Poll: If a new console came out that just played games...
- Thread starter Vohn_exel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I want all the bells and whistles. The console is already capable of doing the bells and whistles. Once you have the hardware there, the software cost of allowing XVID videos to play or an Internet browser (I'm posting on my PS3 right now) is super cheap. And, you gotta have MP3 support for custom soundtrack as even e-readers have MP3 support. If the console is using DVDs or Blu-rays for the game media, why not let the console play them? I watch all my TV shows and movies on my PS3, there's really no need to even have any kind of TV service unless you are into sports (you gotta see the games live).
I don't watch movies or listen to music via my console, so I really don't care about those features. As long as it can do everything associated with online gaming (DLC, online multiplayer, voice chat etc.) then I'm all for cheap.
Uh wasn't there this thing called "On Live"? That's what it was actually, it had a big advertising campaign last Christmas and I assumed it failed because everyone already had a Xbox or PS3. I didn't know at first what made it so special that it became a product, but apparently the thing is just a box that links up to the internet, to the On Live server and the computers at the place emulate the game for the box at home, so you just have games as far as I know. I read about it on wikipedia and wondered why it didn't advertise it like that, you could've advertised how they could update the system for a large period of time and never buy a new console again as you already get the thing updated, this would mean that you could run Crysis on very high and not need to worry about updating your gaming PC. But sadly they advertised it as something no one gave a shit about, the commercials were boring and didn't show it's true potential. It's like a good game showing off its shitty campaign.Vohn_exel said:
I think that the only reason I might get a PS3 is because of the Blu-Ray player part. As I stand, I've only still got a PS2 and a Wii. I've not seen the need to get either a PS3 (until recently, we didn't have an HDTV) or an X360. However, my friends and family have made up for that in their own way, so I'm happy there 
Got 2 PCs + 1 HTPC so I only use my consoles to play games anyways, so yeah, I'd definitely buy it. Besides, no matter how powerful the PS3/360 are, they still lag, whereas my HTPC (first model eeebox) doesn't ever lag.
Yes, infact I'd pay the exact same price, so long as the graphical capability is suitably higher, but without any Blu-ray or Netflix, it'd be like the PS1 and that rocked!
I just use my consoles to play games, so if it had a great software line up. I would probably pick one up.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Onlive. I don't remember ever even hearing about it except on this site. They did a HORRIBLE job advertising it, but at the same time it is a bit different. I mean, it was a good idea, but you had to be connected to the internet. Alot of people can't get on the net or would want to carry their games with them, so a console with actual games might be more successful.Warforger said:
But yeah, they had terrible marketing. I think like the Dreamcast, it had ideas that were ahead of it's time. Give it a few years, and something thats just like Onlive will be some huge thing that everyone wants.
that's the point of videogame-consoles... isn't it?
i think all these gimmicks, like an integrated coffee-maker, calculator, vacuum-cleaner,... are sort of unnecessary.
as well as i don't need a mobile phone with internet access and this and that and even more
i think all these gimmicks, like an integrated coffee-maker, calculator, vacuum-cleaner,... are sort of unnecessary.
as well as i don't need a mobile phone with internet access and this and that and even more
I would probably buy a console like that. I don't really use my console for anything but gaming purposes since I can just use my laptop for anything else (including PC games that don't give it a heart attack). So I'd be totally up for buying a cheaper console that was focused entirely on games.
I mean, I'm the kind of person who uses their watch to tell time, their phone to contact people, and their mp3 player to play music. Weird I know, but there it is.
I mean, I'm the kind of person who uses their watch to tell time, their phone to contact people, and their mp3 player to play music. Weird I know, but there it is.
There are 3 important principles at work here.
A) Gaming consoles are for gaming
B) Nothing is free
C) Nothing on Earth is so good it cannot be improved
Bottom line is that the primary reason I bought my PS3 is to play games (principle A). Features are cool, and I'm not saying I don't like the Blu Ray player on my PS3, it is better than no blu ray player, but there is something a lot of people don't realize about all these bells and whistles, they are NOT free (principle B). Say Sony has a certain budget to create a new console. If even 5% of that budget goes to the Blu Ray feature, that 5% could be IMHO better spent on improved, graphics, processing, or online gaming functionality. Not to say those things aren't already extremely good, but like anything else, they could be better (principle C). All this crap like PS home, move, and the zillion features I don't use actually piss me off because I see it as resources that could be better directed to the actual "gaming experience" part of the "gaming console." The PS shouldn't try to do everything. It should do gaming, and it should focus on that.
A) Gaming consoles are for gaming
B) Nothing is free
C) Nothing on Earth is so good it cannot be improved
Bottom line is that the primary reason I bought my PS3 is to play games (principle A). Features are cool, and I'm not saying I don't like the Blu Ray player on my PS3, it is better than no blu ray player, but there is something a lot of people don't realize about all these bells and whistles, they are NOT free (principle B). Say Sony has a certain budget to create a new console. If even 5% of that budget goes to the Blu Ray feature, that 5% could be IMHO better spent on improved, graphics, processing, or online gaming functionality. Not to say those things aren't already extremely good, but like anything else, they could be better (principle C). All this crap like PS home, move, and the zillion features I don't use actually piss me off because I see it as resources that could be better directed to the actual "gaming experience" part of the "gaming console." The PS shouldn't try to do everything. It should do gaming, and it should focus on that.
Sure, if I was interested in its library. I never use my consoles for anything other than games (not a DVD player, music, Internet browser or anything).