Ubisoft: we need new consoles

[HatefulGravey]

I just thought about something scary. How long will they wait after new consoles to shut down the online parts of the ones we have? I have netflix running through my xbox right now, soon to switch to PS3 just because I hate having to pay for Live to use Netflix that I also have to pay for, and it would suck to lose what I pay for from Netflix just because there is a PS4.

 

PS, I pay for Live to play Live as well, I wouldn't pay for Live just for Netflix.

[christianscott27]

I think there are economic factors behind this, its probably a lousy time to gamble on a new console launch. Think about it, Sony has been in rough shape for years and Japan is reeling. On the other hand if Apple came up some sorta iConsole I bet it would sell millions in the first week.

[Christophero Sly]

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.

But that's exactly the point I've been getting at! You guys are complaining about the status quo, and yet you think that continuing on with the same hardware for another 5 years is going to somehow lead to innovation? It won't. Continuing on the same course, expecting different results is, I believe, one of the definitions of insanity.

 

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?

You're wearing rose-tinted glasses. The end of the SNES was nothing like you describe. There was nothing remotely innovative on the SNES beyond its fifth year (1996).

[Mord]

But that's exactly the point I've been getting at! You guys are complaining about the status quo, and yet you think that continuing on with the same hardware for another 5 years is going to somehow lead to innovation? It won't. Continuing on the same course, expecting different results is, I believe, one of the definitions of insanity.

 

Not exactly. You seem to think that the only way for a developer to do something new is with new hardware. They could do something different right now with the hardware they have. They won't however because it costs a lot of money to develop a game, and it seems the majority of developers will work with things that are selling rather than take a chance on something that -might- be a hit, but might also make the entire dev team go bust. Introducing new hardware into the mix will only result in the exact same thing happening - it'll just look a little prettier. (Eventually.)

Edited April 13, 2011 by Mord

[Mendon]

 

But that's exactly the point I've been getting at! You guys are complaining about the status quo, and yet you think that continuing on with the same hardware for another 5 years is going to somehow lead to innovation? It won't. Continuing on the same course, expecting different results is, I believe, one of the definitions of insanity.

 

 

I'm not totally disagreeing with you at all. But I am curious as to how you define the innovation that a new console would bring.

 

Looking at just the Xbox and Xbox360 as an example, *to me* the most innovative advance between the hardware was accomplished with the expansion of online gaming and online services.

 

Yes, Halo 3, ODST, and Reach look better than their Xbox brethren and have a couple more features but basically they aren't that different or more innovative than Halo Combat Evolved and Halo 2 when it comes to gameplay.

 

Yes, Oblivion looks better and has a couple more features (fast travel, etc) but basically its not leaps and bounds ahead of Morrowind because of new hardware.

 

Same could be said for any 360 sports game (Madden, MLB, etc), racing game (Forza, Gran Turismo, etc), or FPS (Wolfenstein, Quake, etc). They look better on the 360 and have a few more features, but nothing that I see in them on the 360 is a huge leap beyond what the Xbox hardware did.

 

So I'm sort of curious as to what innovation you believe would happen with a new Xbox or PS that would be a big advancement over current hardware?

 

 

As I previously said, I believe that the biggest advance between hardware formats is in the online area, whether its game add-on's or downloading games themselves or the number of players playing within a room or number of modes of online matches or a 1 vs. 100 game. And current consoles seem to be handling this part of gaming quite well.

 

I might be totally wacko but I think that maybe the next innovation that will require new hardware will be a co-operative design effort between hardware and software companies and will comprise something along the lines of streaming games to your console and/or digital downloading of games to your console rather than purchasing titles on disk. This change in gaming might benefit both hardware and software companies simultaneously as it deals with both piracy, mod'ing, and used games.... three area's that are driving companies nuts.

 

 

Mendon

[Petran79]

Now that even more people are computer literate and comfortable writing on a keyboard it is time for new games with better a.i.

There is a popular indie game where you type structured phrases and interact with the characters. Forgot the title.

Consoles as they are built are a limiting factor. A gamepad cant do much.

Regarding games and ai research in universities there is a lot going on.but you have to think beyond the games=entertainment, leisure for this

[HatefulGravey]

But that's exactly the point I've been getting at! You guys are complaining about the status quo, and yet you think that continuing on with the same hardware for another 5 years is going to somehow lead to innovation? It won't. Continuing on the same course, expecting different results is, I believe, one of the definitions of insanity.

