Who else is very dissapointed in next gen console power?

  • 97 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by EnergyAbsorber (4893 posts) -

A 6 and 7 year gap from X360/PS3 to PS4/XB1 and 1080p is still not even the standard yet. Not only that, but this may be the smallest gap in console power we've seen in a next gen console. When X360 came out, it was atleast on par with high end PCs. This gen is tottally different and consoles are weaker than ever.

I was dumb enough to actually think by the time PS5 and XBone 2 come out we'd be seeing most games in 4K but I know that I better start lowering my standards.

#2 Posted by Wiimotefan (4062 posts) -

Diminishing returns obviously. The jumps get smaller and smaller every time. 6th gen seemed like the last big jump to me.

I'm not disappointed though. The PS4 and Xbone have some nice hardware. Give it a couple of years and we'll be seeing some really impressive stuff.

#3 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (5882 posts) -

I think the new consoles are on par with some exclusives but AC Black Flag and Ground Zeros are virtually the same looking, minus a few details.

Nothing will replace the first time I played Gears. That was a hella jump at the time.

#4 Posted by gameofthering (9942 posts) -

At the moment I am... but I'll wait until I see how Batman Arkham Knight looks.

#5 Posted by delta3074 (17593 posts) -

This is why i am never an early adopter, Developers take a while to get the handle on the hardware, give it about a year and the really impressive stuff will start arriving instead of slightly polished PS3/X360 games

#6 Posted by SolidGame_basic (16006 posts) -

maybe if you stopped caring about just the graphics you wouldn't be so disappointed. did you play Last of Us on PS3? still very technically impressive on such an old system. with the right developers, you will get quality games no matter what. I grew up with shit graphics!

#7 Posted by CrownKingArthur (3682 posts) -

agreed tc.

xbox 360 came out in 2005. no single gpu could keep up until 2006 - partly because of the 360 pioneering unified shaders

ps4 and xb1 come out in 2013, and the fastest single gpu cards available have >2x the TF. even a 7870 has more capacity for floating point operations than the ps4.

i mean, the next genners are hardly weak, but they're hardly 'powerful' either.

seriously. at this timespace, i'd rather buy a 780ti / r9 290x than a next gen console.

#8 Posted by lostrib (31443 posts) -

Everyone and no one

#9 Posted by donalbane (16135 posts) -

If you have a decent PC, you never look to consoles for graphical power. It's just a way to play the exclusives you would miss out on otherwise. I must say I don't think that the current crop of games are that great looking, but I expect them to look better and better as the generation progresses. Bottom line, though: consoles aren't for graphics. It would be great if they were more powerful of course, but I'm pretty satisfied with the experiences I'm having on Xbox One and PS4 right now, and think things will only improve as their libraries expand.

#10 Edited by Cyberdot (3510 posts) -

If you were expecting a PS4 game that looks better than a PC game, then you were wrong.

That's why it ended up the way it is. When PC graphics advances, PS5 will follow the lead. It's impossible for consoles to overtake, it's all regulated by PC.

#11 Posted by Bishop1310 (885 posts) -

I would have paid 699 for a power house of a console. The reason the ps4 is selling so well though is because it's cheap.. sony fans are poor.

#12 Posted by I_can_haz (6447 posts) -

I'm not. Unlike a lot of fanboys here I had realistic expectations. I knew coming into this gen that neither Sony nor M$ would build beast consoles. They needed to balance power and price. If they had gone with powerful consoles they would have risked coming out with higher prices which would have hurt them at launch especially during this challenging economic times. Which is why I was sort of baffled when M$ decided to shoot themselves in the foot and include Kinect in the box and thereby increase their price to $499. I thought both of them would go for $399 machines made from easy to get relatively cheap parts, looks like only Sony stuck with that strategy completely, and from the looks of things it paid off handsomely for them.

#13 Edited by CwlHeddwyn (5314 posts) -

The big issue these days is that current graphics cards consume a lot more power and generate a lot more heat than 2005 era graphics cards. Modern cards are a lot bigger and require much more cooling. Consoles are a balancing act and energy efficiency/ heat output is a big concern for Sony/MS, they don't have the luxury of huge towers with massive fans and giant PSU. They want small(ish) and sleek systems which results in compromises

#14 Posted by donalbane (16135 posts) -

@Cyberdot said:

If you were expecting a PS4 game that looks better than a PC game, then you were wrong.

