The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Portable.

i hope that they learned their lesson from the previous generations of consoles and have a decent amount of ram. i would say at least 6 GB at a minimum to future proof it for a few years. one of the things that makes console games so damn ugly to look at from a PC players perspective is the fugly low res textures they end up using and the tiny level designs so that it fits in the tiny ram in current systems.

i also hope the next consoles are subtantially better than any PC on the market for at least 6 months. almost immediately after PS3 and xbox360 came out nvidia and ati had cards out that were just as good if not better than the consoles gpus. crysis was released the same year as PS3 and still looks better than any game on the consoles. and yes you could run the game just fine as long as you had a mid-high level PC. i had the second best graphics card at the time and a decent CPU and the only thing i couldnt run was the dx10 stuff.

I want 4 gigs of RAM, 3.0+ GHz Processor, a good GPU (at least 512 MB), good motherboard.

That's the minimum I expect. Might be too much though so I won't hold my breath, might just make it 2 gigs of RAM instead.

I extremely doubt this though.

Do you really think they're going to put out any new consoles in the near future?
They just rolled out motion sensing tech to go along with current gen consoles.
Ps3 and X-box both also put out slim editions that not only take up less space, but are essentially more efficient.

With software finally catching up to the hardware capabilities of consoles (think Tech 5 allowing 60fps on consoles) I am not sure they need to put out a new console anytime soon.
Nintendo wasn't mentioned in my post, because they just put out the 3dS. which they'll hype for a while. Not sure they need to do another console yet, because they aren't sticking with the MOAR graphics curve that Sony and MS are, anyway.

I would give it another few years, not that I know anything thats going on behind the industry doors.

They've reached the hardware capabilities years ago. PC games already overshadow the graphics/physics of console games.

I don't see Sony OR Microsoft making a new console in the next three to four years at least. They just invested too much into Kinect and Move for that. Nintendo already has the next two generations drafted out. They, like the magnificent bastards they are, will swoop in and steal the show in a flash with the most devastating timing possible for the other companies. Just wait, you'll see.

On the subject, I think the modern big console system is dying out. I know it's paradoxical. PC gaming is the one drying, right? But the more I see the more I realize that companies want handheld devices, facebook, cameras, phones, and fantastically wide appeal rather than another biggest dike contest. I just can't see Microsoft or Sony making anything bigger than the PSP2. You can blame Apple for that too. Nintendo's DS systems have sold magnitudes more than the Wii, and Xbox is already trying to morph itself into a social networking platform.

I guess I'm just anachronistic though. I bought a GBA SP instead of a 3DS, so I can intentionally disconnect myself from the coming generation.

Cool. but I am talking about consoles and software capabilities.
Of course PC's can do more, theres more choice in what you're using to run those graphics/physics. No one argues that, so its kind of a moot point in this discussion; next generation consloes.

I mentioned Rage, because people aren't used to seeing 60FPS on a console.. Thats because it wasnt really something that was being done.
Doing more with new software and current console hardware is viable. This is why I am saying that its not necessary to launch new consoles yet, because there is room for improvement with the current crop, via better software. Console games are indeed looking better and better and running smoother- i forsee this trend continuing for at least a while.

And as i mentioned from a marketing standpoint, Sony just launched their motion sensing tech.. Do you really think theyre going to churn out a new console when they just started developing games that use that tech? Would seem kind of pointless and even backhanded towards their custimer base, IMO. Kinect on the other hand, could probably be used on current and next Gen consoles, seamlessly.. But i still think theyre going to try and make as much money with what they have out on the market now. Just launched the slim not too long ago, why would they go through all the trouble of putting that out, if they were just going to put out a newer console?

It's not a moot point at all. If the next generation consoles came out sooner, then they could have that potential too, rather than console games being stuck at a tech dead-end. There is not much "better software" can do with outdated hardware.


No they have no plans to release a new console anytime soon. Which is stupid.

