We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

mike1921:

I heard the arguments the last time I brought this up. It's simply not practical to make the new consoles backwards compatible, the hardware's too clumsy, the emulation's too intensive, blah de blah de blah. If that's the case, then don't make a new console. If it can't be done, then you drop the fucking idea right then and there until it can. Full stop. Exclamation mark. The only way a new console is in any way justifiable is as an UPGRADE of the existing generation's console, not a fucking replacement for it. You CANNOT replace a library of hundreds of games with a library of ZERO games and tell us it's an improvement. That is fucking bonkers.

That may just be the smartest thing about gaming I have ever read and I feel like a jackass for not thinking of it myself. I was always pissed off at a lack of backwards compatibility but I was never able to think of it in those terms.

I myself only realized it myself last week when I was arguing in a thread. But I only realized it after listening to the Rhymedown.

PS1 to PS2 - had better graphics, but could run PS1 games, and could play DVDs. Good step upward.
PS2 to PS3 - only had some models that played PS2 and PS1 titles. But it had, better graphics, a Blu-Ray player (which could also play DVDs), internal hard drive, and built-in wireless controllers (that could charge from being plugged into the console). Less than perfect, but still and upgrade at least.
PS3 to PS4 - brings us.....better graphics and social integration and it can't play the games of any of the previous ones.

Gameguy20100:
The more I hear about the new consoles the less I like them. I'm starting to think I should switch to PC.

Well, you're on a good site for it! Lots of people here will answer any questions you have about getting into PC gaming and building a computer.

OT: Really, I do think we need new consoles. The insane things devs are doing to work with the memory constraints on current devices are absolutely part of the reason games are costing so much to make. When you have the engine team doing 4 months+ of optimization because the fucking machine is too slow to even run at 30fps you're wasting a ton of money.

To me, the rub is that the person setting the budget are the publishers and the studios, not me. Having a super fancy new machine doesn't mean you need to increase the budget to an unsustainable level, make games you can afford to make. Why is that so difficult?

We certainly dont need new consoles, infact I would argue that depending on your taste in games you really dont need a console or a gaming rig and that is the beauty of a huge gaming market . People will naturally gravitate towards their preferred gaming method.

As for Pc gaming in general , I think I may buy a pc after a couple of years but for now there simply is no reason that appeals to me:
. I work and study most of the time so I usually buy 3 new games year so while cheaper games are appealing they arent that essential for me.
. Most of the games which were persuading me to buy a pc are coming to the ps4 anyway(witcher 3, cyberpunk 2077) so for the mean time a ps4 suits me just fine(well until the new elder scroll game comes out :) )
.I could buy 3+ xbox 360 consoles with the money that I would need to buy a good gaming rig and play my current library of 360 games so backward compatibility isnt as important however I am still disappointed that the ps4 wont be backward compatible.
.Because I travel a lot and rarely stay in one place for more than a year I need a quick convenient gaming console which wont require lots of downloading as most of my gaming will be off-line.The less I have to carry the better.

i agree almost 100% especially with this:

"The only way a new console is in any way justifiable is as an UPGRADE of the existing generation's console, not a fucking replacement for it. You CANNOT replace a library of hundreds of games with a library of ZERO games and tell us it's an improvement. That is fucking bonkers."

The Master Race RISES!

But seriously (IMO) PC gaming is cheaper and better, nice to see someone on my beloved Escapist recognizing that the PC is in fact a gaming platform. It seems like all the articles are console-centric, even though the Escapist staff know that the readership is mostly PC gamers. When was the last time they ran a story about a hot new graphics card or reviewed a DX update.

That's something that's genuinely always puzzled me and I've been meaning to ask Susan and the gang for some time

Ehhh, I'm sorry to say that I disagree. I think your points are valid and reasonable and I totally see where you're coming from, but (and as a great man once said, 'and this is a big stinky but') the changes that are happening to the PS4 and Xbox 2PiRadians or whatever it'll be called are positive for the industry. Yes, it's sad that the PS4 won't be backwards compatible and that I'll have to get a PS3 separately to continue playing Castlevania HD or Ratchet & Clank, but then again I have to hook up a separate console when I want to play Sonic Colours or Wind Waker, or I have to go to my Vita to play Gravity Rush. Console switching is something I'm used to now, and that won't really bother me.

