[10/07/12] SE: Current console generation has lasted too long

Status
Not open for further replies.
They are not entirely wrong. We can update our firmware, but not our hardware in the same way a PC can. The gap is growing, and if console games cannot pick it up it will become a glaring difference.

Think of it as an ability to consider and plan for the future.

Doesn't mean I agree with them abandoning the systems, it's just that he does a good point. On the same leaf, the developers waiting for the turn in systems need to evolve. We do not need shorter life spans, we to be able to update our hardware, which is why PCs usually outstrip consoles.

Also, on a side note, most major console developers would never seriously abandon the cash cow for iOS or browser, but will definitely cash in on that craze.


This response here says it all:

Westoncito: I see what you are saying, but IOS and browser games consist of about 95% casual games for casual gamers. As much fun as Hot Pursuit or Dead Space may be on the IPad, I would still rather play them on a 50+ inch HDTV screen at high volume. There are enough real gamers out there where both can co-exist at a profit. If gamers are buying Next Gen, developers will always follow because at the end of the day it is all about getting our money.
 
I read this a few days ago and it makes no sense. What new hardware will do is drive costs up even more since it will be more powerful. They need to stay on these consoles, seriously for a few more years IMO. Work on new engines and how to expand what can be done with current hardware and become efficient at it. It will prepare them for next gen as well.
 
They absolutely right. When the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out, they ran on six year old hardware. That was when they first came out. It's been a few years since then. The hardware is now over 10 years old. The new Unreal Engine 4 has been unveiled and it's been stated by the developers that with the way things are right now, it won't be able to run on next gen consoles. PC game sales are up by 200+%, console game sales are down by 28%. The gap isn't just spread with consoles and PCs, the gap is hundreds of miles wide.

The current gen of consoles has been holding gaming back for a while now. The new generation seems much better, but it's already behind. If they made a console where you could exchange parts it would be no big deal. But that probably won't happen for a while now. As a PC owner, I'm happy my machine won't be outdated. I'm happy that I'll be able to run games on this for another few years and not be left in the dust. And when the time comes, I can just exchange some parts.

For the first time in a while, SE said something right for a change.

EDIT: A source on the percentages that I used earlier: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07...t=24151-Could PC gam&utm_campaign=(GaggleAMP)

Also, it has been confirmed that Unreal Engine 4 will be able to run on the next Xbox and PS4. However, it will not run on the WiiU, and for the new Xbox and PS4 it barely makes the cut. Lots of features have had to be disabled. However, it will run on current modern PCs just fine.

Crytech is confident that their new engine will do better. However, many features of the engine will also have to be disabled for next gen consoles while it will also run on modern day PCs just fine.
 
Last edited:
Really? the consoles have been around too long, but your announcement for a game called ff13vs 6 years ago- now that is not too long.
 
they are saying that but yet they only released 1 main FF game...talk about :fail:
 
FF7,8,9 for PSX
FFX,FFX-2,FFXII for PS2
FFXIII,FFXIII-2 for PS3

Also FFXI,FFXIV is debatable.
So far the PS3 is missing out on one FF title. Make it happen before abandoning the PS3.

Yes PS3 is outdated because of the low ram/memory and maybe other tech, but consoles can never be on par with PC's.
I dont like playing games on PC's myself tbh.

Is an updatable console even possible?
Costs would skyrocket?

First you'll get a base console. Motherboard etc. How much ram could you add etc.
I dont know Sony would have to make major deals a manufacturer or something. I dont know how its done the pc market etc.

I only know basic things like Intel and AMD lmao.

Microsoft has a major advantage though with their products and all.
 
Ha. Say that again when you've made a proper video game on the current generation of consoles, Square Enix, then I might be inclined to pay the slightest bit of attention. Maybe.

