Too soon for new consoles?

G

Gilbert_pwns

Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
759
The current consoles have been kicking around for six years more or less and now there is a lot of talk about new consoles coming out with the first being the Wii U.

The question is whether or not new consoles need to come out. I think games on consoles are pretty well off and they can probably go on and expand for another 3 years or so. Aside from gimmicky 3D and motion capabilities, I don't think they really need any improvement in terms of hardware.

In fact I think this is the best time to get into the current generation of consoles. They are as cheap as ever and their libraries are expansive. Bringing in new consoles would just cost people and the manufacturers more money.

What do you think?
 
most people like computer gamers think it was necessary 4 years ago hahha.

most other people are perfectly fine with what they have and with what they are still buying. i still see people buying xbox and ps3's

normal none core PC gamers are perfectly happy with their xbox and ps3.
 
I still have a few friends that love the current generation and are more than happy with it. Hell, I showed 1 a direct comparison of Borderlands on the PC vs. the 360 and he felt it was “pretty much the same.”
I think it just comes down to what you want I guess. Personally, I think we probably needed them earlier this year and I really, really hope we see them next year even if I don’t think we will.
30 fps and/or short view distances irritate me. However, beyond the graphics – I don’t think the new consoles will bring all that much new to the table. Hopefully the ability to download everything Steam-style, but I dunno if that will happen either.
 
I guess it's important to note that I'm not a serious console gamer.

I have a psp that I really only use for street fighter/tekken.

I also have a 360 that I rarely use for pretty much the same games + UFC and the like.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really take console gaming as seriously as others do and therefore do not see the reason to launch a new series of consoles.
 
The current consoles are horrible hardware wise and are severely limiting progress of gaming because they simply can't handle anything more complex. Hell, some modern games already have problems on the current systems (Skyrim on PS3). We need new consoles so that developers will start building more advanced titles. Gaming on a PC is limited by the console development right now.
 
Rizen said:
The current consoles are horrible hardware wise and are severely limiting progress of gaming because they simply can't handle anything more complex. Hell, some modern games already have problems on the current systems (Skyrim on PS3). We need new consoles so that developers will start building more advanced titles. Gaming on a PC is limited by the console development right now.
Click to expand...

I would believe you on the first point if they were still selling first gen 360/PS3. The new versions are much quieter and don't suffer the same heat issues the older ones have. Other than that you can't expect consoles to offer the same graphical/computing output of an actual $1000+ computer. And other than 3D and motion capabilities I don't think they really need to handle much more unless they actually plan full on virtual reality next generation.
 
Rizen said:
The current consoles are horrible hardware wise and are severely limiting progress of gaming because they simply can't handle anything more complex. Hell, some modern games already have problems on the current systems (Skyrim on PS3). We need new consoles so that developers will start building more advanced titles. Gaming on a PC is limited by the console development right now.
Click to expand...

this is an interesting point. and i never really thought about that. but there are plenty of games that look great on the PC and are also on the console. look at hitman.. that has tessellation even. so i dont really know how much its limiting, im going to say that its probably the developers being lazy.

Gilbert_pwns said:
I guess it's important to note that I'm not a serious console gamer.

I have a psp that I really only use for street fighter/tekken.

I also have a 360 that I rarely use for pretty much the same games + UFC and the like.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really take console gaming as seriously as others do and therefore do not see the reason to launch a new series of consoles.
Click to expand...

there are plenty of people out there who dont game on their pc though. think about how common a nice television is. i just bought a 40inch LED samsung for 400$ its nice as shit too.

then all they gotta drop to play almost every game thats available on PC is another 200$

thats fucking CHEAP. my video card was 420$.
 
I for one can't wait. I feel the current gen consoles are a bit dated at this point to say the least. With newer consoles we should start to actually push our hardware. Most games are console ports, poorly optimized and barely push my GTX 580, and I don't even have the latest and greatest.
 
dremic said:
this is an interesting point. and i never really thought about that. but there are plenty of games that look great on the PC and are also on the console. look at hitman.. that has tessellation even. so i dont really know how much its limiting, im going to say that its probably the developers being lazy.



there are plenty of people out there who dont game on their pc though. think about how common a nice television is. i just bought a 40inch LED samsung for 400$ its nice as shit too.

then all they gotta drop to play almost every game thats available on PC is another 200$

thats fucking CHEAP. my video card was 420$.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point though. Why pay for a brand new console that maybe can do Battlefield 3 1080p at 60fps? Because the way I see it that's the only real improvement they can make and it really doesn't justify 500 bucks when you can just play the same game right now with slightly lower settings on a ps3/360.

