FSTDT Forums
Community => Entertainment and Television => Topic started by: CaseAgainstFaith on January 25, 2012, 10:20:37 am
-
The new Xbox will be in production by the end of this year and arrive in late October or early November 2013, sources close to the project tell IGN. The new game console--often referred to as Xbox 720--will be based on Advanced Micro Devices' 6000 series graphics processor, with support for DirectX11, 1080p HD, multi-display output, and 3D.
The new processor, which was unveiled late last year, will give the new Xbox six times the processing power of Xbox 360 and 20 percent greater performance than Nintendo's forthcoming console, the Wii U, sources said.
source - http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57365392-235/new-xbox-coming-in-fall-2013/ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57365392-235/new-xbox-coming-in-fall-2013/)
So it looks like the next round of console wars is upon us. Sadly I am feeling that Microsoft isn't off to a great start. If it is confirmed that they are going to use the AMD/ATI Graphic card their 6000 series it is already old technology. Now it could be worse but my point is this; while the 7000 series is still maybe "too top of the line" right now, considering the fact that this new Xbox isn't due out till supposedly 2013 I would think it would be smart to go with a more top of the line card now knowing full well that by the time you get to full mass production usually a year before release date, the price of that once "top of the line" will probably be about the same as the 6000 you were planning on putting in it. What do you all think of the current specs that are being projected?
-
*shrug* Maybe they're waiting for the 7000 to be more affordable before they announce they're making it part of the console. Honestly though, I'm not an Xbox fan as it is, and I've still yet to hear any news that'll make me want to get the new one.
-
Can we even really call it a war anymore? Microsoft has already lost just from what I've seen in that small blurb. Sony isn't likely to fare much better.
Nintendo found the formula that wins the war. Forget processing power, go with accessibility. While some may whine that Nintendo has abandoned "true gamers" (a claim I find hard to substantiate after Skyward Sword, even if it did take sadly long to show the Wii's true potential), they are now the industry giant. They took "someone who plays video games" and turned that from "gamers" to literally "everyone and their grandma too".
And now here's Microsoft spouting nonsense about 3D (which is terrible on anything but a personal screen like the 3DS) and multi-display. Who cares about that? No one but the hardcore fringe. And let's face it--Sony's never had an original idea in ever. Their entire video game empire is built on ripping off Nintendo.
Now, I don't doubt these next gen consoles will have games I will desperately want to play that won't be on the WiiU. Just the way of the world. But Nintendo won the war years ago, and MicroSoft, at least, seems totally oblivious to that fact.
-
And now here's Microsoft spouting nonsense about 3D (which is terrible on anything but a personal screen like the 3DS) and multi-display.
Multi-display? How does that even work?
Nevertheless, Nintendo has the upper-hand especially considering that they have the best hand-held console in the market right now.
-
And now here's Microsoft spouting nonsense about 3D (which is terrible on anything but a personal screen like the 3DS) and multi-display.
Multi-display? How does that even work?
Nevertheless, Nintendo has the upper-hand especially considering that they have the best hand-held console in the market right now.
Think a DS, but with a console hooked to multiple televisions/monitors.
In other words, utterly useless to the vast, vast majority of players.
-
Can we even really call it a war anymore? Microsoft has already lost just from what I've seen in that small blurb. Sony isn't likely to fare much better.
Nintendo found the formula that wins the war. Forget processing power, go with accessibility. While some may whine that Nintendo has abandoned "true gamers" (a claim I find hard to substantiate after Skyward Sword, even if it did take sadly long to show the Wii's true potential), they are now the industry giant. They took "someone who plays video games" and turned that from "gamers" to literally "everyone and their grandma too".
And now here's Microsoft spouting nonsense about 3D (which is terrible on anything but a personal screen like the 3DS) and multi-display. Who cares about that? No one but the hardcore fringe. And let's face it--Sony's never had an original idea in ever. Their entire video game empire is built on ripping off Nintendo.
Now, I don't doubt these next gen consoles will have games I will desperately want to play that won't be on the WiiU. Just the way of the world. But Nintendo won the war years ago, and MicroSoft, at least, seems totally oblivious to that fact.
The Wii is a terrible concept though. Just like the Wii U is also a failure. Nintendo has yet again gone with technology that will be almost 5 years old come their release date if the details dropped at E3 last year have been confirmed. I also think should again the rumors get confirmed, Xbox will be the winner in the next gen of consoles. Here is why, lets say they improve on the specs a bit and use a 7000 series card. The graphics would be amazing. now the biggest killer for the Wii U is Kinect 2. The Kinect 2 will make the Wii U obsolete and here is why http://www.techspot.com/news/46434-microsofts-kinect-2-will-be-able-to-read-lips-and-detect-your-mood.html (http://www.techspot.com/news/46434-microsofts-kinect-2-will-be-able-to-read-lips-and-detect-your-mood.html) Nintendo just has motion detection from 2 joy sticks and soon a gamepad type device, but this is what will set Microsoft apart and smash the Wii U. I don't even think Sony has something this advanced.
