Topic: E3 2016 predictions

Now let us make some insane predictions.

Time to get on the former Nintendo hype train.First stop Microsoft E3 then Sony E3.

@Vincent294: No doubt MS are in the process of setting up 'Albion' (or similar reference) Studios for the sole purpose of churning out Fable games....

Got my pessimistic hat on today...Personally I've got this feeling that Microsoft are going to shoot themselves in the foot this time around. Not sure why, maybe it's because of the constant push towards the PC or their mis-steps recently but yeah I'm a bit concerned.

Hope they do have something stellar to announce though because Sony are going to go in all guns blazing trumpeting their Neo and VR and of course The Last Guardian (had to throw that one in there). They need to do a lot more than just announce some sequels to popular franchises...

Also agree that shutting down Lionhead was a dumb idea, although not as dumb an idea as turning a much loved Single Player RPG franchise into a multiplayer PVP F2P travesty. Should have just admitted they made a mistake, salvaged as many assets as they could and diverted all efforts into making Fable 4...

@BAMozzy - Could I ask a question related to a comment you made? "Even Doom doesn't manage a locked 60fps or a full 1080p all the time - in fact it drops down to 720p in places and runs mostly at 900p.". I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just curious how you know this?

As far as E3 goes, I'll just wait and see. Maybe I was lucky with 360 lasting so long and expected the XB1 to do the same - hence coughing up over £400 quid on day one. I agree MS really need to "up the ante" to remain in competition with Sony. There have been many tweaks (read u-turns) that have improved the console (and some that haven't!) but I can't help feeling Xb1 is playing second fiddle to PS4. If the next Xbox is not at the very least on par with PS, it would be very bad.

I'm currently on the fence with what I'll do. The reason I stopped PC gaming was the constant HW upgrades required to play the latest games. Now it feels like instead of extra RAM, faster GPU, etc I'll be looking at a new console every few years. That prospect does not appeal. One thing is for sure. I'll not be buying either console on Day 1. Fingers burnt, lesson learned!

@Captain_Chao5: I watched Digital Foundrys tech analysis of Doom - They have done 2 videos but this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la0O0SyM3gg (around 2.30) states that Doom runs mostly at 900p, occasionally hitting 1080p in some scenes but also drops as low as almost 720p to try and maintain its 60fps. Anti-aliasing though makes it look 'softer' rather than 'jaggy'. I also watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhhsmcoYybc which looks primarily at the 'frame rates' between both consoles.

^^^ This is what annoys me about this generation... this obsession with res and FPS from the likes of Digital Foundry. I've played Doom on the One and it's enormously good fun, ridiculously fast-paced, good looking and silky smooth. I'm not saying that any of this trickery hasn't been used... but that I personally don't notice any of it going on once I'm engrossed in a game and surely most everyone else would be the same.

Of course you're going to notice these things when they're pointed out and they give you side-by-side images that you can zoom in on and FPS readouts and graphs to nit-pick but if you notice this sort of stuff while playing the game then IMO you're playing it wrong.

@stylon: I didn't say it makes Doom any less enjoyable on the XB1 and if you do own the XB1 version you can no doubt enjoy it equally a much as those on PS4. You are not going to notice if that's all you have but as I own both and with a 4K TV, I can see the differences in many games I have that I own on both consoles. The difference is definitely noticeable.

For me with both, buying a game based on resolution is one of my last considerations. I buy games more on who has the the 'exclusive' link so that I can get the bonus items or earlier access over which has the higher pixel count. I buy MP games more based on friends - no point buying a game that most of friends are playing on another console and not on the one that may have a better resolution. Single player games, if they have no exclusive bonuses etc, I will buy based on the most consistent frame rates and then best resolution. Anyone who says these things don't really matter may as well of just stuck with last gen or their 'first' console. It maybe 'not' the first consideration but it is a consideration. If you were buying a console or game, would you not buy the one that constantly has better performance by choice?

Its not playing the game wrong either, its about wanting the 'best' overall experience. I know Uncharted 4 (for example) would have felt better at 60fps, but the 'wow' factor of the visuals cannot be understated or ignored. No doubt it could have been made to run on a PS3 with changes to the lighting and particle effects which would still give the same 'impression' but I bet it would lack that 'Wow' factor. I played Arkham Knight on both consoles but the better visuals of the PS4 version impressed and wowed me more. Gaming is not just a physical experience but the visual and aural experience can enhance the overall experience - especially if the frame rates remain consistent to keep you in the game. When things drop, it takes you out of that moment.

