By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast said:
CGI-Quality said:

Since I see the 8th generation as a bit of "stop-gap", I'm a little torn. Meaning, I'm for AND against this idea... if you will.

For, because, while the PS4 and X1 are very capable machines, they feel like mere continuations of what was there before, rather than a full blown new generation. Now as Veknoid put it, more polygons (soon to all be NURBS, anyway)/better lighting/graphics hasn't, necessarily, turned projects into better games. So either the ambition is lost on devs (highly unlikely), they weren't given the kind of power necessary to make full blown leaps (also unlikely), or something else has to give.

Now, where I'm against this idea? Again as Veknoid put it: stability. I want consoles that will last me for at least 4-5 years. I buy new PC parts to upgrade more frequently. I know some will say "yeah, but you're not forced to upgrade consoles". True, but if I want the best of the best, I'd have to buy new hardware (just as I do on PC).

Will be interesting to watch unfold.

Yeah, it would be better if they launched the next gen, 9th gen, a couple of years earlier instead of artificially extending this gen with these upgrades. Because I feel the upgraded machines are kind of a half-measure since the extra computing power won't be utilized very well as the games must run well on the base level console. For example, VR really needs the extra power of Neo and Jaguar (or Tiger? what animal was it?) to run well, but they can't split the userbase so they must develop the games to run with 60fps or 90 fps on the base level consoles too. So there's gonna be wasted potential. And stability like you guys said. Think about the stress some people will feel when the new consoles come out and split the audience.

Full blown leaps, that's what gamers want.

How will that split happen if the same games can be played in those two tiered systems? Like B/C games on Xbox 1 and X360; or PC games.