-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What if Microsoft releases a new console every 4 year?
- Thread starter Wollan
- Start date
Hiro_Kunimi_80
Member
4-5 year is a good move
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Become Sega? Aka piss off it's fanbase as time goes on.
Competition drives innovation and thats why we are seeing a shorter generation this time round...so while its not microsofts strategy to have shorter generations, if the competition heats up (Read: Closer than this gen) i wouldnt be supprised to see another short generation.
Is it a good thing? Depends entirely on what the new generation can bring. Its pretty hard to imagine what games will be demanding from hardware in 4 years time.
Is it a good thing? Depends entirely on what the new generation can bring. Its pretty hard to imagine what games will be demanding from hardware in 4 years time.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Ghost said:
Short generation from whom?
Not from Nintendo.....we are getting 5 years between GC launch (2001) and Rev launch (2006)...and before that??? another 5 year gap (N64 in 1996 to GC in 2001)
We are not getting a short generation from Sony either....PSone(Dec 1994) to PS2 (March 2000) is a little over 5 years and the gap from PS2 to PS3 is even bigger (Spring 2006 from March 2000 is more than 6 years)
No, the short generation is exclusive to Microsoft at this point.....look at the UK who just 3 years ago (2002) got the original Xbox......they will need the most convincing from MS that they won't be asked to upgrade to a new Xbox in 2008 that may or may not play some of their Xbox/X360 games....
In the last decade, Nintendo and Sony have shown they will not abandon their gaming platforms early, so they have earned a certain amount of trust from me as a consumer....moreso Sony, who not only seem to listen to their fans as much as MS but have more consistancy than either MS or Nintendo in some key areas, such as supporting previous generations of optical formats and PlayStation game software....they are the benchmark in this area as far as I'm concerned...
Its not in Microsofts strategy to have shorter generations??
Their actions speak differently....
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Borys said:
One thing to remember about console tech is that the price structure of it doesn't allow for it's power to be priced any higher than a certain degree, they don't market at cost like graphics cards and can't afford to constantly upgrade and sell at a lost. Time is of the advantage for longer term letting the company come into gripes with better cheaper manufacturing.
What's good for Microsoft may not always be good for consumers.
If, in four years, Xbox 360 is struggling against PS3 and MS decides they want to take another shot in this market, they'll have every reason to cut short next gen and release a new machine. It'll force Sony's hand - they simply can't allow a new, next-generation competitor to take hold uncontested - and we'll all have to move on.
But then, I don't see the point in trying to make a console last 10 years - technology simply moves too fast and consumers won't be satisfied with antiquated hardware for that long.
If, in four years, Xbox 360 is struggling against PS3 and MS decides they want to take another shot in this market, they'll have every reason to cut short next gen and release a new machine. It'll force Sony's hand - they simply can't allow a new, next-generation competitor to take hold uncontested - and we'll all have to move on.
But then, I don't see the point in trying to make a console last 10 years - technology simply moves too fast and consumers won't be satisfied with antiquated hardware for that long.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Suikoguy said:
And that's just one thing that seperates Sony from MS.....Sony started with the CELL project in 2000 with the intent of launching in 2006 and they have stuck to that plan, REGARDLESS of what Nintendo or Microsoft was doing at the time..
MS plan in my eyes is look at what others are doing and reacting to them.....that plan has its ups and downs but it to me it implies changing a generation just for the sake of change and not to change when its ready/time for change..
Some of you probably don't agree with me, but that is just my opinion on this...I am actually looking forward to the X360....that said, some of the decisions by Microsoft, especially thier Marketing division, I think are misguided, to say the least....
GitarooMan
Member
Hiro_Kunimi_80 said:
I agree with this, I think even leaning towards four is a good thing. I'm not one to complain about paying 1000 dollars or so for a set of systems every 4 years, to me it's a worthwhile investment for new technology and more advanced games. I do agree the developers may not like it though, given the need to create new engines, assets, etc. more frequently. But I'm not a developer, I'm a consumer and for me 4-5 year cycles seem right.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
In regards to length, 6 years is pretty good. Just look at the groundbreaking PS2 titles, achiving gameplay and graphics we did not think was possible years ago. But they will hit a boundary, or have started to hit it, at which point it time for a new system.
That does not only pertain to PS2, there are several Xbox games in the same category.