As I said its not 'side by side' analytical and trying to spot the 'differences' with a magnifying glass but often these differences are very noticeable. They don't always impact on the game but frame rate drops can be very noticeable and affect the way a game plays and feels. Resolution can have an impact too. Have you played Gears of War Ultimate at 1080/60 and how that looks/feels compared to the original? you can't tell me that doesn't make any difference...

Thanks @BAMozzy. I was wondering if you had some clever gadget to detect it lol. Must admit I try to avoid the whole frame rate/resolution thing. If I think a game looks good on my XB1, I'm happy. I do get a bit annoyed when I see side-by-side comparisons and XB1 is obviously lesser quality. I guess this is down to the hardware itself.

@Captain_Chao5: A lot of it is Hardware. Games are very much run on the GPU so the fact there is a significant difference between PS4 and XB1's GPU, is why there is a noticeable difference. Hitman though utilises the CPU more for some graphical procedures and actually performs fractionally better than the PS4 on frame rate because it has a faster CPU. The overall difference in power though is quite significant with the PS4 being nearly 50% more powerful - hence we see a difference in performance in games. It doesn't change the story or content of course.

I know as soon as any new console gets announced, my first thought is 'how good will games look'. Historically we have always looked at graphics and many reviews used to break down a game into components and 'graphics' was always discussed. back then it was more subjective - you didn't get resolution/frame rates but now these things can be quantified.

I am not unhappy to play games on my XB1 either. All things being equal (3rd party deals, content, friends to play MP etc) I will buy the game that looks and plays the best but its only after considering the other aspects. The XB1 has sold well but even now that it is cheaper, has backwards compatibility etc, it still can't match the sales of PS4 every month - even in months with exclusive releases when PS4 doesn't. The main reason must be because of 'game performance' so it must be important to a lot of people.

Even though I have little interest in VR myself, that is something that looks like it could be a big deal in the next 18months. MS could jump on that bandwagon by releasing a more powerful console - enough to run a VR device. Oculus Rify seems the most logical after packaging a XB1 controller with the headset. Sony has leaked its PS4K hardware stats which makes it around 2.5 times that of the PS4 (around 4.2TFLOPs compared to 1.86 for the PS4 and 1.41 for the XB1) and 3 times that of the XB1. If MS don't react to the market, I can see sales dropping further. The PS4 will drop in price and can offer VR as well as better performance in games. Those that want an improved gaming experience - better visual and smoother, consistent frame rates, they will buy the PS4k. I do think that MS has to respond. I don't know what the NX will do but that could also push MS sales down.

At the end of the day, they are a business and sales are important. I can see them trying to out-do Sony by offering a console that can deliver VR in the form of Oculus (which is better than PSVR and could have VR apps too - not just gaming) but also deliver a more powerful console too. Phil Spencer said he wouldn't be interested in 'intermediate' steps but the new hardware available could see a console be 6-8x as power as the XB1 which is the same jump we had from the XB360. Whether 4k is of interest to many at the moment, 4k TV's are outselling 1080p and within a year or 2 are likely to be the most common TV in peoples houses (according to analysts) - at least in the USA where MS are based. Not saying that a NextBox will be able to offer 4k native but could offer 1440p upscaled (around 1native for every 1 artificially added - 1080 is 1 native -3 added).

I don't know how much you know about GPU's but the next gen of nVidia - the GTX1080, runs current games (like the Witcher 3, RotTomb Raider, Division etc) at 4k and 35-40fps, the top of the range last gen cards (Titan and Fury) struggle to hit 30fps and the GTX980 (the card the 1080 replaces) runs 4k at 10-15fps. The new chips are smaller, faster and cheaper and the new architecture makes them far more efficient too. Combined with the new software - like DX12, Vulcan etc, this is a big technological leap and why I think consoles will get left behind unless we get new ones. Yes I will be disappointed that my consoles haven't lasted - especially as my PS4 isn't 18month old yet, my XB1 is only 27 months old! I believe that they need to keep up with the technology to continue to deliver the gaming experience I expect. I would be more disappointed if games had loading screens, poor draw distances, less enemies/AI/NPC's etc that the same game doesn't have on another platform.

@Utena-mobile:
The thing is tech is advancing at a higher rate than it ever has and four years is only one year shorter than the traditional console lifecycle before the 360, PS3 and Wii hit the market and lasted for way, way, way too freaking long. If Sony and MS go down the route where you can buy an updated piece of hardware after 3 years but still play games perfectly fine on your launch-day machine, I really don't see the issue and think people are making too much out of nothing. It isn't 1985 anymore with an industry still in its infancy.

