We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

[Seydaman]

Speak for your self. My PC keeps crashing and blue screening when I play games. So, yeah, consoles are my method of gaming that works 100% of the time.

That's a problem with your setup, if you're crashing.

I stopped playing console games years ago, it's too much of a hassle to set everything up, all the cords and controllers, Jesus Christ. My last console was a first gen 360, with ps2 and various other emulators available, any other hardware is just a nuisance.

 

[Novan Leon]

I think many people, including Yahtzee, underestimate the value of moving to the x86 architecture. For the first time, the two major consoles and the PC will share the same x86 processing architecture.

This means:

• * Unprecedented cross-platform portability, which means more games for us and more profits for developers and publishers.
  * Moving forwards, backwards compatibility and emulation should be much simpler to implement and maintain over multiple generations and across gaming platforms.
  * Easier development for new, young or indie developers without much funding.
  * Lower cost entry-point for people looking to get into game development.
  * Influx of new people and perspectives (given our economy recovers) into the industry who might otherwise have found the prospect too daunting.

In the end, I think giving up backwards compatibility for the current generation in exchange for all the fore-mentioned benefits is a pretty good trade. The only thing that Sony and Microsoft still need to do in order to make this work is make their platform appealing to low-cost indie developers and actively encourage non-AAA game development on their platforms. I think Sony is well on their way to doing this, but given recent events, Microsoft's priorities remain questionable.

 

[maxben]

I really need to watch out for this mystical creature that appears from the ether and devours your previous gen hardware the moment you buy something new. It's odd because I own still working hardware and games dating back to the Intellivision and I've never seen it.

I'm sorry, but backwards compatibility is not that big of a deal. Sure, it's a nice convenience, but it's far from a game breaking issue. Just keep using your old console for your old games if you really want to play them that badly. Then, in a few months at most, when you're probably not playing the old console much at all, disconnect it but keep it handy. Non-existent problem solved.

Except of course that old consoles, like old computers, become basically unusable. My old N64 was damaged, and all 4 controllers were also. Sure I can spend 200$ or so replacing all those with second hand ones that could also break at any point as well as purchase the new 300$ console, but why? Not to mention that I move around a lot and I had recently needed to move continents. It becomes unfeasible to bring with me my old SNES, N64, Gamecube, xbox, and their respective libraries.

But you are right, its not a HUGE problem. I personally solve it by using PC emulation which is in the legal grey zone, but I do feel justified considering that I have these systems and games across the ocean somewhere and its not like the developers make money off them anymore even if I bought them used (and I dont want to buy a TV on top of that). I don't if that's just me rationalizing or legitimate points though.

That gray zone depends on where you are. Here in the UK it pretty much comes down to if you own the software, as in you go out and buy a physical copy, it's yours to do with as you will. So you can run a disc in your PC with emulation if you go and buy it legitimately, or use some kind of adaptor to play a cartridge, or extract the ROM, etc. But not if you download it from a torrent (unless it's some kind of abandonware but thats not likely for console games, publishers being giant IP tanks as they are).

Gotta say I think companies like Nintendo and Sony should consider the market for their retro stuff on the PC. I think they could make some money out of it if they sold old games at a fair price.

Honestly I lack the expertise to extract a rom from a gamecube disc, let alone from a cartridge. If I could, I would. I agree that there is definitely money to be made if game companies would sell roms of old games. At the very least it cant hurt and it would increase customer goodwill.

 

[FloodOne]

snip

Okay, so in your rebuttal, you link me to a football game that is six years old, a hockey game that is five years old, a soccer game (not an American sport by the way) and two more sports titles that are two years old. And Mugen was released in 1999, about 6 years before I even owned a computer. Not a glowing defense.

The only media I could find on TBT was from an article published yesterday, and the trailer showed me nothing but bad music.

I don't only own consoles, and you're clinging to the fact that there are games that I enjoy above most others that I can only get on the console. I play my Fallouts and Skyrims and Witchers on my PC, and I have a horde of indie titles that I devote plenty of my time to. Doesn't change the fact that some of the best GAMES of the past ten years are console only, and I'm not going to give that up no matter how many ways you pick apart my text and reply. I'm not going to quit my preferred hardware because the PC offers one alternative title to a wealth of titles that a genre provides me. Only ignorant consumers limit their choices.

