There is going to be $450 or $550 dollar version, I won't be supporting any of them for a long while ;-}
|
I was actually considering to buy either a PS3 or an Xbox 360, but decided not to. I bought a new PC, a rather high end one, and from what i heard, it already kicks the PS4 through the window performance-wise.
The only beef i have with consoles (the reason i used to hate on all consoles after Sega Genesis) was the console exclusive titles.
I wouldn't waste money to buy a console to play a game or two on it, and then have it gathering dust somewhere. And since i don't sell my stuff (too sentimental for that, i still have all my AD&D books although i will never play it again), i don't want them taking up space.
Now, if there were no console exclusive titles, world would be a much, much better place.
To me some games are meant to be played on a console, like Batman, Final Fantasy, Dead Space, Resident Evil, Uncharted, etc.
FPS, MMORPG, and RTS games are strictly PC for the control, eye candy, and communication (like typing in game, Ventrilo). I also prefer RPGs like Dragon Age and Skyrim on PCs for the horsepower and eye candy.
YMMV :)
I don't think there's really much of a distinction any more. If the consoles actually allowed proper mouse and keyboard controls, there's no reason they couldn't handle RTS games and proper FPS controls (PS3 Unreal Tournament actually allowed mouse-and-keyboard control, IIRC, but no other FPS on the platform does). You can already use a 360 controller on a PC with no problems at all (and a PS3 controller if you download a small programme first), so any games more suited to controllers can be played already on a PC.
For example, I played both BATMAN games on the PC and had no problem at all. Apart from complaints from my grumpy housemate who'd bought the game on PS3 for considerably more and it looked pretty awful compared to the PC version :-)
I don't think there's really much of a distinction any more. If the consoles actually allowed proper mouse and keyboard controls, there's no reason they couldn't handle RTS games and proper FPS controls (PS3 Unreal Tournament actually allowed mouse-and-keyboard control, IIRC, but no other FPS on the platform does). You can already use a 360 controller on a PC with no problems at all (and a PS3 controller if you download a small programme first), so any games more suited to controllers can be played already on a PC.
For example, I played both BATMAN games on the PC and had no problem at all. Apart from complaints from my grumpy housemate who'd bought the game on PS3 for considerably more and it looked pretty awful compared to the PC version :-)
Not to mention that you can just hook your PC up to the TV and get better video quality than a console.
Nintendo is the only console manufacturer looking at making games that are not easily reproduced on a computer. I think that once people realize this, they will have a market advantage. But console gaming is going to get hit hard by the PC market first.
So what do you think of companies like microsoft and sony who want to get rid of computers in favor of a world with only consoles and tablets?
So what do you think of companies like microsoft and sony who want to get rid of computers in favor of a world with only consoles and tablets?
I think they don't actually understand the need that different formats serve.
I cannot do my work on a tablet. I can't even comfortably do it on a laptop. The idea that they will replace my desktop is rediculous.
Consoles are just restricted computers, and people wont want to put the cat back in the bag.
We may see portable work stations become a thing, as well as integrated networks of comupters, where you can take a tablet and plug it into a docking station to have it mimic a PC. But that wont happen until tablets get way more powerful than they are now, and way cheaper.
So what do you think of companies like microsoft and sony who want to get rid of computers in favor of a world with only consoles and tablets?
I think that's a pretty wild mischaracterization of both of those companies. I don't think either one wants to "get rid of computers" - first, because tablets and consoles are computers, and second because they make a lot of money selling hardware and software for traditional desktop and laptop computers.
It may very well be the case that tablet-like interfaces (and really, what we're talking about here is replacing traditional input methods with touch input) are the future and that physical keyboards/mice are on the way out. If that's the case, the transition will be consumer-driven. And, if that's the case, you need to get on board when the time comes.
You can't play a lot of games with a touchscreen. A FPS on a touchscreen? How would that work? And a lot of people hate using touchscreen typing, to the point where many will spend an extra £10-£20 on a 'proper' keyboard for their tablet as a first purchase for it. In my last job I sold a huge number of iPads, and about 75% of them immediately bought a stand and a keyboard for it...meaning they'd effectively just bought a small, slim laptop. It was quite amusing.
Touchscreen is great for browing and some kinds of games, but it's not the total solution to everything.
As for Microsoft and Sony, their principal goals (either on console, mobile device or PC) is a closed system. Windows 8 is much less open to developers than any previous version of Windows, and of course on the consoles you can only do what the manufacturers want you to do. It's a closing down of choice, forcing you to choose from one of only a small number of expensive options.
