JoseTheTaco
Banned
I can't wait seeing this thread ten years from now and seeing how wrong everyone including this dude are
Xbox and PlayStation Must Change Form to Survive, Twitch Boss Says
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
Cheat Code
Member
Aren't they owned by a company with a set top box?
JoseTheTaco
Banned
This too
SneakyStephan
Banned
Proprietary hardware platforms can fuck off and die tbh.
The only benifit they had was subsidised hardware and you don't even get that anymore.
the problem is that they'll just be replaced by proprietary software platforms...It'll still be a walled garden.
You'll still be paying 60-70 bucks for a game, still be paying online fees, still have 0 control over the games (no mods,no save file access,no server builds, nothing)
MS has been trying (and failing, thankfully) with their microsoft store requiring anything on it to be signed by MS
The only benifit they had was subsidised hardware and you don't even get that anymore.
the problem is that they'll just be replaced by proprietary software platforms...It'll still be a walled garden.
You'll still be paying 60-70 bucks for a game, still be paying online fees, still have 0 control over the games (no mods,no save file access,no server builds, nothing)
MS has been trying (and failing, thankfully) with their microsoft store requiring anything on it to be signed by MS
Delusibeta
Banned
It always has and it always will get cheaper over time to hit Xp@Yfps. The other half of the problem is that developers typically prioritise graphical effects over resolution and frame rate, and optimisation has generally declined (hence the snarky remark about developers not wanting to make 4k games). However, hopefully that will improve in the advent of low-overhead graphics APIs (such as DirectX 12 and Vulkun).
As for Microsoft entering the gaming PC space, I can't see that being financially successful, since one of two scenarios will occur: 1) it's a Windows machine, which means Steam will basically take Microsoft's lunch, or 2) it's restricted to Microsoft-approved software, making it too restrictive PC gamers, too expensive for console gamers and generally ignored by developers.
But those currrent gen consoles are already almost exactly like PCs.
And i think that You need to read more threads about remasters and what complains really are.
ibun
Member
The day I can't buy a game on disc, is the day I won't pay for a game. I don't feel like submitting to their terms of not owning the game (well we never really did) but also playing when we are allowed to. I like to being able to pop in a disc, after 5-6 months of not touching and redownloading for 4-5 hours. (the few gigabytes of abe's odyssey took 6 hours )
You know whats funny? Ppl point to last gen as the market shrinking when factoring the Wii to Wii U....but before the Wii.....isnt things on a similar path before the Wii?
Remove the Wii, look back from the NES days to now...and the market is steady, has been for awhile.
Oh so what about the hardware inside them
IIRC Xbox has always been kinda similar to PCs, I don't see how them being similar to PCs now makes it any different to before.
Ohhhh right.
That explains it lmao.
Otherwise I'd have said they should look at sales numbers more often.
Except for memory setups, which also arent that unique, they are almost off the shelf solutions.
They were just not designed to be upgrade-able, but with next gen platforms it is completely viable alternative.
You dont see how making consoles that have i3 and for example R260 at the start of a gen, being easily upgradeable in 1.5 year to i5 and R270x is different with off the shelf PC components than something like PS3?
James Hetfield
Banned
Personally, I can't see developers wanting to focus 100% on 4k gaming over the next few years, i can't imagine the adoption rate for 4k sets is that huge. But i can see VR being a big 'thing'. The specs for that are 1080p @120fps each eye, minumum right?
Steam are already taking Microsoft's lunch. I see the xbox one and win10 streaming as a 'pc + companion app' kind of deal.
Hopefully i'm wrong, but i'm feeling pretty pessimistic about the next incarnation of consoles. There was/currently is a severe stall when jumping onto this gen, for a few reasons, i wonder if Vr/change to 4k will have a similar impact?
Triggerhappytel
Member
Yeah, I really think they should look into something like, I don't know, streaming games to multiple devices, or being able to play remotely with other hardware. I really think they should look into that.
while upgrading parts in a console sounds great to us that understand and know hardware it only creates confusion to the majority of the people out there that play on consoles. Most people just want to buy 1 machine that they know will play their games for the next 5-7 years without worrying about upgrading parts every 2 years.
omg, the cellphone market is pure stupidity with like 3 new phone upgrades per company per year and people just need to always toss money away buying a slightly faster phone for their instagram, messaging, and phonecalls.
