We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I agree with Yahtzee on the problems facing the industry, and I'm saddened that it's the business practices that are sabotaging what could be a smooth transition into one final (and hopefully) permanent console lifecycle. I just have issues with the outdated performance of the xbox's anemic hardware. Playstation's upgrade to their next console seems rushed and pointless because they have a powerful console already, so my beef is mainly with Xbox360. Let me vent my spec-frustration.

The current X-Box 360 can only do 60 frames on 720p resolution and low res textures in most games. 1080p games run at 30 frames per second most of the time. It has 512Mb of ram, which was considered little on a PC in 2002 when I bought my first. I don't care what tricks developers use to squeeze out of every last megaflop on an ancient and obsolete pack mule, because I start to notice when weapons and ammo and bodies that need looting get erased from my universe through the hole punched in by the consoles incompetence. I want smooth and beautiful vistas with jaw dropping draw distances that don't make trees, enemies, and vehicles vanish in front of my eyes when they hit a specific line on the horizon. The console was introduced in HDTV's infancy when 1080p hadn't matured as a nationwide definition of normal and component cables were the standard input (grrrrr). So we're left with a lackluster console that only realized half its potential.

I say let Microsoft and Sony upgrade their hardware one more time so that we can finally have smooth gaming on 1080p and 60 frames with thousands of articles that dont' have to vanish to clear the ram and give me amazing draw distances with full screen antialiasing and anisotropy, and we can call it finished for an entire generation.

That way your AAA games can have the space to stretch their legs and flex their muscles, and more experimental, limited budget, or less graphically intense games can introduce more elements on screen to play with without having to make painstakingly drawn realism bleeding environments. Everybody wins.

TheAsterite:
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.

That isn't the same thing, but at least you managed to be both rude and incredibly hostile while missing the point. Mario and Sonic were mascots for their respective consoles, it's quite different from exclusives. Also, just for the record, I got a Mega Drive because that's what my parents bought me; my best friend had a SNES because that's what his parents bought him. It had nothing to do with exclusives or brand loyalty, it was just down to whichever advert we saw on the television first, and what Toys R Us still had in stock two weeks before Christmas. You're applying modern-day consumer psychology to what was an entirely different market twenty years ago.

Today 'exclusive' has become a dirty word for third-party developers picking allegiances between three companies when multi-platform releases make much more sense; financially and from the point of view of the consumer. You'll still never find Mario on a non-Nintendo console, though, because he's a Nintendo character. See the difference?

Nowadays I've found, from experience, that people buy a new console based on their allegiance to a company's previous consoles, because we're a lot more informed about our purchasing decisions. I went from PS2 to PS3, not because of Sony's rich fucking stable of IP's but because I liked the previous hardware and I think they have the perfect controller.

There are no exclusive games that would sway me, today, because they ultimately all play pretty much the same as something else you'll find on a competing console, and that's the real problem with mainstream gaming: it's become a dull, homogenised mass because publishers think that copying the winner instead of coming up with something different is the best strategy.

FloodOne:
Who the hell are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't like?

I didn't, I just said that you shouldn't really care if you don't get a sequel to a series just because it's not on a console. You'll find other things, things you'll like. Do you think that you'll never learn to like another JRPG unless the name "Final Fantasy" or "Tales of" are on the cover? You don't NEED to stick to something over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Seriously, how many Final Fantasies have come out now?

I like fighting games, can't get a decent one on PC.

So... Mugen was just a puzzle game? You've heard of Mugen, right? Old graphics, sure, but a really great fighting game. And Capcom still publishes their Street Fighter games for the PC as well as consoles. There might even be good indie ones, I wouldn't doubt it, but I don't know, because fighting games aren't my forte.

I like American sports games, can't get them on PC.

Uh huh. Sure. I totally believe you couldn't find any sports games on the PC. Not like EA published them for the PC or anything. Or 2k. I was totally wrong about the sports games.

Really? You just tried to tell me there are no American sports games for the PC? You need to realize how desperately you're defending consoles.

I like JRPGs, can't get them on PC.

