Sage Reviews: The Last of Us
Game Changers: Gauntlet
RAD Episode 297 – Superman Returns
Seeing the Love: My Time at Video Game Fan Fest
Ubisoft at E3 is AWESOME!
Posted By Shaun K. about 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Thumb Wars Ep 26: Solving the Puzzle: The Next Xbox/PlayStation,
Episode 26: Solving the Puzzle: The Next Xbox/PlayStation
Welcome back to the show where we introduce the debate and you continue it. This week’s topic: Shaun & Oda investigate and speculate upon the next generation of home consoles.
Thumb Wars is a weekly show hosted/produced by Shaun Kronenfeld dedicated to starting and encouraging dialogue and debate on a wide variety of topics within the video game industry. Look for a new Thumbs Wars every Sunday. Comments, opinions, and thoughts are not only welcome, they are the entire point. Feel free to follow Shaun on Twitter @bigred_13 if you feel so inclined.
Pure specs say nothing about the actual performance of the console. The PS3 should’ve outclassed the 360 easily, but the complicated design of the Cell CPU turned out to be a disadvantage, since most developers were never able to use its full potential. God of War 3 or Uncharted are examples of what the system can do, but those games are rare and far in between the sea of (lazy) ports.
the best console concept in the world can still be ruined by shitty business practices.
I’ll stay clear of any next gen consoles until the dust has settled so sony doesn’t pull a sony on me like they did by retroactively removing more and more features from the ps3 and having the most pants on head retarded policy when it comes to backwards compatibility or microsoft holding content of the games I paid for at ransom to make me subscribe to their “service”.
We can only hope that they wise the fuck up in the next generation but I have my doubts and I can guarantee something unforeseeable along those lines will go down again.
It’s always something, especially with sony and microsoft.
I completely agree that software is what matters. Games matter. Its a reason why Nintendo is still around. Mario, Zelda, Smash Brothers, etc. Keep them going
As far as backwards compatibility goes i’m kinda selfish cause of my love of digital gaming, i couldn’t care less if the next consoles aren’t backwards compatible as long as they put the games up online for like 10 bucks i’ll just buy them again knowing that now i will allways have them there ready for download whenever i want to.
The story of this console cycle thusfar: Sony continues being Sony, and Microsoft continues to do what Microsoft does. Meanwhile, Nintendo does their own thing III.
This is one of the most boring console lineups EVER. At least the portables had some interesting design changes…ish.
The thing I wonder is how the next generation will stack up against diminishing graphics return. Really, top-end XBox/ PS3 games push the envelope for what an HDTV can display. Obviously, there’s always room for improvement, but a whole console generation? I don’t think it’ll be worth it.
My main question is whether Sony will be able to re-establish backwards compatibility. Can someone more tech-minded than me make a guess as to whether that is even possible? From what I understand including PS2 architecture would substantially raise the cost of the console, but again, I’m not very knowledgeable on that department.
Well the PS3 originally had backwards compatibility, but in the later models it was removed as i understand, to optimize the system.
But I have the feeling that you will not be able to play PS2 games since “why let someone play this on our console when we can sell them another copy specifically to play on this console”
Count yourself lucky if you can play PS3 games on that thing.
And I’m willing to admit that this sounds cynical but I have a very bad experience with Sony.
Will likely play ps3 and ps1 games why ps1 you say because they are super easy to emulate but for ps3 games it will come down to software which will be easy since the hardware far exceeds the ps3.
I think you’re over looking the financial angle of this, sure you can play PS!&2 games on the PS4 but they will only accept a copy bought of the PS store.
Why charge for them you say? Because it’s Sony, and that is something I have come to expect from them over the last 5 years.
And if the “battle agents used games” system that is most likely going to come with the PS4 is anything to judge the waters by they are desperate to try to make a profit of the system as soon as possible and one of those ways is by selling you games you already own on the PS 1&2.
Like I said, it’s Sony.
Actually they have already stated they don’t intend to use that tech in the PS4 a lot of times companies patent things just to control it so if someone decides to try the same thing they will have to pay sony kind of how that one company sued sony and microsoft for there controllers because of a patent.
Also to point out a flaw in your logic the system they patent works by detecting a code put on a disc since those codes don’t exist on those disc’s it would be impossible for them to use any type of disc reading system that could tell if the game was used or not.
