We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Clovus:

I'm pretty sure the 32-bit to 64-bit (and some of the OS upgrades) made a few older PC titles harder to play.

Yes but not unplayable generally and not the whole-pc back-catalog. If PS4 emulation of earlier hardware just made a few games harder to play than I would have no issue

I'm not saying that this just has to do with older titles - why the quotation marks? If backwards compatability can be achieved, I think that's absolutely fantastic. But, wouldn't you agree that especially with the PS4, it would be very difficult to achieve it since the architecture is comletely different? They'd pretty much have to include a Cell processor in the PS4. That's a pretty signficant extra cost to just achieve backwards compatability.

because word for word that's what you said and there's a difference between "some problems" and "they're all unplayable". Also, I remember thinking at the release of the PS4 that I would be fine with it as long as they had PS2 and PS1 backwards compatibility. If PS3 backwards-compatibility has to be sacrificed because of processor architecture than fine but a lack of PS2 backwards-compatibility is the outrage to me. As yahtzee said

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 PS4 would have a stronger library at launch than the PS3 does currently if it had PS2-compatibility.

Kingjackl:

Have you seen his Witcher 2 review? Or his review of the original Witcher (the one that coined the phrase)? I'm pretty sure 'PC master race' is meant to be ironic, since he seemed pretty contemptful of the elitist PC gaming mindset in those. Or at least he used to, it's pretty clear times are a-changing.

Really? You think he was being ironic about PC gamers being a whole nother race of human? I just assumed he was being totally serious. You know how down to earth Yahtzee is. Okay sorry, that was a bit rude.

I think in those reviews he was being more critical of certain types of RPGs than PC gaming elitism, or perhaps more specifically how some PC gamers would prefer a game that's complex purely for complexities and not because it's more fun. However it has nothing to do with console gaming as a platform.

Clovus:
snip

I'm not sure why that quote was attributed to me... I think an edit may be in order?

mike1921:

Clovus:

I'm pretty sure the 32-bit to 64-bit (and some of the OS upgrades) made a few older PC titles harder to play.

Yes but not unplayable generally and not the whole-pc back-catalog. If PS4 emulation of earlier hardware just made a few games harder to play than I would have no issue

Oh boy, this is getting confusing. I wasn't trying to make the point you think I was or something. I'm just saying that you sometimes have to make changes and then stuff becomes unplayable. You don't want to avoid moving forward with tech just because it breaks compatability. I think we agree on that. Yeah, it'd be cool if the PS4 played PS2 and PS1 games. Like I said, I think Sony wants to charge for that through PSN though, just like the Wii and probably XBox does (I don't own an XBox). Just like buying stuff on GOG on PC so that it works on a modern PC. Maybe Sony should consider going the other route and writing emulators so that people can use their super old disks. That sounds a bit crazy actually ...

I'm not saying that this just has to do with older titles - why the quotation marks? If backwards compatability can be achieved, I think that's absolutely fantastic. But, wouldn't you agree that especially with the PS4, it would be very difficult to achieve it since the architecture is comletely different? They'd pretty much have to include a Cell processor in the PS4. That's a pretty signficant extra cost to just achieve backwards compatability.

because word for word that's what you said and there's a difference between "some problems" and "they're all unplayable". Also, I remember thinking at the release of the PS4 that I would be fine with it as long as they had PS2 and PS1 backwards compatibility. If PS3 backwards-compatibility has to be sacrificed because of processor architecture than fine but a lack of PS2 backwards-compatibility is the outrage to me. As yahtzee said

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 PS4 would have a stronger library at launch than the PS3 does currently if it had PS2-compatibility.

Yeah, I still agree with you. I was confused about the quotes since I was saying that only old titles were affected *on PC*. I agree that with the PS4 it is very important to people to want to play PS3 titles that, like, came out this year. So, yes, the issue of backwards compatability is something that affects old and recent titles. I never said otherwise.

So, yeah, it would be awesome for the PS4 to have tons of old games available. But consoles are a mass market. The super-super-majority of people who buy a PS4 aren't going to care about PS2 and PS1 titles. You can just emulate those on a PC if you really want. It's the hundreds of PS3 titles that could make an actual difference. I just don't think that difference is worth the cost of including a Cell processor. So ... I think we mostly agree on this.

