If consoles ceased to exist after gen 4....

The hell is this poll supposed to mean??

And why about Gen 4? That was Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, NeoGeo, 3DO, and Atari Lynx (might be missing 1 or 2).

lol, so lems hate consoles now?

Consoles have their place as well as PC but because xbox one is failing lems just want consoles to die now? lol such wishful thinking when PS4 is the fastest selling system so far. I've always suspected but it seems lems are more company fanboys than actual gamers but I have seen a lot of this lately.

Gaming as we know it would cease to exist.

Fix your thread Tom

It's pretty simple, after gen 4 is when 3D development became mainstream. Also technology related to game development has been unnaturally held back and hamstringed by dated console hardware.

poll posts are fucked

Tom, fix your thread. OP is fucked up

If candy and nuts were ifs and buts...

lol, that's not ture.

During the days of Dramcast it had better 3D games than any PC and PS1 and Saturn were at least on par with any PC games. needless to say N64 smashed PCs at the time.

Consoles actually helped to speed the development of 3D games. I don't know what your angle is but you are totally off with that argument.

It's the forum, not the thread.

Why should consoles moving into 3D graphics have ended them? besides that being completely moot - there have been four gens of 3D capable consoles after SNES/Genesis, so where does this "what if?" scenario come from?

It's true that if devs utilized the power in the newest GPUs 3D graphics would be far ahead.

The fatal flaw and failure in this thread is the notion that devs would push for those higher boundaries if consoles didn't exist, when consoles, even now, in no way shape or form stop PC devs from pushing the most powerful PC hardware.

The truth of the matter is market saturation for users with higher end PC hardware and the estimate of a profitable return is what determine how far PC devs push their games and nothing more.

It really has nothing to do with consoles except that PC devs are MORE willing to push the limits of PC hardware when consoles increase graphical performance because the market for that range of hardware will be bigger.

Without consoles there is no video game industry.

I agree there is nothing stopping any dev pushing graphics on PC but whether it's worth the cost and if they see a return on their investment. Also gaming would not be as big as it is now. Cut out consoles you lose a lot of potential sales.

The universe would implode and we would all blow up and stuff. Lots of gore.

There is a degree of truth to this, but the reality is that it's not just better textures that the PC hardware could be doing. It's better AI, it's better physics, it's more things on screen, and that is something that a multiplat will impact by virtue of the developer needing to take into consideration what their weakest hardware set up is.

The TC's scenario is just a massive what if bullshit fest though.

Is it just me, or is TC sounding more like TigerSuperman with every thread?

like ps4 but PC Master Race

Yes and PC exclusives already exist just as console exclusives (which usually do make extensive use of the hardware available) so it's a moot point either way.

It used to be that way, but with the way triple A gaming is nowadays, it's not. A lot of the big PC devs who used to be the big tech pushers are more or less console developers that make better looking/performing PC games. And it goes without saying that the scenario the TC is presenting is if a majority of the quality programmers were working on the PC, and not well some of them.

A game like Star Citizen is a rarity. More PC exclusives are dialed back in the budget department.

Look what happened when Crytek pushed, they created Crysis in 2007, a game that was essentially unmatched until 2011/2012 and is still to this day impressive. That is one developer pushing the extents and limitations of the API's and graphical technology of the time. What if that were a constant though in the whole industry? What if those API feature sets were always being pushed, graphical advancements being the forefront of everything? From the mid 1990's until now if that were a reality we would easily be 10 years more technologically advanced than we are now, and this lack of pushing is entirely because of consoles.

Notice how everything in the gaming industry climbs to a peak and then it just plateaus for years on end? Notice that this plateau always ends when new consoles are released? The entire industry has hamstringed advancement on the capability and development budgets of consoles, this is why PC gamers have been livid for years and always complained of games being gimped, because they are. Computer hardware has been more powerful than the current generation consoles going on 7 years, but due to the PS3 and Xbox 360 being so financially lucrative and so weak there is no reason for them to push development budgets to that of what the PC is capable.