I was aware that the PS3 originally had backwards compatibility, but from what I understand it was later removed because the PS2 architecture was different and including it in the console substantially raised the cost. So instead, they settled with rereleasing popular old games. Again, I might be wrong.
What I was asking was whether the technology is currently available to economically include PS2 emulation again.
I also believe your accusations of Sony being exploitative are somewhat misguided. The Playstation Plus subscription model is much more benefitial to the consumer than the X-box equivalent.
OK… Guys, first of when I mentioned the “battle agents used games” system I was trying to get you to see what kind of mindset Sony has. (defiantly something you guys did not get)
#2 Why restore PS1&2 compatibility to the PS4 when they already have a online shop that sells these games.(You know so you use that service instead of actually letting you use the games you already own)
#3 I’m also talking about how Sony will most likely try to get the most money out of each console. Because, trust me they will.
#4 “I also believe your accusations of Sony being exploitative are somewhat misguided.”?
Dude I believe most of the major publishers are exploitative but I’m going for the X-Box because of many my previous “regional” problems with the PS3 and Vita, not because I think Microsoft is any better of a company, I’m not that crazy.
But don’t expect backwards compatibility on the PS4, but if it will be there, just call it a pleasant surprise.
I understand the reasons you made your choise, I was just saying some of your claims were unwarranted. I’ll just throw a few final comments to close the matter.
Sony made that patent to keep up with Microsoft, who, if I remember correctly, had made a similar patent earlier on. Another patent that Microsoft also made was one that utilizes the Kinect to detect how many viewers are watching a movie and block them out of it if it’s more people than the movie was lisenced for. Try wrapping your head around that.
Backwards compatibility was something they had to remove at a point of PS3′s lifecycle to drop the costs and, like you said, optimize it. They later decided to give people the ability to play their old favorite games by rereleasing them and making an extra buck in the process. As far as business practises go, that’s pretty benign. Besides, rereleasing them for the PS3 requires porting work which costs money. I really wouldn’t expect them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts and give it away for free.
Likewise, releasing games on the PSN requires more porting work. They have to get that money back somehow. From what I’ve seen, prices of old games on PSN are similar to those of GOG who pretty much do the same thing for the PC. It seems fair to me. More than fair if you consider that PC games are usually supposed to be cheaper than their console counterparts.
Again, I understand that you’d choose the xbox if the PS has trouble in your region, but your blanket statement of “it’s Sony, they’ll rip you off” was entirely unfair. The subscription model of Playstation Plus gives you the ability to play a ton of games for free, while Microsoft’s subscription is only there to give you access to the internet, which really shouldn’t be charged extra to begin with. While Sony has made more than their fair share of missteps in marketing their products during this console cycle, their business model is currently among the most benign on the market. I hope you are aware of what EA, Activision and Capcom have been doing lately.
On a final (somewhat unrelated) note, even though the Move is a forgotten piece of hardware, it actually does what it’s supposed to do, which is more than the Kinect can claim. And I really wouldn’t mind that if Microsoft didn’t repeatedly try to shove malfunctioning Kinect games into the market.
Bust3r I’ll repeat myself “Dude I believe most of the major publishers are exploitative” and going from that I believe that we are supporting one of the shadier businesses in entertainment: the AAA gaming industry. From EA to Activision, From Microsoft to Sony, it all comes down to the same point “how much money can we get out of each System/Game/Costumer” And over all I think that Microsoft is in most ways a lot worse than Sony.
But all publishers have only one goal that is to make money, and most of them (Sony and Microsoft included)are large and unwieldy companies that will use anything they have gotten away with so far.
And the funny thing about your argument is that I never defended Microsoft in this debate or anyone else for that matter.
“And It’s a large multinational enterprise, it is going to squeeze every cent out of you if they can.” This argument is something that is almost always valid.
And once again I don’t see want all these arguments you count up has anything to do with the backwards compatibility of the PS4.
And Sony is a big boy now, you don’t have to defend it.
You do realize even current slims can play ps1 games just not ps2 games that is the only thing they ever removed at all and it would cost them more to make the disc reader not read ps1 games so it is not cost effective and they will likely not make it play ps2 games just because even pc emulators can barely play ps2 games but it will surely play ps1 ps3 games and they will already be able to sell the system at little to no lost per unit because all the hardware is cheap like they said in the video.
