Poll: Will we ever need a new generation of consoles at all? [NOT a "NOW" question]
- Thread starter Susurrus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Much like my foreign policy, I think we should work on making the current generation of consoles not be buggy, broken pieces of shit before we look toward a new generation.
I'm sorry, maybe focusing on the wrong part of the argument here but when were consoles EVER cheap?
have a look at this video [http://www.g4tv.com/videos/51360/has-gaming-really-gotten-more-expensive/]
have a look at this video [http://www.g4tv.com/videos/51360/has-gaming-really-gotten-more-expensive/]
Of course.
Better AI, better physics, better graphics, bigger worlds, more characters on screen, better animations...
Better everything is possible with better hardware.
Better AI, better physics, better graphics, bigger worlds, more characters on screen, better animations...
Better everything is possible with better hardware.
Watch the video then get back to me... And it's not about relative costs to computers, they cost less every week, it's silly to say that consoles are a cheap entertainment option when they really aren't.Susurrus said:
I think we do because those of us who play PC games constantly get crappy ports made for hardware that now even a decent computer surpasses.
Base cost, maybe. Long run, no. Take the 360. The majority of games are $10 more (so, if you buy 10 new games a year, that is $100 more spent, and that is overlooking the insane sales on PC games), plus if you want to play online you need to pay for xbox live.Susurrus said:
I'm all for a new gen of consoles, but not some simple computer with a bad interface. If you want a device that plays music, stores photos and browses the internet, get a PC. I want a cheap console to easily play games. Though I wouldn't mind keeping this gen for a while longer so devs can work on things other than the graphics since they are familiar with the system and already have plenty of engines to use.
Why should there be no motivation to try to make consoles the best they can possibly be? Tech is always improving.
I think it is sometimes is cheaper to have a console. I still have my original 360, hasn't broken down yet, and I bought it only a few months (maybe 3 or 4) after the original 360 came out. No need for any upgrading, if it is something that is needed, the games I buy will have the upgrades in them for me. Even my microsoft laptop went bust way before. My 360 is still working. Considering I game a lot, it's got to be cheaper in the long run, right? The only times I have had to purchase something for my console, apart from the games, was a new controller, because my original one died, and an extra controller, because my dad wanted to play Halo: Reach with me.
Plus they are hassle free. Consoles are worth maybe a little extra for that alone. Not everyone is a tech geek that actually knows how to "build" a new rig, or exactly what is needed in order to play games. And are not particularly interested in doing all that to just keep up to date with the newest game releases. I like playing games, not building a computer and to spec it out or whatever. I don't know how to swap out hardware, and I probably never will. So consoles are the best option for me.
Also, not everyone likes playing on a computer. Yes, I have tried, over and over again to give gaming on a computer a shot. Dear god I have tried, because I feel like I am missing out on lots of things. I just don't like it. No matter how hard I try.
So, yes. If there was no new generation of consoles, there would be a lot of people who will not be able to play games. Because PC gaming isn't for everyone, just like console gaming isn't for everyone.
I think it is sometimes is cheaper to have a console. I still have my original 360, hasn't broken down yet, and I bought it only a few months (maybe 3 or 4) after the original 360 came out. No need for any upgrading, if it is something that is needed, the games I buy will have the upgrades in them for me. Even my microsoft laptop went bust way before. My 360 is still working. Considering I game a lot, it's got to be cheaper in the long run, right? The only times I have had to purchase something for my console, apart from the games, was a new controller, because my original one died, and an extra controller, because my dad wanted to play Halo: Reach with me.
Plus they are hassle free. Consoles are worth maybe a little extra for that alone. Not everyone is a tech geek that actually knows how to "build" a new rig, or exactly what is needed in order to play games. And are not particularly interested in doing all that to just keep up to date with the newest game releases. I like playing games, not building a computer and to spec it out or whatever. I don't know how to swap out hardware, and I probably never will. So consoles are the best option for me.