-
Wars aren't won with how pretty your weapons are. They're won by how effective they are. Say what you will about the Wii--it was effective, in that it out-sold both competitors put together for many years, and leads by a gigantic margin to this day. Are the X-Box and PS3 stronger? Undoubtedly. Are they capable of higher resolutions? Yep.
None of that mattered. Nintendo still won the last round harder than anyone has ever won any round of anything in the history of everything.
And I am seriously sick of hearing about graphics. Because higher resolutions mean absolutely nothing to me. You know what I think the three best looking games of all time are? Okami, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, and Skyward Sword. Artistry trumps a higher pixil count. A game doesn't have to be photo-realistic and made up of nothing but washed-out brown colors to be beautiful.
-
Wars aren't won with how pretty your weapons are. They're won by how effective they are. Say what you will about the Wii--it was effective, in that it out-sold both competitors put together for many years, and leads by a gigantic margin to this day. Are the X-Box and PS3 stronger? Undoubtedly. Are they capable of higher resolutions? Yep.
None of that mattered. Nintendo still won the last round harder than anyone has ever won any round of anything in the history of everything.
And I am seriously sick of hearing about graphics. Because higher resolutions mean absolutely nothing to me. You know what I think the three best looking games of all time are? Okami, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, and Skyward Sword. Artistry trumps a higher pixil count. A game doesn't have to be photo-realistic and made up of nothing but washed-out brown colors to be beautiful.
You kind of skipped over Kinect 2, that is what will kill the Wii U this time around.
-
I really don't think it's capable of that. No one made anything a sane person wanted to play with on the Kinetic, and the Kinetic 2 will be just as piss-poor. It'll just cost twice the price to suck just as hard. The Kinetic is everything "wrong" with the WiiMote with none of what is "right". WiiMote blends basic, intuitive motions with traditional controls. The Kinetic just has you moving around--you don't even have a way to fucking walk forward with no controller. Call me crazy, but I don't want to stand perfectly still waving my arms around, using my empty hands like a lightsabre to kill storm troopers who run at me in waves because I can't fucking walk forward.
-
And now here's Microsoft spouting nonsense about 3D (which is terrible on anything but a personal screen like the 3DS) and multi-display.
Multi-display? How does that even work?
Like this (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/medium/2009/01/multi-monitoring--833050683.JPG), Except with TVs instead of computer monitors. PC gaming has been doing this for years.
Translation: useless to anyone who isn't a pc gamer.
-
As a diehard PCist, it will be just as irrelevant to me as the last one.
Edit: directed at the OP title, not at VirtualStranger's post.
-
For me, the quality of a console is heavily dependent on the quality of the games available for it, and in that regard, The Wii has failed miserably. You could probably count the number of Wii games that aren't crap shovel-ware on two hands. The console has produced almost no decent third party titles, with only the occasional big-name 80's Nintendo franchise to keep it relevant in my eyes.
The Wii is "winning?" Sure, if you consider making boatloads of money by pumping out the living-room equivalent of Facebook games to be "winning." I prefer quality titles, myself.
As a diehard PCist, it will be just as irrelevant to me as the last one.
Sorry, what I meant to say was, useless to anyone who isn't playing on a PC. Since, you know, not many people buy two identical living room TVs to put side-by-side.
-
The issue is, you can't blame Nintendo for 3rd parties avoiding their system. Nintendo gave them a platform, they couldn't force them to work from it.
The sad truth is, the rising costs of producing a quality game are making developers afraid to take risks. There's a depressing reason why almost every game of note released today is a sequel, a reboot, or a remake. The video game industry is becoming the same innovation wasteland that Hollywood has become.
-
The problem I find with the Wii, one that also applies to the Kinect, is that motion controls are just...awkward, to me. That, and the Wii versions of games released on other consoles tend to have pared-down content when compared to their cousins. Case in point, The Force Unleashed...least, from what I've heard. The overhead of motion-sensitive controls has to be taken into account somewhere, and it seems to be overall content that suffers most often.
Now, to the general pissing contest between Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony... I don't really give a shit what you play on. You use whatever system works best for you and has games you like. The lines of actual, appreciable difference between the consoles are blurring with each new iteration...eventually, its only going to really come down to what logo is on your system and the splash screen when it boots up, minus some exclusive titles and shit. Hell, the 360 and PS3 are already pretty much just pared-down PCs with specialized peripherals and operating systems.