 

[Phaeton99]

When one considers the harbingers, this looks not unlike the lead-up to an industry implosion on par with the console crash of 1983: the obsession with buzz-word tech specs over entertainment value, the burgeoning attempt to introduce new hardware that no-one asked for, the disconnected "last-ditch cash-grab" feel of it all. (It is rather sad how this seems yet another example of the desperately mad, terminal flailing evident in so many industries and institutions of the present era.)

On the plus side, this sort of collapse would open up the field to the little guys and could well result in real innovation in gameplay rather than merely hardware... but it looks to be unpleasant for everyone getting to that point of renewal.

 

[jowell24]

"Another Sony executive stated that PS4 is not the successor of PS3, but an addition to the PlayStation family."

http://www.techhunter.co.uk/technology/ps4-news-release-date-event/04203/

Taken from a Tech Hunter article since I couldn't find another source with a more direct quotation and source. This makes me believe that Sony isn't ready to move straight on to the next console and will continue to support the PS3 for a long time like they did with the PS2

 

[jowell24]

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"

The Wii U isn't selling well mainly because there aren't enough good games for it. In my opinion the Wii U didn't have attractive enough features in order for developers to want to make games for it and as a result the console has not met sales expectations. It's a circle of life between the console, developers and consumers. Unpopular/bad console means less games developed for the platform and less consumer interest.

...

For the record I'm a PC and PS3 gamer for anyone thinking I'm a "console peasant".

It's been less than half a year since its release, and people are saying that its small library is its downfall. As if the PS3 was any different after its release. I am sure that enough developers are working on titles for the Wii U to make it worth giving a chance. What doesn't help is the idea that we should hope a console fails. According to you, [unpopular console] -> [less development] -> [less consumer interest], but surely the opposite is also true: [less consumer interest] -> [less development] -> [unpopular console]. As a consumer base, we have a responsibility to give the industry a chance to make something we like, and the Wii U simply hasn't had long enough to warrant such vitriol.

And on the title, regarding the need for new consoles, I think there's a deeper explanation for that.
After all, I think a number of people pointed at the Wii and said "we need a new console (that caters to a higher-quality gaming experience)." I did. And as such, another Nintendo product appeared.
But Sony and Microsoft aren't stupid. At least not most of the time. They can't let a new console get released and steal all the development attention, and had to therefore announce their own expansion. I wonder if, had the Wii never existed, this console generation would last another few years still, and then merge into something else, a more open-source style of gaming (see Yahtzee's other articles).
I do think Yahtzee is right in that the PS4 and Xbox### don't need to exist in the form that they are likely to be given to us. However, if the Ouya does well, it'll be a sign that the same open-source gaming nature of smartphones and pc's can be applied to consoles as well, and the industry will be reinvented from there.

...

Also, tacking on "and I'm not a fanboy" or something similar to the end of your post doesn't change anyone's opinion about you, except that you are potentially a liar. I might as well say "and I'm business statistician, so you can all trust my opinions are worth more."

Regarding the relationship between consumer, developer and console I also meant that it could go either way when I mentioned a 'circle of life' but I guess I should have elaborated

Yeah I regretted posting the last paragraph shortly after when I realised it would imply the opposite to readers. My apoligies.

 

[The White Hunter]

Honestly I lack the expertise to extract a rom from a gamecube disc, let alone from a cartridge. If I could, I would. I agree that there is definitely money to be made if game companies would sell roms of old games. At the very least it cant hurt and it would increase customer goodwill.

Expertise? Google is your friend. I'm not even joking you can learn degree-worthy stuff from google. It's what I tell people who say they can't build their own desktop...

They'd make a killing and if the distribution was easy and simple and fair then it'd murderalise their piracy rigth then and there.

£5 for an NES game nintendo? I think not.

 

[jowell24]

Talking about graphics, someone earlier mentioned a good point that a PC with the equivalent specs of a PS3 would not compare in graphical fidelity and performance because of the high level of optimisation that developers have achieved with the console.

That's not necessarily true at launch. Optimisation tends to be a learned process. Now, eventually the comparable console will outperform, but there's the issue of technology likely having progressed at that point.

