Whatever happened to that rumor a while back about the XBOX720 or whatever its going to be called having the graphics matching that of the Avatar movie?

I kind of lost interest in graphics after the gamecube gen >.> as long as it looks as good as, or better than luigi's mansion, I really don't care

I'd still take Auto stereoscopic 3D on the Big screen without glasses even IF you had to put up with a sweet spot...When it comes
to gaming at least There's also the entire thing with Shutter Vs Passive 3D Glasses. Doesn't shutter provide better resolution although it knocks down the frame rate in half where as passive has 'weaker' resolution but the framerate is better? And do you even get Full 1080p in each eye?

But ya..
All I want are 3D fishies swimming out of my soon to be 60" plasma and my life will be complete.

lol its like one of those dreams I have where you go into this weird aquarium and all this fish are swimming all around you. xD

Oh, I'm not denying that statement - I would too actually. It's just that, from a technological point of view, we still haven't advanced to the peak of engineering yet when it comes to mastering auto-stereoscopic 3D, what with the sweet-spot issues and all. This, of course, doesn't deny the fact that it's a pretty damn immersive experience though.

Sad life.

It probably will have 4k resolution support but it won't be for gaming, it'll be for movies mainly. Sony were the ones pushing blu-ray at the beginning of this console gen so they need something else to push for the next.

You pretty much need a very high-end PC to run games at 2560×1600 or 2560x1440 (currently the highest resolution PC monitors go to) so the aim of the next-gen consoles should be stable 1080p gaming. in order for games to run at a 4k resolution you would need some damn powerful hardware, talking at least $1000+ and I doubt anyone would buy consoles at that price!

How about endless ocean?

The only drawback to using 4k res would be the cost of development and whether they actually support it as alot of people wouldn't be able to afford a new 4k TV especially if they've only just jumped on the 1080p/3D bandwagon I don't see it taking hold for atleast another 6 or more years when the price is right.

Yep, 4K for games has sense only if you play with multiple TVs, same as PC multimonitor support. It is also said that the 720 will come with dual 1080 output and native 3D support for both. The price comparison will end being similar to the previous one with the Wii and the PS3, if you want something cheap to play only Nintendo games, go for the WiiU, and Nintendo knows that this formula will probably work for them independently of the lack of power.

[/div]

[/div]

It's because consoles have been holding PCs back. PCs are capable of some incredible graphics, but the console market is far larger than the PC market (as far as games are concerned). Thus, if releasing a multiplatform title, it makes little business sense to spend a lot of time, money and effort creating a graphics engine that scales to take full advantage of a PC's power when only a small fraction of your customers will benefit. Back in the day when the PC market was thriving, graphics were far, far better than consoles because there was enough money in the PC scene for developers to cater specifically to PC gamers (and many more PC exclusives, so games were built from the ground up to take advantage of the power of a PC). Here's a 1999 PS game compared to a 1999 PC game:

(I googled 'best psx graphics' to pick that out). There is a massive difference there.

These days, games are built with either the 360 or PS3 as a target platform, and then usually given a basic port to PC without adding much visually. This leads to graphics being held back on PC, and as a result it looks as if graphics technology has 'stalled'. It certainly hasn't, you're just not seeing it in games yet. (Although have a look at Battlefield 3 screenshots running on max on a PC. I'd argue that it's getting pretty close to photorealism). There are still PC exclusives coming out, but they're often by indie devs or smaller studios that don't have the big bucks to spend on cutting edge graphics engines and all the associated assets that need to be created to take advantage of them.

Wheels2050, you should be allucinating or something, all the main current game engines are created for PC and then ported and downgraded for consoles. High resolution texture packs are also available for PC games while not for the consoles, modding lives for PC and there are game types that simply are not present for consoles, strategy, flight sims and massive multiplayer ones. Developing cots for PC are also way lower than for the consoles and it happens that with modern editing tools creating cutting edge models, animations and textures is way way way cheaper and easier than in the past. Using a texture directly from a retouched hi res picture is way easier than downgrading it and be sure to make it is still looking good. Today you have models for everything that you can buy to use in your games, textures for everything, animations, sounds, voices, this is not at all like 10 years ago when creating a single decent and fluid animation took months, today you contract few days from an animation company and you have all the animations for human bodies than your game might need.

@Mandoble: OK, you actually didn't address my point at all in your post. The closest you get is saying that the engines are originally created for PC which, while true, still didn't quite get there. There's a difference between an engine being ported and a game being ported.

Once a company gets an engine port, they use that port to create their game with the limitations of the target console in mind. Thus, all the assets, special effects etc. are designed to efficiently use the capabilities of consoles and PC is usually an afterthought. Hence most multiplatform titles that also get a PC release get what are considered PC ports.

And these are 99% of multiplatform games, created on PC, with engines created on PC as well, and then ported, usually by others, to the consoles. For all these games you have a "preferences" button on the PC version that allows you to scale up all the details to levels never supported by current gen of consoles. None of these needs to be a PC exclusive to be far better for the PC. In the most basic example, a game created specifically for PS3 and then ported to PC will have an option to set the visible horizon 10 milles ahead of the PS3 limit while keeping max level of detail for the distant objects, and that doesnt require any extra development effort while the visible result would make the PS3 version to look like crap compared with the PC one. Graphics and CPU technologies have not stalled out at all, it is not even a matter of photorealism quality for a single object, but for thousands of them in your field of view, and it is there where you see the pretty noticeable visual difference. Compare Skyrim PC with Skyrim XBox, or the Witcher 2, or Fallout 3 or even specific MS games as Mass effect. And then add the frames per second to the equation, there where you might have 120 for the PC you have 30 or less for the PS360 for the same image quality.

I still don't know what point you're trying to make...

Can you read your own text at least?
"These days, games are built with either the 360 or PS3 as a target platform, and then usually given a basic port to PC without adding much visually" <<< 100% wrong.

No, he's sort of right. He's trying to say that devs can't try to put stuff that might be in their vision for a game if the consoles can't handle it. It doesn't mean that more stuff isn't put on PC, but they aren't going to try to put stuff on the game if it isn't remotely possible on a console that they're trying to put it on.
Think of it this way: if a game largely revovles around draw distance and what the devs are trying to artistically achieve with their game isn't feasable on consoles and the game is also going to be on consoles, then they won't put a ton of resourses on that aspect of the game, since it won't be possible with current tech.

I don't see Sony making their next console 4k resolution unless they are stupid and want to continue their sales numbers from the ps3/vita. It would just be WAY too expensive for a minor upgrade in my opinion.

This actually speaks for me as well, maybe I would feel differently if I enjoyed 360 more than Wii, or had to have the latest PC.

It doesnt work this way at all. Nobody creates games just for top tech PCs only, it has never been this way. Games for PCs can be escaled up and down by the user, depending on the performance of his PC, you will always have something like min detail and max detail settings, and usually min detail is even lower than what current consoles can handle, on the other hand max detail is always way ahead of what current consoles can handle as well as most current PCs.