres little profit if they could be profitable and still compete?

I think it's a smart move from Nintendo releasing a system with performance somewhere between this gen and next gen Sony/MS consoles. Somebody mentioned that the wii2 will come with a GPU comparable to a 285 gtx so maybe three times as powerful as the current consoles would be a safe bet.

MS/Sony will not have new consoles out earlier than 2014 and you can quote me on that.

Gamers who are ready to move on will make the switch, brand loyalty or not.

fireballonfire

The 360 and PS3 are popular not solely for their graphics capability but more importantly their games. If Cafe theoretically received the same third party games as the 360/PS3, there'd be little incentive to "upgrade" (aside from first party offerings, which would be an incentive no matter how weak or powerful Cafe was anyway). Ubisoft's CEO is already on record as saying they plan to do 360/PS3/Cafe cross-platform development...

Going by your logic, every gen would last like what, 10 years?! Obviously that has not been the case and you should realize that after this year, this gen is pretty much done. We've seen damn near every sequel and CoD for the last 6 years annually. It's time for new IPs and you know what developers want to start those? New technology. Was ND thinking they could do Uncharted on PS2? How about Mass Effect on original Xbox? Gears of War? Heck, Call of fricken Duty, that was popular on the old consoles *sarcasm* LA Noire, RDR, GTAIV? Battlefield? Killzone? Heavy Rain?-RocBoys9489-

From Microsoft and Sony's perspective, the real important points of consideration have nothing to do with graphics or even the development of new IPs. It's things like: 1) is the current console still putting up strong sales numbers, including increased Y/Y sales, 2) is the current console profitable and would a new console have to be sold at a loss, 3) are software sales for the current console still strong, and 4) is there still room for product growth via price cuts, new marketing plans and new peripherals, 5) is the competition going to attract third-party development away from our current console, etc.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]

Going by your logic, every gen would last like what, 10 years?! Obviously that has not been the case and you should realize that after this year, this gen is pretty much done. We've seen damn near every sequel and CoD for the last 6 years annually. It's time for new IPs and you know what developers want to start those? New technology. Was ND thinking they could do Uncharted on PS2? How about Mass Effect on original Xbox? Gears of War? Heck, Call of fricken Duty, that was popular on the old consoles *sarcasm* LA Noire, RDR, GTAIV? Battlefield? Killzone? Heavy Rain?SakusEnvoy

From Microsoft and Sony's perspective, the real important points of consideration have nothing to do with graphics or even the development of new IPs. It's things like: 1) is the current console still putting up strong sales numbers, including increased Y/Y sales, 2) is the current console profitable and would a new console have to be sold at a loss, 3) are software sales for the current console still strong, and 4) is there still room for product growth via price cuts, new marketing plans and new peripherals, 5) is the competition going to attract third-party development away from our current console, etc.

[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

In all likelihood, last generation probably would have lasted longer if the Xbox 1 and Gamecube had been more successful. Those systems had completely lost steam by 2004/5, so Nintendo and MS were eager to launch new hardware. If it were up to Sony, I'm willing to bet last-gen would have lasted quite a bit longer.

From Microsoft and Sony's perspective, the real important points of consideration have nothing to do with graphics or even the development of new IPs. It's things like: 1) is the current console still putting up strong sales numbers, including increased Y/Y sales, 2) is the current console profitable and would a new console have to be sold at a loss, 3) are software sales for the current console still strong, and 4) is there still room for product growth via price cuts, new marketing plans and new peripherals, 5) is the competition going to attract third-party development away from our current console, etc.

-RocBoys9489-

It was a totally unnecessary device for them in 2006, save for the fact that they had to launch something because their competitors would eat up market share if they didn't. Well, they also did find use for the device as a spearhead in the format war against HD-DVD. But there are currently no major format wars or optical disc storage mediums for Sony to push right now.

Does Sony want to launch a PS4 in the next couple years? I cannot possibly fathom that they do.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

In all likelihood, last generation probably would have lasted longer if the Xbox 1 and Gamecube had been more successful. Those systems had completely lost steam by 2004/5, so Nintendo and MS were eager to launch new hardware. If it were up to Sony, I'm willing to bet last-gen would have lasted quite a bit longer.

From Microsoft and Sony's perspective, the real important points of consideration have nothing to do with graphics or even the development of new IPs. It's things like: 1) is the current console still putting up strong sales numbers, including increased Y/Y sales, 2) is the current console profitable and would a new console have to be sold at a loss, 3) are software sales for the current console still strong, and 4) is there still room for product growth via price cuts, new marketing plans and new peripherals, 5) is the competition going to attract third-party development away from our current console, etc.

SakusEnvoy

It was a totally unnecessary device for them in 2006, save for the fact that they had to launch something because their competitors would eat up market share if they didn't. Well, they also did find use for the device as a spearhead in the format war against HD-DVD. But there are currently no major format wars or optical disc storage mediums for Sony to push right now.

Does Sony want to launch a PS4 in the next couple years? I cannot possibly fathom that they do.

a BIG NO to that..... one it would be really hard for them to recapture their fanbase. As I see many of them moving on to PC, or just away from gaming. Sure you can keep supporting your system for 10 sum years, but its not going to get anyone exited and rush out and buy your product. The new systems will come, maybe a bit late this time around, but they are coming..... 2013 probably.

So, all of us have been hearing about project cafe recently, but I was just thinking, would it be a good idea for Sony and Microsoft to not make a new console and to continue to support the PS3 and Xbox360 until the "PROJECT CAFE" succesor comes out?

Let's see:

-It would allow for there to be a more noticeable jump in the generations.

- It would really damper on Nintendo's lead. If all three consoles have the same specs and the Nintendo sells for $100 more, who's ultimately going to make more sales?

