Hardly anyone is buying electronics at the moment, regardless of how long the PS3 has been on the market. Releasing a new console 'right now' is not really a wise decision. But of course, announcing a new product doesnt neccesairly mean it will be released in a timely matter. I guess for both MS and Sony it's best to wait at least one or two years before bringing a new product to the market, hopefully by then the market has recovered a bit more.
I do understand your point but i don't see a problem with that, specially when these 7, 8 year old hardwares can produce games like Uncharted 3 and Halo 4. If these companies start to worry about new gadgets being released every single year, they'll go nuts. Even if the new PlayStation or Xbox was to be released right now, it would be already behind the latest technology. Consoles just can't compete with computers and gadgets. When designing a new hardware, they have to think about cost-benefit, so they can actually make profit. It wouldn't be smart for a company like Sony, having severe losses recently, to release a new console that makes them lose money on each unit sold. We also have to remember that the graphical jump won't be as big as previous generations. 1080p, AA and 60fps looks great yes, but it won't be that much different from what we have right now. The whole 3D gimmick is over. How are you going to market and justify something new that costs $400 or more, when there's not much difference from the current gen? To make things worse, the whole digital distribution and rumour of not being able to buy used games won't make a lot of people happy.
My opinion is that I honestly don't care if it is released this year or 5 years from now. I am in no rush for the next generation of consoles to come out.
@Johnny Right now, PS3 IS STILL STRONG for it own spec and I'm sick of tired seeing stupid fucking PC fanboy bashing on Far Cry on PS3 lately. As I can see so many of them saying that PS3 has shitty framerate and awful graphics as PC fanboy says. Load of Bollocks ! I own a GTX680 Graphic card with i5 3450 CPU ( Powerful PC Gaming Rig) and played Far Cry 3 on it, yes it good as usual. Then I decided to buy the Far Cry 3 on the PS3 version because playing with friends on multiplayer mode and the game is so big with amount of endless hours that I can't be bother to do that on PC because of sitting on the desk chair. I was blown away how amazing skills that Ubisoft has, that delivers on the PS3 version. I recall there is no lag at all and the graphics is almost close as good as PC graphics. it has small lag during cut-scene and that it ! You gotta laugh PC fanboys now days as calling themselves a true Man PC gaming.
Not big fan of Crysis, haven't played either on PC or PS3. EDIT Far cry 3 on PC, as my setting is Ultra Max with DX11.
Thanks for the info on Far Cry 3. It's on my purchase list even though i read so many criticisms about it, specially a problem with shadows. But like you said, if it runs decently and it's fun, it's worth it. The "problem" with PC gamers, if i can say that, is that they want to run everything at insane settings all the time. The difference of Ultra and Max settings on most games is almost impossible to see. That's one of the reasons i think the next gen consoles will already be behind when they actually get released. They'll all be made to run on 1080p, while PC gamers already passed that resolution. In the end, you'll have a product that won't bring hardcore PC gamers to consoles nor impress the common console gamers. PC will always be ahead, so game devs have to be wise when porting multiplatform games. Unfortunately, some don't. First party games show how it's possible to push limits, keeping performance and graphic quality intact. I was just playing Uncharted 3 today (yes, my backlog of games is embarassing) and was amazed of how incredible it looks and plays on my 40" TV. I don't care how many fps it's running, don't care if if has FXAA or whatever antialising system it uses,... It's a great game, looks incredible and it's tons of fun. I think people are forgetting that. The only thing that i consider unacceptable on a game is screen tearing. It's basicly pushing the limits on something that just can't handle it. Or poor coding. GT5 has so many it's actually pathetic. Why did they bother making it to run on 60fps 1080p, when it simply can't?
