We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

TheAsterite:

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.

"Entitled"? Really? We're asking for a feature in a product, we're the customers we get to set whatever expectations we want for a feature. Backwards compatibility is a major bonus to anyone who buys the console and smooths out the early adoption period. If you have the predecessor console now you can trade it in and don't need to deal with the hastle of the multiple devices (TV's have limited ports, living rooms have limited space, the less consoles I need to set up at any one point the better), if you don't than buying that one device gives you a much bigger library which is pretty important if there are any series that you play that have been exclusive to that line of consoles.

I am saving the capital to get a gaming PC and completely forgo the next gen of Consoles, (Sans the Wii U because I'm a Nintendo fanboy, and am proud of it.) and join the PC Master Race.

Anathrax:
I'm wondering how would a console advance in areas other than the graphics department. Going all out on a controller isn't one such area, the Wii and the WiiU both prove that. Whoever answers me that question is a hero.

The RAM increases are actually pretty important. Level design is bounded by it at present, so the increase allows devs to build bigger maps, or just maps with more NPCs in them. The RAM limitations of the consoles were bad even by the standards of 2005, and while 8 gigs is probably not necessary. It should be interesting to see what gets done once multiplatform games are no longer bounded by the current limitations.

FloodOne:
I have a decent gaming PC, and it's filled with plenty of great titles. But the PC market doesn't supply me with some of my favorite genres, i.e. JRPGs, fighting games, hack and slash and sports titles.

Sure, I can play some great WRPGs and some stellar FPS titles, but that's not enough for me, and I cannot subsist solely on indie titles. These days, you sound like too much of a bitter old man for me to take seriously anymore.

You should still be angry about this, if not moreso. It's basically the industry saying

"if you want to continue playing the games you like give us $500 for this new console."
"Oh what makes it different from the old one?"
"Well for one thing there's no games for it."

I've always been a console gamer. I have a 360, a Wii and a PS3 but I honestly don't see myself buying any new consoles and just putting the money towards a good gaming rig.

I think it's time for some new consoles. It may just be because of graphics and a few other minor things, but they stack up. I'd rather upgrade now and have a console that is only 30% better in certain areas than have video games stagnate because of fear that the console version wont be able to keep up. New consoles also give an excuse for new IPs, and while like Jim Sterling I am opposed to doing things different for the sake of them being different, I can't let that stop myself from accepting new things. Embrace the future, or get lost in the past.

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.

Wait, so what's the point of consoles then? I'm honestly asking, I'm a console gamer myself. PCs just have a constantly growing library of games, but with consoles not having to start from scratch is just an added sweetener? "Buy our new console, there'll be games for it eventually." You're actually going to defend that business model? What is it that consoles offer because I don't use mine as media devices. Music, movies, social networking or internet browsing? My PC does all of that for me.

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.

You mean it's highly unlikely Sony and Microsoft are NOT going to find a way to sell me games I already bought.

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

If you're going to go for intellectual superiority as a shtick may I recommend proof reading?

I really, really, REALLY agree.

Spot1990:
Wait, so what's the point of consoles then? I'm honestly asking, I'm a console gamer myself. PCs just have a constantly growing library of games, but with consoles not having to start from scratch is just an added sweetener? "Buy our new console, there'll be games for it eventually." You're actually going to defend that business model? What is it that consoles offer because I don't use mine as media devices. Music, movies, social networking or internet browsing? My PC does all of that for me.

If you don't like the new console, don't buy it. Also don't buy it later when there are games for it and it starts to become popular. No-one is forcing you to buy it.

Like I said before, people like you are just entitled. What's the point of buying any console when it just comes out when you still have the old one? "Buy our new console, there'll be new games for it eventually but in the meantime you can play the old games you have on the console you already have AND our new system. Isn't that great?"

Madmanonfire:

...the WiiU is already doing a fairly good job with its gamepad while still young.

