Network now...NEWS
Activision: No New Consoles “Any Time Soon”
Activision CEO Bobby Kotick has said that the company’s not anticipating “material changes to the console landscape any time soon.”
“As far as the consoles themselves… I think that there’s a lot of runway for all of these devices,” he said, referencing PlayStation 2’s success over a decade during Activision’s quarterly earnings call, which was transcribed by Seeking Alpha.
“I think that we’ve got a long way to go before you get to price points that truly take advantage of all of this hardware,” he added. “I think from a geography standpoint, we still have a long way to go before these products have really penetrated every single geography, so we don’t really anticipate there are going to be material changes to the console landscape any time soon.”
Earlier this week Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello said that the publisher is preparing for a "very extended" console cycle, while Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter says he doubts a new hardware cycle will begin before 2013, if at all.
Such views are not mirrored at Ubisoft, with CEO Yves Guillemot noting recently that the publisher is already preparing for a new generation of consoles, which he expects to launch in the next few years.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
My friends six year old PC runs The Orange Box, etc better than the PS3/360 version...that's all one needs to know regarding current gen systems.
Next gen consoles will get the tech current PC gamers have got just now. PC gaming is always (and always has been) one generation ahead of consoles.
Anyone who says their PS3/360/Wii is better than the PC is obviously an ignorant fool!
The PS3/360 will be around for a long time. Anyway, if gamers want the best i.e. the best frame rates, textures, shaders, anti-aliasing, resolutions, etc within their games, then they'd obviously be playing on PC.
The 360/PS3 is a poor mans PC. It's funny seeing each gamer on these platforms dick about which is better (360/PS3) because if they were serious about hardware and the best possible performance within their games, then they'd know the PC is the best platform to be on.
The PC as a serious games platform hasn't been relevant since November 16, 2004.
The differences in performance between console and pc versions of games are nowhere near as vast as they were in the ps/ps2 days, more often than not their is very little discernable difference or at least no kind of experience hampering issues to be seen. Did a high end pc version of fallout 3 get much more of an experience than a console player?
No and I would argue that they got much less, hunched over the pc's they work on all day as I sit back on my 52" hdtv and surround sound system.
Lets also not forget the fun and games that came with the pc release of grand theft auto 4. wikipedia summed it up efficiently when it recalled..
"The Windows version of the game was praised for its improved graphics compared to the console versions, but on the other hand there were reports of many customers who were unable to play the game due to incompatible ATi Radeon graphics adapters, no SLI support, DRM issues, and other unaddressed issues, such as the Windows XP Service Pack 3/Windows Vista Service Pack 1 requirement. There have been many complaints that the game was unable to install, due to the fact that the players are unable to get the Vista SP1 to install on their computer. There were also multiple bugs and glitches that were reported."
Its not like events like that are rare in the PC's existence. Serious gamers cant be expected to suffer problems of that nature in their experience next to the ease, hassleless and widespread take up of a service like xbox live. Not to mention the almost taken for granted way pc game servers are filled to the brim with all kinds of competition nullyfing exploits and hacks.
I think you might have had a good point m8.
5 years ago.
>>> The PC as a serious games platform hasn't been relevant since November 16, 2004.
I don't agree at all, not least because World Of Warcraft was released on Nov 23rd!!!
I'm not sure the argument that PC games are only 'slightly' better-looking than console games carries much weight. Even if they were essentially equal in performance, it still means that the PC is a totally viable platform for gaming. And indeed, this argument only seems to cover graphics-heavy triple-A releases, rather than the huge variety of different sorts of game interests that the PC caters for much better than many of the consoles.
PCs do often have problems with compatability, but this is hardly a new development. PS3s are too expensive, and 360s have a problem with red rings - all formats have their plus and minus points.
Fair point. But, consoles only offer a baseline experience. Whereas on the PC the game is the best it can be.
I've got my PC hooked up to my LCD TV via HDMI to DVI cable with the GPU set to the native resolution of the TV (1080p or 720p). Also, for console type games i've got a 360 pad to play them...so it's all good.
There's a reason many prefer PC gaming as opposed to consoles. In my own experience i couldn't go back to the console versions of titles like: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Left 4 Dead, Devil May Cry 4, Lost Planet, The Orange Box, Grid, Dead Space, Call of Duty 4, FarCry 2, and Fallout 3 (to name a few) after playing the PC versions...why would I.
Then there's PC only games like: Crysis, Dawn of War 2, Empire: Total War, The Witcher, Guild Wars, etc to play also.
It's nothing to do with elitism or such, it's just that PC gamers want the best. And it doesn't need to cost an arm and a leg to get a good performance from those games mentioned above.
Whatever rocks yer boat....but for me it's the PC. It's a great platform.