@Johnny Your welcome Don't pay attention what they criticize Far Cry 3 on PS3, You won't be disappointing though especially how Ubisoft done a wonderful job using PS3 cell. I guess it one of those few mutiplatform games has really focus on PS3 spec this time. Yes Screen tearing is very annoying and yet there are alot of lies out there claiming there is a screen tearing in console Far Cry 3 version, However I wouldn't worry about that. Hardly any screen tearing at all. I been playing Far Cry 3 more than 22 hours on PS3 and yet I had no issue what so ever. I only played 4 hours on PC after I realize it was going to be a big game to complete and yet I haven't went back on PC at all. Now Gran Turismo 5, I take that you are a fan of racing games of Gran Turismo series right ? I do love the First one on Playstation 1 back in the day and played Gran Turismo 4 on Playstation 2. I own a Gran Tursimo 5 on PS3 and I have to say it a pretty sweet game and the steering wheel with forceback is definitely the best realistic/ accurate experience so far, Polyphony Digital has done a good job on that. To be honest, I wasn't pay attention on GT5 60FPS with 1080P and I always thought it did run on 1080P ? I didn't know that. I'm not sure what kinda flaws as you referring to GT5. It if you mean Screen Tearing on GT5 then I don't think I haven't come across with that yet or may have, However I only played five hours total on GT5 since I bought it in August last year, I was too busy with my studies stuff which I don't have the spare time back then. I not sure why Polyphony Digital go for 60FPS with 1080P. There two games on PS3 that runs full 60FPS with true 1080P is WipeOut HD and Flow, I guess Polyphony Digital thought they could do their GT5 since so many years of delay. Yes I agreed with you about Max and Ultra settings on PC, Only reason I had own a PC gaming which I built myself September last year for the first time ever, I was invited to be part of WMD Community as Testing and feedback of Project Car (Work in Progress by Slightly Mad Studio) which I have it right now on My PC. I big fan of racing anyway and I will end up getting it on PS3 or Sony next gen console. End of day, PC fanboys need to take a chill pill. The amount of trash talking is hairlious, saying Console are so far behind to compare with latest PC gaming spec, Believe me -it not that far behind at all ! I went from PC back to PS3 and I enjoyed more with PS3 exclusive titles Uncharted 1,2 and 3 I can't bloody wait for The Last of Us aswell. Yes PC gaming always will be ahead but like you said If runs smoothly and decent graphics and fun then Console version is way to go. I show you example how good is Far Cry on PS3. Try watch it on 1080P as amazing graphics with no lag If you can, You see, don't believe what the console haters has to say. Enjoy your Far Cry 3 when you get a chance.
Do you all understand that the current gen is killing innovation ? It's the right time to introduce the new gen. Can't wait to see Halo 5 with tesselation.
Thanks for the video Greatest TR beta's. I know understand what's the problem with the shadows: they appear to have a dithered effect. There's also a little screen tearing happening occasionally too. Still, it looks amazing. And the game appear to be endless. What kind of innovation really? Apart from nicer graphics and special effects, and of course smoother experience, i don't see how the current gen is "killing" innovation. Even if you want to blame consoles for something, why so many PC games are released with no support for tesselation, physx,... ? IMO, the only real innovation is coming from indie developers, with simpler yet entertaining games. Games like Limbo, Fez, Machinarium, Journey, Unfinished Swan, Minecraft,... Tesselation looks great on 3d geometry (buildings, water and stuff like that), but again nothing that can hurt the experience if the game is designed without it. I consider this and PhysX extra gimmicks. Check this video: Looks cool? Yeah. Mandatory? Not really. If it's the right time to introduce next gen consoles? Maybe, we can all discuss that. The problem i have is reading people's desperation for new consoles, like the current consoles weren't able to run anything decently.
Regarding the previous comment about FC3 on PS3... I disagree. I'm not going to rant about why I do, but I just can't agree with you on anything you said.
