Did Sony and MS stunt console dev with the 10 year cycle?

#1 Edited by Kjranu (1041 posts) -

With the preponderance of 4K technology, and our consoles not even equipped to use it at all. Remember when consoles were supposed to push the boundaries of technology in what they can do? The PS1 made CDs the standard, Xbox made online services the standard, PS2 and PS3 with DVDs and Bluray. They also made significant leaps in raw power.

This generation? They don't seem to be bringing anything new other than gimmicks like Kinect. PS3 and Xbox 360 should have been replaced by PS4 and Xbox One in 2009 because if they had ... then we'd be playing with PS5 and Xbox 4 today. PS5 and Xbox 4 would actually push technology to new boundaries as they'd be more powerful and they'd be able to play 4K video and maybe even run games in 4K.

So far, PS4 and Xbox One? They're mini upgrades that should have been made all the way back in 2009 or 2010.

#2 Edited by lostrib (39284 posts) -
@Kjranu said:

With the preponderance of 4K technology,

...and done

#3 Posted by Silent-Assasin7 (1496 posts) -

Big time. Both of these consoles are weak crap, and (affordable) PC hardware is already matching and exceeding their performance. High end hardware is destroying them. And this time neither console has any secret sauce "it's just hard to optimize!!1!" BS, they're using straight up PC architecture and hardware, devs will have zero issue porting from console to PC and vice versa.

Hopefully we see a huge shift to PC development, and hopefully developers of multiplat games remember that PC gamers aren't all running weak sauce netbook processors and 2 year old graphics cards.

#4 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (7914 posts) -

Can't know what read.

#5 Posted by Heil68 (45801 posts) -

SONY is pushing the boundaries of play.

#6 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5085 posts) -

not sure. but it was a bloody long gen, and the new systems failed to impress.

#7 Posted by MonsieurX (30903 posts) -

Yes,4k is quite popular right now and easily available to get PC hardware to push that resolution!

#8 Posted by Silent-Assasin7 (1496 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

SONY is pushing the boundaries of play.

The only claim to fame they even have is against XBO for being a bit more powerful. But, when you factor PC into that discussion, they have nothing at all. At least the Xbox has the potential for innovation with the Kinect and now Cortana (excellent program on Windows Phone). But, both consoles are terribly underpowered and neither really offer anything of value to the industry that can't already be done much better on PC (and sadly enough, when it comes to some multi-media functionality, done better on PS3 and 360).

#9 Edited by Heil68 (45801 posts) -

Except GOTY, perfect, top 5 GOAT exclusives that the PC never sees.

#10 Edited by Silent-Assasin7 (1496 posts) -

Ah yes, the "I win awards" argument. Superficial, and irrelevant to this particular discussion, especially with regards to the PS4.

#11 Edited by happyduds77 (1536 posts) -

I feel like you don't know the fact that you need a 4k display to run a 4k game. 4k TVs cost a ridiculous amount of money, and this is one of the many reasons console gamers stayed away from PC and bought consoles instead.

Edit: Oh and there is something called business. The economy isn't as good as it use to be, so corporations will most likely be willing to take less risks than before.

#12 Edited by hoosier7 (3888 posts) -

4k? You're looking at a Titan or SLI rig for that to even be playable at that's nearly two times the cost of the console for the GPU alone. You expect this in a £350 console, when TVs at 4k are still astronomically expensive and there's next to no 4k content currently to push the format?

You think people would actually buy a 4k TV and a £500+ console purely for the sake of gaming in 4k?

I've seem some stupid stuff on here but i'm pretty surprised by this...

#13 Posted by Silent-Assasin7 (1496 posts) -

@happyduds77 said:

I feel like you don't know the fact that you need a 4k display to run a 4k game. 4k TVs cost a ridiculous amount of money, and this is one of the many reasons console gamers stayed away from PC and bought consoles instead.

You're talking like the only advantage of PC is 4K. But, consoles are currently struggling at 1080p, and chances are it will only get worse as games get more demanding. PC is the much better long term 1080p option.

#14 Posted by happyduds77 (1536 posts) -

@Silent-Assasin7 said:

@happyduds77 said:

I feel like you don't know the fact that you need a 4k display to run a 4k game. 4k TVs cost a ridiculous amount of money, and this is one of the many reasons console gamers stayed away from PC and bought consoles instead.

You're talking like the only advantage of PC is 4K. But, consoles are currently struggling at 1080p, and chances are it will only get worse as games get more demanding. PC is the much better long term 1080p option.

I never implied that, but whatever.

I think you people are forgetting that the ps3/xbox 360 struggled at reaching 720p in the early years, but then eventually devs figured out how to run games at 720p.