The entire point of this thread was to highlight just how much of a detriment consoles are on the gaming industry as far technological advancement is concerned. When people say that PC games don't look THAT much better than their console counterparts it's because of this hamstringed developmental gimping, these games are developed around the technological capabilities of consoles, technological capabilities which don't changed for 5+ years and leave the industry in a state of stagnation...

Gaming wouldn't be nearly as popular. PS2 dramatically increased the popularity of the gaming.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems like you're saying that consoles are hurting gaming because they cause developers to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Am I correct about that?

If so, I disagree with your reasoning. My disagreement isn't about developers catering to the lowest common denominator, my complaint is that the industry would be any more advanced without consoles.

1) I'm skeptical that a lot of gamers really CARE all that much about technological advancement in games. After all, powerful PC's actually exist, but that still doesn't stop a shitload of people from settling on the weak-ass consoles. Does it look shitty? Yes. Do people care? For a hell of a lot of them, the answer is apparently "not really." Point being: better alternatives already exist, but a hell of a lot of people flock to the worse alternative because they're cheap/lazy/whatever. If pushing the technological envelope was THAT big of a priority, then I suspect that the consoles would fail BECAUSE they're weak underpowered pieces of shit. This is especially true considering that...

2) "PC" is not just one thing. There are high powered PC's and weak-ass budget PC's. Even if all consoles disappeared, the whole "lowest common denominator" factor would still come into play because a hell of a lot of PC buyers are gonna choose to buy weak-ass PC's. And the fact is that even most PC buyers don't want to spend money on a top-of-the-line PC, which is why even most PC games are designed to run on relatively lower end PC's.

So yeah...it's catering to the lowest common denominator. But it's not like consoles are really the problem. The only reason that "lowest common denominator" holds back ANYTHING is because "lowest common denominator" is typically where the money is. Take away consoles, and the "lowest common denominator" factor is STILL gonna hold back gaming due to the fact that most PC owners are buying weak underpowered PCs too.

Yes and no, what I am saying is due to the nature of consoles having locked hardware specifications and the reality that essentially all technology focused developers are now console centric in their game development, innovation and technological advancement hits an artificial wall every console generation. They get to a certain point with the development of engine technology surrounding these API's and hardware specifications and don't go beyond that really for the rest of the gen because they are catering to the development budget of something static, there is no real need to keep creating and keep innovating. This is why at the end of a console generation transitioning into a new console generation you see this dramatic graphical leap, because they have a more powerful hardware set to work with 5-8 years down the line so they start innovating again and pushing engine technology. The problem though is this always seems to plateau because yet again they hit that artificial wall and back off from the pursuits of advancement.

With PC this wall does not exist, there is no reason to ever stop advancing and innovating technology, there is no limit to what you can do, the train does not stop, ever. If consoles ceased to exist there would never again be those dead years where everything graphically plateaus because of hardware deficiencies, because of this everything would always be advancing and always getting better at a consistent and rapid pace. If you look at how much consoles have held things back since the introduction of the fifth generation it would be pretty plain to see that we're at least 10 years behind where we should be due to lack of technological pursuit hamstringed to weak hardware.

It doesn't matter if there are weak PC's, that is why PC games have scalable resolutions and settings, you should always develop from the top down, not from the bottom up. This is exactly why people say that PC games these days are really just glorified console games, because they are. Aside from scaling up the resolution, some graphical settings and the extra performance you can get, do they really look THAT much better? No they don't, they just don't, because games are just not developed around them and developers are stewing in console stagnation.

My computer on the whole is easily over 10 times more powerful than a PlayStation 4 and to be honest it's not even that high end of a computer although it's extremely powerful. Can you imagine if developers actually created games around this kind of hardware, if their graphical budget was based upon GPU's with 11.2 Teraflops of compute power... All the technology is just backed up, even look at companies like Epic Games, they're mainly a PC developer but they're conveniently just now putting out games that look like Unreal Tournament. Why right now? Why does it look so much like something a PS4 could run, because they designed Unreal Engine 4 around the impending release of these new consoles, they could have created games that look like this years and years ago.

The whole industry is hamstringed to these little plastic boxes and it's infuriating.

Ps1 opened up gaming to the mainstream. Ps2 and Wii continued this process. Without consoles, their audiences and the cash they generate, gaming would be a niche, less wealthy, less advanced area. Pc gaming would be less cutting edge, would have less developers and variety, and would be overall worse.