That does not only pertain to PS2, there are several Xbox games in the same category.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
GitarooMan said:
Keep in mind, region releases of future consoles might be staggered, though, and then you might face the same potential problem MS is facing in EU if you only wait 4 years...
Don't get me wrong....I am glad Europe is getting treated well by Microsoft at the moment......they are getting great hardware for a great price and they don't have to seethe with envy while JAP and USA get to play with new hardware as much as a full year in advance....
Still, what if this "I <3 Europe" is just the flavor of the week, if you will...
By showing how easy it is for them to ditch past strategies, abruptly cut off support for their Xbox 1 game hardware and tack on BW compatibilty at the last moment shows a lack of consistancy that sticks out like a sore thumb IMO....
You gotta think that concern is probaby swimming somewhere in the back of the minds of some EU Xbox consumers...especially the ones who may have waited until Halo 2 arrived to buy an Xbox....
Sorry, but I don't 100% trust Microsoft yet....
releasing consoles every 4 years will kill the industry.
a lot of people dont even buy consoles till the 2 or 3rd year and by year 3 hype for the NEXT generation system will be in full swing. you'll have people skipping whole generations and eventually fall into apathy about gaming.
not even mentioning people who like to get more than one console. thats like $600-700+ worth of tech every 4 years not even counting a new library of games to support.
And in the next few generations nintendos coined "dimishing returns" will come into play. there will be no noticeable reason for the casual gamer to upgrade.
ugh
a lot of people dont even buy consoles till the 2 or 3rd year and by year 3 hype for the NEXT generation system will be in full swing. you'll have people skipping whole generations and eventually fall into apathy about gaming.
not even mentioning people who like to get more than one console. thats like $600-700+ worth of tech every 4 years not even counting a new library of games to support.
And in the next few generations nintendos coined "dimishing returns" will come into play. there will be no noticeable reason for the casual gamer to upgrade.
ugh
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Razoric said:
I agree, imagine if 2004 was PS2 last year before PS3?! It would boggle my mind consider how packed last Christmas was and then that's it? Time for a chane over? Sorry I ain't for that.
GitarooMan
Member
Kleegamefan said:
I wasn't really supporting the way MS has handled this situation necessarily. I think they've made several mistakes (the lack of solid BC I think comes into even sharper focus given the short cycle in EU) I don't live in EU but if I did I could see definitely being a little upset given the short cycle. I was more commenting on the general concept of getting new technology out there and not stretching out older tech past its time. I think PS2 is really pretty aged at this point and that Sony is pushing it a little with a possible late 06 release in NA.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Razoric said:
This is a real danger with abbreviated console generations....
I think the PlayStation model is best.....six years.....big jump in hardware power.....all games work on new hardware...continue to support old hardware years after new one arrives...
Simple, easy and obvious even to the casual gamer...
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
With the fact that the real cream of the crop titles for each console don't really start showing up until 2-3 years into a consoles lifespan I would hate to see them shortened as we'd never see titles that made full use of the hardware.
5-6 years is fine.
5-6 years is fine.
SolidSnakex
Member
GitarooMan said:
The PS2 is getting this next year
If you would've suggested to people that the system would be doing that at any point in its life they would've laughed. The PS2 is probably the only console this gen that really is being pushed to its limits by developers. That's what's should happen with consoles. The PS2's lineup next year in general is amazing on its own, even more amazing when you consider that its going into its 6th year.
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I think it's highly likely and I wouldn't be shocked at all if it happened. There was an interview a couple of months ago where Microsoft said that if they could get people to upgrade every four years instead of five, they would make millions of dollars more. I'll look for the link, but I'm possitive I read it. I think the interview was more aimed toward software upgrades, but I wouldn't be suprised at all if they did this for games as well.
We the forum should be enraged at what we imagine Microsoft's patternless short generation to be. And set them ablaze.
MS has not instigated a pattern of short generations. It was simply a latecomer to the console business. It entered, succeeded somewhat and now has the opportunity to start from an equal (well, better) footing. The length of this generation will be decided by the longevity of the machine and its userbase, not some built-in self destruct sequence.