But, this is turning into a rant, sooooooo... What do I, personally use for gaming? My console of choice is the 360. But, the one gaming machine I will always have around in some way, shape, or form...is a PC. Its more modular, more upgradable, and has flexibility that consoles simply don't have. Remember, PCs almost always get the modding tools.
-
I've always thought motion controls were a gimmick myself. Most games on motion control-capable consoles don't use motion control. I like the Wii but I still keep my Game Cube around just in case. (I can't believe people are saying Game Cubes are retro.)
-
(I can't believe people are saying Game Cubes are retro.)
Where are these people and what blunt object should I hit them with?
-
(I can't believe people are saying Game Cubes are retro.)
Where are these people and what blunt object should I hit them with?
Mostly a bunch of obnoxious guys at school who trash talk each other on Halo: Reach.
-
(I can't believe people are saying Game Cubes are retro.)
Where are these people and what blunt object should I hit them with?
I don't know where they are, but to answer your second question, a gamecube.
Personally, I don't know how the next gen is going to turn out. I'm a Nintendo fan, always will be (they've brought me the most memorable franchises around) but I'm not a diehard fan. I own a PS2, and I'm considering getting a PS3 when I have the money. Microsoft's franchise doesn't interest me too much.
That's... just the reality of it, for me.
However, I do believe the Wii has been an extremely strong contender. Sure, they haven't had the best spread of games, but what games they DO have a spread for are fantastic. The motion controls are actually really intuitive, though not so disorienting that it's hard to play another console. The Kinect, however, just doesn't compare to the Wiimote, which isn't JUST motion controls, but also standard buttons. In that sense, I would actually say the Kinect is inferior to the Wiimote.
-
I remember testing out a motion-control device for video games, very similar to the Kinect in function. This was years before the Wii was even announced.
I was disappoint.
-
I heard a rumor on Twitter that the next generation of consoles will actively block people from playing used games.
-
The Wii is a terrible concept though. Just like the Wii U is also a failure. Nintendo has yet again gone with technology that will be almost 5 years old come their release date if the details dropped at E3 last year have been confirmed. I also think should again the rumors get confirmed, Xbox will be the winner in the next gen of consoles. Here is why, lets say they improve on the specs a bit and use a 7000 series card. The graphics would be amazing. now the biggest killer for the Wii U is Kinect 2. The Kinect 2 will make the Wii U obsolete and here is why http://www.techspot.com/news/46434-microsofts-kinect-2-will-be-able-to-read-lips-and-detect-your-mood.html (http://www.techspot.com/news/46434-microsofts-kinect-2-will-be-able-to-read-lips-and-detect-your-mood.html) Nintendo just has motion detection from 2 joy sticks and soon a gamepad type device, but this is what will set Microsoft apart and smash the Wii U. I don't even think Sony has something this advanced.
1. The Wii may not be state-of-the-art, but you don't win by having the shiniest toys, you win by selling more stuff. The Wii did something that the other consoles weren't doing at the time, and guess what? People liked the novelty of it.
2. There won't be any noticeable difference in graphics quality between a 360 and a 720, though. The current HD 360 graphics quality is indistinguishable from reality, on most TV screens. If I walk in on my brother playing a 360 game, the only way I know he's not watching a live-action TV show is the health/map/ammo meters in the corner. What's the point in souping up the graphics if the human retina can't even tell the difference? It's not like Microsoft is releasing a version for eagles. Graphics improvements are not the way to go anymore.
3. Ooh, ahh, Kinect. Call me back when it's actually able to calibrate your distance from the TV reliably, and thus your height. I tried Kinect games on my brother's system, and it thinks I'm 2 1/2 feet tall. No, really, my Your Shape: Fitness Evolved data said I was that tiny. And I couldn't even fix the height data. Not to mention that Kinect requires a rather large room to be at all usable. My brother's 360 is in a 15x15' room and his Kinect still doesn't consider that enough space for much of anything.
Until the room size issue is dealt with satisfactorily, Kinect is a bad choice. Also, Kinect is an add-on, not something that comes with the console out of the box. A very expensive add-on, might I add. Why would I buy a console and a $150 add-on to get motion games, when I could just buy a Wii and have it right out of the box? Hel, if you still had a PSEye left over from the PS2 days, then upgrading to Motion Plus controllers on your PS3 was actually cheaper than buying a Kinect.