Well... they could at the price of $100.
$400 for a console to last 5-7 years means the same price for 8 years for a new $100 android box
Smutpeddler
Member
I really love the idea of much shorter generations, the majority doesn't buy in til year 2 or 3 anyway, but the hardcore get the most up to date hardware. The majority will always be behind, and people worried over 400 every 3 years are really not good with money or something.
Because everyone's financial situations are exactly the same right?
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Remove the Wii and the console market contracted last gen. From 210 million units down to around 180 million units. With Wii it grew by around 70 million units.
From the PS1 gen to PS2 gen the market grew by around 70 million units. The norm gen to gen is market growth. Don't count Wii the market contracted last gen. If you do count it, this gens contraction is going to be bad. Either way, this is no longer a growth market.
MAX PAYMENT
Member
Hopefully the "one console future" is similar to android phones. Anybody can make them, they can all access the market place. You only need to upgrade your hardware when a game comes out that requires the latest Samsung, Lg, microsoft, nintendo, or sony "console."
Cynn
Member
Hopefully that future never happens and if it does, Kyle Reese comes back to try and prevent it.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The PC upgrade cycle is more analogous to other technology sectors, and if consoles wanted to attempt an annual or bi-annual upgrade cycle maintaining "platform compatibility" using common software platforms, I'm perfectly fine with that as an experiment. If the idea is to move to a purely streaming platform though, that would not be something I am willing to support. Certain kinds of reaction based games will always be compromised by latency, no matter how improved bandwidth is. It would also represent the final death knell of modding and archiving as people would have no access to the game files themselves. It's like a shitty dystopian future of gaming and it's one we're going to have people trying to force on us in the coming years. It's literally their dream come true. No such thing as used games. No such thing as piracy since nobody ever gest access to the files. Nobody can crack or mod their hardware to escape region restrictions, since the hardware is just a streaming receiver. Monthly subscription fees not only for online gaming, but for gaming in general.
No thanks.
No thanks.
Graphics Horse
Member
He never mentioned streaming, he's talking about iterative hardware spec updates ala smart devices.
I don't see how this should even be an opinion. It's a plain fact. Consumers spend so much money buying smartphones which have little difference in hardware specs from the previous model. This makes no sense to me at all. They're willing to fork out $600 for, like, 200 MHz, which makes almost no difference when using the phone.
Long-lived consoles were based on consoles having hardware that was impossible or prohibitively expensive in the PCs of the day combined with software from devs who had no interest in PC release. Now that consoles ARE essentially midrange PCs on a lease-to-own contract, and popular console titles are multiplat to everything, something's going to have to give; it's going to be either:
- the existence of consoles in favor of an MSX/Steam Machine-style standardized PC spec that replaces the platform license with an online store cut
- the lifecycle length of consoles
- or the existence of PSN/XBL as an optional added revenue center, instead converting it to a mandatory lease and using the added few hundred dollars in lifetime proceeds to build a beefier machine (this is extremely unlikely, as without that "bonus" revenue stream the X360 would have lost even more money than the PS3)
- the existence of consoles in favor of an MSX/Steam Machine-style standardized PC spec that replaces the platform license with an online store cut
- the lifecycle length of consoles
- or the existence of PSN/XBL as an optional added revenue center, instead converting it to a mandatory lease and using the added few hundred dollars in lifetime proceeds to build a beefier machine (this is extremely unlikely, as without that "bonus" revenue stream the X360 would have lost even more money than the PS3)
It's too early to tell really. Both PS3 and 360 had extremely protracted lifecycles and weren't really peaking until year 4, which had never really happened before. PS4 and One launched far stronger but it remains to be seen if they can keep it up or will fall behind. PS4 even started ahead of Wii and has already fallen behind it.
A year in 3DS was also well ahead of DS to draw a similar comparison. And now 4 years in and it's barely keeping pace with PSP, while PSP's own successor Vita is selling like a Sega console. You can really tell much from just a year.
As a consumer, I'm perfectly fine with things as they are now, and hope things stay the same for a little bit longer. For example, my PS3 which cost me £300 in 2008 is still going strong, and is capable of playing each and every piece of software available for the platform just as good as a PS3 purchased in 2013, for example.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Amazon? They've got at least one set-top box (Fire TV), bit I don't think their efforts in this field have been successful.
