We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

[Sack of Cheese]

I don't know what we're arguing about. It's not like with two new consoles, people will start making less games for PC anyway. Just keep playing on the platform of your choice.

People who play on PC will continue to game on PC. People who prefer consoles will buy a new console. New consoles allow more possibility for multiplatform games while offer exclusive games so people with that specific console can enjoy, make their purchase worthwhile and draw in more customers.

We don't have to play everything.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I agree with a lot of things in this article. I never get why Sony would want to ditch backwards compatibility, so okay maybe ps3 is impossible at the moment, but they should have the technology to include ps2 and especially ps1, so why the hell not do that? ps1 worked for ps3 so why drop it now? It´s just a money grab, because they want us to rebuy our games on Gaikai and psn, that seriously sucks...

 

[Pebkio]

You can do that, but how many games that are released for PC have a focus on local mulitplayer?
*inhales a massive amount of air*
*exhales it again*

You know, I was going to go make a snarky list of dozens of games on the PC that featured local co-op when a discussion I saw while researching got me thinking...

Also: someone already went and made my list. [http://www.co-optimus.com/system.php?id=4&sort=releasedate&direction=ASC&playerComp=%3E%3D&playerNum=2&esrb=%&released=All&couch=on] They even have a handy little icon to tell you if it's for a couch.

Anyway, what I was thinking about is how split-screen, or a shared-screen, is... kinda... outdated. Yes yes, I know; the money thing, but even with games on consoles (excluding Nintendo) that features a shared-screen co-op, people prefer to system link at least... no one likes sharing a screen. It's now a thing you have to put up with, rather than purposefully seek out to enjoy.

I excluded the Wii and WiiU, and this is why: It's made to appeal to group gamers. At least a lot of the games are. If I ever threw parties, then we'd play Wii games with Wii Waggle Sticks... and we'd be drunk. But there are still games like that on the PC, it being so versatile and all. Still, yeah, the WiiU would make a better party machine.

Though I do disagree with the barrier to entry. HDMI cables makes PC gaming on a big-screen the easiest thing evar! Okay, as easy as setting up the stereo. Windows has gotten really good at the whole "self-detected" settings thing.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

You mean you can't get the ones you like on consoles. Because there are good ones out and more still coming out on the PC. Hace you head of The Black Tower (TBT)? It's supposed to feature old-school JRPG gameplay and settings but with newer graphics. That's coming out on the PC. This is exactly what I was talking about... stop just assuming and GO LOOK.

It is undeniably that the PC gets less games in genres like the "JRPG" or Fighting games. The original name for JRPG is actually "console style role playing game". And from Japan, which, like fighting games, has produced the majority of games in both of these genres and, with the success of consoles in Japan, much of the games have been console exclusives.

This is slowly starting to change. But certainly as of now the console library of Japanese RPG, Fighting games, and several other genres, both Japanese created and popular or Western created and popular, is still larger than the PC. The divide hasn't completely been bridged yet.

For instance, skateboarding "sports" games, are still more common on the console. At one point in time, these came out for PC as well. In recent year, aside from the horrible "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD" port, they have all been console exclusive. The old games also do not see modern digital distribution.

For the PC, Japanese RPGs like the Ys games, Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII, Grandia II, Breath of Fire IV, Half Minute Hero, ClaDun, and indie titles like Recettear and Fortune Summoners exist. And Agarest War which is probably one of the better Compile Heart/Idea Factory games, is slated to be ported to the PC(decent strategy gameplay, if you can look past the creepy fanservice advertising). There's also a lot of Western indie developers making games in the genre like Pier Solar.

So things definitely are getting better, and many are happily anticipating the PC getting more Japanese style RPGs. That being said, it is still has a ways to go, and I can imagine many would expect to need to buy a new console system in order to play many of the better developed Japanese RPGs that will be out there. The PC isn't quite a replacement for a console to play jRPGs. Yet. It is getting there. And I can see why many are not ready to make the switch from console to PC gamer because of it.

To be honest, one of the most notable franchises of jRPG on the PC right now is still Ys. Falcom has always been on the forefront of jRPGs for the PC. And the Ys games are finally starting to get Western localizations which is a step in the right direction.

As for fighting games, there is also a long way to go. But things are also getting better. Several fighting games are on Steam and Good old Games. Good old Games has Guilty Gear X2 and Asuka, Street Fighter Alpha 2. And Steam has Super Street Fighter IV, Street Fighter x Tekken, Virtua Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat games, and the upcoming Skullgirls which is sure to be a pretty big hit on Steam. So things are getting better.