Out of curiosity, why would you possibly think PS2 and PS1 titles would be backwards compatable? Has any console every allowed you to put a disc/cartridge in from a sytem 2 generations ago? Especially when the previous system didn't handle old tiles for most of it's life? That seems like an odd thing to be "outraged" at. I can understand being a little let down if you really were hoping for this unprecedented thing to happen, but outraged?

(Sorry to tango for the misquote. I'm not sure how that happened. I edited it.)

Never Yahtzee has been more wrong about a game, than with Super Mario Galaxy 2. That game's levels were ever new and their gimmicks so smart that entire indie games would be based on a single one.

j1015:
"And I, for one, am not going to burn all my photos just because you invented a shiny new photo album that only holds photos of an approved shape and format."

A lot of times I agree with you. However, on this point not only are you wrong, your point is fucking retarded. Why can't the old system be treated the same way as when you run out of room in your old photo album? Put on the shelf until you want to play with it again.

It's really lazy to continue harping on backward-compatibility when so many gamers don't even use it. We always want the next thing. New phones, TV's, clothes, furniture etc. Some of those things we can and do use again. And when we need to put on a shirt that is three years old, we go to the closet and put it on. Old consoles can be the same way. BC is nice, but it's an arrogant, simple-minded thing to get bent out of shape over, as though you're owed this luxury. And when it comes down to it, that's all it is.

So you're going to assume that every buyer of a PS4 already owns PS2 and PS3?

What about people like me, who are looking to buy a brand new console but are also interested in the library of classic games provided by previous consoles? Why can't the new console play the old stuff? PC's can play older games (my Steam library dates a long way back and everything works) so there's really no excuse for why the latest consoles can't do it too.

Your example of "phones, TV's, clothes, furniture" is retarded because all of those things can do what previous generations of those things did PLUS more, they all do the older functions while enhancing them and adding new stuff at the same time.

Here's your example returned to you, what if you bought a TV that refused to play older shows/movies and you had to wait for new shows/movies to arrive just so you could make use of that fucking TV? Or how about a TV that only played a brand new format specific to that TV and no other formats, so you have to wait for media to arrive in that new format?
Without a library of stuff to watch your TV, it's nothing but a piece of expensive junk.

"But why can't I watch my favorite western classics on my new TV?" the poor buyer asks.
"Just keep your old TV handy for when you want to watch the old stuff!" would be your response (with a completely straight face). Hahaha, just store it in the closet like t-shirts right?

Ooh, how about a new phone that only accepts the numbers of friends who own phones from that current year onwards? "Just keep your old phone handy for when you want to contact friends who have older phones!" would be your response. Err, no, fuck that.

The entire point of new technology is to serve the core functions we have always required of them, enhancing those functions, and THEN perhaps introducing new functions. You don't throw out the core functions and expect us to keep the old stuff around! A big healthy game library is exactly that to a console - a core function.

A new car needs to be able to function on old roads - if the car seller tells me that I should just keep my old car handy for when I need to drive on old roads (your logic, right?) I would tell him to shove that new car up his ass.

Hope Yahtzee's point got through to you.

Clovus:

Out of curiosity, why would you possibly think PS2 and PS1 titles would be backwards compatable? Has any console every allowed you to put a disc/cartridge in from a sytem 2 generations ago? Especially when the previous system didn't handle old tiles for most of it's life? That seems like an odd thing to be "outraged" at. I can understand being a little let down if you really were hoping for this unprecedented thing to happen, but outraged?

(Sorry to tango for the misquote. I'm not sure how that happened. I edited it.)

Sony invented backwards compatibility on console and originally had it on PS3, the precedent is for them to give a damn about BC. In the previous generation they had the excuse of "we're doing this new processor architecture and this extra stuff we need to add to make BC work is too expensive", now they took away their excuse but kept the BC out of the picture totally. To not do the bare-minimum and have backwards compatibility for the older consoles, something that should be simple and something that they'd have to have been morons to never consider is a massive "fuck you" to me. It's not that they just don't have ps2 BC, it's not that they just don't have ps3 BC, it's that they have fucking nothing.

I guess you're right though, I'll just emulate PS2 games for now on.

mike1921:
Sony invented backwards compatibility on console and originally had it on PS3, the precedent is for them to give a damn about BC.

And how did that work out for them? It made the console really expensive, and didn't really drive many sales, if any. Meanwhile, Microsoft eats their lunch by not providing backwards-compatibility and lowering costs.

As much as you or I would like backwards-compatibility, it doesn't seem to make business sense. It requires a huge engineering effort and increased hardware costs, for little, if any gain. The niche that wants to play last-gen games is very small, and they don't provide much new income, compared to the influx of new users who didn't own the previous console.

It may not be pleasant, but that's the reality. Why would console makers be interested in servicing people who have already bought a game, rather than the new consumers who want to buy the new one?

I'm caught between buying a new graphics card or getting a PS4, running 2 gtx 580's on SLI atm. Tempted to get some Titans.

I need a new PC, not a new console. I'm happy with my 360. I need a PC for school to play Hawken, ARMA, and Starcraft, and to work in Maya.

Get out of my head Croshaw. You've essentially summarized most of my thoughts on the console industry in their entirety.

One of the only real differences being I've been saying these things since the half-way mark of the current gens life-cycle.

At this point, I honestly regret buying an Xbox360.

Zachary Amaranth:

1nfinite_Cros5:
the probable 2nd Video Game Crash happens

lolwhaaaaaaat?

There's nothing probable about a second video game crash. Even if the big companies fail, they're not going to have the massive impact that the Atari generation had.

Gaming has passed the fad threshold.

By leaps and bounds, in fact.

Even if every major publisher went under; and dragged most of their developer subsidiaries with them; we would still have a thriving video game industry.

Perhaps not quite as large nor "mainstream" as before, but we would still have developers and smaller publishers churning out titles and making plenty of cash in the process. (perhaps more, even)

And this isn't even addressing the ever expanding, and rather lucrative, indie scene nor the prevalence of crowd-funding ventures like Kickstarter.

"Need," is a kind of weird word to use. Does, "need," imply that computers have advanced enough that the old hardware is holding game development back? If so, modern consoles are fairly outdated, and perhaps new tech would create a market for new games.

It depends on how they play their cards, but a next generation console (That didn't require the developers to find uses for cheap hardware gimmicks, I mean) could inspire quite a bit more launches. There aren't many new launches now, but that's not really surprising, seeing as how the next generation consoles are around the corner.

And more importantly than need, is there a market for new consoles? Probably. I'd certainly buy one, since my computer can't really be used for gaming and I don't want to spend the money for one that can. And short of using virtualized OS's, non PC users can't really play more than a handful of games. "Need" is a moot point when people will buy it anyways; it's just a matter of numbers.

Aardvaarkman:

mike1921:
Sony invented backwards compatibility on console and originally had it on PS3, the precedent is for them to give a damn about BC.

And how did that work out for them? It made the console really expensive, and didn't really drive many sales, if any. Meanwhile, Microsoft eats their lunch by not providing backwards-compatibility and lowering costs.

As much as you or I would like backwards-compatibility, it doesn't seem to make business sense. It requires a huge engineering effort and increased hardware costs, for little, if any gain. The niche that wants to play last-gen games is very small, and they don't provide much new income, compared to the influx of new users who didn't own the previous console.

It may not be pleasant, but that's the reality. Why would console makers be interested in servicing people who have already bought a game, rather than the new consumers who want to buy the new one?

For christ's sake did you even read my whole post. I'm not going to repeat myself, here's what I said saying they had good reason to not have it last gen

In the previous generation they had the excuse of "we're doing this new processor architecture and this extra stuff we need to add to make BC work is too expensive",

I even said that I don't give a fuck about PS3 BC

. To not do the bare-minimum and have backwards compatibility for the older consoles, something that should be simple and something that they'd have to have been morons to never consider is a massive "fuck you" to me.

Getting on to your points that can't be reflected by reading, it worked out really well for them to have BC, look at the success of the PS2. The PS3 had some dumb architecture that made Backwards-compatibility more expensive, having architecture that natively supports PS2 games without raising costs significantly should have been something that the console was designed around, not an afterthought. But at this point they shot themselves in the foot so they need to break BC at some point, but there's no reason a PS4 can't emulate a PS2.

