Game Studio Calls New Game Hardware 'Horrible'

Right now, gamers play video games on the Xbox 360, the PS3 and the Nintendo Wii. One day, we will have new consoles. Won't that be great? Um, no, not according to one of gaming's biggest studios.

"It would be horrible," says THQ's Danny Bilson. "It still costs us a fortune to make games on this platform. If they're going to up the scale, up the art, up the content, I don't know how to make that and sell it to anybody for under $US100 a game."

Well, depending on where you live, some gamers already pay a hundred bucks a game...

Traditionally, game companies like Sony or Nintendo release a new home console every five or six years. Are those days gone? With both companies expected to face off with new handheld consoles, maybe not.

"We're not going to get beat by another hardware upgrade like every five years like it was before," says Bilson. "It's up to us to compete in graphics and creativity. Sometimes I hope good creativity and style will be able to be more important. It is more important."

It sure is important. Who wants to pay more for video games?

THQ: New consoles would be "horrible" News - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net [Eurogamer][Pic]


Comments

    I'm sorry, like the 20 - 30 dollar rise Australia has endured in the last few years? Cry me a f**king river.

    If the price goes more than $130 for a new release then I'd probably quit playing on consoles and play on the pc.

    Games are still cheaper in Aus than they used to be. I remember days not so long gone by when Super Mario World and Donkey Kong Country would sell for >$120.

    That said, I can't afford a price hike right now :)

      Yeah - didn't the SNES version of Street Fighter II cost something like $140?!?

        The two most expensive games ever were Super Street Fighter 2 for the MegaDrive @ $169.95 and Virtua Racing for the MegaDrive @ $199.95!!!

    Yeah, that's falling on deaf ears in Australia. Give us parity with international prices, then we'll talk.

    Sony have said for a long time that they're shooting for about a 10 year shelf life for the PS3. I really can't see the XBox aging as well as the PS3, and perhaps the release of a new XBox would force Sony's hand, but PS3 is at the moment, aging pretty gracefully I think.

      Just out of curiosity, why do you think the Xbox 360 won't age as well as the PS3? Xbox 360 has a slight edge in the graphics department and a much more robust online component. The only downside I can see is that it still uses DVD, but I don't see that being a very significant factor.

        I have a lot of faith in the Cell processor. XBox has a more powerful graphics processor, but there has been talk of going back to a software rendered 3D effects model, which would make GPUs pretty useless, and a powerful CPU an interesting prospect. As far as the 'edge' goes though, I still haven't seen anything that I personally think looked as good as Uncharted 2.

        I think the DVD thing is also going to hold people back who don't want to develop 2 discs. Blu Ray can hold a lot of data, and that's going to start to make a difference eventually.

          At the end of the day for a gamer like myself the difference between 360 and PS3 is that ps# plays blu rays. That is all.

          I can't see any huge differences between games.

          I sat and watched a lot of those comparsion videos and looked at the screen shots before deciding to purchase.

          I went 360 cos it's cheaper and the games are cheaper and there were more exclusives on 360 that I was interested in playing.

          It was the opposite last gen, I went PS2.

          I keep hearing people say this.
          The x-box won't age as well as the sony etc etc.

          5 years in and it's doing pretty fine though. I don't think the PS3 is going to be able to be pushed that much further to be honest.

    All they need to do for the next console is have the same games running at 1080p at 60fps with anti-aliasing and I'll be happy. No increased development time or costs. How hard could it be?

      Developer costs would actually go down, that guy just is not thinking outside of the box really.

      Imagine the same game developed for a more powerful console. Less issues with memory, less issues with framerate, sloppy code can simply be executed faster so less optimisation.

      Just because you the system can take increased graphics and art doesn't mean you have to go that route.

      Just look at Nintendo they lead the way with teh Wii and outsold everybody.

      Silly small minded developer having a whinge. I suggest that creative person gets a little more creative with their thinking.

      Well if a new xbox console was out I'd buy it. I just had to buy a new one anyhow because they do wear out after a few years anyhow.

      Just bought a new slim and kinect, they should have upped the console specs right then if you ask me.

        I don't agree with "upping" the console specs for the new slim (whether it be the PS3 slim or Xbox 360 Slim).

        If it retains the name of the original console (IE PS3 or 360) it should retain the same system specs of the original. (Besides the obvious ones like HDD, Ram, etc). It wouldn't be fair for the people who bought the original "Phat" consoles to be shafted by the better Slim consoles where games are being designed specifically for that console.

        It would create a lot more headache for game designers in balancing between the 2 consoles and if that occured all the time - it'll just become like the PC market.

    THQ don't seem to have a problem with milking people for money at the moment anyway...

    I wonder if we're going to start seeing a lot more ingame advertising to help with budgets? I also wonder if future call of duty pre title screen boards will read Activision, Treyarch, Pspsi, Doritos and then you get the title screen.

    Yeah the lack of AA really ruins Hi-Def games :(

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now