0D0 said:
CosmicSex said:
Where does this leave Nintendo launching a console next year? I mean, now they are gonna have to have a decently powerful console. Right?
|
Nintendo will have to live with a console that only has 1st party titles. It means that it's basicaly going to be a Wii U 2.
So Nintendo will make money from amiibo/mobile next generation....
Nautilus said:
oh boy oh boy, I hope this is not true....
By that I mean the itineration idea.This works with phones because its a veryyy different type of market and phones have a much wider reach than videogames.If they are going down this route(I hate to be this type of guy) I can only see doom for, at the very least, the console part.
And if the GPU rumor is true, and it will be able to support the Oculus, how much is this machine is going to cost?800+ dollars? |
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. |
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.
|
Yes, I don't want it. I want to buy a machine that I'm sure that will run tons of games for many years.
Microsoft will end up forcing us to keep upgrading.
|
Nah, they wont succeed.There is a really good reason that people like consoles:their ease to use.You dont have to worry about upgrading it or the game not running on it because you are not up to date.Thats why it sells so well with casuals.If this is made, casuals wont upgrade the console.It will actually have the reverse effect:they will get burned by it, and wont buy products for it anymore.And the hardcore gamers that want to be always with the cutting edge tecnology is already playing at the PC.They wont go to consoles because they are now upgradable.
Plus, there were someone saying that this is good for the costumer.Again, wrong.Eventually, there is going to be a need for a PS5 or a XBoxTwo.For as much as upgrade you can do, eventually the base model holding it all togheter wont catch up to the upgraded GPU, memorys and whatnot.So you will eventually need to "throw away" that console you spend hundred and hundreds of dollars eventually and make a generational leap.In the end, you just spend more money for a few extra lightining effects.
I see two situations:Either this will backfire on Microsoft(and Sony, since they seem to be doing the same), or this whole situation is not as it seems, its not everything these rumours promise.
