Time was, you could hardly go a year without some sleek new console being unleashed at E3.
From SNES to Dreamcast, N64 to Xbox, a must-own new system perennially screeched out of the LA show with (ooh!) shiny exterior, (aaah!) never-before-seen control system and (sh*t!) whopping pricetag all intact - begging gamers to save up their pennies for launch day.
And, no doubt, you did; because you're, erm, here - and what games marketing people call an 'early adopter'.
It's quite a sweet phrase, really - projecting an image of the latest hardware as a confused Malawian toddler, and 'hardcore' gamers as the benevolent Brads and Angelinas of interactive entertainment. ("Come to me, my neglected young N64. I will help you grow, mature - and become all that you can be.")
But the truth is a little darker than that. Sure, we don't keep nipping to 'powder our nose' every five seconds and there are no track marks on our arms, but we're still addicts of the worst kind.
For despite the damage this buy-first-question-later approach does us (the fiscal torture; the tooth-grinding envy of seeing sexier, updated models hit the market months after launch - howdy Sony!; the cynicism-free purchase of terrible launch titles) we're yet to learn our lesson. We have to own these infernal machines and we have to own them first.
This generation, however, enforced rehab has been foisted upon us - as platform holders hold out on unshackling brand new, loss-making hardware.
The Xbox 360 has already been on the market longer than its predecessor - and Natal's put paid to any thoughts of a '720'.
This June's E3 seems a barren prospect for those craving the grand unveilings of yore.
And how do we react to the news that the financial pain of generations gone by has finally passed? Like any addict without their candy - grouchily.
The sheer ferocity with which Xbox 360 fans are willing Natal to fail is stunning. Many of you go out of your way to laugh at Sony's confidence in 3D gaming. Even the rickety OnLive concept is enjoying a windfall of support from gaming folk who just want (nay, need) a shiny new piece of kit to plug into their TV.
Microsoft is perhaps the worst hit by this backlash; lambasted for offering tech junkies the dull methadone of Natal and, worse, 'online service updates' (woo hoo, indeed).
But press pause on your fury for just a second - what exactly is there to get so flustered about? If the future means the same old boxes with peripheral upgrades and cool new stuff sorted at the touch of a button, isn't that a good thing?
If the existing technology is yet to be fully exploited (and, arrogance aside, Sony's plans for 3D gaming on PS3 look particularly worth the wait), why should console manufacturers rush into launching a box just to satisfy our yearning for a new toy to plug into our spare HDMI port?
This kind of agitation is illogical and counter-productive: The current generation is giving us space-age technology combined with eye-watering innovation - at a price my PSone-hankering younger self would have wept for.
We should be careful what we wish for. Should Natal/Gem/3D gaming fail, the platform holders might give in to all of this consumer bleating for a PS4, Wii 2 and Xbox 720.
Before you know it, they'll start repackaging old technology with novel peripherals just to give us something to get excited about. Not that you'd be interested, right?
(At the time of going to press, Nintendo Wii was the most successful home console in the history of video games.)
They can but don't I've not played a PC game for last 3-5 years that topped anything on current or last gen consoles. And I've played most. Crysis was pretty but fails when compared to most other shooters for actual gameplay and depth so get off your pc high horse because they simply don't justify the upgrades and haven't for years. Trust me I've spent thousands over the years and feel so let down with PC gaming and still only play Guildwars which would run on a ps2 spec'd pc
like the snarky comment at the end about the wii. Way to play to your audience. I agreed with you up untill that point.
But you missed a crutial fact. New Hardware doesn't benefit manufactuers as they sell it for a loss. The reason the current machines are going to stay around longer is becasue they are having trouble keeping the costs of the current systems low and competitive.
Why finanacially cripple yourself further bringin out another machine when you are yet to make a profit on the current ones. The exception to this is obviously the wii, which makes a profit. By that logic Nintendo could easily afford to bring out a new console in the forseeable future. But with the business model not tied to hardware and it still selling like crazy why would they bother.
Console makers lose money on each box for the first few years of production. The cost of more R&D and better hardware would ridiculous in economic times like these.
Are we really that unhappy will current graphics that we are asking to pay more for a new box and games???
Also game development costs are rocketing out of control now, can you imagine what next gen costs will be. How many developers have been closed recently?
Hm. While I too feel the allure of "get the latest and greatest" syndrome, I often hold back and make sure to do my homework on the matter thereby ensuring that I have at the very least some rudimentary understanding of what I'm buying, what it is capable of/how it measures up to current market standards and what its value for money ratio (i.e. "bang-for-buck" is more or less. The thrill of being an early adopter is tempting yet I value the fruits of my labour (in this case money,) too much to spend it willy nilly once a certain price threshold is breached. I'm still tempted though....