#15 Edited by lamprey263 (24483 posts) -

Hermits claimed the last thing last gen. But yes that is a way of looking at things, that console stunt game growth. Publishers will cater to the lowest common denominator if there's potential for commercial viability in the development of multiplatform titles. But the greater commercial potential helps franchises flourish where they otherwise might not. So it's good and bad. Keep in mind though the consoles won't have a 10 year life cycle in which there isn't any generational hardware overlap. We could have new next gen systems in half that time.

#16 Posted by Shewgenja (9836 posts) -

If you ask publishers and developers, they will tell you no. These hardware refreshes can be very hard on developers and some simply don't make the transition as evidenced by the amount of closings last gen.

The hardware could cycle faster, but it would guarantee that games would not. You'd only see small incremental gains from generation to generation. It also deserves to be said that the kind of GPU that could properly push 4K simply runs too hot at current manufacturing process to be feasible in a small form device such as a console.

#17 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (4686 posts) -

Agreed, hardware is shitty this gen. Even the PS4, but Sony have always been good at marketing hardware specs of all their products to make you want it. I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean they know how to make hardware sound more appealing then they are. I should know, I have a house full of their TVs, HiFis, VCRs, DVD Players etc etc.

Honestly, I hope this gen doesn't last more than 5 years, the leap is too weak. It's going to get old fast. It feels only an incremental upgrade over last gen. For the first time, the last gen consoles are still more than highly playable next to the current gen.

PC gamers must be laughing. Their i5s and mid range cards are spanking current gen consoles off the bat. You could upgrade a PC on the cheap and surpass a current gen console without too much effort.

If you take a step back, the lems and cows hardware arguments are fuckin embarrassing. If you had two AMD APU class gaming PCs, would you waste time arguing which one is less shitty,

Are people not piss off current gen consoles can't perform next gen looking games beyond 30fps? That's worrying to me. Fanboy nonsense aside, out of a new gen, I'd expect the console to perform graphics like Ryse, Infamous and so on with out so much of a challenge. It's troubling that they can't.

And DX12 will only widen the gap with PCs as they are able to optimize better and use the hardware more efficiently with it.

#18 Posted by GodspellWH (461 posts) -

10 YEARS?

#19 Edited by Silent-Assasin7 (1496 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet Yeah, it really is a pitiful jump. The 360/PS3 was at least on par with high end PC hardware when it came out (or was close), and before it the original Xbox was actually more powerful than the PC graphics cards. But, these days, right off the bat high end PC hardware is several times more powerful:

And the 780ti is actually more powerful than the Titan now, so that gap has already been widened even further. These consoles are a joke.

#20 Posted by Sharp-Shooter89 (116 posts) -

i dont think you peasants know what "we will support the console for 10 years" actually means, let me break it down,
PS5 should be coming out in 5-7 years, but ps4 will still be supported by sony even after ps5 gets released for another 3-5 years.

they are not going to keep ps4 as the only console on market for 10 years, if you believe this you're a clown, however if it does end up being true than that's just sad to have a piece of gaming hardware that weak 5+years down the road

#21 Posted by KittenNose (553 posts) -

Honestly I am freaking glad consoles are weak as newborn bunnies this generation. Gameplay took a back seat to cinematic story telling and presentation last generation. I can only think of two cases were games introduced me to something I couldn't find two generations ago, If anything games have gotten less complex, the AI is far more straight forward, and boss battles have become more time consuming then challenging.

This generation Sony and Microsoft can not depend on cinematic vistas to set themselves apart. I think this generation is the one where the movie game dies on consoles, because PC is going to offer inexpensive true photo realistic experiences in three years that just plain dwarf anything the consoles are capable of. With consoles getting lapped horse power wise at the start of this generation by PC enthusiasts, the artsy drama games with standard cliche game play and linear progression are going to end up on PCs. Console Devs won't be able to phone in the game part of video games for every much longer.

This means new ideas are going to have to take center stage on the populous gaming platform, and man am I hungry for something new. I mean I have put a hundred hours into Rust simply because I can trick groups of griefers into killing themselves. Actually being able to trick newbie slaughtering scum into humiliating themselves is enough to get me excited about gaming. While I adore the game, as far as new ideas go playing without a safety net isn't much of one.

I am so hungry for mechanics I have to study and think about in order to properly exploit. I think Consoles are going to be forced to focus upon engaging the player's mind, rather then just their eyes. I could be wrong, but I am hopeful and I think it is going to be magnificent for gamers on every platform.

Or in short: Screw Polygon count. I don't care if it is fifty trillion if 90% of enemies can be casually crushed by spamming light attack.

