Support NeoGAF

[ourumov]

I always understood the next gen strategy as some way to renew interest of gamers in the product we are selling.
For instance, SNES and PSX appeared when both system's sales have reached its peak so we can say it was a natural reaction. Sometimes it isn't done just because people cares again about you but just because you have been unable to make people care at all (Dreamcast for instance after the failure of the SS in western zones, Gamecube after N64, etc.)
This makes the launch of XBOX and Revolution a bit of sense but jumping to the PS3... I wonder what people at Sony must be thinking now.
PS2 sells very well on the 3 markets, 3rd parties are happy with the situation and just begin to make profit of the huge userbase (the 2 first years were horrible and if you don't believe me talk with Namco)...and now they have just to launch another platfform which will have a small userbase at first, developers will have to get used to it, etc.
Of course they are doing this to not give Microsoft a lot of terrain in the year of difference between the launchs but I wonder if this benefits the real gamer.
In the PS2 case, this is not a problem. Everybody with a PS2 has enough games to cover most genres with great titles. But in the XBOX/GC case I can't understand the need for the next gen after the current situation we are living.
Both systems show a lack of games in a lot of genres and they are gonna die with that lack. Then my question is: Instead of pushing a new system, wouldn't be wiser to end the current one with dignity ? Although we all know MS doesn't think so (despite if they wanted they could keep the XBOX for at least another year with great games), I see Nintendo trying to keep GC with good games till the end and I really appreciate this.
The concept of generation is changing a lot since the NES days. It becomes shorter and shorter and at the end we will be living with 2 year-cycle systems.

When I enter a thread and see people saying: "Oh yes, make this game for the Revolution !" , "This title as a launch game for the Revolution would rock !" I really don't understand them. GC has shown that moving titles from a system to another is not a good idea (Ethernal Darkness, RE0, Star Fox Adventures and probably others internally at Nintendo).

 

[JavyOO7]

Basically, it's competition. Microsoft wants to one-up the competition by sending in a more powerful version of the XBox, thus, having the other 2 cowboys (Sony and Nintendo) flinch as well.

I agree Sony has nothing to worry about really, and could just sit on their laurels with the success of the PS2. But Nintendo? 3rd party situtation, hardcore gamers constantly being frustrated with the direction the company is going in, lack of mindshare from casual consumers. Nintendo has the handheld side of things downpacked (for now) but what happens 2 3 or even 4 years from now? I don't know.

Thinking about it now, I think it's a good thing that Nintendo is flinching a bit. It's a brand new start when you think about it. No one can deny that Nintendo makes some of the best games out there, and hopefully the tradition continues with the N5. But with the Rev coming soon, only good could come out of it to repair the situations that currently plague them.

 

[pcostabel]

I have the feeling that adoption of next gen game systems will be very slow. I think this gen graphics are good enough for most people, and if the new systems are not significantly better looking and offer a very different gaming experience, casual gamers may decide to stick with this gen for a long, long time. PS2 may end up being the best selling system for the whole duration of next gen. If that happens, I wonder if there will ever be a PS4/Xbox3/Revolution2...

 

[ninge]

yep, dimishing returns on graphics make each evolution that much less impressive than the last one.. and shorted life cycles really dont help matters.

Microsoft are really the ones that are pushing things early, and i guess to them it makes sense.. but you are right to say that its not really in the best interest of gamers or developers!

the last thing that needs to happen is for the console model to end up like the pc model, but that seems to be the way it's heading right now.

 

[Kleegamefan]

the last thing that needs to happen is for the console model to end up like the pc model, but that seems to be the way it's heading right now.

Let take a closer look

NINTENDO
NES-SNES-1984-1991: SEVEN YEARS...among videogame hardware companies that still remain viable (no Colecovision, Atari or Commodore) this is the longest generation of we have seen

SNES-N64 1991-1996:FIVE YEARS

N64-GCN-1996-2001:FIVE YEARS

GCN-REVOLUTION 2001-2006:FIVE YEARS


SEGA
SEGA MASTERSYTEM-GENESIS-1986-1989:THREE YEARS(here is your PC upgrade cycle people, not now.....and even *it* was the very first Sega upgrade, BTW)

SEGA GENESIS-SATURN-1989-1994: FIVE YEARS

SEGA SATURN-DREAMCAST-1994-1998 FOUR YEARS (Like XBOX)


