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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Did we REALLY need or want a new generation of consoles?

Captain_Tom on 08 May 2014

Yes. I'm really not sure what else I could ad besides that lol. It is just so damn obvious.



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 08 May 2014
Nem said:
The answer is not really, despite what some hardcore will tell you here, wich is their vision.

Tech wise there isnt a huge evolution that can be perceived by the human eye. The average consumer cant tell the difference and doesnt like purchasing multiple consoles. I know of people that have bought Wii's and PS3's last year.
The hardcore though, were eager to see something new. This wont last though. As diminishing returns become bigger between generations, the high the chance that the market will collapse on itself. People just wont see the value on buying a new product for hundreads of euros/dollars for something they can hardly comprehend.

I am convinced that we might only have one more gen after this new one, if at all. Streaming is the way, not because its more convenient or better, but because there isnt a logic support to the purchase decision of a new console. I'm certainly not looking forward to it.

Gaming is inherently Niche. The average consumer you describe was a lot less likely to be part of the market a few gens ago. While I doubt that we will even see another gen after this one. This one was clearly overdue. Technology has clearly advanced since last generation, especially when every other field of technology has significantly advanced multiple times in the same time span.

Diminishing returns is inevitable and unstoppable, I wouldn't be suprised if this gen lasted longer then last one. Those calling last gen a fluke in terms of length have nothing to stand on because the trend is against them.

Newness is irrelevant, its just a crutch for actual improvement. Convience and Improvement are what matter now cause the newness is not a renewable resource.

Mario 64 for example wasn't influential simply because it was new, but mainly because it was new and done well. Their were many 3d games before it.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Nem on 08 May 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Nem said:
The answer is not really, despite what some hardcore will tell you here, wich is their vision.

Tech wise there isnt a huge evolution that can be perceived by the human eye. The average consumer cant tell the difference and doesnt like purchasing multiple consoles. I know of people that have bought Wii's and PS3's last year.
The hardcore though, were eager to see something new. This wont last though. As diminishing returns become bigger between generations, the high the chance that the market will collapse on itself. People just wont see the value on buying a new product for hundreads of euros/dollars for something they can hardly comprehend.

I am convinced that we might only have one more gen after this new one, if at all. Streaming is the way, not because its more convenient or better, but because there isnt a logic support to the purchase decision of a new console. I'm certainly not looking forward to it.

Gaming is inherently Niche. The average consumer you describe was a lot less likely to be part of the market a few gens ago. While I doubt that we will even see another gen after this one. This one was clearly overdue. Technology has clearly advanced since last generation, especially when every other field of technology has significantly advanced multiple times in the same time span.

Diminishing returns is inevitable and unstoppable, I wouldn't be suprised if this gen lasted longer then last one. Those calling last gen a fluke in terms of length have nothing to stand on because the trend is against them.

Newness is irrelevant, its just a crutch for actual improvement. Convience and Improvement are what matter now cause the newness is not a renewable resource.

Mario 64 for example wasn't influential simply because it was new, but mainly because it was new and done well. Their were many 3d games before it.


That makes sense in regards to the generation beeing longer. That would allow for a more perceivable improvement on the following gen and would allow the technology to achieve more acceptable prices for the perceived jump.

I definitly think you are right there in theory. But we have seen Microsoft rushing a gen before. I think that if they are losing and not selling the division they will try to rush the next cycle in, much to the probably cost of the whole console hardware industry.



Raze on 10 May 2014
Nem said:
The answer is not really, despite what some hardcore will tell you here, wich is their vision.

Tech wise there isnt a huge evolution that can be perceived by the human eye. The average consumer cant tell the difference and doesnt like purchasing multiple consoles. I know of people that have bought Wii's and PS3's last year.
The hardcore though, were eager to see something new. This wont last though. As diminishing returns become bigger between generations, the high the chance that the market will collapse on itself. People just wont see the value on buying a new product for hundreads of euros/dollars for something they can hardly comprehend.

I am convinced that we might only have one more gen after this new one, if at all. Streaming is the way, not because its more convenient or better, but because there isnt a logic support to the purchase decision of a new console. I'm certainly not looking forward to it.

This is the best argument for the "NO" response, as the jump in technology wasn't as big of a factor as going from standard def (PS2) to HD (PS3) and the other company equivalents.  The market has reached peak volume with Nintendo getting a lot of non-traditional gamers aboard with the Wii, who they then forgot about with the Wii U. The overall market numbers are on track to be a lot lower than last gen, which is going to scare away a lot of investors, along with DOOM articles about the gaming industry overall.

 

 

 

SpongyFondue said:
Yes. The last gen for the most part was 32 bit and that carried a lot of limitations. I tend to mod my games and beacue of the 32 bit limitation sometimes you need to activate Large Adress Aware. It's a royal pain in the ass and now games coming up should be 64 bit, that eliminates the need to use stuff like LAA.

 

----------------------------
This is the best argument for the YES responses. It seems everyone else is just part of the "we want it because we want it" answer. I can agree to that, as an IT person, that jumping to 64-bit platforms opens a lot more options for programmers.

 



The Carnival of Shadows - Folk Punk from Asbury Park, New Jersey

http://www.thecarnivalofshadows.com 


Chasesdaddy84 on 11 May 2014
d21lewis said:
Chasesdaddy84 said:
This happens EVERY generation. and its always slightly annoying when people point this out. The transitional phase from one gen to the next ALWAYS overlaps. It's how things have always been.


You say that but this is the first time I agree with the naysayers.  There was always something awe inspiring at launch.  Even the Dreamcast seemed amazing when I first saw what it could do.

I must say I agree to a point. This gen at launch really lacked the "buzz" .. I know I know PS4 and X One had like the best launches ever... maybe it's just me.. but it didn't really get me excited at all. I don't own any next Gen because right now I get plenty from (last?) gen. So I totally agree with you. Heck I remember getting so psyched when I saw the dreamcast!!! GD-Rom discs?!?! What is this witchcraft??!! I remember thinking that and I had to get my hands on it lol