Yep. It's more Bethesda being rather shit indeed.mjc0961 said:
And yeah, play it on PC. UI is shit on PC though if you ask me, just the console interface with no kind of thought for efficient use...
Seriously, Console Wars Are Pointless
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And yeah, play it on PC. UI is shit on PC though if you ask me, just the console interface with no kind of thought for efficient use...
Yeah but what if you need to entertain yourself for a while man? think of the logistics!Casual Shinji said:
Only if it comes with tactile anologue buttons and not just a touch screen, frankly, a touch screen is fine for simple inputs like swiping but onscreen buttons are awful things because they lack a tactile feedback or physical presence seperate from the rest of the screen.ThinDeisel said:
Basically I would hate to try play MvC with a touch screen only.
Too true. Of course, the industry is flat up against the wall known as financial reality, a wall that they seem to not even notice is there. Tripple A development costs $20-30 million USD for a sequel, and even up to $40 million USD for a new proprietary title (I refuse to use the term "IP"). This is up from a projected cost of $10-17 million in 2005-2006. If the next console generation continues this trend, we will see a sharp decrease in AAA titles, as even at $70 per disk sold, they would have to sell at least 4 million units to make a profit on their game. Microsoft and Sony seem to be all for this idea, though, even though it will basically cause their systems to fail, especially if sold at a loss to manufacturing.
EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and Take-Two stocks are all moribund in performance, and rightly so, as investors see that the AAA industry is running towards the wall of financial ruin at 60 miles per hour.
Captcha: mish-mash. Exactly what will be left of the AAA industry at this rate.
EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and Take-Two stocks are all moribund in performance, and rightly so, as investors see that the AAA industry is running towards the wall of financial ruin at 60 miles per hour.
Captcha: mish-mash. Exactly what will be left of the AAA industry at this rate.
Well, candy canes have the ability to be twisted into circular shapes... If you know what I mean. ;DSkarKrow said:
[sub]I'm surprised by my onw dirty thoughts. Really, I am.[/sub]
This has to be the most irrelevant Extra Punctuation I've ever read. And Yahtzee knows it, judging by the quote "And while we're dreaming, the sky is also pink, and everyone has candy canes growing out of their palms."
To ask that console makers become simply game publishers is likely never to happen until they run out of cash, because while they're successful, they have no incentive not to continue business as usual. When they fail, they will comply with your wishes. cough SEGA cough
When there's no more money to make off selling console hardware, and subsequently raking in the licensing dough that publishers have to pay, then everyone will be forced to play on PC, and you can live your dream.
To ask that console makers become simply game publishers is likely never to happen until they run out of cash, because while they're successful, they have no incentive not to continue business as usual. When they fail, they will comply with your wishes. cough SEGA cough
When there's no more money to make off selling console hardware, and subsequently raking in the licensing dough that publishers have to pay, then everyone will be forced to play on PC, and you can live your dream.
At least this one reads like it's about the "console wars" instead of being half off topic rant against Nintendo's latest LSD induced contraption.
However, if you really believe what your saying Yatzee, then go off and develop a game using the very method you're advocating. Don't cop out saying "The Tech Doesn't Exist" because it does. Write a game for a cheap 35$ Android USB dongle and sell it, or write a game using HTML5/Javascript and let people play. Or write your game completely in Java and see how well you do without Native Libraries. If you're able to do any of that then maybe your opinion on that side of things would have some weight. Otherwise it's just fanciful dreams that neglect any grounding in reality.
All of the methods that would put you close to your Utopia come at a huge cost. Most developers, even independents, aren't willing to give up the kind of power you get with a Native system.
The only thing that should be done is that the Libraries should be standardized so that a developer can write their code once and quickly compile their code for any system they want to sell on. For the most part they already are. Then you just have to do what Capcom does and code to the Lowest Common Denominator. However, the newest stuff is never apart of that standard. The "war" you're ranting about is where new things are tested. Graphically the "war" is between different graphics card manufacturers. Did the system use an NVidia chip or an ATI chip. For memory storage it's Did they use an SSD, or HDD. Things that work best are integrated into the libraries and things that aren't are discarded in the next generation. Discarding breaks backwards compatibility, but if you don't do it you end up with junk that's never used to support one idiots desire to run a 386 DX33 game on an 786_64 processor.
