We Really, Really Don't Need New Consoles

[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.

 

[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."