A couple of other things:
1) While one could argue it lies partly in human nature to covet "new shiny stuff", the companies in question have certainly done their part in whipping up a frenzy of consumerism and expectations that "new shiny stuff" will be released every few years and that it is a "must have" since the future lies that way, blah blah.
2) Is the Wii really the most successful console to date? By what criteria? If by profit per unit then I'll believe it however, if we go by total units sold wouldn't that make the PS2 the most successful console to date?
PC gamers. Hardware is evolving and Fermi has so much power that it can run circles around current gen consoles.
You don't need Fermi for that. The previous generation of GPUs on the PC did the same. The gap is increasing though now that Intel's i7 CPUs are out, AMD are working on a six core CPU (I think I read Intel are working on an 8 core CPU), ATI's 58XX and 5970 series, DDR3 as mainstay memory (DDR5 on many of ATI's GPUs), Nvidia's upcoming Fermi line, etc.
Once new consoles are designed and released they may close the gap depending on what sort of price tag and capabilities the developers are looking for (ex. the Wii clearly does not push up-to-date hardware standards). Yet even then by the time the development cycle is complete there will likely be new and faster hardware that can do more available making the consoles somewhat obsolete by the time they hit retail (non-custom made PCs tend to suffer from this as well). It seems to be a cyclical event where every few years (in this case apparently more than just a few years) consoles make a big leap closing the gap with PCs, only to be outpaced once more. Rinse and repeat.
They can but don't I've not played a PC game for last 3-5 years that topped anything on current or last gen consoles. And I've played most. Crysis was pretty but fails when compared to most other shooters for actual gameplay and depth so get off your pc high horse because they simply don't justify the upgrades and haven't for years. Trust me I've spent thousands over the years and feel so let down with PC gaming and still only play Guildwars which would run on a ps2 spec'd pc
As a current PC and console gamer I disagree. It's a myth that it has to cost a fortune to upgrade your PC every time. It depends on how robust your initial system setup was, how much of an early adopter you wish to be, and which parts actually have the most impact on gaming (ex. often upgrading the GPU will have the single greatest impact for gaming purposes). Add to that the fact that PC titles are usually easily 10 quid cheaper a pop (sometimes more) and their pricing often decreases a lot faster than similar console titles over the same period of time. What that means is that with a bit of patience you should be able to even out the costs, perhaps even come out ahead, if you buy a sound gaming PC along with a certain amount of games over a period of say five years once you take in to consideration the other items you need to game on a PC or a console such a monitor, keyboard, mouse, plasma/LCD/OLED TV, controller(s), batteries (rechargeable or otherwise if you use the wireless option), etc.
Oh, and if you like multi-player gaming and use the Xbox 360 that's an additional cost. PC gamers do not have that cost and they do get a comparable, if not superior, online experience thanks in part to things such as dedicated servers, mods, and a far greater customizable game connectivity setup.
What isn't a myth is that more recent PCs (they don't even need to be fully up to date hardware wise) bury the consoles in terms of capability and sheer brute power.
the graphical leap wouldnt be worth the money for a new console just now. wouldnt be anything like the leap that ps1 to ps2 was (or ps2 to ps3).
simple as that. waiting another few years and the leap will be major.
despite pc boffins arguements, a high pc isnt pure miles better than the two HD consoles out just now - the games just look a more polished - not totally different beasts.
PC gamers. Hardware is evolving and Fermi has so much power that it can run circles around current gen consoles.
You don't need Fermi for that. The previous generation of GPUs on the PC did the same. The gap is increasing though now that Intel's i7 CPUs are out, AMD are working on a six core CPU (I think I read Intel are working on an 8 core CPU), ATI's 58XX and 5970 series, DDR3 as mainstay memory (DDR5 on many of ATI's GPUs), Nvidia's upcoming Fermi line, etc.
Once new consoles are designed and released they may close the gap depending on what sort of price tag and capabilities the developers are looking for (ex. the Wii clearly does not push up-to-date hardware standards). Yet even then by the time the development cycle is complete there will likely be new and faster hardware that can do more available making the consoles somewhat obsolete by the time they hit retail (non-custom made PCs tend to suffer from this as well). It seems to be a cyclical event where every few years (in this case apparently more than just a few years) consoles make a big leap closing the gap with PCs, only to be outpaced once more. Rinse and repeat.
I once read back in the day that the 8800gtx was a better GPU when released than either of the console GPUs. Fermi now just looks brutally fast (no word on clock speeds though) and I hear that some dudes oc'd an i9 to 6.4ghz!