And honestly, more the popular the PC gets, the more common any of these console typical genres will be on the PC. But I wouldn't say it is quite a console experience yet.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point of Yahtzee's article - "The main problem has been the old classic: not enough games"

He emphasized that was the main problem, not the only one.

Right now Sony are headed in the right direction, making the PS4 more developer friendly (meaning more games) and have learnt from a lot of their mistakes.

They haven't learned anything. Even Yahtzee says that in the article.

The selling points for the Playstation line have always been features. The PS2 and PS3 added features. The PS4 replaces the current generation and gives us..... social integration.

No matter how "dev friendly" the PS4 is, I highly doubt that's going to affect the number of games. Maybe better games sure.
Until they release some killer app that can overtake all of the PS3's titles, that argument doesn't hold water.

Backwards compatibility is not a viable business option for Sony at the moment and the reasons are self-explantory.

How isn't it? I'd actually be looking forward to the PS4 if it was backwards compatible, hell I'd be saving up money right now.

Go buy a PS3 super slim after the PS4 comes out and the price will likely be sub £100 or at least that number which would be less than the amount Sony would likely have you pay for a PS4 with backwards compatibility or even better, just keep your current PS3 (It's not that hard)

This just hurts your argument. The fact that people would have MORE incentive to buy a PS3 after the PS4's release (other than it being cheaper) just shows how messed up the situation.

Honestly the REAL problem here is the current production, development and management of what are considered AAA games.

To keep it short since I've gone on a bit, The structure with developers and publishers should change, possibly back to what it was originally like where publishers would simply handle the marketing and not have direct control over the development process and funding of games.

That's not what the article is about. I think everyone is unanimous on that issue anyway.

Never like to get involved in gaming politics but I didn't like the way some people are just arguing without fair judgement or proper consideration of information.

Unfortunately, many people here are not going to agree on a "fair judgement" for this situation.

tl;dr - People are missing the point of the article: lack of games for a console.

And what's the reason the PS4 is going to not have that many games to start?

Some tend to also jump to conclusions, turn to the elitist type reasoning without providing sensible reasoning and are quick to put down next-gen and current-gen console platforms.

A truly rare occurrence. /scarcasm

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

I'm all for PS3-Vita-PS4, I just have 1 huge fucking problem with Sony. They have to drop bloody region locked DLC and codes. There have to be united code database. So if I buy a game in Japan and it has promo codes I should be able to activate it on my EU account. just like on Steam.

 

[VinLAURiA]

Listen. Let me talk straight. I know I've been negative about a lot of things over the years as part of my philosophy of pessimism in the name of never being disappointed, but everything I do is rooted in love for this medium. For all the shit I've given Nintendo over the years, I would never flat out refuse to play their games anymore.

So he hasn't completely become an obnoxious caricature of his former self. Heartwarming to know.

In any case, I disagree about us needing a new console generation. I think it's more about people having become too complacent with this current generation and its abnormal length to move on; you included, Croshaw. It's the same thing that happened when XP - Microsoft's flagship OS for an unusual six years - was replaced with Vista. Vista in retrospect turned out to be a good operating system with a bad launch (and even then, XP's launch in comparison was atrocious), but you wouldn't know that when you talk to all the piss-dribbling mongoloids who are still sour over the retirement of the "best Windows ever."

 

[Olas]

Welcome to the glorious PC master race, Yahtzee. We saved a chair for you.

You do realize that Yahtzee was literally the person who originally coined that phrase, right? His job revolves around games and he's always been a Valve and Steam supporter. I'd be surprised if his rig wasn't more powerful than yours and most PC gamers out there.

The reason the Wii didn't stand to well with "hardcore" gamers was more than just a simple gimmick. To play a Wii game had the player use so much physical excursion that players would tire out quickly from games that were enjoyable to play for more than 30 minutes. So much physical movement from the player to make an avatar move in a specific manner is far more annoying than having a touch screen on a game control.

I'm guessing you've never actually owned a Wii, that or you have the weakest arms of any human I've ever heard of. Most Wii games didn't require you to make any arm gestures at all, the few that did usually just required a simple flick or shake of the wrist. Unless you were playing standing up you could always rest your elbows on your knees or shoulder rests. Holding a Wiimote takes about as much energy as holding a TV remote, and even if you do hold it out in the air the thing weighs about 2 ounces. Anyway my 10 year old sister with a weak heart never had any trouble using it.[/quote]

 

[Vladimir Stamenov]

Fuck the PC master race and fuck consoles. WHy do they fucking exist? I would like to play Bayonetta, Wet, Gears of War, God of War and many other games, but I can't due to the shitty exclusiveness. I really want the market to crash and maybe the poeple in charge will start making more sensible decisions. I want to be able to play all games on one console.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I'm wondering how would a console advance in areas other than the graphics department. Going all out on a controller isn't one such area, the Wii and the WiiU both prove that. Whoever answers me that question is a hero.