 

Not exactly. You seem to think that the only way for a developer to do something new is with new hardware. They could do something different right now with the hardware they have. They won't however because it costs a lot of money to develop a game, and it seems the majority of developers will work with things that are selling rather than take a chance on something that -might- be a hit, but might also make the entire dev team go bust. Introducing new hardware into the mix will only result in the exact same thing happening - it'll just look a little prettier. (Eventually.)

 

Portal is a great example of another way to do this. They tried something new with it, thinking it might be a neat side game, and it was something that was worth making an entire new game for. There are ways to test how well a game will go over without investing the kind of money that breaks the company. The problem is why would they risk anything when another Call of Madden 2012: Reach game is sure to sell a million copies.

[potatohead]

I don't see game innovation being tied to hardware. Input devices? Yeah. Those we could see more of Kinect is excellent. No need for a new console right now. Always need new devices to interact with.

 

I also don't see it as a developer problem. There are tons of great developers who know their stuff. Innovation is constrained by:

 

1. IP. On one hand, it's good, but on the other, once a bunch of stuff is locked up, only the major players can innovate easily, and they are exactly the ones that won't, because they get big, slow, and there is the innovators dilemma in play. Movies suffer from this right now too.

 

2. Industry consolidation. Too many very large players, or too high of a barrier for new shops to compete. Need more competition, IMHO. Lots of ways to do that, don't care how it happens, just that it happens.

 

3. One way to address number 2 is to build out a viable indie market, that actually competes with the larger players. That will cost them revenue, but then again, it will also generate new game genres, mechanics, etc... In the end, longer term, the industry will appeal to more people, with a larger scope, and that's good for everybody, even when it's not so good for the major leaguers right now.

 

Entertainment dollars are fixed. When the scope of gaming is expanded, new dollars are added to the pool of potential revenue dollars. Phones / casual gaming right now is one such expansion. In terms of the consoles, that means inviting new players will come at the expense of existing ones to a degree, without also making the appeal broader over all.

 

4. Culture / norms. Those people that import games see some of that impact. Games are region targeted, and it seems to me, some marketing spent on selling attributes from other regions, example: Less Americanized games = new games here in US, might expand the scope of gaming to bring in new players, new revenue, new opportunity.

 

People tend to solidify in these things over time. Some of us remain flexible, and there are always noobs every year to sell to. Making the culture / norm investment could be significant, as it would open the door to a lot of players trying new things at one time, and or new genres.

 

If there are creative means to interact with the consoles, I just don't see where adding hardware power is a defining factor. Really, what a new console does is force new buys as it forces new titles. That's kind of a forced innovation, where we do see some, because selling the new hardware requires it. But, if one sets that aside, the selling of GAMING could happen, and should happen, apart from the selling of stuff to GAME ON.

 

My .02

 

I'm currently in a who gives a shit phase. I'll play some new stuff, when it's cheap, but mostly I'll play things I like to play, and that I have good experiences with friends and family on. This happens for a lot of people, once their life focus eats at the priority of gaming.

 

New hardware isn't anywhere near as appealing to me because of that. A new machine means some sparkle and such, but it also means either surrendering older titles, or maintenance of multiple machines. Cuts both ways there. My favorite example is SSX, where my family and I love that freaking game. The original is out of this world great gaming, and it pretty much takes keeping a cranky old PS2 to experience it.

 

So, for some people who have solidifed some, a console that can carry forward existing games is a great deal. One gets a hardware refresh, and all is good. Then again, it won't mean the massive sales needed to fund it either, because at any one time, only a portion of gamers will be into buying all new titles along with their hardware refresh, or willing to just forget older stuff, maintain multiples, etc...

 

Diminishing returns on graphics and sound play into things big too. Current hardware is still very good, and honestly the loss of abstract style gaming, or the downplay of it for the sizzle of realism, isn't always a good thing. Sim type games are great, but... they take work, just like life does, and sometimes the escape of a game is what is wanted, not the work or the reality, and new hardware to play on doesn't help with that, though new input devices do.

[Cynicaster]

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.

 

I'll concede you might have a point with what you say about developers and their probable reluctance these days to "take a chance" on big new ideas, but I'm sorry, the point quoted above is silly.

 

Compare it to a songwriter who is in a rut and can't seem to come up with any interesting new material. By your logic, all he needs to do is go out and buy a new guitar and suddenly the hits will start flowing. That's complete nonsense. As long as the songwriter's original guitar isn't "broken" then buying the new guitar is going to do nothing but drain a big wad of cash out of his wallet and maybe make his chords sound a touch more crisp to the trained ear.

