Pushing the hardware already? Went for graphics over substance. I admit 30fps on a controller is okay. Example:
Dark Souls on PC is evil for me, but I refuse to unlock the FPS. With a mouse the horrid 30fps is... well horrid, but with my Logitech F510, it's as smooth as silk.
However back to what I originally said at the very top, if you're already on 30fps now, you're leaving yourself very little, if any headroom at all when you;re 3-4 years down the line. I couldn't possible imagine the hell it'd be 7-8 years down the line.
Let's not forget the past shall we. Skyrim on my PS3, ran at about, 15-20fps. Constantly, I tweeted Bethesda, Pete Hines, sent e-mails and posted on the official forums but they didn't listen or care - typically. In the wilderness in Skyrim I'm pretty certain SLIDESHOW is an accurate description of what I experienced, so less than 10fps. BF4 was similar - though it stuck closer to 30 than Skyrim ever did, it really did bog down when vehicles were around though, firing, blowing stuff up and it was nasty - even on a controller. Unless you're at that magic 30, or even as low as 24, you're safe, but any less than that, even for a few seconds, it is nasty to look at.
Lifespan of consoles in my eyes? Depending on the developers of course, I'd say... 4 years tops.
I've heard a few titles coming out at launch are 30fps, if I was getting a Xbox One or PS4 (which I was originally was going to get btw, but didn't - instead I upgraded my video card and got a mountain bike <3 exercise POWAR) then I'd want much better frames than that. In fact, I'd pick 60fps over graphics any day of the week. It's the gameplay that matters.
Also, that hefty price tag for games when they in fact should be cheaper due to the architecture... classic "next gen" marketing pricing structure there. My advice? Avoid the consoles if you can. This is coming from someone who has played tons of consoles and PCs and ultimately ditched consoles because it is a watered down, ragged experience, and looking at what is on offer for next-gen, I'd say it isn't a worthwhile investment.
Peace
- P.S Sorry for the long post, but you're the one who read it.
@Tech-head @UKFX Yes some game modes are good, but what folks must remember is that the more they ask for, the more they get. All that more games mode do is end up splitting player numbers more and more.
On PC however I remember BF3 had several variants due to the larger player number, so several modes ended up having even more "sub-modes" as I call them. Air Superiority, Conquest Large, Conquest Assault Large, etc. This divides player numbers, an even more so on PC than on console (unless you're CoD in which 12,000 game modes isn't enough according to Activision).
7 is okay, maybe 8, but anymore than that and we'd be looking at like 14 or more on PC. Then both console and PC have to take into account DLC releases. Each pack will further split players depending on who has what. Of course you can't pick a server if you don't the content and I'm sure not 100% of people will buy premium.
It wouldn't be an issue if everyone lived in the same country or pingless broadband existed or there was millions of players on a single game, but sadly that isn't the case.
7 is okay, but it's good to get it across that 7 or 8 is a good number of game modes, and 43 million modes is bad, for the reasons I've stated above.
@Vozlov @UKFX @DeKuip Because, A, it isn't necessary but to generate money via Microtransactions, and B, if it was added, it's nothing but pure greed because if billions of profit is not enough then... well, that's just ridiculous.
"Oh well, billions and billions isn't enough money for company or to bolster the salaries of the higher ups, let's ruin the experience for the players who made us rich by adding pointless cards".
Again, totally not needed. Unless of course, they ruined GTA with cards and gave the generated proceeds to poverty stricken countries and charities. Highly doubtful lol.
@DeKuip If I had the game (I play PC), I'd be thinking the same. It'd be immoral to add it after spending such money and especially since they have made so much money from it. Again if it turns out to be true, that's just ultimate greed going on there lol.
If this turns out to be true, after making billions from this game they're like "hahaha chumps, suck on these!!!!" - *dangles two hairy microtransactions in the face of the consumer.*
@LordSho @kwanzudood Actually, I know what the Airburst is, I remember earlier on, very vaguely, using it in Socom 2. The video wasn't particularly clear either but yeah I don't mind so much. At least it's apparently crap at short range.
UKFX's comments