You mean you can't get the ones you like on consoles. Because there are good ones out and more still coming out on the PC. Hace you head of The Black Tower (TBT)? It's supposed to feature old-school JRPG gameplay and settings but with newer graphics. That's coming out on the PC. This is exactly what I was talking about... stop just assuming and GO LOOK.

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.

Just like that? I find it suspicious that you can ONLY like exclusive games found ONLY on consoles. It's like you've programmed to dislike anything if you can't play it just on the PS3 or 360.

When PC gaming catches up to MY interests, maybe I'll switch to it full time.

It never will. You've resigned yourself to being the main demographic of the AAA console industry. A faithful consumer who is unable to enjoy anything else but the stuff you're already comfortable with. And let's be honest here, if inFamous had been released to the PC, it wouldn't be on your list and you'd still be telling me that PC games hold no interest for you.

I know me TELLING you how you are makes you all kinds of angry, but you have to realize that THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING. You are casually brushing aside good games and clinging desperately hard to console-only games as... what?... the only games you can enjoy? It's just to justify your defense of an industry that doesn't, in my opinion, care as much about providing a great service. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not...

I'm just saying the PC is providing a better service to consumers, and that you can still find good games, if you would only stop being such a faithful zealot to AAA console-only franchises.

Headdrivehardscrew:
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's one of the reasons Skyrim has problems. Skyrim has so many problems that are totally unrelated to RAM but are related to *cough* Bethesda *cough* crappy programming. Skyrim and Fallout 3 have massive issues on PCs with plenty of RAM to spare, too. Other developers are able to make better performing games without so many bugs.

One more unrelated thought even though I posted a moment ago. Nintendo 3DS. I'm reading more excitement about the titles coming out for it this year -around the web- than any of the big three consoles. I'm honestly just about ready to shell out for one so I can catch up on its robust catalogue of rpgs and off-kilter games. Is this sad? Or just... appropriate?

Personally, I'm still firmly entrenched in the generation of PS2, because there is such a massive glut of good games I just never got the chance to play back when it was at the height of popularity. And, hey, as long as I'm enjoying them, why would I need to move on to more recent gaming generations? The roommie has an xbox 360, and I used to own a Wii, but, for the most part, the only games I play on 360 are so called 'touchstone games' eg. the entire Mass Effect trilogy, Bayonetta, and I started but never finished Catherine because, well, I found out exactly how many levels are in that stupid Rapunzel minigame insanity... Meanwhile, I've been dining on Personas and Shin Megami games one or two a month, with the occasional Final Fantasy to fill the hole, but those aren't nearly as necessary any longer.

I don't know what we're arguing about. It's not like with two new consoles, people will start making less games for PC anyway. Just keep playing on the platform of your choice.

People who play on PC will continue to game on PC. People who prefer consoles will buy a new console. New consoles allow more possibility for multiplatform games while offer exclusive games so people with that specific console can enjoy, make their purchase worthwhile and draw in more customers.

We don't have to play everything.

I agree with a lot of things in this article. I never get why Sony would want to ditch backwards compatibility, so okay maybe ps3 is impossible at the moment, but they should have the technology to include ps2 and especially ps1, so why the hell not do that? ps1 worked for ps3 so why drop it now? Its just a money grab, because they want us to rebuy our games on Gaikai and psn, that seriously sucks...

GeneralFungi:

You can do that, but how many games that are released for PC have a focus on local mulitplayer?

*inhales a massive amount of air*
*exhales it again*

You know, I was going to go make a snarky list of dozens of games on the PC that featured local co-op when a discussion I saw while researching got me thinking...

Also: someone already went and made my list. They even have a handy little icon to tell you if it's for a couch.

Anyway, what I was thinking about is how split-screen, or a shared-screen, is... kinda... outdated. Yes yes, I know; the money thing, but even with games on consoles (excluding Nintendo) that features a shared-screen co-op, people prefer to system link at least... no one likes sharing a screen. It's now a thing you have to put up with, rather than purposefully seek out to enjoy.

I excluded the Wii and WiiU, and this is why: It's made to appeal to group gamers. At least a lot of the games are. If I ever threw parties, then we'd play Wii games with Wii Waggle Sticks... and we'd be drunk. But there are still games like that on the PC, it being so versatile and all. Still, yeah, the WiiU would make a better party machine.