MS
MICROSOFT XBOX-XENON-2001-2005: FOUR YEARS (Like Dreamcast)


SONY
SONY PLAYSTATION-PLAYSTATION 2-1994-2000:SIX YEARS

PS2-PS3-2000-2006:SIX YEARS


So if we look at past trends, Nintendo sticks to their five year plan, Sony sticks to their Six year plan, Sega was all over the place and Microsoft is adhearing to the Dreamcast upgrade path



THERE IS NO RADICAL CHANGE TO HOW OFTEN HW IS INTRODUCED PEOPLE

You cannot point to even one single example of how the current gap (GCN-Revolution,PS2-PS3) is shorter than the gap before (N64-GCN,PSOne-PS2)

 

[ButtonMasher]

I have the feeling that adoption of next gen game systems will be very slow. I think this gen graphics are good enough for most people, and if the new systems are not significantly better looking and offer a very different gaming experience, casual gamers may decide to stick with this gen for a long, long time. PS2 may end up being the best selling system for the whole duration of next gen. If that happens, I wonder if there will ever be a PS4/Xbox3/Revolution2...

I pretty much agree here, I'm pretty content with what's out there and the markets been way to flooded this time around(DC, PS2, Xbox, Cube and 3 handhelds in 5 years?), reminds me of the early 16/32bitt era when hardware comp's were drop'n like flies.

I think after the initial hype and some sales it's gonna slow way down to a crawl. MS is moving way too fast in this market(It's not the PC market of the old MS) and I'm not sure about Nin trying to push foward when they're game software for Cube is quite shallow this round, seems they've been shrinking each gen since SNES. Sony will OK on the launch like always but I'd be surprized if it hit's the same sales #'s in the same time period as the PS2 did?

Just gonna have to sit back and see.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

I agree, I all three consoles still have what it takes to have titles that have the WOW factor. GC is the one console I would like to see more out of, a simulation racer built from ground up. And a exclusive fighter built from the ground up aswell. I'm still wowed by RE4 everytime I play, I still stop and just observe.

Criterion games FPS, the title slips my mind. I'm really looking forward to what they've accomplished visually and gameplay wise. We have yet to see a really stand out FPS on the PS2.( don't mention KZ)

Xbox would have to be SC:CT, EGM has already given it great scores, so I'm looking forward to that one.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

Criterion games FPS, the title slips my mind. I'm really looking forward to what they've accomplished visually and gameplay wise.

You mean "Black"?

I've been a Playstation-only gamer since I first bought my PS1 back in 97. I don't have the time or money to be a multiple console gamer and Sony gives me everything I want and more. I have an old PS2 with HDLoader as well as a new PStwo. I am joygasming over the PSP and by 2006, I will be ready for a PS3. I couldn't be happier.

 

[xexex]

Let take a closer look

NINTENDO
NES-SNES-1984-1991: SEVEN YEARS...among videogame hardware companies that still remain viable (no Colecovision, Atari or Commodore) this is the longest generation of we have seen

SNES-N64 1991-1996:FIVE YEARS

N64-GCN-1996-2001:FIVE YEARS

GCN-REVOLUTION 2001-2006:FIVE YEARS


SEGA
SEGA MASTERSYTEM-GENESIS-1986-1989:THREE YEARS(here is your PC upgrade cycle people, not now and even *it* was the very first Sega upgrade, BTW)

SEGA GENESIS-SATURN-1989-1994: FIVE YEARS

SEGA SATURN-DREAMCAST-1994-1998 FOUR YEARS (Like XBOX)


MS
MICROSOFT XBOX-XENON-2001-2005: FOUR YEARS (Like Dreamcast)


SONY
SONY PLAYSTATION-PLAYSTATION 2-1994-2000:SIX YEARS

PS2-PS3-2000-2006:SIX YEARS


So if we look at past trends, Nintendo sticks to their five year plan, Sony sticks to their Six year plan, Sega was all over the place and Microsoft is adhearing to the Dreamcast upgrade path



THERE IS NO RADICAL CHANGE TO HOW OFTEN HW IS INTRODUCED PEOPLE

You cannot point to even one single example of how the current gap (GCN-Revolution,PS2-PS3) is shorter than the gap before (N64-GCN,PSOne-PS2)

