Ubisoft: we need new consoles

[+Random Terrain]

I for one would like to know how you figure that the 360 and PS3 are version 1.5

If we don't all die in 2012 or get taken off to other planets by evil aliens pretending to be good, PM me in 20 years and let me know if you think the Xbox 360 and PS3 were advanced enough.

 

Comparing the Xbox to the Xbox 360 is kind of like comparing the Atari 2600 to the Atari 7800. I'm looking for a bigger jump than that. Let's have another flying saucer crash so we steal their technology again and jump from the Xbox 360 to the Xbox 30600.

[moycon]

I for one would like to know how you figure that the 360 and PS3 are version 1.5

 

It's because you can't climb and chop down every tree in every game that has trees or drive around and say go through a fast food drive through in games that include cars and open world cities. That doesn't mean none of the game producers are interested in programing mundane tasks no-one but maybe <1% of the population would find even half way intriguing to do, it means the hardware is underpowered.

[Lendorien]

With all this talk, when would a new console come out?

 

The earliest we might see a new console is Christmas of 2012. Can anyone see that happening? There haven't even been hints of new consoles coming down the pike. From what I can see and what I have read, both Sony and Microsoft seem fully committed to the correct generation. Don't forget that for Sony, the console has only become profitable in the past year or so. What incentive do they have to spend the massive capital involved to release a new console already?

 

If I would guess, we're looking at a new console in 2012 at the very earliest. Certainly no later than 2014. I'd guess 2013 really.

 

As I said, the massive monetary investment involved makes it unlikely to happen just yet. The consoles in question are just hitting their stride and in the case of Sony, they just don't have enough incentive to do it yet (except maybe that the console was hacked).

 

In anything Nintendo is the most likely to make a new console. Maybe an update of the WII with full HD and such. Who knows.

 

I personally wouldn't buy any new console if it came out. At 700 dollars, I couldn't afford it, and I'm already well impressed with what has been made and is being made for current consoles. I think we have room for growth yet.

 

As for wanting fully realistically destructable environments, it's an unrealistic expectation, even for souped up modern computers (which realistically have more graphics processing chops than the ps3 and xbox360). Expecting the next gen console to be able to do it is utterly unrealistic. Maybe the one after that.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Lendorien

[ApolloBoy]

The aging guys who were around when the Atari 2600 ruled supreme might think the industry today sucks, is full of uninspired redundant dreck and is headed for a collapse. I say those folks aren't looking at the big picture. The industry isn't geared towards you anymore and hasn't been for a long time. You're old, irritable and set in your ways. You candy coat the past, will never be satisfied going forward because you've associated the best games with your youth, and are just all around miserable because you're ancient now.

I think the industry today isn't that great and I'm still in my early 20s. And I don't look on the past with rose-colored glasses, either.

[potatohead]

Maybe gaming has peaked?

 

I really don't care whether or not the next generation hits. There is strong potential in this one.

 

Frankly, I would like to see more new game genres before I see new hardware.

[xg4bx]

I wrote a gigantic post about how I want good ai, intelligent stories,massive worlds and genre variety, not prettier chin stubble and shinier water but the site froze on me.aarrgghh.

 

To summarize, moycon nailed it: games just aren't for me anymore. I don't have fun with current gen stuff and I most assuredly will dislike next gen just as much. I fought against this realization. To use a term (in poor taste, forgive my polictical incorrectness) I have gaming battered woman syndrome. I keep thinking things will change and maybe that next title will restore my love but it never does, it keeps kicking me down. I have no reason to believe it'll change next gen or the gen after.

 

Am I bitter. Yea. I'm disappointed that gaming fell victim to the same dumbassery that all media falls victim to when something becomes popluar. 15 year old, mountain dew guzzling teens are the market now, not some chubby 33 year old nerd like me, someone who demands more from their entertainment than pew pew pew and corridor crawlers with pretty graphics.

 

Am I done gaming? Hell no, dust off a seat in the old folks home for this relic. You'll have to pry my dualshock 2 from my cold dead hand.

 

Oddly I feel liberated.

 

@moycon- yes I did like crysis. By "they haven't done anything..." I meant ubisoft themselves, not devs in general.