Another example: Child of Eden, one of the few games with full controller and Kinect compatibility. I wasn't able to beat Level 1 until I switched to controller, then suddenly it became extremely easy. It's not that the Kinect controls weren't easy to pick up--they were, and the motions themselves were fairly simple ones. But the sensors kept interpreting my hand movements wrongly, so that I had to avoid any pretense of precision and resort to flailing around. That is not how motion sensors are supposed to work at all.
Both Sony and Nintendo did a better job with the whole motion-sensor thing than Microsoft this time around. I can't picture things being THAT much different 2 years after the first Kinect.
Now, let's look at the winners of every console war Microsoft has participated in, shall we?
6th gen: PS2
7th gen: Wii
You'll notice none of those are made by Microsoft. Microsoft has released exactly two consoles thus far. The original Xbox came in second in the sixth-gen console wars by about 125 million units (barely edging out the Gamecube, and beating that console isn't saying much). This time around? Sure, the 360's doing better, but it's still 28 million units behind the Wii.
Unless Microsoft changes tactics, it's not going to fare much better this time around. Free online multiplayer for some of its games wouldn't hurt, either, as both the Wii and the PS3 offer free online multiplayer for compatible games. With both Xbox consoles, you have to have a Gold (paid) subscription.
-
Sorry, hun, but I have to disagree about the one who sells the most wins. It also comes down to how many are actually being used. A lot of people I talk to say they have all three consoles- Wii, PS3, 360 and they mention how little the Wii gets used compared to their 360 or PS3. You can't just take into account units shipped. If nobody is buying games for it then it's dead in the water and a useless item. Sure, you got a profit from the initial sale of the console but... nobody is appreciating the work. How is that winning anything? When developers see that their games aren't selling they stop producing. And thus a cycle is born.
Also, when it comes to online you get what you pay for. I think we all saw what happened with PS3 (multiple hackings, so much downtime, etc.,) and we still hear how much the Wii lacks when it comes to an online community. Nintendo is stuck in the 'local multiplayer' mindset still. They have a very weird way of doing their online multiplayer which shoots them in the foot. Whereas the 360's community is very robust and always growing.
The Move and the Kinect are both gimmick band wagons, though. I have no love for motion control.
Graphics are more than just pretty pictures. If you don't have the frame rate to back it up you've got a dead console and a dissatisfied gamer who can't play anything.
I hate getting into console wars. Each console has its positives and negatives. For the most part it depends on preference. But if more people are preferring specific functionality and a console fails to deliver it will be dead in the water and this is not a debatable thing.
I personally love my 360. I will be getting the next generation of Microsoft console. I may not get it right away but I will get it because it has the functionality I desire that other consoles cannot live up to. It has the games that other consoles do not get or if they do get they might be buggier than the 360 version, have a slower patch push-out or poorer graphics.
I will say this: Even Nintendo is worried about how the Wii U is going to sell. That says something.
PS. Microsoft is thinking of dropping both Microsoft Points and Xbox Live gold being a necessity for most games and apps. They could stand to drop the price on the subscription but I know quite well that going free to play on a console would be difficult to do and still have a community that can be sustained and have a good uptime (ie very little maintenance, hacks, etc.,)
-
It's very true that each console has its positives and negatives. But you're overlooking something: Who are those people that are saying their Wii doesn't get much use? Those would be the hardcore gamers, and I won't deny the Wii has supplied very little outside of first-person flagship titles that have the appeal to draw those types in. But again, that's not really Nintendo's fault. Companies would rather make Call of Halo: Band of Mercenary Brothers With Honor 50, with the exact same controls and bullshit as the last 49, because they know it will sell. It's safe. And it's depressing.
Nintendo is the one major game company that actually still takes risks, and they take those risks because their absolute domination of the handheld gaming market allows their consoles to fail without risking the company. The GameCube was a monumental financial failure, but Nintendo itself stayed strong thanks to the GBA. The DS allowed them to take risks with the Wii, and the PSP proved no one is a threat to Nintendo's handheld market.
But seriously... graphics improvement can go no further. We're talking pixil counts and frame rates beyond human ability to distinguish that existed in this generation. There might can be a few small improvements to processing power to make those frame rates more stable, but graphics are going no where until we get full-immersion virtual reality. But that's all Microsoft seems to care about. More power. More power. More, more, more! Even though all that added power will contribute jack shit to the gaming experience itself.
-
And now here's Microsoft spouting nonsense about 3D (which is terrible on anything but a personal screen like the 3DS) and multi-display.
Actually, the 3D and multi-display stuff is just media speculation based on what an equivalent AMD graphics card allows. If console specifications were based purely off that, we would've had multi-display support on the original Xbox.
What do you all think of the current specs that are being projected?
It's too early to say anything, but using an older graphics chipset isn't necessarily a bad move. If MS use a smaller fabrication process (like 28nm) they can increase the core and shader clock speeds.
