Why We Don't Need a New Console Generation

cthulhuiscool

cthulhuiscool

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
3,002
I read this interesting piece over at the escapists, worth checking out as I find it pretty damn accurate.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...10300-We-Really-Really-Dont-Need-New-Consoles

Whatever the case, what lessons can Sony and Microsoft take on board from how their rival has fared, as they prepare to make their moves into the next console generation? Well, there's one immediately apparent lesson: Don't start a new fucking console generation, because it's a bad climate and triple-A gaming is becoming too fat and toxic to support its own weight. If you make triple-A games even more expensive and troublesome to develop - not to mention forcing them to adhere to online and hardware gimmicks that shrink and alienate the potential audience even further - then you will be driving the Titanic smack into another iceberg in the hope that it'll somehow freeze shut the hole the first one made.
Read more at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...ly-Dont-Need-New-Consoles#0qeLLZux1pRyeXXK.99
Click to expand...
 
I'm gonna sum this up real quick:

This article is bad.

The Wii U doesn't have a lot of third party support, but that won't translate to the PS4 and the next Xbox. Why? Because the PC, PS4, and Xboxwhatever are all using x86 CPU architecture and both consoles are using AMD graphics. It will be relatively trivial to port games between them, compared to porting games between the 360 and the PS3 (both using PowerPC architecture instead of x86). The Wii U will probably end up left out not because it isn't powerful enough (I suspect the gap gap between the Wii U and the next MS/Sony consoles will be smaller than the Wii and 360/PS3) but because porting the games to run on it will be much more work.

This should make the development costs more easily affordable, and since most game companies port their AAA titles to the PC anyways, I think most games will start showing up on the next consoles which will drive people to buy them, and make it easier for MS and Sony to sell their hardware. The biggest problem the Wii U has is that there aren't any games for it worth dropping $350 yet. I don't think the newer consoles will have that problem.
 
The main problem with holding back a new console generation even further is that you as the console-maker will leave yourself vulnerable to mobile gaming. Phone and Tablet hardware is advancing so fast that eventually they'll start lapping into the processing power envelope of the current generation of console. What happens when the Iphones and Nexus devices 3-4 years down the line can put up hardware power equivalent or close to equivalent of what you find on consoles today out to the 1080p screens they have? You'd catch the consoles flat-footed.
 
Falling Anvil said:
The main problem with holding back a new console generation even further is that you as the console-maker will leave yourself vulnerable to mobile gaming. Phone and Tablet hardware is advancing so fast that eventually they'll start lapping into the processing power envelope of the current generation of console. What happens when the Iphones and Nexus devices 3-4 years down the line can put up hardware power equivalent or close to equivalent of what you find on consoles today out to the 1080p screens they have? You'd catch the consoles flat-footed.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to wait and see.... phones cannot yet emulate PS2 games doubt a few years will make a difference.
 
Carbonblk46 said:
We'll just have to wait and see.... phones cannot yet emulate PS2 games doubt a few years will make a difference.
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing up emulation?

Look at titles like Real Racing 2 and 3 on iOS, those graphics are easily better than PS2.
 
Article is dumb and I didn't even read it. Of course it's time for a new generation. Do we NEED one? No. But we also don't NEED a metric shit ton of stuff. We don't need faster cell phones or PC's either as they're fast enough.
 
I didn't read it either. Don't need to, the op gave me all the info I need to say escapist is WRONG.
 
it's amazing how smart the member's of this site are, know the full contents of the article without even clicking the link :p
 
cthulhuiscool said:
it's amazing how smart the member's of this site are, know the full contents of the article without even clicking the link :p
Click to expand...

They are to Hard for everyone bro. I think there EA hate is the most hilarious tho.

I actually hope Nintendo releases a new next gen console to compete with the the PS4 and Xbox 3. I even like there big gamepad remote. The touch screen is great for games with inventory and maps.
 
