PS3: When to say when (IGN)

Originally posted by Knotter8
Ah, c\'mon .. it\'s Nvidia who\'s treading sm3.0 steps right here right now with NV40.

When would you have the next gen come out?  When sm4.0 is ready, why not wait until sm5.0?  Shit, why not sm6.0?  

Why wait when sm3.0, a considerable step foward, is here right now?

If they\'d, Ati & Nvidia put speed refresh GPU\'s of current gpu cores into next gen consoles that would be a major shame.

That sm3.0 is, as we speak, beginning to become standard in the developer world.

It would be very unwise for console makers to force console gamesdevelopers into that high end development pipeline within 2005 ; by which i mean : having those games ready in 05

So you think everyone should wait until sm3.0 is harnessed before anyone attempts to move foward?  Or is that you simply think a few months into 2006 will give them a better understanding?

How do you think the transition from generation to generation has been?  There are always new standards introduced that the developers come to terms with.  

The hardware is NOT the problem. The transition for developers IS, if you have them rush it into 05.
Even though there\'ll be fancy @ss XNA and PS3 dev libraries development cycles will at least double in complexity thus effecting their bussiness model as well.

The developers who are still around have gone through these transitions before, or did you miss 8-bit, 16-bit, 32/64-bit generations?  They did happen and developers had to harness that technology as well and eventually they outgrow it.

If they can\'t adapt then they\'ll disappear, something that has also happened to developers.  It\'s the nature of the business.

To conclude : we should NOT use HL2 and Doom3 as measurement marks for what next gen could or should be.
They\'re OLD tech. No using them in any discussion about the potential for next gen consoles.

The Unreal3 engine however IS a indicative of some of the graphics features ( note how I do not say \'performance\' ). That engine how it is still has fairly limited Geometry.

Fair enough concerning HL2 and Doom 3 and you\'re right on the money about Unreal3 engine.  The next gen ATi and Nvidia gpus are rumored in the hundreds of millions of polygons, some even suggesting close to a billion.

Considering that we are sitting somewhere around 5-15 million for this console generation I\'d say that\'s quite a leap, in fact I\'d say it\'s next gen worthy.

MS may go ahead for all I care. But they should look surprised if PS3 will do realtime radiosity on which an early bird Xbox2 will choke.

I think you\'re putting far too much emphasis on such a small gap in release times.  I also don\'t think you\'re giving MS, ATi, or IBM (all partners for the Xbox 2) enough credit.

Releasing those consoles early will do neither the console companies nor the gamers nor the games developers a favor. (While the PC guys are laughing their @ss off to see any early release console age like hell compared to the next Ati or Nvidia refresh, faster than if that console had been released later).

Delaying them would do developers better?  You sound like an overprotective mother or something.  Also, and this has to do with what I\'ve been trying to say this whole thread, it\'s nearing that time when the industry needs to move foward.  This one has been tapped.  The potential for the next is looming on the horizon and seeing as how so many developers are announcing next gen products I\'d say they\'re ready.

ATi and Nvidia will be releasing PC parts derived from their next generation gpus developed for the PS3 and Xbox 2.  You think ATi and Nvidia are going to magically come up with their next-next generation of technology shortly after the PS3 and Xbox 2 release?  No, they won\'t.  That will take years of R&D before they are ready to make the next jump.    

IBM developing multi-core cpu\'s for both the Xbox 2 and PS3 ensure that the consoles are moving in the same direction as the pc industry.  

There will be a yo-yo effect just as there has been since the 32-bit generation.  Console comes out that is superior to available PC tech -> PC tech moves forward and eventually surpasses Console.  Repeat.

You are wasting your time.He said that releasing next gen consoles before 2006 isnt the best idea
Whats wrong with that?Actually 2006 is the best timeframe and offers opportunities for improvement.
Or is the wait too long?Cant you wait till 2006?

^ Yeah, overall on the whole I do agree with you.

But I think this transition might be quite a rough one then for console developers, or they face being assimilated by the EA\'s in this world becuz they can\'t fund next gen development nor have the manpower for it.

This implies a major shift in the landscape of developers towards big publishers and devs who are longtime PC devs already.

6 months extra to learn new libraries might just do the trick for those console devs who are on the virge to getting left behind .....

As a gamer, consumer of games, I don\'t feel the need for a new console within 05 yet ; of course, that\'s my personal feelings about it. Q2 of 06 would be a good next gen console timing imho.

Originally posted by Knotter8
^ Yeah, overall on the whole I do agree with you.