I’m going for the next XBOX console even though I have always gone for the PS systems. After not getting access to the PlayStation Store for the first 3 years of the console life do to the country I live in so I kind of had it with Sony.
But I will miss the PS exclusive titles, but I will still stand by the next XBOX.
Gimmicks won’t win alone eh? *points to the Wii*
For reals though, the thing agree most, that I think we can all agree on, is that software is what matters. Wii U doesn’t have a killer app and isn’t selling as well as people thought it might. Sony and Microsoft really need to bring it at launch time so people feel like they NEED to buy this system for these specific games.
But at least with a Nintendo console you know games are going to come. There will be a Zelda, a 3D Mario, and maybe they’ll dig into the backlog of “forgotten” series.
And Microsoft will at least carry over Halo, Gears, and Forza over to the next system.
But Sony (or at least the developers who work under them) tends to abandon previous generation franchises for newer stuff, even if potential for newer games is there. And the ones that do get continued really shouldn’t.
I don’t necessarily think that’s true. From PS2 to PS3 we’ve seen God of War, Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, Gran Turismo and many others.
I would rather have Sony making new IPs then the same thing over and over. If Naughty Dog didn’t stop Jak & Daxter we never would have got Uncharted and the upcoming The Last of Us. If Sucker Punch didn’t stop Sly Cooper we never would have got Infamous.
There are some franchises that just WAY overstay their welcome.
I will agree that they great material has come from other IPs standing aside. But it also loses potential customers. One example would be Jak to Uncharted. Unless they’re a fan of Naughty dog in general, I don’t see a reason for somebody who enjoyed the platforming gun action of Jak/Jak/Jak 3 to play the more traditional 3rd person shooter that Uncharted is.
Of coarse my draw to Uncharted is the story and the mystery. And obviously in the real world people can like more and several genres, I just felt it was a strange choice to exclude that established fan base, in favor of trying to create a new one.
As for The Last of Us, aside from the more heavy stealth options and survival nature it appears to play like and look like Uncharted, to a point I’d rather just have Uncharted 4. Not to mention its from a group of people brought together by Sony under the Naughty Dog name, so how it make turn out is anyone’s guess.
I agree new IPs should always be encouraged and welcomed, but until an IP is truly drained of potential material or properly concluded I feel they should continue. Two examples on both sides from Nintendo I feel are Mario and Zelda. Mario is so simple it reached its peak at 64, while Zelda is open enough to has drastically different stories and environments between each game. And they allow older fans to find interest in the next system, while also looking at the new IPs.
These “New” Super Mario games are a total joke. Simple rehashes over and over again. Not bad games, just completely uninspired.
Not sure what you mean by “Not to mention its from a group of people brought together by Sony under the Naughty Dog name.” I would recommend checking out the latest gameplay of The Last of Us. It looks nothing like Uncharted.
I guess that’s where we have to agree to disagree. I’d rather have a franchise leave on a high note than milk it for all it’s worth.
But that only lasted so long, and only got them so far.
Here is a question: that extra power, what will it be used FOR? I don’t see current consoles as weak in any way. Why do we suddenly need more power?
My guess would be because PC gamers are whining that console power, or lack thereof, is holding their ports back.
I don’t believe any PC gamer believes a console will ever keep up. My gaming computer at the moment contains parts in it that add up to 2500+ USD (and that’s not even all that ridiculous compared to some of my friends). I don’t see how a console, which is supposed to appease to a wide audience, could ever afford to put parts of that fidelity within. Gamers weren’t willing to spend the initial 600 dollars on a PS3; so I highly doubt they would be willing to spend even more than that. This is why they need to create consoles with cheaper, more readily available parts.
Most PC gamers actually don’t complain about ports coming over to the PC; they complain that many PC games are built with the intent of being ported over to the XBOX 360 and PS3. The problem being that the designers opt to create a game with less graphical fidelity. If you want a clear and cut example of such compromises you need look no further than a graphical comparison of Crysis and Crysis 2. For every Witcher 2 that PC gamers receive there are countless others that are completely lacking. Wouldn’t it be an ideal world where developers went all out with the graphics for PC’s and than scaled them back to compensate for consoles?
Sorry about that whole tangent, didn’t mean to get into a PC v console rant. The thing is, I honestly don’t believe this new generation is going to be that much more powerful than this current one. The success of the new consoles may very well rest upon the gimmicks that the consoles can come out with. The sad thing is, knowing Microsoft and Sony, that probably means copying Nintendo’s controller. We all saw how fast they implemented motion controllers after Wii’s staggering success.