[moycon]

I think the industry today isn't that great and I'm still in my early 20s. And I don't look on the past with rose-colored glasses, either.

 

If you don't like modern gaming, that's fine. I didn't mean to imply everyone in the entire would does. I mentioned getting old because most guys on this site are getting there (including myself) and I thought I'd joke about it. So some people think gaming today is lame, don't think the folks spending billions every year feel the same way, or that it's all about to crash because you as an individual (not you personally ApolloBoy) think everything about the industry is going downhill. No one forces consumers to spend billions.

 

The industry isn't about what you as an individual thinks regardless what your age is, it's about what the masses driving it think. Every gen since the Atari 2600 you hear how it's all going to crash because the industry sucks now. It's an unrealistic way of thinking is the point I was making. Regardless what you personally think, it's one of the most popular forms of entertainment. It's not going anywhere. (Thank god because I personally love the latest and greatest games)

 

I meant ubisoft themselves, not devs in general.

LOL Ok that makes sense then. No Clozapine for you.

[Cynicaster]

As time has passed and console generations have come and gone, it seems that we've been subjected to the law of diminishing returns in that the incremental improvements in the games from one console generation to the next have gotten smaller and smaller to the point of being almost negligible.

 

If somebody wants to make the point that the modern gaming industry is feeling a bit stale, then I'm certainly not going to disagree. But come on folks, the underlying problem is NOT the current hardware platforms--it's in the design of the games. Long gone are the days where we'd see a cause/effect link between the release of a new console (or batch of consoles) and marked improvements in game quality. Sure, there are some that would argue those days never existed, but I think a strong argument could be made that transitioning from an Atari 5200 or Colecovision to NES had the effect of opening many new doors.

 

But fast forward to today and let's face it: if PS4 came out tomorrow, we'd be getting piles and piles of the exact same stuff we're getting now, but with higher prices and slightly enhanced graphics. If anybody thinks I'm wrong about this, I'd love to hear why they think so.

 

To the enhancement of graphics I say phooey. I'm so f*&king tired of so much emphasis being put on graphics because all too often it comes at the cost of actual fun factor. Bottom line, the current generation hardware still performs well outside of the typical development house's ability to design games that are clever, interesting, and fun.

[S1500]

Go ahead & release a newer Xbox. That means in theory, prices of used games for the now-obsolete console will go down. That means I have more buying power!

[moycon]

Go ahead & release a newer Xbox. That means in theory, prices of used games for the now-obsolete console will go down. That means I have more buying power!

 

I think that's one of the main reasons game producers are clamoring for a new console.

You can already find 100's of decent, new (by "new" I mean unopened) games for under $20 many under $10. You have tons of buying power right now.

Unless it's a HUGE title, people have a glut of games they can buy for that small amount as opposed to the $50-$60 producers get for new games. I remember the same thing happened with the NES. Current new games were $40, where as there were 100's of older titles you could snag for $9.99 new. This was shortly before the SNES came out.

[Vic George 2K3]

Interesting tech demo, but the shark still looks fake.

[TwinChargers]

Go ahead & release a newer Xbox. That means in theory, prices of used games for the now-obsolete console will go down. That means I have more buying power!

 

One would think that, but with the newer consoles becoming tethered to being online, all it would take is Xbox (or Playstation) to say they need to close the servers to help accommodate there new console, essentially killing the old one.

[moycon]

One would think that, but with the newer consoles becoming tethered to being online, all it would take is Xbox (or Playstation) to say they need to close the servers to help accommodate there new console, essentially killing the old one.

 

You'd only kill the online aspects of a game though wouldn't you? What affect would shutting down any servers have on decent games that don't rely on being online? I can name dozens off the top of my head. "Essentially killing" seems like a gross overstatement. Maybe if all games were 100% online I could see that happening.

[Jess Ragan]

I agree. I think it's time for the next generation. I'm glad we're finally starting to hear rumblings of this coming from within the industry. This has been a great generation, and there are a few titles coming out later in the year that I'm honestly looking forward to, but beyond that, this generation looks spent.

 

REALLY?! Unless there's a major change in the way games are played, I don't see a pressing need for new hardware. All that new technology is just going to be wasted on rendering patches of grass and skin pores... ooh, exciting!

