What's the point of the next generation?

[Billy D Williams]

This is something that I have been wondering about for a while recently, and I finally need to try to get a few answers from someone. For the last few months we have been bombarded by Sony and Microsoft about their new upcoming consoles, the gaming news outlets have been reporting and speculating day in and day out and the console wars have already started and the systems aren't even out yet. But one thing everyone has really failed to say is... what's the point? What does this generation of consoles bring to the table that we don't have on the current generation? With the exception of Kinnect 2.0 (and really... who cares?), are there really games that publishers and developers want to make but can't because of the Xbox and PS3's hardware? This doesn't seem likely, with games like Skyrim, Grand Theft Auto V and even Crysis 3 showing what is capable of these consoles its hard to believe that the next generation is going to usher in a world of innovation of what is possible through processing. So, if that's not the case, what else? A graphics update? From where I'm standing that is really all it could be, and to be honest that's a pretty trivial reason to create a $400+ barrier for players to get in, not to mention how little the difference really is between the next generation and current when compared to the current generation and last:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Not to mention, if your really aching for graphical fidelity the PC gaming is still a viable option, Hell we already have PC games that look better than anything next generation has in stock.

So from where I'm standing I don't see a reason for a new generation, at least not now. With a $400 price tag (if you buy the PS4 and are lucky enough to live in a country where you aren't overcharged hundreds of dollars) and really not much new to bring to the table, why have a new generation? Why not hold off for a year or two, wait for the hardware prices to drop and make the same machines for $100 less cause like it or not, the new generation will be EXPENSIVE, especially for MS and Sony who will be selling consoles at a loss.

Now, I'm not saying this to come off as 'SCREW MS, SCREW SONY, SCREW CONSOLES!' kind of guy, I'm not. I am being very serious. I want to be proven wrong here, I want someone to come in and say 'Well, because of this feature on the new console we can advance gaming be being able to do X, Y and Z', but as of where I'm standing what is being asked is hundreds of dollars for better graphics. To me, that's not worth it, not one bit.

 

[Corven]

Why make an iphone 5 when an iphone 4 is good enough as is, because the iphone 4 isn't making apple as much money as it used to, sales are down and now the company needs a new product to get more capital. It is the same situation here, console sales of the ps3 and 360 have petered out so they need something new so their companies start making a profit again.


But getting out of the business side of things, there's more to a new console than just graphics, with more power under the hood console games will now have the ability to have deeper fidelity, like more enemies on screen, larger and more intricate maps and worlds, smarter or more complex AI, etc etc.

Think of it this way due to limited memory and processing power of the current consoles, GTA V required you to download game data to a hard drive while also keeping the disc in the tray so that it could process the information of the game smoothly. It was a careful balance act that Rockstar had to pull on this game to make it work on the consoles which interestingly burned a lot of the people who purchased the digital version of the game (like myself)where the game has texture streaming problems since the game needed a disc to compensate for certain functions.

On the other hand these new consoles won't have these problems until the end of their respective lifespans when devs have maxed out the capabilities of those machines as well.

 

[Billy D Williams]

Well the iPhone argument would work except I think that people who upgrade every time they can (who aren't rich) are stupid . And I don't think we've ever had a problem fitting a ton of enemies onscreen (any shooter from this gen), making large and intricate maps and worlds (Fallout 3) or making complex AI (NOT Mindjack!!!), that was more of a 6th gen problem. I do admit that the limited storage capacity of the Xbox being a minor issue but not a reason to start an entire generation over.

Also, MS and Sony sell these new machines at a cost, if they didn't I'm sure they would have actually started the new generation a bit sooner so I'm betting a lot of people at the companies might have wanted to delay even longer. I also don't really see a new generation attracting a larger fanbase of gamers, so game sales (i.e. profits) probably won't rise much either, it might actually lower for a while because people have to throw out a few hundred bucks for their new system instead of being able to by over a half dozen new games for the same price. I see what your saying with this but I just don't agree.

 

[octafish]

RAM. Sigh, well we don't want a low content post do we.

Current gen hardware is shithouse. Current phones have more processing power. With more power we get, not better graphics (which you will get), but better AI, better physics modelling and better interactivity.