That's why it ended up the way it is. When PC graphics advances, PS5 will follow the lead. It's impossible for consoles to overtake, it's all regulated by PC.

I recall there were about a million threads here claiming that the PS4 would rival the graphics of high end PCs before the PS4 launched. Hell, some people still believe it. Everyone wants their console to be the deal of the century, it seems.

#15 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3670 posts) -

I honestly stopped caring about power when it comes to console half way through last generation... This is how I see it:

  1. Consoles = Exclusives
  2. PC = Exclusives and Mulitplats
  3. Uncharted 2/3 looked incredible on a system with 512MB RAM

Resolution is really the only issue I have but as long as its 720p I have no problem with it what so ever.

#16 Edited by getyeryayasout (6868 posts) -

I felt the same about my lunch 360 last gen. It wasn't until about 10 months into it's lifespan that it got Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter that I felt like I'd finally seen a next gen improvement. Gears came out a few months later, and we know the rest. Current gen is still in it's infancy, give it a year.

#17 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

agreed tc.

xbox 360 came out in 2005. no single gpu could keep up until 2006 - partly because of the 360 pioneering unified shaders

ps4 and xb1 come out in 2013, and the fastest single gpu cards available have >2x the TF. even a 7870 has more capacity for floating point operations than the ps4.

i mean, the next genners are hardly weak, but they're hardly 'powerful' either.

seriously. at this timespace, i'd rather buy a 780ti / r9 290x than a next gen console.

Yea but with diminishing returns, the value of shoving bleeding edge tech in the box decreases every gen. Everytime you double the resolution (screen/texture), the framerate, the polycount etc. the realized benefit is significantly reduced from the previous iteration.... at a certain point it simply becomes having power for the sake of power. I think both consoles were banking on the fact once the platforms mature a few years the realized graphical benefits from stuffing more power in the box would be negligible to most consumers.

#18 Edited by 93BlackHawk93 (5055 posts) -

I'm not dissapointed about power, but that online FPSs are the games that still get the most hype.

#19 Edited by DJ-Lafleur (34074 posts) -

I wasn't very concerned about it in the first place, and expected the jump in graphics to seem small compared to previous graphical improvements from previous gens.

#20 Edited by BattleSpectre (5952 posts) -

I've already been spoilt with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 (I remember the first time I ever saw Lost Planet on the 360 in action and was gobsmacked), so far nothing has really blown me away. Don't forget though, the last gen consoles are still getting a lot of love, just give it a few more years until everything is strictly made on the next-gen consoles. We'll be looking back and laughing at some of these games we once thought were graphics king.

#21 Posted by jsmoke03 (12473 posts) -

seeing infamous, order and quantum break has me really excited to see what the future holds for this gen. graphics are going to get better, i just hope that 1080p 60fps is the standard while maintaining really cutting edge graphics this gen so that next gen after this, we can go 4k+ res

#22 Posted by megaspiderweb09 (3665 posts) -

Have you seen Batman Arkham Knights?

#23 Posted by Nonstop-Madness (9466 posts) -

You can't put in a high end GPU into a console. They're massive expensive behemoths that draw far too much power and produce a ton of heat.

That being said, I'm still quite confident that 1080p will be the standard of this generation.

#24 Posted by Boddicker (2272 posts) -

Right now I'm disappointed in both the PS4 and X1.

We were more or less assured 1080p 60fps would be no problemo for this gen. How could we have been so wrong on both consoles?

The X1 has obvious issues including Kinect, too many worthless features, weaker power, and higher price. The PS4 has about half the worthless features (atleast to me) of the X1. I'm sure the 1% of "Let's Players" will get use out of the "share" button, but where does that leave the other 99% of us?

#25 Posted by cainetao11 (15785 posts) -

I can't say because it's only been 3+ months. Also, I don't care enough about the powah!!! For it to get to me.

#26 Edited by NFJSupreme (5020 posts) -

Consoles are not performance machines. The nature of consoles dictate that no matter how strong they are they will never be performance machines. Let's say the PSBone was able to do 1080p and 60fps on all games? Great right? Sure awesome but what happens in 2015? 2016? 2017? Will it be able to run future games at 1080p and 60fps? Probably not. Not at the graphical level you would want anyway. Cuts will have to be made at some point. So console makers have a decision to make. They could make a new console top of the line with all the bells and whistles that they will have to sell at a loss and will end up being outdated in a few years anyway. Or they could try to make the console strong enough that it is a clear advancement over the previous generation yet not too expensive that they are forced to sell at loss. The devs are going to adjust their games to meet console specs anyway so as long as it's a noticeable step up does it matter? Obviously console makers this generation chose the latter as it was the better business choice. In the past the former was the way they went in hopes of wow'ing people so much they bought their console. This business model proved to be faulty and after the success of the Wii proved it to be impractical.