 

You also make the point that new hardware is needed to drive innovation. Again, this is completely backwards. Using creativity and smarts to make something great with what you have available to you is the very essence of innovation. Look at what the Activision guys were able to accomplish on the Atari 2600--a system that was originally marketed in large part for its ability to play pong games. THAT is innovation for you right there.

[+Random Terrain]

Here's a related quote:

 

The rich adopt novelties and become accustomed to their use. This sets a fashion which others imitate. Once the richer classes have adopted a certain way of living, producers have an incentive to improve the methods of manufacture so that soon it is possible for the poorer classes to follow suit. Thus luxury furthers progress. Luxury is the roadmaker of progress: it develops latent needs and makes people discontented. In so far as they think consistently, moralists who condemn luxury must recommend the comparatively desireless existence of the wild life roaming in the woods as the ultimate ideal of civilized life.

 

~Ludwig von Mises

 

New consoles fuel progress. Hopefully game designers will think "Oh sh*t, the new consoles are coming. Gamers are going to expect a leap in AI, world size, and graphics! We can't keep piddling out the same old sh*t with tiny improvements! Get to work!"

[+Random Terrain]

Compare it to a songwriter who is in a rut and can't seem to come up with any interesting new material. By your logic, all he needs to do is go out and buy a new guitar and suddenly the hits will start flowing. That's complete nonsense. As long as the songwriter's original guitar isn't "broken" then buying the new guitar is going to do nothing but drain a big wad of cash out of his wallet and maybe make his chords sound a touch more crisp to the trained ear.

Have you paid attention to interviews over the years? New tech can inspire. For example, new synthesizers with new sounds have inspired all kinds of artists over the years. New technology can inspire people and pull out greatness when they can't seem to do it with a beat up guitar or out of tune piano. It depends on the person. Some people need fresh tech, while others need extreme deficiency before they can produce anything.

 

 

 

You also make the point that new hardware is needed to drive innovation. Again, this is completely backwards. Using creativity and smarts to make something great with what you have available to you is the very essence of innovation. Look at what the Activision guys were able to accomplish on the Atari 2600--a system that was originally marketed in large part for its ability to play pong games. THAT is innovation for you right there.

How do you Pitfall II a disc? If you try to add extra ROM or RAM to the disc, it won't fit into the tray. There's only so far you can go when you're stuck with what's inside of the console.

[Christophero Sly]

Not exactly. You seem to think that the only way for a developer to do something new is with new hardware. They could do something different right now with the hardware they have. They won't however because it costs a lot of money to develop a game, and it seems the majority of developers will work with things that are selling rather than take a chance on something that -might- be a hit, but might also make the entire dev team go bust.

Once again, this is a part of the point I've been making all along. Sure, theoretically, developer's could do something different with the current generation of hardware, but as we're both saying, they're not going to because the realities that drive the industry (see potatohead's post above, #58) have set in and the status quo for this generation has solidified. The rumblings we're beginning to hear from developers such as Ubisoft are proof of this.

 

Introducing new hardware into the mix will only result in the exact same thing happening - it'll just look a little prettier. (Eventually.)

That's certainly possible. I haven't made any guarantees that new hardware will spark a new era of innovation. I've simply stated my belief that the only hope for seeing something innovative lies in the next generation. My point is that we're not going to get the sort of innovation people here are demanding if we stick with this generation for another five years.

 

And as I said previously, 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 will at least offer us some technical innovations?

 

Compare it to a songwriter who is in a rut and can't seem to come up with any interesting new material. By your logic, all he needs to do is go out and buy a new guitar and suddenly the hits will start flowing. That's complete nonsense. As long as the songwriter's original guitar isn't "broken" then buying the new guitar is going to do nothing but drain a big wad of cash out of his wallet and maybe make his chords sound a touch more crisp to the trained ear.

That analogy misses the point entirely. It's not about the guitar, it's about the realities of the music industry that the guitarist is working within. A better analogy is that it's 1991, and your guitarist plays lead in a bubble gum hair metal band.

 

If we let those clowns carry on for another five years, do you really think they will bring us "the new sound"?

 

You also make the point that new hardware is needed to drive innovation. Again, this is completely backwards. Using creativity and smarts to make something great with what you have available to you is the very essence of innovation. Look at what the Activision guys were able to accomplish on the Atari 2600--a system that was originally marketed in large part for its ability to play pong games. THAT is innovation for you right there.

The innovations you are referring to occurred within the initial 5-6 years of 2600's lifespan. Conversely, the final years of the 2600's original lifespan represent the antithesis of innovation. Unless you consider the entire industry crashing and burning to be an innovation.

 

So I'm sort of curious as to what innovation you believe would happen with a new Xbox or PS that would be a big advancement over current hardware?