I can only assume you meant that it's doing a "fairly good" job at nothing right now.
After the Christmas Madness wore off, sales for the WiiU plummeted to Virtual Boy levels.

Nobody wants one, because there's nothing on it.

It's dead in the water.

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, what is the "Ultimate gaming experience"? Can we even define that?

Spot1990:
Wait, so what's the point of consoles then? I'm honestly asking, I'm a console gamer myself.

Couch co-op.

PCs, phones, tablets -- all solitary gaming devices. Yeah, you can hook up online, but that's not the same as having your friends playing right with you. Or perhaps a couple of you can even play in the same room if you have multiple of these gizmos in the house, but most people don't. For most people, it's one person at each screen, and if anybody else wants in, they basically has to watch over your shoulder until its their turn.

What's funny is all this stuff about online sharing, social media, etc, all that can be done by your PC, so yeah, it's no wonder people are wondering what the hell companies likes Sony and Microsoft are thinking.

The area where consoles can excel in, however, is in letting a household play together. And oddly, though Nintendo's the only one who's realized this, folks like Yahtzee bash them for.. well.. not being more like PCs. Hell, the Wii-U is specifically designed to enhance couch co-op. To give you something you just can't get on a PC. An asymmetric game with everybody in the same room. And they're the dumb ones?

But backwards compatibility? It's a convenience, that's all.
After all, anybody who already has a library of old games probably has the console that plays them, and unlike monitors, phones, or tablets, most TVs these days are designed with multiple inputs. Yeah, I like being able to play my Wii games on my Wii-U, because it means I can move my Wii to a different room in the house now. But would I be choked if it didn't? I've still got two extra inputs on my TV.. backwards compatibility is no big deal.

Finally someone who is both sensible and paid to write on the internet. You are absolutely and unerringly correct, behatted sir. This console gen will be the last one, and soon it will be 1984 all over again.

Maybe then I'll have the time to play Planescape Torment.

I really, really, REALLY disagree. Like Yahtzee once said, I'm white enough to afford a PC and several consoles. Missed out on WII because it simply wouldn't work out in my current living environment (basically a shoe box). I see no problem having diverse systems. Saying we don't need consoles is like saying there is no need for different cell phone brands or something akin to that. Next thing he says is that there's no real need for different operating systems and we would all be happiest with a Mac. Fuck that, I want diversity on all levels.

Maybe I'm old fashioned. I love my PC, but I love the ability to just relax in front of the TV with a decent platformer, that I feel works best on a huge screen. Yes, I've heard of Steam's Big Screen, but I'd rather not shuffle my PC around the apartment. And while backwards compatibility would be ever so nice, it's a lot less of a deal breaker than some of the rumors flying around about the next gen consoles.

Steve the Pocket:

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.

I know he coined the term, that's why I used it. The quote was from 'The Witcher' review in which he was making fun of PC gamers for preferring unintuitive controls. And no, while yahtzee has shown his appreciation for Steam's low prices, he's never outwardly identified himself as a PC gamer (Unless you count the Commodore 64... shut up).
Also, I'm not entirely sure what the order of Nintendo games he's played has to do with his opinion on PC gaming.

I think the glut of the current AAA scene is mostly due to developer hubris. They keep bragging about making better, deeper, more complex game worlds and gameplay, but they seem to never take a step and realize that all they've done is make things shinier. Of course devs will never admit that as they all believe they're making masterpieces and any compromise to their beloved vision is EEEEEEEVIL. Nintendo is the only publisher that realizes this and understood that in order to truly garner creativity and innovation you actually have to limit people

UrinalDook:
As an example, the size of things like cities in Skyrim. The engine simply doesn't have the power to match up what we see in game to what we were lead to believe it was like in the lore. To the point where much of the lore was rewritten in the intervening years to allow the limitations of the hardware. Riften, the massive sprawling mess of a city in the south? Sacked during the war, and only rebuilt as a shadow of its former self within the fortress walls. Winterhold, the huge city that stood on the site of where the first men arrived from Atmora? Fell into the sea. Whiterun, the massive trading hub made of several distinct districts? Yeah, you get the picture.