The same approach must be taken with the PS4 even though it is of PC-architecture that the level of performance and graphics will increase as developers become more experienced and can improve optimisation of the closed-hardware. Developing for PC can have the problem of under-optimisation of people's hardware because of the wide variety of rigs and this is how the consoles have just managed to keep up with PCs after PCs surpassed them many years ago. I'm sure that the next-gen consoles will be able to provide a gaming experience that will keep the market with PCs competitive. Without consoles or some form of competition, innovation and improvement will retard eventually.

Actually, the primary reason things tend to be under-optimised is because consoles are used as the lead. You find this problem greatly diminished, possibly even non-existent when the PC is the primary platform. The same can actually be said of cross-platform issues with consoles. the 360 usually out-performed the PS3 early on because it was the lead console. Burnout Paradise was an exception, developed with the PS3 as the lead, and it shows.

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

Except if people don't adopt the new console because of a lack of games....

In fact, it's "self-explanatory" that they might not be able to afford NOT including BC.

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)

It's not that hard, but it sort of begs the question as to why one would bother with the PS4 with a limited launch window. This is one of the big problems with the Wii-U right now, and part of the thesis of the article written. Additionally, you're being overly optimistic about pricing.

Improper use of words on my part. I wanted to say that at current pricing of the PS3 (as cheap as £130 in the UK) I can expect the price of the console to drop after the release of the PS4 to around £100 which I think would be cheaper than the price Sony would have the consumer pay for added backwards compatibility.

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.

Glass houses.

There have been articles quoting Sony staff saying they won't make the sae mistake with the PS4 as they did with the PS3 in terms of pricing so and I predict Sony to deliver on having a range of games based on the current support for the new consoles shown by developers. I think it's Mark Cerny who said in an article that the PS4 WILL have a stronger launch line-up (not necessarily more though which can be just as important)

Shouldn't have even put that sentence in. As you can see from my profile I rarely post on the Escapist or any other internet forums and observe from a distance instead.

 

[j1015]

"And I, for one, am not going to burn all my photos just because you invented a shiny new photo album that only holds photos of an approved shape and format."

A lot of times I agree with you. However, on this point not only are you wrong, your point is fucking retarded. Why can't the old system be treated the same way as when you run out of room in your old photo album? Put on the shelf until you want to play with it again.

It's really lazy to continue harping on backward-compatibility when so many gamers don't even use it. We always want the next thing. New phones, TV's, clothes, furniture etc. Some of those things we can and do use again. And when we need to put on a shirt that is three years old, we go to the closet and put it on. Old consoles can be the same way. BC is nice, but it's an arrogant, simple-minded thing to get bent out of shape over, as though you're owed this luxury. And when it comes down to it, that's all it is.

 

[obscuredlimits]

Until virtual reality similar to such as SAO or .hack//sign is available, no new consoles please.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

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? 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.

Spare me the lame facetiousness, please. I find it annoying.

I just happen to consider future-proofing products of culture like games somewhat important. Not only because it is a nice service for a costumer like me to be able get more bang for my buck, but future generations should be able to experience retro gaming too. If the only available substitute is a "sub-par experience" as you called it in your first reply, that might make the enjoyment part kind of hard.

 

[irishda]

"And why do we need a new console generation? It's just a gimmicky controller with more buttons; why the hell would I need more than A and B? Press C to shit your trousers? Better graphics? Bollocks to that. If a game like Final Fantasy can tell a complex story in 8-bits, what the hell is better graphics going to do for the story? Allow me to see his zits coming in when he hits puberty? They don't even allow for backwards compatibility; who the fuck would ditch their massive library of perfectly capable games for some obscenely expensive piece of equipment with almost no games? Console gaming might very well be dead."

-Yahtzee, if he was a game critic in 1988.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Also, I'm not entirely sure what the order of Nintendo games he's played has to do with his opinion on PC gaming.

The gist of it was that it sounded like he had never owned a Nintendo console before the GameCube. Which would be consistent with the theory that he had never owned a console at all before that generation. I realize it came off as a bit of a non-sequitur the way I put it.

 

[Doom972]

"And why do we need a new console generation? It's just a gimmicky controller with more buttons; why the hell would I need more than A and B? Press C to shit your trousers? Better graphics? Bollocks to that. If a game like Final Fantasy can tell a complex story in 8-bits, what the hell is better graphics going to do for the story? Allow me to see his zits coming in when he hits puberty? They don't even allow for backwards compatibility; who the fuck would ditch their massive library of perfectly capable games for some obscenely expensive piece of equipment with almost no games? Console gaming might very well be dead."