Eventually, like Linus to Molnar, you have to draw a line in the sand and say
However, if you really believe what your saying Yatzee, then go off and develop a game using the very method you're advocating. Don't cop out saying "The Tech Doesn't Exist" because it does. Write a game for a cheap 35$ Android USB dongle and sell it, or write a game using HTML5/Javascript and let people play. Or write your game completely in Java and see how well you do without Native Libraries. If you're able to do any of that then maybe your opinion on that side of things would have some weight. Otherwise it's just fanciful dreams that neglect any grounding in reality.
All of the methods that would put you close to your Utopia come at a huge cost. Most developers, even independents, aren't willing to give up the kind of power you get with a Native system.
The only thing that should be done is that the Libraries should be standardized so that a developer can write their code once and quickly compile their code for any system they want to sell on. For the most part they already are. Then you just have to do what Capcom does and code to the Lowest Common Denominator. However, the newest stuff is never apart of that standard. The "war" you're ranting about is where new things are tested. Graphically the "war" is between different graphics card manufacturers. Did the system use an NVidia chip or an ATI chip. For memory storage it's Did they use an SSD, or HDD. Things that work best are integrated into the libraries and things that aren't are discarded in the next generation. Discarding breaks backwards compatibility, but if you don't do it you end up with junk that's never used to support one idiots desire to run a 386 DX33 game on an 786_64 processor.
Eventually, like Linus to Molnar, you have to draw a line in the sand and say
Molnar said:
Linus said:
Imagine a word where your movie DVDs only played in a certain brand of DVD player. No one in their right mind gives a shit about what specific brand or company made their DVD player, they just wanna watch their fucking movie. That's how ridiculous the whole console wars thing is.
(don't you even fucking bring up blue ray players I swear to god)
(don't you even fucking bring up blue ray players I swear to god)
You know, the vibe I seem to be getting from this is "consoles should die and everyone should be PC gamers" or something to that degree. Call me cynical, but I think that Yahtzee is being extremely overly idealistic.
On historical preservation, shoot me, but the only solution is piracy/emulation. One, the games go out of print and are unobtainable, and two, the consoles go out of production and are unobtainable. A free market/capitalist system cannot solve these two problems, period. Standardized hardware is a pipe dream and is not going to happen. The best we can do is a standardized VM, a la Java, but even that won't happen so long as the big console companies are still standing.
While we're at it, remove DRM from the games, it's been done in music already. I love Steam but as a store and game-managing program, Steamworks is still bad.
Also, we've had VHS, DVD and now Blu-Ray, inbetween there was Betamax, Video CD, Super Video CD and Laserdisc for storing what is essentially the same movie. Also, being on unified hardware doesn't immediately solve the problems though, you're still going to need to upgrade and older games might still not work (like most Windows 95 games available).
Also, we've had VHS, DVD and now Blu-Ray, inbetween there was Betamax, Video CD, Super Video CD and Laserdisc for storing what is essentially the same movie. Also, being on unified hardware doesn't immediately solve the problems though, you're still going to need to upgrade and older games might still not work (like most Windows 95 games available).
Another point is that in a competition the competitors generally respect each other and that certainly doesn't happen in this industry.
This ain't a way, and Yahtzee lacks perspective.
NES vs Atari = Competition increased the graphical quality available, and moved consoles away from PC alternatives.
Sega vs SNES = Back to Yahtzee's point.
N64 vs Playstation = Cartridges vs discs (no load times, or more storage)?
One analog stick, vs two?
More PC like console modularity?
2 players vs 4 players.
Gamecube vs Playstation 2 vs Dreamcast vs X-Box = Reduced load times vs All-in-one entertainment & Backwards compatibility, but only 2-player (Online?) vs Dreamcast vs X-Box (Online gaming?).