You know, I never understood why they couldn't do what they did in Oblivion. The capital, Imperial City, was set into different sections, separated by the walls. Did people complain too much about that or...? It still felt big (I get lost every goddamn time...) but it was cut up into smaller, more manageable chunks for the hardware.

TheAsterite:
If you don't like the new console, don't buy it.

...I won't I'm pretty sure I said that.

Also don't buy it later when there are games for it and it starts to become popular.

You mean IF there are games for it and it becomes popular.

No-one is forcing you to buy it.

I know. But see the thing is I like gaming. And if I want to play games well now I need something to play them on don't I? And my choices are the console market where in 5 to 10 years I'll need to buy a new one to play new games AND hold on to my old one to play old games or buy one device that'll do both with the PC market. That's a silly argument anyway, it could be used against any criticism of anything. So unless you've honestly never complained about anything don't trot it out.

Like I said before, people like you are just entitled.

No I'm not, if I was entitled I'd get it it. What you're accusing me of is having a feeling of entitlement.Which again is silly. When the competition (PC Gaming in this case) Offers a more consumer friendly model for better value it's not unreasonable to expect the same treatment.

What's the point of buying any console when it just comes out when you still have the old one? "Buy our new console, there'll be new games for it eventually but in the meantime you can play the old games you have on the console you already have AND our new system. Isn't that great?"

I have lived at 4 addresses in the past 2 years. I'll probably live somewhere else next year. I'm young, I'm in college and I rent. Moving is just part of my life It's not feasible to hold onto so many machines. Especially when another market offers the same thing in a more consumer friendly model. So you're not actually going to address the question I asked? "What's the point?" If console gaming offers the same experience but with more baggage, what's the incentive?

Spot1990:
I have lived at 4 addresses in the past 2 years. I'll probably live somewhere else next year. I'm young, I'm in college and I rent. Moving is just part of my life It's not feasible to hold onto so many machines. Especially when another market offers the same thing in a more consumer friendly model. So you're not actually going to address the question I asked? "What's the point?" If console gaming offers the same experience but with more baggage, what's the incentive?

The point of console gaming was and always will be the exclusive games. That's going off history and current trends.

grumpymooselion:

FloodOne:
I have a decent gaming PC, and it's filled with plenty of great titles. But the PC market doesn't supply me with some of my favorite genres, i.e. JRPGs, fighting games, hack and slash and sports titles.

Sure, I can play some great WRPGs and some stellar FPS titles, but that's not enough for me, and I cannot subsist solely on indie titles. These days, you sound like too much of a bitter old man for me to take seriously anymore.

It's of note that there's no reason they COULDN'T supply those games you like to the PC, or Mac or even a Linux operating system. They just don't, or won't. They'll make excuses, of course, but all those excuses fall flat in the face of the success of enough PC titles small to ungodly large that it's pointless to try and say, "we can't/won't because _____" because they've all been disproven by this point.

Sweet, maybe Atlus will read your comment and put Persona 5 on the PC. And maybe NetherRealm will sell Mortal Kombat 10 on Steam. I might even be persuaded to try Origin when I can buy NCAA and Madden football on my PC.

But really, none of this matters because you said it all for me. They don't make games in these genres for the PC. I don't give a flying fuck what the reason is, because that's irrelevant to me. I do know that if I buy the PS4, I'll get my Personas, my Final Fantasys, my Mortal Kombats and my Maddens.

And your little rant about the controls... save it. I have a 360 pad for my PC, and I play awesome games like Super Meat Boy and Cave Story with it. Control isn't the issue, the products on the market that fit my tastes is my issue. Go petition Atlus and EA to get my favorite kinds of games on the PC, and maybe I'll think about switching over permanently. Probably not though, I have two kids and another on the way, doesn't seem like a fun family night gaming if we're switching spots on a computer chair instead of switching controllers with each other on the couch.

