By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Update: Polygon Source Info in OP - Kotaku: Xbox Slim This Year, More Powerful Xbox One In 2017, Future Titles to Release on XB/PC, Iterative boxes from now on

kowenicki said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Gross, if true. I've zero interest in iterative consoles.

If Microsoft wants to create slimmer models with more storage capacity, more power to them. But I can't follow the company down this path.

what is your problem with it?  Im genuinely interested.

Mostly because it strikes at the heart of one of the most essential qualities of a home console: the promise of stability. When I invest $300 or $400 in a console or portable, it comes with a guarantee that I'll be able to play a set of games for five or six years without needing to upgrade hardware. If I need to spend a significant amount of money every one or two years to keep up with the Joneses, then where is the difference between home consoles and the world of PC gaming?

My other issue, and it might sound anathema to some of my peers on the site, is the rationale behind the idea of an iterative console: that frequent advances in technology are necessary for the evolution of video game software. Personally, I don't buy it. I know console technology is lagging further and further behind PC tech, but, to me, that's fine. We hit a technological sweet spot years ago, and all the advances over the last decade haven't translated to better games.

Now, I'm no Luddite - I understand that video games are intimately connected with technology - but I resist the idea that the industry needs to push violently forward with resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc. I would much rather console manufacturers invest in more modest hardware, and spend several years exploring its potential. For that reason, I'd actually prefer ten year console cycles to two or three year cycles. Although, I admit I'm in the minority on that one.



Around the Network

I suppose I just don't really see the point of consoles in the scenario you're describing. It's becoming so much like the PC experience that I see little reason for that barrier to exist anymore, especially with things like the Steam box already blurring that line.

I'm sure Microsoft would like this development, though, as they could make a transition to combining the PC and console experience far, far easier than Sony or Nintendo could. To be frank I've long been surprised they haven't already attempted that.



spemanig said:
Soothsayer Spem, back at it again with another correct prediction.

Now we wait for Sony with PS Now and Nintendo with the smartconsole.

As far as I've seen, you've yet to explain what that actually means, beyond "Unlike any other console before it" and "Completely different" and "It'll be to consoles what the iPhone was to smartphones".

 

What does smart console mean to you? Specifics please (If you can give any)



Veknoid_Outcast said:
kowenicki said:

what is your problem with it?  Im genuinely interested.

Mostly because it strikes at the heart of one of the most essential qualities of a home console: the promise of stability. When I invest $300 or $400 in a console or portable, it comes with a guarantee that I'll be able to play a set of games for five or six years without needing to upgrade hardware. If I need to spend a significant amount of money every one or two years to keep up with the Joneses, then where is the difference between home consoles and the world of PC gaming?

My other issue, and it might sound anathema to some of my peers on the site, is the rationale behind the idea of an iterative console: that frequent advances in technology are necessary for the evolution of video game software. Personally, I don't buy it. I know console technology is lagging further and further behind PC tech, but, to me, that's fine. We hit a technological sweet spot years ago, and all the advances over the last decade haven't translated to better games.

Now, I'm no Luddite - I understand that video games are intimately connected with technology - but I resist the idea that the industry needs to push violently forward with resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc. I would much rather console manufacturers invest in more modest hardware, and spend several years exploring its potential. For that reason, I'd actually prefer ten year console cycles to two or three year cycles. Although, I admit I'm in the minority on that one.

Don't you see the stability of being able to play your games on the current console that you can still own for the next 5/6 years, but if by any chance you decide to upgrade, you won't need to sell or store your entire collection just to start from 0 all over again? how about the stability for developers to create a game not having to worry if there will be a generation transition in mid development? i mean... come on, just because a new version of the console exists it doesn't mean you need to go and pick it up. Since you're not worried about better resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc... why would you 'have' to buy the new version?

I keep hearing this common complain, from 1 side it's said they don't want to upgrade because it's pointless to have better image quality, but on the other side just because the same game is available in better quality they feel forced to buy it.

I'm just looking for a little bit of consistency here.