Wii vs Playstation 3 vs X-Box 360 = Innovative controls vs Playstation 3 vs X-Box live.
Really, what innovation have you seen like the wii motes from third-party peripherals? If it is not the default controller, nobody uses it. Until the Wii, nobody would have taken a chance on Kinect, not after the laughable Eye Toy cameras for the PS2.
At what point would Nintendo EVER create a system like X-Box live? Furthermore, when would Sony have done so?
Have you heard of a Geforce 8800GT, 512mb? I consider that card to be top of the line. Better yet, one of its low power replacements, like a GT 240, or a GT 620. Don't talk to me about GTX 280s, 480s, 580s, or 680s.
Gaming engine developers just need to slow down, and stop making such demanding engines. Take a page out of Valve's book, match the requirements for Source. Crysis does not look pretty on my machine, it just looks like a screen full of jaggies, and a 40FPS frame rate.
NES vs Atari = Competition increased the graphical quality available, and moved consoles away from PC alternatives.
Sega vs SNES = Back to Yahtzee's point.
N64 vs Playstation = Cartridges vs discs (no load times, or more storage)?
One analog stick, vs two?
More PC like console modularity?
2 players vs 4 players.
Gamecube vs Playstation 2 vs Dreamcast vs X-Box = Reduced load times vs All-in-one entertainment & Backwards compatibility, but only 2-player (Online?) vs Dreamcast vs X-Box (Online gaming?).
Wii vs Playstation 3 vs X-Box 360 = Innovative controls vs Playstation 3 vs X-Box live.
Really, what innovation have you seen like the wii motes from third-party peripherals? If it is not the default controller, nobody uses it. Until the Wii, nobody would have taken a chance on Kinect, not after the laughable Eye Toy cameras for the PS2.
At what point would Nintendo EVER create a system like X-Box live? Furthermore, when would Sony have done so?
So overpriced, overheating, overconsuming big blocks of metal.ex275w said:
Have you heard of a Geforce 8800GT, 512mb? I consider that card to be top of the line. Better yet, one of its low power replacements, like a GT 240, or a GT 620. Don't talk to me about GTX 280s, 480s, 580s, or 680s.
Gaming engine developers just need to slow down, and stop making such demanding engines. Take a page out of Valve's book, match the requirements for Source. Crysis does not look pretty on my machine, it just looks like a screen full of jaggies, and a 40FPS frame rate.
The comparison to Bluray/HDDVD is flawed. Games are not simple like video files, and a console is not a piece of commodity electronics like a bluray player. A console now is much more than just a piece of hardware anyway. Its a user service (Live, PSN), its a development platform (dev programs, APIs), its an ecommerce service, and its a publisher. A console maker's job is to not only make the best hardware, but to make their environment more attractive to developers and publishers than the other guy's. I think I disagree with the main point of the article: that the best console is the one with the best games...period. Likening a console to an artist's easel is purposefully ignoring the infrastructure behind each console, and i think YC knows it.
The Unreal Engine was made by and is owned by Epic Games who are not owned (directly or indirectly) by EA. The Cryengine was made my Crytek who partnered with EA for a while, but Far Cry was still published by Ubisoft. I guess you could say the Frostbite engine is indirectly owned by EA since all games made with it were published by EA, contrary to the other two engines though.Vuliev said:
First you say that competition is good because it enhanced the graphics of the Atari and the NES, but now you say game developers should stop improving them? I get that obviously the Source engine has better visuals then the NES but if you argue that way, maybe we should have just stuck the the original quake engine then. The Source engine doesn't have directX 11 or PhysX and cant handle huge open worlds like Skyrim or GTA, all of which can look pretty damn awesome if you ask me. Sure you can say we don't "need" that, but we don't need the Source engine either then do we?Monster_user said:
They may show the way forward, but what will really take it is Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all sitting around a table and agreeing to a standardised platform, where they are still in the hardware game for peripherals but they are mainly software focused.JSW said:
I'll tell you, it's closer to that than it's ever been before.