Hardware power isn't all about graphics.
Bigger level, more complex level, better AI, more enemies on the screen, destructible terrain... those things need more processing power and RAM.
The problem however is that that the developer will simply use all the nice power a new console gives them and waste it on more polygons. The average developer team currently isn't creative enough to make a game look good with bad graphics. To have a nice art style and not just grounded in reality. Skyward Sword, Okami and Mario Galaxy look better than the majority of games today and they are on the fucking Wii (ps2). Why? Because they have a different and beautiful art style that can cover for the lack in the graphics department.

And to Yatzhee. You say that the development costs will rise because of more power and you make it sound like it's the fault of the consoles. But it's the developer asking for more. They are the one who are saying how they can't be "creative" without more power. And at the same time, you completely ignore the fact that Nintendo keeps the development costs low. Most WiiU games are $50, which is $10 cheaper than the PS360 games while offering stronger hardware.
Nintendo gets a lot of internet hate for not going for the super duper high end hardware, yet that's exactly the good thing they are doing. Hardware power is growing insanely fast with every year. The highest of the high end hardware is mid-end at best in 3-4 years while costing insanely much. Consoles are supposed to be relatively cheap and accessible. They could sell a console at a loss, but that's a retarded business practice that should just die off. Unlike MS, Nintendo has no other division to keep them alive while losing on a console. They need to make profit as fast as possible. And while Sony was in a similar situation like MS, they are slowly going down if they keep doing this. They are losing money in most divisions, they can't afford to sell at a loss.

Selling at a lost is a bad business practices for everyone. It may be profitable for the user in short term, but once your company dies or leaves the console market, you're at a loss too.
I kinda went off topic too much?

tl.dr.
The main problem lies in the developer/publisher. They are the one who are increasing the development costs unreasonably. I don't think that anyone is forcing them to put everything into graphics and invest few million into marketing.

 

[RevRaptor]

You can do that, but how many games that are released for PC have a focus on local mulitplayer?
*inhales a massive amount of air*
*exhales it again*

You know, I was going to go make a snarky list of dozens of games on the PC that featured local co-op when a discussion I saw while researching got me thinking...

Also: someone already went and made my list. [http://www.co-optimus.com/system.php?id=4&sort=releasedate&direction=ASC&playerComp=%3E%3D&playerNum=2&esrb=%&released=All&couch=on] They even have a handy little icon to tell you if it's for a couch.

Anyway, what I was thinking about is how split-screen, or a shared-screen, is... kinda... outdated. Yes yes, I know; the money thing, but even with games on consoles (excluding Nintendo) that features a shared-screen co-op, people prefer to system link at least... no one likes sharing a screen. It's now a thing you have to put up with, rather than purposefully seek out to enjoy.

I excluded the Wii and WiiU, and this is why: It's made to appeal to group gamers. At least a lot of the games are. If I ever threw parties, then we'd play Wii games with Wii Waggle Sticks... and we'd be drunk. But there are still games like that on the PC, it being so versatile and all. Still, yeah, the WiiU would make a better party machine.

Though I do disagree with the barrier to entry. HDMI cables makes PC gaming on a big-screen the easiest thing evar! Okay, as easy as setting up the stereo. Windows has gotten really good at the whole "self-detected" settings thing.

I like split screen, I'm always on the look out for good split screen games. My girlfriend and I really like lying in bed and playing spit screen, borderlands 2 is what we are playing now. Not wanting to share a screen is just your opinion there are still plenty of gamers out there that like split screen.

 

[Milanezi]

I love consoles and I won't ever stop playing on consoles, that is, unless the day comes where I no longer need to update my PC all the time and doing so is more than obvious, no more "this card works better with this thingy but not so much the other one", call me lazy, I like Apple, and play games on it because it's obvious.
Anyway, I DO feel however, or rather don't feel, a need to change consoles right now. I'm buying the PS4, can't wait for it, but just because I'm really looking forward to some of the games, problem is, I don't think anything so far justifies the need of a new console, even in terms of graphics, what we have right now is exceptional, and in terms of gameplay itself, I guess no one here is naive to the point of expecting any sort of revolution right? In my opinion we could go a while with the same consoles we already have, just going through the upgrades they always have, (larger memory, new design, all those things that if you don't change won't keep you from enjoying the game either). MAYBE PS4 makes a bit sense in terms of the whole "it was hell creating games for the PS3" thing, but that would be all...