The current gen consoles are now 200 bucks. Why not just stick with that?
 
Gilbert_pwns said:
That's exactly my point though. Why pay for a brand new console that maybe can do Battlefield 3 1080p at 60fps? Because the way I see it that's the only real improvement they can make and it really doesn't justify 500 bucks when you can just play the same game right now with slightly lower settings on a ps3/360.

The current gen consoles are now 200 bucks. Why not just stick with that?
Click to expand...

well they are!

without an E3 announcement dont expect anything soon. most consoles come out the following year after their announcement too.

sony has repeatedly said they want the ps3 to be a ten year machine (unlikely)

the wii u was much more necessary and was an excellent addition because one.. it can finally play HD which is good for those of us that want a Zelda thats fun and looks good. and two, the price point is excellent.


i agree with you though. not much microsoft and sony can do to get me to spend 500$ and most everybody else will have trouble swallowing that pill too
 
I'm looking forward to the new consoles (not sure if I'll buy one on launch day, my original 360s burned me there), mostly in the hope that new, more powerful, console hardware will result in PC games looking better too.

Personally, what would make me excited hardware wise, even moreso than a flashy new GPU/CPU, would be SSD standard for the PS3 and Xbox. Bring me closer to the load free days of the cartridge based systems, and I'd be in heaven.
 
PC gamers are an odd lot because they love to complain. When a game runs too well, somehow that’s bad and it isn’t pushing gaming forward. When a game runs horribly many seem to revel in either having to buy a new video card (assuming a better one exists), or just complain about how poorly optimized and the game is. Sometimes it’s just the bizarre hope that they’ll still care about a game in 3-4 years when hardware exists that will play it properly. Too often people equate “pushing hardware” with the secret desire to get poorer performance, but an extra bullet point for some graphical element using hardware DX11. It’s a never ending cycle and it rarely actually seems to involve how good a game actually is. It's like the exact opposite of the Wii. :D

I think the current batch of consoles aren’t helping matters, so newer consoles will at least raise that multiplatform bar a little bit more. At least then when a game is ported across several platforms, the worst case scenario performance won't be targeted at 720p/30fps.
 
dremic said:
this is an interesting point. and i never really thought about that. but there are plenty of games that look great on the PC and are also on the console. look at hitman.. that has tessellation even. so i dont really know how much its limiting, im going to say that its probably the developers being lazy.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely the developers being lazy, but that's because the consoles are where the most money is made. So they develop first for console and then port to PC. We aren't going to get better games until the new consoles come out and aren't such a drag on development for PC games. The titles that have been ported to PC with significant improvements (Deus Ex: HR, Max Payne 3) or were PC-first (Valve games, The Witcher series) are few and far between.
 
Gilbert_pwns said:
That's exactly my point though. Why pay for a brand new console that maybe can do Battlefield 3 1080p at 60fps? Because the way I see it that's the only real improvement they can make and it really doesn't justify 500 bucks when you can just play the same game right now with slightly lower settings on a ps3/360.

The current gen consoles are now 200 bucks. Why not just stick with that?
Click to expand...
There is a lot you can do with a faster CPU and GPU. When the 360 and PS3 were developed, CUDA+PhysX weren't even around. I'm not worried so much about graphics, but I would really love to see better AI + physics in games, and that's just not going to happen on the current console hardware.

Re: this point...
I would believe you on the first point if they were still selling first gen 360/PS3. The new versions are much quieter and don't suffer the same heat issues the older ones have. Other than that you can't expect consoles to offer the same graphical/computing output of an actual $1000+ computer.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the heat issues, I was referring to the fact that they use technology going on 8 years outdated. I don't expect consoles to look as good as a PC, but you can slap a ~$200 video card in any PC built in the last 3-4 years and have better visuals than a 360 or Xbox. They are just very old tech-wise.
 
Too son in what way? As far as games go, the industry is stagnating. Major publishers are pretty much demanding new consoles now. As stupid as it is, we're not going to see advancements made until there are new consoles. The real question is: Can the current economy really support new consoles? Game sales have dropped drastically the last couple years and any number of arguments can be made as to why, but it leaves a big question mark as to the viability of new, expensive, hardware being put onto the market. Nintendo sold 400k WiiU systems so far and that sounds promising so far, but what will sales be like through the holiday and after?
 