It's embarrassing when comparing the console tech to whats on the PC side but because everyone is specializing in console development then there isnt a really high bar and so its not utilizing all the features. There is no point in having all this hardware unless you're one of the few thousand people who play at mental resolutions or use the raw horsepower for non-gaming purposes, smthg nvidia seems to be moving towards to judging by how this generations architecture is being marketed.
I would love to see sum1 make a game around a high spec machine but tht will never happen as they would effectively be limiting their products to probably thousands instead of millions. Point here is that unfortunately consoles have to advance in the hardware department in order for us to see better looking games/animations, better physics, AI etc in general as they are the LCD. Anyways, aren't you guys tired of the crap resolutions coupled with the non-existent AA in console games? I usually take out my contacts to play because with them on the games (majority at least) are painful to look at.
Sidetracking a little bit here but whatever. Have any of you seen the new asus mobo, the rampage extreme 3? My god if it was possible I would sleep with it 1-on-1 or bring it in for some threesome action. The features are as sick as it looks too. + is there a release date/pricing on the i9's or is it still all this Q1 bs from intel?
All the discussion has been about hardware but i think that the main issue for the next gen has to be regarding Live and PSN accounts. A lot of time has gone into Gamerscores and trophies not to mention money on downloads. the next consoles have to be able to integrate seamlessly the existing accounts and purchases. If the big 3 don't want to do this, for whatever reason, then they will wait until the majority stop caring about their accounts before launching the next gen
personally, i wouldnt want to carry my gamer score or trophies over to the next console.
it should start afresh.
im already way behind most folk (level 8 gamer on ps3) so why would i want to start on a deficit on ps4?!
especially all the lame cunts that have boosted their score by hacks and rented crap games to whore out.
booting a new console and already being a level 8 gamer would seem crap to me. its like putting an old stinking rug inside your brand new car. no thanks!
No new systems please, I'm still enjoying my current one's. Why on earth do PC gamers come to talk numbers, when their kits are constantly updating? Like clockwork almost every 6-8months there is a new GPU that offers ridiculous calculations per sec, but you may need to get the most up to date MB in order to utilize all that power and still can't find a game that actually uses all of the power. I digress, PC gaming isn't as defined as console, Consoles do one thing well, that is play games, they used to be built ground up for respective systems, but it's starting to look like console devs like porting code around.
Things are getting too expensive on the development side of things, this HD generation has cause many a dev house to close. GT5 has a 60mil price tag on it for crying out loud. Keep this generation around a lot longer, so we can get our money's worth. I have two generations worth of systems and games in my room, there is a Saturn and a Snes in the mix as well. Just wish I could find my copy of Radiant Silvergun, sob i miss that awesome piece of gaming nirvana.
wake me up when consoles can support a 3 screen setup with a resolution of 3840x1024 like my current setup does and also when they've kb+mouse support for FPS's.
With the graphic capabilities of 360 and PS3 and the as-yet untapped potential of all three, it's good to see they're willing to make us wait for new hardware - the last-gen was far too short (PS1 in 2001, Xbox & GC in 2002, with 360 appearing late 2005), so I for one am glad we'll get a bit more out of these machines. All devs need to do now is make more decent 3rd party Wii games, as sadly most of the best ones don't sell because of market saturation (a problem faced by both PS1&2). Still, new Zelda, new Metroid and Mario Galaxy 2 are all around the corner. And as for the prospect of seeing Mass Effect 3 on 360, I can't wait. That sort of thing just wouldn't have happened last gen. Seems the only thing PS3 has to offer at the moment is 3D gaming. Mine seems to be gathering dust at the moment. Sigh. Some day.
wake me up when consoles can support a 3 screen setup with a resolution of 3840x1024 like my current setup does and also when they've kb+mouse support for FPS's.
Why would anyone need that kind of tech? When would you ever use it, especially considering HDTVs only go up to 1920x1080? And have you tried playing Metroid Prime on Wii? Knocks the socks off of keyboard and mouse. Oh, but you're a hardware snob, so you won't give Wii a chance. Oh well.
wake me up when consoles can support a 3 screen setup with a resolution of 3840x1024 like my current setup does and also when they've kb+mouse support for FPS's.
Why would anyone need that kind of tech? When would you ever use it, especially considering HDTVs only go up to 1920x1080? And have you tried playing Metroid Prime on Wii? Knocks the socks off of keyboard and mouse. Oh, but you're a hardware snob, so you won't give Wii a chance. Oh well.