-Yahtzee, if he was a game critic in 1988.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that in this generation, gamers were introduced into digital content - which won't be available on the next generation due to the lack of backwards compatibility. All of those digital copies and DLC won't be accessible from the new consoles, and we know that it's only a matter of time (two years is my guess) before Microsoft and Sony will close the current XBL and PSN networks in favor of the new ones that will be used with the new consoles.

One of the reasons that I'm a PC gamer because of the PC's backwards-compatibility.

 

[TheAsterite]

That isn't the same thing, but at least you managed to be both rude and incredibly hostile while missing the point. Mario and Sonic were mascots for their respective consoles, it's quite different from exclusives. Also, just for the record, I got a Mega Drive because that's what my parents bought me; my best friend had a SNES because that's what his parents bought him. It had nothing to do with exclusives or brand loyalty, it was just down to whichever advert we saw on the television first, and what Toys R Us still had in stock two weeks before Christmas. You're applying modern-day consumer psychology to what was an entirely different market twenty years ago.

Today 'exclusive' has become a dirty word for third-party developers picking allegiances between three companies when multi-platform releases make much more sense; financially and from the point of view of the consumer. You'll still never find Mario on a non-Nintendo console, though, because he's a Nintendo character. See the difference?

There are no exclusive games that would sway me, today, because they ultimately all play pretty much the same as something else you'll find on a competing console, and that's the real problem with mainstream gaming: it's become a dull, homogenised mass because publishers think that copying the winner instead of coming up with something different is the best strategy.

So you can find, say, a Ratchet and Clank game with the same care and attention that Insomniac puts into it on the 360? Please point me in that direction.

I too could quote Jim mindlessly while missing the whole point. Also it's spelled homogenized, escapist has a spell checker and you couldn't be bothered to right click it and correct it? Talk about lazy.

So you don't count Mario only being on a Nintendo system as exclusive? Yeah OK, keep talking nonsense.

 

[___________________]

A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. Who in their right mind will even consider buying the new consoles coming out? Most of us are too broke right now for that kind of money burning activity. Goodbye PS4 and goodbye Xbox Super Online Fun Time Mega Derp 9000, the stillborn console gen.

 

[zefiris]

Current PC gaming is still a joke filled with bad, bad games (maybe Torment will actually be good, finger's crossed). Me, I'm perfectly fine with the hundreds of actually good games I get on older consoles instead. Already got enough good games to last me a lifetime, so the new generation can bumble around as much as it wants.

These days, the only time to buy a console is at the end of its lifetime, when you can just snatch the new games for cheap.

It never will. You've resigned yourself to being the main demographic of the AAA console industry. A faithful consumer who is unable to enjoy anything else but the stuff you're already comfortable with. And let's be honest here, if inFamous had been released to the PC, it wouldn't be on your list and you'd still be telling me that PC games hold no interest for you.

That's nonsense. PC games are very homogenous, whereas console games are far more varied. That is why a lot of people prefer consoles.

You whining about trple AAA is stupid there, because most people who prefer consoles are actually *not* usually thinking of AAA games as good. AAA gaming is really just PC gaming, and can be done better on a PC.


The real issue the PC platform has is creative bancruptcy. I played PC games when they weren't same-y nonsense, and actually had heart and character. Today, you can only find that in the Indy game scene. Incredipede is a good example.

Years ago, that was PC mainstream :/ Nowadays PC mainsteam is just the same kind of games that look the same, have the same characters and play the same. Diversity in PC gaming has been shot outside of a few indy game studios.

(Correction: Not just Torment to look forward to, Transistor as well!)

 

[Aardvaarkman]

When one considers the harbingers, this looks not unlike the lead-up to an industry implosion on par with the console crash of 1983

It's completely unlike the console crash of 1983. In 1983, games were simply not an accepted mainstream activity like they are now. And people were reluctant to bring these electronic devices into their homes. They needed a good excuse like "we can use a home computer to do our taxes" or "a computer will help Billy do his homework." And that's how home computers took the lead from consoles.

Those conditions simply don;t exist anymore. We're surrounded by electronic gadgets, gaming is a normal pastime enjoyed by all ages, and people already use computers at work, and don't necessarily want to keep using them when they get home. Any comparison to the 80s console crash shows a real lack of understanding of history and context.