Yes, but it seems Sony has wised up that 10 years was too optimistic of a length of time for their console. With Moore's Law kicking Sony's ass, they underestimated the jump in graphics quality and hardware and now they are remedying it by realeasing the PS4 in 2012 and hopefully Microsoft realizes the issue as well and shoots for a similar time slot.

Mass Effect 3. That's all I have to say. It will be on par with Skyrim. I am sorry to disappoint you.

*Offtopic*

This is just my opinion, but I believe the next wave of systems to come out will be the last *as we know it*. I'm torn between them going away all together or becoming a hybridized model. I am a firm believer that cloud-based software will do away with most of the current delivery models. It's already beginning to take hold in commercial and government enterprises (Microsoft's BPOS and soon to be Office 365, Google Apps, etc) and will only continue to grow.

Why bother with cloud-based gaming though? We have media-less downloads, what can cloud-based do? Something that neither consoles nor PC gaming can possibly achieve: ultra-high-fidelity gaming. Being able to buy servers at economies of scale that are orders of magnitude more powerful than what 99% of the public runs allows developers to create games that are only able to be dreamed of as of now. We have the tech to do this now, but not the install base. Why waste hundreds of millions to develop a game like this that 1% of the populace to run? Cloud-based gaming gives developers this capability with the needed install-base to make it a revenue-generating endeavor.

Plus this model inherantly annuitizes games, doing the software-as-a-service thing that software companies love so much. It smooths out the revenue peaks and valleys that currently exist and make developers more money in the long run.

Also, cloud based gaming has the ability to have uniform experiences over numerous devices. Who wouldn't want to log in to Skyrim at home, play the same game on your phone on the way to work, sneak some in on your lunch break on your slate-device, then come home and play more on your TV?

This is getting long and is not the place to discuss this. This is just my opinion and it may take longer than a single generation for this to hit critical mass. But it is coming, and I truly believe this is where it is headed. Shoudl but fun to see how it all shakes out!

Source?

Also, Sony merely said the PS3 would last ten years, as the PS2 did. That doesn't mean they wouldn't release a new console while the PS3 is still being supported, as that's what they did with the PS2.

P.S. Moore's law is awesome.

You don't?

Look at what could be done in 2007 in real-time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6yXTcgO7Xw&feature=related

So you've actually played the game then? Otherwise, how would you know it won't svck? Like I said, it could end up being the most bug ridden piece of crap ever released, requiring years of patches to fix. We won't know that until it's actually released to the public.

Some great games have been mentioned. We all know there will be some stiff competition. Mass Effect 2 was great, I expect the same from 3. And somebody even mentioned Neverwinter (Not that it can compete, its just an awesome game).
Does Mass Effect really push the envelope of what the 360 can do? In terms of content, probably; Mass Effect 2 comes in 2 discs. But honestly, It won't be possible to make a game of greater scale than Skyrim on this console. Look at Oblivion. That was for the 360. Now look at Skyrim, and how far we've come. And sorry for being a doomsayer and whatnot.

By being a different style of RPG, and therefore filling a different niche than a TES game can? :shrug:

Skyrim isnt out yet. For all we know it could be utter Fail.

Sorry, but this doesn't follow. The compression ratios required to effectively stream a video game in real time over the internet have to be so high that it will never be able to compete with standard systems as far as quality is concerned. And internet connections can never be as reliable as playing off your own rig, there are simply too many things that can screw up with a system like that. Cloud gaming will serve a purpose for those people who are on the road alot, or on vacation somewhere, but it will never replace the current methods of distribution.

For cloud console gaming to happen, fiber-optics have to become standard and that isn't happening anytime soon.

Yeah, I would assume Beth would wait to do another TES on the next generation of consoles. Todd already said before they decided to start working on Skyrim that they were thinking about waiting until a hardware cycle to reboot the series.

At any rate, PC is where it's at. :disguise:

You're right. Is it there yet? Not perfectly, no...which is why I think it's very possible in 8-12 years it might be. Could be longer. But this model makes more financial sense in the long run, so bandwidth issues will get better as higher-speed net access continues to evolve and move from urban areas to the "boonies".