Though I do disagree with the barrier to entry. HDMI cables makes PC gaming on a big-screen the easiest thing evar! Okay, as easy as setting up the stereo. Windows has gotten really good at the whole "self-detected" settings thing.

Pebkio:
You mean you can't get the ones you like on consoles. Because there are good ones out and more still coming out on the PC. Hace you head of The Black Tower (TBT)? It's supposed to feature old-school JRPG gameplay and settings but with newer graphics. That's coming out on the PC. This is exactly what I was talking about... stop just assuming and GO LOOK.

It is undeniably that the PC gets less games in genres like the "JRPG" or Fighting games. The original name for JRPG is actually "console style role playing game". And from Japan, which, like fighting games, has produced the majority of games in both of these genres and, with the success of consoles in Japan, much of the games have been console exclusives.

This is slowly starting to change. But certainly as of now the console library of Japanese RPG, Fighting games, and several other genres, both Japanese created and popular or Western created and popular, is still larger than the PC. The divide hasn't completely been bridged yet.

For instance, skateboarding "sports" games, are still more common on the console. At one point in time, these came out for PC as well. In recent year, aside from the horrible "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD" port, they have all been console exclusive. The old games also do not see modern digital distribution.

For the PC, Japanese RPGs like the Ys games, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, Grandia II, Breath of Fire IV, Half Minute Hero, ClaDun, and indie titles like Recettear and Fortune Summoners exist. And Agarest War which is probably one of the better Compile Heart/Idea Factory games, is slated to be ported to the PC(decent strategy gameplay, if you can look past the creepy fanservice advertising). There's also a lot of Western indie developers making games in the genre like Pier Solar.

So things definitely are getting better, and many are happily anticipating the PC getting more Japanese style RPGs. That being said, it is still has a ways to go, and I can imagine many would expect to need to buy a new console system in order to play many of the better developed Japanese RPGs that will be out there. The PC isn't quite a replacement for a console to play jRPGs. Yet. It is getting there. And I can see why many are not ready to make the switch from console to PC gamer because of it.

To be honest, one of the most notable franchises of jRPG on the PC right now is still Ys. Falcom has always been on the forefront of jRPGs for the PC. And the Ys games are finally starting to get Western localizations which is a step in the right direction.

As for fighting games, there is also a long way to go. But things are also getting better. Several fighting games are on Steam and Good old Games. Good old Games has Guilty Gear X2 and Asuka, Street Fighter Alpha 2. And Steam has Super Street Fighter IV, Street Fighter x Tekken, Virtua Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat games, and the upcoming Skullgirls which is sure to be a pretty big hit on Steam. So things are getting better.

And honestly, more the popular the PC gets, the more common any of these console typical genres will be on the PC. But I wouldn't say it is quite a console experience yet.

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"

He emphasized that was the main problem, not the only one.

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.

They haven't learned anything. Even Yahtzee says that in the article.

The selling points for the Playstation line have always been features. The PS2 and PS3 added features. The PS4 replaces the current generation and gives us..... social integration.

No matter how "dev friendly" the PS4 is, I highly doubt that's going to affect the number of games. Maybe better games sure.
Until they release some killer app that can overtake all of the PS3's titles, that argument doesn't hold water.

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

How isn't it? I'd actually be looking forward to the PS4 if it was backwards compatible, hell I'd be saving up money right now.

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)

This just hurts your argument. The fact that people would have MORE incentive to buy a PS3 after the PS4's release (other than it being cheaper) just shows how messed up the situation.

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.

That's not what the article is about. I think everyone is unanimous on that issue anyway.

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.

Unfortunately, many people here are not going to agree on a "fair judgement" for this situation.

tl;dr - People are missing the point of the article: lack of games for a console.

And what's the reason the PS4 is going to not have that many games to start?

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.

A truly rare occurrence. /scarcasm

I'm all for PS3-Vita-PS4, I just have 1 huge fucking problem with Sony. They have to drop bloody region locked DLC and codes. There have to be united code database. So if I buy a game in Japan and it has promo codes I should be able to activate it on my EU account. just like on Steam.