Now, the hardware changes in the PS4 and the Xbox MoneyHoover make it easier for a programmer to jump onto the platform because they use PC hardware (the PS4 uses AMD Jaguar which they use in notebooks, albeit they're using about 4 times as many cores. I believe the Xbox will use the same). They make it easy for indie devs to put a game that they may have released on Steam onto another platform with a fuckton of money behind it. Sony have been dragging indie devs to the PS4 (a fellow coursemate of mine who is opening up an indie studio went to GDC and was told that they'd be willing to organise giving his studio PS4 dev kits by one of the technical developers), and if you've been keeping up with Vita news you'll see that these aren't empty promises. I think that Sony might even change the console industry into a more indie driven environment with the PS4 and Vita together, which I think deserves a new generation.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point of Yahtzee's article - "The main problem has been the old classic: not enough games"

The Wii U isn't selling well mainly because there aren't enough good games for it. In my opinion the Wii U didn't have attractive enough features in order for developers to want to make games for it and as a result the console has not met sales expectations. It's a circle of life between the console, developers and consumers. Unpopular/bad console means less games developed for the platform and less consumer interest.

Now leaving the Xbox 720 out of my discussion and instead talking about the PS4 since it's official and we know its features. It's not whether we need another generation of consoles or not, I'm just saying that we're about that point in time where there CAN be a natural transition (doesn't have to be immediately) of the console generation.

Some people are jumping straight a point that they'd be happy to see the console market die and that PC gaming is superior to console gaming without really considering these reasons. It's not appropriate to put down a console that hasn't been released yet in argument when talking about features such as graphics, selection of games and pricing.
Talking about graphics, someone earlier mentioned a good point that a PC with the equivalent specs of a PS3 would not compare in graphical fidelity and performance because of the high level of optimisation that developers have achieved with the console. The same approach must be taken with the PS4 even though it is of PC-architecture that the level of performance and graphics will increase as developers become more experienced and can improve optimisation of the closed-hardware. Developing for PC can have the problem of under-optimisation of people's hardware because of the wide variety of rigs and this is how the consoles have just managed to keep up with PCs after PCs surpassed them many years ago. I'm sure that the next-gen consoles will be able to provide a gaming experience that will keep the market with PCs competitive. Without consoles or some form of competition, innovation and improvement will retard eventually.

Right now Sony are headed in the right direction, making the PS4 more developer friendly (meaning more games) and have learnt from a lot of their mistakes. Backwards compatibility is not a viable business option for Sony at the moment and the reasons are self-explantory. Go buy a PS3 super slim after the PS4 comes out and the price will likely be sub 100 or at least that number which would be less than the amount Sony would likely have you pay for a PS4 with backwards compatibility or even better, just keep your current PS3 (It's not that hard)

Honestly the REAL problem here is the current production, development and management of what are considered AAA games. To keep it short since I've gone on a bit, The structure with developers and publishers should change, possibly back to what it was originally like where publishers would simply handle the marketing and not have direct control over the development process and funding of games.

Never like to get involved in gaming politics but I didn't like the way some people are just arguing without fair judgement or proper consideration of information.

tl;dr - People are missing the point of the article: lack of games for a console. Some tend to also jump to conclusions, turn to the elitist type reasoning without providing sensible reasoning and are quick to put down next-gen and current-gen console platforms.

For the record I'm a PC and PS3 gamer for anyone thinking I'm a "console peasant".

Atmos Duality:

El Portero:
Welcome to the glorious PC master race, Yahtzee. We saved a chair for you.

Forget the allusions to eugenics and Nazis, welcome to sensibility.

