Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Xbox One Vs Ps4

DM72

By DM72
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Mr. Sinister

Mr. Sinister

Posted
Posted

I think this will be a short generation, not nearly as long as PS3/360 lasted.

 

I've always thought about the technological endgame when it comes to videogames. Where are we going? The logical conclusion seems to be VR.

 

I really think that videogames will price themselves out. The processing capability these things have is probably just too expensive to keep consoles at their current price range. Maybe envision a PS6 or something, for $800-$900, and $70 games. And to be honest, if it was backwards compatible with every PS1-4 game, I would gladly pay for it. But I'm sure it won't be.

 

I dunno. I'm a n00b when it comes to discussing stuff like that, but just figured I'd throw it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Momma There Goes That Man

Momma There Goes That Man

Posted
Posted

I've always thought about the technological endgame when it comes to videogames. Where are we going? The logical conclusion seems to be VR.

 

I really think that videogames will price themselves out. The processing capability these things have is probably just too expensive to keep consoles at their current price range. Maybe envision a PS6 or something, for $800-$900, and $70 games. And to be honest, if it was backwards compatible with every PS1-4 game, I would gladly pay for it. But I'm sure it won't be.

 

I dunno. I'm a n00b when it comes to discussing stuff like that, but just figured I'd throw it out there.

 

I agree pretty much. I'm honestly at the point where I don't really need much better graphics than what we are getting now. It seems like that's where the focus is on with each new machine. I'm more interested in how the technology improves AI, # or characters on screen and creates more immersive storytelling and gameplay opportunities. 

 

So they should have created consoles that were top of the line spec'd and could last a long time even at a much higher price point and use that extra power to bring creative new games and ideas to the table in addition to better graphics. Instead, we got middle of the road specs that were obsolete before they even shipped to the stores at launch. And now, we have 2 years worth of remasters and a handful of games that were already created last gen with slightly better graphics and bigger worlds. 

 

I would love to move to a VR environment for gaming but I have my doubts that would ever be mainstream enough to replace our standard consoles and nab the AAA titles. Perhaps Packer can better speak to that since one of his buddies is involved with Oculus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Sinister

Mr. Sinister

Posted
Posted

Thats what I'm thinking... VR prices itself out of the majority market. Then for the majority, we stay with the same graphics for the long haul, improving substance/framerates. Maybe, god willing, even full backwards compatibility.

 

The next 8-10 years are going to be very interesting


Maybe that brings back older concepts, like the arcade (expensive VR simulators), and a situation like you described, where visually outdoing the opposition goes by the wayside, and high level developers bring the focus back to innovations, and not raping/dumbing down their consumers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted

I agree pretty much. I'm honestly at the point where I don't really need much better graphics than what we are getting now. It seems like that's where the focus is on with each new machine. I'm more interested in how the technology improves AI, # or characters on screen and creates more immersive storytelling and gameplay opportunities.

I mostly agree on this front. Uber-graphics have become too much of a focus lately while gameplay has stagnated for a lot of the leading (especially Western) publishers. Takes no ingenuity to just pump up graphics.

 

So they should have created consoles that were top of the line spec'd and could last a long time even at a much higher price point and use that extra power to bring creative new games and ideas to the table in addition to better graphics. Instead, we got middle of the road specs that were obsolete before they even shipped to the stores at launch. And now, we have 2 years worth of remasters and a handful of games that were already created last gen with slightly better graphics and bigger worlds.

And on this point I am going to have to disagree. The whole point of consoles is that they're supposed to be affordable dedicated gaming machines that you just plug and play. The more expensive you make them, the more one begins to wonder "Why am I not just putting this money into an ultra-powerful PC?". I'd make the argument that last generation, the PS3 and Xbox 360 were too powerful/expensive (and I wouldn't argue if you said the Wii wasn't powerful enough, but we may disagree on how much). These consoles cost exorbitant amounts of money and were STILL sold at a loss; that tells me that they were too powerful, and I think people look at this generation and compare it to last and are disappointed in the perceived lack of leap because the consoles are a bit more reasonable, which combined with the unreasonable consoles the previous generation makes for a limited-seeming jump in hardware.

There's nothing stopping developers from bringing new ideas to the table that couldn't be done last gen, I think we're seeing once again that they'd prefer to focus on putting the console's power towards graphics instead. It doesn't take ultra powerful hardware to be able to new things, it takes brilliant people who can look at what they have available and create something new out of it. I absolutely love Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy of "lateral thinking with withered technology". And of course there's also the idea that constraints breed innovation. How many brilliant game designs would we have missed out on back in the day if the developers hadn't come across constraints that required them to re-think their design and come up with an incredible idea? As for all the remasters, blame your fellow consumers as their continued graphics-whoring is creating the market for these games immediately getting remade.