Atari

2600 to 5200: 1977 to 1982 - ~5 years

5200 to 7800: 1982 to 1986 - ~4 years



8-bit to 16-bit

Nintendo Japan
Famicom to Super Famicom: mid 1983 to late 1990 - 7 1/2 years

Nintendo America
NES to Super NES: late 1985 to Summer 1991 - almost 6 years

Sega Japan
Mark III to Megadrive: 1984 to late 1988 - ~4 years

Sega America
Master System to Genesis: mid 1986 to late summer 1989 - 3 years

Atari
7800 to Jaguar: 1986 to 1993-94 ~7-8 years (Jag widely available in 94)
(yes, im counting Jag as a 16 bit system)


16-bit to 32/64 bit

Nintendo Japan
Super Famicom to Nintendo 64: late 1990 to mid 1996 almost 6 years

Nintendo America
Super NES to Nintendo 64: late summer 1991 to fall 1996 - 5 years


Sega Japan
Megadrive to Saturn: late 1988 to late 1994 - 6 years

Sega America
Genesis to Saturn: late summer 1989 to spring 1995 - almost 6 years



early 3D to more advanced 3D (dropping bit count)

Nintendo Japan
Nintendo 64 to Gamecube: mid 1996 to fall 2001 - ~5 years

Nintendo America
Nintendo64 to Gamecube: fall 1996 to fall 2001 - ~5 years

Sega Japan
Saturn to Dreamcast: late 1994 to late 1998 - 4 years

Sega America
Saturn to Dreamcast: spring 1995 to late summer 1999 - over 4 years


Sony Japan
PS-X/PS1 to PS2: late 1994 to early 2000 - almost 5 1/2 years

Sony America
PS-X/PS1 to PS2: late summer 1995 to fall 2000 - ~5 years


3DO's projected upgrade path

3DO to M2: fall 1993 to fall 1996 - 3 years
M2 to M2.5 (M2 with DVD) 1996 to 1998 - 2 years
M2.5 to MX 1998 to 1999-2000 - 1 or 2 years
M3 and M4 in development or on paper to come out every few years like M1 to M2 to MX

and as of 1999-2000, Sega's Dreamcast2 or Sega nextgen console, was expected to appear as early as the 2002-2003 timeframe. or even as late as Playstation3.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Bottom line for Microsoft is getting their console out of the door 1st. They think that way more people will buy their console soley on the fact that it's the "newest" console. It's that kind of thinking that more than likely made Nokia think they could get into the handheld business ( :lol ) . If Xbox 2 comes out with nothing better than PS3 other than the fact that it's "The newest", they'll fall flat on there faces. Sure, they'll grab a few bucks from casual and extremely hardcore gamers, but budget gamers like me like to wait to survey the future of these nex-gen consoles to see whch is the best. It might be a year after each console is released until I make a decision on which to get, making Xbox 2's "headstart" virtually pointless.

Nintendo will take their time with their console, what ever it is, and make sure that it will be a great successor to the gamecube.

And the PS3 will also take their time, since they know just by name recognition alone that they can sell a few million. They'll gather support from those who've jumped off the Xbox 2/Revolution bandwagon(if it comes out after the Revolution) and they'll make sure they can get the most out of this "Cell" technology.

Ultimately, I think PS3 will come out on top. But that opinion can easily change depending on whether the Revolution is a gimmick or it honestly "wows" me. There has been nothing but rumors about it, so I can not form a real opinion about it, but at this point and time and with the facts that are available, it looks like PS3 will rule.

 

[Any1]

Boy, i never fail to be amused by all the people that say graphics really won't get that much better or that there really is no need for next gen systems.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Bottom line for Microsoft is getting their console out of the door 1st. They think that way more people will buy their console soley on the fact that it's the "newest" console. It's that kind of thinking that more than likely made Nokia think they could get into the handheld business ( :lol ) . If Xbox 2 comes out with nothing better than PS3 other than the fact that it's "The newest", they'll fall flat on there faces. Sure, they'll grab a few bucks from casual and extremely hardcore gamers, but budget gamers like me like to wait to survey the future of these nex-gen consoles to see whch is the best. It might be a year after each console is released until I make a decision on which to get, making Xbox 2's "headstart" virtually pointless.

Nintendo will take their time with their console, what ever it is, and make sure that it will be a great successor to the gamecube.