Spot1990:

FloodOne:
I have a decent gaming PC, and it's filled with plenty of great titles. But the PC market doesn't supply me with some of my favorite genres, i.e. JRPGs, fighting games, hack and slash and sports titles.

Sure, I can play some great WRPGs and some stellar FPS titles, but that's not enough for me, and I cannot subsist solely on indie titles. These days, you sound like too much of a bitter old man for me to take seriously anymore.

You should still be angry about this, if not moreso. It's basically the industry saying

"if you want to continue playing the games you like give us $500 for this new console."
"Oh what makes it different from the old one?"
"Well for one thing there's no games for it."

I've always been a console gamer. I have a 360, a Wii and a PS3 but I honestly don't see myself buying any new consoles and just putting the money towards a good gaming rig.

I already have a pretty good gaming rig. I built it last year, it plays Skyrim, The Witcher 2... pretty much everything new will run on it, and I own a lot of PC games. That's not changing the fact that I can't get some of the titles I want on my PC. If I have to buy a new console once every six years, that's fine by me. I would have to upgrade my PC along the same timeline to stay current, and probably drop the same amount of dimes to do it.

Anathrax:
I'm wondering how would a console advance in areas other than the graphics department. Going all out on a controller isn't one such area, the Wii and the WiiU both prove that. Whoever answers me that question is a hero.

The point would be that you don't have to advance the consoles, just keep pinging on developers to give what the majority of players actually want:

Games with solid game-play and good story telling, instead of "look, whoa loooook at these shiny new graphics we have, who cares if it is a miserable experience to play it, it looks pretty".

In proper game development, graphics are suppose to be the icing on the cake, at most, 20% of the game.

Besides, on that icing the developer can use in cleaver ways to make up for not having the best engine, they can concentrate with aesthetics with that 20%

If gaming was about graphics, I wouldn't be buying up loads of old retro games, NES, SNES, and Gameboy, as I have been doing lately.

The retro market growing fast, and most retro games are going for ten dollar indie prices at the bottom and hundreds over current game prices. People don't pay prices like that just because they want to have it and look at it, they want to play it, and they love doing so.

Basically, if a console didn't advance graphically and control wise, but great quality games are still being produced for it, the majority of gamers will still keep buying games for the console, keeping it alive.

With the revival of the retro console markets with third party consoles, that is proof alone that you don't have to change and innovate to keep relevant/popular in the gaming community.

Here are some things I hardly think are prevalent but they apparently guide the thoughts of console gamers:

Backwards Compatibility - Yeah, this didn't use to be important.. but it is now. I don't know why people think that just because there was a time when there wasn't backwards compatibility, because the media on which games were distributed changed so often, that we don't have to care now, when everything is digital and easily portable. The PC community has been hard at work securing legal digital use of their old hardware, so why is it that you console scrubs have to buy a brand new copy every time there's a hardware update. Is it because you have no options available to you than to put up with what AAA publishers give you?

Video Game Crash of 1980s - Oh boo hoo. "My poor precious AAA industry, that regularly bends me over a chair, might die and that'll be the end of ALL OF THE VIDEO GAMES!" Thpppt.

Consoles are not PCs - Duh. We never said they were, just that's they're trying to be. They have you installing crap, patching crap, updating crap, changing the crap... I mean settings. It surfs the web. It plays movies. Now it's going to post stuff on Facebook. Consoles have been trying their damnedest to be just like PCs... and PCs are still doing it better. We're not arguing that they are PCs (that would be an insult to even the lowliest PC), but we are comparing them to PCs... because they're trying to compete with PCs. Do you see what I'm trying to get at? Don't get angry at us because Sony and Microsoft got into the ring.

---

Hold on, I just saw this and felt like responding:

Kwil:

Couch co-op.

