We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

[Sonic Doctor]

I have lived at 4 addresses in the past 2 years. I'll probably live somewhere else next year. I'm young, I'm in college and I rent. Moving is just part of my life It's not feasible to hold onto so many machines. Especially when another market offers the same thing in a more consumer friendly model. So you're not actually going to address the question I asked? "What's the point?" If console gaming offers the same experience but with more baggage, what's the incentive?

I just don't understand the baggage thing. I have seven consoles, NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, 360, and a Retron 3 so I don't wear out my NES and SNES. I also have an old grey brick Gameboy, two Gameboy colors, an Advance, DS Lite, and a PSP. Altogether I probably have for all systems, around 200 or more physical copies games. If I worked my spacing properly, I could get that whole collection in two large duffle bags, and an old small laptop bag I have. That isn't much space to take up or move.

Heck, every two weeks I go over to a friend's apartment to have a game weekend, and I usually end up taking half my collection along with my PC and 32 inch HDTV. Pack, two days there, pack, and go back home and unpack.

When I was in college I always took my whole gaming collection with me. I care about my gaming and my collections, so I never see moving it as a hassle, because it really doesn't take up that much space and isn't hard to move.

PC's would be convenient, if after the initial couple thousand to buy a dedicated gaming PC to keep ahead of the market, and if it stayed ahead for at least 10 years. Plus, it would have to be convenient in the area of the typical console way of pop in game and immediately play, none of this pop in game and spend half an hour or more downloading and installing, then finding out I have to troubleshoot because the game wasn't quite designed with my graphics card in mind.

That is the convenience and allure of consoles. Someone else quoted you and said it is all about the exclusive games, but that is really a small point. The point is pop in game and play, that's it. Plus any time there are hiccups in the console process in getting the game to work, you don't have to be a computer whiz, or have to spend hours researching a fix.

I don't have the money to get a super gaming computer, so the convenience of consoles has kept me gaming till I can do that eventually. Because I'm the gamer that wants to have all platforms at my finger tips.

 

[mysecondlife]

No we don't need a new console. But console's have always been necessary evil. As long as there are steady stream of quality games coming for console, I'll buy it.

I'm cautiously optimistic about (at least) PS4. And because I don't think all information has been released for PS4, I'll be watching it from far to see if its worth buying one.

As for quality PC... eventually.

 

[Paragon Fury]

The problem is, we DO need a new console generation. Not for the graphics, but simply for the better processing power and ability to run better things. Developers are having an incredibly hard time doing new things or making better games simply because the 3 system have reached their processing limits, and thus they limit what their games can do in order to obtain the broadest possible customer base. (Because lets face it PC owners - while we technically have the largest install base......the vast majority of the computers out there aren't fit to render a piece of toast, much less a modern game.)

You want a prime offender? Skyrim. The amount of things they had to cut, drop, ignore and limit so that the Xbox 360 and PS3 wouldn't explode are almost criminal. Better AI, physics etc. are all going to need new hardware. And even a simple upgrade to a DX11 compatiable GPU would make games look and run drastically better.

 

[FloodOne]

"I won't be able to play anymore <insert series/genre>s" - So? Find new stuff to like. We don't need Halo 5 to have a good space-adventure FPS. Also on the genre thing, you'd be surprised what you can find if you stop assuming and start looking.

Who the hell are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't like? Or anyone, for that matter? I like fighting games, can't get a decent one on PC. I like American sports games, can't get them on PC. I like JRPGs, can't get them on PC.

I like Uncharted, Final Fantasy, the Tales series, Persona, Valkyria Chronicles, inFamous, God of War... can't get them on PC.

I've looked for games that scratch these itches, and I can only find them on consoles. When PC gaming catches up to MY interests, maybe I'll switch to it full time. Until then, you spew white noise in my ears.

 

[TheAsterite]

What history have you been digging through? The history of gaming since the fifth generation? No, no that is wrong. The POINT of the gaming console WAS the ability to just put in a game and play. You didn't have to mess with settings, patch things constantly, or deal with bugs. You could just slot in a cartridge and starting jumping on koopas. NOW it's about exclusivity, but that only started when consoles started using standardized software media (ie. CDs and DvDs).