The hypothetical premise of this thread is going over your head, multiple peoples heads actually...

@princeofshapeir: Fanboys as we know them would cease to exist.

I know lol

I think it would be much the same as there would still be many people who want to play games but can't afford the latest tech. Developers wouldn't be able to pour all their resources into catering for the few that are lucky enough to own a top end rig any more than they can now. Perhaps it would be even worse as many people might be driven to play games solely on mobile devices *shivers*.

No it hasn't and wasn't. You can't blame consoles for devs limiting their games to work on them. That's daft. The consoles didn't strong-arm the dev into working on them, the dev chose to do that. Nor can you ignore the influence that technical limitations have had on creating entirely new types of games. Of course you are going to just ignore that because apparently abundant hardware is the only thing that spurs on innovation right?

A very western way of thiniking. And actually quite typical of PC game development (which is largely western) on the whole which has relied mostly on technology-based innovation rather than simple creativity. A philosophy exemplified by Id Software.

Devs always had the freedom to make PC exclusives games and the latter part of the 90s and early 00's where the PC had a string of unique, ground-breaking exclusive shows that. They weren't being hamstrung at all, and the only reason they are now is because devs aren't creative or enterprising enough to create unique, genre-forwarding games for the PC. The option to ignore consoles is there as it's always been, it's their own fault for not taking it.

The truth is that the PC is simply succumbing to the same mainstreaming that consoles experience... which for some reason we call "consolisation" even though the effects of it can be felt on consoles themselves. Something that should be impossible unless, you know, the term "consolisation" is, in fact, bullshit.

If these devs can't innovate within the boundaries of the tech they have, what on Earth makes you think they'd be able to do anything with more of it? The last few generations don't bear that out, even looking specifically at PC exclusives there's been pretty much no evidence that ground-breaking innovations and strives have been made based on the back of tech.

Videogames have matured. The genre template is largely set and the kinds of games that can be done only on a PC because of it are extremely limited to essentially prettier versions of the same thing. Don't believe me? Come back in 10 years when the PS5 is in full swing and we're still playing variants of the same games we do now. The tech race ended, and with it most devs saw no point continuing to try and run it. We aren't going to be seeing those monumental generational leaps anymore on any hardware, console or PC. Those days are numbered by diminishing returns and the simple economics of creating increasingly techincally complex games.

The fact this started happening as cross-platform console/PC games became norm is at best a correlative relationship, not a causative one.

I need a good game to rage quit on.

What is going on in op? I think that gif where Homers dad walks in and walks out again would be pretty apt right now :-P.

Sorry, I can't read your OP. Gamespot have shit forums. Explain what you are asking, and I will answer better :)

+1

PC without consoles would have been worse ? Think again ....

Its for a reason why consoles trying to imitate PCs more and more each generation and not vice versa. Consoles were appealing for many years because of many factors that now are not problems anymore. Including overprice hardware , regions with no internet or way expensive internet , alot of different platforms in "PC area" ( for example Amiga vs ST and other alike ) , alot of space , not convinient to hook up on TV and many many other things that played their role for people to focus on console gaming way more .... These problems are out of the picture the last 15 years or so and look where PC is atm...

Consoles having the problem as we speak , PCs are going stronger than ever in both hardware and software sales. So ..... come on. Everything you play on consoles like forever made by PCs in the end of the day ... Think about it a second ...

This post is gibberish. "Consoles having the problem as we speak"? No, they are selling faster than ever before.

Claiming that PC gaming would be less cutting edge ( when console keeping it behind for 10 years the least ( crysis anyone?) ) , would have less developers and variety ( when PC as we speak has way more developers AND variety on games than all consoles combined to every singe gaming genre there is while consoles missing ALOT of those genres or playing them way worse ) and the EPIC statement of being OVERALL WORSE when consoles copying PCs the last 2 generations ..... is .... QQ !! Tears all over the screen let alone gibberish

Fucking hell, it actually hurt my brain to read this. Congrats on being so stupid you actually transmitted your dumbness through to net and attacked my brain.