In any case, I disagree with this; there is nothing wrong with the current generation. So what if PCs are more advanced? Graphics mean nothing. What matters is the gameplay. Who gives a damn how old the tech is? Hell, I can have more fun on my Gamecube playing years-old JRPGs than I can on current generation consoles or PCs or whatever. The problem is that we're not as impressed by this sparkly bullshit anymore, because we've seen it all before. I wonder how much FFXIII would have been praised if it had been released when the PS3 and 360 first came out, rather than years later when we'd all had time to adjust to the fact that graphics had gotten better. Square Enix just want the next generation of consoles released so they can wow us with pretty visuals without drawing attention to the fact that this is all they did: make games with pretty visuals, and no actual content. Of course Square Enix, who are all about graphics and nothing else, would say something like this. Pfft.

PC Gaming will always be more flexible than consoles. Always. I don't see the point in releasing the next generation in a vain attempt to catch up; in about a year we'd be right back to where we started, with PCs advancing in leaps and bounds whilst consoles sit there stuck at the same stage because they can't be modified in the same fashion. Comparing consoles to PCs is both stupid and pointless; the flexible nature of PCs means they will always be one jump ahead technologically. That doesn't make them better, though. Technologically advanced =/= Better. As I said, graphics mean nothing. Tech means nothing. You can still make good games on old tech. Hell, the Wii is even more dated than the PS3 or 360, and yet Xenoblade Chronicles is better than any JRPG on either console or the PC. Go figure. The problem is not with the hardware, it's with the way developers insist on using it to milk it for all it's worth. Consoles and PCs used to be totally different gaming platforms, the problem lies in the attempt to close the gap. Consoles were fine as they were before. The loss of the ease of access they had previously is the problem.

Making consoles more like PCs has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen. We've already seen the effects of this with the current generation, with all this firmware bullshit flying about. Consoles were so much better when you could just put the disc in and play the game; no hassle, no worries. This was why consoles were better than PCs back in the days: PCs were encumbered with updates and the rest, and consoles were quick and convenient. Now we're plagued by patches and god knows what else with consoles, and whilst it works for PCs as the years have passed, it doesn't work for consoles, because they're just not as flexible. In my opinion, consoles don't need to "evolve" to match PCs; they need to go back to being that simple, and not requiring lengthy firmware updates and the rest of it. Plug in and play. That's all it should be. That is all it should ever have been. I can understand singular updates to consoles prior to playing the game, like installation of sorts, but constant patches for all this additional content that should have been in the final product in the first place is where consoles are failing, because it isn't as easy to do it for consoles as it is for PCs. Maybe if developers weren't so damn greedy, they wouldn't have dug themselves this hole. The problem is the move towards digital content like DLC, not the outdated software. The problem is corporate greed and stupidity. Consoles just aren't suited to it; it's a BAD IDEA. It was always a bad idea. If I want a PC, I will BUY a PC; I don't need a PC in my console.

I want the PS3 to actually stick to its predicted ten year lifespan. For one, I don't give a damn about hardware or whatever else people are citing as an excuse to say these things; as long as I can actually play the game and enjoy myself, I don't care about much else. I can't do that with many games now, true, but it's not like the problem will go away with the next generation; there will still be firmware and software and whateverware updates, still be DLC, still be all these things that stop me from actually playing the game. For two, we're in a recession, and consoles cost a fortune when they first come out...and several years afterwards, as well. Development times skyrocket, and the games cost more as well. I don't want gaming to turn into an aristocrat's hobby; I'm not rich. Games are already costly enough as it is, let's not compound the issue by releasing the next generation of consoles when the economy has gone to hell.

I'm happy with the current generation...well, I am content to allow the current generation to continue. I'm not happy with the recent performance of certain companies or genres of game in general.

Also, the lack of games on the 3DS and Vita makes me wary of the next generation anyway. Release them when you have a decent selection of games for them, thank you very much. Launch line-ups have been AWFUL for the past two generations; I'd hope that these companies would actually learn their lesson and WAIT until they release the next generation. It's a stupid business decision anyway: think of how much more revenue you will generate if you release the console with some games that people might actually want to play, rather than with a pitifully small selection that would make most people just wait until the console had dropped in price and there were some actual games worth playing on it.