And the PS3 will also take their time, since they know just by name recognition alone that they can sell a few million. They'll gather support from those who've jumped off the Xbox 2/Revolution bandwagon(if it comes out after the Revolution) and they'll make sure they can get the most out of this "Cell" technology.

Ultimately, I think PS3 will come out on top. But that opinion can easily change depending on whether the Revolution is a gimmick or it honestly "wows" me. There has been nothing but rumors about it, so I can not form a real opinion about it, but at this point and time and with the facts that are available, it looks like PS3 will rule.

If you were to believe the comments from Q-mann in the latest EGM about the PS3 being more powerful than the XBOX2, based on what he say's he has been told by developers who have knowledge of both consoles technical specs, it starts to look even more problematic for MS.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

PS2 is pretty much pushed as far as it can go. Its all up to making superior artwork now to compensate for the brick wall its hit with polygon power. I still think Xbox and to a smaller extent, the Game Cube have more power in them than what is being released. Its too bad we'll never see it for the Xbox and probably for Game Cube.

I don't think this generation has been any shorter. Its been a long ride, especially if people count Dreamcast in this generation (as opposed to the transitional gap of 64 to 128 bits). The machines aren't out yet, there's still a year or so to go for these machines plus usually a year or two of additional software, especially for PS2. There have been a lot of good PS One releases since the PS2's release like Hoshigami, Final Fantasy IX, and Metal Slug X. The same will happen with PS2. I doubt Game Cube will last much after the Revolution's release and same goes for Xbox 2 (although SNK Playmore may release a few ports on the machine).

Basically, it's competition. Microsoft wants to one-up the competition by sending in a more powerful version of the XBox, thus, having the other 2 cowboys (Sony and Nintendo) flinch as well.

I agree. The Xbox 2 is out so early because its trying to cash in on what gave PS2 that huge lead; push as many consoles out before the competition arrives so they can sell several million consoles before the others start off. Its pretty smart, even if that leaves new Xbox adopters alienated. Its also prompting the competition to release their products sooner. If PS2 were to go unopposed, Sony could very well stretch it out to 2007 if they so please because they don't have to worry about it. Thats why the NES generation lasted so long; Nintendo was able to afford waiting a little longer for their successor.

I have the feeling that adoption of next gen game systems will be very slow

It will be slow until new versions of EA Sports, Grand Theft Auto, Halo, and Gran Turismo comes out. These are the main franchises driving the games industry (in the US at least). Nobody will get them until these games are released for them. When they come out, the adoption rate will be pretty rapid. As good as the graphics look for games this generation, there can be a lot more. Having damage for GT5 is going to be a huge selling point. Millions will get a PS3 with this for this factor alone (instead of just sticking to GT4). Same goes if GTA PS3 looks a lot better or somehow is more interactive than the other ones.

The only way I can think would slow it down is if the consoles sold for at or more than $349 and games will come out for over $59. Going by that EA Sports thread, this could be a very real possibility.

I think PS3 will come out on top

For a console to fail, I don't think its because the competition offers something great, its a combination of that and the leading console being a disaster. This happened with Nintendo. Microsoft did all the right things with Xbox in America: great online system, games that Americans like, and sports games that are the best on all the machines. Yet it still wasn't enough to trounce the Sony PS2 giant. Thats because Sony also was on their A game and delivered well. If Sony slips up with PS3 and N5 or X2 offers a great alternative, thats going to be the only way to bring PS3 down.

It can happen too as the Cell is kind of an unknown. If developers hate it, they may run to the easier to develop Xbox 2 platform.

 

[Sysgen]

Thank god most of you naysayers don't work for MS. The perception of the Xbox brand is based on cutting edge graphics. Xbox 2 will magnify that perception. MS did well last launch. They built the brand significantly. Given a killer launch lineup, cutting edge graphics, newly forged alliances, XNA and a launch right before Christmas, why exactly would adoption of the new Xbox be slow?

 

[Monk]

Uh, most devs say as much about the Xbox 2(ie that is on par with the ps3). With that MS has to give the idea to consumers that the Xbox2 is really better than the ps3, thats goingh to be tough.

 

[Ghost of Bill Gates]

Thank god most of you naysayers don't work for MS. The perception of the Xbox brand is based on cutting edge graphics. Xbox 2 will magnify that perception. MS did well last launch. They built the brand significantly. Given a killer launch lineup, cutting edge graphics, newly forged alliances, XNA and a launch right before Christmas, why exactly would adoption of the new Xbox be slow?

