What kind of things will the next generation of gaming consoles (i.e., the round released after x-box, Gamecube, and PS2) be able to do?
Walk the dog and give you a shiatsu massage.
The enviornment of the game will be projected into your enviornment. You will be the game. Imagine being the deer in the deer hunter games.
It’ll work faster. The only thing preventing extremely realistic graphics is the time it takes to render them.
I keep hoping game consoles will become obsolete.
Why in the world can’t expensive and fast computers play decent games?
I dunno about the next generation, but the PS9 will use (presumably) nanomechanical spores that attach themselves to your brain. At that point, the quality of the graphics will presumably be limited only by your intelligence. (Which means, for me, everything’s going to look like Pac-Man.) 
Because you also want that computer to be able to desktop publish and go to the SDMB. Consoles are single-purpose machines, and can devote all of their power to rendering graphics and processing controller input and making the speakers vibrate and all of the other things involved in gameplay. General purpose machines fall into the ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ trap: You don’t want to optimize it for one thing when it has to do numerous very different things, so you make it good enough to do pretty much anything at an acceptable level of quality.
That said, I think PCs will, eventually, replace consoles, but not for a while. (BTW, I saw a book called the ‘Omni Future Almanac’ that theorized that consoles were on the way out because of the rise of the desktop PC. It was published in the 1980s. :D)
The change from this generation of consoles to the next will be pretty much the same as the transition we’re going through now.
There will be a massive improvement in hardware capabilities, but a more modest improvement in the actual quality of the graphics. The extra power will allow smoother models, better hair, large seamless levels–better details, in other words. But there won’t be any huge quantum leap as there was from 2D graphics to 3D graphics. You can only make that leap once, unless someone figures out how to make 4D games. 
As for computer capabilities vs. consoles, a top-of-the-line computer bought today can outperform any console on the market. However, computer game developers develop games for the average computer owner. The average computer owner doesn’t own a brand-new $3500 system with a GeForce 3–he owns some $1200 computer bought on sale at Circuit City two years ago. So computer games tend not to push the hardware to its current limit. (Things were different five years ago, when PC sales were accellerating. With PC stales stagnant today, developers aren’t willing to limit their audience to the bleeding edge.)
Console game developers know that all their customers have exactly the same system, so they can make full use of the console’s cababilities. This means that console games tend to have great graphics compared to PC games when the console is first released. It also means that console games tend to have relatively crappy graphics at the end of the console’s lifespan.
Consoles won’t replace PCs or vice versa. They will merge together into the mythical “set-top box.” Of course, people have been predicting that since the 80s as well.
The current king-of-the-hill graphics card for the PC is probably the ATI Radeon 8500, and it’s at least a generation past the graphics of the xbox. So if you want to see what that looks like, look there.
It doesn’t take much of a PC to equal the xbox, btw. It’s basically a 733 mhz PC with Geforce 2 graphics card, and 64 mb RAM. Even ‘entry’ PC’s have that much power now. And the best PC’s with top of the line graphics cards are three times faster and a generation newer in graphic rendering.
First, in regards to Sam Stone’s post, the XBox has a Geforce 3. The graphics, audio, and chipset functions are all integrated onto a single custom chip based around what will probably be released shortly as a “Geforce3 MX” for the value market segment. Also, just for clarification the Xbox’s CPU is an Intel Mobile Celeron-2 (Coppermine128) 733Mhz running at 133Mhz Front Side Bus (Compared to 100Mhz for normal Celeron-2s).
As for the Radeon 8500 being more advanced than the Geforce 3, it is, but its not really a whole generation ahead. The Radeon 8500 is a Directx 8.1 card, while the Geforce 3 is Directx 8.0 . DX 8.1 implements some interesting features involving Texture & Lighting and Shaders, and only the Radeon 8500 supports these in hardware. Interestingly, the original Radeon would have been a DirectX 8.0 compliant card, except the DX 8.0 standard was changed in a few places after the Radeon was finalized. Bummer for Radeon owners like me:(
OK, now to the real point of this post. As I see it, the console is dead. It will be a short time before Xbox emulators come out for PC, seeing as the XBox is just a PC in a fancy box. MS will even be introducing Office XP for the Xbox eventually (No, I don’t have a cite). As I see it, the PC will continue to absorb home entertainment functions. A new computer can already perform TV, VCR, and Radio functions via the appropriate tuner cards and a DVD-ROM drive, and a good monitor and speakers will make the experience far more enjoyable than it otherwise would be. Most new consoles prefer the use of monitors instead of TVs. Computers are also getting very cheap. Nowadays, its simply impossible to spend more than $2500 on the top of the line PC with everything you could possibly want, including Ultra High-End (Not production range, but…) Video and sound, and a DVD-R burner! A more realistic Top of the line PC can be had for $1700.
There really isn’t much more 3D stuff that could happen in the future. The best we’ll see is quality that rivals the Final Fantasy movie, in real time. The next step would be headsets that do true 3D. They’re available now, but cost a whole freaking lot of money. When they come down the price level of monitors, they may replace them completely. This would require a videocard that can do, as we’ve decided, final fantasy level graphics at a good framerate in double realtime, once for each eye. Basically, this would require a videocard that is 8 times as fast as the entire rendering farm for the Final Fantasy movie.
Hope this wasn’t too long and rambling to read:)
FDISK
This is the base of the computer I really really want right now. It’s $2620 without a monitor. Once I throw in a monitor and customize it to how I would want it it’s $5,420 :eek:
[hijack]
Incidentally, Cisco, I noticed that that is a Pentium 4 system. Is the pentium 4 still inferior to the AMD processors (as I have heard) or is the 2 GHz version as good or better than the best AMD processor? and which is more expensive?
