Next Gen is now out and its a massive 'meh' for both consoles

[Casual Shinji]

You know what, I'm fine with next gen being "meh". I'm okay with games simply continuing, slighty bigger and slightly prettier. There really isn't much from the previous generation that I feel should be improved from a technical standpoint. Most games already looked fantastic, and now they look slightly more fantastic.

I also feel easing into the next generation won't be as difficult for developers as it was last time. Meaning we're likely to get better games quicker as a result.

And when I see games like Resogun and inFamous: Second Son, and that they are only the first batch, I think next gen is going to have more than enough to offer.

 

[josemlopes]

So what can we hope for? 1080p 60FPS and even that is proving a struggle.

...

Another argument I'm gonna blow out of the water, 'developers need time to get used to the hardware' REALLY? REALLY its PC hardware!!! developers have been using it for years they have made it as simple as possible for developers and the games do not look that different from last gen.

Firstly 1080p @ 60p is possible on the PS4 and Xbone in the exact same way it is possible on the 360 and PS3. Both the 360 and PS3 are capable of rendering at 1080p with 60FPS it is just that designers CHOOSE to make the games look better rather than have them run smoother. There is a trade-off and console developers prefer to add more eye-candy than have better performance or higher resolution, probably because they think console gamers notice eye-candy most. The same has happened with the new consoles and perhaps it will continue that way. Demand all games run at 1080p @60FPS and they will make that a target.

This is something that people seem to forget, didnt Top Spin 2 run at 1080p at 60FPS on the 360 or something like that?

The games will become more demanding and the devs will start to cut on the framerate and resolution like they have always been, no way they will always try to keep 1080p/60fps in their games.

EDIT: Rayman Origins runs at 1080p on the 360 and PS3 for example

I think no game of the older generation run 1080p and 60 fps

Dead or Alive 4 is one for example. Its all about the game and not the console

 

[Maximum Bert]

PS4 has nothing I want at the moment but when Guilty Gear hits I will definitely consider getting one.

The new Guilty Gear will be released for the Ps3 too, and you won't have to pay for the multiplayer if you ever want to play it

I know but cheers for the heads up I will be deciding closer to the time about what version I get I guess it depends on the price of the PS4 then how many games its got I want and ofc how much better it looks on PS4 (and plays although hopefully there is no difference there).

Free multiplayer is definitely a huge plus in my book though as its the main reason I swapped from 360 to PS3 this gen. Also The new Persona 4 arena game is coming (hopefully to Europe) on PS3 oh and Chrono Phantasma (because I havent imported it yet) looks like its a good time to be an Arcs fan although I like almost all fighters to be honest.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I've been watching some streams from both consoles and was laughing my ass off to those people that were complaining about "Do I have to install the game on my hdd? Wtf guys!" and in my mind I would reply "Welcome to what us PC gamers have been doing for decades".

Regardless, both of them have had fairly disappointing launch titles, but the Xbone seems to have had major issues especially since the guys that I was watching both PS4 and X1 reveals they had a bricked X1 and they had to go buy one and still had issues with the kinect (not as advertised at their press conference).

Overall, I will let them fight it out and just watch from the sidelines like I always have knowing that I can run 1080p 60fps games on a 3yo machine and "next gen" can barely handle it.

 

[RandV80]

Optical media will gradually cease to be used for games.

I doubt it, as long as the likes of Gamestop and trade-ins exist digital distribution for consoles will remain an afterthought for many.

Which would an average consumer perfer? Going to a shop for a $40 game with the ablity to get some credit back if the game is ass or spend $60, eat up a hefty chunk of bandwidth and no ablity to exchange?

You kinda just sniped all of my points leading up to my theory about pay to play (f2p) games easing people in gradually and becoming the standard payment model.

I think it will take a good long time, but I really think it will happen.

Hell the new consoles have the ability to prevent used games from working without a license purchase, which will be at the discretion of the publisher.

Standard payment for multiplayer games maybe, and if you look at MMO's that may already be the case. The problem with 'FTP' is that it requires a completely different design philosophy as you have to work 'monetization' into the gameplay. From there you have to wonder just how much consumers will put up with, as the term is often a misnomer and these games can be more expensive then if you just made a purchase up front. Also let's not discount outright greed, or perhaps 'capitalism' would be the more correct term, as the bigger publishers are finding ways to implement a pay to play model while still charging the full price up front.

From my perspective as a consumer the Steam model works best, but if you're looking at free to play I'd like to see some sort of milestone method implemented so that if you spend X amount of dollars, which should typically be $30-$60 the price of a full game, you unlock all the pay content. Or at least up to a certain point, as some could be specified as 'expansion' content and require a new milestone. This provides the developer the benefit of getting more people to play their game as there's no upfront fee, while preventing the game from becoming just a cash cow that's constantly trying to milk your wallet.

 

[josemlopes]

So what can we hope for? 1080p 60FPS and even that is proving a struggle.

...

Another argument I'm gonna blow out of the water, 'developers need time to get used to the hardware' REALLY? REALLY its PC hardware!!! developers have been using it for years they have made it as simple as possible for developers and the games do not look that different from last gen.

Firstly 1080p @ 60p is possible on the PS4 and Xbone in the exact same way it is possible on the 360 and PS3. Both the 360 and PS3 are capable of rendering at 1080p with 60FPS it is just that designers CHOOSE to make the games look better rather than have them run smoother. There is a trade-off and console developers prefer to add more eye-candy than have better performance or higher resolution, probably because they think console gamers notice eye-candy most. The same has happened with the new consoles and perhaps it will continue that way. Demand all games run at 1080p @60FPS and they will make that a target.

This is something that people seem to forget, didnt Top Spin 2 run at 1080p at 60FPS on the 360 or something like that?

The games will become more demanding and the devs will start to cut on the framerate and resolution like they have always been, no way they will always try to keep 1080p/60fps in their games.

EDIT: Rayman Origins runs at 1080p on the 360 and PS3 for example

I think no game of the older generation run 1080p and 60 fps

Dead or Alive 4 is one for example. Its all about the game and not the console

Source? I doubt that, maybe 720p upscaled, but 60 fps native 1080p I don't believe.

After some more checking it does seem like you are right, its kind of hard to find an accurate list since a lot of the older games are advertised in the box to be runing at 1080p while they are actually upscaled 720p. From what I saw only a very few amount of games (6 or 7) seem to run native 1080p and even then only about Geometry Wars 2 runs 60fps.

Still, its all about the devs wanting to make the game run like that, Killzone could have looked a lot shinnier if they added more effects and sacrificed resolution and framerate (something that I expect other devs to start doing soon).