Generally good news but if all their future exclusives release on pc aswell then it will only encourage people to go the pc + ps4 route even more.

The VR thing shows me that AR is a pipe dream as of now and it's a reactive measure to Sony.



Around the Network

Good news, I'll be picking up the more powerful Xbone for sure.



setsunatenshi said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Mostly because it strikes at the heart of one of the most essential qualities of a home console: the promise of stability. When I invest $300 or $400 in a console or portable, it comes with a guarantee that I'll be able to play a set of games for five or six years without needing to upgrade hardware. If I need to spend a significant amount of money every one or two years to keep up with the Joneses, then where is the difference between home consoles and the world of PC gaming?

My other issue, and it might sound anathema to some of my peers on the site, is the rationale behind the idea of an iterative console: that frequent advances in technology are necessary for the evolution of video game software. Personally, I don't buy it. I know console technology is lagging further and further behind PC tech, but, to me, that's fine. We hit a technological sweet spot years ago, and all the advances over the last decade haven't translated to better games.

Now, I'm no Luddite - I understand that video games are intimately connected with technology - but I resist the idea that the industry needs to push violently forward with resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc. I would much rather console manufacturers invest in more modest hardware, and spend several years exploring its potential. For that reason, I'd actually prefer ten year console cycles to two or three year cycles. Although, I admit I'm in the minority on that one.

Don't you see the stability of being able to play your games on the current console that you can still own for the next 5/6 years, but if by any chance you decide to upgrade, you won't need to sell or store your entire collection just to start from 0 all over again? how about the stability for developers to create a game not having to worry if there will be a generation transition in mid development? i mean... come on, just because a new version of the console exists it doesn't mean you need to go and pick it up. Since you're not worried about better resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc... why would you 'have' to buy the new version?

I keep hearing this common complain, from 1 side it's said they don't want to upgrade because it's pointless to have better image quality, but on the other side just because the same game is available in better quality they feel forced to buy it.

I'm just looking for a little bit of consistency here.

Sorry, I don't follow. Where is the inconsistency?



Fap fap fap fap







VGChartz♥♥♥♥♥FOREVER

Xbone... the new "N" word   Apparently I troll MS now | Evidence | Evidence
Veknoid_Outcast said:
setsunatenshi said:

Don't you see the stability of being able to play your games on the current console that you can still own for the next 5/6 years, but if by any chance you decide to upgrade, you won't need to sell or store your entire collection just to start from 0 all over again? how about the stability for developers to create a game not having to worry if there will be a generation transition in mid development? i mean... come on, just because a new version of the console exists it doesn't mean you need to go and pick it up. Since you're not worried about better resolution, frame rate, lighting, physics, etc... why would you 'have' to buy the new version?

I keep hearing this common complain, from 1 side it's said they don't want to upgrade because it's pointless to have better image quality, but on the other side just because the same game is available in better quality they feel forced to buy it.

I'm just looking for a little bit of consistency here.

Sorry, I don't follow. Where is the inconsistency?

the inconsistency is:

A- better graphics, lighting, frame rate, etc is not important for me, I don't want to buy a new console just because of that

B- a new console that plays the exact same games simply with better graphics, lighting, frame rate, i feel forced to buy it

 

either being on the bleeding edge is important or it's not important, can't be both at the same time



Teeqoz said:
spemanig said:
Soothsayer Spem, back at it again with another correct prediction.

Now we wait for Sony with PS Now and Nintendo with the smartconsole.

As far as I've seen, you've yet to explain what that actually means, beyond "Unlike any other console before it" and "Completely different" and "It'll be to consoles what the iPhone was to smartphones".

 

What does smart console mean to you? Specifics please (If you can give any)

That's not even remotely true. I've done so literally dosens of times over the past two years in painstaking and redundant detail.

Here is my most recent post detailing some of it. If you think some things are unclear, its because I mentioned others in other posts in that thread. Read it all, but everyone, seriously stop saying that I've never explained what the NX and a smartconsole means, because I have. I have many, many, many, many times.