Nintendo is least likely to bite, Microsoft and Sony I can see signing anything to grease the wheels, but Nintendo's got a history, they've got pride. They "saved console gaming" after the collapse of 1983, saved it with the licensing and exclusivity model we have today.
That made console gaming survive, but console gaming is not on the bring of disappearing now, it's a massive industry that directly competes with movies and TV revenue.
Sony have been distancing themselves, they have diverging hardware between PS3, PSV and increasing presence in PC gaming (Planetside 2). Hell, they renamed PlaysStation Network to "Sony Entertainment Network".
One thing about this one singular box is the networks might be separate, Xbox Live would exists as a completley separate login from Sony Online and Nintendo.
The box would be nothing but dead dry hardware. And it might as well be, the way you interact with the Xbox 360 has changed so much sicne it launched in 2005 even if you have the exact same hardware, from software updates.
See Microsoft doesn't exist in the hardware, it exists in the software, and and here is the thing where I think Microsoft will want to sign:
If someone buys this supposed Multi-Console to play a Sony game... then all Microsoft have to do to win them over to buying their games... is just advertise "Hey, download the Xbox Live app". Before, if someone had bought a PS3 it was a tough sell convincing them to get buy Microsoft games as they'd have to fork out for a console, but now that barrier would be down. They could smuggle their games onto what would have been the equivalent of them buying a PS3. And vice versa, the exact same applies to Sony seeing people who bought a console to play a Microsoft game like Halo
It's brilliant, it COULD work, I can see the capitalist liking this and going for it and liking it so much they'll never want to go back.
The question is, how will we get there and how long will it take?!?
Much like on PC, peripherals would be an open market for things like that. You could easily get a different controller that had motion controls for games that support them.mysecondlife said:
But the incentive would be to get advanced technology widespread and inter-operable. Look at the PC market how much peripheral technology has advanced by competition and no guiding body at all.
Even if Sony owned the patents to motion sensor in Dual-shock, Microsoft games on this uni-console could use that feature.
Microsoft and Sony would exist on like Sega, as publishers. But I think a key part is big guys like those will command their own custom operating system for standardised hardware. So turning it on you chose Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony OS, then you join their network and their store, just like Steam and Origin model on PC.
Because the Xbox branding... it's not on the hardware, it's on the software.
Wouldn't work, and whoever tries it would kill their company.Treblaine said:
Lets exclude Nintendo from this part because it doesn't apply to them, and hasn't for them since they entered into the console market.
The hurdle to this Multi Console is cost. Sony and MS "technically" have to jump it, but they have an alternative. They choose to use the Razor and Blade marketing model in order to Sell the Systems at a huge loss. If they didn't the PS3 would have cost upwards of 800$ at launch. So your choice is do you buy a single PS3 20GB for 800 or for 500?
Sony wanted to sell units so they opted for the 300$ loss and planed on selling games to make up for that loss. The "Multi Console" doesn't have the option so they'd have to have that full 800 price at launch. Then to tack on the cross compatibility you're going to have an increase. Some parts are shared but some are not. The Processor is the killer piece. They are "almost" the same, but one has bonded units to create cores and one missing core for backwards compatibility with the XBox. This means ether two very expensive processors or a custom processor. Custom means it wouldn't take advantage of the PS3 or 360 price drops and would have to drop at its own pace. You're looking at a single system that's over 1000$ just to break even. If you want even a modest profit you're going to have to sell them for 1200 or 1500. This is not practical, and is why it's not done. If you included the Wii on this the architecture is radically different and would increase the price to the point where just getting a Wii CPU instead of a custom build would be better.
So lets go by their current costs. Do you buy the single Super Console for 500$ or each of the others for 200 - 250? If you're rich you go for the Super Console if you're getting both anyways. If you're reasonable and understand your budget you buy the one that is best for you for your money. Sometimes that's a PS3, and others it's an 360. You might want both economically but most of us can't afford every system whenever we want.
The only way your Super Console would even be possible is if MS and Sony worked together and sold it at a HUGE loss to make it, and agreed to SHARE profits on the games for their respective system. That's never going to happen.