It's kind of sad seeing the consoles go to the wayside just to pull lame money-making stunts out of their ass.
I get that companies exist to make money, but contrary to what some people say, not all greed is good.
When mindless greed overtakes practicality, it's time to reject the product. (where possible anyway *grumbles about gas prices*)

Yeah it's kind of annoying, actually. The companies that are running the console market into the ground are the ones actually making the consoles and not keeping up with how the development environment has changed. Exclusivity is starting to keep people away from certain titles just because the cost of buying a console for one or two unique games isn't financially sound. Not to mention the pricing on console versions of games is outrageous when someone can buy the same title on the PC for less.

At this point, getting a new console just doesn't seem worth it. Not for graphics, not of hard drive space, and certainly not for a library reset. Right now, I haven't even filled up my current hard drive of 200-something gigs, going for a new drive of over 300 is excessive. Plus the PS4 has proven the futility of further "improving" graphics with a higher polygon count. So you know what? I hope as many people as possible avoid getting these new consoles, because, and let's be honest here, if the PS3 could have such a bad start that they forced to further support the out-dated PS2 even longer, who's to say it can't happen again, with other systems?

Colt47:

Yeah it's kind of annoying, actually. The companies that are running the console market into the ground are the ones actually making the consoles and not keeping up with how the development environment has changed. Exclusivity is starting to keep people away from certain titles just because the cost of buying a console for one or two unique games isn't financially sound. Not to mention the pricing on console versions of games is outrageous when someone can buy the same title on the PC for less.

Well, exclusivity has been evaporating since the end of the PS2 generation.
It hasn't completely disappeared of course, but I don't think it's nearly the same barrier to entry as it used to be.
...And maybe because it has been disappearing, people have finally had a taste of the proverbial Forbidden Fruit, and are rejecting it outlike.

I think more than the Big Three (well, Sony and Microsoft really) it has been the AAA game publishers who are dragging everyone down with them.

AAA publishers are heavily reliant on consoles and historically, fully in bed with the Big Three. (today, again, Sony and M$)
They're outright addicted to the proprietary security they offer. DLC, online passes, market funneling, reduces rates of piracy (it takes far more effort to pirate a console game than a PC game)...they're addicted to it, but now that this generation is winding down, they've turned more of their attention towards the growing PC market, and they're trying to force more and more of those same "features" it.

Growing costs have forced them to cut mid-grade titles entirely, leading to a shrinking variety in game genre.
They're betting more of their company on broadest-appeal blockbusters, and have consequentially flooded the market with homogenized games; which in turn, has devalued each game except the biggest winners in their category.

So, now we're seeing blockbusters fail to meet their extraordinary quotas to cover their costs.
And when THAT happens, the publisher starts pushing for more and more Get-Rich-Quick Schemes ("Social" functions, Always-Online DRM,product placement, microtransactions) and you can bet anything that they have been pressuring Sony and Microsoft to provide the means of enforcing those schemes in their next consoles.

Result: Fewer games with greater homogeneity between them across the board. Independent games are increasing in appeal to fill the void, and while both Sony and M$ have platforms for indies in place, they are nowhere near as open and appealing as PC right now.

kiri2tsubasa:
Speak for your self. My PC keeps crashing and blue screening when I play games. So, yeah, consoles are my method of gaming that works 100% of the time.

The magic of this is that it's a problem for that one PC, probably something that can be fixed. When a game crashes a console, then it has a tendency to crash all the consoles, or at least all the consoles with dying GPUs or whatever.

238U

I definitely have to agree. I recently bought a PS3 for the first time. Why? Because over the years, it has built up an extremely solid library.

I would have considered waiting and getting a PS4 instead, except it isn't backwards compatible. So that library that Sony spend so many years cultivating is now irrelevant and unavailable to consumers like me looking to get in on the Sony action.

A console is only as good as its software, and when looking at new consoles, they have very little software, and no promise that the console will succeed, and therefore reap more and better software. There's very little incentive to buy right now. You're essentially gambling to see whether or not the console will have the kind of library you want it to, when there's no assurance it ever will.

Speaking of which, this is something that makes PC gaming so attractive. As soon as you set up your PC you have easy access to pretty much every title its ever had in the history of PCs.

