Report: PS4 in 2012 With Built-In Motion Control

[antipop]

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

I guess what I'm saying is, graphics and motion controls aren't going to sell me on new systems. I'd rather see more creative games. Something different, not just the same thing only prettier.

i have been saying this for decades

[buzd]

Originally Posted by Jonesy77

Look, I think I know a little more about computers than you do, okay?

Fine, you win.

[St. Widge]

Originally Posted by buzd

I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. It's true to a certain extent that as games get BIGGER BIGGER BIGGER there is more programming time associated with it. But that's already here. Storage has outpaced power, so a new console doesn't necessarily imply bigger games. More complicated? Maybe. But programming is still programming. You're still interfacing with APIs that talk to the hardware. Programming is still programming. There will be the expense of the learning curve, but in terms of production (art, sound, marketing, writing, programming) costs, I don't think that's super-significant.

You obviously know more about the programming side than I ever could. And, I tend to agree that the games shouldn't be more expensive based on the time spent programing.

But, the odds are that the release of a new generation of consoles will prompt the game makers to raise the cost of games. They have pretty much so done that in every prior generation of gaming so I suspect they will do it this time too. And, to some extent it is justified. While I tend to think that they gank us by charging the same price for a game where they had to do very little original work and a game that is totally coded from scratch. Inflation does mean that their cost goes up over the years. Does it go up $10 every 5 years or so? Probably not, but they will probably raise the cost at least that much again.

[St. Widge]

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

fwiw, there's been a few different rumors about a new xbox in 2012 as well.

I think 2015 is too far off. Once one release, the other will have to release as well.

I'm not sure we're ready for new consoles yet. Games being more expensive to make doesn't seem like the right direction currently.

I guess what I'm saying is, graphics and motion controls aren't going to sell me on new systems. I'd rather see more creative games. Something different, not just the same thing only prettier.

And the more expensive it is to make games, the less likely we'll see new, creative stuff.

My guess is that either MS or Sony will announce a new console at 2012 E3 and the other will quickly follow with their own announcement. But, I doubt either hits the shelves before Christmas 2013.

But, I agree with you that I don't need better hardware. The graphics are great where they are. I just need more, original and better games.

[buzd]

Originally Posted by St. Widge

But, the odds are that the release of a new generation of consoles will prompt the game makers to raise the cost of games. They have pretty much so done that in every prior generation of gaming so I suspect they will do it this time too. And, to some extent it is justified. While I tend to think that they gank us by charging the same price for a game where they had to do very little original work and a game that is totally coded from scratch. Inflation does mean that their cost goes up over the years. Does it go up $10 every 5 years or so? Probably not, but they will probably raise the cost at least that much again.

The retail cost of games is certainly a different issue. And I suspect (based pretty much on nothing) that a bulk of the expene of games to game makers is failed games. I mean Activision could sell BLOPS for $20 each and still make a profit on that game, but that won't cover the losses on the craptacular games they've produced.

We've discussed this here before, but I think that's what's holding back innovation in game design and why a lot of the nifty new game mechanics are coming out on Live, iPad and smaller platforms that are easier to develop for. They're also completely removing the hard media/retail distribution expense from the whole process as well.

And actually, it would make sense for consoles to go to a strict download model - taking the retailers out of the equation. I don't know if the market would support that (yet, and probably not), but that would be one way to reduce game cost (or at least raise profits).

I also think raising the price point much over $65 won't go over well. There are too many other means of distribution (Live, Gamefly, etc) for the retail market to continue to sustain that kind of price increase.

[A.D.Rock]

So when can I pre-order?

[antipop]

Originally Posted by A.D.Rock

So when can I pre-order?

send me $50

[Jetsfan115]

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

fwiw, there's been a few different rumors about a new xbox in 2012 as well.

I think 2015 is too far off. Once one release, the other will have to release as well.

I'm not sure we're ready for new consoles yet. Games being more expensive to make doesn't seem like the right direction currently.

I guess what I'm saying is, graphics and motion controls aren't going to sell me on new systems. I'd rather see more creative games. Something different, not just the same thing only prettier.