As for iOS...well, using THAT as an excuse is just plain bullshit. iOS games are cheaper and easier to make, sell en masse because an iPhone or whatever is just a console with more functions that makes it more practical for daily use for anyone and everyone, and the success of one or two games like Angry Birds have set the market for iOS games on fire. It's a new thing, and it's their way of getting into a "casual" market that is otherwise dominated by Nintendo. No no, developers didn't go to iOS because the current generation has been going on too long; they went to iOS because it's quick, easy and profitable. Release the next generation now and they'll still go to iOS, because they'll be able to churn out more games for that faster than they will for a new console. That's nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I actually agree with you.

I think it extends beyond SE though. These companies, besides 2-3, arent ready for next gen. Hell even Naughty Dog who make Uncharted arent ready for it and Sony owns them. They have said time and time again how the launch of the PS3 almost demolished the team. Game companies have been using huge teams (they did in the past as well) to make games with better graphics, but smaller in total scope overall compared to the PS2 and hell, even the PSOne if you count RPG's. UNLESS you spend 50 million to make a game, then maybe you can come close, but then it takes forever to make the thing.

I think the best thing for game companies to do is to focus on stream lining their development so they can get games out faster, at lower costs, and the same if not better quality. Not jump to new consoles where the same problems are going to repeat and probably bankrupt more of them.

About the 3DS and Vita, I agree there as well, but for a different reason. The graphics on both are becoming more sophisticated, so it's taking longer to make the games. Traditionally, handheld games dont sell as well as console games (though there are exceptions). I was thrilled about the Vita and interested about the 3DS, but as I think more, the better graphics get, the less chance I think you see for RPG's coming to them, which is the exact opposite of what I want.
 
... says the company that is planning to release Final Fantasy Versus XIII but is taking more time than necessary to make it happen.

If the console lifespans were shortened, what would they do with Final Fantasy Versus XIII? Just redo it for the PS4? Or still work on it for the PS3 when it's long and dead?
 
Juliet Starling said:
In any case, I disagree with this; there is nothing wrong with the current generation. So what if PCs are more advanced? Graphics mean nothing. What matters is the gameplay. Who gives a damn how old the tech is? Hell, I can have more fun on my Gamecube playing years-old JRPGs than I can on current generation consoles or PCs or whatever.
Click to expand...

This is true, but on a PC I can have fun playing, I don't know, just about everything? Through emulation I can run games from any console I want. Atari, Nintendo, Playstation, Dreamcast, even the Wii, I can run them. Graphics may mean nothing (which, by the way, have a fun time trying to convince any AAA game designer that), but flexibility and power sure as hell does.

The problem is that we're not as impressed by this sparkly bullshit anymore, because we've seen it all before. I wonder how much FFXIII would have been praised if it had been released when the PS3 and 360 first came out, rather than years later when we'd all had time to adjust to the fact that graphics had gotten better. Square Enix just want the next generation of consoles released so they can wow us with pretty visuals without drawing attention to the fact that this is all they did: make games with pretty visuals, and no actual content. Of course Square Enix, who are all about graphics and nothing else, would say something like this. Pfft.
Click to expand...

Well all know they just want to hurry up and make movies now anyway. The last good thing they did was buy up Edios and let them make Dues Ex and Just Cause 2.

PC Gaming will always be more flexible than consoles. Always. I don't see the point in releasing the next generation in a vain attempt to catch up; in about a year we'd be right back to where we started, with PCs advancing in leaps and bounds whilst consoles sit there stuck at the same stage because they can't be modified in the same fashion.
Click to expand...