On a final note: Your lack of experience on PC gaming shows throughout your post. Maybe gamers like yourself SHOULD stick with consoles if it's all you know!
Well, for me, the PC is a far superior platform on the basis of what can and cannot be customized, as well as the input devices (keyboard/mouse vs. control) On a PS3 or 360 your ability to customize anything, most notably, player mods, is severely limited, to non-existent (with a few exceptions, such as Unreal Tournament 3)
I've played games for as long as I can remember, I built my first computer when I was 13, and I'm one of the few people who liked and got vista to work flawlessly. I started playing on consoles and I still have them and play on them, but I love my PC, and whenever I have the option to buy something on the PC vs. say, my PS3, I get it on the PC. Why? because I know I'll enjoy it far more on my PC because of things such as the improved visuals; most "decent" PC monitors run at a higher resolution then 1080P HD TVs, and thus can offer a better picture overall in most cases, Better control; it's inarguable that a good mouse and keyboard offer FAR more options than any controller for any console, Modability; Some games, notably Fallout 3 and Oblivion, are far and away better when you pile on some of the better community Mods.
Nowadays it is not unreasonable to buy a decently powerful PC at a relatively low price point that is fully capable of playing any game currently on the market, but it's still a choice. For me, the PC is a superior platform because I understand my PC, I use it every day for more tasks then I can name, and I keep it healthy.
I think my point is thus, the benefits of a PC out way any console on the market (in my opinion) for those of us who know how to work them. For me, it's worth my time and money, but like I said, I also have consoles, I play games for games, but I'll still take a PC copy over a console copy any day of the week.
(Intel Quad-Core 2.4ghz CPU, 8gigs RAM, 9800GTX 512mb, 250gig HDD and Windows 7 – Total Cost: $800.00)
oh nice one bro, you give me a super constructive reply then bury me at the end with a jerry springer style 'final note'.
In defence of me being too clueless to operate a PC it isn't about that. Im personally a player that is driven by software I couldnt be less interested in the hardware they run on. When Rome total war debuted and critically delivered on its potential shown in the earlier total war games I needed and acquired whatever hardware it was to run that game in a high end manner.
I'll need a ps3 at some point to play metal gear solid 4. I had to have the 360 for halo 3. Dreamcast - soul calibur, n64 - ocarina of time. The point im trying to make is that its the software that drives my decisions not some misjudged, blind devotion to any kind of brand, which im not accusing you of but it does exist in the 'console wars' and even apparent on this sites comments section. If the PC had any kind of current killer software id be all over it but in my personal opinion it doesn't.
as you said though, whatever rocks your boat and im glad your vessel is being suitably shaken.
final thought - look after yourselves aaaaand each other.
I think you both offer valid ponts. You have two consumers, one who pays a moderately high number of dollars to ensure they have the best experience pc versions of cross-platform games offer and the other consumer who wants to have a near-as-good experience for much less money on hassle-free consoles. I would say hardcore PC gamers have a relative easy time making sure their PC has all the proper software installed to run all the new and popular games but for the consumer who wants essentially plug-and-play without the hassle of PCs are fine with the experience console versions offer.
I would guess the number of hardcore PC gamers who have a solid up-to-date rig that runs new games essentially hassle-free are in the minority. I haven't purchased a PC game for years because though my computer does everything I need it to do with no problems I can't run any new games on it and I can't see updrading it by hundreds of dollars every year to run games that only look mildly better than my 360 versions do with no updgrading required ever. The cost/benefit ratio isn't good enough to warrant the amount of money and time I would have to put into my pc for such a small benefit I'd be getting in return.
The PC versions are looking only mildly better because the 360/PS3 are still in their early life cycle and Microsoft and Sony have build such expensive machines. Once for example games like Rage from id start coming out somewhere maybe in 2010/11 I can assure you that the difference in graphical quality will be pretty big. You can say that by then MS and Sony can release their next-gen machines, but in fact they can't for the reason that the Playstation will be just braking the 300$ barrier and I doubt Sony will be willing to make another mistake with uber expensive hardware. Also you can't release a 600$ console (not counting blue-ray and stuff) after the PS2 and then after five/six years return again to standard manufacturing costs and expect the same graphical boost. Remember the "future proof" rhetoric Kutaragi was spinning? What I'm trying to explain is that when a console gets released the first two years it's cutting edge, the third year it's somewhat decent and after that it starts sucking balls and gets replaced. With these expensive ( and therefor under performing in sales) machines you'll get a bit more future proof but than there's more balls sucking to be had. Sony thought that PS3's victory is certain but now when their plans messed up things got really bad. That's why a five to six years console cycle with a 300$ starting point is perfect. Technology is moving fast and there's no reason to burden people with these heavy and slow moving closed platform rigs.