 

I would love to move to a VR environment for gaming but I have my doubts that would ever be mainstream enough to replace our standard consoles and nab the AAA titles. Perhaps Packer can better speak to that since one of his buddies is involved with Oculus.

*founder

but that connection doesn't make me an expert on the subject (and I haven't gotten much insider info in awhile :(), however picking his brain has helped to give me a good knowledge base.

I can see VR becoming mainstream, but it will be a little ways down the line when a more standard computer will be capable of running VR properly. As for it being a replacement? I'd argue absolutely not. VR is different, not better. It should be something that comes in and adds more options to the gaming industry, not replace the existing market. You're not gonna want to play Mario in VR, but I'm sure it'll be really popular with shooters and space sims (Star Citizen in proper VR might be kinda amazing)

Thats what I'm thinking... VR prices itself out of the majority market. Then for the majority, we stay with the same graphics for the long haul, improving substance/framerates. Maybe, god willing, even full backwards compatibility.

The VR hardware itself likely won't be too bad; I think people would happily pay that price for what it brings. The real issue at this point is the graphics horsepower you need to do VR right.

Maybe that brings back older concepts, like the arcade (expensive VR simulators), and a situation like you described, where visually outdoing the opposition goes by the wayside, and high level developers bring the focus back to innovations, and not raping/dumbing down their consumers

Before Oculus went big, Palmer had ideas to possibly start a VR arcade.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bacon

Bacon

Posted
Posted
 

I mostly agree on this front. Uber-graphics have become too much of a focus lately while gameplay has stagnated for a lot of the leading (especially Western) publishers. Takes no ingenuity to just pump up graphics.

 

Perhaps the next generation will involve a leap in storytelling and gameplay because, yeah, I agree. There are a lot of shallow games out there right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Momma There Goes That Man

Momma There Goes That Man

Posted
Posted

And on this point I am going to have to disagree. The whole point of consoles is that they're supposed to be affordable dedicated gaming machines that you just plug and play. The more expensive you make them, the more one begins to wonder "Why am I not just putting this money into an ultra-powerful PC?". I'd make the argument that last generation, the PS3 and Xbox 360 were too powerful/expensive (and I wouldn't argue if you said the Wii wasn't powerful enough, but we may disagree on how much). These consoles cost exorbitant amounts of money and were STILL sold at a loss; that tells me that they were too powerful, and I think people look at this generation and compare it to last and are disappointed in the perceived lack of leap because the consoles are a bit more reasonable, which combined with the unreasonable consoles the previous generation makes for a limited-seeming jump in hardware.

There's nothing stopping developers from bringing new ideas to the table that couldn't be done last gen, I think we're seeing once again that they'd prefer to focus on putting the console's power towards graphics instead. It doesn't take ultra powerful hardware to be able to new things, it takes brilliant people who can look at what they have available and create something new out of it. I absolutely love Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy of "lateral thinking with withered technology". And of course there's also the idea that constraints breed innovation. How many brilliant game designs would we have missed out on back in the day if the developers hadn't come across constraints that required them to re-think their design and come up with an incredible idea? As for all the remasters, blame your fellow consumers as their continued graphics-whoring is creating the market for these games immediately getting remade.

 

Because PCs still aren't convenient or accessible for most gamers and they don't have all the exclusive titles that they have loved and grown up with over their lifetime. Especially if you make that console backwards compatible, consumers are still going to want it at a higher price point over a PC.  

 

You're probably right about the comparison to last gen pricing and power compared to the current gen. 

 

While nothing is ever stopping innovation in gaming outside of leadership's priorities and the creativity of the staff, I think a powerful console grants them a bigger canvas to paint on in that regard. If it comes down to top graphics or innovative gameplay designs, they are taking the graphics every time because it sells. So give them enough for both. I'm sure we'd have to adjust production schedules to accommodate but the result would be worth it. Then it just becomes a money issue which is obviously why it would never happen. Now, they'd probably just spend all that added power on graphics anyway and we'd be right back here again. 

 

All the remasters do bother me but I guess I shouldn't say anything since I own TLOU, Resident Evil and the Master Chief Collection and would gladly pay $100 for the Mass Effect trilogy remastered. However, most of that (outside of RE) is because I no longer have the means to play those games. So backwards compatibility in a console is big to me. 

 

*founder

but that connection doesn't make me an expert on the subject (and I haven't gotten much insider info in awhile :(), however picking his brain has helped to give me a good knowledge base.