 

It's just another example of developers throwing a tantrum for shiny new hardware when they haven't fully tapped the power of today's game machines. The economy sucks, and the cost of game development is at an all-time high. Why would you want to burden both the consumers and yourselves with the added expense of a new generation of consoles? If you want me to upgrade to a new machine, demonstrate to me why I need one.

[rockman_x_2002]

• I'm still waiting for intelligent pedestrians that act like real people (they won't stroll through fire and they won't calmly walk away after you just tried to stab them in the eye).
  _
• I'm still waiting for a city that has buildings with life happening inside of each one of them (no more 'cardboard boxes' with details painted on the outside).
  _
• I'm still waiting for more objects than can be interacted with and modified (destroyed, broken into pieces, attached to one or more objects, and so on).
  

 

 

These three things from your list are already possible if developers would take their time to implement them.

 

The Elder Scrolls series show us a minimal example of intelligence in NPCs. For example, try attacking a pedestrian and you can fully expect them to fight back, other pedestrians to come to their aid, as well as guards to come try to arrest (or kill) you. Not to mention your reputation among those people will plummet like a stone. As for getting them to not do other stupid things, like walking through fire or plummeting off a cliff, it's all in how you program their AI. It's possible... but developers tend to fudge it in the name of efficiency and having time to work on more important things. That's an AI thing and while newer hardware could improve upon that, what's really missing here is effective software that directs NPCs to do "not stupid" things or to actually pay attention to their surroundings.

 

As for a city with life in buildings, that's doable too. Not every building would need life inside (because you can't see inside them), and for the buildings that do you wouldn't necessarily have to have a full floorplan with people all throughout inside like a dollhouse. For instance, from street level, you could have small hallways with random "person" models appearing in them and walking about to a fro, talking to one another. Some carrying packages or papers or whatnot. Maybe some talking on cellphones. Things of that nature. You wouldn't even have to load these models until you got close enough to a building (within X units of distance radius out in relation to the building). This would allow the console to work at optimal level without sacrificing performance, while maintaining a realistic "live" world around the player. As for buildings you can't enter, just make little rooms and hallways near the windows so the buildings look spacious when you view them from the street. Throw a few people in the rooms and have them interact with one another or objects that you can see (turning on a lamp, closing the blinds, eating a meal at the table, etc.), just to make it all look natural. Make every window glass so you can see through them naturally, even if you put a windowblind over the inside of the window (make the blinds move slightly as though an air conditioner or heater were blowing inside to give the appearance of life in the building and make it not seem like a cardboard box with a painted-on window).

 

For an example of how to do a building you can enter, let's have a hypothetical office building with a glass front where you can see multiple floors of the front from the street: On the upper floors have a cubicle farm with fluorescent lighting in the ceiling. You can't see past the cubicle walls generally, but you can see just inside the glass front windows and maybe into a cubicle or two. So have people walking in that area but absolutely nothing in behind it where you can't possibly see. On the ground floor, model the entire ground floor as you would see it when you enter inside the building. Once inside, you can ditch the building model view from the outside and, should the player choose to go into the upper office areas (if they have access to those floors at all), you could load proper floorplans and characters within. You could also load proper streetviews from the inside looking out, meaning there are people walking up and down the street, perhaps vehicles going, etc. etc. etc.

 

I don't see at all why any of this should be impossible to do. We've seen games that have bits and pieces of these things in them, but we do rarely see the sum of the parts in a single game. However, I don't see at all why that would not be entirely possible. I really wish I had the time to put together a tech demo of a setting of what I have in mind right now so you could see it in action.

 

As for objects that can be interacted with, used, combined, taken apart, etc., we've seen some of that in old PC adventure games (King's Quest comes to mind for a minimal example of this at play). So this should also be completely doable in a modern game. But combining items like that should only be done if it makes sense to do so (i.e., trying to put a rubber eraser inside of a gun would be a fairly stupid thing to do, so the game might not allow that. Then again it might allow it and would then screw up your gun). As for looking at objects and examining them in detail, many games do this already, even if those details don't reveal anything particularly important or interesting beyond a cool-looking 3D model of the object you're looking at.