[/hijack]
I think that improvements in graphics will (or ought to) slow down in favour of more interactivity with the environment in games, as this also requires processor and graphics power. More and more games are allowing destructable scenery etc. and I think this is more important than graphics, as it makes the game environment more real than simple visuals.
Yep, P4s are more expensive, and still slower than Athlons. A P4 2Ghz is also gonna suck a good deal more power and produce a good bit more heat than an Athlon XP 1900+, and have slower performance accross the board.
That system outline Cisco posted is grossly overpriced. A superior system with better components based on an Athlon XP 1900+ and an ATI Radeon 8500 would cost around $1700 or so, though without speakers or monitor. I suppose you can spend $500 on speakers, maybe $2k on a huge CRT monitor, but really, there are limits.
Yea but you gotta look at that case man, it’s awesome. And the warranty…etc.
Yes, the case looks cool. So, you’re spending over $1000 just to get a case that looks purrdy? The warranty is not even very competitive. You can buy a case with integrated watercooling (yes, watercooling. Pump and radiator and everything) and all the accessories to cool the CPU, motherboard, and vidcard for $300, including a high quality power supply.
:eek: you got a link to that? I love nice cases. I like the Alienware case especially, not only because of how it looks but did you see all the features it has?
Thanks FDISK. I’ve basically been looking for a new gaming system, so I would want a good soundcard/speakers as well as a decent graphics card.
I have heard of watercooling. Is it worth it (ie what are the advantages)? Does it use a tank or does it run from the mains water supply? Wouldn’t it use a lot of water?
Watercooling systems are generally self contained. You fill the tank (or it comes prefilled) with a mixture of distilled water and some anti-corrosive/anti-biological agents. Water flows through the CPU waterblock, which is generally a hollow copper block. This causes the heat from the CPU to transfer to the water. The water then flows through the pump, which pumps it to the radiator, and back to the tank. Since it cycles forever, there should be little or no loss of water due to comparison
The main advantages are the fact that watercooling is FAR better than air. Water is 30 times more effective and transferring heat than air. Another advantage is that water cooling is very quiet. You can focus all of the heat of the system in the radiator, and can more easily aircool the radiator than the CPU. For example, you can put a 40CFM 60mm fan on the CPU heatsink that sounds like a blowdryer, or a 70CFM 120mm fan on the watercooler that is nearly silent. The koolance watercooler allows you to cool the videocard, chipset, CPU, and harddrives.
As for various cases:
http://www.plycon.com carries the Koolance watercooled case.
Here’s a review: http://www.overclockers.com/articles457/
http://www.newegg.com carries the Fong Kai 320ATX, which is most definately the best aircooled case made. I own it, it rocks.
As for graphics: Ati Radeon 8500 is of course the choice.
Speakers: Klipsch speakers are generally reccommended as the best. If you want to spend less money, the Altec Lansing ACS-56 4.1s are good according to a friend of mine. They cost $100. I have the ACS-48s, which cost about the same but are 2.1. They have INCREDIBLE sound clarity for the price. I’ve seen them reviewed as the best speakers under $200.
Finally, soundcard: I’d go with the Soundblaster Audigy-1394. Integrated FireWire and the $60 price tag make it an unbeatable deal.
Hope this helps!
I think we have quite some time before consoles die. Lesse… $300 for an XBox… $300 for a top of the line graphics card alone… $300 for a PS2… $300 for a 19" monitor… $200 for a Gamecube… $200 for a µP and a motherboard…
Oh yeah, consoles are gonna die :rolleyes: Sorry, FDISK, but I think you are looking a bit too far into the future. For what it would cost to get console-quality gameplay out of a computer you could purchase all the consoles on the market.
Perhaps I put too much faith in economics though.
Everyone here keeps forgetting an important issue when comparing graphics between a console and a PC.
In short, your TV has crappy resolution (unless you’re one of the lucky few with an HDTV). The upshot of crappy resolution is the system pumping out graphics doesn’t have to work as hard as a system trying to display graphics on a PC monitor.
Do any of you use your PC’s at 640x480 resolution anymore? Didn’t think so. The crappiest resolution on a computer monitor is actually superior to what you find on a TV. In addition to your monitor being able to go to higher resolutions a computer monitor is also non-interlaced. Your TV scans only even lines in one pass then scans odd lines in the next pass (interlaced). Your monitor scans all of the lines, top to bottom, in one go. That alone means your PC has to do twice the work of a console at the same resolution. Increase the resolution and it only gets harder for the PC but the result is FAR crisper graphics on a PC than on a console.
Forget that overpriced flash system. If you want a really good system from the best guys in the business try this system from Falcon Northwest. These guys started the whole hyper-custom, bleeding-edge PC market that Alienware and a few others are trying to emulate and Falcon is still the best. You’ll pay a pretty price for what you get but the systems these guys build are awesome and their support for their products is unsurpassed in my view (they still helped me three years after I bought my system when they had no reason to do so).
Your final product may not look as flashy as the Alienware system but it has it where it counts under the hood and will blow the doors off the Alienware system. I don’t know if you’ll remember these cars but it’s like comparing a Camaro IROQ-Z (Alienware) to a Buick Grand National (Falcon). The Camaro looked sportier and had the flash and was even a fast car but there was no contest once you stepped on the gas. I was in an IROQ racing a Grand National from a standstill at a stop light. My jaw hit the floor when the Grand National cleared the intersection before the IROQ was halfway across.