Captch: Jump Higher

Run Faster? Pump that garbage in another man's veins!

This has got to be the first time I've genuinely disagree with Yahtzee here. Backwards compatibility is NOT a must. New consoles are NOT extensions of previous ones. Or at least, if they're worth buying, they shouldn't be. They should be machines that integrate new ideas that were not previously possible, or thought of. CONSOLES ARE NOT PCS! Backwards compatibility is just an added sweetener.

And anyways, with games available for download these days, it's highly unlikely that Sony (and MS) are NOT going to find a way of bringing previous console's games to their latest hardware at some point.

Seriously, my last glimmer of hope was that at least Yahtzee was clever than this. Obviously I can't even rely on him anymore.

Meh, the new console generation looks fine.

They didn't say it as clearly as when regarding the Xbox development, but Microsoft's deal with it sentiment rings loud and clear all over Windows 8 (which is killing the computer market, and downgrades back to win7 are flying off the shelves.)

Personally, I'd love to see a caged-up Xbox720 and Windows 8 be the dual blows that usher an era where linux is taken seriously as a game platform, since as it is, Microsoft is obviously content to rest on its laurels and use its monopoly assets to hammer away at consumer rights.

238U

This is probably not the article that AAA game developers wanted. But by god, it's the article that they deserve. And need. READ IT, YOU CLOWNS.

Uriel-238:
usher an era where linux is taken seriously as a game platform

and then perhaps we can all fly to work on our Ferrari brand pigs.

None of the new consoles appeal to me in the slightest but I guess I'm no longer their demo. What to do with all this disposable income...

Terramax:
Seriously, my last glimmer of hope was that at least Yahtzee was clever than this. Obviously I can't even rely on him anymore.

So it's not just that you disagree with his opinion... it's that you've decided that he (and everyone who agrees with him) is an idiot.

The Playstation 3 has, and has had, terrible backwards compatibility. I don't mean running PS2 games (which the majority still do not do), I mean the tiny selection of last-gen games they bothered to re-integrate on PSN. For purchase, of course, because who doesn't want to pay for a game they probably already own, and even if they didn't is ten or more years old? If I had any faith in Sony I'd say they've learned from this and the PS4 will do better... but I don't have any faith in them. I'd have to be naive to have faith with no proof.

mike1921:

Eh, I wouldn't go that far, ps1 games, at least the 3d ones were pretty damned ugly.

And I really don't care.

Is it really? People are able to do pretty cool optimization trickery when working with consoles because everyone has the same hardware, which is why our current consoles survived so long on like half a GB on RAM.

It's also how we ended up with problems like "shitty PC ports."

Even with optimisation, there's still a fairly large disparity that develops between console and PC. It's not like this is a problem that only started recently.

All of my hardware is at least 4 years old and it was never at the absolute cutting edge yet I still seem to be able to run most games on high.

Which you owe to console "stagnation." I know people lack a sense of perspective, but the stabilisation of the PC as a platform in terms of hardware owes itself largely to the last gen of consoles.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

But if you want to support a platform that boasts to be slightly more powerful than my three year old PC and will still be slightly more powerful when that PC is a decade old, go for it. The problem is, we're essentially trading one bottleneck for another. And if consoles take a hit on this (which they might), you can kiss that standardisation that's kept things relatively stable buh-bye.

Yeah let's get rid of consoles! I can't wait for the day where there is AMD and Nvidia exclusives! Woooooooo! I mean we already got cases where games don't run well on one or the other, but we need to take the next step!

:/ I don't people realize how good competition is for the industry... It's more than you think.

Terramax:
This has got to be the first time I've genuinely disagree with Yahtzee here. Backwards compatibility is NOT a must. New consoles are NOT extensions of previous ones. Or at least, if they're worth buying, they shouldn't be. They should be machines that integrate new ideas that were not previously possible, or thought of. CONSOLES ARE NOT PCS! Backwards compatibility is just an added sweetener.