And the more expensive it is to make games, the less likely we'll see new, creative stuff.

both companies said they expect a shelf life of 10 years for the current gen systems (which launched in 2004) which is where i got 2015 from. MS released Kinect in replacement of a new system and sony launched move to compete. My issue with sony is they always follow the leader and never innovate. Think about it. MS started online gaming and built in hard drives, sony followed. wii started motion sensor controls. sony followed and MS made a no controller needed accessory. Sony just kinds of lags along then wonders why they are lsoing money. they didn't put any money into their PSN and it crashed their online network for months. No way do they launch a new system so early while they are in the red on PS3 still

Originally Posted by buzd

What about a new console makes games more expensive to make?

More power and more resources means games are getting bigger and better. games that have huge worlds with amazing graphics take more time to build. although a FPS type game really shouldn't take much more to make

Originally Posted by Oye

just copy the PC version's code and dial the demands down about 9 notches

it works for the xbox since developing games for it is the same as for PC. Thats why most games that are multiplatfrom are built for the PC/xbox 1st and then for the PS3

[St. Widge]

Originally Posted by buzd

The retail cost of games is certainly a different issue. And I suspect (based pretty much on nothing) that a bulk of the expene of games to game makers is failed games. I mean Activision could sell BLOPS for $20 each and still make a profit on that game, but that won't cover the losses on the craptacular games they've produced.

We've discussed this here before, but I think that's what's holding back innovation in game design and why a lot of the nifty new game mechanics are coming out on Live, iPad and smaller platforms that are easier to develop for. They're also completely removing the hard media/retail distribution expense from the whole process as well.

And actually, it would make sense for consoles to go to a strict download model - taking the retailers out of the equation. I don't know if the market would support that (yet, and probably not), but that would be one way to reduce game cost (or at least raise profits).

I also think raising the price point much over $65 won't go over well. There are too many other means of distribution (Live, Gamefly, etc) for the retail market to continue to sustain that kind of price increase.

I'm not really sure exactly where there expenses are, but I'm pretty sure that most games could be sold for a lot less than they are and the companies would still make a profit. But, you might be right that all those $65 copies of Blops that do sell pay for all of the $65 copies of Section 8 or Blur ( ) that don't sell.

But, their costs are still going to rise over the years because of inflation. I mean, labor costs more, materials cost more, office equipment costs more, etc. So, at some point, in order to keep making the same amount of money, they need to charge more and the release of a new system is the ideal time to do that. I'd love to think that there is a number at which they can't go above and still sell games, but I'm not sure it's true. I mean, it's a luxury item and people pay top dollar for luxury items and we all though nobody would pay more than $50 or $55 when that was the going rate, but we all followed along.

What I really don't understand, and I've said this on here before, is how they get away with the across the board price of $60.00. First of all, it seems like price fixing so I'm not sure why the Feds never look into it. Second, it would seem to make more sense to sell less expensive and/or risk games for a lower cost and the sure hits like Blops, BF3, Halo: Reach, Madden, etc. for a premium price. That way, the big hits pay for the experimental games. I know I would personally rather pay $100 for BF3 and be able to buy some new and interesting titles for $30 or $40 rather than pay $60 for everything and only have a handful of games worth playing every year.

But, you may be right that the answer is to get rid of discs and their associated costs and markups all together. That would allow for smaller companies to get involved and make new and innovative stuff. Of course, I though the same thing would happen in music with digital downloading and at least in my opinion, it really hasn't happened in the sense that we aren't really getting a flood of new and innovative stuff in the music world.

[buzd]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan115

More power and more resources means games are getting bigger and better. games that have huge worlds with amazing graphics take more time to build. although a FPS type game really shouldn't take much more to make

I disagree. I don't think they are getting particularly bigger. Very few games are coming close to maxing out the kind of storage that's available - and your development expense maxes before you get to the kind of size your are talking about.

Amazing graphics are currently limited by the power of the consoles - the developers scale down to the consoles. Displaying more polygons and higher resolution doesn't have a huge impact on the production end.

[buzd]

Originally Posted by St. Widge

But, their costs are still going to rise over the years because of inflation. I mean, labor costs more, materials cost more, office equipment costs more, etc. So, at some point, in order to keep making the same amount of money, they need to charge more and the release of a new system is the ideal time to do that.

Yes. I agree with that.