The sad part here is that consoles never catch up. The tech you guys start out with is ancient. The new graphics cards being put into the next generation of consoles is a huge step forward for you guys. But here's the kicker, those cards were great back in 2005. I wouldn't be caught dead with one now. The processors still leave much to be desired and the ram isn't much better. I have a computer from 2001 that meets those specs.

Comparing consoles to PCs is both stupid and pointless; the flexible nature of PCs means they will always be one jump ahead technologically. That doesn't make them better, though. Technologically advanced =/= Better. As I said, graphics mean nothing. Tech means nothing. You can still make good games on old tech. Hell, the Wii is even more dated than the PS3 or 360, and yet Xenoblade Chronicles is better than any JRPG on either console or the PC. Go figure. The problem is not with the hardware, it's with the way developers insist on using it to milk it for all it's worth. Consoles and PCs used to be totally different gaming platforms, the problem lies in the attempt to close the gap. Consoles were fine as they were before. The loss of the ease of access they had previously is the problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, but that isn't the nature of this particular argument. You're talking games here. Ever notice how games these days are the same old shit? Call of Duty: Modern Black Ops Gears of Battlefield 6? It's because game developers don't want to try anything new anymore. They're fine with doing the same old shit because they know people will buy it up. What happens when they try something new? They go bankrupt. Case and point: The studio behind Kingdoms of Amalur.

With PC gaming, we have massive amounts of indie game studios that try new things all the time. Hell, quite a few games in my Steam collection are indie games because of this. The gameplay is impressive and quite a few of them have rather good stories as well. Indie developers aren't barred in making new things because they honestly have nothing to lose. Many of these companies make games that do so well they become much bigger (Mojang, Tripwire, etc.). The innovation and magic of video games that seems to have died out recently has moved to indie gaming. Sadly, the vast majority of that is exclusive to the PC.

Making consoles more like PCs has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Not really. The way it's handled just makes it seem that way. It typically turns in to name calling fights.

We've already seen the effects of this with the current generation, with all this firmware bullshit flying about. Consoles were so much better when you could just put the disc in and play the game; no hassle, no worries. This was why consoles were better than PCs back in the days: PCs were encumbered with updates and the rest, and consoles were quick and convenient. Now we're plagued by patches and god knows what else with consoles, and whilst it works for PCs as the years have passed, it doesn't work for consoles, because they're just not as flexible. In my opinion, consoles don't need to "evolve" to match PCs; they need to go back to being that simple, and not requiring lengthy firmware updates and the rest of it. Plug in and play. That's all it should be. That is all it should ever have been. I can understand singular updates to consoles prior to playing the game, like installation of sorts, but constant patches for all this additional content that should have been in the final product in the first place is where consoles are failing, because it isn't as easy to do it for consoles as it is for PCs. Maybe if developers weren't so damn greedy, they wouldn't have dug themselves this hole. The problem is the move towards digital content like DLC, not the outdated software. The problem is corporate greed and stupidity. Consoles just aren't suited to it; it's a BAD IDEA. It was always a bad idea. If I want a PC, I will BUY a PC; I don't need a PC in my console.
Click to expand...

Ah, but my friend, we've fixed this problem with PCs. We're not "used to it" at all. We changed the game. With Steam, we buy our games with the click of a button and we download them. They download on their own, they update on their own, we hardly do anything. We buy it, get it instantly, and play it once it's done. It's a really simple process. The only exceptions to this is if you're dealing with a game with bad DRM. But that's a conversation for another day unless you want me to explain the nightmares behind things like Games for Windows Live.

I want the PS3 to actually stick to its predicted ten year lifespan.
Click to expand...

This prediction was a joke and just about every PC owner knew it from the second we found out what was inside of it. There was just no way. Hell, last year was when it peaked. I'm impressed it lasted that long. You can still make good games for it, sure, but the hardware is done, it has met its limit, and as long as that remains to be true, developers are going to leave it behind and push forward. There's nothing anyone can really do about that.