The 360 has software-based backwards compatibility of most popular games on the console : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games_compatible_with_Xbox_360

Any source on that being a small niche? That makes absolutely no sense to me as anyone who is in anyway a gamer either has games from last gen or the one before that they want to play, either for the first time or a second, at some point or is likely to hear about games from previous generations that they want to play. Also consider that the people who do want BC are the more hardcore gamers who would probably buy more games.

They would want to service people who already have games to get consoles in homes. The more consoles in homes the more your new games can sell.

Clovus:

Out of curiosity, why would you possibly think PS2 and PS1 titles would be backwards compatable? Has any console every allowed you to put a disc/cartridge in from a sytem 2 generations ago? Especially when the previous system didn't handle old tiles for most of it's life? That seems like an odd thing to be "outraged" at. I can understand being a little let down if you really were hoping for this unprecedented thing to happen, but outraged?

(Sorry to tango for the misquote. I'm not sure how that happened. I edited it.)

Ps3 could play discs from a system 2 generations ago, every single ps1 game is compatible with that system, something that´s apparently very easy to include, which makes you wonder why they would remove it on ps4.

The thing is, they probably already have the Technology, since people have been making functional ps1/ps2 emulators for ages, if the ps4 is as easy to work with as they say, it shouldn´t be tough to include it. But it will probably never happen because they would rather sell the games to us again :/. I would prefer Gaikai + Psn ports AND my own library of games. But they´d rather take away our choices and force us to rebuy our games (or the small segment that were popular enough to be rereleased...)

Now that a lot of games are getting pc releases, I don't think I'm gonna get suckered into buying another overpriced console for a while. I have some very good compatible-with-everything controllers and an hd cable, so it's just like playing on a console, minus the bullshit I have to deal with using consoles. And if I don't want online play? I just turn off the internet connection. Seriously, unless some of those consoles show up at goodwill or a second-hand store I don't think I'll be buying it.

It's strange, I started gaming on a windows 95, gamed exclusively on consoles for almost 20 years because pc gaming was a hasstle, and now I'm back to pc games because console gaming is becoming a hassle.

MrBaskerville:

Clovus:

Out of curiosity, why would you possibly think PS2 and PS1 titles would be backwards compatable? Has any console every allowed you to put a disc/cartridge in from a sytem 2 generations ago? Especially when the previous system didn't handle old tiles for most of it's life? That seems like an odd thing to be "outraged" at. I can understand being a little let down if you really were hoping for this unprecedented thing to happen, but outraged?

(Sorry to tango for the misquote. I'm not sure how that happened. I edited it.)

Ps3 could play discs from a system 2 generations ago, every single ps1 game is compatible with that system, something that´s apparently very easy to include, which makes you wonder why they would remove it on ps4.

The thing is, they probably already have the Technology, since people have been making functional ps1/ps2 emulators for ages, if the ps4 is as easy to work with as they say, it shouldn´t be tough to include it. But it will probably never happen because they would rather sell the games to us again :/. I would prefer Gaikai + Psn ports AND my own library of games. But they´d rather take away our choices and force us to rebuy our games (or the small segment that were popular enough to be rereleased...)

the problem is the changed architecture. previous consoles all had identical or similar architecture with just pimped hardware. now the complete architecture has changed.
PCs can emulate consoles because they have the processing power to run a virtual machine with the simulated architecture of the console. but it takes a lot of power, and even fast PCs struggle a bit and the emulation often runs pretty chuggy and slow.
now the architecture has changed. the ps4 is essentially just yesterdays low-middle class PC and thus completely lacks power to emulate a PS3 with any sort of speed that would be sufficient to make games playable.

Thunderous Cacophony:

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 keep a console that works 100% of the time, rather than one that will crap out when your internet fails. It's one thing that Yahtzee didn't mention, but really should; when the new consoles come out, you can buy the old ones (along with their massive libraries of polished games) for cheap. I'm not going to have $600-800 to spend on a PS4, but my roommate and are probably capable of scrounging up $200 for a PS3/XBox 360 with a few games, and we're willing to live without the newest games (or pick up the cheaper versions that will be published for the older generation).

Exactly what I'm doing. If the rumors of these "New Gen" systems turn out to be true and backwards compatibility has been sacrificed so a system can play Blu-Rays, I'm better off investing in a older system.