But I think this transition might be quite a rough one then for console developers, or they face being assimilated by the EA\'s in this world becuz they can\'t fund next gen development nor have the manpower for it.

This implies a major shift in the landscape of developers towards big publishers and devs who are longtime PC devs already.

6 months extra to learn new libraries might just do the trick for those console devs who are on the virge to getting left behind .....

As a gamer, consumer of games, I don\'t feel the need for a new console within 05 yet ; of course, that\'s my personal feelings about it. Q2 of 06 would be a good next gen console timing imho.

Uni, I thought you weren\'t going to answer for knotter.  

The transition is inevitable and there\'s no point in delaying it.  Games will continue to get more expensive, development houses will grow, mergers will take place...that\'s just how it is.  

I remember reading about five guys in a garage making a smash hit video game.  Now it takes a team of dozens of people to cater to our growing demand in digital entertainment.

I still don\'t think the 6 months will matter. The PS2, Xbox, and GC game line-ups are drying up.  Developers are on the move right now, I haven\'t read one complaint or sob story of having more power to make their games.

Originally posted by Unicron!
You are wasting your time.He said that releasing next gen consoles before 2006 isnt the best idea
Whats wrong with that?Actually 2006 is the best timeframe and offers opportunities for improvement.
Or is the wait too long?Cant you wait till 2006?

I don\'t see the point in waiting from an industry perspective.  I\'m not saying it needs to release tomorrow but I fail to see the problem with late this year or early next year.

Why is 2006 the best timeframe?  What makes it the better choice than 2005 or 2007?  If it\'s only a preference of yours then there\'s no point in debating.

I say pick a technology and run with it, you can\'t wait forever.  Newer tech is coming out all the time... consoles are getting a bit long in the tooth (ps2 especially)

Originally posted by Ginko
I don\'t see the point in waiting from an industry perspective.  I\'m not saying it needs to release tomorrow but I fail to see the problem with late this year or early next year.

Why is 2006 the best timeframe?  What makes it the better choice than 2005 or 2007?  If it\'s only a preference of yours then there\'s no point in debating.

why?WHY?Ask Sony.Why Sony is considering 2005 so early?And what kind of cost is the consumer suffering thanks to the delay?
And you didnt answer my question.You seem to fail to see whats the problem if the console is released in 2005 yet you seem to see the problem if its released in 2006.Whats the problem if its released in 2006 really?Why do you think its so late while its not?

Do you know better than Sony?

Originally posted by Unicron!
why?WHY?Ask Sony.Why Sony is considering 2005 so early?And what kind of cost is the consumer suffering thanks to the delay?

They simply aren\'t ready for a 2005 launch.  They wouldn\'t be sitting on the PS3 if it were ready.  SDK\'s just recently went out and cell isn\'t finalized.

I don\'t know what you\'re getting at with that last question.  Perhaps you can elaborate on that thought?    

And you didnt answer my question.You seem to fail to see whats the problem if the console is released in 2005 yet you seem to see the problem if its released in 2006.Whats the problem if its released in 2006 really?Why do you think its so late while its not?

Do you know better than Sony?

I don\'t have a problem with it releasing it 2006, that\'s perfectly fine just like a 2005 launch is okay by me.  I\'ve already said it several times that a 2005-2006 launch window is great for the next generation.

It seems as though some people object to the thought of a 2005 launch and I haven\'t heard a valid reason for that yet.

Originally posted by Ginko
They simply aren\'t ready for a 2005 launch.  They wouldn\'t be sitting on the PS3 if it were ready.  SDK\'s just recently went out and cell isn\'t finalized.

I don\'t know what you\'re getting at with that last question.  Perhaps you can elaborate on that thought?    

 Exactly.Do you want Sony to change their plans?Just to release a more powerful console than PS2 soon?

As for the last question what I am trying to say is that the consumer isnt losing more thanks to the delay than what he will gain when the console is released in 2006

I don\'t have a problem with it releasing it 2006, that\'s perfectly fine just like a 2005 launch is okay by me.  I\'ve already said it several times that a 2005-2006 launch window is great for the next generation.

It seems as though some people object to the thought of a 2005 launch and I haven\'t heard a valid reason for that yet. [/B]

You said one above

Originally posted by Unicron!
Exactly.Do you want Sony to change their plans?Just to release a more powerful console than PS2 soon?

Oh my god, has that been your hang up this whole time?  You think I want them to rush it?  That is NOT what I\'ve been saying.  I think that 2005-2006 is a good time for the transition to the next generation...it\'s what I\'ve been saying this entire thread!  