-
The issue is, you can't blame Nintendo for 3rd parties avoiding their system. Nintendo gave them a platform, they couldn't force them to work from it.
That may be, but it's still Nintendo who has to suffer the consequence of not having notable titles for their console.
-
Screw consoles.
Handhelds all the way.
-
Game sales are more important than sales of the consoles themselves. Consoles are often sold at a loss (at least early in a generation), and royalties from games quickly close that gap. From a business perspective, it's a lot better to sell tons of games than tons of consoles.
I heard a rumor on Twitter that the next generation of consoles will actively block people from playing used games.
Which would be a very effective way to prevent me from ever buying any games from them. Hopefully, that stays just a rumor.
-
It'll probably be like the online passes we're getting with new releases now. Every game will have some feature locked out unless you enter a single-use code. If every game does this, retailers will know to offer less for trade-ins. So you'll still be able to buy used games, you'll just have to pay for the code to get the full experience.
-
But seriously... graphics improvement can go no further. We're talking pixil counts and frame rates beyond human ability to distinguish that existed in this generation. There might can be a few small improvements to processing power to make those frame rates more stable, but graphics are going no where until we get full-immersion virtual reality. But that's all Microsoft seems to care about. More power. More power. More, more, more! Even though all that added power will contribute jack shit to the gaming experience itself.
Not at all. Photo realistic graphics aren't the end of what can be achieved. There are still areas like maximum resolution, draw distance and rendering speed (especially rendering speed, ever played Oblivion on Xbox 360?) that can all stand to be vastly improved.
Now don't think I'm trying to say that graphics are what makes a game good, or that the console that can pull off these improvements will "win" the console war, just pointing out that the whole "graphics can't be improved any further" shtick is bullshit.
-
Screw consoles.
Handhelds all the way.
I admit I don't play console games nearly as much as I play computer games. ;)
-
The issue is, you can't blame Nintendo for 3rd parties avoiding their system. Nintendo gave them a platform, they couldn't force them to work from it.
That may be, but it's still Nintendo who has to suffer the consequence of not having notable titles for their console.
^This.
I have a 360. I bought it for Mass Effect since I love BioWare, but since then, I have built up a nice collection of games for it.
My fiancee and I discussed getting a Wii at Christmas. Then we researched games available and realized there weren't enough games that we were interested in. Neither of us play Call of Halo: Modern Battlefield; we both play mostly RPGs. But even excluding the lack of big-name FPS on the Wii (though they do have Modern Warfare), there just weren't enough games that appealed to us.
Regardless of the opinion or desires of the company, Nintendo has a reputation for being the console for people who don't play a lot of games. They also have a reputation for being for "kiddie games." Yes, the Wii has brought a lot of people into gaming, but the viewpoint of many people is that those people are (to steal a comment from about) the same people who play Facebook games. Which leads developers not making games for the Wii because there is a fear they won't sell. Which feeds back to the belief that Wii is for Facebook players...
-
I remember testing out a motion-control device for video games, very similar to the Kinect in function. This was years before the Wii was even announced.
I was disappoint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AacoxHFYvZw
2. There won't be any noticeable difference in graphics quality between a 360 and a 720, though. The current HD 360 graphics quality is indistinguishable from reality, on most TV screens. If I walk in on my brother playing a 360 game, the only way I know he's not watching a live-action TV show is the health/map/ammo meters in the corner. What's the point in souping up the graphics if the human retina can't even tell the difference? It's not like Microsoft is releasing a version for eagles. Graphics improvements are not the way to go anymore.
Now this is definitely not true. People have been saying "Graphics can't get any better than they are right now" for decades. When the first Gran Turismo came out, it's graphics were called "photo-realistic" but go back and look at it today. There will probably always be room for improvement, at least until someone with 20/20 vision legitimately cannot tell the difference between the visuals of 2 consoles made 5 years apart. (And right now, most people absolutely can)
Compare the graphical capabilities of Call of Duty 2, which was one of the first games released for the 360, and compare it to the newest console version CoD or Battlefield game. I can definitely see a major difference, and those games were all released on the same console.
Until consoles can render Hollywood movie-quality CGI in real time, there will always be room for improvement. (and quite likely for long after that, as well.)
-
It's very true that each console has its positives and negatives. But you're overlooking something: Who are those people that are saying their Wii doesn't get much use? Those would be the hardcore gamers, and I won't deny the Wii has supplied very little outside of first-person flagship titles that have the appeal to draw those types in. But again, that's not really Nintendo's fault. Companies would rather make Call of Halo: Band of Mercenary Brothers With Honor 50, with the exact same controls and bullshit as the last 49, because they know it will sell. It's safe. And it's depressing.