The only premise he got right was on the question of backwards compatibility ... that is a tremendous risk for the next gen consoles to skip that ... one reason that the mobile and PC markets are doing so well is that even with all the constant change (and both get changed far more frequently than consoles) they have maintained compability with older software (and apps) ... without this it is much harder to win the hearts and minds of your customer or to get them to invest in your software (which is where everybody makes their profit in gaming consoles)

The idea that they shouldn't release new technology because the market is down is bollocks ... we are in the process of a sea change on computing and gaming right now with the shift to mobile platforms (tablets/phones) ... the PC is already feeling the pain and if the consoles were to sit on the sideline during this transition they might find it impossible to get a strong foothold in the new market ... they need newer technology (to stay ahead) and more comprehensive features like web streaming and other set top box type capabilities (to establish a beach head to protect their market from the emerging mobile players)

You can have a reasonable discussion on whether they have chosen the right features or implemented them properly, but to argue they should try and ride this out on the coat tails of the older technology is ridiculous (unless your goal is to establish the PC and mobile markets in unassailable positions ;) )
 
kbrickley said:
The only premise he got right was on the question of backwards compatibility ... that is a tremendous risk for the next gen consoles to skip that ... one reason that the mobile and PC markets are doing so well is that even with all the constant change (and both get changed far more frequently than consoles) they have maintained compability with older software (and apps) ... without this it is much harder to win the hearts and minds of your customer or to get them to invest in your software (which is where everybody makes their profit in gaming consoles)

The idea that they shouldn't release new technology because the market is down is bollocks ... we are in the process of a sea change on computing and gaming right now with the shift to mobile platforms (tablets/phones) ... the PC is already feeling the pain and if the consoles were to sit on the sideline during this transition they might find it impossible to get a strong foothold in the new market ... they need newer technology (to stay ahead) and more comprehensive features like web streaming and other set top box type capabilities (to establish a beach head to protect their market from the emerging mobile players)

You can have a reasonable discussion on whether they have chosen the right features or implemented them properly, but to argue they should try and ride this out on the coat tails of the older technology is ridiculous (unless your goal is to establish the PC and mobile markets in unassailable positions ;) )
Click to expand...

Yup. Ask BlackBerry how well riding the coattails of their old tech went.
 
Rizen said:
I'm gonna sum this up real quick:

This article is bad.

The Wii U doesn't have a lot of third party support, but that won't translate to the PS4 and the next Xbox. Why? Because the PC, PS4, and Xboxwhatever are all using x86 CPU architecture and both consoles are using AMD graphics. It will be relatively trivial to port games between them, compared to porting games between the 360 and the PS3 (both using PowerPC architecture instead of x86). The Wii U will probably end up left out not because it isn't powerful enough (I suspect the gap gap between the Wii U and the next MS/Sony consoles will be smaller than the Wii and 360/PS3) but because porting the games to run on it will be much more work.

This should make the development costs more easily affordable, and since most game companies port their AAA titles to the PC anyways, I think most games will start showing up on the next consoles which will drive people to buy them, and make it easier for MS and Sony to sell their hardware. The biggest problem the Wii U has is that there aren't any games for it worth dropping $350 yet. I don't think the newer consoles will have that problem.
Click to expand...

your post is bad;

1. Wii U had more titles at launch than either the PS3 or Xbox and even without a major new release from the Big N on top of that (sorry, MSB Wii U is pretty much the same as the previous release for the Wii (I have both).

Assisn's creed III
Injustice
Batman Arkham City
Need for speed Wii U
Zombie U
etc....

2. Wii U is not competing directly with MS or Sony. They are appealing to an entirely different crowd.

3. The not worth dropping $350 year argument isn't really justifyable. If you think MS and Sony are going to be selling $4-500 consoles like hotcakes in this economy....

(BTW rumors are rumlbing about europe going into a third downturn)

450 said:
Why are you bringing up emulation?

