@gamerx100 Crytek licenses out their graphics engine. Like id's pre-Bethesda games as well as Epic's titles, one can argue that their games are there to serve as a tech-demo that also is a game. Certainly, Unreal Engine has made a ton of money for Epic, and the various Doom and Quake engines made a lot of money for id.
@Michformer I think this is really the ugly side of this generation: costs to produce a visually competent game have gotten so high that its stifling creativity. No company in their right minds are going to spend tens of millions of dollars to make and promote a game that they think will lose money. And, certainly, over the years I've seen gamers vote with their wallets for more and more sequels, passing up on excellent, original titles they weren't familiar with or, more unforgivingly, weren't quite perfect.
Creativity is a goal, but profit (or at least breaking even) has to accompany it to get big-budget investment. If gamers would settle for significantly lesser graphics, they could likely do a Time Splitters 4. But then you'd have to kiss the retail console market good-bye, because it would likely flop there.
Honestly, your petition is well intentioned, but won't do a thing. Try asking CryTek/Free Radical if they would try a Kickstarter? That'd be something else. I bet they could make a really great Timesplitters for "only" $10 million (same estimated price as Metal Gear Solid 2). You can hit that if 16,667 people pledge $60 each. Sure, it would likely have last-gen graphics, would likely have to be on PSN, XBLA, and PC (Steam), but you'd get your game.
TL;DR? Ask them for at least the chance to put your money where your mouth is.
@Serpentes420 @Parker82 Going by past generations, yes, the next generation not being here now is a little unusual. Like a car company releasing a 2010 model of a popular car, but not a 2011 and 2012 because its waiting for 2013, even though up until then it released new models yearly.
@Parker82 Well, to be honest, companies typically deny things like this up until the minute they actually announce them. It could be out tomorrow, but they'll say "not yet" today.
@WarGameJunkie @MUKUSS 1. Sony ditched it because they were losing money hand over fist (over $250 per launch PS3), so every dollar saved per PS3 would save millions when you looked at the big picture - they started designing more cost-efficient models almost immediately after the US/Japanese launch. Also, reselling old games makes them money than offering blanket backwards compatibility. Sadly, the entire PS1 and PS2 library is not for sale in this fashion, because there were a TON of games I never got to try, as well as a lot of games I had but had to sell, the disc got damaged, etc. Also, a lot of games never made it out of their respective region, so having an "import" section (untranslated okay) would be fantastic.
I know companies are greedy, but geez, sometimes they pass up some really OBVIOUS ways to get my money...
2. Hardware BC versus software BC isn't possible because of Intel - Microsoft would have to pay more to add/license Intel's hardware/IP. That's why Microsoft went to IBM to make a chip - IBM was willing to design the chip and sell the related IP to Microsoft, something Intel wouldn't do. Hardware 360 BC on the NextBox is far more feasible as a result. Doesn't mean they'll do it, of course.
3. Supporting one generation back seems to have worked well for Nintendo, and I suspect that their retail partners might appreciate it. It could be a problem for launch titles, however, if people bought a NextBox and some 360 games instead of the new Halo, Gears, Forza, whatever, though.
I think if they had it, it would help sell 360 games since people would be more assured their titles would carry over. I hope stuff bought on XBLA and PSN carry over from one generation to the next! However, I can see reasons why it wouldn't happen, although that's going to be a lot of pressure from publishing partners, IMO.
You know, I wonder if prices on SSDs will go down enough that they'd be viable for next generation? A base SSD drive would be fantastic for performance reasons, still provide reasonable storage for saves, OS updates, some DLC, etc. A regular harddrive would make for an excellent second drive purely for mass storage to install/copy games to, lots of DLC, movies, etc., for more hardcore and enthusiast gamers. And, SSDs should scale in price better as time goes by (ie, go down in cost) than regular harddrives (plus get smaller, use less power, etc).
@deathstream @Master_Turismo Well, due to costs of launching the current systems, this cycle was/is expected to last longer than "normal." Add in the economy, changes in consumer buying, etc. Additionally, I don't feel that there's enough of a price differential between the current systems and a comfortable starting price for new consoles, unless Microsoft's alleged $99 w/contract Core 360 is a sign of them trying to widen the gap sooner than later. After all, by this time in the last cycle, the PS2 was $129. The PS3 is almost twice that right now, and the 360 Elite/Core+Kinect even more so.
That said, I do see your point, and its a good one. Just because the companies want/need to extend the cycle doesn't mean they can force it to happen out of sheer will alone.
chikahiro94's comments