Nintendo is the one major game company that actually still takes risks, and they take those risks because their absolute domination of the handheld gaming market allows their consoles to fail without risking the company. The GameCube was a monumental financial failure, but Nintendo itself stayed strong thanks to the GBA. The DS allowed them to take risks with the Wii, and the PSP proved no one is a threat to Nintendo's handheld market.
But seriously... graphics improvement can go no further. We're talking pixil counts and frame rates beyond human ability to distinguish that existed in this generation. There might can be a few small improvements to processing power to make those frame rates more stable, but graphics are going no where until we get full-immersion virtual reality. But that's all Microsoft seems to care about. More power. More power. More, more, more! Even though all that added power will contribute jack shit to the gaming experience itself.
It has nothing to do with hardcore. And if you think FPS are the only games being played on a PS3 or a 360 then I don't know what to tell you. It also doesn't matter if the game itself is good on the Wii but if nobody is playing? Yeah... Even people I know who really legitimately like the Wii aren't playing it as much as they say they could be.
We all saw what happened when Nintendo took risks. They were in the red for most of 2011.
Graphics can definitely go further. Because as was mentioned it doesn't always have to do with pretty pictures. And as I said before, you can have pretty pictures but if the framerate is bogged down so badly I might as well be trying to watch a powerpoint.
-
Now this is definitely not true. People have been saying "Graphics can't get any better than they are right now" for decades. When the first Gran Turismo came out, it's graphics were called "photo-realistic" but go back and look at it today.
I was never one of those people. In fact, when the N64 came out, I thought the graphics were worse than the sprite-based Genesis graphics (which looked pretty good on a low-res TV screen because they blur just enough to get rid of the jaggies). I felt that going to 3D polygons before you had enough processing power to make them look like something other than Legos was a stupid idea. (Heavily pixellated Legos, no less! I remember the pixels being painfully obvious in Rogue Squadron, again, on an old-school, non-digital TV from 1993.) I was equally disappointed by 6th-gen consoles, because graphics still looked way too "blocky" to me. If anything, I tend to underestimate the realism of graphics. So when I say that I can't tell the difference between 360/PS3 graphics and live-action TV, that actually means something. If there's a cinema scene going, I will not be able to tell it's a game at all unless I see the controller in my brother's hand.
-
We all saw what happened when Nintendo took risks. They were in the red for most of 2011.
That actually has more to do with foreign exchange rates. Slow sales played a part, but the Japanese Yen being stronger against the Euro and US dollar means Nintendo made less money from each game sold in the US and Europe. Nintendo also has significant foreign assets, so the strong Yen means they saw less income from dividends.
-
Umm...Yaezakura, about graphics, I'm gonna have to stop ya there.
(Big images, sorry.)
(http://cdn.gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/New-Skyrim-screenshots-orc.jpg)
This is a screenshot from Skyrim, one of, if not THE most graphically-intensive game in the current iteration of games. Now, it looks good. It looks DAMN good. BUT, that's using a rendering method known as ray casting, a method that's been in use...pretty much since 3D graphics came on the gaming scene. It can produce some absolutely stunning visuals, and do so somewhat efficiently. This game also makes use of such things as anisotropic filtering, bump mapping, normal mapping...the list goes on.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Glasses_800_edit.png/320px-Glasses_800_edit.png)
Is that a picture of glasses, dice, and shit? No. Its straight from this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_%28graphics%29) on ray tracing. This is no bullshit image. Go look in the talk section for that image, the uploader mentioned it took him 560 hours. Well over 23 days for one image that looks so realistic, I honestly thought it was taken in real life. That is the kind of graphics we're working toward.
Look at the two images, compare the levels of realism. We've got a long god damned way to go between the two...and that way will not be paved by software, but by hardware. The day will come when the latter picture will become the norm for video game graphics...but that day will be long-coming.
[ETA]
And, before you discount this as some blowhard putting together disparate buzzwords and bullshit, remember this: I'm a motherfucker who has spent the past 8-9 years of his life learning how to design and code games. I've done the research, I've done the legwork. I may not know it all, but, god damn it, I know my shit.
Also, appropriate video is appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUiC1_l8I2w
-
We all saw what happened when Nintendo took risks. They were in the red for most of 2011.
That actually has more to do with foreign exchange rates. Slow sales played a part, but the Japanese Yen being stronger against the Euro and US dollar means Nintendo made less money from each game sold in the US and Europe. Nintendo also has significant foreign assets, so the strong Yen means they saw less income from dividends.