Eh, I think Yahtzee is wrong here. The WiiU failed because they came too late to the party and tried to cater to a market that was already being served. I mean, really? A year before the next generation comes out and all they bring is a machine that's just a little more powerful than the existing machines without very many titles? They deserved to fail and it may not be long before we see Nintendo go the way of Sega and start focusing on software (at least they'll still have handhelds).

Hypothetically, these new consoles should save money. For one, the second largest console (PS4) is no longer using proprietary hardware. All these game companies can spend significantly less time on ports because of this and the ps4 was a resource hog where development time was concerned (stupid asset categories, making people fit oblong games into tiny boxes). There is no reason why developing for one of these new consoles should necessarily cost significantly more money like it did in the previous generation when the step from the ps2 to ps3 was momentous. This generation is going to be the same type of hardware, just better.

So developers also won't have to worry about being as efficient with resources as they had been before. Everything should be easier. The only problem will come if AAA want to make the biggest and baddest possible and have no idea how much to budget. Companies that don't know how to budget deserve to go away.

Already have a decent gaming PC. Done!

Seriously, though. I have no plans to buy anything from the latest console generation. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need to learn their place. And that place is: without my wallet. I'm guessing other people will follow. (Hoping.)

tehweave:
Already have a decent gaming PC. Done!

Seriously, though. I have no plans to buy anything from the latest console generation. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need to learn their place. And that place is: without my wallet. I'm guessing other people will follow. (Hoping.)

PC gamers would benefit the most from new console hardware existing. As a fellow pc gamer (though I do have consoles as well), don't you realize that the capability/quality of our pc games have been held hostage by the console market? This is because developes want their games to reach the largest market as possible and so games are often held back by the weakest machine they need to reach.

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.

Processing power. Am I a hero now?

No really. Games like the Fallout series and the Elder Scrolls series are simulating the entire world all the time. This eats up massive amounts of processing power and is, in short, the reason those games tend to be bugged and/or freeze up. If you kept the same graphics (which is unheard of, I know)but upped the processing power you could alleviate most of those problems and then use the left over processor space to pretty up your game in the graphics department.

And then you have the game Defiance. I am interested in seeing how it plays, basically being an MMO on the xbox and all. Which is no small feat to have all those people interacting in "lobbies" decidedly larger than 16 people. The down side is the game looks bad. I attribute the graphics nightmare to all the processor power being routed to keeping the game in a functional state. Perhaps the "720" will allow for MMO like games that don't look half bad either. Who knows?

But really. Am I a hero now? It's all I've ever wanted my whole life was to be an internet hero. Please don't dash my hopes and dreams... Please...?

I know the ouya is currently occupying the same space as unicorns in chances of becoming real, but... It seems like the only console I would actually like to have in the future, its either that or take up PC gaming and just hook up a controller.

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.
-=gaming that works 100% of the time=-

You playing on a SNES? No machine the last thee generations (maybe the gamecube) has ever worked 100% of the time after about a year of playing.

I don't think the threat to consoles is PC's over the other way around, I'm surprised anyone still gets worked about that. It's tablets and smartphones. I actually never thought that traditional consoles would be released in 2013, I thought everything was headed towards handhelds, which headed towards tablets. I thought the 3DS was going to be a Nintendo tablet. I'm still not sure what the Wii U is, and I like the Wii U. I can play games on the couch with my girlfriend without any split-screen nonsense. Unfortunately, most game designers wouldn't dare dream of making a game under the supposition that most people who will play it experience any form of genuine human interaction anymore.

But anyways, it's still a few years off before it starts to become obvious how much trouble everyone else is in, and tablets are not. All tablets are always BC, BC isn't even a concept it's just a basic assumption. Someday there will be tablets with all the buttons and joysticks we need without any hideous handles, and they will play most of the games we like to play. Once these breeds of tablets come along and get that kind of support (the kind we typically expect from consoles) it will be like a super nova destroying two petty little moons arguing over whose orbital axis is more elegant, and surface more pleasing to the eye, ignoring the giant ball of heat consuming everything in its way.

Consoles are an issue because new platforms have become a problem. Everyone hates new platforms, we want incrementally better versions of platforms we already own, but not all-new platforms. PC's are an issue because AAA games don't sell, so most developers either go F2P, go small, or go out of business. Big PC games are a problem, of the few exist they can only fund themselves by being multi-platform or being a Valve or Blizzard game. Oh, never mind, Valve usually subsidizes development though multiplatform too, and Blizzard's most recent Diablo game was a beta for the console versions. BC is also not a strength of PC gaming, if it were we sure as hell wouldn't need GOG to fix and re-sell our games to us. Even then they aren't without their problems.