PCs, phones, tablets -- all solitary gaming devices. Yeah, you can hook up online, but that's not the same as having your friends playing right with you. Or perhaps a couple of you can even play in the same room if you have multiple of these gizmos in the house, but most people don't. For most people, it's one person at each screen, and if anybody else wants in, they basically has to watch over your shoulder until its their turn.

The area where consoles can excel in, however, is in letting a household play together. And oddly, though Nintendo's the only one who's realized this, folks like Yahtzee bash them for.. well.. not being more like PCs. Hell, the Wii-U is specifically designed to enhance couch co-op. To give you something you just can't get on a PC. An asymmetric game with everybody in the same room. And they're the dumb ones?

I can take my computer, right now, hook it up to a bigscreen, run four usb controllers and we can play on a couch. Just because I like my machine in a corner of my room so I can chat on forums naked doesn't mean it HAS to be solitary.

I will agree, though, that Nintendo has it right in trying to provide what PCs can't... they're just stupidly focused on the controller.

---

What's are other things that don't matter? Oh yeah:

"I won't be able to play anymore [insert series/genre]s" - So? Find new stuff to like. We don't need Halo 5 to have a good space-adventure FPS. Also on the genre thing, you'd be surprised what you can find if you stop assuming and start looking.

The controller... - You just shut your mouth. If you're caring so damned much about what brand of controller you're using, than you have been tricked. Fooled. Bamboozled. A controller is merely a means to input user commands into software, not a defining feature.

TheAsterite:
The point of console gaming was and always will be the exclusive games. That's going off history and current trends.

What history have you been digging through? The history of gaming since the fifth generation? No, no that is wrong. The POINT of the gaming console WAS the ability to just put in a game and play. You didn't have to mess with settings, patch things constantly, or deal with bugs. You could just slot in a cartridge and starting jumping on koopas. NOW it's about exclusivity, but that only started when consoles started using standardized software media (ie. CDs and DvDs).

I've seen you make a lot of bad points here, but this one was just awful. It really shows your age. Also that you like to grab up buzzwords and HANG ONTO THEM FOR DEAR LIFE. Exclusivity was never the end-all-be-all of console gaming, it was just something that happened because cartridges weren't made the same.

I should know, I lived through the time when people took a look at a PS1 disk and immediately tried to use it in a PC. So to me, your precious "exclusivity" was what forced us to still use a console. It's good for console providers, but what's good for consoles isn't necessarily good for gaming.

TheAsterite:
I have lived at 4 addresses in the past 2 years. I'll probably live somewhere else next year. I'm young, I'm in college and I rent. Moving is just part of my life It's not feasible to hold onto so many machines. Especially when another market offers the same thing in a more consumer friendly model. So you're not actually going to address the question I asked? "What's the point?" If console gaming offers the same experience but with more baggage, what's the incentive?

I just don't understand the baggage thing. I have seven consoles, NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, 360, and a Retron 3 so I don't wear out my NES and SNES. I also have an old grey brick Gameboy, two Gameboy colors, an Advance, DS Lite, and a PSP. Altogether I probably have for all systems, around 200 or more physical copies games. If I worked my spacing properly, I could get that whole collection in two large duffle bags, and an old small laptop bag I have. That isn't much space to take up or move.

Heck, every two weeks I go over to a friend's apartment to have a game weekend, and I usually end up taking half my collection along with my PC and 32 inch HDTV. Pack, two days there, pack, and go back home and unpack.

When I was in college I always took my whole gaming collection with me. I care about my gaming and my collections, so I never see moving it as a hassle, because it really doesn't take up that much space and isn't hard to move.

PC's would be convenient, if after the initial couple thousand to buy a dedicated gaming PC to keep ahead of the market, and if it stayed ahead for at least 10 years. Plus, it would have to be convenient in the area of the typical console way of pop in game and immediately play, none of this pop in game and spend half an hour or more downloading and installing, then finding out I have to troubleshoot because the game wasn't quite designed with my graphics card in mind.

