New Console Generation Brings Fear

[unindexedsearchengine]

I've been gaming on a PC from the start, but i've been looking to get into console gaming for a time now (not a complete migration, but play both PC and console at the same time) but i have been waiting on the next-gen releases...

this still ain't enough info to convince me of anything, so i remain hopeful

 

[lacktheknack]

At least for a week or so until the next new graphics card comes out.

Too late, that was today =D

GTX 680 ^_^

Ooooh! Shiny!

Now, is it worth the upgrade from a 580? I can run all my games at full with minimal problems.

 

[malestrithe]

May the weak perish swiftly.
http://www.dabok.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/wii_1.jpg

Sorry, but the Wii won the console war this generation, with almost 100 million units sold. The other two had their wii also wireless gimmicks and no amount of but that is not a true platform will change that.

Also, obvious troll is obvious.

 

[The Pinray]

May the weak perish swiftly.
http://www.dabok.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/wii_1.jpg

Don't you mean "May the Wiieak perish swiftly?" *Get's shot*

On topic: Whatever, the PC Elitists will ***** and moan and try to tell other people how to enjoy themselves like they always do and the console players will ignore them and play their games on their fancy plastic boxes. Nothing changes.

Whew, when did I become so jaded? D:

 

[The Wooster]

It seems clear that indie games, at least those that don't have the words "mine" or "craft" in the title [http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/XboxIndieGames], seem to fare far better on the PC or iOS than on consoles. One pertinent example is Cthulhu Saves The World, which managed to sell more in one week on Steam than it did in one year on the Xbox Live Indie Marketplace.

You missed the words Braid, Trine, and Flow, off the top of my head. And when are PC gamers gonna stop fooling themselves that Cthulu's problem was a lack of exposure and coverage the first time around by the press, not any kind of problem with console gaming?

I missed those words because Braid and Trine sold far more on PC than they did on Xbox live. Flow never went on sale for the PC, but downloads of the Flash version far outstrip downloads of the PSN version. Super Meat Boy sold half as well on XBLA as it did on PC, despite being out for longer and having a substantial ad push. Dungeon Defends, last time I checked, was selling about four times as well on the PC as it was on XBLA.
There's simply a far larger market for smaller games on the PC and iOS.

 

[The Wooster]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses.

You're talking about licensing a third part engine but you're missing the point. Even if you do license an engine (which itself cost a substantial amount) you still have to create assets. Stronger hardware requires more detailed, and more numerous art assets. Higher poly models, more lighting effects and with the advent of DX11, tessellation effects. They all cost money.

All of that still comes down to your toolbox and paying the guy who sits there with it to create that stuff. It costs more money because the graphics dudes sitting there and says "well despite sitting here for 8 hours a day anyway if you want me to do this I demand more money for continueing to sit here for 8 hours a day making graphics". There isn't any real inherant resource here other than the people, and the fee to get the engine which by it's nature is a tool to make creating that stuff easier.

Do you have any experience in the gaming industry at all? Or any experience with 3D modeling, texturing or light work? Because you're way off the mark here. More work = more time = longer development cycle(or more staff) = more wages = larger budget. It's really that simple. I'd suggest you give this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places] a read.

 

[MorganL4]

Well im gonna skip this next gen I think, I mean at this point my 360 is used to play DVDs when I wanna watch them on a screen bigger than 24" ( which isn't that often) and Halo 3 when one friend of mine comes over. So yeah, im a PC guy when it comes to gaming.... just wish Journey existed on the PC.

 

[Arina Love]

all i can say i will never go back to pc gaming is any foreseeable future. PC just don't have any games that of any interest to me and i don't care about better graphics. In fact i can't even remember last time i played single player game on PC.
now excuse me while i go back to playing Graces F.

 

[RA92]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses.

You're talking about licensing a third part engine but you're missing the point. Even if you do license an engine (which itself cost a substantial amount) you still have to create assets. Stronger hardware requires more detailed, and more numerous art assets. Higher poly models, more lighting effects and with the advent of DX11, tessellation effects. They all cost money.

All of that still comes down to your toolbox and paying the guy who sits there with it to create that stuff. It costs more money because the graphics dudes sitting there and says "well despite sitting here for 8 hours a day anyway if you want me to do this I demand more money for continueing to sit here for 8 hours a day making graphics". There isn't any real inherant resource here other than the people, and the fee to get the engine which by it's nature is a tool to make creating that stuff easier.

Do you have any experience in the gaming industry at all? Or any experience with 3D modeling, texturing or light work? Because you're way off the mark here. More work = more time = longer development cycle(or more staff) = more wages = larger budget. It's really that simple. I'd suggest you give this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places] a read.

I'm actually rather curious about the costs of optimization for current gen consoles. It took years of engine development to make Rage and the original Crysis be able to run on the PS3 and XBox360. More powerful hardware surely means less resources spent on optimization?

Also, as far as I know, asset developers actually first create high res textures and high poly models and then downscale them accordingly, so I don't see costs rising in the area of asset development that much.

 

[The Wooster]

It seems clear that indie games, at least those that don't have the words "mine" or "craft" in the title [http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/XboxIndieGames], seem to fare far better on the PC or iOS than on consoles. One pertinent example is Cthulhu Saves The World, which managed to sell more in one week on Steam than it did in one year on the Xbox Live Indie Marketplace.