I very much doubt its as precise and responsive as my razer mamba and any good keyboard.
Ya he is probably doing some super overkill (I only ever had a dual screen setup and can only imagine how 3 would be) but if you are happy at 1920x1080 then you have no idea what you're missing because that res is pants.
I for one am very glad they will keep the current gen going for a few years yet. Who knows games developers might actually start concentrating on good ol fashioned gameplay rather then bleeding edge graphics, although PS3 3D sounds interesting but even so no reason why anyone should have to hassle with the PS3 hardware now. Let the games library's and the online services of current systems build and develop nicely is what I say. As for PC's, hmm been there done that, and it's such a TINY percentage of gamers out there in the market that can actually build and upgrade their own computers that it doesn't matter, devs will sell many times more games to the console plug n play market that PC's will never match. And I also would like to say we have better graphics to come yet from the PS3 and 360, PC games depend on your hardware to how good they look, console games depend on good hardware from launch but also skills of developers utilising all that power and using tricks to get more out of it.
A resolution of 1920 x 1080 is not "pants", well asides from personal opinions apparently. Do higher resolutions exist? Yes, and it certainly sounds impressive but that does not make "true HD" "pants".
Moving on, nothing I've tried to date gaming wise has surpassed the accuracy and ease of use in certain gaming genres as my gaming mouse and keyboard. FPS games with a console controller come across as slow and clumsy to me. Some games manage to pull it off fairly well (ex. "Dead Space" and "Gears of War 2" yet others such "Halo 3" are an exercise in frustration for me given how much more responsive the game would be with a proper keyboard and mouse. On the other hand I'm quite happy playing "Batman: Arkham Asylum" on the Xbox 360. I wouldn't mind having better camera angles though.
I for one am very glad they will keep the current gen going for a few years yet. Who knows games developers might actually start concentrating on good ol fashioned gameplay rather then bleeding edge graphics, although PS3 3D sounds interesting but even so no reason why anyone should have to hassle with the PS3 hardware now. Let the games library's and the online services of current systems build and develop nicely is what I say. As for PC's, hmm been there done that, and it's such a TINY percentage of gamers out there in the market that can actually build and upgrade their own computers that it doesn't matter, devs will sell many times more games to the console plug n play market that PC's will never match. And I also would like to say we have better graphics to come yet from the PS3 and 360, PC games depend on your hardware to how good they look, console games depend on good hardware from launch but also skills of developers utilising all that power and using tricks to get more out of it.
Some games that are released on both the consoles and the PC have actually sold better on the PC. Valve's "Orange Box" is one such example. That said, many games of certain genre types do sell more units on the consoles. As for your argument about better graphics appearing on the Xbox 360 and PS3 due to increasing understanding of the hardware by developers that has just as much to do with the actual software programming, if not more so, and whether the hardware can carry it or not. In short, the benefits you claim for the consoles also exist for the PC. Except that on the PC the potential rewards are even greater due to superior hardware. If anything developers' hands are increasingly tied on the consoles whereas there's a whole new undiscovered country with the latest and greatest hardware that can only be found in PC land at present time (ex. DX11, much faster CPUs and GPUs capable of shifting more data at the same time, etc.).
I game on all consoles and PC, and I'm choosing my PC over the consoles more frequently because there is a staggering different in the graphics now and even mid-range PCs can output the likes of GTA4 at 1920 x 1200 resolution with full AA and AAF.
I'm not a graphics whore by any means, but this made a noticeable difference to my enjoyment of GTA4 when I replayed it on PC.
What I'm saying is that the native resolution consoles run at is getting old very quickly. And it would be nice to see a console upgrade which can run the same games with better graphics. I doubt this would incur much extra dev time and all it would require is for MS/Sony to include better GFX cards in the consoles.
Those with the current console can still play the same game, and those with the new version get to run it at a higher resolution...easy.
A resolution of 1920 x 1080 is not "pants", well asides from personal opinions apparently. Do higher resolutions exist? Yes, and it certainly sounds impressive but that does not make "true HD" "pants".
This is taking in the big picture. I currently play with a 24" @ 1920x1200 so already everything will be sharper when compared to tv's double the size with a lower res. I used to have a dual screen setup with 2 of these and I've tried out 2560x1600 (which is phenomenal) and going back is a huge chore. Now we got to remember that pretty much all games out now on the consoles dont even run at native 1920x1080 so sometimes it feels like I'm going back in a time machine.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
is more or less. The thrill of being an early adopter is tempting yet I value the fruits of my labour (in this case money,) too much to spend it willy nilly once a certain price threshold is breached. I'm still tempted though.... 