Listen. Let me talk straight. I know I've been negative about a lot of things over the years as part of my philosophy of pessimism in the name of never being disappointed, but everything I do is rooted in love for this medium. For all the shit I've given Nintendo over the years, I would never flat out refuse to play their games anymore.

So he hasn't completely become an obnoxious caricature of his former self. Heartwarming to know.

In any case, I disagree about us needing a new console generation. I think it's more about people having become too complacent with this current generation and its abnormal length to move on; you included, Croshaw. It's the same thing that happened when XP - Microsoft's flagship OS for an unusual six years - was replaced with Vista. Vista in retrospect turned out to be a good operating system with a bad launch (and even then, XP's launch in comparison was atrocious), but you wouldn't know that when you talk to all the piss-dribbling mongoloids who are still sour over the retirement of the "best Windows ever."

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

You do realize that Yahtzee was literally the person who originally coined that phrase, right? His job revolves around games and he's always been a Valve and Steam supporter. I'd be surprised if his rig wasn't more powerful than yours and most PC gamers out there.

Negatempest:
The reason the Wii didn't stand to well with "hardcore" gamers was more than just a simple gimmick. To play a Wii game had the player use so much physical excursion that players would tire out quickly from games that were enjoyable to play for more than 30 minutes. So much physical movement from the player to make an avatar move in a specific manner is far more annoying than having a touch screen on a game control.

I'm guessing you've never actually owned a Wii, that or you have the weakest arms of any human I've ever heard of. Most Wii games didn't require you to make any arm gestures at all, the few that did usually just required a simple flick or shake of the wrist. Unless you were playing standing up you could always rest your elbows on your knees or shoulder rests. Holding a Wiimote takes about as much energy as holding a TV remote, and even if you do hold it out in the air the thing weighs about 2 ounces. Anyway my 10 year old sister with a weak heart never had any trouble using it.[/quote]

Fuck the PC master race and fuck consoles. WHy do they fucking exist? I would like to play Bayonetta, Wet, Gears of War, God of War and many other games, but I can't due to the shitty exclusiveness. I really want the market to crash and maybe the poeple in charge will start making more sensible decisions. I want to be able to play all games on one console.

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.

Hardware power isn't all about graphics.
Bigger level, more complex level, better AI, more enemies on the screen, destructible terrain... those things need more processing power and RAM.
The problem however is that that the developer will simply use all the nice power a new console gives them and waste it on more polygons. The average developer team currently isn't creative enough to make a game look good with bad graphics. To have a nice art style and not just grounded in reality. Skyward Sword, Okami and Mario Galaxy look better than the majority of games today and they are on the fucking Wii (ps2). Why? Because they have a different and beautiful art style that can cover for the lack in the graphics department.

And to Yatzhee. You say that the development costs will rise because of more power and you make it sound like it's the fault of the consoles. But it's the developer asking for more. They are the one who are saying how they can't be "creative" without more power. And at the same time, you completely ignore the fact that Nintendo keeps the development costs low. Most WiiU games are $50, which is $10 cheaper than the PS360 games while offering stronger hardware.
Nintendo gets a lot of internet hate for not going for the super duper high end hardware, yet that's exactly the good thing they are doing. Hardware power is growing insanely fast with every year. The highest of the high end hardware is mid-end at best in 3-4 years while costing insanely much. Consoles are supposed to be relatively cheap and accessible. They could sell a console at a loss, but that's a retarded business practice that should just die off. Unlike MS, Nintendo has no other division to keep them alive while losing on a console. They need to make profit as fast as possible. And while Sony was in a similar situation like MS, they are slowly going down if they keep doing this. They are losing money in most divisions, they can't afford to sell at a loss.

Selling at a lost is a bad business practices for everyone. It may be profitable for the user in short term, but once your company dies or leaves the console market, you're at a loss too.
I kinda went off topic too much?

tl.dr.
The main problem lies in the developer/publisher. They are the one who are increasing the development costs unreasonably. I don't think that anyone is forcing them to put everything into graphics and invest few million into marketing.

Pebkio:

GeneralFungi:

You can do that, but how many games that are released for PC have a focus on local mulitplayer?