What will it take? Sony, Microsoft, Patcher, Activision.... who else do you lot need to hear this from? This cycle will be longer than previous cycles, I can't see publisher or consumers being in a hurry to invest in new technology while there's a global slump. I think 2013 is reasonable to assume that the next gen will start.
You're right Arron, it seems there's solid evidence to back up that theory. But it's just my guess. I could be way wrong, but I still feel as though MS won't wait much longer than 2011, maybe 2012 at the latest. Just a hunch based on little evidence. I don't mind this gen lasting longer as long as compelling software continues to be released. If anything, it could give devs more time to ready for the new consoles, possibly basing their game's developement on high-end PCs over the next couple years anticipating the next round of consoles will at least match them at that time. 2013 would be huge for MS, that would mean that Sony's claim the 360 won't have anything near a ten year lifespan would be wrong. That would make 8 years the 360 lasted before the launch of its successor. Assuming the 360 can legitimately linger (is that an oxymoron?) for another year or so would put it at the "impossible" ten year lifespan Sony always alludes to for its systems.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'd like to see the current consoles (360,PS3) for at least another 5-6 yrs. why? Cause I really want developers to take advantage of what they have in front of them before they begin to muck up the next generation of tech.
Besides our economy (US) is -dekcuf- at the moment. Need to hit sweet spot pricing to get proper market penertration and besides I can't afford it...
Well, November will be 4 years on the market for the 360. My guess is fall of 2011 the next box will come out (that'd be 6 years on the market for the 360 before the 720 comes out). To put that into perspective, the PS3 launched 6 years after the PS2 did. If the 360 manages to make it to 2011 that would put it right alongside Sony. If that trend continues we'll see the PS4 by 2012 lest Sony wants to find themselves playing catch up to MS for yet another generation.
True about the economy, I see that as the only thing holding anyone back.
he claims that he doubts if a new hardware cycle will begin "if at all?"
Really!?! That's it! No new consoles ever! That's a bold statement. Totally based in fact. I was doubting Onestation, but if they have the rest of our lives to perfect the technology? I'm a believer now.
Nahhh... I'm not going to be happy if i have to stick with the 360 and the Ps3 for 5 more years, hardware is evolving fast and i want new toys.
I also found this link it pretty much speaks for it self
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&news...
pc game devs are doing fine and consoles game devs are from doing fine.
That article says nothing about PC gaming doing fine and is essentially a massive promo bit for On-live, a service unproven and unlikely to work.
Wow I like how you over look important facts
"The worldwide game industry is expected to post revenues of $57 billion in 2009, but Western game publishers are finding it increasingly difficult to make a profit. A DFC Intelligence report shows that even though seven select Western publishers had an average increase in revenue of 50% over the past two years, they had an aggregate net loss, with the loss increasing 42% in 2008. These publishers are finding profitability extremely difficult due to a dysfunctional game market, and they face a wide range of problems, including skyrocketing development costs, platform fragmentation, piracy, used-game sales, and lengthy console transitions"
I have also seen alot articles and people stating that those very same facts.
You can pin piracy at the feet of the PC and the PC contributes just as much to platform fragmentation as the consoles do. Perhaps you and your PC should get a room somewhere?
Your going to see alot more publisher and game devs go bankuprt. Your doing to see alot more pc hardware go bankuprt. I hear AMD is close to it's death bed. The pc Industry is hurting right now because pc gamers are not buying hardware. So yea even Ibm is going feel it! Yea EA lost a billion over over consoles. THQ lost huge amounts of money on console,. Where is Mid way these days? They love them consoles so much they are now gone. You know what save THQ a pc game ! All the pc game companies is doing well right now. You know in the stock market down turn Investors were not looking at none of the console game companies. Investor didn't even look at EA. Investors look at "BLizzard" then actvision!
Yea how is pircay on consoles these days, how about rented games and the use game market. It's funny how fallout 3 console game got pirated before pc's Yet fallout 3 game sold alot more
http://pcworld.about.com/od/gaming/4-7-Million-Copies-of-Fallout.htm
http://news.bigdownload.com/2008/10/10/fallout-3-pirated-on-the-xbox-360...
You cannot try to spin the fact that piracy is rife on the PC and that is hurting devs more than used game sales. Take a look in Game or Gamestation or Game Stop, look at the floor space and see where how the floor space is divided between the new software and you'll see which formats make the most money. (I'll give you a clue, PC has the least floor space)
>>> Take a look in Game or Gamestation or Game Stop, look at the floor space and see where how the floor space is divided between the new software and you'll see which formats make the most money. (I'll give you a clue, PC has the least floor space)
This is an outdated approach to judging sales, or rather profits - PCs rely more heavily on digital distribution and other payment models (micro-transactions, subscriptions, advertising etc).
button line is pc gaming is making money and consoles are not they are in a decline! Investors were not looking at EA.,They were looking at "Blizzard".