As for the last question what I am trying to say is that the consumer isnt losing more thanks to the delay than what he will gain when the console is released in 2006

What delay?  What loss?  I never proposed any of that just to get the machine here.

Sony has had the PS3 specs in mind for quite some time, they\'re not just flying by the seat of their pants waiting for something better.  They\'re waiting for the PS3 they had in mind to come together, when it does it will launch.  

You said one above

What, that it\'s not ready?  That\'s a very good reason, but it\'s not a valid case against MS which some of you seem to be harping on.  The components are nearly ready, all signs for Xenon point to go come this November.

Sony\'s situation is different, they have much more involved.  They\'re incorporating new technologies (Blu-Ray and Cell) that just aren\'t ready to roll out yet.  But I can guarentee if they were you\'d be seeing a PS3 this christmas.

I ve told you that you were bringing non existing arguements before.
I am glad that you now understand my point.

About MS though.We all know that MS wants to release XBOX2 soon before the competition to gain consumers.
But the reason why some people arent seeing XBOX2 as a good idea to be released in 2005 are the same why we dont believe is a good idea to rush the PS3.
We feel that MS is rushing it.Thats what we are saying.Giving the chance for Sony to see the competition\'s offers and improve on aspects XBOX2 wont be able to if its released sooner.

MS representatives might say that everything is well planned but we arent expecting them to say otherwise anyways.

Sega was saying the same thing.They were saying that they are ready for everything.Support was huge they said, developers\' opinions were extremely positive, and it was easy to program on it.Indeed everything seemed rosy and bright.They even said that the PS2 will be hard to program to get all the performance it promises.They were right.

But they failed.
There are some unexpected still unknown factors that are hard to forsee

Originally posted by Unicron!
I ve told you that you were bringing non existing arguements before.
I am glad that you now understand my point.

You never outright said that I want them to rush it, had you said that then this probably would have ended long ago.

About MS though.We all know that MS wants to release XBOX2 soon before the competition to gain consumers.
But the reason why some people arent seeing XBOX2 as a good idea to be released in 2005 are the same why we dont believe is a good idea to rush the PS3.

Here\'s my problem with that though, 2005, more specifically November of 2005, is only 5 months before the rumored launch of PS3 in Spring \'06.  It seems like people are hung up on the year number rather than the actual timeframe.

We feel that MS is rushing it.Thats what we are saying.Giving the chance for Sony to see the competition\'s offers and improve on aspects XBOX2 wont be able to if its released sooner.

Sony will not be able to just see what MS has and vice versa then go back to the drawing board.  They\'re in too deep now.

These consoles have been in development since their successors were released.  SDK\'s from Sony have been shipped, they\'re not going to greatly differ from that no matter what MS or Nintendo come up with.  

The only time I\'ve seen that done is with Sega Saturn.  Changed it from a 2D machine to a 3D machine and created a monster to develope for in the process.

MS would be worse off if they were to throw away any of what they have simply due to what Sony is showing.  Components like ram are still in question though.

MS representatives might say that everything is well planned but we arent expecting them to say otherwise anyways.

I have a quote somewhere in here(console debating) that is dated a mere 7 months after the Xbox released saying that Xbox 2 was already in development.  You call that a ill-conceived plan?  

XNA has been in development side by side in order to benefit the Xbox 2.  You think that was put together over night?  

Sega was saying the same thing.They were saying that they are ready for everything.Support was huge they said, developers\' opinions were extremely positive, and it was easy to program on it.Indeed everything seemed rosy and bright.They even said that the PS2 will be hard to program to get all the performance it promises.They were right.

But they failed.
There are some unexpected still unknown factors that are hard to forsee

Lol, you got the easy to program right but you a little misinformed when it comes to support.  The Saturn met an early demise due to ill-conceived hardware (2d to 3d change), the system was difficult to program for compared to the simple PS, and eventually it was abandoned for a new business model, the Dreamcast.  The DC was missing alot of 3rd party support because of all the mishaps Sega had previous.  Cautious developers just weren\'t convinced to fully support it.  EA didn\'t support it because Sega went with PowerVR over their preferred Voodoo, that was a big loss and a really stupid decision by Sega, imo.

Anyway, MS does not equal Sega.  You, or anyone else, aren\'t going to be able to justify such a silly comparison.

EDIT: Just went through the thread again and noticed that you and I were talking about two different things, I kept misinterpreting as being related to the subject of the article (when to move to next gen).

I\'ve been debating about "when to say when" concerning the move to next gen, and you\'ve been objecting to the rushing of PS3 due to a comment made by one of the editors.

