We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

[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.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that in this generation, gamers were introduced into digital content

That's so incredibly wrong. Gamers have always been using digital content. The cartridges on an Atari 2600 were digital.

... 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.

How do we know that? What's your source for this information?

How do you know they won't merge the current online systems into the new ones? People have mentioned in this thread that they will lose their trophies, achievements, etc. That seems a little ridiculous - it's a minimal amount of data, why wouldn't they just import this into your new account? It would cost almost nothing, and encourage customer loyalty.

Having a new console doesn't mean they have to shut down their old networks or make the new ones incompatible with older systems.

 

[TheSteampunkGuy]

Agreed Yahtzee, I hate how the consoles are really trying to compete with the PC yet they don't realize it that its better. When I get a new PC fuck consoles forever and there stupid creators.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Also it's spelled homogenized, escapist has a spell checker...

Actually, "homogenised" is how it's spelt outside of the US. It's not a misspelling.

I'm also pretty sure that The Escapist website itself does not have a spell checker - that's a function of your browser, and it uses the dictionary that you choose in preferences. So, if you use a UK or Australian English dictionary (for example) "homogenized" will be underlined as incorrect, but "homogenised" will not be.

 

[rob_simple]

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.

Uh huh, and you might have had a point before the Ratchet and Clank games became dull paint-by-numbers shadows of their former selves with needless forced multiplayer gimmicks.

Also, maybe in America that's how it's spelled, but as a general rule of thumb I find that the British spelling always replaces the 'z' with and 's'; I ignore the spellchecker on my browser because it's an American dictionary. Good job picking me up on my spelling though -two hundred-odd words and I spelled one wrong, god I'm such a pig- that is absolutely not the last bastion of a man with no leg left to stand on.

Also, who is Jim? You need to be more specific if you're going to accuse me of mindlessly parroting the words of someone I don't know anything about.

Of course Mario is an exclusive, I was just pointing out that your whole Mario vs. Sonic argument didn't equate to modern day exclusives because it's a completely different market. Mario vs. Sonic was more about marketing than actual games; both companies were trying to appeal to kids more with their mascots by putting them in cartoons and on every piece of merchandise they could. Nowadays exclusives largely don't matter, because the majority of them, like Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy, ultimately end up on all the consoles, and the ones that don't are all pretty samey, anyway, (can't play Killzone? Doesn't matter, there's any number of dull, repetitive shooters on the PC and 360.)

Essentially the entire premise of your argument is built on a foundation of sand, and I think you know it as you've resorted to insulting users who call you out or pulling them up on their spelling.

 

[rob_simple]

"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.

As the consumer, we have a right to make demands of a product. I shouldn't have to dig out my old console and hook it all up to the telly every time I want to play a game that I could just as easily put in my new console and run. If they spent less time putting R&D into all the useless social media bells and whistles that no one wanted or asked for, then they would probably have found a reliable way to emulate games on the PS4 right back to the PSX. But then that would cut into that precious revenue stream they've got going on the PSN; charging up to £8 for fifteen year old games, some of which we already own but can't play because they removed backward compatibility from the PS3.

When it comes to electronics, less should always be more. That's why I don't need to carry my phone, MP3 player and Gameboy with me when I go out anymore: I have all three on my iPhone. New products are supposed to streamline the service, not lump us with another giant box every five or six years, until our houses start to resemble one of those computer rooms from the 70's.

You're right it's a luxury item, but when it's a luxury item I'm spending upwards of three-hundred quid on, you better believe I'm entitled to ***** and moan when they jettison genuinely good features in favour of shit no one cares about.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

As the consumer, we have a right to make demands of a product.

But you don't have the right to receive the things you "demand" unless it's an explicit feature that's not working as promised, or other faulty merchandise covered by consumer protection laws. Companies aren't obliged to give you what you want, just as you are not obliged to give them your money.

 

[likalaruku]

Well, I can't really argue with that, considering I've been spending a lot of time with a PS1 & an NDS. The polygon graphics that turned me off to 3D gaming in the late 90s are beckoning to me like a topless red-haired siren, or a basket of fluffy kittens. I'm quite sick of realism & I want bright colors & cartoony models now.

 

[rob_simple]

As the consumer, we have a right to make demands of a product.

But you don't have the right to receive the things you "demand" unless it's an explicit feature that's not working as promised, or other faulty merchandise covered by consumer protection laws. Companies aren't obliged to give you what you want, just as you are not obliged to give them your money.

True, but it is the company's purpose to give it's customers what they want, or else lose sales. I won't be buying a PS4 when it comes out, possibly ever, because I don't want to lose my entire PS3 game library, (I know I'd still have it but having to set up my console up every time I want to play one game is more hassle than it's worth,) in exchange for...what? A slightly more powerful machine? Games on the PS3 already look amazing, the worlds are already massive; there is absolutely nothing a hardware upgrade could do for me.

I know it sounds stupid to say I won't buy a new console just because I can't play old games on it, but it's rapidly becoming a crucial feature given that we've seen next to nothing regarding next-gen launch titles, as Sony and Microsoft both seem more interested in who can have the shiniest graphics or the most processing power (while the PC sits quietly in the corner, smirking and lighting a cigar) while they all forget that gaming is supposed to be about the games, not the hardware specs.

I appreciate that I am not reflective of every gamer out there, but I know there are a lot of us who would be more likely to buy a PS4 if BC was an option, and who give less than a shit about social media integration or whatever else they're currently trailing to attract the Farmville market.

If you ask me, Sony's decision to abandon BC is only going to harm them in the long run as more people decide to stick with the massive game library they've already got at their disposal, instead of spunking five hundred quid on a new machine that has five games (the majority of which are sequels) to it's name.

TL;DR: I'm not owed anything, but it's in the company's best interests to keep the consumer on-side unless they want to continue hemorrhaging money.