That is the convenience and allure of consoles. Someone else quoted you and said it is all about the exclusive games, but that is really a small point. The point is pop in game and play, that's it. Plus any time there are hiccups in the console process in getting the game to work, you don't have to be a computer whiz, or have to spend hours researching a fix.

I don't have the money to get a super gaming computer, so the convenience of consoles has kept me gaming till I can do that eventually. Because I'm the gamer that wants to have all platforms at my finger tips.

No we don't need a new console. But console's have always been necessary evil. As long as there are steady stream of quality games coming for console, I'll buy it.

I'm cautiously optimistic about (at least) PS4. And because I don't think all information has been released for PS4, I'll be watching it from far to see if its worth buying one.

As for quality PC... eventually.

The problem is, we DO need a new console generation. Not for the graphics, but simply for the better processing power and ability to run better things. Developers are having an incredibly hard time doing new things or making better games simply because the 3 system have reached their processing limits, and thus they limit what their games can do in order to obtain the broadest possible customer base. (Because lets face it PC owners - while we technically have the largest install base......the vast majority of the computers out there aren't fit to render a piece of toast, much less a modern game.)

You want a prime offender? Skyrim. The amount of things they had to cut, drop, ignore and limit so that the Xbox 360 and PS3 wouldn't explode are almost criminal. Better AI, physics etc. are all going to need new hardware. And even a simple upgrade to a DX11 compatiable GPU would make games look and run drastically better.

Pebkio:
"I won't be able to play anymore [insert series/genre]s" - So? Find new stuff to like. We don't need Halo 5 to have a good space-adventure FPS. Also on the genre thing, you'd be surprised what you can find if you stop assuming and start looking.

Who the hell are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't like? Or anyone, for that matter? I like fighting games, can't get a decent one on PC. I like American sports games, can't get them on PC. I like JRPGs, can't get them on PC.

I like Uncharted, Final Fantasy, the Tales series, Persona, Valkyria Chronicles, inFamous, God of War... can't get them on PC.

I've looked for games that scratch these itches, and I can only find them on consoles. When PC gaming catches up to MY interests, maybe I'll switch to it full time. Until then, you spew white noise in my ears.

Pebkio:
What history have you been digging through? The history of gaming since the fifth generation? No, no that is wrong. The POINT of the gaming console WAS the ability to just put in a game and play. You didn't have to mess with settings, patch things constantly, or deal with bugs. You could just slot in a cartridge and starting jumping on koopas. NOW it's about exclusivity, but that only started when consoles started using standardized software media (ie. CDs and DvDs).

I've seen you make a lot of bad points here, but this one was just awful. It really shows your age. Also that you like to grab up buzzwords and HANG ONTO THEM FOR DEAR LIFE. Exclusivity was never the end-all-be-all of console gaming, it was just something that happened because cartridges weren't made the same.

I should know, I lived through the time when people took a look at a PS1 disk and immediately tried to use it in a PC. So to me, your precious "exclusivity" was what forced us to still use a console. It's good for console providers, but what's good for consoles isn't necessarily good for gaming.

Did I say exclusivity was as good thing? People either bought the genesis or the snes based on the exclusive games they had. Mario vs Sonic. Are you so old that you've gone senile? You claim that exclusivity is some new thing when it isn't.

I understand a lot of the arguments about not needing a new console, cost of game BC. Except we are at the point where we HAVE to have a new generation because we are and have been at the limits of 256mb video memory for a long time. Its why everything is low res textures, limited environments, limited characters, tiny draw distance and massive texture pop in.

The issues that appear to be arising seem to offer a point in favor of modular consoles. Imagine if going into this gen they outlined a roadmap with an upgrade. The CPUs arent junk idt but the graphics card and memory are. If 2 years ago there was a 99 dollar upgrade with a cheap but relatively better gpu and a 2gb ram stick/integrated with gpu module it would be a massive step up, you could design it for BC and extend the useful life for another 2 years(basicly devs could release an improved xbops3 version for the upgraded consoles with actual hd textures better draw distances HD resolution etc while keeping the garbage version for those with "base" models). This would making hardware jumps in between new consoles even bigger thereby driving even more interest in them and perhaps easing the transition period.