Hardware could be the same as it is now for all I care. What I think is really needed is an open online environment, just like on a PC. No closed down, inferior services that you have to pay an additional fee for.

Well then they would be PCs and not, y'know, consoles.

I just find the depth in console games dissappointing. The best I've played is that which is online, and most of that involves killing the other person. The only thing with any depth on console when I played it was -

Forza Motorsport
Gears of War
Call of Duty
Borderlands

I just couldn't find anything worth sticking around for. Consoles svck offline - the fun is online. Even that wears thin after awhile.

I basically bought a 360 to play Gears of War online. Good times.

I disagree. I can play about 30 minutes of a friend's multiplayer FPS before I go "So is that all you do, kill people?".

The most use my 360 gets these days is http://i.imgur.com/CTUe0.jpg; but I used to play a lot of Fallout 3, Mass Effect, BioShock, etc. before I moved onto PC gaming.

Isn't that what people said when hard drives and media centers were introduced? Or DVD playback, or pretty much anything not directly related to playing games.

The PS3 is a streaming machine while the XBOX360 is just a personal comuter.
Thats why it's more difficult to program on the PS3 (for some developers), especially compared to the 360.
Games that run on a PC are easily converted to 360 and vice versa, because they have a similar architecture.
The PS3 is, like a said, a streaming machine and is programed and handled differently.
The Playstations were always optimized for streaming, so I don't think Sony will change this with upcoming consoles.
BTW, It's just more difficult to program because most of the western developers are coming from the PC or started there. They are trained with the PC architecture.
When you program a super computer, like the Blue Gene, you have to think like a streaming machine.



Then its a computer and not a gaming console any more.
The sense of consoles is that after you buy it you can play every game developed for it. And the developers can optimize the games to the specific hardware.

Well, Microsoft did say that they want to extend the 360's life until 2015 (what with Kinect and all). I can see it happening... another Microsoft console probably wouldn't come out until 2013 earliest. Realistically, I could see one announced in 3-4 years, then out in 5 Also, given that they would need some launch titles to go along with it, I'd have to say that another Halo could be one of those games.

I don't know much about Sony; although, given the release of the last batch of consoles, I could see them moving right along with Microsoft and pushing for a close release date as well.

One thing we can tell from the next gen is that the longer they wait the bigger the jump in graphics we'll see at least.

Also, since both Sony and M$ implemented motion control (after Nintendo did) I can bet the next gen of consoles will vastly improve on these camera's and controllers bringing motion control to a whole new level. Or I'd like to think, cause right now its just a novelty to me.

Upgrading consoles have been tried in the past, and has generally not been very successful. There were the CD and 32X addons for the Mega Drive/Genesis, the vanilla hardware outlived both of those. Both the Sega Saturn and Nintendo 64 had memory extensions, but developers were too scared to make games that actually required them.

Back when games were still using cartridges, it was possible to place external chips in the carts to go beyond the vanilla hardware capabilities. This was used often on NES and SNES cartridges, but it also had the side effect of jacking up the prices on the games.

This is just... No

1. The 360 is no more of a personal computer than the PS3 is. If anything, the reverse is more true (or was) since the PS3 has (had) the option to install an actual desktop operating system on it. You could do web browsing, document editing/creation, video playback, music playback, picture editing/creation/viewing, and pretty much anything else you can imagine (with varying degrees of usability) on a PS3. The Xbox 360 can't even browse the web, let alone install a desktop OS.

2. The 360 and your standard PC have almost nothing in common architecture-wise. Your 360 is PPC-based, whereas your desktop is Intel-based (exceptions for people with old Mac PCs). The thing that allows PC-360 porting easily is that the 360 uses a slightly-modified version of DX 9, which has nothing to do with architecture at all. Almost all the other dependencies and APIs that a gaming programmer would rely on are non-existant on the 360, which is why both the 360 and PS3 use SDKs for development to ease the process.