#22 Posted by jsmoke03 (12993 posts) -

well a lot of people spoke up that they want tech but not at the cost of high prices. though i thought kuturagi was an idiot before the launch of ps3, i kind of agree that if you want the tech, you have to pay the price. no one who isnt a fanboy is willing to pay more than $400 for a console.

#23 Edited by Netret0120 (2255 posts) -

@jsmoke03 said:

well a lot of people spoke up that they want tech but not at the cost of high prices. though i thought kuturagi was an idiot before the launch of ps3, i kind of agree that if you want the tech, you have to pay the price. no one who isnt a fanboy is willing to pay more than $400 for a console.

This.

I am sure consoles could easily fit in the high-end specs of gaming pcs but at a much higher cost. $700-$1000 for a console is ludicrous and not family-friendly. Imagine children asking their parents for a $1000 console:/

As long as the gameplay is still fun and I don't have to constantly update my graphics card, Ram etc then I am happy with consoles.

#25 Posted by Bishop1310 (1128 posts) -

No... Don't try and blame the companies when this is all on the consumers.. Gamers are the most dramatic little girls when it comes to the price of these things. A 10 year cycle means Microsoft and Sony can offer the console at a reasonably cheap price and make a good profit off each unit sold..

If a console was released every 5 years for 599 (to keep par with PC hardware) All you fan boys would cry and complain about the price.. Perfect example is the PS4.. It's being bought like hot cakes because of the price. I've seen plenty of people on these forums stating they bought it because of the price and their going to get the multiplats they want...

There is no one to blame but ourselves. Make it known that we want better hardware more often and maybe this 10 year bs will go away.. Or buy cheap ass hardware like the PS4 and X1 and send Micrsoft and Sony a completely conflicting message.

#26 Edited by N3xus9 (557 posts) -

@happyduds77 said:

I feel like you don't know the fact that you need a 4k display to run a 4k game. 4k TVs cost a ridiculous amount of money, and this is one of the many reasons console gamers stayed away from PC and bought consoles instead.

They do?

$999 AUD for a 55 inch 4K Smart 3D LED TV (UltraHD) with Android OS seems pretty cheap to me, I can only imagine that in USD it is even cheaper again.

#27 Edited by deniiiii21 (1261 posts) -

I don't understand, what people want from consoles, even if Sony wanted to put a Titan in the box, it simply would be too big and too hot, wait until the node gets smaller from 28nm. I am perfectly fine with 8gb Gddr5, 7870 and a 8 core Cpu for $399.

#28 Posted by deniiiii21 (1261 posts) -

Is it bleeding edge, no. But it's a great upgrade from last gen. Don't let people here fool you only a handful of ppl can afford a Titan or 780 Ti.

#29 Edited by Bishop1310 (1128 posts) -

@deniiiii21 said:

I don't understand, what people want from consoles, even if Sony wanted to put a Titan in the box, it simply would be too big and too hot, wait until the node gets smaller from 28nm. I am perfectly fine with 8gb Gddr5, 7870 and a 8 core Cpu for $399.

Their cheap ass mobile phone CPU's. Yes it saved each company money and lowers the amount of heat expelled but do some research on the processor in these consoles, cheap cheap cheap.

#30 Edited by deniiiii21 (1261 posts) -

You don't need a crazy processor for a console, most of the heavy lifting is done by the GPU anyways.

#31 Edited by clr84651 (5515 posts) -

@Kjranu said:

With the preponderance of 4K technology, and our consoles not even equipped to use it at all. Remember when consoles were supposed to push the boundaries of technology in what they can do? The PS1 made CDs the standard, Xbox made online services the standard, PS2 and PS3 with DVDs and Bluray. They also made significant leaps in raw power.

This generation? They don't seem to be bringing anything new other than gimmicks like Kinect. PS3 and Xbox 360 should have been replaced by PS4 and Xbox One in 2009 because if they had ... then we'd be playing with PS5 and Xbox 4 today. PS5 and Xbox 4 would actually push technology to new boundaries as they'd be more powerful and they'd be able to play 4K video and maybe even run games in 4K.

So far, PS4 and Xbox One? They're mini upgrades that should have been made all the way back in 2009 or 2010.

This is all hindsight, which is always 20/20. I can look back and say things I could've done also. So the answer to this is NO!

#32 Posted by deniiiii21 (1261 posts) -

Go play Infamous, Battlefield, Killzone, does a Titan outperform it, it sure does. But a Ps4 does get close to a high end PC.

#33 Edited by Boddicker (2885 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

not sure. but it was a bloody long gen, and the new systems failed to impress.

Agreed.

All they had to do was accomplish 1080p and 60 fps. Something that PC enthusiasts have been enjoying since the mid 2000's.

Both Sony and MS failed miserably.