I've seen you make a lot of bad points here, but this one was just awful. It really shows your age. Also that you like to grab up buzzwords and HANG ONTO THEM FOR DEAR LIFE. Exclusivity was never the end-all-be-all of console gaming, it was just something that happened because cartridges weren't made the same.

I should know, I lived through the time when people took a look at a PS1 disk and immediately tried to use it in a PC. So to me, your precious "exclusivity" was what forced us to still use a console. It's good for console providers, but what's good for consoles isn't necessarily good for gaming.

Did I say exclusivity was as good thing? People either bought the genesis or the snes based on the exclusive games they had. Mario vs Sonic. Are you so old that you've gone senile? You claim that exclusivity is some new thing when it isn't.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I understand a lot of the arguments about not needing a new console, cost of game BC. Except we are at the point where we HAVE to have a new generation because we are and have been at the limits of 256mb video memory for a long time. Its why everything is low res textures, limited environments, limited characters, tiny draw distance and massive texture pop in.

The issues that appear to be arising seem to offer a point in favor of modular consoles. Imagine if going into this gen they outlined a roadmap with an upgrade. The CPUs arent junk idt but the graphics card and memory are. If 2 years ago there was a 99 dollar upgrade with a cheap but relatively better gpu and a 2gb ram stick/integrated with gpu module it would be a massive step up, you could design it for BC and extend the useful life for another 2 years(basicly devs could release an improved xbops3 version for the upgraded consoles with actual hd textures better draw distances HD resolution etc while keeping the garbage version for those with "base" models). This would making hardware jumps in between new consoles even bigger thereby driving even more interest in them and perhaps easing the transition period.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

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.

Then you have an exceptionally unsuitable PC. You'll wanna get that checked out.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I don't know why people think that just because there was a time when there wasn't backwards compatibility, because the media on which games were distributed changed so often, that we don't have to care now, when everything is digital and easily portable.

Since when haven't video games been digital? There were some analog computers that ran experimental games - in the 1950s.

Every console that's ever been available to the home consumer has been digital.

 

[144_v1legacy]

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."

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Id be inclined to agree if the current consoles didnt only have 500MB of ram. Those loading times are annoy me...

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

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.

Well, how about offering enough RAM so we can finally be able to pile up dead bodies that do not go *poof* after a few seconds? It tends to take me totally out of it when I, say, sneak up and kill an isolated guy in a room, search the area, turn back to look at the guy I just killed, only to find him gone... doesn't work for me. How about freeing game designers from the corsage of having to constantly design the level so our vision is blocked for most of the time, because the game would otherwise croak under the heavy load of just some graphics?

How about we all get to see Blighttown in all its glory without having to cope with an abysmally low fps? Wouldn't that be cool?

Games these days just aren't anything like Super Bloody Mario, they're all about immersion, 3D, prime grade visuals and top poly counts. And yet, our current generations has to make do with pretty much the minimal amount of RAM required to run, what, Windows XP?

All the games we played on the current generation are pretty much coding magic, offering you the world in whatever fits into 256/512MB of RAM. That is why you have save game issues in Skyrim. That is why we tried crap like mega textures with giga pop-in. That is why we can't have nice things.

Think about that.

On an emotional level, I agree with the punkin' instigator of the house. On a more technical level, I just smirk and wipe away a tear or two.

 

[GeneralFungi]

Hold on, I just saw this and felt like responding:

Couch co-op.

PCs, phones, tablets -- all solitary gaming devices. Yeah, you can hook up online, but that's not the same as having your friends playing right with you. Or perhaps a couple of you can even play in the same room if you have multiple of these gizmos in the house, but most people don't. For most people, it's one person at each screen, and if anybody else wants in, they basically has to watch over your shoulder until its their turn.

The area where consoles can excel in, however, is in letting a household play together. And oddly, though Nintendo's the only one who's realized this, folks like Yahtzee bash them for.. well.. not being more like PCs. Hell, the Wii-U is specifically designed to enhance couch co-op. To give you something you just can't get on a PC. An asymmetric game with everybody in the same room. And they're the dumb ones?

I can take my computer, right now, hook it up to a bigscreen, run four usb controllers and we can play on a couch. Just because I like my machine in a corner of my room so I can chat on forums naked doesn't mean it HAS to be solitary.