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.

Then you have an exceptionally unsuitable PC. You'll wanna get that checked out.

Pebkio:
I don't know why people think that just because there was a time when there wasn't backwards compatibility, because the media on which games were distributed changed so often, that we don't have to care now, when everything is digital and easily portable.

Since when haven't video games been digital? There were some analog computers that ran experimental games - in the 1950s.

Every console that's ever been available to the home consumer has been digital.

jowell24:
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.

...

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

It's been less than half a year since its release, and people are saying that its small library is its downfall. As if the PS3 was any different after its release. I am sure that enough developers are working on titles for the Wii U to make it worth giving a chance. What doesn't help is the idea that we should hope a console fails. According to you, [unpopular console] -> [less development] -> [less consumer interest], but surely the opposite is also true: [less consumer interest] -> [less development] -> [unpopular console]. As a consumer base, we have a responsibility to give the industry a chance to make something we like, and the Wii U simply hasn't had long enough to warrant such vitriol.

And on the title, regarding the need for new consoles, I think there's a deeper explanation for that.
After all, I think a number of people pointed at the Wii and said "we need a new console (that caters to a higher-quality gaming experience)." I did. And as such, another Nintendo product appeared.
But Sony and Microsoft aren't stupid. At least not most of the time. They can't let a new console get released and steal all the development attention, and had to therefore announce their own expansion. I wonder if, had the Wii never existed, this console generation would last another few years still, and then merge into something else, a more open-source style of gaming (see Yahtzee's other articles).
I do think Yahtzee is right in that the PS4 and Xbox### don't need to exist in the form that they are likely to be given to us. However, if the Ouya does well, it'll be a sign that the same open-source gaming nature of smartphones and pc's can be applied to consoles as well, and the industry will be reinvented from there.

...

Also, tacking on "and I'm not a fanboy" or something similar to the end of your post doesn't change anyone's opinion about you, except that you are potentially a liar. I might as well say "and I'm business statistician, so you can all trust my opinions are worth more."

Id be inclined to agree if the current consoles didnt only have 500MB of ram. Those loading times are annoy me...

Anathrax:
I'm wondering how would a console advance in areas other than the graphics department. Going all out on a controller isn't one such area, the Wii and the WiiU both prove that. Whoever answers me that question is a hero.

Well, how about offering enough RAM so we can finally be able to pile up dead bodies that do not go *poof* after a few seconds? It tends to take me totally out of it when I, say, sneak up and kill an isolated guy in a room, search the area, turn back to look at the guy I just killed, only to find him gone... doesn't work for me. How about freeing game designers from the corsage of having to constantly design the level so our vision is blocked for most of the time, because the game would otherwise croak under the heavy load of just some graphics?

How about we all get to see Blighttown in all its glory without having to cope with an abysmally low fps? Wouldn't that be cool?

Games these days just aren't anything like Super Bloody Mario, they're all about immersion, 3D, prime grade visuals and top poly counts. And yet, our current generations has to make do with pretty much the minimal amount of RAM required to run, what, Windows XP?

All the games we played on the current generation are pretty much coding magic, offering you the world in whatever fits into 256/512MB of RAM. That is why you have save game issues in Skyrim. That is why we tried crap like mega textures with giga pop-in. That is why we can't have nice things.

Think about that.

On an emotional level, I agree with the punkin' instigator of the house. On a more technical level, I just smirk and wipe away a tear or two.

Pebkio:

Hold on, I just saw this and felt like responding:

Kwil:

Couch co-op.

PCs, phones, tablets -- all solitary gaming devices. Yeah, you can hook up online, but that's not the same as having your friends playing right with you. Or perhaps a couple of you can even play in the same room if you have multiple of these gizmos in the house, but most people don't. For most people, it's one person at each screen, and if anybody else wants in, they basically has to watch over your shoulder until its their turn.

