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

Forums - General - Do you really believe in "future proof"ing electronics?

 

Future proofing is a marketing ploy?

Yes 24 43.64%
 
No 25 45.45%
 
WUT? 6 10.91%
 
Total:55
Slimebeast said:
Soleron said:

...

Great post. It was an eye-opener a few years ago when I realized that the performance of desktops and laptops suddenly had reached the level where the average consumer needs are perfectly satisfied. Same with HD TV. Only a very small niche will crave for 4K.

But I disagree about video game graphics. I really can't even imagine the plateau there. Now someone might say that Avatar quality graphics are almost  around the corner but then I'll say I want fully destructible Avatar graphics in huge worlds with interactive environments like in real life.

So our GPUs really need to become 100 times (if not 1000) faster than a 680GTX until we reach that level.

Plateau in what the average consumer requires of graphics, not best possible.

As long as a game looks like a good 360/PS3 game (i.e. 2005 era PC graphics), no one will actually be dissuaded from buying it due to that.

Plus seriously, game companies don't have the budget to make it look better than that for all but the highest selling games. Until we can scan IRL objects in and use raytracing on them that won't change.



Around the Network
Soleron said:
Slimebeast said:
Soleron said:

...

Great post. It was an eye-opener a few years ago when I realized that the performance of desktops and laptops suddenly had reached the level where the average consumer needs are perfectly satisfied. Same with HD TV. Only a very small niche will crave for 4K.

But I disagree about video game graphics. I really can't even imagine the plateau there. Now someone might say that Avatar quality graphics are almost  around the corner but then I'll say I want fully destructible Avatar graphics in huge worlds with interactive environments like in real life.

So our GPUs really need to become 100 times (if not 1000) faster than a 680GTX until we reach that level.

Plateau in what the average consumer requires of graphics, not best possible.

As long as a game looks like a good 360/PS3 game (i.e. 2005 era PC graphics), no one will actually be dissuaded from buying it due to that.

Plus seriously, game companies don't have the budget to make it look better than that for all but the highest selling games. Until we can scan IRL objects in and use raytracing on them that won't change.

Yes, we are definitely on our way to that demand plateu and by each console gen significantly less gamers are choosing graphics as being the difference maker for a purchase decision. On that I agree. Nintendo definitely made the correct analysis.

It depends on how you define a demand plateau. If let's say in last gen 75% of core gamers had their mouths dripping when they got a glimpse of current gen graphics, and that number has fallen to only 40-50% of core gamers being wowed by the UE4 demo, then we sure are trending towards a demand plateau, but I personally think that there's still a lot of gamers who value improved graphics to the level that it justifies these substantial leaps in hardware power that console gens bring.



Slimebeast said:
...

Yes, we are definitely on our way to that demand plateu and by each console gen significantly less gamers are choosing graphics as being the difference maker for a purchase decision. On that I agree. Nintendo definitely made the correct analysis.

It depends on how you define a demand plateau. If let's say in last gen 75% of core gamers had their mouths dripping when they got a glimpse of current gen graphics, and that number has fallen to only 40-50% of core gamers being wowed by the UE4 demo, then we sure are trending towards a demand plateau, but I personally think that there's still a lot of gamers who value improved graphics to the level that it justifies these substantial leaps in hardware power that console gens bring.

I was happy with Mario Sunshine ten years ago, I can't really gauge what the market wants.

If I'm right though it'll be fun to watch the gaming market crash and burn at the start of next gen though, because all the devs and even Nintendo are stil in the MOAR GRAPHICS!!!!1one11!!1eleven mode.



Soleron said:
Slimebeast said:
...

Yes, we are definitely on our way to that demand plateu and by each console gen significantly less gamers are choosing graphics as being the difference maker for a purchase decision. On that I agree. Nintendo definitely made the correct analysis.

