hey guys, just something to think about here. I have been sitting here at work looking at a poster of an xbox one and ps4 that the owner put on the wall, and I was just wondering if and when consoles were ever going to be good again?

obviously, I do not need to list off all the virtual extortion type bullshit that a lot of publishers like to push on us because I know all of you are very familiar with that and already have your mind made up on whether or not you like to give away your money for no reason. i also will not be mentioning remasters because it has been discussed time and time again and it is another issue that people have already decided whether they like it or not.

what i will mention for this post, however, relates more to the console manufacturer themselves, and what tactics they use to increase sales. one somewhat recent trend that i am beginning to despise are exclusive deals with third parties to get some piece of the game first on a specific console. it just strikes me as a very cheap way to set your console apart from the competition. the way it should be is that console manufacturers should work on their OWN content to set themselves apart from the competition. work on making compelling new experiences that are unavailable to your competitors. don't just throw money at somebody to lock content out of the other version of the game. 

something else i am beginning to hate is this idea of a console revision. In the past, it felt like console revisions took place out of necessity, but now it seems like it is something that everybody is expecting as a natural part of the console cycle. The PS2 had a much needed revision in the slim, whereas the xbox and gamecube didnt have a revision. They didnt really need a revision. The ps3 and 360 i could pass as needed revisions (ESPECIALLY the 360. the PS3 i am on the fence about. this revision involved an entire rebranding of the playstation brand itself so i can see how they needed that). The PS4 and X1 however, seem just fine. I dont see why they would need to revise these consoles any time in the next 3 to 4 years. As far as i know, the failure rate is very low. a revision for these consoles would be a cheap way to increase sales and people actually seem excited about it (why?). how would a revision of the consoles make them better? it isnt going to affect the gameplay or increase the output of games, so what is the point? i understand the x1 is ugly, but they should have taken more care when desigining it from the start. why should we reward a company for making an ugly console by purchasing the thing twice?

the basic point i am drawing from all these annoyances is that they are not game related. it seems like companies in the industry today are focused on making money in every possible way BESIDES making great games. Sure, there are some great games that still come out, but they are few and far between. big companies are strategizing how to make more money in ways that dont involve making compelling new games. doesnt this bother you guys? what is the point of being excited about a console revision for example when that doesnt do anything for the games themselves or improve the console in any way other than how it looks? it just comes off as a way to distract us and i feel like we are falling for it every time.

thoughts?

If people don't like it, they can easily opt out by not buying. Simple solution.

Ha, way to go me. I nailed the "guess who started the thread before you click on the link" challenge this time around.

Still, I get your point. How dare these for-profit businesses try to increase revenue and market share. I mean, it's not like it was back in the old days when ... uh, Nintendo forced developers to sign a contract stating that they would only develop games for Nintendo systems or they couldn't have their games on the system at all ... yeah, the good old days when console manufacturers were all sunshine and cats and skipped through the park holding hands with each other.

way to strawman my position there buddy. its not that companies were more benevolent back then, it was that their focus was making games in order to increase sales which is BETTER for the industry because it provides us consumers with more options. 

when nintendo forced developers to make games for their system only, it caused SEGA to make their own games in order to compete. while what nintendo did wasnt very nice, it made the competition about who can provide the best games in general. 

and congrats on guessing the thread creator. its always a good feeling.

well.. the discussion was about consoles afterall, but i believe that the DS could have used just one revision (the DS lite) because the original was horrendous, and the 3DS maybe could have used one revision in the new n3DS. handhelds are different than consoles by nature. 

and i agree that the wii u does have good games that are few and far between just like the ps4 and xbox one. all three are lacking in the games department if you ask me. 

@bolded - well, I was banned for ten days (deservedly so). :)

edit: and you know what? i didnt include wii u in the OP because it really isnt part of the discussion of the things im complaining about. nintendo doesnt work with third parties, nintendo isnt constantly bringing remastered wii ports to the wii u and offer day 1 dlc and i can go on and on. nintendo isnt a part of what is bothering me about the industry right now. and thats just my opinion.

For me this gens consoles are better than any other gen but with adult responsibilities and less time to enjoy games/ lack of real good games so far as in only a few, This gen has been pretty boring so far. Games are getting bigger in terms of time needed to play which is great but more time is needed. Consoles are great and once big name games like MGS and Fallout 4 come out the next en will eally start.

Hey hey hey!No one forced developers to sign anything. Yes, It was obligatory to sign that contract to release games on the NES but developers could have decided against it (developing on PC instead).

It's not like Nintendo held a gun on their heads and said: "YO BOY SIGN THAT SHIT BEFORE I BLOW YOUR BRAINS".

See, in the end it's the developers fault. Third parties = Evil.

When online gets free again console holders and Gamedevelopers give a damn about gamers and costumer again

I already think that they're good.

So you're saying buying (or even forcing) exclusive content is good?  Just not buying insignificant bits and pieces?  That's baaad and ruins consoles because ... well, I'm not sure of that part, as you seem to think that you can't pay Activision for a bit of fluff DLC and make your own games at the same time.  I'm pretty sure evidence is against you there.  Both Microsoft and Sony are working on plenty of first-party games.