3. The PS3 is not a streaming machine. Yes, it can stream, but when playing a game you are not simply streaming the content off the disc, there is so much more and countless calls made to the PS3 OS and various APIs

4. Since no console has ever really shared much in common with the PC, and gaming on consoles has been around for many years, I say the statement that most developers are coming from the PC or started there is complete nonsense. There are many console-only developers in the "western world"

5. Don't even know what that utter nonsense about thinking like a streaming machine when programming for supercomputers is all about.

Edit: meant PC in #4, not PS3

ive been advocating this forever....and lots of people think im nuts. to me it makes great business sense. every couple of years microsoft and sony can offer an upgrade package that they can either ship their consoles back to the manufacturer to have installed for a price or simply buy a new box.........if they ship it back they would pay a installation fee of say $50 on top of the price parts at it would be money in the pockets of the console makers. i keep hearing about how for the first few years every unit is sold at a loss and its only in the mid to end part of the console lifecycle that they break even or maybe turn a small profit on the console unit. another benefit is that they can expand the lifetime of the console and save money on developing an entirely new system every 6 years. this would be good for the customer as well cause they wont have to buy a new box and they can keep up with technology a little better. people could even install their own upgrades although they might have limits on their warranties since alot of console gamers dont know anything about computer hardware.

It's a terrible idea for one, huge reason. It removes the one advantage consoles still have over PCs - that you can go out and buy a game and know for certain it'll run. If, all of a sudden, you need an xbox 360 with a tier two upgraded GPU and at least a tier 1 upgraded CPU, tier 2 for no lag in large battles, then you've completely removed that one last advantage. People like consoles because they're simple, if you kill that simplicity then what's the point of them?

ive heard that argument before but its a red herring. PC games have been designed scalable for .....well forever. thats what the "settings" menu is for. if you bought a new game and your particular console didnt have the latest hardware in it the game would simply run with lower textures and maybe reduced physics. its not hard at all to implement since as ive said PC games have been designed like this since the dawn of time. there literally is no downside to this but it allows people who dont want a full blown PC to at least upgrade every couple of years and keep up with PC gamers. this is also great for PC gamers since games that are multiplatform arent always going to be hampered by 5 year old technology like they are right now meaning we can get better ports hopefully.

as for how the upgrades are done frankly if they built the consoles right the only thing that would have to be upgraded every couple of years would be the GPU. you might need a CPU upgrade after 4 years but not any sooner than that and if they put at least 6GB of ram in their next boxes at a minimum they probably wont have to bother with RAM upgrades for the entire lifespan of the console since they arent using a full blown OS.

So then what's the point? Purely graphical upgrades?
Indeed, ideologically, perhaps the idea is sound - but by forcing developers to make their stuff work on everything from 6 years out of date hardware, to modern hardware, you're effectively forcing them to make any additional features gimmicks, rather than actually useful to the game. Can't do better AI, or better physics, for example, because they'd *require* the upgrades.

And, of course, you're then adding a lot more work for the developer, forcing them to optimise for many different hardware configurations - which removes another console advantage, that having a single platform to develop for allows you to stride right to the edge and code specifically for that platform. If, all of a sudden, you have many different combinations of CPU, GPU, RAM, so on, you exponentially increase the amount of effort required to maintain that. Even a few upgrades puts it out of reach for most developers. So rather than more performance, you're getting less - so users have to upgrade to get the same experience they would have anyway.