Graphics Horse
Member
Nobody needs to, but of course a lot of people do for status reasons. Companies bring out new laptops every year and you don't hear many complaints apart from when Apple messes around with the ports.
Higher costs for developers to keep games updated or shorter game lifespans. Going to the store once a year and throwing out electronics once a year.
Sounds fantastic.
Let's all shop at the dollar store and have landfills in our backyard.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
One day folks in suits will realize game consoles don't need to sell like iPads to be fruitful for the makers and software developers.
People like dedicated machines they can count on to play games for 5-6 years.
People like dedicated machines they can count on to play games for 5-6 years.
So, he's saying that he wants Xbox and PlayStation to do exactly what Nintendo has done/plans to do more of next generation, huh?
Offering slightly upgraded consoles midway through. That's what he feels int he future. Well, Nintendo is right there with this thought process, becoming the apple/pretty much any other tech company of video games.
That being said, it's pretty much still a "this gen is the last gen" talks, and until sales prove that fact, there is no reason to think it is.
Offering slightly upgraded consoles midway through. That's what he feels int he future. Well, Nintendo is right there with this thought process, becoming the apple/pretty much any other tech company of video games.
That being said, it's pretty much still a "this gen is the last gen" talks, and until sales prove that fact, there is no reason to think it is.
JoseTheTaco
Banned
It's a bloated market from how easy android is to implement
Graphics Horse
Member
The quotes come from an event last week.
I found a video of it, it's Day two (19th March) Fireside chat The future of gaming
http://www.theguardian.com/media-ne...ardian-changing-media-summit-2015-live-stream
*edit* not sure if the actual quotes are in that particular video but they're from that event.
Sorta Maximus
Member
It already exists. It's called a PC gaming tower. PCs are upgraded all the time. Consoles work for reasons that are the exact opposite of a gaming PC - mostly to do with accessible lower cost and platform stability. I love my PC but it's no replacement for my PS4. The type of gamers and games are just different. Change this dynamic and the way games are made and the games that do get made will change for sure.
Perhaps consoles could have a few modular parts and or have upgraded iterations that are backwards compatible. However it also has the potential to ruin sales by fragmenting install bases that are incompatible with each other. It takes too long and too much money to make games to hit moving targets like that. Gamers would suffer and we would see less games for sure.
The only way I can see is to limit the scale and or impact of such upgrades and insure cross compatibility. For example I could see 1080P and deluxe 4K console versions where all games work on both. The 1080P version for $300 gets you going at a playable baseline but the $600 one gets you SSD ability, 4K resolution, some better effects and butter smooth framerate.
Perhaps consoles could have a few modular parts and or have upgraded iterations that are backwards compatible. However it also has the potential to ruin sales by fragmenting install bases that are incompatible with each other. It takes too long and too much money to make games to hit moving targets like that. Gamers would suffer and we would see less games for sure.
The only way I can see is to limit the scale and or impact of such upgrades and insure cross compatibility. For example I could see 1080P and deluxe 4K console versions where all games work on both. The 1080P version for $300 gets you going at a playable baseline but the $600 one gets you SSD ability, 4K resolution, some better effects and butter smooth framerate.
Smutpeddler
Member
Doesn't stop Apple.
Let's not pretend that Apple fanatics that wait in line for a lukewarm hardware update and console buyers necessarily fall into the same camp.
Theonik
Member
The solution is to unify your platforms. Think of what happens with smartphones. You can buy a PS4, but a PS5 will play the same games as a PS4 but maybe give less slowdown, maybe some PS5 features. Until developers only support PS5+.
This might not happen now and is counter to the thinking behind current consoles but is definitely a workable solution.
While understandable - that's not necessarily the point. Iphone 4s can still play pretty much every game released in the app store. A phone you buy today is probably going to still play every single game released on the app stores in the next 6 years.
I think what they are saying is that they are missing out on a crowd that always wants the next best shiny new tech - and that there is no reason consoles can't do this and still have all the games play on both consoles with some slight advantages on the newer one.
Imagine if the Xbox One, as an example, had a slightly upgraded console in a year or two. That console enables 1080p, 60fps for every game and it gets rid of the black crush. Otherwise, you can literally use the same disc in the original Xbox One and still get a great experience, but it's just slightly better on the new one.
This is the sort of future Nintendo is aiming for. It will be interesting to see if it can work. IT certainly has, so far, with the New Nintendo 3DS.