Look at titles like Real Racing 2 and 3 on iOS, those graphics are easily better than PS2.
Click to expand...

I would hope that in the 13 years since the release of the PS2, that graphics would have improved since then.... :p
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
brilliant: great minds like you are hard to come by. You also show an amazing sense of objectivity.
Click to expand...

when a article is that stupid (i though this was a troll thread by the title) what's the point of reading it. especially when the op included part of it.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
your post is bad;

1. Wii U had more titles at launch than either the PS3 or Xbox and even without a major new release from the Big N on top of that (sorry, MSB Wii U is pretty much the same as the previous release for the Wii (I have both).

Assisn's creed III
Injustice
Batman Arkham City
Need for speed Wii U
Zombie U
etc....
Click to expand...
Uh, no? Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3, Arkham City and Need for Speed were all released before on the 360 and the PS3 and were ported to the Wii U. The Need for Speed game wasn't released until last month, and Injustice was just released. The only title you listed that was an original game available at launch was ZombiU.

I own a Wii U, so I am very familiar with the games available :p

2. Wii U is not competing directly with MS or Sony. They are appealing to an entirely different crowd.
Click to expand...
Not really. The involvement of motion controls has been significantly downplayed from the Wii so far. Most of the games available are similar games to the other consoles aside from the Nintendo first party titles. The console is $350, or $299 for a basic set, so it's more expensive than either the PS3 and the 360 which have a much broader installment of games. The argument that they aren't competing against MS or Sony is just wrong.

3. The not worth dropping $350 year argument isn't really justifyable. If you think MS and Sony are going to be selling $4-500 consoles like hotcakes in this economy....
Click to expand...
My point was that since very few games are Wii U exclusives right now, there is no reason for people to buy one if they already have a PS3 or 360.
 
Well its an opinion piece from a non institution game critic. Personally having watched this whole thing go down I believe Sony Microsoft were not ready for new consoles this year. I forget which but one of them fired off a snipe at the other after the Wii U launch claiming to have their console ready. The other one flipped out and the race was on. This whole thing feels really rushed. I'd be willing to bet both have less than 10 launch titles and they'll all be generic COD type stuff.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
3. The not worth dropping $350 year argument isn't really justifyable. If you think MS and Sony are going to be selling $4-500 consoles like hotcakes in this economy....
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the economy is like. People will stop clothing their children for a month to buy the new XBox.

You see the same thing with phones. Kid in worn-out shoes and jeans too small whips out latest-gen iphone...
 
chockomonkey said:
It doesn't matter what the economy is like. People will stop clothing their children for a month to buy the new XBox.

You see the same thing with phones. Kid in worn-out shoes and jeans too small whips out latest-gen iphone...
Click to expand...

lolwut?
 
The article is bad, and I read it. The guys seems really depressed or butt hurt. I wish him well though.

IMO what we don't need are more pessimistic douche bags... I mean, if the objective here is to get good games.
 
Actually we do. Because the development of games (sadly) is regulated by consoles.

Because if we don't were gonna have another 5-10 years of horseshit textures to deal with.
 
chockomonkey said:
Xbox is pretty much a mandatory purchase like iPhones at this point. People will sacrifice what they can in order to have it and the new CoD.

Was my comment that ambiguous?
Click to expand...

Ambiguous? No. Absurd? Yes.

But it was also funny...I wasn't really sure if you were serious. :D
 
Why we don't need a new console generation. Because the author doesn't understand technological development and the advances made capable by it.
 
Rizen said:
Uh, no? Assassin's Creed 3, Mass Effect 3, Arkham City and Need for Speed were all released before on the 360 and the PS3 and were ported to the Wii U. The Need for Speed game wasn't released until last month, and Injustice was just released. The only title you listed that was an original game available at launch was ZombiU.