Of course not saying anybody should feel the same way but I do think this might be for the best going forward and it's also why I don't think we're going to see 'PS5,' Xbox 'Two' etc. It's going to be interesting to see which direction each of these companies go in the coming years. I think PlayStation will go service based (which is why Sony still needs to get its act together with PSN, it's better this gen but far from perfect) and MS will take Xbox in a more steambox direction, it will just be executed better.

@Utena-mobile:
The thing is the new hardware doesn't break up the generation, we'd just be getting upgraded (not even really that significantly) PS4s and Xbox Ones but they're still the PS4 and Xbox One. If I want to keep my day-one console I'll still be able to play the new God of War just like somebody with a PS4 Neo. Granted it might not look as good or run at 60 frames but if it runs a smooth 30 and isn't a broken mess that's all that matters. Of course, we have to see how everything plays out. I'm impatient and wish E3 would just happen already so we can find out what's going on.

For Microsoft, I think they will show more of the games that have been announced but know very little of like Cuphead, Scalebound, Recore, and that pirate game. It would be cool if they announced more games for Rare Replay. Still hoping for a new Battletoads and Conker. And of course, Gears of War will be in there. I heard that there might be a remake of 007, and I wonder if Microsoft will do something about the PS4 K? Not expecting much from Nintendo, the new Zelda game will be there but I think I'm done with Wii U. There are a lot of 3DS games I'm looking forward too, so maybe there might be some surprise announcements. Sony will show off the VR and PS4 K. Lot of rumors about Crash Bandicoot and a Spider-Man game being made by Sucker Punch. Guess we will see what happens.

YES! I've seen 360 games that put some Xb1 titles visually to shame. I agree that tech is racing ahead and every developer wants their game to be the best. As I said, I guess I was spoiled by previous consoles. Maybe my Sega Megadrive didn't last more than three years before I got a PS1. Maybe the PS2 followed soon after and the 360 soon after that. All will be revealed (or not) at E3...which I believe happens when I'm on holiday. D'oh! I look forward to the Px breakdown.

And there in lies one of the big differences between this and last gen. At launch, both the PS3 and XB360 were as powerful as most high-end gaming PC's and with 'new' architecture and cutting edge technology too. I know that 'some' PC's were more powerful but weren't as well optimised for gaming and the OS took a lot of the power away from gaming. As most PC's weren't as powerful and it took developers 'time' to get used to the system, games didn't hit their 'peak' and push the consoles to their limit for a long time. New engines helped developers push their vision and creative ideas.

When both the XB1 and PS4 launched though, the hardware was behind the average PC by quite a margin. The XB1's architecture is virtually identical to the XB360 so developers are already familiar with it and the PS4's is identical to PC's which makes it easier to programme for and why there is no 'learning' curve like before. It was possible to build a basic PC for the same cost that could play BF4 (a launch game) at 1080/60 yet PS4 was 900/60 and XB1 was 720/60 - obviously the cost of these consoles has dropped now. Within a year, both Sony and MS unlocked extra console power - MS by freeing up the RAM and CPU used by Kinect, and Sony by unlocking the 7th core. Developers now have very much more powerful tools at their disposal to create games. They are 'struggling' to get their games to run on these consoles - having to reduce frame rates, reducing resolution or having 'dynamic' resolution, reducing lighting/particle effects, reducing the quality of shadows etc etc. More and more of these are being reduced or removed. If anything, its these consoles that are now holding back game development - they can't push too much because they just won't run.

Since the launch of these consoles though, technology has leapt forward. This technology is in the hands of the developers making games but they have to try and get their vision running on 'effectively' 5-6yr old technology. Both hardware and software has gone up a generation or two, since the launch of these consoles. New API's, new chips with better architecture etc. Its not 'that' expensive either so its possible to build a console to sell at £350 that is 3x+ as powerful and still make a profit (that's what Sony are rumoured to be doing). I am sure for an extra £100 they could make a console that is 6-8x as powerful - the same leap between the XB360 and XB1 - which also puts it in the same launch price bracket as the XB1.

Phil Spencer has said MS aren't interested in 'intermediate' steps and would only consider a significant jump. As the 'jump' from XB360 to XB1 represents a 7-8x power jump, the fact that the technology exists to make a console for a similar launch price and a similar jump in power with the next gen GPU's etc, could be why now is the time to release.