*inhales a massive amount of air*
*exhales it again*

You know, I was going to go make a snarky list of dozens of games on the PC that featured local co-op when a discussion I saw while researching got me thinking...

Also: someone already went and made my list. They even have a handy little icon to tell you if it's for a couch.

Anyway, what I was thinking about is how split-screen, or a shared-screen, is... kinda... outdated. Yes yes, I know; the money thing, but even with games on consoles (excluding Nintendo) that features a shared-screen co-op, people prefer to system link at least... no one likes sharing a screen. It's now a thing you have to put up with, rather than purposefully seek out to enjoy.

I excluded the Wii and WiiU, and this is why: It's made to appeal to group gamers. At least a lot of the games are. If I ever threw parties, then we'd play Wii games with Wii Waggle Sticks... and we'd be drunk. But there are still games like that on the PC, it being so versatile and all. Still, yeah, the WiiU would make a better party machine.

Though I do disagree with the barrier to entry. HDMI cables makes PC gaming on a big-screen the easiest thing evar! Okay, as easy as setting up the stereo. Windows has gotten really good at the whole "self-detected" settings thing.

I like split screen, I'm always on the look out for good split screen games. My girlfriend and I really like lying in bed and playing spit screen, borderlands 2 is what we are playing now. Not wanting to share a screen is just your opinion there are still plenty of gamers out there that like split screen.

I love consoles and I won't ever stop playing on consoles, that is, unless the day comes where I no longer need to update my PC all the time and doing so is more than obvious, no more "this card works better with this thingy but not so much the other one", call me lazy, I like Apple, and play games on it because it's obvious.
Anyway, I DO feel however, or rather don't feel, a need to change consoles right now. I'm buying the PS4, can't wait for it, but just because I'm really looking forward to some of the games, problem is, I don't think anything so far justifies the need of a new console, even in terms of graphics, what we have right now is exceptional, and in terms of gameplay itself, I guess no one here is naive to the point of expecting any sort of revolution right? In my opinion we could go a while with the same consoles we already have, just going through the upgrades they always have, (larger memory, new design, all those things that if you don't change won't keep you from enjoying the game either). MAYBE PS4 makes a bit sense in terms of the whole "it was hell creating games for the PS3" thing, but that would be all...

Triality:
One more unrelated thought even though I posted a moment ago. Nintendo 3DS. I'm reading more excitement about the titles coming out for it this year -around the web- than any of the big three consoles. I'm honestly just about ready to shell out for one so I can catch up on its robust catalogue of rpgs and off-kilter games. Is this sad? Or just... appropriate?

Not sure why the venom not at PS3, just the 360. The PS3 has 256 Meg of RAM. Hey, I love the PS3, and have 2 in two different room (I'm a family man with kids). But its pretty accepted that cross platform game released concurrently on both systems (and that is most games) perform just a little bit better on the 360.

I have to admit, after going on 8 years, there's nothing they can introduce on the PS3 regarding graphics that is going to excite me. They've pretty much hit the envelope and they've done a great job on both systems.

I have plenty to play on the PS3 so, if you want to get my attention about upcoming console games, it's going to have to be on a new console. For me, it is time. But there is more competition than ever before and this really may be their last hurrah. As much was written about the Vita. In a land of Tegra 2 phones and tablets, it is unnecessary, but if Sony is going to take a try at it, they did a pretty good job. And this may be true of consoles. A few nuts like me may move up, but 10 years from now, you'll download better games directly to your TV set. For now, you may forgo improved graphics and do things like build a gaming PC, get the $100 Ouya or Gamestick, heck, phones that connect to a TV and a wireless controller.

I just hope they don't screw up with "always online" type stuff. They can scare me away. I'm already discounting the 360 next due to the rumors. I hope they are untrue.

As for forgoing great graphics and just going for great, innovative games, while I do have an Android phone, I have to admit the 3DS is very tempting.

Vladimir Stamenov:
Fuck the PC master race and fuck consoles. WHy do they fucking exist? I would like to play Bayonetta, Wet, Gears of War, God of War and many other games, but I can't due to the shitty exclusiveness. I really want the market to crash and maybe the poeple in charge will start making more sensible decisions. I want to be able to play all games on one console.