Also, not everyone likes playing on a computer. Yes, I have tried, over and over again to give gaming on a computer a shot. Dear god I have tried, because I feel like I am missing out on lots of things. I just don't like it. No matter how hard I try.
So, yes. If there was no new generation of consoles, there would be a lot of people who will not be able to play games. Because PC gaming isn't for everyone, just like console gaming isn't for everyone.
Personally no, I don't think so. However, while watching X-PLAY last night, I saw in the ticker that scrolls at the bottom of the screen, it's called The Feed I believe, that the movie "Real Steel" has a promotion about a supposed "XBOX 720" in one of the movie trailers, but Microsoft has yet to comment on it.
...
...
O_O Let the rumors flow.
...
...
O_O Let the rumors flow.
I need a bluray drive in my 360. THats about the only thing. I'm happy with the graphics capabilities of the system as it is. But i do really miss having the integrated bluray from my old PS3
I said "other" because I think that a lot of people like certain aspects of the console. Many like to sit on their couches and be comfortable while playing games. Not saying a computer chair isn't comfortable, but unless you live in a studio apartment, it's unlikely the computer in your home is somewhere in the open area of your house. and we all know how well that whole "keyboard on your lap, mouse on the cushion" thing works.
When we do get a new generation it needs to be upgradeable though. Hell even the N64 had upgradeable RAM.... I think that will be necessary to make consoles successful in the long term. It would make it even better for manufacturers: they come out with new stuff, and you have to buy parts from them to upgrade it. People can swallow multiple smaller purchases easier than one big one (a new console).
When we do get a new generation it needs to be upgradeable though. Hell even the N64 had upgradeable RAM.... I think that will be necessary to make consoles successful in the long term. It would make it even better for manufacturers: they come out with new stuff, and you have to buy parts from them to upgrade it. People can swallow multiple smaller purchases easier than one big one (a new console).
I think there is perhaps one console generation left in the industry. Come to think of it, do we have evidence that the PS4 and Xbox720 are even being worked on?
The points the OP raised are valid, but on their own wouldn't mean the end of the console system.
What is going to put them down is services like Onlive. Plug and play instant gratification gaming witht he same universal compatability as the PC counterparts.
In the future I can see most of the casual console audience migrating to such systems. Whislt the slightly more 'hardcore' sections will move on(or back) to the PC which will be cheaper and more powerful than even it is now.
What will Sony and Microsoft do whilst all this happening? I don't know, but I could definately see a turn to the kind of service steam currently offers, Sony already has a partnership with Valve...
Perhaps one day we will see a sought of digital 'superservice' something akin to Steam but with the capabilities of onlive and heavy emphasis on community.
An important thing to remember is that the current generation of consoles was expensive to develop, fraught with problems int he early years, and were untill very recently sold at a loss.
The big players obviously don't want to go through that again if they don't have to. A transition to purely digital service would provide the same environmental control and subscription fees. But without the heavy upfront investment in hardware.
The points the OP raised are valid, but on their own wouldn't mean the end of the console system.
What is going to put them down is services like Onlive. Plug and play instant gratification gaming witht he same universal compatability as the PC counterparts.
In the future I can see most of the casual console audience migrating to such systems. Whislt the slightly more 'hardcore' sections will move on(or back) to the PC which will be cheaper and more powerful than even it is now.
What will Sony and Microsoft do whilst all this happening? I don't know, but I could definately see a turn to the kind of service steam currently offers, Sony already has a partnership with Valve...
Perhaps one day we will see a sought of digital 'superservice' something akin to Steam but with the capabilities of onlive and heavy emphasis on community.
An important thing to remember is that the current generation of consoles was expensive to develop, fraught with problems int he early years, and were untill very recently sold at a loss.
The big players obviously don't want to go through that again if they don't have to. A transition to purely digital service would provide the same environmental control and subscription fees. But without the heavy upfront investment in hardware.