Quicksilver_ said:
They should have been released sooner. This gen has gone on long enough.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though. Is there really a need for new consoles? Or do people just want new consoles for the sake of it. In my opinion, games look as fine as they could be on consoles right now. If they went ahead and and released consoles, I bet they would just have a few better textures, one notch softer shadows, and overall just better smoothness with fps. And You would be paying 500-600 for that at launch.

But if you guys are really looking forward for better motion control and 3D support than I guess you do need better hardware for that. If that's the case, then I would agree that a new generation of consoles would provide that.
 
Derangel said:
Too son in what way? As far as games go, the industry is stagnating. Major publishers are pretty much demanding new consoles now. As stupid as it is, we're not going to see advancements made until there are new consoles. The real question is: Can the current economy really support new consoles? Game sales have dropped drastically the last couple years and any number of arguments can be made as to why, but it leaves a big question mark as to the viability of new, expensive, hardware being put onto the market. Nintendo sold 400k WiiU systems so far and that sounds promising so far, but what will sales be like through the holiday and after?
Click to expand...

At most, I can see a console running the open sandbox Crysis 1 at all Max settings at 60 fps. If they can do that then it would justify the 600 bucks.
 
Gilbert_pwns said:
That's the thing though. Is there really a need for new consoles? Or do people just want new consoles for the sake of it. In my opinion, games look as fine as they could be on consoles right now. If they went ahead and and released consoles, I bet they would just have a few better textures, one notch softer shadows, and overall just better smoothness with fps. And You would be paying 500-600 for that at launch.

But if you guys are really looking forward for better motion control and 3D support than I guess you do need better hardware for that. If that's the case, then I would agree that a new generation of consoles would provide that.
Click to expand...
It's not just that; we'd like to encourage developers to make games at 1080p from the ground up. Most of them are upscaled from lower resolutions and some textures look blurry and unrefined. Do you download HD mods for games? The HD mods for GTA IV, for example, is how the game should have been made from the beginning IMO.
 
Was that technology available at the beginning ? I think not, so for its time it was advanced, correct me if im wrong but i dont think some of the really nice hd mods were avaiable until way later? I think people get wrapped up in how old the consoles are, but for me owning a pc that I can really tell the difference, I think that they are outdated. To the normal casual gamer, it's not worth it, nor do they care or notice.
 
Quicksilver_ said:
It's not just that; we'd like to encourage developers to make games at 1080p from the ground up. Most of them are upscaled from lower resolutions and some textures look blurry and unrefined. Do you download HD mods for games? The HD mods for GTA IV, for example, is how the game should have been made from the beginning IMO.
Click to expand...

But you would been paying a ton more for that console. Especially if you retroactively went back the 3 or so years when gta IV was released. You had to have a pretty high end GPU with atleast 1gb of memory to run it at that time. Then what? You still had basically the same game, which in my opinion is what makes it great/bad. You could pretty up a C title all you want, it will still be boring game. And that in my opinion is all that next gen consoles can offer (besides motion control and 3D). You'll be essentially paying for a 600 gpu. Will the games look pretty? Yeah, but they will still be the same games. There's only been a few games over the past years that have really innovated so much that it was a fun game to play. And most of it was through pure gameplay; not graphics.

So, do you really need a better gpu? Or better games?
 
I'm really enjoying GTA IV, to be honest. I can see where some of the hate comes from, but I find the controls to work well on the PC and there are more interesting characters here than most games released around the same time.

With regards to the hardware, it was poorly optimised to begin with for PC, but the quality jump was still there even on a mid range card back then. Better games will come from the developers who know what appeals to gamers most, concepts that for the most part have remained unchanged for about 5 years. Not to say it's easy to make a good game, but considering the strict demands for survival horror, it leaves little room for mistakes if a developer followed those guidelines strictly. So, with the now good game, this leaves us with two options to encourage wider appeal:
1. Improve the graphics; and
2. Offer new methods of playing a game.
From my own experience though, the second option isn't one everyone has embraced. Graphics really do speak to consumers; I wish Zack and Wiki had sold more than it did, it was a perfect blend of puzzle and new methods to play a game. Even with its cel shading though, those graphics and the fact it was on the Wii reduced its appeal, while the stagnant and painful Resident Evil 6 went on to sell like crazy.
 
I think the conclusion I am coming to after a whole day of watching this thread it's not just the game developers fault for the lack of game quality these days. It's true that most game developers focus on the visual aspect of the game more than anything else, but that's because that's what most of the market wants.

I think if you are in the camp that likes great story/gameplay/replayability then you would lean more in the current gen is fine camp.