Read the article if you\'re going to debate it! BAH!

wow

Like i said. I think 2006 looks good. Psx came out in 93 correct? Ps2 came out 2000? Thats seven years almost. Of course the psx was moving along at a stronger pace it seemed but 1 less year in life seems adequate. The only problem i see in waiting personally is ps2\'s remaining 2005 & 2006 library. Im not thinking too deep into this but im not so sure that there is anything A++ being released in this time.

At some points i feel that perhaps it is time but we just havent allowed the time for everything to unravel. We were hearing all kinds of news, predictions and mock shots and designs in 98-99 before the ps2 released. So far we havent heard much of anything. Perhaps Sony isnt ready, but if they hold a decent list of releases this year then i can definately wait.

By e3 im sure we\'ll come to some conclusions

Originally posted by Lord Nicon
Like i said. I think 2006 looks good. Psx came out in 93 correct?

Playstation launched in Japan on December 3rd, 1994.

>>>Link<<<

At some points i feel that perhaps it is time but we just havent allowed the time for everything to unravel. We were hearing all kinds of news, predictions and mock shots and designs in 98-99 before the ps2 released. So far we havent heard much of anything. Perhaps Sony isnt ready, but if they hold a decent list of releases this year then i can definately wait.

By e3 im sure we\'ll come to some conclusions

Much of anything?  

We know about the cell and proposed performance, we know about Nvidia helping out and have heard early estimates as to what their GPU is capable of.  We know SDK\'s have been shipped and there\'s already a buzz about it from not so tight lipped developers.

We know even more about Xbox 2.  Nintendo, as always, is the most secretive.

The news is coming, apparently you\'re not paying attention.

Take into consideration that my opinions arent absolute

Originally posted by Ginko

Here\'s my problem with that though, 2005, more specifically November of 2005, is only 5 months before the rumored launch of PS3 in Spring \'06.  It seems like people are hung up on the year number rather than the actual timeframe.

Console\'s full specs, real games and generally information appear months before the consoles release.So its actually more than just 5 months that Sony will know much about everything about the competitor.

Sony will not be able to just see what MS has and vice versa then go back to the drawing board.  They\'re in too deep now.

These consoles have been in development since their successors were released.  SDK\'s from Sony have been shipped, they\'re not going to greatly differ from that no matter what MS or Nintendo come up with.  

The only time I\'ve seen that done is with Sega Saturn.  Changed it from a 2D machine to a 3D machine and created a monster to develope for in the process.

MS would be worse off if they were to throw away any of what they have simply due to what Sony is showing.  Components like ram are still in question though.

Its not just simply the graphics that Sony can observe and counter.And still Sony might make a few small alterations.I am not saying that Sony will make huge changes.But if MS comes up with something that will make Sony consider their offer then some changes will make their way.
I didnt mention huge changes.This is an assumption
Also dont forget.Sony will know even months before XBOX2\'s launch

I have a quote somewhere in here(console debating) that is dated a mere 7 months after the Xbox released saying that Xbox 2 was already in development.  You call that a ill-conceived plan?  

XNA has been in development side by side in order to benefit the Xbox 2.  You think that was put together over night?

But there is no competition.Until you know what the competitor is offering no matter what and how much you are working on something there is still the risk of uncertainty.

Lol, you got the easy to program right but you a little misinformed when it comes to support.  The Saturn met an early demise due to ill-conceived hardware (2d to 3d change), the system was difficult to program for compared to the simple PS, and eventually it was abandoned for a new business model, the Dreamcast.  The DC was missing alot of 3rd party support because of all the mishaps Sega had previous.  Cautious developers just weren\'t convinced to fully support it.  EA didn\'t support it because Sega went with PowerVR over their preferred Voodoo, that was a big loss and a really stupid decision by Sega, imo.

Anyway, MS does not equal Sega.  You, or anyone else, aren\'t going to be able to justify such a silly comparison.

I am not saying that MS is bound to fail thanks to the same factors that made the DC fail.My point is that there are unknown factors.I said unknown.Unexpected.I didnt name the factors that made DC fail and neither did I say that MS will fail for the same reasons.It might not do as well thought due to other still unknown factors.
They are facing a ghost competitor and there is no nexct gen market yet.There is actually nothing.All these sound good and they can say that they quarantee success but how well it will do in the market when its released  next to the competition its a whole different story
Since so far I havent seen anything but only read text from MS representatives its normal to have this uncertainty.

Also dont forget that some gaming industry analists predicted MS decision to release the console in 2005 as a wrong move and that this might not give the expected well headstart MS is expecting.