You don't have to build a desktop to own a gaming PC. You can buy them already built (e.g. steam machines, alienware, etc.).
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Are you in or out of a iterative consoles?
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
You don't have to build a desktop to own a gaming PC. You can buy them already built (e.g. steam machines, alienware, etc.).
TylerDurden4321
Member
There should be a poll!
Maybe OP could ask a moderator and give good options for answers like
- I'm out, no matter what.
- Out and going to PC.
- I'm in if it's a bi-annual subsctription and get the upgrade as automatic trade-in.
- If it's every 3 years or less, I will skip at least one iteration.
- If it's every 3 years or less, I'll stay one iteration behind and buy a used console.
- I'll be where the games are, even if I don't like the concept.
- I'm SO(!) up for it.
just a proposal. I think the results would be very interesting.
Maybe OP could ask a moderator and give good options for answers like
- I'm out, no matter what.
- Out and going to PC.
- I'm in if it's a bi-annual subsctription and get the upgrade as automatic trade-in.
- If it's every 3 years or less, I will skip at least one iteration.
- If it's every 3 years or less, I'll stay one iteration behind and buy a used console.
- I'll be where the games are, even if I don't like the concept.
- I'm SO(!) up for it.
just a proposal. I think the results would be very interesting.
wonderful103
Member
It's all 3. There are no more generations as we know them.
witchedwiz
Member
usually i'd say no..
i caved for 3ds into n3ds, but only because
1) i had vanilla
2) 3d on 3ds is.. bad..
3) wanted to play xenoblade while travelling
i caved for 3ds into n3ds, but only because
1) i had vanilla
2) 3d on 3ds is.. bad..
3) wanted to play xenoblade while travelling
CaptainGyro
Banned
I wouldn't rule it out completely, but as I said in the other thread it doesn't make me eager to buy a console either.
So I guess if I had to pick one, I'd say out
So I guess if I had to pick one, I'd say out
The point for me with consoles is that you buy one and everything just runs on it for some years. Even if they retain some backwards-compatibility they'll probably care a little less about optimizing for those.
Smartphone gaming seems to be a pain, with games and apps often requiring recent hardware and OS version, while older stuff breaks.
Smartphone gaming seems to be a pain, with games and apps often requiring recent hardware and OS version, while older stuff breaks.
Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
Yup. One of the few reasons I even consider buying consoles even though I have a monster PC, that and the exclusives. At this rate I'll be sticking with Nintendo consoles in the future. Which is fine by me as the Wii U is easily my favourite system of the generation.
GamerMax73
Member
While I'd love this idea, and wish the US all the best, we must remember (along with the download vs physical argument) that consoles are international devices. Here in the UK we have Satellite, Cable, Free Satellite, Free Terrestrial, Free Terrestrial with IPTV options. Building a compelling built in TV experience is not so easy for us.
SerTapTap
Member
Considering I bought a $150 Xbox One elite controller only to find many games, even old ones, do not even launch with an Xbox One controller plugged in (along with a laundry list of other grievances) no, it really isn't.
I do agree that iterative consoles erase a good portion of the other benefits of consoles though, and they make another benefit (exclusive games) considerably more questionable. If I have an Old 3DS sure I CAN buy the exclusive Hyrule Warriors, but it would suck. Usually you expect the opposite, exclusive games have no ports so you don't have to worry about getting "the bad port".
The thought of buying a Sony system and still getting "bad ports" of Sony games is terrifying TBH, and it's already happened with Nintendo
what do you even mean by sonys API rather than bare metal? coding to the metal means that you know the hardware and code specifically for it. you design your engine/code or whatever with the amount of registers, simd width, cache capacity, processor instructions and so in in mind. You do that because that's what the problem of writing good software actually boils down to.
People seem to think this is some kind of black magic, It isn't - it's what anyone who has put serious work into performance tuning does, even on the pc. Difference is on pc we can't use a lot of features, new instruction sets and so on because of compability issues, so you find the smallest set you need to support and use that as a spec, obviously that's not going to lead to software that runs even close to max possible performance. On locked hardware, this is not an issue.
Also, on PC it's not even possible to code "to the metal" with gpus since nobody knows what the gpus actually are doing(no spec available). On consoles this problem, again, doesn't exist, you have access to the spec and can talk directly with the hardware which is exactly what engineers want/does. I don't know where this idea that programmers doesn't code to the metal anymore comes from but it's plain wrong and doesn't even make any sense.