True.

Even MS said that xbox was just a foot in the door. so all these system time lines Klee an other posted are moot. MS know what they're up against...meaning Sony and thats not a small task..I don't care who you are.

 

[Jade Knight 08]

Correction!

SEGA SATURN-DREAMCAST-1994-1998 FOUR YEARS (Like XBOX)

Didn't Dreamcast came out in 9-9-99? Wouldn't that be 5 yrs?

 

[pcostabel]

It will be slow until new versions of EA Sports, Grand Theft Auto, Halo, and Gran Turismo comes out. These are the main franchises driving the games industry (in the US at least). Nobody will get them until these games are released for them. When they come out, the adoption rate will be pretty rapid. As good as the graphics look for games this generation, there can be a lot more. Having damage for GT5 is going to be a huge selling point. Millions will get a PS3 with this for this factor alone (instead of just sticking to GT4). Same goes if GTA PS3 looks a lot better or somehow is more interactive than the other ones.

That's assuming that there won't be current gen versions of those games. EA is still releasing Maddden for PS1, so it's a safe bet that they will support the current gen for a long time. If the choice is between PS2 Madden for $40 and Xenon/PS3 Madden for $60 + whatever the console costs, the jump in quality has to be huge to convince people. If The Godfather is any indication of next gen crossplatform titles, very few people will be compelled to upgrade.

 

[Kleegamefan]

Didn't Dreamcast came out in 9-9-99? Wouldn't that be 5 yrs?

1998 in Japan

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Given a killer launch lineup, cutting edge graphics, newly forged alliances, XNA and a launch right before Christmas, why exactly would adoption of the new Xbox be slow?

I totally agree. The success of X2 launch will vastly depend on the games: EA is already preparing Xenon versions of their xmas 2005 games, and if they'll really prove them to be much better (at least in graphics) than the current gen versions, many people could be induced in to switching platform. I think for example to the next Madden, NFSU, and so on. And I hope there'll be many strong exclusives/1st party titles, too.

 

[Ranger X]

Actually i was speaking with some programmer at the office the other day and we spoke about the Xenon and PS3 (or whatever they will be called).
To make a story short, the Xenon seems really interesting and the hardware is promising. The develloper will like this console because it's easy to program.
PS3 definetely wins the tech side as the guy said but cell technology is new and everybody will have to learn alot of stuff to pull game out. This may slow the start of the PS3, it's gonna be quite hard to program it at first.
I'm pretty sure this won't be a huge problem though. Most programmers are techno-dudes and will want to devellop on it "because it's the strongest machine" just like the Xbox this gen. And the PS2 was hard to come by at first too...

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Thank god most of you naysayers don't work for MS. The perception of the Xbox brand is based on cutting edge graphics. Xbox 2 will magnify that perception.

The problem is, the Xbox has had that perception for 3 years. Xbox 2 will be lucky to keep it for 1.

 

[ninge]

klee - its interesting that you took my comment about not wanting things to head towards more of a pc model to be entirely based on timescales!

Sure the main point is that microsoft have chosen to run their console lifespan shorter than previous generations (by a full year compared to most, and a good couple of years compared to some - Comparisons to the dreamcast as a reason why 4 years is not an unprecedented short lifespan really shouldnt be made for obvious reasons linked to the premeture demise of that format!)

However, there is a lot more to it than that.. already 2 out of the 3 console manufacturers are talking about their next platforms being scalable (3 versions of next-box rumoured, ps3 to be able to make use of additiona cell processors in your TV/Video etc (dont laugh, it's gonna happen if sony have their way) and i feel that this is perhaps the wrong route to be going down..

Consoles are plug & play, and thats why the masses love 'em - they are simple where PCs aren't and everyone who buys a ps2 knows its going to play the same games their mates play without any fuss or bother.

Do we as developers really want to be worrying how our latest game is going to perform on multiple revisions of each console? Do you shoot for the top specification and let users with lower specification machines suffer? Or do you go for the version with the largest installed base? Do we have to now make console games that are scalable?

Also, do consumers who fail to adopt the highest specification of each platform want to have to start putting up with the same kinds of slow, choppy framerates people with older pc's have to put up with when playing the latest games? I don't really think that's going to be acceptable..