However, if you have a SNES or a Dreamcast, people still make games for those.

Seriously, I'm not kidding.

For one, I don't give a damn about hardware or whatever else people are citing as an excuse to say these things; as long as I can actually play the game and enjoy myself, I don't care about much else. I can't do that with many games now, true, but it's not like the problem will go away with the next generation; there will still be firmware and software and whateverware updates, still be DLC, still be all these things that stop me from actually playing the game. For two, we're in a recession, and consoles cost a fortune when they first come out...and several years afterwards, as well. Development times skyrocket, and the games cost more as well. I don't want gaming to turn into an aristocrat's hobby; I'm not rich. Games are already costly enough as it is, let's not compound the issue by releasing the next generation of consoles when the economy has gone to hell.
Click to expand...

Sadly, gaming is going to get more expensive. There are currently rumors that the PS4 may cost somewhere around $700... let's hope not. Because then at that point, you really might as well by a PC and get double for your dollar... or pound... or rupee... or yen, whatever.

I'm happy with the current generation...well, I am content to allow the current generation to continue. I'm not happy with the recent performance of certain companies or genres of game in general.
Click to expand...
So... 95% of them? I feel the same way. But seeing a lot of the games that are being brought out on Steam quite often is breath of fresh air in the industry.

Also, the lack of games on the 3DS and Vita makes me wary of the next generation anyway. Release them when you have a decent selection of games for them, thank you very much. Launch line-ups have been AWFUL for the past two generations; I'd hope that these companies would actually learn their lesson and WAIT until they release the next generation. It's a stupid business decision anyway: think of how much more revenue you will generate if you release the console with some games that people might actually want to play, rather than with a pitifully small selection that would make most people just wait until the console had dropped in price and there were some actual games worth playing on it.
Click to expand...

The launch games for those were a joke. They weren't worth the money when they first came out and they're hardly worth the money now. For my 3DS all I have are a couple of ports, and I'm waiting for a Monster Hunter and a new Animal Crossing.

As for iOS...well, using THAT as an excuse is just plain bullshit. iOS games are cheaper and easier to make, sell en masse because an iPhone or whatever is just a console with more functions that makes it more practical for daily use for anyone and everyone, and the success of one or two games like Angry Birds have set the market for iOS games on fire. It's a new thing, and it's their way of getting into a "casual" market that is otherwise dominated by Nintendo. No no, developers didn't go to iOS because the current generation has been going on too long; they went to iOS because it's quick, easy and profitable. Release the next generation now and they'll still go to iOS, because they'll be able to churn out more games for that faster than they will for a new console. That's nonsense.
Click to expand...

This may make you a bit happy; no one takes the iOS seriously. It's fucking clown shoes.
 
THis is all coming from the company who barely making any games in this console generation. Granted, on ps2 they never reelased that many main FF titles, but that doesn't mean they didn't release less mainstream games on ps2 than ps3. I believe, they should focus on making a universal engine that can go on any console. ps3 and 360 has ALOT of life. NO way would new gamers want a new system now. if you're bored with the games on those consoles, dont lame the console. example:PSP
 
I can see the point of PC gamers on this, but I'm not much of a gamer and am only casual there. As a console gamer I'm not ready for a new generation at all, and I do not care if it is comparable to driving Fred Flinstone's car.

I'm nowhere near ready for a new generation of console... I know that it has in reality been quite a while since the PS3 came out, but it does not feel like it at all. When the PSX and PS2 eras ended it really did feel like a natural end, but this does not. Perhaps it is merely a case of life going by faster as you get older, and therefore it doesn't seem like much time has passed.

It is also a bit cheeky for this sort of thing to be said when we've only had one main numbered FF title of this generation. We've also yet to get Versus XIII... So it would appear that they'd be announcing Versus XIII for a dinosaur console. Or... Not releasing it, updating the graphics / etc, and then putting it out for the next generation, which would irritate people somewhat. I'm sure they didn't mean that, but this is how people are going to take it.
 