Does that explain the 3DS's high cost at release then the drop later? Which they were already selling at a loss at the original price? They took a risk that people would buy the 3DS at the higher price, then they made everyone doubt their product when they sliced it. Hence, risks and more risks.
-
I'd also just like to say that the Wii is horrible. Not for the rather aging hardware, but the absolutely atrocious and gimmicky motion controls. The few games on it that are any good (namely Super Mario Galaxy and Zelda) are good in spite of being on the Wii.
-
Does that explain the 3DS's high cost at release then the drop later?
The initial price on any video game hardware is inflated to recoup R&D costs. Nintendo weren't taking special risks here, they were using the same tactics as the rest of the industry. And while the price drop was due to slow sales, it would've happened at some point in the first 12-18 months anyway (another industry-wide practice). If any risk is to blame for the poor initial sales, it was launching with a poor software line-up.
Which they were already selling at a loss at the original price?
Care to provide a source? Hardware costs are almost never revealed to the public, and a teardown (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33761/New_3DS_Teardown_Corroborates_100_Bill_Of_Materials_Report.php) puts the 3DS production cost well below the current price.
-
In the case of the 3DS they were. Especially since a good portion of people buying were the people who had tried their 3D stuff before in the guise of the Virtual Boy. The Virtual Boy failed splendidly, and many older gamers who are the ones who were making the most noise about the 3DS remember the VB. It was also a bit odd to do it in the first few months. The 360 waited quite a bit to drop. As did the PS3. It may be something common but doing it so soon after release is not.
Also, the cost is only hardware. There's nothing else brought in to the cost of getting the 3DS into a consumer's hands (at least not where various sources giving 'production cost' are concerned). When you consider that the price is now $150 (cheaper in some places depending on various factors), and the hardware cost is around $103.25 but you don't bring in the cost of operating everything in putting it together as well as shipping, then I think one can assume there's either a loss or barely much of a profit. Or, of course, it evens out. Which if it evens out you might as well not even bother. If you make x amount of something and not even a quarter of that is sold, it's a loss.
Don't get me wrong. I have a 3DS. I adore it even if it takes a bit for me to find the appropriate position to see the 3D at all. But I also know it isn't the powerhouse that was talked about before release. I know that it isn't the amazing handheld that was trumpeted about.
-
Anyone who even thought to compare the 15-year-old, monochrome, tri-pod mounted Virtual Boy that you basically have to strap to your face to use to what basically amounts to a suped-up DS with glasses-less 3D is smoking some rather hefty shit, and should be punished for not sharing that with sane people.
-
They were comparing the attempts. Which, you know, 3DS had the same fucking problems at release. So maybe it wasn't so bad to think of the last attempt.
I often have to turn mine off after about 15 minutes or I start to feel woozy. How can I play a 3D game for 15 minutes on a device that was made for 3D and enjoy it?
-
You could adjust the 3D to levels that make you more comfortable. Including turning off the 3D effect entirely and playing in 2D, since the 3D effects are never essential to gameplay.
-
You could adjust the 3D to levels that make you more comfortable. Including turning off the 3D effect entirely and playing in 2D, since the 3D effects are never essential to gameplay.
I already do that and I said as much.
I just don't think human eyes are altogether ready for 3D without the side effects of long term exposure. If they weren't ready more than a decade ago I don't see how they would be now. Some people are lucky, they can play for ages with 3D on.
It's an expensive novelty at the end of the day. I love when I'm actually playing a game in 3D on my 3DS, what I don't love is I am only getting 15 minutes of enjoyment out of it. Whereas I play 2D games for more than 12 hours with no issues.
-
I just see the 3D as an optional feature. At the end of the day, if you remove the 3D, it's still a way more powerful DS that's going to comfortable handling our handheld gaming needs for the next several years.
-
You could adjust the 3D to levels that make you more comfortable. Including turning off the 3D effect entirely and playing in 2D, since the 3D effects are never essential to gameplay.
I already do that and I said as much.
I just don't think human eyes are altogether ready for 3D without the side effects of long term exposure. If they weren't ready more than a decade ago I don't see how they would be now. Some people are lucky, they can play for ages with 3D on.
It's an expensive novelty at the end of the day. I love when I'm actually playing a game in 3D on my 3DS, what I don't love is I am only getting 15 minutes of enjoyment out of it. Whereas I play 2D games for more than 12 hours with no issues.
Yeah, but the VB's problem was less "3D hurts your eyes" and more "You are staring at NOTHING BUT RED whenever you play." That particular aspect of the problem, at least, is long gone.
-
I hate 3D. It makes me sick and dizzy when I look at it for more than five minutes, which is probably a bad thing.