My 3 year old nexus is running worse and worse with every new update, an experience I seem to share with many others across different models of smartphones. It makes a difference because it's much more expensive to support and maintain multiple platforms, both for platform owners and devs that make software running on it.
GamerMax73
Member
No need to split the user base, no reason why a game can't be playable on both models. Done right a PS4.5 should be seen as a stepping stone to PS5 rather than a fracture from PS4.
With only 2 sku at any one time there's no reason why the game shouldn't autodetect the right setting to use. Why do we need to add complicated sliders no-one understands?
Pretty much this
You don't need exclusive games as a carrot. The carrot is existing PS4 games look better and the system will run early PS5 games when they come out, which the PS4 couldn't.
Exclusive games should be used to attract gamers into the platform/eco-system as a whole not alienating existing users and blackmailing them into early upgrades. Such practices would drive me away to a competing platform.
Smokin' Sick Style!!!
Banned
Further into my post I mention how they would mitigate this by allowing more graphical options for the PS4.5. But if games can't make use of the improved hardware whats the point of upgrading when the original PS4 holds the newer one back?
They aren't going to please everyone. They would need to make the PS4.5 a viable upgrade and give people a reason to buy it.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
No. I already spend way too much money on this damn hobby.
visiblemode
Member
In....think about it. If you game regularly how often do you make it through a cycle on the same rig?
I'd rather my mid-cycle replacement be something that makes me go "well, I have to unexpectedly spend some money, but at least it'll be a better machine."
I'd rather my mid-cycle replacement be something that makes me go "well, I have to unexpectedly spend some money, but at least it'll be a better machine."
GamerMax73
Member
Using Sony's supplied library routines to handle talking to the hardware rather than doing it yourself at a lower more direct level.
However the point I was trying to make is that the differences in the amount of registers, simd width, cache capacaity, processor instructions between two closely related AMD APU's shouldn't brake compatibility at that level - especially if Sony are specifying the APU feature set. Again we're not talking about suddenly having to code for Intel or nVidia or whatever.
The new APU may have features and instructions the previous doesn't but a game doesn't have to use them, and extra APU features shouldn't brake compatibility with old games.
It all depends on execution. If they approach it the way Nintendo has with their handhelds I can see it alienating some people, but obviously there's also precedent for success. If it's just like prior generations where the differences were extremely minor (adding HDMI, removing USBnports, etc.) then it's business as usual.
The only real disasters I can see would be effectively shortening the entire generation, or trying to be PC-like.
The only real disasters I can see would be effectively shortening the entire generation, or trying to be PC-like.
GamerMax73
Member
Further into my reply I suggested that a game should possibly auto-detect the hardware its running on and adjust the graphics output accordingly - no need confuse the end user with complicated options
It's the worst of all worlds. You lose the one time buyin that a console provides and you lose the ability to customize the PC and run it the way you want to. You also lose the increase in generational power that was already minimal this time around, ensuring that games are incrementally better and never actually advance anything. Games will still be made down to the lowest barrier because not enough people will buy the new boxes to make it worthwhile to target higher specs.
Mudron
Member
I've been a lifelong console gamer for 35 years now, and half the point of consoles to me is the simple fact that when you throw down $300+ on a console, at the very least you know you're set for the next 5 years (assuming the console doesn't break or the whole thing is a dismal failure that ends up being discontinued by Sega in 18 months.)
I've just invested in my first Steam machine/PC, and shit, if consoles are going iterative, then I can easily see myself becoming a PC/Nintendo-only dork in the future, especially since most of the most interesting games these days are indie games being published on Steam first.
I've just invested in my first Steam machine/PC, and shit, if consoles are going iterative, then I can easily see myself becoming a PC/Nintendo-only dork in the future, especially since most of the most interesting games these days are indie games being published on Steam first.
If there's an update every two years with next gen coming out after the third upgrade I'd just go with the second console.
Example
2016: PS5
2018: PS5 S
2020: PS5 SX (or whatever)
2022: PS6
I feel the second one gives you the benefit of better hardware than the first but also gives you more time to enjoy the generation than the final, most powerful one. Of course, six year generations, while not unheard of, would kinda suck. If there were an option to transfer everything from one console to the next, have full backwards compatibility and also get a reasonable discount on the next iteration then I'd be down with just upgrading every two years.