I own a Wii U, so I am very familiar with the games available :p

Not really. The involvement of motion controls has been significantly downplayed from the Wii so far. Most of the games available are similar games to the other consoles aside from the Nintendo first party titles. The console is $350, or $299 for a basic set, so it's more expensive than either the PS3 and the 360 which have a much broader installment of games. The argument that they aren't competing against MS or Sony is just wrong.

My point was that since very few games are Wii U exclusives right now, there is no reason for people to buy one if they already have a PS3 or 360.
Click to expand...

hello? Wii U launch titles are games that launched with the system

The games I listed are some examples of third party support that was claimed to be lacking.

The Wii U does have motion controlls and camera built into the pad so they must be planning to use it for something ouside of Nintendo land...

The Wii U lauch price was significantly cheaper than the PS3 and xbox 360 lauch price The PS3 was $599 for the top end and $399 for the low end. Xbox was $399 for the Pro and the Core with NO storage was $299. Wii U min is 8GB and the Deluxe is 32 with the ability to add both SD and external HDD for game storage. low end is $300 and high end is $350 so how is this lauch price more expensive agin?

How many times does Nintendo have to tell you that they are not competing with them (MS and Sony) before you understand it? Nintendo appeals to the casual gamer and now they are trying to appeal to the old school gamer...

Based upon Sony and MS releasing their own motion controls, I'd say that they are trying to compete with Nintendo...and overall not having much success
 
Last edited:
Half of you must live under a rock if you have no idea who the hell Yahtzee is. :rolleyes:

I think new consoles are required at this point because the current consoles pale in comparison to a $500 gaming PC; however:

I heard the arguments the last time I brought this up. It's simply not practical to make the new consoles backwards compatible, the hardware's too clumsy, the emulation's too intensive, blah de blah de blah. If that's the case, then don't make a new console. If it can't be done, then you drop the fucking idea right then and there until it can. Full stop. Exclamation mark. 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.
Click to expand...

I support this point and agree completely.
From a hardware standpoint - they need new consoles.
From a software standpoint - they don't need new consoles, they need to work harder at making better games instead of kicking the tires and retreading the same title with an incremental number after it year after year.

If people expect the games to actually BE better and PLAY better with new hardware - you're kidding yourselves. The controllers by and large are most likely going to be similar to what we already have, and you're still tied into and constrained by the limitations of a video game console (as opposed to a PC that is capable of so much more including hardware upgrades and game modifications). The games will look better and possibly run better, but it's doubtful that anything is going to PLAY better because developers are still too damn lazy to come up with an original idea 99% of the time.
 
Dion said:
They are to Hard for everyone bro. I think there EA hate is the most hilarious tho.

I actually hope Nintendo releases a new next gen console to compete with the the PS4 and Xbox 3. I even like there big gamepad remote. The touch screen is great for games with inventory and maps.
Click to expand...

I apologize if English is not your primary language, but with that said it's hard to take you seriously when your grammar is THAT bad. (to, too, their, there, etc.)
 
HD Televisions are way too mainstream to not have consoles that cun run (non upscaled) 1080p games. It was time for new consoles 3 years ago.
 
ya im not getting why this article was so rage inducing... what i took from it is that triple a gaming is too bloated (which it undeniably is) and the way the market is going it is favoring more independent forms of development and since new consoles show no signs of catering to that might as well invest the money in a good pc.
 
well, I can understand people getting upset, because dude is kinda telling other people what they do and don't need... and that never goes over well... it's his personal needs that he's really talking about, of course, but to project that to an entire industry is maybe a bit premature.
 
JoeUser said:
Article is dumb and I didn't even read it. Of course it's time for a new generation. Do we NEED one? No. But we also don't NEED a metric shit ton of stuff. We don't need faster cell phones or PC's either as they're fast enough.
Click to expand...

So you've invalidated yourself in the discussion. Why even bother commenting "Its dumb but I didn't read it so I don't know if its dumb"?