Restricted RAM is the reason shooters tend to the linear, why everything is interrupted by loading screens and why Skyrim was a buggy mess on PS3. RAM is the most important thing the new generation of consoles bring.

Bring on the next generation so I can have better games on my PC. Maybe in the next Hitman game I'll be able to go back through doors, because the consoles will be able to store game states over a whole level!

 

[Caiphus]

Bring on the next generation so I can have better games on my PC.

This is good enough reason for me. Even if you only ever play games on a PC, you should be looking forward to the next generation. If Sony and Microsoft bring more power into the living room, developers will be able to open the taps some more, and this will spill over onto the PC as well.

If the majority of gamers are still stuck playing on ~8 year old hardware, AAA games are likely going to be stuck with them.

And we're not talking about just graphics. As Octafish also alluded to, level design can be opened up, which can't just be upscaled for PC anyway.

 

[Sam_Hunter]

As everyone say, with more processing power come more interactivity.

You talked about some of the bigger games of this generation, with Skyrim and GTA 5 (I said bigger as in 'content wise', not better, that's ultimately decided by everyone taste), but there is always room for improvement.

What if we could have an (albeit parcially) destroyable environement in Skyrim, letting me burn down a house with it's occupent, or collapse a cave on my ennemies, then to have the village being rebuilt and the cave entrance digged by NPCs ?

What about being able to enter random house and places in the next GTA to evade police, or to mug the occupent ?

What about being able to effectively change the world I'm playing into dinamically rather than wih scripted and limited choices in the spiritual successor of Mass effect.

The next generation won't be able to do all that effectively of course, but it's another step in the direction of the virtual simulation, where the setting and a common scenario take place, but where experience radicaly change with the way the payer go along. I dream of the time when I'll be able to ally myself with the bad guys, for then double-cross them and take the prize for myself, with it not being something written 'in the stone' but the consequences of my playstyle and choices.

 

[Gronk]

I think another factor is that it is a very competitive market. In order to show that you are a strong contender you have to remain in the public eye and one way to do that is to make new products. I believe one reason for this is that the console makers are depending on developers/publishers to want to make games for their console. Why? Because they make money from licensing fees that the developers/publishers pay for every copy of a title sold for their system, which is why a console game is so much more expensive than a PC game.

The audience is very technology centered, we prefer what is new, because 1) it's new and 2) it must certainly be faster/stronger/better, right? Technology is advancing so whatever is the newest must be more advanced, right? 3) It is connected to our self image and public identity: If we have the new and hip whatever, that means we ourselves are new and hip. The developers/publishers know this, because they are also part of that audience, so they prefer to make games for a new system, because 1)they think we only want games for a new system, because that must be better, right? And 2)it shows that the developer is new and hip (I mean, what kind of backwater developer still makes games for PS3, right?)

So if MS (for example) kept making new consoles and Sony didn't, fewer games would be made for PS and they would lose market shares and revenue. Making updates is a good way to keep the press writing about you, keeping you in the public eye, fighting to stay in competition. This is why Apple and Samsung keep releasing new phones every year.

So if one company decides it's time for a new console, the others must follow, which is why you have these stupid console-wars in the first place.

Sorry for the rambling, just my 2 bitcoins.

 

[Alvren]

Extra Credits has mentioned a few benefit to the new console generation, primarily an increase in RAM (which makes development easier), a push towards a cloud base system, and a higher integration to social systems.

To me, I'm just sticking to a PC. I'm not interested in either consoles.

 

[Roxor]

I'm a little doubtful about the "not enough memory for complex gameplay" argument. Why not take a step back with the graphics and put the resulting freed-up memory and CPU into the gameplay instead?

Look at Quake 3 Arena. That had pretty decent AI, and only needed a 266MHz Pentium II, 8MB graphics card and 64MB of memory on Windows. The Xbox360 and PS3 consoles have 512MB of memory, several times the VRAM, and significantly faster processors.

Want something a bit later? How about Half Life 2? 1.7GHz CPU, 512MB of memory, and DirectX 8.1 graphics hardware as minimum requirements on Windows. Again, the Xbox360 and PS3 meet or exceed them, and they don't have the excuse of needing to support Microsoft's memory-hog of an OS in addition to the game.