Bit of a rage socialist gameland dream going on there? Taking all that rage aside, I know what you mean, exclusiveness sucks, I own both X360 and PS3, so I covered everything I wanted, but sometimes you'd see a God of war coming only for PSP, and then you take Mass Effect, PS3 only had MS2 & 3 for a while, in a series where it is ESSENTIAL to play the whole trilogy. Exclusivity sucks.

Blachman201:

Clovus:

Yeah, they learned that their complicated Cell processor was a major pain for developers so they ditched it. The only way to offer backwards compatability would be to include a Cell processor in the PS4 just to support old games. The PS3 launched with the "emotion engine" to do just that, and that was also dropped to lower the price - you know, the PS3's biggest problem on launch.

(...)

In either case the PS4 has to include special hardware to run the old game or the companies that made the games will have to re-program them to work on PS4's architecture.

So, TL;DR version: "Sony shot themselves so thoroughly in the foot with the engineering of the PS3, that they are limping into the next generation."

What you seem to be saying implies a lack of foresight on Sony's behalf that I as both a costumer and aspiring historian find quite worrisome.

Well, yeah, Sony screwed up with the Cell processor. It was a worthwhile attempt at the time to create a really powerful game focused processor, but it didn't work out. Sony makes mistakes just like all companies do. Noboby is able to predict exactly how the market will work out.

I don't see how they are "limping" into the next generation though. Their new system sounds pretty good, although I'm more of a PC gamer. I really don't see backwards compatability as something that will make a huge difference in sales. Sony, who has the actual sales data, apparently thought this was the case as well when they dropped the emotion engine from PS3. Their sales were fine afterwards. Maybe their wrong about that though; guess we'll see.

A lack of foresight? So, Sony should have realized that they might lose backwards compatability on a system that is almost 10 years old? So, therefore they shouldn't have bothered trying to engineer a game specific processor? What company do you not find "worrisome"? Did you write off Nintendo when they created the Virtual Boy? Did you given up on Microsoft just because the first XBox wasn't that great? What company is able to perfectly forsee how something as complicated as a gaming console is going to be recieved by customers and developers? So, yeah, Sony cannot magically see into the future. I don't think you'll be consuming much if you only buy things from companies with psychic ablities.

The problem is the cost of games on the systems in question. Even if I owned a PS4, if a game is released on both the PS4 and the PC, the PC is going to have the cheaper version of the game, which leads me to buy the PC version. Also, steam has effected what a consumer regards as a good deal on a game thanks to repeated steam sales, lowering the cost of a lot of games during such periods by as much as 75%. Consoles on the other hand have rarely offered any kind of major incentive to go buy titles in the same fashion with the exception of Atlus during their summer sale (which I picked up Persona 3 Portable for a good 10 bucks). Playstation Plus owners get discounts, but keep in mind that the PS+ owner is also paying a subscription to get access to the discounts and free games, where as the PC user just needs to have steam installed and be willing to go to websites like Green man Gaming or Good Old Games.

I love JRPGs and other titles from Japan as much as the next person, but they are not being price competitive with the competition from other sources, so it's making it kind of hard to justify buying newer ones.

OlasDAlmighty:

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

You do realize that Yahtzee was literally the person who originally coined that phrase, right? His job revolves around games and he's always been a Valve and Steam supporter. I'd be surprised if his rig wasn't more powerful than yours and most PC gamers out there.

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.

Kingjackl:

OlasDAlmighty:

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

You do realize that Yahtzee was literally the person who originally coined that phrase, right? His job revolves around games and he's always been a Valve and Steam supporter. I'd be surprised if his rig wasn't more powerful than yours and most PC gamers out there.

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.

He doesn't like Elitists or fans of any stripe. All of his reviews at some point prod or make fun of fans and elitists to some degree, even though he implicitly admits they are an inevitability when it comes to hardware and games. What gets people mixed up is likely his style of presentation. He also admits it is a joy to have fans sometimes.

The only point I disagree with is the statement that we don't need new consoles. I think the standards have been set too high that saying we need to stick with 512MB of RAM is foolish. Do we need to go out and buy this new gen? No, the rest of the points still stand, but I don't think the specs of the current set of consoles is enough to last us any longer.