So you as a consumer have a choice to make. Stick to consoles and live with whatever one of the big 3 gives you that fits their budget. Or build/buy your own PC that has whatever you want in it and fits your budget. Me being the educated and knowledgeable consumer I am I chose the to do it my way a while ago and never looked back. I still have consoles and I will eventually get both nextgen consoles when they have exclusives that move me to purchase (Destiny maybe?) but my home for gaming is on PC. I game at the graphical level I want, at the resolution I want, and the fps I want. Not at what Nintendo, Sony, or MS decides is best for me.

Funny thing about all this is that both consoles can game at 1080p just fine. The problem is that if all games were in 1080p they would have to turn down the visuals and they wouldn't look as "next gen." So in order to deliver those "next-gen" visuals that everyone wants on these consoles. cuts to resolution and targeted fps have to be made. It's just like what happens on PC when you have older hardware. You turn things down to get the experience you want. Devs do the exact same thing with console games.

#27 Edited by clr84651 (5274 posts) -

I am not disappointed at all! first xbox to 360 and PS2 to PS3 were huge due to going from Standard Definition TVs to HDTVs.

No reason to believe a huge leap would happen again without changing TV Definition.

#28 Edited by inb4uall (5104 posts) -

@Cyberdot said:

If you were expecting a PS4 game that looks better than a PC game, then you were wrong.

That's why it ended up the way it is. When PC graphics advances, PS5 will follow the lead. It's impossible for consoles to overtake, it's all regulated by PC.

Except last gen at the beginning when consoles passed up PC at the beginning...

#29 Edited by hrt_rulz01 (5449 posts) -

I think a lot of people are judging the systems on what's available now... I think in a couple of years time, it's going to be a lot better. And as said above, I'd say 1080p will be very common.

#30 Posted by Sushiglutton (5171 posts) -

Too early to judge. Wait until you have played Arkham Knights and the Witcher 3!

#31 Edited by osan0 (12534 posts) -

nope...i think MS and sony made the right call to be honest. the PS4 absolutely nails it in the hardware department and the X1 is not too shabby either.

sure they could have been more powerful but that led to serious problems last gen. both the 360 and PS3 and some nasty reliability problems at launch. they would have also been big loss leaders and have had a higher price.

last gen went on too long due to the losses sustained by both companies. 7- 8 years is too long for a gen. the old business model was just stupid and has now been mostly consigned to the bin where it belongs. i think they sell at a small loss but nothing mad. on a side note i am surprised they havent looked at the phone model to sell consoles though. pay 100 quid and a 5 year contract for live/PSn or something like that. that could be a big hit...it certainly gave the 360 a jolt in the later years. that recurring, relaible monthly revenue is gold dust to any company.

anywho more powerful hardware would have been more difficult to cool, would cost more and would increase the cost of development.

as for the 1080P standard nonsense...its never going to happen on consoles. the whole reason it happens on the PC is due to excess capacity. but consoles are a fixed point and developers set their sights for a certain res with a certain framerate given a certain graphical fidelity. its not that the new consoles cant do 1080P (they have done it). its more that MS and sony havent demanded that all games be 1080P. the PS4 and X1 could be 10X more powerful than a top of the range PC today and developers would still target 720P@30FPS to target a certain graphical fidelity if they though it best for their game.

if you demand 1080P and/or 60FPS for every single game then stick to the PC...its the only platform that will ever deliver it because it has excess capacity.

the only way itll happen on consoles is if sony/MS/ninty demand it to pass certification and that simply will not happen.

#32 Posted by ZoomZoom2490 (3934 posts) -

what did you expect from MS where they look to pocket $200 for every console sold.

#33 Posted by NFJSupreme (5020 posts) -

@inb4uall said:

@Cyberdot said:

If you were expecting a PS4 game that looks better than a PC game, then you were wrong.

That's why it ended up the way it is. When PC graphics advances, PS5 will follow the lead. It's impossible for consoles to overtake, it's all regulated by PC.