And anyways, with games available for download these days, it's highly unlikely that Sony (and MS) are NOT going to find a way of bringing previous console's games to their latest hardware at some point.

Seriously, my last glimmer of hope was that at least Yahtzee was clever than this. Obviously I can't even rely on him anymore.

I wouldn't go that far, Yahtzee has some good points in his article. I agree with you that backwards compatibility is not a must in Sony's case, as they are rectifying (kind of back peddling on) a problem they had created themselves with the PS3 cell architecture, so they have a pretty good excuse for the lack of PS3 compatibility. Now PS2 compatibility is a problem: We've had good emulation of the PS2 for a while now, and even though it runs a bit slower than the hardware version, it would still be able to play 90% of the ps2 library with ease. The only reason Sony has to not have PS2 backwards compatibility is to shoehorn more people into buying HD remakes of older games. This wouldn't be a problem if they did this for more than a dart board full of mega hits.

The argument about backwards compatibility is very good here, Yahtzee. Though I suspect another reason why consoles are made is to thwart piracy.

Piracy does happen with console games, but its harder to do versus PC games. The games are specifically designed for hardware that is standard for each machine that emulation is difficult. Emulating previous games before the PlayStation 1 era is simple these days, though I believe you run into some trouble getting the games to look right and move at perfect 30 FPS with the PlayStation 1 generation and upwards. I also believe motion controls play into this.

A game made on the Super Nintendo is easy to emulate since it uses a gamepad. You can get one real cheap these days and emulation of a Super Nintendo game is easy with the variety of free software made by fans. But emulating a Wii game is more tricky as the sensor needs to be emulated for the game to properly play. This means that the only way to play the game is on the original hardware it originates from. Copying the video game off the console DVD is easy; playing the game somewhere else than the target console is a pain in the butt to solve.

It's only a theory of mine and I doubt anyone would want to play any motion control games in the near future. But with the constant push for online features and motion controls on consoles to keep players hooked to that device only, as Yahtzee puts it, makes me suspect there is more to this theory.

Zachary Amaranth:

mike1921:

Eh, I wouldn't go that far, ps1 games, at least the 3d ones were pretty damned ugly.

And I really don't care.

Then why do you apparently have a $300 graphics card? Why do you seem worried about PC specification stagnation?

Is it really? People are able to do pretty cool optimization trickery when working with consoles because everyone has the same hardware, which is why our current consoles survived so long on like half a GB on RAM.

It's also how we ended up with problems like "shitty PC ports."

Even with optimisation, there's still a fairly large disparity that develops between console and PC. It's not like this is a problem that only started recently.

The disparity is something that grows over time. The problem isn't the console it's the console life span. At the very least the new generation should have started 2 years ago

All of my hardware is at least 4 years old and it was never at the absolute cutting edge yet I still seem to be able to run most games on high.

Which you owe to console "stagnation." I know people lack a sense of perspective, but the stabilisation of the PC as a platform in terms of hardware owes itself largely to the last gen of consoles.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

But if you want to support a platform that boasts to be slightly more powerful than my three year old PC and will still be slightly more powerful when that PC is a decade old, go for it. The problem is, we're essentially trading one bottleneck for another. And if consoles take a hit on this (which they might), you can kiss that standardisation that's kept things relatively stable buh-bye.

I want to support a platform that will have my favorite games on it because japan doesn't seem to like developing serious games for PC. If the PS4 has persona and an exclusive tales of game I will buy it. Also: of course you're trading one bottleneck for another, and that's why it's important that our generations don't drag on like this last one did.

PrototypeC:
The PC will, if the trend of shutting down indie platforms continues, be the only place to get non-AAA games.

Huh? What trend?

It's actually the opposite - Xbox and PS3 are carrying an increasing number of indie games, and if not indie, a bunch of smaller "arty" or otherwise interesting games that you can't get on PC (such as Flower, Journey, etc). The console landscape is not the unvaried AAA landscape that you make it out to be.