The real issue is finding what we actually need in the market, because the path that everyone is taking is certainly the wrong one. Someone on the first page pointed out that SEGA and the Dreamcast was designed to be scalable. If we could just make the next Xbox and PS4 the same as the PS3 and Xbox 360, but with more ram, that would be a start.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
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.

I couldn't agree more. Console launches are notorious for shitty line-ups, and unless Microsoft is rolling out some kind of Halo 5 to compliment the Durango, I think it's gonna sink pretty bad. The online DRM thing that Orthy seems to be hinting at already forebodes ill will to us.

And the PS4, already the more attractive of the two choices, still doesn't have that strong of a library going for it. I remember a Fantasy RPG, Bungie's Destiny, another sci-fi game, and another Crysis from the whole PS4 expo this later on in the year. That's literally three of the almost same game (face it; they're all in sci-fi settings and involve guns, so we can expect more of the same "hide around a corner and take potshots at idiots" gameplay). Oh, and there was that old man face. ... Yaaaay?

There's a problem I kinda had with the PS4's announcement. "Better graphics." OK, sure, the tech junkies are probably drooling over the amount of detail you can put into games now, but what about the people that legitimately don't care? What about the people, like me, who honestly cannot tell that much of a difference between Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Black Ops 2's graphics? There were people that could literally stare at one of the walls in Bioshock Infinite for days because they had intensive textures, that they had actual randomization of bricks and it looked SOOOOOO realistic. One of those people wasn't me, because if I was so fascinated by brick walls, I don't think I'd ever get to my classes because I'd be too busy staring at the ones irl.

Hell, I still think that Halo 2 looks visually presentable nowadays. Some people don't give a damn about graphics, so WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG SELLING POINT STILL?

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.

That's a problem with your setup, if you're crashing.

I stopped playing console games years ago, it's too much of a hassle to set everything up, all the cords and controllers, Jesus Christ. My last console was a first gen 360, with ps2 and various other emulators available, any other hardware is just a nuisance.

Sonic Doctor:
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.

I have a 360, a PS3, a Wii, a SNES, a gameboy colour and an N64. Do me a favour go pick up your SNES and go pick up you 360. Consoles are getting bigger and heavier unless I change to a slim model when they eventually release one. And moving house isn't the same as going to a friends house with your gaming stuff. Because I also have to move my laptop, my desktop, my tablet, my photography equipment, my books(I own lots of them), my dvds(I own lots of them), my clothes, bedclothes, kitchenware, stereo, tv, my clothes dryer seeing as I've never lived in a rented house that came with one. You honestly can't see why I'd want the convenience of one system for old and new games rather than having to continuously pile on more baggage?

I think many people, including Yahtzee, underestimate the value of moving to the x86 architecture. For the first time, the two major consoles and the PC will share the same x86 processing architecture.

This means:

    * Unprecedented cross-platform portability, which means more games for us and more profits for developers and publishers.
    * Moving forwards, backwards compatibility and emulation should be much simpler to implement and maintain over multiple generations and across gaming platforms.
    * Easier development for new, young or indie developers without much funding.
    * Lower cost entry-point for people looking to get into game development.
    * Influx of new people and perspectives (given our economy recovers) into the industry who might otherwise have found the prospect too daunting.

In the end, I think giving up backwards compatibility for the current generation in exchange for all the fore-mentioned benefits is a pretty good trade. The only thing that Sony and Microsoft still need to do in order to make this work is make their platform appealing to low-cost indie developers and actively encourage non-AAA game development on their platforms. I think Sony is well on their way to doing this, but given recent events, Microsoft's priorities remain questionable.

SkarKrow:

maxben:

StriderShinryu:
I really need to watch out for this mystical creature that appears from the ether and devours your previous gen hardware the moment you buy something new. It's odd because I own still working hardware and games dating back to the Intellivision and I've never seen it.

I'm sorry, but backwards compatibility is not that big of a deal. Sure, it's a nice convenience, but it's far from a game breaking issue. Just keep using your old console for your old games if you really want to play them that badly. Then, in a few months at most, when you're probably not playing the old console much at all, disconnect it but keep it handy. Non-existent problem solved.