 

[gorfias]

One more unrelated thought even though I posted a moment ago. Nintendo 3DS. I'm reading more excitement about the titles coming out for it this year -around the web- than any of the big three consoles. I'm honestly just about ready to shell out for one so I can catch up on its robust catalogue of rpgs and off-kilter games. Is this sad? Or just... appropriate?

Not sure why the venom not at PS3, just the 360. The PS3 has 256 Meg of RAM. Hey, I love the PS3, and have 2 in two different room (I'm a family man with kids). But its pretty accepted that cross platform game released concurrently on both systems (and that is most games) perform just a little bit better on the 360.

I have to admit, after going on 8 years, there's nothing they can introduce on the PS3 regarding graphics that is going to excite me. They've pretty much hit the envelope and they've done a great job on both systems.

I have plenty to play on the PS3 so, if you want to get my attention about upcoming console games, it's going to have to be on a new console. For me, it is time. But there is more competition than ever before and this really may be their last hurrah. As much was written about the Vita. In a land of Tegra 2 phones and tablets, it is unnecessary, but if Sony is going to take a try at it, they did a pretty good job. And this may be true of consoles. A few nuts like me may move up, but 10 years from now, you'll download better games directly to your TV set. For now, you may forgo improved graphics and do things like build a gaming PC, get the $100 Ouya or Gamestick, heck, phones that connect to a TV and a wireless controller.

I just hope they don't screw up with "always online" type stuff. They can scare me away. I'm already discounting the 360 next due to the rumors. I hope they are untrue.

As for forgoing great graphics and just going for great, innovative games, while I do have an Android phone, I have to admit the 3DS is very tempting.

 

[Milanezi]

Fuck the PC master race and fuck consoles. WHy do they fucking exist? I would like to play Bayonetta, Wet, Gears of War, God of War and many other games, but I can't due to the shitty exclusiveness. I really want the market to crash and maybe the poeple in charge will start making more sensible decisions. I want to be able to play all games on one console.

Bit of a rage socialist gameland dream going on there? Taking all that rage aside, I know what you mean, exclusiveness sucks, I own both X360 and PS3, so I covered everything I wanted, but sometimes you'd see a God of war coming only for PSP, and then you take Mass Effect, PS3 only had MS2 & 3 for a while, in a series where it is ESSENTIAL to play the whole trilogy. Exclusivity sucks.

 

[Clovus]

Yeah, they learned that their complicated Cell processor was a major pain for developers so they ditched it. The only way to offer backwards compatability would be to include a Cell processor in the PS4 just to support old games. The PS3 launched with the "emotion engine" to do just that, and that was also dropped to lower the price - you know, the PS3's biggest problem on launch.

(...)

In either case the PS4 has to include special hardware to run the old game or the companies that made the games will have to re-program them to work on PS4's architecture.

So, TL;DR version: "Sony shot themselves so thoroughly in the foot with the engineering of the PS3, that they are limping into the next generation."

What you seem to be saying implies a lack of foresight on Sony's behalf that I as both a costumer and aspiring historian find quite worrisome.

Well, yeah, Sony screwed up with the Cell processor. It was a worthwhile attempt at the time to create a really powerful game focused processor, but it didn't work out. Sony makes mistakes just like all companies do. Noboby is able to predict exactly how the market will work out.

I don't see how they are "limping" into the next generation though. Their new system sounds pretty good, although I'm more of a PC gamer. I really don't see backwards compatability as something that will make a huge difference in sales. Sony, who has the actual sales data, apparently thought this was the case as well when they dropped the emotion engine from PS3. Their sales were fine afterwards. Maybe their wrong about that though; guess we'll see.

A lack of foresight? So, Sony should have realized that they might lose backwards compatability on a system that is almost 10 years old? So, therefore they shouldn't have bothered trying to engineer a game specific processor? What company do you not find "worrisome"? Did you write off Nintendo when they created the Virtual Boy? Did you given up on Microsoft just because the first XBox wasn't that great? What company is able to perfectly forsee how something as complicated as a gaming console is going to be recieved by customers and developers? So, yeah, Sony cannot magically see into the future. I don't think you'll be consuming much if you only buy things from companies with psychic ablities.