Right now, I think everyone kind of stinks. The only games I really enjoy anymore are Nintendo games, but don't get too excited because they only win by default. There's something to be said for one of the world's biggest publishers that has never published a military shooter or a single game with an online pass, much less that horrendous season pass crap. Okay, I'll spend my money on the potential of content that doesn't exist yet. It's either anxiety insurance or a landmine for impulsiveness. All video games seem to be about anymore is cheating impulsive people out of their paychecks, it's like we've come full circle to the arcade again.

OlasDAlmighty:
[quote="Kingjackl" post="6.406366.16920816"]

I think in those reviews he was being more critical of certain types of RPGs than PC gaming elitism, or perhaps more specifically how some PC gamers would prefer a game that's complex purely for complexities and not because it's more fun. However it has nothing to do with console gaming as a platform.

Given the tone of the review, I interpreted it as a little of both. He was mocking elitist PC gamers who preferred needless complexity in their interface because it made them feel superior simply for putting up with said needless complexity.

That said, this thread has been surprisingly civil for being indirectly about PC versus console gaming. I mean, sure, a few posters on both sides have been more than a little snide in voicing their points of view, but I mean, 8 pages and no one has invoked godwin's law, or been banned for posting something with more explitives than non? Sad that that's all it takes to impress me, but I'll take it.

the only real qualm I have with rushing the new generation out right now is that it feels premature. Sure, this gen has lasted longer than the last, but in terms of development it still hasn't accomplished as much as the past two did before ending. Granted, I'm a layman when it comes to tech specs and hardware output, so my opinion is of extremely limited value.

I have 2 problems with PC gaming:

1) The chair is less comfortable than the couch.
2) The general quality of PC hardware has become dreadful during the past 10 years. I have owned several gaming PC's, one in 1996, one in 2000 and one in 2004. The 1996 had zero problems and works to this day. The 2000 one has several hardware issues that I had to address. The 2004 one was a trainwreck. In the following 2 years, I had to change pretty much everything, the hard drives died, the PSU was overheating, the CPU was overheating, the memory was faulty and I actually had to switch motherboard 3 times, because the first 2 ones were defective, and they were made by different manufacturers and bought from different stores. The PC ended up costing me about twice as much as I was prepared to pay for. In contrast my fat gen 1 PS3 is still working perfectly 7 years later, my Wii is of course immortal, and I don't own a 360 because it is a piece of shit.

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.

You're still getting BSOD? Might want to look at upgrading friend.

Carnagath:
I have 2 problems with PC gaming:
2) The general quality of PC hardware has become dreadful during the past 10 years. I have owned several gaming PC's, one in 1996, one in 2000 and one in 2004. The 1996 had zero problems and works to this day. The 2000 one has several hardware issues that I had to address. The 2004 one was a trainwreck. In the following 2 years, I had to change pretty much everything, the hard drives died, the PSU was overheating, the CPU was overheating, the memory was faulty and I actually had to switch motherboard 3 times, because the first 2 ones were defective, and they were made by different manufacturers and bought from different stores. The PC ended up costing me about twice as much as I was prepared to pay for. In contrast my fat gen 1 PS3 is still working perfectly 7 years later, my Wii is of course immortal, and I don't own a 360 because it is a piece of shit.

Sorry you had problems, but it isn't that hardware has become "dreadful" over the past years. It's actually become pretty damned impressive. I know I have an edge over a lot of people when it comes to setting up computers since I work on them and was raised by someone who does, but overheating problems, faulty parts (most of the time), and things like that are because of poor build quality, insufficient power supply, poor ventilation, ect. If your motherboard was just defective you can get a replacement for free, so it makes me think your ventilation and power supply sucked and it fried the motherboard. Yes computers actually require some knowledge to properly set up but it isn't that hard to at least talk to someone or do a bit of research. (Note this has nothing to do with console vs PC, I was just responding to the problems you were having)

OT: I know a lot of the information on the next gen is "rumors" but as someone else said somewhere the amount of rumors that say the same thing is staggering, and it's hard to dismiss them. It doesn't really affect me all that much since I largely PC game, but for the market to take a turn like this is ridiculous. It's like companies have been progressively trying more and more to see how much they can get away with. And they will keep getting away with it because sales will be through the roof as always. I still haven't bought Diablo 3 since I refuse to be forced online when I want to play single player, and if rumors are correct that means I'm missing out on the next xbox as well. Ah well, back to Total War for me! Let there be ROME!