I will agree, though, that Nintendo has it right in trying to provide what PCs can't... they're just stupidly focused on the controller.

You can do that, but how many games that are released for PC have a focus on local mulitplayer? If there is any multiplayer at all on PC it will (with very few exceptions) be online. Local play is often an afterthought if it is even included at all, which in most cases it really isn't. It's a hassle to connect a PC to a TV and it also lacks the simple convenience of popping in a disc and playing the game. There is no barrier to entry on consoles. PC is great but a local multiplayer device it is not.

The Wii U is lacking in games right now, there is no argument otherwise. But the console in it's design knows exactly what it wants to be. The Wii had a pretty big focus on local play. Last generation I believe the Wii was the best console in terms of local multiplayer. With the Wii U they brainstormed ideas on how to much local multiplayer more fun and more interesting. Screen peeking was sometimes a problem. So what did they do? They gave a player their own screen. They then took that concept and came up with more ideas on ways to make playing with your friends in person more entertaining. Non-symmetrical gameplay is one of the things that makes the Wii unique. Why wouldn't your marketing focus on it?

I think I've decided that next generation I will have a PC and I will have a Wii U. They are two viable gaming machines that each are trying to accomplish something different. A Wii U knows it isn't a PC so it delivers in areas a PC doesn't in order to differentiate itself. To give me a unique experience other gaming systems don't provide.

The PS4 and the Next XBox sound like they'll be lesser PCs. I might pick one of them up for an exclusive or two but otherwise they'll probably be collecting dust. The PC and Wii U have an identity. They know what they are and they focus on what they do well. That's what I think at least.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I honestly feel that we need this new generation.

While I do prefer the Sony consoles over Microsoft, I do hope BOTH consoles increase the elbow room for games development from straitjacket tight to the size of the Pacific Ocean. I am looking forward to the games after the launch, more than the two or three select launch games.

Given the draconian method of the PS3 technology, I am really happy Sony realized their mistake and have corrected it. They could've pushed it, but they didn't. With the PS3 getting closer to the PC architecture, this should improve PC ports and console ports.

I have found that the similarities in thinking between Yahtzee and myself can be terrifying, this is definitely a parting of the minds. I want my consoles (I do have both) to have bigger and better games. With the RAM restrictions this won't happen...

Let me put it this way... How much bigger will the next Just Cause game be? Or the next Deus Ex game? Or the next Elder Scrolls game?

I say bring on the next-gen consoles... but leave the generation after that for a while.

And no, The WiiU is not a next-gen machine. With similar restrictions to current generation, I disagree with it being next-gen. It's ideas say 'yes', but the technology does not.

 

[Seattlean]

Great article, Yahtzee, one that explains easily many of the reasons why neither the PS4 or XBox 3-Online Supertree are of any interest to me. It does leave out the biggest reason for my apathy, one that would understandably not occur to you given your job as a reviewer: I have such a massive backlog of games from this generation that I am in no rush to grab the next game console. Especially one that has zero backwards compatibility.

So much b/c talk focuses on playing games you already own; I'm surprised that no one sees the adult gamer with a 2-3 year backlog of current-gen games as a market worth selling to. You get me started into your ecosystem, you have the chance to sell me new releases while I clear my backlog, and you keep your competition from selling me on their console in the 2-3 years I would otherwise have no new machine.

 

[Triality]

I agree with Yahtzee on the problems facing the industry, and I'm saddened that it's the business practices that are sabotaging what could be a smooth transition into one final (and hopefully) permanent console lifecycle. I just have issues with the outdated performance of the xbox's anemic hardware. Playstation's upgrade to their next console seems rushed and pointless because they have a powerful console already, so my beef is mainly with Xbox360. Let me vent my spec-frustration.

The current X-Box 360 can only do 60 frames on 720p resolution and low res textures in most games. 1080p games run at 30 frames per second most of the time. It has 512Mb of ram, which was considered little on a PC in 2002 when I bought my first. I don't care what tricks developers use to squeeze out of every last megaflop on an ancient and obsolete pack mule, because I start to notice when weapons and ammo and bodies that need looting get erased from my universe through the hole punched in by the consoles incompetence. I want smooth and beautiful vistas with jaw dropping draw distances that don't make trees, enemies, and vehicles vanish in front of my eyes when they hit a specific line on the horizon. The console was introduced in HDTV's infancy when 1080p hadn't matured as a nationwide definition of normal and component cables were the standard input (grrrrr). So we're left with a lackluster console that only realized half its potential.