No, leave the modularity, the abstraction layers upon abstraction layers, and the impossible optimisation to the PC, and leave the consoles at what they're good at - being a constant platform. Regardless of if it is magically pulled off, simply by having the greater complexity there you'll scare off some people who just want a box what plays vidyagames.

you make it sound like its hard work to make a game scalable. it isnt. its even easier for the console games because they only have to worry about the upgrades for that specific console. its not like microsoft is going to upgrade half of the boxes with nvidia cards and the other half with ATI cards they are all going to use the same GPU upgrade. as for RAM and CPU power you dont have to program anything for that at all and as i stated earlier you probably wont even need to upgrade the CPU and RAM if they build them right the first time.

at most there would only be 2 GPU upgrades over the lifetime of the console and maybe one CPU or RAM upgrade if they screw up their initial designs. why is it a bad thing to give console gamers a choice and let them have access to more advanced technology. it wont hurt anyone and people who dont want to upgrade can still play the newest games, they just wont be able to use the highest graphics or physics setting. this also helps PC gamers cause we can stop getting crappy low res texture ports.

most game with "physics" in them let you choose the level you want it at. AI is either good or bad almost entirely based on the programming. the only time CPU power would be a factor is in large scale games like mount and blade which they wont bother with for consoles anyways.

Ok, I wasn't talking in detail. It was a very abstract view on things, because I didn't know how detailed I can go so that I'm understood.
I guess we're meaning the same thing, but let me explain

1) A PC isn't defined by a web browser or a PC OS, but I know what you want to tell me and I can ensure you I know that, I said the 360 is similar to the PC because of...see point 2)
2) Ok, you're right on a detailed level, but I'm on an abstract programers view of things. I am at API level view, and there a PC and a XBOX360 is very similar while the PS3 is different.
3) The PS3 is more a streaming machine than the other machines. See point 5) for my explanation.
4) Well, here I don't agree with you. Every console programer started at PC. No one learned programing at the console. Every console programer at least once programed DX.
Every programer started with a lot of RAM in their PCs nowadays.
5) As you may know so called Vector Processors were used for super computers a lot and is still used for them, even if it is not that common anymore, thats why I compared those.
The PS3 CPU consists of one PPC processor and seven (actually only six, the seventh is used for redundency) so called SEP (Synergistic Processing Elements). Those things include the Vector Processors. The whole design of the PS3 with its 256 shared memory@3.4GHz and 256MB@700MHz VRAM and a Blue Ray support (high data rate compared to DVD) is designed for a lot of streaming, thats why I said streaming machine. Only few memory, but very fast processing speed and data rate, thats the definition of a streaming machine I would say (there is no official definition). Of course 256MB is very much and therefor I bent this definition, but as I said, I didn't want to go into too much detail. I just want to give a very astract point of view.

So, I guess the misunderstanding occured because I was talking about a very abstract view on this machines while you went into details.
But its good that you pointed that out, its always good to see both the detailed and abstract view.


ad 4) Its more difficult to program on few RAM and a lot of speed than vice versa, I took this from my own experience, maybe I'm wrong though.

It's not hard work to make a game scalable - it is hard work to make a game optimised for every single possible combination of hardware, which is the only reason consoles aren't hopelessly irrelevant today. Say, after 6 years, you have 6 new GPU upgrades, 6 new CPU upgrades, and anywhere from 2-6GB RAM, in 2GB chunks, which doesn't seem unreasonable if the idea is to keep consoles up to date.

That's 6*6*3 = 108 different possible combinations of hardware, all of which have to be supported just as well as the last. Consoles get such good performance out of such little hardware because, as a constant platform, you can write for that exact platform, not just with hardware-specific optimisation but also by making sure you're always close to "the line" but never cross it. If first generation games can be called upon to run on even one other platform, then you can't do hardware specific optimizations, and if your line moves, you can't stick to it and go no further. You'd still have the major issues, games would still be made for the lowest common denominator, and the important things - the gameplay, the world, so on, would still be limited to that lowest platform. You'd still be stuck with lower detail worlds.

However, the major issue is that many people who want a console simply want to buy something that will get them a consistent experience. If they cared about graphics enough to want to go through the additional complexity of getting upgrades, they'd be buying a PC for a few hundred dollars extra anyway. The very point of consoles is to be a simple platform, to take that away is to remove their purpose.
While, yes, you can have AI and Physics change depending on hardware, you are then locked out of using them as any serious mechanic - gimmicks.