Example
2016: PS5
2018: PS5 S
2020: PS5 SX (or whatever)
2022: PS6
I feel the second one gives you the benefit of better hardware than the first but also gives you more time to enjoy the generation than the final, most powerful one. Of course, six year generations, while not unheard of, would kinda suck. If there were an option to transfer everything from one console to the next, have full backwards compatibility and also get a reasonable discount on the next iteration then I'd be down with just upgrading every two years.
wonderful103
Member
Metal is dead. You're going through an api whether your game is being made for the PlayStation, the PC, the nx, the bone, the android, the iOS or even the bloody ouya 2. That abstraction later is why this all works. And as far as PC goes, you seem to be out of date. Stuff like dx12, mantle/vulkan/etc are just as thin as what you'd typically be dealing with on a modern console.
DreamingCrazy
Banned
I'm in, seems like the market is moving that direction anyway. Not the best example, but it works for iOS and Andriod, I think Console manufacturers can make it work as long as there is enoug backwards compatibility for a while.
Smokin' Sick Style!!!
Banned
Further into my reply I suggested that a game should possibly auto-detect the hardware its running on and adjust the graphics output accordingly - no need confuse the end user with complicated options
Actually didn't realize you replied to my entire post in chunks! Rookie mistake.
I agree with your approach. Much like how N3DS and NN3DS detect the console and render the appropriate textures in games like MH4U.
Even then you'll get consumers stating that they should have had the PS4.5 from the start, why do I have to pay more money for the generation I was promised years ago etc.
Even if it's an easy sell, there is gonna be plenty of bad blood going around.
Just to add another point...I'm out on hardware iterations, but if it was done via the cloud I would be totally in. I thought Microsoft said a while back that Xbox Live had enough cloud processing power to enhance graphical features that weren't latency dependent (e.g. atmosphere effects like fog and lighting). Perhaps it is not technically possible, but a smarter play would be for Microsoft and Sony to use PS Plus and Live to do the GPU processing. Or at least they should be striving to make that a reality. It would be awesome if they could say, buy our console along with a subscription to our gaming service and you will always have the latest GPU since that processing power is offloaded to the cloud. The only time you would need to upgrade is when the CPU and RAM became a bottleneck. I would even be willing to pay more for PS Plus and Live if they did that. That would be an absolute game changer. Not this iterative physical hardware crap.
GamerMax73
Member
You only have to read through this thread to see the truism in that! The nay-sayers all seem to be emotional rather than logical in their reasonings. I've actually enjoyed the past couple of days coming up with logical answers as to why such an approach could work.
The truth is I very much doubt it will happen this gen. I think the next XBox will land in the 2018-19 time frame just ahead of PS5 in 2019-20. I think both consoles will be x86. Microsofts will be iterative and fully BC. Sony? Wouldn't surprise me if they try to be innovative and brake BC in some way.
As for the long term future. If MS and Sony are not investigating an Iterative approach for the next gen then they are leaving the door wide open for someone like Amazon or Apple to redefine console gaming.
Both entered the set-top gaming market towards the end of last gen. Apple took longer getting there than I ever thought they would. Amazon seem a little closer to the prize. Neither seem to be pushing the market, yet.
MegaManTrigger
Banned
I agree with your notion that consoles would have to change their business model to reflect going for iterative consoles. But I think changing the model is going to be the most challenging part of breaking into the market. Ideally, you'd need a "unified" (for lack of a better term) app store that sells applications that can run in each iteration of a machine. However the app system clashes with the console maker's interest in selling as many units as possible. Part of the reason one owns a console is for the library of software that you couldn't get with predecessors, you lose that element if you go for a unified system and pushing for iterative consoles.
If enough people own a generation of consoles, what's in it for them to upgrade? Furthermore, why should a customer buy a new one if they can tap into the secondhand market to get a cheaper system? I'm not sure there are quite as many incentives with going iterative as there have been with traditional console businesses. What that in mind, it's really only a matter of time before market exhaustion becomes a reality. Knowing challenges is half the battle, remedying them and putting forth a business model that is not only sustainable, but also realistic is the other half. I think that's where the companies face the biggest challenges.
You bring up a very good point that IMO, will be a key variable from here on out if companies choose to go iterative: the amount of time per generation on the market. If iterative console production and distribution was on an annual basis, you risk market exhaustion like we're seeing with the iPad. Whereas 5-6 years seems to be the sweet spot for selling as much as a company can, while still allowing for consumers to enjoy their products without feeling too overwhelmed and going for the cheap option. Perhaps you don't need the app system to be compatible with every single iteration, but maybe providing compatibility with 2 or 3 consoles per new generation will suffice?
Technology is also a very good point. If a consumer doesn't already have an iteration of a console, it makes sense to go for the most powerful one currently. However, it presents an interesting problem that we're seeing with a particular handheld: the New 3DS vs. Original 3DS. How does a company deal with the influx of new consumers vs. having an existing base of consumers in the old console? Does one take precedence over another? If so, how? Is development made more complex because of the number of consoles sold? Are there technological limitations with regards to software in the previous console that prevents a company from providing a similar experience for the existing userbase? That's where market fragmentation concerns lie. Apple can get away with it because technology is already pretty similar with some bells and whistles provided for the newer ones, whereas for consoles they can either turn out to be relatively minor or major. In Nintendo's case, the change with the New 3DS is major as they've provided developers and consumers with more power to improve gaming experience, but at the same time, they have such an established base with the Original 3DS that it's hard to break away from, and as a result, limits their development potential.
Technology is also a double-edged sword. Like you said about not needing tablets because you have a phone, and converting into the PC market: console construction is already very similar to PCs, and it's raises the question whether consoles are a good investment considering PCs have a great distribution platform for digital games, and covers all of the multimedia features that consoles have. The only hurdle is that for the average joe, they may not have the time or attention span to commit to upgrading their PCs. I wonder if the future of the gaming industry lies in major brands converging into PCs, but with providing designs are much more modular yet simple for the average consumer to consider upgrades. I think that solving the knowledge of PC problem is key to changing the gaming industry (assuming major brands consider the PC approach).
Linkstrikesback
Member
They kinda did, but one tier is called "PS4" and the other "Xbox One".
I'm sorry
I still can't imagine a way that this is feasible on consoles.
I'm already out.
Ever since (semi)required installations, half-assed releases with almost mandatory day one patches and regular game and OS updates became a thing last generation I've switched to PC for modern gaming. To me, consoles have lost most of their advantages compared to PC's already, and this potential development certainly isn't helping to win me back over.
Ever since (semi)required installations, half-assed releases with almost mandatory day one patches and regular game and OS updates became a thing last generation I've switched to PC for modern gaming. To me, consoles have lost most of their advantages compared to PC's already, and this potential development certainly isn't helping to win me back over.
On PC you won't have to pay for Live or PS Plus, also your PC hardware will last longer than a console if they do go through with iterative releases every 2-3 years.
false, I take it you don't do much low level programming, because you'd never say such a thing if you did. I'll say it again, coding to the metal means coding for the actual hardware you are running on. doing things like optimizing for simd, cache, and so on specific to that hardware.
the api on playstation is tailored to the platform, ie the hardware is basically your api. it's nothing like win32 or ios where the os layer has to support a large set of configurations.
false again. Guess I'll have to repeat myself because you don't seem to read what I write. The reason you can't code to the metal on pc gpus is because there is no spec available, furthermore vulkan and dx12 are general gpu apis targeting a range of hardware, gnm on ps4 target one gpu and exposes all hardware functionality.
which is a worse proposition on all fronts, especially considering the PC already does all that but in an actual open ecosystem. the locked hardware and long cycles are a positive with consoles. it's a big part of what makes them successful.
The PC has advantages that consoles barely or do not have, like mods, enormous backwards compatibility, (potentially) better graphics, more available peripherals to customize your gaming experience, other uses than gaming, etc.
Consoles keep getting more and more of the disadvantages of PC gaming, while not really gaining anything in return. If you're going to increase the hassle of consoles anyway, why not just completely jump to PC gaming and enjoy the benefits it has to offer over consoles?
GamerMax73
Member
Sorry I don't understand what you mean. PCs as a whole market certainly doesn't do this. Low level compatibility between Intel and AMD or nVidia and AMD just doesn't exist in this way. The hardware will be locked, the extra APU features will be there when they are needed. The only barriers I see are artificial.
GreatNumber
Unconfirmed Member
If I could give microsoft or sony my old console and say $200 and within 2-6 business weeks get the newer version console back. Then if the console can guarantee 1080p 60fps or at the very least 1080p and a locked 30fps I'm in.
If they wanted to treat it like a phone they could make a plan for consoles where you can give monthly payments to be able to buy the newer model day 1.
If they wanted to treat it like a phone they could make a plan for consoles where you can give monthly payments to be able to buy the newer model day 1.
While you are not wrong, I bolded 3 of those PC advantages because they're things that consoles would likely get if they moved to a more iterative business.
I think -most- of the "I'm buying a PC" comments are a ridiculous kneejerk reaction. Some may, sure... just like a few may abandon gaming altogether. But if BOTH console makers decide to go down this route, you can bet that most of the people protesting will pout but fold and join the rest of console users: both the ones in favour of it and the ones who don't care either way. If you are a console player it is because you like its simplicity, and iterative consoles would barely change that.
GamerMax73
Member
Doesn't Sony already have this in the PSN Store?
This wouldn't change. Maybe thinking of 'overlapping generations' is a better terminology than 'iterative console'.
G1 - PS4+PS4.5
G2 - PS4.5+PS5
G3 - PS5+PS5.5
Their model is no longer supported for new games
Better graphics from a top end new system. Better guarantee from a bottom end new system
Golgo 13
The Man With The Golden Dong
Agree with this. If consoles are gonna go that route I'll just turn to PC gaming -- I'm not willing to play the upgrade-every-year game with a god damn console.
Microsoft's decision to bring almost every big first-party game to PC also makes this much, much easier for me.
That's a good point. I can only add that the back catalogue for PC is way larger than it would be for consoles right now, but that advantage will start to diminish over time, of course.
I agree that there are probably a lot of kneejerk reactions and everything will cool down after people giving the idea a bit more thought. There will still be a distinction between PC and console gaming with iterative consoles, especially when it comes to simplicity.
To me, console gaming was all about just pushing the power button and playing with minimal fuss. This has changed tremendously during the previous generation, which is why I now focus exclusively on PC for my modern gaming needs (I already played plenty of PC games, but sticked mostly to exclusives before).
I am not excited over the idea of iterative consoles. The whole alure of a console was that it was simple way to play games and would play games properly designed for it for 4-6 (or more years). Then once next generation yoy can you buy the next one, which has massivley improved specs and typically vastly different in style. Now I assume we'll end up with older versions of the same console that have unpolished versions of games that were made to run on the higher speced versions. It'll be like how Hyrule Warriors Legends runs on the original 3DS vs the new 3DS. Solid 30fps vs dips into the teens.
Might as well buy a PC now (assuming these leaks are true), at least the parts will last longer despite the higher upfront cost. Plus I can customize the experience to have decent frame rates. Developers will not put the extra effort to made sure older versions of Xbox One or PS4 will run the game as well (in framerate or otherwise). With the current scenario of generations lasting 4-6 years it leaves us with rather optimized versions of games for our already purchased consoles.
Might as well buy a PC now (assuming these leaks are true), at least the parts will last longer despite the higher upfront cost. Plus I can customize the experience to have decent frame rates. Developers will not put the extra effort to made sure older versions of Xbox One or PS4 will run the game as well (in framerate or otherwise). With the current scenario of generations lasting 4-6 years it leaves us with rather optimized versions of games for our already purchased consoles.
WickedCobra03
Member
I used to be super into PC games all my life until college. Once I started college, it just got too time-consuming to keep up on and I also really didn't care to put the effort in.
It is nice to have the ps4 and too know all I have to do is update the software if I haven't played it in awhile, I only really bought a ps4 to play with friends every few weeks/months, so a hardware upgrade would probably just get me to bow out.
It is nice to have the ps4 and too know all I have to do is update the software if I haven't played it in awhile, I only really bought a ps4 to play with friends every few weeks/months, so a hardware upgrade would probably just get me to bow out.
GametimeUK
Member
If it really is just a PS4 that is accommodating 4k then whatever. If it has changes to the graphical fidelity to the game outside of a resolution bump or a higher framerate then fuck right off. Games should run the same across all consoles especially factoring multiplayer.
A piece of kit built to last 5 or so years is perfect. I don't even think the current consoles are underpowered. People are only saying this due to the fact PC gaming is a lot more popular. How people are saying games don't look much better on PS4 than PS3 baffles my brain.
A piece of kit built to last 5 or so years is perfect. I don't even think the current consoles are underpowered. People are only saying this due to the fact PC gaming is a lot more popular. How people are saying games don't look much better on PS4 than PS3 baffles my brain.