I dont have anything against a new generation (and it the case of the PS2 i agree that the time is right for an upgrade to appear) but i cant help feel that the push to next gen when this one is still enjoying huge growth and games are still getting better by leaps and bouds, coupled with the possible dillution of the platforms could be bad for the industry as a whole..

Only time will tell tho!

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

why exactly would adoption of the new Xbox be slow?

If their prices of hardware and software are high, it will be a slow. I hate the idea of having to pay $349 or $399 for a new console but I have a gut feeling this is going to be the new price for consoles next generation. Nintendo might be $249. I could be wrong but sales were strong with $299 consoles, if manufacturers can get away with taking a smaller hit for their prices by adding $50 to the MSRP, they'll do it.

I think getting consoles from the beginning are foolish anyway, considering how that is the time where console relability is at its worst. I'll wait until $200, which will probably be until about 2008. I'm getting a nice backlog of PS2 games and soon, a backlog of GC games. No way will a shinier looking Tekken make me want to spend insane cash on it.

Then again, I never buy consoles at the beginning either so I don't represent the markets that purchase consoles right off the bat.

i feel that this is perhaps the wrong route to be going down..

Yes but that may only represent just a small percentage of console sales. Most console sales will be the standalone PS3s and XB2s. The PS3s and XB2s in other devices are just niche products with people looking to get a TiVo and a Xbox 2 at the same time, which probably represents no more than 50,000 people or some other small amount of consumers. Same goes for downloading whole games online. No way is that going to be commonplace. I sure as hell won't take advantage of that.

Do we as developers really want to be worrying how our latest game is going to perform on multiple revisions of each console

They won't. The compatibility will probably be 99% on all machines. The revisions are probably something like an internal hard drive or one that allows you to do more PC functions like PlanetWeb for Dreamcast. I don't think we have to be worried whether or not a game will work on XB2.0 and not work on XB2.1. If so, its going to be a huge mistake but I refuse to believe that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will be that dumb. It'll be a PR disaster. Rumors will spread and when casual gamers get word that Xbox 2 won't play all the games, they'll run to RVN and/or PS3.

I think a lot of this pessimism about next generation is unjustified. If everyone is right, there's tens of thousands of previously released games as I will be going retro. I will not go through a long and painful process just to play the new Dynasty Warriors. Its just not going to happen.

 

[SomeDude]

The only consequence I see is that maybe games will cost more. Gaming IMO has gotten better and better each gen. I'm not exactly a Retro person that plays Retro games all the time, but I really think that this generation was better than last, and the generation before that was better than the 16 bit generation. I think it'll continue to improve. More pwerful hardware can relize new ideas that weren't possible before.

 

[Ranger X]

games will cost more but it's the industry face that is going to check. Next gen will be the first gen where you will clearly see differences of budget $$ in games. Like the movies industry where the big fat movies have all the special effects, the smaller games next-gen will have to count on their gameplay and scenario a little more.
The small games should look nice enough to sell anyway, keep in mind that Doom3 and Halo2 are "very poor next-gen graphics". (well, from what i've seen so far that i cannot tell you about..)

 

[evilromero]

I want games to really set themselves apart from film next gen. We have yet to see good examples of simple games within the last six years that appeal to all people.

 

[Deg]

Ooops. Wrong thread.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

The only consequence I see is that maybe games will cost more. Gaming IMO has gotten better and better each gen. I'm not exactly a Retro person that plays Retro games all the time, but I really think that this generation was better than last, and the generation before that was better than the 16 bit generation. I think it'll continue to improve. More pwerful hardware can relize new ideas that weren't possible before.

I agree. When its all said and done, this generation is probably the best one out there and its still not over as games for PS2 will still be made until late 2006 and probably a few indie classics into 2007 (like Hoshigami for PS One; maybe someone will redistribute Disgaea or any of the other classics). There's Mario 128, Zelda GC 2, Final Fantasy XII, Kingdom Hearts 2, Wild Arms 4, etc. The only thing that I liked last generation over this one was the ability to play arcade perfect Capcom fighters with a Japanese Saturn (which I didn't partake in as I was a kid then and don't feel like ponying up $500+ for a decent JP Saturn collection). Of course, there's the Capcom arcade compilations coming up, maybe they'll put a few CPS2 fighters on there. Good thing there's Final Burn.