You missed the words Braid, Trine, and Flow, off the top of my head. And when are PC gamers gonna stop fooling themselves that Cthulu's problem was a lack of exposure and coverage the first time around by the press, not any kind of problem with console gaming?

I missed those words because Braid and Trine sold far more on PC than they did on Xbox live.

And to back this up you have what, exactly?

And Trine wasn't on Xbox Live, so thats not much of an achievement.

VG Chartz is down at the moment, but take a look when you get a chance. Trine was out for months on PC before being ported to PSN.

 

[The Wooster]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses.

You're talking about licensing a third part engine but you're missing the point. Even if you do license an engine (which itself cost a substantial amount) you still have to create assets. Stronger hardware requires more detailed, and more numerous art assets. Higher poly models, more lighting effects and with the advent of DX11, tessellation effects. They all cost money.

All of that still comes down to your toolbox and paying the guy who sits there with it to create that stuff. It costs more money because the graphics dudes sitting there and says "well despite sitting here for 8 hours a day anyway if you want me to do this I demand more money for continueing to sit here for 8 hours a day making graphics". There isn't any real inherant resource here other than the people, and the fee to get the engine which by it's nature is a tool to make creating that stuff easier.

Do you have any experience in the gaming industry at all? Or any experience with 3D modeling, texturing or light work? Because you're way off the mark here. More work = more time = longer development cycle(or more staff) = more wages = larger budget. It's really that simple. I'd suggest you give this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places] a read.

I'm actually rather curious about the costs of optimization for current gen consoles. It took years of engine development to make Rage and the original Crysis be able to run on the PS3 and XBox360. More powerful hardware surely means less resources spent on optimization?

Also, as far as I know, asset developers actually first create high res textures and high poly models and then downscale them accordingly, so I don't see costs rising in the area of asset development that much.

Unfortunately most developers aren't pushing for faster hardware for better performance. If they were, 60 FPS would be the standard. Instead they'll try to squeeze as much eye candy out of the new hardware as possible.

As to your second point, that used to be the case when there was a reason to do so. Now that PCs aren't considered a viable platform by most devs, they simply don't bother creating assets at higher levels of detail than they need. That's why most PC ports tend to have scarcely improved textures these days.

 

[Li Mu]

So who wants to bet that Nintendo's next failed gimmick will be 3D? They failed to take advantage of the motion controller's potential and I expect them to do the same with 3D.
I mean, the 3DS hasn't really amazed anybody.

Nintendo needs to stop looking for childish gimmicks and actually do what the big boy consoles do and release GOOD GAMES! (crazy idea, I know)

Although I have to say that with 3 friends, Super Smash Brothers is pretty awesome.

 

[Desaari]

GTX 680 benchmarks and reviews released today. Guess how much the PC gamer market gives a damn about consoles finally improving specs?

Did you guess "not even slightly"? well you're correct!

I give a damn and here's why: I bought this PC 8 years ago and I can still run the latest games on it, thanks to developers making their games cross-platform. If it weren't for consoles being a limiting factor I would have had to fork out for a whole new PC by now.

Whether you (plural) care or not is irrelevant, it will still affect you. The new console generation means that games will no longer be limited by this generation's hardware. So if you can afford the stupidly high prices of top-of-the-line graphics cards, such as the GTX 680, then this should be a cause for celebration because games will be able to make use of that extra power.
If you're like me, however, and can't afford to upgrade your system any time soon then the new generation of consoles are indeed something to fear, even as a PC gamer.

 

[Beryl77]

The consoles have to change at some point, the hardware of the current ones is way too old. They won't be able to go on forever with the same consoles.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

It's fun to see all these people saying that PC is obviously now the way forward. I haven't yet seen always on DRM on my XBox Games, and only on occasion do I have to wait for something to install before I can play games on it. I don't have to download every single game taking over an hour before it tells me that the graphics card on my week old laptop is out of date.

Also, I love how much people will bang on about next generation graphics, longer more engaging experiences, and how the new generation opens up unlimited opportunities for developers to explore games in a whole new way, and then go 'Yay! Two dimensional flash games that wouldn't have looked out of place if they were free to play on NewGrounds, but I get to pay for them instead! That's the way forwards!'

 

[johnnnny guitar]

tough shit mate we got to turn over within the next two years my PS3 and 360 have been good but we are limiting ourselves by sticking to them and not filling the gap between consoles and PC's

 

[Busard]

My worry is about what was enunciated at the beginning of the article: the fact that publishers are gonna take even less risks. They're already cutting off and dumbing down the market a lot as of now. I can't see that with a good eye

Yet another reason for PC gaming =D

"Our market isn't *completely* full of homogenized crap"
-unlikely marketing tag for Steam

"We took a glorified boring visual novel and fooled gamers into thinking it was "the next evolution of art in videogames.""
-other unlikely marketting tag for Steam.

Woa woa woa there buddies.

This has nothing to do about platformes. It's about the publishers. I play on PC and PS3 and I would be worried either way about the impact of "riskless investments" as it would impact the gaming medium as a whole and not by platform specifically.

(also I liked Dear Esther but for personal reasons. You're probably referring to the Jim Sterling video. I don't think "art games" (or nongame in the case of Dear Esther) in general are a threat to the medium as they stay a small minority, and in fact can serve as example for future, better titles instead of pulling it down)