It depends on how you define a demand plateau. If let's say in last gen 75% of core gamers had their mouths dripping when they got a glimpse of current gen graphics, and that number has fallen to only 40-50% of core gamers being wowed by the UE4 demo, then we sure are trending towards a demand plateau, but I personally think that there's still a lot of gamers who value improved graphics to the level that it justifies these substantial leaps in hardware power that console gens bring.

I was happy with Mario Sunshine ten years ago, I can't really gauge what the market wants.

If I'm right though it'll be fun to watch the gaming market crash and burn at the start of next gen though, because all the devs and even Nintendo are stil in the MOAR GRAPHICS!!!!1one11!!1eleven mode.

I was happy with super mario on the snes. I'm however not all that happy with Skyrim's performance on the ps3, or long loading times, install times, sub 720p, screen tear, popup, single digit framerates etc. That might also be a reason why arcade games have become more popular, faster to start, more stable, and ofcourse price.



no becasue Sony likes to use that term a lot

 

edit: ahhh beaten lol



Around the Network
kowenicki said:
ultima said:
kowenicki said:

exactly...its a bogus phrase.

it is marketing ploy. thats why i ticked that box in the poll.

btw i can buy a 4k tv today.... so the PS3 wasn't future proof.

You're just arguing semantics. By your definition, "future proof" is a term that can never be fulfilled, and hence should never be used. The fact is, by common definition, if you bought a DVD player in 1998, you were future proof, if you bought a Blu-ray player in 2006, you were future proof, just like if you buy a third generation i7 now you're future proof.

Thats the whole point of the thread! lol

It is asking if it is a marketing ploy.... it is.  The term should never be used.

It is most definitely a marketing ploy and I believe it can never be fulfilled where CERTAIN electronics (which strangely enough are the exact type of electronics this phrase is almost always asscociated with) are concerned, unless you fool yourself into believing it can be.

I can argue the DVD and Blu-Ray examples given by Ultima.

I bought a DVD player in the late 90s that couldn't play certain DVDs. I can't remember for sure but I think it was Dual Layer DVDs. Whatever it was the Ben Hur DVD (among others) didn't work on it but worked fine on a later DVD player.

I bought a Blu-Ray player for my PC (not in 2006 but not that long ago) that will be unable to read the larger capacity, soon to be released new BR disc. No firmware update is going to fix it either according to the manufacturers. Don't know about the living room BR players but I don't see why they can't have the same problem.

Ultimately it comes down to your definition of "future proof". My definition is that a certain device bought can handle anything thrown at it in the future, in other words have all the functions and be just as capable as the ones that come out years later are. I don't see this happening.                                                      Note: I am not talking washing machines or a coffe-maker.

The other way to look at is this. Earlier this year I bought a digital SLR camera and was told by the salesman it was "future proof". I know that the future holds faster and larger SD cards that it might not be able to use, faster processors etc., but I suppose he meant or I think that he meant that as I bought it to take pictures it is future proof because it can take as good a picture as any other similar type and priced camera in the future. Maybe that was his definition of future proof.

Maybe he has a point but the way the term is thrown around at ever changing electronic it should be dropped., like Cisco's definition of a Lifetime guarantee the IT bloke was moaning about the other day.



kowenicki said:
ultima said:
kowenicki said:

exactly...its a bogus phrase.

it is marketing ploy. thats why i ticked that box in the poll.

btw i can buy a 4k tv today.... so the PS3 wasn't future proof.

You're just arguing semantics. By your definition, "future proof" is a term that can never be fulfilled, and hence should never be used. The fact is, by common definition, if you bought a DVD player in 1998, you were future proof, if you bought a Blu-ray player in 2006, you were future proof, just like if you buy a third generation i7 now you're future proof.

Thats the whole point of the thread! lol

It is asking if it is a marketing ploy.... it is.  The term should never be used.

Nah, man. I don't think anybody reasonable will have the expectation that if they buy a piece of technology that's marketed to be "future-proof", they'll be able to use it forever and ever without it becoming obsolete. They'll simply know that they'll be able to use it for a long time without it becoming obsolete.