| Aeolus451 said: If you give western devs smaller windows which to launch games, the more likely they will be buggy because they wouldn't want to delay it versus taking the time to fix it. Japanese devs manage to make a game that works like it's supposed to on less budget with a smaller team but it takes longer to make. Skyrim was buggy because it's a bethesda game and they never take the time to polish their games smooth. it has nothing to do with them pushing the limits of the console. It has everything to do with them being lazy as a dev and just wanting to push their product to market asap. Why do you think they're gonna let pc mods work on consoles? Free patches. If people want more scenarios like the batman arkham knight pc version than keep pushing for shorter gens. What happens when a game should be delayed for polishing but can't be because of it's narrow launch window? Release it anyway and shrug off the complaints. I see no point in trying to mirror nintendo's average console life spans when they don't even use the best hardware at the time and they rarely dominate the gens anymore. Perhaps one of the reasons why third parties don't like putting their games on nintendo consoles so much is because of the console gens being so short. Nintendo should keep doing what it's doing for the most part. If someone wants high end graphics consistently, choose pc. Consoles are not for you. |
Yet none of the launch games were riddled with bugs... It's all about budgeting your time correctly and avoiding feature creep whether you end up behind schedule with a buggy release.
Skyrim was buggy because of the legacy save system costing too much memory as the changelog kept growing over time. Sure call them lazy for not rewriting the entire world engine code. They should have cut down the graphics which they did in later patches trying to free up memory.
Batman Arkam knight works very well on console. Not sure what the botched pc release has to do with shorter console cycles. The PC version should have been delayed, like most PC releases come after the console release. Getting something to run well on hundreds of GPU/CPU combinations is more work than 1 specific hardware target, no big shocker there.
3rd parties don't like Nintendo consoles because it takes too much work to port down to weaker hardware. Plus the small install base and 3rd party games generally not selling well on Nintendo makes it not worth the effort.
Shorter console cycles have nothing do do with consistent high end graphics. The new hardware also gives room for better physics, AI, bigger worlds, which can lead to new gameplay opportunities. For years PC gamers have been complaining consoles were holding PC games back. So wouldn't shorter cycles be beneficial for PC games too?
Last gen was too long. Console software sales declined, GPU sales increased, indicating a shift from consoles to PC. People gave up waiting for new consoles and you might as well wait a year to get a game in a Steam sale if new stuff isn't any better anyway. It might be a smarter cheaper way to play games, not good for the gaming industry anyway.