You are ACTUALLY arguing that PC gaming would be identical if consoles ceased to exist 20 years ago?

Yeah... no. Consoles are what made gaming big. No consoles = no huge audience = much less money = weaker, smaller, less advanced, less variety PC games.

A game like GTAV is best on PC, but would never be made without consoles.

@locopatho: is right. Without consoles, gaming would be a very niche industry indeed.

You said :

" Ps1 opened up gaming to the mainstream. Ps2 and Wii continued this process. Without consoles, their audiences and the cash they generate, gaming would be a niche, less wealthy, less advanced area. Pc gaming would be less cutting edge, would have less developers and variety, and would be overall worse. "

Your IQ is low ... reaaaly low ! Do you have any idea what kind of games released on PC in 90s ? You arrogant uneducated consolite ... Go learn about PC gaming first then say that PC gaming would be less cutting edge and would have less developers... let alone the most pathetic of claims , VARIETY...Are you serious now ?!

Games like Quake / Doom / Warcraft / Myst / Riven / Starcraft / Diablo / Half life / Counter Strike / Lineage / Ultima sold MILLIONS of millions of copies on PC ... The list is way bigger will take a while to mention all games. All those revolutionary for their time games came into life because of PS1 and Wii ? They sold million of million copies because of consoles ? They were cutting edge for their time because of consoles?

I repeat for dummies ... Consoles are the ones becoming more like PCs every generation and that says alot.

And if you knew , because i bet you dont , Rockstar first attempts in gaming were for WINDOWS first then consoles . GTA for PC scored 78% and PS1 65% ( GR ). Same for GTA2

Some less popular game found their way on PC in late 90s like Monster Truck maddness and Wild country.

Max Payne was released first on PC and was the definite version vs consoles ! Period. Max Payne 2 was more or less the same deal. First on PC after few months on consoles and it was once again the definite version to play ... yes yes .. PC that is.

So you little consolite. Now you know if PC would have GTA 5 or not if there werent any consoles around. Go educate yourself youngster .. PC had some of the best games ever created for any platform in 90s , and that wasnt because of any console.

@AzatiS: You keep ranting about the PC as it developed alongside consoles, benefiting from the audience and cash and developers of consoles.

That has exactly NOTHING to do with the hypothetical of consoles dying 20 years ago.

Fucking hell, this isn't difficult. Are you this dumb, not even to understand what the thread is asking about? You need to IMAGINE, you know that thing toddlers are capable of?

Why do you morons keep going off topic about other hypotheticals unrelated to the subject of discussion. I don't give a shit if consoles carried the torch for gaming and kept it relevant until now, that has nothing to do with any of this....

This thread is simply about graphical technology and where it would be had consoles ceased to exist 20 years ago and as a result game and technological development shifted and revolved entirely around the PC.

Where would the technology be with these weak static boxes holding everything back artificially out of the picture.. How much more advanced would things be with progressive, ever evolving development with no hardware limitations, no downgrades and no holding potential back...

This is simple, incredibly simple.

@nyadc:

because graphics cost money, thus without an audience you can't push the envelope.

@nyadc: Already answered: without the audience, money and competition of consoles, PC gaming would be a small niche with worse graphics, less variety, less developers and less games.

Consoles advanced gaming forward, their loss would have damaged gaming massively.

I mean, they could already make "next gen games" that only work on dual Titans and see a massive jump. But no one is gonna make those games, the market won't support them.

" Ps1 opened up gaming to the mainstream. Ps2 and Wii continued this process. Without consoles, their audiences and the cash they generate, gaming would be a niche, less wealthy, less advanced area. Pc gaming would be less cutting edge, would have less developers and variety, and would be overall worse."

You said this and all i did was proving you wrong. If that makes me dumb , so be it.

Are you guys intentionally trying to be this autistic... How can I make this anymore abundantly clear...

If the WHOLE OF GAMING shifted to the PC, all gamers, all developers, everything, the industry is booming and all development was solely focus on PC's for the last 20 years without consoles artificially hindering technological advancement, where would graphics technology currently reside...

If you can't get that then there is absolutely no getting past your mental handicaps...

It wouldn't advance at all because triple AAA games would not live without consoles.