Edited to quote Carnagath

Umaro67:
PC's are an issue because AAA games don't sell, so most developers either go F2P, go small, or go out of business.

World of Warcraft- 10.75 million copies sold
Diablo III- 10 million copies sold
Civilization V- 9 million copies sold
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim- 5 million copies sold
Portal 2- 3 million copies sold
Battlefield 3- 2.5 million copies sold
Deus Ex: Human Revolution- 2 million copies sold
Call of Duty Black Ops 2- 1.45 million copies sold

All numbers listed above are for PC units.

Big PC games are a problem, of the few exist they can only fund themselves by being multi-platform or being a Valve or Blizzard game. Oh, never mind, Valve usually subsidizes development though multiplatform too, and Blizzard's most recent Diablo game was a beta for the console versions.

PC-only titles sell well enough that there are dozens of publishers that do nothing but develop and release PC games.

BC is also not a strength of PC gaming, if it were we sure as hell wouldn't need GOG to fix and re-sell our games to us. Even then they aren't without their problems.

Backwards compatibility on the PC is much less of a problem than it is on consoles. There's no point in arguing this. Out of the 600+ games I own for my PC, only a handful no longer work on modern computers -- console gamers who own a similarly-sized cross-console library can't claim the same thing.

----

As far as I'm concerned, the next generation of consoles is going to decide the future long-term well being of the console industry as a whole. The PC side of the video game industry, on the other hand, is only getting stronger -- AAA publishers are slowly losing their dominance, indie developers are gaining market traction and releasing better games, post-release prices are getting cheaper, the Steambox and the Ouya are making waves, and more people are dropping their current-gen consoles in favor of the PC platform.

Yahtzee's on the right track.

Is it just me or does anyone miss playing Rogue Squadron/Luigis Mansion/Pikmin/SSBroMelee for the first time when the Nintendo Gamecube was released?

Or Call of Duty 2 and Fight Night 3 for Xbox360?

i miss that feeling, tho then again i was a kid. I dont even know what to look forward to as with gaming in general anymore, considering how i feel games today are lacking something and are "kind of a crap-tastical voyage."

what would i be missing with these new console releases?

Carnagath:
I have 2 problems with PC gaming:

1) The chair is less comfortable than the couch.
2) The general quality of PC hardware has become dreadful during the past 10 years. I have owned several gaming PC's, one in 1996, one in 2000 and one in 2004. The 1996 had zero problems and works to this day. The 2000 one has several hardware issues that I had to address. The 2004 one was a trainwreck. In the following 2 years, I had to change pretty much everything, the hard drives died, the PSU was overheating, the CPU was overheating, the memory was faulty and I actually had to switch motherboard 3 times, because the first 2 ones were defective, and they were made by different manufacturers and bought from different stores. The PC ended up costing me about twice as much as I was prepared to pay for. In contrast my fat gen 1 PS3 is still working perfectly 7 years later, my Wii is of course immortal, and I don't own a 360 because it is a piece of shit.

It's been possible to play PC games on your couch for a long while now, steam are also making it easier with "big-picture" UI.

Personally, I love it. Console feel but with 1080p res and extra graphical bells and whistles. Could be worth checking out.

PS3 and XBox360 are on their last legs and WiiU is just barely catching up. The replacements will only arrive in autumn/winter. Lots of the games are being released on PC as well anyway. A decent gaming PC doesn't cost a fortune anymore either.

Developers are starting to favour the PC as a development platform, because they can play around with more stuff and sheer power there. That's why even multi-platform titles actually look best on PC these days.

The free to play market keeps getting bigger, and is pretty much a PC phenomenon. Through direct marketing (Steam, ...) you got access to a huge game library 6 days a week, 24h a day.

You can hook up PCs to your TV easier than ever thanks to HDMI + flat-screens and lots of games can be played with a game pad (may need a USB-extension cable). If you want, you can even use original console game pads.