The 16 bit generation had a lot of good games but was nowhere near as good as the 32/64 bit and 128 bit generations. Maybe if you were a hardcore Nintendo fan, then I can see why that generation would be the best. Fortunately the GBA is covering the bases for the spiritual 16 bit continuation.

The small games should look nice enough to sell anyway, keep in mind that Doom3 and Halo2 are "very poor next-gen graphics". (well, from what i've seen so far that i cannot tell you about..)

These games better be fun though. I'm sure making 60-80 million pps games at 60 fps is a good thing but if games are boring, then they're going to flop. Games will cost more, meaning that expectations for these games to succeed is going to be the highest its ever been. I can see more and more smaller developers going to develop on the DS, PSP, and the new GB as an alternative if the average game budget may be like $15-25 million just to get some recognition or breaking even.

Also if they're going to become $50 (or more likely, $60) movies, then I'm going to pass on it. Fortunately, cinematics this generation weren't as big of a deal as they were the previous generation. Lets hope this next one will keep gameplay as priority #1. If not, I guess there's always the DS and PSP.

the smaller games next-gen will have to count on their gameplay and scenario a little more.

I don't think thats really a good thing. The wowing graphics factor can do a lot. I think the only franchise that is doing amazing with bad graphics is GTA. I just worry that next generation, there's going to be a lot of developers closing up shop, merging with companies that suck ass (*cough* SNK and Aruze, Sega and Sammy *hack*), or like I said, resorting to only handhelds and budget console titles.

That or developer kits better make awesome graphics easy.

 

[Cold-Steel]

Microsoft's early edge depends largely on their software lineup.

We'll have relatively even footing in the graphical arena so Microsoft has to show consumers that things are really moving in a different direction with the new consoles.

If GCN, PS2, XBX, and "XBX2" all have the same version of Madden 2006 - no one is going to give a rats ass about the better graphics. Sony's marketing will come out for PS3 and completely destroy any chance Microsoft ever had of 'wowing' people with graphics.

Microsoft's first parties and third party licensees will be put to the ultimate test at the end of this year.

 

[evilromero]

GTA is doing amazingly well for not only its poor graphics, but uninteresting gameplay. I'm sorry, but masking the poorly designed movement/combat/aiming interface with a few mildly amusing lowbrow elements such as fucking hookers is unfortunate. The game's contrived mission-based progression is horrible and counter-intuitive to the strides that games have made up to now. None of the recent GTA games, nor any of its clones have done anything truly new or exciting. They just rely on pre-existing designs and dip into a different setting.

If games like GTA continue to garner attention, while marginally improving visuals over the next couple of years then I'm not hopeful for this industry. Sooner or later people need to realize that games can, and have, offered so much more (good examples Katamari Damashii, Eye Toy, Pikmin, Metroid Prime). Somewhere along the way we got lost and the crucial connection between games and their entertaining elements were smothered with the desire to mimmick other forms of entertainment at the expense of sacrificing gameplay.

Bring back the wonder and fascination that games offered previously. I can still play Super Mario Bros. today and become totally immersed in the world. Same is said with Ms. Pac-Man, Super Metroid, Mario 64 and many others. Lots of brilliant games from recent years have been completely ignored because of GTA. This is an injustice. Truly. And I'm not yet convinced that we NEED new systems.

 

[AstroLad]

GTA is doing amazingly well for not only its poor graphics, but uninteresting gameplay. I'm sorry, but masking the poorly designed movement/combat/aiming interface with a few mildly amusing lowbrow elements such as fucking hookers is unfortunate. The game's contrived mission-based progression is horrible and counter-intuitive to the strides that games have made up to now. None of the recent GTA games, nor any of its clones have done anything truly new or exciting. They just rely on pre-existing designs and dip into a different setting.

If games like GTA continue to garner attention, while marginally improving visuals over the next couple of years then I'm not hopeful for this industry. Sooner or later people need to realize that games can, and have, offered so much more (good examples Katamari Damashii, Eye Toy, Pikmin, Metroid Prime). Somewhere along the way we got lost and the crucial connection between games and their entertaining elements were smothered with the desire to mimmick other forms of entertainment at the expense of sacrificing gameplay.

Bring back the wonder and fascination that games offered previously. I can still play Super Mario Bros. today and become totally immersed in the world. Same is said with Ms. Pac-Man, Super Metroid, Mario 64 and many others. Lots of brilliant games from recent years have been completely ignored because of GTA. This is an injustice. Truly. And I'm not yet convinced that we NEED new systems.