Except last gen at the beginning when consoles passed up PC at the beginning...

with PC parts that were coming out in the coming months. I think that is the point he is making. Ultimately the pace of graphical development is being determined by PC. Consoles are like bookmarks marking when a big shift happens.

#34 Posted by ZoomZoom2490 (3934 posts) -

idk where you going with this thread TC, all my PS4 games are running 1080p

cant say the same for MS since they are in for the money for every console sold.

#35 Posted by AzatiS (6977 posts) -

In order

1) PS4 = Duh , decent max

2) X1 = lol

3) Wii U = you dont want me to comment

#36 Posted by lostrib (31443 posts) -

idk where you going with this thread TC, all my PS4 games are running 1080p

cant say the same for MS since they are in for the money for every console sold.

I guess that depends what PS4 games you own

#37 Edited by 04dcarraher (18919 posts) -

Console companies had to learn the hard way in that you cant take large losses in revenue and profit for years to supply a system using the best tech available which gets obsolete and have hardware issues from cutting corners within a year or so later. The Big two decided to create systems within a budget that allow them not to lose money from the start. Because of this you cant throw in hardware that surpasses a set point... diminishing returns

#38 Posted by 04dcarraher (18919 posts) -

@inb4uall said:

@Cyberdot said:

If you were expecting a PS4 game that looks better than a PC game, then you were wrong.

That's why it ended up the way it is. When PC graphics advances, PS5 will follow the lead. It's impossible for consoles to overtake, it's all regulated by PC.

Except last gen at the beginning when consoles passed up PC at the beginning...

Yes and no, On the processor front and memory amount no, on the gpu front with the 360 yes, it was the first unified shader based gpu on the market. The PS3 did not contribute anything besides Bluray standard, Same time frame as PS3,Pc's leap frogged both consoles by multiple factors. This new generation they are nearly two years behind from the start.

#39 Edited by Wasdie (49302 posts) -

It's really where I thought it was going to be. PCs have set a graphical standard impossible for an affordable game console to hit. It was an unrealistic expectation by anybody to believe that the PS4 and Xbox One could hit levels of even a mid range PC when a mid range PC costs $300-400 more than an Xbox One.

The thing is people aren't just wanting 1080p, they also want some very detailed environments. Games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse are doing the same rendering techniques that are being done on the best looking PC games. It's not just a resolution thing, it's also how many polygons they are trying to push and how much shading and effects they are applying. They were never going to get close to what PCs could do because of this.

If the PS4 and Xbox One games dropped the amount of polygons and rendering they are doing they could easily hit 1080p. Games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse have just as much, if not more detail per scene than the best PC games. The only problem is their GPUs just can't handle that rendering at 1080p and 60fps. However that's what they are trying to achieve because that's what people expect.

The common gamer doesn't count pixels. They just want their games to look like they were worth the upgrade. Games like Ryse and Killzone Shadow Fall do have that generational leap over the Xbox 360 and PS3 that people will notice. It's just here on the internet the PC sets the standards. It's an uphill battle the consoles never had a chance with.

#40 Posted by Acez626 (688 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

It's really where I thought it was going to be. PCs have set a graphical standard impossible for an affordable game console to hit. It was an unrealistic expectation by anybody to believe that the PS4 and Xbox One could hit levels of even a mid range PC when a mid range PC costs $300-400 more than an Xbox One.

The thing is people aren't just wanting 1080p, they also want some very detailed environments. Games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse are doing the same rendering techniques that are being done on the best looking PC games. It's not just a resolution thing, it's also how many polygons they are trying to push and how much shading and effects they are applying. They were never going to get close to what PCs could do because of this.

If the PS4 and Xbox One games dropped the amount of polygons and rendering they are doing they could easily hit 1080p. Games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse have just as much, if not more actual detail per scene than the best PC games. The only problem is their GPUs just can't handle that rendering at 1080p and 60fps. However that's what they are trying to achieve because that's what people expect.

The common gamer doesn't count pixels. They just want their games to look like they were worth the upgrade. Games like Ryse and Killzone Shadow Fall do have that generational leap over the Xbox 360 and PS3 that people will notice. It's just here on the internet the PC sets the standards. It's an uphill battle the consoles never had a chance with.