-
Admittedly, it's not for everyone. That's why I think it was incredible foresight of Nintendo to include an option to turn the 3D off and simply use it as a more powerful DS. As nifty as 3D is, it would be hard to come up with a game that revolves around it, so you don't exactly lose anything for doing so.
-
I don't really like 3D either, I get headaches after a while.
-
I don't get the whole 3D craze either.
Of course, I can't actually percieve the effect (that tends to happen when one of your eyes is as good as useless), so that probably goes some way as to explain why.
-
3D truly is a silly fad.
As for graphics, people need to realize that better graphics don't necessarily equal a better game. Don't get me wrong, I do like it when games look good, but I think people get WAY too bogged down in the technical aspect of it, something which you really shouldn't notice too much when you play a game. I know I don't.
If you want proof of this, look no further than Minecraft. That game I realize is intended to look blocky, but the point still stands. Graphically speaking, the game looks like shit. It looks like something you could develop in the 90s. And yet, look at the player base: Millions of copies of Minecraft have been sold, because it's that great a game.
Actually, if there's one graphical improvement I'd like to see come to the Xbox, it's to fix the washed out, desaturated look that has become unfortunately associated with the system, at least in my eyes. I think Xbox, and I think every generic dime-a-dozen shooter game with gray, brown and muzzle-flash colors. It's boring, hard on the eyes, and completely unrealistic. I recall reading there being technical reasons why this was the case; something about realistic light reflection requiring either a shit-ton of rendering power, or the desaturated mess that everyone went with.
If you want to improve something graphics-wise with the Xbox's next generation, fix THAT. Oh, and coming out with a more original shooter might help a little bit too.
-
I like games that are actually beautiful to look at. Like Okami, which is one of the most mind-blowingly awesome games I have ever played. I really don't like looking at an endless sea of sepia - even if it's supposed to look realistic, it's not interesting.
That being said, Neverwinter Nights does not exactly have a great graphics engine (being ten years out of date and all), but it is still a great game simply because of its modding community.
-
Honestly, I don't know how adding some extra fucking color to their texture base would affect performance much, if at all. Seriously, to a computer, processing brown takes as much power as processing pimp purple, its all stored in the same amount of data, using the same form of interpretation (RGBA: Red-Green-Blue-Alpha), with the exact same calculations.
Frankly, if some developer says that doing lighting with colors other than "shit stain brown" is too difficult...chances are, they're fucking lying.
-
The 3D craze is actually rather simple to explain.
When you look at a normal screen, you're essentially looking at a 2D object. Even if the objects on the 2D object are three dimensional, it's still a 2D object.
3D adds depth. 3D objects actually look 3D. It's almost like a holographic projection.
This is neat, it's not something that's really mainstream (and yes, I know it's getting into hipster territory). It's gimmicky, sure, but I think people forget that gimmicks can be a good thing, and I think that the 3DS is a good thing.
Now, obviously, it isn't for everyone. I'm one of those people that can stand 3D for extended periods of time (though not indefinitely) so it works out for me.
Then again, it's technically bad to be playing games for such long periods of time anyways.
-
Honestly, I don't know how adding some extra fucking color to their texture base would affect performance much, if at all. Seriously, to a computer, processing brown takes as much power as processing pimp purple, its all stored in the same amount of data, using the same form of interpretation (RGBA: Red-Green-Blue-Alpha), with the exact same calculations.
Frankly, if some developer says that doing lighting with colors other than "shit stain brown" is too difficult...chances are, they're fucking lying.
Here's an article explaining it: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PhilippeRinguetteAngrignon/20090606/1708/Why_quotNextGen_Gamesquot_Went_Gray_Brown_And_Grey.php (unfortunately the pictures were hot-linked and you can't see them any more)
-
Huh...I stand corrected. Well, at least they're actually working on it, and realize its a problem. That's good, because this desaturated, brown shit's really starting to get old...
-
I also can't stand 3D. It died out in the early '90's for a damn good reason. The fact that it's back in vogue and seems likely to stay that way for a good decade or so just because Avatar looked pretty and used 3D really makes me weep for the rather lacking intelligence of the average consumer.
-
It only ever really died out because people hated wearing those ridiculous glasses to do anything with it. Do you seriously want to sit around your living room wearing those things to watch 3D TV shows or movies? Chances are, no. And the glasses-less 3D used in the 3DS was originally designed for televisions, but turned out not to be practical because it only works when viewed from straight ahead--fine for something you hold in your hand, bad for something everyone in the room is supposed to be looking at.
And I get that the perception trick used to create the 3D images gives some people a problem. So does Nintendo--that's why the 3DS can be played in 2D. When you do that, you still have a handheld that's significantly better than the DS was.