 

[Colt47]

The problem is the cost of games on the systems in question. Even if I owned a PS4, if a game is released on both the PS4 and the PC, the PC is going to have the cheaper version of the game, which leads me to buy the PC version. Also, steam has effected what a consumer regards as a good deal on a game thanks to repeated steam sales, lowering the cost of a lot of games during such periods by as much as 75%. Consoles on the other hand have rarely offered any kind of major incentive to go buy titles in the same fashion with the exception of Atlus during their summer sale (which I picked up Persona 3 Portable for a good 10 bucks). Playstation Plus owners get discounts, but keep in mind that the PS+ owner is also paying a subscription to get access to the discounts and free games, where as the PC user just needs to have steam installed and be willing to go to websites like Green man Gaming or Good Old Games.

I love JRPGs and other titles from Japan as much as the next person, but they are not being price competitive with the competition from other sources, so it's making it kind of hard to justify buying newer ones.

 

[Kingjackl]

Welcome to the glorious PC master race, Yahtzee. We saved a chair for you.

You do realize that Yahtzee was literally the person who originally coined that phrase, right? His job revolves around games and he's always been a Valve and Steam supporter. I'd be surprised if his rig wasn't more powerful than yours and most PC gamers out there.

Have you seen his Witcher 2 review? Or his review of the original Witcher (the one that coined the phrase)? I'm pretty sure 'PC master race' is meant to be ironic, since he seemed pretty contemptful of the elitist PC gaming mindset in those. Or at least he used to, it's pretty clear times are a-changing.

 

[Colt47]

Welcome to the glorious PC master race, Yahtzee. We saved a chair for you.

You do realize that Yahtzee was literally the person who originally coined that phrase, right? His job revolves around games and he's always been a Valve and Steam supporter. I'd be surprised if his rig wasn't more powerful than yours and most PC gamers out there.

Have you seen his Witcher 2 review? Or his review of the original Witcher (the one that coined the phrase)? I'm pretty sure 'PC master race' is meant to be ironic, since he seemed pretty contemptful of the elitist PC gaming mindset in those. Or at least he used to, it's pretty clear times are a-changing.

He doesn't like Elitists or fans of any stripe. All of his reviews at some point prod or make fun of fans and elitists to some degree, even though he implicitly admits they are an inevitability when it comes to hardware and games. What gets people mixed up is likely his style of presentation. He also admits it is a joy to have fans sometimes.

 

[Signa]

The only point I disagree with is the statement that we don't need new consoles. I think the standards have been set too high that saying we need to stick with 512MB of RAM is foolish. Do we need to go out and buy this new gen? No, the rest of the points still stand, but I don't think the specs of the current set of consoles is enough to last us any longer.

The real issue is finding what we actually need in the market, because the path that everyone is taking is certainly the wrong one. Someone on the first page pointed out that SEGA and the Dreamcast was designed to be scalable. If we could just make the next Xbox and PS4 the same as the PS3 and Xbox 360, but with more ram, that would be a start.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

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.

I couldn't agree more. Console launches are notorious for shitty line-ups, and unless Microsoft is rolling out some kind of Halo 5 to compliment the Durango, I think it's gonna sink pretty bad. The online DRM thing that Orthy seems to be hinting at already forebodes ill will to us.

And the PS4, already the more attractive of the two choices, still doesn't have that strong of a library going for it. I remember a Fantasy RPG, Bungie's Destiny, another sci-fi game, and another Crysis from the whole PS4 expo this later on in the year. That's literally three of the almost same game (face it; they're all in sci-fi settings and involve guns, so we can expect more of the same "hide around a corner and take potshots at idiots" gameplay). Oh, and there was that old man face. ... Yaaaay?

There's a problem I kinda had with the PS4's announcement. "Better graphics." OK, sure, the tech junkies are probably drooling over the amount of detail you can put into games now, but what about the people that legitimately don't care? What about the people, like me, who honestly cannot tell that much of a difference between Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Black Ops 2's graphics? There were people that could literally stare at one of the walls in Bioshock Infinite for days because they had intensive textures, that they had actual randomization of bricks and it looked SOOOOOO realistic. One of those people wasn't me, because if I was so fascinated by brick walls, I don't think I'd ever get to my classes because I'd be too busy staring at the ones irl.

Hell, I still think that Halo 2 looks visually presentable nowadays. Some people don't give a damn about graphics, so WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG SELLING POINT STILL?