MS has not instigated a pattern of short generations. It was simply a latecomer to the console business. It entered, succeeded somewhat and now has the opportunity to start from an equal (well, better) footing. The length of this generation will be decided by the longevity of the machine and its userbase, not some built-in self destruct sequence.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Since X360 is more set to be profitable, and if they are doing relatively well compared to the first Xbox and actually making profit, then they don't need as much time to rush again and start losing money faster than need be trying to set up another generation.
GitarooMan
Member
Razoric said:
I disagree. I don't think this is too much to pay. That's less than 200 dollars a year. I don't think there is any evidence either way yet that casuals wouldn't be willing to have 4-year cycles. I mean, I think hardware launches get people excited about gaming and don't create apathy.
Just out of curiousity, taking the business aspect out of it, would most people rather have 6 year generations? To me, I'd rather be playing on new systems more often than playing games on a clearly aged machine like the PS2 into 2006. Doesn't mean I won't play PS2 games, just means I'd prefer to see better hardware sooner so we can get more advanced games. I'm the type who buys all systems at launch, though, and I think that does make a difference, as you said.
As far as not getting the most out of the hardware until 2-3 years in, etc., does that really matter when a new system would still be superior even if the previous one was maxed out? For example, the vast majority of X360 games look far better than Xbox games even though they are not using most of the power of X360. I'd rather see this than maxed out games on aged hardware.
SolidSnakex said:The PS2 is getting this next year
If you would've suggested to people that the system would be doing that at any point in its life they would've laughed. The PS2 is probably the only console this gen that really is being pushed to its limits by developers. That's what's should happen with consoles. The PS2's lineup next year in general is amazing on its own, even more amazing when you consider that its going into its 6th year.
You forgot MGS3:S and Final Fantasy 12.
Probably two of the best gaming experiences ever coming for PS2 next year. :O
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
GitarooMan said:
Oh jaa...I hears ya and I largely agree
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that part of the reason PS2 is looking old at this point isn't because developers can't get more out of the hardware (Because they can and are) but because of the early launch of X360.....
Upsetting the potential attractiveness of PS2 games is probably the point.....in Microsofts view...
In the end, I think Microsoft is good for this industry IMO.....they keep everybody on their toes (consumers and retailers too) because they are so big and unpredictable....
The X360 really *is* fantastic gaming hardware, of that there is little doubt....and MS, being the software specialists they are, have enabled the tools neccessary for developers to make great games......all this has affected Sony too because they *have* to improve their tools to compete...I am sure for all its complexity, PS3 devs will have more options available to them earlier because of improved and more tools...
And again, no matter how inept MS marketing is, the market should find a natural equilibrium anyway(*crosses fingers*) as customers will vote with their wallet to get the best product with Sony/MS answering those needs and fighting each other for those customers and on and on it goes...
They will go out of this business.
If you are successful it's 6 years. 6 years to squeeze every last drop. And the difference in graphics between PS3 and PS2 is <<<<< than PS2 and PS1. So it's 7-8 years for PS3, I believe. All the graphics (except _maybe_ raytracing) and physics you really need is there.
If you are successful it's 6 years. 6 years to squeeze every last drop. And the difference in graphics between PS3 and PS2 is <<<<< than PS2 and PS1. So it's 7-8 years for PS3, I believe. All the graphics (except _maybe_ raytracing) and physics you really need is there.
GitarooMan said:
I want a system that is fully supported for 5-6 years. I want a system that devs have worked on for a long period and once they get past the 'lets make sweet graphics to sell the system' to 'we got the dev environment and graphics down lets concentrate on good games'. Hell look at the PS2 releases this year and next. Some of the best games come near the end of a 5-6 year cycle.
Hiro_Kunimi_80
Member
it's "ingame pistol" as much as "E3_killzone2" is realtime @60fps/1080pWollan said:
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
GitarooMan said:
I am all for new hardware from the biggies (forget the Phantoms and the Gizmondos) but you and I are not a fair representative of the market as a whole (I understand you know this already, but bear with me
)I don't agree with you when you imply casuals would like 4 year cycles.....with the PlayStation business (which is as casual a gaming platform as you are going to get) their big sales *start* in about year 3-4 and then they take off from there and then level off around year 6 or so....this window....year 3-6...is when the biggest slice of casuals buy gaming hardware....this has been going on since the NES days.....I am not totally sure a 4 year cycle would improve the market but my gut says....probably not....