I never said that they expect consoles to keep up. They simply demand that the next generation comes out asap, so that it packs a little more beef and they can get slightly higher graphical fidelity in their own versions.
I might be misunderstanding what you’re trying to say, but if PC games are not built with the intent of being ported over to consoles, then that means that they either have to be PC exclusive or be designed again from the ground up for the other version. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I find it entirely selfish and have no sympathy for that sentiment whatsoever. Making it available to a wider audience by far outweighs having a little better graphics. Besides, PC exclusive HD patches have been released for quite a few games already.
Didn’t a newer specs leak for the orbis show up? One that says that it’ll have 4 gb of GDDR5 ram instead of the 8 gb DDR3? I know that GDDR5 is faster than DDR3, but does that change things a lot? Is it better to have less memory that is faster than having more of slower type of memory? If I’m not mistaken, the 360 has 512 mb ram of the same type. The ps3 has also 512 mb, but it’s split into 2 types.
Those are devs kits. Just cause a dev kit may be very powerful doesn’t mean the actual console will be. Dev kits are basically meant to run like a specialized PC. They have features that are only meant for people who are building a game. So it needs more power to be able to run the game engine, modeling programs and real time rendering of a scene for example. So they can make quick changes if they see something wrong.
If you look at the PS3 dev kit it would surprise me if it had double the RAM the actual system has, and more graphical power.
I don’t think you understand what Dev kits are for they are not something you build the game on they are something you test the game your building for the system so they will build the game for the system on there pc’s then play it on the dev kit system to test the game thus the dev systems need to be as close as possible to the real deal.
As someone who aspires to be a videogame developer -mainly storyboard writer-, one has to keep in mind that like movies, console developers tend to develop a mind set that gimmicks are necessary, because they are usually the ones that sell the most.
People like us only represent a minority in the mindset of developers when it comes to profit, because more often then not, casual gamers, first timers, and especially children are usually the ones rushing to the gates to buy the latest thing without thinking on how well this would work in practice. Kinect has made a huge profit for Microsoft; as of Jan 2012 it sold over 18 million units, and when you consider that the average price is about a hundred bucks, that’s a pretty big profit for Microsoft, so of course they will milk this to. As someone who plans on being part of the industry, I have to accept that this will always be a big part of the videogame industry as it is a business in the end.
First, we get it. Unless you are actually part of the industry, please don’t repeat this point like a self-important jerk. I don’t go around waving my plans to become a researcher to make myself sound more important or put more weight to my opinion, which it doesn’t. Second, you are only partially correct about gimmicks. For every Kinect or Wiimote, there are dozens of well-documented failures, from the Virtual Boy to the Game Boy Micro to even the numerical keypad on some of the older controllers. The 3D gimmick on the 3DS isn’t what is selling the system; it’s the games and it will always be the games that sell consoles or at least keep the gimmicks going. Even in your own apparent relation to movies, filmmakers and studios very rarely rely on gimmicks to sell movies. For example, a movie in the 60′s once tried using smell-o-vision to enhance the experience, and both bombed and it hasn’t been used since except for theme park rides. The 3D craze was successful, but the gimmick itself has received major backlash because of the poor quality of the large influx of 3D transfers and it is not as successful as it was initially. Yes, sales and profits do say a lot about a product but they don’t tell the whole story. The point we all should take away from this is it’s unusual to see gimmicks become successful, and even among the successful gimmicks, they only last as long as the success of the software that utilize them.
Just because I have repeated once or twice, doesn’t mean that you have to be an ass about it and make a huge deal on something so trivial. I never intended to add that to put more weight in my opinion; and if I had, you would think I would put more effort in letting it be known, and be beating a dead horse with a stick. But I will apologize for making referrence to it more then once and turning people off, it was never my intention. While it is true that there will always be more failures on gimmicks then successes, keep in mind that if a gimmick is indeed successful, you can almost certainly bet that an industry will try to follow suit and build a similar gimmick, or add another layer to it. The Playstation Move is a good example of that, as it tried to follow the success of the Wiimote, and made it much more successful critically by using the PSEye instead of using a sensor bar.
As for the relation to movies, we have to remember though that movie gimmicks are actually on the rise, and I’m not reffering to the 3D craze; I’m referring to gimmicks like the D-Box.