I'm pretty much with Johnny in this discussion. I remember in the early 90s my idea of "the best graphics" (mind you, I was a kid) was something along the lines of a smoother looking Virtua Fighter (maybe something like those early Ultra 64 screenshots, the ones with the mechs). Then the Dreamcast came out, and I was blown away. The whale chase scene was fantastic and Shenmue looked amazing. But I knew things could look a little better. A bit smoother, a bit more detail in texture, less fog for open areas, etc. Then the Xbox came out and I saw Halo, and I thought, "Aside from the people's faces (which had been done very well in Shenmue), this looks incredible!" Then the Xbox360 hit, and things looked sharper and more stuff could be on the screen, but the leap wasn't Saturn->Dreamcast or even Dreamcast->Xbox. Well, until I saw Gears of War, then I thought, "This is about as good as it gets." And that's where I stand. You can tweak some effects, but Gears of War is about as much graphical power as I need. I had this same conversation on another board and the other guy was like, "Look at this video of UE4!!!!!! SO MUCH BETTER!!!!!" But, eh, better particle effects and lighting... whoop-ee... I think you have to be a super nit-picky graphics whore to really need much more at this point.
...Which is why I disagree. let's put it this way- people have preferences, like music. But I can't stand the audiophiles who force their ideas on other people. I like HD graphics and max settings, but I'm not going to force everyone to like it that way.
Well looking at the supposed specs for the new systems (PC levels of RAM), it looks like MS and Sony are going to release a new gen so all developers are able to release games at the same quality as Halo 4 or FC3 without as much expertise. So yeah graphics might not be worlds of difference compared to what we have today but there will be more games that reach those kind of graphics because they aren't trying to squeeze every last pixel out of the system. But then eventually 1st party and the extremely good 3rd party developers will then prove what the new hardware is really capable of! (although I would rather it if Sony tried to make the PSVita more exciting, Gran Turismo for example would sell the Vita for me).
After I read Johnny reply, I have to disagreed with Itchy at this point. There is no way this gen Console killing innovation at all. I don't hear other gamers talk about this. I just seen the video with GeForce or without GeForce PyhsX and I have to say that I can live without those setting because those are little minor update and yet I my PC graphics card has those GeForce PhysX built in along GTX 680. However Like I said I can live without it. @DefectX11 Care to explain as in your opinion about FarCry 3 on PS3 ? otherwise you shouldn't comment in the first place without stating the reasoning. I take that you are a PC gamer.
I wouldn't say it's killing innovation, but I think we may of hit the limit of today's consoles, having a new generation would give a world of headroom for innovation. More entities to interact with, larger worlds, more detailed physics are all things that will improve with more CPU, GPU power and more RAM. And RAM appears to be cheaper these days now that 64-bit is the norm, when the Xbox 360 came out it was still XP and unless you had the 64-bit (which I don't recall being very popular) you could only have up to 4GB, so a decent PC would have 2GB then the Xbox 360 had 512mb a 1/4 of that and look what was accomplished! With 4GB (which I think is rumored) the results would be insane, if not for graphical impressiveness then just the complexity of the next gen games.
FC3 on PS3- nice, certainly, but the frame rates, which *can* drop to 20-ish and max out at 30 is not what I like. Shadows are much less dynamic and deep, and bloom seems to be a bit overused (but not like Battlefield 3...). Particle effects are lacking, the whole experience just doesn't seem as "deep" to me. I get 80, and that's incredible for max settings. Anything above 60 is perfectly OK for me, as long as it's in above-average quality. It is canning innovation. If you can't make anything better, why try? When you get the next gen, it'll open up the doors for expansion and graphical possibilities. While you can say it's just graphical effects, isn't that what the PS3 had over the PS2 (in a sense)? Better quality means people are free to make innovative games, make them more realistic, make them feel that much more alive than what we currently have. Plus, we can't judge yet, as the next gen might have a whole new array of peripherals which allows for innovative games (on top of better graphics) Take the kinect for example. While the games are OK, you can say they are innovative- using your entire body to interact with a game is a whole new experience. The next gen (minus Xbox with Kinect 2) may have different peripherals with different ways on interacting.
@DefectX11 Cheer for Info However Do you actually own a Far Cry 3 on PS3 ? Frame rate sometimes drop around 21 to 23 during Cutscene (However it doesn't put me off at all) but Gameplay Frame rate is always around 29 to 31 As I mention previous comment to @Johnny. You wouldn't really find that noticeable on PS3 anyway. 30 to 60 FPS which I don't find too much differences.