This whole thing is a joke in the end

Saying that the consoles are out of date when you have games you have yet released coming out for it.

You only had one main series game released for it

When all the other consoles had at least three (in japan at least)

Nes had 1-3

SNES had 4-6

PSX had 7-9

PS2 had 10-12 (yes I am counting XI )

PS3 had one... XIII... yes XIV is out... but... guess what.. YOU ARE STILL WORKING ON IT!!!!!

so dont say things are outdated when you can't release the number of games you had on older consoles...in less time...
 
This whole argument of whether this console generation has lasted too long is very subjective, depends on who you ask.

I personally own a mid-high end gaming PC, as well as a PS3, and could frankly care less if the current generation was extended for a few more years.

And here is why:

Even though the terribly dated hardware on consoles is holding back my PC experience, somewhat, I can afford to purchase third party releases of game
that I desire to play at high resolutions for my PC, and stick with console exclusive games on my console. That way I get the best of both worlds.

Others however, are stuck with a pitifully dated console that was exerted to its maximum performance limits quite a while ago. And would love to see
the new technologies that are around the corner, today.

Yet others, own that same outdated console, and would milk the investment they made on that console and software to its very limits, selfishly holding
back everyone who wishes to push forward to the next generation of technology.

As I mentioned before, frankly I don't care for either, if they push new technologies into the market now or continue to hold them back is irrelevant to me.
 
I do agree with the point but I don't agree with the company that said it, yes the current gen of consoles have very outdated hardware now, and tbh, the games now are just stating to get boring now, that not just the console's falut, this gen we had only 1 main FF Title, no tomb raider, no PS3 KH game, no decent JRPG Developers for this gen 'this aims more at xbox' and it all about 'how good can you get the graphics' I don't give a dam about graphics if the gameplay good, and that just not happened this gen :gasp:
 
I agree with SE on this one. Consoles of the past did fine with a 10 year life span...when a new generation released about half way through it. Last game for PS1 was released in late 2004, which is 10 years after its initial release, but the PS2 had already been around nearly 4 years by that point. PS2 might finally be done getting new releases almost 12 years into its life, but PS3 has been around for 5 already. Following that trend, we should have already seen demo hardware for PS4 and be anticipating a release sometime next year. Developers could still work on current-gen hardware, but they would be pressured to learn the new stuff asap. As it is, creativity is noticeably beginning to suffer because software devs aren't being pushed by hardware devs anymore.

I also liked the note about hardware becoming simpler. Generally we think about hardware today being more complex because it is more capable, but really it's been reduced to just a CPU, GPU, and RAM, and every computer follows this basic structure. Back in the PS1 and PS2 days, every console's hardware was extremely unique and featured configurations of processors and coprocessors that simply weren't found on any other company's hardware. As computers become more standardized, they'll be cheaper to produce and easier to develop for, so the key of maintaining equilibrium is indeed found in the frequency of new hardware releases.
 
I don't care how old the consoles are. I still have hours of fun playing my NES/SNES and my N64. The PS3 can afford a little more time before they attempt a new console or move on. The system still makes amazingly beautiful graphics for those concerned only with that, and they release pretty good games with great storylines.

There is no need, right now, to move off the PS3.

PC Gaming will always be more flexible than consoles. Always. I don't see the point in releasing the next generation in a vain attempt to catch up; in about a year we'd be right back to where we started, with PCs advancing in leaps and bounds whilst consoles sit there stuck at the same stage because they can't be modified in the same fashion.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think they were considering that though.

Also FFXI,FFXIV is debatable.
So far the PS3 is missing out on one FF title. Make it happen before abandoning the PS3.

Yes PS3 is outdated because of the low ram/memory and maybe other tech, but consoles can never be on par with PC's.
I dont like playing games on PC's myself tbh.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top