Honestly, I have no idea. I have, of course, thought a bit about these things, but at the moment, I'm not making any specific predictions or promises about the future. Nonetheless, the suppositions you've presented are certainly reasonable and worthy of consideration. Right now, however, I'm simply expressing my belief that the new and innovative console games that everyone here is clamoring for will not be forthcoming on this generation of hardware. If it's new and innovative you want, your best bet for getting it will be in the next generation.

[Vic George 2K3]

Sexier graphics and better technology won't by themselves make a better game. All you'll have is the same old game with sexier graphics and better technology - which is fine if you like sexier graphics and better technology to go with the same old gameplay. For me, the argument for innovation with what's currently available is ringing in my ears a whole lot more than just abandon what we currently have, put out something new with the same old thing having (of course) sexier graphics and better technology, and lock up all game systems from the possibility of somebody outside of industry control coming up with something that the big names could only wish they were doing.

[rockman_x_2002]

You also make the point that new hardware is needed to drive innovation. Again, this is completely backwards. Using creativity and smarts to make something great with what you have available to you is the very essence of innovation. Look at what the Activision guys were able to accomplish on the Atari 2600--a system that was originally marketed in large part for its ability to play pong games. THAT is innovation for you right there.

How do you Pitfall II a disc? If you try to add extra ROM or RAM to the disc, it won't fit into the tray. There's only so far you can go when you're stuck with what's inside of the console.

 

The only thing I can think of is to have a console that can be expandable. Computers can be upgraded in terms of the amount of RAM available, hard drive size, GPU, etc. So why not allow consoles to do the same, in a controlled way? Nintendo experimented with this a little on the N64 with a RAM Expansion Pak. I think that would be the most obvious add-on, outside of bigger hard drives which consoles can already do.

[godslabrat]

 

The only thing I can think of is to have a console that can be expandable. Computers can be upgraded in terms of the amount of RAM available, hard drive size, GPU, etc. So why not allow consoles to do the same, in a controlled way? Nintendo experimented with this a little on the N64 with a RAM Expansion Pak. I think that would be the most obvious add-on, outside of bigger hard drives which consoles can already do.

 

I wonder if console makers will ever go down this path again. The problem with the expansion idea is not technological, it's logistical. It's hard to encourage developers to take advantage of non-standard hardware configurations because they don't want to sell to anything other than 100% of the install base.

[+Random Terrain]

The only thing I can think of is to have a console that can be expandable. Computers can be upgraded in terms of the amount of RAM available, hard drive size, GPU, etc. So why not allow consoles to do the same, in a controlled way? Nintendo experimented with this a little on the N64 with a RAM Expansion Pak. I think that would be the most obvious add-on, outside of bigger hard drives which consoles can already do.

I wonder if console makers will ever go down this path again. The problem with the expansion idea is not technological, it's logistical. It's hard to encourage developers to take advantage of non-standard hardware configurations because they don't want to sell to anything other than 100% of the install base.

The good thing about a cartridge is that you don't need people to buy an expansion pack to play the game. The 'expansion' is in the cartridge, so it will work on every console.

 

If we're stuck with discs, a new console could come out that uses 'cartridges' that contain the usual disc we've been using for years, but the console would access the disc through the cartridge and that cartridge would be large enough for game companies to add extra RAM and other goodies.

[Mister VCS]

Mister VCS: we need only one console: the one and only Atari CX-2600 Video Computer System with some new games!

[madmax2069]

The good thing about a cartridge is that you don't need people to buy an expansion pack to play the game. The 'expansion' is in the cartridge, so it will work on every console.

 

The N64 was a exception to your post

 

I can name two n64 games that required the N64 expansion pack to be able to play them. if you didn't have it you could not play them

1. Donkey Kong 64

2. The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask

 

and two more that would run on stock systems but you would have less content, or limited game play because that extra content required the e-pack

1.Perfect Dark

2.StarCraft 64

 

but most of the games that could take advantage of the e-pack could be ran on a stock or upgraded N64 (because they did not want to limit the sales potential of a game due to a lot not having the e-pack), the games that did not take advantage of the e-pack was unaffected if you did nor did not have it.

 

I do not think extra ram or added hardware abilities could be added to a N64 cart ( i could be wrong). but it wasn't like the NES or SNES that had extra hardware in the cart to expand the systems capabilities for a few games

 

but yeah, a cart based system could be expanded by adding extra hardware in the cart (the exception was the n64) unlike a disk based system, adding the hardware to the cart was the better way of expanding a systems capabilities.

Edited April 14, 2011 by madmax2069