I say let Microsoft and Sony upgrade their hardware one more time so that we can finally have smooth gaming on 1080p and 60 frames with thousands of articles that dont' have to vanish to clear the ram and give me amazing draw distances with full screen antialiasing and anisotropy, and we can call it finished for an entire generation.

That way your AAA games can have the space to stretch their legs and flex their muscles, and more experimental, limited budget, or less graphically intense games can introduce more elements on screen to play with without having to make painstakingly drawn realism bleeding environments. Everybody wins.

 

[rob_simple]

Did I say exclusivity was as good thing? People either bought the genesis or the snes based on the exclusive games they had. Mario vs Sonic. Are you so old that you've gone senile? You claim that exclusivity is some new thing when it isn't.

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?

Nowadays I've found, from experience, that people buy a new console based on their allegiance to a company's previous consoles, because we're a lot more informed about our purchasing decisions. I went from PS2 to PS3, not because of Sony's rich fucking stable of IP's but because I liked the previous hardware and I think they have the perfect controller.

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.

 

[Pebkio]

Who the hell are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't like?

I didn't, I just said that you shouldn't really care if you don't get a sequel to a series just because it's not on a console. You'll find other things, things you'll like. Do you think that you'll never learn to like another JRPG unless the name "Final Fantasy" or "Tales of" are on the cover? You don't NEED to stick to something over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Seriously, how many Final Fantasies have come out now?

I like fighting games, can't get a decent one on PC.

So... Mugen was just a puzzle game? You've heard of Mugen, right? Old graphics, sure, but a really great fighting game. And Capcom still publishes their Street Fighter games for the PC as well as consoles. There might even be good indie ones, I wouldn't doubt it, but I don't know, because fighting games aren't my forte.

I like American sports games, can't get them on PC.

I was totally wrong about the sports games. [http://www.ea.com/madden-08]

Really? You just tried to tell me there are no American sports games for the PC? You need to realize how desperately you're defending consoles.

I like JRPGs, can't get them on PC.

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.

I like Uncharted, Final Fantasy, the Tales series, Persona, Valkyria Chronicles, inFamous, God of War... can't get them on PC. I've looked for games that scratch these itches, and I can only find them on consoles. Just like that? I find it suspicious that you can ONLY like exclusive games found ONLY on consoles. It's like you've programmed to dislike anything if you can't play it just on the PS3 or 360.

When PC gaming catches up to MY interests, maybe I'll switch to it full time.

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.

I know me TELLING you how you are makes you all kinds of angry, but you have to realize that THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING. You are casually brushing aside good games and clinging desperately hard to console-only games as... what?... the only games you can enjoy? It's just to justify your defense of an industry that doesn't, in my opinion, care as much about providing a great service. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not...

I'm just saying the PC is providing a better service to consumers, and that you can still find good games, if you would only stop being such a faithful zealot to AAA console-only franchises.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

All the games we played on the current generation are pretty much coding magic, offering you the world in whatever fits into 256/512MB of RAM. That is why you have save game issues in Skyrim.

That's one of the reasons Skyrim has problems. Skyrim has so many problems that are totally unrelated to RAM but are related to *cough* Bethesda *cough* crappy programming. Skyrim and Fallout 3 have massive issues on PCs with plenty of RAM to spare, too. Other developers are able to make better performing games without so many bugs.

 

[Triality]

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?

 

[CelestDaer]

Personally, I'm still firmly entrenched in the generation of PS2, because there is such a massive glut of good games I just never got the chance to play back when it was at the height of popularity. And, hey, as long as I'm enjoying them, why would I need to move on to more recent gaming generations? The roommie has an xbox 360, and I used to own a Wii, but, for the most part, the only games I play on 360 are so called 'touchstone games' eg. the entire Mass Effect trilogy, Bayonetta, and I started but never finished Catherine because, well, I found out exactly how many levels are in that stupid Rapunzel minigame insanity... Meanwhile, I've been dining on Personas and Shin Megami games one or two a month, with the occasional Final Fantasy to fill the hole, but those aren't nearly as necessary any longer.