Indie games never used to exist on consoles in previous generations. There's never been a better time for for indie games on consoles, what with the Playstation Store and Xbox Live meaning that smaller developers don't have to release physical discs or cartridges. And that's not even mentioning the huge market for indie games on iPad/iPhone etc, which probably dwarfs sales of indie games on PCs.

Don't think I'm buying this.

I can't help but notice how sparsely populated current gen game worlds are. If you want to have more than a few characters on screen the trade-off is that they're inevitably going to have very poor AI... Poor AI is one of Yahtzee's most frequent complaints, if I recall correctly.

I don't think that the new consoles have to have crazy-high-fidelity graphics either(though it would be nice) for it to feel worthwhile. Small visual touches that current consoles can't handle actually do amount to more immersive game-worlds. The example in the forefront of mind is the Arkham Batman games. The extra visual frills you get on PC don't sound like much on paper, details like newspapers and leaves blowing around... I actually found these things very cool. It fleshed out the environment a little. It suddenly felt less spartan.

So, uh... yeh. Bring on new hardware.

jowell24:

Talking about graphics, someone earlier mentioned a good point that a PC with the equivalent specs of a PS3 would not compare in graphical fidelity and performance because of the high level of optimisation that developers have achieved with the console.

That's not necessarily true at launch. Optimisation tends to be a learned process. Now, eventually the comparable console will outperform, but there's the issue of technology likely having progressed at that point.

The same approach must be taken with the PS4 even though it is of PC-architecture that the level of performance and graphics will increase as developers become more experienced and can improve optimisation of the closed-hardware. Developing for PC can have the problem of under-optimisation of people's hardware because of the wide variety of rigs and this is how the consoles have just managed to keep up with PCs after PCs surpassed them many years ago. I'm sure that the next-gen consoles will be able to provide a gaming experience that will keep the market with PCs competitive. Without consoles or some form of competition, innovation and improvement will retard eventually.

Actually, the primary reason things tend to be under-optimised is because consoles are used as the lead. You find this problem greatly diminished, possibly even non-existent when the PC is the primary platform. The same can actually be said of cross-platform issues with consoles. the 360 usually out-performed the PS3 early on because it was the lead console. Burnout Paradise was an exception, developed with the PS3 as the lead, and it shows.

Backwards compatibility is not a viable business option for Sony at the moment and the reasons are self-explantory.

Except if people don't adopt the new console because of a lack of games....

In fact, it's "self-explanatory" that they might not be able to afford NOT including BC.

Go buy a PS3 super slim after the PS4 comes out and the price will likely be sub 100 or at least that number which would be less than the amount Sony would likely have you pay for a PS4 with backwards compatibility or even better, just keep your current PS3 (It's not that hard)

It's not that hard, but it sort of begs the question as to why one would bother with the PS4 with a limited launch window. This is one of the big problems with the Wii-U right now, and part of the thesis of the article written. Additionally, you're being overly optimistic about pricing.

Never like to get involved in gaming politics but I didn't like the way some people are just arguing without fair judgement or proper consideration of information.

Glass houses.

TheAsterite:

And for people screaming about backwards compatibility: NES -> SNES -> N64 -> Gamecube -- none of these were backwards compatible with each other.

It's almost like times have changed.

Zachary Amaranth:

TheAsterite:

And for people screaming about backwards compatibility: NES -> SNES -> N64 -> Gamecube -- none of these were backwards compatible with each other.

It's almost like times have changed.

It's almost as if people that are entitled are just screaming for features that just make the console cost more money.

"Gaming's future lies in non-exclusivity, reasonable costs, unrestricted development and access to games from the entire history of the medium. All of which are anathema to the console industry as it stands but are fueling an increasingly healthy and invigorating PC and mobile/tablet scene."

True only until Apple and Microsoft decide to lock down their respective OSes. After all, the closed Mobile markets where you need to apply for a developer's license and you're not allowed to publish anything the corporate overlords don't like have proven much more profitable than that nasty old PC scene.

I fully expect them to keep taking more and more control away from PC users, until PC is just another console. I then expect everyone to finally switch to Linux, and for there to be a huge industry crash like the one about to hit Consoles.

