Network now...NEWS
Has AMD Already Won Next-Gen Xbox Deal?
California-based semiconductor firm Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has reportedly secured a deal to create the graphics processor for Microsoft’s next Xbox.
Tech site Fudzilla claims that the platform holder was happy with the Xbox 360's ATI-built Xenos GPU and keen to partner with the firm again for its next console. AMD merged with ATI Technologies in 2006 in a $5.4 billion deal.
The site also suggests that Microsoft initially intended to “refresh” the Xbox platform in 2010, but has now pushed the plan back to 2012. ATI’s new GPU will reportedly allow for Xbox 360 software backwards compatibility.
Graphics chip firm Nvidia has also reportedly won a contract to provide technology for a new Nintendo handheld.
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
Pssh, nobody cares about this. What I think we all really want to know is who got the undoubtedly lucrative contract to provide the red LEDs?
Funny how developers and gamers talk about the enormous additional cost to make console games but we never hear the similar complaints about PC games. These machines have become more and more like PCs yet I do believe console games sell way more than PC in these times.
I would think that if these new machines would be similar in nature to the old ones (like PC) with more power, expanded tools and greater technology with minimal learning curve. Hence why MS is probably staying with AMD. I can't see the cost significantly increasing unless there will be a tremendous shift in technology (which could happen).
My guess, with Natal and all these new TVs planning on doing 3D HD, I expect gaming to probably go that way in the future....if the technology is well received.
I cannot imagine the devs are tripping over themselves to back a new range of consoles in 2012. Many teams struggled this gen and many have yet to really come to terms with the tech so imagine even more complex hardware. Hell the president of Square Enix would have kittens bearing in mind he thinks the PS3 is still too expensive to develop games for.
It's the Cell that developers have had trouble getting used to. Not to mention the Nvidia RSX the PS3 has is lame compared to ATIs Xenos. I don't think it has anything to do with the power of the systems, if Sony and Microsoft offer more powerful systems in the next few years but keep their architecture more or less the same I doubt developers will care at all. It's not hard to upscale. It's hard to migrate to new technology. Look at PC development, that's increasing in power all the time, but you hear developers complaining of piracy not the difficulty of development.
I personally have never heard a developer complaining about 360, and now that people are getting used to the Cell if Sony don't make major architecture changes I doubt there will be much complaint. It can't get much worse than optimising for 7 processors can it? However the cell functions as a complement to the RSX being able to do a lot of extremely fast number crunching as well as perform as a general CPU. But if the next card could be better that would make things a lot easier. I think Microsoft going with ATI is a smart move. At the moment they are pwning Nvidia bloated range of overpriced cards. The current generation has done the hard yards with the conversion to HD, larger development teams and the easing into digital distribution.
So yeah, I think a new console iteration won't have that many detractors. At least I won't understand them, unless Sony bring out another more or less unused/unknown/experimental/primarily for scientific use flavour of hardware (Ternary systems anyone?). However backwards compatibility will be a much more important attribute as I'm sure the majority of people will be very happy with their current consoles performance for longer than 3 years. At least with PS3. I can possibly see MS bringing out a new Xbox and people migrating en masse. Unless Sony bite the bullet and fiercely support their console against a higher speced machine they'll most likely try to haphazardly follow suit. I think they should take a few leaves (but not too many) out of Nintendos book and keep with their current tech, and support it fiercely. There's only so much to be gained from fancy new hardware. Most people don't care too much if they're within shooting distance. And unless MS go with a hefty amount of expensive processors there's not much room left for much more CPU power until new systems are devised (Ternary, quantum etc). But the benefits of a quality GPU will be quite visible.
Err so what about increased costs for extra art, animation? I mean Reggie of Nintendo was saying that at $17m (the Wii's average cost for a AAA game) a game you have to shift 1 million units to make a profit worth getting excited about. So looking at that logically these games that cost $40 million + must surely need to sell in excess of 2 million units to make a profit. So take the Grand Theft Auto games for example. I am not sure of the cost of Vice city but I would bet reasonable odds it cost less than $20m since it was based on the GTA III engine and wasn't really in development all that long. Now that game has sold 17 million units all told so the profit margin on that must have been disgusting. Yet GTA 4 cost over 40 million dollars to make and has shifted a little over 10 million units so far. So essentially they have paid out over double in development costs to make less money.
Plus if you believe Yves wotsit from Ubisoft, based on the tech he has seen the average cost of development might reach $60m with some games exceeding $80m. Yet the question has to be asked are more hardcore gamers going to turn up? they certainly haven't this gen if the sales of Metal gear, Resident evil and GTA games are to be believed. That's not to say there is necessarily less but what I mean is for example Resident evil 2 managed close to 5 million copies sold when released in 1998 and Resident evil 4 and 5 have sold a very similar number eleven years on. So why would you massively increase your development costs unless you felt more people were going to get into your games?
The extra art and animation are already there in many cases. A better GPU will let them display it at a much better framerate with much more crisp visuals. Blu-ray drives will be faster and cheaper allowing them to fix some of the frustrating aspects of working with slow BR disc read speeds like 'cooking' games for the PS3 (I'm assuming MS will go with Blu-Ray next gen). With greater hardware wriggling room for developers it gives added benefits of not having to optimise your code as much to get a decent looking game. This would possibly make it easier for smaller companies to make more complicated games as higher level languages don't require nearly as much work. There will obviously be downsides to this, the big AAA games will most likely need to optimise the systems and make bigger and better looking titles. But I think better hardware that sticks to the same rules Sony and Microsoft lay down this generation will make it relatively easy to do this.
I'm no expert, but I imagine the lashback will be from marketing standpoints eg getting the consumers to buy another console and building up the consumer base opposed to disagreements with hardware unless of course Sony do something crazy. Obviously it'd be much better to have a consumer base in the 100s of millions opposed to starting from scratch, this is why good launch titles are often hard to find I guess.
You shouldn't be looking at GTA Vice City costs you should be looking at GTA3 costs. GTA4 was Rockstars flagship title for the next generation systems, as was GTA3. Once their pipeline has been established and their team familiar with the new development process the ability to churn out new games faster and cheaper increases. I can't find any stats on GTAIII however. I'm pretty noob when it comes to the money side of things. Don't really think about it. Ever.
As most art assets for a game are created high resolution and scaled down to meet the needs of current hardware, combined with the vast array of existing post processing effects that can be applied cheaply with better hardware, i think the jump in the cost of games will not be as steep as it was for this generation, provided the hardware sticks to a similar architecture and there are no great changes in the development tools. 2012 seems a good year for a new console to me, longer than previous generations but not so long that console gaming starts to look outdated.
AMD have struggled as late with this recession so I guess they'll be keen to stick to a 2012 date as they'll do well with this deal.
Hopefully it'll "work" this time round!
here's hoping the 'next generation' takes as long as possible. I'm quite comfy with how things are now.
I agree, I am quite happy now as well...
Yay. Is it going to be called the emotion cell? Oh, that's Sony.
Halo is for retarded children.
+1 LMAO!!!
Games, not retarded children