I can see VR becoming mainstream, but it will be a little ways down the line when a more standard computer will be capable of running VR properly. As for it being a replacement? I'd argue absolutely not. VR is different, not better. It should be something that comes in and adds more options to the gaming industry, not replace the existing market. You're not gonna want to play Mario in VR, but I'm sure it'll be really popular with shooters and space sims (Star Citizen in proper VR might be kinda amazing)

Founder, my bad. I agree VR isn't a good fit for every game but just having it as a peripheral to a console doesn't seem ideal either because then we are just left with repeated $500 consoles with slight upgrades. It's a cruel cycle, maybe that's just it. Technology has no where else to grow like it did from the 8/16/32 bit era to 3D to HD to now. 

 

And maybe that was the point of the original post on the last page. Where are we going here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted

Because PCs still aren't convenient or accessible for most gamers and they don't have all the exclusive titles that they have loved and grown up with over their lifetime. Especially if you make that console backwards compatible, consumers are still going to want it at a higher price point over a PC.

Could you clarify what you mean about PCs not being convenient or accessible? As for exclusive titles, that's the same when considering any platform Choose a PS4 and you're foregoing the XBone and Wii U exclusives and so on. Thing is, though, much like the PS4 and Xbone get a lot of the same games, the PC gets most of those same games, plus it also has it's own exclusives. And as far as backwards compatibility goes, well PC does a pretty good job of that (although I'm not sure I'd use the term backwards compatibility since it's pretty much the same platform just upgraded)

 

You're probably right about the comparison to last gen pricing and power compared to the current gen.

Of course I'm right :)

 

While nothing is ever stopping innovation in gaming outside of leadership's priorities and the creativity of the staff, I think a powerful console grants them a bigger canvas to paint on in that regard. If it comes down to top graphics or innovative gameplay designs, they are taking the graphics every time because it sells. So give them enough for both. I'm sure we'd have to adjust production schedules to accommodate but the result would be worth it. Then it just becomes a money issue which is obviously why it would never happen. Now, they'd probably just spend all that added power on graphics anyway and we'd be right back here again.

You seem to have initially disagreed with me but then come to realize the wisdom in my words as you were writing it out realizing that regardless of the canvas size, they'll keep putting that whole canvas into moar graphix. Seriously, though, I don't see the point in a game console that costs as much as a PC and attempts to be more than a game console instead of just being a really good game console.

 

All the remasters do bother me but I guess I shouldn't say anything since I own TLOU, Resident Evil and the Master Chief Collection and would gladly pay $100 for the Mass Effect trilogy remastered. However, most of that (outside of RE) is because I no longer have the means to play those games. So backwards compatibility in a console is big to me.

A pox upon your house.

 

Founder, my bad. I agree VR isn't a good fit for every game but just having it as a peripheral to a console doesn't seem ideal either because then we are just left with repeated $500 consoles with slight upgrades. It's a cruel cycle, maybe that's just it. Technology has no where else to grow like it did from the 8/16/32 bit era to 3D to HD to now.

Well it's not proper for this generation of consoles, I don't think; they're just not powerful enough for VR. There's still plenty of room for technology to grow, it just might not in the way it had been. I'm on board with Nintendo's strategy of trying to change the way we interact with games.

 

And maybe that was the point of the original post on the last page. Where are we going here?

We're ****ting on the industry for being bland an unoriginal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gamebreaker

Gamebreaker

Posted
Posted

Time to play state of decay again

 

 I downloaded it on Tuesday but I haven't played yet. Once I reach lvl 3 rank in Iron Banner on Destiny I will start it up. 

What is the multi-player like? Similar to DayZ?

 

This one is a remaster of the original on 360/PC. The sequel should be coming out next year, that one will have co-op. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted

I don't even know what a good budget for a rig is? I saved a link to IGN that outlines a lot of stuff so I'm going to do some heavy reading.

Not sure I'd trust what IGN has to say about PCs. I still remember when they claimed to have built a Wii U by throwing some cheap PC parts together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zazzaro703

Zazzaro703

Posted
Posted

Just make sure all the parts play nice with each other. You can get some good pre built deals a cyberpowerpc.com as well. You might pay an extra $100 for them to put it together for you which is worth it if you really do not know what you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted

I used to have a top end gaming PC and it's amazing how much better everything looks on PC, but I also like being able to play console on my couch on a big screen.

More PC game makers need to integrate gamepad support (and I mean HID/SDL, not just microsoft's proprietary Xinput ya jerks!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...