The area where consoles can excel in, however, is in letting a household play together. And oddly, though Nintendo's the only one who's realized this, folks like Yahtzee bash them for.. well.. not being more like PCs. Hell, the Wii-U is specifically designed to enhance couch co-op. To give you something you just can't get on a PC. An asymmetric game with everybody in the same room. And they're the dumb ones?

I can take my computer, right now, hook it up to a bigscreen, run four usb controllers and we can play on a couch. Just because I like my machine in a corner of my room so I can chat on forums naked doesn't mean it HAS to be solitary.

I will agree, though, that Nintendo has it right in trying to provide what PCs can't... they're just stupidly focused on the controller.

You can do that, but how many games that are released for PC have a focus on local mulitplayer? If there is any multiplayer at all on PC it will (with very few exceptions) be online. Local play is often an afterthought if it is even included at all, which in most cases it really isn't. It's a hassle to connect a PC to a TV and it also lacks the simple convenience of popping in a disc and playing the game. There is no barrier to entry on consoles. PC is great but a local multiplayer device it is not.

The Wii U is lacking in games right now, there is no argument otherwise. But the console in it's design knows exactly what it wants to be. The Wii had a pretty big focus on local play. Last generation I believe the Wii was the best console in terms of local multiplayer. With the Wii U they brainstormed ideas on how to much local multiplayer more fun and more interesting. Screen peeking was sometimes a problem. So what did they do? They gave a player their own screen. They then took that concept and came up with more ideas on ways to make playing with your friends in person more entertaining. Non-symmetrical gameplay is one of the things that makes the Wii unique. Why wouldn't your marketing focus on it?

I think I've decided that next generation I will have a PC and I will have a Wii U. They are two viable gaming machines that each are trying to accomplish something different. A Wii U knows it isn't a PC so it delivers in areas a PC doesn't in order to differentiate itself. To give me a unique experience other gaming systems don't provide.

The PS4 and the Next XBox sound like they'll be lesser PCs. I might pick one of them up for an exclusive or two but otherwise they'll probably be collecting dust. The PC and Wii U have an identity. They know what they are and they focus on what they do well. That's what I think at least.

I honestly feel that we need this new generation.

While I do prefer the Sony consoles over Microsoft, I do hope BOTH consoles increase the elbow room for games development from straitjacket tight to the size of the Pacific Ocean. I am looking forward to the games after the launch, more than the two or three select launch games.

Given the draconian method of the PS3 technology, I am really happy Sony realized their mistake and have corrected it. They could've pushed it, but they didn't. With the PS3 getting closer to the PC architecture, this should improve PC ports and console ports.

I have found that the similarities in thinking between Yahtzee and myself can be terrifying, this is definitely a parting of the minds. I want my consoles (I do have both) to have bigger and better games. With the RAM restrictions this won't happen...

Let me put it this way... How much bigger will the next Just Cause game be? Or the next Deus Ex game? Or the next Elder Scrolls game?

I say bring on the next-gen consoles... but leave the generation after that for a while.

And no, The WiiU is not a next-gen machine. With similar restrictions to current generation, I disagree with it being next-gen. It's ideas say 'yes', but the technology does not.

Mahoshonen:
Great article, Yahtzee, one that explains easily many of the reasons why neither the PS4 or XBox 3-Online Supertree are of any interest to me. It does leave out the biggest reason for my apathy, one that would understandably not occur to you given your job as a reviewer: I have such a massive backlog of games from this generation that I am in no rush to grab the next game console. Especially one that has zero backwards compatibility.

So much b/c talk focuses on playing games you already own; I'm surprised that no one sees the adult gamer with a 2-3 year backlog of current-gen games as a market worth selling to. You get me started into your ecosystem, you have the chance to sell me new releases while I clear my backlog, and you keep your competition from selling me on their console in the 2-3 years I would otherwise have no new machine.

 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