However, even though it's not perfect, they are doing it today. Good review of OnLive: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/reviews/2010/11/onlive-1.ars/3

In my opinion, this is the future of gaming. Could be wrong. We'll see.

Luke Skyrimmer: see the review of OnLIve. They're doing it today with today's games and today's technology. It's not perfect...far from it. But, is it likely a decade from now? I'd argue it's far more likely than not.

I've used it myself and it's awful. Constant disconnects, horrible compression artifacts. Laggy input. Like I said, until fiber-optic internet service become the norm, there's still going to be hardware based consoles.

That will just drive others TRYING to make better games.

Fair enough...we shall see how it all plays out. Very interesting imo.

This topic is just confusing as all hell. I understand the really devoted fan squee he's trying to get at, but it makes no logical sense.

Look how long it's taken the general public just to get used to the idea of 64bit processing. The hardware technology has been available for many years now but even today with both Vista and Windows 7 offering a 64bit OS, most people are still using 32 bit systems. Just because a technology is feasible and available doesn't mean that the paying public is going to embrace it. And frankly I just don't see that happening with cloud gaming. People are still going to want their own games on their own systems, they won't just jump over to the cloud platforms simply because they're available. I can certainly see it being somewhat profitable down the road, but I don't believe it will ever replace current methods. For instance, I still have a copy of Baldur's Gate 2 that I intend to get back to some day, but that simply wouldn't be possible if I had to relay on a cloud based system. They'll only provide the latest games, and once they're deemed no longer popular enough they'll be purged from the system. All you're going to end up with on systems like that are the "game of the month" type titles, that people play for awhile then forget about a short while later. And they're generally of much poorer quality than what Skyrim is looking to be like.

Fibre optics won't completely solve that problem either. It will still require time for your signal to be sent to the central server, then a reply to be sent back. In MIDI parlance that's called latency and unless we can come up with a way of having instantaneous communications, having to rely on a central server on the other side of the world is always going to involve some sort of lag while playing a game. For many hard core players, that lag will simply be unacceptable.

Your example provides a reason to go to the cloud. One of the many reasons why 64 bit architecture hasn't been adopted is legacy applications needing to be run in 32 bit. There are a number of reasons, but that's just one.

There are plenty of technologies that are "feasible"...but cloud computing is already something that is already becoming the "next" move for many organizatoins, private or public. The reasons to move are just too many, and the problems it creates, in many cases, aren't big enough to stop the move. And that's the key.

Many people said DLC wouldn't catch on because people like to have physical media...yet DLC and media-less gaming is skyrocketing. Further, cloud-based gaming doesn't offer older games today, but one of the hallmarks of the cloud is rapid scalability and agility. If the demand is there and the licensing is possible, it will be made availble.

Cloud-based solutions are profitable today, and companies are scrambling to provide services. There are plenty of problems (why pay for a game I already own, bandwidth, handling user-created Mods, etc) but there are too many reasons to move this way for it not to become a major choice, if not the defacto option imo.

this thread is completely true. skyrim marks the begining of post-modern rpg =D

Kingdoms of Amalur is the only other AAA open world fantasy rpg not made by Bethesda in at least 5 years. Finally someone else is getting into the open world rpg market(and Two Worlds 2, Risen,etc are b team not AAA).

Yep and there not true open worlds either. Wonder if this KOA is going to be, or will it be DOA?

I have been follow the game and listening to a number of interview,etc over and over again they emphasis its open world, go anywere. Ken Rolston(the Morrowind and OB lead designer) has stated in multiple interviews that it is open world. I think he knows what an open world game really is! Check out the gameplay trailer and lots of info here:

http://www.38watch.com/forums/showthread.php?1821-The-Media-Compilation-Thread

I played all those less Kingoms of Amalur and they are really bad compared to TES but Two Worlds 1 and 2 takes the crown of bad :meh: , my opinion of course

Of course TES are monster games :tes: