• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Economist: "The newest games consoles look underpowered and similar to PCs."

antipode

Member
20130907_TQP016_0.jpg


The newest games consoles look underpowered and are very similar to PCs. That's because the business is changing http://econ.st/1dK4ljh

Both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 will go on sale in time for Christmas, and Microsoft and Sony are already competing vigorously to convince potential buyers of the merits of their respective machines. But veterans of such battles will notice a curious absence. At previous console launches, executives have boasted about their boxes’ whizzy technological innards. Sony in particular was a dab hand at this sort of thing, coming up with names like “Emotion Engine” and “Reality Synthesiser” for the chips that powered its previous consoles. But this time neither Microsoft nor Sony seems very keen to talk up the technical prowess of their new boxes.

To be sure, compared with the current generation of machines, graphics will take a leap. But the truth is that the new consoles will be merely catching up with the current state of the art, rather than defining it. Both consoles have about as much raw computing power as a reasonably fast desktop PC and are, for all intents and purposes, ordinary PCs in fancy boxes. Indeed, their technological guts are strikingly similar. That is because of the way the gaming industry is changing.

Power underwhelming
Going with a general-purpose PC chip will limit the new machines’ performance. But there are good reasons to make that trade-off. One is simply that the cost of designing chips has risen dramatically as they have become more complicated, says Jordan Selburn of IHS iSuppli, a market-research firm that specialises in computer hardware. At the same time, the benefits of customisation have shrunk. These days, most of the innovation in graphics processing is confined to two big companies, AMD and Nvidia. It makes sense to leave the job to these specialists.

It also makes life easier for the firms that create games. Mastering the intricacies of a custom-made chip can take programmers many years, a problem that was particularly acute with the unusual chip that powered the PlayStation 3. The new consoles’ PC-like architecture will make developing games much more straightforward. It will also make it easier to create games that run on both new consoles and on PCs too, and to release them simultaneously. Game prices have not risen for many years, even in nominal terms, but the cost of creating them has ballooned. Simultaneous release on multiple platforms maximises the potential market.

Besides, ever-snazzier graphics are only one area in which gaming firms can innovate, and one in which returns are diminishing. The first games with elaborate, three-dimensional game worlds, such as “Quake” and “Tomb Raider”, were revolutionary when they appeared in the mid-1990s. These days, extra graphical power is used for more subtle features such as more accurate lighting or more realistic-looking hair. With each new generation of consoles, the improvement in graphics is less dramatic. This means console-makers must find other ways to convince gamers to upgrade.

I wonder if this is going to become a standard story in the press. For me personally, the graphical leap is enough - not overwhelming, but enough. But I wonder if the casual observer is going to complain that the graphical improvement over today's PC-console cross-platform games is more subtle - just better lighting and hair.
 

apana

Member
Economist tends to be fairly reputable, at least I like their articles. Interesting that they talk about diminishing returns, I think this is a moderate jump but I am taking a wait and see approach.
 

coolasj19

Why are you reading my tag instead of the title of my post?
I don't see a point to discuss over that isn't being talked about better in other threads. They aren't just PC's in a box, they have fundamental differences.
 
Well, yeah.
A powerful PC will cost far more than these console options.
My current gfx card (GTX680) cost more than a PS4 when I bought it a year and a half ago.

edit: Price check: It STILL costs as much as a PS4...
 

JordanN

Banned
Even though the hardware is nothing spectacular, the games at launch sure as heck won't fully represent what the consoles can do. 2 or 3 years from now, I expect visuals to wow again similar to how the 2nd wave Xbox 360 games made the launch ones suck.
 
Well, Sony and Microsoft cant do engineering miracles. You can't have moderate priced consoles with stunning specs and the market doesnt want expensive spec monsters - see the PS3 before the redesign.
 

Fantasmo

Member
When you can build a $400 PC that does everything the PS4 does get back to me. Coming from a PC user. Man media these days is just starved for controversy and spin.
 

kevm3

Member
There is no way that these modern systems would have been able to keep up with PCs given that PCs release new graphics cards and processors every few years if not every year and especially since you can buy a graphics card alone that costs more than twice as much as any gaming console. I don't know how they can say these machines are underpowered when we haven't see the type of graphics they will output. Underpowered compared to PC, but let's see if we will be screaming about diminishing returns when top teams start releasing their products.
 
None of this is untrue, and of course it isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, it could be a big problem if there is another extremely long generation like we have now. Hopefully though we'll return back to the typical ~5 year generation.
 

kirblar

Member
When you can build a $400 PC that does everything the PS4 does get back to me. Coming from a PC user. Man media these days is just starved for controversy and spin.
They're not wrong about the diminishing marginal gains in graphics, though.
 
Very well reasoned, if a little basic, article from the Economist. Very fair on most points and decent summary of next-gen consoles.

I may actually know the author of this piece, as my little brother went to Uni with someone who was a huge gamer and who now rights for the Economist. This must be him.
 

Orayn

Member
weren't older consoles were more powerful than comparable PCs available at the time? like playstation in 1994.

Yes, but that's because PCs were mostly stuck with software rendering which was very limiting. Lots of things changed from '96 onward with Quake and the rise of dedicated video cards. Consoles were still better bang for your buck, of course, but they didn't really get "more powerful than PCs" since that was always a moving target with a much higher price point, even moreso today than it was in 2005.
 

darkside31337

Tomodachi wa Mahou
PCs would be the biggest scam ever if $400 boxes could outperform rigs that have $1000 video cards in them so yeah.

Not really sure how one would say they're underwhelming or underpowered. Even the launch games are better looking then games you'd be getting for comparable prices, and games on these consoles will keep improving visually over time.
 

Sakujou

Banned
Iam not familiar with tech but the fact that both consoles do have 8gb and have a pc like architecture does not sound that good for me... Also focusing to much on shit like os,entertainment and so on means focusing less on gaming.
 
The PS3 released the same month the 8800 GTX did, so no. 360 was better than most PCs for a brief period of time.

In power, PC has always been king, but at the start of a cycle console exclusives can sometimes look better than lots of stuff on PC since they are targeting higher-end specs than what the average PC at the time is. I don't recall anything on PC looking as good as PGR3 in Nov. 2005, though maybe I'm forgetting something.
 
Even at that time you could build pc that would run circles around PS360.

Maybe, but not easily so and certainly not mainstream. Today, most of us already have PC's on par or better than the consoles yet to launch and if not, you could build one for nearly the same cost.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
"Power of PC versus consoles: the difference between 2006 and 2013 illustrated."

You all laughed at him months back then, but that thread will haunt this board for the next 5 years. It might not keep on getting bumped, but it will live on in spirit.
 

ghst

thanks for the laugh
the writer was actually being generous when they said the consoles were on spec with reasonably powerful PCs.
 

Leb

Member
When you can build a $400 PC that does everything the PS4 does get back to me. Coming from a PC user. Man media these days is just starved for controversy and spin.

I'm struggling to find a comment more off-point than this one; this article has nothing to say about the value proposition of the various platforms.
 
Yeah. Would have been the smarter approach to make consoles that were more powerful than upper end PC hardware at similarly ridiculous prices.
 

Linkyn

Member
That really shouldn't surprise anyone. People choose consoles over PC because consoles are a bit more user-friendly and get more dedicated support. They are the easy and affordable way to gaming. Very few actually expect their consoles to be more powerful than a decent PC.
 

Yoday

Member
Not even Crysis 3 on PC
I disagree. I played through Crysis 3 on the PC, and Shadow Fall looks better to me. I'm sure some of that has to do with art though, and we won't be able to compare it technically until the game launches and we see a final optimized build.
 
Top Bottom