Except of course that old consoles, like old computers, become basically unusable. My old N64 was damaged, and all 4 controllers were also. Sure I can spend 200$ or so replacing all those with second hand ones that could also break at any point as well as purchase the new 300$ console, but why? Not to mention that I move around a lot and I had recently needed to move continents. It becomes unfeasible to bring with me my old SNES, N64, Gamecube, xbox, and their respective libraries.

But you are right, its not a HUGE problem. I personally solve it by using PC emulation which is in the legal grey zone, but I do feel justified considering that I have these systems and games across the ocean somewhere and its not like the developers make money off them anymore even if I bought them used (and I dont want to buy a TV on top of that). I don't if that's just me rationalizing or legitimate points though.

That gray zone depends on where you are. Here in the UK it pretty much comes down to if you own the software, as in you go out and buy a physical copy, it's yours to do with as you will. So you can run a disc in your PC with emulation if you go and buy it legitimately, or use some kind of adaptor to play a cartridge, or extract the ROM, etc. But not if you download it from a torrent (unless it's some kind of abandonware but thats not likely for console games, publishers being giant IP tanks as they are).

Gotta say I think companies like Nintendo and Sony should consider the market for their retro stuff on the PC. I think they could make some money out of it if they sold old games at a fair price.

Honestly I lack the expertise to extract a rom from a gamecube disc, let alone from a cartridge. If I could, I would. I agree that there is definitely money to be made if game companies would sell roms of old games. At the very least it cant hurt and it would increase customer goodwill.

Pebkio:
snip

Okay, so in your rebuttal, you link me to a football game that is six years old, a hockey game that is five years old, a soccer game (not an American sport by the way) and two more sports titles that are two years old. And Mugen was released in 1999, about 6 years before I even owned a computer. Not a glowing defense.

The only media I could find on TBT was from an article published yesterday, and the trailer showed me nothing but bad music.

I don't only own consoles, and you're clinging to the fact that there are games that I enjoy above most others that I can only get on the console. I play my Fallouts and Skyrims and Witchers on my PC, and I have a horde of indie titles that I devote plenty of my time to. Doesn't change the fact that some of the best GAMES of the past ten years are console only, and I'm not going to give that up no matter how many ways you pick apart my text and reply. I'm not going to quit my preferred hardware because the PC offers one alternative title to a wealth of titles that a genre provides me. Only ignorant consumers limit their choices.

When one considers the harbingers, this looks not unlike the lead-up to an industry implosion on par with the console crash of 1983: the obsession with buzz-word tech specs over entertainment value, the burgeoning attempt to introduce new hardware that no-one asked for, the disconnected "last-ditch cash-grab" feel of it all. (It is rather sad how this seems yet another example of the desperately mad, terminal flailing evident in so many industries and institutions of the present era.)

On the plus side, this sort of collapse would open up the field to the little guys and could well result in real innovation in gameplay rather than merely hardware... but it looks to be unpleasant for everyone getting to that point of renewal.

"Another Sony executive stated that PS4 is not the successor of PS3, but an addition to the PlayStation family."

http://www.techhunter.co.uk/technology/ps4-news-release-date-event/04203/

Taken from a Tech Hunter article since I couldn't find another source with a more direct quotation and source. This makes me believe that Sony isn't ready to move straight on to the next console and will continue to support the PS3 for a long time like they did with the PS2

144:

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."

Regarding the relationship between consumer, developer and console I also meant that it could go either way when I mentioned a 'circle of life' but I guess I should have elaborated

Yeah I regretted posting the last paragraph shortly after when I realised it would imply the opposite to readers. My apoligies.

maxben:

Honestly I lack the expertise to extract a rom from a gamecube disc, let alone from a cartridge. If I could, I would. I agree that there is definitely money to be made if game companies would sell roms of old games. At the very least it cant hurt and it would increase customer goodwill.

Expertise? Google is your friend. I'm not even joking you can learn degree-worthy stuff from google. It's what I tell people who say they can't build their own desktop...

They'd make a killing and if the distribution was easy and simple and fair then it'd murderalise their piracy rigth then and there.

5 for an NES game nintendo? I think not.

 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