I know its disappointing that current gen is unlikely to last as long from a market point of view. I understand why MS and Sony had to release when they did - to keep delivering next gen games - like Watchdogs, Witcher 3, Arkham Knight etc - but it was 'too early' for the new wave of technology on development. That technology is now available and will make the current wave of consoles appear to be as powerful as the last gen (or worse). Mobile Phones are expected to be as powerful as these in the next year!

There's an article in Stuff Magazine Online today (turned up in my newsfeed) where a developer is talking about a VR game for release next year for xbox one. They said more details at E3. Guess you need a VR capable Xbox one to run it on. Loooks like the Xbox Scorpio may be real after all.

@sorethumbed: I saw that too - the developer wasn't named but said to be a well known European developer. I think there have been too many leaks and details to make the imminent (within a year) release of new consoles to be fact. The specs though, I think, could be a little different by the time they do.

I know that MS and Sony probably won't announce something until the final product is basically finalised but developers must have a basic idea of what they will be working with - the GPU, CPU and RAM. The final console design, the additional hardware (bluray, HDD etc) and ports (USB, HDMi, Power supply etc) are not necessary for a developer but will need the other specs to tailor their games to run. At most, I could see a few minor changes - like tweaks to the clock speed, maybe even replacing the CPU to something similar - Neo is supposedly using a Jaguar 8 core - same as in the XB1 (1.75ghz) and PS4 (1.6ghz) - but clocked to 2.1ghz. Maybe they still have to finalise the deals with companies that supply all the components and finalise a design for the overall console so until all of this is in place, they haven't been able to make an official announcement. We know that MS increased the clock speed of its XB1 CPU between announcing and releasing but that is different from changing the CPU. I wouldn't be surprised if MS/Sony overclocked their Jaguar CPU's to give developers something to work with but still negotiating over a newer alternative - maybe the Puma or Zen

I think specifics will come later, its the machine that excites me. Looks like we might finally get the 'Next Gen' console that didnt really come out this time. The latest graphics being released are much more efficient (read cooler} so a latest chipset based motherboard would be a feasability. Theres an 'under the tv' barebones PC chassis being released by Corsair this week, liquid cooled that will take the latest graphics card so a console based version would be a possibility also. I know (or atleast read) that Microsoft are torn over just how much info to release. Im still waiting to try VR but Im pretty sure that if its lag free itll be fairly puke free also.

@sorethumbed: I am excited by the possibility of new more powerful consoles too. I doubt they will be native 4k capable - at least not with many (if any) AAA games but I wouldn't be surprised if they are 1440p. As an owner of a 4K TV, this appeals. What appeals more though, is the possibility of having more games running at locked 60fps with all the settings turned up to max - lighting, shadows, reflections, particle effects etc as well as experiencing no screen tear, no pop in, no texture delay, no load/save pauses and maybe even an increase to the 'density' of games too - more enemies, npc's etc without affecting resolution or frame rates.

VR needs 2 things to help prevent motion sickness - one is a high refresh rate - at least 90fps it seems and lag free movement detection. Movement detection and High frame rates require a fast and powerful GPU/CPU combination - you don't want your CPU bottlenecking and creating lag or frame rate drops. I don't know how I feel about VR, I can't move a lot being disabled so could be limited - maybe not as much as Kinect is for me. I did suffer migraines with the VirtualBoy when I was younger and not 'comfortable' with a 'blindfold' to my environment either. Its one of those things I think I would wait a year or so to see how it affects people and whether there are experiences that really appeal. I know some - particularly those on Vive, I could not do.

I still think though, that if MS are releasing 'Scorpio', they should aim for this year to catch the Christmas market and the big holiday games. It seems they are pinning their hopes on the Slim but with the prospect of 'Neo', I wonder how successful it will be - especially with the knowledge that MS will be releasing a more powerful console later on. The base PS4 is still more powerful and should drop in price. The Neo looks like it will play the big games (BF1, CoD, Mass Effect etc) at a higher resolution, maybe even higher, more stable frame rates too. Battlefield, like other Frostbite 3 games, is likely to run at 720/60 on XB1, 900/60 on PS4 and 1080+/60 on Neo - If 'Scorpio' is out, it could compete with Neo and maybe even give MS more sales. If it is partnering with Oculus as it appears, It would be in Oculus's best interest too - more headset sales, more software sales and MS could benefit from that as well...

I've tried VR and felt like vomiting my guts up after 20 minutes of playing Minecraft. Played it on the Gear VR. I get motion sickness in a car though if I try to read or use my phone. If I look straight ahead or drive myself I'm fine so I'm not sure any VR will work for me, hence my disappointment that this seems to be where everything is heading right now.