Anyway Yahtzee makes some very valid points. We are on our way to another gaming market crash. Frankly , I can't wait , last time this happened the train wreck brought about a revolution in gaming that is still paramount in our gaming minds as one of the best times in our hobby.

I think its safe to say that this new generation is headed for doom and gloom if it keeps going with the AAA model only.
 
well, I guess things are headed towards phone being the console that can act as the controller and output the video wirelessly to the tv... but not sure if that's this gen or next or what... I'm all for that actually, and maybe the hadrcore gamer scene will be a bit smaller and more specialized like it used to... either way, I'm pretty excited about the future of gaming, lots of cool stuff to look forward to I think.
 
shifty68 said:
when a article is that stupid (i though this was a troll thread by the title) what's the point of reading it. especially when the op included part of it.
Click to expand...

You're psychic AND a pinnacle of non-biased reporting! AWESOME! :rolleyes:
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again - it is time for the "console" as a proprietary, expensive, locked down crippled PC upon which games are held hostage to the whims of console manufacturers (to the detriment of both players and developer), to die. Consoles were originally created to provide a way to bring gaming-capable hardware to the masses at affordable prices and without a huge amount of computing knowledge required. Those days are now over - we have open platforms and convergence devices in many form factors that can handle gaming today - and more importantly, should!

The time of "console exclusive" should come to an end. Whenever I see "console", I know I as a gamer am going to be paying more, having less control and options in my experience, and getting less for it. Consoles have given rise to the worst of "DLC" for instance, and issues like Microsoft charging developers to patch their own games etc... PC versions of games give developers tons more choices and lesser licensing costs, while offering players a better experience with greater variations (ie modding!) at lower cost. Consoles sacrifice all this to put a few more dollars in the pockets of the middlemen who control the hardware.

It is time for ALL games to be played as they are developed - on "PC" platforms, ideally using as much free and open source technology as possible (ie OpenGL). "PC" (Linux, Windows, Mac etc.. or even Android/FirefoxOS etc..put the power and control in the hands of players and developers. Owners of PC hardware have choices - if they buy an Android tablet, they can choose to sideload content manually, or download/buy/donate from not only Google Play, but the Amazon App Store, or something like F-Droid all without fear that their device is going to be banned. Want to create a living-room "console experience"? Well, build or buy a small form factor/home theater PC and install Windows or Linux with Steam (or other digital distribution vendors etc..) and you have the "pick-and-play" experience.

It is time for consoles as we know them to come to an end. The next generation seem to validate all the fears of increasingly draconian "always connected, always selling your information and marketing to you while obliterating your privacy, not going to provide support for reselling or buying used games etc" policies that have gotten worse in the most recent generation. Let them die on the vine; let hardware manufacturers do like Microsoft have done with the X360 controller and sell peripherals made to be used with the PC and built on open drivers and technologies. I'd easily buy a WiiU GamePad to be used with my PC for instance, if there was a compelling experience that would be bettered with one, the very same way I've bought X360 For PC Dongles and USB Arcade FightStick Pros, and HOTAS combat flightsticks etc.

There is a better future without console manufacturers acting as controlling, obtuse middlemen who enrich themselves while making things more expensive and declining quality for both game developers and players.
 
Last edited:
someone said:
I heard the arguments the last time I brought this up. It's simply not practical to make the new consoles backwards compatible, the hardware's too clumsy, the emulation's too intensive, blah de blah de blah. If that's the case, then don't make a new console. If it can't be done, then you drop the fucking idea right then and there until it can. Full stop. Exclamation mark. 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.
Click to expand...

IMHO it was a choice for MS and Sony to drop BC in favor of x86 and the benefits it will bring to the table. Sony would have had a bit more trouble trying to improve the cell enough to be competitive with MS offerings. Microsoft on the other hand could have easily used an IBM cpu in their next gen but I believe it was a cost issue and it not in line with their unification of PC, portable, and console vision (coding for 3 procesor families is a bit much nowadays)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top