Motion Control To Lengthen Console Hardware Cycles [Slashdot]

[josekortez]

Thank God. I don't care about motion control, but I barely have money to buy games for the 360, so this should be a good thing.

[smork]

I can't believe anyone really thinks we *need* a new console generation in the next few years. What exactly would you gain from this? What does a console need to do that it doesn't already?

Developers can already make any type of game they can conceive of with the current hardware. I think we're definitely approaching the top of the curve with hardware. Remember, it's just a means to an end, not the goal itself.

[optic_85]

These days it seems like there are so many good games coming out for 360, that I just don't have the time to play them all. Hell, I still haven't gotten around to Mass Effect. I'm perfectly content with this generation of consoles for at least 3 more years.

[scooterb23]

I seriously doubt I would even support a next cycle of consoles. So they better make this one stretch as long as they can.

[joshnickerson]

A 4-5 year console cycle is bullsh*t anyway. If the only advantage is "purdy grafix", then don't even bother.

[kupomogli]

I think a longer console generation is good. I don't think gamers want to put more money down on another set of systems just because they want the exclusives from each one etc.

I think Microsoft just needs to make a complete hardware revision that entirely fixes the problem with the 360 and not just small revisions they've been doing. If it means you'll be losing money on each 360 sold, then so what, you'll be saving yourself from having to fix another system which is almost guaranteed to break at this point. Microsoft has a larger userbase over the PS3, do they really want to take the chance with a new console and the fact that Sony might do better next gen?

The PS3 specifically needs the longer life cycle due to losing money on every system sale from the start. The fact that Sony alot of users may go to Microsoft because of the PS3s slow start may also hurt Sony, but the 70% hardware failures of the 360 may make people have second guesses.

Nintendo is the only one that really would profit from a new system. Since the Wii is actually selling well still then we probably won't see Nintendo's cheap tactics and completely drop support of the prior system and screwing the consumer over, which happened with the N64, GBA, and GC each after the release of the newer system. With the PS360 systems coming out with their own motion sensing type systems, what does the Wii have that the other systems don't have now except for the exclusives/Virtual Console/Wiiware? When the PS360 motion sensing actually finally gets a release, we're sure to see these Wii only titles that are from third party companies go to multiple systems with the Wii version being the most unpolished which is usual for multiconsole Wii titles.

I'd say Nintendo is the only one who needs a new system unless they want to still compete again the 360 and PS3 which will also have motion sensing and hardware that is actually next gen.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I think a longer console generation is good. I don't think gamers want to put more money down on another set of systems just because they want the exclusives from each one etc.

I think Microsoft just needs to make a complete hardware revision that entirely fixes the problem with the 360 and not just small revisions they've been doing. If it means you'll be losing money on each 360 sold, then so what, you'll be saving yourself from having to fix another system which is almost guaranteed to break at this point. Microsoft has a larger userbase over the PS3, do they really want to take the chance with a new console and the fact that Sony might do better next gen?

The PS3 specifically needs the longer life cycle due to losing money on every system sale from the start. The fact that Sony alot of users may go to Microsoft because of the PS3s slow start may also hurt Sony, but the 70% hardware failures of the 360 may make people have second guesses.

Yes....

Nintendo is the only one that really would profit from a new system. Since the Wii is actually selling well still then we probably won't see Nintendo's cheap tactics and completely drop support of the prior system and screwing the consumer over, which happened with the N64, GBA, and GC each after the release of the newer system. With the PS360 systems coming out with their own motion sensing type systems, what does the Wii have that the other systems don't have now except for the exclusives/Virtual Console/Wiiware? When the PS360 motion sensing actually finally gets a release, we're sure to see these Wii only titles that are from third party companies go to multiple systems with the Wii version being the most unpolished which is usual for multiconsole Wii titles.

I'd say Nintendo is the only one who needs a new system unless they want to still compete again the 360 and PS3 which will also have motion sensing and hardware that is actually next gen.

*facepalm* Alright, I officially give up on you

[The 1 2 P]

I will be very happy if this generation last until atleast 2012. Theres alot more that developers can do with the 360 and PS3. As far as trying to keep up with pc hardware, why does that matter anymore? Let the pc games be prettier. I enjoy my 360 graphics just fine the way they are.

[chicnstu]

I read an article earlier today, an interview with Iwata, that said Nintendo had thought of using cameras for Wii's controls but they finally decided that just having the remote with motion detection and the sensor bar seemed the most efficient to them. I agree.

-Microsoft's camera: Almost only "casual" games that can be made using it, it would need extra controllers that the camera can see for "traditional" games.

-Sony's camera seems more useful than Microsofts because it can do "casual" games (not as well as Natal) and "traditional" games.

-Nintendo's remote and sensor bar really does seem to be better overall than the cameras because it works almost as well as what Sony showed and for Nintendo and the buyers it will probably be cheaper than having to buy a Playstation Eye and the glow remote. Plus, the Wii Remote and Sensor Bar come with the Wii.

[The 1 2 P]

-Microsoft's camera: Almost only "casual" games that can be made using it, it would need extra controllers that the camera can see for "traditional" games.

The thing you seem to be forgetting is that project Natal is not going to be replacing the 360 controller, nor will Sony's new wand be replacing the Dual Shock 3. All these new camera controllers will be doing(in essence) is attempting to steal pieces of the casual gamer market that Nintendo has monopolized with the Wii.

We will still be playing the next Halo, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Gears/God of War with their respective 360 and PS3 stock controllers. That will never change

[chicnstu]

The thing you seem to be forgetting is that project Natal is not going to be replacing the 360 controller, nor will Sony's new wand be replacing the Dual Shock 3. All these new camera controllers will be doing(in essence) is attempting to steal pieces of the casual game market that Nintendo has monopolized with the Wii.

We will still be playing the next Halo, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Gears/God of War with their respective 360 and PS3 stock controllers. That will never change

For some reason I hadn't considered that. I kept thinking that Microsoft and Sony would try to slowly make the cameras their main control method. I guess it is possible it's just an extra thing to make money off of moms, young girls, and the elderly.