[Christophero Sly]

I agree. I think it's time for the next generation. I'm glad we're finally starting to hear rumblings of this coming from within the industry. This has been a great generation, and there are a few titles coming out later in the year that I'm honestly looking forward to, but beyond that, this generation looks spent.

 

REALLY?! Unless there's a major change in the way games are played, I don't see a pressing need for new hardware. All that new technology is just going to be wasted on rendering patches of grass and skin pores... ooh, exciting!

 

It's just another example of developers throwing a tantrum for shiny new hardware when they haven't fully tapped the power of today's game machines. The economy sucks, and the cost of game development is at an all-time high. Why would you want to burden both the consumers and yourselves with the added expense of a new generation of consoles? If you want me to upgrade to a new machine, demonstrate to me why I need one.

Again, I appreciate the points you're making, but they're the same exact things we heard when the last generation of consoles came to its end, and the generation before that, and the generation before that. Every generation leaves behind unfulfilled potential. It's just the nature of the beast. I'd rather leave something in the box than bleed it 'til it's thoroughly obsolete.

 

It seems to me that the folks saying "keep this generation" are the same folks who are doing the most complaining about this generation. What I don't understand is how you all think leaving this current generation of hardware in place for another 5 years is supposed to mitigate any of your complaints or work to our benefit in any way as gaming consumers. Everybody seems to be saying that the problem is with developers, not with the hardware. OK, so how does leaving this generation of hardware in place suddenly translate into developers making the new and innovative games everyone is crying for? Given the current state of gaming, what is it that you see in this generation of hardware that will be able to improve the status quo over the next five years? 'Cause I sure don't see anything in this generation that is going to be able to accomplish that task.

 

For better or worse, this generation has already been defined. As several folks have pointed out, there is no incentive for developers to make new and innovative games at this point in a generation's lifespan. The focus from this point forward will be on milking successful, established franchises. All we have to look forward to from this point on are sequels, knock-offs, and stagnation. If there's any hope for new and exciting game ideas to break through, it's not going to be on this generation of hardware. Only the promise of new hardware has any hope of getting developers to take chances and innovate.

 

And besides, Mass Effect 4, Gears 4, Battlefield 4, DMC 5, Arkham 3, CoD 10, FFXV, Mario Galaxy 3, Uncharted 4, Halo 6, etc. are coming whether new hardware is introduced or not, so would you rather experience those titles on tired, 10 year old, outmoded hardware, or on new cutting edge hardware that offers us at least technical innovations? All things being equal, I'll take the later. The sooner, the better.

[Jess Ragan]

Like I said, PROVE we need the new hardware, and I'll bite. If developers stop spurting their loads over graphics and put some effort into artificial intelligence, that would go a long way toward enticing me to make a purchase.

[ATARI7800fan]

Like I said, PROVE we need the new hardware, and I'll bite. If developers stop spurting their loads over graphics and put some effort into artificial intelligence, that would go a long way toward enticing me to make a purchase.

Agree. I do not see a reason for new hardware, and its not because I just bought a Wii and am planning on buying my first DS this winter.

[+Random Terrain]

Like I said, PROVE we need the new hardware, and I'll bite. If developers stop spurting their loads over graphics and put some effort into artificial intelligence, that would go a long way toward enticing me to make a purchase.

If they are focusing on graphics so much, why aren't the graphics 500 times better than they were on the Xbox and PS2? I hope they'll focus on artificial intelligence, graphics, larger worlds, and all that good stuff with the next batch of consoles. Maybe they'll deliver on all of their promises this time.

 

The sad thing is if things keep going down the wrong path, artificial intelligence won't be needed because every game will be multiplayer only. When a game becomes unpopular, you'll be standing in the middle of a lifeless game world with nothing to do. No, that probably wouldn't happen because your license for that game would have expired by then and you wouldn't be able to play it anyway. Depends on which license you pay for when you buy the game. The game will cost 80 dollars, plus the license fee:

 

• 3 month license = 20 dollars
  _
  
• 6 month license = 40 dollars
  _
  
• 1 year license = 60 dollars
  

 

Licenses cannot be renewed or transferred. Choose wisely.

[Christophero Sly]

Like I said, PROVE we need the new hardware, and I'll bite.

I just did that. And if you don't agree with me, then you can wait a few years and time will prove it to you.