Originally Posted by St. Widge

What I really don't understand, and I've said this on here before, is how they get away with the across the board price of $60.00. First of all, it seems like price fixing so I'm not sure why the Feds never look into it. Second, it would seem to make more sense to sell less expensive and/or risk games for a lower cost and the sure hits like Blops, BF3, Halo: Reach, Madden, etc. for a premium price. That way, the big hits pay for the experimental games. I know I would personally rather pay $100 for BF3 and be able to buy some new and interesting titles for $30 or $40 rather than pay $60 for everything and only have a handful of games worth playing every year.

I'm sure there are enough one-off lesser titles for them to avoid any price-fixing charges. I do find it interesting how quickly the market will determine how fast the price of a game drops (when nobody buys it).

Originally Posted by St. Widge

But, you may be right that the answer is to get rid of discs and their associated costs and markups all together. That would allow for smaller companies to get involved and make new and innovative stuff. Of course, I though the same thing would happen in music with digital downloading and at least in my opinion, it really hasn't happened in the sense that we aren't really getting a flood of new and innovative stuff in the music world.

I disagree. It has taken a while for the music industry to get comfortable into the digital world (and they are still doing so to some extent), but just because no one has reinvented punk to your satisfaction doesn't mean there isn't innovative stuff out there. You might just not be looking hard enough.

I mean - you can mix music on your iPad. Digital distribution has had a HUGE effect on the music industry. There is tons of new stuff out there if you look for it. I think it would do the same thing for the gaming industry, and is has, to some extent, if you look at what is available for iphone/ipad. Look at the Angry Birds phenomenon.

[A.D.Rock]

Originally Posted by antipop

send me $50

I'll send it to you October 24th. She be good timing....

[Jonesy77]

Originally Posted by St. Widge

What I really don't understand, and I've said this on here before, is how they get away with the across the board price of $60.00. First of all, it seems like price fixing so I'm not sure why the Feds never look into it. Second, it would seem to make more sense to sell less expensive and/or risk games for a lower cost and the sure hits like Blops, BF3, Halo: Reach, Madden, etc. for a premium price. That way, the big hits pay for the experimental games. I know I would personally rather pay $100 for BF3 and be able to buy some new and interesting titles for $30 or $40 rather than pay $60 for everything and only have a handful of games worth playing every year.

I would hate that. I don't play the $30 games. I buy like 1 or 2 games a year, and it would be the $100 variety. Your plan would cost me $80 a year.

[St. Widge]

Originally Posted by buzd

I disagree. It has taken a while for the music industry to get comfortable into the digital world (and they are still doing so to some extent), but just because no one has reinvented punk to your satisfaction doesn't mean there isn't innovative stuff out there. You might just not be looking hard enough.

I mean - you can mix music on your iPad. Digital distribution has had a HUGE effect on the music industry. There is tons of new stuff out there if you look for it. I think it would do the same thing for the gaming industry, and is has, to some extent, if you look at what is available for iphone/ipad. Look at the Angry Birds phenomenon.

I think Angry Birds is an effect of lowered expectations. It's a fun little game to play while waiting to get your oil changed, etc., but it's not something I'm going to spend a lot of time playing when I have access to something interesting on TV or a 360/PS3. Is it a little innovative? I guess, but it's one of the few games worth playing on the iPhone. So, I guess I'm not really seeing this huge flood of interesting and innovative games based on the development costs and digital downloading on the iPhone. What are there 5 to 10 games worth playing on the iPhone? And, it's taken several years to get to that point. And, most of those that are worth playing aren't much more than clever time wasters.

Obviously, that may not be the case on the iPad, but since I don't have one, I can't really comment.

As far a music, admittedly, my music taste is narrow. But, in exploring what iTunes, eMusic, Rhapsody, Napster, etc. have available, I've notice that it all seems to more or less all sound the same in each genre. It's as though Marshall McLuhan's Global Village really has happened. The internets have made us all next door neighbors and the result has not been more diversity, but rather more conformity. Digital downloading has had a huge effect on the music industry. But, I'm not sure it's a good one. What has happened is the big guys still make some money even with all the piracy, but the little guys end up getting chased out of business because they can't compete give the piracy. There are still very few independent labels out there that are able to make it.

[St. Widge]

Originally Posted by Jonesy77

Your plan would cost me $80 a year.

I'm surprisingly okay with that.