We already have a gaming platform with too short cycles and hardware that is never developed to its potential......its called the PC.....no need for another one of those
Three years later, lots of critical acclaim, a million pro-KH opinions and I still think this is the most shark-jumping stupidity of this generation. I just don't get how 25 year old men can play this with a straight face and talk about its beauty and inventiveness.
The fact that this was posted as an example of pseudo next-gen attainment makes my blood boil.
It is a travesty and it should have been on the Cube, maximum.
*runs like hell*
The fact that this was posted as an example of pseudo next-gen attainment makes my blood boil.
It is a travesty and it should have been on the Cube, maximum.
*runs like hell*
SolidSnakex
Member
Kleegamefan said:I am all for new hardware from the biggies (forget the Phantoms and the Gizmondos) but you and I are not a fair representative of the market as a whole (I understand you know this already, but bear with me
I don't agree with you when you imply casuals would like 4 year cycles.....with the PlayStation business (which is as casual a gaming platform as you are going to get) their big sales *start* in about year 3-4 and then they take off from there and then level off around year 6 or so....this window....year 3-6...is when the biggest slice of casuals buy gaming hardware....this has been going on since the NES days.....I am not totally sure a 4 year cycle would improve the market but my gut says....probably not....
I'd say it'd hurt it. Consoles are popular because people know they can buy a console and be set for awhile without having to worry about buying a new console because developers have swapped over to the next gen. If you start turning it into who gets the best tech the fastest that's going to kill the industry faster than anything. If you go 4 years, who's going to stop it from getting even shorter? You don't have to wait 4 years for superior technology.
..pakbeka..
Member
I think they'd only do that if they were despearate, which I don't think will happen this gen
if they do, It'll probably be their end, since Sony, and probably nintendo, want the next generation to last as much as possible, and I'm sure developers wouldn't be too happy about it andd transfer their X360 projects to the PS3 instead of the Xbox 3
if they do, It'll probably be their end, since Sony, and probably nintendo, want the next generation to last as much as possible, and I'm sure developers wouldn't be too happy about it andd transfer their X360 projects to the PS3 instead of the Xbox 3
Stinkles said:Three years later, lots of critical acclaim, a million pro-KH opinions and I still think this is the most shark-jumping stupidity of this generation. I just don't get how 25 year old men can play this with a straight face and talk about its beauty and inventiveness.
The fact that this was posted as an example of pseudo next-gen attainment makes my blood boil.
It is a travesty and it should have been on the Cube, maximum.
*runs like hell*
Yeah man not every one can be cool and play a dude named master chief with cool metal armor and shoot aliens. I mean shit that'll just line the girls up. :rolleyes
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Not to mention higher console prices due to console makers having less time to recoup RnD costs.
GitarooMan
Member
Kleegamefan said:I am all for new hardware from the biggies (forget the Phantoms and the Gizmondos) but you and I are not a fair representative of the market as a whole (I understand you know this already, but bear with me
I don't agree with you when you imply casuals would like 4 year cycles.....with the PlayStation business (which is as casual a gaming platform as you are going to get) their big sales *start* in about year 3-4 and then they take off from there and then level off around year 6 or so....this window....year 3-6...is when the biggest slice of casuals buy gaming hardware....this has been going on since the NES days.....I am not totally sure a 4 year cycle would improve the market but my gut says....probably not....
Yeah, I certainly see the issues with the casuals, I think it will interesting to see the general adoption of x360 before PS3 launches. If it's very successful in it's first year, I think it may argue for the viability of 4-5 year generations. Maybe 5 years is the happy medium, which we are sort of in the US gen to gen if you take the start of this gen (PS2 launch Oct. 2000, longer if you count DC). I guess my point is that I generally don't see the X360 launch as "early" (for the US at least), like many people.
I am a technology lover, though, like you say, so I am clearly biased a little on this issue.
It would be interesting to see if MS tried to do it again by releasing Xbox 3 in 2009.
How would 1st gen Xbox 3 games stack up against 4-5th gen Xbox 360 and 3-4th gen PS3 games? You think 'not next-gen enough' is said too much now... holy hell I can just see Iwata saying "I told you so fuckers!" :lol
How would 1st gen Xbox 3 games stack up against 4-5th gen Xbox 360 and 3-4th gen PS3 games? You think 'not next-gen enough' is said too much now... holy hell I can just see Iwata saying "I told you so fuckers!" :lol