Valve, Ouya and various hardware manufacturers are building mini-PCs, which are meant as open platforms from the get go (in contrast to consoles), and which feature a custom built GUI which you can operate from your couch.

Did i miss something? What's there not to like? 2013 - the year of the PC.

itsthesheppy:
PREACH IT!

I hear ya, man. PC Gaming Master Race. Consoles can go fuck themselves, that entire industry can burn for all I care.

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

Aaand that's why people call PC gamers "elitists". You're giving us a bad name, fucking stop it!

Two Words: Uncanny Valley

The instant that consoles hit the point of Uncanny Valley level graphics (which they are dangerously close to already) then it's curtains for the entire console industry. Once that happens, combined with the fact that most titles with any depth are either PC exclusives or just PC-with-shitty-console-port titles, then it's all over for them. People won't be ABLE to play them for the graphics without literally vomiting, and they won't have any reason other than the graphics to even try.

That's why, in the end, PC gaming will win and consoles will die. And there's a good chance it'll happen in the very next generation. If not...it still won't be long.

Markunator:

itsthesheppy:
PREACH IT!

I hear ya, man. PC Gaming Master Race. Consoles can go fuck themselves, that entire industry can burn for all I care.

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

Aaand that's why people call PC gamers "elitists". You're giving us a bad name, fucking stop it!

Since when did 'elite' become a bad word? Hang on, let me look it up. On the INTERNET!

eˇlite [ih-leet, ey-leet]
noun
1.
( often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2.
( used with a plural verb ) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3.
a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4.
a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare pica1 .
adjective
5.
representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.

Goodness, those all look like positives. So why is elitism a bad thing, again? Oh, you're looking for the word arrogance, I think. Well, why should we be arrogant? Is it because PCs are far, far better gaming platforms? Because they are, and you know they are. Out and proud, friend!

Markunator:
Aaand that's why people call PC gamers "elitists". You're giving us a bad name, fucking stop it!

And then there's people like me... All systems and an immensely powerful machine. Seriously, we look at people firmly rooted in any single given camp and shake our heads knowingly. Can't possibly get more elite than that. Every platform has its benefits and its drawbacks/limitations.

1. Computers are completely customizeable/consoles are only customizeable if you are a computer engineer.
2. Consoles are the perfect party platform/Computers are terrible at multiplayer games on the same machine and there's not enough demand for that to change just yet.
3. The 360 has an amazing online service/ The PS3's service is competent and free / the pc internet service is unrivaled and also free.
4. Sony has the most good and great exclusives (Journey, Heavy Rain, inFamous, Uncharted, etc)/ 360's exclusives are limited but usually epic (Halo series, GOW, etc)/The PC has a lot of games that are only on one console but also on it and a significant library of pc-only titles (consoles are playing catch up with the indie market right now).
5. Consoles are convenient and generally quiet living room entertainment centers/Powerful gaming rigs require significant noise reduction technology in the living room and may not be as convenient (boot time, navigation, etc).
6. Consoles have peripherals that can make them worth while right now (depending on the person), such as the connect/Computers aren't really there yet and those peripherals require space that most home office areas don't have.
7. Consoles are relatively cheap for the power they offer/PCs are expensive to really get where you want to be but can also be upgraded years down the road for cheaper than buying a new system. For example, my system is top of the line but only has one video card. Down the road I just slap on one or two other video cards and bridge them.
8. Computers can be used to view a wider variety of online services/Consoles have piss poor browsers that block sites they feel compete with them and require seperate apps to view others.

But, as I said before, the quality of games on the pc has really suffered by being held back by consoles. I know my 32GB RAM machine with a new i7 intel (my apologies to my future self should I read this and realize how outdated this hardware is in the future) can handle more, but developers of AAA games are only building the games to be playable on all platforms and so there's not much of an incentive in making the pc version multiple times better. Especially when not everyone has the same rig I do. Sure, you get your crysis type games here and there but graphics have also reached a point where better graphics aren't all that necessary. I'd say we're mostly on the other side of the uncanny valley now and once we're firmly on the other side and even independent studios have access to engines that can handle them then games can finally get away from all this graphiophile bullshit and start making us good games. If Yahtzee or Jim or any of these amazing reviewers want game developers to stop caring about graphics more than stories then this is the necessary step to get graphics out of the way.

 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