How well this goes depends on the competition. What we are seeing from Kickstarter, Ouya, and Valve's SteamBox project is a countering desire to make things more open, more transparent, more open, more moddable, cheaper (or free) with more user involvement. Frankly, this should be the future, but the big corporations are relying on inertia and brand loyalty to force people down a path where they have less choice. Exactly how this battle plays out will be a key defining feature of the next generation.
You can't play a lot of games with a touchscreen. A FPS on a touchscreen? How would that work? And a lot of people hate using touchscreen typing, to the point where many will spend an extra £10-£20 on a 'proper' keyboard for their tablet as a first purchase for it. In my last job I sold a huge number of iPads, and about 75% of them immediately bought a stand and a keyboard for it...meaning they'd effectively just bought a small, slim laptop. It was quite amusing.
Touchscreen is great for browing and some kinds of games, but it's not the total solution to everything.
As for Microsoft and Sony, their principal goals (either on console, mobile device or PC) is a closed system. Windows 8 is much less open to developers than any previous version of Windows, and of course on the consoles you can only do what the manufacturers want you to do. It's a closing down of choice, forcing you to choose from one of only a small number of expensive options.
How well this goes depends on the competition. What we are seeing from Kickstarter, Ouya, and Valve's SteamBox project is a countering desire to make things more open, more transparent, more open, more moddable, cheaper (or free) with more user involvement. Frankly, this should be the future, but the big corporations are relying on inertia and brand loyalty to force people down a path where they have less choice. Exactly how this battle plays out will be a key defining feature of the next generation.
There are action RPGs and FPS on touch screens. I find both of them terrible.
Now, if there were no console exclusive titles, world would be a much, much better place.
It would also be a world without Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft (any two of those or even all of them) having consoles on the market at all.
Exclusives sell consoles. The hardware is usually so close as to be nearly identical (well Nintendo lags behind a bit), no selling point there. The games are what gets people to buy that console over the other. If you're a fan of Zelda or Mario you buy Nintendo. If you want Gears of War and Halo you get an Xbox. If you like Ratchet and Clank or Uncharted you snag a Playstation.
Without exclusives, there are no consoles unless you sincerely believe base company loyalty is enough to sell enough for all 3 companies to keep their hands in.
And then what? One company is going to have a monopoly on consoles for a while and then can do whatever the hell they want with the prices and quality until another company steps up with the same hardware and more exclusive games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if there were no console exclusive titles, world would be a much, much better place.It would also be a world without Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft (any two of those or even all of them) having consoles on the market at all.
And i could happily live with that...i see no further use for consoles to be honest. A computer can do their job better then they can. I mean, whenever i compare graphics on a console with graphics on a PC, the difference is incredible. And you can plug in a controller in a PC easily.
I have three different consoles in my home. I bought my PS3 about a year or two after it was first released.
I bought the Wii the day after launch.
My wife bought me the Xbox 360 for our 10th Anniversary.
I stopped playing games on computer at least 7-8 years ago. Partially because all of our home PC's were Mac's but for the longest while I held onto my custom built PC. Until one day I realized that I hadn't turned it on in SIX MONTHS.
After that I junked it for parts and got rid of it.
I dont miss having to go upgrade video cards to play certain games. I dont miss tweaking or overclocking you setup or processor to get it just right in order to play a new game. I dont miss any of that crap.
You know what I like?
Being able to walk up to any of my three consoles, putting in the disc, firing it up and PLAYING THE GAME.
I will NEVER return to PC gaming. I dont need to be ELITE. I just want to play the games. That's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I'm almost exclusively a PC gamer - minus the handheld consoles I mentioned above - and I've never done any of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont miss having to go upgrade video cards to play certain games. I dont miss tweaking or overclocking you setup or processor to get it just right in order to play a new game. I dont miss any of that crap.
At no time in history has it been necessary to do any of that (well, not the graphics card upgrade for one certain game; a general upgrade once the card is 2-3 years old, maybe). I wouldn't even think about overclocking my PC under any circumstances. When working in a PC repair shop I saw way too many coming in fried to a crisp by idiots to do that, and it's never been necessary. A near-negligible performance increase in exchange for reducing the lifespan of your CPU by quite a lot was always a crazy trade-off.
Being able to walk up to any of my three consoles, putting in the disc, firing it up and PLAYING THE GAME.
What, even the PS3? Every PS3 game I've bought for the house's console has resulted in the game having to download updates and install for 10+ minutes beforehand.
I will NEVER return to PC gaming. I dont need to be ELITE. I just want to play the games. That's it.
What exactly is ELITE about being a PC gamer? It's certainly not the cost, as consoles cost a hell of a lot more to run over any extended period of time (unless you buy a console and in the succeeding six or seven years don't buy any more than about ten games for it). I don't get it. We get games a lot cheaper but they look a hell of a lot better and have vastly extended lifespans. That's not ELITE, that's SENSIBLE in my book.