Finally bro, you post something I can agree with lmao

#41 Posted by NFJSupreme (5020 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

It's really where I thought it was going to be. PCs have set a graphical standard impossible for an affordable game console to hit. It was an unrealistic expectation by anybody to believe that the PS4 and Xbox One could hit levels of even a mid range PC when a mid range PC costs $300-400 more than an Xbox One.

The thing is people aren't just wanting 1080p, they also want some very detailed environments. Games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse are doing the same rendering techniques that are being done on the best looking PC games. It's not just a resolution thing, it's also how many polygons they are trying to push and how much shading and effects they are applying. They were never going to get close to what PCs could do because of this.

If the PS4 and Xbox One games dropped the amount of polygons and rendering they are doing they could easily hit 1080p. Games like Killzone Shadow Fall and Ryse have just as much, if not more actual detail per scene than the best PC games. The only problem is their GPUs just can't handle that rendering at 1080p and 60fps. However that's what they are trying to achieve because that's what people expect.

The common gamer doesn't count pixels. They just want their games to look like they were worth the upgrade. Games like Ryse and Killzone Shadow Fall do have that generational leap over the Xbox 360 and PS3 that people will notice. It's just here on the internet the PC sets the standards. It's an uphill battle the consoles never had a chance with.

The internet has made consolites believe that consoles are performance machines when in reality consoles have never been about performance and never will be. They see PC players brag about 1080p and 60fps (oh is it GLORIOUS but maybe we shouldn't brag so much?) and think that well obviously this is the next step. What they never realized (believe you me I've tried to tell them) that these are all performance benchmarks not graphical settings and while they make a difference ( people wouldn't pay to have them) they are not what ultimately makes a game look good and not what consoles focus on. Does something look better in 1080p than 900p yes. But does 900p look terrible? No. Is 1080p worth crippling fidelity or performance? No. Remember consolites that on consoles the software get the most out of the hardware. This means devs might have to cut here and add there to do so. The software is pushing the hardware on console. On PC it's the hardware that gets the most out of the software. This means it's the hardware that is pushing the games on PC especially on the high end.

#42 Posted by no-scope-AK47 (2647 posts) -

Consoles are never going to match pc on anything and it's only going to get worse. That said consoles have a some good exclusives. I got a ps3/4 for the exclusives not for anything else. By the time the ps5 comes out even cell phones will have similar or more power. Naughty Gods is reason enough to own a ps4 the rest is icing on the cake.

#43 Posted by DaBrainz (7604 posts) -

I'm a little surprised that there aren't any next gen graphics on X1 and it still doesn't fly through the load screens.

#44 Posted by Kinthalis (5251 posts) -

The internet has made consolites believe that consoles are performance machines when in reality consoles have never been about performance and never will be.

That wasn't the internet. That was Sony's and MS' marketing. And consolites fell for it , hook, line and sinker.

#45 Edited by Bigboi500 (28804 posts) -

Most console fans have never cared about matching or passing PC in graphics, despite a small number of fanboys.

#46 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13703 posts) -

For today's standards, the hardware is pretty meh. And seeing the mobile market getting all the R&D possible to create powerful and energy efficient mobile chips, they'll surpass these consoles in like 2-3 years.

#47 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15724 posts) -

They're good enough to me. At least the PS4 is. Its GPU is a step up from my GTX 560 Ti.

#48 Edited by indigenous_euphoria (149 posts) -

So far my PS4 has been quite disappointing graphically.

#49 Posted by NFJSupreme (5020 posts) -

One more thing. Console gamers, especially those here, should look at 1080p and 60fps as a sign of either a rushed poorly optimized game or a game that isn't really pushing the hardware in any meaningful way. The REAL console devs who make magic happen on static hardware are going to use every trick in the book to wow you and they should. This means lowering the resolution. Capping the framerate at 30fps. Tweaking draw distances. This is why uncharted games looked so good on PS3 and could still win best graphics awards even though they weren't anywhere near technical marvels (unless you consider that they got it to run on the ps3). I made a thread about this like a week ago or something and people didn't want to take it seriously so I'll just say it again. The best looking games on either console are not in 1080p and 60fps. Some people here need to rap their head around that for a second cause it's not sinking in. As a console gamer you don't want 1080p and 60fps unless you want gimped games or $700 consoles.

#50 Posted by GravityX (677 posts) -

I'm not, its all you res and pixel counters that are ruining gaming. The games out know for both consoles are awesome.