On the one hand, part of me doesn't see console gaming going away any time soon despite the fact that I think PC gaming could viably replace consoles. It's hard to compete with cheap all in one machines for the average consumer that has no idea what hardware they need, where to buy it, how much to spend, etc. And I also think we will see another console generation announced within the next five years, but as much as I would be interested to see what new opportunities more powerful hardware can bring to gaming, two things have me worried:
1) Game budgets have been increasing by leaps and bounds with each of the last few generations, with development team numbers sky rocketing. With another leap in hardware will almost undoubtedly come another leap in game budgets. Things like better tools for creating content can help reduce this sort of thing, but it's not going to eliminate it. But how many studio's already release a game and then get shuttered by the publisher? It seems someone is going out of business every month or two these days, and it's hard to expect anything less. When you dump tens of millions of dollars into a game, it basically needs to be a AAA hit to produce a decent return. I don't see how an almost inevitable escalation of this business model could remain viable for long. Sure you might have the big players like EA and Activision still making big expensive games, but that market is just going to get squeezed more than ever.
2) Developers aren't using the possibilities of the hardware they have now to the fullest anyway. Sure we have better looking games, better sounding games, and things like controls are generally more polished than ever, but few games rely on the present hardware for advancing their gameplay. Sandbox games to some extent benefit the most, and even games like Portal would have suffered greatly if they came out earlier than they did, but by and large, we aren't seeing anything new being done with the power available. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this console generation has been the most underwhelming in decades on average in terms of advancing new gameplay ideas that are only possible with the better hardware. Maybe it's a bit of an unfair position to take since it's hard to compete with the creation of 3D gaming and things of that nature when talking about innovation, but I think part of it is also the business model used by many larger developers preventing them from taking risks. If you're going to spend tens of millions of dollars with an entire company and hundreds of jobs on the line if you fail, how many people are really going to swing for the fences and take chances on doing something different?
I'd rather see this generation last as long as possible with developers driving development costs down so they can afford to experiment more, rather than get stuck in a cycle of more of the same.
1) Game budgets have been increasing by leaps and bounds with each of the last few generations, with development team numbers sky rocketing. With another leap in hardware will almost undoubtedly come another leap in game budgets. Things like better tools for creating content can help reduce this sort of thing, but it's not going to eliminate it. But how many studio's already release a game and then get shuttered by the publisher? It seems someone is going out of business every month or two these days, and it's hard to expect anything less. When you dump tens of millions of dollars into a game, it basically needs to be a AAA hit to produce a decent return. I don't see how an almost inevitable escalation of this business model could remain viable for long. Sure you might have the big players like EA and Activision still making big expensive games, but that market is just going to get squeezed more than ever.
2) Developers aren't using the possibilities of the hardware they have now to the fullest anyway. Sure we have better looking games, better sounding games, and things like controls are generally more polished than ever, but few games rely on the present hardware for advancing their gameplay. Sandbox games to some extent benefit the most, and even games like Portal would have suffered greatly if they came out earlier than they did, but by and large, we aren't seeing anything new being done with the power available. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this console generation has been the most underwhelming in decades on average in terms of advancing new gameplay ideas that are only possible with the better hardware. Maybe it's a bit of an unfair position to take since it's hard to compete with the creation of 3D gaming and things of that nature when talking about innovation, but I think part of it is also the business model used by many larger developers preventing them from taking risks. If you're going to spend tens of millions of dollars with an entire company and hundreds of jobs on the line if you fail, how many people are really going to swing for the fences and take chances on doing something different?
I'd rather see this generation last as long as possible with developers driving development costs down so they can afford to experiment more, rather than get stuck in a cycle of more of the same.
I think you're overlooking the fact that many gamers don't like pc gaming. You are also overlooking the fact that gaming consoles, while they are getting more expensive, are still cheaper than a good gaming computer. A good gaming computer is not "inexpensive." Even if you build it yourself, a top-end gaming computer will cost over a grand. I doubt that the next generation of consoles will be much over $500
WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THEM THIS IDEA!? This is a great idea for them, not so much for us. A new console is basically an upgrade, but it costs less because they can't make you swallow so big of a price all at once.Frizzle said: