Do we really need a PS4?

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for HOD4
#1 Posted by HOD4 (34 posts) -

To me, a game doesn't need ultra-realistic graphics or heavy processing for it to be excellent. I feel it's all about the art style they use in games. Games like Uncharted try to make a "realistic" impact so more horse power (in the PS4) would be needed for the next level of realistic detail.

But I think for most well-designed games with a certain art style that doesn't necessarily stress processing capabilities the PS3 is good enough. Most games (other than games like Uncharted and God of War) do not use the full potential of the machine. I personally don't like games with a realistic look to them, I prefer more artsy games like Tekken.

Avatar image for gameofthering
#2 Posted by gameofthering (11140 posts) -

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

Avatar image for 1PMrFister
#3 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -
Console hardware has to evolve at some point. If it didn't, we'd all still be playing on the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis.
Avatar image for aquaglow
#4 Posted by aquaglow (69 posts) -

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

gameofthering

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#5 Posted by MonsieurX (37396 posts) -

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

gameofthering
hardware =\= gameplay
Avatar image for Jacanuk
#6 Posted by Jacanuk (13201 posts) -

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

gameofthering
This is a clear misconception of facts. More powerful hardware doesn't equal better or new gameplay.
Avatar image for ChikaraShref
#7 Posted by ChikaraShref (4721 posts) -
graphically? no. in terms of processing power? yes. i think thats the biggest limitation right now, holding games back.
Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#8 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21116 posts) -

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

aquaglow

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"
Avatar image for aquaglow
#9 Posted by aquaglow (69 posts) -

Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"Black_Knight_00

Are you joking? Uncharted is one of the best examples of graphics over gameplay. The game uses quick time events! There was nothing revolutionary or challenging to implement in the game, it was just very polished and cinematic.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#10 Posted by Jacanuk (13201 posts) -
[QUOTE="aquaglow"]

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

Black_Knight_00

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"

Again saying better graphics makes a better game is wrong, ask anyone who have ever played fallout which game they think is best, and most will say the first 2
Avatar image for Arath_1
#11 Posted by Arath_1 (4688 posts) -

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

aquaglow

Do you think a game like Red Dead Redemption could have been achieved on last generation hardware? Graphics are directly tied to gameplay. Not in every scenario, no, but in the cases of the developers that choose to use them they are. An increase in memory, and computational power means that we get more complex games by the very nature of what the developer can do with that increased hardware.

Also what do you mean by "complex". You would be hard pressed to support the argument that games have become less or are no more refined than they were in generations past. Further to this an increase in technology broadens the scope of what we can see. The idea of PSN/XBLA titles would not have been possible on previous generation hardware.

And while AI may not have advanced as far as we would have liked, it's only with increased computational power we can see this progress. Say what you will about Uncharted, but The Last of Us, is looking to really push what we can expect from AI in games and that simply would not be possible in generations past.

Also you dismiss immersion as a factor delivered through graphics that directly impacts gameplay. Any big open world game would not be possible on the Wii (take your pick) because the world is part of the gameplay. The sandbox is part of the gameplay and how it reacts and can react is based on the technology that supports it (Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs, Red Dead Redemption, Sains Row The Third).

Avatar image for wiouds
#12 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#13 Posted by Archangel3371 (24118 posts) -
Yes we do. Need more processing power and more RAM.
Avatar image for Busy_Man123
#14 Posted by Busy_Man123 (1430 posts) -

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

wiouds

lol what?

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

Even games like Doom and Quake still holds up very well.

Avatar image for HOD4
#15 Posted by HOD4 (34 posts) -

Console hardware has to evolve at some point. If it didn't, we'd all still be playing on the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis.1PMrFister

True, but each console generation, we get a more "definitive" experience (or closer to the "ideal" experience). For example, this generation (with the PS3 and 360) is much more definitive (closer to the ideal) than last generation because all games are now displayed in high definition and have a nice amount of graphical detail (textures, etc.) that are a significant leap over last generation.

Back in the Super Nintendo days, games did not have a level of detail and realism that would be considered a realistic experience. Back then it may have been cutting edge, but not "definitive" or "ideal" or "realistic enough".

I think we're at a point where we've arrived in the sense that the hardware now (PS3) has enough power to run games in high definition with detailed graphics, which is what I think of as a good gaming experience. Of course, next generation there will be even more realism and higher resolutions, but for the time being, I actually enjoy where we're at (all games in HD with a good amount of detail).

I'm not saying I don't want the PS4 or that innovation is not necessary, I'm just saying that at this time, I don't see a need for one considering the level games are at now. Also, depending on which kinds of games you're into, there may be no (or very little) benefit of a system with better graphics hardware. One major benefit of better graphics hardware would be true 1080p gaming.

Avatar image for wiouds
#16 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

Busy_Man123

lol what?

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

Even games like Doom and Quake still holds up very well.

Old system can still be fun but that does not mean that what they did in the past can work at this times. My biggest problem with Rage is that the level disign is that it is old.

Current FPS still use those level desgin but thanks to more power system they can do some much more. I enjoy being amoung other troopers and charging down a street while hidding from tank's shoot so much more than walking down hallways and shooting the few enemies that come at me.

Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#17 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21116 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"aquaglow

Are you joking? Uncharted is one of the best examples of graphics over gameplay. The game uses quick time events! There was nothing revolutionary or challenging to implement in the game, it was just very polished and cinematic.

Dissing Uncharted's spotless gameplay on account of a couple QTE is too silly to be taken seriously
Avatar image for ChikaraShref
#18 Posted by ChikaraShref (4721 posts) -
[QUOTE="aquaglow"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"Black_Knight_00

Are you joking? Uncharted is one of the best examples of graphics over gameplay. The game uses quick time events! There was nothing revolutionary or challenging to implement in the game, it was just very polished and cinematic.

Dissing Uncharted's spotless gameplay on account of a couple QTE is too silly to be taken seriously

When the end boss is a qte, there's a problem...
Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#19 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

aquaglow

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

Uncharted, Gears of War, Forza, GT5, Skyrim, Oblivian, nba 2k,.......you must remember last gen, where a lot of those genres were in their console infancy. Ps2 had next to no fps games.
Avatar image for 1PMrFister
#20 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

More power allows for more option in game play. Just look at the FPS this gen and last gen and you can see level design have been innovative this gen.

Busy_Man123

lol what?

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

Even games like Doom and Quake still holds up very well.

There was a thread over on System Wars recently that deconstructed pictures like this. Long story short, you need to look past the FPS games that have billion-dollar marketing campaigns in order to see that there have been plenty of strides in the genre this generation.
Avatar image for Vari3ty
#21 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Gameplay is more important than graphics, yes, but we do eventually need new hardware.

Avatar image for S0lidSnake
#22 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

Avatar image for 1PMrFister
#23 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"]Console hardware has to evolve at some point. If it didn't, we'd all still be playing on the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis.HOD4

True, but each console generation, we get a more "definitive" experience (or closer to the "ideal" experience). For example, this generation (with the PS3 and 360) is much more definitive (closer to the ideal) than last generation because all games are now displayed in high definition and have a nice amount of graphical detail (textures, etc.) that are a significant leap over last generation.

Back in the Super Nintendo days, games did not have a level of detail and realism that would be considered a realistic experience. Back then it may have been cutting edge, but not "definitive" or "ideal" or "realistic enough".

I think we're at a point where we've arrived in the sense that the hardware now (PS3) has enough power to run games in high definition with detailed graphics, which is what I think of as a good gaming experience. Of course, next generation there will be even more realism and higher resolutions, but for the time being, I actually enjoy where we're at (all games in HD with a good amount of detail).

I'm not saying I don't want the PS4 or that innovation is not necessary, I'm just saying that at this time, I don't see a need for one considering the level games are at now. Also, depending on which kinds of games you're into, there may be no (or very little) benefit of a system with better graphics hardware. One major benefit of better graphics hardware would be true 1080p gaming.

The thing is, new hardware doesn't just equal better graphics. That extra horsepower can and will be used in many other aspects to improve the gameplay. Things like longer draw distances, more events happening at once, more dynamic and less intrusive loading, improved AI, and countless other methods to create a more seamless, authentic experience. Let's use a game like Planetside 2 as an example. This is a PC game that promises large, dynamic battles over massive maps with hundreds of players at once and multiple objectives and territories. Current-gen consoles can't hope to match that kind of scale. That's why new hardware is a must: So games like these can eventually become a reality and a normality.
Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#24 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21116 posts) -
Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.S0lidSnake
I'm BK_00 and this is my favorite sentence of 2012
Avatar image for joefranco1985
#27 Posted by joefranco1985 (25 posts) -
Uh YEAH - we TOTALLY need a new PS4. It's such a ridiculous question that I am surprised it is even being asked. The existing PS3 is a totally antiquated device with perhaps the worst browser I have ever seen on an "internet capable" machine. TOTAL JOKE. If it is possible to surf the net on a device - don't give me any BS about it "not being meant for that". Sony included it so it SHOULD be meant for that. This is my wishlist for the PS4 if it doesn't come to fruition, the SECOND that Apple puts out a game system I will buy it in a heart beat. 1. A real browser so I can surf the net comfortably on my big screen tv. The system oughtta come with a wireless keyboard but if it doesn't, I should be able to use my cell phone keyboard. 2. Better social media integration. 3. a feature that competes with the Kinect - the move is fine but just doesn't come close to the experience possible on the kinect. 4. Voice control 5. The system should be able to take my picture and make a 3d cgi representation of ME to put in any of its games. 6. Mobile phone continuation - meaning I should be able to start a game on my PS3 and continue it on the go on my VITA or whatever - or if there was an APP for that - I could use any phone. that would be cool 7. Make it faster and make sure the red light of death bs doesn't happen anymore - I'm on my 2nd ps3 because the first one fried. FU sony. Thats it for now. Thoughts? JF
Avatar image for lloveLamp
#28 Posted by lloveLamp (2891 posts) -
when people say this. i just remind them that they can keep playing the atari 2600 if they want.
Avatar image for gameofthering
#29 Posted by gameofthering (11140 posts) -

[QUOTE="aquaglow"]

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

Black_Knight_00

And when has that proved true this generation? The PS3 and Xbox 360 haven't had more complex and refined games, they've just had prettier graphics. If anything, the massive amounts of effort needed to satisfy the demand for photorealistic HD graphics take away time that could be spent making better games.

There hasn't been any game I can think of on the PS3/360 where the gameplay wouldn't have been possible to implement on the Wii.

Have you played Uncharted in comparison to last gen shooters? But any way, I think he means "potentially better"

It's hard to think of an example :(

Perhaps destructible environment's change the way in which some games are played.


E.g - Would Battlefield play any different on weaker hardware such as the original Playstation?

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#30 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Avatar image for wiouds
#31 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Bigboi500

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

Avatar image for jsmoke03
#32 Posted by jsmoke03 (13697 posts) -

i think a lot of people missed the point of this current gen.

someone mentioned that the definitive thing that this gen brought into gaming is graphical definition. i think all gen's do this so thats pretty pointless to say.

what it did though, is brought to us a generation with 2 things....standard for tight game controls and gaming mechanics (not game design) and a level of immersion not seen in games before. the first one is a blessing, the second one is what most people argue about....

1. while super nintendo mastered 2d platforming controls, the ps1 and ps2 were relatively clunky when it came to game controls and gaming mechanics. Wether it was the lack of horsepower on the hardware side, or the disc media just wouldn't allow for tighter controls and game mechanics that work. if you saw previous reviews, a lot of games shared this same problem. Nowadays, i'm surprised if i hear or play any game that had clunky controlls, or game mechanics that were broken (yes games like mass effect had their share of glitches in their vehicle section....but thats why i said that it brought a standard). i can appreciate that a lot.

2. immersion comes from the graphical output they are doing now. in the past, gaming consoles were limited in graphics...so gaming immersion had little to do with graphics or environments. off course there was resident evil and the like....but a lot of the immersion came from the gamers imagination, and fun factor of a game. a perfect example is fps. Doom was a great shooter, but i was caught up more with the intensity of the game but not immersed at all because of the really bad textures in the background. i mean i saw boxes lol. now everyone complaigns and b*tches about how mindless shooters are, but i think that cod4 did a lot to make me feel an ectual sense of war....it wasn't possible to get that from a ps2 games or even pc games like medal of honor:allied assault. now you can argue that this made the level of game design worse as in previous gen because most of the focus is on graphical immersion compared to game design....but thats subjective. Ive seen plenty of great games that were both pretty and fun. i thought games like uncharted, mass effect series, heavy rain (and don't try to say this is not a game but an interactive movie because past gen had dragons lair and adventure games like grim fandango and other point and click adventure) dragon age: origins (yea it wasnt pretty enough) and batman arkham series....

Avatar image for JayQproductions
#33 Posted by JayQproductions (1804 posts) -

I honestly think the PS4 will only be slighlty more powerful than the PS3 (pretty sure Sony said it won't be as big of a jump as PS2 was to PS3) and the main focus of the PS4 will be that they will make it easier to develop for because that has been the number 1 complaint from developers, most say it is a nightmare to develop for.

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#34 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

wiouds

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

You'd have the low end and high end. Sony and Microsoft are middle-of-the-road tech that does not much more than copy Nintendo. There systems don't sell as much as Nintendo's systems, and their platforms have basically become rehash makers for EA and Activision. Outside of a few random exclusives they really don't offer much more that can't be found better elsewhere.

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

Avatar image for wiouds
#35 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Bigboi500

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

You'd have the low end and high end. Sony and Microsoft are middle-of-the-road tech that does not much more than copy Nintendo. There systems don't sell as much as Nintendo's systems, and their platforms have basically become rehash makers for EA and Activision. Outside of a few random exclusives they really don't offer much more that can't be found better elsewhere.

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

I just have too many problem with the PC only for the top of the line games that I just don't like it. First off I not a big fan of DD. It just not as safe. Not including sales, it seems that the prices for DD only do not go do as far or as fast as physical copies.

The second problem is that PC just can not guarantee that high of a performance. I have just take a game that my computer meet or pass all of the recommendation for that game, and when I try to play it, it is slow or there are error in the game. The consoles bring a stable system for the game devopler to work off of.

Does consoleshave problems? Yes. That is why I want a consoles and PC in the market for the higher end game.

Avatar image for campzor
#36 Posted by campzor (34932 posts) -
its not just about 'realistic' its about what can be done on the system with more power.. more effects / tricks / features etc.. can make a game really good
Avatar image for El_Zo1212o
#37 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6054 posts) -
[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

More powerful hardware = better/new gameplay.

Jacanuk
This is a clear misconception of facts. More powerful hardware doesn't equal better or new gameplay.

Then how come open world action games weren't available on the Sega Saturn or Playstation?
Avatar image for deactivated-57e5de5e137a4
#38 Posted by deactivated-57e5de5e137a4 (12929 posts) -

Yers. More processing power = better AI, more characters on screen and in general, more systems within the game, faster loading... etc...

There's much more than just shinier graphics that can come from a faster console.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#39 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

S0lidSnake
Wiiu is the only console with a drastic new gameplay direction, though.....and I bet Sony and ms follow suit with the wiiu pad.
Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#40 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21116 posts) -
[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

Heirren
Wiiu is the only console with a drastic new gameplay direction, though.....and I bet Sony and ms follow suit with the wiiu pad.

They already have and no one cares
Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#41 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Buy a sh*tty Wii U if you want to stay in the past.

Let the rest of us move forward and use the latest technology.

And while you are at it, go back to dial up internet, stop using cellphones and use rotarary phones, and watch movies on a sh*tty CRT on VHS.

Black_Knight_00
Wiiu is the only console with a drastic new gameplay direction, though.....and I bet Sony and ms follow suit with the wiiu pad.

They already have and no one cares

No they didn't. The Move was an addition. Having a new scheme from the outset is completely different.
Avatar image for El_Zo1212o
#42 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6054 posts) -
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Heirren"] Wiiu is the only console with a drastic new gameplay direction, though.....and I bet Sony and ms follow suit with the wiiu pad.

They already have and no one cares

No they didn't. The Move was an addition. Having a new scheme from the outset is completely different.

I think he was referring to SmartGlass on the MS side, though I can't think of anything Sony side.
Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#43 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21116 posts) -
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Heirren"] Wiiu is the only console with a drastic new gameplay direction, though.....and I bet Sony and ms follow suit with the wiiu pad.

They already have and no one cares

No they didn't. The Move was an addition. Having a new scheme from the outset is completely different.

Smartglass and that PS Vita-PS3 link
Avatar image for BlendThree
#44 Posted by BlendThree (162 posts) -

In truth this very question has Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo quite nervous. It's been proven among insiders that there really hasn't been a generation-resetting advancement since the PS2 days. It was the world's collective switch from CRT televisions to high definition (plasmas, LCDs, LEDs et al) that warranted the generation we're currently in. It's no big secret that this has been an abnormally long generation because of this fact.

It was rumored among developers a couple of years ago that 3D televisions would be the innovation to usher in the next generation of consoles but that plan hasn't proven valid either. Don't be surprised if this gen keeps on going until some "big thing" comes along that forces gamers to upgrade.

Avatar image for Srbanator
#45 Posted by Srbanator (790 posts) -
People (Humans) are always looking for the next best thing, that's why MMO's work for example. A guy who likes corvettes does not need to replace his 6 year old model, but he would probably want the brand new model because it has more horsepower; same thing goes for the PS4 or any other console.
Avatar image for percuvius2
#46 Posted by percuvius2 (1982 posts) -

I agree no need for PS4 as the neXtBOX and PC will have you perfeclty covered. I know I won't be getting a PS4 after the debacle that was my ps3.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#47 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -
[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"] They already have and no one cares

No they didn't. The Move was an addition. Having a new scheme from the outset is completely different.

Smartglass and that PS Vita-PS3 link

Same difference. Those aren't the default setups, which is the important part.
Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#48 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Maybe the gaming world would be better off with no PS4 and no 720, just Wii U + handhelds/smartphones + gaming PCs.

Bigboi500

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

You'd have the low end and high end. Sony and Microsoft are middle-of-the-road tech that does not much more than copy Nintendo. There systems don't sell as much as Nintendo's systems, and their platforms have basically become rehash makers for EA and Activision. Outside of a few random exclusives they really don't offer much more that can't be found better elsewhere.

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

You're really let the fact that Nintendo won a single console generation (for the first time since Sony entered the market) go to your head. Your claims are especially curious given that the Wii has been outsold in various market by the X360 and the PS3 for the past year and a half or so. The Wii U looks to be following in the footsteps of the Wii, possibly minus the casual support (which given that it constituted 80% of Wii sales, is a big deal).

Contrary to your claim, Nintendo can and has misread the casual market before. Nintendo's Wiimote+ (and Sony's Move) revealed a misunderstanding of the casual market (both were made with the belief that casuals wanted more precision) but MS's Kinect read them correctly (it assumed they cared nothing about accuracy and wanted fewer buttons). Its not clear that the Wii U's tablet/controller mix (the most complicated controller yet release, one that goes against the design philosophy of the Wii) will capture the imaginatio of casuals.

Last but not least, due to the monomaniacal focus of many of the minority of the Wii's core gamers (most Wii owners are casuals) on Mario and Zelda, the market for games outside those franchises is miniscule. That coupled with the last gen hardware and simplified controller is why 3rd party developers with any amount of talent have either avoided or quickly abandoned the Wii and why Nintendo has offered up fewer new core franchises than ever before despite the fact that the Wii is their most successful console ever.

If third parties had no alternative but to deal with a publisher as actively hostile to third parties as Nintendo (who else openly talks smacks about indie developers, the sorts of people who make games like Journey, Minecraft and The Walking Dead?) then the console industry would die.

Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#49 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21116 posts) -
[QUOTE="Heirren"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="Heirren"] No they didn't. The Move was an addition. Having a new scheme from the outset is completely different.

Smartglass and that PS Vita-PS3 link

Same difference. Those aren't the default setups, which is the important part.

What does it matter? They do the same thing, more or less
Avatar image for El_Zo1212o
#50 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6054 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I do not see how having only the high end game being PC would make they gaming world better while I can see it hurting the gaming world even more. Can you tell how it would?

CarnageHeart

You'd have the low end and high end. Sony and Microsoft are middle-of-the-road tech that does not much more than copy Nintendo. There systems don't sell as much as Nintendo's systems, and their platforms have basically become rehash makers for EA and Activision. Outside of a few random exclusives they really don't offer much more that can't be found better elsewhere.

The next Sony and Microsoft consoles now seem nothing but a distant and half real rumor and if they ever do come out they'll either try to be as powerful as possible to try to keep up with the PC and be too expensive to sell well, or come out with weaker systems to try to appeal to casuals and make money in the market. They've already shown that they can't keep up with Nintendo in that department, and all they do is copy them and see fleeting success.

With only Nintendo and gaming PCs in the market you'd have developers who could be happy and make high-end software that caters only to one platform, without having to dumb it down to fit on pseudo-pcs. You'd also have Nintendo who does their own thing and makes hardware and software to fit their games.

You're really let the fact that Nintendo won a single console generation (for the first time since Sony entered the market) go to your head. Your claims are especially curious given that the Wii has been outsold in various market by the X360 and the PS3 for the past year and a half or so. The Wii U looks to be following in the footsteps of the Wii, possibly minus the casual support (which given that it constituted 80% of Wii sales, is a big deal).

Contrary to your claim, Nintendo can and has misread the casual market before. Nintendo's Wiimote+ (and Sony's Move) revealed a misunderstanding of the casual market (both were made with the belief that casuals wanted more precision) but MS's Kinect read them correctly (it assumed they cared nothing about accuracy and wanted fewer buttons). Its not clear that the Wii U's tablet/controller mix (the most complicated controller yet release, one that goes against the design philosophy of the Wii) will capture the imaginatio of casuals.

Last but not least, due to the monomaniacal focus of many of the minority of the Wii's core gamers (most Wii owners are casuals) on Mario and Zelda, the market for games outside those franchises is miniscule. That coupled with the last gen hardware and simplified controller is why 3rd party developers with any amount of talent have either avoided or quickly abandoned the Wii and why Nintendo has offered up fewer new core franchises than ever before despite the fact that the Wii is their most successful console ever.

If third parties had no alternative but to deal with a publisher as actively hostile to third parties as Nintendo (who else openly talks smacks about indie developers, the sorts of people who make games like Journey, Minecraft and The Walking Dead?) then the console industry would die.

People don't seem to get this part- Wii was a casual console. The whole point was to get the one-off demographic "casual gamer." It was a one-off because the casual gamer has no interest in upgrading to the bigger better thing. The Move and the Kinect failed in comparison because of that fact. The core gaming populace is now getting their turn with the Wii U(and I still think it was a big mistake associating the two consoles with the name Wii since their target audiences are so widely separated). Have you seen the Wii U pro controller? It's an Xbox 360 controller with symmetrical sticks and a solid D Pad. Wii U is really the antithesis of the Wii- targeting the core gamer and tossing scraps to the casual. When you reference the 80% casual userbase of the Wii as a point of worry for the Wii U, you completely ignore the fact that the Wii had very, VERY little to recommend itself to the core gamer. The only non Nintendo core games I can think of for the Wii were Red Steel 2 and Madworld, and by the time they rolled around, core gamers the world over had already written off the Wii as a casual-focused gimmick box. Wii U, on the other hand, is announcing games like Batman: Arkham City, Assassin's Creed 3, Aliens: Colonial Marines, and more. The Wii U is the opposite of the Wii in terms of the target demographic and the family friendly focus. Maybe the U stands for "U-turn"?