Yes, I agree that the games industry should follow your individual tastes.

 

[Kleegamefan]

:lol

 

[sammy]

DVD playback did a lot for the PS2, as far as casual gamers go .... "I want a DVD player, oh, and I can check out some games too!"

Back in college, I knew at least 5 people that bought a PS2 for DVD playback ... and only getting on average 2 - 3 games if any.

Now that there is no shortage of DVD players in a household (a lot of people now have more than 2) --- what is to sell those casual gamers on a new generation, considering they were never 'swept off their feet' by gaming in this generation??

Unless there's something insanely awesome, and new to attract these people, I can't see the next generation moving past early adopters for some years ... We might get a heafty dose of hardcore-hardcore games.

 

[evilromero]

Graphics alone won't bring anything interesting to the table.

 

[Ranger X]

GTA is doing amazingly well for not only its poor graphics, but uninteresting gameplay. I'm sorry, but masking the poorly designed movement/combat/aiming interface with a few mildly amusing lowbrow elements such as fucking hookers is unfortunate. The game's contrived mission-based progression is horrible and counter-intuitive to the strides that games have made up to now. None of the recent GTA games, nor any of its clones have done anything truly new or exciting. They just rely on pre-existing designs and dip into a different setting.

If games like GTA continue to garner attention, while marginally improving visuals over the next couple of years then I'm not hopeful for this industry. Sooner or later people need to realize that games can, and have, offered so much more (good examples Katamari Damashii, Eye Toy, Pikmin, Metroid Prime). Somewhere along the way we got lost and the crucial connection between games and their entertaining elements were smothered with the desire to mimmick other forms of entertainment at the expense of sacrificing gameplay.

Bring back the wonder and fascination that games offered previously. I can still play Super Mario Bros. today and become totally immersed in the world. Same is said with Ms. Pac-Man, Super Metroid, Mario 64 and many others. Lots of brilliant games from recent years have been completely ignored because of GTA. This is an injustice. Truly. And I'm not yet convinced that we NEED new systems.

I couldn't resist to answer dude... It's just your tastes and it's ok but GTA is great. It's one of those VERY RARE games nowadays that got me owned just like older games in the 16 bits era. What's fun in a game is what you actually do more than the quality of the controls because i couldn't have found GTA anywhere fun...
As for the graphics, nnobody ever understood that the graphics in San Andreas is great. Graphic quality is contextual and the context of GTA is 120492305843789 things on-screen at the same time. Don't ask yourself why each polygon model is made of 3 polys...
It may not be beautifull from an art point of view but technically it sure is impressive.

 

[Barnimal]

considering this gen started in 1998, an upgrade is well overdue.

 

[Error Macro]

considering this gen started in 1998, an upgrade is well overdue.

Let's face it, most gamers (and almost all average consumers) don't consider the Dreamcast as part of the current generation.

 

[Kleegamefan]

Let's face it, most gamers (and almost all average consumers) don't consider the Dreamcast as part of the current generation.

So then the Dreamcast was part of the previous generation, right?

I.E the PSOne, N64 *and* the Saturn?? :lol


I DONT THINK SO!!!

 

[Fafalada]

However, there is a lot more to it than that.. already 2 out of the 3 console manufacturers are talking about their next platforms being scalable (3 versions of next-box rumoured, ps3 to be able to make use of additiona cell processors in your TV/Video etc (dont laugh, it's gonna happen if sony have their way) and i feel that this is perhaps the wrong route to be going down..

Well I generally agree - I'm not the biggest fan of leaving the closed-box development environment either, but it seems kinda inevitable to happen at some point, more a matter of 'when' then 'if'.

For all we know, we may see the first hw-abstracted console ~2010... However, I do think that change to that kind of model, can be - and will have to be - handled a lot better then PC, in other for it to work.

 

[Error Macro]

So then the Dreamcast was part of the previous generation, right?

I.E the PSOne, N64 *and* the Saturn?? :lol


I DONT THINK SO!!!

Hey, I didn't say that I thought that, but to be reasonable, that's what most people believe. It came sort-of in between the PS1/N64/Saturn gen, and the PS2/GC/Xbox. People look at it as a seperate entity.