But if you are looking for another jump in graphics but pretty much the same game titles, then you would want a new generation of consoles that would help move that along.

A very simple example would be the UFC games. The first one basically had 4 different mechanics. By the time the first one came out, those 4 had at least 2 new features each. By UFC 3 it had multiplied again. It made the gameplay as realistic as ever and subsequently garnered more positive reviews than the previous even with basically minute improvements to the graphics. And this was done on the same hardware in the period of 3-4 years or so.

Another example would be STALKER. It was hindered by bugs and an old graphics engine, but anyone who has played it will agree that it is a far better experience than Far Cry 2 because of the gameplay.

And as much as people want to shit on it, COD basically has the same graphics it did four years ago. But the multiplayer gameplay is so fun that people continue to buy it.

I guess what I'm alluding to is that by requesting a faster processor and a better gpu then you are only asking for a better looking Gears of War. You are not necessarily asking for better games, just better looking games.

I think you need to blame the developer, not the hardware.
 
There was an old article from a few years ago where Microsoft stated there was no need for a new console. The article mentioned that Microsoft considered the Xbox 360 console sufficient since they can provide new updates to it to bring out new features. Fast-forward to now and we see that happening on the Xbox 360 console and updates to the Xbox Live services, which unfortunately require a Gold membership.

However, as with every console, developers have reached or coming to a point where they have maxed or nearly maxed out the console's capabilities. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft have seen this already. Halo 4 and upcoming PS3 games are showing what's possible graphics-wise on their console. And, we're talking about a console with a GPU released seven years ago. The need for a new console would almost always be about making more money and expanding their services-- PSN or Xbox Live.

It's already rumored Microsoft is planning a set-top box dedicated to Xbox Live services and media streaming. And, a separate high-powered console. Sony? Not quite sure. They are indeed planning on a PS4.

All in all, I'm sure all of this is in response to Nintendo and game developers wanting a more powerful console. Rumors are more expanded/integrated Kinect in the next console and PS4 to get a tablet-like controller similar to the Wii U. I just find it funny how Microsoft and Sony like to copy certain features of Nintendo's consoles such as motion control. Microsoft may also be planning a Wii U-like tablet controller as well.

There will be new consoles, and not only to make more money out of them, but to expand their integrated services (Nintendo Network, PSN, Xbox Live) and allow more gameplay features and improve gaming graphics. It happens every console generation. I think this generation of consoles has been the longest span of a console before a new console was released.
 
Forget the graphics. Why we need new consoles is for more RAM so we can have bigger maps. For all the slack Halo and CoD get, they're popular, but the maps are so tiny, and this is a limitation of the current consoles. I want Arma 2 size maps (or at minimum, Battlefield map sizes) with 32 vs 32 players or greater. And even the best graphics card available won't be able to run it with current console quality graphics if you're limited to just 512 MB of RAM.
 
Nytegard said:
Forget the graphics. Why we need new consoles is for more RAM so we can have bigger maps. For all the slack Halo and CoD get, they're popular, but the maps are so tiny, and this is a limitation of the current consoles. I want Arma 2 size maps (or at minimum, Battlefield map sizes) with 32 vs 32 players or greater. And even the best graphics card available won't be able to run it with current console quality graphics if you're limited to just 512 MB of RAM.
Click to expand...

You've officially made the best argument so far for the need for new hardware.
 
I think we're due for new game systems. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are still fine machines, and can and will have some great games through next year, but I'm ready to see something new from Microsoft and Sony. I bought my Wii U, and I think it's a great next logical step for Nintendo. I like Miiverse.

Is it weird to say that I'd like to see even further online integration with PS4 + Xbox 720?

I'm trying to think of specifics, but I'm always thinking, "Why doesn't [this] do [this]?" when I'm on my 360 or PS3...
 
Nytegard said:
Forget the graphics. Why we need new consoles is for more RAM so we can have bigger maps. For all the slack Halo and CoD get, they're popular, but the maps are so tiny, and this is a limitation of the current consoles. I want Arma 2 size maps (or at minimum, Battlefield map sizes) with 32 vs 32 players or greater. And even the best graphics card available won't be able to run it with current console quality graphics if you're limited to just 512 MB of RAM.
Click to expand...

Gilbert_pwns said:
You've officially made the best argument so far for the need for new hardware.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Nytegard, made a very good point.