But hey. It's not like WE matter. WE'RE not the target demo. The target demo is 5 million people per game, all of whom have money to burn and no common sense. And don't read Metacritic or own smartphones. In spite of having money to burn.

Man, if only that demographic actually EXISTED, Consoles would be totally solvent!

WarpZone:

True only until Apple and Microsoft decide to lock down their respective OSes. After all, the closed Mobile markets where you need to apply for a developer's license and you're not allowed to publish anything the corporate overlords don't like have proven much more profitable than that nasty old PC scene.

Cause, you know, there's no such thing as linux and OpenGL.

Reyold:

drummodino:
I've been an avid console gamer my whole life but now for the first time I have a (fairly) high quality gaming pc and I'm not going back, even for my beloved infamous series. Everything I hear about these new consoles just makes me not want them even more.

That's pretty much me at this point (except the gaming PC, but my Macbook has been sufficient so far). A good portion of my current library is on my Mac, and I'm only keeping the two consoles I have (Wii and PS3) until I finish all of my games on them. I won't be investing in next-gen consoles anytime soon, if ever.

It does seem to be the only option at the moment doesn't it. The only thing that the new consoles will have that pc won't is the exclusives, and there just aren't enough to justify it.

Zachary Amaranth:

TheAsterite:

And for people screaming about backwards compatibility: NES -> SNES -> N64 -> Gamecube -- none of these were backwards compatible with each other.

It's almost like times have changed.

More like people were spoiled with BC enough to make it feel like a necessity in future gaming platforms, when it's really not.

We need new consoles. This 7 year gen has pretty much shown what it's capable of and we need a new generation of new experiences, and the WiiU is already doing a fairly good job with its gamepad while still young. When all of the new consoles have been released and lived for a few years, I'm sure they'll all be enjoyable platforms to game on. And as long as the multitude of console exclusives exist, sticking to PC (or any one console for that matter) will not give you the ultimate gaming experience.

So, I disagree with Yahtzee.

El Portero:
Welcome to the glorious PC master race, Yahtzee. We saved a chair for you.

You do realize that he's the one who coined that term in the first place, right? He doesn't need your damned chair because he's been sitting in his own reserved spot since before you probably even joined. Hell, if it weren't for his obvious long-standing interest in Nintendo games, I'd assume he never even touched a console before the PS2 era. And given that he said he played Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker before Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, that may still be true.

Zachary Amaranth:

jowell24:

Talking about graphics, someone earlier mentioned a good point that a PC with the equivalent specs of a PS3 would not compare in graphical fidelity and performance because of the high level of optimisation that developers have achieved with the console.

That's not necessarily true at launch. Optimisation tends to be a learned process. Now, eventually the comparable console will outperform, but there's the issue of technology likely having progressed at that point.

That is true to a degree - but there's a much simpler explanation. PC games are run on a machine that is also running a full desktop Operating System - typically Windows, which is notorious for consuming resources. And therein lies the problem. If you just want to play games, why do you need this massive OS running in the background? It's just sitting there wasting resources. And it's another thing to maintain and patch and deal with conflicts in.

This also relates to the comments above saying "yeah, but the consoles also have problems like RROD or Yellow Light of Death" too. Sure, but those are much more limited in number, and easier to diagnose, and usually well-known. And the solution is simple - you take it back to the vendor who is responsible.

On a general-purpose PC, the problems can be much more complex, and really difficult to track down - even for an experienced technician. It could be a configuration file somewhere, a driver somewhere, a bad chipset somewhere else. Which is why the solution to so many PC problems is basically "nuke it from orbit and start again." And PCs are made from so many different vendors' components, you often get the "pass the buck game" - where the software make blames the hardware maker, and vice-versa. Where the application vendor blames the problem on Windows, and Microsoft blames the problem on the software vendor. Multiply that by graphics card vendors blaming motherboard vendors, and vice-versa.

It's a total mess. It is not at all uncommon for a customer with PC problems to be thrown back-and-forth between multiple companies for support. With consoles, those variables are much more limited and controlled.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here