Dial the graphics back to HL2 or even Q3A levels and put the resources into gameplay instead and a new console generation doesn't seem so necessary after all.

Also, one more thing: Anyone remember how easy it was to get lost in some of the levels in the really early FPS games?

 

[Flames66]

Extra Credits has mentioned a few benefit to the new console generation, primarily an increase in RAM (which makes development easier), a push towards a cloud base system, and a higher integration to social systems.

To me, I'm just sticking to a PC. I'm not interested in either consoles.

To me the second and third points there are bad things. I am against centralisation, so cloud based services that force me to rely on someone else's hardware are a terrible idea. As to the other point, I play games as either a solitary experience, or with one or two close friends so I have no interest in social integration.

 

[Neonsilver]

I'm not that interested in consoles and I have not played on a console since the ps2. But I'm still happy about the new generation. The reason for that is that because most games are developed for multiple systems and that means that the last generation is holding pc gaming back as well.

There is also a lot more that can be done with more power in the consoles than just improving graphics. Destroyable environments, more objects you can interact with, more enemies, better AI's, improved physics and probably a lot more I can't think of right now. For your examples GTA V and skyrim, I have seen video of GTA V where the player crashed a plane in an object that became visible shortly after the crash. Something like that shows that the console is already beyond it's limits with the game, GTA San Andreas had the exact same problem on the ps2. With good optimization the programmers can hide the problems but they are still there. In Skyrim is a simple thing that could be improved with more power, caves or houses could be part of the main map instead of being separated with a loading screen.

But the real reason why a new generation is released is simply to sell some new stuff.

 

[Juk3n]

What you have to understand is, personally, and for a lot of non forum visiting gamers. We don't compare our consoles to whats available at top dollar on the PC market, we compare our next console to our current console.

Show me Killzone 3, it's still looks fantastic, Shadowfall makes Kz3 look dated. That's the difference, and the gap in quality will only get bigger as time goes on. No I don't care how realistic your pc games look because 30 of my irl friends don't have fucking gaming PCs, theres no $400 PC that will out perform a PS4 im sorry your sources are wrong if you think there is, there just isn't. Consoles are entry level gaming, if you wanna flip that as some sort of insult, then you're an idiot. My ps4 is cheap, has the games I want to play, has my friends to play with socially and is accessible enough for me to recommend to any people looking to get INTO gaming without having to invest as much as you do with a Mega-Rig PC.

Next-gen as we know it is very necessary.

 

[Fireaxe]

Console manufacturers want money, that's it.

Some further explanation: people expect evolution, no matter how arbitrary and pointless.

 

[Auron225]

Console manufacturers want money, that's it.

Some further explanation: people expect evolution, no matter how arbitrary and pointless.

Pretty much this.

"Hey, if we release a new console and make all our new games work only on it, then anyone who wants to play our games will have to fork out a lot of money! And WE will get that money! That means we get MONEY!"

Oh, and we get slightly better graphics than what we have now. Yay.

 

[Zenn3k]

This is something that I have been wondering about for a while recently, and I finally need to try to get a few answers from someone. For the last few months we have been bombarded by Sony and Microsoft about their new upcoming consoles, the gaming news outlets have been reporting and speculating day in and day out and the console wars have already started and the systems aren't even out yet. But one thing everyone has really failed to say is... what's the point? What does this generation of consoles bring to the table that we don't have on the current generation? With the exception of Kinnect 2.0 (and really... who cares?), are there really games that publishers and developers want to make but can't because of the Xbox and PS3's hardware? This doesn't seem likely, with games like Skyrim, Grand Theft Auto V and even Crysis 3 showing what is capable of these consoles its hard to believe that the next generation is going to usher in a world of innovation of what is possible through processing. So, if that's not the case, what else? A graphics update? From where I'm standing that is really all it could be, and to be honest that's a pretty trivial reason to create a $400+ barrier for players to get in, not to mention how little the difference really is between the next generation and current when compared to the current generation and last:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Not to mention, if your really aching for graphical fidelity the PC gaming is still a viable option, Hell we already have PC games that look better than anything next generation has in stock.