These new consoles shouldn't just focus on prettier graphics or gimmicky features like motion control, but increase the RAM for goodness sake. RAM is cheap nowadays. It doesn't make sense for a console to stick to 256MB or 512MB of RAM when 4GB DDR3 stick alone is $20 to $25 retail. I'm sure the individual chips themselves cost much less to produce. 512MB or 1GB of RAM was probably expensive back in 2005, but not anymore. 16GB DDR3 sticks will probably be as affordable as 8GB DDR3 sticks when both DDR4 and the next consoles come out.

The Wii U has 2GB of RAM with it split evenly for graphics and the system. That should allow larger textures and larger game maps. Imagine the next Legend of Zelda game on the Wii U and what may be possible with the larger amount of RAM. Heck, I thought Ocarina of Time's Hyrule Field and the world itself being practically seamless from one area to the next was impressive back then. I'm looking forward to what Nintendo can do with the Wii U for the Zelda series. I'm happy Nintendo actually was smart enough to put in a larger amount of RAM for the Wii U.

More RAM for the GPU and the system should allow larger maps and more higher resolution textures. In effect, since many game developers don't bother improving ports to the PC games like improving textures, PC ports will actually look better, for once. That also means that our games will still be limited by consoles when the next gen PS4 and Xbox NEXT/Durango comes out. A sad effect of game developer laziness by the larger companies like EA and the like.

Hopefully the next Microsoft and Sony console have at minimum 2GB to at most 4GB. 8GB of RAM would be impressive, but given that they currently cost $40 to $50 for 8GB DDR3 1333 RAM, I think they'll probably stick to 4GB at most. That would be combined RAM as well for both the GPU and system.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, we needed new systems 3 years ago. Your reasoning is weak and could have been used years ago on the PS2.

Gaming has barely evolved at all in the last 5 years. Mostly because the current systems were limited even at their release in 2005/2006.
 
Last edited:
I play both PC and consoles. I have been waiting for a new console to come out like 2 years ago. I guess I am still kind of old school and liked the old days when they would come out with new competing consoles every couple of years. Kept the competition fresh.
All we are getting now essentially console ports to most of the new PC games. Once we have new consoles we can finally start getting console ports that will at least look a little better on the PC because lets face it, we are not going to be getting any games that are not ports to the PC unless it is a straight PC game or developed on the PC first.
I prefer platform, driving and 3d world type stuff on consoles. FPS, RPG and RTS games I will only play on the PC.
 
I care more about good gameplay, for that I still think that even the PS2 is fine.....PS3 is perfect for me. Of course users on a PC Enthusiast forum will care more about graphics than gameplay they spend thousands of dollars on their rigs for that purpose whereas gamers spend most of their money on games and not hardware.
 
Sovern said:
I care more about good gameplay, for that I still think that even the PS2 is fine.....PS3 is perfect for me. Of course users on a PC Enthusiast forum will care more about graphics than gameplay they spend thousands of dollars on their rigs for that purpose whereas gamers spend most of their money on games and not hardware.
Click to expand...

exactly. thats why console discussions on this forum are generally pretty terrible.


most of the people on this forum LOVE computers. and we all generally have insanely powerful machines. personally i couldnt play assassins creed 3 on my brand new wii u i just didnt like the way it looked and wanted to play it on my nice PC. does that make it worthless ? no.. im just not gonna play A3 on it. and another thing to point out is my friend who has no gaming PC and is like 95% of people who actually game on a console thinks A3 on the console looks amazing.


consoles still serve their purpose today and their sales are still strong.
 
Sovern said:
I care more about good gameplay, for that I still think that even the PS2 is fine.....PS3 is perfect for me. Of course users on a PC Enthusiast forum will care more about graphics than gameplay they spend thousands of dollars on their rigs for that purpose whereas gamers spend most of their money on games and not hardware.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm the exception. I will always play games on my PC over any console unless it's console exclusive or I would rather have a portable version of the game. Yet, I created this thread. As you can see in my sig, my rig only has components for a reliable and stable rig that will play without stuttering. I recently upgraded from a 4870 only because it was having problems running BF3. Other than that I would have probably kept it.

Visuals are appealing, but it's not what makes a great; fun game.
 
I have noticed quite a few comments that mention that when comparing the same game between the PC and a console, that the PC version doesn't look a whole lot better then the console version, so we don't need newer/better consoles.

Well, that's exactly WHY we need better consoles. PC versions don't look a whole lot better because the developers build the game for the console, and then just add a few tweaks (maybe) for the PC versions.

It's not because PC's can't make the game look tons better then current gen consoles, it's because the developers won't make the game look better on the PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top