 

If developers stop spurting their loads over graphics and put some effort into artificial intelligence, that would go a long way toward enticing me to make a purchase.

Again, my question to you is tell me how you expect that sticking with this generation of hardware for another 5 years is going to improve the status quo you're railing against? You say you want advancements in AI, but do you really believe that this generation of hardware still offers developers any incentives to make the necessary investments to bring that to you? You don't need to speculate; developers like Ubisoft are already telling you that the answer is "no".

[rockman_x_2002]

Again, my question to you is tell me how you expect that sticking with this generation of hardware for another 5 years is going to improve the status quo you're railing against? You say you want advancements in AI, but do you really believe that this generation of hardware still offers developers any incentives to make the necessary investments to bring that to you? You don't need to speculate; developers like Ubisoft are already telling you that the answer is "no".

 

Well I can't speak for everyone else in the room, but for myself? I say developers need to get off their duff and do something different. And I don't mean something different with a different console. They could have a whole room full of new consoles, but as long as they're turning out the same old stuff every time I turn around, I'm just burned out on all of it. I have seen very little in the way of innovation in the past decade and a half, really, except for the rare game that at least tries to do something different. Advancements in AI, graphics, etc. are all fine and dandy, but we can do so much with the machines we have here and now.

 

Used to be in the NES and SNES days that developers got into the system and churned out quality stuff. Games that touched on subjects and gameplay that had never previously been explored before. And even at the end of these systems' lifetimes you saw innovative new things happening on the consoles. Now when a console gets a little bit of varnish worn off it they start crying "We want a new console." What ever happened to good old work ethic, rolling up your shirt sleeves, and showing people their tech genius?

 

I suppose I am a bit cynical, but it's like game developers just don't get it. Take the old Activision with the 2600. All they had to work with was a paltry 128 bytes of memory, and they were darn glad to have it, too!

[HatefulGravey]

I appreciate the points you're making, but they're the same exact things we heard when the last generation of consoles came to its end, and the generation before that, and the generation before that. Every generation leaves unfulfilled potential. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't believe that allowing this generation of hardware to continue on for another 5 years serves our interests as gaming consumers, nor do I see an extended life span for this generation benefiting any of the concerns you've outlined either. Quite the opposite, actually. There are certain realities about the way the gaming industry works, and those realities can't be ignored. As someone else already pointed out, the focus of this generation from this point forward will be on established IPs, not on making the new and innovative games that you (and I) desire.

 

I agree that there is always potential left when the retire a console. I'm still more then happy with the quality I'm getting from a few game makers. Its really hard for me to imagine why new hardware would be needed to improve on some of the better games in this generation. There are some games that need very little to be as close to perfect as games can get.

 

We can only hope that there cost will be too high for the companies that make consoles to want to take the leap too soon. Maybe in the next generation there will be less crap titles and more replay value. The best way to make people buy a new console is to have good games for it. It doesn't really matter how bad I might want what is next, I can't afford it right now, and that isn't changing anytime soon. I just can't see another $1000 invested in modern gaming. By the time you get a new system, games and all the things you need to play you are going to have at least that much in it. Is anyone really ok with that right now?

[atarian63]

It's time for new consoles. The current gen seems like it's at the end. I rarely buy a new game anymore. always nice to have something new to look forward to.

[atarian63]

duplicate post sorry

Edited April 13, 2011 by atarian63

[TwinChargers]

One would think that, but with the newer consoles becoming tethered to being online, all it would take is Xbox (or Playstation) to say they need to close the servers to help accommodate there new console, essentially killing the old one.

 

You'd only kill the online aspects of a game though wouldn't you? What affect would shutting down any servers have on decent games that don't rely on being online? I can name dozens off the top of my head. "Essentially killing" seems like a gross overstatement. Maybe if all games were 100% online I could see that happening.

 

Perhaps I was exaggerating somewhat, but what about those games that need patches to to fix all the bugs since the developers sent out a faulty game. What about games that have downloadable content, that while it might not be essencial, it really rounds out the game. While there are many games out there right now that do just fine not being online, there are many more that wouldn't be as grand as they are made out to be if it was taken out. It might not kill the console, but it would definately be severing a lifeline.