So from where I'm standing I don't see a reason for a new generation, at least not now. With a $400 price tag (if you buy the PS4 and are lucky enough to live in a country where you aren't overcharged hundreds of dollars) and really not much new to bring to the table, why have a new generation? Why not hold off for a year or two, wait for the hardware prices to drop and make the same machines for $100 less cause like it or not, the new generation will be EXPENSIVE, especially for MS and Sony who will be selling consoles at a loss.

Now, I'm not saying this to come off as 'SCREW MS, SCREW SONY, SCREW CONSOLES!' kind of guy, I'm not. I am being very serious. I want to be proven wrong here, I want someone to come in and say 'Well, because of this feature on the new console we can advance gaming be being able to do X, Y and Z', but as of where I'm standing what is being asked is hundreds of dollars for better graphics. To me, that's not worth it, not one bit.

Screenshots the have been released and compared prove you are very very wrong when it comes graphic upgrades. The new consoles are capable of incredible levels of detail that is simply not currently found in last generation.

As shown here:

Spoiler

Sure, the texture quality and streamlining of "pop in textures that range by distance" have become the norm, but this is simply to mask the current limitations of the hardware. It was designed as a result of hardware limitations to allow for better textures within the players immediate eye sight, was actually a fairly brilliant design idea.

Look at a GTA5 for example. When you fly in a helicopter at a height say..half that of the tallest building, the ground textures are very bad, but because of the distance you can barely tell, it tricks your eye and only loads high quality textures near the player. Now imagine that wasn't needed at all. Thats just one of the benefits of the next generation, no texture pop, no texture pre-caching (or much much less), less loading and need to access the drive to load up new textures, more detail further from the player, more entities on screen (think traffic when high above the ground). Entities when flying around are usually very limited, often just behind the player objects will despawn completely as the game loads ONLY what is directly in sight. With next gen hardware, you could see things like hundreds of cars on the road when flying overhead, all with their own AI and highly detailed car. The possibilities are incredible.

Take Skyrim, those long distance screenshots, the textures in the back are super bad, but mostly you don't really notice them. Imagine if they had the same quality they do at 5 feet as they do at 50 feet. The difference is actually incredible.

These consoles WILL drop in price eventually, so the "$400 barrier for entry" is a farce, if its real "entry" into the gaming market you want, start with last gen. In 2-3 years, these consoles will be $300 or $250, it always happens eventually, and by then the library will be much wider as well.

Your question is akin to saying: We've been to the moon, why bother to continue to explore the galaxy? Why send a rover to Mars? There is always more to discover and accomplish when you bump up the power.

 

[Billy D Williams]

There's been some good discussion, still right now it seems like 2/3 of the argument is graphics and as stated before is that worth $400?

HOWEVER, the argument of more RAM and being able to have destructible environments and such is a good, I'm still not sold on needing an entire new generation over that, at least not at this price but its definitely the best I've heard in the last few months.

 

[XMark]

We're long overdue for next-gen consoles (it's been the longest console generation in history).

True, the visual impact of the graphic upgrade is smaller than in has been between previous generations since we were already about 90% photo-realistic and we're struggling to bridge that difficult last 10%

But what I'm really looking forward to is the increases in AI and physics that the new hardware will allow. Now that the constraints on RAM and processor speed are lifted, we should be seeing games with a much larger degree of destructible environments, more believable physics-based motion for characters, larger and more detailed game worlds, all that kind of stuff that comes with more hardware capabilities.

And even if you're sticking with the PC like I am, games for the PC are going to be taking more advantage of the existing processing power now, since many games are developed for all platforms and have to accommodate for the consoles' capabilities.

 

[kasperbbs]

I wouldn't expect anything 'special' from the first games to come out for the consoles, developers had very little time to get used to the new specs and come up with something worthwhile and they aren't even out for the general public yet so it's a bit too early to make judgements. At the very least they will have better graphics and the devs wont have to scratch their heads thinking of how to squeeze something in their game because the system simply can't handle it.

 

[Evonisia]

I think graphics (and also rendering but I'm not really knowledgable on technology so it's likely just another part of graphics) is the biggest point. There's also the fact that this console generation has lasted for far too long, and money's drying up. When the money dries up the console inevitably stops getting supported and dies.

Well I could say that we have the Wii U's controller, but as evident of the Wii U's power it's not something which we needed a new console generation for.