@Werthead - I work in IT and have for the past 15 years. At one time everyone in our shop was either in the process of building, tweaking or upgrading a gaming rig. When newer games that came out required more RAM? You had to buy more RAM. Your Video Card wasn't powerful enough to run the lastest game? Had to upgrade your Video Card. If your processor wasn't powerful enough that meant over-clocking what you had IF possible or buying a new processor or worse replacing your entire motherboard to accomodate a newer processor.
So please dont tell me that "at no time in history has it been necessary" because it has for someone. Please try not to speak in absolutes about my experiences. Because it comes across like you're calling me a liar and that's not cool.
Also, I've never had to wait for an update for 10+ minutes for every game. I'm not saying that YOU havent, but that hasn't been the case for me.
And as for ELITE I'm talking about attitude. I've had co-workers make that same argument that you just did usually while smirking. Giving off the air of "Stupid Console Gamers paying more for less" "I've got endless mods while you're stuck on whatever they give you on the Xbox or PS3" and whatever else crappy justification they have for being a maladjusted douche for that day.
Granted it's no better than PS3 owners making fun of people who own Xboxes and pay for XBoxLIve but then again I dont get that either. Just like I dont argue about who's exclusive games are better. I just want to play the games. For me it's been easier and more rewarding to play games via console. I've done PC gaming. I did it from 1998 to about 2003-4 and aside from a few games (looks longingly over at StarCraft) I really dont miss it.
I've done PC gaming. I did it from 1998 to about 2003-4 and aside from a few games (looks longingly over at StarCraft) I really dont miss it.
You'll have to forgive us if we question whether 5 years is long enough for you to have grown oh-so-weary of the PC upgrade cycle.
To boot, a lot of the complaints you have regarding upgrading your PC were realities a decade ago, and are trivialities today (when was the last time someone needed to stick more RAM in their gaming rig to support a new release?).
The issue that we are having is that you are acting as though owning a gaming-capable PC is a high-maintenance investment, when the reality is that, for most people, $400 or so will turn their home PC into a gaming machine capable of playing new releases passably for the better part of a decade, with no upgrading required.
And before you lump me into the "elite" crowd, I'm speaking as a guy who owns a Wii, PS3, and 360.
I dont miss having to go upgrade video cards to play certain games. I dont miss tweaking or overclocking you setup or processor to get it just right in order to play a new game. I dont miss any of that crap.
Like others have said, this hasn't been true for a long time now. As an example, the last PC I built (before this new monster I'm on now) was 3 years old and still plays everything I like at 1680x1050 high to ultra settings without a hitch.
The days of ID Software crushing your video card to dust with the latest Open GL monster are long gone. Same with Crytek for the most part. I think developers are way better at coding nowadays and probably realize that making a game that most people can't play won't be that lucrative.Am I elite? No, my hobby happens to be building killer gaming rigs. At the same time, I love relaxing on my couch playing certain PS3 games too.
No need to get hot under the collar, Shin. :)
To each their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So please dont tell me that "at no time in history has it been necessary" because it has for someone. Please try not to speak in absolutes about my experiences. Because it comes across like you're calling me a liar and that's not cool.
I'm not calling you a liar, but it's simply not plausible that anyone would NEED to do those things. People would choose to do them because they wanted to max out every game that came out (and granted the pace of change was more rapid back then) but for people who just wanted to get on and game it was definitely unnecessary.
I bought my first gaming PC in 1998 and it lasted until 2003. I needed to upgrade the graphics card once and install a new hard drive (the one that came with it was only 4GB, which was a bit skimpy even back then). I bought my second gaming PC in 2003 and it lasted until 2006. It needed one graphics card upgrade. My third was from 2006 until 2011. That was a bit more of a disaster, due to my choosing to go single-core rather than dual, which definitely left it struggling a bit towards the end. I also didn't upgrade the graphics card at all. It was still playing a few new releases towards the end of that period (like STARCRAFT 2) fine but it definitely peaked earlier becuase of that one mistake I made. Otherwise it would have been fine.
I think it's absolutely fine for people to say they prefer gaming on console because of the exclusives, because they don't want to have multiple gaming machines lying around the place, because they want to play MP with friends with the same consoles etc. But when they try to put down the PC with talk about cost, technical difficulties, controllers and so on, it's just absolute nonsense. The PC is presently objectively superior as a games-playing machine to any of the consoles because it can do anything they can do and a hell of a lot more, and do it a hell of a lot better and - at least over a medium to long term - do it much more cheaply. When the PS4 and next X-Box come out, a lot of those advantages will temporarily end (for a year to two max), but it will regain them later on.