-It wouldn't exactly place neither Microsoft nor Sony in a bad place, because they won't have to spend so much money on the development of these consoles, and allow them to save up more money for something truly extraordinary, while Nintendo tries to recover from putting out a new console.

Discuss.

nintendo already did. They just released a gamecube with motion controls and made millions.

I voted yes. I am seriously considering skipping next gen if it releases in the next three years. I don't even have a PS3 (did until my house was broken into). I plan on getting one later this year. Considering just sticking to PC next gen and playing my PS3 as my console as well as the NGP as my handheld. Either that, or I can just not get a PS3 and skip this gen and go with next gen. I guess it all boils down to what is announced at E3. If Sony talks about releasing a new console next year or the year after, I will just hold off on getting a PS3 and get the PS4 instead.

I am perfectly happy with the PS3 and 360 right now, I still have a nice big backlog of games I have to play for them. I say let Nintendo come out with Project Cafe. Microsoft and Sony should be wait until 2014-2015.

Going by your logic, every gen would last like what, 10 years?! Obviously that has not been the case and you should realize that after this year, this gen is pretty much done. We've seen damn near every sequel and CoD for the last 6 years annually. It's time for new IPs and you know what developers want to start those? New technology. Was ND thinking they could do Uncharted on PS2? How about Mass Effect on original Xbox? Gears of War? Heck, Call of fricken Duty, that was popular on the old consoles *sarcasm* LA Noire, RDR, GTAIV? Battlefield? Killzone? Heavy Rain?-RocBoys9489-

You've still yet to provide a value proposition derived from new hardware that would appeal to a broad audience sufficient to incentivise the move to the new platform. The average consumer doesn't read Digital Foundry, doesn't care about slightly better particle effects, won't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p and isn't going to shell out hundreds of dollars just to have 16 players in their multiplayer match instead of 8.

The question isn't do the few early adopters who think this generation is "done" want new hardware. The questions are, does the market as a whole want it, is there incentive for publishers and is there incentive for the manufacturers themselves. The answers to the latter two are - not really.

First mover advantage has been eroded before, it can be eroded again.

shinrabanshou, you're absolutely right. As the technological leap grows smaller and smaller, less noticeable from one console generation to another, there will be less of an incentive to rush out a new piece of hardware, just to get a jump on one's competitors. It might be more beneficial for Microsoft and Sony to wait longer, with nearly every multiplatform title on the next Nintendo console not really having much more to offer than better graphics and maybe some additional content.

For the gamer that loves Nintendo, is a child, can't play mature titles, or all of the above, he/she may want to buy a new console. As for the rest of us, we will sit back and wait longer, more patiently, for the next batch of consoles to drop in price and to offer plenty of titles by the time we are ready to make a new purchase. Besides, Nintendo will probably not be as big with its online gaming service as that of the PSN or XBL, at least not for a while.

I don't think you can skip a generation. Whenever they release their next consoles would officially be their next gen. Am I crazy thinking this?

I don't think you can skip a generation. Whenever they release their next consoles would officially be their next gen. Am I crazy thinking this?

Pug-Nasty

Skipping would be if they waited until about 2015 or 2016, putting Project Cafe in a gen of its own.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

I don't think you can skip a generation. Whenever they release their next consoles would officially be their next gen. Am I crazy thinking this?

tubbyc

Skipping would be if they waited until about 2015 or 2016, putting Project Cafe in a gen of its own.

I disagree. If anything, this project cafe appears to be just catching up with the ps3 and 360 in terms of capabilities. Cafe won't be forcing either of the other companies to upgrade.

[QUOTE="tubbyc"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

I don't think you can skip a generation. Whenever they release their next consoles would officially be their next gen. Am I crazy thinking this?

Pug-Nasty

Skipping would be if they waited until about 2015 or 2016, putting Project Cafe in a gen of its own.

I disagree. If anything, this project cafe appears to be just catching up with the ps3 and 360 in terms of capabilities. Cafe won't be forcing either of the other companies to upgrade.

It will probably be atleast a bit more powerful but also have an extra, key feature as a selling point, much like the Wii did. Anyway, reports suggest that Sony and MS are looking at a 2013 or 2014 release, which is probably true.

It would be suicide for Sony and MS, if they want to keep making consoles...

Their hardware is already obsolete and the difference with PC would keep on hurting more with each passing month...

And Nintendo would win a new gen with no opposition.

Anyway, this isn't happening. They've been hyping a 10 year cycle, but as soon as Nintendo's Project Cafe starts selling, they'll be hyping the imminent release of their new system like crazy.

The next twelve months are going to be hugely interesting for gamers... I for one can't wait to see exactly what Ninty, MS and Sony are up to...

It makes no sense to improve beyond this point. Games have been able to improve as far as they have because they were within a threshold of affordability. But as costs skyrocket, sales remain the same. In fact, supposedly Japanese games sell less than they did in the PS1 era.

It doesn't make sense to continuously increase costs, without increasing profitability.

Their hardware is already obsolete and the difference with PC would keep on hurting more with each passing month...

milannoir

It makes no sense to improve beyond this point. Games have been able to improve as far as they have because they were within a threshold of affordability. But as costs skyrocket, sales remain the same. In fact, supposedly Japanese games sell less than they did in the PS1 era.

It doesn't make sense to continuously increase costs, without increasing profitability.

hakanakumono

Costs are skyrocketing because every developer is trying to create a magnum opus. It's essentially like every movie trying to be like avatar, but bigger, and doing it by spending more money.

There's a reason that all these small indie devs can make awesome looking pc games with a small team and budget.

Sony should. The cel1!1 should be plenty powerful enough for next gen...at least that's what I hear anyway.